Galaxy Charts Galaxy Motion

[junglelord]

Galaxy Charts Galaxy Motion is a question I am putting forth and found this about the local galaxies and their motion compared to the Milky Way

LIKE moths about a flame, thousands of tiny satellite galaxies flutter about our Milky Way. For astronomers this is a dream scenario, fitting perfectly with the established models of how our galaxy's cosmic neighbourhood should be. Unfortunately, it's a dream in more ways than one and the reality could hardly be more different.

As far as we can tell, barely 25 straggly satellites loiter forlornly around the outskirts of the Milky Way. "We see only about 1 per cent of the predicted number of satellite galaxies," says Pavel Kroupa of the University of Bonn in Germany. "It is the cleanest case in which we can see there is something badly wrong with our standard picture of the origin of galaxies."

It isn't just the apparent dearth of galaxies that is causing consternation. At a conference earlier this year in the German town of Bad Honnef, Kroupa and his colleagues presented an analysis of the location and motion of the known satellite galaxies. They reported that most of those galaxies orbit the Milky Way in an unexpected manner and that, taken together, their results are at odds with mainstream cosmology. There is "only one way" to explain the results, says Kroupa: "Gravity has to be stronger than predicted by Newton."

The missing-satellites problem is not the only puzzle. Kroupa and his Bonn colleague Manuel Metz, together with Gerhard Hensler at the University of Vienna, Austria, and Helmut Jerjen of Mount Stromlo Observatory near Canberra, Australia, have studied the location and motion of the small number of known satellite galaxies. They found that a high proportion of the galaxies appear to be confined to a plane perpendicular to the disc of the Milky Way. What's more, most of the galaxies orbit the Milky Way in the same direction. "This is completely incompatible with the dark matter model of the Milky Way's formation," says Kroupa. He points out that the satellites should be more like a swarm of bees, moving on random orbits and distributed in a spherical shell around our galaxy.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... axies.html

[jjohnson]

Note the final remarks of the New Scientist article, which has the "two great ideas" slugging it out for affirmation (a good thing for dark matter vs a bad thing for dark matter) which both completely ignore galactic organization based on electrified plasma principles.
I was curious but could find no references or diagrams of the Milky Way companion galaxies being confined to orbits (mostly in the same direction) in a plane normal to the plane of the Milky Way's ecliptic; i.e., are these orbits co-central with the Milky Way's center, or offset from it in one direction or another? (anyone know?) Also, how would the Birkeland current(s) in the vicinity of our galaxy result in the companion galaxies' orbits' being normal to its plane of rotation? Maybe a large set of planetary gears workin' here, eh?

[mharratsc]

This probably isn't going to answer your question perfectly, but the EU view of things takes a que from Hamilton Arp. This diagram below illustrates how the EU views companion (or actually child) galaxy formation:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... se-arp.htm

There's also a chart that they made that showed how our local galactic cluster followed a sinuous curve from Andromeda (believed to be the Milky Way's mother) and how the enormous Birkland current that all these galaxies sit upon doesn't have to follow a straight line.

One of the characteristics of an electrical current traveling in a filament pair is that it pinches frequently up and down it's length. They liken the effect to "beads on a string"... and you can simply envision each of those beads being a galaxy.

Meh, Mike G would explain it much better with a million links and handy graphics... I thought I would take a stab at it, tho


Mike H.

[jjohnson]

Thanks, Mike H. I have no idea if our small companion galaxies were ejected from the Milky Way or not - I can't tell from the (Halton) Arp diagram of pulsar ejecta if (1) ejected pulsars are ejected normal to the parent galaxy's spin plane (although that seems most probable), and if so, (2) whether or not the new ejected companions rotate in the same orientation as the parents or, like precessing frisbees, change the plane of their rotation over time under some influence or other. However, looking at the scale of pulsar ejection, those galaxies from pulsars seem to move away a rather large distance and their path (orbit through space) is diagrammed, anyway, as a straight line departure, not a curved orbital around the parent galaxy. The latter case is what the article was describing: companions actually orbiting our galaxy, but in a plane perpendicular to our ecliptic. If galaxy rotation is usually perpendicular to the centerline through the pinch, then what drives a companion to rotate around an axis or center that is aligned with the center axis (i.e., perpendicular to the ecliptic? Something's odd about that.

Jim J

[mharratsc]

I think I must not be too clear on the verbiage of the article. I took most note of the red highlighted bit, and didn't take "confined" to mean 'orbital.' Likewise, when it did mention "orbital", it simply stated that "most of the galaxies" orbited in the same direction.

When I thought of galaxies confined to a plane perpendicular to the ecliptic, I thought of 'galaxies on a string' as it were. I just wonder if there isn't a dynamic motion that they're not accounting for, and simply trying to fit observations into a 'gravitational orbit' shoe with a shoehorn. :\

Mike H.

[solrey]

Notice the animation in this article that junglelord linked in his first comment.

The satellite galaxies lie in a conical plane focused on the center of the galaxy and appear to be strung out along at least two twisting lines.

These may or may not have been produced by ejection events, but...
Their locations and motions are tracing the cosmic Birkeland currents that form the pinch at the center of the Milky Way!!

[junglelord]

Thanks, I never noticed the video, that helps. Looks like birkeland currents rule the universe along with phase conjugation.

[jjohnson]

The video does help (if they got the motions accurate in their simulation, anyway); thanks! The motion of those glaxies is not perpendicular to the plane of the Milky Way at all; it is parallel to it, but farther up and down the current from the pinch. What would be really interesting would be if they could resolve those galaxies well enough to determine the direction of their individual rotations about their centers, i.e., in a doppler interpretation would they all be red on the same side and blue on the other? and are those galactic rotations in planes perpendicular to the Birkeland current just as ours is. Logically wouldn't every galaxy revolve in a plane perpendicular to the galactic current maintaining it, north and south being current aligned? We're all more or less strung on the same filamentary string out here.

This brings up the interesting story of pulsar ejections which (I assume, anyway) are more or less out of one or both poles of an active galaxy, longitudinally more or less along the galactic current. At some point as the pulsar is decelerating and red-shifting down (shifting down always slows you down, right?) it is evolving into a galaxy. Is the pulsar already revolving in the same plane as mama galaxy because of the intrinsic or entrained angular momentum it carries outward with it? Or has it been observed that pulsars are ejected at more or less random directions out of a galaxy?

[moses]

At some point as the pulsar is decelerating and red-shifting down (shifting down always slows you down, right?) it is evolving into a galaxy.
jim
Can I ask where you got the idea of a pulsar evolving into a galaxy ?
Mo

[solrey]

jjohnson,
You meant to say quasar, or QSO, right?

[Lloyd]

* Yes, he obviously must have meant quasars, instead of pulsars, since pulsars are merely stars [within galaxies] that are rapidly discharging electrically, making what appears to us as EM pulses, while quasars are what Arp has said shoot out of "AGNs", i.e. Active Galactic Nuclei, at relativistic speeds, usually in pairs via both poles, i.e. axes, of the galaxy and evolve into galaxies as the above referenced TPOD shows.
* The reason the companion galaxies shown in the video are within a cone perpendicular to the Milky Way's spiral arms disc, instead of in a straight line, is that many of the companion galaxies also probably shoot out quasars of their own in various directions, depending mainly on their axes orientations. So they're likely not nearly all daughters of the Milky Way, but also granddaughters and great-granddaughters etc. And the Milky Way itself is a daughter of the Andromeda galaxy, M31, I think, which likely has other daughters as well.
* What the video doesn't show are the many quasars among the companion galaxies, because conventional theory assumes that they're much farther away than they really are, because of the redshift = distance & velocity assumption.

[mharratsc]

Brilliant, Lloyd! I never thought about how we're looking at an incomplete picture here. Of course the mainstreamers aren't going to put in QSO's since they think they're "billions of light years away"...

The complete map of how this would look would only be complete if we could knit in Mr. Arp's information regarding local QSO's, and fit them into the 3-D map with these other baby galaxies. Good catch on that!

Mike H.

[jjohnson]

I don't know what happened to my earlier posted reply of oops! of course I meant quasars - my typing is faster than my brain more often than not. I think I recall an EU explanation of pulsars as being like oscillator circuits, not the dogmatic view of wildly spinning neutron stars holding on for dear life.
jjohnson

[junglelord]

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/localgr.html

[SpaceTravellor]

jjohnson wrote: Thanks, Mike H. I have no idea if our small companion galaxies were ejected from the Milky Way or not . . .

- In my opinion, EVERYTHING was/is ejected out from the center of our Milky Way.

When looking very closely on the barred structure in our Milky Way galaxy, this shape can only take place via an explosion in the already rotating and swirling and melting mass of molecular gas and dust that heats up and melts and suddenly explodes out, creating the bars and spewing larger spheres of gas and planetary matter out in the Mily Way arms.

Also looking at the Milky Way arms, these could not take a suddenly 90 degree turn close to the bars if "someting black" in the center was pulling the whole thing inwards and away. If so, the movement of the arms would had accured more smoothly.

The rotational and swirling movement continues out in the Milky Way arms, creating further swirls of minor galaxies and star systems out in the arms. And new stars are still born in the center of our Milky Way.

That is: Our Solar system was once born DIRECTLY out from the Milky Way center and NOT via a presolar accretion disc that suddenly decided that it was time to collapse in it self.