Slashdot Mirror


Astronomers No Longer Need To Avoid the "Zone of Avoidance"

An anonymous reader writes: If you want to look out into the Universe, all you need to do is gather the light it gives off. Unless, of course, there's something in the way. For about 20% of the sky, that's exactly the story. In our own Milky Way galaxy, the neutral gas and dust block most of the visible light everywhere we look, preventing us from observing the Universe beyond. However, although the gas and dust might block visible light, longer wavelengths like radio and infrared can pass right through. Recently NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) mission mapped the entire sky in the infrared, including the entire galactic plane. It not only found many background galaxies, but it gave us a new window into what's possible. Perhaps, with future missions, we'll discover the cause of the "great attractor" phenomenon after all.

75 comments

  1. Anonymous submitter, yet... by frooddude · · Score: 2

    Still a Forbes StartsWithABang link.

    Is this the only place /. can get it's astronomy?

    1. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by netsavior · · Score: 3, Informative

      now that Forbes blocks Adblockers from proceeding past the stupid splash screen I no longer bother with them, It's nice really that their attempt to protect their advertising revenue has now protected me from their dumb website.

    2. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously they have some sort of revenue sharing agreement.

      Can you not tell that there is no news here, there is no new discovery in astronomy to talk about, and that this just dumb clickbait?

      Unless you think the idea that we can make observations in wavelengths other than visible light is a remarkable one, in tyool 2016.

    3. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did you get that extra apostrophe? Can you return it? it's means it is.

    4. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ad-blocking aside any company that pushed that much importance on ads, then gives such little respect to the quality of the ads, is garbage and we shouldn't be linking to them.. http://www.extremetech.com/internet/220696-forbes-forces-readers-to-turn-off-ad-blockers-promptly-serves-malware

    5. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by pla · · Score: 1

      Why do people hate SwaB links? They usually have pretty good science content written in a way that most people can readily understand.

      No, not exactly an academic journal, and yeah, fuck Forbes, but I don't think it realistic to expect Slashdot (or any mostly ad supported site) to blacklist another site just because they use an anti-adblocker.

      So, other than the standard "we just love to bitch", why all the hate?

    6. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      Ditto.

      I'll go else where to read _real_ Astronomy news, not some ShillWithABang.

    7. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Because the Forbes site has been shown to serve malware in the ads that they serve, and they require you to disable adblockers, which means you will get malware if you visit their site and turn off your adblockers.

    8. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by whipslash · · Score: 5, Informative

      Link is updated to non Forbes

    9. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1
      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    10. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by g01d4 · · Score: 1

      Why do people hate SwaB links?

      His self-promoting posts are deceptively dressed up as news when they're not. The real question is how to they make it to the main page?

    11. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      No, not exactly an academic journal, and yeah, fuck Forbes, but I don't think it realistic to expect Slashdot (or any mostly ad supported site) to blacklist another site just because they use an anti-adblocker.

      So, other than the standard "we just love to bitch", why all the hate?

      Well, we can't RTFA while using an adblocker. And we should be able to RTFA, otherwise this is just clickbait and get to read someone's already formed opinion.

      Or stop using an adblocker, which is a condom for my computer. Ind if I have to allow that bandwidth hogging, malware serving sewage on my computer, I'll stop using the internet.

      And that, Charlie Brown, is the real reason for all the hate. The internet is broken. We're trying to help fix it. That television in the living room - I'm not required to be restrained and wired up like Robot Chicken, forced to watch everything on it. If I have to watch the 5th catheter or mesothelioma ad in the last hour, I can leave the room and grab a beer, pee, or whatever else. The advertiser's plan is to make the advertisements the actual product of the internet, and make the content some sort of wasted space they would love to squeeze a few more ads into. No thank you.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    12. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, that can't explain it. The annoyance with StartsWithABang started far before that happened. People gave him a lot of grief when he was simply linking to his own blog.

      I'll admit I tend to dislike seeing a member that does NOTHING but post submissions to the site, never even engaging in the discussion that follows. To me, that smacks of "I'm trying to get my visitor count up, but I don't give a shit about what the members have to say." Maybe others don't agree, but I probably wouldn't mind if an author regularly engaged with the community after posting summaries and links to their own articles, so long as they were interesting and relevant to this demographic. If you check out StartsWithABang's history, it was almost 100% submissions. He never appeared interested in discussing the articles he wrote, so it's not hard to understand why he didn't exactly endear himself to the community.

      Contrast that to our new overlords, who have shown to be actually willing to talk to people here, and importantly, to listen to what they have to say in return. That's the essence of slashdot. The news and articles are just a way to get the discussions rolling.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    13. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      now that Forbes blocks Adblockers from proceeding past the stupid splash screen I no longer bother with them, It's nice really that their attempt to protect their advertising revenue has now protected me from their dumb website.

      It's a win-win situation. You get used to not reading their crappy site and they don't have to waste bandwidth on you.
      I love solutions where everybody benefits.

    14. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I liked startswithabang medium.com articles -- but can't stand forbes links. Granted lots of people hated his pre-forbes submissions but not all of us.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    15. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I actually liked some of his articles, as they seems reasonably approachable for lay-persons like myself who are mildly interested in astronomy. A lot of people complained about medium.com, but I never quite understood what the beef was there. As I stated, my issue is with people that post articles and never follow up with any discussion, and he's sort of a poster-child for that. But on the "don't care" to "flaming tirade" scale of concerns, it's still pretty low.

      I mean, he's certainly no Bennett Haselton, using Slashdot as his personal lunatic rant blog (and moderators going along with it for so long for whatever reason - I suspected we were being trolled). And thank goodness we can now actually mention the words "ad-blocker" or "hosts file" without being subjected to an APK attack.

      Speaking of Forbes and ad-blockers, I just checked out Forbes.com, and it appears they're not blocking the site's content even though I'm using an ad-blocker (ublock-origin). Did they get enough backlash that they've done a reversal here? Sorry... drifting way off topic here, but I'm curious if anyone else has heard anything. When I search, I only get links to the original story of their ads serving up malware.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    16. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by sootman · · Score: 3

      Loving the real-time improvements!!!!!11 :D :D :D

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    17. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by nullchar · · Score: 1

      I agree, I didn't mind the Medium.com articles - yes, they pushed the envelope of current browsers with fancy CSS transitions and large bandwidth images - but the articles were informative and pretty.

      I also agree that submitters should engage in the discussion, but to be fair, Medium.com had it's own discussion. Of course /. is a much better forum, but it didn't bother me that much. It seems no different to me if some random AC had posted the links to StartsWithABang articles.

      Even with Bennett's articles, it wasn't that hard to skim the summary/submitter and ignore the thread. I don't understand the angst here against certain submissions that do provide discussion relevant to the article, and I've been reading since before the Jon Katz days. Obviously paid shills should be called out, but in this case the article content wasn't selling anything. (Maybe it was "selling views" but one does not have to RTFA.)

    18. Re:Anonymous submitter, yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your effort is admirable, keep it up!

    19. Re: Anonymous submitter, yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earlier on, a lot of his articles had a lot of annoying science mistakes and omissions. It is understandable that popsci articles have to be narrow and skip over things to get their point across concisely, but it seemed like the articles spent a lot of extra time on things resulting in not being concise, but still being awfully superficial given the amount of words expended. You could see comments of people who misunderstood things in predictable ways, and this seemed worse for an author that should have known better as opposed to some journalist that might be struggle to explain something they don't fully understand themselves. Articles did start to get better, but by then the almost spammy nature and previous problems had created a reputation problem, and the issues with Forbes got in the way of second chances.

  2. An Aside by whipslash · · Score: 4, Funny

    Videos on Slashdot are gone.

    1. Re:An Aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone suggested the other day, how about a forum / news thread for Slashdot internal stuff to announce things like this?

      It's nice to see someone from the owning group actively involved, talking to people on here, answering questions, etc. A nice change of pace.

      And of course... thank you for disposing of apk. The world is a better place.

    2. Re:An Aside by whipslash · · Score: 1

      Yeah we will post it in the blog section. It's just not very conspicuous at the moment

    3. Re:An Aside by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Great. Next step: ban Ethan Siegel submissions that point to a known website that serves ads with malware in them.

    4. Re:An Aside by jlp2097 · · Score: 2

      Great news indeed!

      Signed,
      a lot of old farts who still keep and kept reading (despite the DICE stuff)

    5. Re:An Aside by imidan · · Score: 1

      I have little sense of what the true popularity of the video posts was. From the comments sections, they seem like they were pretty universally reviled. It's great when you can make a simple change to the site that involves doing less work and spending less money while eliminating a feature that everyone hated anyway.

    6. Re:An Aside by whipslash · · Score: 1

      I agree.

    7. Re:An Aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sincere thanks for listening to your public, whiplash. Slashdot is still a relevant site. Keep on the good work. All the best.

    8. Re:An Aside by sootman · · Score: 2

      whipslash/CowboyNeal in 2016! Seriously, this is awesome.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    9. Re:An Aside by whipslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'll upvote that. Glad people are happy with the removal of videos. Big (overdue) things to come soon: https, unicode support

    10. Re:An Aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http2, with long (month+) max-age for static and quasi-static content; h2c if you're feeling especially caching proxy friendly to the tiny handful of users that will take advantage of http2 upgrading.

      Keep up the good work!

    11. Re:An Aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm rather liking this new regime. I think I've got my password backed up somewhere from a while back - should probably start posting non-AC again.

    12. Re:An Aside by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      You seriously got me to dust off an account started in ~2001 that that hadn't bothered to log in for 3 years. I gave up on slashdot for a long time. I'm cautiously optimistic that you might be able to right this ship.

      Thanks for what you've done so far. It really goes a long way to reassuring us that someone actually cares after 7+ years of neglect.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    13. Re:An Aside by whipslash · · Score: 1

      That's amazing. Thank you. Might want to change your signature too? hehe

    14. Re:An Aside by whipslash · · Score: 1

      Appreciate the support

    15. Re:An Aside by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And you start by foe-ing people. Sounds like you're off to a good start lol

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. update for those watching tonight. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Funny

    its bears remembering that while the zone of avoidance may be removed from concern, other zones are still legitimately relevant to the night sky. among them:
    the zone of unease: rather quite uncomfortable. best not even to mention it.
    the zone of overbearing parenting: we just think it would be better for you to not spend to much time in it. ok? have we made ourselves clear?
    Autozone: not terrible unless youre after something important and in which case youll spend a very long time indeed searching until you either run out of patience or buy new wiper blades.
    the zone: actually a mis-calibration. some orion telescopes will erroneously track to this small strip club in hollywood, california. this setting however can observe most partial solar eclipses visible as well from Germany's Neumayer Station, so, not a total loss...

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:update for those watching tonight. by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

      And those are only the well-known ones. There is also:

      the dead zone: astronomers have actually burned out that section.
      the forbidden zone: stars and other astronomical objects younger than 18my, wearing no (or only see-thru) nebulae.
      the twilight zone: mostly emo teenagers, it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge.
      the war zone: another race fighting a desperate war against a remorseless foe!

    2. Re:update for those watching tonight. by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      What, no Danger Zone ?

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    3. Re:update for those watching tonight. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      the forbidden zone:

      The queen said she was going to ream us with twenty-inch cattle prods, and I'm still waiting!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. You're allowed in the Zone of Avoidance. by Convector · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's just a name. Like the "Death Zone" or the "Zone of No Return". All the zones have names like that in the Galaxy of Terror.

    1. Re:You're allowed in the Zone of Avoidance. by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

      Man I'm really zoning out...you must be from AriZONa.

  5. Forbes again by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    Stop with the Forbes links already, this site is horrible.

    1. Re:Forbes again by whipslash · · Score: 3

      Sorry about that. Updated the link to a non paywall source

    2. Re:Forbes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really refreshing to see the complaints actually addressed, and promptly. I've been impressed since the takeover. Keep it up.

  6. Ethan Siegel -- WARNING by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Ethan Siegel submitted this article. It goes to Forbes, which is known to serve malware in their advertisements. You have been warned. Slashdot needs to ban Ethan from submitting his spam articles that point to a malware-ridden site.

    1. Re:Ethan Siegel -- WARNING by whipslash · · Score: 1

      Source link updated to non Forbes

    2. Re:Ethan Siegel -- WARNING by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Oh great. Now what am I going to complain about?

    3. Re: Ethan Siegel -- WARNING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe your psychotic dick rant like yesterday?

    4. Re:Ethan Siegel -- WARNING by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Oh great. Now what am I going to complain about?

      They only gave us a 30 min window :)

      Non-forbes/Nathan link replaced fairly quickly

  7. To the editors... by NormalVisual · · Score: 0

    Forbes has chosen to speed their journey into irrelevance with their policies. Don't force Slashdot to follow them down that hole by becoming dependent upon their content.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    1. Re:To the editors... by whipslash · · Score: 1

      Source link updated

    2. Re:To the editors... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Glad to see it!

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    3. Re:To the editors... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Forbes has chosen to speed their journey into irrelevance with their policies. Don't force Slashdot to follow them down that hole by becoming dependent upon their content.

      I would make a sincere request that the editors stop accepting any articles from Forbes, period.

      https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

      http://www.extremetech.com/int...

      http://www.networkworld.com/ar...

      http://www.networkworld.com/ar...

      One of these sweet bits of kit was the angler exploit kit.

      http://researchcenter.paloalto...

      Just imagine, 90,000 plus websites out there, just waiting for me to disable my adblocker in order to get some of their yummy ransomware.

      Anyhow, take this in the spirit it's given, in case the editors didn't know what Forbes stands for these days. Forced malware.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  8. Time will tell by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Videos on Slashdot are gone.

    It's a start.

    I imagine it on a 1000 point scale.

    A score of 1000 is perfection, Slashdot gets 5.5 million viewers per month, it's one of the top rated sites on the net, we lead by example and the rest of the world comes here for intelligent insightful analysis (as we were in 2006).

    A score of 0 is rock bottom, Slashdot gets 1800 viewers per month, no one cares about us any more, a handful of stalwart holdouts remain from the glory days (as we are today).

    Clearly, some past decisions have hurt the site and undoing those will bring up our score, but no individual change is worth all that much. A complex tapestry of decisions need to be undone before the new system shines through the noise of statistical variance.

    You're on the right path, it was the right decision, I wish you the best of luck and all that.

    But you've got a loooong way to go, and each decision you make could add or deduct points.

    Time will tell.

    1. Re:Time will tell by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That 1800 isn't per month, it's a global ranking. It's still bad, but it's not as bad.

    2. Re:Time will tell by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Low Alexa score isn't rock bottom, it means Slashdot readers are educated enough not to install spyware.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  9. Except the center of the Milky Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there a super massive black hole in the middle of the Milky way? I don't think infrared can pass through it.

    1. Re:Except the center of the Milky Way by amRadioHed · · Score: 2

      Infrared can't pass through stars or planets either, and those are far more numerous than black holes. But they are also all still small enough they don't matter that much. The real problem was the dust and gas blocking huge areas and that is what recent surveys have been able to improve on.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:Except the center of the Milky Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Jill, we traced the dark matter - it's coming from inside the galaxy!"

  10. Two Notes by BlackGriffen · · Score: 1

    First, while WISE is an improvement in the whole "zone of avoidance" phenomenon, it's not perfect. It's resolution was rather low, so even though it could peer through the dust, the glare of foreground stars in the Milky Way still hid a significant fraction of the sky.

    Second, there's a proposed solution to the "great attractor" already. It's the galaxy super cluster named Laniakea.

  11. Non-Forbes, Ethan links by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 3, Informative

    The source
    NASA Releases New WISE Mission Catalog of Entire Infrared Sky
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...
    WISE Home Page
    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/wise/n...

  12. A stupid headline also likely from Forbes by qubezz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Astronomers no longer need to avoid...? Really? I'll just point my telescope there and see all the new galaxies now.

    If you don't want three levels of dumbing-down, here is the actual study, PDF:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp22...

    The Parkes HI Zone of Avoidance Survey

    Abstract: A blind HI survey of the extragalactic sky behind the southern Milky Way has been conducted with the multibeam receiver on the 64-m Parkes radio telescope. The survey covers the Galactic longitude range 212 degrees to 36 degrees and Galactic latitudes |b| less than 5 degrees to an rms sensitivity of 6 mJy per beam per 27 kmsâ'1 channel, and yields 883 galaxies to a recessional velocity of 12,000 kmsâ'1. The survey covers the sky within the HI Parkes All-Sky Survey (HIPASS) area to greater sensitivity, finding lower HI-mass galaxies at all distances, and probing more completely the large-scale structures at and beyond the distance of the Great Attractor. Fifty-one percent of the HI detections have an optical/near-infrared (NIR) counterpart in the literature. A further 27% have new counterparts found in existing, or newly obtained, optical/NIR 1 images. The counterpart rate drops in regions of high foreground stellar crowding and extinction, and for low-HI mass objects. Only 8% of all counterparts have a previous optical redshift measurement. The HI sources are found independently of Galactic extinction, although the detection rate drops in regions of high Galactic continuum. The survey is incomplete below a flux integral of approximately 3.1 Jy kmsâ'1 and mean flux density of approximately 21 mJy, with 75% and 81% of galaxies being above these limits, respectively. Taking into account dependence on both flux and velocity width, and constructing a scaled dependence on the flux integral limit with velocity width (w0.74), completeness limits of 2.8 Jy kmsâ'1 and 17 mJy are determined, with 92% of sources above these limits. A notable new galaxy is HIZOA J1353â'58, a possible companion to the Circinus galaxy. Merging this catalog with the similarly-conducted northern extension (Donley et al. 2005), large-scale structures are delineated, including those within the Puppis and Great Attractor regions, and the Local Void. Several newly-identified structures are revealed here for the first time. Three new galaxy concentrations (NW1, NW2 and NW3) are key in confirming the diagonal crossing of the Great Attractor Wall between the Norma cluster and the CIZA J1324.7-5736 cluster. Further contributors to the general mass overdensity in that area are two new clusters (CW1 and CW2) in the nearer Centaurus Wall, one of which forms part of the striking 180â--¦ (100hâ'1Mpc) long filament that dominates the southern sky at velocities of â¼ 3000 kmsâ'1, and the suggestion of a further Wall at the Great Attractor distance at slightly higher longitudes.

  13. Spoiler Alert by NotDrWho · · Score: 0

    Perhaps, with future missions, we'll discover the cause of the "great attractor" phenomenon after all.

    It's Jeebus.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  14. Zone of Avoidance is just a name by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 0

    All the zones have names like that in the Galaxy of Terror!

    1. Re:Zone of Avoidance is just a name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turns out we were the Galaxy Of Terror all along!

  15. avoidance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you avoid the zone of avoidance are you actually in the zone of avoidance?

  16. Yep. Sorry... by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    That 1800 isn't per month, it's a global ranking. It's still bad, but it's not as bad.

    Yep, my bad.

    It wasn't on purpose, I'll try to be more thorough in the future.

  17. The cause of the Great Attractor is already known. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's boobs.

  18. EarthSky.org by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

    The link takes me to EarthSky.org so either Slashdot editors changed the link or you are full of shit.

    Occam's Razor says Slashdot editors don't edit so well you can see what's left

    1. Re:EarthSky.org by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      http://science.slashdot.org/co...

      Apparently a new era is upon us.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  19. Re:The cause of the Great Attractor is already kno by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    It's boobs.

    I was thinking a bit south, but I'll reconsider.

  20. This is not competing by prefec2 · · Score: 0

    They do not compete in China, they try to destroy their competitors with dumping prices and extras for the drivers. This is cheating. At least in a free market scenario. This only shows that you cannot compete in efficiency with your competitors otherwise you would not have such big losses. For consumers this means that after the competitors are gone, Uber must rise prices to pay the money back. And then it will become expensive. However, in the end it will not work. The Chinese play usually the same game in other sectors. So they will play it there. Uber is burning money and as the tech stocks dip right now, there will be questions when they will earn their money. In the next recession (which is already looming, approx 1-2 years from now) Uber will have serious trouble.

    1. Re:This is not competing by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Sorry wrong article. That a first. I should get some coffee. Obviously it is too early in the morning for writing comments. Never mind.

  21. Does this involved Barbra Streisand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this "Zone of Avoidance" have something to do with astronomers not being allowed to point their telescopes in the general direction of Barbra Steisand's waterfront property? You know, the property where nobody really knew about until she started complaining about someone taking a photo of her property as part of taking photos of ALL the waterfront property? Yeah, the "Streisand" effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect