Galaxy Evolution

yeah, well neither does science when it comes to the nature of the universe and how life got here.
i have yet to see any computer models that can explain the formation of galaxies.
science has been completely unable to recreate life.
granted, i might have missed something . . . so show me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=formation of galaxies&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

nice set of search results but sadly no computer models.
it's one thing to say it, quite another to prove it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You were being honest before and now you aren't: science doesnt claim to already have all the answers, but in order for there to exist an alternative, there must first be a mainstream theory to disagree with. And you have acknowledged that mainstream theories exist, that you disagree with. You aren't just looking to plug holes here.

Conversely, for an alternate "theory" to be more than just a meaningless pseudophilosophical musing, it must quantitatively describe or predict something.

Science doesn't have all the answers - yet - but the path you support has none.

 

the laws of physics are easily programmed.
the trajectory of particles, likewise.

not just me.
respected sources and respected names have said it, not me.

what path might that be?

 

Well dry your eyes bunky and look at this.

There is a site on the internet called google. If you put in "computer model of galaxy formation" this is what you get. You should try this new fangled 'google' sometime.

 

Edit: apologies, Leopold, I didn't notice that you were picking up someone else's argument and going with it. So the relevance here may be thin as I'm not completely clear where you stand:

That has nothing to do with what I said. It's a red herring: an attempt to distract from the line of discussion by bringing up something unrelated.

I doubt that, but by your own admission, such sources would be non-mainstream, whether they are respected or not.

Looking for non-mainstream ideas/explanations.

 

oh my, a mod response to post 165.

according to the following website, these models rest on 2 basic assumptions.
there is such a thing as an cosmological constant, and dark matter.
has either of these been proved?
ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March08/Mayer/frames.html *

i don't know if you know much about computers but they can DEFINITELY pull off the humanly impossible.
the only bottleneck i can think of is rounding errors, and this can be reduced to almost zero with a suitable word length.

like i mentioned above, these models depend on 2 basic assumptions.

*edit:
this is what is displayed in the address box of my browser.

edit:
can someone explain these models in plain english?
for example:
how do these models differentiate between globular and disk?
what is the mechanism that causes that?

 

Looking back a few pages, it doesn't look like you ever got the scientific method down, so that question isn't surprising. It is unanswerable, because science doesn't completely prove anything. Or, if you prefer, the answer is always no.

But to be more specific: what is your point/why would it matter? You said models do not exist and they do. Could you acknowledge please that you are just shooting from the hip here?

Getting back to your issues with the scientific method:

You may perhaps be utilizing the wrong definition of "observation". In science, it is defined as:
"the action or process of observing something or someone carefully or in order to gain information."

You may be thinking of:
"a remark, statement, or comment based on something one has seen, heard, or noticed."

So you may be confusing the word "observation" with theory or hypothesis when in science an observation is simply something that you directly see or measure.

No, math is simply a language used to describe reality. It differs from other languages in that it is set up and used strictly for the purpose of conveying numerical logic. Other than "it is a fact that the math says..." it contains no facts. As you observed (definition #2), the output is only as good as the input.

Facts in science are things that are observed. But be careful with that because everything humans do is subject to potential error, including taking measurements. So in science, even the facts themselves are provisional.

 

yeah, right.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

how about a little insight to these models?

 

Ok: my insight is that your questions further indicate that you don't understand the purpose of a model or how they fit into the scientific method.

 

I believe this may be of interest to all when addressing the size and scope of our current universe.

http://www.numbersleuth.org/universe/

and then , imagine that all of the following stuff takes place in between

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o5FMTHkLQg

watch CDT do its stuff down to the "3D vagueness" at Planck scale.

 

relax trippy, no need to get your bowels in an uproar.

i wouldn't have asked te question if i knew.
it seems time would be invariant.

asking questions about an observation is the very essence of the method.

maybe.
what exactly is the magnitude of the problem?
the only thing i can come up with is "they" simply don't know.

i think it's important to know how these things work because BOTH SETS of galaxies must be able to form under the same set of laws.

 

What is your problem? You could easily look up this information if you wanted to. But gaining knowledge does not seem to be your goal. It seems that you just want to ask questions until, you find a question to which the answer is not known. Then you can say, "ah ha science doesn't have the answer so I can dismiss all science and substitude craziness". Very strange...:shrug:

 

You should listen to Id. Once you accept that you have no clue on this subject matter then you can read some of the literature physbang linked for you and 'step up' and learn something. Lotsa fun once you get into it.

 

well in any event i believe one computer model should explain ALL of the observable universe.
i'm still interested in the mechanism that forms one galaxy over another.

another thing:
like fraggle said, instead of everyone saying "you have no clue" why don't you provide some.

 

Then google it fer chrisake! After that we can begin discussing what you found.