Galaxies trailing their spirals

[Sputnick]

This photo http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080420.html clearly
demonstrates a phenomenon which indicates we seem to understand next to nothing about time and space. Most spiral galaxies viewed face-on appear to be travelling away from us, with the spirals closer to us than the nucleus .. or at least many galaxies appear to be travelling in the same direction as our galaxie, with the spirals trailing the nucleus (yes I know that galaxies including our own are drifting closer together to form groups .. but they are drifting together, theoretically, as they travel in the same direction . . although that may be a misconception also.) Some galaxies appear to be sitting still. But I have never seen a galaxy which appears to be travelling towards us, with the spirals trailing behind the nucleus. If there was a Big Bang there should be some galaxies which appear to be travelling towards us, trailing their spirals behind them. I suspect that regardless of which face side you look at a spiral from, it will appear to be trailing its spiral .. while edge on views show flat spirals (or at the most slightly bent).

I can offer a theory .. that time offers resistance to light or enhances light's speed .. but other than that I can't put the whys or hows or maybes or examples together.

[JohnD]

Sput,
Please elaborate your theory. Offer comparisons with general and special relativity, and what predictions your theory makes that can be tested to compare with those of the previous theories. You may append the mathematics on a seperate sheet.

John

[Sputnick]

John .. Surely you can't be serious in your request? My elaborations
would take far too much room on this forum .. my goodness, my equation for the hindrance-multiplication effect of .777 photon on the relativity of near finese mass affected by the nexus of plexus would take up 9,234.1 zorbahydrants (give or take a few) of gogglegoogles. For me to even begin posting my calculations might cause a meltdown of APOD's server (servers?). You'll have to wait until I can condense.

[astrolabe]

Hello Sputnick,

My understanding with regard to your proposal is that the speed of light and time are inextricably bound together where 167 million miles per hour translates into a timeless state and the relationship doesn't alter even though light's speed may not be as cosmologically constant as once thought.

I had a little trouble following your dialog about spirals following the nucleii of galaxies but one thing is certain, and that is that in a galaxy say 175,000 ly across it stands to reason that what we see as the back edge is 175,000 years older than the front edge if the view is nearly flat.

[astrolabe]

Hello JohnD,

My post to Sputnick triggered something in my imagination that bears some thought. The Hubble can see pretty far into the distant past and observe a much earlier time in the evolution of our universe. My question is this: is it within the realm of possibilities that light from a "galaxy far, far away" which is just now reaching us would only reveal the near edge of a galaxy that is 100,000 ly across? The nucleus would then, theoretically, come into view 50,000 years later! Could this idea be behind the shapes of some of the objects we witness as "lensing"?

[Sputnick]

Yes .. Corkscrews - (Astrolabe's last post coalesced ((spellcheck needed)) part of my thinking on this) ... Spiral Galaxies seemingly corkscrew through space no matter which side of the face you view .. approaching or departing .. yet they appear flat when viewed edge on. One way that could be explained is if the spirals were created first - their light would reach us first and appear closer .. so they are closer in time but not in space. Eureka! I'm not saying this is factual - just speculation - Eureka nonetheless. (This message brought to you by a Eureka tent purchaser .. soon to fold up his tabernacle and travel upwards.)

[JohnD]

a/l,
It takes a rather longer time than 100,000 years to form a galaxy. The first galaxies took about 500 000 MILLION years to form. So the far edge would be at the same stage of development as the near edge, plus 100 000 years. A moment in that time scale.

You are quite right about any galaxy, even the nearest galaxies to ours. Andromeda, for instance, is about 100 000ly across, and 2.5 Million ly years away. So we see the furthest edge 0.1 Mly after the nearest! Can you see any difference?

I suspect that the distorted images seen as having been lensed (!) by nearer galaxies are just that, distorted. A lens that projects a clear image is a carefully crafted object, whereas the image seen through a glass bowl of water or even a water drop is far from that.

John

[JohnD]

John .. Surely you can't be serious in your request? My elaborations
would take far too much room on this forum .. my goodness, my equation for the hindrance-multiplication effect of .777 photon on the relativity of near finese mass affected by the nexus of plexus would take up 9,234.1 zorbahydrants (give or take a few) of gogglegoogles. For me to even begin posting my calculations might cause a meltdown of APOD's server (servers?). You'll have to wait until I can condense.

Sput,.
The rude response would be, "Put up or shut up."

The polite would be, "If you can't express your theory, how can you expect others to do so?"

But in fact I fear that you are taking the poss. (neologism to avoid being banned by the mods)
A joke's a joke, Sput, this one is getting tired.

John

[Sputnick]

John, your reply is exactly why I've been writing that this forum is populated mostly by people who state their theories as if they're facts, most without substantiation of any kind .. however, my statement is untrue about most posters, but my opinion was swayed by your your many posts posts being examples of that kind of posting; whereas I almost always state that I do not claim to present facts, only theories, possibilities, musings, instinct, what I personaly believe to be true without claiming my theory as fact. I am not in the least worried about the moderators as they seem to be moderate minded people with good personalities, and as I do not present offensive postings, and as I have told them that any censorship apart from that necessary to keep pornography or personal attacks, etc., out of the forum is the same spirit that burned people at the stake for saying the earth revolves around the sun instead of the sun revolving around the earth. I cannot help it if you are aggravated by what appears to be your meagre scanning of posts instead of careful readings .. but that is your choice .. and, if you can't appreciate humour, then why do you attempt it? This is a discussion group John, not a bid to be King of the Hill .. your potential as a productive contributor is hindered by your own failure to accept that your theories are theories which do not have to be accepted by the rest of the forum. For goodness sake John, do what the stars do and lighten up.

[astrolabe]

Hello JohnD,

Thanks for the reality check on the lensing issue. I also am in total agreement on the incredible time it takes for galaxies to evolve and that they do not evolve as individual sections. I reread my post to be sure that I was clear in what I was formulating as a concept. I couldn't see where I failed to present the point I was trying to make about the feasibility of viewing the near edge of a deep-space galaxy because it's light had just arrived and not the far edge because it's light had not.

Everything in your reply was true and obvious. there was nothing I disagreed with. But other than lensing I couldn't see the reply as having much bearing on what I was saying

I've seen it said that if one wants a precise answer then ask a precise question/argument/statement/idea. I'm not at all that eloquent in this forum and typing for me is slow and difficult so repeating an idea or question is not fun to say the least. Clarity is my main goal when communicating a thought or idea 'cause I know I'll at least get a chance at an answer. I couldn't see where my post would lead anyone to believe that I didn't understand galaxy development or that I thought the near and far edges would be markedly different.

Accuracy in composing a post is important. Goes without saying.
Accuracy when READING a post is just as important. Goes without saying.

[far out]

Why won't John D answer other posters' theories? And D - you should try to be nice. 500,000 million years to form the first galaxies? Give or take a decade? How did you come up with that number, Mr. D?

[Qev]

As I understand it, our 'most distant possible view' of the universe should always be the surface of last scattering, no? Which would mean you'd not see the leading edge of a galaxy before its trailing edge as our 'wavefront of visibility' travels across it, since every visible part of the universe has been visible to us since renormalization (ie. before galaxies formed). Er... I hope that made sense. I suppose a more succinct way of putting it is that the first light to reach us from any point in space should always be the CMB, which predates the formation of galaxies.

When it comes down to it, the opposite scenario may be true: as the expansion of the universe accelerates, distant objects would actually outpace our visible horizon, and should fade from view.

[astrolabe]

Hello Qev,

Thank you.

[Sputnick]

From what I read in Scientific American, light has been brought to a near halt - as if frozen .. and it has also been speeded up, these things done with man's puny powers in laboratories - if man can do this how much more variable must the speed of light be when subjected to the powers of the universe?

[bystander]

My post to Sputnick triggered something in my imagination that bears some thought. The Hubble can see pretty far into the distant past and observe a much earlier time in the evolution of our universe. My question is this: is it within the realm of possibilities that light from a "galaxy far, far away" which is just now reaching us would only reveal the near edge of a galaxy that is 100,000 ly across? The nucleus would then, theoretically, come into view 50,000 years later! Could this idea be behind the shapes of some of the objects we witness as "lensing"?

All light we observe is present "now", regardless of the time it took to reach us. Since galaxies evolved relatively recently in the cosmological sense of time, there would have been time for light from all components of distant galaxies to have reached us. Cosmologically speaking, 100,000 years is a very short time.

For example, the Hubble Ultra Deep Field is being used to look for galaxies 800 million years old. By contrast, the universe is thought to be over 13 billion years old. 100,000 years pales in comparison.

[bystander]

John, your reply is exactly why I've been writing that this forum is populated mostly by people who state their theories as if they're facts, most without substantiation of any kind .. however, my statement is untrue about most posters, but my opinion was swayed by your your many posts posts being examples of that kind of posting; whereas I almost always state that I do not claim to present facts, only theories, possibilities, musings, instinct, what I personaly believe to be true without claiming my theory as fact...

Why won't John D answer other posters' theories? And D - you should try to be nice.

I feel I need to come to JohnD's defense, he is a "serious" contributor. Any attempt to educate should be applauded.

Speculation, supposition, and fantasy is not scientific theory. Any theory w/o a scientific basis is the stuff of science fiction. However, what was once thought to be pure fantasy, has become, in some cases, the basis of current scientific thought. And what was once thought as fact is now seen to be absurd.

I view most of Sputnick's "theories" as the frivolous musings of an unfettered mind. While free-thought should be encouraged, speculation should not be expected to be taken too seriously.

[Sputnick]

Exactly, Bystander - attempts to educate are valuable - however, for John to simply say "the grooves are crater chains" without evidence of any kind, and without considering other possibilities, but simply expecting everyone to accept his view as fact, is not education, but the same tyranny in restricted form which burned people at the stake for stating the earth revolves around the sun. The dark age is this age if we do not allow ourselves freedom of thought .. and that is what John needs to defend himself from.

My imagination is more educational than theories stated as fact because mine opens the door to possibilties .. example: wthout having looked at the Bacteriophage discussion I opened a discussion on how some clouds of gas in space resemble creatures, and suggested they could be life forms (an absurd fantasy to some); but when I read the Bacteriophage postings I saw that organic compounds are found in some of those clouds, and that organic molecules can seemingly asemble themselves together to begin life .. and gave an example of how that spirit can is demonstrated in a small way on earth with lightning bugs. It is only our miniscule view of life (small parts of this planet) which hinders our acceptance of much larger possibilities. Now - if radio telescopes are aimed at a gas ceature and detect some rhythmic, unexplainable music? The gas cloud is not only alive but sings!?


To strive for open-mindedness is not frivolity.

[bystander]

Exactly, Bystander - attempts to educate are valuable - however, for John to simply say "the grooves are crater chains" without evidence of any kind, and without considering other possibilities, but simply expecting everyone to accept his view as fact, is not education, but the same tyranny in restricted form which burned people at the stake for stating the earth revolves around the sun. The dark age is this age if we do not allow ourselves freedom of thought.

One currently accepted theory of the geological features on Phobos to which you refer and other like features on objects within the Solar system is "crater chains". Don't be so caught up in your enthusiasm to further your speculations you don't at least consider what others are saying. Don't be guilty of what you are accusing others. Don't be blinded by your own imagination.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006 ... chains.htm
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/images/callisto.html
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/images/ganymede.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crater_chain

BTW: one of the posting rules is one thread per APOD (kind of unwritten). Instead of starting a new thread, check for existing threads on that APOD and post a reply within it. Just a suggestion. Gets kind of confusing when multiple threads exist.

See http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... ght=#93036
and http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=370

[Sputnick]

Hi Bystander - One of the major faults of some posters is that they do not read posts, merely scan.

I've been very carefully examining all John's posts (as well as others' posts) considering Crater Chains, as well as all the photos, and commenting carefully on them - to summarize: my main objection to his theory is that for so many grooves to exist so uniformly there would have to have been tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of remarkably similar sized projectiles all on uniform paths. Another major objection is that the grooves meander in their paths, and that I don't think is accountable to Phobo's tumbles, or the straight lines would not be so abundant. You say the chains are an "accepted theory" - that does not make them fact. Barriers of pride in their particular fields between astronomers and geologists or lack of education in each others' fields could be one reason steam vents on Phobos is not an "accepted theory" among astronomers. Fortunately, a good friend of mine, a Professor Emeritus of Geology, would love to go to Mars, and his friendship enhances my (still too restricted) open mindedness.

As far as 'sticking to a topic': yes, it's a good idea; however, topics naturally overlap, for instance, I opened the gas creatures topic before reading (or even seeing) the bacteriaphage topic and posts .. and in those Bactertiophage postings I saw theories/evidence which supported my gas creature theory, so the two topics are seperate but one is important to the other,
perhaps both are important to the other.

[bystander]

As far as 'sticking to a topic': yes, it's a good idea; however, topics naturally overlap, for instance, I opened the gas creatures topic before reading (or even seeing) the bacteriaphage topic and posts .. and in those Bactertiophage postings I saw theories/evidence which supported my gas creature theory, so the two topics are seperate but one is important to the other.

Actually, I was referring to the three threads for Apr. 20 (Spiral Galaxies), two for Apr. 21 (Bateriophages) (was three), and two for Apr. 22 (Fox Fur). You are the creator of two of the extraneous threads (Gas Creatures & Trailing Spirals).

BTW, I've added some crater chain links to my previous post.

[Sputnick]

I really don't understand whay you're saying about threads .. as far as I know there was only one topic started per photo.

[bystander]

Go see http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... ght=#93036

[Sputnick]

I see, said the blind man .. how can I avoid this in the future? Does each photo have a link to its topic?

[Sputnick]

The page listing the topics is confused because it's not in order of date - a change here would help prevent multiple threads on the same photo.

[bystander]

I see, said the blind man .. how can I avoid this in the future? Does each photo have a link to its topic?

Just look in the index http://asterisk.apod.com/viewforum.php?f=9. See if there is an existing thread for the APOD in question. If there is, open it and post a reply. Otherwise you can create a new thread. Labeling the thread with the APOD date and title helps. Posting a link to the APOD within the thread also helps.

But remember, http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html is the address of the current apod, regardless of date. Today's apod (23 Apr 2008) is http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080423.html. Notice the date format, YYMMDD, in the link.