The galaxy NGC 2976 lost the gas in its arms to its larger neighbors and the little gas that remained contracted towards its center and transferred the star formation process there
Most galaxies throughout the universe are a place of happenings - mostly flashy and colorful types of star formation, but in a small spiral galaxy near us, the celebration of star formation is almost over. In the latest photograph from the Hubble Space Telescope, the astronomers were surprised to discover that the star formation process in the outer regions of NGC 2976 is beginning to fade, and the little star formation that exists there is limited to latecomers scattered in the inner regions of the galaxy.
The reason for the decay: star formation stems from another festive event - the collision of another galaxy with NGC 2976. However, this event happened a long time ago and now the process of star formation in the galaxy begins to fade in the outer parts of the galaxy because the gas has already been torn from this area, and the rest of the gas has crashed towards the center. Without gas, more and more areas of the galaxy go to sleep.
"Astronomers have long believed that such encounters between galaxies can cause gas to be routed towards the galactic core, but Hubble's current observation provides the clearest look at this phenomenon." explains astronomer Benjamin Williams of the University of Washington in Seattle who directed the Hubble study that is part of the ACS Camera Survey of Nearby Galaxies (ANGST). "We caught this galaxy at an interesting time. Another 500 million years, and the celebration will be over."
NGC 2976 does not look like a typical spiral galaxy. It does have a disk where stars form, so it does not have the required spiral pattern. Its gas is concentrated at its center, but it has no stellar bulge. The galaxy is on the edge of the M81 galaxy cluster, which is 12 million light-years away in the Big Dipper.
19 תגובות
I'm a little late to the party (about three years or so), but hey, you couldn't be more wrong.
For the sake of simplicity, we'll treat galaxy X as a XNUMXD map (since I don't have the ability to create a convincing enough XNUMXD render).
Galaxy X has 2 arms (a structure that is indeed very common in spiral galaxies, but it does not make up all spiral galaxies. The Milky Way has 4 arms, but it is not related).
North arm and South arm.
Now, assuming that galaxy X moves in a plane towards the north, and rotates around itself through north, west, south, east (and back again, God forbid, as observed because of the direction of the arms), how does matter that is thrown to Z and Z- arrive in two opposite directions?
That means that the beam of material Z will reach the north arm and the beam of material Z will reach the south arm?
According to your wrong "theory", and using only the parameters you mentioned, galaxies should never form a spiral shape, but a kind of comet shape, with the supermassive black hole at the top of the galaxy, and the gas is more or less uniformly distributed, creating the "trail" of the "comet" in the form of constellations.
But it doesn't happen that way, and in fact, everything we know about quasars (supermassive black holes that shine much more brightly than all the galaxies in their vicinity combined(!), indicates that the material that manages to escape from the event horizon (more than the Argo Sphera, which is an area around the event horizon where light is still can escape from it) moves almost at the speed of light (relative speeds of about 99.9999999% of the speed of light), moves on the magnetic poles of the black hole (for it also has a magnetic field, just like stars, since what are black holes if not stars?).
The main difference between the magnetic field of a black hole and that of some star?
Mainly in his range.
The Andromeda Galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away from the Milky Way.
From what I remember, the two black holes (our supermassive black hole and the one at the center of Andromeda) are already interacting with their magnetic fields.
Think about it, a distance that would take the two galaxies about 2 billion years to travel to meet, and their magnetic fields already meet.
http://content2.bestthinking.com/s/1/topics/505/images/6bb17ffd-3a0e-467e-b60a-26a296225b50_972.jpeg
Here's an example of a gas jet like the one you're talking about.
See the bright spot the jet is coming from?
It is several hundred thousand light-years away from the edge of the jet in the lower part of the image.
For comparison, the Milky Way is 100 light years across.
Here's a slightly more distant image that shows how bright this galaxy is despite being 53 million light-years away from the Milky Way:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Messier_87_Hubble_WikiSky.jpg
Sorry, they say 'scaling factor' and not 'factor scaling'.
When you look up into the sky with your field telescope, you're looking into the Milky Way, and in astronomical terms it's a very small distance, and you don't need to make any corrections.
But when astronomers observe deep space in distant galaxies with serious telescopes, they also introduce corrections.
But what's more, when you observe celestial bodies (even nearby ones), you do have to take into account gravitational attenuation, which is also a product of relativity.
I remembered something with hist doppler.
http://books.google.com/books?id=gV6kgxrZjL8C&pg=PA303&dq=space+scale+factor+of+the+universe&ei=XzpUS5ynD4aszAT6-oHQCg&hl=iw&cd=1#v=onepage&q=space%20scale%20factor%20of%20the%20universe&f=false
Here in the book on page 303, it is written that the factor scale of the universe is introduced as a (relative) correction in the measurement of distances of distant galaxies in cosmology.
And regardless of the expansion of the universe - Chandraskar, when he discovered the existence of black holes, he did so through Einstein's equations of relativity.
Yael, I think I wrote politely.
The fact that I claim that you are trying to "smear" is not impoliteness but my opinion on the answer.
Even after the last answer, my opinion did not change.
I am not a mathematician, and should not understand the "hocus-pocus" of the formulas in the links.
You know that string theory is also well described in formulas, but there is still no connection between them and reality...
I ask a question of simple logic:
Is he who looks through a telescope at the stars,
You should also take a computer with you to calculate according to Einstein's theories the direction of the star in the sky, or for it
Is the direction he is watching an absolute direction?
If the answer that direction is not absolute, then there is chaos in all the maps of the sky.
I guess the situation is simple and there is no chaos.
incidentally,
If you think my questions are too difficult, you don't have to answer.
Thanks again for the answers (I don't blame you for the intentional obfuscation on this topic).
First of all, I would appreciate it if you would speak politely, and not speak to me as if I owed you something.
Here is a link to the scale factor of the universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(Universe)
Relative expansion matrix of the space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
and the Friedman-Robertson-Volker matrix (it is written there that it is a solution to the Einstein equations applied to the expansion of the universe)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLRW_metric
Yael, first of all thanks for the answer.
What you are trying to do is called "smearing"...
You write "There are corrections and constants that derive from Einstein's theory..."
It sounds like a juggler's hocus pocus rather than science...
I ask for a scientific answer, as you pretend to be...
It is impossible to make scientific observations without unequivocal determinations.
Where (if at all) can I get information from the department regarding observations in Halalah?
The whole issue is vague in order to avoid contradictions between theories that you call "thoughtful idea"...
What is "there are corrections and constants.."?
Hezi,
The universe is homogeneous (with very small fluctuations).
The cone of light is more of a mental idea. On the X axis there is "movement in space" and on the Y axis there is "movement in time". It doesn't represent the direction in the sky you are looking at, but it represents the areas where you will be able to find in a second, in an hour and in a year. What you see in the sky is limited, you can't see an event that happened exactly at the moment of the bang for example, and you can't see something that happened outside the "cone" of the bang, i.e. before the bang.
When you are observing the sky, you can look in any direction you want (but there are things, as mentioned, that you will not be able to see, due to the limitation that no information in the universe travels faster than light).
There are corrections and constants that derive from Einstein's theory that add to the results that come out in the observations. It seems to me something to do with the Doppler effect and age calculations of distant galaxies, I came across it once. If it's really important to you, I can check.
Chest:
I read everything you wrote a long time ago and it seems to me to be completely wrong and I have already explained to you why.
As for the questions - I assume you mean these questions:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/10percent_of_solar_systems_like_our_1001105/#comment-258993
The answers are as follows:
Question A: It seems to me that in some conversation between you and my father you did not understand each other.
In any case, a cone is irrelevant and the observations made are of course in all directions.
Question B: Not only do the observations refer to the theory of relativity, but they are completely based on it, since all the calculations of gravity are derived from the theory of relativity. In fact, this is an almost unnecessary question because it is clear that any self-respecting cosmologist will not publish a finding that is incompatible with relativity without making a huge fuss about the matter that "here I have found a refutation of the theory of relativity".
Question C: The observable universe is homogeneous on a large scale. On a small scale, of course, the density changes and the density of matter in the sun is greater than that in empty space.
These are really questions that anyone involved in space watching knows the answer to, so I am surprised that you asked them.
Hezi,
can you repeat the questions
Michael, read the description on the above website carefully.
I am waiting for more "discoveries" from space to confirm the theory.
Note,
I asked Yael, who writes articles on this website, a number of basic questions about space observations.
She admitted she didn't know.
and promised that she would find out and answer.
Still no answers.
These are very basic facts,
Anyone who deals with space observations must know them...
Chest:
Of course you won't try to convince. You have no reasons!
By the way - you still haven't answered any of my questions throughout the long history of your preaching.
For example - tell me - how do you know black black is spinning. Remember the questions?
"NGC 2976 does not look like a typical spiral galaxy. It does have a disk where stars are formed, so it does not have the required spiral pattern. Its gas is concentrated in the center, but it does not have a bulge of stars"...
I will not try to convince…
Chest:
The most obvious observations:
It's not like there aren't stars there. On the contrary - there is and there is. That no new stars are formed there.
If the creation of the stars had not yet begun - there would be no stars.
Michael,
You only need to correctly explain the observations:
A- The creation of the stars at the ends of the galaxy has not yet begun,
Because she is too young.
It doesn't fade, but it didn't start.
b - the stars are always formed in the center of the galaxy,
As claimed in the above theory.
Chest:
In fact, this is another proof of the exact opposite of what you claim.
Another proof that galaxies are created by the "supermassive black hole" in their center...
http://www.kaspit.com/assil2.htm
We will wait 500 million years and see.