Crashing Galaxies in the Infinite Universe

Hi Dr. Borchardt-

As I think you know, I generally accept the 10 Assumptions of Science.  The recent photo of the (so-called) Penguin galaxy (http://www.nbcnews.com/science/galaxy-crash-gives-life-space-penguin-6C10411690?franchiseSlug=sciencemain) raises a question about the assumption of Infinity on the macrocosm scale [see above].

The photo of the Penguin galaxy is yet another example of a galactic shape that’s explained as the result of a collision with another galaxy (though why the elliptical galaxy it collided with is not also significantly distorted is apparently overlooked). Although I suspect that all irregular galaxies are NOT the result of collisions, collisions clearly do occur.  For example, the Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies are reportedly heading toward a “dance” in 10 to 20 billion years (if I recall correctly), and our local group of galaxies is reportedly heading in the direction of the Hydra/Centaurus constellations apparently due to either the gravitational influence of a Great Attractor or the motions of Dark Flow.  So- if one accepts that 1) galaxies do collide; 2) such collisions radically disrupt the original structure of a galaxy; AND, 3) that the macrocosm we call the visible universe is infinite, then shouldn’t/wouldn’t there be more irregular galaxies than spiral galaxies? 

Conversely, if one accepts these 3 statements, it would suggest (to me) that spiral galaxies are formed by, and evolve from, collisions with elliptical galaxies.  If the latter is true, then the existence of spiral galaxies may be empirical evidence of the Infinity Assumption.  Looking forward to your thoughts on this.

[Thanks Bill.

Always like to hear your questions… BTW: According to the blueshift observed for Andromeda (z = -0.001), the collision with the Milky Way should occur in about 3.75 billion years at the present closing rate of 100-140 km/s (Wiki, 2013). The Andromeda-Milky Way combination is supposed to form an elliptical galaxy, I suppose because they are currently spinning in opposite directions—sort of analogous to my idea of electron-positron annihilation (Borchardt, 2009). It is instructive that we can see only the center of Andromeda with the naked eye or binoculars, but that with a telescope, it appears at least 6 times the width of the moon. I guess that if we didn’t know any better, us binoc-limited guys might call the “nonluminous” portion “dark matter.” (Just a positivistic joke, but it seems to me that the whole dark matter brouhaha is analogous. Like the positivist’s denigration of aether, if you can’t see it, it isn’t there. Good thing we know better than that, at least for the air we breathe.)

Now, let us get to your question about the collisions and shapes of galaxies. The observation that Andromeda is blueshifted is an obvious falsification of the Big Bang Theory, in which the various parts of the universe are supposed to be exploding away from each other due to universal expansion. Each new discovery of colliding galaxies piles the contradictions higher and higher. Apologists claim that the collisions are the result of gravitational “attraction” being stronger than the expansion. Whatever the excuse, it seems that the universe is a bit more crowded in certain regions as well as a bit more uncrowded in certain regions than expected by the Big Bangers. We expect such collisions to occur in an infinite universe governed by the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things) (Borchardt, 2008).

Your last question was: “[If] the macrocosm we call the visible universe is infinite, then shouldn’t/wouldn’t there be more irregular galaxies than spiral galaxies?” As shown in your link, collisions apparently produce irregularly shaped galaxies (I am also dubious about the NASA explanation in which one of the colliders/collidees has a pristinely spherical shape and the other appears to be a smashed mess). Nevertheless, collisions do occur and irregular shapes do result. If all galaxies had an infinitely long life, I imagine each of them would be pretty beat up after having suffered an infinite number of collisions over eternity. There would then be no spiral galaxies at all. That is not what happens because all microcosms in the universe have a finite life. According to complementarity, they come into being via convergence and go out of being via divergence. Each has a “birth” and a “death,” and the portion of the universe that we can observe should not be an exception. BTW: The visible universe is not infinite. As a microcosm like any other, it is an xyz portion of the universe with an infinite number of microcosms within and without.

On the cover of our recent book (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011) we show the observed universe as part of the next step in the universal hierarchy, which we call the Local Mega-Vortex (LMV). We developed this speculation as a logical deduction from the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) and our observation that every portion of the universe is part of a vortex. As you mentioned, some cosmologists apparently have data indicating the presence of a “Great Attractor” outside the observed universe. We don’t believe in attraction, of course, but we do believe in vortex motion in which large microcosms are pushed toward the center of rotation and small microcosms are pushed away from it. The video on our website (www.scientificphilosophy.com) shows how this works. The recent discovery of “Dark Flow” may be evidence that the observed universe is rotating, with galactic clusters all moving in one direction, as would be expected in a vortex hierarchy. The rotation would result in a gradual change in the gravitational effect produced by the “Great Attractor,” that is, by the dense nucleus of the LMV. We speculate that the observed universe is not only rotating, but that it is revolving around the LMV, no doubt, with an eccentric orbit. I would be surprised if any such motion could be detected, however.

In sum, I don’t believe that colliding galaxies are proof of our infinite universe. These could occur in a finite universe as well, although they would not occur in an expanding finite universe. Of course, that’s not saying much, as nothing whatsoever could occur in an expanding universe. An occurrence or cause, remember, is the collision of microcosms per Newton’s Second Law (F=ma). Pure expansion in a homogeneous universe would consist entirely of divergence. This might suit idealistic indeterminists well, because such a universe would be completely acausal. Just shows how silly the expansion hypothesis is…     


Borchardt, Glenn, 2008, Resolution of SLT-order paradox ( http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/SLTOrder.pdf ).

Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press ( www.universalcycletheory.com ), 626 p.

1 comment:

Glenn Borchardt said...

Occasionally, I get stuff from others proposing various theories of the universe. Here is one that tries to counter the infinite divergence of the BBT with a special convergence involving galaxies. This is quite ironic. I included the crashing galaxies example as a contradiction of the BBT—not as a cure for it.

Anonymous wrote:

According to the new hypothesis, the geometric interpretation of the Lorentz’s radical says that the Big Bang happened in an incredible way. If the speed of light in the universe is maximal, a new hypothesis explains that the Big Bang is the cause of the collision of galaxies with the speed of light.

[GB: How can a grand divergence cause a convergence? See the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things) and Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions).]

Many theories suggest that when the intergalactic speed reaches the speed of light, then the universe is maximally expanded. But a new hypothesis about the universe talks back. When we think that the universe is maximally expanded, it is actually maximally compressed, the galaxies are in a singular state and at this moment they collide with the speed of light. The Big Bang is a result of the collision of galaxies with the speed of light.

This is not mentioned in any theory of the Big Bang yet. This is an extraordinary idea with the proof.

If we prove that the speed of light in the universe is finite and it is the fastest one, as a theory of relativity says, while a new hypothesis about the structure of the universe says that the big bang really happened and it happened by an incredible way.

There is such an idea. We think that some galaxies are moving away from us and some are approaching. The Andromeda is approaching to us with high speed (almost with the speed of light), but it falls into the black hole, at the center of which is our galaxy, the Milky Way.

Because of the great gravitational force between our galaxy and Andromeda, there is gravitational compression of time around us. That is, the time passes slowly around us, and it seems to us that Andromeda is approaching us slowly.

[GB: What is gravitational force? What is time? Read our latest book, UCT, to find out.]

The closer it comes to us, the more will be the gravitational force and the time will slow down. We would think that the Andromeda is braking, slowing its approach, but it is actually approaching us almost at the speed of light.

[GB: Andromeda is approach us at only 300 km/s—not at 300,000 km/s.]

We have nothing to be afraid of. According to our time, it needs billions of years to collide with our galaxy. If we really live in four-dimensional space, there is nothing surprising.

Ref: google – “ Релятивистская механика пространства времени разума “

Ref: URL - http://nasha-vselennaia.ru/?p=10056

Post a Comment

Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.

For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:

Nitecruzr writes:

[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?

The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.




Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.

Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.