The spiral pattern shown by the galaxy in this image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope is striking because of its delicate, feathery nature. These “flocculent” spiral arms indicate that the recent history of star formation of the galaxy, known as NGC 2775, has been relatively quiet. There is virtually no star formation in the central part of the galaxy, which is dominated by an unusually large and relatively empty galactic bulge, where all the gas was converted into stars long ago.
NGC 2275 is classified as a flocculent spiral galaxy, located 67 million light-years away in the constellation of Cancer.
Millions of bright, young, blue stars shine in the complex, feather-like spiral arms, interlaced with dark lanes of dust. Complexes of these hot, blue stars are thought to trigger star formation in nearby gas clouds. The overall feather-like spiral patterns of the arms are then formed by shearing of the gas clouds as the galaxy rotates. The spiral nature of flocculents stands in contrast to the grand design spirals, which have prominent, well-defined spiral arms.
Or could the flocculent shape be something else entirely? Let’s explore that possibility. One view of String Theory suggests that galaxy centers are branes (dimensional membranes), not Black Holes, and that galaxy formation may be a repeating process starting as a barred spiral, then spiral, then elliptical, then back to barred spiral. These flocculent galaxies may be spiral galaxies that are changing into elliptical galaxies, with remnants of the spiral arms seen as the “feathers”. Specifics and details may be seen in my YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p949fSZVVLM
You have quite an imagination…not much actual education in science, but quite an imagination.
Thank you for complimenting my imagination. I have a Ph.D. in science education, taught computer science and software engineering at the University of Maryland for 27 years, and worked as a contracting computer scientist at NASA for 14 years. I am deficient in the math used in String Theory.
No view of the string theory, as proposed by anyone with education in astrophysics or theoretical physics, posits that galactic centers are branes.
BTW, you might also “like” my novel idea about Dark Energy in a YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epk-SMXbu1c&t=1s
I’d be very interested in why that idea can’t work.
Yes, I haven’t seen any astrophysicist or theoretical physicist suggest that branes are at the centers of galaxies. But why can’t they be? I’ve asked such professionals and have gotten no specifics, only a brush-off.
Here’s my theory:
1. Big bang happens.
2. Mater skaters in all directions.
3. Mutual gravity pulls mater together in sufficient quantities to make stars.
4. Big stars turn into black holes.
5. Black holes and stars combing in various collisions, turning their linear momentum into angular momentum. This is because of black holes dragging spacetime with them as they spin.
6. As this merging occurs the spin rate of black holes increases, and most galactic supermassive black holes turn into Penrose black holes (no longer a point singularity, but a tourrious shaped singularity).
7. The spin rates of these penrose black holes continue to increase, and get bigger. (This is where we are now)
8. Finally, one faithful day, two Penrose black holes merge, and merge in just the right way to cause the Penrose singularity torus to spin fast enough to protrude through the event horizon, AND !
9. KABOOM!! New big bang.
That’s my theory, and I’m sticking to it.
??……but doesn’t matter have to scatter after the big bang?
I just love it when theory, imagination and knowledge all come together. What a wonderful universe we could all discover.
I think when i bust my nut we get the big bang well thats what she said
HUGE PROBLEMS WITH BIG BANG THEORY
by Babu G. Ranganathan*
Big Bang scientists extrapolate a hypothetical scenario from a few facts. Yes, some galaxies are expanding, moving further away (Red shift), but this is not the case with the entire universe. There are galaxies in the universe running perpendicular to the rest of the galaxies, and there are galaxies even running towards us (Blue shift). All this is contrary to Big Bang. Also, if Big Bang really occurred, there should be a uniform distribution of gasses.
The uniform distribution of gasses throughout the universe would have made sure that the gasses didn’t have enough gravitational attraction to form into planets and stars. The hypothesis of dark matter providing enough gravitational force has been increasingly discredited.
Big Bang scientists have never proved the existence of dark matter. They only assume that it exists. The latest technologies to detect dark matter have come up empty. Big Bang scientists must hope that dark matter exists so that it would provide enough gravitational force for planets, stars, and galaxies to form.
Big Bang scientists believe that dark matter can be the only gravitational explanation for how galaxies behave. However, other scientists have successfully shown an alternative explanation to dark matter known as MOND, which stands for Modified Newtonian Dynamics. In other words, it is not necessary to believe that 80% of the universe must be made up of dark matter in order to explain certain behavior and movement of galaxies.
However, “the (galactic) structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM (Cold Dark Matter) did exist, it could not account for their formation” (Dr. Duane T. Gish, “The Big Bang Theory Collapses.” Furthermore, an explosion cannot explain the precise orbits and courses of thousands of billions of stars in billions of galaxies. Gravity may explain how that order is maintained, but mere gravity cannot explain the origin of that order!
The disorder in the universe can be explained because of chance and random processes, but the order can be explained only because of intelligence and design.
Some evolutionary astronomers believe that trillions of stars crashed into each other leaving surviving stars to find precise orderly orbits in space. Not only is this irrational, but if there was such a mass collision of stars then there would be a super mass residue of gas clouds in space to support this hypothesis. The present level of residue of gas clouds in space doesn’t support the magnitude of star deaths required for such a hypothesis. And, as already stated, the origin of stars cannot be explained by the Big Bang because of the reasons mentioned above. It’s one thing to say that stars may decay and die into random gas clouds, but it is totally different to say that gas clouds form into stars.
Read the Internet article, ‘SMOKING GUN’ PROOF OF BIG BANG ALREADY IN DOUBT by creationist and scientist Dr. Jake Hebert. Most people don’t realize how much disagreement there is among evolutionary scientists concerning their own theories. The media doesn’t report those details, at least not to any substantial extent.
Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION
Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS
*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I’ve been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who in The East” for my writings on religion and science.
Can one of you know it alls explain
Where the coldness in the universe came
From?.It could not come from the big bang how can the universe start with big bang if it is expanding into something that is part of the universe.
More of a question, maybe a dumb one, but i am knew to this. Do all galaxies spin the same way?
Hey here’s a thought why not use a model of an exploding star as a model of how the big band looked not all stars that explode leave residue scattered around in equal amounts ever think of it that way??just curios
What I could never understand is why so much matter is produced from nothing to make the stars and the planets if space was empty beforehand. Everything that we know is clearly closer to our imagination than actual facts do to our own perspective as young as we are in comparison to even the youngest part of the universe that we look up to nightly hoping to see the answers unfold.
I have a personal theory myself about the universe it self. Have you heard of a (ultra organism)No? Because I made that up. I’ll explain?! Let’s take stranger things for a example.. the demogorgons were known as a superorganism because what affected the main base affected all the demogorgon’s when they set fire to the superorganism.. take our cells for exp) if we die, they die, if the universe cease to exist everything in it would also die (therefore) we are all connected like the demogorgon’s. I can go into much more detail an explanation I’m going to try to make this as simple as possible the point is is that the universe I believe is a living organism for everything is affected by the universe as to the demogorgon’s were affected by the fire as to our own blood cells perishing when we die(etc) so yes, what im saying is that the universe is a ultra organism, in order for life to exist in it life has to exist itself) Now I would like to also throw another personal theory called dimensional inhabiting. This one is very interesting but I don’t wanna throw out all my personal theories.. so if people are interested please contact my email provided. My theories are all based on the basic laws of science(we inherit the laws that we inhabit)