Gigantic Galaxy String Defies Age of Universe

OK, for those that have read my post here on ATS you will know that I have said over and over again that the universe is far,far older than the believed age of 13.75 billion years. Some have asked for proof of this other than it being just something I think. Well here is some of that proof. Does that make me right about the ago of the universe being 100's of billions if not trillions of years old or even older? Not just yet but things like this does help. Yes, the universe did have a beginning and some day it will also have an end but just how long ago was that beginning we may never know for sure but it could be so old we do not have a number that high. We would have to invent a new number just the age of the universe. 1 Universeillion? The name needs work.

Now I'm no astrology major so this is speculation on my part.

Perhaps the first material released from the big bang had a much higher velocity than the energy/matter that followed it. This would account for the massive discrepancy in the size and distance of this universal anomaly.

Throughout history we have had a knack of discovering that we are part of something bigger. In the beginning, humans thought the Earth was shrouded in a cape and the holes in that cape (stars) was light from "heaven" shining through. Then we realised there was no cape and we believed that the Earth was the centre of a much bigger system that revolved around us. Eventually we discover we are in some kind of system and the Earth revolves around the sun. Then we see we are in some kind of even larger system and we called it a Galaxy. Finally we realised even that galaxy wasn't all there is and there are billions, trillions of them and we called it the Universe.

Is that were it stops? Oh no, our Universe is just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. We are in fact part of a MUCH bigger system called a Multiverse, trillions upon trillion of Universes looking much like bubbles in your bath. Moving serenely, some vast and some tiny. This is where it gets interesting, and I'll use the "bath bubbles" analogy again. Have you ever noticed what happens in your bath when two bubbles, one large and one small meet? The larger bubble seems to absorb the smaller one, in fact, that is not what happens at all. The smaller bubble inflates, it takes pressure from the larger bubble and undergoes a rapid expansion. Sound familiar? In the Multiverse there are odd occasions where two Universes "bump" into each other, one massive and one tiny. When they bump the gravitational forces on the two of them cause the formation of a hole at the point of contact, a black hole if you will. Material and energy flows from the larger universe into the smaller one, causing a massive inflation, a "Big Bang." Eventually the pressure inside the two universes equalises and they move apart.

But it's not a Big Bang at all, it's a Big Bump.

My own personal theory of the origin of the Universe, no deity required

reply to post by davidgrouchy


that is a very well placed point
if two galaxies were imagined like two spinning tops
both spining clockwise, when they bumped there would be a tarnsfer of angular momentum from the rotational to the direction oftravel
mmmmmm
xploder

reply to post by Arbitrageur


thank you for the link
i will be using it to reference future material
the ability to describe the size and amount of material found at the red shift in the article does not fit well with the current models of galaxy formation and the time frame prescibed to fit within the big bang perameters.

in fact the volume of material found does make me ask how can so many fully formed and young galaxies be so close to the edge of the observable universe?

xploder

reply to post by PW229


this is a very interesting idea
that two seperate universes could meet and break surface tension and share contents and energy between the sytems

thank you for adding that juicey idea

xploder

Originally posted by davidgrouchy

The reason is we cannot cling to out dated theories with evidence presented such as this and still call our selves scientists

Boy you sure got that right. Looking to fit the data into preconceived ideas, instead of letting the results of observations speak for themselves leads to overlooking what is right before our very eyes.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e3d6ec9a4dbe.png[/atsimg]

Consider these three galaxy pairs, the bottom one taken from the linked article. Notice a trend? Something they all have in common.

The spiral arms, if traced from the center spiral out counterclockwise for the galaxy on the left, and clockwise for the galaxy on the right.

Isn't that interesting.

If these are supposed to be randomly colliding galaxies how do they know not to colide with galaxies rotating in the same direction?

“The discovery of acceleration was an enormous shock,
because it went against everything we thought we knew about
gravity,” co-researcher Dr Tamara Davis from the University of
Queensland said. “The problem was, that supernova data couldn't
tell us whether dark energy was genuinely there, or whether
Einstein's theory of gravity itself was failing."

So in the effort to preserve the sanctity of the existing theories; some simple things, that a casual forum reader can notice, are passing by totally uncommented on by the scientific community.

Hmmm.

I wonder if I scroll up to the top of the page and look at the picture in the opening post again, if maybe I will see an arm spiraling out counterclockwise on the left, and clockwise on the right.

David Grouchy

good find
i have previously stated that depending on orintatation,
each galaxy as a cumulative gravity source would only interact in the correct plane of orintation,
i wounder if you have stumbled on a way to explain the orintation interaction
if two galaxies were rotation on a common plane and they were to colide side on (both clockwise) the angular momentuim would be imparted to directional inertia
ie they would fly appart (two spinning tops spinning the same way when collision occours causes one to "shoot off" from the other.

if the two spinning tops were spinning in oposite directions when they touched (side on) there is a transfer of angular momentium from one direction of rotation to the other top in the other direction.

this MAY explain why some galaxies are seen to "defy" gravity and move away from a cluster.
this would imply a relationship between plane of rotation and direction of rotation and speed of rotation between the two galaxies as they collide

david what you have suggested is an incredable observation, if we can verify what you have pointed out in this thread with more examples you may have explained why and how galaxies interacte (side on same plane)

this could have very interesting outcomes if "all" galaxy to galaxy interactions follow this orintation



lots for me to think about as always thank you david

xploder

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Do they come to an end or do they just change into something new?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

I'm pretty sure that energy never ends, but only transforms.

Great picture!

I always try to wrap my head around the scale of the universe seeing a photo like this. The size of our solar system that makes up our Milky Way galaxy to each one of those shapes of light being a Galaxy. The magnitude of it all is astonishing.