Once again I am doing another quiz (not homework just helps with understanding material). I put what I thought, wondering if anyone could help?

Thanks

The structure of the center of the Galaxy has been hypothesized with the help of
a. visible observations.
b. X-ray observations.
c. infrared and radio observations.
d. infrared and X-ray observations?

The Milky Way is
a. a faint band of light that stretches from one horizon to the other.
b. made of thousands of dim stars.
c. the name of the galaxy in which our solar system is found.
d. all of the above?

Galaxies that spin according to Kepler's laws of motion have
a. more stars than the Milky Way.
b. fewer stars than the Milky Way.
c. no dark matter???
d. spiral arms with no dust.

If the Earth were located at the center of the Galaxy, we would see
a. globular clusters in only one direction.
b. globular clusters in all directions?
c. supernova events less frequently.
d. no globular clusters.

Star clusters that surround the center of the Milky Way are
a. composed of about 100,000 stars.
b. called globular clusters?
c. galactic clusters.
d. both a) and b) are correct.

1) D
2) Id say C (It stretches beyond the horizon and i wouldnt say an accurate description is made of thousands of dim stars
3)Id say C
4)B
5)D

I concur with Tristan's answers. #2 is pretty ambiguous.

THE real question is how we can as rational intelegent people accept the idea that alL galaxies formed from... condensing gas cloudS...

the earliest photos of galaxies... 13 billion years old... in the hubble deep field.. are small...

and the hubble shows... galaxies get bigger over time... not smaller..

they seem, to all apperances, to have exploded from a central core.....

maybe... obviously.. from the supposive giant black hole at the center.
maybe its not a hole.. but alot of dense mass... ready to explode.. or it did.


im sorry but the condensing gas cloud theory just doesnt cut the mustard..
and you should all know that.

-MT

Another question...

Density waves cause
a. Gas and dust to pile up in crests and later spread out.
b. Star-forming material to crowd up and initiate star formation.
c. Older stars to spread out through the galaxy.
d. All of the above?

Mosheh Thezion: What??????

If your post made any measure of sense, id try to reply.
But you have so many misconceptions imbedded in your words... its hard to even think where to start.


Anyway,

the answer is B

A.) well that doesnt make any sense. Density waves cause material to coalesce into greater and greater amounts of material.
B.) Hence, star formation can occur when density waves cause gas to clump up in a cloud of gas.
C.) Older stars blow up or shed their outer layers... Density waves dont help them 'propogate' through space.


mstarry: ignore MT

Yeah, I did ignore MT's babbling


Thanks!

What??????
if you only knew how many times i had the same reaction

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/8199/199452cweb4hg.th.jpg (http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=199452cweb4hg.jpg)

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/516/199601aweb7hg.th.jpg (http://img293.imageshack.us/my.php?image=199601aweb7hg.jpg)

SO THEN we also remember that analysis shows that iron is present in abundance...
in the supposive firsts stars... 13 billion years ago.. in the hubble images.

so.. the whole idea of condensing clouds.. and a hydrogen beginning doesnt cut the mustard...

so... ignore it... its ok... just buy the old line.. the one they feed you.
its much easiler that thinking for yourself...

-MT

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/8199/199452cweb4hg.th.jpg (http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=199452cweb4hg.jpg)

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/516/199601aweb7hg.th.jpg (http://img293.imageshack.us/my.php?image=199601aweb7hg.jpg)

SO THEN we also remember that analysis shows that iron is present in abundance...
in the supposive firsts stars... 13 billion years ago.. in the hubble images.

so.. the whole idea of condensing clouds.. and a hydrogen beginning doesnt cut the mustard...

so... ignore it... its ok... just buy the old line.. the one they feed you.
its much easiler that thinking for yourself...

-MT
You only say that because you do not believe in fusion nor understand that iron is one of the final products of it in stars. It only shows your ignorance of facts - not someone else's.

And by the way, where is your proof of the claim you made that tokamaks were being sold to transmute nuclear waste from fission? Are you still trying to hide from that one????????

GESH BUDDY... due your own google searches.. tokamak+nuclear waste
gesh... are you an idiot?

GESH BUDDY... due your own google searches.. tokamak+nuclear waste
gesh... are you an idiot?
Yeah! Right! And when you include either the words "sell" or "purchase" you get zero hits.

Wanna try that nonsense again? WHERE are they being offered for sale?????

SO THEN we also remember that analysis shows that iron is present in abundance...
in the supposive firsts stars... 13 billion years ago.. in the hubble images.

so.. the whole idea of condensing clouds.. and a hydrogen beginning doesnt cut the mustard...

so... ignore it... its ok... just buy the old line.. the one they feed you.
its much easiler that thinking for yourself...

-MT

If you had any idea what you are talking about, maybe I wouldnt be so mad. But you don't. To find out what a star was ORIGNIALLY made of, we use something called stellar spectroscopy. If you want a detailed explanation, please I will oblige.

First of all, we dont know if the first stars even exist. They are called population III stars and probably were so big they lived and died very quickly. ON TOP OF THAT, I dont know where you have this idea that we can perform spectroscopy on stars at the edge of the universe... thats impossible. So to your comment that we know of Iron in the first stars.... no...no no no no no no no.

Mosheh, why are you making such ignorant comments knowing full well that you don't know what you're talking about? WHY?

NO... the only problem is here... is my lack of desire to do the work..

and i mean work... in re-educating you.

i dont have the time..

i know...

you will shout and claim victory.... thats fine.

enjoy it... i cant waste my time on you.

-MT

rofl


(P.S. If you are too lazy to do the work, then please respect my request and no longer post responses in the Astronomy subforum. Thanks)

...please respect my request and no longer post responses in the Astronomy subforum. Thanks)Don't be so hard on MT. The world needs clowns.

THE real question is how we can as rational intelegent people accept the idea that alL galaxies formed from... condensing gas cloudS...

We can observe millions of galaxies in various stages of development thoughout time, coupled with our experimental evidence of the physical laws of nature, we can conclude a rational agreement, even amongst the not so intelegent people.

the earliest photos of galaxies... 13 billion years old... in the hubble deep field.. are small...

and the hubble shows... galaxies get bigger over time... not smaller..

Some get bigger, some get smaller, some might even stay the same size.

And, when you look at the big picture, does size really matter?

they seem, to all apperances, to have exploded from a central core.....

Appearances can be deceiving. Galaxies formed by matter coming together, not exploding apart.

maybe... obviously.. from the supposive giant black hole at the center.
maybe its not a hole.. but alot of dense mass... ready to explode.. or it did.

Correct, it is a dense mass, but it shouldn't explode.

im sorry but the condensing gas cloud theory just doesnt cut the mustard..
and you should all know that.

-MT

Yes, we do know that you probably won't accept it. And although some here might take heart for your ordeal, galaxies, however, won't mind all that much.

Q said:
Appearances can be deceiving. Galaxies formed by matter coming together, not exploding apart.


and i ask for the evidense.... go ahead... caue it doesnt exist. its theory.

go ahead... look for it.. lots of talk... but no walk.... ask hubble.. he'll tell ya.
OR... actually.. hubble wont tell you.. it can only show you.
you must look and interpret that whole big picture.


-MT

Q said:
Appearances can be deceiving. Galaxies formed by matter coming together, not exploding apart.


and i ask for the evidense.... go ahead... caue it doesnt exist. its theory.

go ahead... look for it.. lots of talk... but no walk.... ask hubble.. he'll tell ya.
OR... actually.. hubble wont tell you.. it can only show you.
you must look and interpret that whole big picture.


-MT

Yes, and isnt looking and interppreting the "whole big picture" what science is all about?

MT, your just being argumentitive.

Yes, and isnt looking and interppreting the "whole big picture" what science is all about?

MT, your just being argumentitive.
No, not really. He's a self-styled know-it-all who actually knows very little about real science. The thinks he's found some great insight into explaining the mysteries of the universe but everything he bothers to post is just so much worthless junk.

If perhaps you think I'm being to hard on him, simply look through the posts he's made in many other threads. Pretty pathetic, actually.

sticks and stones may break my bones..
and saying mean words may hurt my feelings.

but.
the only thing that matters is evidense.
-MT

sticks and stones may break my bones..
and saying mean words may hurt my feelings.

but.
the only thing that matters is evidense.
-MT
Quite right - of which you have exactly none.

boooya Light! Wit is a wonderful thing :)

boooya Light! Wit is a wonderful thing :)
:D Even though sheer nonsense like his can be entertaining at times, wit is still better - I think.