It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If Big Bang is accurate, how can THIS be?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   
I've always loved science and kept reasonably up-to-date on various theories and ideas (SuperString Theory, etc).

With the common understanding of the Big Bang everything blew out from one initial point. There were some anomolous shapes, clouds, etc that had soem effect but basically everything was going outward and expanding, similar to pen dots on a balloon which is being blown up (heard this analogy on Nova once).

That being said, how can two galaxies EVER, EVER collide? Unless our universe has already started contracting which I haven't even heard of on here


How can THIS PICTURE be true, given the science of the Big Bang expansion?





posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Instead of worrying about superstring theory, you should concentrate more on the basics.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by notreallyalive
 


Contraction and eventual death.

And then another big bang.




posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   
I always asked that same question and you are correct it is odd we should be seeing galaxies crashing into each other. however there are strange things out there that may be the cause. For instance the andromeda galaxy will crash into us because the milky way is being pulled by a thing called the great attractor and that is also attracting the andomeda galaxy. Also the milky way has more mass and hence more gravity and because the andromeda is following us it is being accrelerated to wards us... Think of it this way how do u get more speed without accelerating in a f1 car? You travel behind another car and use their slip stream to pull you towards them...same thing applies to galaxies

[edit on 21-11-2009 by loner007]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   
First of all, the Big Crunch was disproved (of course with science, everything can change). The Universe at this point in time is expanding and accelerating. The reason you see galactic cannibalism is because of gravity; I mean, our own Milky Way will collide with the Andromeda Galaxy in the future. All of this is can be found in any astronomy book.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:48 AM
link   
I find it odd that some folks think it's odd that galaxies would collide. This seems perfectly consistent with the big bang theory.The matter in the observable universe is "clumpy" and even though we see expansion, we also see gravity at work in galaxy clusters and superclusters pulling matter together on smaller scales even as the universe expands on a larger scale.

There is also observational evidence consistent with the big bang and the expanding universe showing how galaxies have evolved over time from simpler structures to more complex spirals we see in more recent times, again apparently confirming collisions of galaxies are common.

In fact, our own Milky Way galaxy appears to be on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy, but don't worry, it won't happen anytime soon.

You should watch Alex Filippenko's course called "Understanding the Universe - What's New in Astronomy, 2003" where he covers this and many other interesting topics.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainMutiny
First of all, the Big Crunch was disproved (of course with science, everything can change).


Definitely. I recall hearing that Einstein's inacceptance of the Cosmological Constant was one of his biggest faults and actually caused him to throw out his theory for some time! Things do change in this realm.

So, gravity which is pushing us away from the Big Bang initial spot has decreased enough to allow us to crash into other galaxies and slow down enough to allow slip streams to work? sounds kinda like speculation to me. Anyone have measured scientific facts on this?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by notreallyalive
I've always loved science and kept reasonably up-to-date on various theories and ideas (SuperString Theory, etc).

With the common understanding of the Big Bang everything blew out from one initial point. There were some anomolous shapes, clouds, etc that had soem effect but basically everything was going outward and expanding, similar to pen dots on a balloon which is being blown up (heard this analogy on Nova once).

That being said, how can two galaxies EVER, EVER collide? Unless our universe has already started contracting which I haven't even heard of on here


How can THIS PICTURE be true, given the science of the Big Bang expansion?





it is possible that one galaxy is farther away than the other.

example: hold one hand in front of your face six inches away. then hold the other hand in front of your face eight inches away.

now move the hands towards center. it will look like they are colliding but they aren't. just an illusion.

i'm not saying that is what we are seeing in the photo, but it is just an idea to think about.


-subfab



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by subfab

Originally posted by notreallyalive
I've always loved science and kept reasonably up-to-date on various theories and ideas (SuperString Theory, etc).

With the common understanding of the Big Bang everything blew out from one initial point. There were some anomolous shapes, clouds, etc that had soem effect but basically everything was going outward and expanding, similar to pen dots on a balloon which is being blown up (heard this analogy on Nova once).

That being said, how can two galaxies EVER, EVER collide? Unless our universe has already started contracting which I haven't even heard of on here


How can THIS PICTURE be true, given the science of the Big Bang expansion?





it is possible that one galaxy is farther away than the other.

example: hold one hand in front of your face six inches away. then hold the other hand in front of your face eight inches away.

now move the hands towards center. it will look like they are colliding but they aren't. just an illusion.

i'm not saying that is what we are seeing in the photo, but it is just an idea to think about.


-subfab


I actually think that IS what is happening in the photo. One is farther back than the other. If you notice where their spiral arms seem to touch, they are still very defined. If the galaxies were really colliding, this would not be. Gravity and the movement of these arms would cause them to intermingle with each other to the point where you couldn't see the spiral arms clearly.. it would all be a big mess.

And the spiral arm of the big one does look like it's on top of the little ones spiral arm.

Not a scientist.. that's just my guess.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by notreallyalive



Well how about all the matter that created those 2 galaxies was simply travelling away from the event that we call a 'big bang' at a relative pace to each other, just far apart for them to form separate galaxies but close enough that they have been locked in a dance to the death ever since...

The mutual attraction due to gravity is huge, and in this case enough to off set the momentum they both carry? - That to me makes sense, there are quite a lot of examples of objects locked in this self destructive dance...

Really by your thinking (but scaled down) how can binary star systems exist? How can 2 or more objects anywhere resist being drawn into a mutual gravational dance?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I have never believed that the BIg Bang happened. If the universe is infinite, how could it have a center from which all things are in expansion from? It's a self-contained contradiction in logic. Both assumptions cannot be true.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by notreallyalive
So, gravity which is pushing us away from the Big Bang initial spot has decreased enough to allow us to crash into other galaxies and slow down enough to allow slip streams to work? sounds kinda like speculation to me. Anyone have measured scientific facts on this?


Gravity doesn't push, it pulls so you have a lot to learn but at least you're asking questions so keep researching and asking and you might understand.

The measured scientific facts are too numerous to describe, but perhaps the best insight I've seen to help answer the question in this thread is the 3D supercomputer animation made from known astronomical observations in this video:

www.ted.com...

That's George Smoot on TED. You should watch the whole thing which talks about the big bang, but at 7 minutes into the video, you can really see the clumpy nature of the universe. The animation at 11 minutes is even more amazing! See how clumpy the universe is?

The clumps continue to move apart even as stuff inside the clumps gets pulled together by gravity.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by notreallyalive
So, gravity which is pushing us away from the Big Bang initial spot has decreased enough to allow us to crash into other galaxies and slow down enough to allow slip streams to work? sounds kinda like speculation to me. Anyone have measured scientific facts on this?


Gravity doesn't push, it pulls so you have a lot to learn...


riiight.. I should have used the term "force"



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by notreallyalive
 



Gravitational pulls of galaxies upon each other can result in trajectories that result in collisions between galaxies.

One current theory is that we are actually in a part of another galaxy that is in collision with the Milky Way.

Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy?????

[edit on 21-11-2009 by pavil]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by subfab
 


Yes I would agree with that. Photos of galaxies colliding show much more disruption.

Google images of smashed galaxies



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
The Big Bang theory itself is inaccurate. The universe really did not happen the way that conventional science tells us it happened.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by subfab
 


They can tell the distance my measuring redshift.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by notreallyalive
 

Hi, notreallyalive.

THIS can be, because of irregularities, at the start of the B.B.

Throw a handfull of sand on the floor, then look. ( Each grain = galaxy = G )
The majority of the Gs will be alone in its small part of the universe/floor,
BUT there WILL be pairs and trios. . . of Gs, because of the irregularity
of your "throw" and the irregularities of the universe/floor. . .

Right ?

See the "fossil image" of the first expansion heat. . .

Blue skies.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by georgejetson
reply to post by subfab
 


They can tell the distance my measuring redshift.


Actually, redshift is used to measure the speed the object is moving away from us, Doppler effect.

Measuring distance is much less accurate, using standard candles, parallax, and probably others I don’t remember.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
HTML imbed test

Disregard post


[edit on 22-11-2009 by notreallyalive]







 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join