Starship Asterisk*

Big Blob of hydrogen formed the solar system? Why did it form, not Aligned to the galaxy center? 4.5 billion years

Big Blob of Hydrogen formed the milky way And its black hole? As it came from the same small Universe why do our Local cluster of galaxies not Align? 10 - 13 billion years? Are the two reasons connected ?

Mysterious Blob of hydrogen?

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/06/24 ... formation/


Local group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group

http://www.hubblesite.org/newscenter/ar ... y/cluster/

If everything comes from one point,,, why is gravity alignment all jumbled up?

Mark

mark swain wrote:Big Blob of hydrogen formed the solar system? Why did it form, not Aligned to the galaxy center?

The Solar System was not formed by a blob of hydrogen, but by a mixture of atomic and molecular gases and dust, all of which collapsed because of gravitational attraction. This generally describes stellar system formation inside any galaxy, where you have a complex environment of materials and forces.

Big Blob of Hydrogen formed the milky way And its black hole?

Galaxies formed mainly from hydrogen, again involving gravitational collapse.

As it came from the same small Universe why do our Local cluster of galaxies not Align?

Align how? With what?

If everything comes from one point,,, why is gravity alignment all jumbled up?

Everything doesn't come from a point. And the density variation seen in the Universe is explained by quantum fluctuations very early in the evolution of the Universe.

Chris Peterson wrote:Align how? With what?

Hi Chris
Expansion From T=0 To the present day... The alignment i mean is north and south. Our solar system evolved with all the planets and the sun with North all facing the same direction, with a few exceptions..... Why is this not so in our galaxy? Or the universe.. Yet if the universe is spinning, does it also have a north and south?.

Mark

mark swain wrote:Expansion From T=0 To the present day... The alignment i mean is north and south. Our solar system evolved with all the planets and the sun with North all facing the same direction, with a few exceptions..... Why is this not so in our galaxy? Or the universe.. Yet if the universe is spinning, does it also have a north and south?.

When things form out of material that comes together (as with gravitational contraction), conservation of angular momentum tends to force that material into a rotating disc- thus, planets, galaxies, accretion discs all end up with a preferential axis. The actual angle of that axis is arbitrary with respect to other objects, as it depends on the net angular momentum of all the material that came together.

The Universe itself doesn't show this kind of preferential axis because (1) it isn't spinning, or (2) it isn't a 3D body, so "spinning" has a completely different meaning. In fact, the Universe might be spinning, and that might produce effects we can observe. In any case, it wasn't produced by the coming together of material, but by the separation of material, so there's no reason it should structurally resemble galaxies or stellar systems.

Chris Peterson wrote:The Universe itself doesn't show this kind of preferential axis because (1) it isn't spinning, or (2) it isn't a 3D body, so "spinning" has a completely different meaning. In fact, the Universe might be spinning, and that might produce effects we can observe.

Just run that past me again mate,,,, This time can you not use the word Might Because the word Might says to me you do not no....

( I May Edit this space) Cos i have more to say....
Mark

mark swain wrote:Just run that past me again mate,,,, This time can you not use the word Might Because the word Might says to me you do not no [sic]....

Noboby knows. It is all conjecture.

[sic]....???? <<,what does that mean mate?

bystander wrote:Noboby knows. It is all conjecture.

4.5 billion years.... all poles bar few,,, all face north,, south,,,, twice that times poles are all mixed up,,, in our galaxy... Snag is our galaxy must be over 10 billion years old and poles are all jumbled up????? However our galaxy knows which way up it is.... 1 missing peace to our puzzle? The gravity of our galaxy can not uniform polarity ,,, but has no problem in holding 2 billion solar mass in place?

Mark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic

Other discussions of blobs and the distant universe:

• Lyman Alpha Blob (2009 July 2)
  Most distant event ever observed
  largest known object in early universe

Is not this site English Only? ..... Sorry I do not know Latin...


Mark

Come on Chris,,, read up...... Lets be having you....

Mark

mark swain wrote:4.5 billion years.... all poles bar few,,, all face north,, south,,,, twice that times poles are all mixed up,,, in our galaxy... Snag is our galaxy must be over 10 billion years old and poles are all jumbled up????? However our galaxy knows which way up it is.... 1 missing peace to our puzzle? The gravity of our galaxy can not uniform polarity ,,, but has no problem in holding 2 billion solar mass in place?

You're comparing apples to oranges. It has nothing to do with age. Things that came together as a result of gravitational attraction spin, because of the conservation of angular momentum. So we see spinning galaxies and spinning solar systems and spinning stars. Each system has its own axis- there is little or no correlation between one system's north and another's (but galaxies along the edges of large voids show some correlation in orientation).

Our galaxy is not all jumbled up- it has a well defined spin axis. Of course, its contents have their own spin axes, as would be expected for things that been stirred up for billions of years, or which formed after the galaxy as a whole came together.

mark swain wrote:Is not this site English Only? ..... Sorry I do not know Latin...

There are many Latin and Latin-root words commonly used in English, as there are French and German and ... ... . Most fairly well educated English speakers -- in other words, most of the denizens of this forum -- will understand the usage of [sic], just as they will likely understand acronyms...

YMMV.

Rob

And for those who don't "know" ...

... sic is Latin for "yes", which in this usage means "yes, I really meant to spell the preceding word incorrectly because I'm quoting someone else's misspelling". In this case, the word "know" is spelled "no".

---

Once upon a time, my friend read a bad article made worse by a horrendous misspelling. He wrote a letter to the newspaper including a quote of the offending passage with the misspelled word, annotated "(sic)". The paper printed his letter, but (1) they corrected their original misspelling - exactly what "(sic)" instructs you not to do - so his letter now commented in part on a problem that wasn't there, and (2) they misspelled "sic", so his quote now read "(sick)". My friend learned his lesson never to cast pearls before swine, and I learned my lesson never to risk confusion by using "(sic)". Instead, I switch among these other three strategies:

(1) Just quote the passage as originally misspelled, and let the reader figure out the facts:

... says to me you do not no

(2) Just correct the misspelling without mentioning it, the original author having waived the right to be quoted precisely by not caring about spelling to begin with:

... says to me you do not know

(3) Correct the spelling and put the word in brackets to indicate that a substitution has been made:

... says to me you do not [know]

apodman wrote:And for those who don't "know" ...

Wiktionary: Latin: [i]sic[/i] wrote:

• thus, so, or just like that

Wiktionary: English: [i]sic[/i] wrote:

• thus; thus written
  
  The term sic is most often used in quoted material (usually in square brackets, and sometimes italicized) to indicate that the preceding segment of the quote was copied faithfully, in spite of a mistake or seeming mistake; that is, that the mistake or seeming mistake was in the original text, and not due to misquoting on the part of the present writer.
  
  It is also sometimes used outside of quoted material to emphasize that the preceding segment of text was intentionally written as is; that is, that a seeming mistake in the text is not, in fact, a mistake (or if it is, that it's an intentional mistake).

Wikipedia: [i]sic[/i] wrote:

• Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", "as such", or "in such a manner". In writing, it is placed within square brackets and usually italicized – [sic] – to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error.

Thanks for the info,,, bystander

Yoewer a Star.... http://www.sedgleymanor.com/dictionaries/dialect.html

Enjoy

Swainy

Chris ...p

Read up on this.. Cos i have not finished ....I am just to busy at the Mo to write my reply....sry

Mark

Chris Peterson wrote:You're comparing apples to oranges. It has nothing to do with age. Things that came together as a result of gravitational attraction spin, because of the conservation of angular momentum. So we see spinning galaxies and spinning solar systems and spinning stars. Each system has its own axis- there is little or no correlation between one system's north and another's (but galaxies along the edges of large voids show some correlation in orientation).

The sun, Has not changed along with the rest of the solar system...(Bar few) In 4.5 billion years... Our galaxy came to form, in a very different universe 13.4 billion years ago... And that has not changed also.... But the thing i am trying to point out, is the milky way and the Andromeda galaxies were at one point in the same place along with billions of other galaxies...Before expansion..
Now if all the galaxies in the universe was at some stage in this unexpanded universe, at the same place and same time. What makes them all so different? Yes everything in our solar system is different, but there is one thing identical. The poles

This has not changed in 4.5 billion years for the solar system ,,, not in 13.4 billion years for the galaxy ...If the galaxies in our universe where formed like you said... as a result of gravitational attraction ,, In the same finite small universe Where did chaos come from? And why is chaos uniform?

mark swain wrote:The sun, Has not changed along with the rest of the solar system...(Bar few) In 4.5 billion years... Our galaxy came to form, in a very different universe 13.4 billion years ago... And that has not changed also.... But the thing i am trying to point out, is the milky way and the Andromeda galaxies were at one point in the same place along with billions of other galaxies...Before expansion..
Now if all the galaxies in the universe was at some stage in this unexpanded universe, at the same place and same time. What makes them all so different? Yes everything in our solar system is different, but there is one thing identical. The poles

This has not changed in 4.5 billion years for the solar system ,,, not in 13.4 billion years for the galaxy ...If the galaxies in our universe where formed like you said... as a result of gravitational attraction ,, In the same finite small universe Where did chaos come from? And why is chaos uniform?

Our galaxy was never in the same place as Andromeda, or any other galaxy. The Universe was already a very big place before the first galaxies formed. And when galaxies did form, they did so because of the gravitational attraction of clumped matter (especially dark matter). That clumping is a bit mysterious still, but is presumed to stem from quantum level fluctuations in the very earliest Universe, which propagated as density fluctuations that seeded the first gravitational collapses that produced the first stars and galaxies.

This is consistent with basic theory: if you have an inhomogeneous medium (even at the tiniest level), it will get clumpier with time, until eventually you have a bunch of isolated concentrations of matter- pretty much what we see in the Universe today.

Chris Peterson wrote:That clumping is a bit mysterious still, but is presumed to stem from quantum level fluctuations in the very earliest Universe, which propagated as density fluctuations that seeded the first gravitational collapses that produced the first stars and galaxies.

Chalk and cheese,,,, Oil and water,,,,, Things we do not know yet,,, can not mix

density fluctuations,,,, thx chris

mark

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Maybe by observations we can understand the workings and evolution of the universe.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/0157/
Centaurus A Arcs:
Arcs Tell The Tale Of A Giant Eruption

A composite X-ray (blue), radio (pink and green), and optical (orange and yellow) image of the galaxy Centaurus A presents a stunning tableau of a galaxy in turmoil. A broad band of dust and cold gas is bisected at an angle by opposing jets of high-energy particles blasting away from the supermassive black hole in the nucleus. Two large arcs of X-ray emitting hot gas were discovered in the outskirts of the galaxy on a plane perpendicular to the jets.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/cenajet/
Centaurus A Jet:
Energetic Jet Meets Resistance In Nearby Galaxy

The radio observations, taken between 1991 and 2002, showed that the inner portion of the jet is moving away from the center of the galaxy at speeds of about half the speed of light. Most of the X-rays from the jet are produced farther out where the jet stalls as it plows through the gas in the galaxy. The collision of the jet with the galactic gas generates a powerful shock wave that produces the extremely high-energy particles responsible for the X-rays.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2009/cena/
Centaurus A:
Black Hole Outflows From Centaurus A

harry wrote:Maybe by observations we can understand the workings and evolution of the universe.

How else?

But I fail to see the slightest connection between the references you posted and the original question, or any relevance to the answers suggested.

Chris Peterson wrote:Our galaxy was never in the same place as Andromeda, or any other galaxy. The Universe was already a very big place before the first galaxies formed. And when galaxies did form, they did so because of the gravitational attraction of clumped matter (especially dark matter). That clumping is a bit mysterious still, but is presumed to stem from quantum level fluctuations in the very earliest Universe, which propagated as density fluctuations that seeded the first gravitational collapses that produced the first stars and galaxies.

Our whole universe was at the same point in time,,, my thinking is that the reasons do not lie in the place you quote... Maybe in the Matter/energy soup before this,,, But there is another energy propagator that we have no idea about... which can never be found ''ever'' because it no longer exists.... We are looking at a photo,,, but we can not understand that the photo,, was made by a camera....

Thanks for your input Chris ...

mark swain wrote:Our whole universe was at the same point in time...

Not exactly. In the first place, it wasn't necessarily a singularity, and therefore might have had finite volume. And even if it were a true singularity, "point" isn't the best way to describe it, since that tends to make one think of a universe expanding in something, instead of a universe just expanding.

In any case, by the time matter appeared in a form we recognize today- the basic fundamental particles that make up atoms- the Universe was already large. So any structure we see today formed from density variations that were far from each other.

G'day

Chris said

But I fail to see the slightest connection between the references you posted and the original question, or any relevance to the answers suggested.

Yes, you have failed to see, to understand.

harry wrote:Yes, you have failed to see, to understand.

No, Harry! You fail to make a connection that anyone but you can understand between the random articles you post and the topic under discussion. Stay on the subject, or at least attempt to make a connection that other people might understand. What do jets and arcs in Centaurus A have to do with the current topic?