Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Galaxies Defy Gravitation and Big Bang

A new Hubble Space Telescope image shows three galaxies defying the myth of gravitation and the Big Bang myth: Stars forced to relocate near the Southern Fish.

The three pictured galaxies — NGC 7173 (middle left), NCG 7174 (middle right) and NGC 7176 (lower right) — are part of the Hickson Compact Group 90, named after astronomer Paul Hickson, who first catalogued these small clusters of galaxies in the 1980s.
Let's take each myth separately.

The Gravitation Myth

First the occult 17th century myth known as gravitation.

Quoting from Newton's Principia, General Scholium, Book III:

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

According to Newton's so-called "theory" of universal gravitation the stars are immobile and "fixed" and God has placed them at distances such that gravitation has no effect on them.

In actual physical reality however, the stars are in motion and God has not placed the galaxies at immense distances from eachother thus falsifying Newton's so-called "theory."

When assessing the sanity of contemporary scientists, keep in mind that as recently as 2005, the religious fundamentalist and occult alchemist was voted the "world's greatest scientist."

The Big Bang Myth

If the universe is expanding, how is it possible for galaxies to collide?

And if gravitation is strong enough to counteract the inertia from the Big Bang, how can the universe be expanding?


Quantum_Flux said...

You see, these galactic collisions happen over billions of years though, especially when they are light years apart. The gravitational potential energy is mostly conserved, give or take what energy can come from external sources. Nevertheless, entropy for gravitation is increased by orbital decays and through collisions though.

As to why galaxies can collide when the universe is expanding, well, for the same reason that any object collides with any other object, because objects have different momentums and trajectories in space, that's why. I imagine that gravitation does play a large role in the shifting of trajectories, have you ever heard of a gravitational assist?

OilIsMastery said...


"As to why galaxies can collide when the universe is expanding, well, for the same reason that any object collides with any other object, because objects have different momentums and trajectories in space, that's why."

That's only true if you reject the Big Bang hypothesis. Otherwise everything in the universe has the same trajectory, namely away from the original singularity.

Anaconda said...

@ Quantum_Flux:

The reasoning OilIsMastery provided for why galaxies are not supposed to collide is the same reasoning "big bang" supporters gave for why galaxies weren't supposed to collide...until there was undisputable proof that galaxies do collide.

Then "big bang" supporters changed their story...

Quantum_Flux said...

I see no reason why there can't be a mean free path for galactic collisions within the Big Bang Theory, especially for The Big Crunch or for collisions occuring around black holes in the centers of galaxies.

OilIsMastery said...


There are no collisions around black holes. Apparently gravitation is such a weak force and the gravitation of black holes is so weak that the stars at the center of the Milky Way all orbit Sagittarius A* regularly with no collisions.

Anaconda said...

@ Quantum_Flux:

Since you mention the "big bang" theory: Do you subscribe to it's central tenent that the Universe started off smaller than an atom?

Jeffery Keown said...

You've dragged me out of retirement, OiM!

1937, 3C279, a stellar collision on the order of 10^53 ergs in the deep well of a black hole.

I have a question.

Was Velikovsky wrong on anything?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

Quantum_Flux said...

I see no proof that the universe had to start off the size of an atom and I seriously doubt that anybody ever could trace the trajectories of everything back some 12 billion years with that kind of precision, they'd be lucky to have a GPS satellite that could tell you your position with that amount of accuracy.

Anyhow, there are other sorts of singularities besides infinitesimal points, perhaps the universe started off confined by 1 or 2 or 3 spacial dimensions. If the universe started with 3 spacial dimensions, it is possible that the big bang was the rebound of a previous big crunch, perhaps that previous bang being the rebound of an even bigger crunch, etc, as per how Penrose is modeling the universe as a series of bangs and crunches with black holes that are nearly missing each other as they're violently ripping each other apart with strong gravitational tidal forces. In Penrose's model, the net Entropy of the Universe increases with each rebound.

However, that Cyclical Universe Model of Penrose doesn't ultimately explain where the energy of the universe initially came from, at least not entirely. Perhaps string theory delves into that area of research, I'm not to informed other than to say that universal energy, net charge, momentum, angular momenta, and etc are supposedly conserved and that vacuum energy exists.

OilIsMastery said...


"Was Velikovsky wrong on anything?"

Of course. No one is infallible except Newton and Einstein who should be worshipped as omniscient gods and you should bring human sacrifices to them because their pre-Space Age hypotheses can never possibly be falsified. Ever.

"It is the theory that determines what can be observed." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1926

Anaconda said...

@ Quantum_Flux:

Listen to yourself, "[P]erhaps the universe started off confined by 1 or 2 or 3 spacial dimensions."

And, "Perhaps string theory delves into that area of research..."

Is it that painful to admit scientists can be wrong, especially mathmeticians?

@ OilIsMastery:

I think I realize why you don't like Newton: While his equations do a good job predicting gravity...Newton's dictum, full of wild appeals to God and other foolish notions and his life long obsession with alchemy...speak to an eccentric man.

But, perhaps, given the age he lived in, might it have taken a slightly crazed man to focus so hard on an aspect most men in his time had no comprehension of whatsoever.

Yours is the right approach, no man should be worshiped, and no man's ideas should be uncritically accepted as reality.

All ideas must be tested by experience, observation & measurement.

But let us acknowledge those that have contributed to the rise of Man.

Newton had his time and place, but as you point out every man has his limitations both of time, place, and person.

Newton's ideas helped carry Man into a scientific age. Newton's work renewed the idea that things can be quantified, that the realtionships of the physical world can be understood by Man's intellect.

Even of things not seen, but known.

You can't see gravity, prior to Newton, things that couldn't be seen were thought to be beyond Man's kin. Perhaps, that reaching to understand things not seen drove him to his ultimate insanity, like seeing the Medusa.

Surely, stamping on his grave is as unsightly, as worshiping his grave.

Let us follow the Greek example: Moderation in all things.

Sure, Newton was not the first, and not the greatest, but he did put his nose to the grindstone, perhaps sacrificing his own sanity in the process, so other men could stand on his shoulders.

Albert Einstein's ideas have been proven false, but I do not stamp on his grave because I remember Einstein, himself, was quick to acknowledge his ideas would be surpassed.

In fact, Einstein wished that his ideas would be surpassed because that would mean Man had progressed and that was what he hoped for, what he worked for.

It is Einstein's followers that have put him on a pedestal that he, himself, did not want, and that regrettable tendency of lesser men to cloak themselves in greater men's achievements to give their lesser works legitimacy.

Einstein's followers have turned his ideas into a fetish -- that is not what Einstein would have wanted for he knew enough history to know that deification of a man had retarded scientific progress before, he did not want to see it happen, again.

"The theory [Relativity] is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..." -- Nikola Tesla, New York Times, July 11, 1935

This is the reality...still I do not stamp on Einstein's grave.

OilIsMastery said...


Please don't think I'm stamping on Einstein's grave that is not my intention. Wrong as he was, the man is still a teacher.

OilIsMastery said...

Ooh, and thx for Tesla quote. Adding now. And I hope to reread the Peratt paper, haven't been able to yet.

OilIsMastery said...

My problems with Newton to be honest is not his theism but rather the same problems that Leibniz had with Newton, namely his slavish devotion to space and time as material objects and also the fact that his math is wrong.

Quantum_Flux said...

Anaconda, did you know that an infinite plane in 3 space is considered a singularity, or that an infinite volume in spacetime is considered merely an infinitesimal moment in time?

Jeffery Keown said...

Newton was wrong on a great number of things. You seem to think that if I (or anyone) subscribe to Newton's thinking, we have to subscribe to all of it.

So Gravity without Newton... sure. A while back you accused me of being an occultist because of an adherance to gravity.

Gravity is a fact. Please move on.

Anaconda said...

@ Quantum_Flux:

As I've discussed with you before "infinity" is a mathematical abstraction that while it may help mathematicians with formulating their equations has no meaning in the real world.

Reliance on the abstract concept of infinity has a great deal to do with why "modern" theoretical astronomy has gotten so far off course from empirical science: The observation & measurement of nature.

Since infinity has no meaning in the physical world, any mathematical equation that speaks to relationships in the physical world that incorporates infinity into its formula is bound to be wrong.

General Semantics maxim: The map is not the territory (Kant's philosophy also speaks to this idea).

In other words, any map that uses infinity (mathematical equation) will not be an accurate reflection of the territory (the physical world).

Infinity is an alien concept to the physical world.

Infinity is a concept that exists only in the mind of Man.

Anaconda said...

@ Jeffery Keown:

For some reason you won't address my comments, no matter.

Get it through your thick skull, OilIsMastery is not challenging gravity, he is challenging gravitational theory.

It's a distinction you apparently you refuse to understand.

OilIsMastery said...


I agree gravity is a fact. Lucretius and millions before him observed that objects fall to the ground. The question is: what causes it?

Newton's theory of gravitation on the other hand is a myth. You would be wise to leave the 17th century world of occult alchemy and join the world of 21st century observation and experiment.

Quantum_Flux said...

Anaconda: In other words, any map that uses infinity (mathematical equation) will not be an accurate reflection of the territory (the physical world).

No problem with that. I was just stating, at least mathematically speaking, that an infinite space in N dimensions is an infinitesimal singularity in N+1 dimensions. Ergo, physically speaking, we live in or are conscious of a 3 dimensional singularity in a 4 dimensional spacetime, or at least our consciousness during the span of a lifetime only spans a finite seqment of that infinite spacetime. Now, I'm sure you will contest that spacetime isn't infinite but I'm not so sure what that means to call spacetime finite though. Does the Universe have a beginning and an end? I think not.

Anaconda said...

@ Quantum_Flux:

You bring up an interesting contradiction and conundrum.

QF: "Does the Universe have a beginning and an end? I think not."

Yes, indeed, I agree.

But it seems Man has a compulsion to treat the Universe as if it had a beginning and an end.

Except, strangely, in the case of the mathematical concept of infinity. And, stranger still, even though I've just contradicted myself and introduced a concept of "infinity" to nature, it still is foreign to use infinity when developing mathematical equations to map the territory of the physical world.

Why is all that?