New Class of Galaxy Discovered 104
fructose sends along this excerpt from Space Daily:
"A team of astronomers has discovered a group of rare galaxies called the 'Green Peas' with the help of citizen scientists working through an online project called Galaxy Zoo. The finding could lend unique insights into how galaxies form stars in the early universe. ... Of the 1 million galaxies in Galaxy Zoo's image bank, only about 250 are in the new 'Green Pea' type. Galaxy Zoo is claiming this as a success of the 'citizen scientist' effort that they spearheaded. ... The galaxies, which are between 1.5 billion and 5 billion light years away, are 10 times smaller than our own Milky Way galaxy and 100 times less massive. But surprisingly, given their small size, they are forming stars 10 times faster than the Milky Way. 'They're growing at an incredible rate,' said Kevin Schawinski, a postdoctoral associate at Yale and one of Galaxy Zoo's founders. 'These galaxies would have been normal in the early universe, but we just don't see such active galaxies today. Understanding the Green Peas may tell us something about how stars were formed in the early universe and how galaxies evolve.'"
so do they exist in their current form? (Score:2, Insightful)
5 billion light years away means that we're seeing them how they were 5 billion years ago. Do they even exist in their current form or did they merge into larger galaxies to take advantage of synergies?
Less massive but prolific star creators (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a theory that the expansion of a galaxy "tears" spacetime and creates an energy differential. The energy differential then, as special relativity predicts, transmutes to matter thus creating the matter to form stars.
Given that it is the expansion of the galaxy that causes the creation of matter, it makes sense that smaller, more active galaxies would be able to create new stars.
Time to be pendantic! (Score:5, Insightful)
"10 times smaller than our own Milky Way galaxy and 100 times less massive"
10 times smaller?
100 times less massive?
Isn't it 1/10 the size and 1/100 the mass?
In order to be "10 times smaller than $foo" or "100 times less massive than $foo" doesn't there need to be another point of reference?
I know I'm picking nits, but this is slashdot. People should know better. This bugs me like less vs. fewer, there/their/they're, your/you're, and so forth. I understand it is simply a colloquialism arising from poor grammar among the masses, but in the case of a scientific article, poor writing makes it more difficult to take the writer seriously.
Re:Time to be pendantic! (Score:1, Insightful)
. . . this is slashdot. People should know better.
Why do you seam two think that geeks are intelligenter than you're average citizen? You should no that they aren't just by reading most of the comments that get posted hear.
Re:Time to be pendantic! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's oxymoronic to say "times smaller".
No it isn't, unless you think you can only multiply by values larger than one, which would simply be moronic.
You're suggesting implied reciprocals means "one xth the size of" when the latter is perfectly fine English just to avoid explicitly mentioning a fraction.
Yes, heaven forbid there be multiple correct and clear ways to say the same thing in English. *eyeroll* In some cases it flows better than using fractions.
It makes as much sense as talking about the "near distant" future.
No, it makes perfect sense as long as you understand what it means. Which isn't complicated, and now you know it, so there should be no further issues with this perfectly clear and unambiguous language.