Enoch2021 Posted March 7, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 Now I know what you did in the army, you must have been in charge of sounding retreat because you jsut back peddled like a well trained professional. ===================================================================== Now that you "stepped in it"...Unsolicited, all by yourself; Comes.....Shocking SURPRISE: The Last Port in the Storm: Insults/name calling. What's left after Strawmen and Ad Hominems, Right? Just take a trip right down Graham's Hierarchy of Argument Techniques. Fortunately (For everyone), there are no steps lower..... you either head back to the top or stay here @ the Base. What's it gonna be? Wounds hurt no doubt....BUT; The Self-Inflicted Variety are the Worst, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted March 7, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Edited March 7, 2014 by LookingForAnswers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted March 7, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 7, 2014 Now that we have your science background determined, lets get back to the OP. You made this claim..According to Current Stellar "evolution" Theory: Spiral Galaxies take only 2 to 3 turns before beginning to dissipate and lose their definition; therefore, any Galaxies beyond 10 to 20 Million "Light Years" should not reveal Spirals. I think this is a false claim, that it is not the current theory on spiral galaxies. Could you please provide support that this is indeed the current view and not the view from 30 plus years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted March 7, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 7, 2014 From Harvard... http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2013-10 It speaks of some of the current theories on galaxies.... "We show for the first time that stellar spiral arms are not transient features, as claimed for several decades," says UW-Madison astrophysicist Elena D'Onghia, who led the new research along with Harvard colleagues Mark Vogelsberger and Lars Hernquist. "The spiral arms are self-perpetuating, persistent, and surprisingly long lived," adds Vogelsberger. The origin and fate of the emblematic spiral arms in disk galaxies have been debated by astrophysicists for decades, with two theories predominating. One holds that the arms come and go over time. A second and widely held theory is that the material that makes up the arms - stars, gas and dust - is affected by differences in gravity and jams up, like cars at rush hour, sustaining the arms for long periods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 7, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 Your own words hurt the most, they said you have no background in science or the bible. I am going to assume you were telling the truth then How old are you, truly? Unless you delete your entire message string starting last night... the Gig is Up. Or do you pretend that didn't happen and start over again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 7, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 Now that we have your science background determined, lets get back to the OP. You made this claim..According to Current Stellar "evolution" Theory: Spiral Galaxies take only 2 to 3 turns before beginning to dissipate and lose their definition; therefore, any Galaxies beyond 10 to 20 Million "Light Years" should not reveal Spirals. I think this is a false claim, that it is not the current theory on spiral galaxies. Could you please provide support that this is indeed the current view and not the view from 30 plus years ago? Yep, start all over again. unbelievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted March 7, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 7, 2014 Now that we have your science background determined, lets get back to the OP. You made this claim..According to Current Stellar "evolution" Theory: Spiral Galaxies take only 2 to 3 turns before beginning to dissipate and lose their definition; therefore, any Galaxies beyond 10 to 20 Million "Light Years" should not reveal Spirals. I think this is a false claim, that it is not the current theory on spiral galaxies. Could you please provide support that this is indeed the current view and not the view from 30 plus years ago? Yep, start all over again. unbelievable Your entire OP is based upon misinformation (or is is disinformation?) because the current theory on spiral galaxies is not what you claimed, thus everything you posted after that is meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted March 7, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 7, 2014 Your own words hurt the most, they said you have no background in science or the bible. I am going to assume you were telling the truth then How old are you, truly? Unless you delete your entire message string starting last night... the Gig is Up. Or do you pretend that didn't happen and start over again? Pretend what didn't happen? That I didn't copy and paste your own words? If that will make you happy, then fine. Does not change the facts, but whatever makes you happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted March 7, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Enoch, Your OP begins with the claim: "According to Current Stellar "evolution" Theory: Spiral Galaxies take only 2 to 3 turns before beginning to dissipate and lose their definition." This is not a claim I recall having heard before. LFA presented information that challenged this claim. Thus, LFA fails to understand why he needs to answer a question that was based on a claim that as far as we know has no backing to it. Reading through this thread, it looks as if like you are attacking him for tackling the initial unproven claim rather than logically offering support for this claim. I would like to know where this information comes from, too. The reason I haven't been joining this discussion sooner is because I would have to research this claim you brought forward, since it is brand new to my understanding, and then research if anyone else brought this into consideration and how they've tackled it. But sadly, I don't have that kind of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 7, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 ============================================================================= The reason I haven't been joining this discussion sooner is because I would have to research this claim you brought forward, since it is brand new to my understanding, and then research if anyone else brought this into consideration and how they've tackled it. But sadly, I don't have that kind of time. Really? That explains the need to tell us in detail of an inconsequential event. Your OP begins with the claim: "According to Current Stellar "evolution" Theory: Spiral Galaxies take only 2 to 3 turns before beginning to dissipate and lose their definition." Yes it does. However, it's not the point of the OP....it was peripheral. This was the Main Point...... The Farthest Galaxies had to release their Light Long Long Long before the Closer Galaxies The Further Galaxies did not have as much time to Spiral (Rotate and Twist their Arms) and Specifically with BX442....and SUPPORTED by this: "The fact that this galaxy exists is astounding," said David Law, lead author of the study and Dunlap Institute postdoctoral fellow at the University of Toronto's Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics. "Current wisdom holds that such 'grand-design' spiral galaxies simply didn't exist at such an early time in the history of the universe." A 'grand design' galaxy has prominent, well-formed spiral arms." http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/04/the-first-spiral-galaxy-in-the-universe.html See it? Thus, LFA fails to understand why he needs to answer a question that was based on a claim that as far as we know has no backing to it. See above response for backing Reading through this thread, it looks as if like you are attacking him for tackling the initial unproven claim rather than logically offering support for this claim. Well firstly, I wasn't attacking Love. I thought he was "tackling": Star Formation, the OP pictures and source therof with implied impropriety, My Military Career, His conjured belief resulting from reading comprehension issues, MOS and Skill Qualifiers of Commissioned Officers, et al This is not a claim I recall having heard before. LFA presented information that challenged this claim. I would like to know where this information comes from, too. No Problem. And as I said, it was Peripheral to The Main Point. Having said that, I am searching my notes for the source of that Claim and Unfortunately, I do not have it. I will however continue to track it down. Having said that, the claim is somewhat supported by LSA's Harvard Source: "We show for the first time that stellar spiral arms are not transient features, as claimed for several decades," says UW-Madison astrophysicist Elena D'Onghia, who led the new research along with Harvard colleagues Mark Vogelsberger and Lars Hernquist. And the "Claim" might be somewhat dated. So I concede the point.....for now. However, THE MAIN POINT STANDS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts