Subject: Re: Who's right? - Hoyle, Dicke, anthropics or I.Ders?
  Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:03:09 +0000
  From: Ray D <ray.dickenson@...>


Steve Burt wrote:
> On 11/21/05, Ray D <ray.dickenson@...> wrote:
> > Jets are pure plasma shooting out - from the N & S poles of
> > neutron stars and even whole galactic cores - at relativistic
> > speeds and for hundreds, maybe thousands of light-years.
> >
> > So? - So they redistribute matter at its most basic, to be
> > re-used in star formation. [and I'm out on a limb flatly stating
> > they're the _cause_ of spiral galaxies.]

> Good article on spiral galaxies in the latest Scientific American.
> They cycle from spiral to oval and back over a period of billions of
> years.

    Yup, they're just catching up - that impressive M87 jet is coming
   out of an elliptical (oval) galaxy whose core has begun to spin,
   from ang~ momentum (ang~ inertia) of infalling material, so spin
   gives polar jets, jets then give _new_ angular momentum in the
   plane of the jets - at right angle to `equator' of core - and lo!
   A spiral galaxy is born.

    THEN - at some stage the spiral galaxy will have infalling material,
   from a generation of nearest core-stars, and will jet _again_,
   creating new angular moments at right angles to old plane of galaxy
   (this is not yet accepted or maybe even realized). Hence `cross-bar'
   `swastika' and multi-angled catherine wheel galaxies.

   N.b. when a galactic core jets, only core material is involved, so
   no-one in the galaxy need be aware of it - ours could be jetting
   right now and we wouldn't know.

> I find a lot of the stuff arguing ages and distances from redshifts
> very dodgy, myself.
> However, no-one has yet come up with a better explanation than the
> 'canonical' one. "Tired light" was a nice idea, but sadly doesn't
> explain all the observations.
> But I can never help feeling that equating red shifts to distance (and
> thence to age) is somehow piling hypothesis on hypothesis a bit too
> much.

    Quite - while it's clear that origin's or intervening hot / cold
   masses give spectral patterns (white / black lines) and that
   distance _and_ velocity (and age) should affect the placing of
   those lines, the proportions of the respective influences, and
   their rates (coefficients) are not falsifiably known. It all hangs
   from a sky-hook!

   (We can see that by the amount of `play' in the system and that
   they sometimes have to change it to accommodate "stars older than
   the universe" embarrassments.)

    And (quantum) lab facts should've told them that, where you have
   a photon source and a destination, the actual photon arrival is a
   record not only of `intervening path' events but of simultaneous
   events beyond the source and past the destination. I.e it seems
   very likely that the history or `age' of the light will also be a
   factor in analyzing those spectra. Long way to go.

> > Also, if you think about it, that a lot of other life-forms
> > should be around, and that - toward galactic centers - they
> > would've started a bit earlier than us (say a few millions, or
> > billions of years or so?).

> I'd would have thought the high radiation in galactic centres would
> kill off anything there long before it developed space travel. Having
> supernovas going off nearby is not good for you.

    Ah well. Just there Steve, it's easy to forget the time and
   varying distances involved.

    Spinrad (1970) found that stars closer in to galactic centers
   have more `metals' (carbon, oxygen, nitrogen etc) so they're an
   older generation (say five or ten billion years?).
   [That's just been confirmed in the Milky way too.]

    From that Asimov extracted a factor of nine (or 81) times higher
   likelihood of life and intelligence developing there earlier.
   (Clever bloke, Asimov)

    BUT - that was happening a very long time ago, when those stars
   were probably where we are now! Even now - say about half-way into
   center from here - their background starlight is not too much more,
   or harder, than ours; but risk of super-novas or neutron star jets
   is admittedly a bit greater.

    Yet we mustn't forget that scientific definition of intelligent
   beings:- folk who can assure their own survival, either by moving
   (with or without a planet), or by controlling local stellar
   conditions. We've certainly got a long way to go there.

   cheers
   Ray D

PS simple (but controversial) `photon path' background at
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/radiation.html#firstly

PS2 `stellar' & `intelligence' background at -
<< sagan cohen stewart spinrad asimov >> in Google

and more lowdown on "jets" at << jets.html m87 jet >>

cheers
RD

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Perceptions" http://www.perceptions.couk.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---------------------------------------------

              FURTHER REFERENCES

 GO - "search perceptions" - in SEARCH-ENGINE


file-ID www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/whyjets2.txt