Journalists. Is there anything they DON'T know?
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.
when andromeda comes to take us on a few billion from now, we’ll be ready. bring it.
Somebody page Algore about this. We need a plan to combat this galactic change.
Technically though, mass and weight are NOT the same thing.
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.
So the long-forecast collision between the neighboring galaxies is likely to happen sooner and less likely to be a glancing blow, Reid said.Interesting. What was the previously-predicted time-frame? Anybody know?But don't worry that's at 2 to 3 billion years away, he said.
Weight is conditional. Something 100 lbs on earth will be 1,000 lbs in 10 Gravities and 10 lbs at 1/10th Gravity.
Likely written by a "science" reporter, who is a lightweight...
Ping me if you want on the “Make believe Astronomy Science and Other Outlandish Science Claims Ping List” ....
newer, similar topic:
Milky Way a Swifter Spinner, More Massive, New Measurements Show
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics | 1/5/09 | CfA
Posted on 01/05/2009 2:41:26 PM PST by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2159221/posts
![]() |
||
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar · | ||