Skip to comments.
Milky Way — the galaxy — not snack-sized anymore
Associated Press ^
| Jan. 5, 2009
| Seth Borenstein
Posted on 01/05/2009 11:16:51 AM PST by decimon
Take that, Andromeda! For decades, astronomers thought when it came to the major galaxies in Earth's cosmic neighborhood, our Milky Way was a weak sister to the larger Andromeda. Not anymore.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsvine.com ...
TOPICS: Astronomy
KEYWORDS: xplanets
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
"More important, it's denser, with 50 percent more mass, which is like weight."
1
posted on
01/05/2009 11:16:51 AM PST
by
decimon
To: decimon
"...with 50 percent more mass, which is like weight."
Like really?
News for low I.Q.'s
2
posted on
01/05/2009 11:26:02 AM PST
by
Sudetenland
(Those diplomats serve best, who serve as cannon fodder to protect our troops!)
To: decimon
mass, which is like weight.Journalists. Is there anything they DON'T know?
3
posted on
01/05/2009 11:28:22 AM PST
by
Poison Pill
(Help, I've voted Republican and I can't get up!)
To: decimon
I’m not saying they’re wrong, but the article seems to indicate that they based their findings on a sampling of 10 stars. That’s obviously a small sampling of a galaxy containing hundreds of billions of stars. How can the researchers be confident that their results are not skewed by having a small sample size? What if those 10 stars are moving abnormally fast for unrelated reasons? I don’t see how you can rule out “localized” inconsistencies unless these stars were each selected from vastly different parts of the galaxy with a very low standard deviation.
To: Sudetenland
"...with 50 percent more mass, which is like weight." Like really?
Yeah, like you could carry it. ;-)
5
posted on
01/05/2009 11:29:20 AM PST
by
decimon
To: messierhunter
Nevermind, I can’t read. Ten radio telescopes, not necessarily one star for each.
To: messierhunter
What if those 10 stars are moving abnormally fast for unrelated reasons?You might be starstruck. That's even worse than being sunspotted.
7
posted on
01/05/2009 11:31:43 AM PST
by
decimon
To: decimon
when andromeda comes to take us on a few billion from now, we’ll be ready. bring it.
To: Sudetenland
You are aware that mass and weight are technically not the same, aren’t you?
A lead ball in space can have a lot of mass, but zero weight.
To: decimon
A History Channel show on The Universe, said the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are headed for a collision, which will create a super galaxy.
Somebody page Algore about this. We need a plan to combat this galactic change.
To: philsfan24
when andromeda comes to take us on a few billion from now, well be ready. Now that we've put on some weight.
11
posted on
01/05/2009 11:36:41 AM PST
by
decimon
To: decimon
That sounds like Yogi Berra on an Aflac commercial saying, "...and they give you cash, which is just as good as money."
Technically though, mass and weight are NOT the same thing.
To: philsfan24
I don't know, sounds like we're asking for intergalactic war. Democrats will probably want to play it down just to suck up to the Andromedans.
Maybe we should ask the Scientologists, they know all about intergalactic war, their founder wrote about it. :D
13
posted on
01/05/2009 11:39:28 AM PST
by
Sudetenland
(Those diplomats serve best, who serve as cannon fodder to protect our troops!)
To: decimon
...mass, which is like weight. ROFL! Actually, it's missing some punctuation according to my "Valley Girl Official Thesarus." Shouldn't it be like this?
...mass, which is, like, weight.
14
posted on
01/05/2009 11:42:19 AM PST
by
MarineBrat
(The New York Times is a Communist Kamikaze.)
To: decimon
So the long-forecast collision between the neighboring galaxies is likely to happen sooner and less likely to be a glancing blow, Reid said. But don't worry that's at 2 to 3 billion years away, he said.
Interesting. What was the previously-predicted time-frame? Anybody know?
To: decimon
Mass is universal. Something 100 grams will be 100 grams on Earth, the moon, or in space.
Weight is conditional. Something 100 lbs on earth will be 1,000 lbs in 10 Gravities and 10 lbs at 1/10th Gravity.
16
posted on
01/05/2009 11:46:26 AM PST
by
allmendream
(Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?)
To: MyTwoCopperCoins
You are aware that mass and weight are technically not the same, arent you?You seriously expect FReepers to understand this?
17
posted on
01/05/2009 11:47:54 AM PST
by
js1138
To: willgolfforfood
Technically though, mass and weight are NOT the same thing. I may use 'normal force' as an excuse for not moving my butt, but I do remember that much of physics.
18
posted on
01/05/2009 11:48:55 AM PST
by
decimon
To: decimon
"...with 50 percent more mass, which is like weight." Likely written by a "science" reporter, who is a lightweight...
19
posted on
01/05/2009 11:49:01 AM PST
by
mikrofon
(More Mass -- Less Filling)
To: decimon
You know, as I age as gracefully as possible, I do admit that sometimes my butt seems to be stuck in a “greater than” 1 G gravity field on occasion. But I don’t think I remember enough physics to be able to express that thought as an equation.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson