On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres – by Pawe? Góra
Why galaxies look the way they do.
The current model of the universe assumes gravity as one of the main forces influencing its shape, its expansion and the way stars are organized in galaxies. However, there are no sufficient grounds to claim this, and in the observable universe, the gravitational interaction that we can observe is only local in nature, without any significant impact on the structure of the universe as such. This was discovered during studies on the structure of galaxies, when scientists discovered that they had too little mass in relation to their diameters to maintain their integrity. According to calculations, about 85% of the force necessary to keep galaxies in their current shape is missing. However, instead of refuting the theory of gravity as one of the main forces of the universe, a scientific prosthesis was invented in the form of black matter, which should generate enough gravity to balance our understanding of the universe with the reality.
Evidence for the lack of gravitational interactions shaping galaxies.
The nature of gravity
The nature of the gravitational field is such that it is strongest near mass. Gravitational acceleration, which multiplies its force near objects, also causes it to decrease dramatically with distance. This can be seen very clearly in the orbits of the planets located in the gravitational field of the sun. Small Mercury, located in a very close orbit, revolves around the Sun many times faster than Jupiter, which is much further away. To maintain a stable gravitational connection between two objects, the relationship between the mass, the distance between these objects and the speed at which the satellite moves in orbit is crucial. The further away a satellite is, the slower it moves in orbit. In the same way, the movement in orbit is influenced by the mass of the satellite, smaller objects move slightly slower than large objects in the same orbit.
Chaotic arrangement of stars around a central black hole - relationships between orbit, mass and velocity.
This is where the first inconsistency appears between our understanding of gravity and its effect on galaxies. Stars move around the galaxy with the same speed, regardless of their distance from the center. From the point of view of the size of the galaxy, it can be assumed that the size difference between individual stars is significant but rather small. If gravity kept stars in orbit around their central mass, stars in low orbits would have to be moving thousands of times faster than stars on the outskirts of the galaxy. The observable shape of the galaxy would resemble Saturn's completely intermixed rings rather than twisted spiral arms. Stars moving in their orbits would constantly change their distance from stars in lower and higher orbits, disturbing the structure of the galaxy's arms. The very fact that galaxies rotate while maintaining their shape and stable constellations, and the stars do not constantly change their arrangement like satellites in orbit, indicates the lack of gravitational connections between the center of the galaxy and the stars.
The observable gravitational interaction between the central black hole and several orbiting stars on billions of stars in the galaxy that do not exhibit similar behavior.
There is one area where stars behave differently. Several stars orbit the central black hole of the Milky Way. They behave just like satellites in orbit, constantly changing the distance between them, their position relative to the galaxy's disk, and do not form any stable pattern or constellation. Some of them move in more circular orbits, while the orbits of others are very elliptical and asymmetric. They also differ in terms of speed. Stars that are closer move much faster than those that are further away. They determine the area to which the black hole's gravitational interaction with nearby stars reaches and prove that all the remaining billions of stars in our galaxy are not gravitationally bound to its center.
The birth of stars from a cloud of gas.
There are places in our galaxy where new stars are constantly being formed. They are formed from clouds of gas and dust collapsing under the influence of gravity. The area from which local gravity pulls the cloud to the center depends on local fluctuations in the density of matter. If the number of matter particles in a certain area is too low, the gravitational interaction does not arise and the gas is not pulled to a common center. If there is a star or any large mass in an area filled with gas, its gravitational field will pull all the available matter towards itself and a new star will simply not form in that place, because there will be no material there from which it could be formed. This way of forming stars means that they can only form in areas not affected by the gravitational influence of other stars. Particles of gas and dust can be pulled to the center of a newly formed star only if they do not interact gravitationally with other stars, so stars can only form if the material needed for their construction is not pulled by the gravity of neighboring stars. All this means that the vast majority of stars do not gravitationally interact with each other.
Stars formed in the same place of birth are formed in similar conditions and in a similar period of time. They are also at a similar distance from the galactic center. They move with the same speed relative to the center, but they have different masses. Some stars are hundreds or thousands of times larger than others, and yet they form stable systems in which collisions are accidental rather than a permanent part of the star formation process. If such a star cluster were affected by the gravity of the galactic center, it would affect individual stars differently depending on their mass. Stars with different masses in similar orbits would have to move at different speeds to stay in the galaxy's disk. This, in turn, makes it impossible to maintain stable constellations.
Three galaxies, one theory.
The existence of gravity as a force shaping galaxies is also contradicted by the assumption that the laws of physics apply equally throughout the universe. If this is the case, then gravity must act the same for spiral, elliptical, and irregular galaxies. The very nature of gravity precludes such a scenario. So there are two alternatives. Either we have three sets of laws of physics in our universe that apply to random galaxies, or it is not gravity but other forces that have the main influence on the shape of galaxies.
Elliptical galaxies are simply regions of high density of stars in space. They are rather spherical and do not rotate in any visible way. There is no evidence of a centrifugal force in these galaxies or of any force that can counteract gravity, so if there were any gravitational connection between the stars in these galaxies, they would instantly collapse into a super-massive black hole, and furthermore, if mass, was condensed enough to create gravitational bonds between stars, all this matter would collapse directly into a black hole, without forming intermediate states like stars. They simply wouldn't have time to form. The black hole would suck in the dust surrounding it.
Spiral galaxies appear as a flat, rotating disk whose motion can be confused with orbiting stars. However, if you calculate its size, mass and rotational speed, it turns out that about 85% of the gravitational force necessary to maintain it is missing. The influence of gravity is also contradicted by the shape of the disk and the constant, stable distances between the stars.
Irregular galaxies have the shape of a cloud or an irregular, asymmetric cloud. They are also evidence of the lack of gravitational connections that create galaxies. Gravity spreads evenly through space, and everything it affects becomes a sphere or circle, or is torn apart by gravity. The very fact that irregular galaxies are stable contradicts the idea that gravity holds them together.
The Dark Matter
To solve this problem of galaxy stability, scientists presented a theory of the existence of dark matter, which fills the gaps in the equilibrium equations. The problem here is not only the amount of dark matter needed to replenish the missing gravity, but also the way it works. The problem here is not only that we cannot observe the missing 85% of the matter, but also that we cannot observe how it would replenish the missing forces that hold the galaxies together.
White and brown dwarfs, black holes and neutron stars.
One theory is that invisible matter is accumulated in the form of stars that do not emit visible light. This theory is incorrect because not only are there too few such stars, but their gravitational influence would also change the shape of the galaxy. The gravitational force is always dynamic, and in order for two masses connected by gravity to remain at a constant distance from each other, they must revolve around each other, balancing gravity with centrifugal force. A large number of invisible stars orbiting the center of the galaxy could theoretically make up for the lack of mass of the entire galaxy, but would not affect the gravitational connections of the rest of the stars - for the reasons described above. This assumption also does not explain the mass distribution in the galaxy's disk and the relationship between mass, displacement speed and orbital diameter. This theory also does not explain how elliptical and irregular galaxies would be stable.
The second possibility is that the invisible stars are not gravitationally connected directly to the center of the galaxy, but only to stars shining with visible light. However, this would mean that every star in our galaxy is in a binary system and orbits around, statistically on average, four times as much mass. If this were actually the case, the oscillations of the stars in the sky could be seen with the naked eye.
How can we explain the behavior of our Sun in such a situation? It is a single star, quite distant from the galactic center, and yet its position in the galaxy is stable. So if our Sun doesn't need a brown dwarf to stay in the galaxy's disk, other stars probably don't either.
The second theory is that dark matter takes the form of invisible dust, or is a mass at the subatomic level. The problem here is the process of star formation. For this theory to be confirmed, the invisible mass would have to interact gravitationally with any other mass and, therefore, take part in the star formation process. The stars created in this way would be correspondingly heavier and the problem would not exist at all, or not on such a scale. A derivative problem of this solution could be the calculation of the mass, volume and chemical composition of stars.
Galaxies without gravity.
The situation is much better explained if we assume that galaxies are formed from clouds of dust and gas, which, under the influence of local fluctuations, collapse in places, creating clusters of matter that do not interact with each other. The star formation process would be similar to the condensation process, where cooling water vapor collapses into independent liquid droplets, simultaneously releasing excess heat and expanding the air between them, and this process varies depending on the conditions in which it takes place. However, one process is unchanged - when the star collapses, it radiates excess energy.
Therefore, if we accept the above arguments as correct, we should consider what force can set celestial bodies in motion so selectively.
The magnetic field and electron flow cause rotation.
There is a force in nature that can explain the situation. A magnetic field can cause the rotation of objects possessing it, as long as a stream of electrons flows through it. Just like in an electric motor. To build it, you need a magnet and a winding through which electric current flows. The simplest such motor is a 1.5V battery placed on a neodymium magnet, from the upper pole of which wires lead to the magnet. The flow of electrons through wires placed in a magnetic field causes them to rotate. Interestingly, the wires can spin faster or slower depending on whether the current flows in line with or against the flow of the magnetic field.
The orientation of the magnetic poles in relation to the electron flow and rotational direction is also important. It must be perpendicular. If we pass an electric current through a wire, it creates a magnetic field that rotates perpendicular to the wire.
We will encounter a similar situation if an electron shot from the equator of a star cuts its magnetic field at a right angle. It will create a force acting on everything within the range of the star's magnetic field, pushing matter to move in orbit.
The situation becomes even more complicated if the satellites in orbit have their own magnetic field.
Magnetic nature of rotation and its influence on planetary rotation.
This rotation pattern is exhibited by the planets in our solar system. Planets with a strong and stable magnetic field rotate faster than others. This behavior can be seen in the examples of Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Planets without a magnetic field do not rotate practically at all. Mercury and Venus have negligible magnetic fields and rotate many times slower than the other planets.
Mercury 1408 300nT CCW 0
Venus 5832 40nT CW 177
Earth 24 3 1000nT SN CCW 23
Mars 25 15000nT CCW 25
Jupiter 10 428000nT NS CCW 3
Saturn 11 22000nT NS CCW 26
Uranus 17 23000nT SN CCW 98
Neptune 16 13000nT NS CCW 28
Pluto 153 CW 98
The rotation speed of the planets is mainly influenced by:
Presence of a magnetic field – The weaker the magnetic field, the slower the rotation (Mercury, Venus)
Planetary composition – Rocky planets rotate faster despite weakening magnetic fields (Mars).
The orientation of the magnetic poles in relation to the direction of rotation of the planet - Uranus and Neptune have similar masses and rotate at similar speeds, even though Neptune's magnetic field is half as strong. Uranus and Saturn have similar magnetic fields, but Saturn rotates faster even though it is larger.
Objects that are not volcanically active do not rotate.
Interestingly, the current theory says that the presence of a magnetic field on a given planet is determined by its volcanic activity. If a planet has a liquid core rotating inside the planet at a different speed than its outer layers, the resulting stresses generate a magnetic field. This assumption explains why Mercury and Venus have no magnetic field, while Mars' magnetic field is very weak. However, this statement is subject to a very large underestimation of the energy required in the entire process. The lack of a magnetic field on these planets may also have a completely different cause.
Planetary temperature and magnetic field.
A planet's temperature can also affect the strength of its magnetic field. Ferromagnetic materials lose their magnetic properties as the temperature increases. Due to their small distance from the Sun, Mercury and Venus may be too hot to generate a magnetic field.
A compact mass rotates faster.
First, a small, compact and stable mass has a better torque and spins faster than large and light or internally unstable objects. This is best seen in the example of a raw and hard-boiled egg. A raw egg has a runny yolk, which, when you try to spin the egg, moves the center of gravity away from the axis of rotation and rapidly slows down the egg's motion. The situation changes significantly when we boil an egg. Its shape and mass remain the same, but a solid, stable core makes it spin much easier and maintains its motion much longer.
Resistance to motion and reaction force.
So, according to the laws of physics, small rocky planets should spin faster than gas giants, while the opposite is true.
The situation is complicated by tidal forces caused by the satellites and the lack of reaction force. The presence of the moon in Earth's orbit causes the mass of ocean water to move following its gravity. This water constitutes a small percentage of the planet's mass and its movement should absorb an appropriate percentage of the energy of the Earth's rotation. The situation is similar inside our planet. The difference in the rotation speed of the Earth's core and its outer layers creates enormous hydraulic resistance, especially since molten magma is a rather dense liquid. The energy needed to overcome hydraulic resistance has to come from somewhere. The second problem here is the lack of reaction force. It should equalize the rotation speed of the Earth's crust and its core. The theory that the rotation of the planet's core is powered by the energy of the decay of radioactive elements may explain the energy shortages in the theoretical equations written on the board, but it does not explain how the released energy would be transformed into rotation and why it would drive the Earth's core rather than the mantle and shell. Nuclear decay reactions certainly take place inside our planet, as well as in the interiors of other planets, but it is doubtful whether the energy released in this way would constitute the mechanical drive of the geophysical dynamo. There is no mechanism inside our planet that would function as a turbine that converts heat into motion. The energy of radioactive decay can only facilitate its work by heating the rocks and reducing hydraulic resistance. The geodynamo itself, however, must be driven differently.
Such a drive may be the magnetic field and solar radiation, driving the rotation of the earth's magnetic core, while the non-magnetic crust, slowed down by the reactionary movement of sea tides, generates a speed difference between the core and the earth's crust. With this assumption, it makes sense to say that the decay of radioactive elements in the earth's core raises its temperature, liquefies rocks, and thus helps in the entire process.
Reversal.
Reversal is the last phenomenon to pay attention to. The Sun's magnetic field is strong enough to influence the planets' magnetic fields and force a change in the orientation of their magnetic poles. In the case of the earth, this will be the twisting of its core surrounded by liquid magma, while the crust is held in a stable position by the gyroscopic effect. If the magma inside our planet was denser, polarization would not occur at all. Or conversely, if the earth rotated slower, the entire planet would flip.
So does the planet's movement generate the magnetic field or vice versa?
Considering all the above, one should wonder whether the Sun is not the nuclear engine that powers the movement of both the planets and the magma inside them. It has a magnetic field strong enough to induce a magnetic field in the planets orbiting it. Solar wind, on the other hand, containing high-energy particles and lots of electrons, can simultaneously transform the magnetic field into rotation, just as it happens in a simple electric motor composed of a magnet and a battery.
The plane of the orbit perpendicular to the poles.
It also explains why all orbits stabilize near the star's equator. It is simply a place where electromagnetic radiation intersects the magnetic field at a right angle, which causes the greatest rotational force.
We can therefore theorize that the rotation of the planets in the solar system is mainly determined by the Sun's magnetic field. It induces the magnetic field of the planets while the solar wind provides the electricity necessary to create the geo-dynamo and thus:
Mercury and Venus are small, rocky planets with high potential torque, so they should spin quite quickly, but due to their high temperature, they do not have a magnetic field to drive this motion, so they do not rotate.
The Earth has the right temperature and composition to create a magnetic field induced by the Sun, the solar wind drives its geo-dynamo, and its liquid interior slows down its rotation slightly.
Mars is 1/2 smaller than Earth and its magnetic field is 2/3 weaker. Its ratio of the strength of its magnetic field to the mass of the planet is more unfavorable than that of Earth, so it should rotate much slower than Earth. However, thanks to the solid core, its rotational speed is similar.
Jupiter is a gas giant with a probably liquid core. The number of satellites, the hydraulic drag of the core, and the visible turbulence of the atmosphere consume much of the planet's rotational energy. So it should rotate slowly. However, its magnetic field is twenty times stronger than that of the rest of the planets, so it rotates the fastest.
Saturn is only slightly smaller, but has a magnetic field twenty times weaker than Jupiter. A weaker magnetic field means a weaker driving force. The planet's smooth atmosphere suggests the lack of thermal exchange between its layers and the lack of volcanic activity, which may mean a stable core and at the same time lower hydraulic resistance inside the planet. The planet's lower resistance to motion may offset the weaker magnetic field and explain the similar spin speed.
Uranus has a similar magnetic field strength to Saturn, but it is much smaller and its magnetic pole is reversed in relation to the direction of rotation. The planet's less efficient drive slows down its rotation despite its lower mass.
领英推荐
Neptune is similar in size to Uranus, but has a magnetic field that is half as strong. However, thanks to its better orientation in relation to the direction of rotation, it provides a similar effect. The efficiency of Neptune's magnetic field also suggests a solid or semi-solid core.
Pluto has an unknown magnetic field strength and orientation. However, based on the planet's mass, rotational speed and favorable temperature, we can conclude that its magnetic field is stronger than Mercury's but weaker than Neptune's.
Magnetic field and rotation.
The example of rotating planets given here proves the strong connection between the magnetic field, stellar radiation and the rotational force. It shows a very simple mechanism known from electric motors. The simplest of them - a mono-polar engine - can answer key questions about the structure of galaxies and the nature of black holes. Well, the operation of a mono-polar motor is very simple, it requires the flow of electric current perpendicular to the magnetic field lines, then a rotational force is created with an axis coinciding with the axis determined by the magnetic poles.
How to explain differences in the structures of galaxies.
Analyzing all of the above, you can easily come to the conclusion that the magnetic field has a significant impact on the rotation of the planets in the solar system. The Sun's magnetic field, combined with the electrically charged solar wind, can cause planets orbiting them to spin. But can this phenomenon apply to the entire galaxy? I think so, although we encounter two fundamental problems here. Planets orbit around the central star differently than galaxies, and galaxies have different structures.
The planets move around the sun at different speeds. And the distances between them are constantly changing. This is proof that the planets, even if their rotation is driven by the magnetic field and solar wind, move in space and not with it. The way the planets orbit is evidence of a gravitational interaction between them and the star, while the way they spin is evidence of an electromagnetic interaction.
Another problem is the different shapes of galaxies. Their heterogeneous structure may indicate different formation processes and the influence of the magnetic field on the space in which the stars are suspended.
Condensation of matter.
When looking at the way galaxies form, the most common thing that comes to mind is the formation of rain clouds. The cooled water vapor exceeds the dew point, after which it forms liquid droplets. The process of water vapor condensation and star formation have two main features in common. Firstly. Both the water droplets and stars formed are independent of each other. The condensing cloud of vapor simultaneously creates millions of independent liquid drops, forming far enough apart to maintain their individuality. In the same way, stars are formed that form close to each other, but at the same time do not interact with each other gravitationally. If it were otherwise, stars would collide with each other already at the stage of formation. In fact, if the gas cloud is large and dense enough to create a local gravitational pull, it forms one large star instead of two small ones. The formation of stars in clouds is determined only by the difference in the local density of the gas.
The second important similarity is the radiation accompanying the process. Water vapor turning into a liquid releases excess heat, simultaneously heating its immediate surroundings. The situation is similar in the case of stars, where collapsing matter radiates excess energy.
Stars and galaxies are formed by the condensation of matter, modeled by the magnetic field
There is a good chance that the similarities in the structure of rain clouds and galaxies result from a similar course of the condensation process, which has its roots in the laws of thermodynamics.
Galaxies, like rain clouds, can be divided into three main categories.
So, first of all, we have ordinary, irregular clouds formed as a result of the cooling of water vapor. Storm clouds that move in space and create their own high and low pressure systems and cyclones in which all water droplets are subject to swirling motion and in which the entire mass of moisture moves with the swirling air.
The situation is similar with different types of galaxies.
Elliptical galaxies behave like a condensate of matter suspended in space. Like ordinary clouds.
Irregular galaxies, behaving a bit like storm clouds, moving in space and changing their shape depending on local stresses.
The existence of deformed, curved galaxies is not only evidence of the movement of space-time in which they are located. This movement is also non-linear. Such a deformation may arise when the space-time in which the galaxy is suspended, while moving in a given direction, encounters resistance that changes and deforms this movement. Such resistance can be generated, for example, by space-time with higher pressure or higher density. The existence of irregular galaxies may therefore be evidence of the existence of convective movements of space-time.
Last are spiral galaxies, where the entire galactic space, along with the stars trapped in it, rotates around a central process. And here comes the main part of the argument. If we assume that the space of spiral galaxies itself is subject to rotation, the stars suspended in it would be subject to centrifugal force only to a small extent. Just as raindrops suspended in a cyclone cloud are kept from being thrown out by the pressure of the air surrounding them, the stars in a spinning galaxy are held in their positions by the pressure of spinning space itself.
Weak gravity of black holes.
The current canon assumes that spiral galaxies have black holes in their centers, around which the remaining stars and dust orbit, and the entire process is driven by their superstrong gravity. This is only partially true. Observations of the center of the Milky Way have been shown that its central black hole has stars orbiting around it. However, these are only a few dozen stars out of billions of stars in the entire galaxy. The stars orbiting a black hole also behave completely differently than the rest. They have different speeds and constantly change the distances between them. Also, they do not form a stable constellation, like the stars that make up the arms of the galaxy. However, they have one important feature. Their orbits determine the strength and range of the black hole's gravitational influence and prove that it is limited only to the very center of the galaxy.
If gravity were the only force determining the shape of a galaxy, there would be no difference in the motion of the stars orbiting the central black hole and all the others. There would only be one model. The galaxy would look like Saturn's rings and the formation of any stable constellations of stars would be impossible. The existence of two coexisting images indicates that the shape of galaxies is the result of two coexisting processes.
Neutron stars versus black holes
Neutron stars are a special type of star. Not only are they extremely bright, but they also have very strong magnetic fields. The star's high brightness means very strong radiation cutting through the magnetic field.
One of the interesting properties of neutron stars is their rotational speed, which is proportional to their temperature and emission level. The rotation speed of a neutron star is high after a supernova explosion, and as the star radiates excess energy and its temperature drops, its rotation also slows. However, if the neutron star absorbs a fresh portion of mass, for example from a nearby star in the process of accretion, its temperature, luminosity and rotational speed will increase again.
Another interesting phenomenon is the gravity of a neutron star. It is strong enough to clearly distort space-time around the star and allow for the observation of its poles. It is also strong enough to tear apart any object colliding with a neutron star, and to distort the passage of time on its surface in relation to time on Earth.
The third important feature of neutron stars is the emission of two streams - mass jets - from their poles.
Modern science describes neutron stars as a variant of the development of massive stars. If a star is massive enough to explode in a supernova but too small to become a black hole, it becomes a neutron star. However, a neutron star may be a step in the transformation of an ordinary star into a black hole. Interestingly, a neutron star has all the main characteristics of a black hole:
All these properties coincide with the properties of black holes. In fact, the only differences between a black hole and a neutron star are rotational speed, a bit of mass and color.
Here we must once again question the effect of gravity, which is powerful but overestimated. If black holes and neutron stars are created in the same process and acquire the same characteristics as a result, it means that the nature of these characteristics is also the same. So if a neutron star fires streams of particles from its surface, from its magnetic poles, and a black hole emits the same streams from its magnetic poles, it means that these particles also come from its surface and not from the accretion disk. This in turn means that the gravity of black holes, at least the small ones, is too weak to stop the emission of particles and light from the surface, and black holes must be black for another reason. But I will describe this further.
Let's conduct a theoretical experiment. You need one 2M☉ pocket neutron star, a box of stellar material, a teaspoon and dark glasses.
If we start adding stellar material to our neutron star now, its temperature, luminosity, and rotational speed will begin to increase. However, if we stop adding and let our star digest the meal, its temperature and rotational speed will slowly begin to decrease. If, however, we inadvertently add a little too much stellar material, the temperature and speed of our star will increase significantly, and its luminosity should begin to decrease until it reaches about 5M☉ mass, at which point our neutron star becomes a black hole. Interestingly, this process should be reversible to some extent, so if we wait a bit and allow our black hole to digest its meal, its rotational speed will drop, low enough to slow down the space-time wandering process and our black hole will start to glow again.
In fact, our neutron star will not stop shining at all, on the contrary, it will shine all the time like a neutron star on steroids, but its light will not reach us. The star will be in a transition state, let's temporarily call it a gray star. The Gray Star will therefore have characteristics of both neutron stars and black holes. Its surface will glow strongly, but at the same time it will wander space-time around and rapidly shift its spectrum towards red, it will have an accretion disk and send jets from the poles, and it will also have a very strong magnetic field and a high spin speed. The final feature here is gravity, strong enough to reduce its own brightness seen from a distance, but too weak to distort the image of other stars observed nearby.
The only things we manipulate here are mass, magnetic field strength, rotational speed and brightness. Exactly in this order.
Such a star will be extremely difficult to observe from the ground. Gray stars should be looked for in the upper part of the Russell-Hertzsprung diagram, among the RCB-type supergiants of variable brightness. There is a good chance that some of these supergiants change their brightness as the mass of the neutron star changes towards the black hole and vice versa.
Spinning Gravity
If a super-massive star has enough gravity to bend space-time, its spin will interact with space-time, setting it in motion around the star. This movement will also be directly proportional to the force of gravity in a given place, so it will be the fastest at the star's surface. We will be dealing here with the phenomenon of space wandering. Space-time bent by gravity will move faster near the rotating mass and its motion will slow down as it moves away from it.
It's not just gravity, but also the spin speed.
At this point we need to return to the mono-polar motor described a little above. Neutron stars and black holes have very strong magnetic fields. The strength of these fields depends on the degree of matter density and the intensity of thermonuclear processes taking place inside the stars. This field is also constantly intersected by radiation and ejections of ionized material from the star's surface. This creates a very simple electric motor, the type of which we can make at home from a magnet, a battery and a piece of copper wire.
It is also important to note that engines built on the Earth consist of a rotor and a stator. Where the task of the rotor is to generate mechanical movement, and the task of the stator is to compensate for the reaction torque, stabilizing the entire mechanism.
In the case of space processes, we do not have a stator. A star emitting radiation sets its own magnetic field in motion, and the rotating magnetic field in turn sets the star itself in motion. We can solve the reaction torque problem by assuming that if a massive star spins rapidly, the space around it will rotate in the opposite direction.
Rotating Magnetic Field
The situation is similar with the magnetic field. If electrons emitted from the star's equator intersect its magnetic field, they set the magnetic field itself, and thus the star, in rotation. However, according to the principle of action and reaction, the same force with the opposite direction should act on electrons moving in space. If we add to this the statement that the electron has a wave nature and is in fact a wave moving in space, and therefore is a form of waving space, then the deviation of the path of such a wave is in fact an interaction with space itself.
It should also be noted that the strength of this interaction will also depend on its angle vector, i.e. it will be the strongest at the star's equator, where light crosses the magnetic field perpendicularly, and the weakest at the poles, where the flow of photons is parallel to the magnetic field lines.
In the case of a very strong magnetic field and strong rotation of the star, it can be assumed that the deviation of the light path in the magnetic field will be so significant that it will lead to its rotation in the plane of the star's equator, and the process of its moving away from the surface will be spiral. However, this spiral will reduce its twist as it moves away from the star and as the magnetic field weakens. The energy used to create the entire effect will reduce the energy of the moving particles, shifting them towards red.
The amount of energy used will be proportional to the energy necessary to accelerate a star of a given mass to a given rotational speed, and according to the principle of action and reaction, it will determine the amount of energy used to move space-time itself.
The same process will not occur simultaneously at the poles of the star, where in one case the magnetic field will accelerate the emission of particles, acting like a magnetic cannon, while at the other pole it will slow down the emission.
Light emission from the star's equator, perpendicular to its surface, will take place at an angle to the wandering space-time. A bit like a swimmer crossing a river, he will be carried away by its current, and the actual distance he must swim will be the result of the width of the river, the speed of the swimmer and the speed of the current.
Let's imagine a situation in which a swimmer crosses a section of standing water with ten arm throws. Then, he must swim the same distance across the river current that carries him. Since the lateral distance to be covered does not change, the swimmer still needs ten arm throws, but the distance he has physically swam, as a result of being carried away by the water current, is much longer and he will reach the river bank in a completely different place. This also means that the swimmer made fewer arm throws per unit length than when swimming through still water. This extension of the oscillation, translated into a wave of light, is a red shift.
In the case of a black hole, the space-time wandering region extends from its surface to the event horizon. The light leaving the surface of the black hole must travel a much longer distance than would result from a perpendicular calculation of the distance between the event horizon and the star's surface. It must overcome the "current" of spinning space-time, and it will be subject to drift and stretching along its path. This, in turn, means that the bright blue light from the neutron star will be converted into infrared light. The darkening of a neutron star transforming into a black hole will not consist in blocking its light but in changing its spectrum.
The latest images of Sigittarius A, taken by the Event Horizon Telescope, showing the swirling nature of the accretion disk, are described as an image of the star's twisted magnetic field made visible by the heated dust. However, for the magnetic field to twist in this way, the star's poles would have to shift and, consequently, the black hole singularity itself would have to twist. This is a difficult hypothesis to accept, given the density of singularities and the lack of a known mechanism that could accelerate the rotation of one pole of the star relative to the other.
It is much more reasonable to assume that the vortex lines visible in the photo are a reflection of the wandering of space, which is responsible for the shape and movement of the galaxy's disk.
Temperature and pressure of the accretion disk
The current theory says that the matter of the consumed star, falling into the black hole, creates an accretion disk in which the matter entering the orbit above the event horizon heats up and begins to glow intensely, while some of it penetrates to the poles and is fired as relativistic jets.
Logic and common sense dictate that it should be exactly the opposite. As you get closer to the star, the strength of the gravitational pull increases. The speed of movement of objects sucked in by the star also increases. The laws of thermodynamics say that under such conditions, the internal pressure and temperature of the objects being torn apart should decrease.
It is similar with the formation of relativistic jets. The spin tends to push orbiting objects towards the star's equator. The gravitational suction of material by the star cannot therefore be the reason for the heating of the accretion disk or the formation of jets at the poles. There is a much simpler explanation for the whole phenomenon here. Well, neutron stars have jets at their poles, and after turning into a black hole, the same phenomenon continues, and the relativistic jets of black holes are essentially the same phenomenon as the jets of neutron stars.
The accretion disk, on the other hand, determines the gravitational-magnetic range of the black hole and indicates the lower limit beyond which matter can orbit the black hole. The temperature of the accretion disk is not generated by the gravitational influence of the star, for the simple reason that increasing velocity towards the star lowers the pressure and lowering the pressure lowers the temperature. It is reasonable to assume that the accretion disk is heated by the star's infrared radiation. Blue light emitted from the star's surface is rapidly redshifted as it passes through the rotating space of the event horizon. Then the infrared light is absorbed by the dust of the accretion disk, which heats up as a result of this process, and the accumulated energy is emitted as light with a color corresponding to the temperature of the dust.
However, if the black hole absorbs all the surrounding dust and is in a phase in which it does not have an accretion disk, its radiation leaves the event horizon as deep infrared and is further shifted as it travels through space, which means that it can only reach the Earth as relic radiation.
Pulsar Kick
Linking the magnetic field of neutron stars to their rotational speed may explain the understanding of the nature of relativistic jets and the phenomenon known as Pulsar Kick.
In the case of a supernova explosion of a non-rotating star, we are dealing with a star that had a magnetic field too weak to give it a significant spin speed. Therefore, such a star must have a balanced emission of matter at the poles, and the exploding star is torn evenly into two symmetrical hemispheres.
However, if the magnetic field of the star is strong enough to give it a significant spin speed, we can assume that the emission of jets at the poles is so strongly disturbed by the magnetic field that it significantly accelerates the emission of particles at one pole and slows it down at the other. When such a star explodes, the emission of the exploding material is uneven and the stellar material is ejected in one direction and the star itself is accelerated in the opposite direction, while the spinning motion ensures the stability of its trajectory.
The second variant of this assumption is that when too much matter is absorbed by the neutron star at once and as a result of creating a super strong magnetic field, one of the poles begins to eject matter with such force that the star is accelerated in the opposite direction by reaction. Just like a magnetic rocket engine.
The missing piece of space
Today's entire understanding of space and the phenomena occurring in it, such as the formation of stars, planetary systems or galaxies, is based mainly on the understanding of the interactions between the gravity and matter, and gravity and space and energy. However, the interaction between the magnetic field, energy and the space is underestimated. Inserting a new system of connections into cosmological equations seems to not only simplify but also explain many aspects of cosmic mechanisms and paint a more accurate picture of them.
Determining the interaction of the magnetic field of the star and planets with its radiation explains the rotation and rotation of the satellites and allows us to understand the nature of the differences between them.
The same is true for galaxies. Understanding the interaction between gravity and the rotating magnetic field and space allows us to understand the shape of galaxies and the process of their formation, and to assign specific phenomena and properties of these processes to existing classification groups. Thus, in Hubble's classification of galaxies, three factors are responsible for their shape:
Elliptical galaxies "E0" - do not have a central black hole. When one dominant black hole with a powerful and rotating magnetic field is created, the space around it is subjected to torsional stress and begins to spin. This affects the displacement of the mass, which, under the influence of the rotational motion, moves along the magnetic field lines towards the equator of the central star, changing the image of the galaxy towards "E7". If the black hole's rotational axis coincides with its magnetic pole, the galaxy will be a flat disk like the Messier 104 Sombrerro galaxy. In this case, a massive and rapidly spinning black hole will be responsible for the very flat disk of the galaxy. The strong magnetic field will simultaneously rotate the entire disk of the galaxy evenly, making its arms almost invisible.
If the magnetic axis of the central black hole is tilted away from the plane of the galaxy but static, the galaxy will take on an "S" image. This is because the matter fired from the poles, falling along the magnetic field lines onto the plane of rotation, will simultaneously move in twisted space. This means that the matter falling on the plane, which should form the image of an oval or marquise, will take the shape of a sickle in the twisted space, thin at the ends and thicker in the middle. This also explains why all galaxies have two symmetrical arms, one for each pole of the central black hole.
The greater the deviation of the magnetic axis from the plane of rotation, the more elongated the ellipse of particles falling on the twisted plane of the galaxy will be and the more pronounced the difference between the arms of the galaxy and the spaces between them will be. At the same time, the stronger the magnetic field and the higher the spin speed, the tighter the twist of the arms, while galaxies with a weaker central magnetic field will spin slower and their magnetic field will interact less with space, so they will have arms that are less twisted at the ends and the their image will shift more towards "Sc"
However, if the rotational motion of the central black hole is complex and it rotates on the geographic and magnetic axes simultaneously, the image of such a galaxy will be shifted in the "SB" direction. Where the force of the spin motion in the magnetic axis will shape the length of the straight bar in the central part of the galaxy towards "SBc". This is a direct consequence of the complex spin motion of the central black hole's magnetic field, its wobble in the galactic plane, and the difference in the speeds of its component motions.
Engineering Manager | MSc | CEng IMechE | NEBOSH
3 个月Very interesting point Pawel. Thanks