181
New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?
« on: 15/07/2022 17:35:18 »
I have also said that trying to explain something to you is about as productive as explaining it to my cat.
You display negligible reading comprehension skills, and mathematics and logic skills are also lacking.
This topic seems to be devolving into assertions of slander against these 'astonomers' that have so little clue, so I am once again threatening to close the topic that has long since passed any hope of making progress.
But let me put a little reading comprehension test, based on some past responses. Apologies for treating you like an 8 year old in a quiz here, but you're determined to act like one.
Please don't just copy my words. Tell me in your own words what the post was about.
You don't have to agree with the words, just give an indication the comprehension isn't totally absent.
Why do you think mention of arms was necessary?
Who was the comment addressed to?
What was the purpose of my posting that when I've been mostly keeping out of this?
Was the purpose served?
You go on to reference the same comment again, like it somehow backs some assertion of yours.
As for superior logic, you commit a straw man fallacy here, asserting facts that are not held by these 'clueless' astronomers, only by you. So that's the demonstration of 'superior logic' you've been requesting.
Why do you think this comment is relevant here?
The comment is a caption, and is obviously commenting on the images above it. What is it saying that you think is worthy of being introduced in this topic?
If this is too difficult, you've really no business wasting all our time on this site.
You display negligible reading comprehension skills, and mathematics and logic skills are also lacking.
This topic seems to be devolving into assertions of slander against these 'astonomers' that have so little clue, so I am once again threatening to close the topic that has long since passed any hope of making progress.
But let me put a little reading comprehension test, based on some past responses. Apologies for treating you like an 8 year old in a quiz here, but you're determined to act like one.
What exactly do you think I was saying in that quote?What is being violated without dark matter is basic Newtonian law. We have objects (our solar system say) that accelerate far more than can be accounted for by the sum of the forces applied by all the various baryonic masses in the galaxy. Thus there must either be more (a lot more) mass that isn't baryonic, or Newton's laws (the inverse square one concerning gravitational attraction) are wrong.Your explanation is valid as long as we ignore the arms.
Please don't just copy my words. Tell me in your own words what the post was about.
You don't have to agree with the words, just give an indication the comprehension isn't totally absent.
Why do you think mention of arms was necessary?
Who was the comment addressed to?
What was the purpose of my posting that when I've been mostly keeping out of this?
Was the purpose served?
You go on to reference the same comment again, like it somehow backs some assertion of yours.
There is no "arm" in [Halc's same] explanation.The rotation curve comment you quote also does not mention 'arms'. What do you think the wiki comment says? Why was a reference to my comment (especially my lack of mention of 'arms') relevant to this comment?
In order to get better understanding, please also see the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
"The rotation curve of a disc galaxy (also called a velocity curve) is a plot of the orbital speeds of visible stars or gas in that galaxy versus their radial distance from that galaxy's center."
Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/07/2022 06:22:55Here you actually make a point. Stars closer to the center go around much more often than the ones further out. The ratio of 5 is poor mathematics, but the ratio is not far from that. You're giving evidence that your assertions are wrong. Not sure why you're doing this.
Please set each star at a fixed velocity and fixed orbital radius.
Based on my basic logic, while a star at 15KPC complete only one galactic cycle, a star at the same arm at 3KPC would have to set 5 orbital cycles.
So please, based on your superior logic, how many orbital cycles (for the one at 15KPC) are needed in order to break the spiral arm structure?
As for superior logic, you commit a straw man fallacy here, asserting facts that are not held by these 'clueless' astronomers, only by you. So that's the demonstration of 'superior logic' you've been requesting.
As you think that you do understand, then please advice what is the meaning of the following message:OK, since you quoted that, what do you think it says? This is a reading comprehension test remember.
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/
"The bar in the center and the spiral arms are thought to rotate at different speeds. If they are disconnected the bar shows its true and smaller structure (left). Every time they meet, the bar appears longer and its rotation slower (right). Credit: T. Hilmi / University of Surrey"
Why do you think this comment is relevant here?
The comment is a caption, and is obviously commenting on the images above it. What is it saying that you think is worthy of being introduced in this topic?
If this is too difficult, you've really no business wasting all our time on this site.
The following users thanked this post: Bored chemist