Discussion:
What is keeping globular cluster's stars orbiting?
Add Reply
m***@gmail.com
2019-05-07 04:24:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Globular clusters are the same as globular galaxies.

What happens at the center of the galaxies is the same
for globular star clusters. God is creating gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch
p***@gmail.com
2019-05-07 05:29:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Globular clusters are the same as globular galaxies.
What happens at the center of the galaxies is the same
for globular star clusters. God is creating gravity.
Mitchell Raemsch
There is no such thing as globular galaxies, Mitch, they exist only in your feeble mind... of course, if you have evidence to show otherwise, let's see it...
john
2019-05-08 13:09:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
pnal
“There is no such thing as globular galaxies, Mitch, they exist only in your feeble mind... of course, if you have evidence to show otherwise, let's see it... ”

There is a spherical halo of globular clusters around each galaxy.
It is double-layered.
Our feeble science has no explanation.
Do you?
Michael Moroney
2019-05-08 15:53:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
pnal
"There is no such thing as globular galaxies, Mitch, they exist only
in your feeble mind... of course, if you have evidence to show otherwise,
let's see it... "
There is a spherical halo of globular clusters around each galaxy.
It is double-layered.
I don't know about that, but there are generally two classes of them.
Our feeble science has no explanation.
If so, what is wrong with that? That's the whole process of science. From
observation and evidence we learn new things, but in the process of doing so,
and as technology advances, we get lots of new questions. Then observations
and evidence..."
Do you?
Let me guess. Since you think there is no explanation, you think it is much better
to pull some word salad out of your butt which you claim is an explanation, rather
than to have no explanation at all, or to wait until science learns more and can
properly explain things.

Sorry, science doesn't work like that. Why do you think that way?
john
2019-05-08 19:16:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
MM
“If so, what is wrong with that? That's the whole process of science”
Spherical halos
Spherical gas bodies
Michael Moroney
2019-05-08 19:43:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"If so, what is wrong with that? That's the whole process of science"
Spherical halos
Spherical gas bodies
And...?

We learn more all the time. At the same time, what we learn raises more questions,
and technology reveals more questions.

Think of astronomy, since the dawn of time humans knew most stars were fixed but a
few "stars" wandered. Along came the telescope, and soon we knew the wandering
"stars" looked different and even had their own moons. More questions existed now.
Better telescopes revealed more stars and planets, and moons. Some "stars" were
fuzzy patches. More questions. Better telescopes revealed the fuzzy patches had
different shapes and were themselves made up of more stars. More questions.
Etc. etc. etc., until now when we have someone babbling nonsense about these stars
and complaining that all the "more questions" aren't answered yet.
john
2019-05-08 20:00:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
MM
“complaining that all the "more questions" aren't answered yet. ”
So it’s good to ask questions.
Yes
Michael Moroney
2019-05-09 06:54:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So it's good to ask questions.
And bad to pull so-called answers from out of your butt and post them as if they are
truth.

And totally silly to call current science, which is advancing at an enormous rate as
"feeble". Like, during my lifetime, advancing from room-sized computers to ones of
greater power occupying a speck of silicon in the phone you are using to call
science "feeble".

Science advancing such that mass storage the size of your pinky fingernail contains
several orders of magnitude more capacity (and is much faster) than power-sucking
washing machine sized disk drives in a generation is "feeble"? Bizarre!
(DEC RP04 drive) Loading Image...
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/rp04.html
We have a disk pack from one of those in a conference room as a sort of museum
piece.
Yes
Is that your question, your answer or just a bit of babbling?
p***@gmail.com
2019-05-09 04:22:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john
pnal
“There is no such thing as globular galaxies, Mitch, they exist only in your feeble mind... of course, if you have evidence to show otherwise, let's see it... ”
There is a spherical halo of globular clusters around each galaxy.
It is double-layered.
Explain yourself, and provide your evidence for this claim.
Post by john
Our feeble science has no explanation.
There is nothing feeble about modern science, it is progressing at an astounding rate.
Post by john
Do you?
Do I what?
john
2019-05-09 05:18:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
pnal
“Do I what? ”

Let’s see now- I said, “Our...science has no explanation. Do you?”
And you can’t follow that?
p***@gmail.com
2019-05-09 06:08:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john
pnal
“Do I what? ”
Let’s see now- I said, “Our...science has no explanation. Do you?”
And you can’t follow that?
You are claiming that 'our science' has no explanation for a 'double layered' halo of globular clusters around each galaxy.

I'm asking you to explain just what you are talking about since there is no such thing as a double layer of globular clusters around each galaxy. I'm also asking for your evidence to support your claim. Are you able to follow *that*?

So, just what is it that you want me to explain? How can I explain something that is incorrect and is just a figment of your overactive imagination?
Enes Richard
2019-05-09 15:41:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by john
pnal
“There is no such thing as globular galaxies, Mitch, they exist only in your feeble mind... of course, if you have evidence to show otherwise, let's see it... ”
There is a spherical halo of globular clusters around each galaxy.
It is double-layered.
Explain yourself, and provide your evidence for this claim.
Post by john
Our feeble science has no explanation.
There is nothing feeble about modern science, it is progressing at an astounding rate.
"Explain yourself, and provide your evidence for this claim."

For example, in cosmology this progressing at an astounding rate
has led to 95% of uncertain / hypothetical knowledge ...based on
imaginary dark matter and energy.
p***@gmail.com
2019-05-10 00:54:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
For example, in cosmology this progressing at an astounding rate
has led to 95% of uncertain / hypothetical knowledge ...based on
imaginary dark matter and energy.
As always, if you think it is imaginary all you need to do is provide evidence in support of your position. This should be easy for a mensa like you...
Enes Richard
2019-05-09 16:11:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
W dniu wtorek, 7 maja 2019 06:24:09 UTC+2 użytkownik ***@gmail.com napisał:
(...)
What is keeping globular cluster's stars orbiting?
Post by m***@gmail.com
Mitchell Raemsch
It can be said jokingly that the curved spacetime ... around
the "empty" mass center of a globular cluster.

However, seriously this is the moment of momentum that globular
clusters receive during their formation in the centers of spiral
galaxies. Gravity has a secondary role and leads to changes
after long time ...
p***@gmail.com
2019-05-10 00:57:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
(...)
What is keeping globular cluster's stars orbiting?
Post by m***@gmail.com
Mitchell Raemsch
It can be said jokingly that the curved spacetime ... around
the "empty" mass center of a globular cluster.
However, seriously this is the moment of momentum that globular
clusters receive during their formation in the centers of spiral
galaxies. Gravity has a secondary role and leads to changes
after long time ...
If you think that globular clusters are all created in the center of spiral galaxies, then I invite to explain where the 12,000 globular clusters in the elliptical galaxy M 87 came from...
Enes Richard
2019-05-10 12:23:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
(...)
What is keeping globular cluster's stars orbiting?
Post by m***@gmail.com
Mitchell Raemsch
It can be said jokingly that the curved spacetime ... around
the "empty" mass center of a globular cluster.
However, seriously this is the moment of momentum that globular
clusters receive during their formation in the centers of spiral
galaxies. Gravity has a secondary role and leads to changes
after long time ...
If you think that globular clusters are all created in the center of spiral galaxies, then I invite to explain where the 12,000 globular clusters in the elliptical galaxy M 87 came from...
I have been interested in M ​​87 for years, because there I tested
a new model of the formation and evolution of galaxies.

It appears that the M87 object is the result of a perpendicular
collision of two spiral galaxies that other smaller objects took
by the way to collision.

The collision caused the bursting of greatest structures built
of dark holes, which led to rapid mass and radiation production
( in spiral galaxies more more slower). So globular clusters
had to be formed much faster there, probably in several places,
not just in the center like in spiral galaxies.

Considering 12,000 globular clusters in M ​​87, it is probably
one of the results of a collision and the effect of physical
synergy:
- much less than 1000 comes from the period before the
collision and are the oldest,
- the rest should be younger and much smaller,

Btw: I would not be surprised if a significant number turned
out to be images as a result of gravitational lensing.

The main problem (reason) is best shown by this source:

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-supergiant-elliptical-galaxy-m87-ngc-4486-135020634.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=490B82BC-1C97-4D8C-9955-A232AD4363AB&p=52089&n=0&orientation= 0 & pn = 1 & searchType = 0 & IsFromSearch = 1 & srch = foo% 3dbar% 26ST% 3d0% 26pn% 3d1% 26PS% 3d100% 26sortby% 3d2% 26resultview% 3dsortbyPopular% 26npgs% 3d0% 26qt% 3dm87% 26qt_raw% 3dm87% 26lic% 3D3% 26mr% 3d0% 26pr% 3d0% 26ot% 3d0% 26creative% 3d% 26ag% 3d0% 26hc% 3d0% 26pc% 3d% 26blackwhite% 3d% 26cutout% 3d% 26tbar% 3d1% 26et% 3d0x000000000000000000000% 26vp% 3d0% 26loc% 3d0% 26imgt% 3d0% 26dtfr% 3d% 26dtto% 3d% 26size% 3d0xFF% 26archive% 3d1% 26groupid% 3d% 26pseudoid% 3d% 26a% 3d% 26cdid% 3d% 26cdsrt% 3d% 26name% 3d% 26qn% 3d% 26apalib% 3d% 26apalic% 3d% 26lightbox% 3d% 26gname% 3d% 26gtype% 3d% 26xstx% 3d0% 26simid% 3d% 26saveQry% 3d% 26editorial% 3d1% 26nu% 3d% 26t% 3d% 26edoptin% 3d% 26customgeoip% 3d% 26cap 26cbstore%%% 3d1 3d1 3d0%%% 26vd 26lb 26fi% 3d%%% 26edrf% 3d2 3d0 3d1% 26ispremium%%% 26flip 3d0% 3d% 26GB

It would be advisable to obtain a picture at wavelengths 1-10 m
(or longer) using for example the LOFAR system.
p***@gmail.com
2019-05-11 06:28:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
(...)
What is keeping globular cluster's stars orbiting?
Post by m***@gmail.com
Mitchell Raemsch
It can be said jokingly that the curved spacetime ... around
the "empty" mass center of a globular cluster.
However, seriously this is the moment of momentum that globular
clusters receive during their formation in the centers of spiral
galaxies. Gravity has a secondary role and leads to changes
after long time ...
If you think that globular clusters are all created in the center of spiral galaxies, then I invite to explain where the 12,000 globular clusters in the elliptical galaxy M 87 came from...
I have been interested in M ​​87 for years, because there I tested
a new model of the formation and evolution of galaxies.
Yeah, right, I would like to see how you "tested" your new model. You have experiments and/or observations to offer?
Post by Enes Richard
It appears that the M87 object is the result of a perpendicular
collision of two spiral galaxies that other smaller objects took
by the way to collision.
Do you have evidence to support this claim? Without evidence you have nothing. HYou might be right and you might be wrong, but all I see is a guess on your part. Guesses are worth nothing at all.
Post by Enes Richard
The collision caused the bursting of greatest structures built
of dark holes, which led to rapid mass and radiation production
( in spiral galaxies more more slower). So globular clusters
had to be formed much faster there, probably in several places,
not just in the center like in spiral galaxies.
Complete gobbledygook with no evidence whatsoever.
Post by Enes Richard
Considering 12,000 globular clusters in M ​​87, it is probably
one of the results of a collision and the effect of physical
The word "probably" has no scientific value. Either you have evidence for your claims or you do not. In this case, you do not.
Post by Enes Richard
- much less than 1000 comes from the period before the
collision and are the oldest,
- the rest should be younger and much smaller,
The phrase "should be" has no place is science, With zero evidence you have nothing tio offer except for your guesses.
Post by Enes Richard
Btw: I would not be surprised if a significant number turned
out to be images as a result of gravitational lensing.
Once again you show your ignorance of physics. It is clear that you do not have a clue about gravitational lensing, you are just grasping at straws here. No Clue at all.
Post by Enes Richard
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-supergiant-elliptical-galaxy-m87-ngc-4486-135020634.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=490B82BC-1C97-4D8C-9955-A232AD4363AB&p=52089&n=0&orientation= 0 & pn = 1 & searchType = 0 & IsFromSearch = 1 & srch = foo% 3dbar% 26ST% 3d0% 26pn% 3d1% 26PS% 3d100% 26sortby% 3d2% 26resultview% 3dsortbyPopular% 26npgs% 3d0% 26qt% 3dm87% 26qt_raw% 3dm87% 26lic% 3D3% 26mr% 3d0% 26pr% 3d0% 26ot% 3d0% 26creative% 3d% 26ag% 3d0% 26hc% 3d0% 26pc% 3d% 26blackwhite% 3d% 26cutout% 3d% 26tbar% 3d1% 26et% 3d0x000000000000000000000% 26vp% 3d0% 26loc% 3d0% 26imgt% 3d0% 26dtfr% 3d% 26dtto% 3d% 26size% 3d0xFF% 26archive% 3d1% 26groupid% 3d% 26pseudoid% 3d% 26a% 3d% 26cdid% 3d% 26cdsrt% 3d% 26name% 3d% 26qn% 3d% 26apalib% 3d% 26apalic% 3d% 26lightbox% 3d% 26gname% 3d% 26gtype% 3d% 26xstx% 3d0% 26simid% 3d% 26saveQry% 3d% 26editorial% 3d1% 26nu% 3d% 26t% 3d% 26edoptin% 3d% 26customgeoip% 3d% 26cap 26cbstore%%% 3d1 3d1 3d0%%% 26vd 26lb 26fi% 3d%%% 26edrf% 3d2 3d0 3d1% 26ispremium%%% 26flip 3d0% 3d% 26GB
So, what is the problem that you see with this radio image? What do you think you see there that no one sees?
Enes Richard
2019-05-11 09:44:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
(...)
What is keeping globular cluster's stars orbiting?
Post by m***@gmail.com
Mitchell Raemsch
It can be said jokingly that the curved spacetime ... around
the "empty" mass center of a globular cluster.
However, seriously this is the moment of momentum that globular
clusters receive during their formation in the centers of spiral
galaxies. Gravity has a secondary role and leads to changes
after long time ...
If you think that globular clusters are all created in the center of spiral galaxies, then I invite to explain where the 12,000 globular clusters in the elliptical galaxy M 87 came from...
I have been interested in M ​​87 for years, because there I tested
a new model of the formation and evolution of galaxies.
Yeah, right, I would like to see how you "tested" your new model. You have experiments and/or observations to offer?
It takes more patience, the model is not complete, there is no
proof for the dwarf globular cluster in Sgr A * and the exclusion
of a hypothetical black hole (4 million S., which also has no
evidence). In M87 you can, for example, explain the periodicity
of mass and radiation production causing jet breaks ...
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
It appears that the M87 object is the result of a perpendicular
collision of two spiral galaxies that other smaller objects took
by the way to collision.
Do you have evidence to support this claim? Without evidence you have nothing. HYou might be right and you might be wrong, but all I see is a guess on your part. Guesses are worth nothing at all.
But this is nothing new, read it, here it is similar:

"Elliptical galaxies such as M87 are considered to be
a result of one or more mergers of smaller galaxies. [62]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_87#Properties

Similarly happens near:
Loading Image...
Enes Richard
2019-05-12 17:02:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
The collision caused the bursting of greatest structures built
of dark holes, which led to rapid mass and radiation production
( in spiral galaxies more more slower). So globular clusters
had to be formed much faster there, probably in several places,
not just in the center like in spiral galaxies.
Complete gobbledygook with no evidence whatsoever.
Post by Enes Richard
Considering 12,000 globular clusters in M ​​87, it is probably
one of the results of a collision and the effect of physical
The word "probably" has no scientific value. Either you have evidence for your claims or you do not. In this case, you do not.
This is a loose discussion, so "probably" is the most appropriate
and cautious term / expression.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
- much less than 1000 comes from the period before the
collision and are the oldest,
- the rest should be younger and much smaller,
The phrase "should be" has no place is science, With zero evidence you have nothing tio offer except for your guesses.
Whereas "should be" is a prediction resulting from theory
or hypothesis, for positive or negative verification.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-supergiant-elliptical-galaxy-m87-ngc-4486-135020634.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=490B82BC-1C97-4D8C-9955-A232AD4363AB&p=52089&n=0&orientation=
Enes Richard
2019-05-12 17:46:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
(...)
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
Btw: I would not be surprised if a significant number turned
out to be images as a result of gravitational lensing.
Once again you show your ignorance of physics. It is clear that you do not have a clue about gravitational lensing, you are just grasping at straws here. No Clue at all.
You still think schematically, despite my many efforts and
unconventional examples. Do not look at the lensing only through
the prism of the black hole generated by the algorithm of
a young woman working for standard cosmology ...

Btw: have you guessed in the end, how the globular clusters
in the galaxy are getting retrograde rotation (without external help),
what is the reason?
p***@gmail.com
2019-05-12 19:18:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
(...)
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
Btw: I would not be surprised if a significant number turned
out to be images as a result of gravitational lensing.
Once again you show your ignorance of physics. It is clear that you do not have a clue about gravitational lensing, you are just grasping at straws here. No Clue at all.
You still think schematically, despite my many efforts and
unconventional examples.
Your unconventional examples have zero effect on me because they are only your guesses and speculations without any basis in fact. You just make stuff up and then claim it is fact. It is not.
Post by Enes Richard
Do not look at the lensing only through
the prism of the black hole generated by the algorithm of
a young woman working for standard cosmology ...
You don't have a clue. It is not black holes that produce the gravitational lensing that we observe, it is entire galaxies, including clusters of galaxies, billions of times more massive than any black hole. Read a textbook, rather than just making it up as you go along.
Post by Enes Richard
Btw: have you guessed in the end, how the globular clusters
in the galaxy are getting retrograde rotation (without external help),
what is the reason?
I told you, there is no place for guessing in science. I gave you a link that contained the answer to your question, didn't you understand it? I also told you that if you do not understand the theories that are generally accepted by the scientific community then you cannot possibly offer criticisms of those theories. You need to learn to walk before you can run, and you cannot even crawl yet.
Enes Richard
2019-05-12 20:21:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
(...)
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
Btw: I would not be surprised if a significant number turned
out to be images as a result of gravitational lensing.
Once again you show your ignorance of physics. It is clear that you do not have a clue about gravitational lensing, you are just grasping at straws here. No Clue at all.
You still think schematically, despite my many efforts and
unconventional examples.
Your unconventional examples have zero effect on me because they are only your guesses and speculations without any basis in fact. You just make stuff up and then claim it is fact. It is not.
Post by Enes Richard
Do not look at the lensing only through
the prism of the black hole generated by the algorithm of
a young woman working for standard cosmology ...
You don't have a clue. It is not black holes that produce the gravitational lensing that we observe, it is entire galaxies, including clusters of galaxies, billions of times more massive than any black hole. Read a textbook, rather than just making it up as you go along.
This is true, but not only that, there is also gravitational
microlensing:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikrosoczewkowanie_grawitacyjne

"For 15 years the largest and most successful in this field is
the Polish OGLE project. In the third phase of the OGLE project,
400 million stars were monitored together and about 4,000
microlensing phenomena were observed towards the center of the
Milky Way and a few in the Magellanic Clouds."

So as I wrote, I would not be surprised if there was an
intermediate phenomenon in M87, between macro and microlensing.
It is worth checking because the circumstances are not
typical (schematic)...and is need to remember about
phisical synergy. There probably will be more and more big
hidden black holes, not only that with jet.
Enes Richard
2019-05-12 21:08:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-supergiant-elliptical-galaxy-m87-ngc-4486-135020634.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=490B82BC-1C97-4D8C-9955-A232AD4363AB&p=52089&n=0&orientation=
So, what is the problem that you see with this radio image? What do you think you see there that no one sees?
Rather everyone sees the same, but the interpretations can
be different.

Look at the image for waves 90 cm. Near the middle of this
image is a red spot (about 7kpc x 15 kpc). On the left, about
25 kpc is a distorted yellow ellipse (12kpc x 25 kpc). On the
right is a more distorted yellow ellipse (12kpc x 25 kpc).
Between these objects is a yellow band with a width of up to 7 kpc.

What is the standard interpretation of these 3 yellow objects?
Mitch Raemsch
2019-05-13 00:55:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-supergiant-elliptical-galaxy-m87-ngc-4486-135020634.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=490B82BC-1C97-4D8C-9955-A232AD4363AB&p=52089&n=0&orientation=
So, what is the problem that you see with this radio image? What do you think you see there that no one sees?
Rather everyone sees the same, but the interpretations can
be different.
Look at the image for waves 90 cm. Near the middle of this
image is a red spot (about 7kpc x 15 kpc). On the left, about
25 kpc is a distorted yellow ellipse (12kpc x 25 kpc). On the
right is a more distorted yellow ellipse (12kpc x 25 kpc).
Between these objects is a yellow band with a width of up to 7 kpc.
What is the standard interpretation of these 3 yellow objects?
Globular clusters are no exception to the center of gravity rule.
Stars orbit the galaxies just the same. They have no rotation instead.
God is creating gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch
p***@gmail.com
2019-05-13 04:11:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-supergiant-elliptical-galaxy-m87-ngc-4486-135020634.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=490B82BC-1C97-4D8C-9955-A232AD4363AB&p=52089&n=0&orientation=
So, what is the problem that you see with this radio image? What do you think you see there that no one sees?
Rather everyone sees the same, but the interpretations can
be different.
But you do not have the education or knowledge to be making any kind of interpretation at all! It would only be a guess on your part. It would only be a guess on my part, too, since I never studied radio astronomy in anything but its most rudimentary form.
Post by Enes Richard
Look at the image for waves 90 cm. Near the middle of this
image is a red spot (about 7kpc x 15 kpc). On the left, about
25 kpc is a distorted yellow ellipse (12kpc x 25 kpc). On the
right is a more distorted yellow ellipse (12kpc x 25 kpc).
Between these objects is a yellow band with a width of up to 7 kpc.
What is the standard interpretation of these 3 yellow objects?
Here are some explanations of various parts of that image...

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap990216.html

http://www.messier.seds.org/more/m087_nrao.html

http://hubblesite.org/image/920/news_release/1999-43
Enes Richard
2019-05-13 09:07:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-supergiant-elliptical-galaxy-m87-ngc-4486-135020634.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=490B82BC-1C97-4D8C-9955-A232AD4363AB&p=52089&n=0&orientation=
So, what is the problem that you see with this radio image? What do you think you see there that no one sees?
Rather everyone sees the same, but the interpretations can
be different.
But you do not have the education or knowledge to be making any
kind of interpretation at all! It would only be a guess on your
part. It would only be a guess on my part, too, since I never
studied radio astronomy in anything but its most rudimentary form.
You pointed to the great problem of all science and physics in
particular. Detailed specializations, specialists of clockwise
screws ... and specialists of lefthanded screws. Everyone works
with their part of puzzle, and then you can not put these together,
because they do not fit ...

It takes more nuclear astrophysicists and someone (better is
two contradictory ones) who has the idea how EVERYTHING works.
How do the same electron and nucleon components work? What is
the cause of the local so-called Big Bangs and the electromagnetic
-gravitational collapses that preceded them? And how did it
all start at the very beginning?

It must be a general picture, then you can match and arrange
these puzzles. This is the way "from general picture to detail",
the opposite is almost impossible (example: 5% facts, 95% guessworks
as in cosmology).
Enes Richard
2019-05-13 12:52:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
(...)
Post by p***@gmail.com
Here are some explanations of various parts of that image...
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap990216.html
"The exact composition of these jets is not known ..."
Who knows, this one knows ...

"... but thought to contain various subatomic particles."
Possible, but where is the model of the phenomenon
and the appropriate calculations?
Post by p***@gmail.com
http://hubblesite.org/image/920/news_release/1999-43
In view of the enormity of objects and phenomena that
take place throughout M 87, this "black hole" (here hidden
under red) along with the jet has a rather tertiary meaning
or even smaller, though undoubtedly spectacular ...
Enes Richard
2019-05-13 20:33:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
So, what is the problem that you see with this radio image? What do you think you see there that no one sees?
Rather everyone sees the same, but the interpretations can
be different.
But you do not have the education or knowledge to be making any kind of interpretation at all! It would only be a guess on your part. It would only be a guess on my part, too, since I never studied radio astronomy in anything but its most rudimentary form.
Post by Enes Richard
Look at the image for waves 90 cm. Near the middle of this
image is a red spot (about 7kpc x 15 kpc). On the left, about
25 kpc is a distorted yellow ellipse (12kpc x 25 kpc). On the
right is a more distorted yellow ellipse (12kpc x 25 kpc).
Between these objects is a yellow band with a width of up to 7 kpc.
What is the standard interpretation of these 3 yellow objects?
Here are some explanations of various parts of that image...
...
Post by p***@gmail.com
http://www.messier.seds.org/more/m087_nrao.html
...
Unbelievable ... only this interpretation and no theoretical
progress for 20 years? Do you hide some special knowledge
in this area?

This red area is not the "central engine", it is only its
broken part.

"The new observations show two large, bubble-like lobes, more
than 200,000 light-years across, that emit radio waves. These
lobes, which are intricately detailed, apparently are powered
by gravitational energy released from the galaxy's central
engine. They think that material is flowing outward from the
galaxy's core into these large, bright, radio-emitting 'bubbles.'"

They are in great error, there is a completely different
reason for the emission of radio waves of varying intensity ...

"The newly-discovered" bubbles "sit inside a region of the
galaxy known to be emitting X-rays. Theorists have speculated that ..."

I am not surprised that there is a problem with the simultaneous juxtaposition and interpretation of radio and X-rays, but these
are the effects of obsolete models and theories ...

The explanation is very simple ...
but you have to change the model.

"Astronomers need to revise their physics ideas about what is
happening in such regions."

That's the truth ... and with the help from outside, they
can do it.

I have more and more certainty... maybe I will create a new topic
and give an interpretation ... or experiences / measurements
that can be done and what should be the result.
p***@gmail.com
2019-05-14 01:22:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
...
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
So, what is the problem that you see with this radio image? What do you think you see there that no one sees?
Rather everyone sees the same, but the interpretations can
be different.
But you do not have the education or knowledge to be making any kind of interpretation at all! It would only be a guess on your part. It would only be a guess on my part, too, since I never studied radio astronomy in anything but its most rudimentary form.
Post by Enes Richard
Look at the image for waves 90 cm. Near the middle of this
image is a red spot (about 7kpc x 15 kpc). On the left, about
25 kpc is a distorted yellow ellipse (12kpc x 25 kpc). On the
right is a more distorted yellow ellipse (12kpc x 25 kpc).
Between these objects is a yellow band with a width of up to 7 kpc.
What is the standard interpretation of these 3 yellow objects?
Here are some explanations of various parts of that image...
...
Post by p***@gmail.com
http://www.messier.seds.org/more/m087_nrao.html
...
Unbelievable ... only this interpretation and no theoretical
progress for 20 years? Do you hide some special knowledge
in this area?
This red area is not the "central engine", it is only its
broken part.
"The new observations show two large, bubble-like lobes, more
than 200,000 light-years across, that emit radio waves. These
lobes, which are intricately detailed, apparently are powered
by gravitational energy released from the galaxy's central
engine. They think that material is flowing outward from the
galaxy's core into these large, bright, radio-emitting 'bubbles.'"
They are in great error, there is a completely different
reason for the emission of radio waves of varying intensity ...
You have no business telling scientists that they have made errors since you don't know the first thing about physics. I'm sorry, but I have a mud fence in the back yard that knows more physics than you do.
Post by Enes Richard
"The newly-discovered" bubbles "sit inside a region of the
galaxy known to be emitting X-rays. Theorists have speculated that ..."
I am not surprised that there is a problem with the simultaneous juxtaposition and interpretation of radio and X-rays, but these
are the effects of obsolete models and theories ...
The explanation is very simple ...
but you have to change the model.
As if you would know.you're the guy who thinks that globular clusters are the same thing as galaxies!
Post by Enes Richard
"Astronomers need to revise their physics ideas about what is
happening in such regions."
That's the truth ... and with the help from outside, they
can do it.
I have more and more certainty... maybe I will create a new topic
and give an interpretation ... or experiences / measurements
that can be done and what should be the result.
This should be a laugh riot.

You need to change your hobby because this one is way over your head. You still think that you can just make stuff up and it will be true. Really, you don't have a clue.
Enes Richard
2019-05-14 07:37:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
...
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
So, what is the problem that you see with this radio image? What do you think you see there that no one sees?
Rather everyone sees the same, but the interpretations can
be different.
But you do not have the education or knowledge to be making any kind of interpretation at all! It would only be a guess on your part. It would only be a guess on my part, too, since I never studied radio astronomy in anything but its most rudimentary form.
Post by Enes Richard
Look at the image for waves 90 cm. Near the middle of this
image is a red spot (about 7kpc x 15 kpc). On the left, about
25 kpc is a distorted yellow ellipse (12kpc x 25 kpc). On the
right is a more distorted yellow ellipse (12kpc x 25 kpc).
Between these objects is a yellow band with a width of up to 7 kpc.
What is the standard interpretation of these 3 yellow objects?
Here are some explanations of various parts of that image...
...
Post by p***@gmail.com
http://www.messier.seds.org/more/m087_nrao.html
...
Unbelievable ... only this interpretation and no theoretical
progress for 20 years? Do you hide some special knowledge
in this area?
This red area is not the "central engine", it is only its
broken part.
"The new observations show two large, bubble-like lobes, more
than 200,000 light-years across, that emit radio waves. These
lobes, which are intricately detailed, apparently are powered
by gravitational energy released from the galaxy's central
engine. They think that material is flowing outward from the
galaxy's core into these large, bright, radio-emitting 'bubbles.'"
They are in great error, there is a completely different
reason for the emission of radio waves of varying intensity ...
You have no business telling scientists that they have made errors since you don't know the first thing about physics. I'm sorry, but I have a mud fence in the back yard that knows more physics than you do.
Post by Enes Richard
"The newly-discovered" bubbles "sit inside a region of the
galaxy known to be emitting X-rays. Theorists have speculated that ..."
I am not surprised that there is a problem with the simultaneous juxtaposition and interpretation of radio and X-rays, but these
are the effects of obsolete models and theories ...
The explanation is very simple ...
but you have to change the model.
As if you would know.you're the guy who thinks that globular clusters are the same thing as galaxies!
Post by Enes Richard
"Astronomers need to revise their physics ideas about what is
happening in such regions."
That's the truth ... and with the help from outside, they
can do it.
I have more and more certainty... maybe I will create a new topic
and give an interpretation ... or experiences / measurements
that can be done and what should be the result.
This should be a laugh riot.
You need to change your hobby because this one is way over your head. You still think that you can just make stuff up and it will be true. Really, you don't have a clue.
Paul, I have a lot of empathy and I understand your frustration due
to the powerlessness of cosmologists in the mysteries of M87, but do
not exaggerate ... direct this energy to overcome your own imagination.

I can not praise people who have no results at work. With M87 it
is worse than with the whole cosmology (5/95), because the facts
confirming the theories are close to 0% and the supposition or lack
of knowledge almost 100% (which honestly admit +). Let's be rational,
if they have not invented anything sensible for 20 years, they will
not come up with it any more, with their theoretical limitations ....

I did not think you would go to a lie:

"you're the guy who thinks that globular clusters are the same thing
as galaxies!"

Just one such lie more with you and I will not be discussed!

Loading...