Newfound Blob is Biggest Thing in the Universe

Space.com ^ | 27 July 2006 | Ker Than

[RightWhale]

I asked the daughter of a friend how many elements there are. No hesitation . . . four!

Her parents were stuned.

[RadioAstronomer]

I am not surprised.

[mjolnir]

Intersting article, stupid thread.

What's the harm in jokes and pictures about Kennedy, Moore and the rest? It's not as though they prevent discussion. True, they can't answer questions but maybe you can.

I don't understand a lot about this thing--- is it made up of various gases or mostly one sort? Is its density all that keeps it together or is there some other factor doing so? Is it dissipating at all, and at what rate? What's the second largest sort of object?

[tophat9000]

An enormous amoeba-like structure 200 million light-years wide

Ah I saw this on the original Star Trek...It eats the all Vulcan ship

[RightWhale]

Is its density all that keeps it together

There is little to break it apart. If anything keeps it together it is gravity, with maybe some electrical forces also, but it is probably expanding along with the galaxies.

[true_blue_texican]

Halton Arp, LeSage gravity.

[true_blue_texican]

I sure hope you are joking about that senseless proposition!

[RadioAstronomer]

I will be glad too! :-)

Will take a day to compose though. Look for it tonight or tomorrow.

[wyattearp]

They didn't give you the real info in chem class.

Um, RightWhale? Still waiting to hear where you are getting your info that hydrogen is one of the largest atoms, especially considering that it is the second smallest.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I think I read this book. It didn't end well.

[RightWhale]

I do not believe in the Big Bang

Nobody does. However, it is the best model so far. Best in that it fits observation.

[true_blue_texican]

I do not believe in the Big Bang Nobody does. However, it is the best model so far. Best in that it fits observation.

I believe Halton Arp's observations do not fit the model.

[RightWhale]

There are a few here and there who try to come up with alternative theories. Bridgman, Ives tried to point out some problems with relativity, but few have gone along. Since none of the theories necessarily describes ultimate reality, the ones that are most fully developed and cover observation best are the ones that professionals work with.

[true_blue_texican]

It's structures like this that constantly poke holes in the BB. The BB doesn't predict these. However this particular structure is exactly what I would expect from plasma theory ala Hannes Alfven.

The problem with the BB is that every time something is discovered that the BB couldn't predict, it is "tweaked" to include the new structure. It is more of a Crazy Quilt, now than a simple theory.

[NormsRevenge]

Gigantic gaseous globs in space, Cool.



Gas Blob Resembles Gigantic Comet - largest gas ball of its kind ever detected
Space.com ^ | 6/12/06 | Ker Than
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1648297/posts

Posted on 06/12/2006 10:04:27 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

[NormsRevenge]

Begetting the Blob

This bulbous globular blob of hot, ionized gas may have been formed as a result of astronomical shenanigans by a rare star.

The sphere-shaped object shown here sits in a region known as N214C, a nebula of gas and dust inside the Large Magellanic Cloud outside the Milky Way galaxy. Known as a formation site for massive stars, N214C is home to a stellar rarity known as Sk-71 51.

It is the effects of Sk-71 51, which sits south of the blob depicted here, that astronomers say may have led to the bulbous creation. According to the theory, the blob may have coalesced suring a period of massive star formation following the collapse of a thin shell of material accumulated by strong irradiation and heating of Sk-71 51.

The Sk-71 51 star could sit in a class of extremely massive stars known that comprise the stellar heavyweights of the universe. Astronomers have pegged the star at more than 80 solar masses, but concede that the star could in fact be a system of multiple stellar objects.

The European Southern Observatory produced this view of the N214C blob using the 3.5-meter New Technology Telescope. The image is a six-color composite, with the green hue indicating doubly ionized oxygen atoms.

-- SPACE.com Staff

Credit: ESO.

[RightWhale]

Is there reason to expect that the universe should conform to any simple geometric structure?

[true_blue_texican]

Geometry is a product of rational thought. Euclidean geometry is "real" as is Reimann (sp?). A sphere exists in Euclidean space just as a sphere can exist in Reimann or in a negatively curved space (it may "look" different but it satisfies a definition of a sphere in that space). BUT, "space" here does not mean space like the cosmos when we look up at it. Space is a very specificly defined mathematical term. I think that the problem is that the term is confused with space as in the cosmos. To think of the cosmos as possessing a certain geometry doesn't make much sense to me. To use geometry as a metaphor to make calculations about gravitational attraction is useful where it can make accurate predictions. But there are places where GR doesn't appear to predict things that actually exist so kludges keep being stuck onto the metaphor.

[RightWhale]

There is a great confusion of terms. In a monograph such as Sein und Zeit it is possible to be more or less consistent and to introduce new terms when existing words don't make enough distinction. It might be interesting to note that the Hubble telescope, wonderful as it is, cannot quite see to the edge of the universe. But, it might also be noted that according to the big Bang model as it is now, the entire universe, including the Hubble volume, is 25 billion times larger in radius than the Hubble volume; seeing beyond the visible universe is impossible since the objects are receding faster than the speed of light and have been since the main inflation phase. It might be compared to looking at a grain of sand and imagining that it is the entire earth.