what if (on colliding galaxies)

On Aug 6, 12:06 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message...

...



On Aug 5, 4:28 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in ...

`Scott Very nice post I agree with it I never started this post with
the meaning that stars had to hit one another,for that has to be a very
rare event. Since I am always bringing in gravity to evolve all that
is
I have to consider these two galaxies have massive black holes and that
could be the big rub. All my pictures in my universe picture scrape
book
were taken by the Hubble. I know shock wave is used to describe the
aftermath of a supernova explosion but looking at the Cartwheel galaxy
that word shock wave jumped into my mind. Scott what would have been a
better word? The right terminology can be tricky. I find
galaxies colliding very interesting. With billions and billions of
large
galaxies it can not be all that rare. If you have more information on
them please post. Your virtual friend Bert PS good reason for us
being friends Scott is we both love astronomy Right Painius

Right, Bert!

I L O V E T H I S U N I V E R S E

Since the known universe is at least 100 billion years old, which
galaxy encounter and subsequent interaction/collision did our Milky
Way most recently survive from?

If i had to hazard a guess, Brad, i'd say the most
recent would be from a small satellite galaxy of the
Milky Way galaxy. And it might just still be taking
place according to TW's research.

And may i ask, if you think that the evidence points
to the Universe being 100 billion years old, how do
you think it originated, was "born", at that time so
long ago? Was it still by a "Big Bang"?

The original BH implosion (aka God fart) likely caused multiple bangs
for millions of years before much of anything reformed as physical
matter.

At any rate, if using the average velocity of 0.5'c' as the maximum
possible rate of expansion is what seems to suggest how old this
universe is.

How likely do think 0.5'c' is?

Personally, I'd be impressed if the rate of expansion was an average
of 0.1'c', making our universe worthy of 500 billion years, unless the
speed of light is representing the outer most realm or event horizon
of our universe, in which case the universe is only 50 billion years
old.

In my way of thinking, ours is not the one and only universe.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Aug 6, 12:06 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message...

...



On Aug 5, 4:28 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in ...

`Scott Very nice post I agree with it I never started this post
with
the meaning that stars had to hit one another,for that has to be a
very
rare event. Since I am always bringing in gravity to evolve all
that
is
I have to consider these two galaxies have massive black holes and
that
could be the big rub. All my pictures in my universe picture scrape
book
were taken by the Hubble. I know shock wave is used to describe the
aftermath of a supernova explosion but looking at the Cartwheel
galaxy
that word shock wave jumped into my mind. Scott what would have
been a
better word? The right terminology can be tricky. I
find
galaxies colliding very interesting. With billions and billions of
large
galaxies it can not be all that rare. If you have more information
on
them please post. Your virtual friend Bert PS good reason for
us
being friends Scott is we both love astronomy Right Painius

Right, Bert!

I L O V E T H I S U N I V E R S E

Since the known universe is at least 100 billion years old, which
galaxy encounter and subsequent interaction/collision did our Milky
Way most recently survive from?

If i had to hazard a guess, Brad, i'd say the most
recent would be from a small satellite galaxy of the
Milky Way galaxy. And it might just still be taking
place according to TW's research.

And may i ask, if you think that the evidence points
to the Universe being 100 billion years old, how do
you think it originated, was "born", at that time so
long ago? Was it still by a "Big Bang"?

The original BH implosion (aka God fart) likely caused multiple bangs
for millions of years before much of anything reformed as physical
matter.

At any rate, if using the average velocity of 0.5'c' as the maximum
possible rate of expansion is what seems to suggest how old this
universe is.

How likely do think 0.5'c' is?

Personally, I'd be impressed if the rate of expansion was an average
of 0.1'c', making our universe worthy of 500 billion years, unless the
speed of light is representing the outer most realm or event horizon
of our universe, in which case the universe is only 50 billion years
old.

In my way of thinking, ours is not the one and only universe.

I think it's ludicrous to draw the conclusion that the
Universe is expanding based upon light that has taken
billions of years to reach our eyes. Nobody can say for
certain what those objects that were 10 billion light
years away 10 billion years ago are doing right now,
this moment. We look out and see expansion, but for
all we know, at this point in time, 10 billion years later,
the Universe has already entered a different phase of
development. Contraction? Stability and "stagnation"?
Nobody can really tell.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

Painius Time can erase the origenal event. The spacetime of the big
bang was in Planck time. Gravity evolving all there was at that time(22
billion years ago) to the universe present spacetime Macro time is to
long a distance to trace back too. Our greatest accelerators,and most
powerful computers will never give us the information we need. We need
more brains of Allen Guth ,Bohr,Born,Feynman,and young Einsteins I
like the idea the universe is expanding. I can not imagine it
contracting. I can use an expanding universe to fit with natures
balancing acts. Bert

I've never bought into the expansion only theory. I therefore agree
with the intent of what you have to offer. Our universe may in fact
already be contracting, as it'll be at least 10 billions of years
before we'll ever know if the physical expansion is slowing down.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth


Painius wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Aug 6, 12:06 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message...

...



On Aug 5, 4:28 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in ...

`Scott Very nice post I agree with it I never started this post
with
the meaning that stars had to hit one another,for that has to be a
very
rare event. Since I am always bringing in gravity to evolve all
that
is
I have to consider these two galaxies have massive black holes and
that
could be the big rub. All my pictures in my universe picture scrape
book
were taken by the Hubble. I know shock wave is used to describe the
aftermath of a supernova explosion but looking at the Cartwheel
galaxy
that word shock wave jumped into my mind. Scott what would have
been a
better word? The right terminology can be tricky. I
find
galaxies colliding very interesting. With billions and billions of
large
galaxies it can not be all that rare. If you have more information
on
them please post. Your virtual friend Bert PS good reason for
us
being friends Scott is we both love astronomy Right Painius

Right, Bert!

I L O V E T H I S U N I V E R S E

Since the known universe is at least 100 billion years old, which
galaxy encounter and subsequent interaction/collision did our Milky
Way most recently survive from?

If i had to hazard a guess, Brad, i'd say the most
recent would be from a small satellite galaxy of the
Milky Way galaxy. And it might just still be taking
place according to TW's research.

And may i ask, if you think that the evidence points
to the Universe being 100 billion years old, how do
you think it originated, was "born", at that time so
long ago? Was it still by a "Big Bang"?

The original BH implosion (aka God fart) likely caused multiple bangs
for millions of years before much of anything reformed as physical
matter.

At any rate, if using the average velocity of 0.5'c' as the maximum
possible rate of expansion is what seems to suggest how old this
universe is.

How likely do think 0.5'c' is?

Personally, I'd be impressed if the rate of expansion was an average
of 0.1'c', making our universe worthy of 500 billion years, unless the
speed of light is representing the outer most realm or event horizon
of our universe, in which case the universe is only 50 billion years
old.

In my way of thinking, ours is not the one and only universe.

I think it's ludicrous to draw the conclusion that the
Universe is expanding based upon light that has taken
billions of years to reach our eyes. Nobody can say for
certain what those objects that were 10 billion light
years away 10 billion years ago are doing right now,
this moment. We look out and see expansion, but for
all we know, at this point in time, 10 billion years later,
the Universe has already entered a different phase of
development. Contraction? Stability and "stagnation"?
Nobody can really tell.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

On Aug 9, 4:27 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Painius Time can erase the origenal event. The spacetime of the big
bang was in Planck time. Gravity evolving all there was at that time(22
billion years ago) to the universe present spacetime Macro time is to
long a distance to trace back too. Our greatest accelerators,and most
powerful computers will never give us the information we need. We need
more brains of Allen Guth ,Bohr,Born,Feynman,and young Einsteins I
like the idea the universe is expanding. I can not imagine it
contracting. I can use an expanding universe to fit with natures
balancing acts. Bert

But everything is in orbit around something, right!

Possibly our universe is in orbit around the intercosmic point of
nullification, or that of some other mega black hole (aka God).

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

BG sed :

I've never bought into the expansion only theory. I therefore agree
with the intent of what you have to offer. Our universe may in fact
already be contracting, as it'll be at least 10 billions of years
before we'll ever know if the physical expansion is slowing down.

But everything is in orbit around something, right!

Possibly our universe is in orbit around the intercosmic point of
nullification, or that of some other mega black hole (aka God).

From the mouths of babes huh? :-)

In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

I think it's ludicrous to draw the conclusion that the
Universe is expanding based upon light that has taken
billions of years to reach our eyes. Nobody can say for
certain what those objects that were 10 billion light
years away 10 billion years ago are doing right now,
this moment. We look out and see expansion, but for
all we know, at this point in time, 10 billion years later,
the Universe has already entered a different phase of
development. Contraction? Stability and "stagnation"?
Nobody can really tell.

Why not? Since the light from things farther away came from longer ago,
it's clear that we're seeing objects as they were then. Next, an
examination of galaxies over time shows clear progressions in change of
shape. *Ell else being equal*, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that
things continue on as they have. Sure, you have to redefine "as they
have" as you get new evidence, but any other conclusion is a flight of
fancy.

You propose some different phase of development. What does that mean,
exactly? You suggested contraction or stability as possible
alternatives. Has it ever occurred to you that others besides you have
also considered those possibilities? Did you actually *read* Carl
Sagan's books on the topic?

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

I've never bought into the expansion only theory. I therefore agree
with the intent of what you have to offer. Our universe may in fact
already be contracting, as it'll be at least 10 billions of years
before we'll ever know if the physical expansion is slowing down.

So in other words, the best you can say is "I don't know". Nevertheless,
given your past hypothesizing, you'll find wiggle room in the unknown to
believe whatever you want to, and present it as fact.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.

In article ,
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Painius Time can erase the origenal event. The spacetime of the big
bang was in Planck time. Gravity evolving all there was at that time(22
billion years ago)

13.73 billion years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

to the universe present spacetime Macro time is to
long a distance to trace back too. Our greatest accelerators,and most
powerful computers will never give us the information we need. We need
more brains of Allen Guth ,Bohr,Born,Feynman,and young Einsteins

You could, I suppose, read Scientific American for regular reviews on
what leading scientists in the field are doing. You'd realize that there
are many...

I
like the idea the universe is expanding. I can not imagine it
contracting. I can use an expanding universe to fit with natures
balancing acts. Bert

That's nice.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.

On Aug 9, 8:28 am, oldcoot wrote:
BG sed :

I've never bought into the expansion only theory. I therefore agree
with the intent of what you have to offer. Our universe may in fact
already be contracting, as it'll be at least 10 billions of years
before we'll ever know if the physical expansion is slowing down.

But everything is in orbit around something, right!

Possibly our universe is in orbit around the intercosmic point of
nullification, or that of some other mega black hole (aka God).

From the mouths of babes huh? :-)

Don't get your status quo panties in such a bunch, because it's just
an idea that shouldn't be forever mainstream banished or otherwise
avoided like the plague.

BTW, how much of a volumetric vacuum was created by the supposed
singular BB? (1e-100 bar?)

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth