Galactic Tidal Tails - more evidence it's an old Universe !!

The Milky Way Galaxy has many satellite galaxies that are supposed to be gravitationally bound systems to our galaxy. The Large and Small Magellanic clouds being the two largest and best known of these.Now if these satellites were divinely created some 6000 years ago then they have not had time to go anywhere or otherwise interact with our galaxy. Many years ago it was realized that if the universe was old then these systems will have interacted in the past with our galaxy and would have suffered some disruption due to gravitational forces. This disruption would result in the stripping of gas and stars from these dwarf systems which would trace their past orbits around our galaxy. Unfortunately it was understood that these tidal tails would be very hard to observe due to their inherent low surface brightness.But in the last few years these predicted tidal tails have been observed for several of these dwarf galaxies. Tidal tails of gas and stars are seen for these systems. Whatsmore, these tails extend over a huge distance over the sky and based upon the dimensions of these tails and the known velocities of these systems the times for these interactions are in the several billion year timescale. Another observation is that the systems known to have interacted in the last billion years or so have enhanced star formation rates as predicted by theoretical modeling of the interactions whereas the systems that have not interacted with the Milky Way in the last few billion years show no such enhancement of star formation, again as expected from theory.In summary, an observation predicted decades earlier from theory has been seen AND consequences of these interactions are observed.How can these tidal tails exist if these systems have not interacted tidally with the Milky Way?How else can they be anything but several billion years in the making?These interractions are involving classical physics - no esoteric quantum effects or appeals to cosmological models - just good old fashioned Newtonian dynamics and the virial theorem.(Oh for those interested just do a Google search on 'tidal tails', or search NASA abstracts or http://www.arxiv.org)[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 01-18-2004]

Thank you again, Eta. Now what I want for my birthday is one of those science fiction (Star Wars like) holographic projections that show the grand waltz of the local cluster over billions of years. (time lapse of course, even considering my impending birthday I'm not that old).You know of course that the young earthers aren't about to tackle this. One of the most used tactics is to ignore evidence.

---

Common sense isn't

I know they wont.When I first came on EvC I had 2 posts similar to this. One was about SN1987A and the other was about the presence of tidally locked binaries and their orbit circularisation vs. time that is observed in clusters.No one ever challenged them - even though I deliberately left out something in the tidally-locked post just to see if someone picked up on it to challenge me.I also posted it on another forum and it never got challenged by the Creationists there.And the reason is that all the Creationists wont touch anything that is hard (or impossible) to refute and just blindly trot out their PRATT lists where they feel safe.Of course these people are laymen to science.I was hoping when I first posted here to get into some actual scientific debate with Creationists who actually thought on the issues BUT I have never seen one yet.In fact observations like this lend me more and more to believe that the well known Creationists who do have science PhD's are actually either truly delusional (and need medical help) OR MORE LIKELY deliberately conning their fellow Christians and making a good living of them. They just can't be that dumb to trot out the usual litany of vapour canopies, flood effects, CPT theory, ARD theory, variable c nonsense etc etc.OK - rant over - bedtime.

In the beging god did not created adam and eve as infants but as adults. He also created the universe the same way. Did you not that when scientist thaught that the earth was flat the bible said it was round or as some of you might say "Eliptical"I am suprised you didn't think of this reply against what you said.

Adam and Eve, perhaps, had to be created as navelless adults to be able to care for themselves. Why did the universe have to be created this way?

---

Common sense isn't

Can I get some good links for begginers like me. PLEASE

I am not sure how much non-technical info is out there. Most of it is still in the research journals.If you Google with the key words: tidal tails galaxyI know you will get some web pages with maybe some pictures and sections of papers though I haven't really checked them out myself. Most of the stuff I have read has been in the technical literature in the Astrophysics Journal, Astronomical Journal or on http://www.arxiv.org

Oh, we all thought of it. It's just that we can't believe that you really think God would be a liar. After all, if he's deceiving us with a universe that looks far older than it is, he's not being very honest, right?

Rather than try dive into the current work in astronomy maybe it would be helpful to begin at a simpler point. Back up a bit, read some of the historic work in biology, geology and physics from about 1700 to 1900.It is very hard to guess where one individual should start if they are weak in all the sciences. It might work best if you start with things you find interesting.Some are awed and fascinated by the grand scale of the universe beyound our solar system. If so you can get some books on astronomy. Any science book by Isaac Asimov at the library will be reasonable simple reading.If you don't want to wrap your head around the 'astronomically' large numbers (pun intended) of astronomy then maybe you find liveing things more interesting. An introduction to various aspects of biology would be more interesting to you.Maybe you live in an area with "interesting" geology. Start by reading about the geology of your area. Where I live I was fascinated to discover that almost all of British Columbia isn't part of North America. It has been scrapped off the pacific floor by the continent.If you want to challenge your ability to have an open mind and take on the deep issues directly then try diving into evolutionary theory. You may find Dawkins readable if you can overlook his occasional lapses into militent atheism.You can try real physics, but that means quantum mechanics and that is something that is very, very hard to get by reading a few books. It is every weird but it works. It works spectaculary well.I guess the other thing you can do is ask questions here. And maybe one of us can recommend a book on a particular topic. So far it seems that people here are patient with those who really do want to learn.It is hard to for me to identify with someone in your position. I grew up reading in the sciences from a very early age. I didn't have any giant head twisting conflicts to get over.Here are a couple of suggestions that, if you keep them in mind, might help.1) In spite of what some individuals like Dawkins or some creationists here say, science does NOT say anything about God. Most Christians can believe in God and have no problem with the sciences. There is no threat there.2) Remember that 10,000's of honest, smart (mostly) individuals have worked on complex difficult topics for decades and even centuries. The chances of them having it wrong in any simple way are very small. You might to well to go into it figuring that, in spite of what you've been told, they are right. Also a large percentage of those people are believers of one sort or another.3) The individuals, either on web sites, in churches or on TV who have been making claims about biology, geology and physics have been shown to be wrong on all (or almost all) of their pronouncments. Many of them have been shown to lie.4) There is a lot to learn. Learning is fun. Take it in small enjoyable bites.So if you remember those things and ask questions we will find links or the right books. It will take books in some cases. Even if the information is on the web it does finally get easier to read a book. Good luck!

---

Common sense isn't

Oh many people have thought of it, but discarded it for variousreasons.1. Every test we can apply tell us the Universe and Earth and life are old. If God created them with a false (and unnecessary) appearance of age, he's lying to us. Most Christians find a "trickster God" theologically unacceptable.2. If this is true, it's completely un-testable and un-scientific, and is never going to be taught in U.S. public schools as science. Since the goal of most creationist organizations it to get their beliefs taught as science, they don't go down that road.

Quote:"In fact observations like this lend me more and more to believe that the well known Creationists who do have science PhD's are actually either truly delusional (and need medical help) OR MORE LIKELY deliberately conning their fellow Christians and making a good living of them. They just can't be that dumb to trot out the usual litany of vapour canopies, flood effects, CPT theory, ARD theory, variable c nonsense etc etc." Eta_CarinaeThe observations stated here may be true but that doesn't mean the conclusions are true. For example: I observed a magician walk up a wall. Conclusion he walked up the wall. Wrong. He gave the appearance of walking up a wall. This is the mistake many science minded types make. They observe and conclude but these are only two of the steps in the scientific method. When we go to the next step (testing) many of the conclusions are eliminated or validated. If you can test it like a galactic tidal tail, it is very unscientific and what you are left with is an assumption.
Here is something to ponder. I would hope that you would concede that our sun is shrinking by a steady rate. If you doubt this look it up. Now if we take that shrinking rate and turn it back so now the sun is growing and we apply that to the ammount of time our solar system was formed, we end up with an earth totally envoloped in the sun. or how did matter occure from gasses and then that matter become self-conscience (us). Why can we, apart from all other life, have the ability to reflect on the past, think upon the present and plan and ponder the future. How/When/Why would this occur in us alone?

ex l, I suggest YOU do some looking up. Your assertion that the sun is shrinking is an outdated observation which has been superceded as a result of more accurate measurements. Therefore your extrapolations are nonsense.

quote:

---

I would hope that you would concede that our sun is shrinking by a steady rate.

---

I do not concede this. At what rate? How has the rate varied in the past? How do you determine this?

quote:

---

When we go to the next step (testing) many of the conclusions are eliminated or validated.

---

The theory of evolution has been tested and tested, and so far has passed every major hurdle. What test do you think it hasn't passed?My friend, I'm afraid that you have been taken in by the creationist charlatans crawling up the wall.

As soon as you bring up the shrinking Sun argument.It is not a real observation. Period.The source of this rumour includes references to 150 year old data and an observatory that DOES NOT EXIST. It is a made up creation by Creationists to lend credence to their argument hoping no person would check it out.By the way, for the last several decades we have been measuring the Sun very accurately and apart from small scale changes (either way) the Sun's diameter is constant. In fact it will over time increase.Anyone who quotes this NONSENSE loses any credibility. It has been put to the sword years ago.Oh and before you ask - I am an astrophysicist and have worked (and some current work too) in the area of stellar processes and evolution.How many journal articles do you want me to post debunking the secular shrinkage of the Sun?Please - go away and instead of getting you science about the Sun from non-science idiots at AIG or ICR try Googling around and find articles in ApJ, AJ, MNRAS and the many University astronomy/astrophysics departments where solar research is performed.[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 01-20-2004]

quote:

---

The observations stated here may be true but that doesn't mean the conclusions are true. For example: I observed a magician walk up a wall. Conclusion he walked up the wall. Wrong. He gave the appearance of walking up a wall. This is the mistake many science minded types make. They observe and conclude but these are only two of the steps in the scientific method. When we go to the next step (testing) many of the conclusions are eliminated or validated. If you can test it like a galactic tidal tail, it is very unscientific and what you are left with is an assumption.

---

The assumption here is that gravity is the same everywhere. In fact, the assumption is that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. That is the only assumption that I see, the rest is put forth as theory which coincidentally agrees with numerous other theories about the age of the universe. If all we had were galactic tails it would be foolish to conclude the universe is old, but combined with mountains of data found other places in the universe it holds water. Oh, and its falsifiable, unlike the phrase "God did it." Scientists could just say "the universe is old", but instead they look to investigate and try and falsify their theories. When is that last time you saw a creationist trying to falsify his/her own theories? Scientists do it all the time in order to strengthen their theory.

quote:

---

Here is something to ponder. I would hope that you would concede that our sun is shrinking by a steady rate. If you doubt this look it up. Now if we take that shrinking rate and turn it back so now the sun is growing and we apply that to the ammount of time our solar system was formed, we end up with an earth totally envoloped in the sun.

---

I usually don't copy straight from a website, but it says it so well.From the talk.origins website:
Claim CE310:
The sun is shrinking at such a rate that it would disappear completely in 100,000 years. This would make it impossibly large and hot in the distant past if the sun is millions of years old.Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Master Books, Arkansas, p. 169.Response:1. This assumes that the rate of shrinkage is constant. That assumption is baseless. (In fact, it is the uniformitarian assumption that creationists themselves sometimes complain about.) Other stars expand and contract cyclically. Our own sun might do the same on a small scale.2. There is not even any good evidence of shrinkage. The claim is based on a single report from 1980. Other measurements, from 1980 and later, do not show any significant shrinkage. It is likely that the original report showing shrinkage contained systematic errors due to different measuring techniquies over the decades.
End quote.So, as you can see, creationist theory is also very bad about using unfounded assumptions. Namely, citing one report in 1980 and that the sun could change size cyclically like other stars in the universe. So, are you going to quit being a creationist because they do bad science? Actually, a better question might be was it poorly done science on the part of evolutionary scientists that made you believe in creationism in the first place? My guess is that you believed in creationism before seeing one speck of scientific data. You should ask yourself about your assumptions, and also question the type of science that creationists practice.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-20-2004]