Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #725979 > unrolled thread

Galaxies precess

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Galaxies precess john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-05 05:34 -0800
    Re: Galaxies precess moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-05 16:41 +0000
      Re: Galaxies precess Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-02-05 18:34 +0100
        Re: Galaxies precess Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-05 15:33 -0600
    Galaxies precess pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-05 09:41 -0800
      Re: Galaxies precess mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-05 12:03 -0800
    Re: Galaxies precess Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2019-02-05 14:02 -0800
      Re: Galaxies precess john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-05 17:06 -0800
        Re: Galaxies precess Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 01:35 +0000
        Re: Galaxies precess Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-02-06 02:54 +0100
          Re: Galaxies precess john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 01:29 -0800
            Re: Galaxies precess pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-06 17:53 -0800
              Re: Galaxies precess mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-06 18:36 -0800
                Re: Galaxies precess pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-06 20:24 -0800
              Re: Galaxies precess john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-07 00:20 -0800
                Re: Galaxies precess moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-07 13:30 +0000
                Re: Galaxies precess pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-07 10:43 -0800
                  Re: Galaxies precess john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-07 13:01 -0800
                    Re: Galaxies precess pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-07 14:38 -0800
                      Re: Galaxies precess john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-07 15:03 -0800
                      Re: Galaxies precess Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-02-08 00:03 +0100
                        Re: Galaxies precess mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-07 18:52 -0800
                          Re: Galaxies precess pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-07 20:59 -0800
                            Re: Galaxies precess mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-08 15:48 -0800
                              Re: Galaxies precess pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-08 16:05 -0800
                                Re: Galaxies precess mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-08 16:08 -0800
                        Re: Galaxies precess pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-07 20:43 -0800
                          Our Milky Way Galaxy is (roughly) spherical. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2019-02-08 01:10 -0800
                        Re: Galaxies precess Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 13:26 +0000
                          Re: Galaxies precess john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 05:34 -0800
                          Re: Galaxies precess john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 05:36 -0800
                            Re: Galaxies precess pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-08 12:29 -0800
                              Re: Galaxies precess john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 13:29 -0800
                                Re: Galaxies precess pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-08 15:57 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#726281

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> Interesting article, John, but like all the various sciences, theories are constantly being modified based on continuing research, and the conclusion of this particular study is not at all surprising to me. I have always felt that categorizing galaxies into specific little boxes was somehow not telling the whole story, and that there was some kind of continuum between these categories, which might show connections between them.
> 
> In this case, if you had read the article carefully you might have noticed this statement...
> 
> "... But because stars in a thin disc rotate much faster than those in a spheroid, obtaining maps of stellar motions for all elliptical galaxies in the sample, we have shown that out of these 66% are disc-like."
> 
> So, even if the number of galaxies formerly classified as being spherical has been reduced by about 66%, that still leaves 34% of them as being actual spherical galaxies, which DO NOT have associated disks.

Galaxies have *never* been *classified* as “spherical”, and are NOT going to
be (read again).  In the Hubble sequence, galaxies are classified as either
_spiral_ (S), _elliptical_ (E), or _lenticular_ (S0) which is a mix between
the two.

Spiral galaxies are subclassified according to how much their their spiral
arms and bulges are pronounced, for example; elliptical galaxies according
to their ellipticity.  Thus, a spherical galaxy is classified as E0
(elliptical zero).

So there has always been “a continuum between them”.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_morphological_classification>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_galaxy>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726310

What about the superimposed images of more than one galaxy
in the sky?

No. There is no galactic collision disorder.
Galaxies with their stars were initial conditions
at the Absolute Big Beginning. It is not in
the cards for them to collide.

God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726332

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 6:52:16 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> What about the superimposed images of more than one galaxy
> in the sky?

Well, Mitch, I doubt you are actually speaking of "superimposed images", that would be dishonest on the part of the photographer. Perhaps you are talking about galaxy images that appear to show galaxies in collision?

> No. There is no galactic collision disorder.
> Galaxies with their stars were initial conditions
> at the Absolute Big Beginning. It is not in
> the cards for them to collide.

Sorry, Mitch, but there are literally dozens of occasions where galaxies have collided, it is a very common occurrence in the universe...

https://tinyurl.com/ybnfsaph

... in fact, in about 4 billion years our Milky Way is predicted to collide with the Andromeda Galaxy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision

... but I wouldn't let that keep you up at night...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726438

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 8:59:08 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 6:52:16 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > What about the superimposed images of more than one galaxy
> > in the sky?
> 
> Well, Mitch, I doubt you are actually speaking of "superimposed images", that would be dishonest on the part of the photographer. Perhaps you are talking about galaxy images that appear to show galaxies in collision?

Galaxies at different distances can be in the same place in the sky
one with the other behind. These are not colliding galaxies as is
claimed pnut… you got nothing...

God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> > No. There is no galactic collision disorder.
> > Galaxies with their stars were initial conditions
> > at the Absolute Big Beginning. It is not in
> > the cards for them to collide.
> 
> Sorry, Mitch, but there are literally dozens of occasions where galaxies have collided, it is a very common occurrence in the universe...
> 
> https://tinyurl.com/ybnfsaph
> 
> ... in fact, in about 4 billion years our Milky Way is predicted to collide with the Andromeda Galaxy...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision
> 
> ... but I wouldn't let that keep you up at night...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726442

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 3:48:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Galaxies at different distances can be in the same place in the sky
> one with the other behind. These are not colliding galaxies as is
> claimed pnut… you got nothing...

Well, Mitch, this is certainly true, and in most of these cases these galaxies have large size differences, but not always.

The reference photos I provided, however, are ALL documented interacting galaxies, as far as I can tell, because that is what I asked for in my search request. There are plenty of interacting galaxies to study and enjoy, since most of the are starburst galaxies, where a whole lot of new stars are created due to the many gas and dust clouds that crash together as the 2 galaxies pass through one another. Another fun fact is that although these clouds collide, an actual collision between individual star is calculated to be quite rare, due to the vast distances between almost all stars. The galaxies certainly become tidally disrupted, but very, very few stars actually collide.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726443

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 4:05:21 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 3:48:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > Galaxies at different distances can be in the same place in the sky
> > one with the other behind. These are not colliding galaxies as is
> > claimed pnut… you got nothing...
> 
> Well, Mitch, this is certainly true, and in most of these cases these galaxies have large size differences, but not always.
> 
> The reference photos I provided, however, are ALL documented interacting galaxies, as far as I can tell, because that is what I asked for in my search request. There are plenty of interacting galaxies to study and enjoy, since most of the are starburst galaxies, where a whole lot of new stars are created due to the many gas and dust clouds that crash together as the 2 galaxies pass through one another. Another fun fact is that although these clouds collide, an actual collision between individual star is calculated to be quite rare, due to the vast distances between almost all stars. The galaxies certainly become tidally disrupted, but very, very few stars actually collide.

You're a goof pnut…

God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726328

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 3:03:51 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Interesting article, John, but like all the various sciences, theories are constantly being modified based on continuing research, and the conclusion of this particular study is not at all surprising to me. I have always felt that categorizing galaxies into specific little boxes was somehow not telling the whole story, and that there was some kind of continuum between these categories, which might show connections between them.
> > 
> > In this case, if you had read the article carefully you might have noticed this statement...
> > 
> > "... But because stars in a thin disc rotate much faster than those in a spheroid, obtaining maps of stellar motions for all elliptical galaxies in the sample, we have shown that out of these 66% are disc-like."
> > 
> > So, even if the number of galaxies formerly classified as being spherical has been reduced by about 66%, that still leaves 34% of them as being actual spherical galaxies, which DO NOT have associated disks.
> 
> Galaxies have *never* been *classified* as “spherical”

Indeed, a brain-fart on my part...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726355 — Our Milky Way Galaxy is (roughly) spherical.

Paul Alsing replied:
> > Galaxies have *never* been *classified* as “spherical”
> 
> Indeed, a brain-fart on my part...

Our Milky Way Galaxy is (roughly) spherical.

Quoting WikiPedia: ＜＜

  The visible disk of the Milky Way Galaxy is embedded 
  in a much larger, roughly spherical halo of dark matter. 

  The dark matter density drops off with distance from the galactic center.
  It is now believed that about 95% of the Galaxy is composed of dark matter ＞＞

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726367

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
> pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>> Interesting article, John, but like all the various sciences, theories
>> are constantly being modified based on continuing research, and the
>> conclusion of this particular study is not at all surprising to me. I
>> have always felt that categorizing galaxies into specific little boxes
>> was somehow not telling the whole story, and that there was some kind of
>> continuum between these categories, which might show connections between them.
>> 
>> In this case, if you had read the article carefully you might have
>> noticed this statement...
>> 
>> "... But because stars in a thin disc rotate much faster than those in a
>> spheroid, obtaining maps of stellar motions for all elliptical galaxies
>> in the sample, we have shown that out of these 66% are disc-like."
>> 
>> So, even if the number of galaxies formerly classified as being
>> spherical has been reduced by about 66%, that still leaves 34% of them
>> as being actual spherical galaxies, which DO NOT have associated disks.
> 
> Galaxies have *never* been *classified* as “spherical”, and are NOT going to
> be (read again).  In the Hubble sequence, galaxies are classified as either
> _spiral_ (S), _elliptical_ (E), or _lenticular_ (S0) which is a mix between
> the two.
> 
> Spiral galaxies are subclassified according to how much their their spiral
> arms and bulges are pronounced, for example; elliptical galaxies according
> to their ellipticity.  Thus, a spherical galaxy is classified as E0
> (elliptical zero).
> 
> So there has always been “a continuum between them”.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_morphological_classification>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_galaxy>
> 

Not to mention Irregulars. Of which there are quite a few. But doesn’t fit
with John’s ideas so they must not count. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726368

Odd
“Not to mention Irregulars. Of which there are quite a few. But doesn’t fit 
with John’s ideas so they must not count. ”
If you had been keeping up, Odd, you would have seen an article where they examined irregulars in infrared and saw a basic underlying spiral.
I won’t bother finding it for you, you can use Google.

Also, just like atoms can be profoundly distorted at times, taking many shapes in chaotic situations, so can galaxies. Like you have told me- these are NOT rigid structures- they are collections of stars

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726370

Everyone
“Here’s another link with a video of the warped disc “finding. 
“Can anyone tell me if the black line points towards “Andromeda? 
“Because that’s the axis of precession, and in my model “that’s the line along which atoms respond to gravity 

https://www.facebook.com/InquisitivenessRules/videos/258949308335850/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726412

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 5:36:11 AM UTC-8, john wrote:
> Everyone
> “Here’s another link with a video of the warped disc “finding. 
> “Can anyone tell me if the black line points towards “Andromeda? 
> “Because that’s the axis of precession, and in my model “that’s the line along which atoms respond to gravity 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/InquisitivenessRules/videos/258949308335850/

It seems to me that the black line is just a line going through their calculated center of the galaxy and is therefore just a diameter reference.

There are lots and lots of warped galaxies, John they are almost the rule rather than the exception. Many galactic warps are caused by interactions with other galaxies, and our Milky Way has certainly had its share of those interactions. Here, learn a ;itt;e something about all of this...

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/i/interacting+galaxies

"... The Milky Way is currently undergoing minor mergers with both the Sagittarius and Canis Major dwarf galaxies. These galaxies are currently in the process of being shredded and absorbed by the Milky Way..."

... and you can bet that there have been many other encounters over the billions and billions of years that the galaxy has existed, which could easily explain the current warp.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726422

pnal
“There are lots and lots of warped galaxies”
Yes. It’s the rule.
It’s because they precess.
That black line will be the axis of precession.
I bet it points straight at Andromeda.
I don’t suppose anyone here would have the slightest clue about that, though.
Especially not MM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726441

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 1:29:16 PM UTC-8, john wrote:
> pnal
> “There are lots and lots of warped galaxies”
> Yes. It’s the rule.
> It’s because they precess.

No, John, that is almost certainly incorrect. What evidence do you have to provide? It is clear that your own very special definition of 'precess' is different from that of mainstream science.

> That black line will be the axis of precession.
> I bet it points straight at Andromeda.
> I don’t suppose anyone here would have the slightest clue about that, though.
> Especially not MM

You are a lough-riot, John. what evidence do you have that the black line points at Andromeda? Oh, you just hade it up? Of course you did, that is your M.O.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web