Hubble Spies Energetic Galaxy Merger

the last couple of posts are truly sad attempts at providing opinion as fact.

go do some math, then come back, and we can have a real discussion as to why you think its all wrong.

you, in fact, make ME laugh, sir!

No matter who has what scientific theory one thing is certain. This is going to happen to us when Andromeda finally runs into us. That's right, our favorite sister galaxy is headed this direction.

reply to post by DaMod


it will, in a few billion years...

im still going to hold my breathe though

besides the people making claims that they dont believe the big bang theory because its full of crap and what-not need to know that it is a theory, and its the best one we have, yet still, its just an attempt at trying to understand our world.

the bible gives a pretty good reason. God did it. doesn't say how, or any details on where he started, or anything. just that, "it was good"

k well how about a little detail.

add on top of the fact that we KNOW everything is moving, and that if you put everything into reverse, IT ALL GOES BACK TO ONE PLACE.

who's to say God didn't create it THAT way.

we still have no clue what's outside the universal horizon. not to say we can't try to guess though!

everything from multiple universes in a giant universe to we are in a snow globe on God's desk and he shakes us up every now and then.

who freakin' knows?? And, how can you say you KNOW FOR A FACT that it cant be the way scientists already are saying?

besides if you look up long enough, you'll just find more and more crazy stuff that, "Never seemed possible"

just a few to chew on:
Saturns hexagon
rasberry-rum flavored galaxy center
geometric patterned nebulae
galaxys colliding
stars that explode and become huge vacuums that light cant even get out
stars that spin so fast they warp space around them
stars the size of jupiters orbit
stars the size of a volvo and weigh as much as a million suns
places of seemingly empty space, that contain millions of galaxys never before seen

just dive in and dont doubt till you meet your maker and it tells you the truth!

reply to post by mahtoosacks

edit: also if you thought physics was all concrete hard facts, then you havent really been watching physics news at all, especially the theoretical physics section. its all whoo hah to those who like concrete facts

There is big difference between a Physicist and Theoretical Physicist, Michio Kaku is a Theoretical Physicist on the other hand I wouldn't consider Brian Greene one.

Originally posted by Aquarius1


reply to post by mahtoosacks

 

edit: also if you thought physics was all concrete hard facts, then you havent really been watching physics news at all, especially the theoretical physics section. its all whoo hah to those who like concrete facts

There is big difference between a Physicist and Theoretical Physicist, Michio Kaku is a Theoretical Physicist on the other hand I wouldn't consider Brian Greene one.

you are right. they arent the same but you cant have one without the other...

Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physics in an attempt to explain natural phenomena. Its central core is mathematical physics,[note 1] though other conceptual techniques are also used. The goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena. The advancement of science depends in general on the interplay between experimental studies and theory. In some cases, theoretical physics adheres to standards of mathematical rigor while giving little weight to experiments and observations. For example, while developing special relativity, Albert Einstein was concerned with the Lorentz transformation which left Maxwell's equations invariant, but was apparently uninterested in the Michelson-Morley experiment on Earth's drift through a luminiferous ether. On the other hand, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect, previously an experimental result lacking a theoretical formulation.

or like this

Sometimes the vision provided by pure mathematical systems can provide clues to how a physical system might be modeled; e.g., the notion, due to Riemann and others, that space itself might be curved.

Physical theories become accepted if they are able to make correct predictions and no (or few) incorrect ones. The theory should have, at least as a secondary objective, a certain economy and elegance (compare to mathematical beauty), a notion sometimes called "Occam's razor" after the 13th-century English philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham), in which the simpler of two theories that describe the same matter just as adequately is preferred. (But conceptual simplicity may mean mathematical complexity.) They are also more likely to be accepted if they connect a wide range of phenomena. Testing the consequences of a theory is part of the scientific method.

Physical theories can be grouped into three categories: mainstream theories, proposed theories and fringe theories.

Theoretical physics began at least 2,300 years ago, under the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, and continued by Plato; and Aristotle, whose views held sway for a millennium. In medieval times, during the rise of the universities, the only acknowledged intellectual disciplines were theology, mathematics, medicine, and law. As the concepts of matter, energy, space, time and causality slowly began to acquire the form we know today, other sciences spun off from the rubric of natural philosophy. During the Middle Ages and Renaissance, the concept of experimental science, the counterpoint to theory, began with scholars such as Ibn al-Haytham and Francis Bacon. The modern era of theory began perhaps with the Copernican paradigm shift in astronomy, soon followed by Johannes Kepler's expressions for planetary orbits, which summarized the meticulous observations of Tycho Brahe.

(all external quotes from en.wikipedia.org...)

[edit on 10/21/2009 by mahtoosacks]