Jump to content
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  
Damien99

Dead galaxy

81 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

zep73
Just now, Damien99 said:

but if light reached us from 12 billions years ago the cause for that light is reaching us also. So whatever caused this 12 billion years ago is reaching us now

No. It doesn't work like that. That would be like getting an infection from watching a sick person on TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
Just now, sci-nerd said:

No. It doesn't work like that. That would be like getting an infection from watching a sick person on TV.

I am sorry I thought I understand but it seems I do not. 
 

a change like this that we are seeing from this far away is showing us now that the change happened because we can see it now. We can only see what has reached us to be able to see. 
 

so if you are right that the em radiation changed then it means us seeing it now means it has also or is about to change for us. Not sure why your saying otherwise unless I am failing to understand the whole perspective of the universe. 
 

and please I am not arguing I am putting all the puzzle pieces together 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
5 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

so if you are right that the em radiation changed then it means us seeing it now means it has also or is about to change for us. Not sure why your saying otherwise unless I am failing to understand the whole perspective of the universe.

The goal of science is to understand the evolution of the universe, and make a fitting standard model. Our current model says that the forces have been unchanged, and will remain unchanged. This observation could force us to rewrite the standard model of the universe. That is huge in science, but doesn't matter at all in our daily lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
6 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

The goal of science is to understand the evolution of the universe, and make a fitting standard model. Our current model says that the forces have been unchanged, and will remain unchanged. This observation could force us to rewrite the standard model of the universe. That is huge in science, but doesn't matter at all in our daily lives.

So em radiation and constant destroys particles or makes them bigger this is what is the possible cause of vacuum decay and they have may just found that if em radiation change is true so the dead galaxy may have gone thorough vacuum decay which travels at the speed of light so that means the light has travelled to us and we can see it not so it’s getting here 

Edited by Damien99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
17 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

I am sorry I thought I understand but it seems I do not. 
 

a change like this that we are seeing from this far away is showing us now that the change happened because we can see it now. We can only see what has reached us to be able to see. 
 

so if you are right that the em radiation changed then it means us seeing it now means it has also or is about to change for us. Not sure why your saying otherwise unless I am failing to understand the whole perspective of the universe. 
 

and please I am not arguing I am putting all the puzzle pieces together 

Is it possible that you are confusing light with the wavelenghts that produce that light, which does not affect us. It is light not radiation that we see.  As for "vacuum decay"  please explain what you think that is because I don't think that is a thing.  Vacuum means Nothing, not something and we used to consider space as a vacuum but it isn't, there is plenty of stuff in a space.

Edited by Desertrat56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
5 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

So em radiation destroys particles or makes them bigger this is what is the possible cause of vacuum decay and they have may just found that if em radiation change is true so the dead galaxy may have gone thorough vacuum decay which travels at the speed of light so that means the light has travelled to us and we can see it not so it’s getting here 

This is not about false vacuums, but about different energy levels in particles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
Just now, sci-nerd said:

This is not about false vacuums, but about different energy levels in particles.

Exactly different energy levels in parlai les cause them to expand, expanding particles as per science causes them to expand into a vacuum decay as mentioned in the wiki for em radiation it talks about vacuum. 
 

we are able to see this galaxy now which means the product of this dead galaxy has reached us now. So that means whatever caused the galaxies in the early universe to die is reaching us now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
3 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

So that means whatever caused the galaxies in the early universe to die is reaching us now.

No.

You should stop spooking yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
17 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

No.

You should stop spooking yourself.

I apologize I am just trying to understand what I have been told and have read about this over the past few days. If I am wrong I am not sure where I am wrong. 
 

this is a dead galaxy found from the beginning of the universe. We don’t see any other live galaxies from before this time. The past we currently are able to see is the current status that has reached us now. 
 

i am not sure how what I have been saying has been confusing everyone it’s science and what has been found due to this dead galaxy?

 

and if my understanding is wrong hopefully someone would be willing to clarify my understanding 

 

This article explains it well how our galaxy may already be dead 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.iflscience.com/space/our-milky-way-galaxy-zombie-already-dead-and-we-don-t-know-it/amp.html

Edited by Damien99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99

Hit wrong button

Edited by Damien99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
12 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

I apologize I am just trying to understand what I have been told and have read about this over the past few days. If I am wrong I am not sure where I am wrong. 
 

this is a dead galaxy found from the beginning of the universe. We don’t see any other live galaxies from before this time. The past we currently are able to see is the current status that has reached us now. 
 

i am not sure how what I have been saying has been confusing everyone it’s science and what has been found due to this dead galaxy?

 

and if my understanding is wrong hopefully someone would be willing to clarify my understanding 

I think someone has been trying to clarify it for you, but you are not understanding.  The main message is "NO, there is NO effect from the "dead galaxy" and the interest in it is for purposes of determining universal constants.  There is No Threat.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
6 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I think someone has been trying to clarify it for you, but you are not understanding.  The main message is "NO, there is NO effect from the "dead galaxy" and the interest in it is for purposes of determining universal constants.  There is No Threat.

I understand but our galaxy is also already a dead galaxy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
Just now, Damien99 said:

I understand but our galaxy is also already a dead galaxy

How so?  And you never explained what you mean by "Vacuum decay".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
12 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

How so?  And you never explained what you mean by "Vacuum decay".

The article I posted shows how our galaxy is dead. 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.iflscience.com/space/our-milky-way-galaxy-zombie-already-dead-and-we-don-t-know-it/amp.html

also just fou d this paper 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191120070717.htm

as for vacuum decay i did, em radiation causes particles to change and get bigger which is a possibility of Katie Mack’s work in causing vacuum decay

she has been preaching vacuum decay for years now and has a book coming out in a few months.

 

as I said I may not be properly understanding 

Edited by Damien99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
8 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

The article I posted shows how our galaxy is dead. 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.iflscience.com/space/our-milky-way-galaxy-zombie-already-dead-and-we-don-t-know-it/amp.html

also just fou d this paper 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191120070717.htm

as for vacuum decay i did, em radiation causes particles to change and get bigger which is a possibility of Katie Mack in causing vacuum decay.

 

as I said I may not be properly understanding 

That does not define "vacuum decay"  Do you know what the word "vacuum" means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
10 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

That does not define "vacuum decay"  Do you know what the word "vacuum" means?

I do I have been reading vacuum decay for a few months now, and em radiation talks about particles changing and getting bigger. Following the process of vacuum decay death particles getting begger and changing particles is what is expected to cause it.

 

have you heard of vacuum decay universe death?

Edited by Damien99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
32 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I think someone has been trying to clarify it for you, but you are not understanding.  The main message is "NO, there is NO effect from the "dead galaxy" and the interest in it is for purposes of determining universal constants.  There is No Threat.

As you mentioned universal constatants which if fall to true cause a false vacuum as defined in what I have been stating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

As long as our galaxy has dust clouds and we see evidence of stars forming out of those dust clouds (and we do see that) it is not dead.  You can't really call a person dead at 22 because they have stopped growing and changing as rapidly as they did before they were 12. That person might live another 60 years or so, several times longer than they have been alive.

I can understand that it might be confusing, writers who try to "popularize"  science sometimes feel they need to throw in a hook to get you interested and keep reading the story.  Death is a big hook isn't it?

The reason there might not be a lot published on this topic is not for secrecy but as sci-nerd said it is because the first observations might not be validated yet. Did the astronomers see what they thought they saw?  IS there another explanation?    It will get sorted out.

Seriously, no worries about this topic affecting our lives in a negative way.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
5 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

As long as our galaxy has dust clouds and we see evidence of stars forming out of those dust clouds (and we do see that) it is not dead.  You can't really call a person dead at 22 because they have stopped growing and changing as rapidly as they did before they were 12. That person might live another 60 years or so, several times longer than they have been alive.

I can understand that it might be confusing, writers who try to "popularize"  science sometimes feel they need to throw in a hook to get you interested and keep reading the story.  Death is a big hook isn't it?

The reason there might not be a lot published on this topic is not for secrecy but as sci-nerd said it is because the first observations might not be validated yet. Did the astronomers see what they thought they saw?  IS there another explanation?    It will get sorted out.

Seriously, no worries about this topic affecting our lives in a negative way.

They may think they saw a change to Universe  constants as per comments here universe is at a métastable now, a change can be drastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
23 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

I do I have been reading vacuum decay for a few months now, and em radiation talks about particles changing and getting bigger. Following the process of vacuum decay death particles getting begger and changing particles is what is expected to cause it.

 

have you heard of vacuum decay universe death?

Look up the word "Vacuum"!!!!   There is no such thing as "vacuum decay"  Maybe it is something else but that is the wrong name for it.  Just because it it on the internet does not make it true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

They may think they saw a change to Universe  constants as per comments here universe is at a métastable now, a change can be drastic.

Yeah.  Some key words  there are  that "they may think they saw a change". No verification yet.  Is your concern that a change in universal constants may sweep over us like a tsunami and blot us out?

I suppose I think if there has been a change in universal constants we and our galaxy are that change from an older universe we see 12 billion years ago.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
7 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

They may think they saw a change to Universe  constants as per comments here universe is at a métastable now, a change can be drastic.

No, it is believed to be at an metastable (what ever that means) state by some, that is not a fact and is the reason that scientists are searching the universe for information to determine if what we observe in our local galaxy is standard or different from the rest of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99

So it’s simple as stated previously is this post they think the em radiation constant of the universe may have changed which brings us to the following 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

if it has changed then this is what they have possibly found
 

this is what  i have been stating

Edited by Damien99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99

I am sorry if my terms are not fully in astronomy terms and I am confusing everyone. But in my terms it’s simple the dead universes they are seeing are in the past, we are seeing the past now which means it’s our current cause we see it. If the em radiation constant changed then this could have changed to a true vacuum constant which can cause vacuum collapse. Vacuum collapse can be what has caused these galaxies to die. This is something that may just be reaching us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
15 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

I am sorry if my terms are not fully in astronomy terms and I am confusing everyone. But in my terms it’s simple the dead universes they are seeing are in the past, we are seeing the past now which means it’s our current cause we see it. If the em radiation constant changed then this could have changed to a true vacuum constant which can cause vacuum collapse. Vacuum collapse can be what has caused these galaxies to die. This is something that may just be reaching us.

So if you see someone bleeding you think you will start bleeding?  Just because we see something that happened somewhere else in the past does not mean that it is happening here now just because we see it.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.