Sharpest Image Yet of Massive Galaxy Collision

Twice now I've seen it said that the universe expanding has been observed, and therefore proven. I would posit that it is equally possible that the universe is not expanding, but it only seems that way from our perspective. Call it spatial disorientation on a massive scale.
It is equally possible that our galaxy, were we able to view it subjectively, is merely moving "backwards" through the universe. Put into over-simple terms; like when you are sitting on a bus, next to another bus. One of them starts moving, and you cant tell which one it is.

Though seeing as how it really isn't feasible to view the entire galaxy subjectively as the only way to do so would be to send viewing apparatus outside of our galaxy, we will probably never know for sure...at least not any time soon.

Personally, im fond of the idea of cycles. That since most everything we know of from the atom on up is orbiting around or in conjunction with something else, who's to say that the trend doesn't continue on out to the whole of the universe? That what we call the "universe" isn't merely orbiting around something of equal or greater mass?

This of course does not help solve if the universe is finite or infinite, but it would certainly help explain the perceived motion.

Photo's like this just make ya think how really unending the Multiverse might be, It's just awsome !

Originally posted by OrphenFire
reply to post by Ciphor

 

Sorry I thought you said the word "retarded" first without the added "semi". My mistake (and bad memory). Nevertheless, there is still no such thing. You're either retarded, or you aren't. The levels of retardation still fall into the category: mentally retarded. "Semi-retardation" would imply that the retardation only impairs certain aspects of mental functioning. In that case, it fails to be "semi-retardation" and becomes something different, depending on the specific function that is impaired. Autism, for example. Or schizophrenia. They are not "semi-retarded", because that term is pointless when a much more specific term exists to describe the mental affliction. I think what you meant was "mildly retarded". In that case, you fail, because muzzle is far from "mildly retarded", or anything remotely related to autism, schizophrenia, psychosis, etc.

About my screen name, it's something personal, has nothing to do with orphans, and will never be revealed in a public forum.

Wow... That's all I can say to you. Just wow. so your personal but unexplainable name that is 1 letter misspelled from saying OrphanFire is a personal secret. OK BUD GOOD GAME THEN! lol. That is your final answer? Really? Ok. but luls, and lots of them to you sir. Good game on your super detailed explanation of how semi and mildly are 2 words of completely different meaning in the context they are being used. Which is measurement... Do you often find yourself thinking before you speak? You should try it, but then again. You are too smrt. s m r t smart. medical term smrt even. Good for you! Sticky star! And look it's gold!

It's a good thing semi and mild have no relationship to words like "partial".

Nevertheless, there is still no such thing. You're either retarded, or you aren't. The levels of retardation still fall into the category

lol. Do you really not see how you contradict yourself in 1 sentence? You're saying it's black and white, are or aren't. Then follow it buy discussing the different degrees of it. Wow bro. You are a wow.

I feel my IQ falling every time I reply to this thread. Like I'm teaching in grade school or something.

FYI CAPTAIN SMART GUY~ You said -- >

category: mentally retarded. "Semi-retardation" would imply that the retardation only impairs certain aspects of mental functioning. In that case, it fails to be "semi-retardation" and becomes something different, depending on the specific function that is impaired. Autism, for example. Or schizophrenia. They are not "semi-retarded", because that term is pointless when a much more specific term exists to describe the mental affliction. I think what you meant was "mildly retarded". In that case, you fail, because muzzle is far from "mildly retarded", or anything remotely related to autism, schizophrenia, psychosis, etc.

AUTISM IS NOT AN IQ RELATED CONDITION
SCHIZOPHRENIA IS NOT AN IQ RELATED CONDITION
PSYCHOSIS IS NOT AN IQ RELATED CONDITION

"Mental retardation (MR) is a generalized disorder, characterized by significantly impaired cognitive functioning and deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors with onset before the age of 18. It has historically been defined as an Intelligence Quotient score under 70.[1] Once focused almost entirely on cognition, the definition now includes both a component relating to mental functioning and one relating to individuals' functional skills in their environment."

"By most definitions mental retardation is more accurately considered a disability rather than a disease. MR can be distinguished in many ways from mental illness, such as schizophrenia or depression. "

GET AN EDUCATION! The one you have right now is bad, very very bad.

ONCE AGAIN THE LINK --> en.wikipedia.org...

BEFORE YOU REPLY READ IT SO YOU STOP SOUNDING SO STUPID. Seriously dude. I may be making an ass out of myself but you are making an idiot out of yourself for the whole world to see. Stop exposing your stupidity. Just stop.

mods? mods ban me please. I really can't take this anymore. I'll come back when you put an IQ test requirement before being able to register and post.


[edit on 7-8-2010 by Ciphor]

We are trained to see galaxies, stars, space.

What if what we are seeing is the mating of an interstellar/intergalactic life form about which we know nothing at the moment ...

Read this please.

Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

Emphasis was mine of course.
So that goes back to the "Earth is the Center" paradox I was referring to earlier. *Although I don't believe that at all, it was to make a point*

Also check out some of this information please.

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data.

So it seems I am not alone.

He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.

I am not saying he is right, just merely showing there is actual dissent in the community against the BB theory.

Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.

So even the guy who coined the term "Big Bang" doesn't even accept it ? That's funny and quite telling indeed.

Hmmm, I'll be. I suppose I am not so "retarded" after all? Unless of course all of these guys are too?

A fun website to check out, and the source I used for these snippets.
www.big-bang-theory.com...

Go to that website and read some of the dissenting opinions. There are many.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by muzzleflash]

Originally posted by blood0fheroes
Twice now I've seen it said that the universe expanding has been observed, and therefore proven. I would posit that it is equally possible that the universe is not expanding, but it only seems that way from our perspective. Call it spatial disorientation on a massive scale.
It is equally possible that our galaxy, were we able to view it subjectively, is merely moving "backwards" through the universe. Put into over-simple terms; like when you are sitting on a bus, next to another bus. One of them starts moving, and you cant tell which one it is.

Though seeing as how it really isn't feasible to view the entire galaxy subjectively as the only way to do so would be to send viewing apparatus outside of our galaxy, we will probably never know for sure...at least not any time soon.

Personally, im fond of the idea of cycles. That since most everything we know of from the atom on up is orbiting around or in conjunction with something else, who's to say that the trend doesn't continue on out to the whole of the universe? That what we call the "universe" isn't merely orbiting around something of equal or greater mass?

This of course does not help solve if the universe is finite or infinite, but it would certainly help explain the perceived motion.

So we must question our perception to simplify things?

Guys when are we going to get a topic going on how the world is flat vs how it is round? I know we "observed" its round, but isn't that just our perception?

Common, who wants to get this topic going. This should prove very enlightening and educational.

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
We are trained to see galaxies, stars, space.

What if what we are seeing is the mating of an interstellar/intergalactic life form about which we know nothing at the moment ...

A question of spirituality vs scientific understanding. An age old question Pelle and one of the toughest to answer.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Read this please.

Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

Emphasis was mine of course.
So that goes back to the "Earth is the Center" paradox I was referring to earlier. *Although I don't believe that at all, it was to make a point*

Also check out some of this information please.

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data.

So it seems I am not alone.

He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.

I am not saying he is right, just merely showing there is actual dissent in the community against the BB theory.

Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.

So even the guy who coined the term "Big Bang" doesn't even accept it anymore? That's funny and quite telling indeed.

Hmmm, I'll be. I suppose I am not so "retarded" after all? Unless of course all of these guys are too?

A fun website to check out, and the source I used for these snippets.
www.big-bang-theory.com...

Go to that website and read some of the dissenting opinions. There are many.

The person who coined the phrase did so as an insult to the theory, and never actually followed it at all, infact it should be be called the big expansion, as it wasn't a explosion of any kind.

And if you'll notice, those people haven't proven the standard model wrong, or offered any better cosmological models, they've just pretty much whined that they could make something "like" it.

While the standard model may well be wrong, and in all likelihood is probably very wrong, it's the best idea we have right now, and until another comes along that has more evidence, most scientists will stick with it, sadly some seem to cling to it religiously.

And in no way are you retarded for questioning the standard model, that is what a true scientist should do, although he should also try to go out and find a better model or definitively prove it wrong.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by hippomchippo]

Originally posted by Ciphor

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
We are trained to see galaxies, stars, space.

What if what we are seeing is the mating of an interstellar/intergalactic life form about which we know nothing at the moment ...

A question of spirituality vs scientific understanding. An age old question Pelle and one of the toughest to answer.

I disagree. I think she was speaking of a physical reality not some spiritual mumbo jumbo.

And Pelle's theory is as good as anyone elses, IMHO.

In fact I liked the post and starred it, because it caused me to think of the "Galactic Porn Movie" in the sky. A fun way of putting it.

reply to post by Ciphor


No, not to simplify. To expound upon. We should always question our perception of things, as no two people can every truly see the same thing. You see, our realities are quite literally based on our perceptions. We cannot even truly know most of what we do perceive, such is the limit of our intellect. How then can we know that which we are so far incapable of perceiving? We cannot.

*ETA* Your example is moot, as we are fully capable of observing our tiny planet subjectively. Your mockery is telling, and I begin to suspect you of being intentionally obtuse.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by blood0fheroes]

Originally posted by hippomchippo

The person who coined the phrase did so as an insult to the theory, and never actually followed it at all, infact it should be be called the big expansion, as it wasn't a explosion of any kind.

And if you'll notice, those people haven't proven the standard model wrong, or offered any better cosmological models, they've just pretty much whined that they could make something "like" it.

Your first paragraph, is true. Touche'.

Your second paragraph, is just an attempt to ridicule those whom they disagree with. Good try.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by muzzleflash]

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by hippomchippo

The person who coined the phrase did so as an insult to the theory, and never actually followed it at all, infact it should be be called the big expansion, as it wasn't a explosion of any kind.

And if you'll notice, those people haven't proven the standard model wrong, or offered any better cosmological models, they've just pretty much whined that they could make something "like" it.

Your first paragraph, is true. Touche'.

Your second paragraph, is just an attempt to ridicule those whom you disagree with. Good try.

Actually, I've edited my post before you posted the response, please re-read my post as I'm anything but adamant in the idea of the standard model.
Some scientists are infact very bitter over the standard model, mostly the one that coined the big bang phrase, he was stuck in his old ideas of the universe and so ridiculed what he seemingly didn't understand.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by hippomchippo]

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Actually, I've edited my post before you posted the response, please re-read my post as I'm anything but adamant in the idea of the standard model.

Haha, and I edited mine as you posted that.

I only changed one word so it wasn't implicating you personally as your statements clarify that.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I was wrong and admit that. My bad.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Actually, I've edited my post before you posted the response, please re-read my post as I'm anything but adamant in the idea of the standard model.

Haha, and I edited mine as you posted that.

I only changed one word so it wasn't implicating you personally as your statements clarify that.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I was wrong and admit that. My bad.

Personally, I think our primitive ideas of the universe are completely wrong and that the universe is so complex and bizarre that we will never fully understand even a percentage of it.

But ofcourse, I have no evidence of that

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Personally, I think our primitive ideas of the universe are completely wrong and that the universe is so complex and bizarre that we will never fully understand even a percentage of it.

But ofcourse, I have no evidence of that

I agree 100%.

I am sorry for misunderstanding your original intent.

The only retarded thing I think I did was my misquote/misunderstanding of your statements. So again I apologize profusely.

I am totally behind you on your statement and your posts.

You don't really need anymore proof for your theory than the Fact that we humans are pretty dumb. I am aware of my own stupidity and I feel I am better off than most lol.

I admit the reason I snapped at you was because you said "whine", which anytime someone says I am whining it's always insulting and provocative so perhaps I was blinded by my own experiences. Doh!

Just some of the posters here got me all defensive, and I totally wasn't expecting someone to 'not' insult me. LOL

[edit on 7-8-2010 by muzzleflash]

reply to post by blood0fheroes


No. My point is valid. As the point you were making was one of perception and observation. I am simply showing you how absurd your idea of throwing observation out the window with the cat is. Observation is a major component of our knowledge gathering process. To throw it out is to question everything without ever having an answer. Great in theory, horrible in practice.

Your saying we can't trust our observations of outer space, only inner space. Observations of inner space (OK) observations of outer space (NOT OK)

Elaborate how this is true?

Or again in a more clear manner explain to me how our perception of earth being round is different then our perception of space expanding? Because what you said before sounded fancy, but it really didn't mean jack. just being blunt and honest.

Or let's just get this debate on the earth being flat started. It will be fun, common...

reply to post by Ciphor


You are misunderstanding IMO.

Making observations is fine, and a great thing.

But claiming your conclusions of what that observation means is the final and only answer, is wrong. There are other conclusions possible.

And trying to compare this to a flat earth debate is asinine. Ferdinand Magellan's expedition proved that the world was round BY SAILING AROUND IT.

Who sailed around the universe? Exactly.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by muzzleflash]

reply to post by Ciphor


I think now I understand your reasoning, and in doing so where you missed my point. It was not that we must disregard our observations, but that we must not fall into the trap of thinking there can only be one conclusion from those observations when the parameters are not clearly defined.

Or let's just get this debate on the earth being flat started. It will be fun, common...

Tempting, but I am much too tired right now to play devils advocate.

*ETA*

To throw it out is to question everything without ever having an answer.

Being a humble student of Descartes, I would much rather be in constant search for the Truth while never attaining it; then to settle for anything less.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by blood0fheroes]

reply to post by muzzleflash



I do remember seeing/hear Carl Saganl . and yes thinking about the distances its perfectly logical apart from the gravitational problems.

Inevitably we will see some colitions tho, and they are going to throw some pretty big rocks in every direction causing more problems, the chances of earth like planets in their own solar systems goldilocks zone's will be supporting life of one form or the other without a doubt, weather microbial or bacterial or intelligent the chances are good at best.

I believe life is very common in our galaxy and elsewhere, the numbers are just to high, lets consider we once had two earth like planets sitting right next to each other, earth & mars, lets consider the possibilities of some form of life on jupiter's moon europa, thats 2 planets & one moon out of the 9 planets & 240 known moons within the Solar System, including 166 orbiting the planets, factor that into the milky way,

I still think alot of life is dieing due to this collision.

Respectfully

Originally posted by blood0fheroes
reply to post by Ciphor

 

I think now I understand your reasoning, and in doing so where you missed my point. It was not that we must disregard our observations, but that we must not fall into the trap of thinking there can only be one conclusion from those observations when the parameters are not clearly defined.

Or let's just get this debate on the earth being flat started. It will be fun, common...

Tempting, but I am much too tired right now to play devils advocate.

*ETA*

To throw it out is to question everything without ever having an answer.

Being a humble student of Descartes, I would much rather be in constant search for the Truth while never attaining it; then to settle for anything less.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by blood0fheroes]

I understand you fully. I think it is you whom is lacking understanding.

You strike me as someone who is a reader of finer books and can understand it better if I put it in other words.

We are builders. Constructors of thought and time. Developers of our own fates. Yes we are ever learning and adapting. More of a change then a stay. But if we are to build far and high, we must have some type of sturdy foundation. Buildings will not stand the test of time on uncertain ground. If we fail in our ideas of what is sturdy, we learn from the mistake and construct something better through trial and error.

None the less, our intellectual advancement requires that a sturdy foundation be constructed before it can be tested as wrong.

We through trial and error, observation and all the other tools available to mankind have concluded that the universe is expanding. This is a foundation for more ideas and progress into our understanding of space. What you are asking is to question the foundation without another foundation being offered in return. Hence you wish to trade a building foundation that is sturdy, and to the best of our knowledge accurate, with one that is wobbly like jello and has nothing from which we can build further ideas. You question just to question for the sake of questioning. This is not pursuit of the truth. This is a pursuit into insanity.

Sometimes the right question can provide mountains of insight into a discussion, so I ask the right question...

Why do you believe the universe is not expanding and our observations of its expansion are invalid? This question is not for debate. Merely insight into a stance you have taken that to me and others, is absurd, and I feel when you ask yourself this question, you too may find why it is absurd.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Ciphor]