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

Actually, Loudmouth, if mass can not be converted to energy the folks in hiroshima wouldn't have had such a bad day.

Good Point but Ihave another question. it is true that the chance of planets and stars of colliding with each other is not to high but the collisions of galaxies themselves seems to defy a simple rule. Due to gravity, the net charges of the galaxies are negative. We can view galaxies as two individual particles which create an electric field and they repel each other. Galaxies in movement is a fact as well as the expanding universe which is both supported by creationists and evolutionists, but as galaxies in movement approach one another repulsion will occur. Unless the glaxies are moving at a super fast speed, they will repel each other

I don't understand this. The net charge on galaxies is zero; and gravity can't make it anything else. You can't treat galaxies as individual particles; they are large collections of particles bound gravitationally. There are some good theoretical simulations of colliding galaxies available, with movies. They illustrate this point very nicely. The movies are generated using a supercomputer and many thousands of simulated particles to make up individual galaxies. See: Colliding Galaxies.Galaxies don't repel; they attract by gravitation, and they can orbit each other. But because they are so loosely bound, the tidal effects can tear them apart relatively easily. Galaxies are also much larger in relation to the space between galaxies than stars are in relation to the space between stars. Colliding galaxies are not all that unusual, given the enormous number in the universe.Cheers -- Chris

Where are you getting these strange ideas from?What the heck does gravity have to do with charge?

Apparently by the pictures posted here the net charge of the galaxies cant be zero(i mean before the collision). After the collision it appears that one galaxy locates itself on the center and the other one spreads around it. The same way electrons and protons locate themselves in an atom. The one on the center must of have had a positive charge and the other one a negative charge and the new galaxy that results has a net charge of zero. This is the only explanation I have for this phenomenon.There is a relationship between gravity and electric charge constants G and K. A negative particle exerts a force inwards just like gravity. Since galaxies are pulling in from the center they have a net negative charge which would repel another galaxy pulling in the same direction (inward). You guys just dont get me do you.I have a question. When was the the tidal tail explanation first brought out?

Good grief. Sorry, no offense intended and all that, but that is gibberish.Pictures don't show charge. It is physically nonsense to think of a substantial change difference between the two structures. It would be unstable. The ways in which protons and electrons locate themselves is totally distinct; electrons form what is basically a quantum mechanical standing wave.The real explanation for the remarkable wheel shape is given in the links; it is a region of new star formation in a wave of compressed gas formed as a result of the collision. (Follow the links to read about it.)The other galaxy is identified. Here is another image, showing the other galaxy that was most likely involved in the collision. The green lines mark a trail of neutral hydrogen that gave away the location of the intruder galaxy. Again; follow the links if you want to learn more about it. The big difference between gravitational and electrical attractions is the associated radiation. Orbitting bodies are accelerating inwards; and they radiate. The radiation from a gravitational orbit is in the form of gravity waves, and this takes negligible energy away from the orbit; so gravitational orbits are stable over long periods of time. But a body orbitting under the influence of eletrical attraction radiates photons, and loses energy very rapidly indeed; the orbits are highly unstable. This is why cloud chamber images of charge particle motions are spirals; not circles: I do get you just fine. You are making some basic errors in physics, and I am trying to help you with them. As soon as the structures were seen. This is a no-brainer; the relevant physics is elementary, and dates from Newton in the seventeenth century.Cheers -- cjhs[This message has been edited by cjhs, 02-09-2004]

What a complex system this is almost like a INTELEGENT DESIGNER DESIGNED it.Example of creatinism with a dictionary:One day a guy decided to write a book containing all the words and their meanings into the dictionory for people who don't know big terms and cannot speak articularly because they don't know alot of words. He very painstakingly jotted down the words and their definitons, copied and sold.Now, I don't realy know the dictionary making procces but this is an example.Example of evolutionism with a dictionary:Ony day there was a tree that got old and some bark pealed a fell off.
Then over millions of years in compressed into a cover. Over millions of years the wood pealed off at equal sizes and fell in the same places they compressed and they were 1000 pages. Then a peace of bark fell of the side of the tree wile wind pushed it right above the last page it the right way and it fell. It compressed over millions of years. Sap began to drip of and drop of the edges of the pages and stuck the edges of the pages and two covers together over time. Suddenly wind blue it open and a pen that someone glang fell on the branch. Over millions of years ink dripped of the pen as wind blew the pages and the pen in various directions to form words and sentences all by chance. Wind blew it up and it fell on someones head. Thus they have discovered a dictionary.Now wich example would you believe?

Pleae, stay on topic. What you posted is not appropriate for this topic.

Here is your response:The earliest literature indicating an understanding of hydrological cycle was apparently around the third or fourth century BC. However, the essential details of this cycle were all revealed in the Bible well before this time. This may be seen from the following texts:The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. - Eccl 1:6,7For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly. - Job 36:27,28It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name. - Amos 9:6P.S. Thank you for waiting.

Thankyou, finaly!The bible does reveal trademendous things that we know today but didn't know before.The bible is the one book that applies to anything and everything.

Could you try to read the topic and stick to it.You last post has an interesting assertion. If you'd open a thread on it you will get a few tens of things ripping it to pieces in a day or so. Wouldn't that be fun?

I know I'm no expert and I appreciate that. I am wondering. does anybody follow galaxy paths out there to assure us that this is the indicated process? I mean is anybody out there checking if galaxies are getting close one to another in a way that you can predict that in a million years from now they are gonna collide? Is any galaxy approaching the milky way?(in a way that we can look foward to a collision in a milion years from now) This is vital information since we need observation to prove all theories and the galactic tails theory is complete assumption. I guess we need a scientific breakthrough that will clear all this better.We are never going to agree so im gonna hang them up.

Yes. That's something several astronomers do. The time scales are more like hundreds of millions of years, but the orbits and future interactions of quite a few galaxies, in the Milky Way neighborhood as well as elsewhere, are pretty well known.

I'm not sure what you mean by "... this is the indicated process". Galaxies move relative to each other, and sometimes they collide. The gravitational processes are straightforward; there is no other special process involved. Analysis is complicated by the fact that galaxies aren't point masses, and because there is a lot of mass involved that we can't see directly. Sure; galaxy motions are plotted, and we can predict what collisions will occur in the future. Such predictions are not really all that interesting; of more interest is observations of collisions going on right now, to help tell us more about the structures of galaxies.But in any case, the Milky Way is due to collide with Andromeda in about 3 billion years. For more detail, see The Merger of the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies by John Dubinski at the Uni of Toronto. Lots of background and simulations available. This is not likely to be at all significant for the solar system; at most it means there will be twice as many stars around for a while, or maybe even a lot less if our Sun's orbit is peturbed to leave the main galaxy in one of the tidal tails.This coming collision is likely to make a big difference for the structures in which stars are arranged, like the arm of the Milky Way that we can see in this gorgeous image. It will also likely result in a burst of formation of new stars.(Thumbnail of image: Link to source.)A million years is much too short a time on galactic time scales. The duration of actual collisions run to a couple of orders of magnitude more time than that. I am not trying to be mean to you, but this makes no sense. Why is it vital? How on earth do you judge that galactic tail formation is complete assumption? Their formation is just basic Newtonian physics. Look at the simulations on the page I cite above. Tidal tails show up naturally; and the simulations are just based on seeing the effects of gravity on large collections of particles; which is what a galaxy is. Do you consider it just an assumption that galaxies move under the influence of gravity? I hope you'll keep asking questions and looking into the answers you are being given. That's how you'll learn. I don't see any problem with eventual understanding being reached if you keep looking into the matter openly.But if you consider that your intuitions at this point in time are a definite well formed position, which is to be set up as a real alternative to the different views of the astronomers who study and model galactic interations; then no, there is no possibility of agreement. The question for you remains; can you recognize yourself as in the position of needing to learn more about the background before setting up a position which anyone else is likely to "agree" with?Best wishes -- Sylas

The relative motions of the galaxies near the Milky Way which form the local group have been known for some time. The motions are determined by red shifts. This site provides information on the local group. And this figure shows the results of simulations by Rami Rikola at a Finnish observatory.