Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Geographic)   New study indicates that our sister galaxy, Andromeda, is actually twice as massive as the Milky Way, making our galaxy the hot sister   (newswatch.nationalgeographic.com) divider line 58
    More: Interesting, Milky Way Galaxy, Andromeda Galaxy, Spiral Galaxy, dark matter, Astronomical Society, gravitational binding energy, light-years, astronomers  
•       •       •

1011 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Jul 2014 at 1:45 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-07-30 12:08:06 PM  
Size of the Andromeda Galaxy in the sky if it were brighter.

i.imgur.com

Yep, looking a little hefty.
 
2014-07-30 12:52:29 PM  
And in about 4.5 billion years we're going to get a real nice up close look at it because IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!
 
2014-07-30 12:58:08 PM  

Barfmaker: And in about 4.5 billion years we're going to get a real nice up close look at it because IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!


Is it going to be on the Tuesday? I think I have a thing in the morning. Can we push the collision back to the afternoon?
 
2014-07-30 01:03:16 PM  
I'd give her my milky way..... *wink* *wink*
 
2014-07-30 01:16:55 PM  
Sort of like the Kardashians?

/can't believe I just made a Kardashian ref
 
2014-07-30 01:37:43 PM  

Sybarite: Size of the Andromeda Galaxy in the sky if it were brighter.

[i.imgur.com image 850x565]

Yep, looking a little hefty.


It's really too bad she's hefty and not all that bright.
 
2014-07-30 01:40:47 PM  

xanadian: I'd give her my milky way..... *wink* *wink*


Two galaxies, one cup?
 
2014-07-30 01:51:49 PM  
Did I miss something?  Did I slide in from a parallel dimension?

I thought we already knew this.
 
2014-07-30 01:52:10 PM  
Do they have Jesus?
 
2014-07-30 01:53:16 PM  

Barfmaker: And in about 4.5 billion years we're going to get a real nice up close look at it because IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!


It's probably mistaken us for a candy bar. Quick, we need to change our name to the Kale Galaxy or something.
 
2014-07-30 01:55:30 PM  

Barfmaker: And in about 4.5 billion years we're going to get a real nice up close look at it because IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!


Somehow, I am calm in the face of this imminent catastrophe.
 
2014-07-30 01:59:31 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Did I miss something?  Did I slide in from a parallel dimension?

I thought we already knew this.


They are referring to the mass -- as in, the actual amount of mass in our galaxy vs. Andromeda.  We've known Andromeda is roughly twice as big, but that didn't necessarily mean it had twice the mass, though I always kinda thought that was a pretty good rule of thumb at least.  Perhaps more to the point it seems as though they've realized not that Andromeda has more mass than we thought, but that the Milky Way has less than we thought.
 
2014-07-30 02:00:01 PM  

Rhypskallion: Barfmaker: And in about 4.5 billion years we're going to get a real nice up close look at it because IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!

Somehow, I am calm in the face of this imminent catastrophe.


The sun will die before that happens, so you have less time than you think.  Are you panicking yet?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-07-30 02:02:35 PM  
So, Andromeda will be going down on the Milky Way?  That sounds like the title of a pr0no.
 
2014-07-30 02:02:44 PM  

Sybarite: Size of the Andromeda Galaxy in the sky if it were brighter.

[i.imgur.com image 850x565]

Yep, looking a little hefty.


Is that astronomy's version of the fat girl angle shot, aka the Myspace angle?
 
2014-07-30 02:11:13 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Barfmaker: And in about 4.5 billion years we're going to get a real nice up close look at it because IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!

Is it going to be on the Tuesday? I think I have a thing in the morning. Can we push the collision back to the afternoon?


Right, because all of us are just supposed to work around YOUR schedule. Selfish bastard.
 
2014-07-30 02:18:33 PM  

Sybarite: Size of the Andromeda Galaxy in the sky if it were brighter.

[i.imgur.com image 850x565]

Yep, looking a little hefty.


Hey, yo fat galaxy, c'mere, are you ticklish?

/Once got busy in a Betelgeuse bathroom
 
2014-07-30 02:20:53 PM  
This looks like physorg's reporting on the same thing: http://phys.org/news/2014-07-astronomers-weight-galaxies-expansion-un i verse.html

They also did the first simulation showing the effects of cosmic expansion among the nearest galaxies, rather than between our galaxy and the farthest objects they could find. That makes me wonder if this is a bigger deal than they're making of it. I wonder if it was unclear if cosmic expansion worked on such a small scale, since it had never actually been shown to happen yet.
 
2014-07-30 02:28:45 PM  

Sybarite: Size of the Andromeda Galaxy in the sky if it were brighter.

[i.imgur.com image 850x565]

Yep, looking a little hefty.


That's... really cool. Seriously.
 
2014-07-30 02:49:44 PM  
Andi could still be hot.  It really depends on where all dat mass is being stored.

/dat mass
 
2014-07-30 02:53:43 PM  

extroverted_suicide: Andi could still be hot.  It really depends on where all dat mass is being stored.

/dat mass


i.imgur.com
 
2014-07-30 03:02:49 PM  
Had my first look at the Andromeda galaxy through my 15-cm reflector a while back. Pretty cool.
 
2014-07-30 03:02:54 PM  
home.earthlink.net

"You calling me FAT?"
 
2014-07-30 03:11:05 PM  

Cybernetic: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Barfmaker: And in about 4.5 billion years we're going to get a real nice up close look at it because IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!

Is it going to be on the Tuesday? I think I have a thing in the morning. Can we push the collision back to the afternoon?

Right, because all of us are just supposed to work around YOUR schedule. Selfish bastard.


I mean, I'm just saying. If it's possible. I don't want to be that guy.
 
2014-07-30 03:15:29 PM  
Anyone have a handle on the percentage of stars to see at night that are in our galaxy vs. those "stars" we see that are other galaxies or stars in other galaxies?  If the milky way band we can see when it's dark enough is mostly stars from our galaxy, why are they all so fuzzy if they're relatively closer than the rest of the stars we can see?
 
2014-07-30 03:19:49 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Did I miss something?  Did I slide in from a parallel dimension?

I thought we already knew this.


Millennials.
 
2014-07-30 03:36:19 PM  
Andromeda is just curvy.
 
2014-07-30 03:39:50 PM  

DubtodaIll: Anyone have a handle on the percentage of stars to see at night that are in our galaxy vs. those "stars" we see that are other galaxies or stars in other galaxies?  If the milky way band we can see when it's dark enough is mostly stars from our galaxy, why are they all so fuzzy if they're relatively closer than the rest of the stars we can see?




I think you're referring to Olbers' paradox.

In other news, subby must be a chubby chaser.

\I kid
 
2014-07-30 03:41:00 PM  

Sybarite: Size of the Andromeda Galaxy in the sky if it were brighter.

[i.imgur.com image 850x565]

Yep, looking a little hefty.


I was about to call bullshiat on that, because I've seen Andromeda through telescopes, and it isn't nearly as large as the moon.

Of course, I wasn't look at it in an observatory or with Hubble, either, so I mostly saw just the galactic core.  Andromeda is almost 3° angular size vs. the Moon's .5°, and that's pretty farking cool.
 
2014-07-30 03:49:35 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Andromeda is just curvy.


Yeah, we're in the Keira Knightly galaxy, Andromeda is the Christina Hendricks galaxy
 
2014-07-30 03:50:05 PM  

DubtodaIll: Anyone have a handle on the percentage of stars to see at night that are in our galaxy vs. those "stars" we see that are other galaxies or stars in other galaxies?  If the milky way band we can see when it's dark enough is mostly stars from our galaxy, why are they all so fuzzy if they're relatively closer than the rest of the stars we can see?


I could be wrong, but I'm close to 100% certain that every star we see in the night sky is from our own galaxy. There's no way the naked eye can resolve individual stars in other galaxies, since (as you point out) there are regions of our own galaxy where the unaided eye can't resolve individual stars; it would have to be an extremely bright star in another galaxy for the naked eye to be able to resolve it.
 
2014-07-30 03:52:32 PM  

EvilEgg: The sun will die before that happens, so you have less time than you think.  Are you panicking yet?


The sweat on my brow is not from fear.   Really.


/oh @#$#!!!
 
2014-07-30 03:52:47 PM  
www.bionicdisco.com

Another 70's cartoon to be raped by Will Ferrel?
 
2014-07-30 03:59:12 PM  

DubtodaIll: Anyone have a handle on the percentage of stars to see at night that are in our galaxy vs. those "stars" we see that are other galaxies or stars in other galaxies?  If the milky way band we can see when it's dark enough is mostly stars from our galaxy, why are they all so fuzzy if they're relatively closer than the rest of the stars we can see?


Let's assume you are talking absurdly optimal conditions with the naked eye.  Using absolute magnitude, that gives us up to magnitude 8 stellar objects.

Other than our own galaxy, there are under 10 galaxies observable, with 4 of those being damn near impossible to see with the naked eye.  Maybe if you are in the equivalent of Siberia or Antarctica or something.

Absolutely none of what we see in the sky with our eyes are stars in other galaxies.  You need a (very powerful) telescope to resolve stars even in the Magellanic clouds.

If the milky way band we can see when it's dark enough is mostly stars from our galaxy, why are they all so fuzzy if they're relatively closer than the rest of the stars we can see?

First, you have to realize that, even with telescopes, we can't resolve the discs of stars (i.e. see a round thing like the sun or moon or a planet).  They are simply too far away.  They all appear as points of light.

Then, you have to realize that, no matter how good a telescope or other imaging device we use, there are always refractive and other effects that "smear" out those "points" of light.

They are all so "fuzzy" because the angular distance between them is less than the angular diameter of the "smeared" version we can observe with our eyes (or whatever else we are using), and they are all close the same brightness.  When that happens, we can no longer distinguish individual light sources... just a cloud of light.
 
2014-07-30 04:03:36 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Cybernetic: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Barfmaker: And in about 4.5 billion years we're going to get a real nice up close look at it because IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!

Is it going to be on the Tuesday? I think I have a thing in the morning. Can we push the collision back to the afternoon?

Right, because all of us are just supposed to work around YOUR schedule. Selfish bastard.

I mean, I'm just saying. If it's possible. I don't want to be that guy.


Look, I can push it back to 11:30, but that's really the best I can do. And that's assuming you're in the Eastern time zone. If not, then the whole schedule just goes to hell and we'll probably have to push the whole thing out a week or so.
 
2014-07-30 04:13:22 PM  

qorkfiend: DubtodaIll: Anyone have a handle on the percentage of stars to see at night that are in our galaxy vs. those "stars" we see that are other galaxies or stars in other galaxies?  If the milky way band we can see when it's dark enough is mostly stars from our galaxy, why are they all so fuzzy if they're relatively closer than the rest of the stars we can see?

I could be wrong, but I'm close to 100% certain that every star we see in the night sky is from our own galaxy. There's no way the naked eye can resolve individual stars in other galaxies, since (as you point out) there are regions of our own galaxy where the unaided eye can't resolve individual stars; it would have to be an extremely bright star in another galaxy for the naked eye to be able to resolve it.


SN1987A was visible with the naked eye at +3 magnitude... that's as close as your going to get to seeing a star in another galaxy with the naked eye.
 
2014-07-30 04:41:31 PM  
fark you, subby. Andromeda has a great personality.
 
2014-07-30 05:16:03 PM  

Larva Lump: [home.earthlink.net image 600x901]

"You calling me FAT?"


Daniel Jackson is a lucky man.
 
2014-07-30 05:17:07 PM  
Yeah, but our galaxy has sharp spiral arms.
 
2014-07-30 05:21:06 PM  

McGrits: Larva Lump: [home.earthlink.net image 600x901]

"You calling me FAT?"

Daniel Jackson is a lucky man.


She was also really great in Continuum.
 
2014-07-30 05:25:31 PM  

Cybernetic: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Barfmaker: And in about 4.5 billion years we're going to get a real nice up close look at it because IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!

Is it going to be on the Tuesday? I think I have a thing in the morning. Can we push the collision back to the afternoon?

Right, because all of us are just supposed to work around YOUR schedule. Selfish bastard.


Actually, I have a conflict as well- another staff meeting...
 
2014-07-30 05:53:09 PM  
I'm gonna start drinking Sterno now, just in case.
 
2014-07-30 05:59:15 PM  
www.artchive.com
 
2014-07-30 06:37:33 PM  

mainsail: Cybernetic: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Barfmaker: And in about 4.5 billion years we're going to get a real nice up close look at it because IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!

Is it going to be on the Tuesday? I think I have a thing in the morning. Can we push the collision back to the afternoon?

Right, because all of us are just supposed to work around YOUR schedule. Selfish bastard.

Actually, I have a conflict as well- another staff meeting...


Well this whole thing is going to shiat now, I finally booked a flight on my Air Miles and there's no way I can make the apocalypse. I'm fine to conference in but if that's not good enough then we'll need to reschedule because I am NOT giving up this flight.
 
2014-07-30 07:11:19 PM  

Barfmaker: mainsail: Cybernetic: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Barfmaker: And in about 4.5 billion years we're going to get a real nice up close look at it because IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!

Is it going to be on the Tuesday? I think I have a thing in the morning. Can we push the collision back to the afternoon?

Right, because all of us are just supposed to work around YOUR schedule. Selfish bastard.

Actually, I have a conflict as well- another staff meeting...

Well this whole thing is going to shiat now, I finally booked a flight on my Air Miles and there's no way I can make the apocalypse. I'm fine to conference in but if that's not good enough then we'll need to reschedule because I am NOT giving up this flight.


Skype in; just keep the booze off camera.
 
2014-07-30 07:37:13 PM  

Larva Lump: [home.earthlink.net image 600x901]

"You calling me FAT?"


That poor girl.

I hope someone kindly explained to her along the way that someone in the world would inevitably end up having to be the worst actress of them all.
 
2014-07-30 07:51:58 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Larva Lump: [home.earthlink.net image 600x901]

"You calling me FAT?"

That poor girl.

I hope someone kindly explained to her along the way that someone in the world would inevitably end up having to be the worst actress of them all.


Eh, she's not bad, and there's certainly worse out there. That show had some serious issues with bad writers on occasion. Also, as someone said, Michael Shanks is one lucky sumbiatch to have landed her.
 
2014-07-30 09:28:28 PM  

Dingleberry Dickwad: MurphyMurphy: Larva Lump: [home.earthlink.net image 600x901]

"You calling me FAT?"

That poor girl.

I hope someone kindly explained to her along the way that someone in the world would inevitably end up having to be the worst actress of them all.

Eh, she's not bad, and there's certainly worse out there. That show had some serious issues with bad writers on occasion. Also, as someone said, Michael Shanks is one lucky sumbiatch to have landed her.


Like I said earlier, I though she actually was pretty good on Continuum. Nothing about her performance was on the level of Sharknado acting.
 
2014-07-30 10:59:01 PM  

mainsail: Cybernetic: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Barfmaker: And in about 4.5 billion years we're going to get a real nice up close look at it because IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!

Is it going to be on the Tuesday? I think I have a thing in the morning. Can we push the collision back to the afternoon?

Right, because all of us are just supposed to work around YOUR schedule. Selfish bastard.

Actually, I have a conflict as well- another staff meeting...


We should have a staff meeting on why staff meetings are screwing up your schedule.
 
2014-07-30 11:41:03 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: mainsail: Cybernetic: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Barfmaker: And in about 4.5 billion years we're going to get a real nice up close look at it because IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!

Is it going to be on the Tuesday? I think I have a thing in the morning. Can we push the collision back to the afternoon?

Right, because all of us are just supposed to work around YOUR schedule. Selfish bastard.

Actually, I have a conflict as well- another staff meeting...

We should have a staff meeting on why staff meetings are screwing up your schedule.


That was last week.
 
2014-07-31 01:38:23 AM  

DubtodaIll: Anyone have a handle on the percentage of stars to see at night that are in our galaxy vs. those "stars" we see that are other galaxies or stars in other galaxies?  If the milky way band we can see when it's dark enough is mostly stars from our galaxy, why are they all so fuzzy if they're relatively closer than the rest of the stars we can see?


An Issac Asimov essay I read as a teen said Andromeda is the most distant object we can see with the naked eye. I recall the quote, "So if anyone asks you how far you can see, tell them 2.5 million light years."
 
2014-07-31 04:10:05 AM  

Beowoolfie: Andromeda is the most distant object we can see with the naked eye.


I don't know where you can see it unaided. The rest of us live in cities. Sirius is about the most distant object in the night sky.
 
2014-07-31 05:30:19 AM  

doglover: Beowoolfie: Andromeda is the most distant object we can see with the naked eye.

I don't know where you can see it unaided. The rest of us live in cities. Sirius is about the most distant object in the night sky.


In the open field behind my house, rural Kentucky, 1974. But it sure didn't look like that picture! All I could see was a dim little fuzzy blob.
 
2014-07-31 05:41:25 AM  
Nonrepeating Rotating Binary
2014-07-30 01:51:49 PM


Did I miss something?
Did I slide in from a parallel dimension?

I thought we already knew this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you did, like almost everyone else.
no, it just looks that way from here

No, we don't know anything about this, its a theory

To wit:
The air we breathe has a density of approximately 10 to the 19th power molecules per cubic centimeter. (One cubic centimeter = 1 milliliter = 1/1000 liter).

By contrast, the lowest density regions of interstellar space contains approximately 0.1 atoms per cubic centimeter.

The remaining 1% of the interstellar medium consists of dust. That's right, dust -- like the stuff that accumulates on your bookshelves and under your bed.

The properties of interstellar dust:

Composition: carbon, metals, silicates, and ice
Size of grains: 500 nanometers or less in diameter (1 nanometer = 1 billionth of a meter)
Number density of grains: 1 per million cubic meters

(That density, by the way, is equivalent to having a few dust motes floating around in Ohio Stadium.)
The properties of interstellar dust:

----- of course, even that small concentration is magnified into an opaque solid when considering the postulated number of particles in 1000 light yrs worth of dust and atoms, ions, etc.

If Andromeda were actually 2.6 -Million light years away, it would be absolutely invisible [see above]
In order for light to cohesively pass through just 1000 light years, space would have to be a lot more empty than it is.
do the math

It is far more likely that once interstellar space frontier is crossed,
there are no distances as gravity/time/space bound mammals perceive distance.
Fleshly life is not possible without Gravity/space/time.

That would account for the likelihood that Voyager can never appear to have crossed that boundary, it will linger there forever since at the boundary, distance [space] time/gravity no longer exists.
Similar to the black hole horizon theory.

Scientists still don't know if most of what they see as stars & galaxies are or are not reflections of each other, nor do they know how much is and always will be impossible to detect.

One may read ancient philosophers to get a conceptual handle on a Universe which is Infinite...

Be assured, however, the distances and sizes postulated have nothing to do with reality.

Once you're in the Blue Canoe, you will get a better view....
you won't need no food nor water,
no, you won't even remember your name.
and its a very short trip, by the way.
 
2014-07-31 06:40:20 AM  
Da Jebusfark is all that shiat?
 
2014-07-31 06:48:57 AM  

Barfmaker: And in about 4.5 billion years we're going to get a real nice up close look at it because IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!


t1.gstatic.com
 
2014-07-31 10:56:04 AM  

AdrienVeidt: Da Jebusfark is all that shiat?


Just back away slowly, don't make eye contact.
 
2014-07-31 11:34:01 PM  

doglover: Beowoolfie: Andromeda is the most distant object we can see with the naked eye.

I don't know where you can see it unaided. The rest of us live in cities. Sirius is about the most distant object in the night sky.


Sirius is 8.6 light-years away.  Canopus, the second-brightest star in our skies, is 74 light-years away.  Rigel, the 7th-brightest star in the sky (and visible even from downtown Chicago), is 1400 light-years away.  In fact, of the 26 brightest stars as seen from Earth, only Alpha Centauri is closer than Sirius.

The Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way easily seen from Rio de Janeiro, is about 163,000 light-years away.

Sirius isn't even close to being the most distant object visible to the unaided eye, even from a major city.

\I think you were being sarcastic
 
Displayed 58 of 58 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report