Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Waspie_Dwarf

Evolution and the mass of the galaxy

94 posts in this topic

Darwin meets Newton: evolution and the mass of the galaxy

If the solution to a problem does not reveal itself straight away then why not let your initial guesswork evolve? That’s the approach we’ve taken in trying to determine the mass of our galaxy by mapping the historic movement of two nearby galaxies.

Many of the 200 billion stars in our galaxy, known as the Milky Way, can be seen in a narrow band stretching across the night sky.

The southern night sky throws up more surprises, in the form of two indistinct, fuzzy blobs. Larger than the full moon, and often seen overhead, these are two galaxies in their own right, known as the Large and Small Clouds of Magellan.

arrow3.gifRead more...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darwin meets Newton??? Oh dear God!!! lol.

Does this mean if this computer simulation is accurate it should also be able predict the course of the magellanic clouds for, well, forever?

The problem is they would have had to extrapolate their data forward in time some 160,000 years to be any where close to the current mass of the milky way so it is a HUGE mathematical leap of FAITH.

Im not convinced that our galaxy or the cloud galaxies have always been a constant UNCHANGING mass, and if they are continuously evolving which seem very likely then there is no solid foundation in their method to begin with.

The hubble should be able to check the finer details of these miscalculations over time and they will be scratching their heads in disbelief like im scratching mine now.

Seriously if you even think about it a little you will see that their method is as unrealistic as taking a photo of an over head cloud and based on what the wind direction was 5min ago, plot a world wide weather forecast for the next 100 years!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean if this computer simulation is accurate it should also be able predict the course of the magellanic clouds for, well, forever?

Have you never heard of three-body problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Im not convinced that our galaxy or the cloud galaxies have always been a constant UNCHANGING mass, and if they are continuously evolving which seem very likely then there is no solid foundation in their method to begin with.

And exactly what mechanism are you proposing for this change in galactic mass that makes these conclusions invalid?

What observations are you going to cite to back up this mechanism?

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you never heard of three-body problem?

The inability to find a solution?

And exactly what mechanism are you proposing for this change in galactic mass that makes these conclusions invalid?

What observations are you going to cite to back up this mechanism?

Well it was a hunch really. Logically a galaxy can change mass because of the black holes at their hearts. It didnt take long to find this...

The research reported in the journal Science, found these exotic gravitational wells radiate far more energy into local space, which can change star formation rates and the amount of gas in a galaxy.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/02/28/3953671.htm

This is also an interesting read...

What this study found for the first time was that this ratio of dark matter to star-matter is not a constant as the Universe ages but is actually changing.

http://lateuniverse.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/how-does-the-mass-to-light-ratio-of-galaxies-change-over-time/

It appears from this that change is the only constant in the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly does the black hole at the center of a galaxy change the mass of the galaxy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly does the black hole at the center of a galaxy change the mass of the galaxy?

Im only taking a stab in the dark but all matter that is swallowed by the hole could be converted to what is known as dark matter?

Maybe black holes are responsible for dark energy? Does that sound plausible to you? Can the Universe also be the Anti-verse?

I could be wrong, so I have my own two-body-problem for you to consider.

If you eat an apple does your mass change? Does the mass of the apple change? If the answer is yes then the earth becomes affected and a three-body-problem arises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

I asked about the three body problem because it is a specific problem in calculating gravitational relationships between bodies. Whilst it is possible to calculate how two bodies interact gravitationally, it is not possible to calculate for three or more.

Hence, if you had known what the three body problem was you would have known the answer to this question:

Does this mean if this computer simulation is accurate it should also be able predict the course of the magellanic clouds for, well, forever?

The answer is that it is impossible to calculate the course of the Magellanic Clouds forever.

As for your nonsensical gibberish about apples and people...

The black hole at the centre of the galaxy is a part of the galaxy. It's mass can change by devouring objects, such as stars... which are part of the galaxy or by evaporation, in which case energy is released... into the galaxy. Either way the mass of the galaxy does not change significantly.

Think of it this way, if you weigh yourself holding an apple and carry on weighing yourself as you eat the apple will there be any change in the overall weight?

You have dismissed out of hand the work of experts whilst showing not even the most basic grasp of the concepts involved. Do you not see a problem with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im only taking a stab in the dark but all matter that is swallowed by the hole could be converted to what is known as dark matter?

Maybe black holes are responsible for dark energy?

This is not a stab in the dark, it is doing what you do in post after post, making stuff up as you go along. You aren't even sure if you mean dark energy or dark matter here are you?

I could be wrong

No "could be" about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im only taking a stab in the dark but all matter that is swallowed by the hole could be converted to what is known as dark matter?

Maybe black holes are responsible for dark energy? Does that sound plausible to you? Can the Universe also be the Anti-verse?

I could be wrong, so I have my own two-body-problem for you to consider.

If you eat an apple does your mass change? Does the mass of the apple change? If the answer is yes then the earth becomes affected and a three-body-problem arises.

A black hole doesn't actually eat matter as you eat an apple. It gravitationally attracts matter like anything else. The black hole is a part of the galaxy so whatever mass falls into it is still in the galaxy. The mass of the galaxy does change all the time as stars convert mass to energy. As far as dark matter is concerned, I have no idea where it comes from but it seems to give galaxies there shapes and links them together

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

I asked about the three body problem because it is a specific problem in calculating gravitational relationships between bodies. Whilst it

is possible to calculate how two bodies interact gravitationally, it is not possible to calculate for three or more.

Hence, if you had known what the three body problem was you would have known the answer to this question:

The answer is that it is impossible to calculate the course of the Magellanic Clouds forever.

I didnt claim to measure the mass of the milky way, they did. I found your lead about three body problem very fiiting in their case.

As for your nonsensical gibberish about apples and people...

The black hole at the centre of the galaxy is a part of the galaxy. It's mass can change by devouring objects, such as stars... which are part of the galaxy or by evaporation, in which case energy is released... into the galaxy. Either way the mass of the galaxy does not change significantly.

Think of it this way, if you weigh yourself holding an apple and carry on weighing yourself as you eat the apple will there be any change in the overall weight?

Just try and think logically. If You plant a seed and grow a tree, how is it that the mass of something so small can become the mass of something so big? Change in mass by conversion of energy, also known as growth is the correct answer. As I see it the same rules apply to the universe.

You have dismissed out of hand the work of experts whilst showing not even the most basic grasp of the concepts involved. Do you not see a problem with this?

As I stated, the only thing constant in the universe is change. The 'experts' uphold the precept specially well by constantly changing their theories year after year. Do you not see a problem with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a stab in the dark, it is doing what you do in post after post, making stuff up as you go along. You aren't even sure if you mean dark energy or dark matter here are you?

No "could be" about it.

Dark energy or dark matter? Dark matter or dark energy? Why not both? Tell me then where do they come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark energy or dark matter? Dark matter or dark energy? Why not both? Tell me then where do they come from?

Dark energy is the energy of empty space that apparently counteracts gravity. Dark matter is something that is gravitationally attractive but is invisible to light. I don't know where they come from but, I think, all they have in common is the word dark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a huge difference between biological evolution and stellar evolution.

Stellar evolution is driven by a small number of forces (velocity, mass, etc.)

Darwinian (biological) evolution is driven by thousands and thousands of factors, including local climate, local geology, local soil composition, local food source availability, predation, disease, mating preferences, distance or nearness of other members of the same species, accidents (that remove otherwise fit individuals from the breeding pool), habitat (including plant types and water availability), etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just try and think logically. If You plant a seed and grow a tree, how is it that the mass of something so small can become the mass of something so big? Change in mass by conversion of energy, also known as growth is the correct answer. As I see it the same rules apply to the universe.

How is this poor analogy even logical? It completely ignores the response Waspie gave you. A more accurate analogy would be a planet containing a seed, which grows to a tree, no mass change. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just try and think logically. If You plant a seed and grow a tree, how is it that the mass of something so small can become the mass of something so big? Change in mass by conversion of energy, also known as growth is the correct answer. As I see it the same rules apply to the universe.

The tree doesn't gain mass by creating it from energy. It gains mass by absorbing matter in the form of nutrients, organic matter, water, etc. from the surrounding environment. The mass that the tree has gained something else has lost. No new matter has been created in the growth of a tree. The overall mass of the earth system hasn't changed, matter has simply moved around and changed form.

When the tree dies, it will rot and its matter will be consumed by other life, get into the soil, etc. and the cycle will continue. The overall amount of mass in the system is the same.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this poor analogy even logical? It completely ignores the response Waspie gave you. A more accurate analogy would be a planet containing a seed, which grows to a tree, no mass change.

If you plant a seed and grow from this a tree, in theory the tree will be heavier than the seed. You can try this at home safely enough, weigh the seed before you plant it. After 10 years cut down the tree and then weigh this too. The difference in the weight from seed to tree should be noticeable enough. The change in weight is an indication of a change in mass. Let me no how you get on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tree doesn't gain mass by creating it from energy. It gains mass by absorbing matter in the form of nutrients, organic matter, water, etc. from the surrounding environment. The mass that the tree has gained something else has lost. No new matter has been created in the growth of a tree. The overall mass of the earth system hasn't changed, matter has simply moved around and changed form.

When the tree dies, it will rot and its matter will be consumed by other life, get into the soil, etc. and the cycle will continue. The overall amount of mass in the system is the same.

Not again. Obviously you believe that, like the speed of light, there is also a Mass limit that cant be exceeded. Oh bother!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you plant a seed and grow from this a tree, in theory the tree will be heavier than the seed. You can try this at home safely enough, weigh the seed before you plant it. After 10 years cut down the tree and then weigh this too. The difference in the weight from seed to tree should be noticeable enough. The change in weight is an indication of a change in mass. Let me no how you get on.

The planet isn't any heavier. Think about what you're saying, the tree gets it's mass from the planet.

Not again. Obviously you believe that, like the speed of light, there is also a Mass limit that cant be exceeded. Oh bother!

That's not what he said. Trying actually reading the replies. Edited by Rlyeh
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The planet isn't any heavier. Think about what you're saying, the tree gets it's mass from the planet.

Thats not what I said do you have trouble reading? Look again You will find that I said to plant the seed but weigh it first, then after 10 years weigh the tree. For srome reason you seem hell bent on weighing the planet. If you think about what your saying then extrapolate that to solar systems, to galaxies, and so forth back to the beginning of the universe, then go ahead tell me where does it gained its mass from? What fed its growth?

That's not what he said. Trying actually reading the replies.

Guess I will wait to hear it from Jesse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that note ... where did the big bang get all that energy to go 'bang' ?

All that Energy has to come from somewhere ~ or am I up the wrong end here ?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thats not what I said do you have trouble reading? Look again You will find that I said to plant the seed but weigh it first, then after 10 years weigh the tree. For srome reason you seem hell bent on weighing the planet. If you think about what your saying then extrapolate that to solar systems, to galaxies, and so forth back to the beginning of the universe, then go ahead tell me where does it gained its mass from? What fed its growth?

I know what you wrote and it's wrong. You can't understand that a galaxy consists of all the mass in it, this tree analogy is just showing you don't get it.

Guess I will wait to hear it from Jesse.

And then you can fail to understand him again. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you wrote and it's wrong. You can't understand that a galaxy consists of all the mass in it, this tree analogy is just showing you don't get it.

All you have shown me is an ability to split hairs. Rather than rip apart what I 'GET', how bout backing up what you 'GET.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that note ... where did the big bang get all that energy to go 'bang' ?

All that Energy has to come from somewhere ~ or am I up the wrong end here ?

Be careful thirdeye, the universe is alive and bites if you try and back it into a corner! :clap:!

But seriously, on this note, how much light can the universe contain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that note ... where did the big bang get all that energy to go 'bang' ?

All that Energy has to come from somewhere ~ or am I up the wrong end here ?

What I get is that the inflation generates the energy out of its expansion, turning a minuscule random fluctuation into a hot dense universe. Anyway that is what I'm told the maths indicate happens.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.