Hoag's Object Is a Galaxy Within a Galaxy Within a Galaxy (and Nobody Knows Why)

Dec 3, 2019
2
0
10
What figures are being used for the statement that Hoag's is "slightly larger than the Milky Way"? I've previously seen our galaxy's diameter given as 150,000+ light-years.
 
Dec 3, 2019
1
0
10
Fyrefly- 105,700 lightyears.

Why people post misinformation when the correct information is right at your fingertips is beyond me. It explains our undisciplined society in a microcosm.
 
Dec 3, 2019
2
0
10
Fyrefly- 105,700 lightyears.

Why people post misinformation when the correct information is right at your fingertips is beyond me. It explains our undisciplined society in a microcosm.
I'm not sure who you're accusing, but I've certainly not posted any misinformation. Here are two seemingly reliable sources giving figures that don't match what you've said:
https://web.archive.org/web/20151107013154/http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.00257
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2018/04/aa32880-18/aa32880-18.html
Could you provide your source for this "correct information", please? I'm very obviously trying to find out more information. That was the purpose of my post. Accusing me of things when I'm just trying to investigate is childish and completely inaccurate.
 

JJW

Dec 3, 2019
1
0
10
I think you might be running into two problems with the different info.

The first problem is rounding, numbers are often rounded for simplicity and that can create varying information.

The second is, where does the galaxy end? - My understanding is that the edges just kind of fade away, it's not really an abrupt end to the galaxy so this would create the problem of different people defining the edge or end of the galaxy in different ways.

But I don't have any kind of training in this stuff so this is really just a guess and nothing more, take it if you want it =)
 
Dec 3, 2019
2
0
10
I believe that this hypothesis explains why Hoag's object has this shape. Please take a look at this video of a modified gravity hypothesis. This hypothesis would explain Hoag's object. It also explains all the effects now attributed to dark matter and dark energy. It also explains the strange acceleration of Oumuamua, the interstellar asteroid that recently passed through our solar system. Here is the link to the video:

View: https://youtu.be/6ijyYWKqwiI


If you prefer to read, you may download a pdf explanation of the hypothesis here:

https://redd.it/ao8vfo
 
Dec 4, 2019
11
0
30
I believe that this hypothesis explains why Hoag's object has this shape. Please take a look at this video of a modified gravity hypothesis. This hypothesis would explain Hoag's object. It also explains all the effects now attributed to dark matter and dark energy. It also explains the strange acceleration of Oumuamua, the interstellar asteroid that recently passed through our solar system. Here is the link to the video:

View: https://youtu.be/6ijyYWKqwiI


If you prefer to read, you may download a pdf explanation of the hypothesis here:

https://redd.it/ao8vfo
Well, if some guy on YouTube says so, it really must be true. /s

Gravity as a wave function idea is not really new. However, it is loosely defined, and applied to every thing that lacks enough observations to explain (case in point - Oumuamua acceleration), which lends it a certain "snake oil" quality.

I do have my doubts about dark matter and dark energy hypotheses, which sound like the ether explanation at the turn of last century (an invented medium to match observations). However, no one has come up with any other hypothesis that matches the current observations and is testable.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2019
2
0
10
Well, please take a look first. "Wave function" is a vague phrase. I believe the dampened wave function I describe is indeed new. Also, the hypothesis described is eminently testable.
 
i don't see how it might be a gravitational lens. yet if you can conceive that it might be threw some refrigeration or abortion of whatever the object really looks like, then you should consider that i have reviewed extensively !,, noted evidence of gravitational lending and concluded that all the evidence indicated not gravitational lens,,, but a lens effect created by defusion patterns of hydrogen from nuclear fusion .. causing a lens made of a disk of hydrogen, thousands of light years wide and hundreds of light years thick.. but if that's not enough. the theoretical existence(which has no proof of existence) of something i hyper plasma state of hydrogen which is a state where hydrogen is accumulated in such a low pressure state that it is held in place by a the existence of an empty electron shell electrostatic hyper orbital configuration node.. if you don't understand that. i guess it's not descriptive enough. but i'm still going with hydrogen diffusion because thats a fact that is irrefutably evident as it's own proof... yet back to the hyper-plasma state,, if the hydrogen was heated by a sustained super radiant light or radio emission ,, at some time in the object's history, it could gently emit the hydrogen from an outer region that was at just the right spot to make it not implode or explode but just grow with super heat energy that was sustained for some orfer of millions or billions of years ,, so that the hydrogen gas cloud was gently held in place by the node of the hyper plasma state. then later the radiation source was extinguished leaving this invisible almost undetectable ,, perfectly spherical gas cloud a million light years in diameter around the object that left it appearing as a crystal ball that is the abortion we see today. yea!! uh hu
 
Last edited:
Apr 28, 2020
1
0
10
I know what happened here! The supermassive at the centre got hit against its spin axis by a few thousand giant stars that had been ejected from a passing galaxy. That kinda reduced the rotation speed of the SM. All the nearby stars also had to reduce their orbit speeds, as a result - somewhat like a highway pileup. The outer stars, those that were not greatly affected by the speed-hump, maintained their momentum. That caused a clear class divide and, that's what we see now!!
 
Mar 4, 2020
338
44
730
That symmetrical ring is a torus composed of helices. The ratio of the circumference to diameter is greater than 3.14. Giving the circumference a density.

And messing up a lot of velocity and momentum equations. And misjudging the true rotation time.

It's highly likely that all stars travel in a helical manner. As they move thru the galactic gravity flux.

Sorta like an "out of phase rotation". Complicated and difficult to analyze.

Just an observational guess.

Maybe it's what all spiral galaxies end up as. Very ordered. A cohered spiral galaxy.
 
Dec 4, 2019
11
0
30
That symmetrical ring is a torus composed of helices. The ratio of the circumference to diameter is greater than 3.14. Giving the circumference a density.

And messing up a lot of velocity and momentum equations. And misjudging the true rotation time.

It's highly likely that all stars travel in a helical manner. As they move thru the galactic gravity flux.

Sorta like an "out of phase rotation". Complicated and difficult to analyze.

Just an observational guess.

Maybe it's what all spiral galaxies end up as. Very ordered. A cohered spiral galaxy.
Would you like some dressing on that word salad?
 
Dec 4, 2019
11
0
30
Well, please take a look first. "Wave function" is a vague phrase. I believe the dampened wave function I describe is indeed new. Also, the hypothesis described is eminently testable.
Hi Joe,

I apologize for my earlier snarky comment. I mistook you for an anti-science, Dunning-Kruger troll, because lately, most science forums are full of them. Having looked at your Youtube video today, you, Sir, are definitely not one of them. You come across very sincere and methodical.

As I said, I am not comfortable with dark matter and dark energy hypotheses. To me, they do seem like fudge factors we are using to cover up defects in our current understanding. Finding a factor that bends space-time differently at different scales, to me, sounds better than postulating forms of undetectable matter and energy.

Although you may be on to something with the damped wave function, I do see a few issues:
1. If I apply that equation to a supermassive black hole, it shows that the accretion disk would be very clearly separated in to rings. The peaks and troughs are so strong that there can be no stable orbits in between. However, this also means that the rings would be rotating at precisely defined speeds. Shouldn't this be detectable as discrete peaks in Doppler shift of electromagnetic radiation from the disk?
2. If I apply your equation to the rings of Saturn, which you suggest as a possible supporting observation, it shows a pattern where the inner rings are narrow, and get progressively broader as you move away from the planet. This doesn't gel with the observations either, and the ring configuration fits better with observed "shepherd moons."
3. Your equation predicts very deep troughs of repulsive gravity very close to a singularity, inside the event horizon. In fact, the whole black hole up to and beyond the event horizon would be layered like an onion in "positive" and "negative" gravity shells. This would mean there will be matter trapped within these shells inside the event horizon, that would be released during a black hole collision as the shells re-adjust, and the resulting black hole would have significantly lesser mass than the sum of the two original. I haven't seen any observations that suggest that.

I respect the effort you put in, but maybe it would help if you could verify and validate each hypothesis before building on it for the next one. Flyby anomalies do show that maybe GR isn't the "end-all" theory, and that there could be minute adjustments that could be made, which might have large effects at galactic and extra-galactic scales. That would definitely make more sense to me than dark matter and dark energy.

Keep up the good work, sir!
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY