https://www.legacysurvey.org//viewer/?ra=37.1242&dec=-2.8441&layer=hsc-dr2&zoom=15
I’m not convinced. Seems to have its shape entirely disturbed. Jellyfish galaxies tend to be mostly intact but leave trails.
this one is mostly intact, but exhibiting trails…
If you mean the 2 parallel streaks, there’s no obvious galaxy leaving them as ‘trails’. They look more like a malformation of a galaxy from a past interaction.
Of course. Silly me.
Lol if you show me where the galaxy is thats leaving the trails, i’ll be happy to agree with you, but I don’t see one.
Tom, if you don’t have anything constructive to say, why say anything at all? You are just being contradictory for the sake of it. I see a potential jellyfish here, you don’t. Wow.
Because its a discussion forum? And not a ‘agree with everyone even if you disagree’ forum?
If your contribution doesn’t help enlighten others, but is just an expression of your negativity about someone else’s expression that something is POSSIBLY a jellyfish galaxy, then I don’t think your contribution is really worth having.
Yes, it is a disturbed galaxy, but it is disturbed in a way that would not be easily explained by a merger, and there are no signs of a merger having happened here anyway. So what would be likely to disturb a galaxy in this way, producing linear trails of starburst activity? If you can come up with an alternative for this disturbance that doesn’t involve ram pressure, I’d be interested to hear it.
Fortunately, what you think of my contribution is irrelevant unless it’s against the rules.
From the guidelines: “You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But, remember to criticize ideas, not people”
Something you’ll take note of, I hope.
Read my messages. Both contextualized with characteristics of jellyfish galaxies and how they don’t match up here. I’m not just posting “you’re wrong”. If we can’t help people understand possible misconceptions they have about particular types of objects, then we’ll all learn nothing here.
While we’re on the topic of contributions that are “worth having”, i’d love to know how you justify “
Of course. Silly me.” as a contribution worth having. Seems more like a sarcastic dig to me. But I look forward to your explanation as to how it “enlightens others”.
As for the galaxy, my best guess is one galaxy collides with another, causing this bit to break off of the victim:
The bullet galaxy gets shredded, causing the trails.
Granted, its not as pretty as the concept of it being a jellyfish, but a collision would explain the starburst, and the fact that a whole chunk has broken away from the main object, which is something that jellyfish doesnt account for.
For it to be a jellyfish, I’d expect to see a galaxy thats leaving the trails. Something like this:
But, by all means, annotate your own image to point out where you think the galaxy is if you want to discuss further.
Naturally, I can’t be sure what has caused the strange morphology, but in my opinion, an interaction is more likely than ram pressure.
If only it mattered…
It clearly mattered enough to you to have a go at me.
Practice what you preach. If you want a balanced discussion on the galaxy (which is what you seemed to want), then respond to my thoughts. If, however, its just going to be more sarcastic remarks like this, then I think i’m done with this thread. 
How about being consistent?
You commented that the “strikingly blue starburst galaxy” that I posted previously looked like a jellyfish galaxy. I don’t see a lot of difference between that galaxy and this one, except that this one is more streaked and showing some kind of directional structure, whereas the other one had no indication of a directional influence on its structure. What made that one look so much like a jellyfish that you thought it was worth making the comment, yet this one looks so unlike one to you that you had to make a negative remark about it?
Generally I am happy to discuss things, but not when the precursor to the “discussion” is just a negative snipe at someone else’s post.
Consistent?
I give an alternative.
Again, practice what you preach.
The fact that it actually had the main body of a galaxy helped.
As for the direction, the universe isnt 2d. Looks to me as though the galaxy is moving towards/away from us (strikes me more as away), and the trails are following behind it, so no, you wont see too much consistent 2d direction from them as its a 3 dimensional movement.
The tails are reasonably easy to interpret:
The galaxy in this thread has some lines that you interpreted as tails, but no obvious main body that the trails are coming from. Ive asked you to show me where you think the galaxy that is leaving them is in the image, but have had no response.
I didn’t negatively snipe, I disagreed with your interpretation of the object, and included the astronomical evidence I based that disagreement on. You seem to take it personally when I disagree with you about something. I’m not in the business of disagreeing with people for the sake of disagreeing. I base my views on most things in life on the evidence that I can see. If you viewed my disagreement as a snipe, then I can only apologize, but I can’t promise not to disagree with you in the future.
If you would like to discuss this galaxy properly, then perhaps you could show me where you think the main body of the galaxy is the image? I’m honestly interested to get your opinion.