Cosmology on Microsoft Picture Manager

[Martin Timothy]

Download NGC 253, a spiral galaxy in the constellation Sculptor, thought to be nine million light years distant, from IPOD Astronomy Picture of the day, trim the image to 1359 x 1037 pixels centered on the brightest part of the galaxy, and extending as far as a cluster of emission nebulae, the red bits in the disc of the galaxy, in the lower right hand corner and to similar emission nebulae left upper.

So we want to find out more…

Pythagoras told us the square on the hypotenuse, is the sum of the square of the other two sides, we want to know the measurement of the hypotenuse which is the straight line opposite the right angle, here represented by the square corners provided courtesy of Microsoft Picture Manager.

1359 squared is 1846881
1037 squared is 1075369 add the upper and lower and get 2922250, find the square root is 1709, thus the Galaxy subtends an angle of 1709 pixels, rounded out to 1700.

We want to know that, because there are two more distant spiral galaxies located below right of center in the same shot, coincidentally both are tilted on almost the same plane, as NGC 253.

The lower of the two fits quite neatly in a square box 14 X 14 pixels, observe that the long axis of the galaxy is nearly upright in the box, so its gonna be a bit longer than fourteen pixels call it 16. Then for the sake of simplicity we add another pixel to get 17.

Dividing that by the angle of 1700 subtended by the much closer NGC 253, and find that the more distant galaxy is at least one thousand times more distant, after we subtract the extra pixel we used to make up the numbers, and for the fact that sixteen pixels was likely overstating the case, at something over nine thousand million light years, multiply that sum by 365.24 x 24 x 60 x 60 x 186,000 for miles. Expanding the image further, the blobs of light that appear are even vastly more distant galaxies.

For the fact that the same phenomenon is visible in all directions, blows the Big Bangers out of the water, a cosmic torpedo of physical fact, long obscured by academic and scientific ignorance, going on intellectual fraud and social malfeasance.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

1359 squared is 1846881
1037 squared is 1075369 add the upper and lower and get 2922250, find the square root is 1709, thus the Galaxy subtends an angle of 1709 pixels, rounded out to 1700.

But... Doesn't the square root of 2922250 actually round out to 1709.45897874151984577489765254?

 

[krelnik]

Dividing that by the angle of 1700 subtended by the much closer NGC 253, and find that the more distant galaxy is at least one thousand times more distant...

In order to infer distance from angular size when viewed from earth, you are presuming that all galaxies are the same size, or approximately so.

This is known not to be the case.

Therefore your entire argument is erroneous.

 

[DaveyM]

Space is not a two dimensional plane . Curvature could mean that the sum of squares formula might not be correct.

 

[shadron]

In addition to what Krelnik is saying, you're making an assumption about constancy through time as well as constant size.

Dividing that by the angle of 1700 subtended by the much closer NGC 253, and find that the more distant galaxy is at least one thousand times more distant, after we subtract the extra pixel we used to make up the numbers, and for the fact that sixteen pixels was likely overstating the case, at upwards of ten thousand million light years, multiply 10,000,000 000 by 365.24 x 24 x 60 x 60 x 186,000 for miles. Expanding the image further, the blobs of light that appear are even vastly more distant galaxies.

Besides being unreadable just when you get to the point, what is the reason for converting light years to miles? Just to see the big numbers? Of what significance is the distance in miles? As you point out, it could be 10,000 million light years, or 10 billion (American) light years, which is still within possibility, even with your assumptions. Those things further out might be grossly different from galaxies as you know them, so you have no clue about the actual size.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

It's not like science is married to the "Big Bang" theory, we're just waiting for something better to come along. Got something?

Translation: something better means something that fits the evidence better.

 

[Klimax]

And when we are talking about units,why not the hell use SI?????

They are after all standard everywhere but in one country,which was formerly imperium...and so prefers still its old imperial units...

 

[Martin Timothy]

"...Dividing that by the angle of 1700 subtended by the much closer NGC 253, and find that the more distant galaxy is at least one thousand times more distant," should read ... one hundred times more distant, "...something over nine thousand million light years," should be, over nine hundred million light years distant.

Hi Gang my calculus was a bit rusted, and I overstated the distance to the more distant galaxies described above.

We got the figures by finding the large galaxy is 1700 pixels across, and the small galaxy is somewhere around fourteen pixels across, we know that had the distant place been seventeen pixels wide, it would have been one hundred times further than the published data re NGC 253 that says it is nine million light years away, since it was less than that we do some more calculus.

As each pixel is taken away so does the distance increase, should it become eight and one half pixels, the distance would be eighteen hundred million light years.

Since it was not that small, we will say half way between seventeen and eight and a half, so add four and a quarter pixels for an image half as wide again of twelve and three quarter pixels, a fair total... then for a place that is similarly halfway between the upper and lower limits, go to a distance half way between of 1350 million light years.

 

[Fiona]

long obscured by academic and scientific ignorance, going on intellectual fraud and social malfeasance.

There you go again. Why do you persist in insulting people? If you have a point people will listen and address it seriously. It bothers me that you seem to lack courtesy where none is attacking

 

[Evilgiraffe]

This looks more like arithmetic than calculus.

 

[Complexity]

Who's this 'we'?

Got tapeworms?

 

[The Man]

We got the figures by finding the large galaxy is 1700 pixels across, and the small galaxy is somewhere around fourteen pixels across, we know that had the distant place been seventeen pixels wide, it would have been one hundred times further than the published data re NGC 253 that says it is nine million light years away, since it was less than that we do some more calculus.

So, your entire premises is based on the “published data re NGC 253”. Why not just try to find the published data for the other objects, if the published data for NGC 253 is acceptable to you? If you think current astronomical distancing is wrong then you are wrong to use it as the basis of your assertions and you must first find some other method to rely upon for the distance of NGC 253, then apply that same method for the distances of the other objects. That still may not make you correct but at least then you would be making some effort to be consistent.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

There's also the fact that the method of measuring (actually estimating) distance used in the OP assumes a Euclidean universe ... in LCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) cosmological models with parameters which produce a nice match to billions of observations, various 'distance measures' diverge from each other the further away you go. Ned Wright's popular cosmology website has a simplified explanation of this.

Add it all up, and all I think we learn is that Martin Timothy apparently hasn't read up enough on extragalactic astronomy and cosmology (especially 'the Big Bang Theory') to realise that his back of the envelope calculations are badly wrong.

Here's a suggestion: find the redshift of the smaller galaxies in the NGC 253 field (know how to do that?), estimate their distances (know how?), and do the reverse calculation - what are the physical sizes of the distant galaxies compared with NGC 253?

Oh, and the OP defines a method of estimating the size of NGC 253, but then does not use it to estimate the size of the distant galaxies ... kinda like using one ruler to measure the foreground object and another to measure the background one, without bothering to even ask how well the two scales match, much less trying to find out ...

 

[Martin Timothy]

So far we are getting a handle on the scale of the universe...

Our original data said the nearly edge on spiral galaxy with a long axis of 12.75 pixels was around one thousand three hundred and fifty million light years distant, in that model each pixel of image width is equal to around one hundred and six million light years in linear distance, published data gave NGC 253 as nine million light years distant, and using the precise measurement along its length of seventeen hundred pixels.

Exactly the same applies locally:

GLIMPSE, the acronym for Galactic Legacy Infrared Mid-Plane Survey Extraordinaire, called the Spitzer Space Telescope was launched August 25, 2003, the data it returned gave one hundred and thirty degrees as the longitudinal dimension of the Milky Way.

Data says NGC 253 is nearly one half degree long, for our purpose we calculate that as half a degree, because once we divide it by the one thirty degrees of the Milky Way, we are gonna get two hundred and sixty, if we had been finicky with it all we would have rounded it out to that sum any way.

That means that the Milky Way is two hundred and sixty times closer than NGC 253. Nine million divided by two sixty is thirty four thousand two hundred and twenty, which is how many light years the Earth Sun System is from the center of the home or Milky Way Galaxy.

 

[shadron]

He obviously isn't listening. "la, la, la la la - I can't hear you - la la la, la."

 

[The Man]

...in that model each pixel of image width is equal to around one hundred and six million light years in linear distance...

Not a very accurate tool for measuring distances is it?

Have you never heard of a period? It is generally used to separate statements as separate sentences.

You do realize that this is a discussion forum, which requires some obligatory responses on your part. Failing in that I would not be surprised if other posters take after your lead and just start posting whatever suits them regardless of it’s relevance to the discussion (which as of now there is very little on your part).

 

[Reality Check]

So far we are getting a handle on the scale of the universe...

Our original data said the nearly edge on spiral galaxy with a long axis of 12.75 pixels was around one thousand three hundred and fifty million light years distant, in that model each pixel of image width is equal to around one hundred and six million light years in linear distance, published data gave NGC 253 as nine million light years distant, and using the precise measurement along its length of seventeen hundred pixels.

Exactly the same applies locally:

GLIMPSE, the acronym for Galactic Legacy Infrared Mid-Plane Survey Extraordinaire, called the Spitzer Space Telescope was launched August 25, 2003, the data it returned gave one hundred and thirty degrees as the longitudinal dimension of the Milky Way.

Data says NGC 253 is nearly one half degree long, for our purpose we calculate that as half a degree, because once we divide it by the one thirty degrees of the Milky Way, we are gonna get two hundred and sixty, if we had been finicky with it all we would have rounded it out to that sum any way.

That means that the Milky Way is two hundred and sixty times closer than NGC 253. Nine million divided by two sixty is thirty four thousand two hundred and twenty, which is how many light years the Earth Sun System is from the center of the home or Milky Way Galaxy.

Please state your proof that all galaxies are the same size.
Failing that please state your proof that NGC 253 is the same size as the Milky Way.

 

[Dancing David]

Download NGC 253, a spiral galaxy in the constellation Sculptor, thought to be nine million light years distant, from IPOD Astronomy Picture of the day, trim the image to 1359 x 1037 pixels centered on the brightest part of the galaxy, and extending as far as a cluster of emission nebulae, the red bits in the disc of the galaxy, in the lower right hand corner and to similar emission nebulae left upper.

So we want to find out more…

Pythagoras told us the square on the hypotenuse, is the sum of the square of the other two sides, we want to know the measurement of the hypotenuse which is the straight line opposite the right angle, here represented by the square corners provided courtesy of Microsoft Picture Manager.

1359 squared is 1846881
1037 squared is 1075369 add the upper and lower and get 2922250, find the square root is 1709, thus the Galaxy subtends an angle of 1709 pixels, rounded out to 1700.

We want to know that, because there are two more distant spiral galaxies located below right of center in the same shot, coincidentally both are tilted on almost the same plane, as NGC 253.

The lower of the two fits quite neatly in a square box 14 X 14 pixels, observe that the long axis of the galaxy is nearly upright in the box, so its gonna be a bit longer than fourteen pixels call it 16. Then for the sake of simplicity we add another pixel to get 17.

Dividing that by the angle of 1700 subtended by the much closer NGC 253, and find that the more distant galaxy is at least one thousand times more distant, after we subtract the extra pixel we used to make up the numbers, and for the fact that sixteen pixels was likely overstating the case, at something over nine thousand million light years, multiply that sum by 365.24 x 24 x 60 x 60 x 186,000 for miles. Expanding the image further, the blobs of light that appear are even vastly more distant galaxies.

For the fact that the same phenomenon is visible in all directions, blows the Big Bangers out of the water, a cosmic torpedo of physical fact, long obscured by academic and scientific ignorance, going on intellectual fraud and social malfeasance.

OOOK?


What does this one tell you?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080409.html

or this one
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2007/2007/31/results/20/

or this one

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2008/09/results/20/

 

[Martin Timothy]

The Large Magellanic Cloud is generally described as a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way, it was at the tidal boundary of the galaxy when it formed, the gravity source can not keep the disc stable outwardly for ever, and bits will spin off and go their own way at that place, some will keep expanding to form clouds of stars that eventually drift away into inter galactic space.

This is the physical force that makes all similar disc galaxies the same size give or take, check results with red shift measurements and find the mean in no time at all.

See compressed matter in the arms of spiral galaxies expanding in emission nebulae, globules of stars resembling bunches of grapes form as the hole matter expands, see file material and very rare photo’s, the individual grapes become individual stars, see the Pleiades, as expansion continues some groups will remain held together forming star systems.

Most tech data I accrued from Sky & Telescope and Astronomy Magazines, I cancelled both subscription when they kept doing dumb down stories.

Look for very rare shots of a spidery looking juvenile galaxy drifting away from its parent, M32 is likely an embryo galaxy that will expand as a child galaxy of M31, the famed Andromeda Galaxy, Omega Centauri is maybe an embryo galaxy of the Milky Way, possibly both it and M32 will expand to form major galaxies.

The Hubble deep field shot shows a lot of high red shift galaxies, for the fact that they are supposed to be receding at a high percentage of the speed of light is nowhere apparent, every place in the sky reveals the same thing billions of galaxies in every direction. Red shift is an artifact of distance, it does not chart actual physical recession.

The next piece is a HST article about gravitational lensing which is observable on deep field shots, as the light from distant places is occulted by an intervening object and provides a double image, or light from further objects is bent into arcs around an intervening massive object, a super elliptical galaxy at the center of a cluster of galaxies most often.

 

[Reality Check]

The Large Magellanic Cloud is generally described as a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way, it was at the tidal boundary of the galaxy when it formed, the gravity source can not keep the disc stable outwardly for ever, and bits will spin off and go their own way at that place, some will keep expanding to form clouds of stars that eventually drift away into inter galactic space.

This is the physical force that makes all similar disc galaxies the same size give or take, check results with red shift measurements and find the mean in no time at all.

The size of galaxies ranges from 1,000 to 100,000 parasecs and thus subtend different angular magnitudes. Therefore you need to state what size of the galaxy you are comparing to the Milky Way.

See compressed matter in the arms of spiral galaxies expanding in emission nebulae, globules of stars resembling bunches of grapes form as the hole matter expands, see file material and very rare photo’s. These expand the individual grapes become individual stars, see the Pleiades, as expansion continues some groups will remain held together forming star systems.

Most tech data I accrued from Sky & Telescope and Astronomy Magazines, I cancelled both subscription when they kept doing dumb down stories.

Look for very rare shots of a spidery looking juvenile galaxy drifting away from its parent, M32 is likely an embryo galaxy that will expand as a child galaxy of M31, the famed Andromeda Galaxy, Omega Centauri is maybe an embryo galaxy of the Milky Way, possibly both it and M32 will expand to form major galaxies.

The Hubble deep field shot shows a lot of high red shift galaxies, for the fact that they are supposed to be receding at a high percentage of the speed of light is nowhere apparent, every place in the sky reveals the same thing billions of galaxies in every direction. Red shift is an artifact of distance, it does not chart actual physical recession.

Cosmological red shift is not an artifact of distance and does chart actual physical recession.

The next piece is a HST article about gravitational lensing which is observable on deep field shots, as the light from distant places is occulted by an intervening object and provides a double image, or light from further objects is bent into arcs around an intervening massive object, a super elliptical galaxy at the center of a cluster of galaxies most often.

Where can we see this "next piece"? What does it have to do with this thread?