|
A universe from nothing... (for space/science nerds) (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
If the answer is that solar systems and galaxies tend to form as flat discs like coins, then this seems strange to me. Gravity works in all directions, and shouldn’t solar systems and galaxies form as spheres instead? Why not? |
guess 1 - spinning/magnetism/magnetic fields->poles->top/bottom
guess 2 - equilibrium of gravitational directions due to large force of central gravity - everything eventually follows the same direction. some galaxies are not discs, but rather ellipsoidal, and they tend to lack the supermassive central stars, and so exhibit more random gravitation.
gravity doesn't necessarily work in all directions when centralized forces dominate the field
planets aren't perfect spheres btw. all celestial bodies seem to exhibit this flattening behavior
however i think an interesting general question is the relationship between magnetism and gravity... |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
Our reference here is the central sun and the fact that all planets are pretty much distributed around it in a single plane, just like the flat desert you described. And there's a reason why this is so, and it actually gives us a clue of how planets must have formed.
If you were to go "up" or "down" you wouldn't travel to any of our planets. You would come out of the planetary disk and sort of look at them from above or below. There are however galaxies "above" us and "below" us and all around us. The "flat coins" are distributed all around us and their planes are also distributed in all directions. They are not parallel to the flat plane of our planets.
You can find the answer to your last question here:
http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums/t/564.aspx |
Thanks. That was a very precise and lucid answer to my questions. Good to have it cleared up. |
|
|
| Gauss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
Our reference here is the central sun and the fact that all planets are pretty much distributed around it in a single plane, just like the flat desert you described. And there's a reason why this is so, and it actually gives us a clue of how planets must have formed.
If you were to go "up" or "down" you wouldn't travel to any of our planets. You would come out of the planetary disk and sort of look at them from above or below. There are however galaxies "above" us and "below" us and all around us. The "flat coins" are distributed all around us and their planes are also distributed in all directions. They are not parallel to the flat plane of our planets.
You can find the answer to your last question here:
http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums/t/564.aspx |
Okay, that answers the question about our solar system being a flat plane. But what about space being a flat plane? Where do you get if you turn up or down and go forward? |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Gauss
Okay, that answers the question about our solar system being a flat plane. But what about space being a flat plane? Where do you get if you turn up or down and go forward? |
He answered that.
"If you were to go "up" or "down" you wouldn't travel to any of our planets. You would come out of the planetary disk and sort of look at them from above or below. There are however galaxies "above" us and "below" us and all around us. The "flat coins" are distributed all around us" |
|
|
| astroboy |
I think the planar nature of the solar system has to do with the way it formed. As the cloud of matter began to fall in on itself the densest spot in the middle began to rotate and formed the sun, as the sun rotated, the surrounding matter was pulled along by its gravity and naturally formed into a flat-ish accretion disc somewhat like this:
out of which formed our planets already in their co-planar orbits.
Pluto (though it's not a planet) was probably just randomly passing by and got caught by the sun, which is why it's out of alignment.
edit: a similar principle applies to spiral and disc shaped galaxies. There's a more dense bit in the middle that rotates and pulls the rest into a disc perpendicular to the axis of rotation. Kind of like the bubbles in a bath spinning around the drain. In the case of the milky way I believe they've observed a black hole in the middle, which kind of aids the analogy :p |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
science IS fairytales unless you know what you're talking about.
|
idiot
| quote: |
Science is based on empirical proof. You're saying it's fine to skip the proof!
|
why do you have to reinvent the wheel when its already made?
| quote: |
sorry, but saying you believe in evolution is exactly the same as saying the world was built in 7 days unless you know what you're talking about.
|
ok.. you keep thinking its the same thing trot along now
| quote: |
since you like bagging religion, you should realise that yu're sounding extremely similar to a religious nut... i'm not defending religion at all, but at least everybody knows most of them are full of ...
|
right except that science has testable findings where religion does not. I gave you solid examples which you neglected and saying "oh its not the same". OF course it is. Structural engineering is based on newtons testable laws.. do you need to fully understand them to trust the integrity of the structure? Its all science.. If it wasn't science it would be classified as myth, fairytale or relgion. Semantics learn how to use it properly.
| quote: |
"science is the way, the truth and the light! i don't have to know how it works, it just works!!! WHAT?? SHUTTUP!!" |
sure it is.. if you don't like it grab your berkenstocks and toga and wait for the next messiah until the cows come home.
Otherwise shut the up because mythology and the abrahamic religions are nothing but political tools to motivate the masses and or primitive attempts to reason our observable surroundings. Do I believe in god? Perhaps. I'm not sure but i know and trust the findings of science even though i don't understand all the theories that scientists have spent their whole lives to advance in sometimes only a small fraction. Will you simply sit there and proclaim its the equivalent of fable?
Do you believe the earth is still flat? Was everything really created in 7 days? Is evolution not plausable? Does god make the airplanes fly?
Good luck with your future endeavors and may god bless your idiotic soul for being such a moron. |
|
|
| yukii |
:stongue:
i suggest he goes back to school with a thick science book for his thick head. |
|
|
| astroboy |
I think believing that a scientific theory is a best current approximation of the relevant facet of reality without knowing the detailed proofs and mechanics behind it doesn't equate with a blind faith in a God.
It is sufficient that you understand the basic logic behind mathematical processes and have a firm grasp of, and trust in the integrity of the scientific method. Trusting the hypotheses that arise out of it without knowing the specifics simply means you understand and trust the process that gives rise to them. Your belief can be affirmed by observing the predictive value of these theories or even the predictive value of other hypotheses arising from the scientific method. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by yukii
:stongue:
i suggest he goes back to school with a thick science book for his thick head. |
That or a Holy bible. Apparently they are in equivalence for factual information. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
I think believing that a scientific theory is a best current approximation of the relevant facet of reality without knowing the detailed proofs and mechanics behind it doesn't equate with a blind faith in a God.
It is sufficient that you understand the basic logic behind mathematical processes and have a firm grasp of, and trust in the integrity of the scientific method. Trusting the hypotheses that arise out of it without knowing the specifics simply means you understand and trust the process that gives rise to them. Your belief can be affirmed by observing the predictive value of these theories or even the predictive value of other hypotheses arising from the scientific method. |
Thank you for reiterating what i have been saying in a more coherant and calm rhetoric. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| Also i'd like to appologize for ruining this thread with this diversion. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| Lol these science/religion diversions are always amusing. I think the irony of the whole conversation about "arrogant science" etc is that if the religious fundamentalists stayed out of science the debate wouldn't even exist. |
|
|
|
|
