Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: opportunity on 09/11/2018 08:18:25
-
https://www.foxnews.com/science/end-of-days-telescope-images-reveal-what-happens-when-galaxies-collide
Galaxies colliding, huge galaxies, captured in shots......does anyone see the elephant in the room, namely that these galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light given their size?
-
Here's one explanation:
https://phys.org/news/2015-10-galaxies-faster.html
Yet does this explain how these galaxies are each moving relative to our telescopic reference?
-
Galaxies colliding, huge galaxies, captured in shots......does anyone see the elephant in the room, namely that these galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light given their size?
They're still shots. What makes you think any represent movement faster than light?
They mention Andromeda and a time scale (6 billion years to move 2.5 million LY, which is a closing speed of about 0.0004c, hardly greater than light speed.
-
Huh?
-
I take a still shot of the Saturn V taking off.....some would say its not moving, its a still shot. I take another still shot a few seconds later, some people could also say its not moving...….understood, given your rationale, yet the background has changed, suggesting the Saturn V rocket has moved......right?
-
I take a still shot of the Saturn V taking off.....some would say its not moving, its a still shot. I take another still shot a few seconds later, some people could also say its not moving...….understood, given your rationale, yet the background has changed, suggesting the Saturn V rocket has moved......right?
Of course those galaxies are moving, and far faster than the Saturn V. But we can't really see that since the movement is so slow compared to the scale that subsequent shots would look the same each time.
Those images all have different labels: They're different galaxies.
-
The shots are taken over 10 years, suggesting that with each shot over a 10 year period the galaxies come together and do what they do. So, assuming these galaxies, as so huge as they are in light years across, a best case scenario is that they are separated by 10 light years if the galaxies are moving at light speed, making the size of those galaxies only a few light years across, despite our own being.....12000 light years...(?)…...yet despite that, with the second link I offered, the expansion of the universe suggests that galaxies are expanding outwards according to the metrics in the second link.....so at best one of those galaxies is expanding much faster than that at angle toward that other galaxy.
-
Agreed.
The explanation of the shots is in the commentary of link.
Yet, what is being suggested is that the gravitational pull exceeds light speed.
Contemporary science says the dynamic of expansion which has no effect on the size of galaxies is due to a material in between galaxies, as dark energy.
Hmmm.
Yet this does not explain the faster than light gravitational pull between these galaxies.
-
The shots are taken over 10 years, suggesting that with each shot over a 10 year period the galaxies come together and do what they do.
I see only two shots per galaxy: One a wider angle using standard imaging, and a closeup of the core with their Xray filter on. There are no shots labeled as having been taken of the same subject 10 years apart. The only mention of 10 years is the fact that they scanned through 10 years of data from that BAT telescope to find good places to image, galaxies with multiple cores.
So, assuming these galaxies, as so huge as they are in light years across, a best case scenario is that they are separated by 10 light years if the galaxies are moving at light speed, making the size of those galaxies only a few light years across, despite our own being.....12000 light years...(?)
I don't understand any of this. Those galaxies are far larger than that. Ours is about 8 times the size you mention. They're not moving particularly fast, probably all under 1% of light speed from the local mean, but the double cores probably orbit each other faster than that, especially when they get close. The ones in the images are not all that close yet.
…...yet despite that, with the second link I offered, the expansion of the universe suggests that galaxies are expanding outwards according to the metrics in the second link.....so at best one of those galaxies is expanding much faster than that at angle toward that other galaxy.
Galaxies don't expand. The universe does, which means distant galaxies move away from us in proportion to their distance. Each galaxy appears to be locally stationary just like our own. The double-galaxies in the photos in the first link are very close, so space expansion plays no significant role. Gravity between them is stronger than the general tendency for galaxies to separate. Our relationship with Andromeda is like that. The two galaxies are destined to collide and eventually look like one of those images in the first link.
Yet, what is being suggested is that the gravitational pull exceeds light speed.
Gravitational pull is measured in units of gradient of potential, not in units of speed.
Perhaps you could quote the part that you think suggests this. Which article?
The second article is about spatial expansion. For galaxies really close, gravitational force is stronger than the receding effect of expansion Gravity decreases with the square of distance, but expansion increases in linear proportion with distance. For a pair of objects of certain masses, that means there is a critical distance where the one will win over the other.
One reason Andromeda and Milky Way are drawn to each other is that both of them lack a significant large object on the opposite sides to balance the gravity. It's just the two kind of modest galaxies and a small set of tiny ones. There are no large galaxies nearby, but the great attractor has some, but expansion is strong enough to remove our local family from that influence. We'll never reach it.
Contemporary science says the dynamic of expansion which has no effect on the size of galaxies is due to a material in between galaxies, as dark energy.
Dark energy is a proposed cause of the acceleration of the expansion rate, but not as a cause of the expansion itself.
-
This is getting word salad-y and I can understand how.
We both agree that the initial link I provided and subsequent article describes how in time galaxies are moving toward each other and what the photos describe in that process. We both agree that these are huge galaxies with light year diameters, not small presumably.
I am not sure if we both agree what the mechanics are at play in how these galaxies can come together in 10 years the way they do. Can we suggest that if these galaxies are moving toward each other at light speed, then over 10 years the distance between before and after, initial shot and then "Armageddon" shot (as it is described) is 10 light years, the distance presumably between these galaxies?
-
How do they know they're "merging" over a 10 year period of camera activity, our camera activity?
Quote, first link: "Seeing the pairs of merging galaxy nuclei associated with these huge black holes so close together was pretty amazing,"
The subtext of the images: "These images reveal the final stage of a union between pairs of galactic nuclei in the messy cores of colliding galaxies. Credit: NASA, ESA, and M. Koss (Eureka Scientific, Inc.) "
What "movement"? What do you see?
The movement I see is the movement they see, "movement" that is noticeable and to my thinking is, given the size of those merged galaxies, faster than light.
The "end of a few billion years" of "merging" is a statement based on the BBT and theorised age of the univsere.
The study is imperative to the time frame stated: They obtained the images by looking for visually obscured, active black holes, and going back through 10 years' worth of X-ray data from the Burst Alert Telescope (BAT).
Lets say I am wrong, and they spent 10 years to find the best "still shot" of two galaxies that is exactly the same as it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 1000 years ago, given the "billion year" merging time-frame you suggest.
It does seem to me though that the shots presented show differing stages of merging galaxies over 10 years, albeit the tail end process of a billion year merging process.
-
I am not sure if we both agree what the mechanics are at play in how these galaxies can come together in 10 years the way they do.
There is zero mention of the process taking 10 years. It says billions of years. The one in the first photo has already done most of that, and the merger is expected to complete in about 10 million years.
I think you should read more closely. The article claims none of the things you say it does.
Can we suggest that if these galaxies are moving toward each other at light speed, then over 10 years the distance between before and after, initial shot and then "Armageddon" shot (as it is described) is 10 light years, the distance presumably between these galaxies?
If they were moving at that relative velocity, they would quickly separate. Gravity could not possibly overcome that sort of delta-V.
There is no before and after shots. There is only the one current state of the galaxies shown. The cores could not be as close as 10 light years because the black holes are larger than that, so they'd already be just one black hole.
There is no armageddon shot described. You end up with one central black hole, a new elliptical galaxy, and a bunch of material that gets ejected from the whole setup. That ejecting has already taken place in the galaxies in the photos.
The article about expansion is pretty irrelevant to all this. It talks about relative velocity of widely separated galaxies, not about ones so close that they interact.
How do they know they're "merging" over a 10 year period of camera activity, our camera activity?
It doesn't say that. The only mention of 10 years was the 10 years of data collected from this Burst Array Telescope. It takes that long to map the entire sky at a certain resolution. That's the database used to find interesting targets at which to point the Hubble telescope from which the images on the site were taken.
They know they are merging because each shows two super massive black holes in close proximity, consistent with late stage galactic merging.
Quote, first link: "Seeing the pairs of merging galaxy nuclei associated with these huge black holes so close together was pretty amazing,"
Yes, the Hubble has the resolution (and filters) needed to actually picture them.
The subtext of the images: "These images reveal the final stage of a union between pairs of galactic nuclei in the messy cores of colliding galaxies. Credit: NASA, ESA, and M. Koss (Eureka Scientific, Inc.) "
Again yes. No mention of 10 year duration of any event. If they take the same photo 10 years from now, there will be little if any change. By 'final state', they mean only 10 million years to go in a process that takes billions of years.
What "movement"? What do you see?
Movement is how things orbit. You see a picture of orbiting objects, movement is implied.
The movement I see is the movement they see, "movement" that is noticeable and to my thinking is, given the size of those merged galaxies, faster than light.
Size is not measured in speed. I have no idea where you see faster than light speed in a still shot. That is not the movement that 'they see'. They see static images of various galaxies in late-stage merger states.
The "end of a few billion years" of "merging" is a statement based on the BBT and theorised age of the univsere.
It does not say that anywhere. Two galaxies in close proximity will merge (over the course of a few billion years) due to their mutual attraction, exactly as is happening to us. There is no BBT nor age of the universe involved in that idea. Andromeda is expected to begin merging in less time than it took life to evolve into humans, and yet will not complete for another perhaps 10 billion years. Estimates vary. The Earth will be gone before the process completes.
The study is imperative to the time frame stated: They obtained the images by looking for visually obscured, active black holes, and going back through 10 years' worth of X-ray data from the Burst Alert Telescope (BAT).
You don't seem to be able to parse that statement. It just says that BAT has been collecting data for 10 years, and they found the interesting places to point Hubble by mining that database. The Hubble images on the site might have been taken in a few hours or days. It doesn't say.
They may actually detect movement if the BAT data scanned the same place multiple times over those 10 years. Things might have moved perceptibly enough to actually measure movement. But that carries no implication of faster than light movement. To get that, you'd need two images taken some known time apart, and note that some object is displaced by more than 10 light years in that time.
I'd be pretty impressed with the resolution of the BAT if it can detect a single-digit light year movement at the sort of distance that all these galaxies are.
-
Agreed.
This is why I posted the link as a question.
Its a still shot. It fits a jigsaw puzzle of still shots.
The great thing about theory with the stars is to propose a canvass picture, such as the BBT, and find still shot evidence as pieces in that overall picture.
Of course there are dynamic elements, such as pulsars, yet here we have a static still shot. Agreed. Good discussion, thanks for replying.
Its true a still picture can paint a thousand words. ;)