Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You've got a good point. I'm not sure if there's facts concerning the other galaxies for either of our sides, but I've always envisioned it as a kind of biomass blob that morphs and sends out tendrils to other galaxies. Like silly putty! and as an avid Tyranid player, I'm glad that someone else agrees the Hive Mind is at least enough to concern the Chaos Gods.

Hillbilly wrote:The funny thing about the picture, is that it doesn't look anything like the Milkyway galaxy.
But don’t forget that galaxy that is heading towards us. I think it was called the (A-dom-a-jom) I think that’s how you say it.

Unless you are omnipresent, you will have no idea what the Milkyway galaxy looks like. It would be like describing the outside world if you have spent your life in a windowless room.

All pictures of our galaxy are man made constuctions based on guess work from data, we don't even know for sure how many arms make up our galaxy.

BluntmanDC wrote:

Hillbilly wrote:The funny thing about the picture, is that it doesn't look anything like the Milkyway galaxy.
But don’t forget that galaxy that is heading towards us. I think it was called the (A-dom-a-jom) I think that’s how you say it.

Unless you are omnipresent, you will have no idea what the Milkyway galaxy looks like. It would be like describing the outside world if you have spent your life in a windowless room.

All pictures of our galaxy are man made constuctions based on guess work from data, we don't even know for sure how many arms make up our galaxy.

The guess work made from data from various sources including systems of visualization someone who says, "based on guess work from data", doesn't even know about.
I don't feel like getting into it here, but, are you also a member of the flat earth society, or do you support the notion that we live in a heliocentric solar system?
Because, we only know from data that the world is round and that the Earth orbit's the sun.
You can't observe that from standing in a city or on a hill unless you use images from telescopes. That perhaps that telescope is as unreliable as the tools that we use today.
Our only evidence is data.

Douglaspocock wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

Hillbilly wrote:The funny thing about the picture, is that it doesn't look anything like the Milkyway galaxy.
But don’t forget that galaxy that is heading towards us. I think it was called the (A-dom-a-jom) I think that’s how you say it.

Unless you are omnipresent, you will have no idea what the Milkyway galaxy looks like. It would be like describing the outside world if you have spent your life in a windowless room.

All pictures of our galaxy are man made constuctions based on guess work from data, we don't even know for sure how many arms make up our galaxy.

The guess work made from data from various sources including systems of visualization someone who says, "based on guess work from data", doesn't even know about.
I don't feel like getting into it here, but, are you also a member of the flat earth society, or do you support the notion that we live in a heliocentric solar system?
Because, we only know from data that the world is round and that the Earth orbit's the sun.
You can't observe that from standing in a city or on a hill unless you use images from telescopes. That perhaps that telescope is as unreliable as the tools that we use today.
Our only evidence is data

I see you know of the technique of extrapolating to the nth degree to disprove someone on the internet method.

The fact that we know the Earth is round and it orbits the sun from confirmed data is alot different from using data to model a possible/probable image of the Milky Way. If you are an actual scientist, you would know and understand the difference. Unless you can see something in its entirety you cannot say for definate what it is or how it acts, this is the greatest force that pushs scientists further to achieve greater understanding (also as an aside you can determine that the world is round from the Earth, for more informationon this look up the works of Eratosthenes)

Any astrophysist would tell you that the `image` of the Milky Way is not real, but a best fit model for the galaxy based on present data. Therefore you or anyone for that matter cannot make the statement that `this is not what the galaxy looks like`. I would be more than willing to listen/read your arguement but i feel that if you know for DEFINATE what the Milky Way looks like that time would be better spent in conversation with journals or top astrophysists.

Hillbilly wrote:The funny thing about the picture, is that it doesn't look anything like the Milkyway galaxy.
But don’t forget that galaxy that is heading towards us. I think it was called the (A-dom-a-jom) I think that’s how you say it.

well we actually have no idea what the milky way galaxy looks like because we have never sent anything from earth out of the galaxy to look back at it. all the photos of the milky way galaxy are of a neighbouring galaxy that they asume is very similar looking to ours.

Earth is round

The earth is more like a flat ball shape (because) of gravity is pushing the north and south pole down, or up whatever.

spaceXjam wrote:

Hillbilly wrote:The funny thing about the picture, is that it doesn't look anything like the Milkyway galaxy.
But don’t forget that galaxy that is heading towards us. I think it was called the (A-dom-a-jom) I think that’s how you say it.

well we actually have no idea what the milky way galaxy looks like because we have never sent anything from earth out of the galaxy to look back at it. all the photos of the milky way galaxy are of a neighbouring galaxy that they asume is very similar looking to ours.

Not true, in a sense anyway, as we know the approximate size (100,000 light years across) and shape of the Galaxy (barred spiral). We also know that the galaxy has at least two major stellar spiral arms (recent data has shown an increased chance in two major arms instead of four) and a few "spurs" (such as the one we reside in).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hillbilly wrote:

Earth is round

The earth is more like a flat ball shape (because) of gravity is pushing the north and south pole down, or up whatever.

Nope. The earth and other planets/stars bulge (known as "flattening") at their equators based on their density and balance of gravitational force and centrifugal force. The faster a body spins and less dense it is, the flatter it is at the poles. The earth has a .335% difference in the polar and equatorial diameter, so it would be visually indistinguishable from a perfect sphere. Planets like Jupiter have very noticeable flattening (it can be seen in amature telescopes) due to density and high rotation speed.

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

spaceXjam wrote:

Hillbilly wrote:The funny thing about the picture, is that it doesn't look anything like the Milkyway galaxy.
But don’t forget that galaxy that is heading towards us. I think it was called the (A-dom-a-jom) I think that’s how you say it.

well we actually have no idea what the milky way galaxy looks like because we have never sent anything from earth out of the galaxy to look back at it. all the photos of the milky way galaxy are of a neighbouring galaxy that they asume is very similar looking to ours.

Not true, in a sense anyway, as we know the approximate size (100,000 light years across) and shape of the Galaxy (barred spiral). We also know that the galaxy has at least two major stellar spiral arms (recent data has shown an increased chance in two major arms instead of four) and a few "spurs" (such as the one we reside on)

Can the pedatasism stop (I know this is an internet forum, but come on). The point is that Hill billy's statement is untrue, no one knows for DEFINATE what the galaxy looks like.

The maps you've been looking at are of a galaxy-40k takes place in our galaxy.

BluntmanDC wrote:
Can the pedatasism stop (I know this is an internet forum, but come on). The point is that Hill billy's statement is untrue, no one knows for DEFINATE what the galaxy looks like.

No one knows what anything REALLY looks like, as no one can claim that they possess all required logical and perceptive functions necessary to give a completely objective rendering of reality. Or that the ones you do possess actually filters sense-data without it's inevitable noise. Doesn't stop modelisation from being the only way we have to access knowledge in one form or another.

Check up on the Direct/Indirect realism debate in cognitive science/theory of the mind/phenomenology if you want to learn about what you're actually trying to teach others...

Kovnik Obama wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:
Can the pedatasism stop (I know this is an internet forum, but come on). The point is that Hill billy's statement is untrue, no one knows for DEFINATE what the galaxy looks like.

No one knows what anything REALLY looks like, as no one can claim that they possess all required logical and perceptive functions necessary to give a completely objective rendering of reality. Or that the ones you do possess actually filters sense-data without it's inevitable noise. Doesn't stop modelisation from being the only way we have to access knowledge in one form or another.

Check up on the Direct/Indirect realism debate in cognitive science/theory of the mind/phenomenology if you want to learn about what you're actually trying to teach others...

I'll speak for everyone in the thread when I say this is completely unimportant, and I, for one, don't care.

Hunchkrot wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:
Can the pedatasism stop (I know this is an internet forum, but come on). The point is that Hill billy's statement is untrue, no one knows for DEFINATE what the galaxy looks like.

No one knows what anything REALLY looks like, as no one can claim that they possess all required logical and perceptive functions necessary to give a completely objective rendering of reality. Or that the ones you do possess actually filters sense-data without it's inevitable noise. Doesn't stop modelisation from being the only way we have to access knowledge in one form or another.

Check up on the Direct/Indirect realism debate in cognitive science/theory of the mind/phenomenology if you want to learn about what you're actually trying to teach others...

I'll speak for everyone in the thread when I say this is completely unimportant, and I, for one, don't care.

Well thanks, feel free to go back to discussing weither or not orks are intra-galactic. I'm sure that's much more important for you...
You could also do a better job expressing yourself. ''I'll speak for everyone'' is semantically contrary to the syntagm ''I, for one, don't care''.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Hunchkrot wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:
Can the pedatasism stop (I know this is an internet forum, but come on). The point is that Hill billy's statement is untrue, no one knows for DEFINATE what the galaxy looks like.

No one knows what anything REALLY looks like, as no one can claim that they possess all required logical and perceptive functions necessary to give a completely objective rendering of reality. Or that the ones you do possess actually filters sense-data without it's inevitable noise. Doesn't stop modelisation from being the only way we have to access knowledge in one form or another.

Check up on the Direct/Indirect realism debate in cognitive science/theory of the mind/phenomenology if you want to learn about what you're actually trying to teach others...

I'll speak for everyone in the thread when I say this is completely unimportant, and I, for one, don't care.

Well thanks, feel free to go back to discussing weither or not orks are intra-galactic. I'm sure that's much more important for you...
You could also do a better job expressing yourself. ''I'll speak for everyone'' is semantically contrary to the syntagm ''I, for one, don't care''.

Maybe one should have read my message, if a person asks for pedatasism to stop on the current dabate it can be assumed that said person doesn't care for the mother of all pedantic messages to be a response.

You will find that as this is the 40k background forum most people on it enjoy talking about the 40k background. You will also find that the direct/indirect debate has little relevence in what i was saying, and has little relevence in anyones lives in general.

Back to the OP: the galaxy in which the 40k universe is set is that of a fictional Milky Way.

Some people just love to sound smart. 40k background might not be the forum for you.

BluntmanDC wrote:Maybe one should have read my message, if a person asks for pedatasism to stop on the current dabate it can be assumed that said person doesn't care for the mother of all pedantic messages to be a response.

I do not have to stop myself from correcting you simply because you ask it. This is a discussion board.

You will find that as this is the 40k background forum most people on it enjoy talking about the 40k background. You will also find that the direct/indirect debate has little relevence in what i was saying, and has little relevence in anyones lives in general.

You objected to something said in this very forum, using concepts which are in no way related to 40k fluff, and has little relevence in anyones life. I then objected to what you said, using concepts which are in no way related to 40k fluff and which have little relevence in anyones life. As long as you give yourself the right to stretch the topic to correct other people's claim, I will give myself the same right.

Some people just love to sound smart.

Some people are interested/students/teacher in philosophy, and like to correct other people when they make claims which are related to their field of study. He allowed himself to make a Off-topic comment, I did the same. He made his claim, I did mine, now if everyone feels the topic hasn't been beaten to death with the truth mallet, then go on for another 3 pages of 'It's the milky way''...

Edit : I'll just say that it's currently irrelevant, only because such studies haven't yet taken much traction with the transhumanism studies (which themselves haven't taken much traction). But it's (hopefully) soon going to have huge relevance in just about every aspect of life. Accepting we don't have access to all forms of sense-data is the first step toward the discovery of other forms of sense-data. Like magnetoception. I think a lot of people would appreciate, and find very relevant the ability to constantly know intuitively what orientation they are taking and what position they are in compared to where they've been.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:
Can the pedatasism stop (I know this is an internet forum, but come on). The point is that Hill billy's statement is untrue, no one knows for DEFINATE what the galaxy looks like.

No one knows what anything REALLY looks like, as no one can claim that they possess all required logical and perceptive functions necessary to give a completely objective rendering of reality. Or that the ones you do possess actually filters sense-data without it's inevitable noise. Doesn't stop modelisation from being the only way we have to access knowledge in one form or another.

Check up on the Direct/Indirect realism debate in cognitive science/theory of the mind/phenomenology if you want to learn about what you're actually trying to teach others...

with this logic you dont no what you look like

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Some people just love to sound smart.

Some people are interested/students/teacher in philosophy, and like to correct other people when they make claims which are related to their field of study. He allowed himself to make a Off-topic comment, I did the same. He made his claim, I did mine, now if everyone feels the topic hasn't been beaten to death with the truth mallet, then go on for another 3 pages of 'It's the milky way''...

Edit : I'll just say that it's currently irrelevant, only because such studies haven't yet taken much traction with the transhumanism studies (which themselves haven't taken much traction). But it's (hopefully) soon going to have huge relevance in just about every aspect of life. Accepting we don't have access to all forms of sense-data is the first step toward the discovery of other forms of sense-data. Like magnetoception. I think a lot of people would appreciate, and find very relevant the ability to constantly know intuitively what orientation they are taking and what position they are in compared to where they've been.

You are so completely right. Here is a philosophy forum where you can go and discuss philosophy with many others interested in your study.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/

I really, truly do encourage you to go and bring this topic up there so as to enlighten them. In the meantime, let's bring the focus back to warhammer in the warhammer forum on the warhammer site.

I like how people decided to argue on my forum.
LOL

Hillbilly wrote:I like how people decided to argue on my forum.
LOL

Sorry 'bout that. Leaving now.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Some people are interested/students/teacher in philosophy, and like to correct other people when they make claims which are related to their field of study.

When disgussing philosophy you cannot correct someone's opinions, only disagree.

dont leave we are having fun (LOL)