Sharpest Image Yet of Massive Galaxy Collision

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/913065a32fbf.jpg[/atsimg]

These two spiral galaxies have been colliding for over 100 million years. The intergalactic battle has spurred the creation of millions of new stars, the most massive of which have already exploded into supernovae.

Three of NASA’s space telescopes have combined forces to create the sharpest image yet of the merging Antennae galaxies, located 62 million light years from Earth. X-ray data from Chandra X-Ray Observatory is blue, optical data from the Hubble Space Telescope is gold and brown, and infrared data from Spitzer Space Telescope is red. The photos were taken between 1999 and 2002, and combine 117 hours of observation.

Read More Wired.com

Truly amazing and beautiful. The Universe will never cease giving out spectacular events such as this. And it's just incredible the amount of time it takes to view an event like this one.



And here is a Wide-Angle View of the Collision. Truly Beautiful, and Amazing.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/32b14af2fa7e.jpg[/atsimg]

Credit: Wired.com

To me this is a indirect proof that the Universe is NOT expanding.

Please think about this a minute.

If two galaxies can collide, that means they were not expanding outwards away from each other.

For the universe to be expanding in the model proposed about how "everything shows red shift" or whatever, doesn't make any sense in this context.

This means everyone is misinterpreting what red shift actually means. Things just are not adding up for the expansion model.

And if you want to argue that not every galaxy is showing a red shift, than what does that do to the expansion theory?

Looks to me like stuff is flying in random directions everywhere.

This is why I really love the "infinite universe" model.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
To me this is a indirect proof that the Universe is NOT expanding.

Please think about this a minute.

If there points of origin are, say 45 degrees from each other, and one is expanding in the path of the other, while expanding, they will strike each other. Kind of like the in a pool game before any balls hit the rails.
By the way, SnF. I now use this jpg as 1 of my desk tops.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Violater1]

Maybe it's just because it's late and I'm tired, or maybe it's that I tend to be a bit artistic by nature, but does anyone else think that the second collision picture looks a lot like a developing embryo? Very beautiful pictures at any rate.

Galaxy's are made up of stars and stars have huge amounts of gravity. yes a star can orbit another star and those other stars will pull closer and closer till they collide. I believe the universe is expanding unless gravity comes in the picture.

reply to post by Oozii


i bet it must have been a beautiful view of the night sky for any civilizations living in either galaxy to see leading up to it.

i never get over reading sentences like this on:
"these two galaxies have been colliding for 100 million years."

when one thinks of collisions, they usually don't think of something lasting more than a moment, or a day, let alone millions of years.

puts an interesting twist on how i percieve time.

it's more like a dance, sorta, and less than a collision, i think.

thanks for sharing these pics with us,
et

@ muzzleflash; What you say does make sense. I guess someone is playing with galaxys like toy cars, and crashing them into eachother.

@ Esoteric Teacher; Yeah I read that in the article and was really amazed that it takes that long or even longer for this to happen.

@ Hefficide; It does. Barely notice it when I read your post. Pretty Cool.

@ Violater1; I bad with number's so yea . And thanks, Im glad you liked them. I usually have backgrounds of the universe.




[edit on 7-8-2010 by Oozii]

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Oozii]

reply to post by muzzleflash


The expansion is dominant over large distances (billions of light years), so it affects clusters of galaxies - those are indeed unlikely to collide. At the level of individual galaxies, the expansion is weak compared to gravity.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
To me this is a indirect proof that the Universe is NOT expanding.

Please think about this a minute.

If two galaxies can collide, that means they were not expanding outwards away from each other.

For the universe to be expanding in the model proposed about how "everything shows red shift" or whatever, doesn't make any sense in this context.

This means everyone is misinterpreting what red shift actually means. Things just are not adding up for the expansion model.

And if you want to argue that not every galaxy is showing a red shift, than what does that do to the expansion theory?

Looks to me like stuff is flying in random directions everywhere.

This is why I really love the "infinite universe" model.

If you were as perceptive as you are ignorant, you may have come to the conclusion that the universe is not expanding because your body hasn't been torn apart ...

You're also assuming that the expansion metric is greater than or equal to the speed that galaxies are moving through space-time in our relatively localized area, and also completely ignoring the effects of gravity.

For such a genius who has just disproved expansion theory to himself, you certainly aren't that attentive.

Think of it more like this. Space-Time is expanding right where you are sitting, but why aren't you expanding with it? Gravity is the answer. All of the localized atoms on Earth, the solar system, even the entire galaxy are holding fast against the expansion due to forces that are much stronger (at least right now) than expansion. Remember, even though it appears that you exist within the same space from moment, you are actually revolving around the axis of the earth, orbiting around the sun, following the sun through it's motion in the galaxy, and following the galaxy through its path through space.... and so on. This fact may open your mind up to how it is possible that space is expanding right in front of you, but you are none the wiser.

Also, when galaxies are "close" enough to one another for gravity to have just the mildest of effects, then they are also holding fast against the expansion.

The areas of space where the expansion is apparent are those where gravity's influence has more on less been nullified between very distant objects that have no gravitational relationship.

If the acceleration speeds up, and it becomes stronger than the gravitational forces holding objects together, then everything WILL be torn apart

Lol @ seeing this as proof the universe is not expanding. If anything it proves it is expanding..not just sitting dormant..

reply to post by muzzleflash


That assumes that matter is stationary (fixed place in space-time). As we all know with newtonian physical laws, energy changes... even over time. Methinks that comment was a little...."hopeful".

Dave

Edit for the love of editing

[edit on 7-8-2010 by daptodave]

well enough paying out on the guy that decided to share an opinion. right or wrong there are ways to answer a question. being a sarcastic twat is not one. if you think someone is wrong then explain to them nicely why you think they are wrong. also to assume anybody has a monopoly on reality is the height of ego centric thinking.

back on topic thats some awe inspiring photography. i love pics like this shows what a dynamic universe we live in. i cant wait till the resolution technology gets better.

Thank you.

I know I will get ridiculed for arguing against the mainstream theology of big bang religion.

When you debate something and they repetitively ridicule you, you know you are on the right track.

So thanks for calling me names and insulting my intelligence with your arrogant "holier than thou" remarks.


Here is a good way to put it.

Which is more open minded ?

Thinking the Universe is finite and limited, or thinking it is probably infinite?

Enjoy stroking your ego's and laugh all you want.

I'll be over here not caring.

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
well enough paying out on the guy that decided to share an opinion. right or wrong there are ways to answer a question. being a sarcastic twat is not one. if you think someone is wrong then explain to them nicely why you think they are wrong. also to assume anybody has a monopoly on reality is the height of ego centric thinking.

back on topic thats some awe inspiring photography. i love pics like this shows what a dynamic universe we live in. i cant wait till the resolution technology gets better.

Thanks for being cool about it.

You mention no one has a monopoly on reality, and I want to specify that.

No one has a monopoly on knowing how big the universe is, or it's large scale mechanics.

We are basically just like little bacteria trying to figure out how big Earth is. Much less the moon or other planets...

I am just a little bacteria merely giving my opinion on the issue.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Interesting take about the burden of proof being a religion... given that almost anything can be religious... mind you i did have some food tonight that was positively divine...

In all seriousness, you probably attend a church, and have those awkward conversations with your kids about how if the bible is accurate, how do you explain dinosaurs... and isnt the earth at the centre of the universe because the bible said that god created the earth. A lot of what I hear about that comes from my fundamentalist wife and her family that think that energy works because Jesus said so...

I think its commonly lack of imagination and perspective that makes people leap to silly things like that... but hey if its written down in a "holy" book you cant argue with it... cos Jesus said so.

Dave

Wow

These pictures (especially the first) are so beautiful! Thanks for posting.
.
Gosh, I'd really hate to be living in one of those galaxies though...

Why is it when NASA shows pictures of deep space pictures like this they are in HD and look awesome. But when we see pictures of the moon there crap, black and white and doesn't show the moons real colors? Also what satellite takes these pictures? Is it a new one or an old 1960s model? Someone? Anyone?....

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Here is a good way to put it.

Which is more open minded ?

Thinking the Universe is finite and limited, or thinking it is probably infinite?

Do you think prefering one of them is more "open minded", or was that a rhetoric question?
Both are possible.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by deccal]

Originally posted by deccal

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Here is a good way to put it.

Which is more open minded ?

Thinking the Universe is finite and limited, or thinking it is probably infinite?

Do you think prefering one of them is more "open minded", or was that a sarcastic comment?
Both are possible.

It was sarcastic sorry. I am sarcastic like 90% of the time. I apologize.

Yes both are possible.

I am not sure which one is reality. But I know which one seems the most reasonable to my own perception. Endless rather than ending.

Originally posted by daptodave


In all seriousness, you probably attend a church, and have those awkward conversations with your kids about how if the bible is accurate, how do you explain dinosaurs... and isnt the earth at the centre of the universe because the bible said that god created the earth. A lot of what I hear about that comes from my fundamentalist wife and her family that think that energy works because Jesus said so...

Ok so I disagree with the mainstream and now I'm just a religious nutter that goes to church and says "jesus did it" all the time.

No, actually I am not really religious at all. I don't go to any churches.

I mean your whole rant here is absurd. I am not religious. So whats up with all of that stuff?

Dinosaurs and all that? You went way off the deep end.

I am totally used to this type of attitude though, anytime I question the mainstream.

You get labeled and ridiculed and attacked right and left. Most of these are personal attacks that try to belittle and undermine.

Good try though. No I am not religious nut. I just simply disagree with you and stated my reasons and pointed out that galactic collisions in my view, show my point in perfect clarity.

I said merely "How can every galaxy show a red shift, and yet collide with each other"?

And no one has ever answered that sufficiently IMHO. A lot answer, but most of the time it's ridicule and character assassination attempts.

I am still searching for an answer to this confusing aspect of red shift theory.