A Strange Ring Galaxy

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no more stupid answers.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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/defaul...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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

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

 

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

I don't know John, pick one.

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

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.

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?

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:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.