A Strange Ring Galaxy

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, that sounds pretty good. Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What about the Chandra Limit?

 

What's that??

 

Chandrasekhar limit

Chandrasekhar limit

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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'.--

 

"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;

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!