Sharpest Image Yet of Massive Galaxy Collision

reply to post by blood0fheroes


I too am a big fan of Descartes. But your quote is miss-placed friend. I to am for the search of truth. Why do you think I frequent ATS after all? I do not think we should settle for anything less. We are not settling.

What we are debating is "how" the search for truth is done. Questioning for the sake of questioning is not good in practice. Our observation of the universe's expansion is proof of our goals in seeking answers.

reply to post by Ciphor



so much anger and hate. i feel sorry for you and your lack of empathy. i can wait for the day when you are shown the error of your ways and someone smarter than you belittles and humiliate you. not because i enjoy seeing people suffer but only because i think it will help you understand another person position. i know your upset at something but let it go man life is too short to live with so much venom. do you think anybody will care what you say after your dead? they wont. you will just be remembered as a bitter person. paying out on people to make yourself look smart is a sure sign of insecurity.

i find it ironic that you accuse muzzle of being a troll and all you have done since you entered this thread is troll it and talk trash that has nothing to do with this topic. i usually dont feed the trolls well thats not true i feel sorry for them so i do throw a crumb now and then. but as a whole i try to stay away. because participating is such debate is pointless and generates nothing but negative energy. you must feed off it. poor you. anyway go find yourself a nice girl to hug and hold or a boy whatever your preference just dont come in here and insult people for no reason other than your feeling a little stupid and want to feel smart.

and that is all i have to say.


back on topic.


someone mentioned they wouldnt want to live is either of of those galaxies. well considering the collision has been going on for millions of years i thinks its safe to assume you wouldn't feel a thing.

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
reply to post by Ciphor

 

so much anger and hate. i feel sorry for you and your lack of empathy. i can wait for the day when you are shown the error of your ways and someone smarter than you belittles and humiliate you. not because i enjoy seeing people suffer but only because i think it will help you understand another person position. i know your upset at something but let it go man life is too short to live with so much venom. do you think anybody will care what you say after your dead? they wont. you will just be remembered as a bitter person. paying out on people to make yourself look smart is a sure sign of insecurity.

i find it ironic that you accuse muzzle of being a troll and all you have done since you entered this thread is troll it and talk trash that has nothing to do with this topic. i usually dont feed the trolls well thats not true i feel sorry for them so i do throw a crumb now and then. but as a whole i try to stay away. because participating is such debate is pointless and generates nothing but negative energy. you must feed off it. poor you. anyway go find yourself a nice girl to hug and hold or a boy whatever your preference just dont come in here and insult people for no reason other than your feeling a little stupid and want to feel smart.

and that is all i have to say.


back on topic.

Uhh, thank you? I don't. I don't know how to reply to that lol. Someone help me out here?

i can wait for the day when you are shown the error of your ways and someone smarter than you belittles and humiliate you.

Hey, ya. Welcome to Monday lol. My IQ is about 20 points lower then everyone's in the room. me and some of my peers get together for discussions on quantum theories, string theory and such. Man, I always feel so stupid lol. The belittling I issued to muzzle would feel like a pillow fight compared to the tongue lashings I endure every week trying to debate with these guys on truly theoretical topics.

Then again I would never come to a debate as ill prepared as muzzle is to talk about astrophysics. You really feel sorry for me? I really feel sorry for some of you. Look, we have stuff in common. WE ARE SOUL MATES MATE! Can I hug you?



[edit on 7-8-2010 by Ciphor]

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.

You can argue against the big bang theory all you want, but you have no know WHAT IT IS FIRST and provide PROPER EVIDENCE to your claim.

... but, If you want to argue against something that you think - nay, protest- is the big bang theory when it is not, then you will be ridiculed by every scientific mind here.

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]

Oh, I might be able to get to you with this post.

If you think gravity would pull everything into a small point, or even toward a large point - it has to pull to a large point before the a small point, right?... then why do not birds and airplanes fall from the sky? Why don't satellites fall from space?

The answer is in the scale of forces. At localized areas thrust + lift on a wing create a force that is stronger than gravity - just like at localized areas, gravity is a force that is stronger than our universal expansion.

STOP the Personal Sniping !

Everyone has a right to their opinion .

Address the TOPIC and not each other.

Interact Civilly or not at all.

NO Quarter from here on.

reply to post by Oozii




That is a pretty pic of galaxies, for some reason things are more flashy and cooler when they are in collision then not in collision, like fireworks. Though this is on a different time scale, there is a huge differences from a couple of seconds or min to over 100 million years.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
i bet it must have been a beautiful view of the night sky for any civilizations living in either galaxy to see leading up to it.

Wow! Maybe Chicken Little originally came from a planet somewhere in that mess! From that viewpoint, he was RIGHT!


Good find on this image!

From a documentary I saw a few years ago on a Public Broadcasting station, they showed proof that Black Holes do exist, even if you can't really see them: There was a star caught in the BH gravity well & they were spiraling around each other (in what the narrator described as a "death dance"), As per 2 stars in a binary-system orbit. The star was visibly trailing it's emissions into the Black Hole. You couldn't see the Black Hole itself, of course, but there was an obviously HUGE gravity well there. That's another image that really caught my attention.

I'm trying to locate a link to the video or a picture of it, but not holding up any hopes...It was a program I saw about 2-3 years ago. if I do find it, I'll post at least a link.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]

reply to post by Ciphor

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.

*snip* Anyways since you bring up gravity and are so much more knowledgeable, can you tell me what gravity is. You know in layman or baby talk since I don't like to read long writings. Or give me a link to whatever book explains what gravity is. I always wondered what gravity is.

(removed off topic remark)

[edit on Sat Aug 7 2010 by Jbird]

reply to post by muzzleflash


Fair enough - point taken. Apology offered.

Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
There is most likely alot of life dieing right there! ALOT!

No not really, even if those separate galaxies had life before they interacted with each other, the time scale for life is very low, look at earth and our galaxy. If they spotted another one that was in the approximative place for a collision in a couple of years, somehow I don't think the human species have the over 100 million years to wait around for something to disturb our gravitational center, or would even notice it on those time scales, in fact chances are we would destroy ourself waiting to be destroyed by colliding galaxies a couple of times over. I don't think colliding on that scale and the human scale corresponds to well, when I think of a collision, it usually lasts a couple of minutes like a car crash.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


I'm sorry to hear you don't like reading long writings. I don't like wasting my time reading short writings with no content. But this will be short anyway. Lucky you.

Newton said it best. Every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.


Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on Sat Aug 7 2010 by Jbird]

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
reply to post by Oozii

 

i never get over reading sentences like this on:
"these two galaxies have been colliding for 100 million years."

when one thinks of collisions, they usually don't think of something lasting more than a moment, or a day, let alone millions of years.

puts an interesting twist on how i percieve time.

i heard somewhere that some pilots think of a crash not as a crash but as an event in which the velocity of the object (plane) reduces to zero in such a rapid amount of time as to cause structural damage. which is why if you could extend the time it took for the the force of the impact to be felt, you could avoid 'structural damage' so to speak. there was a cool way this was achievable say if you fell off a building and you were inside a sphere inside a sphere the outer sphere would absorb the impact and somehow that force would cause the inside sphere to use that energy to spin rapidly, the spinning uses up all of the energy from the impact and the person inside the middle is unharmed, other than whatever the rapid spinning would do...

-B.M

If planets lives through that shooting gallery just think what religions comes out of there the'll think the gods really went crazy for million of years.

Originally posted by Ciphor
reply to post by galadofwarthethird

 

I'm sorry to hear you don't like reading long writings. I don't like wasting my time reading short writings with no content. But this will be short anyway. Lucky you.

Newton said it best. Every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

 

Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on Sat Aug 7 2010 by Jbird]

Yes exactly short and to the point, if i'm going to have to read about something i don't want it to take to long especially, if it says nothing much, why waste all that time to say, "massive things gravitate toward other massive things, and small things gravitate toward big things". Brilliant that make perfect sense, and the content was short. Here I thought you were going to use big words to say the same thing. I don't like wasting my time reading long writings with no content.

reply to post by B.Morrison

i heard somewhere that some pilots think of a crash not as a crash but as an event in which the velocity of the object (plane) reduces to zero in such a rapid amount of time as to cause structural damage. which is why if you could extend the time it took for the the force of the impact to be felt, you could avoid 'structural damage' so to speak. there was a cool way this was achievable say if you fell off a building and you were inside a sphere inside a sphere the outer sphere would absorb the impact and somehow that force would cause the inside sphere to use that energy to spin rapidly, the spinning uses up all of the energy from the impact and the person inside the middle is unharmed, other than whatever the rapid spinning would do...

Interesting it could work but not on anything like the shape's that planes are in. But with spheres if the impact can be displaced and transfered to the inside sphere and then to the next sphere and so on. It could be like the gears of a clock only backwards the bigger sphere turning the smaller sphere and so on lol gravity is like the gears of a clock in a lot of ways...So then anything hitting the surface of these spheres, if it does not break and is absorbed, can be used as a kinetic energy to basically not only lessen impact but used like a clock or even a motor using force/energy by displacing force to create a specific point to what that force/energy does. There could be something to why lots of sightings of ufo are discs or sphere shapes, maybe these little green men know something we don't in the inherent nature of shapes and energy....look at galaxies they are run by spheres, suns and planets all some sort spherical kinetic energy matrix, everything pulling on everything else in a balance of sorts. If there was a big bang, one could say it was the impact that set this machine we call the universe in motion. Motion=energy or energy=motion just as much as mass=energy or energy=mass.

Ya those pilot's are right, collision is not just things hitting each other, collisions are when things hit each other and the force of that impact, rebounds back destroying each other in the process. And they are also right about why planes get crunched when they have to stop there motions from over 200 mph to 0 mph, stopping that fast also creates energy, it takes "engine impact" energy, to make planes go forward and fly as dictated by there shape, so impact creates energy makes something go, but a collision is also an impact and also creates energy, but instead of being displaced and used specifically it rebounds on itself thereby destroying plane, I guess shape is not only form but function. And when two planes crash there shape will determine what the function will be and since they are designed to only go forward they get squished and crunched, "structural damage".

reply to post by Ciphor


Quite. I do lack understanding, and in knowing so I seek the nuance of it ever. I agree that through trial and error we have come to the theory of expansion. I disagree, however, that this theory is the pinnacle nor is it the whole of the Truth.

I suppose a better way of putting it would be like this: 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.

Again, 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?

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.