back to article Astroboffins spot sneaky signs that the Milky Way devoured smaller galaxies

Astrophysicists have found evidence that the Milky Way has gobbled up neighbouring massive dwarf galaxies over its 13 billion year lifetime. A team of researchers using a spectroscope analysed the starlight from 28 red giant stars hovering on the outer halo of the Milky Way. They then worked out their chemical composition from …

Amazing Start Trek like scanning

I find this stuff truly amazing that the geek squads can look at star's 65,000 light years away and analyse them to such details - go boffins.

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Older star

In 2013 HD 140283 (about 190 light years away from us) was estimated to be 14.46 ± 0.8 billion years.

I found this out by listening to the "Science or Fiction" slot on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast earlier this week.

5
0
Silver badge

SGU

@AC

Me too...I was wondering whether it was the same reference. Also the reference to the Milky Way devouring smaller galaxies - which was given as a reason for the MW "having rings", the other "Science" item in that edition of Science or Fiction.

1
0
Coat

> After studying the concentration of elements contained in the stars on the edge, they found it did not match those of similar stars in the inner regions.

Of course, that's the peel, it's different inside...

5
0

All fairy tales.. fantasy numbers.. no science...

All fairy tales.. fantasy numbers.. no science... They just tell fairy tales to the public. This isn't science for sure. All these numbers are not facts but just fantasy. There is no real proof of anything.

1
21
Silver badge

Re: All fairy tales.. fantasy numbers.. no science...

All these numbers are not facts but just fantasy.

Ah. And that's because of your saying so?

4
0
Silver badge
Windows

Re: All fairy tales.. fantasy numbers.. no science...

@Stoneshop;

check posting history. It is because he's just saying so. Apparently he knows all sorts of things. Very dismissive knowledge he has.

4
0
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: All fairy tales.. fantasy numbers.. no science...

Very dismissive knowledge he has.

I know.

Usually I let it go, the stupidity tends to be obvious. But sometimes I figure it's time to rile him up again, and let him dig himself deeper.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: All fairy tales.. fantasy numbers.. no science...

Hey Joerg, next time I go for beers with the Post Doctoral Astronomers I used to work with, I'll be sure to pass on your _opinion_ .

Meanwhile you sound like a Solipsist, so why are you arguing with yourself?

1
0
Silver badge

Massive dwarf?

How can something be a dwarf if it's massive?

1
2
Silver badge

Re: Massive dwarf?

It has mass.

4
1
Silver badge

Re: Massive dwarf?

Either because the term massive is being used in the sense of "having lots of mass" or because it's incredibly well endowed.

5
0
Silver badge

Re: Massive dwarf?

See also Neutron Star...Black Hole...etc. Lots of mass, but relatively small.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Massive dwarf?

It's big for a dwarf galaxy (at about 1/10th number of stars in Milky Way compare to lower limit of 1/1000th the number)

And it doesn't seem fair to call something with 30 billion stars just "dwarf" ?

1
0
Silver badge
Coat

Re: Massive dwarf?

or because it's incredibly well endowed.

It's got huuuuge .... tracts of land.

1
0
Silver badge
Windows

Re: Massive dwarf?

Dwarves come in all sizes you know. Unlike gnomes or murlocks.

0
0

Re: Massive dwarf?

Ask Captain Carrot. But ask politely, he has a right hook that even trolls are scared of.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: Massive dwarf?

If you can have miniature giant space hamsters, then you can also have massive dwarfs.

And at least the dwarfs don't go for the eyes.

2
0

Re: Massive dwarf?

An Ankh Morpork reference is always worth an upvote.

"Buggrit, Millenium hand and shrimp" good old Ron.

0
0

15% or 115% carbon

"J0815+4729 is smaller and has only a millionth part of the calcium and iron that the Sun contains, but it has a relatively large amount of carbon, almost 15 per cent of what is contained in the Sun."

Since you later state "The star [... is ...] amongst the ones with the largest over abundances of carbon,” I suspect that what you intended to say is that it contain 15% more carbon than what is contained in the sun. I also assume that it is all measured in proportion to the mass of the concerned star.

0
0
Boffin

Galaxies do irreversably devour stars and destroy matter

Black hole information paradox

So when is the Thorne–Hawking–Preskill bet finally going to admit that Stephen Hawkings is righter and information is destroyed

0
0

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018