What is Digg?35 Comments
- DrakeGTA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+48They are going to name them "Bashful", "Doc", "Dopey", "Grumpy", "Happy", "Sleepy" and "Sneezy."
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26"They're more like Hobbits than dwarfs," comments Zucker's co-investigator Vasily Belokurov, also of Cambridge, "since they are smaller and fainter than most previously known satellites"
Hi, I'm a legitimate scientist. Today I'd like to educate you on the widely held, but incorrect belief that Hobbits are larger and brighter than dwarfs. I'll now turn you over to our lead speaker, Papa Smurf. - omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Somewhat common misconception... The only solar system has the star "Sol" at the center, hence the name "Solar". If you were referring to the star Andromeda and the planets that may or may not (I don't know) orbit it, you'd call it the Andromeda System. So, first problem is that "Solar System" really should be capitalized, since it's a proper name of a celestial system. Second is that since there is only one, you really can't refer to a different one in another galaxy (unless they named one of the other stars "Sol" also, which I highly doubt). I'm not sure if there is a technical term for the celestial body that's at the center of a galaxy... perhaps Galactic Center?
- hambend, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I love how people like you refer to "scientists" like they're a little club of nerds that meet in Steve's mum's basement every Saturday and sit around talking ***** to one another until they come up with some new crackpot theory for you to ridicule. It's not like that. Scientists are highly trained, highly specialized experts who spend the bulk of their time learning the work of other scientists. They spend years on end gathering research and working meticulously towards adding their own tiny contribution to the scientific literature.
The scientific literature itself is a gargantuan body of work which has been some two thousand years in the making so far, ever since the Greeks first formalized the scientific method. Over that time there have been millions upon millions of additions, corrections, supplements and even the occasional overhaul in the never-ending effort to get as close to the right answer as possible.
So yes, I do believe that scientists can extrapolate the distances to the source of those tiny streams of light, though whether they use triangulation or some more sophisticated method I couldn't tell you. Rather than dismissing the notion out of hand, you might find that you'll learn more if you ask questions about the process. - hambend, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Have you ever heard of a "light year"? It's a unit of measurement commonly used for describing interstellar distances. The great thing about it is that not only does it tell you how far away things are, but also how long it takes light to get from there to here. All with just one number!
Seriously dude, cosmologists are well ***** aware of how big the universe is. It's one of the first things they learn. The article pinpoints one of the dwarf galaxies at around 1.4 million light years away. So yeah, they did exist simultaneously with the earth. It also mentions that they're breaking up, but switching from present to past tense just because what we can see may not last more than a few thousand millennia is just absurd. - Mylonite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I advise you to not actually hit the submit comment button when you're short on sleep. You babble incoherently. Easily forgiven (I'll even reply) because hambend's response to you made my morning.
Anyway, I also don't know how to do any of the calculation processes involved here. I wouldn't even know where to begin - so we start off in the same boat. The difference is that I (also) realize that the scientific community has far more resources than Steve's basement, and that scientists can be / are vicious bastards - if any real objections could be raised, you'd have glory hounds all over it. You, on the other hand, decided that if you were going to estimate a distance like that, you'd use triangulation, and since you couldn't think of any way to measure that precisely, then it's outside the realm of believability for scientists to have come up with more precise measuring instruments or another process entirely. It's the same lack of imagination fallacy you see in the intelligent design movement - your being unable to figure something out does not actually prevent others from using their collective knowledge to find a solution.
As for your other point, of course they talk in present tense, because that's what we are actually seeing now in the sky. Would you tell people to go 45 degrees from Polaris to go North just because you know that it has moved since those beams were emitted? Sure, it's important that people realize that we are looking at time-delayed information. It's important that people have a basic science education, because they learn this and a hundred other things I *wish* everyone understood. Rest assured that while the layman might be confused, the scientists are well aware of the passage of time. I'm pretty sure there are models on top of models that allow them to incorporate new data like this (and of course, those models take time into account) - geologists can handle a time variable, I think the astrophysicists will manage. - Hydraulix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Alright! Our replacements are here. :(
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean it's not possible. i have a feeling nasa engineers know a bit more than your average digger.
- NeoRicen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3While I personally can't understand how they did it I know that they are EXTREMELY well trained and EXTREMELY well equipped and I am highly inclined to trust the people who have given us photos of distant planets and nebulas, sent a man to the moon etc. These people are trustworthy when it comes to this, also the claims aren't that farfetched.
- Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Are we to believe that scientists can extrapolate the distance of those tiny streams of light arriving here now, somehow by triangulation?"
There are other methods for determining stellar distance, like redshift and observations of variable stars. You could look that up on Wikipedia ... or, maybe your many "erudite" but, sadly, sleeping friends would know. As if. - crcurran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If our galaxy can't take the time to eat all the crumbs we are going to end up with ants and other pests. tsk! tsk!
- JohnyD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2WOW.... I was unaware that such ignorance (as in the comment you just posted) still exist today! Seeing as how your ignorance will spur many on to burn you time and time again I will only point out one such flaw in your logic and leave the rest for others who want to take from you a piece of your dignity.
"Consider the zillions of years that it took for their light to reach here."
The best estimates we have derived from Hubble Space Telescope data point to the universe being somewhere between 13 - 14 billion years old. Even if it's closer to 20 billion (there are plenty who argue the age) it is certainly not zillions. - Karmalary, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@WaterDragon: Cepheid variable stars are one tool that astronomers use to measure vast astronomical distances. Google it for yourself. The "more erudite" half of my brain is still making coffee.
- JohnyD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Holy crap. This guy gets burned once and then starts a new thread so he can get burned once again. My advice to you:
If you're still in HS... then when/if you attend a university you should take an introductory astronomy course. You'll be blown away by the stuff you'll learn.
Back on topic... the article says the latest galaxy to be discovered is 1.4 million light years from the Milky Way which in astrometric terms is actually quite close. I wouldn't be surprised if that galaxy weren't quite close to the position that we see it at. - edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The SDSS sure turns up a lot of neat stuff.
- Kilraq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Found it interesting that they say they are being ground up. A "feast"
Does that mean our galaxy is hungry? - Doghound, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@WaterDragon
First off, it's what we (people on Earth) call it... not what everyone in the universe calls or system the Solar System (or our star "Sol"). So, to correct someone who is posting on digg (who lives on Earth, I would presume) about calling a different system "solar system" is OK... because that system, for us, is called something else.
Also, maybe you should do some reasearch before opening your mouth (refering to your second paragraph).
"Sol (IPA: [sɑl]) was the name or personification of the Sun (in Latin), and can also refer to sunlight, sunbeam, or east (the direction where the Sun rises)."
So it wasn't the Romans, it is Latin.
Of course, if you want to talk about Romans & Sol: "Sol Invictus, god of the sun in Roman mythology, was equivalent to the god Helios of Greek mythology."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol - Greyarea, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3...and apparently we're not at home to humor today.
- NeoRicen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@WaterDragon
Sol is the 'proper' name of our sun, it comes from the Roman personification of the sun 'Sol'. - angryredplanet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Perhaps you mean a galaxy's supermassive black hole is hailed "The Wicked Queen"?
- Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Even more amazing - a nearby article about the Andromeda galaxy ... it has been discovered that it's 500,000 LY in *radius* because it's sparsely surrounded by faint red giants. Article notes that IF Andromeda were much brighter, it would be BIGGER THAN THE BIG DIPPER in the sky. Even though it's 2.5mLY away!
- Twango, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@JohnyD
"WOW.... I was unaware that such ignorance (as in the comment you just posted) still exist today! "
As you get older, you'll be constantly AMAZED how much ignorance still exists today.
*Even*, if you can believe it, in the White House. - Greyarea, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Sorry, I'll turn my charisma down a notch. They'll soon get bored and drift away.
(ok, ok, it's a HHGTTG quote) - RandomSkratch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Is there really a necessity to be constantly reporting things like this?
Yes, we know there's stuff out there. We get the point. - ThePict, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0They're orbiting the Milky Way, therefore OUR galaxy is the wicked queen. Ah well, at least we're fairest of them all.
Y'all should read more BTW. - ThePict, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Enjoy your ban.
- liminaldust, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Seven or Eight hamburgers discovered sushi the milky orange juice
- octocat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Apparently their solar star is being hailed "The Wicked Queen"
- waffledad, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Funny how they are "rotating" around our galaxy.... Methinks we used to think that the Sun rotated around us (earth). ha ha ha haha.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Are we to believe that scientists can extrapolate the distance of those tiny streams of light arriving here now, somehow by triangulation? At such a distance, triangulation becomes impossible, since all light rays are virtually parallel, and the angles required are so infinitesimally small.
Anyhow, we are only seeing light that is arriving here NOW...regardless of what telescope we use. telescopes don't speed up light, or show greater distances...they merely amplify smaller and smaller sections of the grid around the earth through which light streams pass (and some very ancient ones).
But we are only seeing a very small portion of the 'grid', and not a distant object. Let's not forget that if something was so far away, it might not still exist...and we wouldn't even know that for quite some time.
It is never correct to speak in the present tense when describing anything at such a great distance.
We are only seeing really old light. And that stream of old light can't even be said to have followed a particular path according to anything we know, since we don't have a universal, unmoving, permanent physical frame of reference in relation to which we can say it was moving.
If you can't discuss this comment intelligently, or refute it intelligently, there is no point of modding it (up or) down...that will only hide it from others.
But at this hour, i expect that many of my more erudite 'friends' are already asleep, or maybe just waking up.
It just occurred to me that the comments section of digg has a totally different crowd, depending on what time of day you access it.
e.g. The folks about to be in the comments section in the next few hours are probably never in it when I am, as we are living in completely different time zones.
(WTF am I doing up so late?) - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5I swear to God, if they name them after hobbits I will die of laughter. That would be SO awesome! That's like a Trekkie naming his baby "Picard." *crosses fingers* here's to hoping. If they name them something like "X21402" I'll be pissed. C'mon astronomers . . . amuse me.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Alright I'll go first..
Seven or eight Dwarf mushrooms discovered growing on the milky coconut.
What, what, what were you thinking here?!? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2OK let's make this fun.. Reply and complete this sentence.
Seven or eight Dwarf ________ discovered ________ the milky ________.
This reminds me of madlib for the amiga. :) - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2It's such a silly mistake...when will they get over it!
The distances are such that we can't say these so-called 'galaxies' ARE anything. We can only say that they WERE somewhere, a long time ago....but we can't even say where they were in relation to the earth at that time, or whether we were even here at that time in the distant past....so we can't even be sure if they were ever a certain distance from us.
Consider the zillions of years that it took for their light to reach here. They may not even have ever existed simultaneously with the earth.
It always makes me laugh when cosmologists conveniently forget about time, in their silly descriptions, as if describing the present -- and pretend it is all spatial, especially when such large distances are involved.
NO we can't say these 'galaxies' ARE doing anything or even that they exist right now.
We might even be looking at light that left the Earth, a really long time ago!
This could be the same light returning to the earth, which has moved to intercept it across bazillions of years. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1So...let me get this straight. You are saying that everyone in the universe agrees that this star is called Sol, and only this star?
Might it be called something totally different to others, not from here?
And is Sol short for Solomon or something? Who decided on this name anyhow?
I don't suppose it was the Romans, or any other ancient Italians...because the it would be called Sal, as in Salvatore!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is