Wrongly rendered colliding galaxies

[Cham]

Fridger,

this is why I used quotes, when I said "interacting". In the case of these two galaxies, the collision is actually just apparent. Their HST picture isn't showing any obvious matter transfer (filaments, interaction bridges, tidal deformations, etc). This is an example of galaxies which are one behind the other. They aren't really interacting.

Of course, this isn't the case for other well known couples of interacting galaxies. The tidal deformations and matter bridges should be considered.

[t00fri]

Fridger,

this is why I used quotes, when I said "interacting". In the case of these two galaxies, the collision is actually just apparent. Their HST picture isn't showing any obvious matter transfer (filaments, interaction bridges, tidal deformations, etc). This is an example of galaxies which are one behind the other. They aren't really interacting.

Of course, this isn't the case for other well known couples of interacting galaxies. The tidal deformations and matter bridges should be considered.

So we entirely agree that this matter may be highly deceptive! Don't forget, this pair was a "showpiece" in the Hubblesite for colliding galaxies...

That's why I deny to modify published catalog distances just like this...
Sorry Andrea...

Fridger

[selden]

I think this is exactly the kind of artistic situation in which it would be appropriate for someone to create an Addon. It could use either specialized PNG Galaxy models or a hand-crafted 3D model or both.

It also is a situation where it would be nice to have Replace or Modify directives for DSC files.

[t00fri]

I turned the argument around, asking the following:

1) I take the accurate NED distance of 6050B for granted:

d(6050B) = 4.918e+08 ly (deepsky.dsc)

2) I assume the sizes from the catalogs are both correct
3) I then examined via Celestia and the Hubble images by how much I must make d(6050A) shorter than d(6050B) in order to match the size and distance relations apparent on the Hubble image.

Result: The distance d(6050A) turns out to be surprisingly well determined. Certainly it MUST be considerably smaller than d(6050B)! I find

d(6050A) ~ 2.5e+08 ly


while my uncertain method (deepsky.dsc) gave d(6050A) = 1.938e+08 ly. Not too far off, indeed...

Conclusions: Andrea, I will not blindly equate the distances!
There are too many possible catches in the way. As Cham pointed out already, the gravitational deformations of the pair are quite minor so that it is NOT convincing that they should be VERY close by in distance.

Fridger

[ANDREA]

Conclusions.....Andrea, I will not blindly equate the distances!
There are too many possible catches in the way. As Cham pointed out already, the gravitational deformations of the pair are quite minor so that it is NOT convincing that they should be VERY close by in distance.
Fridger

Fridger, at this point I agree with you, but allow me to express a doubt:
what kind of scientific reliability is behind such a number of rough mistakes or bad information, first of all the naming NGC 6050A and 6050B as "COLLIDING GALAXIES" instead of "MERGING" or, even better in this case, "PARALLACTIC COUPLING"?
Seriously speaking, science lost some point this way, at least for me.
Thank you for your effort to solve my doubts that, all considered, were justified.
Bye

Andrea

[t00fri]

Andrea,

Seriously speaking, science lost some point this way, at least for me.

I have always been very sceptical about WEBsites entertained by space organizations that need a lot of money from the public (tax payer). That in my eyes is not directly connected with solid science. The worst example in my view is the blunt advertisements that you can read e.g. on the WEBsite of the Spitzer telescope. They specially hire artists who render their results in the most explosive colors. The wording of their press releases is simply amazing. Virtually every second day a "breathtaking new discovery" of Spitzer is announced along with artistic imaging that would very well fit to a Science fiction thriller.

In my eyes all this is NOT "hard" science. It is at best trying to get money for doing science...

It is why I am always concerned to first get a /peer reviewed/ scientific publication of a scientist or small group of scientists into my hands that stand with their good name for the correctness of their results! Anonymous WEBsites without anybody taking responsability in person I would never believe without further /published/ support from elsewhere.

I am afraid some of this scepticism will also apply to the Hubble site...
Why didn't they make some more solid scientific background information about the images available, besides all the eye-candy?

Fridger

[BobHegwood]

Doctor Schrempp?

Would just like to interject a brief "Thank You" here for all that you do in order to make Celestia as realistic as possible.
I still think that you can be a real pain in the Wazoo when you wish to be, but your undying efforts to insure accuracy are beyond reproach here.

Keep in mind that this comment comes from a Brain-Dead Bozo who knows absolutely NOTHING about science, but who also loves the exploration of same.

Thanks again, Bob

[t00fri]

Doctor Schrempp?

Would just like to interject a brief "Thank You" here for all that you do in order to make Celestia as realistic as possible.
I still think that you can be a real pain in the Wazoo when you wish to be, but your undying efforts to insure accuracy are beyond reproach here.

Keep in mind that this comment comes from a Brain-Dead Bozo who knows absolutely NOTHING about science, but who also loves the exploration of same.

Thanks again, Bob

Appreciated

Wow, this word Wazoo, really exists ! Never heard it before.

Cheers,
Fridger

[Fightspit]

What does it mean ? Google can't translate this word

[t00fri]

What does it mean ? Google can't translate this word

C'est le derri?re/le cul ... (mais c'est du 'slang' anglais)

F.

[zhar2]

It means A*S*S. remove the *

[t00fri]

It means A*S*S. remove the *

I told him what it means in his mothertongue. One post before yours.

F.

[BobHegwood]

It is an anatomical reference to a part of the body where the Sun never shines. Hee, hee.

It is also a made-up word. I've had more fun watching this post than I have had playing with Celestia...
Now THAT's saying something.

[t00fri]

It is an anatomical reference to a part of the body where the Sun never shines. Hee, hee.
....

Hmm...Olympia is close and thus don't forget those Chinese athlets who can walk on their hands for miles

Fridger

[BobHegwood]

Nevertheless, your dedication to realism and accuracy is still much appreciated here.

Was an attempt to inject some levity into an otherwise seemingly hostile exchange of ideas.

[Fightspit]

What does it mean ? Google can't translate this word

C'est le derri?re/le cul ... (mais c'est du 'slang' anglais)

F.

An english word of the day which is added to my culture

[ANDREA]

Was an attempt to inject some levity into an otherwise seemingly hostile exchange of ideas.

Sorry, Bob, while I agree on most of what you usually say, this time I don't.
There is nothing hostile between me and Fridger (and I'm sure this is the same for Fridger).
It's only been a strong opinions exchange of people that was sure of their ones, and that produced some positive results, i.e.:
1- the acknowledgement that some official scientific data are not sufficiently exact to give a real image of what's shown in (some? many? ALL?) colliding galaxies images, hense the impossibility to obtain with Celestia a real and scientific visualization of galaxy couples or triplets using such data;
2- the understanding that even some official sources (e.g. NASA), that should give “only” information well supported by confirmed data, sometimes can give misleading information instead:
3- my personal understanding (yahoooo!) of how to obtain the wonderful galaxy images seen in Fridger's posts, that I had never been able to obtain before this thread.
I’m very satisfied of this, and I hope that all this may be of some help and interest for many other people apart from the two "contenders".
My friendly bye, Bob

Andrea

[BobHegwood]

Sorry, Bob, while I agree on most of what you usually say, this time I don't.
There is nothing hostile between me and Fridger (and I'm sure this is the same for Fridger).

Oh, I understand that my friend.
However, to someone new to the forum, or someone (like myself) just reading the posts, (and not understanding your relationship with the Good Doctor) this is not abundantly clear from the posted exchanges.

Again, was just trying to inject some humor into this thread. I think you'll agree that it worked. Yes?

[ANDREA]

Again, was just trying to inject some humor into this thread. I think you'll agree that it worked. Yes?

Yes, I absolutely agree it worked, even if the high voices were already loud once again.
Thank you for this, Bob.
BTW, in my last message I used a lot of emoticons just to clear, given my bad English, that I was jocking.
And "Wazoo" has been added to my short American slang dictionary (and many other people's, IMO), thank you.
Bye, always friendly

Andrea

[BobHegwood]

I have simply laughed myself silly while viewing these messages.
Thanks very much for your notes Andrea. Much appreciated here by this old Brain-Dead Geezer.

Would you two gentleman care to resume the discussion now?

Selden, I am VERY sorry for the interruption of the thread, but I simply could NOT resist the temptation to interject some humor here. Will be fine by me if you wish to move these unnecessary posts to Purgatory.

Again, very sorry to have interrupted, but I do think that these exchanges have been beneficial to all. Hee, hee.