A pair of interacting galaxies


Including an asteroid discovered in 1999 :slight_smile:

1 Like

Please define “interacting” as it relates to these objects please.

I’d say the tidal wakes spreading out from both galaxies would indicate a gravitational interaction, no?

No, there are estimated 2 trillion galaxies. They arise from emergent processes and we see that as pairs of fission objects.

I don’t see what that has to do with anything. These two galaxies appear to have some interaction with one another, giving rise to the diverging tidal streams.

Incidentally, I have been reading some of your other posts about fission pairs, so I did some further reading. According to a Harvard review on the evolution of galaxies:

“It is now generally accepted, however, that simple fission - the division of a cloud into just two fragments - is impossible.”



Thank you for your comment. Is Harvard our final authority? How does Harvard explain 2 trillion galaxies in the cosmos without an emergent processes where objects part to resemble “fission” pairs - a semantic term we can
use to describe the final phase of the emergent process?
Btw, interesting reference; is there a sanskrit version? What is your response to the 2 trillion object question?
Here’s a more recent interpretation of the Harvard blurb:
“The team inferred that the signal was emitted 13.3 billion years ago (or 500 million years after the Big Bang), making it the most distant oxygen ever detected by any telescope. The presence of oxygen is a clear sign that there must have been even earlier generations of stars in this galaxy.”
The maturity of the stars seen in MACS1149-JD1 raises the question of when the very first galaxies emerged from total darkness, an epoch astronomers romantically term “cosmic dawn”. By establishing the age of MACS1149-JD1, the team has effectively demonstrated that galaxies existed earlier than those we can currently directly detect.

There is no “final authority” on research into the natural realm of the universe, there are only theories and tests of those theories. The Harvard document considers the differing theories that have been proposed about the evolution of galaxies and explains what subsequent work has been done (by others) to test those theories. Their comment about the simple fission of a larger precursor galaxy into just two components now being considered to be impossible (by others who have studied the dynamics of such systems) is not the word of some “final authority” it is the current state of understanding of things (or at least, it was at the time the document was written) put down into a review article on the subject.

I fail to see what your repeated reference to 2 trillion galaxies has to do with my original comment that these two galaxies are interacting. I did not postulate anything about what causes the interaction, I merely observed that these two galaxies are in relatively close proximity to one another and hence are affecting one another. I regarded that as an “interesting object” which is why I posted it. I leave it to others like yourself who are perhaps more involved in the ongoing study of the subject to draw whatever conclusions they might like to about the nature of the interaction. Personally, I don’t know enough about the subject to have an opinion on it one way or another - I am just looking at the universe and pointing out features that I find interesting and which I consider may be of interest to others.

But thanks for the comments, all the same.


I also fail to see “2 trillion” as some sort of definite proof of any theory of galaxy formation. I’m going to guess that that is a predicted number of galaxies within our observable universe. Have you also calculated the comoving volume of that observable universe? It is big, and full of gas and dark matter. It’s easy to make galaxies.

Is there a paper you can point to that outlines this fission theory? Honestly the idea is one I have never heard of. The standard picture these days is that, rather than splitting apart, galaxies are constantly merging together to build larger galaxies over time. This is backed up by extensive N-body dark matter simulations, and by the statistics that we see more massive galaxies in recent time.



The data I’ve seen is all negative, but publishable, about fictional “mergers” see Darg etal. And no, you don’t produce more objects by removing their numbers by combining them Schawinski et al. And where did you get the objects in the first place to make them vanish?
Write me at joinpep@yahoo.com. I can give more info by email.

Please give years or more details for these references. Schawinski has over 50 first-author papers. :slight_smile:

And no, I don’t think I will be writing you an email for more details :slight_smile:



The standard model for galaxy formation is that gas collapses to form a galaxy inside a dark matter halo. The early universe produces plenty of dark matter halos thanks to density perturbations that grow under the effects of gravity. Over time, larger dark matter halos and their galaxies accrete smaller ones, leading to, among other things, starbursts, and streams and tails from tidal interactions. These things are easy to see and to reproduce in simulations using known physics.



Simulating more emergent processes isn’t necessary? There are plenty of examples if you look for them. Does anyone here have a monopoly on cosmology?
Be glad we have a planet with humanity and all people are allowed to discuss their opinions. Well, most anyway.
Are you astronomers? Review this paper? As an independent, published member of the astronomy community you can help us submit our bias-free paper by endorsing the article here
https://arxiv.org/auth/endorse?x=KQIAHL . Another paper with expanded families and cltg will follow soon.

As a scientist myself (but not an astronomer) I have published several papers presenting a theory that contradicts “established wisdom” on a subject. As someone who has been there and done it - successfully I may add - I would offer you a little advice.

Present your theory in as positive a manner as you can. If you want to challenge what others believe AND have them listen to you, you need to adopt a less confrontational manner. Raising challenges of others’ opinions by simply asking rhetorical questions over and over, rather than maintaining a focused discussion on a particular topic and presenting new evidence to support your contrary theory, will get you nowhere with the scientific community.

And if you don’t care about that and are simply interested in adopting the posting tactics of a troll, I suggest there are more suitable forums for you to visit than this one.

(Thanks for prompting me to find SciTechDaily by the way - it contains links to loads of interesting data from real astronomers. So to respond to your statement "The data I’ve seen is all negative, but publishable, about fictional “mergers” " I would point you to this one that is an observation of galaxies MERGING in the early universe - not breaking apart - which seems to be your hobbyhorse).

1 Like


Please write to Mr Ivison and ask him about this translation: “Using the combined data the team discovered that the background system was actually an emergent process [ongoing collision between] of two galaxies.” of his negative emergent data.
And how “This [beautiful] study [catches a galaxy merger red handed as it triggers] captured an early example of an emergent process, not unlike those we see in our more ‘local’ cosmos, with [an] extreme starburst.” this starburst activity differs from thousands of others?
May we see his evidence that discriminates between the possibilities?

I would suggest that you write to him with your questions, since you are the one expressing the interest in his study.

Would you care to present us with any of YOUR evidence that justifies your persistent challenging of current thought on galactic evolution? So far all you have done is raise rhetorical questions - you haven’t presented a jot of substantiation to justify your continued participation in this forum.

Either present something tangible to support your predisposition towards your own theory of galactic evolution or go away please. You are becoming a nuisance.

1 Like

There is at least one really good reason to expect galaxies to merge and not to split apart: gravity plus dark matter. Simulations have been showing this for decades. If you’re arguing something different – and frankly I don’t even know what you’re arguing, because you’re just using your own jargon – then you’re going to need some pretty strong evidence and some kind of theoretical basis for it.


http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr14/en/tools/explore/Summary.aspx?id=1237663783142752282 is a solo object with starburst activity.
I think we all know (most all) theories change about every 50 years or so. And as I said, there are papers that present admittedly negative data and we are offering another interpretation. That doesn’t make it some kind of ‘carved in stone’ fact that there is only one interpretation.
And if I am I reading your threat correctly, that this site does not tolerate speculative interpretations - in that case why don’t you go after every discussion that doesn’t meet those standards?
No one is challenging your subjective standards of cosmology but, you have to admit, those ideals of yours don’t hold up to the intense scrutiny you imply is manifest here.
Don’t sell yourself and others short by cutting off discussion. We can explore options without impugning the science or anyone involved with the discussion.
If you stifle discussions that is not science. Please be advised about discussions:
Conduct Towards Others
All people encountered in one’s professional life should be treated with respect. At no time is abusive behavior acceptable. Scientists should work to provide an environment that encourages the free expression and exchange of scientific ideas. They should promote equality of opportunity and treatment for all their colleagues, regardless of gender, race, ethnic and national origin, religion, age, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities, or any other reason not related to scientific merit.
This principle is clearly stated in our By-Laws (aas.org/governance/bylaws).

You know, collectively you can organize a series of papers from this venue about this topic demonstrating how amateur observers of astronomy find (flaws) issues with publications and interpretations of object inception evolution and other issues.

You certainly wouldn’t want people to visit and lie just to be acceptable participants.

Yes, isolated objects can also have star formation. And AGN. :slight_smile:

I don’t see anyone stifling discussion here, but if you feel you have been wronged, please contact the site moderator (who is me).