IC 1101; Largest Galaxy Ever Discovered

[AOA]

Diameter of Milky Way; 100,000 Light Years.

---and---

Diameter of Galaxy IC 1101; 6 MILLION Light Years.

IC 1101 is a supergiant lenticular galaxy at the center of the Abell 2029 galaxy cluster. It is 1.07 billion light years away in the constellation of Serpens and is classified as a cD class of galaxy.

SIZE

The galaxy has a diameter of approximately 6 million light years, which makes it currently (as of 2011) the largest known galaxy in terms of breadth. It is the central galaxy of a massive cluster containing a mass (mostly dark matter) of roughly 100 trillion Suns. Being more than 50 times the size of the Milky Way and 2000 times as massive, if it was in place of our galaxy, it would swallow up the Large Magellanic Cloud, Small Magellanic Cloud, Andromeda Galaxy, and Triangulum Galaxy. IC 1101 owes its size to many collisions of much smaller galaxies about the size of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies.

Source.

 

[Mal12345]

Diameter of Milky Way; 100,000 Light Years.

---and---

Diameter of Galaxy IC 1101; 6 MILLION Light Years.

Source.

There is no proof that Dark Matter exists. Dark Matter is a hypothesis. It is brought in wherever extra gravity is required to clear up some discrepancy in the cosmological data. And it gets even worse. In some cases, gravitational lensing is used to prop up the theory behind an anomaly, but since lensing requires a lot of gravity, Dark Matter theory is used to provide the quantity of mass needed to explain the lensing effect which is only proposed to exist. So Dark Matter is a fantasy on top of a fantasy. I'm not saying that lensing doesn't exist, but it is sometimes used to explain why some intergalactic objects appear closer than they really are (as in the case of a highly red-shifted object that's just too close for comfort to us). It never occurs to cosmologists that perhaps, just perhaps, the objects really are that close, and no lensing explanation is required - and thus no so-called Dark Matter.

You may say that I'm speculating, but so are they. It just so happens that once cosmologists start questioning their methods - these Copernican epicycles upon epicycles - then they are logically forced to question all the way down. They will have to question red-shift, and ultimately, the Big Bang.

 

[Anew Leaf]

That's amazing! I love that kind of stuff.

I wonder what it looks like now.

 

[AOA]

You may say that I'm speculating, but so are they. It just so happens that once cosmologists start questioning their methods - these Copernican epicycles upon epicycles - then they are logically forced to question all the way down. They will have to question red-shift, and ultimately, the Big Bang.

True; there are various scientific fallacies being passed around, I would think.

 

[Mal12345]

True; there are various scientific fallacies being passed around, I would think.

Modern cosmology begins with the absurd notion that something can come from nothing.

 

[AOA]

Modern cosmology begins with the absurd notion that something can come from nothing.

Honestly; absolute rubbish. Those who'd originated theoretical nonsense like that should seriously die.

 

[Mal12345]

Honestly; absolute rubbish. Those who'd originated theoretical nonsense like that should seriously die.

I'm pretty sure they are dead by now.

 

[The Outsider]

Modern cosmology begins with the absurd notion that something can come from nothing.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Mal12345]

You don't know what you're talking about.

Then would you please enlighten me? Did the universe begin with a Big Bang or not?

 

[The Outsider]

Then would you please enlighten me? Did the universe begin with a Big Bang or not?

According to the current data, yes it did.

 

[Mal12345]

According to the current data, yes it did.

Does the current data contradict the idea of a cyclic universe?

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/02/0506/0506-cyclicuniverse.htm

The theory proposes that, in each cycle, the universe refills with hot, dense matter and radiation, which begins a period of expansion and cooling like the one of the standard big bang picture. After 14 billion years, the expansion of the universe accelerates, as astronomers have recently observed. After trillions of years, the matter and radiation are almost completely dissipated and the expansion stalls. An energy field that pervades the universe then creates new matter and radiation, which restarts the cycle.

The new theory provides possible answers to several longstanding problems with the big bang model, which has dominated the field of cosmology for decades. It addresses, for example, the nagging question of what might have triggered or come "before" the beginning of time.

 

[The Outsider]

Fascinating.

 

[Mal12345]

Fascinating.

The only real objection I have to this article is "It is conceivable, he said, that a material called dark matter, which is widely believed to make up a significant part of the universe, resides on this other brane." But the universe doesn't need dark matter either. Why? Because not all observed effects that stymie current theories NEED to be explained by gravity.

 

[entropie]

Does the current data contradict the idea of a cyclic universe?

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/02/0506/0506-cyclicuniverse.htm

The theory proposes that, in each cycle, the universe refills with hot, dense matter and radiation, which begins a period of expansion and cooling like the one of the standard big bang picture. After 14 billion years, the expansion of the universe accelerates, as astronomers have recently observed. After trillions of years, the matter and radiation are almost completely dissipated and the expansion stalls. An energy field that pervades the universe then creates new matter and radiation, which restarts the cycle.

The new theory provides possible answers to several longstanding problems with the big bang model, which has dominated the field of cosmology for decades. It addresses, for example, the nagging question of what might have triggered or come "before" the beginning of time.

Well the idea is not necessarily bad, but its phrased like it was written by a philosopher and not by a scientist.

First of all matter and energy cant be "created" that would be in direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy and matter are converted. And 2nd of all it says that this new matter and energy comes from an "energy field which pervades the universe". Well statements like that sound a bit like the world of a cartoon movie to me.

The theory in itself aint that bad, but judged from current physics there are logical discrepancies. First of all said "magical energy field", and second of all how can new matter be created if the kinetic energy would slow down ? Namely heat and radiation is nothing but particles in movement and when there is movement, impulse can be transfered and new movement can be motivated. How can no movement create new movement ? That is in direct violation with impusle theory.

I dunno, I didnt read the whole article cause the quoted part scared me off. Of course quantum physics presents a new model where everything is possible, but I am not as crazy yet as to throw all newtonian physics over board just yet. Especially regarding the macroscopic cosmos newtonian physics are more possible to apply than quantum mechanics.

 

[Mal12345]

Well the idea is not necessarily bad, but its phrased like it was written by a philosopher and not by a scientist.

First of all matter and energy cant be "created" that would be in direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy and matter are converted. And 2nd of all it says that this new matter and energy comes from an "energy field which pervades the universe". Well statements like that sound a bit like the world of a cartoon movie to me.

The theory in itself aint that bad, but judged from current physics there are logical discrepancies. First of all said "magical energy field", and second of all how can new matter be created if the kinetic energy would slow down ? Namely heat and radiation is nothing but particles in movement and when there is movement, impulse can be transfered and new movement can be motivated. How can no movement create new movement ? That is in direct violation with impusle theory.

I dunno, I didnt read the whole article cause the quoted part scared me off. Of course quantum physics presents a new model where everything is possible, but I am not as crazy yet as to throw all newtonian physics over board just yet. Especially regarding the macroscopic cosmos newtonian physics are more possible to apply than quantum mechanics.

The article I quoted doesn't state that energy is created. The energy field that "creates matter and radiation" is just there, although it does "heat up" and "cool down." Your quoting of "magical energy field" is in bad form, because whether or not you're just using scare-quotes is obscure to those who haven't read the article.

This graphic shows the movement you're asking about:

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/brane3.html

Newtonian physics was thrown over-board way back in 1905. And Newton had nothing to say about the origin of the universe anyway, or at least nothing that mattered.

 

[entropie]

Ouh newtonian physics was thrown over board, guess my engineering degree is for the ass then

 

[AOA]

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBdegs7ItIE"]Earth vs Milky Way vs Universe.[/YOUTUBE]

Otherwise; begin the video from 1:30.

 

[Mal12345]

Ouh newtonian physics was thrown over board, guess my engineering degree is for the ass then

Scotty would agree with me. They can't fly through the galaxy on Newtonian physics.

 

[Mal12345]

That's an oldie but a goodie. Here's a Salman Khan video along the same lines.