The laws of physics can change?

posted on September 24th, 2010, 11:10 pm

Not to worry Myles, I can confirm that the gaffer tape joke was funny.

I'm no scientist (personal interest only) but isn't it gravity that keeps the stellar and cosmological bodies together and in place?

Stars in galaxies orbit a supermassive black hole at the centre of said galaxy (don't the stars also very slowly move towards the black hole?).  So galaxies appear to follow the basic principles of the Heliocentric model.

Could the same model not be applied to the universe itself?  With Galactic Clusters having smaller clusters and individual galaxies orbiting them?

Astronomers also say that our galaxy is heavier than it is supposed to be (how do you measure the mass of the entire galaxy anyway?).  Aren't Quasars and Neutron Stars alot heaver than a star? Have they taken these stellar bodies into account?

Why create a new force to explain these that we set no properties to?

posted on September 25th, 2010, 1:26 am

Don't worry Myles, I knew you were joking.

FrazUK:
Gravity is what keeps everything in place.  Without it, the planets couldn't even stay together.  Too much of it, and nothing could come apart.

It has been theorized that there is a black hole at the center of each galaxy.  I'm not sure if I would go for it, but that is the best explanation on how our galaxy is being held together.  The universe is expanding.  And as a result, the stars are actually moving farther apart from each other!  The galaxies are also moving farther apart from each other.  Although I'm sure that if the universe stays at a constant size, we would be moving closer to the center of the galaxy.

And yes, the galaxies are following the Heliocentric model.  Effectively, the galaxy can be considered a "super" solar system, with a trillion and a half "micro" solar systems inside.  Those terms aren't really scientific, but I thought they would get the point across.

I don't see any reason why the same principal cannot be applied to galactic clusters.  Everything else seems to follow that principal.

If you want our galaxy to support life, than you could say it's heavier than it's supposed to be.  Actually, it's the population density of the stars in any given location that makes the difference.  In the spiral arm, you couldn't probably go much further than the distance between Earth and Jupiter before running into another star.  Much too close for anything more than boulders.  But between the spiral arms, you could go thousands of light-years before running into a single star.  They probably figured that our galaxy weighs too much because of the average population density of the stars in the galaxy.  Which is way too dense to allow planets to support life.  Fortunately, we're far from the spiral arms, so we're quite safe.

If you want a blunt answer, it's to deny an accountability to a Creator for their actions.  Another reason is because, even though it might be wrong, at least it's a good starting point.  That's the most likely answer though.

posted on September 25th, 2010, 6:34 am

Aren't Quasars and Neutron Stars alot heaver than a star? Have they taken these stellar bodies into account?

Hell you are right! Thousands and thousands of scientists working 8h a day with the matter have overseen this little detail.

how do you measure the mass of the entire galaxy anyway?

How do you measure your own mass?

And yes, the galaxies are following the Heliocentric model

No they do not. You could easily guess that the Heliocentric model is a model focused on a stationary sun in the center of the solar system. Thats all, you can read this in any children's book.

Effectively, the galaxy can be considered a "super" solar system, with a trillion and a half "micro" solar systems inside.

It has been theorized that there is a black hole at the center of each galaxy.  I'm not sure if I would go for it, but that is the best explanation on how our galaxy is being held together.

One of these arguments is inaccurate or wrong...on the one hand you claim galaxies can effectively be consdered as "super" solar system (with a 'sun' i.e. high mass), on the other hand you say you are not sure if there is a black hole (i.e. high mass) in the center.

Actually, it's the population density of the stars in any given location that makes the difference.

Not again one of your random bits of information. Where did you read this and who is the author?

posted on September 25th, 2010, 6:57 am

TCR - I humbly submit you made an incorrect statement.

Fortunately, we're far from the spiral arms, so we're quite safe.

As I understand things (and looks confirmed from a quick Google search), is that Sol is located in a spur of the Sagittarius Arm called either the Local Spur or the Orion Arm.

posted on September 25th, 2010, 9:25 am

Hell you are right! Thousands and thousands of scientists working 8h a day with the matter have overseen this little detail.

I appreciate the humour Drrrrrr but it was a genuine question.

How do you measure your own mass?

I take it you're referring to the f=ma equation(isn't it m=f/a?), but as we know theory and practice don't always match.

Could we also dump this sodding creation/evolution argument?  Since neither side has the conclusive evidence to prove their hypothesis correct, neither side can discredit the other.

posted on September 25th, 2010, 10:26 am

Could we also dump this sodding creation/evolution argument?  Since neither side has the conclusive evidence to prove their hypothesis correct, neither side can discredit the other.

LOL... its more like either side will not listen to the other regardless of "evidence". (Yes, guilty as charged).

posted on September 25th, 2010, 11:30 am

lol, I feel the need to quote Caboose from Red vs. Blue:  'They can't see me, because I can't see them.'

Curse you faith in Humanity, you duped me again!

Anyway back to the original topic, could the laws of physics be changed?

Its a big universe, big galaxy for that matter.  There probably is some cosmological object the can bend the laws, it'd be pretty boring future if we've already nearly found out all there is about the universe.

[Anonymous]

posted on September 25th, 2010, 12:24 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on September 25th, 2010, 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

it'd be pretty boring future if we've already nearly found out all there is about the universe.

yeah then we could just collapse the reality out of boredom..... 

posted on September 25th, 2010, 1:05 pm

lol, I feel the need to quote Caboose from Red vs. Blue:  'They can't see me, because I can't see them.'

Freaking hilarious 

posted on September 25th, 2010, 1:13 pm

No they do not. You could easily guess that the Heliocentric model is a model focused on a stationary sun in the center of the solar system. Thats all, you can read this in any children's book.

The Heliocentric model is not limited to just individual stars.  Besides, the stars are not stationary.  They are in a circular orbit around the galactic nucleus.

One of these arguments is inaccurate or wrong...on the one hand you claim galaxies can effectively be consdered as "super" solar system (with a 'sun' i.e. high mass), on the other hand you say you are not sure if there is a black hole (i.e. high mass) in the center.

There is definitely a high mass at the center of each galaxy.  Even though I'm not sure if I'd go for a black hole being there, it's the only explanation right now.

Not again one of your random bits of information. Where did you read this and who is the author?

I take it you missed that Nova episode about the galaxy.  Plus, some various Creation Science resources.  It's way too chaotic in the spiral arms for a star to support a planet without something happening to it first.

TCR - I humbly submit you made an incorrect statement.
As I understand things (and looks confirmed from a quick Google search), is that Sol is located in a spur of the Sagittarius Arm called either the Local Spur or the Orion Arm.

4.3 light-years away from the nearest star, which is in that arm.  I don't call that close.  It's the closest arm to us, but we're not in that arm.

Its a big universe, big galaxy for that matter.  There probably is some cosmological object the can bend the laws, it'd be pretty boring future if we've already nearly found out all there is about the universe.

It doesn't look like we're going to get anywhere with this topic either.

posted on September 25th, 2010, 5:21 pm

4.3 light-years away from the nearest star, which is in that arm.  I don't call that close.  It's the closest arm to us, but we're not in that arm.

4.3 light years in galactic terms is peanuts.  I do believe that we are in the arm.  I mean, I was careful to check this before posting. If you think I am wrong, please do a google for galactic maps.

You may also want to check out:
List of nearest stars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Milky Way - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Our galaxy is approximately 100,000 LY across.  4.3 LY is really our back yard.

On the topic of heliocentricity of galaxies, you may also want to check out the current models of galactic clusters and super clusters.  It seems like once you get onto the super mega huge massive scale things stop behaving like solar systems and galaxies and start behaving like... well, strings.... or something.  It looks weird.

posted on September 25th, 2010, 8:15 pm

Wikipedia isn't always accurate, so I avoid getting my sources from there.  We're not in that arm.  We're more than 4 light-years from the inside edge of that arm.  Far from it.  When you consider how close the stars are within the arm itself, 4 light-years is a huge difference compared to the other distances.

posted on September 26th, 2010, 6:47 am

Wikipedia isn't always accurate

Not always, i'll grant you that.

I looked at another half a dozen images from a variety of sources. I'll compromise with you, it looks like we are on the edge of the arm.

posted on September 26th, 2010, 6:54 pm

I'll agree with the compromise.