formation of astronomical bodies

[fellatioustheories]

why do they tend to form on a flattish plane so often? is gravity centrifugal? do spheric galaxies contain spheric solar systems? why isn't the universe thought to be on a flattish plane with a bulge at the center? are we sure that all the matter from the big bang dispersed from that center point, or could there be a center point of tremendous energy and matter and the known universe is just an exfoliation?

did i do this right?

[quantum_wave]

Interesting topic and there is a lot of science around the shape of astronomical bodies, galaxies, and the universe itself. I will leave that to the experts. What I would like to offer is a slight correction to your statement ...
are we sure that all the matter from the big bang dispersed from that center point, or could there be a center point of tremendous energy and matter and the known universe is just an exfoliation?Big Bang Theory does not include the concept of a center point of the universe. The concept of expansion is not the movement of galaxies from a center point. It is a concept of inflation that causes all of the galaxies (for the most part) to move away from each other. No matter where you are in the BBT universe or what galaxy you look at, the rest of the galaxies will be moving away at the same rate (albeit a accelerating rate :)).

[fellatioustheories]

so is there an inside to the universe then?

[quantum_wave]

Lol, according BBT, that is all there is.

[fellatioustheories]

so what is at the center of it then if it is all inside? where is it all going if there is no outside?

[quantum_wave]

I'm afraid I don't know but maybe someone will jump in and help you. Bye.

[fellatioustheories]

i am sorry for not unterstanding.

[cosmictraveler]

so what is at the center of it then if it is all inside? where is it all going if there is no outside?

Picture in your mind a ballon. Now the outside of the ballon is the ever expanding universe and as you see there's no real "center" on the outside of the ballon is there. That's what the universe is going through now until it either continues ever expanding or starts to contract , like letting the air out of the ballon. I hope that helps you understand better.:)

[OilIsMastery]

why do they tend to form on a flattish plane so often?
"All planets revolve in approximately one plane. They revolve in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force of the sun’s magnetic field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

Velikovsky, I., Cosmos Without Gravitation (http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm), 1946

is gravity centrifugal?
You tell me. It's your imagination. Gravity doesn't exist in my imagination or in physical material reality. How can something which does not exist in physical material actuality have properties?

do spheric galaxies contain spheric solar systems?
You tell me. Spherical galaxies only exist in mathematical imagination because there is no such thing as gravity in physical material actuality.

why isn't the universe thought to be on a flattish plane with a bulge at the center?
Because according to Newton, God created gravity to have supernatural magical and miraculous properties. See the Scholium:

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another."

Fixed stars? Yes he is serious.

are we sure that all the matter from the big bang dispersed from that center point, or could there be a center point of tremendous energy and matter and the known universe is just an exfoliation?
No. We are not sure. More than likely there was no Big Bang.

[D H]

Ignore OilIsMastery. He (or she) is a crackpot.

why do they tend to form on a flattish plane so often?
Collisions and conservation of angular momentum. A stellar system forms from a rotating interstellar nebula. As the nebula begins to collapse due to self gravitation there will be ever more collisions among the particles. Collisions between particles with vastly different velocities (e.g., particles with different orbital inclinations) will result in drastic changes in the velocities of the rebounding particles. Collisions between particles with similar orbits will not result in nearly so drastic a change in velocity. The particles will naturally coalesce to the plane normal to the angular momentum of the nebula as a whole.

The same happens (on a much slower time scale) in galaxies with a lot of stars, lots of interstellar gas, and a significant total angular momentum. Old galaxies that have collided with other old galaxies have lots of each and hence tend to be spiral. New galaxies in gas-poor regions of space have little of each, and can be spherical.
is gravity centrifugal?
No.
do spheric galaxies contain spheric solar systems?
No.
why isn't the universe thought to be on a flattish plane with a bulge at the center?
Because the cosmic microwave background radiation tells us that the universe as a whole is quite uniform.
are we sure that all the matter from the big bang dispersed from that center point
It is much better to think of the big bang as an explosion of space rather than an explosion in space.
did i do this right?
No.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

In the balloon model, we would see galaxy groups moving away from us in some directions but see no galaxies in most directions.
It is not good to think of anything as an explosion of space. Space cannot explode.
1111

[D H]

Wrong. In the balloon analogy we can only see in two dimensions (along the surface of the balloon).

The main problem with the balloon analogy is that it falsely gives the impression the universe is embedded in some higher dimensional cartesian space. There is no reason to think that, even if the universe is indeed curved (which indeed it is).

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Wrong. In the balloon analogy we can only see in two dimensions (along the surface of the balloon).

Goofy nonsense.
1111

[James R]

Goofy nonsense.
1111

What, in particular, is nonsense? Please explain.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Hmmm
In particular, the nonsense is the only other statement in my post. That we can see in only 2 dimensions. (See it there in the quote above my response?)
1111

[James R]

But the quoted statement is accurate, not goofy nonsense.

[LogicTech]

There is no reason to think that, even if the universe is indeed curved (which indeed it is).

Only localized regions are.

The universe on a grand scale has been confirmed to be flat (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html) beyond reasonable doubt.

[LogicTech]

In the balloon model, we would see galaxy groups moving away from us in some directions but see no galaxies in most directions.


All the balloon model illustrates is the limitations of using analogies to explain the expansion of the universe. There is no reason to believe there is anything outside of it.

If you must have a mental picture in your head, it is better if you instead think of an expanding loaf of raisin bread, and then imagine that there is no outside of it.


It is not good to think of anything as an explosion of space. Space cannot explode.
1111

An explosion of space doesn't mean that it is exploding in and of itself, it just means that space itself is expanding at a rapid rate...

[quantum_wave]

All analogies break down because there is always ultimately a difference between what we are trying to explain and the analogy we use to explain it. The usefulness of the surface of a balloon analogy is to explain the concept of the expansion of the universe as it is observed. We observe that except in local groups, galaxies all are moving away from each other. I have heard it explained as a system of co-moving coordinates. As the radius of the system increases by a given percentage, i.e. as expansion of the system occurs, all objects in the system move away from every other object in the system by the same percentage.

The result is that no matter where you are in the system, you cannot detect any preferred direction of expansion and therefore you cannot detect any center from within the system.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

But the quoted statement is accurate, not goofy nonsense.

It's not worth arguing it.
1111