Spiral Galaxies: (A Challenge to the Paradigm?)

[jerryR34]

 

Enoch...

 

Step back and look at what you are proposing.  Are you saying that spiral galaxies refute a 13+ billion year old universe.  Please answer, this is importatnt to establishing your baseline of belief/knowledge.

 

==========================================================================

 

So you answer a question with a question?  Or did you just want to clarify?

 

Just want to clarify where you stand.  Do you believe what you are proposing precludes the universe being 13+ billion years old?  How old do you think the Unverse is and how did you come to that conclusion?  I probably should have asked these questions a while ago to better gauge what your posts are proposing.

[gray wolf]

The researchers are still looking for answers. . .  I don't think they are ready to abandon the age of the universe yet. I can't find that 2004 article in New Scientist.  Where did you find it?  I could only find a reference to it in AiG.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

=========================================================================

 

 

So what you did was erect a strawman and then knocked it down.

 

Now I have to give credit where credit is due.  Your thought process was clear, concise, and well thought out.  I Like It!!  Well done (seriously)

 

But they replaced it with just another "theory", see below.

 

How so in that the first 2/3 of your post is spent showing that the "current" theory was wrong.

 

Well not exactly.  From your source:  Note....These are from MODELS!!

 

"The spiral arms are self-perpetuating, persistent, and surprisingly long lived," adds Vogelsberger.

 

How Long? And When do they Originate?

 

"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."

 

 

This does not, anywhere in the entire article, even discuss How in the WORLD a Massive Spiral Galaxy that's 3 Billion Years Old can form.

 

So the question still stands Sir

 

 

As for BX442, I have already provided the current thought on it.  BX442 does nothing to shoot down the Big Bang,

 

Where?

 

 

that the arms come and go over time.

they can exist on their own through (the influence of) gravity, even in the extreme when the perturbations are no longer there."

 

So which camp do you subscribe to?  Hopefully not the first one, cause you'll meet Mr. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics real quick... and it's not gonna end well. 

 

Gravity!!  ha ha ha.....oh really?

 

Also are you familiar with Sir Isaac Newton and Specifically the Inverse Square Law....

 

F= (G) m₁ m₂/d²

 

You'll need this: 6.670 x 10^-11 (Newton-square meter per square kilogram to convert/dimensional analysis with {m₁, m₂, and d²}).

 

m₁ and m₂ = the Product of the 2 Masses that are measured. d² is Distance between them (SQUARED LOL)

 

If you take the Burnham Model (Robert Burnham Jr., Celestial Handbook) Standard in Astronomy and gives a real sense of distances:

 

Model:

 

1 Inch = distance from the Sun to the Earth (1 Astronomical Unit or AU)

One Mile = 1 Light Year

 

Example:

 

The Nearest Star to us (Alpha Centauri C) is 4 1/2 Light Years away.

If you make our Sun and Alpha Centauri each the size of a Golf Ball, They would be 700 MILES APART!!!  Can you tell me what effect Gravity has if we take the product of their masses and then LOL.....divide that by the SQUARE of the distance between them???

 

:24: :24:

 

They're gonna need a new "theory".....you're being Hoodwinked, Plain and Simple.

 

 

The idea that you can shootdown the big bang theory with a couple 100 words is the stuff of pure fantasy.

 

Oh, I'm not done yet.  After we're done with this sidebar I'm gonna GO GUNZ 

 

 

Perhaps you can find further information from David Law showing that he supports what you are putting forth.

 

Why?, he already said it.  And...it's really just common sense with a little physics to get the picture.  I don't need a Biochemist to tell me twice I'm eating a Turkey Club, it's right here in front of me.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

===========================================================================

 

Now this is much better Jerry.  This is a few posts without any Overt/Implied Insults.  I Like It!!!!

 

 

Just want to clarify where you stand.  Do you believe what you are proposing precludes the universe being 13+ billion years old?

 

Yes, part of it.

 

 

How old do you think the Unverse is and how did you come to that conclusion?

 

6-10,000 years Old......  From Genesis.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

But they replaced it with just another "theory", see below.

 

 

Of course they did, that is what science does, that is what science is supposed to do.

 

 

How Long? And When do they Originate?

 

 

I dont know, it is outside of my realm of expertise.  I am a stats guy, not a Astrophysicist.

 

Oh, I'm not done yet.  After we're done with this sidebar I'm gonna GO GUNZ

 

 

I do hope it is a step above what you have done so far.

 

Why?, he already said it.  And...it's really just common sense with a little physics to get the picture.

 

 

that is not what he has said, he has not used BX442 as evidence against the Big Bang, you are taking one quote out of context, something you seemed to get really upset about me doing last night. 

[LookingForAnswers]

Anyone that would like to know more about  BX442 go to youtube and search for "Really, Really Old Spiral Galaxy - Deep Sky Videos". I dont think I am allowed to link to youtube so I will not take the chance.  This is a 4 1/2 minute video about this galaxy that goes into a nice discussion of this topic.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

============================================================================

 

Of course they did, that is what science does, that is what science is supposed to do.

 

That article didn't refute anything....they just said there were 2 camps now, based on Another "Theory(s)" but didn't offer anything substantive except Speculation on Gravity....and we see where that went right quick

 

 

I dont know, it is outside of my realm of expertise.  I am a stats guy, not a Astrophysicist.

 

Yes.  I wasn't asking you ....it was questions that Illuminated that they didn't deal with My Point.

 

 

I do hope it is a step above what you have done so far.

 

The step right now is just fine.  You haven't refuted it nor they.

 

 

that is not what he has said, he has not used BX442 as evidence against the Big Bang, you are taking one quote out of context, something you seemed to get really upset about me doing last night.

 

He didn't have to.... the Implication is obvious.

 

Just like this one.....

 

"The galaxy cluster lies in the direction of the southern hemisphere constellation Grus (the Crane). Dr Francis himself expressed the problem, ‘The simulations tell us that you cannot take the matter in the early universe and line it up in strings this large’, he said. ‘There simply hasn’t been enough time since the big bang to form structures this colossal."

Why galaxy cluster is too grown-up for early universe, New Scientist 181(2430):14, 17 January 2004

 

It's the same implication

[anthonyjmcgirr]

As much as I want to accept the theory, I have been doing more thinking.  What is obvious to me is that anything science has to say about galaxies is pure unproven (and unprovable) theories.  There is no way they can know that galaxies only make one or two revolutions before they dissipate.  They have no clue how old each galaxy is.  They have no clue how quick (or slow) a galaxy forms.  They have no clue the age of the individual stars or the length of their lifespan.  It's pure assumption that they turn into white dwarfs, etc.  They have no way of knowing if the speed of light was faster and is slowing down.  We can't prove any of these things. 

[Enoch2021]

Anyone that would like to know more about  BX442 go to youtube and search for "Really, Really Old Spiral Galaxy - Deep Sky Videos". I dont think I am allowed to link to youtube so I will not take the chance.  This is a 4 1/2 minute video about this galaxy that goes into a nice discussion of this topic.

 

I liked it.

[Enoch2021]

As much as I want to accept the theory, I have been doing more thinking.  What is obvious to me is that anything science has to say about galaxies is pure unproven (and unprovable) theories.  There is no way they can know that galaxies only make one or two revolutions before they dissipate.  They have no clue how old each galaxy is.  They have no clue how quick (or slow) a galaxy forms.  They have no clue the age of the individual stars or the length of their lifespan.  It's pure assumption that they turn into white dwarfs, etc.  They have no way of knowing if the speed of light was faster and is slowing down.  We can't prove any of these things. 

 

================================================================

 

Agreed.  However:

 

They have no way of knowing if the speed of light was faster and is slowing down.

 

They have actual data that does show it slowing down from the late 1600's (See Setterfield and Norman)