Simple Observation Or Flawed One By Layman?

[paigetheoracle]

I was watching a BBC Horizon program on British TV recently, where they talked about the big bang and theories surrounding it. One of the things that struck me was rotation curves for planets orbiting a star and within galaxies. The program said that planets showed a definite slowing of rotation, the further they got from the sun but stars in galaxies, no matter their distance from the centre, still spun at more or less the same rate. Could it be that planets are dead (passive), not able to control the pull of gravity or its rate but stars can because they are alive (self-fueled and propelled projectiles, that repel other bodies in space). Could this also explain the uniform parting of galaxies/ stars in the Electric Universe theory as opposed to the Big Bang theory (gentle repulsion, not explosion then expansion to explain the phenomena we see)? Also could gravity be caused by cooling and shrinking, pulling matter towards a central cooling point? This would explain mini-explosions (radiation) still going on and expansion plus entropy as cooling bodies/ black holes (drainage points). I'm just a layman, so I'm sure holes can be poked in my ideas but because of this I'm able to have these thoughts, without fear or favour i.e. get lost in the complexity of others more scholarly theories on the subject or fear losing funding for rebelling against current ideas.

[Eclogite]

I'm just a layman, so I'm sure holes can be poked in my ideas

That is correct. Here are some of the holes:

1. From a gravitational point of view stars and planets are equally dead, or equally alive.

2. Stars do not repel other bodies in space.

3. Stars are not propelled projectiles.

4. Explosion is a metaphor for the Big Bang, not a physcial description.

5. Gravity could not be caused by cooling and shrinking unless you can specify what is cooling and shrinking and provide some evidence that it exists.

6. Radiation could be described effectivelin many ways. Describing it as a mini-explosion is likely not one of these ways.

7. What are black holes draining and to where?

[Slinkey]

I wonder if there isn't a more prosaic reason for the speeds we see for stars near the edge of galaxies. Could it not be explained by the mutual attraction between the stars themselves dragging each other around? The nearest star to the Sun, Proxima Centauri (4.2421 light years distant), is affected by the Suns gravity. I worked out that the escape velocity of the Sun at 4.2421 light years is 81.3 m/s. ie. even at that distance, if you were stationary with respect to the Sun you will still need to move at 81.3 m/s to escape its influence. The acceleration on you from the Sun at that distance is however miniscule at 8.24 x 10^-14 m/s^2.

 

I would imagine these calculations have been done by astronomers but I can't recall actually having ever read that they have used them to create a model of galaxy motion.

[Qfwfq]

If Mercury weren't going fast enough, it wouldn't keep going round and round, it would go plunging into the sun instead. If the outer planets were going too fast, they wouldn't keep going around, they would go straighter and get further and further away from the sun.

 

That's because the sun's gravitational field is much weaker out ther than where Mercury and Venus are. Which in turn is because tha sun's mass isn't spead out through the solar system. The planets have little to no effect on each other in comparison with the sun on each of them. The stars in a galaxy are going through a thick sludge of other stars, the galactic mass is much more spread out, the gravitational field doesn't fall of as the inverse square of distance.

 

So there's a handsome difference between the sun's gravitational field at the distance of Mercury and at the distance of Neptune, less difference in the galactic field at different distances because when you are closer to its centre there are many stars pulling you outward. No stars are pushing you, but many of them are pulling you outward more than inward.