Cosmology on Microsoft Picture Manager

[DeiRenDopa]

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

.
Rather difficult to have a dialogue with someone who doesn't, apparently, even bother to read responses, much less reply.

But given JREF's popularity, it is a rather good way to give MT's own blog a rather greater readership than it would otherwise have, isn't it?

Surely this forum isn't in the business of giving MT a place to blog for free, is it?

 

[wollery]

Wow! Just, wow!

That's some of the worst maths and reasoning I've seen on this forum in a long time, and that's really saying something!

You might want to look at a few published papers on galaxy sizes, you can start here. You only need to look at the first figure, which compares the optical radius of a variety of galaxy types to their HI radius. The small circles are spiral galaxies. Note the large variation in both optical and HI radius.

 

[shadron]

.
Rather difficult to have a dialogue with someone who doesn't, apparently, even bother to read responses, much less reply.

But given JREF's popularity, it is a rather good way to give MT's own blog a rather greater readership than it would otherwise have, isn't it?

Surely this forum isn't in the business of giving MT a place to blog for free, is it?

On this forum, I suppose he can blog all he wants to. Anyone looking through it will also see he responses, and that's fair. The forum management doesn't terminate rights for simply being wrong, or even irritating as he is; even trolls generally make it through. Mr. Timothy isn't going anywhere with pixel measurements on photo images.

 

[Martin Timothy]

“…That's the worst math’s and reasoning … look at a few published papers on galaxy sizes.”

Galaxy sizes are not a factor here, the profile of the MW galaxy on the GLIMPSE data shows it has the same characteristics as many similar galaxies including NGC 253 that have the same overall profile, ie emission nebulae traced by radio emissions spaced as far apart as they should be.

Certainly less active galaxies have less active profiles, while spherical galaxies fall into a different category altogether, neither classes of object should be mistaken for anything else. A critter called a dwarf spiral could trip you up if you were only doing visual work, however all serious, thence thesis and employment driven work, should be accompanied by red shift data, which would instantly reveal any undersize runt spiral galaxies, with potentially active cores, trying to sneak onto the main list.

The determining factor here is not disc size, but how reliable is the data that placed NGC 253 at nine million light years distant… Wikipedia gives two vastly different options one under eleven mill, the other over twelve millions of LY away.

The fact that there are such wide discrepancies, does further damage to the academic reputation of the scientific community, many of whom are tasked with interpreting data obtained in publicly funded programs.

 

[Reality Check]

“…That's the worst math’s and reasoning … look at a few published papers on galaxy sizes.”

Galaxy sizes are not a factor here, the profile of the MW galaxy on the GLIMPSE data shows it has the same characteristics as many similar galaxies including NGC 253 that have the same overall profile, ie emission nebulae traced by radio emissions spaced as far apart as they should be.

Certainly less active galaxies have less active profiles, while spherical galaxies fall into a different category altogether, neither classes of object should be mistaken for anything else. A critter called a dwarf spiral could trip you up if you were only doing visual work, however all serious, thence thesis and employment driven work, should be accompanied by red shift data, which would instantly reveal any undersize runt spiral galaxies, with potentially active cores, trying to sneak onto the main list.

The determining factor here is not disc size, but how reliable is the data that placed NGC 253 at nine million light years distant… Wikipedia gives two vastly different options one under eleven mill, the other over twelve millions of LY away.

The fact that there are such wide discrepancies, does further damage to the academic reputation of the scientific community, many of whom are tasked with interpreting data obtained in publicly funded programs.

Are you trying to calculate the distance to NGC 253? If so what is the point of calcuations comparing the angular size of different sized objects?

Please state your proof that all galaxies are the same size. Did you read the Wikipedia article? If not here is the information you need to know:

Most galaxies are 1,000 to 100,000 paraecs in diameter and are usually separated by distances on the order of millions of parsecs (or megaparsecs).

Is NGC 253 and the galaxy you are trying to compare it to both the size of Messier 101? Is one the size of Messier 101 and the other a dwarf galaxy with a diameter of 100 time less?

The NGC 253 article states:

At least two techniques have been used to measure distances to Sculptor in the past ten years.
Using the planetary nebula luminosity function method, an estimate of 10.89 +0.85−1.24 Mly (3.34 +0.26−0.38 Mpc) was achieved in 2006.[2]
Sculptor is close enough that the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) method may also be used to estimate its distance. The estimated distance to Sculptor using this technique in 2004 yielded 12.8 ± 1.2 Mly (3.94 ± 0.37 Mpc).[8][9]
Combining the most reliable distance estimates to get a weighted average gives a distance of 11.4 ± 0.7 Mly (3.5 ± 0.2 Mpc).[2]

A 10% error is a good measurement error for cosmological distances.

What error in measurement would you accept as not doing "further damage to the academic reputation of the scientific community, many of whom are tasked with interpreting data obtained in publicly funded programs"?

 

[Complexity]

I love the idea of Reality Check posting in a Martin Timothy thread.

Pity it will have no effect.

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks for the response!

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.

My point being this, here is something that might look like a barred spiral, it has a large angular measure and threrefore would mess up your sort of calculations.

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.

Okay, any math to back that up. usually the current model is of consoladation, depending on the mass ratios and speed of the bodies.

So galaxies calve?

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.

care to elaborate your explanation?

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.

So how does it effect the apparent angular measure of a galaxy compared to it's distance?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

“…That's the worst math’s and reasoning … look at a few published papers on galaxy sizes.”

Galaxy sizes are not a factor here, the profile of the MW galaxy on the GLIMPSE data shows it has the same characteristics as many similar galaxies including NGC 253 that have the same overall profile, ie emission nebulae traced by radio emissions spaced as far apart as they should be.

Certainly less active galaxies have less active profiles, while spherical galaxies fall into a different category altogether, neither classes of object should be mistaken for anything else. A critter called a dwarf spiral could trip you up if you were only doing visual work, however all serious, thence thesis and employment driven work, should be accompanied by red shift data, which would instantly reveal any undersize runt spiral galaxies, with potentially active cores, trying to sneak onto the main list.

(bolding added)

Perhaps you think that all galaxies can be neatly put into well-defined categories, with no ambiguity? And I guess that by 'spherical galaxies' you mean ellipticals, right?

Into what bucket do you then put lenticulars? the debris from collisions (e.g. tidal streams)? colliding/merging galaxies? low surface brightness galaxies?
.

The determining factor here is not disc size, but how reliable is the data that placed NGC 253 at nine million light years distant… Wikipedia gives two vastly different options one under eleven mill, the other over twelve millions of LY away.

.
If you rely upon popular material as your source, and if you do not even try to understand how the distances to galaxies are estimated, then you will inevitably make really stupid, ignorant statements like this.

Oh, and once you learn that all estimates of extra-galactic distances come with quoted uncertainties and assumptions, you may find why "two vastly different options one under eleven mill, the other over twelve millions of LY away" would provoke wry mirth from professional astronomers.

If you are going to attack modern astronomy, cosmology, etc, you should at least be sufficiently familiar with the subject that you don't make such silly statements as this.
.

The fact that there are such wide discrepancies, does further damage to the academic reputation of the scientific community, many of whom are tasked with interpreting data obtained in publicly funded programs.

.
Given how badly you have understood what you are reporting, it would seem the blame should rest with those who write popular articles, for not being sufficiently clear in what they write concerning the uncertainties in estimating extra-galactic distances ... or on your own shoulders for not taking the trouble to check your facts before spouting off with ignorant nonsense.

 

[wollery]

Another problem that you have, having reread your OP, is that you fail to take into account the fact that more distant objects are dimmer.

Assuming for a moment that these galaxies are indeed identical in size and shape, and that one of them is a lot further away than the other, the fact that they are in the same image means that the one which is further away will be visible out to a smaller radius than the nearer one.

Look again at the paper I referenced earlier. You'll note that when comparing the optical radius of the galaxies they use a value called R₂₅. This is the radius at which the isophotal magnitude is 25 mag/pc². This is a measure of the absolute light emitted over the apparent surface of the galaxy. This is an absolute magnitude measure - it does not change with distance.

What you are measuring are the apparent radii of a nearby galaxy and a distant galaxy. The result is that the distant galaxy appears smaller than it actually is, because the light from the outer edges is too faint to be detected in that image.

Hence, using your ridiculously simple method the distant galaxy appears (under the assumption that the two galaxies are identical) to be a lot smaller, and therefore a lot further away, than it actually is.

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

You need to read the dumbed down versions, because, seriously, your knowledge of even basic astronomy is severely lacking.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

One more selection effect ...

Most of the nearest 100 stars to us are not visible without a telescope ... they are too faint.

Several of the brightest stars are, in fact, a long way away - Rigel, Betelgeuse, Deneb, Acrux, Antares, ...

If you select galaxies by only their apparent (angular) size, then rank them by distance, you will find that the range of distances is quite large.

If you then take the absolute magnitude of these galaxies (being careful to ensure you are consistent about this), and rank them accordingly, you'll find the more distant ones are, in general, much brighter than the closer ones. Of course, the more distant ones will also be larger, in absolute physical scale, than the closer ones.

What you need to do the kind of 'back of the envelope cosmology' you seem to be trying to do is determine the (absolute, physical) size distribution of galaxies, then match this to their absolute brightness. Having chosen a couple of 'distant' galaxies, you then have the inputs you need to estimate what the likely absolute physical scale of those galaxies is ... provided, of course, you also have some good handle on what the faintest galaxy you could see would be, as a function of distance.

 

[Martin Timothy]

“…So galaxies calve?”

Sure they do ...Look on deep field images for rare shots of spidery looking juvenile galaxies drifting away from parent bodies, see the Andromeda Galaxy pairing called variously M31 and M32, and see the small bright, tightly knit cluster like object as an embryo galaxy, maybe Omega Centauri is an embryo galaxy of the Milky Way, possibly both it and M31 will expand to form major galaxies.

Of three galaxies in rough alignment ours, NGC 253 and the anonymous galaxy with the long dimension of twelve point seven five pixels which we placed at one thousand three hundred and fifty million light years distant, at which distance each pixel width is about one hundred and six million light years, only the distance between us and NGC 253 is in doubt.

To add twenty six point five million light year increments to the more distant place, interpret the image per each quarter pixel, continue to refine the basic data as it becomes available.

This discussion commenced with the APOD shot of NGC 253, now via the size and scale of the universe, grander objects have been reached.

Swirling at the heart of the Andromeda galaxy are two black holes in forty day orbit, assume a similar situ at the heart of the home galaxy ...recall the Yin Yang diagram ...perhaps the swirling black holes at the center of the galaxy are the source of the Tao, see the galaxies on deep field images as neurons in the brain of God.

 

[Dancing David]

“…So galaxies calve?”

Sure they do ...Look on deep field images for rare shots of spidery looking juvenile galaxies drifting away from parent bodies, see the Andromeda Galaxy pairing called variously M31 and M32, and see the small bright, tightly knit cluster like object as an embryo galaxy, maybe Omega Centauri is an embryo galaxy of the Milky Way, possibly both it and M31 will expand to form major galaxies.

Of three galaxies in rough alignment ours, NGC 253 and the anonymous galaxy with the long dimension of twelve point seven five pixels which we placed at one thousand three hundred and fifty million light years distant, at which distance each pixel width is about one hundred and six million light years, only the distance between us and NGC 253 is in doubt.

To add twenty six point five million light year increments to the more distant place, interpret the image per each quarter pixel, continue to refine the basic data as it becomes available.

This discussion commenced with the APOD shot of NGC 253, now via the size and scale of the universe, grander objects have been reached.

Swirling at the heart of the Andromeda galaxy are two black holes in forty day orbit, assume a similar situ at the heart of the home galaxy ...recall the Yin Yang diagram ...perhaps the swirling black holes at the center of the galaxy are the source of the Tao, see the galaxies on deep field images as neurons in the brain of God.

Um, I am not sure how it follows that a small body is going to just move off from another, unless it has a high respective velocity prior to the encounter.

I thought small galaxies were captured by bigger ones and eventually subsumed.

 

[The Man]

Swirling at the heart of the Andromeda galaxy are two black holes in forty day orbit, assume a similar situ at the heart of the home galaxy ...recall the Yin Yang diagram ...perhaps the swirling black holes at the center of the galaxy are the source of the Tao, see the galaxies on deep field images as neurons in the brain of God.

OOOOOKKKKK...

"Waiter, check please"

 

[Reality Check]

“…So galaxies calve?”

Sure they do ...Look on deep field images for rare shots of spidery looking juvenile galaxies drifting away from parent bodies, see the Andromeda Galaxy pairing called variously M31 and M32, and see the small bright, tightly knit cluster like object as an embryo galaxy, maybe Omega Centauri is an embryo galaxy of the Milky Way, possibly both it and M31 will expand to form major galaxies.

Of three galaxies in rough alignment ours, NGC 253 and the anonymous galaxy with the long dimension of twelve point seven five pixels which we placed at one thousand three hundred and fifty million light years distant, at which distance each pixel width is about one hundred and six million light years, only the distance between us and NGC 253 is in doubt.

To add twenty six point five million light year increments to the more distant place, interpret the image per each quarter pixel, continue to refine the basic data as it becomes available.

This discussion commenced with the APOD shot of NGC 253, now via the size and scale of the universe, grander objects have been reached.

Swirling at the heart of the Andromeda galaxy are two black holes in forty day orbit, assume a similar situ at the heart of the home galaxy ...recall the Yin Yang diagram ...perhaps the swirling black holes at the center of the galaxy are the source of the Tao, see the galaxies on deep field images as neurons in the brain of God.

The fact that there are small galaxies near larger ones does not mean that the smaller ones "calved" from the larger. They are just near the larger galaxy and created in the same process that created the larger galaxy. BTW Like the Milky Way, Andromeda Galaxy has satellite galaxies, consisting of 14 known dwarf galaxies.

The nucleus of the Andromeda Galaxy does not have 2 black holes. It has 1 and a a disk of stars in an eccentric orbit around the central black hole. The Milky Way has 1 central black hole.
No "Yin Yang diagram" or "source of the Tao" - Does this prove that the brain of God is really dumb?

 

[wollery]

Okay, I have absolutely no idea how to respond to Martin's last post, it's pure fantasy with no connection at all to reality. He's taken anthropomorphising celestial objects to a whole new level.

I don't think there's anything to be gained by further discussion.

 

[Martin Timothy]

A program like Google sky, which should include up to date maps made from publicly funded satellite, and ground based, radio and x-ray sources, is long overdue.

Astrometry data is essential, so has it been hijacked by NASA and JPL, whose joint purpose has itself been hijacked by defense, which has been hijacked by hijackers who run government, who employ hijackers to hijack hard evidence and true science.

They try to sell their version back to the public in books and publications with Saganesque data about cannibal galaxies, and wanna tell you, “…well there was this Big Bang,” there was no BB, man is gonna plunge back into the age of ignorance while it remains the province of the select few, with the right security clearance, to get an education.

Previous ages of ignorance produced The Masons, since the powers wanted skilled people around to build their castles and mausoleums, without their people getting smart, so they closed the schools and made education the province of the rich.

With good sky maps available, that have photographs and catalogues of deep fields, and astrometry and radio locating and red shift data, it does not take long to figure it all out.

 

[wollery]

 

[Reality Check]

A program like Google sky, which should include up to date maps made from publicly funded satellite, and ground based, radio and x-ray sources, is long overdue.

Astrometry data is essential, so has it been hijacked by NASA and JPL, whose joint purpose has itself been hijacked by defense, which has been hijacked by hijackers who run government, who employ hijackers to hijack hard evidence and true science.

They try to sell their version back to the public in books and publications with Saganesque data about cannibal galaxies, and wanna tell you, “…well there was this Big Bang,” there was no BB, man is gonna plunge back into the age of ignorance while it remains the province of the select few, with the right security clearance, to get an education.

Previous ages of ignorance produced The Masons, since the powers wanted skilled people around to build their castles and mausoleums, without their people getting smart, so they closed the schools and made education the province of the rich.

With good sky maps available, that have photographs and catalogues of deep fields, and astrometry and radio locating and red shift data, it does not take long to figure it all out.

To figure all what out?

This age of ignorance produces all sorts of crackpots who are too lazy to learn elementary mathematics or physics despite the vast resources that the internet makes available to them.

I assume that you have proof that there was no Big Bang.? Perhaps an alternate cause for the cosmic microwave background (including its structure and spectrum)?

 

[Dancing David]

They try to sell their version back to the public in books and publications with Saganesque data about cannibal galaxies ...

So what happens down the line when our galaxy collides with Andromeda, will gravity be magically done away with, or will the two centers rotate around each other in decreasing ellipses?

So the galaxies will not collide, what about gravity?

 

[shadron]

Astrometry data is essential, so has it been hijacked by NASA and JPL, whose joint purpose has itself been hijacked by defense, which has been hijacked by hijackers who run government, who employ hijackers to hijack hard evidence and true science.Previous ages of ignorance produced The Masons, since the powers wanted skilled people around to build their castles and mausoleums, without their people getting smart, so they closed the schools and made education the province of the rich.

With good sky maps available, that have photographs and catalogues of deep fields, and astrometry and radio locating and red shift data, it does not take long to figure it all out.

Well, I don't really feel I need to criticize, but I will point out that this sounds a lot like a case of an Astronomy wannabe that failed, possible for lack of math background. The attitude is right - blame it on someone else, preferably a nameless someone else so it cannot argue with him. This needs to be sent to the CT forum.