Hubble eyes the needle galaxy

Dec 24, 2012
Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA

(Phys.org)—Like finding a silver needle in the haystack of space, the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has produced this beautiful image of the spiral galaxy IC 2233, one of the flattest galaxies known.

Typical spiral galaxies like the Milky Way are usually made up of three principal visible components: the disk where the and most of the gas and dust is concentrated; the halo, a rough and sparse sphere around the disk that contains little gas, dust or star formation; and the central bulge at the heart of the disk, which is formed by a large concentration of surrounding the Galactic Center.

However, IC 2233 is far from being typical. This object is a prime example of a super-thin galaxy, where the galaxy's diameter is at least ten times larger than the thickness. These galaxies consist of a simple disk of stars when seen edge on. This orientation makes them fascinating to study, giving another perspective on spiral galaxies. An important characteristic of this type of objects is that they have a low brightness and almost all of them have no bulge at all.

The bluish color that can be seen along the disk gives evidence of the spiral nature of the galaxy, indicating the presence of hot, luminous, young stars, born out of clouds of . In addition, unlike typical spirals, IC 2233 shows no well-defined dust lane. Only a few small patchy regions can be identified in the inner regions both above and below the galaxy's mid-plane.

Lying in the constellation of Lynx, IC 2233 is located about 40 million light-years away from Earth. This galaxy was discovered by British astronomer Isaac Roberts in 1894.

This image was taken with the Hubble's for Surveys, combining visible and infrared exposures. The field of view in this image is approximately 3.4 by 3.4 arcminutes.

Explore further: Telescopes hint at neutrino beacon at the heart of the Milky Way

Related Stories

A spiral galaxy in Hydra

Apr 09, 2012

(Phys.org) -- This image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope shows NGC 4980, a spiral galaxy in the southern constellation of Hydra. The shape of NGC 4980 appears slightly deformed, something which is ...

Hubble eyes a loose spiral galaxy

Nov 26, 2012

(Phys.org)—The Hubble Space Telescope has spotted the spiral galaxy ESO 499-G37, seen here against a backdrop of distant galaxies, scattered with nearby stars.

Spider Web of Stars in Galaxy IC 342

Mar 20, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Looking like a spider's web swirled into a spiral, Galaxy IC 342 presents its delicate pattern of dust in this image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. Seen in infrared light, faint starlight ...

Hubble sees a spiral within a spiral

May 28, 2012

(Phys.org) -- NASA's Hubble Space Telescope captured this image of the spiral galaxy known as ESO 498-G5. One interesting feature of this galaxy is that its spiral arms wind all the way into the center, so ...

Recommended for you

A colorful gathering of middle-aged stars

Nov 26, 2014

NGC 3532 is a bright open cluster located some 1300 light-years away in the constellation of Carina(The Keel of the ship Argo). It is informally known as the Wishing Well Cluster, as it resembles scattered ...

User comments : 57

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Ben-NY
5 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2012
How come these spiral arms look like cream in coffee when stirred? Is it because of certain characteristics of natural laws that holds true in space as in our everyday lives? Shapes of pine cone, nautilus shell or sunflower also show similarities in form at least.
gwrede
1 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2012
How come these spiral arms look like cream in coffee when stirred?
The following short article should give you some idea. (Unfortunately its title makes one think of the kooks and whackos writing here, but it is a serious article.)

http://en.wikiped...e_theory
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) Dec 24, 2012
Strange. Both 'ends' of that 'needle' appear blue (or blueshifted). Given the orthodox view about 'flat' Rotation Curves, shouldn't the Spiral disk's 'receding' edge be 'redder (or less blue) and the opposite 'oncoming' edge be bluer? Or is it just a observational/processing artifact/illusion?
Q-Star
3 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2012
Strange. Both 'ends' of that 'needle' appear blue (or blueshifted). Given the orthodox view about 'flat' Rotation Curves, shouldn't the Spiral disk's 'receding' edge be 'redder (or less blue) and the opposite 'oncoming' edge be bluer? Or is it just a observational/processing artifact/illusion?


The human eye can not detect doppler shift. It's a phenomena that is measured by comparing the absorption or emission lines of various constituents of the object being observed. The lines move to shorter wavelengths blueshift, or to longer wavelengths redshift.

Google up astro-spectometry, you'll find plenty of items to enlighten ya.

RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 24, 2012
Strange. Both 'ends' of that 'needle' appear blue (or blueshifted). Given the orthodox view about 'flat' Rotation Curves, shouldn't the Spiral disk's 'receding' edge be 'redder (or less blue) and the opposite 'oncoming' edge be bluer? Or is it just a observational/processing artifact/illusion?


The human eye can not detect doppler shift. It's a phenomena that is measured by comparing the absorption or emission lines of various constituents of the object being observed. The lines move to shorter wavelengths blueshift, or to longer wavelengths redshift.

Google up astro-spectometry, you'll find plenty of items to enlighten ya.



Hi Q-Star. Thanks for that info. I knew/suspected as much. So, if the 'blueness' is not equal between 'ends' and not discernible by eye, have you (or anyone else) any info of what the differential blue/red shift values actually are for the receding/oncoming 'ends' of that image? Thanks. Back tomorrow!
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2012
any info of what the differential blue/red shift values actually are for the receding/oncoming 'ends' of that image?


I don't know off of the top of my head for that particular galaxy. But when speaking of objects like galaxies,,, the terms redshift/blueshift are just relative words,,, the spectrometry may not even be done in the "visible" red through blue spectrum,, it can be done in any of the electromagnetic spectra,, gamma, xray, ultraviolet, infrared, radio,,, the terms "red" and "blue" only mean "to longer" or "to shorter" wavelengths respectively.

99% of what we know about the Sun, other stars, galaxies, etc, come from the techniques of spectrometry.

Students of things astronomical, astrophysical and cosmological must understand spectroscopy before they can begin to understand what we know, and how we know it.

It is heart of the science.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 24, 2012
Just about to log out. Thanks anyway, but I know all that. The gist of my query is clear, I don't need all that other info as it is old news to me. So, has anyone else got any info on the 'needle galaxy' regarding the receding/oncoming velocities of its 'ends' as inferred from whatever light/radiation is being studied as coming from its 'ends'? It is the inferred rotation velocity of the outer parts of the 'spiral' I am particularly interested in at this time, and what the differential blueness/redness values measured. Cheers! Logging out. Bye, and stay safe!
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2012
Just about to log out. Thanks anyway, but I know all that. The gist of my query is clear, I don't need all that other info as it is old news to me.[...] It is the inferred rotation velocity of the outer parts of the 'spiral' I am particularly interested in at this time, and what the differential blueness/redness values measured. Cheers! Logging out. Bye, and stay safe!


@RC,

In operative terms, red/blueshift is applied to the velocity of the entire galaxy's movement to or away from us, the velocity of its rotation is miniscule by comparison, and so doesn't really enter the picture. A hundred thousand miles per hour velocity would produce very, very little wavelength shift, since it is such a tiny fraction of the speed of light.

perhaps you are confusing the blue tint produced by young, hot(blue)stars in the peripheral regions of the disc with "Blueshift" produced by approaching velocity?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 24, 2012
Hi Caliban. I logged back in to search for an old article and checked in here again just in case.

Thanks for your response! I understand. But I thought the whole orthodox view of Flat Rotation Curves is inferred from the speed of the outer disk stars compared to the speed of the inner disk stars. If so, there must be a differential measured for the velocities to be ascertained as just that component of velocities around the centre after allowing for any whole-galaxy LINEAR velocity in whatever direction that galaxy as a whole is headed.

In other words, if galaxy 'rotation' velocities are not distinguishable from galaxy 'linear' velocities, then how were the 'flat rotation curves' obtained/determined in the first place?

Gotta go again! Cheers. Back tomorrow if I can! Thanks again.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2012
Thanks anyway, but I know all that. The gist of my query is clear, I don't need all that other info as it is old news to me.


Apparently it is very old news to ya, ya forgot it completely,,,,,, and ya didn't "know all that" very well, because ya got it wrong, hence your original question,,,

I say that because your first question had to do with the way the "picture" appeared to ya,,, you obviously thought you could see redshift/blueshift in a photograph,,,,,,,

For someone who thinks "civil scientific debate" is of prime importance, ya sure have a low opinion of science,,,,,, "it's not necessary to know because I already know what I don't know but know it already",,,,

If ya only wanted to know the rotational velocity,,,, google up the term "needle galaxy" and you'll find it in the first couple of hits.

(Or ya could ask a silly question about why the sides of the photo don't seem to show much of a red or blue difference.)

Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2012
In other words, if galaxy 'rotation' velocities are not distinguishable from galaxy 'linear' velocities, then how were the 'flat rotation curves' obtained/determined in the first place?


Because the rotational velocity is calculated from the difference in the shift in lines from one side to the other,,,, one side plus shift, the other minus shift....

The radial velocity is calculated by the overall average shift of the entire galaxy,,, but ya knew all this, right,,,,
yyz
5 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2012
"has anyone else got any info on the 'needle galaxy' regarding the receding/oncoming velocities of its 'ends'..."

A map of the velocity field of IC 2233, obtained from HI data taken by the VLA, can be found here(Fig 10): http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4249

From the diagram you can see the right edge of the galaxy (at top) is receding from us, as the left side (bottom) is approaching.

A note on the colors in this image. This is a false-color image of IC 2233 derived using two filters, one centered in the red region of the spectrum (mapped blue here) and a NIR wavelength (mapped orange).
ima_adey
not rated yet Dec 24, 2012
Ben-NY

Ben Y...look up "the colours of infinity" with Arthur c Clarke on u tube. This doco covers your question by exploration of the fractal universe.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
In other words, if galaxy 'rotation' velocities are not distinguishable from galaxy 'linear' velocities, then how were the 'flat rotation curves' obtained/determined in the first place?


Because the rotational velocity is calculated from the difference in the shift in lines from one side to the other,,,, one side plus shift, the other minus shift....
Your replies are telling us something already implied. The 'lines shift' denotes a difference in light wavelengths/frequencies. Hence 'blueshift/redshift' correlation. You seem to want to bignote yourself instead of just answering the questions put; and making personal disparagements of the person. Not a good look for someone who pretends to be a 'scientist'. A scientist would have answered like yyz. He was to the point and not at all self-aggrandizing like you have a habit (need?) to do. Learn from his example. New Year resolution suggestion for you? Bye!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2012
How come these spiral arms look like cream in coffee when stirred?

Actually they're driven with laws of particle packing geometry, because in these large system the mutual equilibrium of gravitational attraction and radiation pressure applies. Therefore in these large systems the interactions mediated with longitudinal waves instead of transverse ones become dominant. It's no secret, that the epicycle model, which failed for description of small planetary system works quite well at the large galactic arms.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2012
A scientist would have answered like yyz. He was to the point and not at all self-aggrandizing like you have a habit (need?) to do. Learn from his example. New Year resolution suggestion for you? Bye!


I answered your original question,,, you thought that you should be able to "SEE" the doppler effect in a photograph. Then you went so far as to point out that you didn't know the difference between radial velocity, rotational (angular) velocity and proper motions,,,,, then to try to cover up how silly your questions were for a "really" smart person, you decide to distract from your foolishness and get personal, as if by doing so, no one would notice how uninformed your questions were,,,,

Right ya are,,,,

But why can't I be a "scientist" and a miscreant? Because I am better at both than you are? But I can play as long as you would like, it's your call.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2012
Hi -Q-Star. Still at it?
I answered your original question,,, you thought that you should be able to "SEE" the doppler effect in a photograph. Then you went so far as to point out that you didn't know the difference between radial velocity, rotational (angular) velocity and proper motions,,,,, then to try to cover up how silly your questions were for a "really" smart person, you decide to distract from your foolishness and get personal, as if by doing so, no one would notice how uninformed your questions were,,
Yes, along with your ego-tripping disparagements/assumptions about what I asked how I asked and why. My image comments was merely opening remark to set the scene for rotation curves questions. Your ego-centric reading/answering addressed your strawman inferences. No 'silly/wrong' questions in science discourse; that you think there is tells of your 'personal' agenda/ego rather than my knowledge-base/intentions. Your ego-tripping is showing again! New Year resolution ho!
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2012
strawman


Well pardon me for misunderstanding your "plan".

So ya ask about the photo colors and redshift.

When I explain to ya that ya can't SEE the doppler effect in a photo,,, ya respond that ya knew that already.

Begs the question: Why did ya mention anything about the colors in the first place if ya already knew that?

So after ya told us ya already "knew" all that,,, ya then ask how ya can tell the difference between the redshift due to (in your words) "linear velocity" (which I can only assume ya meant radial velocity)?

Begs another question: If ya knew all about spectroscopy,,, then why would ya ask such an uniformed question?

When I tried to tell ya that it is an easy thing, ya got all huffy because ya got made to feel stupid and started trying to divert the attention by claiming ya were being picked upon by a mean ol' miscreant who doesn't know anything.

Before ya tackle big theories ya should learn the elementary.

Reality/Anton/Check/Kole I'm here to stay
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2012
Hi -Q-Star. Still at it?


And I will be. Ignore it or not, I don't care. Ya what to play the game, I'm in it with ya.

Reality/Anton/Check/Kole,,,, ya have made yourself my favorite playmate. (Time to bring another sock puppet or two,,, I'll be happy to entertain them also.)

By the By: When ya do bring the puppets,,,, please, I beg ya please to start taking care with the syntax and role playing,,, just to keep more interesting and challenging if ya don't mind.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 27, 2012
Whoa there, Q-Star! Don't go all postal on us and attack another strawman like that. I am only RealityCheck. I pose questions and seek answers from a multitude of people in a multitude of ways in order to gain their own various perspectives. I don't need or want any other name, as this is my whole complete and consistent internet personna, thankyou very much. I conducted two specific experiments on other sites for a specific test of certain principles, which experiments could only have been conducted using a fresh name for a short experiment-specific time limit. And even then, I made absolutely clear afterwards what I did and why and who I was and always will remain: ie, RealityCheck. So your assumptions/inferences now about my personna are also as erroneous as your inferences/assumptions about my initial posts/reasons. No such experiment here...yet! Lighten up, can't you? It's the season for merriment and goodwill and all that. Cheers & stay safe out there, Q-Star, everyone!
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2012
Whoa there, Q-Star! Don't go all postal on us and attack another strawman like that.


Postal? What does that mean? I'm the one having fun, ya are the one who is claiming to be abused.

But ya should have considered that before ya initiated a discussion with me that contained the "STFU" in it. Ya chose to engage, now ya call foul? That is not the way it works.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2012
"has anyone else got any info on the 'needle galaxy' regarding the receding/oncoming velocities of its 'ends'..."

A map of the velocity field of IC 2233, obtained from HI data taken by the VLA, can be found here(Fig 10): http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4249


There's a velocity graph from 1981 here, see Fig 2a on page 82:

http://articles.a...000.html

The slope is obvious showing a difference of ~200km/s between the ends with a mean system radial velocity of ~550km/s.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 28, 2012
Hi Q-Star. I hope your holiday season is safe and enjoyable for you and your! "Going Postal" was a term conied amny years ago when a spate of postmen/mailcarriers went crazy and attacked people at random. I don't recall what it was that seemed to 'set off' these unfortunates, but their own perceived 'reasons' may have to do with them 'attacking their own demons' rather than the reality.

Anyway, please don't try to extend my "STFU" admonition to anything other than what it was ONLY aimed at: your prediliction for 'personalizing' exchanges/issues in order to ridicule the poster rather than properly reading/understanding the issue posted and making a relevant rebuttal without insults based on your own personal biases/misreadings/assumptions etc.

Any 'foul' pointed out was in your 'personalizing/insulting' approach to what should be objective and courteous science discourse. Perhaps fair reading and respect will help you 'make good' in that area in future. A New Year's Resolution? Cheer!
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 28, 2012
Thanks Fleetfoot, and again, yyz, Q-Star for the info!

Sorry I can't stay long, but my ToE compiling work demands my attention again (oh my poor eyes!).

Happy New Year, Fleetfoot, yyz, Q-Star, everyone! Stay safe!
yyz
5 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2012
Glad to be of help RC and Happy New Year.

LOL, Fleetfoot - I noticed the rotation curve in your link is reproduced in my link (Fig 13) along with the HI-derived rotation curve.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2012
Anyway, please don't try to extend my "STFU" admonition to anything other than what it was ONLY aimed at: your prediliction for 'personalizing' exchanges/issues in order to ridicule the poster rather than properly reading/understanding the issue posted and making a relevant rebuttal without insults based on your own personal biases/misreadings/assumptions etc.


Is that why ya have been booted off other forums? Is that why ya end up calling the moderators trolls and mean ol' meanies who are biased, misreading, and assuming? Like when ya log on to "stir the pot"?

Any 'foul' pointed out was in your 'personalizing/insulting' approach to what should be objective and courteous science discourse. Perhaps fair reading and respect will help you 'make good' in that area in future. A New Year's Resolution? Cheer!


Ya aren't very smart are ya? I'm "making good" as I do,,,, Who ya going to be next? (The "new" guy from the 24th was dead out of the gate. Ya'll have to do better.)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
Hi Q-Star.
Anyway, please don't try to extend my "STFU" admonition........it was ONLY aimed at: your prediliction for 'personalizing' exchanges/issues in order to ridicule the poster rather than properly reading/understanding the issue posted and making a relevant rebuttal without insults...


Is that why ya have been booted off other forums? Is that why ya end up calling the moderators trolls and mean ol' meanies who are biased, misreading, and assuming? Like when ya log on to "stir the pot"?

Ya aren't very smart are ya? I'm "making good" as I do,,,, Who ya going to be next? (The "new" guy from the 24th was dead out of the gate. Ya'll have to do better.)
You evade the point made about your 'personalizing' and insulting as observed.

The troll-mod farce was TWICE confirmed by experiment. Objectively demonstrated. I was banned at TWO sites where that farce existed as PROVEN. Obvious.

Your sockpuppet fixation and denial of the obvious is not healthy.

Bye!
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2012
You evade the point made about your 'personalizing' and insulting as observed.


Ya are evading the point that ya addressed me first. If ya live in a crystal palace (as most passive aggressive people do) ya would be wise not to cast the first rock.

The personalizing and insulting thing I can't do much about, ya set yourself up for that,,, take a lesson from it. Pssst, a clue,, ya addressed me first, so I will address ya last. Simple eh?

The troll-mod farce was TWICE confirmed by experiment. Objectively demonstrated. I was banned at TWO sites where that farce existed as PROVEN. Obvious.


Ya are still a farce as PROVEN. Obvious.

By the By: What are ya doing these days? Nuclear technician? Engineering? Sophomore student? Gold mining? Computer systems? Game programmer/designer? Etc, Etc, Etc,,, Ya've had so many jobs, I'm wondering if ya ever had the same career for more than a month or two.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2012
as most passive aggressive people do
It's just you, who is aggressive and insulting people here - not RealityCheck. You're even impertinent enough to pretend the opposite. You're a psychopath, who isn't interested about discussing physics here at all.
rubberman
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2012
Happy holidays folks. Doppler shift is a pretty simple concept. As Yyz 's link and post explain and how the galactic rotation is simply a plus/minus value of the overall red or blue shift. RC claimed to understand this after asking a question indicating he didn't. The resulting exchange would have ended qith a simple "woops, sorry"....
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2012


Ya are evading the point that ya addressed me first. If ya live in a crystal palace (as most passive aggressive people do) ya would be wise not to cast the first rock.

The personalizing and insulting thing I can't do much about, ya set yourself up for that,,, take a lesson from it. Pssst, a clue,, ya addressed me first, so I will address ya last. Simple eh?

Ya are still a farce as PROVEN. Obvious.

By the By: What are ya doing these days? Nuclear technician? Engineering? Sophomore student? Gold mining? Computer systems? Game programmer/designer? Etc, Etc, Etc,,, Ya've had so many jobs, I'm wondering if ya ever had the same career for more than a month or two.
I addressed your unscientific propensity to personalize/insult OTHERS, not me. You "cast the first rock(s)" at others. I asked you to stop doing so.

Denying the issue and persisting with 'sockpuppet' innuendoes (who is it you have in mind, exactly?) is not healthy. Polite science discourse is healthy. Thanks!
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2012
I addressed your unscientific propensity to personalize/insult OTHERS, not me. You "cast the first rock(s)" at others. I asked you to stop doing so.

Denying the issue and persisting with 'sockpuppet' innuendoes (who is it you have in mind, exactly?) is not healthy. Polite science discourse is healthy. Thanks!


Naaa, yours don't rise to the level of sockpupets, they are more like the personae that mentally ill people take on in their grandiose role playing.

Ya had the first word, ya will not have the last also,,,, so here am I, and there are ya. Good luck and good hunting,,,,,
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2012
Happy holidays folks. Doppler shift is a pretty simple concept. As Yyz 's link and post explain and how the galactic rotation is simply a plus/minus value of the overall red or blue shift. RC claimed to understand this after asking a question indicating he didn't. The resulting exchange would have ended qith a simple "woops, sorry"....


I asked a question as part of the 'rotation curve' context in which I wished respondents to treat the thrust of my question. Period.

Any other 'indication' as you suggest was your inferences/assumptions. Incorrect.

The personalization and insults was by the respondent in question whom I have asked to please desist from attacking the messenger with uncalled for tactical/strawman inferences/assumptions instead of discussing the scientific aspects/questions presented politely.

Thanks! And a Happy New Year to you too, rubberman, and everyone!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2012
Naaa, yours don't rise to the level of sockpupets, they are more like the personae that mentally ill people take on in their grandiose role playing.

Ya had the first word, ya will not have the last also,,,, so here am I, and there are ya. Good luck and good hunting,,
The culture here was unhealthy. Let's break that culture and forego all the personals/ innuendoes. Just politely address the scientific issues/questions politely presented and leave out the point-scoring/personalizing attitudes/innuendoes, hey?

I only have ONE internet personna: RealityCheck. A constant at few sites I post/posted at. As I said, I only used two other TEMPORARY 'names' for brief EXPERIMENTS specifically aimed at exposing the troll-mod combo problem at the two sites concerned. I proved the observation by experiment for all to see for themselves. No further comment needed on that.

It's that important to you to "have the last word"? Ok....but no insults/personal stuff mind! Relax.

H-N-Year, Q-Star!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2012
Thanks! And a Happy New Year to you too, rubberman, and everyone!
You should keep the matter of fact discussion here too. Your familiar whooping in every post is annoying, it's off topic and it decreases your respectability, which you - quite frankly - need more than enough. This is not Facebook or some other social club. If you don't welcome the subjective labeling of your posts, don't use a subjective familiarities - this will not help you to become respected and favorite poster here. If I can advice you, try to less talk and more think.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2012
Naaa, yours don't rise to the level of sockpupets, they are more like the personae that mentally ill people take on in their grandiose role playing.

The culture here was unhealthy. Let's break that culture and forego all the personals/ innuendoes. Just politely address the scientific issues/questions politely presented and leave out the point-scoring/personalizing attitudes/innuendoes, hey?


Sir your questions have no scientific basis, I am lovingly offering to teach you enough basic science so you can formulate an intelligent question.

I only have ONE internet personna: RealityCheck. A constant at few sites I post/posted at. As I said, I only used two other TEMPORARY 'names' for brief EXPERIMENTS specifically aimed at exposing the troll-mod combo problem at the two sites concerned. I proved the observation by experiment for all to see for themselves.


Sir with all due respect and kindness, that is just not true.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2012
Thanks! And a Happy New Year to you too, rubberman, and everyone!
You should keep the matter of fact discussion here too. Your familiar whooping in every post is annoying, it's off topic and it decreases your respectability, which you - quite frankly - need more than enough. This is not Facebook or some other social club. If you don't welcome the subjective labeling of your posts, don't use a subjective familiarities - this will not help you to become respected and favorite poster here. If I can advice you, try to less talk and more think.


Thanks for your advice, VT. Will do!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2012
Sir your questions have no scientific basis, I am lovingly offering to teach you enough basic science so you can formulate an intelligent question.
Asking questions in different ways may produce more synergy/results than asking them in 'proscribed' ways. That is what science discourse is FOR. No question is "wrong" or "unintelligent" in science. Answers may be wrong, but questions never. That is what science DOES. Ask questions every-which-way so that advances from orthodoxy is maximally encouraged.

I only have ONE internet personna: RealityCheck. A constant at few sites I post/posted at. As I said, I only used two other TEMPORARY 'names' for brief EXPERIMENTS specifically aimed at exposing the troll-mod combo problem at the two sites concerned.

Sir, with all due respect and kindness, that is just not true.
You mistake me for someone else. Evidence your false accusation or admit you are in error there. Thanks.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2012
Asking questions in different ways may produce more synergy/results than asking them in the 'proscribed' ways. That is what science discourse is FOR. No question is "wrong" or "unintelligent" in science. Answers may be wrong, but questions never. That is what science DOES. Ask questions every-which-way so that advances from orthodoxy is maximally encouraged.


There are plenty of stupid questions, they abound in life, and yes unfortunately in science also. They are usually asked by a person who pretending to know more than he does, it's proof is in how they react when the answer to their question is some really simple obvious thing,,,,, The best reactions are when they try to change the question after the answer is given (which usually makes them look more ridiculous.)

No "unintelligent questions" ya say? Sounds profound, eh? Well apparently ya aren't any better at sophistry then ya are at basic science,,,,,

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2012
Asking questions in different ways may produce more synergy/results than asking them in the 'proscribed' ways. That is what science discourse is FOR. No question is "wrong" or "unintelligent" in science. Answers may be wrong, but questions never. That is what science DOES. Ask questions every-which-way so that advances from orthodoxy is maximally encouraged.


There are plenty of stupid questions, they abound in life, and yes unfortunately in science also. They are usually asked by a person who pretending to know more than he does, it's proof is in how they react when the answer to their question is some really simple obvious thing,,,,, The best reactions are when they try to change the question after the answer is given (which usually makes them look more ridiculous.)

No "unintelligent questions" ya say? Sounds profound, eh? Well apparently ya aren't any better at sophistry then ya are at basic science,,,,,



Your 'opinions' about a question is immaterial.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2012
Your 'opinions' about a question is immaterial.


Then why are ya wasting so much time worrying everyone here about my opinions? From your reaction I'm beginning to think that my opinions are somewhat (actually much) more material to ya then ya pretend.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2012
Your 'opinions' about a question is immaterial.


Then why are ya wasting so much time worrying everyone here about my opinions? From your reaction I'm beginning to think that my opinions are somewhat (actually much) more material to ya then ya pretend.


Your opinions on the science are always welcome. Your 'opinions' on the 'questioner/question' and your 'insults' which accompany your 'personalizing' opinions are not. Thanks for recognizing the crucial difference between the former and the latter; and ceasing with the latter kind of opining, Q-Star. No hard feelings. :)
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 30, 2012
Your opinions on the science are always welcome. Your 'opinions' on the 'questioner/question' and your 'insults' which accompany your 'personalizing' opinions are not. Thanks for recognizing the crucial difference between the former and the latter; and ceasing with the latter kind of opining, Q-Star. No hard feelings. :)


I rarely have "hard feelings" especially on an internet forum. But I do have STRONG feelings about science, and how it is discussed. If a person has a legitimate question, I always entertain it in a forthright manner. But when a person asks a question, with the intention to "set up" a tactical (sophistry) notion of later being "profound",,, then yes, it is a stupid question, and the questioner is stupid. Doubly so when their sophistry fails them and they try to "outsmart" the answer.

That's the first caveat a pretender should always bear in mind.

How long before ya "DECLARE" this to be an experiment and ya've proved something? That's your usual ending.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2012
I rarely have "hard feelings" especially on an internet forum. But I do have STRONG feelings about science, and how it is discussed. If a person has a legitimate question, I always entertain it in a forthright manner. But when a person asks a question, with the intention to "set up" a tactical (sophistry) notion of later being "profound",,, then yes, it is a stupid question, and the questioner is stupid. Doubly so when their sophistry fails them and they try to "outsmart" the answer. That's the first caveat a pretender should always bear in mind. How long before ya "DECLARE" this to be an experiment and ya've proved something? That's your usual ending.
Why still making 'personalizing' strawmen? If this was an experiment, it would be conducted under a 'fresh' name, not as "RealityCheck". That should have told you no experiment was under way. But you look for non-existent things to attack rather than just co-operating by ceasing personalizing/insulting as asked politely. :)
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2012
But you look for non-existent things to attack rather than just co-operating by ceasing personalizing/insulting as asked politely. :)


Grow up, it's a tough world, especially the world of science. If ya want "co-operating" to mean "let me pretend to be really smart", you're out of luck.

But if ya'd like to ask an intelligent science question, I'll try to help ya.

But what I won't do is give ya the first AND last word. (That's just the meanness in me.) Consider it a science experiment and let us see how long it takes a really smart guy to catch on.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2012
But you look for non-existent things to attack rather than just co-operating by ceasing personalizing/insulting as asked politely. :)
Grow up, it's a tough world, especially the world of science. If ya want "co-operating" to mean "let me pretend to be really smart", you're out of luck.
But if ya'd like to ask an intelligent science question, I'll try to help ya.
But what I won't do is give ya the first AND last word. (That's just the meanness in me.) Consider it a science experiment and let us see how long it takes a really smart guy to catch on.
So, making your self-serving and erroneous 'inferences' is 'honest' of you?

Wanting the last word is more important than you understanding/addressing the point?

And you again missing the import of the saying in science/education that "No question is wrong, only the answers may be", is you being 'smart'?

And you bringing your personal characteristic of "meanness" into science discourse is being 'grown up'?

Yeah
rubberman
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2012
If y'all folks out in hazzard county aint seen this before....this is what we like to call a texas stalemate....stay tuned and we'll see if our boys can ahimmy out of this one!

BLAH
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2012
Hi rubberman.
If y'all folks out in hazzard county aint seen this before....this is what we like to call a texas stalemate....stay tuned and we'll see if our boys can ahimmy out of this one!

BLAH


No problem. If Q-Star can resist the temptation and forego personalizing/insulting, then he is welcome to have the last word if it's so important to him. I have other work to do, and this personalizing/insults matter has already been canvassed enough. Bye all! :)
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2012
And you again missing the import of the saying in science/education that "No question is wrong, only the answers may be", is you being 'smart'?


Being a non-scientist or even science literate, I can understand the affinity ya have such a banal statement. Pssst, it's phrase meant to make YOUNG children feel good. It's not for real science.

If ya knew anything about science ya would certainly know that there are all kinds of "wrong" questions.

Especially the ones where the questioner thinks he knew the answer before he asked, and got trumped before he could spring his "great profound sagacious" sophomoric trap. My hypothesis is that ya read on some pseudo-science web site that redshift was being misinterpreted by the Standard Model thought ya might have an irrefutable piece of sophistry in support of the Electric Universe or Plasma Cosmology or some such crack-pot stuff.

But all ya ended up doing is showing that ya know nothing about observational astronomy/astrophysics.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2012
Hi Q-Star. You couldn't resist it. Have you ever heard some of the questions/hypotheses put by professional/respected string/other theorists/groups in brain-storming sessions? Would you be calling them "children" too?

How many times has a famous scientist/inventor said "Aha!" when he saw the problem in a different light because he asked the question 'differently' rather than in the usual 'right' way as ever before 'approved' by conventional approach?

You keep personalizing, insulting while avoiding the points about your own unsatisfactory behaviour.

All the rest is generalization and stereotyping from you, again. Not good.

Try to "have the last word' without all that unacceptable stuff. :)
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2012
Hi Q-Star. You couldn't resist it. Have you ever heard some of the questions/hypotheses put by professional/respected string/other theorists/groups in brain-storming sessions? Would you calling them 'children" too?


No, I would call them smart people, they had learned the fundamentals. But ya are not of that group: "professional/respected".

How many times has a famous scientist/inventor said "Aha!" when he saw the problem in a different light because he asked the question 'differently' rather than in the usual 'right' way as ever before 'approved' by conventional approach?


But ya are not famous, not a scientist, and as far as I know the only thing ya have invented is some delusion of being as great or as smart as they are.

All men are not equal, their "ideas" are not equal either. The inequality can usually measured by the amount of effort they put into being smart.

A wild idea is just that, a "wild idea",,,, nothing more, nothing less.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2012
Some 'smart' professionals have had some pretty 'dumb' ideas, and vice versa. That you still fail to realize this is damning to your claim to being 'scientific' and 'defending science' etc etc. Some smart ideas have surfaced ONLY because some 'dumb and persistent nut' (as you would characterize them) have won through the 'studied stupidity' and 'trained elitism' of those who missed it because of political/personal/arrogant prejudice rather than treating only the objective discussion. Learn from all those historical mistakes. And then perhaps you may be able to "have the last word" without constantly fluffing it like that. :)

And the whole purpose of brainstorming a problem is to HAVE 'wild ideas' which can be WINNOWED out by proper discussion, not kneejerk prejudice, to identify IF a 'wild idea' DOES work. :)
Q-Star
3 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2012
Some 'smart' professionals have had some pretty 'dumb' ideas, and vice versa. That you still fail to realize this is damning to your claim to being 'scientific' and 'defending science' etc etc. Some smart ideas have surfaced ONLY because some 'dumb and persistent nut' (as you would characterize them) have won through the 'studied stupidity' and 'trained elitism' of those who missed it because of political/personal/arrogant prejudice rather than treating only the objective discussion. Learn from all those historical mistakes. And then perhaps you may be able to "have the last word" without constantly fluffing it like that. :)


Ya just might get the last word after all,,,,, your post over on the other thread has discombobulated me,,,, extremely,,, Sir ya have me at a disadvantage. (Don't waste it.)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2012
Hi Q-Star. You are very gracious. Nowhere near as 'mean' as you tried to make yourself out to be. Thanks for your understanding and the friendly chat. Sincerely (and with apologies to Valeria-T :)), best wishes for you and yours in the New Year, Q-Star, a_p, V-T, yyz and everyone! Probably will be too busy to post much in the coming weeks. Good luck, good thinking and good discussing till then you guys. :)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2012
Q blows "hot gas"!
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2012
Q blows "hot gas"!


I'll take that as a vote of confidence. As long as you disagree with me, I'll feel I must be on the right track.

At least ya didn't accuse me blowing hot plasma, though I am surprised that ya over looked the fact that 99.99% of all the gas in the universe is not really gas, it is plasma.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2012
I'll take that as a vote of confidence. As long as you disagree with me, I'll feel I must be on the right track.

Ummm.... Ditto.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.