[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote
a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).
Yet again, where (approximately is fine) do you think that galaxy was 14 billion years ago?
You will evade this answer again, because it results in a direct contradiction with your assertions.

Well, I have already informed you that we must understand how the Universe works at small scale before we discuss about large scale:

So, we must understand first how the Universe works in small scale and then try to find a solution for large scale.
Our science community ignores the small scale and therefore fails to understand how our universe really works.

So, please - I promise to answer that question as soon as we clearly understand how it works in small scale.

However, in order to do so, we must understand how Triangulum/Andromeda Galaxies system works.
So, please read the following and advice:

You have totally ignore my message about Triangulum Galaxy:

Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/11/2020 11:35:46
let's look at Triangulum Galaxy. It is located today quite close to Andromeda and actually moving directly away from that galaxy.
Based on the same idea of extrapolation – in the past those galaxies were quite closer, or even collide with each other.
So how could it be that Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy for breakfast when it was nearby? How the gravity push them apart?

Hence, If you wish to set extrapolation for large scale, why don't you do it also for small scale?

This galaxy is much closer to Andromeda.
As it is moving away from Andromeda, then in the past it was much closer.
So, try to verify the distance between Andromeda to Triangulum Galaxy 10 By ago
Then Try to use the gravity formula and find that 10 By ago, the gravity force between Andromeda to Triangulum Galaxy was much stronger than Andromeda to the Milky way.
This might be even valid for today data.
So, how could it be that due to relatively high mutual gravity attraction Triangulum Galaxy is moving away from Andromeda while the Milky way with much less mutual gravity attraction is moving in the direction of Andromeda?

Sorry -
The following idea that : "These are close enough to have mutual attraction on each other." is totally unrealistic.

Those galaxies are moving in space due to their momentum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
"In Newtonian mechanics, linear momentum, translational momentum, or simply momentum (pl. momenta) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object. It is a vector quantity, possessing a magnitude and a direction.":
As there is no friction in space, and as they are (almost) no affected by any sort of attraction by any nearby small galaxy, those massive galaxies keep their constant momentum in space
Just by chance Andromeda and MW are moving to each other!.

So, all the massive galaxies are crossing the space due to their momentum.
However, we can clearly say that the small galaxies are affected by the gravity force of the nearby big galaxies.

As Triangulum Galaxy is moving away from Andromeda,  it is clear that in the past it was part of Andromeda.
Hence, this galaxy had been ejected from Andromeda.

Once you understand that key issue, you would understand how the Universe really works.

Therefore, do you agree that in the past Triangulum Galaxy was very close to Andromeda?
If so, How close?
Why in the early days when they were very close together, due to stronger Gravity force, Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy?

A bit concerning Andromeda, we are in fact moving in a direction away from it.  That 630 km/sec is mostly in a direction opposite that of Andromeda.  But it is moving faster in a similar direction and catching up with us. It’s the predator, we’re the prey.
It is approaching us at more like 110 km/sec,
around twice the orbital speed of Mercury, which isn’t that much.

Thanks for this great reply.
You actually confirm that Andromeda and MW do not orbit around any sort of center of mass.
So, they are not bonded by gravity force.

I found an incredible map of all the major galaxies under the general influence of the Virgo supercluster. Instead of the usual 2D map you find, this one is fully 4D. You can see the curved path of the Milky way, and Andromeda coming in from the side a ways and cutting close behind us.  It will miss on its first pass, with the merger not completing for another 20-30 billion years.

https://earthsky.org/space/detailed-map-galaxy-orbits-local-supercluster
Click on the 4D map at the top and play with it.  I’ve never seen better. You can rotate and zoom it.

Well, that video shows that our scientists don't know how galaxies systems really works in local scale.
When Andromeda would be close enough to the Milky way (but not in a direct collision as they should miss the first path), they would shift away from each other. There will be no second path.
So, please wait with your question about that galaxy with a redshift of 13 and let's focus on Triangulum/Andromeda Galaxies system.

[evan_au]

Our scientists claim that they are going to collide in about 2BY. Therefore, the estimation that the average separation was the same in the past is also imagination.

The first thing to say is that a galaxy is not a point object, it is an extended object.
- For stars in the arms of a galaxy, or planets in a Solar System, you can pretty much treat them as point objects (unless they come so close as to have a direct collision)
- But a galaxy can be disrupted by passing near another galaxy - we see this with the many stellar streams passing through our own galaxy, which are the disrupted remnants of dwarf galaxies that got too close.

The second thing is that orbital motion is governed by conservation of angular momentum.
- If two galaxies are to merge, the black holes at the center of these galaxies must shed a lot of angular momentum
- They do this by flinging many stars into the dark of intergalactic space, and you can see this in the simulation of the collision.

If you consider the Milky Way and Andromeda in isolation (say, in the frame of reference of their barycenter), and calculate the average separation of the stars in the Milky way galaxy and Andromeda galaxy, you will find that:
- The angular momentum remains constant throughout the collision
- the average separation of stars remains roughly constant during the collision.

If you now consider the Local Cluster in isolation (say, in the frame of reference of the Local Cluster's barycenter), and calculate the average separation of the galaxies, you will find that:
- The angular momentum remains constant throughout their orbits (including the motion of the Triangulum Galaxy)
- the average separation of galaxies remains roughly constant.
- That will include some small galaxies that are ejected from the Local Cluster, and some that merge with each other

I could extend that to Super Clusters too, but you get the idea...

Sorry, if they orbiting around a center of mass, they shouldn't collide at all.

Galaxies aren't point objects, they are diffuse objects.
- So even if they come close (which the Milky way & Andromeda will), they will be disrupted, and provided their relative velocity doesn't exceed their mutual escape velocity, their central black holes will (eventually) coalesce.
- In the process, the current spiral structure of both galaxies will be totally disrupted, and we will end up with something that looks more like an elliptical galaxy.

How do you dare to reject Einstein Explanation about new creation particles

Because it looks like Einstein didn't really believe it either, or he would have published it.

It's fine that he thought through this scenario, and I am sure he would have talked it through will colleagues.
- But in the end, he didn't go through with publishing it
- Whether he rejected it himself, or others persuaded him doesn't really matter - it didn't pass muster

So, how the expansion of the space (or the inflation process) could work while the gravity of 6.2 OM is located almost at that infinite compact Universe?

It all has to do with the initial velocity.
1. If you try to fire a rocket into Earth orbit, and don't give it enough velocity, it will fall back straight away
2. If you give it just the right velocity (and angular momentum), it will go into orbit
3. If you give more than enough initial velocity (greater than escape velocity), it will continue outward forever  (ignoring atmospheric friction)

The same 3 scenarios apply at the scale of the whole universe (and Dark Matter is part of the whole universe, so it doesn't change the situation)
- The red-shift researchers in the 1990s were trying to work out which of these 3 scenarios was the correct one for the whole universe
- To their great surprise, they came up with a 4th scenario... Dark Energy

And Einstein's equations explain this, too (once you feed the new measurements into Einstein's equations and solve for the cosmological constant using the new data).

[Bored chemist]

Well, I have already informed you that we must understand how the Universe works at small scale before we discuss about large scale:

Yes, for example, on the small scale we know that the creation of matter is impossible.
So we know that your idea is actually wrong.
We even have a mathematical proof of it.
And you ignore this and carry on with your fairy tale of continuous creation.

Why is that?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote
So, how the expansion of the space (or the inflation process) could work while the gravity of 6.2 OM is located almost at that infinite compact Universe?

It all has to do with the initial velocity.
1. If you try to fire a rocket into Earth orbit, and don't give it enough velocity, it will fall back straight away
2. If you give it just the right velocity (and angular momentum), it will go into orbit
3. If you give more than enough initial velocity (greater than escape velocity), it will continue outward forever  (ignoring atmospheric friction)

The same 3 scenarios apply at the scale of the whole universe (and Dark Matter is part of the whole universe, so it doesn't change the situation)
- The red-shift researchers in the 1990s were trying to work out which of these 3 scenarios was the correct one for the whole universe
- To their great surprise, they came up with a 4th scenario... Dark Energy

Thanks for that excellent explanation.
So, our scientists have fully confirmed that none of the 3 scenarios is correct
However, what is the real meaning of "dark energy". Do we see it? Do you have an example for matter with antigravity?
The dark energy idea is one more evidence that the BBT is wrong and our scientists can't really fit it to our universe. Therefore, they are using that unrealistic idea which is called Dark energy.

And Einstein's equations explain this, too (once you feed the new measurements into Einstein's equations and solve for the cosmological constant using the new data).

Sorry, Einstein has told Us that the cosmological constant was his biggest mistake.
Why do you ignore that message?
In any case, even if you wish to add a constant, this constant should have a minor impact on the formula.
However - in order for the dark energy to work, its energy should be 13.5 times higher than the Ordinary matter.
So, using this constant for an energy which should create unrealistic activity as negative gravity and at that high amplitude (13.5times the OM) is really unrealistic.

Quote
How do you dare to reject Einstein Explanation about new creation particles
Because it looks like Einstein didn't really believe it either, or he would have published it.
It's fine that he thought through this scenario, and I am sure he would have talked it through will colleagues.
- But in the end, he didn't go through with publishing it
- Whether he rejected it himself, or others persuaded him doesn't really matter - it didn't pass muster

Well, the history is very clear:

Now you face Mr Einstein.
He had confirmed the idea of new created particles in our Universe:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
"As for why Einstein was so intent on maintaining the use of his discarded lambda, the constant represents the energy of empty space — a powerful notion — and Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."
So, if you still think that he is wrong with this idea, then it is your problem.
I fully agree with him that it is feasible!!!

So, you agree that: "It's fine that he thought through this scenario, and I am sure he would have talked it through will colleagues."
Therefore, it proves that Einstein estimated that new particles creation is feasible.
He even gave us the idea to use the cosmological constant for that:
so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
However, I assume that he didn't publish it as he couldn't offer real theory which could replace the BBT.
Therefore, as long as you accept the history that Einstein knew that new particles creation is feasible - is good enough for me.

Yes, for example, on the small scale we know that the creation of matter is impossible.
So we know that your idea is actually wrong.

The history proves that Einstein new that it is feasible.
So, we know that it is feasible.

We even have a mathematical proof of it.

In one hand our scientists are using the cosmological constant in Einstein formula against his will, in a magnitude of 13.5OM for "dark energy" which should generate antigravity while we don't have a clue about it.
On the other hand, while the history proves that Einstein fully supported the idea of new created matter by using that cosmological constant (but  at very low amplitude based on the ratio between Particle to OM) - you reject this message from Einstein.
Sorry - you have to accept Einstein message even if it had been given when he was older.

In any case, so far all of you had totally ignore my question about Triangulum.
Please answer the following:

do you agree that in the past Triangulum Galaxy was very close to Andromeda?
If so, How close?
Why in the early days when they were very close together, due to stronger Gravity force, Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy?

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, Einstein has told Us that the cosmological constant was his biggest mistake.
Why do you ignore that message?

I'm not ignoring it; but you are.
He told us that he made a mistake.
So we know that he can be mistaken about thing.
So, if he said something which we know is wrong, we should accept that he was wrong.
Einstein is not God. He made mistakes.

The dark energy idea is one more evidence that the BBT is wrong and our scientists can't really fit it to our universe. Therefore, they are using that unrealistic idea which is called Dark energy.

No.
Until about 1990 the BBT worked well enough to explain what was observed.
The leading alternative- continuous creation didn't.
But, with better data and more detailed observations, in about 1990 we saw that there was something else going on.
We called that "something" dark energy.
We still don't know the details of what it is but the models won't work properly without it, so...

Do we see it?

yes we do. we see it as the departure of the older models and the current data.

Do you realize that trying to fit a continuous generation model would still need something like DE to make it work?
If you don't agree. show us your model- all of it, in detail.Show the calculations of the brightness and the spectrum of the background radiation, show us the calculations for the relative abundances of H, He and Li in the universe.

Show us the maths.

The history proves that Einstein new that it is feasible.
So, we know that it is feasible.

No
He thought it was feasible.
Emmy Noether proved it was not.

Do you not understand the difference?
EINSTEIN WAS VERY CLEARLY WRONG IF HE BELIEVED IN SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF MATTER.

[evan_au]

So, it is all about the creation on new matter.

The Steady State model died by the 1960s (apart from a few hold-outs like Fred Hoyle), because it didn't fit the facts:
- The Steady State model suggested that matter would be formed between the expanding galaxies, which would then condense into new galaxies, so that old and new galaxies would coexist together. However, ultra-bright Quasars are seen only in the distant universe = early universe, so new galaxies were not being formed.
- The Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation is a relic of a time when the universe was hot enough to ionize Hydrogen. That is clearly not the case today.

See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#Observational_tests

Sorry, the gravity of the MW pushes any star and any galaxy that stands in its path.
Nothing can penetrate into the galaxy.

On the contrary, there are many galaxies which we see in the process of colliding and or merging. Galaxies are mostly empty space, and don't possess a force field like on Star Trek.

See the collection of images here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interacting_galaxy#Galaxy_collision
Or this collection at Google

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Galaxies aren't point objects, they are diffuse objects.
- So even if they come close (which the Milky way & Andromeda will), they will be disrupted, and provided their relative velocity doesn't exceed their mutual escape velocity, their central black holes will (eventually) coalesce.
- In the process, the current spiral structure of both galaxies will be totally disrupted, and we will end up with something that looks more like an elliptical galaxy.

As you all have so high confidence in understanding how gravity works on galaxies and you clearly see the future of Andromeda and MW, why is it so difficult to answer my question about the early times of Andromeda and Triangulum Galaxies?

do you agree that in the past Triangulum Galaxy was very close to Andromeda?
If so, How close?
Why in the early days when they were very close together, due to stronger Gravity force, Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy?

Let me help you with the following:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428674-800-vast-hydrogen-bridge-connects-two-galaxies/
"IT’S a bridge like no other. The intergalactic void between the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies is spanned by a 782,000-light-year-long hydrogen link."

Based on this data, the distance between Andromeda to Triangulum is about 782,000 Ly.
The size of Andromeda is more than 100,000 Ly. Therefore, they are quite close to each other.
That Hydrogen Bridge shows that those galaxies were close together in the past.
You have stated that when two spiral galaxies come closer they should be disrupted. So how could it be that both galaxies still keep their spiral shape?
How could it be that their central black holes didn't coalesce due to gravity when they were nearby in the past, while you are so sure that this is the destiny of the MW and Andromeda as they will come closer?

[Bored chemist]

why is it so difficult to answer my question about the early times of Andromeda and Triangulum Galaxies?

We did.
It's just that you didn't understand it.

The galaxies are mainly empty space.
If you had two swarms of bees that were "on a collision course" would you expect them to actually bounce off each other, or would you expect them to pass through each other?

[evan_au]

I can't read the New Scientist article - it's behind a paywall.

The intergalactic void between the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies is spanned by a 782,000-light-year-long hydrogen link.

A galaxy in isolation is surrounded by clouds of gas - some of it blasted out by the galaxy's supermassive black hole, some of it neutral Hydrogen falling into the galaxy from intergalactic space to fuel new stars. And the invisible Dark Matter halo.
- When two galaxies pass close together, that outer fringe of Hydrogen and Dark Matter is affected more strongly than the disk of the galaxy, which is in turn affected more than the galactic bulge.
- What you are seeing is the drawn-out thread of Hydrogen.
- I imagine that the article will go on to say that this is a hint that the Dark Matter halo is also drawn out into a long thread.
- Many galaxies are surrounded by a halo of stars ejected by previous galactic mergers, and these are probably included in this thread. But they are extremely hard to see since their luminosity is so low.

This suggests that the Triangulum galaxy did pass close to Andromeda, but not close enough to disrupt the disk very much, and not enough to disrupt the galactic bulge, and definitely not enough to merge the supermassive black holes (on this flyby).
- As I have said before, while we can measure the radial velocities accurately, we can't measure the transverse velocity nearly as accurately, so it's hard to plot the past trajectory in 3 dimensions.
- The Gaia spacecraft is monitoring some stars outside our galaxy (including some in Andromeda and some in nearby dwarf galaxies), and this will greatly improve measurements of this transverse motion
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)#Significant_results

My summary: The Triangulum Galaxy was not emitted from the Andromeda galaxy, but it did pass close enough to disrupt its halo.
- Andromeda and Milky Way galaxy look like they are approaching close enough that their mutual gravity will deflect their direction of movement, and draw them together over the next 5-15 billion years, through multiple collisions, stopping and coming back for another collision. This is what you expect to see with gravitationally bound galaxies within a local cluster.
- We will have more precise measurements of this motion after Gaia's final data release occurs, around 2023.

None of this changes the fact that for distant galaxies (outside superclusters) are red-shifted at a rate that increases with distance. This implies (if you extrapolate backwards in time) that the universe started as a compact object which then expanded - what we now call "The Big Bang".

So the Triangulum Galaxy and the upcoming merger of Andromeda and the Milky Way is a (school of) red herring which has nothing to do with the Big Bang, which is the title of the thread.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

- What you are seeing is the drawn-out thread of Hydrogen.

why do you change the real meaning of that that Hydrogen Bridge.
It is stated: "The intergalactic void between the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies is spanned by a 782,000-light-year-long hydrogen link."
As all the intergalactic void between the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies is spanned by a 782,000-light-year-long hydrogen link it proves that Andromeda and Triangulum were very close together.
You have stated that spiral galaxies should be disrupted by passing near another galaxy.

But a galaxy can be disrupted by passing near another galaxy - we see this with the many stellar streams passing through our own galaxy, which are the disrupted remnants of dwarf galaxies that got too close.

In this case, the long Hydrogen bridge that exists between the two galaxies proves that they were very near by.
"Triangulum may be home to 40 billion stars"
So, based on your explanation we have to see the impact of the disruption due to the near by Andromeda galaxy.
However, we don't see any disruptions. Not in Andromeda and not in Triangulum.
In the following article it is even stated that Triangulum was a satellite of the Andromeda Galaxy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulum_Galaxy
"The galaxy is the smallest spiral galaxy in the Local Group and is believed to be a satellite of the Andromeda Galaxy"
Therefore, as a satellite, Triangulum was orbiting around Andromeda in the past and they were bounded by gravity.
It is also stated:
"As mentioned above, M33 is linked to M31 by several streams of neutral hydrogen[51] and stars,[51] which suggests that a past interaction between these two galaxies took place from 2 to 8 billion years ago"
So, it is very clear that Triangulum Galaxy was emitted from the Andromeda galaxy.
Therefore, why do you claim that:

My summary: The Triangulum Galaxy was not emitted from the Andromeda galaxy, but it did pass close enough to disrupt its halo.

That galaxy is key evidence that Triangulum had been emitted from Andromeda.
Therefore, it is actually the Baby of Andromeda.
Mighty spiral galaxy as Andromeda can produce new particles, new stars, new BH and even new dwarf galaxies.
Andromeda is the Mother Galaxy.
All the stars, gas clouds, clusters, dwarf galaxies around this mighty galaxy including Triangulum are the direct babies of that galaxy.
This galaxy is moving faster than the Milky way.

A bit concerning Andromeda, we are in fact moving in a direction away from it.  That 630 km/sec is mostly in a direction opposite that of Andromeda.  But it is moving faster in a similar direction and catching up with us. It’s the predator, we’re the prey.
It is approaching us at more like 110 km/sec,
around twice the orbital speed of Mercury, which isn’t that much..

As the Milky way cross the space at 600 Km sec, while Andromeda is moving 110Km/s faster, then in total its velocity is about 710 Km/sec.
Triangulum also moves in our direction at higher velocity:
"A velocity of 190 ± 60 km/s relative to the Milky Way"
Our scientists consider that there is a possibility for the MW collide with this galaxy:
"Two other possibilities are a collision with the Milky Way before the Andromeda Galaxy arrives"

In the following image we even see that it still orbits around the Andromeda:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Collision_paths_of_our_Milky_Way_galaxy_and_the_Andromeda_galaxy.jpg
Conclusion:
Triangulum was part of Andromeda.
This galaxy was a satellite of the Andromeda Galaxy. It was orbiting around Andromeda and continues to orbit.
Therefore, it was emitted from Andromeda.
This proves that triangulum is the Baby galaxy of Andromeda
It is not the only baby.
All the dwarf galaxies around Andromeda are direct products of Andromeda and all are drifting outwards. In the same token - all the dwarf galaxies around the Milky way had been created by the Milky way.
In order to achieve it - New particles must be created at the accretion disc of the SMBH.
Einstein had confirmed this activity.

Once you understand that observation - you actually can fully understand how our real universe works at small scale and large scale.

EINSTEIN WAS VERY CLEARLY WRONG IF HE BELIEVED IN SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF MATTER.

You are very wrong!!!
Einstein didn't tell us how and where new particles are created.
He just told us that it is real. He gave us the formula for that.
I have found the correct location for the new particle creation which is the accretion disc.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 22/11/2020 17:35:54
The history proves that Einstein new that it is feasible.
So, we know that it is feasible.
No
He thought it was feasible.
Emmy Noether proved it was not.

Based on the following it seems that Emmy Noether proves that energy may not be conserved “locally” but everything works out when the space is sufficiently large:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-mathematician-emmy-noethers-theorem-changed-physics

A problem had cropped up in Albert Einstein’s new theory of gravity, general relativity, which had been unveiled earlier in the year. It seemed that the theory did not adhere to a well-established physical principle known as conservation of energy, which states that energy can change forms but can never be destroyed. Total energy is supposed to remain constant. Noether, a young mathematician with no formal academic appointment, gladly accepted the challenge.
She resolved the issue head-on, showing that energy may not be conserved “locally” — that is, in an arbitrarily small patch of space — but everything works out when the space is sufficiently large.
So, Emmy Noether supports the idea that energy may not be conserved “locally” as Einstein had offered.
The meaning of that is that in local aria new particles could be created.

In any case
As Einstein had stated that new particles could be created - then even if all the BBT scientists (including you) will claim that Einstein is wrong - it won't Help you.
Einstein message is correct forever and ever!!!
New particles are created at any BH accretion disc at any given moment with or without your permission!!!
Those new created particles would keep the density of the Universe forever and ever as Einstein had stated.

[evan_au]

Therefore, as a satellite, Triangulum was orbiting around Andromeda in the past and they were bounded by gravity.
...
So, it is very clear that Triangulum Galaxy was emitted from the Andromeda galaxy.

It sounds like you are drawing a false analogy from "Satellites in Earth orbit were launched from Earth. Therefore the Triangulum Galaxy in orbit around Andromeda Galaxy must have been launched from Andromeda Galaxy."

Cosmologists are unsure how supermassive black holes reached their current size. They think that part of the story is that in the denser early universe, mergers of nearby early galaxies was quite common.

We see this process continuing at a slower rate today (in our less-dense universe) within local clusters of galaxies which are bound together gravitationally. With the Gaia data, we should be able to better predict the timing of Andromeda merging with the Milky Way, and whether Triangulum will merge first, or whether it will escape this train wreck, surviving for a later collision.

I have found the correct location for the new particle creation which is the accretion disc.

It is true that Stephen Hawking predicted particle creation at the event horizon of a black hole, at the inner edge of an accretion disk.
- But these are not new particles, but the quantum residue of matter that previously fell into the black hole.
- And the rate of production at a black hole is far too low to make up for the expansion of the universe (in fact, it is far lower than the infalling radiation from the CMBR, let alone infalling matter from the accretion disk)..

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

[Bored chemist]

Based on the following it seems that Emmy Noether proves that energy may not be conserved “locally” but everything works out when the space is sufficiently large:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-mathematician-emmy-noethers-theorem-changed-physics

The whole universe is "at large" i.e. in the class where your idea is wrong.

[Bored chemist]

The meaning of that is that in local aria new particles could be created.

No, it is not.
What it means is that you can "borrow and lend" energy and mass locally, but you aren't allowed to have them leave the "local" area. So, for example,  you can't use them to create a universe.


Did you not realise that I could be aware of this story and still say you were wrong?

[Bored chemist]

Einstein message is correct forever and ever!!!

Get a room.

[evan_au]

As all the intergalactic void between the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies is spanned by a 782,000-light-year-long hydrogen link it proves that Andromeda and Triangulum were very close together.
...So, it is very clear that Triangulum Galaxy was emitted from the Andromeda galaxy.

Have a look at the mice galaxies: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020506.html

You will see that in this case, the two galaxies are joined by a visible stream of stars, and there is a corresponding stream of stars extending far beyond both galaxies.
- The galaxy at the left has a rather distorted spiral structure (the one of the right is seen edge-on, so we can't see very much of its spiral structure).
- This is what happens when two galaxies pass very close to each other - stars get dragged out of their normal path around the galaxy

Now compare the Triangulum galaxy: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap191231.html

It has a regular spiral shape, with very little distortion.
- The article you quoted indicates that there is a hydrogen bridge (and dark matter bridge) between Triangulum and Andromeda. Both of them are invisible to telescopes.
- This shows that the Andromeda and Triangulum did not approach very closely, as stars have not been torn away from both galaxies
- Even though Triangulum is probably in orbit around Andromeda, it is so far away that it's own gravity is much stronger than the disturbance of Andromeda, leaving the spiral arms undistorted
- At best, the outer halo of Andromeda and Triangulum overlapped, forming the Hydrogen bridge.

These couple of pictures from NASA show that Triangulum was not emitted from Andromeda.
 

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Did you not realise that I could be aware of this story and still say you were wrong?

In order to support your BBT imagination you are ready to do whatever it takes to confuse me.
Einstein had stated that the BBT is wrong and new particles should be created in order to keep the density of the Universe as the galaxies expand.
Therefore, you claim that he is wrong.
You have stated that the "Emmy Noether theory" is a proof for your wrong imagination and this is a lie.
In the article it is clearly stated that her theory fully supports Einstein understanding with regards to conservation of energy,:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-mathematician-emmy-noethers-theorem-changed-physics
"A problem had cropped up in Albert Einstein’s new theory of gravity, general relativity, which had been unveiled earlier in the year. It seemed that the theory did not adhere to a well-established physical principle known as conservation of energy, which states that energy can change forms but can never be destroyed. Total energy is supposed to remain constant. Noether, a young mathematician with no formal academic appointment, gladly accepted the challenge".

Therefore, your with the "local" or without it - it is very clear that "Emmy Noether theory" doesn't contradicts Einstein Theory/Understanding.
Hence, you clearly lie when you have stated that "Emmy Noether theory" contradicts Einstein.
In any case, I'm not going to argue with you about Einstein as he is the greatest scientist in the last century.
The whole astronomy science is based on his formulas.
So, we all must accept his clear understanding & messages.
As Einstein had confirmed that the BBT is wrong - then the BBT is wrong!!!
As Einstein had stated that new particles are created in order to keep the density of the Universe - Then new articles are created.
Unfortunately, Einstein had passed away before finding the explanation how this new created particles could explain the expansion in the galaxies while keeping the density of the Universe..
My job is to explain that last missing section in Einstein theory.
This missing section is called -
Galaxy over galaxy (or if you wish: Rocket over rocket)
This missing section fully explains our entire Universe in small scale and in large scale.
No need for Dark matter and no need for Dark energy.
We all should set those dark ideas including all the BBT imagination at the garbage and open our mind for Einstein Theory

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:23:30
Einstein message is correct forever and ever!!!

Get a room.

Yes, I'm going to stay at Einstein Room as he is fully correct.
Anyone who really cares about real science must stay at that room.
As you claim that Einstein is incorrect, As you lie to support your unrealistic ideas -  please stay away from this room and from my threads.
You aren't welcome anymore!

Cosmologists are unsure how supermassive black holes reached their current size. They think that part of the story is that in the denser early universe, mergers of nearby early galaxies was quite common.

Those unsure Cosmologists should join us in Einstein Room.
Once they accept the idea of new creation particles - they will know how suppermassive black holes reached their current size without eating any matter for outside.
They would know that new particles pair are created near the event of horizon. Both with positive Mass but with carry negative charged with regards to each other.
They would know how that the supper massive BH eats one particle out of the two and ejects the other one to the accretion disc. Therefore, it is called - picky eater.
So it isn't a picky eater as it is eating 50% from all the new particles that it generates.
That 50% of the falling in particles converts a tinny BH into a Supper massive BH over time.
Therefore, the accretion disc should be called as the Excretion disc.
Our scientists would know why most of the Hydrogen atoms in the galaxy are located near the SMBH (mainly in those giant gas clouds as G1-G6).
They would know that the new stars that are formed in those gas clouds are drifting outwards.
In this process, they set the shape of the spiral arms.
No need for dark matter for that.
The OM is good enough to support any spiral galaxy.
 

It is true that Stephen Hawking predicted particle creation at the event horizon of a black hole, at the inner edge of an accretion disk.
- But these are not new particles, but the quantum residue of matter that previously fell into the black hole.

Stephen Hawking theory is wrong.
There is no negative mass in the real Einstein Room.
Therefore, this theory should also join the BBT in the way to the garbage.

- And the rate of production at a black hole is far too low to make up for the expansion of the universe (in fact, it is far lower than the infalling radiation from the CMBR, let alone infalling matter from the accretion disk)..

The production rate of new created particles in all the BH that are located in Einstein Universe perfectly fit the steady real universe.
The CMBR is a direct outcome from the galaxies radiation in our Universe.
Based on Hubble law we know that the faster the galaxy moves the farther it is located.
The far away galaxies are moving much faster than the speed of light. Due to relativity, we can still see them while they are residing at redshift 13 which means - 13 times the speed of light.
However, at some ultra high velocity above the speed of light, we can't see them any more.
At that stage we only can get some a faint radiation from those far away galaxies.
Hence, the CMBR is the sum of the radiation from all the galaxies around us.
That CMBR carries a redsfit of 1100. Therefore, we mainly gets the CMBR radiation from a sphere that is relevant to that velocity.
Galaxies which are located further away can't have any more significant impact on the CMBR.
Therefore, even if in one size the length of the universe might be longer than the other side, as there is a limit for the radius of the radiation in the CMBR, we get it at the same amplitude in all directions.
For more information - please read my Thread about Theory D.

Have a look at the mice galaxies: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020506.html
You will see that in this case, the two galaxies are joined by a visible stream of stars, and there is a corresponding stream of stars extending far beyond both galaxies.
- The galaxy at the left has a rather distorted spiral structure (the one of the right is seen edge-on, so we can't see very much of its spiral structure).
- This is what happens when two galaxies pass very close to each other - stars get dragged out of their normal path around the galaxy

Yes, that is the excellent example for a collision between two galaxies.
As you can see the smaller galaxy is losing significant portion of its stars as it comes closer to the main galaxy.

Now compare the Triangulum galaxy: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap191231.html

It has a regular spiral shape, with very little distortion.
- The article you quoted indicates that there is a hydrogen bridge (and dark matter bridge) between Triangulum and Andromeda. Both of them are invisible to telescopes.

So, we do not observe any distortion in both galaxies while the Hydrogen Bridge is between the two galaxies.

- This shows that the Andromeda and Triangulum did not approach very closely, as stars have not been torn away from both galaxies

NO!!!
That hydrogen bridge which is located between the galaxies shows their way in the past. So, it proves that those galaxies have moved away from each other. Therefore, as the bridge is connected between the galaxies it clearly proves that they were absolutely close to each other!!!

Hence, in the past they were very close to each other, without any sort of negative distortion on each one of them.

- Even though Triangulum is probably in orbit around Andromeda, it is so far away that it's own gravity is much stronger than the disturbance of Andromeda, leaving the spiral arms undistorted

This is correct only for the current location.
However, in the past they were very close together, therefore it is expected to see a severe distortion.
As we can't see any distortion it proves that Triangulum had emitted from Andromeda while it was quite small and young, as all the other dwarf galaxies around Andromeda and the MW.
Over time it had been increased its mass due to the new particles creation by its SMBH.

- At best, the outer halo of Andromeda and Triangulum overlapped, forming the Hydrogen bridge.

No as Triangulum is relatively smaller galaxy and not so efficient yet. Therefore, some of its new created Hydrogen atomes had been emitted to space and set that Hydrogen Bridge.
So, that Hydrogen Bridge had been created by Triangulum and not by Andromeda.

These couple of pictures from NASA show that Triangulum was not emitted from Andromeda.

Those pictures show the current position of the galaxies.
However, the Hydrogen Bridge is the Ultimate evidence that the two galaxies were nearby in the past.

I would like to highlight that if today those galaxy would come again together, they would set a severe distortion.
The following image is very important:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Collision_paths_of_our_Milky_Way_galaxy_and_the_Andromeda_galaxy.jpg
It shows that Triangulum is currently located further away from the MW while it still orbits around Andromeda.
However, due to that orbital momentum we know that it is moving faster in our direction.
At some point, it would be disconnected from Andromeda and cross the space by its own.
At that moment its velocity would be the combined velocity vector of Andromeda + the final emitted vector.
Therefore, any galaxy that cross the space had been emitted from it mother galaxy.
That is the base of galaxy over galaxy or rocket over rocket.

[Bored chemist]

Yes, I'm going to stay at Einstein Room as he is fully correct.

No
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes
Chronology of Einstein’s Mistakes
1905 Mistake in clock synchronization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity

1905 Failure to consider Michelson-Morley experiment
1905 Mistake in transverse mass of high-speed particles

1905 Multiple mistakes in the mathematics and physics used in calculation of viscosity of liquids, from which Einstein deduced size of molecules

1905 Mistakes in the relationship between thermal radiation and quanta of light

1905 Mistake in the first proof of E = mc2

1906 Mistakes in the second, third, and fourth proofs of E = mc2

1907 Mistake in the synchronization procedure for accelerated clocks

1907 Mistakes in the Principle of Equivalence of gravitation and acceleration

1911 Mistake in the first calculation of the bending of light

1913 Mistake in the first attempt at a theory of general relativity

1914 Mistake in the fifth proof of E = mc2

1915 Mistake in the Einstein-de Haas experiment

1915 Mistakes in several attempts at theories of general relativity

1916 Mistake in the interpretation of Mach’s principle

1917 Mistake in the introduction of the cosmological constant (the “biggest blunder”)

1919 Mistakes in two attempts to modify general relativity

1925 Mistakes and more mistakes in the attempts to formulate a unified theory

1927 Mistakes in discussions with Bohr on quantum uncertainties

1933 Mistakes in interpretation of quantum mechanics (Does God play dice?)

1934 Mistake in the sixth proof of E = mc2

1939 Mistake in the interpretation of the Schwarzschild singularity and gravitational collapse (the “black hole”)

1946 Mistake in the seventh proof of E = mc2

[Bored chemist]

Those pictures show the current position of the galaxies.

LOL

[Bored chemist]

he CMBR is a direct outcome from the galaxies radiation in our Universe.

Why is it completely the wrong "colour"?
The galaxies emit light. The CMBR is microwave.

[evan_au]

So, it is very clear that Triangulum Galaxy was emitted from the Andromeda galaxy.
...Therefore, any galaxy that cross the space had been emitted from it mother galaxy.

Astronomy has the concept of the "Roche Limit":
- If a small body is held together by its own gravity
- And strays too close to a more massive body (closer than the Roche limit)
- Then the smaller body's gravity is no longer enough for it to be held together, and the smaller body is torn apart.
- It was originally applied to planets and moons; it could explain how an ice moon like Enceledus could get turned into ice rings around Saturn, for example.
- It can't be applied to human-made artificial satellites, because these are held together by bolts and rivets, which are stronger than the gravity of the space probe,
- But it can be applied to galaxies, which are held together by their gravity

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit

If the Triangulum galaxy, as a smaller galaxy was ever within the Roche Limit of Andromeda, then it would have been torn apart, and would not be recognizable as the spiral galaxy that it is today.

This leaves us with a choice of possible explanations. Two of the obvious choices are:
1. If the Triangulum galaxy started off as a tiny galaxy, emitted from Andromeda, then it would have started off inside the Roche limit of Andromeda, and would never have made it out.
2. However, if the Triangulum Galaxy had started out as a fully-formed independent galaxy with its own spiral structure, then it could last many billions of years in orbit around Andromda, or taking a complex path through our local cluster. It would retain its shape and content, provided it didn't stray inside the Roche Limit of a bigger galaxy.

Just by looking at images of the Triangulum Galaxy, we can see that it has never been inside the Roche Limit of a bigger galaxy.
- A Hydrogen thread linking Triangulum and Andromeda suggests that at some point, the outer reaches of the halo around Triangulum entered the Roche Limit of Andromeda galaxy, but the galactic disk never did.
- Clearly the speculation of little galaxies being emitted from big galaxies is flawed, as they would be destroyed by the gravitational field of the larger galaxy before they could escape..