Sky Merger - Interacting And Colliding Galaxies

[callmecoco]

Stop with the "christians don't believe this" crap... maybe a few refuse to believe (catholic higher ups for centuries comes to mind) but tell me where in the Bible does it say that God only created 1 earth and 1 civilization... btw because you seem ignorant, 'Christian' means that that person believes Jesus is their personal Lord. lol, try to make christians look bad even though you yourself, have no clue of the matter that you speak.

[WaiWu]

amazing how scientists can design something that gives us such good images from far away...

Not trying to start any flame war..but Christians you're not welcome here... why can't you just be buddist or hindu and leave your mind at peace?

[VirtRampage]

imagine all the life forms that died in those galaxys

[Swamoez0rs]

Sounds kinda "messy".. to think life could easily (theoretically) arise on planets orbitting a star in such a galaxy.

[Swamoez0rs]

@Swamoez0rs nevertheless ;) this stuff blows my mind!

[nickharvey7]

Very beautiful!

These galaxies must form their own spacetime symmetry and geometry. In my video The Paradox of Schrodingers Cat an artist view Light or EMR has symmetry that forms the geometry of spacetime. Could this explain the paradoxes of quantum physics?

[ShadeheartTheSouless]

Ohh i love watching this on full screen its so beautiful... and it is very informative thanks for the upload!

[showABCshow]

Nice uploads keep up good work.

[NekoD3m0n]

The question on my mind is how much life died during that collision?

[Gazarai]

Probably none.

[Artopunk14]

The space between stars in a galaxy is so vast that even when two galaxy's collide the chances of actual stars colliding is still very low.

[puncheex]

@Artopunk14Yes, that's true, but there can be a vast increase in gamma and xray radiation, nearby supernova and GRBs. Whole areas of the galaxies could change enough to void life in them. In our (and likely other solar system cases) the gravitational disturbance from a nearby passing star could cause a large influx of comets into the inner solar system from the Oort cloud.

[nodlon20]

@Artopunk14 That does tend to sound scary!

But I believe that God has made all things harmonious, because I see God as LOVE. Love must be harmonious to work. So even when it seems dangerous out there and galaxies colliding, there's got to be a Grand Purpose in it! This is SO BEAUTIFUL!! I'm glad we have the Hubble, seeing all these beautiful creations of the Great Creator nearly brings tears to my eyes! So beautiful! It's like having Christmas lights in the heavens 365 days a year! :-)

[VirtRampage]

@nodlon20 sheesh... go pray

[monhiver]

Thanks great video with lots of info.

[munky000527]

4:15 is amazing.

[jebus6kryst]

Beautiful images.

[zx1011]

Isnt the universe wonderful-like all those galaxies n stuff-and cheese of course-i like cheese-chedder if at all possible but if thats not available I will sometimes consider those shiny processed slices that come wrapped in plastic-i definitely prefer chedder tho-i wonder if theres a galaxy made of chedder cheese...

[xtiger357]

why u remove my comment?

[devourerofbabies]

3:57 GIANT SILVER PENIS

[bangNL94]

¬_¬

[bangNL94]

Wow, what if there is a civilization on one of those 2 galaxy's and they are like "wtf we're all gonna die!" and they say "yeah it must be gods will so fuck it"

[creamsykle]

These kinds of mergers take 10 of millions of years. Being part of it would seem relatively calm. If you were alive millions of years from now when this will happen to our galaxy, you would barley even notice, and since stars here are light years apart, chances of star collision are slim. Don't get me wrong, provided we still exist then there will be some chance of this causing serious destruction to our solar system, but a very small chance. The overall process is very very slow.

[bangNL94]

oh thanks, i thought that because the two super massive black holes were so close together, the process would go much faster then you just described

[Pirwzwhomper]

We wouldn't notice other than the night sky would surely be exceedingly bright, what with Andromeda being RIGHT THERE. :D

[lmh86]

Rambunctious? Big words, Dr. J.

[SayYesToReason]

Re: wakenagel...

Imagine what the view in their night sky would look like!

[ModelAnarchist]

wakeangel, that was a very interesting and insightful inquisition

[wakeangel2001]

I wonder if any intelligent life evolved in those tidal tails, what would their view of the universe be? There would be mostly young stars in their neighborhood of space, but the bulk of their galaxy would be distantly separated from them, perhaps leading them to believe they aren't actually part of it.

[SteelBalor]

If there was ever life on those tails it would be long dead by now, Does any one know how far away this galaxiey is?

[supergiuovane]

It's a pretty nearby one, only 250 million light-years

[ObakeOnna]

I was actually wondering if there is any possibility of rocky worlds appearing in that tail at all. There was some recent news on stars forming near the edge of the galaxy being unable to form planets before their gas disks get blown away. I wonder if the same is true with these stars.

[wwickeddogg]

Are christians allowed to believe in other galaxies?

[faraz1729]

As long as they all revolve around Earth and contain no life.

[Mithcoriel]

And as long as they're less than 6000 lighyears away, or the photons were created en route to earth.

[doaftheloaf]

@faraz1729 and are within 6000 light-years...

[ModelAnarchist]

hahaha

[HardstyleMatt]

Other Galaxies have been proved to exist.

So if a Christian decides to not believe in something that has been proved. They are silly.

It's like saying "The monitor you're looking at Emits light"

Then someone else says "No it doesn't cause it's against my religion"

Even though it actually does. Meaning the Religious person is stupid.

Where as if someone accepts to believe something that is proved. Then it's Ok.

Works with anything really

[wwickeddogg]

@HardstyleMatt Well, being silly isn't really a bad thing, so it is ok for Christians to believe in nonsense because it is only silly not bad.

[nodlon20]

@wwickeddogg lol!! Whay wouldn't God NOT want us to see his beautiful creation?? If that were the case the Wise Men wouldn't have been seeing a star in the heavens!! Mankind would NOT have the ability to even make the Hubble telescope! Of course God wants us to explore His beautiful creation!! Someday we will look out from other planets upon the Universe. It's mankind's destiny and God wants to share it with us!!

[wwickeddogg]

@nodlon20 seems pretty unlikely since god didn't creat land on any other planets. I like how you think that a myth written a couple thousand years ago is actually the true explanation for the existence of the world, but as you get a little more mature you will realize that believing in fairytales does not make them come true.

[danieldeibler]

@wwickeddogg Why wouldn't Christians be allowed to believe in other galaxies? I mean, they're created on the first page of the Bible.

[wwickeddogg]

@danieldeibler lol, which version? Anyway, since I searched them all and no mention of galaxies, you are either full of shit or you believe that god was incapable of explaining himself and used the wrong word. Do you believe god said 'stars' when he meant galaxies, or maybe 'vegetation'? The best part is that when god "created" heaven and earth there was still no land, but water was apparently all over the place. [[ : ~ { > ASCII Mo!

[danieldeibler]

@wwickeddogg *facepalm* Alright, let me drag you through this concept. Here's some simple logic. Premises: A. Each galaxy consists of stars and stellar remnants. B. Stellar remnants were stars. C. God created all stars. D. Creating the constituent parts of a thing is creating that thing. Conclusion: E. God created each galaxy. . Since C is part of the hypothetical, we're assuming for the argument that it's true. Otherwise, this is pointless. Which premise, A, B, or D, do you have a problem with?

[wwickeddogg]

@danieldeibler I reject premise A. Galaxies also contain planets, comets, meteorites, black holes, gas clouds, etc. Since god did not create any of those other items, god could not have created the galaxy. I reject premises B and C. Stars existed prior to the sun so they could not have been created at the same time. Some stars had collapsed into black holes prior to the existence of the sun and could not have been created at the same time. Therefore, god could not have created all stars.

[danieldeibler]

@wwickeddogg

None of those are necessary for something to be considered a galaxy. If you're going to skew how you interpret things to try to make them support your argument, whether they logically should or not, then you're interested in pushing an agenda, not drawing logical conclusions.You already have a fixed position and will reject logical arguments that contradict it. It is clear now that you weren't asking for logical discussion, but rather just making an fallacious swipe at Christianity.

[wwickeddogg]

@danieldeibler necessary?  Galaxies contain things not created by god, whether or not those things are necessary for a galaxy to be called a galaxy is a philosophical question that does not need to be answered in order to see the answer to the factual question about the creation of those galaxies. Do you want to tell me that anything within a galaxy not created by god was actually created by satan to confound us?

[danieldeibler]

@wwickeddogg So by you're...ahem..."logic"...God doesn't exist because the King James Bible doesn't explicitly state that "...and on the eighth day, God created Cadmium and it was good, and on the ninth day, God created the Kit Kat Big Kat bar, and it was very good, and on the tenth day, God created that thing where you're walking and someone's wallking towards you and you each try to step aside but you both go the same way, and on the eleventh day, God created Seinfeld, and on the twelfth d..."

[wwickeddogg]

@danieldeibler lol, right exactly, that is the same thing. Because the bible says that god created stars, then there must be a real god who actually created galaxies. You are a real joker, first you make a claim about the world, then you justify it by claiming that it is in the bible, then when it is not there you pretend I'm the one making ridiculous claims. god does not exist, there is no heaven, and jesus was the bastard son of a whore.

[danieldeibler]

@wwickeddogg I didn't make any claims about the world. The funny thing is, you really seem to think you're arguing with someone of a philosophical viewpoint different than yours, when in reality you're only arguing with someone who saw horribly flawed (read "absent") logic with a bunch of thumbs up and wished to call attention to it.

[wwickeddogg]

@danieldeibler Here is the point: anyone who believes that god exists is mistaken about premise 1, therefore all conclusions that they come to are not valid despite the soundness of their logic and the truth of any other premises. People who believe in god are not trust worthy because they will believe something without evidence.

You claim that god created galaxies. Your claim is false.

[danieldeibler]

@wwickeddogg What does that have to do with galaxies?

[danieldeibler]

@wwickeddogg I never claimed God created galaxies. I asked you how you figured Christians might not be allowed to believe in galaxies. You don't even know what this conversation was about.

[wwickeddogg]

@danieldeibler lol, your argument is right on the bottom of this page, anyone who reads it can see you are a liar, good luck with that.

"E. God created each galaxy."

[danieldeibler]

@wwickeddogg *facepalm*

You don't understand logic, do you? E is a valid conclusion if A, B, C, and D are true. C was hypothetical. In fact it says that in the same comment you quoted. Way to leave that part out. See, this is the problem with people like you. You make us look like idiots. Deists get into conversations with people like you, and they think we're all as ignorant as you are. Do you really believe people don't notice when you improperly take things out of context? Learn logic, please

[wwickeddogg]

@danieldeibler Lol, you admit that your conclusion is false and then blame me for bad logic. I disagreed with each and every premise in your "argument", as you can see in my response.

The problem with you is that you are wrong, admit you are wrong, then keep talking like no one can read your earlier comments. I know that I made you look like an idiot, because you are an idiot. Do the other people in the library get upset when you yell at the computer?

[OAbrey]

@wwickeddogg OK gentlemen, you may not have been taught this in sunday school... Creation and Evolution need not be so far apart. While some fundamentalists are ridiculed for taking the Bible literally and rightly so, others understand that when reading anything, we automatically consider context, audience, and form (ie prose, poetry, narrative etc). Unfortunately while we do this for most literature automatically, we don't in considering Gen. 1. Science as we know it didn't exist back then.

[OAbrey]

@wwickeddogg To think of a piece of literature which may be as old as 4,000 years old, and impose a post Renaissance/Enlightenment view of science on it, is to do violence to the text. Even the most rigid literalist would read "The eyes of the lord go to and fro among the earth" and realize that is metaphorical. And was meant to be read as such. God doesn't have anthropomorphic features like "eyes" and they don't have legs that wander to and fro across the face of the earth.

[wwickeddogg]

@OAbrey What text are you talking about? The question is whether or not Odin exists.

[OAbrey]

Respond to this video... The thing that everyone should take to reading anything, is one that takes what was meant to be taken literally, literally. And what was meant to be taken figuratively, figuratively. Genesis 1 displays classical, ancient poetic form. They didn't consider rhyming back then, but looked at parallelisms instead. Like for example, the parallels between the first 3 days of creation and the last three. Write them down and see for your self. The form is poetic

[OAbrey]

Respond to this video... Finally, to what ever extent fundamentalists are criticized for being literalists, The opposing view fails by actually doing the same thing. Taking the scripture literally, when it was *meant to be taken figuratively. When Christians do so, there are no restrictions to creation in the universe. And for agnostics, there is no threat and no reason to fight.

Peace.

[wwickeddogg]

@OAbrey I'm pretty sure I disagree with you, but that is only because you seem to believe that all agnostics are not atheists by definition.

Agnostic means that you believe that you do not know if god exists, therefore you do not believe that god exists, therefore you are atheists.

[OAbrey]

@wwickeddogg I am familiar with that argument and it is disingenuous. It was invented because Atheists didn't want to admit their belief there is no god was a BELIEF. An agnostic has not precluded one way or the other, so could be convinced without prejudice. An Atheist must over come his prejudice in order to be convinced against his will.

[wwickeddogg]

@OAbrey Try again.

Atheist = person who does not believe in god.

Show me an agnostic who believes in god and you can prove your argument otherwise you are full of shit. All agnostics are atheists.

[OAbrey]

@wwickeddogg An agnostic would not say there is no God. The Atheist would. 400 years of philosophy needs be overturned for your assertion to be true, and I don't think somebody named: wwickeddogg will do it. An agnostic realizes he cannot know everything in the cosmos, or beyond multi-dimensional space. So he refuses to make such an arrogant claim that he knows there is no God. He is merely stating, if God exists, I haven't found him yet. Only a thorough inductively derived conclusion

[wwickeddogg]

@OAbrey Maybe you don't even understand the etymology of the word atheist. Do you think an atheist can believe only one god does not exist? "I am atheistic about all gods except jesus." Do you think an atheist makes claims about gods he has no knowledge of? Does a child who has no knowledge of god believe that no god exists, or does the child simply not have a belief in god? You are a pompous jackass.

[OAbrey]

@wwickeddogg I am sorry, I thought I was debating with someone who was educated enough to know the language, English. Or at least enough to know the letter "a" in front of "thesist" means non at all, not what you pick and choose. You just defined yourself as a "Polytheist", Every man can believe as they will.

[wwickeddogg]

@OAbrey So you admit that atheist means someone who does not believe in god, yet you argue that it means someone who believes there is no god.

At least you admit to being a lying hypocrite, good luck running your bull shit on someone else.

[OAbrey]

cont... where logically a circle is drawn around all that's knowable. If God is in the circle he would no longer be an agnostic. If God was not in that circle he may convert and become an atheist, after making extra sure his circle is big enough.

However, this is the problem of Man, some are know-it-alls, but aren't. Others are maybe a bit more humble, recognize they can't know it all, but remain open to nature and what it can teach, and God on a different plane.

[wwickeddogg]

@OAbrey Wrong again buddy, atheists do not believe in god. All agnostics are atheists, they just argue that atheists believe that there is no god. An atheist is someone who does not believe in god.

Theists are so blinded by their own faith they forget there is a difference between a belief in a god and a belief in their god.

[doaftheloaf]

@wwickeddogg if they believe the universe is 6000 years old, they can't even believe in the edge or middle of our own...

[thexmario]

@wwickeddogg Well you know God is sci-fi as well as Religion. I think they can.

[OAbrey]

@wwickeddogg are they allowed to believe their eyes?

[wwickeddogg]

@OAbrey Unfortunately, that seems to be impossible for them.

[allison8914]

amazing indeed

[gonyea12]

I wonder if Islamic fundamentalists even know that these things exist.

[Rizwan151]

Yes, actually early Islamic cities were the hub for the majority of scientific research during the years 800-1200.

Many of the major contributions were toward astronomy, one of which being the preservation and expansion of writings on which Copernicus was able to base his research for the theory of the heliocentric model.

(That the Earth orbits the sun, as opposed to vice-versa)

[NicosMind]

Are we not colliding with Andromena already? I thought we were in the process of doing that. Oh well. I suppose we might collide is a million times better than we are coliding :)

[niiidar]

We're still far away from andromeda.

[MitsuomiTakayanagiEC]

we are and we will but it's a long time off yet

[mordinvan]

I thought we were going to hit it, but just haven't done so yet. I could be wrong though.

[Borzo2K]

When galaxies colide is less violent then it seems :P (stars colliding that is)

Its just as the galaxies in this movie.. gravity pulling and throwing mass between the two :)

stars colliding should be few and far apart.

Thats what andromedaswake says anyways.

And i trust him on it ^^

[svaught32]

I read that we are on a crash course with M31 that's in the Andromeda constellation. It says we would collide with it in about 2 billion years.

[NicosMind]

Scary like. Store your tins and prepare your bunker lol

[luckystrke]

cool animation. would be useful to have a counter of years, in millions maybe, to get the feel of the timespan.

[iDeist]

But can it play Crysis?

[ReverendAtomSmasher]

...or Halo?

[xtiger357]

andromeda galaxy is in fact on direct collision with milky way, its the matter of time untill they both collide

[Abengoshis]

A matter of time AND gravity...

[puncheex]

Ummmmm...not exactly. While it is relatively easy to measure the component of net velocity that is toward or away from us, we haven't had enough high resolution baseline over time to interpret what the lateral velocity is. We are already in gravitational interaction, and certainly will more closely approach each other in the next 3 billion years; the question of how closely we will approach, and what exactkly will constitute a "collision" is so far unanswered.

[defect530]

haha 12 thumbs down for saying first. you fail. =)

[Mithcoriel]

Ya, seriously. People sayin "first" is just dumb, sorry.