http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0209/hoag_hst.jpg

Hoag's Object: A Strange Ring Galaxy
Credit: R. Lucas (STScI/AURA), Hubble Heritage Team, NASA

Is this one galaxy or two? This question came to light in 1950 when astronomer Art Hoag chanced upon this unusual extragalactic object. On the outside is a ring dominated by bright blue stars, while near the center lies a ball of much redder stars that are likely much older. Between the two is a gap that appears almost completely dark. How Hoag's Object formed remains unknown, although similar objects have now been identified and collectively labeled as a form of ring galaxy. Genesis hypotheses include a galaxy collision billions of years ago and perturbative gravitational interactions involving an unusually shaped core. The above photo taken by the Hubble Space Telescope in July 2001 reveals unprecedented details of Hoag's Object and may yield a better understanding. Hoag's Object spans about 100,000 light years and lies about 600 million light years away toward the constellation of Serpens. Coincidentally, visible in the gap (at about one o'clock) is yet another ring galaxy that likely lies far in the distance.

these could be the wormholes every sci-fi writer and enthusiast was rambling about! The blue one in the foreground is to the future and the redder one in the background is to the past! God speed, space traveler!

Woah, thats pretty freaky.

You're on a roll today Wet1, good work

Do you know if the outer ring orbits the inner circle?

might it be that it is just an ordinary spiral galaxy, with a (extremely huge) black hole in it or in front of it? would settle for the exact circular shape...

edit:typo

Actually, the gravity of the central part would explain the circular shape as it appears to have a higher density

If there was a black hole, we wouldn't be able to see central part, and I don't think that a black hole could actually get that big :eek:

that central part may be a tachyon jet pointed at us, redshifted by the black hole to visible frequencies..

hah i'll stop blabbing now :D

You should really. Next you'll be saying 'Its a giraffe head that lives in a distant sun' :rolleyes:

I don't think it can be a black hole, because the image of the other galaxy in the background is not only similar but it doesn't appear to have had its light bent.

Bloody good point. I missed that one

Is it possible for someone to actually simulate there being a black hole in the center, and then have them move the hole out of the way?? Maybe a wierd question, but I'm thinking that possibly (space is a big place, after all) the other galaxy could be some kind of reflection from a mini black hole next to the larger one, if there is in fact one there. Croicky I dunno...just speculating, I guess.

Now I'm really not sure if there's a hole in the center or not...DAMNIT.

How can you get a reflection from something that absorbs all light?

Reflection is just light boncing off something

A reflection of a reflection, like I said I'm not sure. Like when you hold up one mirror to another, only I think in this case one mirror is smaller and at an angle. Or it isn't there at all.

One of the ideas that come to mind is that in order to have a perfect ring, you must have an equally perfect explosion with outward expansion the same in all directions. It is hard to envision that a galactic collision would leave such a delicate and symetrical structure in place as a result. Or that you could come to such a figure where all forces seem to balance and leave this object in place.

I wonder how it would be to actually live in such a galaxy and how the sights would be there. Here, the central mass of the Milky Way blocks most visible light and we have to look with radio astromony to detect any of the objects that exist within the core. There, if you resided within the inner area of the ring, the core should be seen easily.

Maybe the inner center is actually just a massive cloud of dirt. Could be a forming galaxy maybe?

Two possibilities, I can think of:

1. The central core is a massive blackhole that ate up the matter surrounding it forming a perfect circle. At the same time, we happen to have a separate bright object (pulsar or whatever) ahead of it to replace the empty void in the picture.

2. Same blackhole but this time, the hole is so massive that it is spewing out energy (photons?) from its axis. No one knows what happens when a black hole gets too big. The outer circle could be the result of the spin rate and the influence of the black hole (high gravity).

So, what the professionals say?

The bright core at the center of the big ring is not a collection of stars, it is a giant mega-star. The ring consists of galaxies, not indivdual stars. You can tell by the different colors and elliptical shapes. Those type of megastars are often misinterpreted as 'strange galaxies' and are actualy commonly found at the center of dense concentrations of galaxies. They are a constuct that is the next step up from galaxies around which galaxies orbit, the way planets orbit a star or star systems orbit a galactic core. That one just happens to be a near perfect frontal view which enables us to clearly see it's organization.

So your saying thats what a universe could look like?

Now that is a truly remarkable galaxy. Very weird.

The ring consists of galaxies

Uhh...I'm not so sure about that one. There may be galaxies in the background, but I don't think they're in the ring. I think astronomers would find it much easier to guage this thing's size if it was as big as you were talking about.

The ring consists of galaxies

I dont think so. The picture could be a hoax too....to fool the amateurs.

I think it is a hoax. The work of a Photoshop....or Kai...

I think it genuine, but you'd think they'd be able to take digital photos of stuff like this by now

Having stopped blabbing, I'll give an explanation that might please you a lot more.

I think it there has been a heavy mass (i'll come back to that) cirling the center of those galaxies. In simulations about solar systems it was seen that a Jupitersize planet was able to clean a ring in the accretion disk (look that up on some astronomy-website if you feel the need to). Sizing this effect to galaxy-scale might give ring galaxies as a result.
I think in this case, a smaller galaxy has crashed into the bigger one, whereby the center of the small galaxy (most likely a black hole with a lot of stars and gas around it) ended up in a circular orbit around the big center. The smaller core might have entually spiralized into the big center, resulting in the very bright center.

Another argument pro this theory is the amount of young stars in the ring, recognized by the blue color.

lemmehear what you think

Yes, Thor, I do think the universe could very well be constructed similar to that, but on a much larger scale, of course. I've never believed those kind of theory which say the universe started from a big explosion and keeps expanding in every which direction. I believe in Einstein's view of a Unified Field Theory which says the universe is a system that is dependant on laws of nature such as the Theory of Relativity. Big Bang Theory is just chaos theory and discards relativity outright, although some people who don't understand relativity try to use it to prop up their explosion theory.

I'll post a link below to the APOD calendar and you can see another mega-star with galaxies around it, where the correlation is much more evident, if you go to: Sunday, November 21, 1999. They erroneously describe that one as an elliptical galaxy as well, but you can clearly see the difference in size between the mega-star and the well defined galaxies orbiting around it.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/calendar/allyears.html

I would link to the picture itself, but my simple keypad doesn't have all the required symbols to do so.

John

The bright core at the center of the big ring is not a collection of stars, it is a giant mega-star.

Oh Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me

Have you heard this commonly used mnemonic for star classification ? Hint: the (M) does not stand for mega-star. In fact, the only institution in which mega-star has any meaning is Hollywood. Did you dream up this term yourself ?

http://www.glyphweb.com/esky/default.htm?http://www.glyphweb.com/esky/concepts/spectralclassification.html

The ring consists of galaxies, not indivdual stars. You can tell by the different colors and elliptical shapes.

Please note that the object spans about 100,000 light years which is a normal size for a galaxy, but not a group of galaxies.

Those type of megastars are often misinterpreted as 'strange galaxies' and are actualy commonly found at the center of dense concentrations of galaxies... They are a constuct that is the next step up from galaxies around which galaxies orbit, the way planets orbit a star or star systems orbit a galactic core.

Interpretations are often misinterpreted as in the case of megastars. John, I can line you up with an Astronomy 101 course. Let me know. ;)

So, what is the verdict you smartie pants? Is it a hoax or not?

http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/astronomy/astronews/

http://www.phy.nau.edu/~lavery/Mypage/Researchstuff/dirRings/ringshst.html

That explains it...it is still a mystery...

Those are really funny respones, Q. Whenever those young astronomers see something in space that they can't identify, they say it's a collision of galaxies. They use that lame explanation for so many phenomena that, according to them, there must be wrecked galaxies all over the place. The megastar at the center of that ring may only be a little larger than our galaxy, but you can't claim that it looks like anything that isn't constructed. To say the whole system is the result of a crash, is a denial of organization and a belief in chaos. We see no evidence of systematic chaos in the known universe.

John

Whenever those young astronomers see something in space that they can't identify, they say it's a collision of galaxies.

Ridiculous remark. Is there no end to your irrationality ?

They use that lame explanation for so many phenomena that, according to them, there must be wrecked galaxies all over the place.

Please cite more so-called lame explanations for so many other phenomena ?

*not holding breath*

The megastar at the center of that ring may only be a little larger than our galaxy, but you can't claim that it looks like anything that isn't constructd.

Once again you show your ignorance towards basic astronomy. There is no such thing as a megastar. They do not exist. And if you bothered to read the posted link, you would've noticed that the entire galaxy is approx. 120,000 light years across, not the object in the middle. Best estimate, imo, would put the object in the middle roughly 15,000 - 20,000 light years across.

And it is your conclusion that the object in the middle is a star which is 15,000 - 20,000 light years across; a megastar. hehe

Those are really funny respones, Q.

Not as funny as yours.

Hey, wet1, could you please post up the Sunday, November 21, 1999, picture from the APOD calendar? These guys don't seem to be getting my drift and it would be easier if we had the picture to refer to. You can tell by the clearly defined galaxy to the upper right of the megastar that the megastar is larger than the galaxy by a magnitude of two, at least. You can also tell that the megastar is surrounded by galaxies, not single stars. You can also see that the megastar is a single entity, not a system of stars orbiting a nucleus.

Megastars cannot exist. The mass is extraordinary, way beyond what you're thinking of. I mean, slow down, you're talking about something millions or billions the times the size of our own sun. Not only could this thing never, ever form, but the pressure would....ahh never mind, it's just totally ludicrous. Are you talking about Blue Giant Stars, or something to that affect, that or dozens of times the size of our own sun? They only live for around a billion years I think, a fifth or sixth the time of our own sun's life. Why? Because they spend what fuel they have much quicker than your average star. A megastar, if by some miracle of religion for chrissakes, came into being would fizzle out really, REALLY fast.

Pollux V, you are basing your argument on imagination or limitation of imagination. Of course something that large could exist, and does. Just go outside and look at the sun and then look at the picture of the megastar that I referencd on the APOD calendar and you will clearly see the structural similarities. Just because no one has called a giant star a megastar before, doesn't mean they can't exist. Astronomers have found lots of those type of megastar and they are always surrounded by dense concentrations of galaxy. And that is because the galaxies are orbiting the megastar. Until now, astronomers have been calling the megastars 'Elliptical galaxies' because they really didn't know how else to describe them and they would be the first to tell you that they really aren't sure what they are.

When you look at the megastar you can see that it has a uniform corona that is identical to our sun's corona in appearence. Identical to any star's corona. You can't predict the pressure on a large object that hasn't been studied, nor can you predict it's burn rate or life cycle. And you can't say that a galaxy is the largest construction in the universe, because that picture clearly depicts an object that is much larger than a galaxy. And you can't set an arbitrary limit on the size of every object in the universe when there is so much we haven't seen.

You also can't use mathematics to predict whether or not something is capable of existing. Mathematics is a mental tool that we invented so that we could describe the phenomena that we observe, the same way that the alphabet is a tool we invented to describe our language. The alphabet can't predict words and mathematics can't predict theories. Einstein put it this way;

"A theory can be tested by experience, but there is no way from experience to the construction of a theory."

John MacNeil

By your logic, a beach is not made up of individual grains of sand since we are unable to see the grains from a distance therefore, the beach is a solid object.

Hey, wet1, could you please post up the Sunday, November 21, 1999, picture from the APOD calendar?

John. you could have posted it yourself but here it is:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9911/ngc4881_hst.jpg

Elliptical Galaxy NGC 4881 in Coma
Credit: W. A. Baum (U. Washington), WFPC2, HST, NASA

Elliptical galaxies are unlike spiral galaxies and hence unlike our own Milky Way Galaxy. The giant elliptical galaxy named NGC 4881 on the upper left lies at the edge of the giant Coma Cluster of Galaxies. Elliptical galaxies are ellipsoidal in shape, contain no spiral arms, contain little interstellar gas or dust, and are found mostly in rich clusters of galaxies. Elliptical galaxies appear typically yellow-red, as opposed to spirals which have spiral arms that appear quite blue. Much speculation continues on how each type of galaxy can form, on whether ellipticals can evolve from colliding spirals, or spirals can be created from colliding ellipticals, or both. Besides the spiral galaxy on the right, all other images in this picture are of galaxies that lie well behind the Coma Cluster.

Thanks, wet1. Actually, I couldn't post it myself. I don't have a computer. I'm on interactive TV through microsoft and it is limited in what it can do. There are some symbols that people use in their urls that are not on this keypad. I can't read any files that are pdf format and any file that contains too much information also won't come on to my screen. I get a whole array of pop up cards that tell me the files I wish to access aren't accessible with this equipment. All interactive TV gives you is a cable box and a keypad, and a remote control.

Pollux V, you are basing your argument on imagination or limitation of imagination.

I don't know John, pick one.

Of course something that large could exist, and does. Just go outside and look at the sun and then look at the picture of the megastar that I referencd on the APOD calendar and you will clearly see the structural similarities.

Yeah, but just because there are structural similarities doesn't automatically garner the existence of an object.

Astronomers have found lots of those type of megastar and they are always surrounded by dense concentrations of galaxy. And that is because the galaxies are orbiting the megastar. Until now, astronomers have been calling the megastars 'Elliptical galaxies' because they really didn't know how else to describe them and they would be the first to tell you that they really aren't sure what they are.

No, John, they call them galaxies because inside the galaxies there are stars, it's not just one giant ball of gas and heat. John, this logic of yours that Q mentions is not logic. You have nothing to back up what you are saying. Nothing.

You can't predict the pressure on a large object that hasn't been studied, nor can you predict it's burn rate or life cycle.

Yes I can. Why? Because, with the progressions in size that happen with normal sized stars and larger ones, one could assume that if megastars exist, they would only exist for a few seconds before imploding into a massive black hole. But they can't exist, because the entire idea is impossible.

I can show you an example of a similar argument:

John, look at your feet. Do you see a toe nail on one of your toes? That toe is alive. And independent. It wants to break free of your foot and then crawl inside your brain through your ear and eat you from the inside out.

Sounds logical, doesn't it?

Mathematics is a mental tool that we invented so that we could describe the phenomena that we observe, the same way that the alphabet is a tool we invented to describe our language.

Isn't mathematics an extension of language or vice-versa? Q? Wet1? Anyone?

That picture of a megastar with the galaxy field orbiting it shows us that there are larger and more complicated systems in the universe than has been previously believed by most astronomers. This greater complexity is the virtual proof that confirms Professor Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory. In the September 7, 1944, letter to Max Born, Einstein wrote;

--"We have become Antipodian in our scientific expectations. You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I firmly believe, but I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the quantum theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger collegues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one."--Albert Einstein

John I don't know how you can think that this letter has anything to do with our argument...

I will reaffirm that Q put it the best way. Just because YOU, specifically, cannot see the stars in these galaxies does not mean they are not there. They just aren't shown, that's all.

being able to see that galaxy alot farther away through the ring suggests it's 'empty' though, Pollux. I stick with the idea that an initial 'heavy mass' (small galaxy, or it's core) circled the big core, thereby sweeping clean the ringish middle part. Almost every galaxy the size of ours has one or more small company-galaxies, as we have the two Magelhaen Clouds and the Andromeda Galaxy M101 &102 (if I remember the numbers correctly..).

In a simulation done with an accretion disk of a star in which a plant 10 earthmasses circles, the following gap occured:

http://www.astro.su.se/~pawel/planets/02a160.gif

This is a Jupiterlike planet in a Solar System configuration comparable to ours. for full info go to the source linked below.

http://www.astro.su.se/~pawel/planets/jup46f.jpg

source: http://www.astro.su.se/~pawel/planets/results01.html
and further

I don't see why this isn't possible on a much larger scale, as the circumstances are relatively good comparable.

Assuming that this is still John here, I would angrily reiterate that just because the proportions are equal does not mean that this thing is possible.

Look: here's another example.


John, I want to build a skyscraper. Not just any skyscraper, but one eight hundred stories high. What's more, I want to build it using the same materials that conventional buildings only twenty stories high are constructed with. Do you see a problem here? The proportions are the same, yes, but I would not be able to complete the building before it collapsed. It's the same with this ludicrous idea of yours, the gravity would cause any freak star able to get even a little larger than the biggest ones we've found would collapse in on itself.

pollux

Isn't mathematics an extension of language or vice-versa?

Different cultures developed their own forms of mathematics; Egyptians drew hieroglyphics, Mayans had a dot/dash system, Romans used the Latin alphabet, etc... Look at any modern math formula and you'll find a number of various symbols.

It can be argued that mathematics is a branch of logic where mathematics is formulated in terms of logical concepts.

Therefore, it might be correct to say that mathematics and linguistics are extensions of each other, depending on where the mathematics and linguistics originated.

Originally posted by wet1
I wonder how it would be to actually live in such a galaxy and how the sights would be there. Here, the central mass of the Milky Way blocks most visible light and we have to look with radio astromony to detect any of the objects that exist within the core. There, if you resided within the inner area of the ring, the core should be seen easily.

Life might be a tad difficult, the outer ring seems to be new hot blue stars, no fun to be near with all that uv and gammas. Probably lots of novas too.
There is a difuse disk between the inner yellow area and the blue outer ring, if you look closely, that might be the best view point, you could see both the inner and outer structures.
I couldn't find a really good explanation of this structure after splunking around the web. There are other galaxies like this, they seem to comprise about 0.1% of all galaxies.

Therefore, it might be correct to say that mathematics and linguistics are extensions of each other, depending on where the mathematics and linguistics originated.

Yeah, that sounds pretty good. Thanks.

Originally posted by John MacNeil
That picture of a megastar with the galaxy field orbiting it shows us that there are larger and more complicated systems in the universe than has been previously believed

What about the Chandra Limit?

What about the Chandra Limit?

What's that??

Chandrasekhar limit
A limit which mandates that no white dwarf (a collapsed, degenerate star) can be more massive than about 1.4 solar masses. Any degenerate object more massive must inevitably collapse into a neutron star.

Chandrasekhar limit (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dict_ad.html#C)

all this arguing...at least no one can disprove my theory of wormholes :D

Clearly, several theories that are believed now are going to have to be revised or eliminated altogether. The Chandrasekhar limit is one of them. The Hubble Space Telescope is showing us clear pictures of things that before were only blobs of light. This new capability is going to cause us to revise many theory in the future, especially when the next generation of space telescope/satellite is in space and operational.

--edited to include the word 'telescope'.--

Originally posted by John MacNeil
Clearly, several theories that are believed now are going to have to be revised or eliminated altogether. The Chandrasekhar limit is one of them. The Hubble Space Telescope is showing us clear pictures of things that before were only blobs of light. This new capability is going to cause us to revise many theory in the future, especially when the next generation of space satellite is in space and operational.

"Most of the Hoag-type galaxies are found to have oval-shaped cores" ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1990ApJ...348..448W )

Here's a picture of a similar phenomenon from a different angle;

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990510.html

Still think it's a star?

Rav,

The object in the photograph you presented is not in the same category as NGC 4881. If you review the photograph that wet1 posted for me, you will see that the megastar and the galaxy to the right of it are both discernible in the picture as separate entity. Therefore they must be in approximately the same focal plane and, as such, can be compared to each other as regards their size. It is because of this obvious visual comparison, as regards their relative proximity, that we deduce that the two object are interacting gravitationally.

focal plane???

Any astronomical photo has every object in the same focal plane...infinity.

*starts absent-mindedly humming the Beatles song No Reply*

John, I wasn't comparing it to NGC 4881. I said it was similar to a Hoag-type galaxy. Your contention was that "The bright core at the center of the big ring [in the Hoag-type galaxy] is not a collection of stars, it is a giant mega-star".

I felt it relevant (and still do) to point out the following;

"Most of the Hoag-type galaxies are found to have oval-shaped cores" ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...ApJ...348..448W )

Here's a picture of a similar phenomenon from a different angle;

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990510.html

As I said, the picture I linked to is of a galaxy similar to a Hoag-type galaxy, but viewed edge on.

Yes, I knew what you meant, Rav. What I was pointing out is that in the photograph that you presented there is a bright core with what appears to be a cloudy ring around it, edge on, and the photograph of NGC 4881, that I presented, is of a large bright object with a clearly discernible galaxy right beside it. If the megastar that I referenced was just a galaxy with a ring around it, then the galaxy beside it would be inside the circumference of the ring because it is a closer view than the picture that wet1 started this thread with. Since the galaxy beside it is itself a galaxy of defined proportions, in the neighborhood of 120,000 light year across, then the megastar to the left of it must be a minimum of 240,000 light year across, and that is without seeing the cloudy ring that is supposed to go with it.

If, as the original description stated, the megastar were an elliptical galaxy, there would be single stars where we see the bluish-white galaxy. Since we see a well defined galaxy instead of seeing single stars, we know that the megastar is much larger than was at first realized and we must adjust our description of it relative to our new understanding of it's size.

John speculates:

the megastar to the left of it must be a minimum of 240,000 light year across...Since we see a well defined galaxy instead of seeing single stars, we know that the megastar is much larger than was at first realized and we must adjust our description of it relative to our new understanding of it's size.

http://horus.ucr.edu/gifs/einstein.gif

LOL

Q, it's time to write an astrophysics book called "John Speculates," on the events of this thread.

Love that picture. Is there a larger one I could get for a desktop wallpaper somewhere?

edit: seriously, my stomach hurts from laughing so hard.

What a way to make a point, (Q). Effective...

A good link on understanding how ring galaxies form can be read here. (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Struck/frames.html)

The megastar NGC 4881 is not the result of colliding spiral galaxies. Nothing is made better by having been in a crash or by having been blown up. Not cars in a head-on collision, not buildings that had bombs dropped on them and not truck loads of tomatos dumped on crowds of Greeks. There is no evidence anywhere in physics of something becoming better organized than it originally was after a catclysmic collision with something else. That collision idea is just a cop-out way of describing something when a rational description can't be thought of.

In the article that Thed referenced, Curtis Struck of Iowa State University has this to say about megastars, which he refers to as elliptical galaxies;

--"Though the argument seems straightforward, it is based on very circumstantial evidence in most cases."--Curtis Struck

and this;

--"The discovery and study of these objects is very recent, and there is far too little data for firm conclusions."--Curtis Struck

so you can see that a description of a megastar as two colliding spiral galaxies forming an elliptical galaxy is merely speculation. In the article, Curtis Struck also talks about "low luminosity ellipticals" as being smaller objects without kinematically decoupled cores, meaning they are different objects altogether.

The APOD photograph of NGC 4881 leaves no room for doubt that the megastar and the spiral galaxy to the right of it are gravitationally connected. It also leaves no room for doubt that the megastar is physically much larger than the spiral galaxy. Since we know that it is the larger objects that have the stronger gravitational fields, then we can deduce that the spiral galaxy is the object which is orbiting the megastar. This leads us to conclude that there are larger constructs in the universe than galaxies and if we could take a sufficiently wide angle view we could get a picture of the megastar system with all of it's orbiting galaxies. This would lend credence to the view of a Unified Field Theory that Albert Einstein proposed and it would be the death knell for the theory of the "Big Bang".

If the megastar system is proven to be correct, then we could hypothesize that a group of megastar systems could be orbiting an even larger type of megastar and by that idea we could have a workable map of the universe to which we would merely fill in the appropriate places with real data when our knowledge of space increased. That map of the expected universe would be following the Unified Field Theory, which is based on physics and as predicted by Einstein.

John clarifies:

In the article that Thed referenced, Curtis Struck of Iowa State University has this to say about megastars, which he refers to as elliptical galaxies

Thed is one of my favorite posters when it comes to stars and galaxies.

Hey Thed, have you met John yet ? A most determined individual who wishes to turn the world of science upside-down.

Have fun. :D

Originally posted by (Q)
Thed is one of my favorite posters when it comes to stars and galaxies.

BLUSHES, shuffles feet. So I have this thing about polytropes and large groups of them, what the hey.

Hey Thed, have you met John yet ? A most determined individual who wishes to turn the world of science upside-down.

Have fun. :D

Sort of. I've got a lot of catching up to do. So we have another one single handedly trying to revolutionise science. Let me guess, only they have the depth and clarity of vision to realise what is really going on and everyone else is dead wrong.

Einstein's Unified Field Theory has further corroboration from the January 4, 2000 APOD photograph pictured here;

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000104.html

In this photograph the NASA astronomers describe "A mass so large it is simply known as the Great Attractor" as being a large mass which attracts tens of thousand of galaxy all around it. This is also further proof that objects larger than the megastar NGC 4881 exist. If megastars and the Great Attractor are known to exist, and of which we have clear photgraphic evidence of them, then we must conclude that organizational systems larger than galaxies exist. If, as has been shown in this thread with pictorial evidence from NASA, there are at least two more higher levels of organizational systems than galaxy clusters in the known universe, then we must conclude that the known matter in the universe can't be expanding out in all directions, but is instead all part of a working system, which correlates with Einstein's idea of a Unified Field Theory.

John imagines:

If megastars and the Great Attractor are known to exist, and of which we have clear photgraphic evidence of them

Please cite any reference whatsoever which states megastars exist. Anything. Anything at all.

I know you can't, so please stop using this nonsensical term.

Anyone who refers to one's self as "the Q" shouldn't be disparaging of other people's names for things. If the megastar hasn't been named yet, then I use the name to differentiate it from regular sized stars. There will also have to be a new descriptive name for the "Great Attractor" if we find any more of them and if it is substantially larger than a megastar.

Why call it a megastar? Ultra-horse-radish sounds much more appealing to me, if we're going to argue on names.

I agree, Pollux V. What's the big deal? We have mega-popcorn and mega-pop, why not a megastar?

-- megastar --"n. SUPERSTAR" --Webster's College Dictionary

I thought using 'superstar' might have some people confusing the object with Schwarzenegger, or someone. And why do you think they came up with the name the "Great Attractor"? And what are they going to do when they find more? Call them GA 2, and GA 3, and so on? What if there are a million of them? That name thing sure is a weighty subject. But I guess if some people don't want to discuss a subject bad enough, they'll find any old excuse not to.

And, since they already have the super large mass of the Great Attractor, does that automatically negate the theory of the Chandra limit?

John

If the megastar hasn't been named yet, then I use the name to differentiate it from regular sized stars

All observed stars have clearly defined descriptions. Have you discovered another type of star not yet observed ?

After reading your various explanations for these space phenonmena, I want to know what your backgrounds in astronomy are. Especially John...

well...?

Originally posted by John MacNeil
[B]Einstein's Unified Field Theory has further corroboration from the January 4, 2000 APOD photograph pictured here;

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000104.html

If memory serves, and it is quite dodgy some days, Einsteins Unified Field theory was to do with unifying the 4 fundamental forces using a geometric theory. It had nothing to do with the large scale structure of the Universe. All modern work on Unified theories is being conducted using quantum gauge, Brane and super-symmetrical theories.

In this photograph the NASA astronomers describe "A mass so large it is simply known as the Great Attractor" as being a large mass which attracts tens of thousand of galaxy all around it.

Re-read the page again. It says, "The Great Attractor is a <b>diffuse</b> mass concentration fully 250 million light-years away". The last I heard the Great Attractor was thought to be the <a href="http://www.xware.ru/db/msg/apod/1996-02-18">Abell 3627</a>.

This is also further proof that objects larger than the megastar NGC 4881 exist.

Nope. If a single object, as you claim, where more massive than a galactic cluster it's luminosity would be humunguous. So bright that it would easily be discernible through the galactic plane.

As Q asks, where is your evidence that a galactic core is a 'megastar'. Bear in mind that Cepheid variables have been observed in other galaxies. This implies they are made of discrete objects.

If megastars and the Great Attractor are known to exist, and of which we have clear photgraphic evidence of them,

There is no evidence for 'meagastars'. The largest mass stars are of the Eta Carinae/S-Doradus types at around a hundred solar masses. These are spectacularly violent stars with huge outpourings of matter. Your megastars would be even more violent. Obviously they are not.

Plus, the equations of stellar structure tell us that the life time of a star is related to its mass. The more massive the shorter it's life. If a star existed with masses in the 1,000,000 solar mass range its life time should be measured in years. There is no evidence for them forming or dying. They would exist for such a short period we would never even see them.

then we must conclude that organizational systems larger than galaxies exist.

Which we call galactic clusters and super-clusters.

If, as has been shown in this thread with pictorial evidence from NASA, there are at least two more higher levels of organizational systems than galaxy clusters in the known universe,

The distribution of matter across the Universe should be homogeneous. Though surveys have uncovered structures like The Great Wall and Stick Man it's generally a given that we are only seeing a fraction of the whole. In other words, you shouldn't be reading anything into any structures seen.

Also, these large structures are likely the result of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. Recently confirmed by BoOMERANG.

then we must conclude that the known matter in the universe can't be expanding out in all directions,

The observational evidence is against you. You really don't seem to appreciate just how big the Universe is.

but is instead all part of a working system, which correlates with Einstein's idea of a Unified Field Theory.

On the basis this conclusion comes from several incorrect observations, theorems and a misunderstanding of the evidence we can can assume it is wrong.

Originally posted by -iLluSiON-
After reading your various explanations for these space phenonmena, I want to know what your backgrounds in astronomy are. Especially John...

well...?

Graduate Astrophysicist with some post-grad qualifications in Astro as well. I studied it quite some years ago so am not always up on the latest research. Nowadays I have 3 kids to support, much more demanding work.

Thed mentioned The Great Wall and The Stick Man. I thought I would bring these back from days gone by...

<img src="http://www.sciforums.com/t2911/s/attachment.php?postid=41308">
The Great Wall

<img src="http://www.sciforums.com/t2911/s/attachment.php?postid=41179">
The Stick Man

from this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/t2911/s/thread.html)

Einstein's Unified Field Theory was all about the universe being a system encompassing all matter with the controlling force being a singular source of gravitation. Because he didn't complete a mathematical description of it doesn't mean that it wasn't a theory. There are people who believe in the "Big Bang!", "Black Holes", and "String Theories" and there are no mathematical equations that prove any of those. Mathematics is just a tool and can't be used to predict a theory, it can only be used to describe things. Einstein put it this way;

-- "A theory can be tested by experience, but there is no way from experience to the construction of a theory." --Albert Einstein

Thed, you should have posted the entire sentence so that we could discuss it in context. I'll do so;

-- "The Great Attractor is a diffuse mass concentration fully 250 million light-years away, but so large it pulls our own Milky Way Galaxy and millions of others Galaxies towards it." --NASA

1. If the "mass concentration" is attracting millions of galaxy toward it, then it is a single source gravitation and the term "diffuse" does not apply.

2. If the "mass concentration" is attracting millions of galaxy toward it, then all matter cannot be moving away from all other matter, and therefore the "Big Bang!" theory is debunked by NASA.

3. If the "mass concentration" is attracting millions of galaxy toward it, then those millions of galaxy are all within the gravitational field of the Great Attractor and are therefore part of it's system. As they can't all just be magically heading straight for it on a collision course, they must be in orbit around it and are therefore a system with a similar construction to a galaxy, but on a far larger scale.

Equations that predict stellar construction are nothing more than fanciful doodling on paper. There is no way we can predict the burn-rate or life-span of objects that we know nothing about or of which we haven't even seen. Re-read the quote by Einstein that I've listed above. Theories such as Chandra's Limit have no value in practical application. They are a thought experiment only.

The cosmic microwave background is not a force that can affect the movement or placement of matter densities. It is a residual of light, which makes it a lesser form of energy. If it were a greater form of energy than light, we would know much more about it than we do of light. Also, if matter is distributed homogenously throughout the universe, as you say, that is further confirmation that the "Big Bang!" couldn't be true, because if there was ever such a thing as an explosion that started everything, there would be matter densely packed in a concussion boundary moving outwards in all direction, and there would be a vacant center of the universe and a vacant area of the universe out beyond the concussion boundary.

And, Thed, none of the observational evidence is against me. NASA presents the pictures I've been referencing. It is NASA that says the Great Attractor is controlling millions of galaxy. If that, and other, photographs contradict the "Big Bang!" theory, that is because when the theory was originally profferred the advocates of it couldn't see anywhere as clearly as the HST photographs show us.

Wow, John, you're a complete idiot.

There are people who believe in the "Big Bang!", "Black Holes", and "String Theories" and there are no mathematical equations that prove any of those.
This is entirely, indisputably, inarguably, wrong.

Besides, what's wrong this analysis:
he didn't complete a mathematical description
(but it's okay because theories don't need supporting math)
and there are no mathematical equations that prove any of those
(but that's not okay because theories need supporting math)

Which is it, John? Is the lack of mathmatical rigor a problem, or not?
If the "mass concentration" is attracting millions of galaxy toward it, then all matter cannot be moving away from all other matter, and therefore the "Big Bang!" theory is debunked by NASA.
This is also false. You're just incapable of the requisite spatial skills.
As they can't all just be magically heading straight for it on a collision course
Why can't they be? Did Einstein say so?
Equations that predict stellar construction are nothing more than fanciful doodling on paper. There is no way we can predict the burn-rate or life-span of objects that we know nothing about or of which we haven't even seen.
Walk outside at night, and observe, with your very own eyes, some ten-thousand examples of the exact, unrelenting, inescapable correctness of modern theories of stellar structure and evolution. The fact that you refuse to believe how enormously successful have been the modern theories of stellar structure and evolution does not make them any less enormously successful.
Theories such as Chandra's Limit have no value in practical application. They are a thought experiment only.
Well, that's incorrect, too. But besides, what do you have against thought experiments? Ol' Al was pretty fond of them.
which makes it a lesser form of energy.
Hmmmm... a lesser form of energy. So now we have a hierarchy of energy forms, some of which are, what, better than the others? Do they pick the fights on the juvenile energy form playground?
Also, if matter is distributed homogenously throughout the universe, as you say, that is further confirmation that the "Big Bang!" couldn't be true
I'm sorry, but you don't understand Thing One about the Big Bang theory. Go read a book on it -- not a pulp-science paperback by John Gribbin. Go read an astrophysics textbook on it. Learn it. Only then do you have a hope of finding holes in it.
when the theory was originally profferred the advocates of it couldn't see anywhere as clearly as the HST
John, nearly all of the clearest evidence of the Big Bang was discovered through other means than optical telescopy.

- Warren

wet1,

If the Great Wall and the Stick Man were given the same background coloration, they would appear as remarkably similar structures. Are those picture taken from opposite portions of the sky?

All gravitational fields, regardless of size, must have similar structural properties. When you put a magnet under a sheet of paper on which are spread iron filings, a cross section of a magnetic field pattern organizes from the loose filings. It is clear to see that there are corridors between the organized pattern of filings and the same type of corridors must be evident in space. These could possibly be used someday as high speed travelways for space-farers in the future. Here is a picture of what I think might be one such corridor;

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010923.html

Although this picture was once described as a hole in space, and is now described as a dark cloud, I'm sure the previous explanation is more relevant. If the empty place were really a cloud, there would be light reflected off of the edges and any place where there were non-conformities, such as with this picture of clouds;

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970119.html

Originally posted by John MacNeil
Although this picture was once described as a hole in space, and is now described as a dark cloud, I'm sure the previous explanation is more relevant.

Ummmm... okay... well, 21cm radiation is detected from the cloud. That's in fact the way it was determined to be a cloud. Do you understand the signifance of that?

Which is easier to imagine: a cloud of gas, or a "hole in space," whatever the hell that means?

The reason the Eagle nebula appears as it does is because stars are actively being born in it. The ultraviolet light from those stars excites the gas and makes it glow. These regions (called HII regions) only extend as far away from the star as the ultraviolet radiation is powerful enough to cause ionization.

The dark cloud, on the other hand, is much much closer to us than the distant stars. Those stars are nowhere near close enough to ionize the dark cloud, to make it glow like the Eagle nebula. However, both the Eagle nebula and the dark cloud are the same thing: gas and dust.

- Warren

The first picture is of a dust cloud which has no protostar with ignition. Because of that there is no internal illumination to make the cloud visable. So it is more of a coal sack in terms of visable light. To be a reflection nebula, there must be an illumination source nearby.

As chroot mentioned, the Eagle Nebula is visable because of stars being born within. Shortly (in stellar timespan) most of the dust within the vicinity of those new stars will be removed by the light pressure from those stars and they will be revealed to be seen.

There is a good bit of difference between The Stick Man and The Great Wall. The Stick Man can be seen to have a central gravity draw. It is my thought that it could be something like a cluster of dark matter in the vicinity. We are not far enough along to prove that is the case so it will remain my guess. The Great Wall is literally a wall. Not very thick but wide and long. There does not seem to be a draw pulling it all towards a central point.

I still seem to make out a distinctly similar design between the Great Wall and the Stick Man, wet1. Could someone with a computer change the white part of Stick Man to black and the black part of Stick Man to yellow? And then please post the Great Wall picture and the color revised Stick Man picture so they can be observed in the same colors?

Sure, why not. I'll humor you.
<img src="http://www.sciforums.com/t2911/s/attachment.php?postid=41308">
http://users.bigpond.com/greenraven/the%20stickman_new.gif http://users.bigpond.com/greenraven/the%20stickman_new_flipped.gif

The second stickman picture I flipped horizontally just to see what would happen here :)

Thanks, Rav, those picture make explaining a lot easier.

Since the Great Wall and the Stick Man can now be seen to be almost identical formations of clusters of matter, we should be able to deduce that the universe is much more organized than the chaotic "Big Bang!" theory allows for. Since the original photographs of the Great Wall and the Stick Man were actually polar opposites, then we must deduce that the universe is an organized system in which all subsidiary systems are encompassed within, and interacting with, the Unified Field which Einstein so presciently predicted.

Originally posted by John MacNeil
Thanks, Rav, those picture make explaining a lot easier.

Since the Great Wall and the Stick Man can now be seen to be almost identical formations of clusters of matter, we should be able to deduce that the universe is much more organized than the chaotic "Big Bang!" theory allows for. Since the original photographs of the Great Wall and the Stick Man were actually polar opposites, then we must deduce that the universe is an organized system in which all subsidiary systems are encompassed within, and interacting with, the Unified Field which Einstein so presciently predicted.

Umm... John... I hate to break it you, but:

the Great Wall is just the arms of the Stick Man -- those pictures are of the same data, just plotted differently.

...and how you leap to "The Big Bang is Wrong" from a simple plot is beyond me. As has been said time and time again, you just don't understand the concept of scale.

- Warren

Chroot, is there a particular reason why you are playing a fool?

Originally posted by John MacNeil
Chroot, is there a particular reason why you are playing a fool?

You've been big on personal attacks at me recently, which makes me feel... all warm and fuzzy, John. :) I must have a serious effect on you for you to dislike me so much.

Why don't you elaborate on my foolishness? I'm bored at work, and would love a laugh.

- Warren

You are quite wrong, chroot. I don't make gratuitous attack posts. Attack posts do not advance discussion and are therefore a waste of time and effort. I, on the other hand, have been the recipient of attack posts from several individuals for merely stating my opinions, in this and other threads, which happened to be divergent from the attacker's view point. In some such cases I have, regrettably, responded with childish defensive attack posts.

Perhaps we should all refrain from attack posts and thus elevate our dialogue to a more mature level.

Originally posted by John MacNeil
I don't make gratuitous attack posts.

chroot, spend some of your ganjah money on a real dictionary.
Chroot, is there a particular reason why you are playing a fool?
You obviously don't come from a literary circle, chroot, so we'll never have to endure you blandishing your intelligence.
Excellent response. You just keep looking for invisible black holes and the Easter Bunny and clue us in when you get the math done.
You, obviously, got your misunderstanding from a few websites.
With your disdain for "books", it is little wonder that you don't seem to understand the fundamentals of topics that you just see pictures of.
the person who refers to her/himself as "the Q" ...sign of low intelligence
Q, you have yet to make a significant post.
You children have expressed no knowledge of any subject that is under discussion in this thread.
James, you may have read some books and assimilated disparate parts of them, but you definately do not have a conceptual understanding of physics.
You people obviously know very little about physics.
Tell me what grade you are in and I will recommend some appropriate reading material.

...etc., etc.

- Warren

When the Great Wall photograph and the color revised photograph of Stick Man are examined, the matter placement in each can be determined to be slightly different from the other but the basic gravitational structure of both is determined to be the same. Each photograph shows us a representative cross section of the gravity juncture. For them to appear to us as identical gravity structures, Rav had to flip the photograph of Stick man. Our view of both phenomena is relative to our position, the same as when we see a spiral galaxy that looks as if it has a clockwise spin. If we were on the opposite side of space from the same galaxy and viewing it, it would appear to have a counter-clockwise spin. Since the plots of the Great Wall and the Stick Man are known, then we can begin to fill in the Unified Field conceptual map by plotting such hubs, which, since they are now known to be identical type of phenomena, will have to be given a like classification since it is likely we will eventually find may more of them.

No, John, the plots were of the same data, just with the galactic longitude axis flipped.

- Warren

When the current maps of matter distribution in the known universe are studied for even a short length of time, it is easy to discern the placement of mass densities from the areas of relative non-dense mass concentration, such as this map shows us;

http://astro.uni-tuebingen.de/~wilms/teach/cosmo/cosmo277.html

This apparent order of large structures in the universe cannot be in existence if the "Big Bang!" theory is true, since no such order could accrue if all mass concentrations in the universe were expanding away from all other mass concentrations in the universe. The wishy-washy "Big Bang!" theory, which doesn't ever try to explain even the fundamentals, such as how mass could even concentrate into galaxies if it was all exploding away from everything else, is clearly a junk theory. Since the above mapped gravitationally ordered mass concentrations of matter in the known universe ally closely with Einstein's Unified Field Theory, we should be willing to recognize the theory which more closely reflects reality and discard the one which is not representative of any reality.

Originally posted by John MacNeil
This apparent order of large structures in the universe cannot be in existence if the "Big Bang!" theory is true
False.
The wishy-washy "Big Bang!" theory...is clearly a junk theory.
It may be. What's your theory?
Since the above mapped gravitationally ordered mass concentrations of matter in the known universe ally closely with Einstein's Unified Field Theory
So explain to us how Einstein had it all right. Use an equation.

- Warren

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0209/hoag_hst.jpg

Hoag's Object: A Strange Ring Galaxy
Credit: R. Lucas (STScI/AURA), Hubble Heritage Team, NASA

Is this one galaxy or two? This question came to light in 1950 when astronomer Art Hoag chanced upon this unusual extragalactic object. On the outside is a ring dominated by bright blue stars, while near the center lies a ball of much redder stars that are likely much older. Between the two is a gap that appears almost completely dark. How Hoag's Object formed remains unknown, although similar objects have now been identified and collectively labeled as a form of ring galaxy. Genesis hypotheses include a galaxy collision billions of years ago and perturbative gravitational interactions involving an unusually shaped core. The above photo taken by the Hubble Space Telescope in July 2001 reveals unprecedented details of Hoag's Object and may yield a better understanding. Hoag's Object spans about 100,000 light years and lies about 600 million light years away toward the constellation of Serpens. Coincidentally, visible in the gap (at about one o'clock) is yet another ring galaxy that likely lies far in the distance.

Wow how strange. Especially the second ring galaxy in the distance.

Maybe this is is a bell shaped system with a black hole existing directly beyond the core, creating a view of this muti-galaxy as if a flashlight were pinted directly at us......??

Hello all

has anyone thought that this may be an effect of gravitational lensing?

:)

its an binging black hole in the center


the shining thing in the center is supposed to be a big black hole that has punched hole in the galaxy and the center is shining due to all the cores stars having came together near the center revolving around back hole, creating an illusion of a bright star

Hello all

has anyone thought that this may be an effect of gravitational lensing?

:)

I seriously doubt if that elongate galaxy in the background can actually exist in that elongated form. So its obvious that the more the circular object the less chances are that its an lens effect show. Now why will a lens effect be seen in the background is a bigger mystery, may be the smaller galaxy is seen actually in the foreground, somehow an compressed lensing image of the circular one.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/15/image/a

relevant link

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/15/image/a

relevant link


Ring galaxies are an especially striking example of how collisions between galaxies can dramatically change their structure, while also triggering the formation of new stars.
So this structure is probably the result of a collision between two galaxies? Amazing.

there's nothing strange about that. it's just a big solar system.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1306885#post1306885