Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 63

Thread: Galaxy Spin

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    34

    Galaxy Spin

    The problem with the Big Bang Theory is that the Big Bang didnít happen. What did happen, is happening and will happen, is Galaxy Spin.
    Like satellites around planets, and planets around stars, and stars around the galaxy, the galaxies themselves are turning in orbit.
    The Big Bang is based on three premises. One, there is cosmic background radiation everywhere; and two, the galaxies are going away from each other causing their light to be red shifted, and three there is an abundance of lighter materials.
    With billions of stellar furnaces, quasars, novae, super novae; present and through billions of years in the past,it would be surprising if there werenít background radiation. As for the galaxies flying red shifted off to Neverland as the Big Bang tells you, itís not happening.
    The red shift is caused because our galaxy in itsí orbit travels faster than some, thus the red shift, and slower than others, again the red shift.
    But there are also blue shift galaxies, ones that are coming toward us. With everything being blown apart by the Big Bang, how do they explain that? Well, they donít. What is happening is we are gaining on some detected galaxies that are in an outer orbit, thus the blue shift, and some on an inside orbit are gaining on us, again the blue shift.
    If you believe in the Big Bang theory you have to believe in large sums of dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter because the light from distant galaxies is shifting; and something has to be making it shift. Dark energy because as the galaxies go away from each other they are accelerating, and, well there must be some energy causing them to accelerate. Nobody seems to know what dark matter and dark energy is.
    There is no dark matter. What is causing the light to shift is that the galaxies are turning in their orbit around a central unknown I call Tipperary because itís a long, long way to go. And as for the galaxies accelerating to infinity and Ö They are not.
    This is whatís happening. Say you are in a car going ten miles an hour, and another car next to you is going ten miles an hour. There is no acceleration going on. But say the car next to you takes an off ramp. Then suddenly it appears to one another that the other car is going faster and faster, even though you are still both going ten miles an hour. Every galaxy is on its own off ramp appearing to be accelerating, but itís still going its same orbital speed following the orbital laws of Kepler.
    How far away is this central unknown, Tipperary? No telling. If we were to compare it to our place in our galaxy: the distance to the nearest star; Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years. The distance to the center of our galaxy 182,400 light years, which gives a multiplication factor of 43,428. The distance to the nearest galaxy; Andromeda is 2.2 million light years. Multiplying 2.2 million by 43,428 gives a distance to the center of galaxy spin as 95.5 billion light years. It could be a lot closer or a lot further. As of now we can only see less than fourteen billion light years; we are going to need better glasses before we see Tipperary.
    I call this galaxy spin entity a Whirly; I call this Whirly we are in the ďS.R.T.E. WhirlyĒ. Are there other Whirlies out there? Logically. All spinning around something even bigger.
    Itís time to place the Big Bang theory where it belongs, next to the flat earth theory. I expect my theory to be validated in the very near future when the Large Binocular Telescope comes on line. It is supposed to see to 14 billion light years and the WMAP puts the universe at 13.7 billion light years with a 1% probability of error. Out to 14 billion light years and further all they will see is more galaxies.
    If you would like to see my demonstration, it is on YouTube as (Big Bang A Bust). I would appreciate any comments (rants or raves) you may have.
    Sincerely, Jeff Mitchell (The Galaxy Spin Guy)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell View Post
    The problem with the Big Bang Theory is that the Big Bang didnít happen. What did happen, is happening and will happen, is Galaxy Spin.
    So this should be in ATM.
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell View Post
    The Big Bang is based on three premises. One, there is cosmic background radiation everywhere; and two, the galaxies are going away from each other causing their light to be red shifted, and three there is an abundance of lighter materials.
    Sounds like a good start to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell View Post
    With billions of stellar furnaces, quasars, novae, super novae; present and through billions of years in the past,it would be surprising if there werenít background radiation. As for the galaxies flying red shifted off to Neverland as the Big Bang tells you, itís not happening.
    Yes; it would be surprising since it has been found.
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell View Post
    If you believe in the Big Bang theory you have to believe in large sums of dark matter and dark energy.
    And for whirlys you have to believe in the lack of research.

    Ok; I'm tired and not an expert, so I will leave with one question. What evidence do you have, and what do we need to research to prove your theory?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,855
    Welcome to the BAUT forum jeff Mitchell.

    You placed this message in the About BAUT section, but it really belonged in the Against The Mainstream section. Here in ATM, you'll be expected to answer questions that other readers ask about your extraordinary claims here.

    I suspect that some of your numbers will be called into question, so I suggest you start by making sure know where these numbers came from.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    34
    To answer your question about proving my theory, it will take a more powerful telescope than we have today to see Tipperary. Perhaps the new Square Kilometer Array. Needless to say I believe the new telescopes will see beyond the 13.7 billion light years wmap claims the universe to be. As for my numbers being correct, they come from the Large Binocular Telescope website and the NASA WMAP website.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    4,813
    There's a lot of sky out there to look at. Do you have any idea which direction "Tipperary" lies? Any idea how you would even start to find this direction?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    34
    Where is Tipperary? Like you say there is a lot of sky. It would be like determining where the center of our galaxy is by looking at individual stars.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3
    But there *is* a way to find the center of the galaxy, isnt there? We devised that way even before actually observing the center of the galaxy.

    Do you have any method of figuring out where that "Tipperary" is? How would we find it and prove the theory correct? This is a necessary part of devising a good scientific theory - figuring out the "How to prove it" and figuring out what would prove it WRONG.

    Otherwise it's not quite relevant as a scientific theory.

    How could we find this Tipperary? hypothetically, even.. lets say you have the most powerful telescope out there.. where would you look? how would you 'recognize' that you found it?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    34
    I admit I am unaware of any method of determining the center of the galaxy without actually seeing it. I would be grateful if you could turn me on to that. You could perhaps use Kepler's orbital laws but that would take an extremely long time. The sun takes 240 million years to go around once. The galaxies would take much longer. My theory can be disproved very readily by the new telescopes soon to be coming on line. If there is nothing out there past 13.7 billion light years (NASA WMAP number) I will post my sincere apology for being a crackpot.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    4,813
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell View Post
    I admit I am unaware of any method of determining the center of the galaxy without actually seeing it. I would be grateful if you could turn me on to that.
    Hint #1: Go out to the country on a clear night and look up the sky. You will see a band of whitish, milky-colored light called the Milky Way. Observe at different times of the year. Where is this Milky Way brightest?

    Hint #2: Use a telescope and note the various open and especially globular clusters. Where are the numbers of these objects greatest?

    Hint #3: If neither of the above hints occurred to you before asking this question, perhaps it is time to get thee to a library.
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell View Post
    You could perhaps use Kepler's orbital laws but that would take an extremely long time. The sun takes 240 million years to go around once.
    As hinted above you don't need to wait that long.
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell View Post
    The galaxies would take much longer. My theory can be disproved very readily by the new telescopes soon to be coming on line. If there is nothing out there past 13.7 billion light years (NASA WMAP number) I will post my sincere apology for being a crackpot.
    Don't need the new telescopes. (But I won't pass up the new data that they will bring!)

    Hint #4: What are the greatest cluster(s) of galaxies? Do they lie preferentially in one direction in space or are they scattered about the sky?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    34
    The question posed by Missmoo was finding the center of the galaxy without the ability to see it. Your hints require observations of the galaxies that are not today possible because of distances involved.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,855
    Here is an xray image of the center of the Milky Way. It is an object called Sgr A*. Here is a story connected to that picture.

    If you look at the wikipedia article about Sgr A* you will see lots more detail about what we know about the center of the galaxy.

    However, I suspect from your posts above that you are confusing the term 'galaxy' with the term 'universe'. The current models do not have a center of the universe.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell View Post
    The question posed by Missmoo was finding the center of the galaxy without the ability to see it. Your hints require observations of the galaxies that are not today possible because of distances involved.
    Take any 2 galaxies. Determine their position (parallax is one way). Determine their direction and speed of travel (done with the aid of redshift).

    Now you have 2 vectors of travel. Now draw a perpendicular line from each vector such that they cross.
    If there is a center, it would be impossible for them to be completely parallel.
    Where they cross is the center of the universe.

    Now; here's the tricky part. Given that you have a point, any other observation will produce a vector that is perpendicular to a line from that vector to the point you have determined if there is a center to the universe.

    I'm fairly certain that it wouldn't take too many observations to find one that isn't.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    34
    To Antoniseb, trust me I am not confusing the center of our milky was with the center of galaxies. I was pointing out that it would be difficult, impossible as far as I know, To look at a number of stars and say where the center of the milky way is. Mankind through all the ages didn't do it until telescopes came on line.
    To Neowatcher, according to your math as I understand it; You could look at two stars and tell where the center of the milky way is? Two galaxies where Tipperary is?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell
    The red shift is caused because our galaxy in itsí orbit travels faster than some, thus the red shift, and slower than others, again the red shift.
    But there are also blue shift galaxies, ones that are coming toward us. With everything being blown apart by the Big Bang, how do they explain that?
    If I remember correctly, blueshifted galaxies are very much in the minority and are located within the Local Group. I don't see how this invalidates the Big Bang.

    Well, they donít. What is happening is we are gaining on some detected galaxies that are in an outer orbit, thus the blue shift, and some on an inside orbit are gaining on us, again the blue shift.
    If that were true, then we would see considerably more blueshifted galaxies in a pattern consistant with an orbital system - IE, the more tightly orbiting galaxies would display blue shifts as they caught up relative to our position. As far as I can know, this is not happening.

    Also, your hypothesis would be instantly invalidated if it turns out that blueshifted galaxies are spread across the sky in a pattern inconsistent with an orbital dynamic. Perhaps there are, and someone more knowledgeable than me can point them out.

    If you believe in the Big Bang theory you have to believe in large sums of dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter because the light from distant galaxies is shifting; and something has to be making it shift. Dark energy because as the galaxies go away from each other they are accelerating, and, well there must be some energy causing them to accelerate. Nobody seems to know what dark matter and dark energy is.
    There is no dark matter. What is causing the light to shift is that the galaxies are turning in their orbit around a central unknown I call Tipperary because itís a long, long way to go. And as for the galaxies accelerating to infinity and Ö They are not.
    If the light shift is consistent with your orbital model, surely some cosmologist would have spotted it by now?

    Also, the galaxies are not "accelerating" anywhere. Space is expanding at an accelerating rate. Even I know this, and I'm not a cosmologist.

    This is whatís happening. Say you are in a car going ten miles an hour, and another car next to you is going ten miles an hour. There is no acceleration going on. But say the car next to you takes an off ramp. Then suddenly it appears to one another that the other car is going faster and faster, even though you are still both going ten miles an hour. Every galaxy is on its own off ramp appearing to be accelerating, but itís still going its same orbital speed following the orbital laws of Kepler.
    Again, such orbital behaviour is quite obvious and would have been spotted by now.

    So why hasn't it?

    How far away is this central unknown, Tipperary? No telling. If we were to compare it to our place in our galaxy: the distance to the nearest star; Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years. The distance to the center of our galaxy 182,400 light years, which gives a multiplication factor of 43,428. The distance to the nearest galaxy; Andromeda is 2.2 million light years. Multiplying 2.2 million by 43,428 gives a distance to the center of galaxy spin as 95.5 billion light years. It could be a lot closer or a lot further. As of now we can only see less than fourteen billion light years; we are going to need better glasses before we see Tipperary.
    I find the assumption that the universe in general would follow such a pattern completely unwarranted. On basis do you assume that Tipperary is 2.2million x 43,428 Ly distant? The existance of "Tipperary" is on shaky ground as it is, and I suspect it constitutes an extraneous entity subject to Occam's Razor. At least Dark Matter has some indirect evidence going for it.

    Of course, I feel that the fatal flaw with this whole hypothesis is that it is pure armchair ratiocination, with no direct observational evidence to back it up.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    34
    Armchair ratiocination?? My theory is a logical progression. Satellites orbiting around planets, planets orbiting around stars, stars orbiting around galaxies, galaxies orbiting around Tipperary. And the Whirlies logically orbiting around something else. My theory has a track record, the big bang theory is like starting another railroad line. It's like having a jar you can't see through full of jellybeans. You reach in once and pull out a red jellybean. The same for the second, third, forth, and fifth; all red jellybeans. I'm betting my money if you reach in again it's going to be a red jellybean. The Big Bang says it's going to be a yellow marble??? I do not assume Tipperary is 2.2 million x 43,428. I just used that as an example of where it would be if it were the same distance as our sun from the center of the milky way.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell
    Armchair ratiocination?? My theory is a logical progression. Satellites orbiting around planets, planets orbiting around stars, stars orbiting around galaxies, galaxies orbiting around Tipperary. And the Whirlies logically orbiting around something else.
    Haven't you considered that your hypothesis is a recipe for infinite regress? Or in this case, exgress? Where does it end and why?

    My theory has a track record, the big bang theory is like starting another railroad line. It's like having a jar you can't see through full of jellybeans. You reach in once and pull out a red jellybean. The same for the second, third, forth, and fifth; all red jellybeans. I'm betting my money if you reach in again it's going to be a red jellybean. The Big Bang says it's going to be a yellow marble???
    More like the Big Bang theory says you'll run out of jellybeans. But in any case, current observations do not lend credence to your hypothesis. Looking at maps of the universe at large, at supercluster distribution etc, it seems to be fairly even despite localised clumping, and generally hardly the sort of distribution one would expect from an orbital system.

    Compare:

    http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html

    The visible universe, with fairly uniform distribution of galaxies.

    http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/galaxy.html

    The galaxy, an orbital system.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...lanets2006.jpg

    Our solar system, another example of an orbital system.

    Now, notice the dissimilarities between the last two examples and the visible universe at large. I feel my point is aptly illustrated.

    I do not assume Tipperary is 2.2 million x 43,428. I just used that as an example of where it would be if it were the same distance as our sun from the center of the milky way.
    Fair enough, but you didn't address my other concerns.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    34
    Where does it end and why? I think the same can be said for going down instead of out. You look down and there is atoms, then electrons, protons, and neutrons, to quantum mechanics, to string theory... As far as we know it doesn't end, and as for man I don't see us ever discovering an end.

    I believe the other point you are trying to make, after looking at the websites,is that the stars in our milky way don't have the same orbital dynamics as the galaxies do. I wouldn't think they would. Even the stars in other galaxies don't have the same orbital pattern.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell View Post
    Where does it end and why? I think the same can be said for going down instead of out.
    Going up you see the effect of gravity. Going down, gravity virtually has no effect. So; no, the same can not be said.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell
    Where does it end and why? I think the same can be said for going down instead of out. You look down and there is atoms, then electrons, protons, and neutrons, to quantum mechanics, to string theory... As far as we know it doesn't end, and as for man I don't see us ever discovering an end.
    You didn't answer my question.

    I believe the other point you are trying to make, after looking at the websites,is that the stars in our milky way don't have the same orbital dynamics as the galaxies do. I wouldn't think they would. Even the stars in other galaxies don't have the same orbital pattern.
    In what kind of orbital dynamic would it appear that lots of galaxies are moving away from us at an accelerating rate, in all directions? And why would such a dynamic generate the voids and clusters that we observe?

  20. #20
    I like this theory, as it seems to make some simple yet logical sense.

    Everything is based of an orbit. Electrons around a nucleus. Moon around earth. Earth around sun. Sun around Milky Way. Why not one more step out?

    Maybe one day with sensitive enough equipment it will be proved. Maybe not though :-p

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,331
    Quote Originally Posted by MrB398 View Post
    I like this theory, as it seems to make some simple yet logical sense.

    Everything is based of an orbit. Electrons around a nucleus. Moon around earth. Earth around sun. Sun around Milky Way. Why not one more step out?
    Do electrons actually "orbit" around the nucleus of the atom, or is that just an oversimplification of the Bohr Model?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell View Post
    As for the galaxies flying red shifted off to Neverland as the Big Bang tells you, itís not happening.
    The red shift is caused because our galaxy in itsí orbit travels faster than some, thus the red shift, and slower than others, again the red shift.
    But there are also blue shift galaxies, ones that are coming toward us. With everything being blown apart by the Big Bang, how do they explain that? Well, they donít. What is happening is we are gaining on some detected galaxies that are in an outer orbit, thus the blue shift, and some on an inside orbit are gaining on us, again the blue shift.
    NoXion addressed this above but you haven't explained how your model deals with our observations yet. We only see a relatively small number of blueshifted galaxies and they are within our local group. Everything further away is redshifted, and the further you look, the larger the redshift.

    We interpret this in the following way: Our galaxy is part of a cluster of galaxies that are gravitationally bound to each other. These galaxies can move towards or away from or around or through each other, depending on their gravitational relationships. Thus we see a range of different but small red and blue shifts for the local galaxies.

    But the distance to other galactic clusters is increasing due to the expansion of the universe, an effect that only causes distances to increase outside of gravitationally bound systems. We only see redshifts for these galaxies, and the further away a cluster is the larger its redshift will be.

    How can your model deal with these observations of increasing redshift, and only redshift, over increasing distance?

    Also, how does your model deal with the relatively large apparent angular size of the dimmest and most redshifted galaxies, which we assume to be an indicator of how close they were when they emitted their light?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by MrB398 View Post
    Everything is based of an orbit. Electrons around a nucleus.
    As great of a scientist Niels Bohr was, his picture of the electrons "orbiting" a nucleus has done some serious damage to the way the average person understands what is going on. MrB, if you investigate the modern understanding of the electron, you will realize that Bohr's model is incredibly inaccurate. So, "everything is based on an orbit" is just plain wrong, as least at the small scales.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    34
    To MrB398 Thank you for having an open mind.
    For those of you who question why there are so few recognized blue shift galaxies (not all in the local group as stated) I don't know. As to your theory of them being gravitationaly bound, why aren't all galaxies gravitationaly bound, and how come we're not contracting. As for the differences in red shift the further away the galaxies are, I have no problem with that.

    Mitchell"s Law "If you have a theory that disenegrates into unexplained matter and unexplained energy, you need a new theory"

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,225
    Yes, try to get Bohr's model working for more than one electron. It doesn't.

    Quantum theory describes electrons more accurately as "clouds of potential," and further defines a field of potential places you might be likely to maybe find an electron at a given point in time. The closer you approach the actual spot an electron might be, the more likely you are to find it there.

    Of course, we haven't yet imaged the dance of electrons around an atom, but I prefer to think of it as a random, bounciness that shifts in wierd patterns dictated by the mutal repulsion of each electron in that particular shell. This chaotic dance probably is linked to uncertainty in some way (IMO.)

    There is NOTHING on any scale mentioned that has such strange behavior. A simple scaling up, or down, of planetary motion just won't suffice.

    It does not match the data.

    Jeff, you've got a nice head on your shoulders and an inquisitive nature. Why waste it on questions that have already been answered to the satisfaction of generations? I know, I know... that's how breakthroughs are made, paridigmn this and that an' all. But think. We can stand on the shoulders of giants and actually DO something.

    Yeah. That's my buck fifty.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell View Post
    For those of you who question why there are so few recognized blue shift galaxies (not all in the local group as stated) I don't know. As to your theory of them being gravitationaly bound, why aren't all galaxies gravitationaly bound, and how come we're not contracting. As for the differences in red shift the further away the galaxies are, I have no problem with that.
    The only blueshifted galaxies we have detected are relatively close to us. Which blueshifted galaxies outside of the local cluster are you specifically referring to?

    It is not my theory, it is the theory that best describes our observations so far - the mainstream view in cosmology. You are proposing a different model using "spin", so it is up to you to show us how it can explain our observations and how it can be used to make predictions that we can test.

    It doesn't matter whether you have a problem with the observed redshift-distance relationships or not, it matters whether your "spin" concept can explain those observations. How can some of the dimmest, most redshifted galaxies have such apparently large angular-sizes? The mainstream explanation is that their angular-size (how large they look in the sky) shows how close to us (2 - 3 billion light years) they were when they emitted the light we are now seeing, but that light is very dim and redshifted as it has been travelling through space as the universe expanded and that light took over 13 billion years to actually reach us.

    How does your model account for the apparently large angular size of some of the dimmest most redshifted galaxies? How does your model account for the lack of any distant blueshifted galaxies?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    34
    To Travis Thanks for the compliments. Contrary to the consensus of most posts I am not trying to be a crackpot. About Newtons comment standing on giant shoulders, I am way, way down hardly able to make out their kneecaps. But it would be a improper homage to those giants if you do not speak out when you see a wrong. I cannot concieve how learned minds can believe that everything came from some little spot and they can tell you what happened in the first trillionth second. As King Lear said "Nothing begets nothing." Granted far most galaxies are red shifted, and there is a huge mass of microwaves. So, where did the energy and mass come from in the beginning. I cannot comment on the King's fine clothes when I see his naked butt.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    10,930
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell View Post
    ...So, where did the energy and mass come from in the beginning...
    Isn't that a question for every model?
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.
    Yeah, yeah, right, right. Okay.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    490
    jeff Mitchell

    I like your idea and will think a lot about.
    As far as I am concerned dark energy,dark matter and strings are just a way of getting money from gullible administrators.

    Where is my money.I am investigating centrifugalons(they produce the force that stops planets dropping into the sun and are produced by curved motion.)
    I hope to catch a few if they escape from my spin drier.

    Big bang is not proven either.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell View Post
    Granted far most galaxies are red shifted, and there is a huge mass of microwaves. So, where did the energy and mass come from in the beginning. I cannot comment on the King's fine clothes when I see his naked butt.
    If you want to ask questions about the current mainstream theories, ask the question in the Q&A forum.

    If you want to challenge the mainstream view, and state it is incorrect and that you have an alternative theory that is better (which is what you have done), it should be posted here in the ATM forum. Here you don't ask questions of the mainstream view, you answer questions about your alternative theory.

    So, you have granted that most far galaxies are redshifted. In fact, all of them are redshifted and the redshift-distance relationship is not linear.

    Please explain these observations in terms of your "spin" idea.

Similar Threads

  1. A Galaxyís Bulge Divulges Its Spin
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-Apr-13, 12:00 AM
  2. Direction of spin in our Galaxy
    By BlueCoyote in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2010-Jun-28, 03:07 AM
  3. Galaxy Spin
    By jeff Mitchell in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-Jan-09, 03:10 PM
  4. Galaxy rotation: A bad spin
    By LouisH2RS in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 2007-Nov-02, 02:57 PM
  5. Reverse spin galaxy
    By Dunash in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2002-Feb-19, 10:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •