Gravity and a giant gas cloud

[HydrogenBond]

I am writing this to stimulate discussion. If we had a huge galaxy size cloud of hydrogen gas, that had a center of gravity that was slightly denser, one would expect it to collapse/rotate due to gravity. But this assumes inert mass. As a better approximation of what should happen, let us assume the hydrogen has the properties of an ideal gas, as the second approximation.

 

With hydrogen a small atom and the hydrogen molecule a small molecule, there are ideal gas based countering affects relative to the direction of gravity. For example, a gas will flow from high temperature and high pressure to lower temperature and lower pressure. That means the initial center of gravity, by having extra density or gas pressure will create a potential to diffuse toward the perimeter. The center won't stay put for long but will abort as the center of gravity. There are also entropy considerations with maximum entropy being expressed if the cloud can diffuse into empty space so it can get thinning and thinning.

 

Gravity and the GR wells created in the fabric of space-time, are not just dependant on mass, but also mass density. Relative to the original cloud, we don't have much mass density (mass-distance), so the initial well at the center of gravity is more like a tiny puddle that will keep evaporating due to pressure and entropy of an ideal gas. Is there a critical mass density required for the ideal gas cloud before we could expect a collapse due to gravity?

 

The first approximation of inert mass only needs a center of gravity that is slightly denser. Mass density is not a factor. The second approximation makes the mass an ideal gas which is not exactly inert to temperature, pressure and entropy, which all outweigh gravity at low mass density. One will not expect rarefied space to suddenly form a star for example. The third approximation will add some other things. But for now, just look at and compare one and two.

[Pluto]

Happy New year from the land of ozzzzzzzz

 

You may find this interesting reading

 

[0811.1554] Galaxies appear simpler than expected

 

Galaxies appear simpler than expected

 

Authors: M. J. Disney, J. D. Romano, D. A. Garcia-Appadoo, A. A. West, J. J. Dalcanton, L. Cortese

(Submitted on

10 Nov 2008

)

 

 

Abstract: Galaxies are complex systems the evolution of which apparently results from the interplay of dynamics, star formation, chemical enrichment, and feedback from supernova explosions and supermassive black holes. The hierarchical theory of galaxy formation holds that galaxies are assembled from smaller pieces, through numerous mergers of cold dark matter. The properties of an individual galaxy should be controlled by six independent parameters including mass, angular-momentum, baryon-fraction, age and size, as well as by the accidents of its recent haphazard merger history. Here we report that a sample of galaxies that were first detected through their neutral hydrogen radio-frequency emission, and are thus free of optical selection effects, shows five independent correlations among six independent observables, despite having a wide range of properties. This implies that the structure of these galaxies must be controlled by a single parameter, although we cannot identify this parameter from our dataset. Such a degree of organisation appears to be at odds with hierarchical galaxy formation, a central tenet of the cold dark matter paradigm in cosmology.

 

and

 

[0811.2408] An 84 microGauss Magnetic Field in a Galaxy at Redshift z=0.692

An 84 microGauss Magnetic Field in a Galaxy at Redshift z=0.692

 

Authors: Arthur M. Wolfe, Regina A. Jorgenson, Timothy Robishaw, Carl Heiles, Jason X. Prochaska

(Submitted on 14 Nov 2008)

 

Abstract: The magnetic field pervading our Galaxy is a crucial constituent of the interstellar medium: it mediates the dynamics of interstellar clouds, the energy density of cosmic rays, and the formation of stars. The field associated with ionized interstellar gas has been determined through observations of pulsars in our Galaxy. Radio-frequency measurements of pulse dispersion and the rotation of the plane of linear polarization, i.e., Faraday rotation, yield an average value B ~ 3 microGauss. The possible detection of Faraday rotation of linearly polarized photons emitted by high-redshift quasars suggests similar magnetic fields are present in foreground galaxies with redshifts z > 1. As Faraday rotation alone, however, determines neither the magnitude nor the redshift of the magnetic field, the strength of galactic magnetic fields at redshifts z > 0 remains uncertain. Here we report a measurement of a magnetic field of B ~ 84 microGauss in a galaxy at z =0.692, using the same Zeeman-splitting technique that revealed an average value of B = 6 microGauss in the neutral interstellar gas of our Galaxy. This is unexpected, as the leading theory of magnetic field generation, the mean-field dynamo model, predicts large-scale magnetic fields to be weaker in the past rather than stronger.

[HydrogenBond]

I was not looking for final theories, right away. But rather I was trying to build thinking from scratch. The first approximation of a center of gravity, using inert matter, would form galaxies given enough time. All we need is a density discontinuity to act as a center of gravity. If we add the second approximation of an ideal gas, this is not a slam dunk. It comes down to mass density of the ideal gas, with the first galaxies needing to form early in the expansion of the universe or else the mass density would fall below the critical level. Such early galaxies have been observed, as the starting seed for higher atoms which changes the ideal gas into one that is not ideal. If you form oxygen and then water attractive force appear at higher temperature.

 

Things like black holes create a chicken or the egg paradox. If we start with a thin cloud of ideal gas, we need gravity to make the black holes, which will make the galaxy. To avoid this chicken or the egg paradox some black holes had to appear right out of the BB. We skip steps in logic to avoid the difficult questions if we use the first two approximations. But with the first approximation there is not any problem.

 

Belovelife added the variable needed for the third approximation. An ideal gas poses problems, unless the seed galaxies and stars formed early when density was high. The third approximation adds a phase change of the gas into liquid or solid to get rid of the ideal gas. Now we have something that is again closer to the first approximation. On the earth's surface, isolated hydrogen atoms are very rare. A lower energy configuration is H2 at ambient conditions.

 

If we cool toward absolute zero, we get liquid and solid H2 from H2 gas. These provide stable centers of gravity, with H2 no longer acting as an ideal gas. But you have the practical problem of solid H2 eventually melting and boiling if the pressure and temperature gets too high within a center of gravity. Eventually this will occur above a few degrees above absolute zero. Now we get the ideal gas problem again that will evacuate the center of gravity, unless the mass density was made high enough during the phase change of the third approximation. If you assume solid H2 boiling in the center of gravity, while other solid H2 is collapsing. due to the critical mass density, we get shear and circulations due to opposing directions. It forms eddies instead of easy escape.

[Pluto]

Happy New year from the land of ozzzz

 

H'bond said

 

I was not looking for final theories, right away. But rather I was trying to build thinking from scratch. The first approximation of a center of gravity, using inert matter, would form galaxies given enough time.

 

You have got otbe joking.

[belovelife]

well would this be assuming the first formation in the entire universe

or not

if it was the first it has way different varyables then not

[Pluto]

Happy New Year from the land of ozzzz

 

Formation from what?

[HydrogenBond]

Here is my theory.

 

If you look at our solar system, the observation of the inner planets being higher in heavy materials, followed by an asteroid belt, then by more gaseous planets, suggests our sun is the second manifestation of an original star, Sun I, which went nova, but less than super nova. What formed was the modern Sun II, and our solar system.

 

If we gave all the materials in expanding Sun I, the same kinetic energy, such that all the material had the same momentum, which is MV, the heaviest materials would have the slowest velocity and should stay closer to the original center. What we have today is Sun II, with planets. This explains the low ratio of supernova to heavy planets.

 

One thing that suggested this scenario are the observation of sun spots and solar flares within our modern sun. The easiest explanation for these phenomena are solar flares represent a fuel surge and sun spots represent fuel starving. Both appear to occur at the local level and can be correlated to local rate of diffusion of fuel to the inner fusion core.

 

The analogy is a fireman opening a door to a building fire. The air flows in and we get an explosion or backdraft; solar flare coming out the open door. On the other hand, if there was a building fire with all open doors and you shut one, that area will use up the air faster. It is still be hot but the fire will go down. This gives us sun spots.

 

Relative to Sun I, there was a huge backdraft which caused Sun I to send a lot of material into space. It was sort of a fusion hammer affect that breaks open windows and doors, but the basic building structure was still standing. The sun represents about 99% of the mass of the solar system. It only had to break out the windows to make the rest of the solar system.

 

What could caused fuel restriction to set up massive fusion hammer? Logically, it has to do with packing density. If we compare atoms on earth the volumes are very close so atomic mass decides higher or lower density. But with fully ionized and partially ionized atoms, partially ionized can have a lower density even with higher nuclear mass, because of inner orbital electrons adds to the effective volume. The analogy is a steel boat floating on less dense water since it volume is more than just the solid steel.

 

Relative to Sun I, the floating shell got a little too thick. As the core starved for fuel, due to diffusion restriction, it begins to cool. This cools the shell, which means more electrons will deionize, making the shell thicker and thicker as electron deionize onto more and more atoms. At that point, Sun I looks like it is almost entirely covered in sun spots. Gravity begins to takes over and collapses the shell, super heating the core but without fuel. We have this super hot building smoldering without air, with the outside looking calm. All we need to do is open a window and boom. There is a massive fusion hammer. The link below discusses matter ejection and star formation. In the case of Sun I, it got dark but then reformed into Sun II after it cleaned out the pipes. The pipes were full of planets, moons and asteroid stuff.

 

Explosive ejection of matter associated with star formation in the Orion nebula

[palmtreepathos]

Thanks HydrogenBond for starting this thread and others for their ruminations, fascinating thoughts. I probably understand only 1/10th of what you say it still stirs my thoughts on the awesome processes around our planetary neighborhood and beyond. =-)

 

This is my favorite video clip online(takes a couple minutes to load on mine even with DSL). I watch it in full screen whenever I need a peaceful moment but belovelife's thought about something "more like a lightning bolt less like a tornado " reminded me of it. In the 25 day rotation of the SuninUV there are both solar hurricanes and lightening bolts(30 sec mark-8 o'clock position), just awesome. This leads to a second video clip(low quality phone video) that I would have thought was a hoax if I had not seen the SuninUV clip.... carry on!

 

http://www.orbitingfrog.com/blog/movies/SuninUV.mpg

 

YouTube - object coming in and out of the sun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fLd2nC4hvg&feature=related

[modest]

This leads to a second video clip(low quality phone video) that I would have thought was a hoax if I had not seen the SuninUV clip...

 

 

Lens flare, that is. Notice it moves with the motion of the camera.

 

~modest

[modest]

If we had a huge galaxy size cloud of hydrogen gas, that had a center of gravity that was slightly denser, one would expect it to collapse/rotate due to gravity...

 

Gravity and the GR wells created in the fabric of space-time, are not just dependant on mass, but also mass density. Relative to the original cloud, we don't have much mass density (mass-distance), so the initial well at the center of gravity is more like a tiny puddle that will keep evaporating due to pressure and entropy of an ideal gas.

 

A sphere of gas of uniform density will collapse. It does not need a high density area in the middle. The center of a sphere of uniform density has higher gravitational potential than the perimeter or the edge, so it will collapse.

 

~modest

[HydrogenBond]

A solar flare contains a lot of energy to push all the way from the core of the sun to beyond the surface. This is also true of an explosive ejection of matter often seen happening within emerging stars. The question was, what is the simplest way to get a powerful pulse of energy, but in a localized way, instead of a uniform way like a supernova? A supernova ejects matter but everywhere at the same time. This mechanism is not specific enough for a localized matter ejection.

 

I used to work in a lab that had an explosion wall, which was a wall designed to be weaker than the rest of the concrete bunker. It was designed to direct an explosion into the parking lot, if there was the unlikely event of an explosion. If all the walls had the same strength, the explosion would be uniform and could take out the office building and the parking lot. The idea of fuel diffusion limitation and a local fuel surge satisfies the requirements. Where fuel diffusion finds a breech and floods the super heated core, there is also a weak spot. That is where the building will blow out to release the energy.

 

This thinking seemed to indicate a protective bunker around the primary fusion core but with blow out windows. One way to do this is with heavier atoms. But the traditional thinking says heavier atoms will sink and not float and therefore not form a barrier. The needed requirement was partial ionization, to create a hollow around dense nuclei because of restricted electron space. The result is analogous to a ship's hull, so heavy nuclei can float on top of lighter. If we assume a local fuel surge followed by a localized explosion, I called this fusion hammer. This explosive hammer will blow out a wall for an localized explosion ejection. The result was sun I knocking out a big wall, with the concrete bunker still standing to form sun II and the planets.

[belovelife]

hmm

i was pondering the fact that the impetali process creating gravity may have a hole

the relation ship of the time being ether to m/am pairs would be an issue

until i realized that the electron shell has a very large distance to the nucleus

so the intense magnetic field would be at the core

and at the edge of the atoms electron shell

the amount of magnetism would be alot less

 

similar to the point where you hold 2 magnets and you can feel an attraction

then you get to the edge of that point and that is the edge of the electron shell

[belovelife]

http://www.nasa.gov/mov/299642main_CAS_A_with_zooms_purple_sm_web.mov

 

wow according to this the hydrogen that is affected by the reaction

is several light years away from the reaction, and moving,

i wonder if the hydrogen was present or moving,

or this is the photons and electrons (lightning?)

actually being recorded in frame rate

like timing a runner around a track

[belovelife]

Nebula Within A Cluster - The unique planetary nebula NGC 2818 is nested inside the open star cluster NGC 2818A. Both the cluster and the nebula reside over 10,000 light-years away, in the southern constellation Pyxis (the Compass). Science Gallery

 

wow this is an eccelent photo that also supports my hypothesis

[belovelife]

now a nuetron would be the ether that change to a magnetically nuetral state

 

instead of going through the impetali process, it mutated to neither

m/am, but instead a combination of both

[belovelife]

now take plutonium

 

At this level of matter plutonium is semi-stable (depending on the isotope).

So the impetali process is going on, although, the electron shell is not enough to stabalize it fully.

Where hydrogen is stablized because the impetali process is at a nuetral state.

As plutonium decays, and shoots nuetrons, it replaces them through destablization

of the the next plutonium atom (half life).

Impetali changes to radiation and nuetrons.

[belovelife]

In which case, plutonium would be the decay of

my theoretical element, (188 plus),

that would have inherent very strong magnetic properties.

These would be on the level exponential in intensity, away from any element we currently have, use, and understand.

This element could theoretically bend space time,.

(no availible data on this element)