It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: ImaFungi
You also need to determine what defines the boundary of this galaxy. Is it where its gravitational influence is 'negated' by another or is it some level of luminescence maybe?
Hope you get an answer.
-FBB
There's conflicting information about our own galaxy and I think it's a case where it's hard to see the forest because of the trees.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur
First I must ask if it would be easier or more difficult and/or more chance for inaccuracies to use our own galaxy?
No matter what you define as the perimeter it would just be an approximate number and you could move it in or out and you could still call those other figures a perimeter. The stellar density doesn't stop, there's a gradual decline so unless you set up a specific criterion such as "the point where stellar density drops below X" it's hard to define a firm perimeter. Moreover this is complicated further because the perimeter of visible matter and dark matter may differ.
What is the length of the perimeter of that galaxy (in units compatible with what we will use for all other discussions of lengths etc.)?
It's counteracted by gravity so depending on what you're trying to do I don't think it's a significant factor in galaxy rotation curves.
The rate of dark energy expansion
dark energy is thought to be vacuum energy so yes if that guess is right.
First I must ask is the associated energy of dark energy, massless?
Dark energy refers to the acceleration of the metric expansion of space, and it's thought to be a property of the void between the galaxies but this isn't really confirmed.
the term 'energy' cannot exist without relation to matter, material. What I mean by material is 'something' not nothing. Energy is a quality of something, Energy cannot exist without something. The term energy refers to an aspect of the existence of something.
Einstein knew if gravity was pulling things together and the universe was "static", that all the mass would end up getting pulled together and that didn't seem to be happening so a force counteracting gravity is what he came up with to explain why that didn't happen. When the expansion of the universe was discovered he didn't need that cosmological constant anymore, so he dropped it. It was only brought back by observation after the discovery of dark energy in 1998.
Using units compatible with the result of the perimeter of the spiral galaxy; what is the theorized rate of spatial expansion and/or dark energy (is that how cosmological constant fits in? Einstein didn't like it right
I don't know if that word "exactly" is 100% accurate as theoretically there might be some change in the size of a galaxy from dark energy but it's probably too small to measure and is overwhelmed by larger effects, like all the galaxies in our local group tugging on each other, for example.
Space is expanding from the Big Bang and the acceleration of dark energy. But the objects embedded in space, like planets, stars, and galaxies stay exactly the same size.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
No matter what you define as the perimeter it would just be an approximate number and you could move it in or out and you could still call those other figures a perimeter. The stellar density doesn't stop, there's a gradual decline so unless you set up a specific criterion such as "the point where stellar density drops below X" it's hard to define a firm perimeter. Moreover this is complicated further because the perimeter of visible matter and dark matter may differ.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It's counteracted by gravity so depending on what you're trying to do I don't think it's a significant factor in galaxy rotation curves.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
dark energy is thought to be vacuum energy so yes if that guess is right.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Dark energy refers to the acceleration of the metric expansion of space, and it's thought to be a property of the void between the galaxies but this isn't really confirmed.
Einstein knew if gravity was pulling things together and the universe was "static", that all the mass would end up getting pulled together and that didn't seem to be happening so a force counteracting gravity is what he came up with to explain why that didn't happen.
If you have to walk 10 paces to get to a wall, then later you have to walk 15 paces to get to the same wall then there's more space between you and the wall. If space was nothing then you'd be touching the wall.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
And the metric expansion of space, is thought to be the cosmological constant? and the fact the cosmological constant is thought to have its function accelerated, is what dark energy is thought to be?
I already said, if space = nothing. The concept of metric expansion of nothing occurring, is a self falsifying concept or statement.
If space = not nothing, than what is it thought the 'something' is that is expanding, where is the (energy cannot be created or destroyed) energy coming from to expand it?
Einstein did call it a mistake and it seemed like a bad assumption after he learned about the expansion of the universe, but I don't see why you're having trouble understanding the assumption. If gravity is pulling everything together in a static universe what's to stop everything from coming together? He didn't know the universe wasn't static until Hubble showed that.
Thats very interesting because it doesnt seem so necessarily certain, that all the mass would end up getting pulled together;
Because firstly, something mysterious occurred such that the mass was not all together 'to begin with', so this implies many masses with many motions, and if there were only two masses that existed at all, and they were traveling opposite directions from one another, and there was no spatial expansion or anything, I dont know why one would assume the masses would be pulled together.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If you have to walk 10 paces to get to a wall, then later you have to walk 15 paces to get to the same wall then there's more space between you and the wall. If space was nothing then you'd be touching the wall.
Einstein did call it a mistake and it seemed like a bad assumption after he learned about the expansion of the universe, but I don't see why you're having trouble understanding the assumption. If gravity is pulling everything together in a static universe what's to stop everything from coming together? He didn't know the universe wasn't static until Hubble showed that.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur
If you took a 100 ft. by 100 ft. by 100 ft. wall-less volume of water, and magically poofed it into existence infinitely far away from the nearest mass, gravity field, radiation etc. etc.... if the water could not be touched or effected by anything... If this 100 x 100 x 100 cube volume of water appeared literally in the middle of nowhere surrounded by literally nothing;
What might happen to it? Would it retain its form?
I'm glad to answer a question you're having a hard time finding the answer to, but when you post 4 posts in a row with several questions each of things which can easily be googled, that's a bit much. I didn't even try to count how many questions are in your last post. The title of the thread is "ask any question you want about physics", not ""ask any 20 questions you want about physics". So I suggest you search for answers and then try to narrow down what you're having a hard time finding an answer to and state the question more succinctly. To make calculations that are anywhere near accurate you will need a deep understanding that you might get from education, but you probably won't get from posting in internet threads since it would take you 50 years to get a 4 year education at this rate and our knowledge of science will have changed in that time.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
Can you respond to my other 3 prior replies too?
Two galaxies are objects. If the distance between them increases, there's more space between them. This isn't a difficult concept to me so I'm not sure why it's difficult for you.
The tiles cannot separate from one another because 'nothingness moved'.
If you knock a paper clip off a desk, is the paper clip moving toward the Earth, or is the Earth moving toward the paper clip? It's the same type of question. Do you really care if the Earth is moving toward the paper clip if the effect is too small to measure, and if so, why?
If all that existed for eternity, in an infinite expanse of nothingness, were 2 bowling balls, and me and you stood back to back, and threw the balls away from ourselves in opposite directions, is there no amount of force (lets say we could throw them with any amount of force you could imagine) that we could throw them with, so that they would not be attracted back to one another?
What form do you see water taking on the ISS videos? wobbly spheres right?
originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur
If you took a 100 ft. by 100 ft. by 100 ft. wall-less volume of water, and magically poofed it into existence infinitely far away from the nearest mass, gravity field, radiation etc. etc.... if the water could not be touched or effected by anything... If this 100 x 100 x 100 cube volume of water appeared literally in the middle of nowhere surrounded by literally nothing;
What might happen to it? Would it retain its form?
Given your barrage of simultaneous questions we have vastly different ideas of what "step by step" means.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Since you dont seem to be so excited to try to work with me step by step in attempting to plug in knowledge to my theory for potential candidate for the reason of the idea of dark matter, I will just list the variables, so I can stop wasting my time waiting to go piece by piece;
Here is a paper on M33 estimating the dark matter is significantly larger than the visible matter and it outlines all the methods and assumptions used in the calculations. The only caveat would be that there could be more recent and more accurate observations I'm not aware of but barring those this is as good a starting point as any to answer your questions though you'll actually have to read it:
Total visible mass of galaxy (including central black hole... which may greatly add to uncertainty about all of this to begin with):
Minimum and maximum potential theorized quantity of gravitons in the galaxy:
Minimum and maximum potential theorized binding nature of graviton to one another (if such thing has potential):
To be most clear, by graviton, I may not mean the standard model interpretation, what I mean by graviton, and if you really need me to I will make up my own word for it: Gravyton; is the the building block material of the analogized 'sheet' (3d/4d) which 'warps/bends/curves'.
The force is cohesion, it is due to the shape of the molecules, not magnetism or electron bonds.
And what you mean by surface tension is, magnetic attraction of molecules ala electron bonds?
Yes.
so are you sure the effects of surface tension are not a carry of thought from the surface tension effects of water in relation to earths gravity?
There is no difference. The effects of cohesion are observed as surface tension at the interface between the water and the surrounding medium, or lack thereof. The cohesive bond is stronger than the bond between water and the surrounding medium (or lack thereof) so it dominates and causes the water to assume the smallest surface area possible.
How would the surface tension compare to the tension increasingly below the surface?
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I'm glad to answer a question you're having a hard time finding the answer to, but when you post 4 posts in a row with several questions each of things which can easily be googled, that's a bit much. I didn't even try to count how many questions are in your last post. The title of the thread is "ask any question you want about physics", not ""ask any 20 questions you want about physics". So I suggest you search for answers and then try to narrow down what you're having a hard time finding an answer to and state the question more succinctly. To make calculations that are anywhere near accurate you will need a deep understanding that you might get from education, but you probably won't get from posting in internet threads since it would take you 50 years to get a 4 year education at this rate and our knowledge of science will have changed in that time.
Two galaxies are objects. If the distance between them increases, there's more space between them. This isn't a difficult concept to me so I'm not sure why it's difficult for you.
If you knock a paper clip off a desk, is the paper clip moving toward the Earth, or is the Earth moving toward the paper clip? It's the same type of question. Do you really care if the Earth is moving toward the paper clip if the effect is too small to measure, and if so, why?
What form do you see water taking on the ISS videos? wobbly spheres right?