How is it that spiral galaxies don't spiral?

JohnD70X7 · Jan 19, 2026

Larniavc said:
So the Christians on this, a Christian website who are cosmologists , astrophysicists etc are not real Christians?

I'm wondering if you are for real?

JohnD70X7 · Jan 19, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Just so you know, calling a science a religion is against the rules of this subforum and is considered flaming.

And putting words in other people's mouth is trolling.
I never said science is a religion. I said those who foist science fiction upon the science are exercising blind faith in that science fiction. Blind faith is the very definition of religion / religious practice.

JohnD70X7 · Jan 19, 2026

Jipsah said:
whales speak Korean at the bottom of the sea. Prove they don't.

Sure. Common sense. Any fool knows better.

JohnD70X7 · Jan 19, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
We can measure the orbits of stars rotating with the disk of our Galaxy.

You reveal yourself and your low character.

You say we can measure the orbits of stars, but can we? What evidence have you cited or even seen yourself?

And the topic, BTW is about the spiral arms not the overall plain of the galaxy.

Trying to redirect the topic reveals your low character.

Hans Blaster · Jan 19, 2026

JohnD70X7 said:
You say we can measure the orbits of stars, but can we?

We can.

JohnD70X7 said:
What evidence have you cited or even seen yourself?

It's pretty readily available. I could present it, but would you bother looking at it?

JohnD70X7 said:
And the topic, BTW is about the spiral arms not the overall plain of the galaxy.

The spiral arms are a very important part of the plane of the Galaxy. The stars in the spiral arms are rotating with the rest of the disk.

JohnD70X7 said:
Trying to redirect the topic reveals your low character.

I'd advise you stop this line of discussion now.

JohnD70X7 · Jan 19, 2026

Jipsah said:
That's not how science works, though, is it?

That's how science works.

That's what science is about; sorting out what's objectively true from what people "know" but isn't true at all. Just like the "flat Earth" thing. People "know" that the earth is flat, when in fact it isn't, as a matter of faith. Science doesn't work that way.

Okay then, how come so many are saying things are facts when they have no proof? Only theory, speculation, or blind faith in what they want to be true. They use the phrase "we know..." the actual distances between stars, the existence of exoplanets, the path of the solar system from galactic arm to galactic arm (rather than riding the arm down to the galaxy center), etc.

If they were honest, they would say "we suppose..." these things to be true. Or "we speculate..." Or even "we hope..." these things are true.
But to say they are true, "we know..." they are true...
uh uh, that ain't science. That defames science and the scientific method.

JohnD70X7 · Jan 19, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
We can.

It's pretty readily available. I could present it, but would you bother looking at it?

The spiral arms are a very important part of the plane of the Galaxy. The stars in the spiral arms are rotating with the rest of the disk.

I'd advise you stop this line of discussion now.

By all means prove your claims.

JohnD70X7 · Jan 19, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You know, if you want to show that the mainstream science is wrong regarding the cosmos... you actually do have to put in the effort to SHOW that it's wrong instead of just SAYING its wrong.

Do the actual work, instead of just spouting this arrogant nonsense and think people will accept what you say as gospel.

Mainstream science (as you refer to it) has been overrun by atheists who bullyrag anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest. So don't fall into that "everyone is doing it, so it must be true" mode. Think for yourself. Think don't only repeat what you've been conditioned to say.

JohnD70X7 · Jan 19, 2026

essentialsaltes said:
The important thing in this context is that a theory must not only be a satisfactory explanation for the totality of the evidence, but there are no competing hypotheses that can match its explanatory power.

On the contrary. Space has been proven not to be the emptiness it once was thought to be. Curved space-time has upwelling and acts like a large body of fluidity. The spiral galaxies are not fixed pinwheels but spiraling down (or spiraling out) swirls of stars, gas, and other cosmic debris. As in a body of water, whirlpools winds down. Why would spiral galaxies act differently?

The bee in everyone's bonnet here is; if the solar system is spiraling down towards the center of the galaxy on a single arm of the galaxy arms, then the solar system cannot be billions and billions of years old. For it would have been drawn to the galactic center in a fraction of that time.

And that blows the macro-evolution model to smithereens.

Hans Blaster · Jan 19, 2026

JohnD70X7 said:
Mainstream science (as you refer to it) has been overrun by atheists who bullyrag anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest.

I don't know who told you this, but they are not providing you with accurate information. Of the very few scientists I have known in my 25+ years in the field, I know more who are Catholic than atheist.

JohnD70X7 said:
So don't fall into that "everyone is doing it, so it must be true" mode. Think for yourself. Think don't only repeat what you've been conditioned to say.

Science isn't a dogma.

Hans Blaster · Jan 19, 2026

JohnD70X7 said:
On the contrary. Space has been proven not to be the emptiness it once was thought to be. Curved space-time has upwelling and acts like a large body of fluidity.

I have no idea what idea you are trying to communicate. As written this is nothing but gibberish.

JohnD70X7 said:
The spiral galaxies are not fixed pinwheels but spiraling down (or spiraling out) swirls of stars, gas, and other cosmic debris. As in a body of water, whirlpools winds down. Why would spiral galaxies act differently?

No one says the spiral arms are fixed features. No one. They are density waves and waves move. The material in the galactic disk are not being pulled to the center; they are in orbit about it.

JohnD70X7 said:
The bee in everyone's bonnet here is; if the solar system is spiraling down towards the center of the galaxy on a single arm of the galaxy arms, then the solar system cannot be billions and billions of years old. For it would have been drawn to the galactic center in a fraction of that time.

No, the problem is your claim isn't true.

JohnD70X7 said:
And that blows the macro-evolution model to smithereens.

Star orbits in galaxies have nothing to do with biological evolution.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 20, 2026

JohnD70X7 said:
Mainstream science (as you refer to it) has been overrun by atheists who bullyrag anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest. So don't fall into that "everyone is doing it, so it must be true" mode. Think for yourself. Think don't only repeat what you've been conditioned to say.

And by thinking for myself, I see not reason to not trust the mainstream science over a random nobody on the Internet whose entire line of argument is "Just trust me."

Common sense says that without evidence, all your claims are worthless.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 20, 2026

JohnD70X7 said:
On the contrary. Space has been proven not to be the emptiness it once was thought to be. Curved space-time has upwelling and acts like a large body of fluidity. The spiral galaxies are not fixed pinwheels but spiraling down (or spiraling out) swirls of stars, gas, and other cosmic debris. As in a body of water, whirlpools winds down. Why would spiral galaxies act differently?

The bee in everyone's bonnet here is; if the solar system is spiraling down towards the center of the galaxy on a single arm of the galaxy arms, then the solar system cannot be billions and billions of years old. For it would have been drawn to the galactic center in a fraction of that time.

And that blows the macro-evolution model to smithereens.

No it doesn't, because you can't show any evidence for your claim.

Jipsah · Jan 20, 2026

JohnD70X7 said:
Sure. Common sense. Any fool knows better.

That's your scientific answer, I take it?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 20, 2026

Jipsah said:
That's your scientific answer, I take it?

People like this always argue for 'common sense' when common sense says that these sorts of claims are worthless without any actual evidence to back them up.

Jipsah · Jan 20, 2026

JohnD70X7 said:
Space has been proven not to be the emptiness it once was thought to be

By whom?

JohnD70X7 said:
. Curved space-time has upwelling and acts like a large body of fluidity.

For example...?

JohnD70X7 said:
The spiral galaxies are not fixed pinwheels but spiraling down (or spiraling out) swirls of stars, gas, and other cosmic debris. As in a body of water, whirlpools winds down. Why would spiral galaxies act differently?

Comparing apples to Oldsmobiles, there. And you complain about science?

JohnD70X7 said:
The bee in everyone's bonnet here is; if the solar system is spiraling down towards the center of the galaxy on a single arm

And if my grandmother'd had rotors she would have been a helicopter.

JohnD70X7 said:
of the galaxy arms, then the solar system cannot be billions and billions of years old.

How old would it be?

JohnD70X7 said:
For it would have been drawn to the galactic center in a fraction of that time.

Six weeks?

JohnD70X7 said:
And that blows the macro-evolution model to smithereens.

Publish it and change the face of science.

sjastro · Jan 20, 2026

This has got to be one of most inept attempts made by YECists in showing the Sun and solar system are compatible with YEC time scales.
There are many examples of evidence which the show Sun and solar system are orbiting the galaxy's center and not spiralling towards it.

One such case goes back to the 18th century before astronomers even knew our Sun resides in a galaxy let alone a spiral.
William Herschel observed there is a point in space in the constellation Hercules where neighbouring stars are diverging indicating the Sun and solar system are moving towards that point known as the solar apex.
In the opposite direction 180 degrees apart there is a divergence in the constellation Columba known as the solar antapex in which the Sun and solar system are moving away from.

Astronomers subsequently found this observed relative motion was due to two factors, the proper motion of the neighbouring stars and the Sun and solar system's orbital motion around the galaxy's centre. Furthermore they found when using the galaxy centre frame of reference instead of the neighbouring star's frame of reference, they found the Sun and solar system are moving towards and way in the constellations of Cygnus and Vela/Puppis respectively.

Now if the Sun and solar system were instead spiralling towards the centre along with all other stars there would be no observed solar apex and solar antapex but using the galaxy centre frame of reference it would be moving towards the point where galaxy's centre is located in Sagittarius and away from a point in Auriga/Taurus.

Here is a table to summarize these points.

Feature	Reality (Circular Orbit)	Spiralling towards centre
Primary motion	Nearly circular orbit around Galactic Centre	Radial spiral inward toward Galactic Centre
Sun’s motion relative to nearby stars (LSR)	Non-zero (~20 km/s)	Zero
Solar apex (relative to nearby stars)	Exists	Does not exist
Solar apex constellation	Hercules (near Vega)	N/A
Solar antapex constellation	Columba	N/A
Sun’s motion relative to Galactic Centre	Tangential (orbital)	Radial inward
Galactocentric apex (direction of motion)	Cygnus (approx.)	Sagittarius
Galactocentric antapex	Vela / Puppis (approx.)	Auriga / Taurus
Key implication	Apex measures peculiar motion	Solar apex disappears; only galactocentric direction remains

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 20, 2026

sjastro said:
This has got to be one of most inept attempts made by YECists in showing the Sun and solar system are compatible with YEC time scales.
There are many examples of evidence which the show Sun and solar system are orbiting the galaxy's center and not spiralling towards it.

One such case goes back to the 18th century before astronomers even knew our Sun resides in a galaxy let alone a spiral.
William Herschel observed there is a point in space in the constellation Hercules where neighbouring stars are diverging indicating the Sun and solar system are moving towards that point known as the solar apex.
In the opposite direction 180 degrees apart there is a divergence in the constellation Columba known as the solar antapex in which the Sun and solar system are moving away from.

Astronomers subsequently found this observed relative motion was due to two factors, the proper motion of the neighbouring stars and the Sun and solar system's orbital motion around the galaxy's centre. Furthermore they found when using the galaxy centre frame of reference instead of the neighbouring star's frame of reference, they found the Sun and solar system are moving towards and way in the constellations of Cygnus and Vela/Puppis respectively.

Now if the Sun and solar system were instead spiralling towards the centre along with all other stars there would be no solar apex and solar antapex but using the galaxy centre frame of reference it would be moving towards the point where galaxy's centre is located in Sagittarius and away from a point in Auriga/Taurus.

Here is a table to summarize these points.

Feature Reality (Circular Orbit) Hypothetical (Coherent Infall)
Primary motion Nearly circular orbit around Galactic Centre Radial spiral inward toward Galactic Centre
Sun’s motion relative to nearby stars (LSR) Non-zero (~20 km/s) Zero
Solar apex (relative to nearby stars) Exists Does not exist
Solar apex constellation Hercules (near Vega) N/A
Solar antapex constellation Columba N/A
Sun’s motion relative to Galactic Centre Tangential (orbital) Radial inward
Galactocentric apex (direction of motion) Cygnus (approx.) Sagittarius
Galactocentric antapex Vela / Puppis (approx.) Auriga / Taurus
Key implication Apex measures peculiar motion Solar apex disappears; only galactocentric direction remains

You expect YECs to care about facts and logic?

Larniavc · Jan 20, 2026

JohnD70X7 said:
I'm wondering if you are for real?

You seem to be avoiding stating what you believe. It’s almost like you didn’t expect Christians to be opposed to your assertions.

Larniavc · Jan 20, 2026

JohnD70X7 said:
I said those who foist science fiction upon the science are exercising blind faith in that science fiction. Blind faith is the very definition of religion / religious practice.

You’ve just admitted calling science equal to religion. Well done. Baffling, but well done you.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

How is it that spiral galaxies don't spiral?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Area Meathead

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Area Meathead

Area Meathead

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood Drinker

Well-Known Member

Blood Drinker

Newbie

Well-Known Member

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Similar threads