Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: Dubbelosix' spiral arm ATM

  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    137
    Now if we be logical about this, if galaxies do rotate in harmony with the rotation of the SMBH, which it must to be honest, then isn't this already a superior line of investigation to go down, instead of creating a new force field?

    I say it is.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    That entirely depends on whether we understand gravity. Arguably there are facets of this theory which is testable, but thought experiments are good creatures as well. I offered a type of thought experiment: I ask, where does the galaxy owe its rotational energy from? Why for instance, does a galaxy spin a certain way?
    So are you providing a modified model of gravity to explain rotation curves (it must also explain orbits in galaxy clusters)? Or just wondering whether such a Molde is possible?

    Current unified field theory suggests black holes where created in the early stages of the universe - the size of those black holes may have varied.
    My understanding is that such primordial black holes would be very small. The current best model for supermassive black holes may be direct collapse of gas clouds.

    Otherwise, how do you suggest we explain why a handedness exists in galaxies?
    What do you mean by "handedness"?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    Also, the visible mass of our galaxy has an energy equivalent to the SMBH in the center of typical galaxies like our own.
    Are you saying the mass of the black hole is the same as the total visible mass of the galaxy?

    I don't know why you seem to think this cannot work out, in the sense, it doesn't match what we observe.
    It is up to you to show that it does work out - in other words that your model reproduces the observed rotation curves. Can you do that or not? If not, then I see no reason to think it does work out.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    I just gave this some more thought, and this is not the case at all. While we cannot measure the spin of a black hole directly, you can easily measure which direction it is moving in from the surrounding matter.
    Strictly speaking, that is the direction of rotation of the accretion disk.

    But it is not exactly surprising that the accreting material, the rest of the galactic material and the black hole would all rotate in the same direction. I imagine all models would predict that.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Strictly speaking, that is the direction of rotation of the accretion disk.

    But it is not exactly surprising that the accreting material, the rest of the galactic material and the black hole would all rotate in the same direction. I imagine all models would predict that.
    Yet something has to give here, because it cannot be a coincidence that the SMBH rotates in the same direction of the galaxy. It's almost as if, we may as well just attribute the rotary property of the galaxy to the black hole.

    And no, I don't mean that the mass of the black hole is the same per se, what is meant is that the binding energy of a typical spiral galaxy (that is the gravitational attraction holding the galaxy together) is more or less the same as the energy of the SMBH at the center of galaxies. You could argue they are the same, an equivalence between the two.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    Yet something has to give here, because it cannot be a coincidence that the SMBH rotates in the same direction of the galaxy.
    If they all formed from the same material, then it isn't a coincidence.

    And no, I don't mean that the mass of the black hole is the same per se, what is meant is that the binding energy of a typical spiral galaxy (that is the gravitational attraction holding the galaxy together) is more or less the same as the energy of the SMBH at the center of galaxies. You could argue they are the same, an equivalence between the two.
    And are you ready now to show that this reproduces the observed rotation curves (and the orbits in galaxy clusters)?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,260
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    Coming from you who stated I haven't provided anything scientific to the discussion?

    I've been down this route with another dishonest poster. I will quietly terminate this with you alone, if you are going to be disingenuous.
    Dubbelosix

    You have been told multiple times how to behave on this forum. You may not insult other members (like calling them dishonest) and you may not pick whose questions in ATM you may answer. Once again, you are going to be infracted and suspended. If you do not change your behavior, I suspect you will banned next time.

    This thread is also closed. When you return, you may request it be reopened and we will consider the request.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •