It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

new strings of stars surrounding milkyway

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   
A string of new stars have been discovered by a canadian astronomer. Within this line, no dark matter exits...but a huge sphereical shape of dark matter exists all around our galaxy...I find that strange.



"What we can see of the stream is over 30,000 light years long," Grillmair said, "although it may actually be much longer than that since we are currently limited by the extent of the survey data. I would actually be somewhat surprised if the stream doesn't extend completely around the Galaxy."

The astronomers think the stars on this cosmic highway date back nearly to the beginning of the universe and are the fossil remains of a star cluster that, in its prime, contained between 10,000 and 100,000 star

www.skynightly.com...

Pretty awesome, I can't wait to see what they discover about the early Universe using this.




[edit on 6/9/2006 by Arcane Demesne]




posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
50 views and no replies?

C'mon people...there are huge, vast amounts of stars held together by nothing and swirling through space!!! And they are wrapping around our Galaxy as we speak at over a million miles an hour!!! Couldn't that cause a disturbance in our very own Galaxy's formation?

Why is no one interested?!


edit: spelling


[edit on 6/9/2006 by Arcane Demesne]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Its an awesome natural process that we will only see the smallest portion of, during our lifetime... (unfortunatley).

and yes, I eagerly await the effect this has on theories of cosmic development.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Pretty freaking awesome. any links to better pics than the one on that site?



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I dunno. That was the only article I could find, and it was only written a few hours before I posted (I think). There might be more info o nthe net now. Anyone feel like searchin'?



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Should we not really be talking about the recent discovery of galactic clusters further back in time than ever before ? Does this mean the universe is far far older than we thought or does it mean we are getting the distance measurements wrong?

Anyways.

Stellar

[edit on 11-6-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Should we not really be talking about the recent discovery of galactic clusters further back in time than ever before ? Does this mean the universe is far far older than we thought or does it mean we are getting the distance measurements wrong?

Anyways.

Stellar

[edit on 11-6-2006 by StellarX]


Sure, in a thread about the Universe's age.

I just thoust it was interesting to here that old strings of stars form an old already disbanded galaxy are wrapping around our own galaxy, and these stars have no dark matter in between them.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Should we not really be talking about the recent discovery of galactic clusters further back in time than ever before ? Does this mean the universe is far far older than we thought or does it mean we are getting the distance measurements wrong?

Anyways.

Stellar

[edit on 11-6-2006 by StellarX]


From what I gather, Cosmologists think the Universe is over 100 Billion Years old, whereas most Astronomers firmly believe with many many calculations and observations to back it up, that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years old, give or take a few hundred million years or so.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
From what I gather, Cosmologists think the Universe is over 100 Billion Years old,


Never seen that claim in print before ; feel free to link me to it.


whereas most Astronomers firmly believe with many many calculations and observations to back it up,


They always have those and they still somehow manage to generally get it all wrong.


that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years old, give or take a few hundred million years or so.


Thanks for telling me what i already know instead of actually addressing my question as to how that claim has now been proven all but completely inaccurate.

Maturity of Farthest Galaxy Cluster Surprises Astronomers

Stellar



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
StellarX

Thanks for that awesome link. I can't believe they found such young hot galaxies amidst the oldest and dead red spectrum ones. Does that mean the old had died long ago, so that makes the new ones ~14 BYO, and the older ones, much older?

Ha, Science is always retracting statements. I like that, it means they like to learn! (or come to conclusions too fast
)



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join