It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So based on the new finds, the study authors think that as many as 500 black hole binaries exist in the Milky Way, and that the galaxy hosts up to ten thousand black holes in total.
Hubble & Gaia accurately weigh the Milky Way
However, despite decades of intense effort, even the best available estimates of the Milky Way's mass disagree wildly. Now, by combining new data from the European Space Agency (ESA) Gaia mission with observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers have found that the Milky Way weighs in at about 1.5 trillion solar masses within a radius of 129 000 light-years from the galactic centre.
Previous estimates of the mass of the Milky way ranged from 500 billion to 3 trillion times the mass of the Sun. This huge uncertainty arose primarily from the different methods used for measuring the distribution of dark matter – which makes up about 90% of the mass of the galaxy.
"By combining Gaia's measurements of 34 globular clusters with measurements of 12 more distant clusters from Hubble, we could pin down the Milky Way's mass in a way that would be impossible without these two space telescopes."
In a striking example of multi-mission astronomy, measurements from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and the ESA Gaia mission have been combined to improve the estimate of the mass of our home galaxy the Milky Way: 1.5 trillion solar masses.
We estimate the mass of the Milky Way (MW) within 21.1 kpc using the kinematics of halo globular clusters (GCs) determined by Gaia.
I provided a link to the paper. Have at it.
How did scientists devise an algorithm accurate enough to factor in all these variables, in order for them to determine an "accurate" weight of the entire Milky Way?
originally posted by: ArMaP
Edited to add that, many years ago, I told an ATS member that, to get more views for his threads he should start adding two or three exclamation marks at the end of the title. He tried it and it worked, ATS members had a higher tendency of reading and commenting on the threads with two or three exclamation marks on their titles.
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
Actually it says more about clickbait headlines and the need for journalists to get you to read their advertising backed articles than it does the actual research science on which the article is based.
originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: shawmanfromny
These people dbl as the "guess your weight" hawkers at carnivals and circuses right? The use of the word accurate in this case tells a lot more about the new "consensus" driven idiot "science" than it does about any measurement.
Cheers - Dave