rethinker
26th March 2007 - 08:15 PM
OldWoman
Nick has a good point.
We can not see clear enough to know.
This may be disappointing to us right now, but I think after we are not hanging out in our physical state, we may know more. Maybe we will even understand all of it then.
QUOTE
Electromagnetic burst--im not even sure if that is the right term either--
You may be talking about this.
A distant star that blasted Earth with a 5-minute flare of gamma and X-rays in August 1998 turns out to have been almost 10 times more powerful than previously thought, say researchers at Stanford and the University of California-Berkeley.
Solar flares on the sun originate in the corona, the outermost part of the sun's atmosphere. The corona's temperature is about two million degrees Fahrenheit, while the sun's surface, called the photosphere, is only about 6,000 degrees. The flare itself is a burst of radiation across much of the electromagnetic spectrum, from low-energy radio waves through high-energy X-rays. The X-ray emission can last up to a few minutes on the sun; on II Pegasi it lasted for several hours.
[URL=http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2000/january5/starpower-15.html]
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Electromagnetic burst--im not even sure if that is the right term either-- |
You may be talking about this.
A distant star that blasted Earth with a 5-minute flare of gamma and X-rays in August 1998 turns out to have been almost 10 times more powerful than previously thought, say researchers at Stanford and the University of California-Berkeley.
Solar flares on the sun originate in the corona, the outermost part of the sun's atmosphere. The corona's temperature is about two million degrees Fahrenheit, while the sun's surface, called the photosphere, is only about 6,000 degrees. The flare itself is a burst of radiation across much of the electromagnetic spectrum, from low-energy radio waves through high-energy X-rays. The X-ray emission can last up to a few minutes on the sun; on II Pegasi it lasted for several hours.
[URL=http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2000/january5/starpower-15.html]
And about the shape of galaxies--i know some are round and fluffy--
Here is something of intrest on that.
ITHACA, N.Y. ---- A Cornell University-led team operating the Infrared Spectrograph (IRS), the largest of the three main instruments on NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, has discovered a mysterious population of distant and enormously powerful galaxies radiating in the infrared spectrum with many hundreds of times more power than our Milky Way galaxy. Their distance from Earth is about 11 billion light years, or 80 percent of the way back to the Big Bang.
Cornell University
kjw
26th March 2007 - 09:15 PM
OldWoman1904 did you read the links because they give an explanation to What is their energy source? etc
Galactic formation you should start with something basic like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy#Types_and_morphology and depending on how much more technical you want to go then
http://www.astro.unibas.ch/~samland/chemodyn/chemodyn.shtml is tidy
galactic wobble .... hmmm maybe that could be your research topic ... I guess they would since it depends on the distribution of matter around its galactic plane, and since this distribution is not uniform I guess they would have a wobble, but consider this, it takes approx 225 million years for our sun to orbit the center of the milky way ie a cosmic year, how would you detect a wobble in one of our life times ? so evidence would be limited. you would need to rely on theory and models ie plot all matter in milky way and turn up the speed.
our sun would certainly not be the last thing to go cold, in our solar system maybe, but in the galaxy or universe definitely not.
solar core well its a region where the nuclei of hydrogen atoms (protons) are squashed together to form helium, and through E=mc2 energy is released, it is a ball of hydrogen plasma. there are other minor reactions taking place, but the proton-proton is the main one. once again start simple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core and go from there.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/ is very active.
Zephir
26th March 2007 - 10:13 PM
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Mar 26 2007, 07:01 AM)
The images that I've seen look like galaxies with a spider web structure
Here are two main possible mechanisms of formation of such web structure of both observable, both dark matter, the
AWT uses both of them.
By
AWT the Universe is formed by the interior of some giant dense star, similar to black hole. The star has collapsed during so called "Big Bang" and during this moment the spherical areas of condensing vacuum has collapsed into shock zones of spongy shape. The centers of collapsed zones have created a giant droplets of highly compressed metastable matter, so called quasars. After releasing of pressure, these quasars have expanded and they evaporated most of excessive matter into theirs neighborhood via gamma radiation. After the radiation excited the gravitation field of quasars, it has partially recombined back again into observable matter under formation of interstellar gas, which has collapsed into stars and galaxies. It seems, the process of matter formation was quite nontrivial.
The another, smaller part of matter has appeared in the finely divided state over whole cosmic space and it occasionally collapsed by gravitation into smaller galaxies.
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Mar 26 2007, 07:01 AM)
Quasars, you say active? What is their energy source?
By
AWT the quasars are so called "white holes". The black holes cannot be larger, then some 4 millions of solar mass. The larger black hole will evaporate quite readily into radiation and they can be observed like quasars. Like I've said, the source of theirs energy is the inflation, i.e. phase transform of vacuum, which has occurred briefly after Big Bang. The black holes at the centers of most the galaxies are cold remnants of these quasars, which are in metastable thermodynamic equilibrium with the rest of vacuum.
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Mar 26 2007, 07:01 AM)
why our galaxy, spiral galaxies in general, are so flat and why don't they wobble?
Some gallaxies aren't flat at all, while the giant quasars formed ones are flat. Like most black holes, the quasars are spinning fast, so the centrifugal force speed-up their evaporation in equatorial plane. You can bring up the wet sphere, covered by thin layer of water. If you turn the sphere into fast spinning, the water will spatter in thin equatorial ring, so it will create a flat disk around sphere, if we consider the limited speed of such spreading.
Most of gallaxies wobble by observable way, just slowly, so you can ask, why the Saturn rings doesn't wobble, too. Well, here are no external forces, which are causing the precession of gyroscopes in gravitational field. Due the limited speed and strenght of gravity, the stars in gallaxy are just very weakly bounded together.
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Mar 26 2007, 07:01 AM)
And what is in the very center of the sun?
Some theories are considering, the center of Sun is formed by vaporised iron and other heavy elements, mixed with hydrogen, helium and other elements. But the properties of iron plasma doesn't differs very much from the properties of carbon vapor or hydrogen plasma under such conditions. Such plasma should have a elastic spongy structure, which spreads the energy by radiation. Maybe it contains some metastable gravitationally bounded artifacts, similar to giant atoms and atom nuclei (it has a density of 150 kg per cubic centimeter due the immense pressure). Despite of high temperature (some 15 mils K at the Sun core), the density of heat production is surprisingly low, just a few watts per cubic meter of solar plasma. The human body is apparently a more intensive source of heat, then the
Sun core.
rethinker
26th March 2007 - 11:47 PM
Zephir
I did not understand your last sentence.
QUOTE
The human body is apparently a more intensive source of heat, then the Sun core.
intensive (comparative more intensive, superlative most intensive
1. thorough, to a great degree, with intensity (hence intensive care)
2. demanding, requiring a great amount (hence labor-intensive)
intensive can you clarify what you mean?
Zephir
27th March 2007 - 12:29 AM
QUOTE (rethinker+Mar 27 2007, 02:47 AM)
intensive (comparative more intensive, superlative most intensive
My English is pretty weak, but from the
link above quoted follows:
At the temperatures and densities in the solar core the rates of fusion reactions are extremely slow. For example, at solar core temperature (T ~ 15 MK) and density (~150 g/cm3), the energy release rate is only ~11 W/m3 for the core (~0.25 W/m3 for the sun) - millions of times less than the rate of energy release of ordinary candles and hundreds of times less than the rate at which a human body generates heat. Thus, reproduction of stellar core conditions in a lab for nuclear fusion power production is completely impractical.From the above the another interesting insight follows, the energy density production isn't very dependent on the scale throughput whole Universe. For example, the density of largest black holes is surprisingly low, if we consider the Schwartzild solution of event horiont for the black holes of quasar scale and comparable with those of common stars. It's the time measure, what makes the energy source intensive, not the distance scale. We can consider the human scale size as the most time intensive scale of the Universe, this is a reason, why the Universe evolution is most pronounced here. The human scale is the nearly exact average of the smallest and the largest space-time curvature possible (i.e. the Planck scale and the observable Universe diameter).
rethinker
27th March 2007 - 11:38 AM
Thanks Zephir that helps.
Well I hope the ol girl hasn't stood us up.
It ain't often us old fellows set a table up with lots of choices!
OldWoman1904
27th March 2007 - 02:57 PM
this is going to take a minute...................
OldWoman1904
27th March 2007 - 03:07 PM
QUOTE (kjw+Mar 26 2007, 09:15 PM)
OldWoman1904 did you read the links because they give an explanation to What is their energy source? etc
Yeah right--energy source.........
yes i "read" the links
I'm not 12 okay.
But thanks for the science fair notes.
OldWoman1904
27th March 2007 - 03:11 PM
Zephir----
Thank you amigo!!!
It's going to take me two days to comprehend
Electric current through plasma?
Is that it?
Is that what charge is?
So no fusion in the sun's core?
The source of current is in the center?
OldWoman1904
27th March 2007 - 03:17 PM
Zephir------
I'm going to read your post again.....and again.....(ill have to get the dictionary)
and then I'm gonna ask you some more questions......
if you don't mind.....
Later
kjw
27th March 2007 - 08:57 PM
QUOTE
OldWoman1904 Posted: Yesterday at 2:57 AM Report this post · Quote Is this just because of differences in progress? Are spiral galaxies "older"?
i was reading and your question was being discussed. it was discussed that the ages of nearby galaxies are of the same order, independent of galaxy type. the differing gas content and proportion on young stars is more likely an indication of differing rates of star formation, with all galaxies being the of about the same age of about 10^10 years. "Cosmology 3rd Edition Michael Rowan-Robinson"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| OldWoman1904 Posted: Yesterday at 2:57 AM Report this post · Quote Is this just because of differences in progress? Are spiral galaxies "older"? |
i was reading and your question was being discussed. it was discussed that the ages of nearby galaxies are of the same order, independent of galaxy type. the differing gas content and proportion on young stars is more likely an indication of differing rates of star formation, with all galaxies being the of about the same age of about 10^10 years. "Cosmology 3rd Edition Michael Rowan-Robinson"
OldWoman1904 Posted: Yesterday at 2:57 AM Report this post · Quote Nobdy will tell me why our galaxy, spiral galaxies in general, are so flat
the next chapter (tonight's read) is about why our galaxy (and this is a feature of elliptical galaxies) is flat. a quick glance gives a quick answer, elliptic galaxies are flat because they rotate.
I'll let you know of any other "wow" moments
OldWoman1904
27th March 2007 - 10:12 PM
oh because they rotate
you know what------i have just about had it with you people
what is it about intelligence and ego that just turn sour?
You geeks are no different than body builders in spandex-flexing in the mirror and wondering who's watching
you guys are so busy outdoing one another that you dont work for the better good of the whole as efficiently as you could
forget you geeks
adios
kjw
27th March 2007 - 11:00 PM
QUOTE
OldWoman1904 Posted: Today at 8:12 AM Report this post · Quote oh because they rotate you know what------i have just about had it with you people what is it about intelligence and ego that just turn sour?
hey hey calm down I said
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| OldWoman1904 Posted: Today at 8:12 AM Report this post · Quote oh because they rotate you know what------i have just about had it with you people what is it about intelligence and ego that just turn sour? |
hey hey calm down I said
kjw Posted on Today at 6:57 AM QUOTE the next chapter (tonight's read) is about why our galaxy (and this is a feature of elliptical galaxies) is flat. a quick glance gives a quick answer, elliptic galaxies are flat because they rotate I'll let you know of any other "wow" moments
my answer was not based on what I already know, it was based on what I'm about to read. It was no show of ego, it was a sign that if the book I'm reading offers a more elaborate answer, I'll let you know
I'm not trying to outdo anybody, I am telling you I dont know why elliptic galaxies are flat but I'm reading a book that can answer the question and in time I'll let you know more, but for now I thought I would have a quick skim of the chapter I order to satisfy your need for an answer.
If you do come back you will see another post from me giving a more detailed answer to your question.
its a shame you would rather explode in rage and overlook that someone is trying to help rather than talk it through
OldWoman1904
28th March 2007 - 02:29 AM
You are so right.....
I am sorry for that....
my chemicals just get goin you know?
I'm not really mad, angry....well...that's a lie...but who cares..
I know the galaxies spin -- but i do wonder what type of axis they are on?
I did wonder if they wobble, someone said they do.......
I have more questions
Forgive me
I wont be emotional any more
#1 Because everything is organized, it looks like the universe could be running from some type of program.......do you think there is a program somewhere?
Where would you look for that program?
Or do you think the program is being written as time ticks on?
#2 about charge---i dont get it
is charge current? positive--negative?
i dont get it--are those directions of flow?
#3
in the core of the sun, or earth, are there any speculations that a crystalline form may exist? Because of the pressure?
#4 I know plasma is ionized gas...
ionized is a balance between charge and what? Mass? Matter?
#5
about spin---galaxies do it, electrons do it,,orbits....everything is spinning right?
is this a result of a difference, an imbalance?
#6 at the core of a planet, or the sun, would one find a sphere or a disk, or a ring? or a crystal?
kjw
28th March 2007 - 07:58 AM
QUOTE
OldWoman1904 Posted: Yesterday at 2:57 AM Report this post · Quote Nobdy will tell me why our galaxy, spiral galaxies in general, are so flat
the book I was reading did not explain it....
think of what happens when uncooked pizza crust is hand-tossed in the air. as it rotates it flattens. we can use this experience to understand why rotating galaxies flatten out, but what started the rotation to begin with...
this can help explain why
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0126626/evo...%20galaxies.htm but you may need to read more on conservation of angular momentum
is there a program ? well first we need to decide if there is a programmer. no programmer no program. although there are physical laws that keep the place running consistently, could this be considered a program ?
charge - is a difference in electrical potential. static charge for example as you walk across a carpet, electrons move from the carpet to you. you now have a negative static charge. make contact with something conductive, say a door knob and the electrons jump from you to the knob, and you feel the static shock. you are right the +/- thing is just a way to keep track of where all these electrons go, accounting type stuff
OldWoman1904
28th March 2007 - 05:27 PM
kjw---thanks for the link---looks great--i saved it and im going to read it later....
thanks amigo!
I still don't get charge---potential
is it potential? Flow? Current?
Other forms of energy are converted into charge? Like burning coal for example? Combustion......
I suppose what confuses me is energy itself? It takes on different forms, dissapates--
is it ever lost?
What is the particle that contains this potential?
OldWoman1904
28th March 2007 - 05:34 PM
wait, youre going to say its an electron........
forget it..........
I dont believe in fairies or electrons anyway............
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
