Sharpest Image Yet of Massive Galaxy Collision

Originally posted by muzzleflash


Which is more open minded ?

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

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?

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

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

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.

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.

* 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]