Milky Way Leaves Devastation in its Wake 30
soulctcher writes "An article on Yahoo! talks aout how a group of scientists now have evidence that the Milky Way galaxy, and others like it, are able to slice and dice their way through older galactic structures."
Captain Obvious (Score:1)
I can see the Onion headline now: (Score:2)
75,000 light-years from the Sun (Score:2, Interesting)
It is ordinarily some 75,000 light-years from the Sun... The distant future looks bleak for Palomar 5
that means what we are seeing of Palomar 5 actually took place around 75,000 years ago. I am no astronamer or astro physisist but is it possible that Palomar 5 is already gone.
Re:75,000 light-years from the Sun (Score:2)
No, I just saw it a couple of years ago in my 20-inch telescope [ladyandtramp.com]. :-)
Of course what I saw was 75k or so years old also. It is so strange to see referenced on CNN a pretty obscure object that perhaps less than 100 people have seen with their eyeballs (I first saw it in 1988) and not that many people had heard about prior to yesterday.
Re:75,000 light-years from the Sun (Score:2)
The velocities of stars in the cluster are very low compared to c and they won't drift too far in the 75,000 years it takes light to get halfway across the galaxy to us. Now 75,000,000 years- that would be a long time. 75,000 years is practically the same as right now.
WOW! (Score:4, Funny)
And it's only $19.95...BUT WAIT! If you act within the next 10 minutes, we'll include ANOTHER milky way with your order! That's right! Not one, but TWO Milky Way galaxies for only $19.95! Call now!
1-800-MILK-WAY - Please allow 6-8 billion years for delivery.
Re:WOW! (Score:2, Funny)
The sky is falling. (Score:1)
The true story of "the sky is falling". Not only is the sky falling, everything else is, also.
Hah. (Score:4, Funny)
It is ordinarily ... (Score:2)
Is the current distance, or an average distance? Or are they by some miracle the same? Since this cluster orbits nearly perpendicular to the galactic plane, the distance between our sun and the cloud should vary by up to the full diameter of the Milky Way. Not that any of us will be around for a full orbit.
Science Engrish (Score:2)
It is ordinarily some 75,000 light-years from the Sun.
This statement is typical of some of the semi-logic that often permeates science journalism. Yes, I know that it can get a bit difficult to come up with a decent way of describing the situation, because of the "time travel" effect of astronomical distances, but surely they could have done better than that. "It is some 75,000 light years distant as we see it" would surely have explained it quite nicely.
Re:Old globulars (Score:2)
Re:Old globulars (Score:1)
Re:Old globulars (Score:4, Informative)
Globulars are indeed old. But 40-50 billion years would make them about 25-35 billion years older than the universe itself. We thought we had issues when they appeared to be a couple billion years older, but even astrophysicists can't ignore 30 billion years.
I'll assume that that was a typo, though. Globulars, according to all I have studied, formed around our galaxy. Either with it or shortly before it started to form. What would a quasar have to do with this? Quasars, sexy as they are, are only big black holes on a binge of eating. These are not the kinds of places you form clusters of stars.
Finally, when a globular passes through the Milky Way's disk, nothing really happens. You can tell because almost all globulars are on disk-crossing orbits. They have to be, since most are orbit nearer the galactic center than we do (this is how Shapley worked out where the galactic center was, after all). And since they've made quite a few orbits in their lives and since they are still around, clearly passing through the disk isn't terribly disruptive. And it shouldn't be expected to be: stars don't collide when galaxies pass through each other. This is easy to understand because galaxies are made of mostly empty space. Stars can find their orbits disrupted, but they seldom collide.
I'd be curious to see where you heard all of this.
Re:Old globulars (Score:1)
Re:Old globulars (Score:3, Interesting)
Would you mind giving a source for your tale of globular formation and evolution? I've never heard any such thing, and I'm working on my Ph.D. in astronomy.
---snip
He's testing you to see if slashdot's infamous crack-smoking moderators will mod up a post that "looks" at a fast glance informative, without actually bothering to read the post. What's even more humorous are the people that respond to his posts seriously.
Besides, you may be working on your Ph. D. in astronomy, but that is only slightly related to the fascinating world of astrology he was talking about (look at the last paragraph of his post).
I first noticed him when he posted some completely bogus information about Unix interview questions, getting basic facts wrong.
Anyway, he wanted to see if people would mod up without thought, and guessing from his recent history of posts, he's doing pretty good.
Look at his log at www.pdrap.org
Re:Old globulars (Score:1)
this post is a scam (Score:1)
Moons and Stars (Score:1)
Re:Moons and Stars (Score:2)
And here I thouhgt that stars were much larger than moons.
I think they mean Pal 5's ex-stars are scattered across a trail that stretches across an arc of 20 moons across our nighttime sky.
Re:Moons and Stars (Score:2)
Star Wars (Score:2, Funny)
It works both ways... (Score:1)
Not that we can actually see it, of course, other than with very powerful radiotelescopes....
Damn you Slashdot and your Enviro-Conspiracy! (Score:5, Funny)
Cry me a river, you damn liberals.
;)
No big loss (Score:3, Funny)
Palomar Globulars (Score:3, Informative)
Nah (Score:1)