Re: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
Since Andromeda and The Milky way belong to the same local group, it is highly likely that they are made of pretty much the same stuff ... ie matter, not anti-matter, and are simply bound by regular gravity. An earlier evaluation of the collision is at http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1170 The Collision Between The Milky Way And Andromeda T.J. Cox, Abraham Loeb (Harvard/CfA) (Submitted on 8 May 2007 (v1), last revised 20 Feb 2008 (this version, v2)) We use a N--body/hydrodynamic simulation to forecast the future encounter between the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxies, given current observational constraints on their relative distance, relative velocity, and masses. Allowing for a comparable amount of diffuse mass to fill the volume of the Local Group, we find that the two galaxies are likely to collide in a few billion years - within the Sun's lifetime. During the the interaction, there is a chance that the Sun will be pulled away from its present orbital radius and reside in an extended tidal tail. The likelihood for this outcome increases as the merger progresses, and there is a remote possibility that our Sun will be more tightly bound to Andromeda than to the Milky Way before the final merger. Eventually, after the merger has completed, the Sun is most likely to be scattered to the outer halo and reside at much larger radii (30 kpc). The density profiles of the stars, gas and dark matter in the merger product resemble those of elliptical galaxies. Our Local Group model therefore provides a prototype progenitor of late--forming elliptical galaxies
Re: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
This prof. says the sun will go extinct before the galaxies collide: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VclKQ-ZLfjQ - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
Hoyt, Interesting. I am glad you remind us of Dewey Larson's physics. It is somewhat ironic that Larson is “too far out there”… even for those of us who are already on the fringes of mainstream physics. The “45.6 nm” dimension should be amenable to some kind of proof, if it is accurate… something like a MEMS or AFM cantilever should show a gravity anomaly. Has this been done? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_force_microscopy If there was one shred of proof for something so earth-shaking as this, it would make all the difference. Larson is one of those thinkers (like R. Foot) who are compelling on some details of a broad theory … but in the end are too far removed from the mainstream, at least presently, to justify giving full consideration (unless you have tenure). Nevertheless, it is not easy to write-off his ideas, and who knows that parts of it could appear in the next standard model... -Original Message- From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. In Dewey Larson's Reciprocal system of physics there is an effective ~15 femtoG repulsive acceleration throughout the universe ( it's a fundamental property of the universe ). Gravity acts against this, so when the gravitational pull of star at some distance away reaches 15 fG, the stars repel instead of attract ( The gravitational limit ). That's on the order of 4 light years away for out sun, so stars generally won't get closer than that ( to simplify ). http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/gravlim.htm http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/satz/cluster.htm ( Also, below unit distance, 45.6 nm, gravity repels and the expansion of the universe attracts! That accounts for chemical bonding and may also account for the Casimir force. ). Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 6:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision Most of the comments thus far assume that both galaxies are composed of normal matter and have no prior history together. NASA has no way of knowing this, nor do they know other relevant details - like the 'type' of matter. One simply cannot discuss this subject intelligently without reference to the disputed work of R. Foot, who is kind of the R. Crumb of cosmology. http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Foot_R/0/1/0/all/0/1 ... attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
The Milky Way Galaxy should prepare to welcome the Andromeda Galaxy. By then, the universe will have expanded quite abit, and many of the nearby galaxies will have traveled considerably farther away from the Milky Way. But just think what it would be like when you look up at the nightsky and see twice as many stars, or maybe even an Earthtype planet with two Suns... talk about global warming! On second thought, maybe we should start thinking about developing an improved A-bomb of some type, and try to deflect Andromeda before it gets to close?. /HTML
Re: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
The repulsive force that Mr. Larson talks about might actually have a logical derivation. I have been trying to understand the reason for the expansion of the universe for a long time and one very interesting possibility seems to arise that the vortex might wish to give some thought. In my model, I begin by assuming that the initial universe is 'loaded' with a slightly non uniform distribution of hydrogen throughout. The gravitational energy of the original distribution can be calculated based upon each small volume of mass in space being attracted to all the others according to the usual inverse square law. As a dense region tends to condense into a larger mass collection, obviously the gravitational strength within it rapidly increases and more adjacent material collects into the growing region. An interesting thing happens as the material for the large mass is extracted from the initial near uniform distribution. The inverse square law acts strongly toward the collection of dense material forming the new bodies pulling them ever tighter together to form the galaxies that we see today. At the same time, the material that is outside of the main reach of the galaxy fields finds that it is no longer attracted in the direction of the denser galaxy regions as strongly as it is in the opposite directions. All of this behavior is due to the effects of attraction caused by the nonlinear inverse square law. The material outside of the galaxies thus appears to be repelled ever faster and stronger as the distance increases. I have long wondered if this effect is the root for the expansion of the universe. Instead of being some form of negative energy, maybe it is just the reduction in the gravitational energy present within the original mass distribution. A simple linear model was constructed where I placed uniform masses along a straight line. Each was attracted to all of the others by an inverse square law and a perfect balance was initially obtained in forces as would be expected. This distribution represented the uniform matter within the universe before gravity began to pull things apart. Then, I moved different numbers of the masses toward a center one and recalculated the resultant forces operating among them. In my model, the masses outside the original grouping are pulled in a direction away from the center. To an observer located on the central mass collection, these masses would be moving away similar to the the Hubble effect. The masses within the central region are attracted together according to the usual laws. It certainly would be advantageous if the expansion of the universe were due to normal gravitational effects instead of some unseen negative energy. I think of it as a reduction in a positive energy field instead of a new negative energy field. I suspect that the total universal behavior would be similar. Give my 'out of the box' thought some consideration. The concept is new to me, but may have already been rejected by more in dept study within the scientific circles. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 3, 2012 9:57 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision Hoyt, Interesting. I am glad you remind us of Dewey Larson's physics. It is omewhat ironic that Larson is “too far out there”… even for those of us who re already on the fringes of mainstream physics. The “45.6 nm” dimension should be amenable to some kind of proof, if it is ccurate… something like a MEMS or AFM cantilever should show a gravity nomaly. Has this been done? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_force_microscopy If there was one shred of proof for something so earth-shaking as this, it ould make all the difference. Larson is one of those thinkers (like R. oot) who are compelling on some details of a broad theory … but in the end re too far removed from the mainstream, at least presently, to justify iving full consideration (unless you have tenure). Nevertheless, it is not asy to write-off his ideas, and who knows that parts of it could appear in he next standard model... Original Message- rom: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. In Dewey Larson's Reciprocal system of physics there is an effective ~15 emtoG repulsive acceleration throughout the universe ( it's a fundamental roperty of the universe ). Gravity acts against this, so when the ravitational pull of star at some distance away reaches 15 fG, the stars epel instead of attract ( The gravitational limit ). That's on the order of light years away for out sun, so stars generally won't get closer than hat ( to simplify ). http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/gravlim.htm ttp://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/satz/cluster.htm ( Also, below unit distance, 45.6 nm, gravity repels and the expansion of he universe attracts! That accounts for chemical bonding and may also ccount for the Casimir force. ). Hoyt Stearns
Re: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: All of this behavior is due to the effects of attraction caused by the nonlinear inverse square law. The material outside of the galaxies thus appears to be repelled ever faster and stronger as the distance increases. I have long wondered if this effect is the root for the expansion of the universe. Instead of being some form of negative energy, maybe it is just the reduction in the gravitational energy present within the original mass distribution. I have also wondered about the theorized increasing rate of expansion of the universe. I have no reason to question it, in particular, although I do find the dark matter and dark energy explanation an amazing and miraculous one. I don't see how physicists can allow such an explanation and simultaneously have such difficulty with the possibility of LENR, whatever the mechanism. I have wondered, however, whether there might not be an assumption that could be leading us astray with regard to the expansion of the universe. One question is how much the purported increase in its rate relies upon the speed of light being a constant. If the speed of light changed over time, this might provide a different basis for the red shift observations. I'm not sure what other problems a changing speed of light would cause, or whether it would even be detectable. The speed of light is so woven into the fabric of our measurements that it seems possible that you would have no way of knowing that it was changing over time, and the red shift data would be due to something else. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
It is amazing how the LENR effects are so quickly dismissed, especially considering the overwhelming amount of supporting data. I suspect that the reasons for ignoring it are not altogether evident. In any case it will have its opportunity to shine in the very near future. My understanding regarding the speed of light is that it is constant relative to any observer. This makes perfect sense when I consider Maxwell's equations as applied to me as an arbitrary observer. The electric and magnetic fields associated with the moving energy wave are not allowed to have different time domain relationships depending upon the motion of the external source. Some people speculate that the local gravitational and other fields act as a form of ether, but this has not been shown to be accurate. The motion of the source of the original electromagnetic wave does have the benefit of the additional speed in a matter of speaking. He sees the stationary frame distances as shorter in the direction of his emitted signal and it thus take less time to travel. The muon life extension tests support this observation. An observer ridding upon the muon would see its lifetime as normal (6.4 uSec) but the distance it covers along a stationary frame would be far in excess of what is expected if it were moving at a speed of 99.94% of light during its typical life span. Wikipedia has a pretty good article about these experiments. It would be interesting if the value of c (light speed) were slowly changing over time. If true, that would certainly foul up the understanding of relative motion of things as time progresses. There may be ways to detect this phenomenon by observing the red shift of objects that are rotating and of very large physical size such as far away galaxies. I do not know. The model that I played with would actually allow for the expansion of the universe. As gravitational energy is released into the condensing matter due to inward motion, another large region surrounding it would see greater pull away. Someone with much superior math capability than I might be able to determine that a system as I am describing would form bubble like structures or filaments between active condensation zones as the semi-uniform mass distributions were pushed away by the reduced gravitational energy. There are many very interesting possibilities to consider. I can imagine that minor rotation vortexes within the initial mass distribution would interact in such a way as to create mirror rotational images which would allow for the conservation of angular momentum of the total structure. It is easy to get lost in endless speculation when it is not supported by a rock solid model. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 3, 2012 4:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: All of this behavior is due to the effects of attraction caused by the nonlinear inverse square law. The material outside of the galaxies thus appears to be repelled ever faster and stronger as the distance increases. I have long wondered if this effect is the root for the expansion of the universe. Instead of being some form of negative energy, maybe it is just the reduction in the gravitational energy present within the original mass distribution. I have also wondered about the theorized increasing rate of expansion of the universe. I have no reason to question it, in particular, although I do find the dark matter and dark energy explanation an amazing and miraculous one. I don't see how physicists can allow such an explanation and simultaneously have such difficulty with the possibility of LENR, whatever the mechanism. I have wondered, however, whether there might not be an assumption that could be leading us astray with regard to the expansion of the universe. One question is how much the purported increase in its rate relies upon the speed of light being a constant. If the speed of light changed over time, this might provide a different basis for the red shift observations. I'm not sure what other problems a changing speed of light would cause, or whether it would even be detectable. The speed of light is so woven into the fabric of our measurements that it seems possible that you would have no way of knowing that it was changing over time, and the red shift data would be due to something else. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
From: Eric Walker David Roberson wrote: All of this behavior is due to the effects of attraction caused by the nonlinear inverse square law. The material outside of the galaxies thus appears to be repelled ever faster and stronger as the distance increases. I have long wondered if this effect is the root for the expansion of the universe. Instead of being some form of negative energy, maybe it is just the reduction in the gravitational energy present within the original mass distribution. I have also wondered about the theorized increasing rate of expansion of the universe. I have no reason to question it, in particular, although I do find the dark matter and dark energy explanation an amazing and miraculous one. You may be onto something valid - with what we can call, in general: “power law nonlinearity.” Overly simplified, we might opine that at some distance we encounter a paradigm shift towards a different power law. For instance, inverse cube would make the rate of expansion seem greater, since gravity is becoming less of a restraint. If you want to find the best argument for nonlinearity in inverse power laws, such as when geometry changes fairly unexpectedly (into a paradigm shift), look no further than Planck’s Law (or Theory), which is/was a proven predictor of the relationship between frequency and emitted spectral energy for blackbody radiation. Max Planck, even 100 years ago suspected that his theory was breaking down the smaller he went, but this was not easy to prove, and the later geniuses who taught physics at University ignored his doubts and cast the whole thing into a “law” since they did not want to teach “theory”, and since it worked well enough. More recently, verification of the non-linearity in the power law basis behind Planck has finally been reported at MIT, but Wiki still calls it Planck’s Law instead of Max’s kludge. http://www.physorg.com/news168101848.html Planck’s law can be written in about a dozen different ways, with many different variables, and has changed over time to “fix” problems, and is considered an inverse fourth (or fifth for wavelength) power law down to the dimensions that he was familiar with 100 years ago. We already know that at nanometer geometry and ultraviolet wavelengths - it begins to fail, and eventually is off by three orders of magnitude at the level of quantum dots. Essentially what this means for LENR in particular is that there can be an exponentially greater range of physical properties in particles of very small size, which translates into forces that affect the nucleus and most importantly – into much higher QM probabilities than expected. This is what Ahern talks about with “energy localization” and is seen in the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam nonlinearity in lattice oscillations. But even more importantly, at least for this thread :-) could be the shocking realization that if one of the most important “laws” in physics breaks down at differing geometry – then going the other way (larger instead of smaller) we may encounter the same kind of non-linearity in inverse power laws. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
Planck's law desrcibes radiation from a blackbody, and what is a blackbody? Well it is a manufactured entity, a physical model and models don't necessarily correspond with the rest of reality. Come to think of it all natural law may simply be based on contrived models of reality. If we become seduced by our models, we will unconsciously design experiments (build models) which validate a physical law to nth decimal place and learn nothing new. harry On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Eric Walker David Roberson wrote: If you want to find the best argument for nonlinearity in inverse power laws, such as when geometry changes fairly unexpectedly (into a paradigm shift), look no further than Planck’s Law (or Theory), which is/was a proven predictor of the relationship between frequency and emitted spectral energy for blackbody radiation. Max Planck, even 100 years ago suspected that his theory was breaking down the smaller he went, but this was not easy to prove, and the later geniuses who taught physics at University ignored his doubts and cast the whole thing into a “law” since they did not want to teach “theory”, and since it worked well enough. More recently, verification of the non-linearity in the power law basis behind Planck has finally been reported at MIT, but Wiki still calls it Planck’s Law instead of Max’s kludge. http://www.physorg.com/news168101848.html Planck’s law can be written in about a dozen different ways, with many different variables, and has changed over time to “fix” problems, and is considered an inverse fourth (or fifth for wavelength) power law down to the dimensions that he was familiar with 100 years ago. We already know that at nanometer geometry and ultraviolet wavelengths - it begins to fail, and eventually is off by three orders of magnitude at the level of quantum dots.
[Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
See images and a nifty NASA video at the bottom of the page: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/get-ready-milky-way-to-collide-with-neighboring-galaxy-in-4-billion-years/257977/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2012 7:17:48 AM Subject: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision See images and a nifty NASA video at the bottom of the page: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/get-ready-milky-way-to-collide-with-neighboring-galaxy-in-4-billion-years/257977/ That's long before Sol goes Red Giant, so we'll have a clear view.
Re: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: That's long before Sol goes Red Giant, so we'll have a clear view. That's pretty exciting. Forget zombie-producing contagion or nuclear annihilation. The second video presents an apocalyptic vision of two galaxies tearing stars away from one another and flinging them off into the outer reaches of space. The accompanying text says the sun could end up in a completely different region of the galaxy, one much farther from the galactic center, but that the Earth and solar system would survive. But what if the solar system ends up in one of the star producing regions, or really far out there, effectively orphaned? Also, what are the chances of another star coming close enough to disrupt the solar system and form a binary system, sucking the earth into it as it does? What happens to a star when a planet with a bunch of heavy elements gets collides with it? Does the planet just pass through it or is it pulled apart or vaporized? The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The sun will go red giant in about 5 billion years. Will humans survive another 100 or 200 years? So all of this is academic, but still fun to think about. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2012 1:53:04 PM That's pretty exciting. Forget zombie-producing contagion or nuclear annihilation. The second video presents an apocalyptic vision of two galaxies tearing stars away from one another and flinging them off into the outer reaches of space. The accompanying text says the sun could end up in a completely different region of the galaxy, one much farther from the galactic center, but that the Earth and solar system would survive. But what if the solar system ends up in one of the star producing regions, or really far out there, effectively orphaned? Also, what are the chances of another star coming close enough to disrupt the solar system and form a binary system, sucking the earth into it as it does? What happens to a star when a planet with a bunch of heavy elements gets collides with it? Does the planet just pass through it or is it pulled apart or vaporized? The video is an external view --- showing that the centers of the two galaxies have several encounters before settling into an ellipse. Roughly Best to Worst : 1. Sol+Planets stay in a similar position. (pretty much as illustrated in the NASA slides) 2. Sol+Planets get expelled far out -- safe, an excellent view, but lonely -- for a while, though when one comes back things might get too interesting (eg #5). 3. Sol+Planets pass through a dust cloud -- they're actually pretty thin, so at most there would be more meteorites. Nothing like the bombardments in early history. Also a bit dull -- one would only see the local stars, and then either darkness or a nebula from the inside. I don't think that a new planetary disk would form. 4. Sol+Planets get disrupted, and Earth leaves the Goldilocks zone. eg binary system mentioned by Eric. 5. Sol+Planets get displaced towards the galactic center(s). Black holes merge, with associated radiation.
RE: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
Most of the comments thus far assume that both galaxies are composed of normal matter and have no prior history together. NASA has no way of knowing this, nor do they know other relevant details - like the 'type' of matter. One simply cannot discuss this subject intelligently without reference to the disputed work of R. Foot, who is kind of the R. Crumb of cosmology. http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Foot_R/0/1/0/all/0/1 When we have discussed this topic previously, Horace believes that mirror matter - MM - has negative gravitational charge, as does Foot - so this outcome of 'recombination' would be prohibited and in fact NASA's evidence for gravitational linkage is wrong. But at this point it is all conjecture, even at the highest levels - so to speak. IOW - NASA's data for all of this is weak. Some other possibilities: 1) The milky way and Andromeda are incredibly similar in size, shape, mass, apparent age, number of stars, spectroscopy, and many other physical properties... which point to something being mirrored... but could also be coincidental. It could point to a common origin (little bang) to which they are both returning, over time, due to gravitational linkage at a common nexus. 2) Another implication is that paired bodies begin as matter/mirror-matter pairs, and that the return results in something akin to annihilation of both, or at least a common starting point. This assumes only one kind of gravity. Matter/antimatter pairing may not be ruled out as the alternative explanation to mirror matter, but there are reasons to suspect that Andromeda is not an antimatter galaxy. 3) Mirror matter is pure conjecture but it is probably preferable to antimatter - since it suggests a different outcome than annihilation. 4) If the visible mass of Andromeda and the MW are supplemented by 90% more mass in the form of dark matter, then any relative peaceful coexistence in the far future is out of the question. 4) No one has a clue, really. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
In Dewey Larson's Reciprocal system of physics there is an effective ~15 femtoG repulsive acceleration throughout the universe ( it's a fundamental property of the universe ). Gravity acts against this, so when the gravitational pull of star at some distance away reaches 15 fG, the stars repel instead of attract ( The gravitational limit ). That's on the order of 4 light years away for out sun, so stars generally won't get closer than that ( to simplify ). http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/gravlim.htm http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/satz/cluster.htm ( Also, below unit distance, 45.6 nm, gravity repels and the expansion of the universe attracts! That accounts for chemical bonding and may also account for the Casimir force. ). Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 6:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision Most of the comments thus far assume that both galaxies are composed of normal matter and have no prior history together. NASA has no way of knowing this, nor do they know other relevant details - like the 'type' of matter. One simply cannot discuss this subject intelligently without reference to the disputed work of R. Foot, who is kind of the R. Crumb of cosmology. http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Foot_R/0/1/0/all/0/1 ...
