Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #593758 > unrolled thread

Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:19 -0700
    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:45 -0500
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-19 22:48 +0000
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 16:48 -0700
        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:56 -0500
    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-19 12:25 -0700
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 14:12 -0700
    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-19 23:11 -0400
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 06:14 -0700
        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 10:17 -0500
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-21 19:08 +0200
        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 01:44 +0200
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-22 23:36 -0700
        Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-23 04:38 -0400
          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 07:06 -0500
            Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-24 02:15 -0400
              Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 07:39 -0500
                Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 05:57 -0700
                  Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 09:02 -0500
                    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 08:01 -0700
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 10:53 -0500
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-27 19:25 +0000
                    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 08:07 -0700
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 08:37 -0700
                        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:40 -0500
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 13:09 -0700
                            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 13:27 -0700
                            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 15:57 -0500
                              Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 16:36 -0700
                                Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:54 -0500
                                  Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-26 05:25 +0200
                                  Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 07:26 -0700
                                    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 11:09 -0700
                        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-27 19:35 +0000
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:18 -0500
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-27 19:33 +0000
              Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-24 12:12 -0700
                Re: Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-25 01:55 -0400
                  Re: Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-25 08:21 +0200
                    Re: Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 05:58 -0700
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 08:51 -0500
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 08:55 -0500
                        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 08:35 -0700
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 10:39 -0500
                            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 09:11 -0700
                              Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 11:21 -0500
                                Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 10:29 -0700
                                  Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 13:58 -0500
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-27 20:05 +0000
                            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 15:02 -0700
                              Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-29 03:30 -0400
                                Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-30 20:18 +0200
                                Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-30 20:35 +0200
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-25 19:45 +0200
                        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 11:14 -0700
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 11:17 -0700
                            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 14:00 -0500
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-25 20:57 +0200
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 16:24 -0500
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-27 20:00 +0000
                  Re: Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-25 11:42 -0700
          Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-23 10:31 -0700
            Re: Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-24 02:54 -0400
            a krok is when noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 10:24 -0700
          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 01:31 +0200
            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 17:57 -0700
              Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 07:29 -0500
            pre-Alfvenic notions of space\Universe noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 10:28 -0700
              Re: pre-Alfvenic notions of space\Universe Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 21:20 +0200
                could be simpler, ug ... ugh noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 11:21 -0700
                  Re: could be simpler, ug ... ugh Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-30 08:45 +0200
                    1/c is in units of seconds per second per secondpower meters ... regular tetragona were not hurt in the attempt noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 13:36 -0700
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 14:17 -0700
    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter "Sergio" <invalid@example.com> - 2016-08-20 15:17 -0700
    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 12:54 -0700
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-30 12:39 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#594647

On 8/25/2016 7:58 AM, john wrote:
> Thomas
> Nits are small.
> Stand back a little.
> We're swinging at bigger things.
>
> I'm saying that both galaxies and
> atoms are composed of equal amounts
> of opposite stuff.
>
> With atoms, it is the up and down electron.
> With galaxies it is matter-arm/antimatter-arm.
>
> Odd said, "What about odd-numbered arms?"

I also said, what about elliptical and irregular galaxies, which have no 
arms at all.
You seem to have conveniently ignored those. Are those half-matter, 
half-antimatter too? Where's the spacing that protects one half from 
annihilating the other?
Do you think elliptical galaxies are rare?

>
> We look, and voila!, three-armed galaxies
> are rare!
> Why? Because the two similar arms
> would merge.
> Comment on that, TPE, not whether you
> believe in virtual fundaments
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594648

On 8/25/2016 7:58 AM, john wrote:
> Thomas
> Nits are small.
> Stand back a little.
> We're swinging at bigger things.
>
> I'm saying that both galaxies and
> atoms are composed of equal amounts
> of opposite stuff.
>
> With atoms, it is the up and down electron.
> With galaxies it is matter-arm/antimatter-arm.
>
> Odd said, "What about odd-numbered arms?"
>
> We look, and voila!, three-armed galaxies
> are rare!

And remember, John, all spiral galaxies with even-numbered arms also 
have a central galactic core, that the spiral arms are ALL in contact 
with. So the Milky Way that has four arms, let's suppose that two are 
matter and two are antimatter. If the central core is matter, then you 
have two antimatter arms that are in contact with it. If the central 
core is antimatter, then you have two matter arms that are in contact 
with it. Where are the 1.022 MeV gamma rays?

Does stuff like this just not bother you?

> Why? Because the two similar arms
> would merge.
> Comment on that, TPE, not whether you
> believe in virtual fundaments
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594653

Odd, Odd
You very incitefully point out
a problem with three-armed spirals,
and we find out you're right!
There are none!!
Good job, Odd.

You do know that ellipticals are seen
with arms stretching out of them?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594654

On 8/25/2016 10:35 AM, john wrote:
> Odd, Odd
> You very incitefully point out
> a problem with three-armed spirals,
> and we find out you're right!
> There are none!!

No, John, not none. Platypuses are rare, they're not nonexistent.
So, let's just say there is ONE three-armed galaxy that is observed in 
the whole visible universe. Then if what you say is true, then a big 
spike 1.022 MeV gammas should be evident in the light from that observed 
galaxy. And yet....

So what then, John?

> Good job, Odd.
>
> You do know that ellipticals are seen
> with arms stretching out of them?

Is that rare, John? If so, shall we say it's nonexistent?
What about the ellipticals and irregulars that don't have arms?



-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594656

Odd
Let's say a galaxy with three arms
results from something:
it takes awhile for the two
arms that are alike to be pushed
together by the other.
You will see them as transient,
dissipating structures.
And we do.
Thanks for bringing that forward, Odd.
That's almost as useful as HVAC's
QPO post!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594657

On 8/25/2016 11:11 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Let's say a galaxy with three arms
> results from something:
> it takes awhile for the two
> arms that are alike to be pushed
> together by the other.
> You will see them as transient,
> dissipating structures.

You seem to be completely ignoring the problem of the NECESSARY point of 
contact between matter and antimatter, where a high-intensity stream of 
1.022 MeV gammas would NECESSARILY be seen. Which isn't seen.

So how is it, John, that you're ok with ignoring these things?

> And we do.
> Thanks for bringing that forward, Odd.
> That's almost as useful as HVAC's
> QPO post!
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594665

Odd
Necessary how?
They are opposites.
They REPEL each other.
Try playing with two magnets for awhile
and see what it takes to force them
together.
And we know matter attracts matter.
So you just get a double-sized arm-
no fireworks.
Necessary in Odd world- pfft

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594677

On 8/25/2016 12:29 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Necessary how?
> They are opposites.
> They REPEL each other.

Experimentally wrong. Matter and antimatter ATTRACT each other. 
Positronium, which consists of an electron and a positron, is a BOUND 
STATE, which means they are attracted to each other. Positronium could 
not exist if matter and antimatter repelled.

You may recall that matter and antimatter have opposite electric 
charges. You may also recall that opposite charges attract. Both of 
these are experimental facts. Are you going to maintain that because you 
WANT matter and antimatter to repel each other that these observational 
facts should be dismissed?

> Try playing with two magnets for awhile
> and see what it takes to force them
> together.
> And we know matter attracts matter.
> So you just get a double-sized arm-
> no fireworks.

John, if you look at ANY spiral galaxy, you will see that the spiral 
arms TOUCH their neighbors near the center. You are only looking at the 
outer portion of the arm. Look at the inner portion of the arm where 
they touch. Furthermore, EVERY arm touches the central galactic core.

So let's say you have a two arm galaxy, with one arm being matter and 
the other arm being antimatter. BOTH those arms touch the central core. 
You say matter and antimatter repel. So if the central galactic core is 
matter, where is the evidence of repulsion between the core and the 
antimatter arm? If there is no repulsion, then where is the 1.022 MeV 
radiation from where they touch?

> Necessary in Odd world- pfft
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594898

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd, Odd
>You very incitefully point out
>a problem with three-armed spirals,
>and we find out you're right!
>There are none!!
>Good job, Odd.

>You do know that ellipticals are seen
>with arms stretching out of them?

Then they aren't called ellipticals, they are called something else.

What about (actual) ellipticals?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594913

Michael
Asking about elliptical galaxies.
I think they correspond to
Nobel gases in atoms

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595046

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 15:02:39 -0700 (PDT), john
<johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:

>Michael
>Asking about elliptical galaxies.
>I think they correspond to
>Nobel gases in atoms

I believe ellipsoidal (elliptical) galaxies are younger (than spirals)
galaxies on the way to becoming disks.

I believe all galaxies start out as amorphous blobs spinning along an
axis. These blobs can only spin along a single axis. As they spin they
tend to morph into symmetric shapes (ellipsoids or spheres or disks)
for a variety of reasons I don't want to go into now.

If taller than wide and spinning on the tall axis, the galaxy
contracts into an ellipsoid (football shape) spinning on its long
axis. This shape eventually collapses into a spherical shape since its
top and bottom (football tips) have insufficient centrifugal force to
counteract gravity. From here it continues to collapse into a short,
wide, cylinder (disk) since the poles of the sphere still have
insufficient centrifugal force to counteract gravity.

If wider than tall and spinning on the short axis, the blob collapses
into a football spinning on its short axis with tips of the football
on opposite ends of the spin circle. It is already almost a disk.
Eventually the top and bottom of the football contract further and it
flattens into a disk (squashed football) since the top and bottom
parts still have insufficient centrifugal force to counteract gravity.

The time it takes to flatten into what we consider a "disk" will
depend on the initial mass and shape (rotational inertia or spin
resistance) and its initial rotation rate.

From this we can conclude that the flattening causes matter to fall
into the central region and accumulate there forming the
characteristic central bulge for spiral galaxies. I would expect the
density of the bulge to be highest for spirals, then ellipsoidals
spinning on their short axis, then sphericals, and lowest for
ellipsoidals spinning on their long axis.

Spherical galaxies do not usually have as pronounced a central bulge
if they originated from a homogenous cloud of gas. But some galaxies
are considered to be mergers and if a high density blob/galaxy merges
with a lower density blob/galaxy a central bulge may occur at the
start. Also, if the original cloud was non-homogenous it could start
as one dense, fast spinning sphere inside a slower spinning spherical
shell.

Also, a spherical could pass through another spherical or disk along
its spin axis at less than escape velocity and oscillate in and out
before settling in the middle and to become what looks like a central
bulge of a spherical or disk. I guess the possibilities are nearly
endless.



---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595239

Michael J.  Strickland wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 15:02:39 -0700 (PDT), john
> <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Michael
>>Asking about elliptical galaxies.
>>I think they correspond to
>>Nobel gases in atoms
> 
> I believe […]

That is the main problem of John, you, and all the other crackpots.
*You want to believe* that reality is as you wish it to be: *easy to 
explain*, *no matter how nonsensical the explanation*.  Because if the 
explanations, however correct, become too complex, you are *mentally
unable to follow*.

The main difference between you and a scientist is that a scientist does not 
just make up bedtime stories; but they make an observation, posit a theory 
to explain that observation *that makes falsifiable predictions (in physics: 
based on mathematics)*, *and then tests the theory (or let it be tested) 
against reality*, i.e. all *future* observations, including the outcome of 
computer models based on the used mathematics.  The scientist then *rethinks 
their theory* if it is falsified by future observations; if the theory’s 
predictions are very far off from observed reality, they might just throw 
the theory away (and all theories based on it); if it is only a little bit 
off, then there is a chance that some unknown factor has not been 
considered, and the theory might be saved by refinement.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595241

Michael J.  Strickland wrote:

> I believe ellipsoidal (elliptical) galaxies are younger (than spirals)
> galaxies on the way to becoming disks.

But computer simulations by NASA show that the Milky Way and the Andromeda 
Galaxy (both spiral galaxies) will merge in ca. 4 billion years from now, 
probably forming an elliptical galaxy [“Milk(dr)omeda”].

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision>

> I believe all galaxies start out as amorphous blobs spinning along an
> axis.

Which is contradicted by current research on the formation and evolution of 
galaxies.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution>

> These blobs can only spin along a single axis.

Why?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594669

[Subject repaired]

john wrote:

> I'm saying that both galaxies and
> atoms are composed of equal amounts
> of opposite stuff.

Yeah, well, that is complete and utter nonsense.  Again.

> With atoms, it is the up and down electron.

What are up and down electrons in your physics?

> With galaxies it is matter-arm/antimatter-arm.

If that were so, there would be no galaxies, and we would not be living in 
one.  (In fact, we would not exist.)  Matter and antimatter annihilate in a 
rather violent reaction, you know.

Also, there are galaxies without arms.

> Odd said, "What about odd-numbered arms?"

Because then there would be one arm of matter or one arm of antimatter left.  
There are no galaxies with one arm, showing the extent of the nonsense of 
your misconception.
 
> We look, and voila!, three-armed galaxies
> are rare!

Not because one half of a galaxy would consist of antimatter, but because 
galactic arms (in a *spiral* galaxy) are the result of both mutual 
gravitational attraction of galactic matter, and of galactic rotation.

> Why? Because the two similar arms would merge.

No.  You have a fundamental misconception as to what galactic arms are.
I suggest you read about them before you post on this subject again.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy>

> Comment on that, TPE, not whether you
> believe in virtual fundaments

[x] done

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594670

TPE:
Mouth.
Money.
Explain assymetric galactic rotation
ccurves:
[ ] _____________________
________

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594671

TPE, Odd
Play with odd numbers of magnets
and see what happens 
before posting again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594678

On 8/25/2016 1:17 PM, john wrote:
> TPE, Odd
> Play with odd numbers of magnets
> and see what happens
> before posting again.
>

Magnets don't annihilate with 1.022 MeV gammas when you put N pole to S 
pole.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594676

john wrote:

> Explain assymetric galactic rotation
> ccurves:
> [ ] _____________________
> ________

Manabe, S. & Miyamoto, M. (1975). “The north-south asymmetry in the galactic 
rotation curves”. Astronomical Society of Japan, Publications, vol. 27, 
no. 1, 1975, p. 35–44. Bibcode: 1975PASJ...27...35M.

|                              Abstract
| 
| It is shown that the large-scale north-south asymmetry in the galactic 
| rotation curves obtained from observations of neutral hydrogen can be 
| explained as a consequence of noncircular galactic rotation caused by a 
| nonaxisymmetric mass distribution in the central region of the Galaxy, 
| i.e., a bar-like structure, and by a radial motion of the local standard 
| of rest at the sun. […]

Jog, C. J. (2002). “Large-scale asymmetry of rotation curves in lopsided 
spiral galaxies”. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 391 (2): 471–479. arXiv:astro-
ph/0207055free to read. Bibcode:2002A&A...391..471J. 
doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020832.

| Abstract 
| 
| Many spiral galaxies show a large-scale asymmetry with a cos φ 
| dependence in their rotation curves as well as in their morphology, such 
| as M 101 and NGC 628. We show that both these features can be explained by 
| the response of a galactic disk to an imposed lopsided halo potential. […]

The latter paper is referred in 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve>.

HTH

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594698

On 8/25/2016 1:14 PM, john wrote:
> TPE:
> Mouth.
> Money.
> Explain assymetric galactic rotation
> ccurves:
> [ ] _____________________
> ________
>

Two possibilities, John. Already discussed.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594897

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Thomas 
>Nits are small.
>Stand back a little.
>We're swinging at bigger things.

>I'm saying that both galaxies and
>atoms are composed of equal amounts
>of opposite stuff.

>With atoms, it is the up and down electron.
>With galaxies it is matter-arm/antimatter-arm.

>Odd said, "What about odd-numbered arms?"

>We look, and voila!, three-armed galaxies
>are rare!
>Why? Because the two similar arms
>would merge.
>Comment on that, TPE, not whether you
>believe in virtual fundaments 

Odd already did! Where are the 511 keV gammas? Huh?

And why wouldn't a matter and antimatter arm merge and KABLOOEY!! ?
What about where the arms meet the center of the galaxy?
What about how stars orbit leaving an arm into inter-arm space and then
into another arm as they orbit the center?

Admit it.  You just came up with an idea and instead of realizing it is
simply no good, you are trying -- desparately -- to make it work, truth
be damned.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web