Newton Gravity for spiral galaxy

[David Levy]

Theoretically idea Wth regards to Dark Mass;

 

Let's assume that the DM has purely evenly distribution in the Universe.

 

Under this assumption, do you agree that its gravity influence should be Zero?

 

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

David - please attend to the questions asked and try to answer them. I think you believe you have answered them - the members disagree or they would not keep asking. Please try to explain your ideas with more rigour.

 

Thanks

 

[David Levy]

 

How about: "There are many stars that are also in-between the spiral arms, but they tend to be the dimmer stars (G, K, M-type stars). Long-lived stars will move in and out of the spiral arms as they orbit the galaxy."

http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s8.htm

 

Or: "It should be emphasized that there are almost as many stars between the spiral arms as in the spiral arms."

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/milkyway.html

 

Or: "The apparent voids between spiral arms are actually full of dimmer, redder, and less massive stars like Sol."

http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/spi-disk.htm

 

Or: "The density of stars between the spiral arms is about the same as it is along the spiral arms."

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zoZLBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA65&ots=3pRpF_hA6k&dq=stars%20between%20the%20spiral%20arms&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q=stars%20between%20the%20spiral%20arms

 

OK. Your turn to provide some evidence that there are no stars between the arms. And note that neither "I don't believe it"nor "it doesn't look like it" count as evidence.

 

 

Thanks Strange

As you can verify, there is not even one article which confirms a visual evidence of star between the spiral arms. This is quite interesting. How could it be? We can't just hide behind the Idea that stars tend to be dimmer outside the spiral arm ( "There are many stars that are also in-between the spiral arms, but they tend to be the dimmer stars").

If we assume that it takes a star about million years to get out the arm, than we must see many sun like stars outside the arm. As I have already stated, the age of the Sun is several billions year and it is currently located at the edge of the arm. So, based on this approach, there is a high possibility that it just entered the arm or should go soon out the arm. The sun is just one example, there are many sun like stars which theoretically should be out the arm at that moment. somehow, we can't see them. There must be a real resone for that.

Again – I don't agree with the idea that in all the million over billion spiral galaxies in the universe there are stars between the arms, but suddenly

all of them are dimmer stars.

Hence, let's agree that we disagree on this issue.

!

Moderator Note

 

David - please attend to the questions asked and try to answer them. I think you believe you have answered them - the members disagree or they would not keep asking. Please try to explain your ideas with more rigour.

 

Thanks

 

 

 

Hello Imatfaal

Let me start by highlight my appreciation to the great support and valuable answers that I get.

With regards to my idea that there are no stars between the spiral arm;

I have offered several evidences. Never the less, all of those evidences had been rejected because further calculation and investigation is needed, and I have no time or ability to set it.

Therefore, there is no need to continue the discussion about this issue at this phase.

Edited March 3, 2015 by David Levy

[Strange]

As you can verify, there is not even one article which confirms a visual evidence of star between the spiral arms.

 

Please stop lying. They all confirm that there are stars between the arms.

 

If you disagree, please provide some evidence. Saying "I don't believe it; all astronomers are liars" is NOT evidence. Just one scientific paper that says "there are no stars between the arms" would do.

 

 

somehow, we can't see them

 

Except, of course, we can: that is why every article says there are stars between the arms.

 

If you disagree, please provide some evidence.

 

 

Hence, let's agree that we disagree on this issue.

 

No. This is not a matter of opinion where we can choose to disagree. YOU ARE WRONG. The evidence is that there are stars between the arms.

 

If you disagree, please provide some evidence.

 

 

With regards to my idea that there are no stars between the spiral arm;

I have offered several evidences.

 

You have offered NO evidence. All you have is your irrational beliefs.

 

 

Therefore, there is no need to continue the discussion about this issue at this phase.

 

Please do not bring it up again until you have evidence to support your claims.

[David Levy]

 

Except, of course, we can: that is why every article says there are stars between the arms.

 

 

You claim that we can see the stars between the spiral arms, while in the article it is stated that the stars are dim. Hence, it is difficult/impossible to see them. I have nothing to add.

 

 

 

Please stop lying. They all confirm that there are stars between the arms.

 

There is a possibility that someone is lying, but it isn't me.

 

 

 

 

No. This is not a matter of opinion where we can choose to disagree. YOU ARE WRONG. The evidence is that there are stars between the arms.

 

The articles are quite clear. Sorry that you have missed the point. However, I do appreciate your knowledge and support and I have no intention to argue with you. Please don't take it personally.

Edited March 3, 2015 by David Levy

[Strange]

You claim that we can see the stars between the spiral arms, while in the article it is stated that the stars are dim. I have nothing to add.

 

They know they are dim because they can see them. Sheesh.

 

But I am glad to see you admit that you have zero evidence. Thank you for that, anyway.

 

Now all you need to do is stop trying to force the evidence to fit your preconceptions and start forming hypotheses based on the evidence.

 

 

There is a possibility that someone is lying, but it isn't me.

 

Hmmm.... Tough one: you or the entire astronomical community? Give me a moment to think about which is most likely...

[David Levy]

 

They know they are dim because they can see them. Sheesh.

 

 

The real meaning of dim is:

 

Yes, we know that the stars are there, but sorry, we can't see them.

 

This is my personal understanding.

 

[Strange]

 

 

The real meaning of dim is:

 

Yes, we know that the stars are there, but sorry, we can't see them.

 

This is my personal understanding.

 

And, once again, you are wrong. If that were the case, they would have used another word: "invisible". But they didn't. Why do you think that might be?

So, I will have to go with the normal English meaning of dim: not bright.

 

Unless, of course, you can provide some evidence (beyond your own beliefs/delusions) that the stars between the arms are not visible?

 

But you can't, can you?

[David Levy]

Please see the following message:

 

I wondered how many adjacent sun-sized stars might span the diameter of a 50 000LYR galaxy and I got 339 057 572 254 suns. No wonder we can't see them individually in the halo in a picture.

 

I hope that you do not claim that another one is lying.

Edited March 3, 2015 by David Levy

[Strange]

Please see the following message:

 

 

I hope that you do not claim that another one is lying.

 

You are being more and more deceitful and dishonest with every post. You are now misrepresenting members of the forum as well as the entire body of astronomers.

 

What was actually said was: "No wonder we can't see them individually."

 

Not that we can't see them.

[David Levy]

 

You are being more and more deceitful and dishonest with every post. You are now misrepresenting members of the forum as well as the entire body of astronomers.

 

What was actually said was: "No wonder we can't see them individually."

 

Not that we can't see them.

 

 

 

What do you mean???

 

What is the difference between:

 

I don't see it,

or

I don't see it individually

 

If you don't see the difference, then you should consider apology.

 

I'm ready to accept it individually.

 

Edited March 3, 2015 by David Levy

[Strange]

 

 

 

What do you mean???

 

What is the difference between:

 

I don't see it,

or

I don't see it individually

 

It was a photograph of an entire galaxy. Of course you can't make out individual stars.

 

However, astronomers are obviously able to see stars between the arms of the galaxy. This must be true as you have provided no evidence to refute it.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Strange

[David Levy]

 

However, astronomers are obviously able to see stars between the arms of the galaxy.

 

Applause!

 

[Strange]

 

Applause!

 

So you agree, now. Good.

[Mordred]

 

 

The real meaning of dim is:

Yes, we know that the stars are there, but sorry, we can't see them.

This is my personal understanding.

That is incorrect Google red dwarf stars which make up over 2/3 the stars in our galaxy, they are extremely difficult to detect but not impossible via infra red detection.

There is numerous classifications of stars that have varying levels of difficulty in detection. Not all stars are as bright as our sun.

Some of them require detection using different wavelengths of light outside the visible spectrum due to redshift.

It's also why several of the articles posted this thread show different measurements in different light spectrums.

 

Face it you need to study the material provided instead of thinking your right. The reason why you don't see models that state there are no stars outside the spiral arms is that any observatory in the world can clearly see this would be false.

 

You and only you claim otherwise.

The amazing post is my last article I posted clearly states otherwise and it is based on a 5 year study measuring of 16000 stars. That paper was only a small sample of its database.

However even then some of the light from some stars is so badly redshifted , you can only detect them via indirect measurements.

Ie the orbit patterns of other stars.

 

 

You also completely ignored the different speed aspects I posted. Which tells you the stars do not travel at the exact same rate and will seperate.

 

Applause!

Finally

[StringJunky]

The OP is only seeing what he wants to see... we may as well be talking to a creationist.

[Mordred]

Well maybe this new discovery will be convincing... key words halo stars outer halo stars and globular clusters.

http://www.gemini.edu/node/12337

Edit forgot to add the professional paper

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03952

[David Levy]

Well maybe this new discovery will be convincing... key words halo stars outer halo stars and globular clusters.

http://www.gemini.edu/node/12337

Edit forgot to add the professional paper

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03952

 

 

Thanks Mordred,

 

I'm existed!

It is great discovery, which is fully aligned with my expectation.

Please be aware that those stars aren't located between the spiral arms

All of them had been found at the third section of milky way – the Hallo.

"The finding suggests that a substantial number of low-luminosity globular clusters must have existed in the halo when the Milky Way was younger, but most of them might have evaporated due to internal dynamical processes."

"“This cluster is faint, very faint, and truly in the suburbs of our Milky Way"

"Seven out of 150 known Milky Way globular clusters are comparably faint but none are located as far out toward the edge of the Milky Way."

 

Please see my explanation in pg. 36.

"You have to understand correctly the structure of spiral galaxy.

In each structure, there are different forces.

So, the spiral galaxy is divided into three main sections.

-spiral arms section

-Center; The area between the supper massive black hole to the first Inwards ring of the spiral arms.(Bulge)

-Outwards – The aria from the far end of the spiral arms and outwards." (Halo)

 

So, this proves the following:

The science has today the technology to discover tiny stars.

However, with this advanced technology, so far we couldn't detect nearby tiny stars between the arms of spiral galaxy.

If there were, Gemini Observatory would have already detected them.

This could be used as one more evidence that there are no stars between the spiral arms.

[Mordred]

No actually it doesn't not when you perform the relative speeds I posted earlier

 

I repeat yet again f=ma....

 

A collection of stars moving in the disk at 220 Km/s and a range of stars moving + or - 50 km/s of that range will spread out.

 

Come on mate use some common sense a high school student can understand that. The last article shows stars with vectoral velocities to the galactic center, away from , perpendicular and parallel to the disk. Look closely at what u,v,w represents in that article.

What we are telling you is not that hard to understand.

 

You already agreed spiral arms are not rigid bodies.

 

If you have different velocities a cannot keep up with b

The scale is km per second how many seconds are there in a billion years?

That is why average mass density is important. No one can calculate the influence of every star/ particle. Not even all the computers on this planet.

 

That is where good approximation and the ideal gas laws comes into play. They greatly simplify highly complex interactions into averages.

 

However in terms of momentum on a plane. Let's use easy numbers.

 

Each velocity= a group number doesn't matter. Just the angular momentum.

 

Group a=1 km/s

Group b=2 km/s

Etc etc etc.

Group z=26 km/s

 

If you continue rotations group z will eventually complete a full rotation and pass group a.

 

This is basic math.

 

Anytime you have a set quantity of force, with varying mass the lighter objects will move at a higher velocity than the heavier objects, add enough rotations and you will get overlaps.

[StringJunky]

Mordred: You can lead a man to a book but you can't make him think.

[David Levy]

Just a brief highlight

 

The Sun is located at the edge of the spiral arm. Let's assume that just 100 Ly away from us and we are out of the arm.

 

However, Some of those tiny stars are located at the outer side of the Halo. Let's assume that it is 100,000 Ly from our location.

 

So, Gemini Observatory have the the technology to detect those tiny stars at 100,000Ly but so far it couldn't detect tiny stars nearby our sun (only 100 Ly away).

 

So please, don't confuse yourself with dim stars.

 

There are no stars between the arms!

 

[Mordred]

The net result is an average energy density. Where density waves comes into play is where the lighter gas is currently located, this increases the temperature via pv=nET (gas laws) the extra density aids star formation (younger stars) however stars cannot keep up with the gas movement.

Just a brief highlight

The Sun is located at the edge of the spiral arm. Let's assume that just 100 Ly away from us and we are out of the arm.

However, Some of those tiny stars are located at the outer side of the Halo. Let's assume that it is 100,000 Ly from our location.

So, Gemini Observatory have the the technology to detect those tiny stars at 100,000Ly but so far it couldn't detect tiny stars nearby our sun (only 100 Ly away).

So please, don't confuse yourself with dim stars.

There are no stars between the arms!

Wrong wrong wrong wrong. Use some bloody math

Not to be offensive but my 15 year old granddaughter can understand this better than you can.

 

 

Stars move at different rates of velocity

[David Levy]

No actually it doesn't not when you perform the relative speeds I posted earlier

I repeat yet again f=ma....

This is basic math.

Anytime you have a set quantity of force, with varying mass the lighter objects will move at a higher velocity than the heavier objects, add enough rotations and you will get overlaps.

 

It is just amazing.

 

You don't claim that there is an error in this article.

 

You don't claim that those tiny stars are located between the spiral arms.

 

I'm quite sure that you have the ability to understand the real meaning of this article which you have just pointed.

 

But unfortunately, you still prefer to use your unrealistic mathematical calculation.

 

Why do you prefer mathematical theory over real evidence? Why?

 

[Mordred]

There is no theory behind basic velocity math USE A CALCULATOR.

F= ma every star has a different MASS.

 

If you have a set force they WILL disperse.

Forgot to add each star has its own vector

[David Levy]

Why do you prefer to force the universe to the current theory, instead of the other way?

Our dear Newton gave us full set of tools to understand the basic elements of spiral galaxy. It is so simple and clear.

You don't need to be scientist to understand those basic elements. Somehow it seems that you shouldn't be a scientist in order to accept Newton law.

There is a chance that if Newton could wake up and see what the science claims about his law, he would properly die on the spot.

Edited March 4, 2015 by David Levy