by Brian Koberlein | 15 March 2018 | astronomy
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://blog.briankoberlein.com/wheel-time/
by Brian Koberlein | 15 March 2018 | astronomy
Nice article. I’m not a scientist but if the galaxies have the same rotation regardless of size, does that mean they were created using the same force? Something like fluid dynamics where multiple size rotations of about the same speed are created from a single source? https://i1.wp.com/www.princeton.edu/artofscience/gallery/images/94.jpg
It could mean that they are formed through the same process, such as a quick collapse early in the universe.
I loved reading this.
Could something like inertia dragging exist?
(I am not a physicists, I love Mach principle and I don’t know why !)
I think I missed something. If the speed is the same regardless of mass (this is what i understand the new observation to be), how can you determine the overall size of the galaxy based on the speed of the stars on the edge of the galaxy (what you say at the end of the article)?
Light is observed to have a constant speed regardless of viewpoint. When we measure galaxy rotation, we’re really measuring the light we see from those galaxies. Is it possible that we are seeing some sort of relativistic effect? I.e., there’s an upper bound to how fast anything can appear move linearly (speed of light), so maybe there’s also an upper bound as to how fast things can appear to rotate, and galaxies exceed that boundary? Rotation speed being connected to brightness strengthens that idea in my head – the brightness being somehow the rotational equivalent of red/blue shifting for linear movement?
That doesn’t seem to cover galaxies that have merged. If all the galaxies formed at the same time and stayed separate, great, but once two of them merge, I’d think we’d see some change in speed, whether speeding up or slowing down. But this article says they are all consistently the same speed. That means that two merging galaxies join their mass but don’t accelerate. That would be like an ice skater pulling arms inward and not accelerating.
It is easier to model the formation of a galaxy like the kinds which we observe, in all of their finite detail, out of a cold super fluids than it is diffuse clouds of hot hydrogen gas. Consider massive galactic size balls of superfluid hydrogen collapsing suddenly inward, the center is already so dense and massive it’s easy to model a super massive black hole proportional to the gravitational mass forming from direct collapse. It’s the only thing that could even happen. This however can’t be done with clouds of gas no matter how big they are.
The problem is that requires a cold universe, where matter gains mass at the lowest possible energy, but the Big Bang is a hot universe model, everything starts at high energies, and works it’s way down.
Despite this another reason fluid dynamics make a fun choice for forming galaxies is you don’t have to vaporize all the fluid. As the galaxy forms and the fluid renders into gas nebulae some of the fluid can be spun off into thin tendrils, becoming a kind of superfluid dark matter within the galactic matrix.
All this being said, a question I find most interesting and worth exploring is the possibility of a relationship between the force of gravity and the expansion of space. Every object has it’s own Hubble radius, that means space can be equally described as an accelerating reference frame in all directions away from an object, except for the space in a direction occupied by an object which has it’s own Hubble radius. That space can’t expand due to the presence of the object, so the two objects would feel a net difference in the expansion between them.
It is already accepted that mass bends space, but what if that is not it’s the only effect mass has on space, what if it is also slowing the expansion until it stops? Wouldn’t it look the same to an observer if the expansion where just a linear function of time or an effect of the mass on the rate of expansion?
That was fun. I miss writing this stuff sometimes I’m glad to see you’re still around…
So the galaxy takes a billion years to rotate. How does this relate to the 220-250 million years that the earth takes to orbit the galaxy?
It’s specifically the stars at the outer edge of the galaxy that rotate once every billion years. Stars closer to the center orbit in a shorter time.
I’m going to be on tail off that LIGO story and with intersection with this phenomena.
This reminds me on when you mix sweet milk too much and you end up with butter. If centar is producing some ugly and, for now, undetectable frequency that maybe act as ‘butter effect’ within our galaxy then this also may be two-tell of the thing.
One is why everything expands on same rate, galaxy roto-efect, but global.
Second. It may be indicator of different spatial flavors.
That’s all for now.
RE: https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-the-dark-energy-problem-spawned-the-multiverse-hypothesis-20180312/ Brian, I’m not well versed in the math but it seems commonsensical that the inertia of an an ever expanding Universe can’t help but be accelerated due to the diminishing pull of gravity resulting from the Inverse Square Rule at work. With the ever increasing speed with which visible matter is receeding from other visible matter the pull of gravity diminishes in direct correlation to the distance as governed by the Inverse Square Rule. Might not this on its own be a large contributing factor to runaway expansion?
Ain’t this you talk about CMB remnants? Maybe I’m wrong @ArrowOfTime .
Topic was some counter-intuitive this time. Like"What the heck keep it glued and so? " Dorn Einstein or Newton ain’t. Whatever.
Too seek when time started first start with the equation
F1=F2=G m1xm2/r2 verlindes statistical description of gravity as an entropic force
Leads to the correct answer…
Inverse square distance law of attraction
between classical bobies_research in thermodynamics property of gravity .and if you want to go further back,use Einsteins field equation,(a)1/r because without objects in the field,time doesn’t exist,and at the Event horizon time ends,to start again
Look up <[Faradays law]>for Relativity changing magnetic field creates an electric current.E=MC^2=J/kg 299,792,458,m/s
While relativity is tested scientifically
And proven fact,there is always a couple of paradox’s that might violate the evidence,
Like the equivalent principal,at the torus of a black hole too the interior, does time really stop at the event horizon?
Yes only theoretically we would have to answer this by reaching the other side,but until we enter a black hole maybe through the very centre, this theory will only be theoretically,time began theoretically after the big bang which this bang could have been a massive black hole(@)
And after the universe expanded and time evened out thermodynamics via heat within the cosmic background started early cosmic inflation,but even if we could see the early universe 13.8+ billion years ago
The only thing we know is the speed of light has remained C,constant speed of light.We do know the average speed of gravity is 1/3 the speed of light but could change.How can we prove tachyons could have been faster then the speed of light?well you can always look up
Also since objects that spin creates gravity that creates time could be the wheel’s in the sky like the song by Journey.
But gravity and dark matter is another paradoxical see 10:1093/mnras/stw3192. too understand dark matter is currently
Impossible,but theoretically dark matter holds the fabric of space together.
If we believe the speed of light is not C
In short (1+(1/x))^) as x approaches infinity
Equal to any variable e.g.y,k and take the natural logarithm of both sides…
I could keep going but it would take a week of time to put all the evidence together, so the wheels in the sky stop at the event horizon./.too start up again for eternity>@>>©>>©>>©>>@><><>