Understanding and the limits of conception

[Nokton]

Imagine a great wheel rotating in space, like a bicycle wheel.
The rotational speed at the outer rim equals lightspeed.
Alberts equation is invoked, the outer rim is now just energy.
What happens to the spokes of the wheel, rotating at less
than lightspeed? Do they fall apart, or maintain a coherent relationship
with the now changed matter of the rim? If the latter, is matter and energy related to an extent we not understand as yet?
Nokton.

[dmill1220]

Originally Posted by Nokton

Imagine a great wheel rotating in space, like a bicycle wheel.
The rotational speed at the outer rim equals lightspeed.
Alberts equation is invoked, the outer rim is now just energy.
What happens to the spokes of the wheel, rotating at less
than lightspeed? Do they fall apart, or maintain a coherent relationship
with the now changed matter of the rim? If the latter, is matter and energy related to an extent we not understand as yet?
Nokton.

HI Peter,
Its good to hear from you again my friend.
I am having trouble with your scenario, specifically, having the rim acheive the speed of light.

Its the old E=MC*2 that keeps me from accepting that this scenario is even plausible.

The rim can never achieve the speed of light due to this famous equation, for it would have to have infinite mass and infinite energy to come even close.
My present understandng is that your wheel would have to take up the whole universe, not to mention all of the energy in it also.
But an analogy can be made by using a spiral galaxy with the outer rim of the stars moving within the boundaries of Einsteins formula.

Now here is were I believe there is another problem.
Dr. Vera Rubin discovered a big discrepancy with the rotational speeds of stars orbiting their host galaxy, the stars are not moving the way our physics predict that they should be moving.
Her results showing and plotting the rotational curves can not be dismissed.

The implications are that either we need to modify our physics at the grand scale of galaxies or, that we are missing part of the picture.

I find it very interesting that we had to modify our physics at the micro scale of particle physics, why not at large scales also?
instead of reviewing our science and present Newtonian and Relativistic laws and principles, our science has instead refused to admit that something is amiss with our current understanding, and they have opted to instead make up stuff like dark matter and Dark energy to explain our observations.

To have to make something up like dark matter seems to me like its a huge leap of logic made up in order to explain our observations.

Another point that I find confusing is that gravity can affect photons either thru the bending of light such as in gravitational lensing (warping of spacetime) which was predicted by Einstein and confirmed thru observations, or the gravitational redshifting of light.
My present understanding is that a photon has no mass yet gravity can affect it by warping the space near a massive object. the light simply follows the curved space time created by the gravitational mass.

since the speed of light squared, is used in his famous equation and, gravity exists everwhere and, it can bend light or redshift it, why isnt gravity included in the relativistic formula?

It seems that we really dont have a grasp of what gravity really is made up of, and we still do not understand its full cumulative effects at the giant scale of the Universe. until we can solve gravity completely by detecting gravitons or gravity waves or particles, How can science jump to conclusions?

I would love to be able to grasp this whole realtivity problem with gravity bieng a big part of this problem.

I am no scientist but my intuition tells me something is wrong or missing.
again this may just be my limited knowledge of relativity

Dennis

[Nokton]

Originally Posted by dmill1220

HI Peter,
Its good to hear from you again my friend.
I am having trouble with your scenario, specifically, having the rim acheive the speed of light.

Its the old E=MC*2 that keeps me from accepting that this scenario is even plausible.

The rim can never achieve the speed of light due to this famous equation, for it would have to have infinite mass and infinite energy to come even close.
My present understandng is that your wheel would have to take up the whole universe, not to mention all of the energy in it also.
But an analogy can be made by using a spiral galaxy with the outer rim of the stars moving within the boundaries of Einsteins formula.

Now here is were I believe there is another problem.
Dr. Vera Rubin discovered a big discrepancy with the rotational speeds of stars orbiting their host galaxy, the stars are not moving the way our physics predict that they should be moving.
Her results showing and plotting the rotational curves can not be dismissed.

The implications are that either we need to modify our physics at the grand scale of galaxies or, that we are missing part of the picture.

I find it very interesting that we had to modify our physics at the micro scale of particle physics, why not at large scales also?
instead of reviewing our science and present Newtonian and Relativistic laws and principles, our science has instead refused to admit that something is amiss with our current understanding, and they have opted to instead make up stuff like dark matter and Dark energy to explain our observations.

To have to make something up like dark matter seems to me like its a huge leap of logic made up in order to explain our observations.

Another point that I find confusing is that gravity can affect photons either thru the bending of light such as in gravitational lensing (warping of spacetime) which was predicted by Einstein and confirmed thru observations, or the gravitational redshifting of light.
My present understanding is that a photon has no mass yet gravity can affect it by warping the space near a massive object. the light simply follows the curved space time created by the gravitational mass.

since the speed of light squared, is used in his famous equation and, gravity exists everwhere and, it can bend light or redshift it, why isnt gravity included in the relativistic formula?

It seems that we really dont have a grasp of what gravity really is made up of, and we still do not understand its full cumulative effects at the giant scale of the Universe. until we can solve gravity completely by detecting gravitons or gravity waves or particles, How can science jump to conclusions?

I would love to be able to grasp this whole realtivity problem with gravity bieng a big part of this problem.

I am no scientist but my intuition tells me something is wrong or missing.
again this may just be my limited knowledge of relativity

Dennis

Dennis, the wheel is a concept, it does not have to be big at all.
Its speed of rotation is all. Am aware of Dr. Vera Rubins findings.
And yes, in our arrogance, we are missing a part of the picture.
The part of the picture I am refering to Dennis, is the dynamics
that effect the gas cloud surrounding a forming star.
You have touched upon one important aspect, gravity.
The birth of the new star would expel gas and matter away from it,
the new stars rotational speed would also speed up the outflung matter
via it's gravitational effects, so it is with galaxies. The rotational speed
at the outer rim is determined by the creation of the super massive black
hole at the centre.Hope you understand the implication.....
Dennis, conventional wisdom teaches us that accretion formed the planets, so why the asteroid belt did not?
Because we are so so slow to understand.
Nice to see you, old friend, how is your boat?
More important, how are you?...
Peter.

[dmill1220]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for asking, I'm doing ok for the time being, I just have to stay out of the heat with my MS, so my boating and fishing is done at night.

Peter, I have a link to a site that you should read regarding the association of Black holes and the rotation speed of galaxies,especially the speed of stars at the rim, http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s7.htm

As far as the asteroid belt origins, I have read that there is not enough mass in the asteroid belt, for it to have been a planet which may have been destroyed in the past, strangely enough I find its location a bit intriguing.

I can't help but thinking of the origins of our Moon, and how this may be tied into the origin of our asteroid belt.

From what I understand there were many more bodies orbiting our Sun when it was first formed than the planets we see today, these objects were of all different sizes, some were flung into the sun, some were sent out of the system, while others were simply absorbed via impacts (accretion) with the current existing planets.

In my mind there is something missing with this theory, its the Orbital motion of our star in our own galaxy, that concerns me, its the Z axis oscillation (the crossing of our sun back and forth through a galactic arms) and our spring like movement up and down through the dense galactic plane.
such motion, in my mind, could be responsible for not only the creation of our star Sol, by gravitationally collapsing the gas cloud that made up our sun, but it could also be the engine for the Orpheus oblique impact theory that may have created our Moon, plus several mass extinction events.

I don't understand why the asteroid belt which lies between Mars and Jupiter couldn't have been a very small dwarf planet before an impact event, triggered by our orbital motion around our galaxy, causing gravitational perturbations and interactions with other unseen objects in our path as we orbited our galaxy, or debris from an unknown encounter while we orbited our galaxy.

This to me would explain not only the asteroid belt but also the Kuiper belt objects. it seems a little weird that objects were able to condense into dwarf planets in the kuiper belt but not in our asteroid belt.

It would seem to me that either the kuiper belt objects were captured or were formed by the unknown gravitational effects that we may have encountered by other objects in our path around the galaxy.


after I learned of our suns motion around our galaxy, it just occurred to my untrained mind that this could explain a lot of things.

Dennis

[Nokton]

Originally Posted by dmill1220

Hi Peter,

Thanks for asking, I'm doing ok for the time being, I just have to stay out of the heat with my MS, so my boating and fishing is done at night.

Peter, I have a link to a site that you should read regarding the association of Black holes and the rotation speed of galaxies,especially the speed of stars at the rim, http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s7.htm

As far as the asteroid belt origins, I have read that there is not enough mass in the asteroid belt, for it to have been a planet which may have been destroyed in the past, strangely enough I find its location a bit intriguing.

I can't help but thinking of the origins of our Moon, and how this may be tied into the origin of our asteroid belt.

From what I understand there were many more bodies orbiting our Sun when it was first formed than the planets we see today, these objects were of all different sizes, some were flung into the sun, some were sent out of the system, while others were simply absorbed via impacts (accretion) with the current existing planets.

In my mind there is something missing with this theory, its the Orbital motion of our star in our own galaxy, that concerns me, its the Z axis oscillation (the crossing of our sun back and forth through a galactic arms) and our spring like movement up and down through the dense galactic plane.
such motion, in my mind, could be responsible for not only the creation of our star Sol, by gravitationally collapsing the gas cloud that made up our sun, but it could also be the engine for the Orpheus oblique impact theory that may have created our Moon, plus several mass extinction events.

I don't understand why the asteroid belt which lies between Mars and Jupiter couldn't have been a very small dwarf planet before an impact event, triggered by our orbital motion around our galaxy, causing gravitational perturbations and interactions with other unseen objects in our path as we orbited our galaxy, or debris from an unknown encounter while we orbited our galaxy.

This to me would explain not only the asteroid belt but also the Kuiper belt objects. it seems a little weird that objects were able to condense into dwarf planets in the kuiper belt but not in our asteroid belt.

It would seem to me that either the kuiper belt objects were captured or were formed by the unknown gravitational effects that we may have encountered by other objects in our path around the galaxy.


after I learned of our suns motion around our galaxy, it just occurred to my untrained mind that this could explain a lot of things.

Dennis

Sorry old friend, just want to get into your mind.
Dennis, knew well a brain surgeon, fantastic man and mind,
but he could never understand how to wire a mains plug....
Much of what you say Dennis about what we are missing
is so right, and you so right something big we are missing.
I like how you think. Know what Dennis, the creation of our
surrounding planets I think was determined by the birth of our sun,
and how it evolved over time. Tend to think the asteroid belt a
leftover after major gravitational effects of the sun settled down.
Enjoy your thoughts and company Dennis, hope you are Ok today
dear friend.
Peter.