A Strange Ring Galaxy

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

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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...?

 

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.

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>.

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.

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.

Which we call galactic clusters and super-clusters.

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.

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

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

 

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

 

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.

This is entirely, indisputably, inarguably, wrong.

Besides, what's wrong this analysis:

(but it's okay because theories don't need supporting math)

(but that's not okay because theories need supporting math)

Which is it, John? Is the lack of mathmatical rigor a problem, or not?

This is also false. You're just incapable of the requisite spatial skills.

Why can't they be? Did Einstein say so?

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.

Well, that's incorrect, too. But besides, what do you have against thought experiments? Ol' Al was pretty fond of them.

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?

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.

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

 

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">

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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