what if (on colliding galaxies)

On Sep 8, 11:06 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...

in ...



Painius I get very flustered when I read light has slowed down or
accelerated. bert

I know the feeling, Bert. On one hand you read
that nothing can exceed light speed, "c". And you
might somehow get the idea that light itself will
always travel at "c". Then you read that light can
and does sometimes go slower depending upon
the medium it is going through, that "c" is only the
*maximum* speed of light.

Then maybe you read about how one of the first
and best tests for relativity theory was the bending
of a star's light as it traveled past the Sun during a
full eclipse. And you know that anything, including
light, that travels a curved path is "accelerated".
Maybe you read a little more and find that when a
scientist says "accelerated", this could mean either
a speeding up *or* a slowing down. So what did
the star's light do? It couldn't have sped up. It was
already going "c", as fast as it could go. So, did it
slow down? Was it a "negative" acceleration? (Or
what i would call a "deceleration"?)

Apparently neither. The star's light is treated as a
"velocity", which means that it can be represented
by a vector. And a vector has both magnitude (or
"speed" in this case) and *direction*. So when the
light from the star is bent as it passes the Sun, it
goes in a different direction. And when the direction
changes, even if the speed stays constant, then the
light ray is "accelerated".

So light can be accelerated even if it doesn't change
speed, even if all that changes is the direction it is
going. Such things can be very flustering.

Then, on top of everything else, you read that space
is expanding at an accelerated rate of speed. And
that space's expansion rate does not have to stick to
the "nothing can exceed the speed of light" rule. It
(space) can expand at speeds well beyond the speed
of light. More sources to fluster a person.

And it's sometimes very hard to understand how so
many cosmologists can appear to remain unflustered
by all this.

Maybe it's like the holy man who, by day, preaches
devoutly to glassy-eyed followers from a holy book
written long ago, and then by night he sits alone in
his room knowing somewhere deep down inside that
he doesn't really have a clue that he's right about all
that. I guess some people will believe just about
anything if it is told to them by someone they trust.

Belief is an important feeling, but is it ever enough?
Evidence is a very important basis for belief, but this
can also not be enough if the evidence is subject to
interpretation, possibly false interpretation. It always
makes me secretly wonder if truth -- i mean real and
factual and TRUE truth -- is ever possible to attain in
the more flustering science disciplines.

/rant g

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank *YOU* for reading!

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com

Photons have mass.

~ BG

On Sep 8, 11:57 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message...

...



On Sep 8, 8:02 am, "Painius" wrote:
"Saul Levy" wrote in message...
. ..
On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:32:43 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:

When i say "rogue", i'm just talking about the galaxies
that are out on their own and not satellites of the bigger
galaxies...

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/localgr.html

In that picture, there are some rogues in the upper left.
Sextans A and B, NGC 3109, and so on.

That's a misleading term then, Paine! lmao!

Galaxies are NOT rogues.

Not according to my lexicon, Saul. When used as an
adjective describing a noun, the term "rogue" means...

"Operating outside normal or desirable controls."

As i said, these are small galaxies that, while bound
gravitationally to the Local Group, are not satellites
of any of the large spiral galaxies. They can be seen
as galaxies that operate outside normal controls...

"r o g u e g a l a x i e s"

You're speaking to a certified Zionist/Nazi rabbi of the denial and
evidence excluding kind. Why bother?

~ BG

You probably won't like this answer, but for me and
for all those who i am privileged to be read by, "the
Sun shines down on us all".

You're suggesting that we're all Zionist/Nazis? (I don't think so)

~ BG

Painius Thank you Do not have to go to Google for I got you. System
can be two and a galaxy can be a galaxy with just 10 million stars. I
could easily do What IFs on terminology of the universe that could run
for years. Like how small can a comet tail be to call it a tail? How
small can an object be to become a star etc bert

On Sep 9, 6:38 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Saul I knew about the Doppler shifts before you were born. Know how
Hubble used this information to show the universe was
expanding.(spectral lines toward the red end of the spectrum) . Hubble
showed the more distant the galaxy was from us the greater the red shift
thus the faster it was moving away from us. Reality is this fit well
with Einstein predictions in his theory of general relativity. You see
Saul I know how all stuff works,and can incorporate this knowledge in
how the universe works This makes the mysteries of the universe easier
for me to figure out. I have a theory on every thing,and all are based
on good science thinking bert

Your rabbi Saul knows everything, even before he was born.

~ BG

BG A rabbi is a teacher,and Saul is not a teacher and can not ever be
called a rabbi. Think and talk straight BG,and get all that nasty ****
out of your head. You can and must do better than just being a biggot.
bert

On Sep 8, 10:13*pm, "Painius" wrote:

First, i really don't follow how cosmologists can just,
with a sweep of the mathematician's pencil, ignore the
"disentangled" light-transit time. *Because it seems to
me that the light-transit time is a very real and crucial
factor in this. *How do you know that by disentangling
the light-transit time from the scenario that you aren't
introducing an unconscionable amount of error?

Yeah, this is precisely why i keep harpin' on the "in present time"
theme. That is to say, where is the evidence that "ever-accelerating
expansion" is occuring, here, now, *in present time*? If it were,
there would have to be excessive redshift between structures not
gravitationally bound here in our local environs ("local" in this
context being out to a radius of several million LY or so). Yet there
is no 'local' redshifting over and above the normal Hubble Constant.
I've tossed this question into the ring a number of times but so far
no cogent answer has been forthcoming.

In keeping with the subject of this thread, "Colliding galaxies" (and
this is pure conjecture), the prevalence of colliding galaxies does
not seem consistent with "ever-accelerating expansion" occuring
locally. Rather, it would seem more consistent with DEcelerating
expansion or even Contraction occuring here, now, *in present time*.
But then whadda i know? :-)

Yahoo gives 6,240,000 hits. All I looked at were for the game.

I am? Thank you!

Saul Levy


On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:31:42 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:

"Saul Levy" wrote in message...
.. .
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:02:29 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:

Not according to my lexicon, Saul. When used as an
adjective describing a noun, the term "rogue" means...

"Operating outside normal or desirable controls."

As i said, these are small galaxies that, while bound
gravitationally to the Local Group, are not satellites
of any of the large spiral galaxies. They can be seen
as galaxies that operate outside normal controls...

"r o g u e g a l a x i e s"

How about in astronomy, Paine?

I've never heard that term used for galaxies.

I think i remember it being used by astronomers who
theorize that gravity will eventually take over and lead
to a contracting Universe and a "big crunch". The term
was used to describe a galaxy that would "appear" at
the farthest distance as red shifts cease and blue shifts
begin.

As for my usage, i probably heard this used somewhere
as it relates to non-satellite galaxies in the Local Group.
Or maybe i made it up. I honestly don't know.

I get more than a couple thousand hits on Google for

"rogue galaxy" astronomy

but even many of those refer to the PlayStation game.

You're *such* a rogue. g

And you're nothing but an ASS, BradBoi! lmfjao!

Saul Levy


On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 07:05:49 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

Your rabbi Saul knows everything, even before he was born.

~ BG

On Sep 9, 7:38 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
BG A rabbi is a teacher,and Saul is not a teacher and can not ever be
called a rabbi. Think and talk straight BG,and get all that nasty ****
out of your head. You can and must do better than just being a biggot.
bert

You call the truth "biggot", so what exactly do you call a lie?

Notice how it's pretty much only the Old Testament thumping souls that
are opposed to intelligent other life, as well as opposed to all that
isn't of merely inert eye-candy.

It seems being a pretend-Atheist isn't a viable cloak for rabbi Saul.

Such hard core Jews like our good old Saul do not take kindly to
revising history or pretty much anything except that of an ever
expanding universe, thus a white godly expanding universe where them
galaxies do not collide, but otherwise at most only pass harmlessly in
the night.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Sep 9, 8:12 am, oldcoot wrote:
On Sep 8, 10:13 pm, "Painius" wrote:

First, i really don't follow how cosmologists can just,
with a sweep of the mathematician's pencil, ignore the
"disentangled" light-transit time. Because it seems to
me that the light-transit time is a very real and crucial
factor in this. How do you know that by disentangling
the light-transit time from the scenario that you aren't
introducing an unconscionable amount of error?

Yeah, this is precisely why i keep harpin' on the "in present time"
theme. That is to say, where is the evidence that "ever-accelerating
expansion" is occuring, here, now, *in present time*? If it were,
there would have to be excessive redshift between structures not
gravitationally bound here in our local environs ("local" in this
context being out to a radius of several million LY or so). Yet there
is no 'local' redshifting over and above the normal Hubble Constant.
I've tossed this question into the ring a number of times but so far
no cogent answer has been forthcoming.

In keeping with the subject of this thread, "Colliding galaxies" (and
this is pure conjecture), the prevalence of colliding galaxies does
not seem consistent with "ever-accelerating expansion" occuring
locally. Rather, it would seem more consistent with DEcelerating
expansion or even Contraction occuring here, now, *in present time*.
But then whadda i know? :-)

I'd have to agree with that closing notion, of a universe that isn't
continually expanding.

btw, where did the planets and moons of Sirius B go?

~ BG