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: 6
39
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Marrr
 


Your eyes deceive you. He wasn't asking questions. I'd quote it but I think mods might remove lol. page 1 and 2.

If he asked a question, lol what was it?

He said such golden things as "To me this is a indirect proof that the Universe is NOT expanding."

and another winner "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. "

and who can forget this gem "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. "




posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by blood0fheroes
The theory of expansion in the universe is not so much wholly incorrect as I believe it is flawed. Accepting that everything is moving away from a point is - again in my opinion - every bit as flawed a concept as believing we understand the full effects of gravity, when we have no idea what the cause is.


Well a good place to start would be actually knowing what we have observed through expansion. At no point in time has it been observed that we are moving away from a single point.

Oh hey neat --> map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Expansion 101!

You guys really need to stop tying the big bang theory in with what we know about expansion. Expansion is observed and therefor proven until proven otherwise. The theory that we are expanding from one point caused by the big bang is just that. A theory.

They are not one in the same.

It also appears you did not understand my post.


I disagree, however, that this theory is the pinnacle nor is it the whole of the Truth.


I clearly and very repetitively stated that our observation is the Foundation of our building to the answers, or "truth" as you are calling it. I never once portrayed it as the "whole of the truth".

You also said


not so much wholly incorrect as I believe it is flawed.


Can you please provide a reason why? How is it flawed exactly?


my personal theory is that because most everything in our known tangible reality from the atom on up to the workings of our solar system objects move in an elliptical or circular orbit around objects of equal or greater mass. Why then should we presume that this function stops at solar systems?


Umm, because we don't presume? We observe. We observe through hubble and IR telescopes the expansion of the universe. We measure it using math. You forget one of the most important and fundamental rules of gravity. DISTANCE You have clusters (Solar systems) of mass that are local and close enough to be influenced by gravity. You should really read up on dark matter. More importantly how much of our universe is filled with empty stretches of dark matter.

Here, read about dark matter here --> en.wikipedia.org...

Oh man. My post is full of education eh!

To put it super duper "we Todd" simple... We measure the distance between stars and galaxies and every year the distance is growing. More recently the pace has been increasing if I remember correctly.



Please at the very least read the expansion link before replying. It will allow for better discussion if we are on the same page, and you guys really seem to be stuck on the big bang page.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by blood0fheroes
If indeed whole systems of stars orbit around or in conjunction with others, and in turn the motion of galaxies do the same and so on, this would show that our perception of the movement of the universe is what is flawed because we are in an orbit or orbits that we cannot view subjectively.


Ok, sorry one last thing. There is a gigantic flaw in your theory here. We have, and here is that popular word of the day "Observed" that our planets spin around our sun. We have observed that the universe is NOT spinning around anything. We have many ways of measuring these things.

And incase your reply is "well maybe the universe is so big we cant see the universe spinning." We would see the force that our universe rotating would generate. The same way we measure the force of planets whirling around our sun. If you take a plate and spin it. But cover up all parts of the plate but one section, you can still see that it is spinning as everything is moving in the same direction and at an increasing velocity from the inside to the outer edge.

You just aren't using common sense physics here man. Your are making huge guesses and they are unfortunately incorrect.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrphenFire

 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





I'm not sure I understand your reply here OrphanFire. What did you mean by that? What do those pictures even mean?



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
We are witnessing the deaths of countless souls and animals as it happened millions of years ago. Hopefully some of those races were technologically advanced enough to escape their unfortunate and inevitable demise.







[edit on 8-8-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   

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




Ummmm .. No.

Galaxies form gravitationally bound clusters. A good example of this would be our own "Local Group". The force of gravity is pulling the group together as the force of the expanding universe is pulling them apart. When two galaxies start out to close to each other collisions happen.
(see the Andromeda Galaxy for more details
)

[edit on 8-8-2010 by nophun]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


Kinda gives a new meaning to 'Dancing with the stars' huh? Haha, but seriously it does seem more like a long waltz through the universe than a collision. So beautiful!



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join