/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5433697]

Greetings /sci/.

Is 13.7 billion years enough time for the formation milky way as it is now since it's only about 50 galaxy rotations?

I read a comment on Slashdot claiming that 13.7 billion years is not long enough.

[Anonymous No.5433703]

>I read a comment on Slashdot claiming that 13.7 billion years is not long enough.
>a comment on Slashdot
If something so trivial can affect your view about the universe it simply means you know absolutely nothing about it. And so even if you get an answer here it's completely pointless because we could lie out of our ass and you wouldn't know the difference

[Anonymous No.5433708]

the universe is at least 47million years old based on star charts, planetary movements, and i had oatmeal for breakfast.

[Anonymous No.5433742]

>>5433703
No. Something so trivial doesn't affect my view of the universe. I just wanted to know why 13.7 billion years really is time enough for the formation of the milky way as it is.

On the other hand, unhelpful comments such as yours reinforce my opinion that /sci/ is almost as bad as /b/ and that the Internet is full of unhelpful smartasses.

Have a good day, sir.

[Anonymous No.5433750]

>>5433697
>dat pic

I had to create a new folder named "edgy" to save it.

[Anonymous No.5433764]

>>5433750
There's a black and white version. I think it's the original, which someone colored.

[Anonymous No.5435469]

>>5433697

Why would 50 rotations be not enough? It has to be some number. When you spin a top its pretty stable by the 5th spin...

[Anonymous No.5435479]

>>5433697
No, of course not. 13.7 billion years was just a wild guess by some crazy scientist back in the 30'. It has long since been disproven by the Bible.

[Anonymous No.5435496]

>>5435469
This man knows whats up

[Anonymous No.5435501]

>>5435479
lel

[Anonymous No.5435588]

>>5433697

Early galaxies no doubt started small, and therefore with faster rotations. As the proto-galaxy accrued matter it imparted its spin to the larger and larger accretion disk. So there could have been thousands of early galactic rotations during the lifetime of the milky way.

Furthermore the 250 million year long galactic year only counts for the outer arms, the inner galaxy spins faster.

[Anonymous No.5435611]

I don't believe in the Milky Way Galaxy so I don't think your question is well formed.

[Anonymous No.5435638]

>>5433703 >If something so trivial

>Trivial

I don't think that's fair.

-----

Regardless, time scales seem weird when you don't understand them fully.

Something as tiny as Earth allegedly took 4.5 billion years where the entirety of the universe is allegedly 13.7 billion years.

For about the third of the time of known existence, the local universe has been doing nothing exciting. Our solar system must have been fairly stable to start spinning the planets together and since then nothing, we have a handful of tiny balls...

If we found a star that could live longer than the universe how would we fix the dating problem?

[Anonymous No.5435641]

>>5435611

So what is your cosmological model?

(Even if you're trolling, I'm curious where you're going with this)

[Anonymous No.5435864]

>>5435638
>If we found a star that could live longer than the universe how would we fix the dating problem?

There can't be a star that lives longer than the universe, by definition. I have no idea what you're asking.

[Anonymous No.5435905]

>>5435638
>If we found a star that could live longer than the universe how would we fix the dating problem?

I'm glad you made this point. The very fact that such a discovery would blow the universal timeline apart is exactly what makes it such sound scientific theory.

If statements are immune to emerging evidence then they are not truly scientific, and you are left with such work as is done by 'new earth creationists'.

One illustration of my point is that if a single bird fossil was found below the level of dinosaur fossils, the theory of evolution would be blown to smithereens . however regardless of the evidence, the bible can be made consistent with the fossil record by saying that during noah's flood different species bloated and sank at different times. then when a bird is found below a dinosaur a creationist can change his story easily by saying everything drowned at the same time.

tl;dr if a theory is immune to possible future discoveries blowing them apart then they are not 'good' science

[Anonymous No.5435906]

>>5435641

lol, 'even if' he's trolling. GL HF

[Anonymous No.5436360]

>>5435496
>man

[Anonymous No.5436614]

>>5435905
>tl;dr if a theory is immune to possible future discoveries blowing them apart then they are not 'good' science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[Anonymous No.5438579]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_year

[Anonymous No.5441197]

>>5433764
he was being sarcastic