Mysterious MilkyWay Warp Finally Explained? 215
* * Beatles-Beatles writes to tell us Space.com is reporting that scientists think that a collision between mysterious 'dark matter' and two of the Milky Way's nearby neighbors may be causing our galaxy to warp 'like a vinyl record left out in the hot Sun.' From the article: 'The warp is most clearly visible in a thin disk of hydrogen gas that extends across the entire 200,000-light-year diameter of the Milky Way. Viewed sideways, one half of the hydrogen disk appears to stick up above our galaxy's plane of stars and gas, while the other half dips below the plane for a bit and then rises upward again farther away from the galaxy's center.'"
related article (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:related article (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, evidence is pointing towards that being the case in most if not all Galaxies, even our own Milky Way [cnn.com]. That article alone was over 5 years old.
Re:related article (Score:2)
hmm (Score:5, Funny)
'McDonalds: Changing the world -- literally'
Re:hmm (Score:2)
missing info (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:missing info (Score:3, Informative)
The Milky Way is b-i-g. The warping is not happening on a scale we'd see in our lifetimes. Indeed it likely started when the Earth was still a rock with scum problem. It'll continue long past the date the Earth is a rock with a dust problem.
Don't panic.
While dark matter (& energy), galactic distortions, and giant black holes are interesting cosmologically (and further our understanding of the universe) there's no need to start digging a hole in the bac
How do we know our own shape? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How do we know our own shape? (Score:2, Informative)
In clearer areas, like high elevation or low humidity, and away from light pollution, you can practically see it with the naked eye.
But beyond that I'm sure they've whipped together a few models with super computers to demonstrate it.
Besides, our galaxy isn't warped, it's Bent!
Re:How do we know our own shape? (Score:2)
Re:How do we know our own shape? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:How do we know our own shape? (Score:2)
The Milky Way actually looks like a blurry band across the sky. The stars are too dense to make out with the naked eye, so we just see a bright "stripe." It's clearly visible anywhere near the equator or farther south, depending on the time of the year. I happen to live on an island 13 degrees north of the equator, and the view on a cloudless night is truely jaw dropping. Alternatively, you can also go to a local planetarium. If you live near Wa
Re:How do we know our own shape? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How do we know our own shape? (Score:2)
Re:How do we know our own shape? (Score:2)
Re:How do we know our own shape? (Score:2)
I've never noticed it in any city, but if I'm out in the country (an hour northeast of Toronto) on a clear night I can see the Milky Way. As a rule, if you can't see the glow of the city on the horizon, it's probably dark enough that the band of stars will be apparent if the sky is clear.
Re:How do we know our own shape? (Score:4, Informative)
well, at least that's how it went down at the beginning of the 20th century. a decade or two later when radio telescopy was developed, we were able to observe these things in a more direct fashion. but it is interesting to follow the historical development of our own location in the galaxy.
Re:How do we know our own shape? (Score:3, Informative)
If it was up to visible light only, you'd be right; in fact, I believe it was William Herschel, co-discoverer of Uranus, who first attempted in the late 1700's to make a diagram of the galaxy, based exclusively on visible-light observing. As it turned out, the Milky Way seemed to have a "powder puff" shape and the sun was near the center!
However, for the better part of the last cen
Baloney (Score:5, Informative)
Boy, this thread is a trip. Parent's math is bunkum and your assertation which I directly quote above is also incorrect. Redshift has NOTHING to do with parallax measurements of distance, which can be calculated to many significant digits. Voodoo indeed. Don't believe everything you read on the internet that's modded +5, Informative...
Re:specifics on my subpar meat propaganda, please. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:specifics on my subpar meat propaganda, please. (Score:2)
No, a spectroscope breaks light down into its spectrum - the discrete frequencies* that make it up. The black lines are there because those frequencies are missing. For example, if you took a pure red light source and put its light through a spectroscope, you'd have a narrow line at the appropriate frequency, and black everywhere else. The lines themselves have nothing to do with redshift (or blueshi
Re:specifics on my subpar meat propaganda, please. (Score:2)
These are fairly specific instances though - an orbitting body only orbits at a constant speed if it's orbit is perfectly circular. Take a look at comets as an example, which h
Re:specifics on my subpar meat propaganda, please. (Score:2)
The Hubble constant is not well understood and is very hard to measure, hence the error margin.
Um, the topic is the shape of our galaxy. The Hubble Constant is utterly irrelevant to this topic. The very fact that it appeared here is a sign of total cluelessness.
It's true that the galaxy's size and shape was mostly determined by measuring distances and relative motions of various things within the galaxy. But these m
Re:specifics on my subpar meat propaganda, please. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, ok, pure psuedo-science.
(probably just a typo, but you don't really think light travels at 186 miles per second, do you?)
The acoustic doppler effect you labor on about is a simplistic model that may help the layperson grossly visualize concepts like em redshift, but it should not be assumed that a remotely similar process is at work when considering topics like stellar spectroscope shift. Audible sound represents a compression wave which propogates through a medium; electromagnetic energy does not. It can interact with matter, but it exists as a separate entity and is not a mechanical process. While field equations share some fundamental aspects with wave mechanics, this does not make them the same thing. Mathematically, there are many instances in nature where similar functions and constants are "re-used"; and generally one can simply attribute such similarities to thermodynamics (i.e. if stars were naturally square, this would violate the laws of thermodynamics).
While inter-stellar distance calculations based on stellar spectroscopy are certainly capable of being inaccurate for a number of reasons, the science behind these is based on a number of core principals wherein the speed of light is largely irrelevant for determining that the model fits (in one form or another):
1. Spectroscopy: A well studied, deterministic science with which one is capable of determining elemental components based on electromagnetic frequency distribution. The spectroscopic fingerprint is "hard"; e.g. there exist no in-between spectroscopic gradients between two elements, any more than there exist magic elements "in-between" those identified on a periodic table.
2. Red-shift occurs when an emitting object is receeding from the reference frame of an observer. This has been demonstrated experimentally and is reproducible.
3. Intersteller objects which are known to be receeding via parallax measurement exhibit redshift. Their spectroscopy
Article summary in Limerick form (Score:5, Funny)
Whose damage leaves oddly-shaped scars
Astronomists patter,
"It might be dark matter
That's making the warp so bizarre!"
Why the world is so screwed up (Score:3, Funny)
Vinyl tracks (Score:3, Funny)
Now that's what I call an extended LP.
If you have a hot Sun... (Score:2)
Blitz abstract (Score:3, Informative)
AAS 207th Meeting, 8-12 January 2006
Session 40 Galactic Structure with WIMPS, STARS and Gas
Oral, Monday, 10:00-11:30am, January 9, 2006, Salon 1
[40.05] The Shape of the HI Warp in the Outer Milky Way Disk
E.S. Levine, L. Blitz, C. Heiles (UC Berkeley), M. Weinberg (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)
Although the warping of the disk of the Milky Way has been known since 1957, our work represents the first time the Milky Way warp has been quantitatively described and we find it to be both elegant and surprising. We examine the outer Galactic HI disk for deviations from the b=0 plane by constructing maps of disk surface density, mean height, and thickness. We find that the Galactic warp is well described by a vertical offset plus two Fourier modes of frequency 1 and 2, all of which grow with Galactocentric radius. The global warp demonstrates approximately an order of magnitude more power in each mode with azimuthal wavenumber m=0,1, and 2 than in any higher frequency mode; thus three and only three modes are necessary to describe the large-scale behavior of the warp. The power in the m=0 and m=2 modes grows starting from around 15 kpc; the m=1 mode is the most powerful everywhere in the outer disk. We outline six observational conclusions regarding the warp that any potential theoretical mechanism must satisfy. We will also show a movie that demonstrates the evolution of the three modes with time.
ESL and LB are supported by NSF grant AST 02-28963. CH is supported by NSF grant AST 04-06987.
Really an explanation? (Score:4, Interesting)
This explanation only highlights our problems with dark matter even more, and things get especially funny if it's later discovered if it didn't exist. Then watch a number of theories fall apart during a night.
Re:Really an explanation? (Score:4, Interesting)
As a result, all this material (which collectively outmasses the stars sprinkled here and about) responds to other familiar but enormously stronger forces in addition to gravitation. Therefore, any model relying solely on gravitation will depend on such fantastical constructs as "dark matter" to match observations.
We see similar effects reported as apparent anomalies in galactic rotation, based on measurements of motion of interstellar "gas". To expect the motion of stars in a galaxy to match the motion of the plasma between them is to assume that no electromagnetic forces are in play. This is a popular assumption among astrophysicists, who as a rule never studied any real plasma dynamics in school (although they may have studied MHD, which doesn't apply), but the evidence suggests otherwise.
It won't matter much longer (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, global warming will be a thing of small concern.
Somebody remind me why we need Dark Matter? (Score:2)
Why can't there just be no dark matter at all?
To be honest, the whole idea of it and how it just "has" to be there to make observations fit the theory just reminds me of how convinced scientists were of the existence of aether before the Michelson-Morly experiment in the late 19th century.
Re:Somebody remind me why we need Dark Matter? (Score:3, Informative)
Basically, we look at a galaxy and see how fast parts of it are spinning. From there, we can calculate the acceleration due to gravity on different parts of (a=v^2/r) and set this equal to the gravitational acceleration (a=GM/r^2) to find the total mass inside of whichever part we are looking at (mass outside has no net gravitational effect).
Once we have gravitationall calculated the mass distribution, we can look at normal images of the galaxy, note that we can only see 5% of that amount of mass, and d
Re:Somebody remind me why we need Dark Matter? (Score:2)
Untrue.
Aether was rejected because the now famous Michelson-Morley experiment failed.
That is, it failed to detect what should have been detectable as the speed through which the Earth travels through the aether medium. The effective speed they got for it was 0, regardless of the direction that the earth is travelling around the sun, which reasoning dictates is impossible unless it simply does not exist.
This shocked the entire sc
Further Research Shows (Score:4, Funny)
Tension buckle (Score:2)
Uh....what? (Score:2)
Did anyone..... (Score:2)
Where is the insurance company when you need them?
They killed Kenny, the bastards!
Milky Way Warp (Score:2)
Subliminal messages? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, let me guess... That wouldn't happen to be a Beatles record, now would it?
I'll say it for the under 30 crowd (Score:5, Funny)
What's a vinyl record?
Re:I'll say it for the under 30 crowd (Score:3, Funny)
That must be an old pronunciation of compact disc. You know, kind of like you're always saying ask instead of axe?
Re:I'll say it for the under 30 crowd (Score:2, Funny)
If you were English, you'd be saying "What's a hot sun?"
Re:I'll say it for the under 30 crowd (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I'll say it for the under 30 crowd (Score:3, Funny)
I have a black phonographic disk with a hole in it. Is this a record?
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2, Insightful)
Taco doesn't read the site and SM abuses the crap out of the system.
Digg is looking better all the time.
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:5, Insightful)
Digg is looking better all the time.
Now, hold on... I'm not suggesting that we jump ship.
All I'm asking for is Journalistic integrity.
I know digg exists. I deliberately come back to slashdot. The reason? I'm not here for the articles. I'm here for the discussion. I can get the information anywhere. I am at slashdot because I want to know what others think. There are some very smart and very connected people on Slashdot, and I value their opinion. I also find out about alternatives or other theories or random_x piece of software I didn't know existed from the comments. I consider it a great day when I see someone say "Well, if you like X, you'll love Y". That to me is slashdot's strength. And I try to contribute positively where I can.
All I am asking for is for the Admins to have a little integrity. Whatever happened to honesty? Whatever happened to shaking a man's hand, looking him in the eye, and telling the truth? I'm that kind of guy... so are many of my fellow Slashdot readers. And I have an almost irrational belief in the fundamental "goodness" of mankind.
If I had to nail down the problems of Slashdot these days, it's very simple:
1.) They don't hold their admins to the same level of integrity to which their readers hold themselves.
2.) They irrationally refuse to believe people like me exist; they refuse to believe that the strength of Slashdot is in the content provided by the readers.
But, one at a time. Let's get 1 working first, and then I think 2 will fall into place.
~Will
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. And check out my UID. I am a long time slashdot user - and it has been my homepage ever since I registered.
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
ditto
-l
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
I doubt it. The volitile nature of Digg means that truely insightful discussion may become lost amid the torrent of new stories filtering up through to the front page. I very much doubt threads on par with the bets slashdot discussions will ever bee seen on Digg.
That said, **Beatles Beatles is the definitive argument against the editor system.
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:3, Informative)
It would be nice if the slashdot management would engage in a little give and take to keep the community here satisfied and (as zerocool mentioned) maintain some journalistic integrity. Why NOT strive for that, other than pure laziness?
Digg is not a substitute for slashdot. You can actually learn by reading the comments here.
Digg is NOT looking better all the time. (Score:2)
The strength of Slashdot is its discussions. If you think that TFA is crap, I entreat you to peruse the One-Eyed Cat With No Nose article on Digg.
The rumours of Slashdot's death are greatly exaggerated and largely promoted by members of the Digg crowd, with the occasional assistance from Slashdotters who insist on presenting us their own damnably clever variations on the themes o
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:3, Interesting)
My mod privs dissappeared a while ago and I'm still waiting for my Meta-Mod privs to dissappear. I don't think they will though, as nobody watches the watchers of the watchers.
/. recently about someone called "Roland Piquepaille"
Other than that, I agree with everything you said.
This reminds me of another flare-up on
Basically, he's been submitting since 2002
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I've seen those about Roland.
The fact is, shameless as he is, Roland is actually a real journalist, who writes for "real" journalistic sources (quotation marks denote wired). And he's been a slashdot member for a long time.
So I let him slide. Plus all his greenlights aren't from the same ModMin.
**Beatles has accomplished in THREE MONTHS what Roland accomplished in THREE YEARS. And without ever once pretending like he gave a fuck about technology.
~Will
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
I lost mod- and meta-mod privs (literally) years ago. A while later, I realised that my meta-mod privs had returned; as far as I know, I still don't have my mod-privs back. I guess I *could* have missed the points, but as I tend to browse the site a couple of times a day every day it seems unlikely...
I think the trick is to not take t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:5, Interesting)
Right. And I am not even whining about my submissions. They were rejected, someone submitted them with a better headline, so-and-so wants to give a UFIA to submitter's mom, whatever, I don't care.
All I was pointing out was that the fact that 800,000 people have signed up since me, and that I've been here 5 years; the fact that I've been contributing positively (I had 50 karma long long long before karma went to the bill-and-ted system), the fact that enough people respect my opinion that I have over 130 fans (of which I'm very proud and greatful; see my journal on making fans friends), the fact that I still have my complete A-Z archive of Geeks in Space, and that I listened to it from the very first one - I think all these things entitle me to at least ask these questions.
Blowing me off doesn't really make me feel like I mean anything to this community, that my contributions don't matter, and I'll be honest, Jamie... it stings a little.
~Will
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:4, Funny)
You've gone and mentioned your UID.
Now all the old farts with the five-digit-or-less UIDs are going to come out of the woodwork.
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:5, Funny)
young'in.
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:5, Funny)
Get the hell off my lawn!
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
*shakes his cane* (Score:3, Funny)
Slashcode (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slashcode (Score:2)
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
When the hell did I sign up then? Have I really been reading slashdot for 8 years or more?!
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
I had to walk 20 miles in the snow, up-hill both ways, and naked just to read Slashdot! And get a hair-cut, you hippies!
Five digits? Bah! (Score:2)
(-1 offtopic me now, please)
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:5, Insightful)
I gave up on Slashdot providing reliable information a long time ago. Now I come to skim the headlines and check out the trolls.
Complain to the Advertisers? (Score:3, Insightful)
ASCII art & subtle comment trolls were far more amusing than bad
Only solution is to complain to Slashdot's advertisers.
Tell 'em something like
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
The only thing that prevents me from inserting a relevant joke at this point is that the sheer number of possibilities prevents my brain from choosing one. I finally know what it's like to be a lion trying to pick out a zebra in a herd, except in this case there are no slow or weak ones that stand out.
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
The only thing that prevents me from inserting a relevant joke at this point is that the sheer number of possibilities prevents my brain from choosing one.
Slashdotters: Please write your own joke and submit it to
Slashdot "Readership IQ" Jokes
c/o OSTG
46939 Bayside Parkway
Fremont, CA 94538
Seriously. Most of the people who read slashdot aren't morans.
~W
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
PS: That's "morons".
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
I admin, I haven't been paying enough attention to know what all the fuss is about, but I've tried to submit 3 stories total, and even I got one through. It's possible something is going on, but it's not obvious to me at least...
Have the stories been particularly bad?
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:4, Interesting)
Click on the link to his userpage (the ~/* * Beatles-Beatles link), and click on the links he's submitted.
For starters, they all start with "Beatles-Beatles writes to tell us [insert real news source here] has found a new [treatment for cancer | robot arm | galaxy | fad diet].
They're all posted by ScuttleMonkey.
And they all prominantly link to his webpage, which has nothing to do with him-as-a-person (there's no bio) or technology-in-general.
~W
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:5, Interesting)
Roast Geif, Zan Roast Geif (Score:2)
I think the implied objection is that you feel this fellow is profiting from net traffic that is the result of a special relationship with ScuttleMonkey. If the articles that are posted are top
I hate to say it, but I don't see your conclusion. (Score:3)
That
That wouldn't surprise me one bit. You know, the world isn't fair. Does it guarantee somewhere in the slashdot charter that slashdot will be fair about approving submissions?
Or are you accusing that perhaps someone at
If so, just come out and say it.
Personally I think it's a stretch, I just don't hold slashdot in high enough esteem that it would be worth paying to get articles like this on it (unlike crappy "compa
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2)
Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (Score:2, Offtopic)
see my comment here [slashdot.org] in this thread.
I'm not asking much. I don't even know if Taco knows this is going on. All I want is integrity.
Editor (Score:2)
Re:At it again... (Score:2, Funny)
Umm... as I recall, they sang 'Lucy in the sky with diamonds'... though it's still debated whether what they were singing about falls under the field of astronomy or that of chemistry.
Re:At it again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:At it again... (Score:2)
THANK YOU for reminding me I could do that!
I've been irritatedly reading through this thread trying to think what I could do, knowing posting wouldn't accomplish anything productive. But that will. It's the obviously solution, but it hadn't occurred to me. Thank you for reminding me it was an option.
Re:At it again... (Score:2)
Wow! The think I immediately noticed, on my next visit to slashdot, was that ScuttleMonkey is doing nearly all of the work! Turning off his stories results in a page that looks like it's full of dupes ... but they are not dupes, they are just the few stories from yesterday that were posted by anybody besides ScuttleMonkey.
I just realised though (Score:2, Interesting)
cowboyneal, add a rel="nofollow" to ALL, EACH and EVERY link on slashdot please. Google doesn't browse at +5 and doesn't have a friends list.
How can an IT techie geeky site be so behind the times.
What makes me laugh is this site is an artificial mecca because the only reason we come here is to find out what everyone else is reading, not ne
Re:At it again... (Score:2)
Re:At it again... (Score:2)
Oh you mean 'You're kidding, right?'.
Re:THAT'S what I don't get! (Score:2)
I feel that way about slashdot right now. All the way down to this point is nothing but off-topic whining. Scroll up...see how many comments there are about even so much as a galaxy.
Re:I think your all nuts (Score:2)
the sound of the point(flying at a very low speed), right over your head