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.

 

Sharpest Image Yet of Massive Galaxy Collision

page: 2
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash


Which is more open minded ?

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



I would say both are equally open minded. The question is, which is true.

You can have spatialy infinite universe in big bang cosmology. You can even have temporaly infinite universe in big bang cosmology (cyclic models).





Originally posted by Ghrwilson 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?



What real colors? Unless my own eyes conspired against me, the Moon is black and white..




posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
"How can every galaxy show a red shift, and yet collide with each other"?



The expansion increases linearly with galaxies mutual distance. The force of gravity diminishes with square of their distance.

If two galaxies are sufficiently close to each other (milions of light years and less), the force of gravity attracting them is much bigger than the force of expansion pushing them apart - they will collide.

If two galaxies are sufficiently apart (bilions of light years), the force of expansion is bigger than the force of gravity, and they will be pushed apart.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Oozii
 


It looks like your avatar image?

Did you happend to make your avatar after you seen this?



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I love having beautiful threads ruined by one mans ignorance and another mans arrogance.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Thanks for the friendly reply and explanation.

I do understand what you are saying, but according to red shift theory they claim that all galaxies are spreading apart.

Here we have a photo that shows the opposite.

Maybe red shift theory is Partially correct, if so, they need to specify and reword their theory.

"Most galaxies are spreading apart but a lot of them get caught in gravitational wells and end up colliding and going in directions that is not consistent with the expansion, however this is an optical illusion."

That would make a lot more sense to me than the "everything is red shift" statement which to me is just impossible. Considering the photograph in the OP.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo
I love having beautiful threads ruined by one mans ignorance and another mans arrogance.


I usually think that witty one liners that merely attack 2 posters rather than add any intelligent discussion ruin them far quicker than when 2 people debate something.

Oh and also, "ruined" is subjective and purely based on your personal opinion.

My opinion is that no thread is ruined. Unless, it goes to the trash bin. Than it's ruined for good.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

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.


You should really have at the very least a "basic" understanding of physics before you comment on a topic of astrophysics. That whole statement above is absurd and shows a great deal of ignorance on the subject mater. Maybe gravity isn't so easy to understand? Naw you need to read more bro. Read more.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

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.


How about... no?
If you have no understanding of a subject you should keep it to yourself. This is how miss information is spread. Like a disease people spout off like their words are fact. Other less educated people will latch on. etc. Best to speak when you know what your saying. Remember, think before you speak? You have a poor understanding of ego centric thinking if you believe mockery of this type of ignorance is anything egotistical. No sense sugar coating stupidity. Give them a hard smack and tell them to stop smoking and read a f*in book other then harry potter and twilight~



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Absolutely beautiful. very nice. kudos. As for what information is in hand "universe expanding, contracting, melting, freezing, etc..." and I'm not positive of everything mentioned on the thread so far so forgive me if I repost something accidentally.. but how about Splitting?




* The many-worlds interpretation is very vague about the ways to determine when splitting happens, and nowadays usually the criterion is that the two branches have decohered. However, present day understanding of decoherence does not allow a completely precise, self contained way to say when the two branches have decohered/"do not interact", and hence many-worlds interpretation remains arbitrary. This is the main objection opponents of this interpretation raise,[citation needed] saying that it is not clear what is precisely meant by branching, and point to the lack of self contained criteria specifying branching.

MWI response: the decoherence or "splitting" or "branching" is complete when the measurement is complete. In Dirac notation a measurement is complete when:
\lang O|O[j]\rang = \delta_[ij] where O represents the observer having detected the object system in the i-th state. Before the measurement has started the observer states are identical; after the measurement is complete the observer states are orthonormal.[3][6] Thus a measurement defines the branching process: the branching is as well- or ill- defined as the measurement is. Thus branching is complete when the measurement is complete. Since the role of the observer and measurement per se plays no special role in MWI (measurements are handled as all other interactions are) there is no need for a precise definition of what an observer or a measurement is — just as in Newtonian physics no precise definition of either an observer or a measurement was required or expected. In all circumstances the universal wavefunction is still available to give a complete description of reality. Also, it is a common misconception to think that branches are completely separate. In Everett's formulation, they may in principle quantum interfere (i.e. "merge" instead of "splitting") with each other in the future,[50] although this requires all "memory" of the earlier branching event to be lost, so no observer ever sees two branches of reality.[51][52]



Many Worlds Interpretation (wiki link)

- - - - - - -
& now to go back and read all the rest



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

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

This doesn't necessarily mean that. They could have both been heading 'outwards' and the trajectories were not 100% in the same direction.....this could ultimately mean they would cross paths on down the road....thus colliding. Lie 2 cars driving in the same direction that meet at an apex in the road and crash.

also you said:


Looks to me like stuff is flying in random directions everywhere


If stuff is flying everywhere, that would only support expansion....otherwise everything would be introverting towards a center. If everything is "flying" everywhere, we have to at least consider a N,W,S,E directional pattern and consider that things could be expanding in all four directions and every azimuth inbetween, above and below. There would certainly be many collisions in this likely scenario. Your theory suggests tat everything is introverting, which will ultimately end up in a coagulated mass in what would have to be the center of the known universe. There would most likely already be a mass started as the universe is billions of yeas old or more right?

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Phenomium]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
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.


Ok, your first post made me think "This guy is pretty ignorant and really has no idea about physics".

This post leaves me with a feeling closer to "This guy may be semi retarded"

The expansion of the universe has been observed, not theorized. Your level of ignorance and insane belief that your ignorance is "open-minded" is.. wow. I'm speechless.

Let's be clear here. No one is "debating" you. Everyone is simply pointing out how ignorant you are, and possibly semi-retarded. You're a guy in a room full of painters saying your open minded because the green paint on the wall could be black and white stripped, telling the rest of us we are close minded for laughing at you. Does that put the discussion in terms you can understand? Like a coloring book right? The ones you read in highschool lol.

This is a prime example of the problems with a poor education system. People resort to casual education online by reading blogs and think they know what they are talking about. Then they want to contest the science that people spent whole life times on with 2 hours of reading a sourceless web page. He honestly thinks he is open-minded by not being educated. His thought process actually depresses me it's so pathetic.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





I do understand what you are saying, but according to red shift theory they claim that all galaxies are spreading apart.


Not all galaxies, only those that are not gravitationaly bound. There is no redshift in our local group of galaxies, and Andromeda galaxy is even slightly blueshifted, thus moving towards us.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Could you imagine being on a planet in a system in one of those galaxies?

Your race develops the technology to observe the heavens closer and you realize that a star and all it's planets is going to intersect with your system?

You calculate out the time before impact?

Terrifying!



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
You say I know nothing about "gravity" but then you try to claim that everything in the whole universe was in one small point and somehow this "gravity" reversed and caused everything to expand outwards.

What a load of crap that is. Gravity would have caused that small ultra-condensed point of matter to collapse on itself and create a mega-black hole.

Call me a retard all you want. But you probably can't address this with any logic or rational reasoning.



[edit on 7-8-2010 by muzzleflash]

[edit on 7-8-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Looks like deep sea algae. Beautiful display of fractal similitude.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor


Let's be clear here. No one is "debating" you.


Right it's just ridicule and personal attacks.

At least your right about something.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
You say I know nothing about "gravity" but then you try to claim that everything in the whole universe was in one small point and somehow this "gravity" reversed and caused everything to expand outwards.

What a load of crap that is. Gravity would have caused that small ultra-condensed point of matter to collapse on itself and create a mega-black hole.

Call me a retard all you want. But you probably can't address this with any logic or rational reasoning.



[edit on 7-8-2010 by muzzleflash]

[edit on 7-8-2010 by muzzleflash]


You do realize you are the ONLY person on this thread that has mentioned the big bang theory? Dude you are semi-retarded lol! Even attempting to respond to your stupidity leaves me feeling dumber. I'm not even going to try.

"you try to claim that everything in the whole universe was in one small point and somehow this "gravity" reversed and caused everything to expand outwards."

When did I claim that? Where is the quote of me saying anything like that?


You cannot be this dumb. It's not possible. Tell me you are smarter then this please. Your trolling right? Ahh man you almost got me too! I almost thought you were being serious. How did I miss this obvious troll. Lol no way someones this dumb. Well played man, well played. Had me going there for a minute.


you probably can't address this with any logic or rational reasoning.


LOL so true.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Ciphor]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Ciphor
 


What the hell is up with all of your posts?? Damn you're worse than the first guy who attacked muzzle. Calling people retarded? What's the point of that? Clearly he isn't retarded... Have you never met someone who really is mentally handicapped? A person suffering from Down Syndrome? Anyway, that's useless rambling.

The point here is: everyone deserves respect. Especially someone who is legitimately offering his opinions on a matter dealing with theoretical science and lots and lots of speculation. Here's the problem with scientists these days: Lots of total self belief and no humility. Why can't you arrogant "know-it-alls" explain your beliefs in a positive, respectful manner?



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrphenFire
reply to post by Ciphor
 


What the hell is up with all of your posts?? Damn you're worse than the first guy who attacked muzzle. Calling people retarded? What's the point of that? Clearly he isn't retarded... Have you never met someone who really is mentally handicapped? A person suffering from Down Syndrome? Anyway, that's useless rambling.

The point here is: everyone deserves respect. Especially someone who is legitimately offering his opinions on a matter dealing with theoretical science and lots and lots of speculation. Here's the problem with scientists these days: Lots of total self belief and no humility. Why can't you arrogant "know-it-alls" explain your beliefs in a positive, respectful manner?


To answer your question, yes. My 2nd cousin has downs, I see her every year at Christmas. I didn't "call people retarded" I implied that it is possible muzzle is "semi-retarded". Meaning learning handicapped but functional enough to drive rent an apartment etc. I stand by my assumption, as he has said nothing to prove otherwise that I can see.


everyone deserves respect.
I strongly disagree with your opinion. Respect is earned and proven. Everyone is given a basic amount of respect at the start. You can do things to lose respect such as but not limited too; Posting your ideas as facts and using your ideas to argue facts. Quoting people saying things they never said. Speaking of astrophysics like toy cars. etc. I could go on but you get the point ya?

And please. Never never never never never never never ask again that I explain physics to someone who has obviously never picked up a physics book. I would have to ask in return you take a man rock climbing who awoke from a 15 year coma.
Both have the same chances of a successful mission.

One more thing...

dealing with theoretical science and lots and lots of speculation. Here's the problem with scientists these days: Lots of total self belief and no humility. Why can't you arrogant "know-it-alls" explain your beliefs in a positive, respectful manner?


Again, and sad you don't understand this, truly truly sad. The universe expansion has been OBSERVED. It is no longer theory. What can we do to pound that into some heads here? Do you even keep up with modern science or just spit out garbage when you have the chance? Forgive me for being a "know it all"

Let's start a new discussion in your terms ok? Let's talk about how the earth is flat. Even though we have observed it is definitely round. Lets give open forum discussion to the ideas of it being flat. Can we do that too? For the sake of "real science" as you call it, of course. ^_~



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


holy irony, wait a second, hahahahahahaha! Did I just get crap about calling someone "semi-retarded", and a rant about "respect" from someone named OrphenFire? YES I DID! Everyone deserves respect but Orphans? They deserve to be burned!


Hey OrphenFire, how does hypocrisy taste? Is it good?




[edit on 7-8-2010 by Ciphor]



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join