Galaxy is forming new stars, in tail-like regions well away from its galactic disk
Yousuf Khan
ESO 137-001. Secondly, the galaxy has a nearby companion galaxy, ESO
137-002, which also has a tail. Sounds like these two interacted with
each other in the past, but that's not mentioned in the article. In
fact, the scientists who discovered it are having trouble explaining the
tails at all, so maybe it's more complicated than that.
Yousuf Khan
***
Galaxy Has Two 'Tails' - Star-producing ones nonetheless - Softpedia
"Scientists at the Michigan State University (MSU) recently used the
famous Chandra X-ray telescope to peer deep within the Universe, and
discover one of the most peculiar galaxies out there today. The space
formation features stellar nurseries, just like any other normal galaxy,
but it does not include them within its confines. In other words, the
nurseries are located in two gas tails that the galaxy carries with it
wherever it goes. This is something that astrophysicists find
ridiculously hard to explain, or even begin to comprehend. Galaxies
don't usually carry tails with them, let alone two of them."
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Galaxy-Has-Two-Tails-132801.shtml
Jan Panteltje
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in <4b5b1777$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
>The two tails extend out 200,000 light-years from the galactic centre of
>ESO 137-001. Secondly, the galaxy has a nearby companion galaxy, ESO
>137-002, which also has a tail. Sounds like these two interacted with
>each other in the past, but that's not mentioned in the article. In
>fact, the scientists who discovered it are having trouble explaining the
>tails at all, so maybe it's more complicated than that.
>
> Yousuf Khan
This confirms what I wrote before, the 'thing' at the centre of galaxies,
be it black hole or, in my view something we do not yet understand,
SPITS OUT the spiral arms, and in this case,
as the 'thing' is not rotating, spits it out in one direction only.
In this spit out material the stars solidify.
In a normal galaxy, the 'thing' in the centre rotates,
and spits out in two opposite directions, forming the spiral arms,
like a garden sprinkler.
This thing is a garden hose :-)
Simple.
Copyright (c) Jan Panteltje 2010 All rights reserved.
Nothing of this can be reproduced without written permission of the Author.
Violators hereby agree to punishment in the form of beheading etc...
Sam Wormley
>
> This confirms what I wrote before, the 'thing' at the centre of galaxies,
> be it black hole or, in my view something we do not yet understand,
> SPITS OUT the spiral arms,...
Jan -- you should learn what "spiral arm" really are!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy
Jan Panteltje
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote in <eZudnZRunpUvucbW...@mchsi.com>:
Look at a garden sprinkler.
There is plenty of evidence for my theory,
you can see some galaxies have changed direction of rotating,
resulting in spiral arms pointing the opposite way.
From that I would think that it is the direction difference from straight up,
of the ejected jets, that propels the 'thing' in the centre in one direction or the other.
If the jet[s] eject straight up it will not rotate.
If the jets are instable it may rotate one way, and then reverse direction.
Very basic observation.
Yousuf Khan
> This confirms what I wrote before, the 'thing' at the centre of galaxies,
> be it black hole or, in my view something we do not yet understand,
> SPITS OUT the spiral arms, and in this case,
> as the 'thing' is not rotating, spits it out in one direction only.
> In this spit out material the stars solidify.
Well, we don't even know if the tails are parallel to the galaxy's
spiral arms, or perpendicular. If they are perpendicular, then it's
likely that this may have at one time been an Active Galactic Nucleii,
and the black hole's jets hit some intergalactic gas that was near this
galaxy at the time. When it slammed through this gas, it compressed and
created stars in the wake of this blast wave.
Yousuf Khan
Jan Panteltje
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in <4b5b664e$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
I find it hard to belive tha they say 'how can this tail of gas follow the galaxy'
whei anybody who has ever played wit hfirwork or rockst cn
see the tell tale of aan object EMMITTING mayeyr, pushing in in one direction.
So it is not 'the gas cload following the galaxy', but is it tha thing
emitting a jet i nwan way propelling i tforwad in the opposite way,
it MAKES the cloud.
If somebody was to ask me to loo ka ta site tha texplain why teh eart his flat based on soem wild theory
I would not look, as clearly the earth is round.
To state 'teh gas cload follopwes that thing' is an insane statement,
based on a total lacj of undrestandin gand intelligence by whoever came up with it.
And other example of bogus science.
Jan Panteltje
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in <4b5b664e$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
I find it hard to believe that hey say 'how can this tail of gas follow the galaxy'
while anybody who has ever played with firework or rockets can
see the tell tale of an object EMITTING matter, pushing it in one direction.
So it is not 'the gas cloud following the galaxy', but is it that thing
emitting a jet in one way and propelling it forward in the opposite way,
it MAKES the cloud.
If somebody was to ask me to look at a site that explain why the earth is flat based on some wild theory
I would not look, as clearly the earth is round.
To state 'the gas cloud follows that thing' is an insane statement,
based on a total lack of understanding and intelligence by whoever came up with it.
gb
Galaxies have two main arms which begin giving off mass
at one point.
Michio Kaku was one of those scientists who showed
that without dark matter a galaxy would not stay together.
When the dark matter energy bubble is disrupted, possibly
from a near collision at the galaxy core with a small galaxy,
the dark matter machine gives up.
Yousuf Khan
> I find it hard to belive tha they say 'how can this tail of gas follow the galaxy'
> whei anybody who has ever played wit hfirwork or rockst cn
> see the tell tale of aan object EMMITTING mayeyr, pushing in in one direction.
> So it is not 'the gas cload following the galaxy', but is it tha thing
> emitting a jet i nwan way propelling i tforwad in the opposite way,
> it MAKES the cloud.
>
> If somebody was to ask me to loo ka ta site tha texplain why teh eart his flat based on soem wild theory
> I would not look, as clearly the earth is round.
> To state 'teh gas cload follopwes that thing' is an insane statement,
> based on a total lacj of undrestandin gand intelligence by whoever came up with it.
>
> And other example of bogus science.
Hey, what happened here, it sounds like you ran it through a jive talk
translator. :)
Yousuf Khan
Jan Panteltje
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in <4b5bd550$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
>Hey, what happened here, it sounds like you ran it through a jive talk
>translator. :)
>
> Yousuf Khan
Those intergalactic links sometimes have interference.
Q
OG
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hjg0l8$inj$1...@news.albasani.net...
Let's try some real science to address the question
So what would be the critical tests that would confirm whether your
hypothesis is correct?
Jan Panteltje
<ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in <7s2v5i...@mid.individual.net>:
Occam's
Have you *ever* seen a gas cloud following somebody?
I know there is this guy who has a theory about intelligence in clouds of matter,
some quantum stuff, and maybe he is right, but what would a gas cloud see in a galaxy?
LOL
It is clear, even to the aspiring scienceartist that the *ONLY* way you can have a gas
cloud following you, is if you are constantly farting.
Antares 531
Are the spiral shapes of galaxies caused by some form of the Coriolis
effect such as that which causes the weather patterns on Earth to have
this same spiral shape?
If the three spatial dimensions of our discernable universe are
curved, but to an almost infinite radius, while the other seven
spatial dimensions of the multiverse are still curled up to less than
a Planck Length, the curvature of our spatial dimensions could produce
a Coriolis effect similar to that produced by the curved surface of
the earth. Are the galaxy spirals an indication that our universe is
indeed curved?
Is this dark matter perhaps the mass in those other universes that
form the multiverse of String/SuperString/Membrane Theory?
Gordon
OG
And what observations would differentiate between your hypothesis and and
the standard explanation for arm formation? For example, would the outer
extent of the spiral arms be older than the inner extent?
How much older?
If so, how would that be detected?
If material is being ejected from the centre towards the edge, how would it
interact with the material already in the disc?
How long does it take for material to take to reach the edge from the core?
What happens to the material that has reached the edge?
If your hypothesis is real, it has to address at least some of these
questions. Yes?
Elijahovah
> There is plenty of evidence for my theory,
> you can see some galaxies have changed direction of rotating,
> resulting in spiral arms pointing the opposite way.
> From that I would think that it is the direction difference from straight up,
> of the ejected jets, that propels the 'thing' in the centre in one direction or the other.
> If the jet[s] eject straight up it will not rotate.
> If the jets are instable it may rotate one way, and then reverse direction.
> Very basic observation.
I dont understan dthis reverse direction, if you look form the
opposite side
then it looks reversed, it has not reversed in motion, it is only
visually reversed.
There is no such thing as clockwise and counter clockwise in three
dimensions
because all rotations appear opposite from the otherside.
What matters is whether rotations of the same plane are same or
opposite,
for example the moon orbits the same direction as the earth spins.
All the planets are the same direction too, thus presumed as having
been
thrown out by the original mass.
The matter or the whole solar system are fillled with atoms so that
in essence there is matter all around the sun out here moving in the
same direction.
But this still appears the other direction if looking from the
southern side versus
the northern side. A south view OF the plane looking at the plane is
clockwise as is also a south view FROM the plane looking south from
it, and a north view OF the plane is looking south at the plane and
sees counterclockwise just as a view FROM the plane looking south. If
you are on any planet moving in this rotation, then eveything which
appears so far away as to stand still will appear as if it is moving
opposite of actual motion, you on earth moving counterclockwise see
the sky move clockwise, and you on earth moving clockwise see the sky
move counter clockwise. It is all about realizing the truth ans being
able to see it as such.
gb
What Michio Kaku implied is that the galaxy curves up into spiral
shapes because of dark matter, which recently was mapped
and appears as a ball around the galaxy, a vertically stretching ball,
not sideways stretching ball with the galaxy.
Michio said (2004) that if we remove dark matter, the galaxy falls
apart, as
there would not be much gravity left to hold it together.
OG
"Antares 531" <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:vdtol5d97s61585gg...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:31:57 -0800 (PST), gb <gb6...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The two tails are the two ends of the main spiral arms.
>>
>>Galaxies have two main arms which begin giving off mass
>>at one point.
>>
>>Michio Kaku was one of those scientists who showed
>>that without dark matter a galaxy would not stay together.
>>
>>When the dark matter energy bubble is disrupted, possibly
>>from a near collision at the galaxy core with a small galaxy,
>>the dark matter machine gives up.
>>
> Are the spiral shapes of galaxies caused by some form of the Coriolis
> effect such as that which causes the weather patterns on Earth to have
> this same spiral shape?
>
> If the three spatial dimensions of our discernable universe are
> curved, but to an almost infinite radius, while the other seven
> spatial dimensions of the multiverse are still curled up to less than
> a Planck Length, the curvature of our spatial dimensions could produce
> a Coriolis effect similar to that produced by the curved surface of
> the earth. Are the galaxy spirals an indication that our universe is
> indeed curved?
>
Would that not mean that the spiral structures of galaxies nearby each other
would be aligned?
Antares 531
wrote:
I think not, since the galaxy formation process would involve
three-dimensional space and the galaxies' material could coalesce
together from any random orientation. It seems this would be
determined by random chance or some level of probability.
Antares 531
This may be right, but I'm still wondering if this whole setup might
not involve nexus holes into another universe of the multiverse.
john
And galaxies have a spherical halo
and if the jets drive the disc
around it would make a spherical halo.
galaxy model for the atom:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
atoms are galaxies and vice-versa- at any
one instant an atom is a flat disc,
and may be more edge-on
or more face-on to any incoming energy.
controlling this aspect of
atoms will be to control mass effects.
For example, it will be possible to see through
matter temporarily by controlling the
magnetic field so all atoms periodically
are edge-on to the observer.
But, like you say, given any
initial spin, there are only two choices
for precession. And if our
parent galaxy has already chosen one
of those, would we not expect only that
one to be around?
john
OG
Ah, I thought your implication was that galaxies spirals were produced as a
result of some large scale curvature of the universe.
You seem to be saying that it does, but the position of the spirals is
random.
How does the presence or absence of curvature of the universe make a
difference then ?
YKhan
> Have you *ever* seen a gas cloud following somebody?
> I know there is this guy who has a theory about intelligence in clouds of matter,
> some quantum stuff, and maybe he is right, but what would a gas cloud see in a galaxy?
> LOL
Well, we don't know if it's following it around. We don't know the
direction of travel of the galaxy. From our perspective, the galaxy is
barely budging other than through the expansion of space. For all we
know, this trailing tail could be directly in front of its direction
of travel.
> It is clear, even to the aspiring scienceartist that the *ONLY* way you can have a gas
> cloud following you, is if you are constantly farting.
That could be more relevant than you think. It's likely that the
source of the tail is the galaxy's own emissions, from its central
blackhole.
Yousuf Khan
Jan Panteltje
<yjk...@gmail.com> wrote in
<9e600c11-513f-4af1...@k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jan 24, 11:30�am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Have you *ever* seen a gas cloud following somebody?
>> I know there is this guy who has a theory about intelligence in clouds of=
> matter,
>> some quantum stuff, and maybe he is right, but what would a gas cloud see=
> in a galaxy?
>> LOL
>
>Well, we don't know if it's following it around. We don't know the
>direction of travel of the galaxy. From our perspective, the galaxy is
>barely budging other than through the expansion of space. For all we
>know, this trailing tail could be directly in front of its direction
>of travel.
>
>> It is clear, even to the aspiring scienceartist that the *ONLY* way you c=
>an have a gas
>> cloud following you, is if you are constantly farting.
>
>That could be more relevant than you think. It's likely that the
>source of the tail is the galaxy's own emissions, from its central
>blackhole.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Yes of course.
There is one other thing with the idea of jets emitting from a central 'thing'
forming spiral arms, and then stars forming in the ejected stuff,
when those stars die and are slung out further they could form that dark matter cloud around the galaxy,
the one needed to explain the rotation curves.
Like in the garden sprinkler the water falls in the end to the ground,
in a circle around the centre.
I am not sure about that, but I think that is possible.
That keeps it all very logical and clean.
gb
The idea is simple. Dark matter represents 90 percent of the
mass in a galaxy. If this dark matter vanishes, the galaxy breaks
apart, which
the picture shows in what happens with a galaxy
when that happens, because it is dark matter which keeps
a galaxy together. Something happened with dark matter
in that galaxy, the galaxy cannot keep itself together.
It's spiral arms, two of them start stretching long in space,
not circling any more the galaxy.
The strange thing is that mass which gets ejected is left behind.
Galaxies travel in space like trains, even accelerate on their course
for some reason.
Antares 531
I'm by no means an expert in these matters. I worked as an aerospace
physicist during my career, and concentrated on navigation and
guidance within this space/time universe we are able to perceive.
But, I wonder if perhaps the dark matter you mention is actually the
ordinary matter in those other universes associated with this universe
we perceive. SuperString/Membrane Theory posits 11 total dimensions,
one temporal and 10 spatial dimensions in the multiverse.
I have no disagreement concerning your statement that dark matter
keeps the galaxies together, but I wonder if that dark matter is
somehow the effects of the ordinary matter in the other universes of
the multiverse, that somehow interacts through the galaxy core "nexus"
and produces an effect in this universe we perceive.
As to galaxies traveling through space and even accelerating, it seems
this would be normal. That is, nothing is holding all the galaxies in
a stable position relative to our and other galaxies. Each galaxy is
subject to the net gravitational forces that exist in the region of
that galaxy, and those net gravitational forces aren't likely to be
equal in magnitude or orientation, throughout the universe. Each
galaxy produces a gravitational attraction for the other galaxies,
especially those closest to it. This would tend to pull them into a
"train" of galaxies, I would think.
Gordon
Antares 531
wrote:
As I said, I'm by no means a specialist in this realm. I just have my
own set of ideas, and if you or others are interested in kicking these
around a bit, let's go!
I did intend to posit that galaxy spirals are the result of curved
space. But, nothing compels all galaxies to form from the same or from
similar patterns of mass distribution throughout the region of space
where they began forming. That is, each galaxy would be patterned in
compliance with location of the clumps and clusters that formed first,
then further coalesced into the final galaxy. This random distribution
of significant mass clumps would cause each galaxy to form
differently, some spiraling in one plane while others spiral in a
plane that is not parallel to the other galaxy's plane. Each galaxy
would form under the influence of curved space, but the orientation of
the galaxy would be a random event.
Gordon
Yousuf Khan
> On a sunny day (Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:54:27 -0800 (PST)) it happened YKhan
> <yjk...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> source of the tail is the galaxy's own emissions, from its central
>> blackhole.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> Yes of course.
But in my case, I wasn't referring to the central jets populating the
material in this tail. I was referring to it shaping the material that
was already there into this tail.
> There is one other thing with the idea of jets emitting from a central 'thing'
> forming spiral arms, and then stars forming in the ejected stuff,
> when those stars die and are slung out further they could form that dark matter cloud around the galaxy,
> the one needed to explain the rotation curves.
There is no evidence for a greater distribution of dead stars in the
outer regions of a galaxy than there is in the disk. And why would dead
stars be tossed out of the galaxy rather than the live stars? What
distinguishes a live or dead star? Some dead stars (black holes, neutron
stars, white dwarfs) weigh more than most of the live stars in a galaxy
(red dwarfs).
> Like in the garden sprinkler the water falls in the end to the ground,
> in a circle around the centre.
> I am not sure about that, but I think that is possible.
> That keeps it all very logical and clean.
In most galaxies, their central blackhole's axis is pretty much aligned
perpendicular with their galaxy's disk plane. The jets of a black hole
come out of its axis. So I don't see how black hole jets smashing into
the medium at right angles to its galactic disk would in anyway affect
the shape of its disk.
Yousuf Khan
eric gisse
[...]
Submitted to SPR as well. Likely attract better discussion - or nothing.
> In most galaxies, their central blackhole's axis is pretty much aligned
> perpendicular with their galaxy's disk plane. The jets of a black hole
> come out of its axis. So I don't see how black hole jets smashing into
> the medium at right angles to its galactic disk would in anyway affect
> the shape of its disk.
It wouldn't - he is saying something that loosely translates to "not
even wrong".
Black hole jetting is a largely local phenomena. The area around the
black hole, and the areas the beamline nails are affected. That's it -
and 'affected' gets to be a pretty weak term pretty quick.
Stuff forms in a disc for a reason: angular momentum.
I am reasonably certain that we do not know even one black hole whose
accretion disk's inclination is well known enough to make a
determination whether it lies in the same plane of its' host galaxy or
not. The local access hatch to nothing over at Sgr. A* has a pretty damn
wide parameter space for inclination that spans pretty much everything
between 0 and 90 degrees depending which model you believe.
It is, however, my personal instinct that the rotation of the
supermassive black hole and thus its' accretion disk are (more or less)
in the same plane as the rotation of the galaxy. However, I got two
thoughts:
a) I read once recently about discussions of accretion disks and how
current GR-MHD simulations cannot handle full three dimensional motion
of an accretion disk. In other words, the linking of the disk to the
plane of rotation is an assumption. A good assumption, as they go, but
an assumption nevertheless.
b) Given the relative size of a galaxy and its' black hole, I would not
be at all surprised to find that in some cases the black hole could be
rotating in a different plane. A few billion years of local
perturbations add up to a shitton more effect than can be mounted
against the overall galaxy.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Jan Panteltje
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in <4b5fcc1d$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
>Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:54:27 -0800 (PST)) it happened YKhan
>> <yjk...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> That could be more relevant than you think. It's likely that the
>>> source of the tail is the galaxy's own emissions, from its central
>>> blackhole.
>>>
>>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>> Yes of course.
>
>But in my case, I wasn't referring to the central jets populating the
>material in this tail. I was referring to it shaping the material that
>was already there into this tail.
Thats is a vague statement, obviously the 'tail' must come from somewhere,
and the place I think it is, is the 'thing' at the centre.
I say 'thing', because black hole' is mostly a mathematical result of Einsteinian philosphy:-)
Let me try to explain, without pestering the remains of that dead old wild haired man too much:
I agree that if you get more mass (purely theoretically) concentrated in one place,
then the escape speed, the speed needed to escape from such a blob, increases.
With enough mass the escape speed will be > c, and light cannot escape.
Now there is a problem there, and the problem is that we do not know what happens when
you put so much mass together in such a small volume.
Of course any sane person who ever observed nature, will understand that there are
no 'infinities' in nature, something always gives way, so a 'singularity;' is out of the question.
That begs the question, "what happens (really into quotes today) when we have such a dense blob of matter?"
I have proposed that there will be processes happening that we do not yet understand,
processes that cause particles to be emitted that we have not yet even theorised about,
and I also proposed that those particles could be a Le Sage type participle, causing rays of those
to be emitted from the centre of galaxies, causing a type of push gravity.
At the same time rays of similar particles from all other galaxies push the centre together,
so you have an opposing force, the latter one is gravity pushing things together,
and the first one are the same particles creating an outwards force.
This would explain
1) gravity
2) why the orbits of the stars have the 'wrong' speed in a galaxy (more to the centre
there is a balance of forces),
3) why the universe is expanding ever faster.
4) get rid of the 'singularity'.
So, in the compressed thing at the centre processes happen that cause one or more jets of exotic material
to be ejected in several possible directions, and if 2 jets, and not strait up, causes the spiral arms
to be formed.
In those spiral arms then the exotic matter from this yet unknown state, sort of condenses into matter as we know it,
and stars are born.
Born, to die eventually, while all the time flying outward.
Then the balance of forces between the pushing of all other Le Sage particles from other galaxies and this one begins,
and a heap of cooled down, 'dark' in the real sense, a halo, of dead stars, surrounds the galaxy.
>> There is one other thing with the idea of jets emitting from a central 'thing'
>> forming spiral arms, and then stars forming in the ejected stuff,
>> when those stars die and are slung out further they could form that dark matter cloud around the galaxy,
>> the one needed to explain the rotation curves.
>
>There is no evidence for a greater distribution of dead stars in the
>outer regions of a galaxy than there is in the disk. And why would dead
>stars be tossed out of the galaxy rather than the live stars? What
>distinguishes a live or dead star? Some dead stars (black holes, neutron
>stars, white dwarfs) weigh more than most of the live stars in a galaxy
>(red dwarfs).
All are thrown out, think garden sprinkler, and in this case we were talking about, a 'thing' with
only one jet, straight up, you do not get spiral arms (no rotation), but a plume.
That is that gas cloud.
There may well be cooled down matter further out where we detect no EM radiation, but we cannot see it.
>> Like in the garden sprinkler the water falls in the end to the ground,
>> in a circle around the centre.
>> I am not sure about that, but I think that is possible.
>> That keeps it all very logical and clean.
>
>In most galaxies, their central blackhole's axis is pretty much aligned
>perpendicular with their galaxy's disk plane. The jets of a black hole
>come out of its axis. So I don't see how black hole jets smashing into
>the medium at right angles to its galactic disk would in anyway affect
>the shape of its disk.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Well, it seems to me those are different jets.
Anyways there is a problem there too, if you believe the old dead wild haired man's heritage, the one
that could not unite gravity with the other forces and conflicts with QM,
than NOTHING can move faster then light, and nothing can escape a black hole,
so if you say 'black hole' then if you want to accept that fragment of that dead old
wild haired man's theory, you have a 100% contradiction, as there can be no jets.
As a final word on this, sort of an observation of human nature:
Long time ago 'science' thought the sun was burning coal.
Not a bad idea, as burning coal was the only thing known at that time that would cause lot of heat and light...
Much later things like fusion were understood, and now the sun is, of course: burning fusion fuel...
I think this is really funny, I predict, and it will be, if we ever find a new mechanism ... that we will find
that that is what already is happening in nature, probably clearly for all to see.
So the suggestion of yet unknown processes with yet unknown particles, happening in a 'thing',
is not that alien really, a safe bet.
dlzc
On Jan 27, 2:26�am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Submitted to SPR as well. Likely attract better
> discussion - or nothing.
>
> > In most galaxies, their central blackhole's axis is
> > pretty much aligned perpendicular with their
> > galaxy's disk plane. The jets of a black hole come
> > out of its axis. So I don't see how black hole jets
> > smashing into the medium at right angles to its
> > galactic disk would in anyway affect the shape
> > of its disk.
>
> It wouldn't - he is saying something that loosely
> translates to "not even wrong".
>
> Black hole jetting is a largely local phenomena. The
> area around the black hole, and the areas the
> beamline nails are affected. That's it - and 'affected'
> gets to be a pretty weak term pretty quick.
>
> Stuff forms in a disc for a reason: angular momentum.
Small correction: Stuff stays axially symmetric due to angular
momentum. It forms down into a disk via *friction* (and frame
dragging?).
> I am reasonably certain that we do not know even
> one black hole whose accretion disk's inclination is
> well known enough to make a determination whether
> it lies in the same plane of its' host galaxy or not.
> The local access hatch to nothing over at Sgr. A*
> has a pretty damn wide parameter space for
> inclination that spans pretty much everything
> between 0 and 90 degrees depending which model
> you believe.
>
> It is, however, my personal instinct that the rotation
> of the supermassive black hole and thus its'
> accretion disk are (more or less) in the same plane
> as the rotation of the galaxy.
Unless there have been "recent" mergers of two or more galaxies...
> However, I got two thoughts:
>
> a) I read once recently about discussions of
> accretion disks and how current GR-MHD
> simulations cannot handle full three dimensional
> motion of an accretion disk. In other words, the
> linking of the disk to the plane of rotation is an
> assumption. A good assumption, as they go, but
> an assumption nevertheless.
A lot of similar assumptions in fluid flows in channels of various
shapes. Of course, we get to test those...
> b) Given the relative size of a galaxy and its'
> black hole, I would not be at all surprised to find
> that in some cases the black hole could be
> rotating in a different plane. A few billion years of
> local perturbations add up to a shitton more effect
> than can be mounted against the overall galaxy.
For example, we have a large number of globular clusters that move
through the vicinity of the Milky Way's central black hole, and do so
out-of-plane (whether or not there are similar clusters in-plane).
David A. Smith
gb
You can ask Michio Kaku on his web page, he is the one who researches
questions in the way you put it. Galaxies do get pulled into trains of
galaxies, the Universe looks like a sponge, with channels carrying
billions of galaxies in one direction.
Steve Willner
Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> writes:
>The two tails extend out 200,000 light-years from the galactic centre of
>ESO 137-001.
Do you mean two tails pointing in different directions or the "X-ray
tail" and the "H-alpha tail," which coincide spatially and are well
known? They are presumably the same physical tail, seen at two
different wavelengths.
>Secondly, the galaxy has a nearby companion galaxy, ESO
>137-002, which also has a tail. Sounds like these two interacted with
>each other in the past
It does sound that way the way you write it, but is there any
evidence for interaction?
The journal article is at:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/671/1/190/72057.web.pdf
and there's a somewhat coherent press release at:
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/07_releases/press_092007.html
> the scientists who discovered it are having trouble explaining the
>tails at all, so maybe it's more complicated than that.
The X-ray/H-alpha tail arises from ram pressure stripping of the
galaxy's gas as the galaxy moves through the cluster. (I don't know
why this would seem difficult to explain.) The question is exactly
why stars are forming in the stripped gas. Evidently dense gas is
formed somehow, but it isn't obvious how. Neither, of course, is it
obvious dense gas should not form. It would take detailed modeling
to tell whether there's a problem or not.
I think the OP was victimized by yet another confusing press release.
>Galaxy Has Two 'Tails' - Star-producing ones nonetheless - Softpedia
>"Scientists at the Michigan State University (MSU) recently used the
>famous Chandra X-ray telescope to peer deep within the Universe, and
>discover one of the most peculiar galaxies out there today. The space
>formation features stellar nurseries, just like any other normal galaxy,
>but it does not include them within its confines. In other words, the
>nurseries are located in two gas tails that the galaxy carries with it
>wherever it goes. This is something that astrophysicists find
>ridiculously hard to explain, or even begin to comprehend. Galaxies
>don't usually carry tails with them, let alone two of them."
>http://news.softpedia.com/news/Galaxy-Has-Two-Tails-132801.shtml
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
bert
[[Mod. note -- 28 very-excessively-quoted lines snipped. -- jt]]
David If rotation of a black hole in center of spiral galaxies
createsthe overal rotation of the galaxy it begs this question. Are
the stars in lock step? Does gravity do this like spokes in a wheel?
When I spin a fresbee I do it from its out edge. So a BH does it by
creating a vortex at its center. What if the BH is turning in one
direction and its rim in the other direction? I wonder in the micro
realm if all particle pairs have to have opposite spin ?? TreBert
[[Mod. note -- The answer to each of your questions is "no".
What we think is going on with galaxies & central black holes (BHs)
is more that some of the processes that (in as-yet-ill-understood
ways) shape the formation and growth of a galaxy also affect (in
as-yet-ill-understood ways) the formation and growth of its central
BH in such a way that some properties of the BH are closely correlated
with some properties of the host galaxy.
-- jt]]
bert
[[Mod. note -- 58 very-excessively-quoted lines snipped. -- jt]]
> David If rotation of a black hole in center of spiral galaxies
> createsthe overal rotation of the galaxy it begs this question. Are
> the stars in lock step? Does gravity do this like spokes in a wheel?
> When I spin a fresbee I do it from its out edge. So a BH does it by
> creating a vortex at its center. What if the BH is turning in one
> direction and its rim in the other direction? I wonder in the micro
> realm if all particle pairs have to have opposite spin ?? TreBert
>
> [[Mod. note -- The answer to each of your questions is "no".
>
> What we think is going on with galaxies & central black holes (BHs)
> is more that some of the processes that (in as-yet-ill-understood
> ways) shape the formation and growth of a galaxy also affect (in
> as-yet-ill-understood ways) the formation and growth of its central
> BH in such a way that some properties of the BH are closely correlated
> with some properties of the host galaxy.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Massive fast spinning BH can create a vortex in space,and this is
shown to us as a very strong magnetic field is projected out of it
going all the way to Earth. TreBert
[[Mod. note -- The strength of the "vortex in space" to which you refer
decays very rapidly with distance from the BH, so it's negligible for
any objects which aren't *very* close to the BH. The same applies to
magnetic-field effects from the BH. In particular, these effects from
a central BH are utterly negligible for stars in the galaxy.
-- jt]]