What is the closest galaxy to The Milky Way?

[harry]

Hello All


With out thinking too much.
What pops up first in your mind?

What galaxy is the closest to the Milky Way?

[Astronot]

small megelan cloud, large megelan cloud, andromeda

[harry]

Hello Astronot

close,,,,,,,,,,,try again

[harry]

Hello all

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031117.html

The Canis Major dwarf and other satellite galaxies are slowly being gravitationally ripped apart as they travel around and through our Galaxy

see also
http://www.astro.uu.se/~ns/mwsat.html

[Qev]

I always thought it was the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, but it seems the Canis Major dwarf supplants it as the closest. Interesting to know.

[harry]

Hello All

Its amazing how many small galaxies are around the milky way.

We keep on learning.

We see other galaxies colliding and never think that our Milky Way Kid is so busy with other galaxies.

[BMAONE23]

Try here

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/localgr.html

and zoom in a little.

[orin stepanek]

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/localgr.html
That is a very interesting map BMAONE23. I liked it very much.
Orin

[BMAONE23]

There is some good information out there, If/when you happen to stumble accross it.

[harry]

Hello All

BMAONE23 thank you for the folowing link.
Its great.
http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/universe.html
Seeing links like these makes me think less of the Big Bang.

[orin stepanek]

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/bigbang.html
I don't presume to know but; if the universe is expanding and there may be many universes then eventually some of these may be expanding toward our universe and maybe in a few trillion years they may entwine.
Orin

[harry]

Hello Orin

I read the link on the Big Bang,,,,,,,,,,,,,Its a load of hoo haaa.
When we look at the expansion of the Universe one needs to question first the Big Bang secondly the red shifts and thirdly the expansion of the universe.

We see just see probably about 13.2 Billion light years into deep space.
This is a sand partical on the scope of "ALL". Man has put his own limits by the small amount of evidence.

Think of it this way. If the Universe is all and unlimited with respect to time and space. How can it expand? Within itself or out of it self? The Universe is not an object it is "All" that is home to many parts. Those parts can grow , explode, shrink, collide, recycle and so forth.

Unless man has defined the known Universe as the extent of what he can see. With respect to what we can see the Uinverse is not expanding.

Read these links, the info is great.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V1 ... 0N1ANT.pdf
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

The big-bang theory was first proposed by Abbé Georges Lemaître [1]. Later, H. Hubble deduced the related constant, but as reported by Shelton [2]: "Dr. Hubble never committed himself to the theory of the expanding universe". Hubble himself in his book states [3]: "The familiar interpretation of red shifts as velocity shifts very seriously restricts not only the time scale, the age of the universe, but the spatial dimensions as well. On the other hand, the alternative possible interpretation, that red shifts are not velocity shifts, avoids both difficulties . . . ." Many prestigious scientists like R. A. Millikan agreed with Hubble when he wrote in a letter [4] dated 15 may 1953: "Personally I should agree with you that this hypothesis (tired light) is more simple and less irrational for all of us." Another prestigious scientist, Hannes Alfvén, is also challenging the orthodox view of the origin of the universe [1]. Since its origin, the big bang theory has remained an important controversy that is actively discussed in many specialized meetings [5]. Until a satisfactory model of the universe is found, the cosmological model must be reconsidered every time new observations or new considerations are brought in. It is not possible to achieve a rational choice between alternatives models when only one alternative (the big bang) is considered. We will examine here how some observations involving plasma physics in space are compatible with a recent red shift theory. We will see then how the new-tired light mechanism [6] is in agreement with many reliable observations.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/

In papers published about a decade ago, the author and colleagues predicted the widespread presence of hydrogen in the molecular (H2) form in space (Marmet and Reber 1989; Marmet 1990a,b). Although hydrogen in the atomic form is easily detected through radioastronomy, the molecular form is difficult to detect. We showed that the presence of this missing mass would explain the anomalous rotational motion observed in galaxies, which is otherwise explained by exotic hypotheses, such as swarms of invisible brown or white dwarfs, or weird atomic particles called WIMPs or axions, and "quark nuggets."

We also showed that the presence of large amounts of the hard-to-detect molecular hydrogen in interstellar space could provide an alternative explanation to the Big Bang theory, by explaining the observed redshift as a result of the delayed propagation of light through space, caused by the collision of photons with interstellar matter.

The more commonly held view explains the observed shift in frequency of the spectral lines detected from distant galaxies as arising from a Doppler shift (a shift in the frequency of a wave caused by the relative motion of the emitting object and the observer). The downshift in the frequency, toward the red end of the spectrum, is taken to mean that distant galaxies are receding from us, thus implying an expanding universe.

Our prediction, based on a critique of many of the commonly held assumptions of cosmology, was the result of a serious study of the molecular structure of hydrogen and of the astronomical observation of atomic hydrogen in space. However, the astrophysicists preferred to ignore H2, and instead to hypothesize the existence of weird objects.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... xplode.htm

G. de Purucker rejected the theory of an expanding universe or expanding space as "little short of being a scientific pipe-dream or fairy-tale," and suggested that the redshift might be caused by light losing energy during its long voyage through space [2]. This is known as the tired-light theory, and is supported by several astronomers. Paul LaViolette and Tom Van Flandern, for example, have reviewed several observational tests of the different interpretations of the redshift, and conclude that the tired-light, non-expanding-universe model explains the data much better than the expanding-universe hypothesis [3]. To bring the big bang model into line with observations, constant adjustments have to be made to its "free parameters" (i.e. fudge factors).

According to the big bang theory, a galaxy's redshift is proportional to its recession velocity, which increases with its distance from earth. In the tired-light model, too, we would expect redshift to be proportional to distance. The fact that this is not always the case shows that other factors must be involved. Numerous examples of galaxies at the same distance having very different redshifts are given in the landmark book Seeing Red by Halton Arp, who works at the Max Planck Institut für Astrophysik in Germany. He also gives many examples of how, for over 30 years, establishment astronomers and cosmologists have systematically tried to ignore, dismiss, ridicule, and suppress this evidence -- for it is fatal to the hypothesis of an expanding universe. Like other opponents of the big bang, he has encountered great difficulties getting articles published in mainstream journals, and his requests for time on ground-based and space telescopes are frequently rejected.

Arp argues that redshift is primarily a function of age, and that tired light plays no more than a secondary role. He presents abundant observational evidence to show that low-redshift galaxies sometimes eject high-redshift quasars in opposite directions, which then evolve into progressively lower-redshift objects and finally into normal galaxies. Ejected galaxies can, in turn, eject or fission into smaller objects, in a cascading process. Within galaxies, the youngest, brightest stars also have excess redshifts. The reason all distant galaxies are redshifted is because we see them as they were when light left them, i.e. when they were much younger. About seven local galaxies are blueshifted. The orthodox view is that they must be moving towards us even faster than the universe is expanding, but in Arp's theory, they are simply older than our own galaxy as we see them.

To explain how redshift might be related to age, Arp and Jayant Narlikar suggest that instead of elementary particles having constant mass, as orthodox science assumes, they come into being with zero mass, which then increases, in steps, as they age. When electrons in younger atoms jump from one orbit to another, the light they emit is weaker, and therefore more highly redshifted, than the light emitted by electrons in older atoms. To put it another way: as particle mass grows, frequency (clock rate) increases and therefore redshift decreases.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Question red shift,,,,,,,,,,by Arp


http://www.setterfield.org/staticu.html
Is The Universe Static Or Expanding?

In June of 2002 an article was submitted to CRSQ regarding evidence that the universe may not be expanding. On 16 July a response with the peer review suggestions was received. The article, as is common, was then partially re-written and amended to comply with the peer review suggestions and resubmitted. It was refused on some very curious grounds. What follows here is the article itself, an explanation of the letter of refusal, and Barry Setterfield's response to the points brought up in that refusal. Questions are welcomed. The question and answer section is linked at the bottom of the page.

[Brian]

Hello to all here. I just discovered that APOD had a forum and I am excited to find you all.

I have a naging question that you seem to be touching on that has been bothering me since the first Hubble picture that says is the deepest picture of the universe and furthest back in time.

If the picture of the huge group of galaxies is also a picture back in time I first find it interesting that there is noting closer in the image and the presumption is that all the objects are on a relatively same plane to be in the same time frame. If they aren't or there was an object in the field closer I would expect to be able to detect some type of motion in the object that is closer, hence more recent in time.

If you were to take plates of longer exposures to get fainter and deeper objects and lay them on top of one another, wouldn't the closer objects show previous positions.

This is very quickly put together and I am not sure that my question is clear, but let's see what we come up with.

Thanks,
Brian

[BMAONE23]

Brian,
A good question. Over time (millennia) stars will move relative to their current positions. This movement will gradually warp some of the constellation that we see in the night sky until they no longer exist. The fortunate problem is that the process takes thousands of years so we won't see any descernable movement in our lifetime. All es could spot with movement is local stuff like comets, Kuiper belt objects, asteroids, and planets. The only shifting we see with respect to the stars is caused by our own movement in space as we travel on our 58,404,000,000 mile orbit around the sun

[kexx]

WARNING: The site "anzwers.org" attempts to make unauthorized changes to your PC.

The SiteAdvisor report is below:

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/anzwer ... e&aff_id=0

I suspect that systems of the "Windows OS and IE browser" variety would be the most vulnerable.

Nice pic, nasty site.

[randall cameron]

I am waiting to hear a physicist's response to Harry's comments.

I once read a "non-technical" summation of Setterfield's work, and it seemed full of holes to me. But I have not had time to study his paper yet.

I find thoughtful questioning of "orthodoxy" fascinating, and the strength of prejudice in support of whatever the prevailing view at the time happens to be rather distressing, even if the prevailing view turns out to be more or less right down the road...

[harry]

Hello Randall

Which part of the comment?