Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
That's Not The Point, Though

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on January 18, 2002 17:25:22 UTC

Alex,

***Therefore, they come in variety of sizes and shapes. Therefore, say, do 100 stars travelling together in space make a galaxy? How about 10 or 1000 stars? How about 3 merging galaxies - is it one galaxy or 2 or 3? How about a galaxy broken apart into many star clusters by a tidal force of passing by monster galaxy? So, how to define (in order to count) them anyway? By one definition there will be many more galaxies than by another.***

There could conceivably exist a Method II approach which approximates all of this apparent randomness and shows how to distinguish the structures. For example, in the 1950's there were many, many particles that began to be discovered. I think it was Fermi(?) who said in one year that the Nobel Prize should go to the person who didn't discover a new particle that year. Who would have ever thought that all of this madness would eventually be explained within the symmetry and broken symmetries brought to light in QCD and the electroweak standard model? Even today the number of particles discovered is a huge thick book that you wouldn't want someone to throw at you.

I'm sure there were physicists who thought all of these particles were simply random fluctuations of nature and that perhaps there was no means by which to know which particles should exist and which shouldn't exist. I'm not saying that galaxies fall into this category, I'm only asking you what prevents there from being a Method II formulation of the macroscopic world?

***But on the other hand, pattern of H clouds contracting into galaxies and into stars is governed by inverse square law of gravity, rate of space expansion and by Newtonial dynamics of motion, so the dynamics of galaxies formation/evolution can be modeled/predicted with reasonable accuracy (limited mainly by how detailed is the set of initial conditions you use).So, in case of galaxies I do not think there is one grand principle from which you can calculate their distribution pattern.***

There's evidence to the contrary. For example, see the following:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0102320

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0002124

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins