NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Remember when you were throwing insults at me earlier in this thread?
Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics
- Thread starter heyuhua
- Start date
I'm simply referring to your continuing denial and side-stepping of mountains of observational evidence that shows you are wrong. To do so with such repeatable, obsessiveness and fanaticism reflects a problem that I have been good enough to point out, for your own well being.
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
Your fallacy in compiling galaxy mergers is strongly opposed to observations, and observations show that the universe is expanding, that galaxies are moving away from each other. What is it that you deliberately mislead the people ？
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
A recent observation showed that disk galaxies like the Milky way generally have an x-shaped structure. The discoverers said the structure is very sophisticated, and that once the galaxy merges, the x-type structure will be destroied. Isn't that to say why galaxies aren't merged ?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
The Milky Way has merged with many smaller gallaxies so does that mean it has lost its "X" rating.
I have not been following this thread all that much so let me ask this.
Is your contention that gallaxies dont not merge ever?
Why?
Moreover you seem to ignore stuff so really I dont know why I bother...
If you could make a point what would it be?
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
How doo you know?
These are two galaxies that are very far apart. Obviously, the front galaxy is blocking the back galaxy, and they are also separating
What evidence do you have because without any evidence you only offer an opinion.
Alex
And yet the whole world supports what I and others have been trying to knock into your head and absolutely invalidates your nonsensical claim. I've tried to help you, but it appears your ego won't let you let go. You're a fraud matey! You still believe in Santa Claus?
ps: I could rattle on about the expansion and the gravitational coupling over smaller scales that are observed everyday, but you have already been informed of all this, and I see that this is driving you further into childish stubborness. I'll let you play your game until this thread is closed. Byeeee
Perhaps he has access to the Hubble 'scope or Chandra or some of the state of the art probes that NASA and other space nations have aloft?
That admirably highlights the ignorant state of affairs you appear to be enveloped by.....Galaxies, stars, even matter were not even around at the BB: First protons, electrons etc, at around 3 minutes post BB.....First atoms of lighter elements like hydrogen and helium at around 380,000 years post BB....first stars at around 200 million years post BB [WMAP]...first galaxies at around 1 billion years post BB. The universe was a big place at 1 billion years post BB and the seeds to the stellar/galactic formations was governed by the very slight differences in temperatures throughout the overall general consistency of the CMBR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution
https://stardate.org/astro-guide/galaxy-formation
Some great info at this site re galactic formation and the slight variations that I spoke of in the CMBR. Far better then the made up, fabricated fairy tales of our friend pushing his nonsense......
https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html
The cosmic microwave background is the afterglow radiation left over from the hot Big Bang. Its temperature is extremely uniform all over the sky. However, tiny temperature variations or fluctuations (at the part per million level) can offer great insight into the origin, evolution, and content of the universe.
If you were approaching the Earth on a spaceship, the first thing you would notice is that the planet is spherical. As you drew closer to the Earth, you would see the surface divide into continents and oceans. You would need to study the Earth's surface very carefully to see the mountains, cities, forests and deserts that cover the continents.
Similarly, when cosmologists first looked at the microwave sky, thirty years ago, they noticed it was nearly uniform. As observations improved, they detected the dipole anisotropy. Finally, in 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite made the first detection analogous to seeing "mountains on the surface of the Earth": it detected cosmological fluctuations in the microwave background temperature. Several members of the WMAP science team help lead the COBE program and build the spacecraft. COBE's detection was confirmed by the Far InfraRed Survey (FIRS) balloon-borne experiment.
more at link......
https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html
The cosmic microwave background is the afterglow radiation left over from the hot Big Bang. Its temperature is extremely uniform all over the sky. However, tiny temperature variations or fluctuations (at the part per million level) can offer great insight into the origin, evolution, and content of the universe.
If you were approaching the Earth on a spaceship, the first thing you would notice is that the planet is spherical. As you drew closer to the Earth, you would see the surface divide into continents and oceans. You would need to study the Earth's surface very carefully to see the mountains, cities, forests and deserts that cover the continents.
Similarly, when cosmologists first looked at the microwave sky, thirty years ago, they noticed it was nearly uniform. As observations improved, they detected the dipole anisotropy. Finally, in 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite made the first detection analogous to seeing "mountains on the surface of the Earth": it detected cosmological fluctuations in the microwave background temperature. Several members of the WMAP science team help lead the COBE program and build the spacecraft. COBE's detection was confirmed by the Far InfraRed Survey (FIRS) balloon-borne experiment.
more at link......
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That the universe at-large is expanding does not refute the observation that some galaxies are merging.
Cosmological expansion is an average. All galaxies have peculiar motion. In some cases, they move toward each other.
This is your own speculation. You have no basis for such an assertion.
Models of the early evolution of the universe show how matter clumps together over time.
Note that, by your own misguided logic, stars and planets could ever have formed any time after the BB. They just would have started off all clumped together. And yet, stars are forming all the time.
heyuhua: stop this madness.
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
"This is your own speculation. You have no basis for such an assertion."
Why do you say this is my own speculation? Is it true that the expansion of the universe is not an observational fact? My assertion is based entirely on reliable observations shch as X-structure and expansion of universe, and it's just people like you who are willing to guess something. So far no one has seen galaxies merge, instead, people see galaxies are being separated.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Well you must account for the time observations take to reach us.
Who is to say that at great distances the universe has in fact stopped expanding and is now contracting and the gallaxies are all now merging.
Take our closest neighbour M31 it is moving toward us and will in the future merge with us.
So the most recent observation of something which is 2 million years in the past shows it is ready to merge.
How do you know the universe is now not collapsing how would you know?
Alex
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This:
is speculation on your part.
You don't know how matter was distributed unevenly after the Big Bang, so you assume it couldn't have done so.
Your thinking contains its own flaw. Let's try your logic on some other structures:
Clearly, if stars could coalesce and been born, they would have coalesced and been born at the Big Bang? Because at that time, the matter that made them was closest to each other.
Yet stars have been born long after the Big Bang. Therefore, the matter created after must have been distributed unevenly.
So the logic falls apart. As it does for galaxies.
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
"That the universe at-large is expanding does not refute the observation that some galaxies are merging. Cosmological expansion is an average. All galaxies have peculiar motion. In some cases, they move toward each other."
The conclusion of the expansion of the universe is indeed an average. But , the average implies galaxies are globally separated from each other globally.That is to say, separation is the absolute mainstream, and even merging is extremely rare （actually, no one's ever seen a real merger）, if galaxies come from mergers, it means that any galaxy is formed through several mergers, and the merger between galaxies becomes a major trend, and the conclusion of cosmic expansion is naturally not established, could we say that they were merged in the past, but now they are being separated?.
The conclusion of the expansion of the universe is indeed an average. But , the average implies galaxies are globally separated from each other globally.That is to say, separation is the absolute mainstream, and even merging is extremely rare （actually, no one's ever seen a real merger）, if galaxies come from mergers, it means that any galaxy is formed through several mergers, and the merger between galaxies becomes a major trend, and the conclusion of cosmic expansion is naturally not established, could we say that they were merged in the past, but now they are being separated?.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I've provided several examples.
It's not an either/or, silly!
Galaxies are being separated by expansion AND some are merging.
The expansion of the universe is an AVERAGE. All galaxies have motion with respect to each other.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
None of that is part of Yang Jian Iiang's work. You are making up all of it from your head.
The facts don't care whether you personally understand them.
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
"You don't know how matter was distributed unevenly after the Big Bang, so youassume it couldn't have done so"
well, we don't know how matter was distributed,Do you know how to distribute it？ Isn't your distribution based on ridiculous guesses?
Yang's theory holds that the past of the universe can only be recognized by today, not by an imaginary past to adapt to today. Your early universe is a guess, only Yang's result of the past is credible， because Yang extrapolated the past based on the facts of today, such a past is unique，and your past is imagined, not unique.