Solar System 'traverses all of the spiral arms of the Milky Way during 225my orbit ?!

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by dumbest man on earth, Aug 5, 2014.

  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Not quite - it's possible for the sun to complete a full revolution about the center of the galaxy without passing through all of the arms. The process of passing through all of the arms doesn't nececssarily take the same amount of time as completing a full revolution - this is DMOEs point.

    I don't have the head space to do the math, but the difference between the suns velocity through the galaxy and the velocity at which the spiral density wave rotates around the galaxy is estimated to be anywhere between 0 and 13.7 km/s.

    At 0 km/s the sun is stationary relative to the spiral arms of the galaxy, at 13.7 km/s it crosses all of them over some period of time which I really CBF working out right now, but i'm fairly sure it's on the order of 500 MA EG:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I accept that reasoning, but I don't believe that was dmoe's point.

    My point was that our Sun moves independently of the density wave spiral arm.

    Then he tries to establish an Impossible "onus of truth by stating

    I also have no problem with the above......

    Now compare the following two posts.......

    And after comments such as this......
    My claim being that the Sun orbits the galactic center independent of the density wave inspired spiral arms.
    I have given links that claim the Sun has traversed all arms, and/or over time that will most probably be the case.

    The well known uneccessary continued actions and confusions of dmoe, are there for one purpose.
    This thread was started for one purpose.

    My position at this time remains that the wave density theory [which dmoe originally denied or at least did not accept until recently] is mainly responsible for the spiral arm formations, and that the Sun in its independent orbit passes through all spiral arms. I should have added in time. Which I did not.
    The point was, and is, my position was quite clear to any normal reasonable thinking member.

    Finally he admits reluctantly......

    Wave density theory re galactic spiral arms and the Sun moving independently of those density waves and arms, is the most accepted incumbent theory and while dmoe is trying his damndest to shift the onus of "proof" [and a ton of evidence has been given in many links to support both wave density and the Sun's non absolute position] according to the scientific method, that onus is on him to invalidate the incumbent theory.
    He cannot and has not done that.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    What you 'believe' is irrelevant, paddoboy.
    The Real Process of Science is to observe, Objectively, what is presented for observation.
    The OP I authored is what was presented for Observation.
    I clearly stated that the "quoted" 'claim' from your Post #11 of the : Thread, seemed to conflict with what I had been taught and learned of the 'orbit' of our Solar System within the Milky Way Galaxy.

    You never Posted anything about any 'density wave' in the Post #11 of the other Thread.
    Janus58 brought up "density waves" in Post # 3 of this Thread.

    As I have stated, at least twice in this Thread, the "Realistically, origin,...definitive observational empirical evidence can ever be accrued..." paragraph in that Post was not intended to 'set an impossibly high burden of proof'. It was only an "aside", to origin. (from my Post #13, in replying to Russ_Waters)
    And again in my Post #92, which was in reply to you bringing it up in your Post #90!


    What are you trying to "bring up" or "point out" by comparing those 'two posts'?

    Again, paddoboy, what are you trying to "bring up" or "point out"?

    paddoboy, none of the Links that you 'have given' - or any Links proffered by anyone in this Thread - can be "Cited" as providing proper supporting evidence of your original 'claim' :
    ...on to...
    Would you care to enlighten the Members of SciForums of what you Subjectively believe that 'one purpose' to be, paddoboy?

    I clearly stated why I stared this Thread in my OP :
    The primary reason that it has 'continued' as long as it has, is that you have yet to present any True Scientific Evidence that supports your original 'claim'.

    You seem to be "mistaken" paddoboy.
    I have never, in any way, shape or form Denied 'the wave density theory' !!
    I acknowledged it in my Post #8, and have continued to acknowledge it !!

    Again, you appear to be "mistaken", paddoboy!
    In your original 'claim', you quantified that 'time period' to be 'about 225 million years' :

    No comment!!

    Again, you seem to be "mistaken"!!
    From my Post # 75 :
    ...on to...
    If I may be(two separate words, BTW!) permitted to use your words, paddoboy...
    It is more than likely 'quite clear to any normal reasonable thinking member' or even Reader of this Thread, which Member of SciForums is attempting 'to shift the onus of "proof" ' !!

    As I stated previously, paddoboy, I have never, in any way, shape or form Denied 'the wave density theory' !!
    I acknowledged it in my Post #8, and have continued to acknowledge it !!

    So...paddoboy, why would you state that the 'onus is on' me, dmoe, to invalidate the incumbent theory ???!!!

    Possibly, the only 7-words that I can concur with in your entire Post, paddoboy...though I would be quick to add...and will not!!!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    To dmoe.
    I do not need you, nor do I want you to PM me on any matter.
    I have nothing to say to you off forum.
    Thankfully we have nothing in common.
    So no more PM's OK?

    Post 102 illustrates the contradictory nature of dmoe's continuing claims quite admirably, and illustrates that after finally accepting wave density theory, he must also accept the fact that the Sun orbits independently of our spiral arm, and passes through all of the arms in our galaxy.

    Finally one needs to ask, how much does the YEC's and other God botherers lack of acceptance of the BB and much of cosmology, has to do with this thread. Spiral galaxy arms and the age of the Universe as evidenced, is a thorn in the side of our creationists friends. dmoe does not accept the BB....his own words plus his continued closet support of God botherers is reason why his word can be taken with a grain of salt. :shrug:

    This thread?....Much ado about nothing.
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    The following scientific paper is entitled.....

    Testing the link between terrestrial climate change and Galactic
    spiral arm transit
    Spiral arms and terrestrial climate:


    We re-examine past suggestions of a close link between terrestrial climate
    change and the Sun’s transit of spiral arms in its path through the Milky Way
    galaxy. These links produced concrete fits, deriving the unknown spiral pattern
    speed from terrestrial climate correlations. We test these fits against new data on
    spiral structure based on CO data that does not make simplifying assumptions
    about symmetry and circular rotation. If we compare the times of these transits
    to changes in the climate of Earth, not only do the claimed correlations
    disappear, but also we find that they cannot be resurrected for any reasonable
    pattern speed.

    extracts in the paper.....
    "As the solar system passes through the spiral arms of our galaxy"

    " between spiral-arm passage and climate
    holds up under new information on the structure of the galaxy."

    " Since the primary publications on the spiral-arm passage and climate correlation,
    newer models of the galactic structure, including the positions of the spiral arms,
    have been created that place our transit of these spiral arms at a different time."
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Earth’s climate has changed over time, but the cause for the changes has been hotly debated. One idea (Shaviv and Veizer,2003), suggested that perhaps two-thirds to three-fourths of the variance in Earth’s temperature over the past 500 million years may be attributable to when our solar system passes through the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy. The evidence seemed to fit: there appears to be a 140 million year cycle of global climate change, and that correlates when our solar system seems to move between spiral arms, too. Or at least it used to. Since 2003 we have revised our map of the galaxy, which changes the estimation of when Earth transits through the spiral arms.

    Just two more links at this time...Busy day ahead of me, bowling, meeting, eating, clubbing etc.
    More later if needed.

    Of course our good YEC's friends and their closet supporters will ignore all this evidence much as they ignore the evidence of the BB.
  11. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    More "Waffling", paddoboy?

    Since you "bring it up", I have only tried to "PM" you once!!!

    That "PM" was basically a copy of my Post #91 of this Thread :

    You have my complete unequivocal permission to Post that "PM" if you 'believe' it will help you in any way!
    Heck, paddoboy, I penned it, so if any other Member is interested, and states that interest, I will be more than happy to Post it!

    As for the rest of your ^^above quoted^^, and indeed the majority of your Posts in this Thread, I have been warned, and 'Moderated' for responding to Posts.
    I have been told to utilize the "Report" button...

    At any rate, you said "bye dmoe.", in your Post #90...

    ...but, alas...
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2014
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    I have been thinking about my above "thinking", so started to do some searching myself after the nonsensical claims of some that the Sun remains within the present spiral arm.
    Found the following Interesting aside.......

    Start: 14 Jan 2014 - 12:30
    End: 14 Jan 2014 - 13:30
    This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of the paper "On the Spiral Structure of Disk Galaxies" by C. C. Lin and Frank H. Shu. How well has it fulfilled its promise to explain the systematics of the Hubble sequence of spiral and barred spiral galaxies (which John Bahcall regarded as its most attractive theoretical feature)? In this talk, I review the linear and nonlinear theory of spiral density waves, starting from the hypothesis of quasi-stationary spiral structure (QSSS), its observational consequences and early tests, before moving to the theory of resonantly forced spiral density waves and its applications to structure formation in planetary rings, planet migration in protoplanetary disks, and bar forcing in the central regions of active galaxies with supermassive black holes. Adopting the QSSS hypothesis,we also study the development of parasitic, self-gravitating, magnetohydrodynamic instabilities that can develop secondary spiral-arm structures such as branches, spurs, and feathers.
    The last process may revolutionize our conception of objects such as giant molecular clouds. I then discuss spontaneously growing normal modes based on the concepts of (1) spiral density waves with negative and positive densities of wave energy and angular momentum, (2) over-reflection at corotation by the mechanisms of wave-amplification by the stimulated emission of radiation (WASER) and Swing, and (3) feedback from the central regions. New semi-analytic results, numerical simulations, and observations in the near-infrared of grand-design and flocculent spiral galaxies, suggest that growing stellar density waves can saturate by nonlinear effects, thereby supplying the missing justification for the original QSSS hypothesis.

    and the following......

    Which seems to be saying that younger protoplanetary systems and more developed stellar systems, would see more "hot Jupiters" and similar, the younger a system was.
    Whereas a more mature system like our own is more stabilised with our gaseous giants further out.
    Although the passage of systems in and out of spiral arms in their orbits about the galactic center of gravity, can "aggravate" the situation within that system, with variable gravitational perturbations.

    At this period in time, we are "oscillating" upwards heading outwards of the galactic equatorial plane, but will over the course of a few million years, be pulled back down again, probably ahead of our present spiral arm, as we continue to orbit independently of it.
  13. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    it would be fun to see a computer model of the Sun bobbing up and down, moving forward in orbit about the galactic center, with all the other stars in the model, with the sun crossing though the 'arms' as they reform over time. any takers?
  14. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    I concur, WLW, that 'it would be fun to see' such a 'model'. Especially if it was a 3-D model based on "Empirical evidence".

    In some of the Links that have been previously supplied in this Thread, there are a few 2-D "animations" of spiral galaxies.

    However, I have yet to see one of our Milky Way galaxy that is "modeled" solely on "Empirical evidence".
    Would, by any chance, WLW, you know of one such 'computer model' of our Milky Way galaxy that is "modeled" solely on "Empirical evidence"?
    If so, would you be able to provide a Link to such a 'computer model' of our Milky Way galaxy that is "modeled" solely on "Empirical evidence"?

    WLW, such a 'computer model' of our Milky Way galaxy that is "modeled" solely on "Empirical evidence" - with the position of our Solar System "highlighted" in that 'computer model' - would definitely help to "clarify the issue" that I presented in my OP!
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Coming from someone with YEC's and God botherer sympathies, and one who can't even see the "near certainty" of Evolution and Abiogenesis, not to mention the BB, I take whatever you say or claim with a grain of salt.

    Wave density theory and consequently the movement of the Sun independent of the spiral arms, still stands as the incumbent theory. Plenty of evidence for that as linked, and the reason why it is the incumbent theory, which you now seem to accept.

    Which leaves the following beliefs and myths, as redundent.

    In fact, given time, during that orbital period, our solar system traverses all of the spiral arms, and also has an oscillation above and below the equatorial plain of the Milky Way.
  16. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Just stumbled across another "waffling" scientific paper...[tic mode on

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    We review the long term variations in the galactic environement in the vicinity of the solar system.
    These include changes in the cosmic ray flux, in the pressure of the different interstellar components, and possibly even gravitational tides. On very long time scales, the variations arise from the variable star formation rate of the Milky Way, while on shorter scales, passages through the galactic spiral arms, and vertical oscillations, relative to the galactic plane.
    We also summarize the various records in past variations in meteorites in the Ocean sea floor and even in various paleoclimatic records.

    Over long time scales, the three most important causes of change in
    the environment of the solar system, on times scales of 107 yr or longer,
    are the following:
    1 Star formation rate:

    2 Passage through galactic spiral arms:

    3 Oscillations perpendicular to the galactic plane:

    Last edited: Aug 15, 2014
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    In essence, we have as much empirical evidence [despite false claims to the contrary] for wave density theory and the Sun moving through spiral arms, as we do for claiming the MW, is a spiral galaxy, has a barred center, is 100,000 L/years in diameter, 20,000 L/years thick, and the Sun is 28,000 L/years from the center.
    They are all mainstream accepted theories in regards to our galaxy.
    Plenty of evidence to indicate all is as close to reality as we believe.

    On the other side opposed to the science, we have YEC's creationists and other God botherers doing their level best to invalidate through whatever contorted means possible....
    Some examples......
  19. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    @ paddoboy, in reference to your Posts #114, and #115 :

    - 10 to the 7th power is equal to (10,000,000) 10 Million years, not 107 years, but I have no Idea what '[tic mode on

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ]' means, so...

    - I am not sure that you fully understand what "empirical evidence" actually is, especially in reference to the Real Sciences, so...

    At any rate, I will properly "quote" some pertinent 'extracts', as you seem to refer to such, from the "paper' you referenced in your Post # 114.
    I have emphasized in Bold, a few "salient" points that you may have inadvertently missed or overlooked.

    - the ^^above quoted^^ from, and much, much more at :

    paddoboy, regardless of what you "perceive" or "infer" - and whether or not you have '[tic mode on

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ]' - still nothing of what you have "Posted" or "Linked" contains any properly cited "supporting evidence" of your original 'claim' :
    I prefer to take the Real Sciences very seriously, paddoboy!

    I do not engage in the various "obfuscation" conduct, behaviors or techniques that some Members of SciForums evidently seem to prefer.

    I will leave this Thread to you, paddoboy, to do with as you have since your Post #7.

    It would be nice if another Member of SciForums could or would Post something "to clarify the issue", as I stated in the OP.

    ...but...after 6-pages, so far, it seems that that may not happen, so...
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2014
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Maybe you need to read the paper I linked too? And blame the "cut n paste"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Just saying

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And the "tic mode"remark was obviously [well obvious to most] your continued claim that any scientific paper I present, or remark I make is "waffling"
    You have probably used the word at least a dozen times...I'll let you inform the forum as to exactly how many times you have used it. [tic mode on

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But again, like most of your remarks against my person, can be taken with a grain of salt.

    Sure I do! Just as I have presented, ignoring of course the rather painful contorted interpretation you put on things.

    I may need your assistance here dmoe. I'm not familiar with the word ÿopu"[tic mode on]

    And yet you want to include creationists myths within discussions about Evolution and Abiogenesis?
    And yet you reject the BB and all the empirical evidence that supports it?
    I could probably go on and on about a few other things, but as you know, I'm not that concerned with your personal beliefs and non scientific opinions.

    Once again.......
    Apologies, I'm ignorant as to what "yopu"means...Can you assist me? [tic mode on]

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You keep believing that and you will continue to be in the dark about many things.

    You started the thread for reasons obvious to most...nothing more, nothing less.
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2014
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    My inferences and perceptions are in the main, what is perceived and inferred by mainstream science. It is that way because those same inferences and perceptions, are more logical than most others.
    On the other hand, your own perceptions and Inferences, have been shown to be, let's say, rather weird?
    Others have picked up on that as well as myself.
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

  23. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Like a mechanical model of where the mass is now as opposed to a model based on capturing emitted photons from where the mass was in the past? Why not try both at the same time?

    How about a model of the y, z light paths emitted from 4 rotating galactic sources viewed from a fixed location, further out in the same galaxy, over 2 complete rotations. If the observer (i.e. the Solar system) was rotating around the same center of mass it would appear to pass through each 'arm' many times during each rotation depending on the rotational velocities of the sources and the observer.

    The geometry and the dynamics that are used in the following images are quite simple and reveal much about the 4 sources that could create the light paths shown, from their initial start times and locations to their subsequent movements.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page