Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cannibal Galaxy the Biggest In the Near Universe

Posted by Soulskill on from the om-nom-nom dept.

The Bad Astronomer writes "Astronomers have found the most massive galaxy in the near universe: an obese, bloated monster that may tip the cosmic scales at 13 trillion times the mass of the Sun, 20 times the mass of the entire Milky Way. The galaxy, called ESO 146-IG 005, sits at the center of a dense cluster of other (but much more lightweight) galaxies, and grew to its present size by eating the galaxies around it. In fact, the so-far undigested cores of at least five other galaxies are still easily seen in the cannibal's nucleus. Astronomers are having difficulty pinning down the galaxy's exact mass, but it's clearly the biggest bruiser within 1.5 billion light years of home."

118 comments

  1. Should be named Homer Simpson by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Funny

    MMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Gaaaaalaaaaaxyyyyyyy

    om nom nom nom

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
    1. Re:Should be named Homer Simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmmmmm... Donut...
      [more drooling]

  2. Now I'm Officially Scared by pipingguy · · Score: 1, Funny

    First global warming, now solar system-eating far galaxy monsters. What could possibly be worse?

    1. Re:Now I'm Officially Scared by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

      First global warming, now solar system-eating far galaxy monsters. What could possibly be worse?

      I'll take a shot at that: How about The Big Rip? Cosmic expansion increasing exponentially quickly so that every atom, no, every point of space time retreats from every other point faster than the speed of light. Everything in the universe ripping apart in an instant. OOoooohhhh! Scary!

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Now I'm Officially Scared by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Funny

      First global warming, now solar system-eating far galaxy monsters. What could possibly be worse?

      Total protonic reversal. Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. That would be bad. [/ghostbusters]

    3. Re:Now I'm Officially Scared by EdIII · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Where is a copyright lawyer when you need one..... That was not The Big Rip.

      The Big Rip occurred on January 19th, 1999 approximately 7:56pm PST in Southern California. The event itself was recorded by the SCSN (Southern California Seismic Networks) and first reported by the Adelanto Receiving Station minutes later. Investigations concluded the seismic event occurred above ground roughly located within a Cinemark Movie theater, Screen 8. Very few witnesses were left alive, or with the ability to speak.

      I should know. I generated the event.

    4. Re:Now I'm Officially Scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tore a hole in your pants, did you.

    5. Re:Now I'm Officially Scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ruined it by putting [/ghostbusters] at the end.

    6. Re:Now I'm Officially Scared by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      First global warming, now solar system-eating far galaxy monsters. What could possibly be worse?

      Congress?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    7. Re:Now I'm Officially Scared by spun · · Score: 1

      Haha. It's "flamebait" because of the highly flammable gasses.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    8. Re:Now I'm Officially Scared by SuperRoboNinjaMonkey · · Score: 1

      Right - Important safety tip. Thanks Egon.

  3. In Other Words: The Cannibal Galaxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    is a botnet !

    Thanks in advance.

    Yours In Astrakhan,
    K. Trout

  4. Black Galaxy? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If a Black Hole is a super dense star, is it possible to have a galaxy of black holes? Or one giant one with an event Horizon as big as a galaxy?

    1. Re:Black Galaxy? by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By my calculations, a black hole with a radius of 100000 light years would require a mass of approximately 3 * 10^17 solar masses or about 5 orders of magnitude more mass than is present even in this monster galaxy. And of course, all that mass would have to be present within the 100000 light years, this galaxy is much more spread out than that. So no, it's pretty unlikely to have a galaxy sized black hole (and that's even assuming that I did my math right).

    2. Re:Black Galaxy? by Em+Emalb · · Score: 0, Troll

      By *MY* calculations, a blackhole with a radius of 100000 light years would require one hell of a barco-lounger.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    3. Re:Black Galaxy? by mog007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In approximately 10^40 years, every galaxy will be nothing but black holes. By then, all stars will either have become white dwarfs or black holes, and the white dwarfs will have even cooled off to become black dwarfs. I suppose there would be some neutron stars for large stars that couldn't reach the mass limit that turns them into black holes.

      But a galaxy of nothing but black holes? Nah. It would require nothing but very massive stars, and these stars are very rare, compared to the number of stars in the universe.

      --
      Learn something new.
    4. Re:Black Galaxy? by sznupi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Quite likely pretty much all galaxies will be "a galaxy of black holes" at some point, simply because virtually everything else will decay in the meantime (and long before black holes themselves will decay). Some models even have the possibility that whole Universe will turn into a singularity (though not really of the same kind as a black hole)

      As for "giant one with an event Horizon as big as a galaxy", you're unlikely to find enough mass in one place for something like that to form (nevermind the unlikeness of all that mass collapsing into a black hole)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    5. Re:Black Galaxy? by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In approximately 10^40 years, every galaxy will be nothing but black holes. By then, all stars will either have become white dwarfs or black holes, and the white dwarfs will have even cooled off to become black dwarfs.

      So what the hell is the point of even getting up in the morning?

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    6. Re:Black Galaxy? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Oh boy, you are so wrong it’s not even funny.

      Because your 100000 light years premise is wrong.

      A black hole also doesn’t even remotely have the diameter of a normal star.

      I bet a black hole with all the stars of a galaxy in it, would still not be bigger than maybe a pretty large star.

      It’s mass that counts. Not radius.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    7. Re:Black Galaxy? by ionix5891 · · Score: 1

      what will you wipe your black hole with

    8. Re:Black Galaxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to guess "spotted owl"? Am I right? What do I win?

    9. Re:Black Galaxy? by wdsci · · Score: 3, Informative

      I mean this in the nicest possible way, but that post really makes it sound as if you don't know what you're talking about. 100000 light years is the size of a typical galaxy, i.e. the Milky Way (admittedly diameter, not radius). And the more massive a black hole, the bigger it is (as measured by the Schwarzschild radius); a black hole with 100 billion stars - which, again, is a typical galaxy's worth - would be about 600 billion km across. That's something like 100 times the size of the orbit of Neptune, and much bigger than any star.

    10. Re:Black Galaxy? by PaganRitual · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bacon.

    11. Re:Black Galaxy? by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      By my calculations, a black hole with a radius of 100000 light years would require a mass of approximately 3 * 10^17 solar masses...

      Note that 100,000 ly is much larger than some smaller galaxies. I could be wrong, but unlike LoC, VW Beetles, etc., "galaxy" isn't a unit of measurement.

    12. Re:Black Galaxy? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I'm Jewish, you insensitive clod!

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    13. Re:Black Galaxy? by F�an�ro · · Score: 1

      Quite likely pretty much all galaxies will be "a galaxy of black holes" at some point, simply because virtually everything else will decay in the meantime (and long before black holes themselves will decay). Some models even have the possibility that whole Universe will turn into a singularity (though not really of the same kind as a black hole)

      As for "giant one with an event Horizon as big as a galaxy", you're unlikely to find enough mass in one place for something like that to form (nevermind the unlikeness of all that mass collapsing into a black hole)

      If we are talking long term, should a galaxy of black holes not evenentually turn into one big black hole?

      IIRC orbiting masses should always radiate a small amount of gravitational waves according to general relativity. This energy is deducted from their kinetik energy. So a galaxy, or any gravitational bound cluster of galaxies, should eventually end up as one big black hole. Unless something like the big rip separates them first.

    14. Re:Black Galaxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well only if your silly enough to not realize that everything must be held in balance this galaxy could very well be balancing out the universe and it doesn't consume just figuratively integrates itself with others... "merging"

      but all black holes your dreaming mate!

      but then again black holes could be anywhere since they don't reflect light or emit it so therefore "invisible" to us for now

      but its balance folks balance it out and its all in nice stasis xD

    15. Re:Black Galaxy? by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Turkey bacon! Better than nothing...

    16. Re:Black Galaxy? by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      isn't the universe essentially a black hole by definition?

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    17. Re:Black Galaxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the white dwarfs will have even cooled off to become black dwarfs.

      Thats vertically challenged African American to you, and them peckerwoods ain't never gonna cool off enough to be as cool as me muthafucka.

    18. Re:Black Galaxy? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      That is to be expected relatively soon with two massive and rather close bodies orbiting each other, yes. But I guess it doesn't really translate that well to one heck of a n-body problem, where those bodies are also widely dispersed; I guess it would be already pointed out in "future of the Universe" lists, if it were the case.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    19. Re:Black Galaxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, the problem here is that where he's saying "by my calculations", you're saying "I bet". That's a pretty sure indicator that maybe you should look a little more closely at the material before making a smug post declaring the superiority of your own knowledge.

      Even if you hadn't got the wrong end of the stick entirely.

    20. Re:Black Galaxy? by F�an�ro · · Score: 1

      The process should be slower if the masses are farther apart, but I do not know anything that could prevent it. Having more masses should speed the process up.

      The smaller black holes might evaporate before they actually collide, but cosmic background radiation probably more than makes up for any loss due to hawking radiation. Of course, with the expansion of the universe, the background temperature lowers, so they might evaporate after all.

      Still, in the end two gravitational bound black holes should either merge, or disappear due to evaporation.

  5. What does the natural world say of this?! by irreverant · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah! Survival of the fittest, bitches!

    --
    Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most. - Mark Twain
  6. I, for once... by vagabond_gr · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... well, you know what

  7. Am I the only one by hey! · · Score: 1

    who's first reaction was to wonder what it might be like to live there, in the cannibal galaxy's nucleus?

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Am I the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, but you are the first one here to misspell "whose". Well done.

    2. Re:Am I the only one by palegray.net · · Score: 2, Funny

      That sounds like a pretty bright idea!

      --
      512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
    3. Re:Am I the only one by negRo_slim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      who's first reaction was to wonder what it might be like to live there, in the cannibal galaxy's nucleus?

      I thought the very same thing when I was watching Into The Universe With Stephen Hawking, I think the episode was entitled A Brief History Of Everything and at one point they play a computer simulation of galaxies merging and eventually they throw a lot of galaxies together before that piece ends.

      Might be worth looking up as it was incredibly beautiful.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    4. Re:Am I the only one by boxwood · · Score: 1

      well those simulatoins take place over millions of years. and although it looks like a galaxy eating another would be catastrophic fo any people living there, it really wouldn't. Most of space is... empty space. We focus on the stars and planets because they interesting, but there is a lot more space than stars and planets.

      So there may be a few collisions of stars and planets when a galaxy eats another galaxy, but it wouldn't happen as often as you think. And since the process of a galaxy eating another galaxy takes so long, the only people living in either galaxy that might notice going on would be astronomers.

  8. Eating ? by unity100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you actually mean 'merging' with them. galaxies do not consume stellar material to burn. stellar material just merges.

    --
    Read radical news here
    1. Re:Eating ? by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 1

      you actually mean 'merging' with them. galaxies do not consume stellar material to burn. stellar material just merges.

      ...Unless the core black hole starts sucking down the new mass from the merger. Then it sounds like eating to me.

    2. Re:Eating ? by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you actually mean 'merging' with them. galaxies do not consume stellar material to burn. stellar material just merges.

      I don't consume Cheetos and Mountain Dew, I merge with them. I don't burn most of them, they simply merge into a nearly circular ring around my midsection.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Eating ? by tyrione · · Score: 1

      you actually mean 'merging' with them. galaxies do not consume stellar material to burn. stellar material just merges.

      The story submitter has watched too many movies.

    4. Re:Eating ? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      you actually mean 'merging' with them. galaxies do not consume stellar material to burn. stellar material just merges.

      I don't consume Cheetos and Mountain Dew, I merge with them. I don't burn most of them, they simply merge into a nearly circular ring around my midsection.

      You know you're in *real* trouble when you genuinely can't lose weight because you got so fat in the first place that your gravitational field has become self-sustaining.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    5. Re:Eating ? by spun · · Score: 1

      you actually mean 'merging' with them. galaxies do not consume stellar material to burn. stellar material just merges.

      I don't consume Cheetos and Mountain Dew, I merge with them. I don't burn most of them, they simply merge into a nearly circular ring around my midsection.

      You know you're in *real* trouble when you genuinely can't lose weight because you got so fat in the first place that your gravitational field has become self-sustaining.

      But on the plus side, you get to have some very pretty moons.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:Eating ? by El_Oscuro · · Score: 4, Funny

      You do realize that there is no actual food in Cheetos nor Mountain Dew, so your only option is to merge with them. If you actually tried to consume them, your small intestine would leap out and throttle your brain in an desperate attempt to save humanity.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    7. Re:Eating ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

      if it was as such, galaxy wouldnt grow in size.

      --
      Read radical news here
    8. Re:Eating ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But on the plus side, you get to have some very pretty moons.

      I've seen a fat bloke's arse. It is not a "pretty moon".

    9. Re:Eating ? by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 1

      if it was as such, galaxy wouldnt grow in size.

      Yes it would, unless the consumption was 100%. And regardless, the galaxy would grow in mass. The article said this was the most massive galaxy.

    10. Re:Eating ? by spun · · Score: 1

      I set you up with a straight line like that, and this is the punch line you come up with? Damn it, why do I even try?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  9. Oh my... by Gri3v3r · · Score: 1

    It is big.

  10. Milky Way not much "worse"/"better" by sznupi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ("worse"/"better" - is an act of eating galaxies ammoral? ;) )

    Our galaxy is a cannibal, too...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgo_Stellar_Stream
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoceros_Ring
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_galaxies
    (and those links are just a starting point; BTW, BOINC project Milkyway@home models this)

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  11. I am sure that is where God lives... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...where else should God live than in the biggest and most glorious of all galaxies.

    1. Re:I am sure that is where God lives... by Conception · · Score: 1

      What does God need with a Starshi...err... Galaxy?

    2. Re:I am sure that is where God lives... by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 1

      Under a rock?

      --
      -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
  12. Up goes the premium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just wait until the insurance companies hear about this.

  13. Time to update the joke by zill · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your mom is so fat...

    1. Re:Time to update the joke by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

      It is...the most em-biggened galaxy in the universe.

      I don't always cannibalize other galaxies, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis.

      Stay hungry my friends.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    2. Re:Time to update the joke by masmullin · · Score: 1

      Your momma so fat that she eats cannibal galaxies!

      oh yeah? Well Your momma so fat that she shits from a black hole!

      Oh yeah? Well your momma so fat that she bends space and time! The big bang was a case of your momma's diarrhea the day after she consumes everything in the universe!

    3. Re:Time to update the joke by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah well, and yo momma is so drunk, that the stench of cheap booze is only drowned by the vomit in her beard. :P

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  14. It's not that bad by CorporateSuit · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not as big as it sounds. Milky Ways only have like 9 grams of fat. So this thing is like... 180 grams of fat. We'll live.

    --
    I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    1. Re:It's not that bad by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      It's not as big as it sounds. Milky Ways only have like 9 grams of fat. So this thing is like... 180 grams of fat. We'll live.

      Sure, in a diabetic coma, that's about 10 ounces (280 grams) of sugar. I'd go with the Outback Steakhouse Aussie Cheese Fries with Ranch Dressing... but Chili's Awesome Blossom has more fat... the good stuff always does...

      A little closer to topic, to be a cannibal doesn't this thing have to eat OTHER giant "galaxy eating" galaxies? Also, looking at the photo the galaxy in question may be large, but you have to admit it's positively glowing...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    2. Re:It's not that bad by EdIII · · Score: 1

      but Chili's Awesome Blossom had more fat...

      The Chili's Awesome Blossom was retired. Replaced by the Jalapeno onion what the fuck ever. Yes... I am still bitter about it.

    3. Re:It's not that bad by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      The Bastards!
      2,710 calories
      203 g fat
      194 g carbs
      6,360 mg sodium

      The sodium would harden your arteries, getting them ready
      for the Roto-Router needed to remove the cholesterol.
      It was truly a thing of greasy beauty...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    4. Re:It's not that bad by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      the Outback Steakhouse Aussie Cheese Fries with Ranch Dressing..

      ... fuck me, do you guys really think we Aussies eat something like that? Yikes...

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    5. Re:It's not that bad by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Well, it would seem OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC, of Tampa, Florida does...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    6. Re:It's not that bad by drkim · · Score: 1

      ... you have to admit it's positively glowing...

      That glow could be gravitational 'lensing' of objects behind it. It probably has such a huge gravitational field that it's warping the space around it.

    7. Re:It's not that bad by pnaro · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more!

      --
      If we can't fix it, we'll fix it so nobody else can!
    8. Re:It's not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not that we think you eat something like that, it's that we don't care enough to learn about what you actually DO eat.

      Go America!

  15. And in the opposite corner... by xactuary · · Score: 0

    The neutrino! Massless and fast. Folks, this should be quite a match.

    --
    Say hello to my little sig.
    1. Re:And in the opposite corner... by spun · · Score: 2, Informative

      The neutrino! Massless and fast. Folks, this should be quite a match.

      Neutrinos have mass.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:And in the opposite corner... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neutrinons have mass?
      I didn't even know that they were christian.

  16. Should be named Galactus by questionsaddict · · Score: 1
    Galactus is way cooler ^.^

    we shouldn't worry, Galactus is fair and gives earth a chance..

    umm.. on second thought.. i think we should be worried :|

    1. Re:Should be named Galactus by Ainu · · Score: 1

      Keep an eye out for the Silver Surfer

  17. Oh come on... by otis+wildflower · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... It's just BIG BONED!

  18. Change one letter... by nebenfun · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh yeah! Survival of the fittest, bitches!

    Wouldn't that be survival of the fattest?

    1. Re:Change one letter... by irreverant · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Here fixed it for ya.... and me. Oh yeah! Survival of the fattest, bitches!

      --
      Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most. - Mark Twain
  19. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new galactic devourers.

  20. We are the borg galaxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The galaxy, called ESO 146-IG 005, sits at the center of a dense cluster of other (but much more lightweight) galaxies, and grew to its present size by eating the galaxies around it."

    I am ESO 146-IG 005 of Borg. Lower your solar system defenses and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your galaxy will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

  21. Redmond called it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Microsoft Galaxy

  22. As Obi-Wan should say by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    That's no moon

  23. Where's the CowboyNeal option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Oh wait. This isn't a poll. Never mind.

  24. How do they know? by esrobinson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Astronomers are having difficulty pinning down the galaxy's exact mass, but it's clearly the biggest bruiser within 1.5 billion light years of home

    I mean, it's the largest galaxy they've seen at this point. But, if a galaxy of that size can go undiscovered for this long, how do they know there's not another one within 1.5 billion light years that's larger? Did they look at all of it, and just leave this little section for last?

    Or is the summary just fabricating things that aren't in the article?

  25. Won't eat us any time soon. by capo_dei_capi · · Score: 0

    Guess as long as it's more than 1B light years away, there's not much risk of us getting eaten with some fava beans and a nice glass of chianti.

    1. Re:Won't eat us any time soon. by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Come closer, Agent Starling.

      --

      One more pizza, I dare you.

  26. Expanding? Runaway? Collapsing? by mindbrane · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Much like the initial debate over the existence of black holes there seems to be lots of wiggle room when it comes to declaring whether the Universe is in a runaway state, whether it's just expanding, or, whether it will collapse. This Standford Uni link gives a quick overview and suggests in ~15bn years it'll collapse to the size of a proton. The Yale Astrophysics Course, IIRC, is strongly steeped in black hole theory and so speaks to the same issues.

    --
    ideopath @ play
  27. do you hear the maddening beating of vile drums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    omg! they found azathoth!!!!

    Outside the ordered universe [is] that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azathoth

  28. One of my favorite jokes by sootman · · Score: 1

    Two cannibals are eating a clown. One cannibal turns to the other and asks "Does this taste funny to you?"

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  29. That would be 1.5 billion light years.... by 3seas · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...ago

    It should be noted that this is not it's current size or state but its size and state about 1.5 billion years ago.

    1. Re:That would be 1.5 billion light years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment is fun once in a while, but if you think about it, replacing "x light-years away" with "x light-years away and x years ago" everywhere in astronomy articles and textbooks would be painful. Better to just assume it as a given.

    2. Re:That would be 1.5 billion light years.... by pclminion · · Score: 2, Informative

      True, but technically uninteresting. If you are standing 100 meters away from me, then technically I never actually see "you," I see "you, 333 nanoseconds ago."

      In order for there to be a past, there has to be a "then" and a "now," and these are relative to your frame of reference. Yes, it's 1.5 billion years in the "past," but it's unimportant because there's no possibility of ever "catching up" to it. What we see right now, for all useful purposes, could be said to be happening "now."

      Ah geez, let's just go take a few shots.

    3. Re:That would be 1.5 billion light years.... by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong.

      In our light cone this is how the galaxy appears now. There is no concept of "now" outside our light cone, as much as intuitive Newtonian physics would like that to be true.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    4. Re:That would be 1.5 billion light years.... by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      This doesn't make any sense to me. Clearly the galaxy emitted that light, there's a very high probability that it still exists in some shape or form, and given enough computing muscle we could probably model what it would look like outside of our light cone, in its current stage of matter/energy metamorphosis. The information might not be of any use to us, but it does exist.

      --
      What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
    5. Re:That would be 1.5 billion light years.... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I know that it doesn't make sense to our minds which are used to Newtonian physics. I'll try to explain a bit, but you might want to read "A Brief History of Time" or some other layman's introduction.

      You are right that the light emitted from the galaxy that we are seeing left that galaxy 1.5 billion years ago. You are right that time has passed for that galaxy since then (though it is not necessarily 1.5 billion years that have passed for it). However, where you are wrong is in your understanding of the terms "now", "past", and "future" in regard to objects significantly distant from us.

      Information cannot travel faster than light. The events that can affect us at any given moment are organized by their distance from us divided by the speed of light: those within this "cone" can have had an affect on us (they are in our past), and those outside cannot (they are in our future). Those right on the cone are was we experience at this moment, and what we call "now". At the light from the galaxy is just now reaching us in this state, that is the state of the galaxy "now".

      In other words, as we cannot possibly know what will happen (note that is _not_ past tense, though in Newtonian physics that would have been "has happened") to the galaxy after the events that we are seeing, those events are in the future for us.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    6. Re:That would be 1.5 billion light years.... by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      In other words, as we cannot possibly know what will happen (note that is _not_ past tense, though in Newtonian physics that would have been "has happened") to the galaxy after the events that we are seeing, those events are in the future for us.

      I think I get this, in that we can't access or otherwise change the galaxy we are observing, or have any influence on it, so it may as well not exist.

      However wouldn't the state of its current existence outside of our lightcone be important if we were to say, mount a hypothetical expedition to a particular part of it at 99.99999% c, and hence would have to model where it is at the moment and where it will be when the expedition reaches it? So while not directly important it might be of indirect importance and thus impinge on our reality?

      --
      What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
    7. Re:That would be 1.5 billion light years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, he's just redefining the word "now" to be right on the light cone. This is obviously a bad idea since computing the speed of light with this weird definition of time doesn't give a constant anymore. Real physicists use Earth's reference frame, not Earth-receive-time. In Earth's reference frame, the speed of light is constant and reality is pretty close to intuitive Newtonian physics.

    8. Re:That would be 1.5 billion light years.... by 3seas · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, see: Hunting the edge of space and note its time reference.

      This is important considering the value of looking so far back in time.

    9. Re:That would be 1.5 billion light years.... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Real physicists use Earth's reference frame, not Earth-receive-time.

      Care to explain how they differ? If I was inaccurate then I'd love to know where.

      In Earth's reference frame, the speed of light is constant

      Yes.

      and reality is pretty close to intuitive Newtonian physics.

      Really? Not on the scale of galaxies, it is not.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    10. Re:That would be 1.5 billion light years.... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      However wouldn't the state of its current existence outside of our lightcone be important if we were to say, mount a hypothetical expedition to a particular part of it at 99.99999% c, and hence would have to model where it is at the moment and where it will be when the expedition reaches it? So while not directly important it might be of indirect importance and thus impinge on our reality?

      That's the other side of the lightcone, the events that _we_ can influence. See this picture:
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/World_line.svg

      What can influence us is the lower cone, what we can influence is the upper cone.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  30. Obligatory. by Arancaytar · · Score: 2, Funny

    it's clearly the biggest bruiser within 1.5 billion light years of home

    Or it would be if it weren't for your mother.

  31. It's at the end of this video, actually by WebManWalking · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PDzB6S9EN8&fmt=18

  32. Call the Fantastic Four -- Galactus is coming! by MagikSlinger · · Score: 1

    Sorry, couldn't resist. :-P

    --
    The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
  33. Actually YOU are wrong by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

    Actually you're wrong. His assumption of size was based on a question, paraphrased as follows: "Could there be a black hole with an event horizon as large as a galaxy." He chose a number based on the size of an average galaxy as we know it. Theoretically it's possible and he did the math to figure out what the mass would need to be.

    Think before you type ;)

  34. Old news by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 5, Funny

    This happened, like what, a billion and a half years ago?

    1. Re:Old news by Samah · · Score: 1

      This happened, like what, a billion and a half years ago?

      So, a fairly recent news article in Slashdot time?

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    2. Re:Old news by drkim · · Score: 1

      This happened, like what, a billion and a half years ago?

      ...and it's just now getting posted on /.

  35. Can Galaxies pass through each other? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    Galaxies are mostly empty space, right? (Well, ok, there's a lot of dust and rarified gas between star systems, I guess, and maybe lots of small stuff?) Could two Galaxies 'pass through' each other, and then keep on going, instead of merging? I mean, they would appear to be merged for a long long time, even if they could pass through, simply because it would take billions of years for them to pass through each other, right?

    Or is gravity strong enough that if they begin to pass through each other, they will always become permanently entangled?

    1. Re:Can Galaxies pass through each other? by unity100 · · Score: 1

      yes they can pass through each other. also, if their gravity centers merge, they would have probably merged too.

      --
      Read radical news here
  36. A new home by calebcarterr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    When are we going to migrate to this galaxy.. http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/force-factor-reviews-do-force-factor-supplements-work-2369634.html

  37. OMG!!! by dogganos · · Score: 1

    eating the galaxies around it????????????????

    Ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun!

  38. Compared to the mass of the sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love Phil Plait, but why compare the mass of a huge galaxy to that of our closest average-sized star?

    "The earth is 591 kabillion more massive than an aphid! That's amazing!"

    Bonus: the attribution link is a malformed email address.

  39. CONTACT - Carl Sagan by VShael · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember that the aliens in Contact were gathering together large masses to fold local space as a way of staving off the increasing expansion of the universe? Sort of creating a future local pocket of resources for when everything else gets too far away? "It's good work."

    Or am I misremembering again?

  40. Interesting, but by RichiH · · Score: 1

    The news about this galaxy is interesting. Really, it is.

    But isn't "cannibal galaxy the biggest" a perfect example of a tautology? Basic gravity and a few billion years make this obvious.

  41. What's Unrelated? by MediaCastleX · · Score: 1

    All this leads *ME* to ask, if the current storyline of "Dr. Who" wouldn't actually become a reality? I wonder about stories, sometimes, that they actually might have happened at some point in the multi-verse...What?! You don't think this story sounds ridiculous? It may be true, but still sounds a bit fantastical! Leave me alone, I have a right to my thoughts. XP