Mysterious dance of dwarfs may force a cosmic rethink

Jul 21, 2014 by Verity Leatherdale
This is an artist's impression of the coherent orbit of dwarf galaxies about a large galaxy. Credit: Geraint Lewis

(Phys.org) —The discovery that many small galaxies throughout the universe do not 'swarm' around larger ones like bees do but 'dance' in orderly disc-shaped orbits is a challenge to our understanding of how the universe formed and evolved.

The finding, by an international team of astronomers, including Professor Geraint Lewis from the University of Sydney's School of Physics, is announced today in Nature.

"Early in 2013 we announced our startling discovery that half of the dwarf surrounding the Andromeda Galaxy are orbiting it in an immense plane" said Professor Lewis. "This plane is more than a million light years in diameter, but is very thin, with a width of only 300 000 light years."

The contains billions of galaxies. Some, such as the Milky Way, are immense, containing hundreds of billions of stars. Most galaxies, however, are dwarfs, much smaller and with only a few billion stars.

For decades astronomers have used computer models to predict how these should orbit large galaxies. They had always found that they should be scattered randomly.

"Our Andromeda discovery did not agree with expectations, and we felt compelled to explore if it was true of other galaxies throughout the universe," said Professor Lewis.

Using the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, a remarkable resource of colour images and 3-D maps covering more than a third of the sky, the researchers dissected the properties of thousands of .

"We were surprised to find that a large proportion of pairs of have oppositely directed velocities if they are situated on opposite sides of their giant galaxy hosts", said lead author Neil Ibata of the Lycée International in Strasbourg, France.

"Everywhere we looked we saw this strangely coherent coordinated motion of dwarf galaxies. From this we can extrapolate that these circular planes of dancing dwarfs are universal, seen in about 50 percent of galaxies," said Professor Geraint Lewis.

"This is a big problem that contradicts our standard cosmological models. It challenges our understanding of how the universe works including the nature of dark matter."

The researchers believe the answer may be hidden in some currently unknown physical process that governs how gas flows in the universe, although, as yet, there is no obvious mechanism that can guide dwarf galaxies into narrow planes.

Some experts, however, have made more radical suggestions, including bending and twisting the laws of gravity and motion. "Throwing out seemingly established laws of physics is unpalatable," said Professor Lewis, "but if our observations of nature are pointing us in this direction, we have to keep an open mind. That's what science is all about."

Explore further: Stream of stars in Andromeda satellite galaxy shows cosmic collision

More information: "Velocity anti-correlation of diametrically opposed galaxy satellites in the low-redshift Universe." Neil G. Ibata, et al. Nature (2014) DOI: 10.1038/nature13481. Received 15 March 2014 Accepted 08 May 2014 Published online 20 July 2014

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Big black holes can block new stars

17 hours ago

Massive black holes spewing out radio-frequency-emitting particles at near-light speed can block formation of new stars in aging galaxies, a study has found.

POLARBEAR seeks cosmic answers in microwave polarization

17 hours ago

An international team of physicists has measured a subtle characteristic in the polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation that will allow them to map the large-scale structure of the universe, ...

New radio telescope ready to probe

20 hours ago

Whirring back and forth on a turning turret, the white, 40-foot dish evokes the aura of movies such as "Golden Eye" or "Contact," but the University of Arizona team of scientists and engineers that commissioned ...

Exomoons Could Be Abundant Sources Of Habitability

Oct 20, 2014

With about 4,000 planet candidates from the Kepler Space Telescope data to analyze so far, astronomers are busy trying to figure out questions about habitability. What size planet could host life? How far ...

Partial solar eclipse over the U.S. on Thursday, Oct. 23

Oct 17, 2014

People in most of the continental United States will be in the shadow of the Moon on Thursday afternoon, Oct. 23, as a partial solar eclipse sweeps across the Earth. For people looking through sun-safe filters, from Los Angeles, ...

User comments : 89

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ViperSRT3g
3.6 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2014
Hm... Perhaps these are the remnants of the tiniest of eddies at the earliest parts of the big bang? As the features grew larger in size, the matter still kept the general motion of rotation and thus galaxies of various sizes sprang up within them.
GuruShabu
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2014
Hopefully, as more evidence piles up the prevailing paradigm has to take into account the EM force and also review its absolutely madness about expansion, inflation, dark matter and energy. Even the big paradigm: Redshift related to distance does not work! Even Hubble said that! We need to stop mathematical fascination and get our feet into the ground of experimental cosmology instead of fancy cosmology.
I know it is not only difficult but painful as many carriers were built up on those wrong ways that are getting us to nowhere but more and more "epicycles".
Anda
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 21, 2014
"but if our observations of nature are pointing us in this direction, we have to keep an open mind. That's what science is all about."

I wish people could think like that before posting!
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2014
"but if our observations of nature are pointing us in this direction, we have to keep an open mind. That's what science is all about."

I wish people could think like that before posting!


And I wish people would think more like Sagan...

"When Kepler found his long-cherished belief did not agree with the most precise observation, he accepted the uncomfortable fact. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions; that is the heart of science." Carl Sagan
Tuxford
1.7 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2014
'Some experts, however, have made more radical suggestions, including bending and twisting the laws of gravity and motion.'

Rethink? Who ever accused astronomers of being able to think? Certainly not me!

These dwarfs are largely spawned from the parent, ejected from the core along a preferred plane, like the clusters. Think, rethink. Do something. Stop with the Huge Bang Fantasy and indulging in merger mania. It is embarrassing.
IMP-9
4.2 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2014
Redshift related to distance does not work! Even Hubble said that!


No, you couldn't be more wrong. Hubble was the one who discovered the redshift distance relation in his famous 1929 paper "A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae". As usual with the EU crowd you don't know what you're talking about.
Arties
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2014
In AWT the dwarf galaxies at the opposite sides of galaxy are gravitationally bound by their Lagrangian points. They contain large amount of dark matter and this matter is attracted to Lagrangian points with negative space-time curvature. Also, each of dwarf galaxy creates a gravitational shield across center of parent galaxy which attracts the dark matter too (the dark matter form a filaments at the connection lines of galaxies across center of galaxies). Note that Allais effect during solar eclipse manifest itself at both sides of Earth globe.
Arties
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2014
These effects can be deduced from LeSage gravitational theory, if we would consider it consequentially. In this ancient model the gravity is formed with shielding of gravitational waves with nearby massive bodies, which creates the relative excess of virtual photons between them (which is known as a gravitational lensing). But when two or more massive objects appear at the single line, the same mechanism leads to opposite effect and relative excess of virtual neutrinos (scalar waves) will manifest itself at the connection line. This excess is what the filaments of cold dark matter is called today. The same geometry affects the density distribution of dark matter (scalar waves) inside and around of galaxies.
Arties
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2014
The dark matter was originally detected with Oort and Zwicky in 1933 by rotational curves of stars at the perimeter of galaxies. The stars do rotate there as a single body. The above finding just means, that the satellite dwarf galaxies are affected with it too. This effect manifest itself at multiple scales - for example the solar plasma revolves the Sun as a single body too at the Sun equator.
Arties
1 / 5 (12) Jul 21, 2014
BTW Holographically dual counterpart of dark matter rotation manifest itself with rotation of proton. Before some time nobody expected that the gluons revolve the proton as a single body in the same way, like the dwarf galaxies revolve the Milky Way.
Rustybolts
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2014
cosmic rethink - happens so often we got a new phrase for it.
GuruShabu
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 21, 2014
Redshift related to distance does not work! Even Hubble said that!


No, you couldn't be more wrong. Hubble was the one who discovered the redshift distance relation in his famous 1929 paper "A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae". As usual with the EU crowd you don't know what you're talking about.


You better read about the subject instead of BELIEVING.
http://ned.ipac.c...2_3.html
There are more. Much more but I am not supposed to teach anyone.
This is a very controversial matter. It's core of the present paradigm, so strong "opinions" are expected.
For your knowledge, there are 5 physical causes for redshift.
If you want I can mention to you.
Otherwise, please be just polite and we can discuss physics not ourselves and our egos.
GuruShabu
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2014
The bots of antialias and/or Uncle Ira has already given me 1 in spite my reference comes from Caltech...
http://ned.ipac.c...2_2.html
I am not discussing.
I am providing a very well acknowledged reference but the bot gives 1...
This is not quite a "scientific" behaviour.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2014
@ Gubu-Skippy. It wasn't me. But I'll be glad to help out if I can.

Done and Done again Skippy.

There is that better Cher?
GuruShabu
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 21, 2014
@ Gubu-Skippy. It wasn't me. But I'll be glad to help out if I can.

Done and Done again Skippy.

There is that better Cher?


Absolutely mr Right!
You are the example I wanted to show here.
Thanks for showing your gentleman face.
Your comments as usual are to the point!
Brilliant!
I couldn't expect anything better.
You have enlightened everyone here.
And, BTW, this is not any apology as you use to say in the middle of a finger pointing to your shallowness and absence of respect and scientific knowledge.
Uncle Ira
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 21, 2014
@ Well Gubu-Skippy that is the nicest thing anybody say to me today. Apology accepted.
Macksb
1 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
The simplest and most direct explanation is Art Winfree's law of coupled oscillators, which he expressed circa 1967. His law is mathematical and applies to any group of periodic oscillators. The picture above shows a two oscillator system. The two dwarf galaxies are both periodic oscillators. Their orbits are the periodic oscillations.

Winfree's law says that a two oscillator system will couple in one of two ways--either synchronously or anti-synchronously. The picture is a textbook example of two periodic oscillators coupled anti-synchronously.

I have 4 years of Physorg posts explaining Winfree's law and showing how it explains numerous "surprising" or "unexpected" phenomena in physics.

barakn
3.3 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2014
FTA:
We were surprised to find that a large proportion of pairs of satellite galaxies have oppositely directed velocities if they are situated on opposite sides of their giant galaxy hosts
Not at all surprising to me. Galaxies moving towards each other are going to collide, stripping the gas from them and scattering the stars to the point that they are not noticeable against the background. The only dwarf galaxies left will the lucky survivors who by chance have coordinate orbits.
Macksb
1 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2014
There's your answer...chance.
wasp171
2 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2014
The Bot does not recognise irony and not even sarcasm...
Perla
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2014
We need to stop mathematical fascination and get our feet into the ground of experimental cosmology instead of fancy cosmology.


I agree with that. Mathematical equations are inadequate to describe nature, Common sense should be used sometimes. It is easy to see that eddies behave like galaxies, or vica versa.
IMP-9
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 22, 2014
You better read about the subject instead of BELIEVING.
http://ned.ipac.c...2_3.html


Which agree's with what I said:"redshift vs. distance correlation"

Hubble did not believe in the big bang, but that was not what you said. His objections no longer apply, his measurements were deeply flawed. This shows a nice issue, the big bang was not the preferred model from day one. It had to climb over tired light.

There are other mechanisms that could produce redshift but none can explain all the data like standard cosmology. How does a tired light theory explain angular size scale tests and baryonic acoustic oscillations? It doesn't. There is a mountain of observations but pet theories do not explain them all.
no fate
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 22, 2014
There are other mechanisms that could produce redshift but none can explain all the data like standard cosmology.


Mumbles compressor boy in a thread below yet another article where standard cosmology fails to explain the observation...well done!

Scroofinator
1 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2014
This action is fundamental in the workings of the universe, where it seems fluid mechanics would be the best way to describe many things we see. From electrons orbiting the nucleus, to planets around a star, to the galaxy around a SMBH, to galaxies around galaxies.

This isn't very surprising to me, as I don't consider Newtonian gravity and GR/SR to be a sacred cow.
George_Rajna
Jul 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2014
The_Accelerating_Universe: https://www.acade...Universe

Gotta give ol' George credit for not givin' up....
Wacko, but not a quitter...
Macksb
1 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2014
Another "surprise" in the last decade or so is that merging galaxies align their spins. Galaxy spins are periodic oscillations. They must also be governed by Winfree's law of coupled oscillators.

Another and more recent example of an "unexpected" phenomenon is described in a July 10 Physorg article: "Hubble sees spiral bridge of young stars between two ancient galaxies." The spiral bridge and the precise spacing of the young stars may be explained by Winfree's law.

In the present article, a key feature is that the two coupled dwarf galaxies position themselves at precisely opposite points on the circle. That is what Winfree's law predicts.

So we have three important and surprising phenomena in which Winfree's law deserves consideration. The ingredients are the stuff to which Winfree's law applies; the outcomes are a good Winfree match; and there is no other theory on offer to explain any one of these surprises, let alone all three. Occam's Razor says try Winfree.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2014
The_Accelerating_Universe: https://www.acade...Universe

Gotta give ol' George credit for not givin' up....
Wacko, but not a quitter...

Apologies for the wacko label.
Uncle Ira
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
Apologies for the wacko label.


What you apologizing for? Maybe you should have said "couyon"?
Dr_toad
Jul 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 22, 2014
Really. Does wacko George ever say anything, or just post his link to his wacko site?

Really. Do you ever say anything or just post your stupidity for everyone to see?
Dr_toad
Jul 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jackjump
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2014
Not being a cosmologist, astronomer or even a physicist I am perplexed at why, when planets form in a plane around stars and moons form in a plane around planets and debris forms in rings on a plane around planets and galaxies form in planes, that when dwarf galaxies are found in a plane around a parent galaxy it is such an unexpected phenomenon that it requires a cosmic rethink. I would have thought precisely the opposite. Is it that dwarf galaxies are thought to form independently and at random and so ought to be captured at random? Why can't they have formed along with a larger (parent) galaxy? If they're in a plane that coincides with the parent's galactic plane that would seem almost a given so I assume that's not the case. This article needs more background information.
no fate
1 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2014
Jackjump- The plane they orbit in is not the plane of the ecliptic.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2014
Jackjump- The plane they orbit in is not the plane of the ecliptic.

I did not get that from the article. In fact, I got the impression that they did...
wonderful
1 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2014
my personal opinion is it seems like when we understand all movement as the same, gravity, velocity and magnetism it would be much easier to equate the natural perdictable patterns of movement, which really do seem to be fractally existant, in creating that coherancy of specific wonderment of placement explanations. and no doubt some day it will be discovered that within dark matter there are laws governing movement based on the laws of simular movement that exist in non dark matter of something like gases n temperature pushing and pulling creating their own quantum energy collections which then combine enough in mass to light up. but until we fully understand movement in non dark matter which we cant because we have seperated quatum n relative in our definitions of various types of movement, im not sure understanding the specific organizations of all matter could ever be found.
Arties
1 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2014
If they're in a plane that coincides with the parent's galactic plane that would seem almost a given so I assume that's not the case.
Actually the dwarf galaxies then to revolve their parent galaxies in direction perpendicular to parent's galactic plane instead, i.e. they're rather part of dark matter ring around galaxy.
Arties
1 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2014
then to revolve = tend to revolve...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2014
If they're in a plane that coincides with the parent's galactic plane that would seem almost a given so I assume that's not the case.
Actually the dwarf galaxies then to revolve their parent galaxies in direction http://www.greatd..._31.jpeg to parent's galactic plane instead, i.e. they're rather part of dark matter ring around galaxy.

The article does not suggest that. In fact it suggests the opposite...
Do you hold a reference that would say that? (besides your "great dream" jpg...)
24volts
5 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2014
tongue in cheek..... they work that way to balance the bigger galaxies... If they were orbiting in all directions the bigger galaxy would be wobbling all over the place like an out of balance tire!

You know, it really would be funny if that silliness above had an actual grain of truth in it somehow.
Dr_toad
Jul 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2014
who by chance have coordinate orbits.
- barakn

The French philosopher Voltaire said that words like luck, chance and coincidence were invented to express the known effects of the unknown causes.

There is no such thing as luck or chance. Everything happens according to the law of cause and effect.

Perhaps you could simply think that you don't know why, and not bother to comment.

Oddly, when searching for the reference for the Voltaire quote; Google returned hits for Causes of Schizophrenia. I am gonna go water the pineapples now.

Dr_toad
Jul 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2014
Sigh.

Doing science is what this article is about. The whole point is that we don't know 'why'. Yet.

When we think we do, we'll find something that doesn't fit that picture, and we'll learn more.

OK?

For someone who claims to understand "we don't know why", you seem so sure to "know" who isn't correct. I bet you don't see the paradox...
yep
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2014
I thought David LaPoints primer field videos were a interesting take on the electromagnetic fields around matter and how they self organize matter into orbits without any need for dark energy or black holes.
https://www.youtu...lyiW-xGI
If you have not seen them yet your missing out. The wire graph at the end of the third video is awesome.
mih349
1 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2014
Nature, which is the truth, is stranger than fiction ....and we must bear in mind that what we are beginning to learn is still initial raw data and many of the fundamental principles of astronomy or physics are yet known. The most fundamental truth is that Singularity is only One, Unique, incomprehensible physically and what's observable, cognizable, appreciable is always in pairs. Even our universe is paired, the other being inverse/reciprocal but parallel and that we are connected. Our anticlockwise motion and expansion is reversed there. Time flows from future to past. This is a conjecture obviously. And also we are always looking into the past here, the future being hidden;whereas the other is always into the future the past being hidden. Strange worlds. Not really if we can comprehend what's time. And yes, expansion is at the root of spin, motion, time, gravity.
George_Rajna
Jul 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2014
Huh?

When did doing science produce valid results that are attributed to 'chance'. Forget the 'big bang' ... It's a fortunate coincidence our universe exists. Forget logic or math to explain any physical phenomenon .. It's just a lucky coincidence. No reason needed to explain anything? What a dumb Toad.

bluehigh
1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2014
Some leaves on my pineapple plants have mauve areas. Others a deep purple. Some people say this is because the pineapple plants require more food. Some say a spray of fish oil helps. But now I know, Science says its just by chance, no reason, some leaves just go mauve sometimes.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2014
Some dwarf galaxies ... by chance have coordinate orbits.

New Astro-Physics? Luck based scientific explanations. We can all stop reasoning now.

Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2014
Huh?
When did doing science produce valid results that are attributed to 'chance'. Forget the 'big bang' ... It's a fortunate coincidence our universe exists. Forget logic or math to explain any physical phenomenon .. It's just a lucky coincidence. No reason needed to explain anything? What a dumb Toad.

It does pain me to say this but many people think just like that. Where I live, the natives think 'if I want to drive through a red light, I will. If my time is up then I won't reach the other side!' They have very similar views about science too. Life and everything else 'luck & chance'. A large number of people need to be educated and re-educated to ask questions. My problem is the reverse, perhaps I ask too many!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2014
... that when dwarf galaxies are found in a plane around a parent galaxy it is such an unexpected phenomenon that it requires a cosmic rethink.


Here's my 2 cents on why this is a bit different: The mechanism by which objects finally settle into planes around central gravitational entities (discs/planets around suns, suns around galactic black holes, dwarf galaxies around their companion galaxies, etc. ) require that the object performs several revolutions (i.e. that there is time spent above the ecliptic to pull it down and time spent below the ecliptic to pull it up)

For smaller systems this time has elapsed. The galactic year is already in excess of 200 million years - and the period of revolution of dwarf galaxies about another galaxy is much longer. They just haven't gotten around enough times (and the forces acting perpendicular to the excliptic at those distances is so weak) for them to already have settled the way they are.
bluehigh
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2014

"Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers."
― Voltaire
vidyunmaya
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2014
Sub: cosmology needs Best of Brains trust
OM COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS TO COSMOLOGY REVISION-2000( TXU 982-559) Pages 94, Fig 16- By Vidyardhi nanduri
Astronomy should digest Science in philosophy and Catch-up with origins-cosmology Vedas Interlinks
Many thanks for the Inputs. Nature drives part of Divine function-see my -Cosmology Definition
no fate
1 / 5 (8) Jul 23, 2014
I thought David LaPoints primer field videos were a interesting take on the electromagnetic fields around matter and how they self organize matter into orbits without any need for dark energy or black holes.
https://www.youtu...lyiW-xGI
If you have not seen them yet your missing out. The wire graph at the end of the third video is awesome.


They actually explain pretty much everything that baffles the mainstream. That is why they don't like it. It is not based on the standard model, hence it's success at explanation/prediction. A pulsar switching from radio to gamma pulse is dependant on the quanitity of particles in the confinement dome.

WG: Most ( I won't say all because I am not going to survey all known) dwarfs orbit outside the plane of the ecliptic:

http://www.space....ake.html

Note in the panels Andromeda's orientation in relation to the "pancake". As an enormous magnetically bound structure this is expected.
ViperSRT3g
1 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2014
... For smaller systems this time has elapsed. The galactic year is already in excess of 200 million years - and the period of revolution of dwarf galaxies about another galaxy is much longer. They just haven't gotten around enough times (and the forces acting perpendicular to the excliptic at those distances is so weak) for them to already have settled the way they are.

This is why I think it's probably just the tiniest of influence directly from the big bang. It gave the seeds of rotation to the general area. The main galaxy of that region formed, and similar to a giant solar system, the dwarf galaxies also formed already in line with the galaxy's ecliptic. They weren't really nudged into position so to speak, they had already formed in that general area from the start.

If it's a result of the big bang, I think charting out the velocities and configurations of the observable galactic ecliptic planes, we'd gain more detailed insight into the structure of the cosmic web.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2014
For someone who claims to understand "we don't know why", you seem so sure to "know" who isn't correct. I bet you don't see the paradox...
@cd
well, there are certain things that we can dismiss right out of the gate, like eu, because they are based upon a fallacious set of claims, and it has been debunked fairly thoroughly using physics and a little common sense...

So logically, if eu makes a claim based upon their pseudoscience, it can be summarily dismissed as more pseudoscience because ANY hypothesis who's foundation is pseudoscience or a completely debunked set of assumptions like eu, then we KNOW that there is no possibility of it being a good physical/physics descriptor of the situation.

Just because you can find similarity i something, doesn't mean it is accurate or correct. see fractals and your comments about them regarding electricity.
Or see Saturn's storm
or... you get the drift.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2014
No Fate.
The images in the http://www.space....ake.html link were interesting and led me to understand that the disks orbiting Andromeda were NOT in the ecliptic plane. Not exactly perpendicular to it, but not close to it, either. AA may be onto something in that there may not have been enuff orbits happen to show it more more into the ecliptic..
As to the mechanic of it, I cannot speculate, having no data to make comment.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2014
I would be interested in knowing the makeup of these dwarf galaxies (ie - globular, spiral, etc) and the degree of angle that the "disk plane" is, relative to the ecliptic plane of Andromeda.
Anybody with suggestions on where to point me?
no fate
1 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2014
No Fate.
The images in the http://www.space....ake.html link were interesting and led me to understand that the disks orbiting Andromeda were NOT in the ecliptic plane. Not exactly perpendicular to it, but not close to it, either. AA may be onto something in that there may not have been enuff orbits happen to show it more more into the ecliptic..
As to the mechanic of it, I cannot speculate, having no data to make comment.


Physorg posted an article about a year ago relating to these observations with a really good visual representation of the observed motion. My link showed stills of the co-planar distribution whereas the physorg article was a moving graphic.

You are one of a small handful of posters on this forum worthy of respect. (myself excluded) You don't allow yourself to be dragged "into the pit" so to speak, and you are genuine with what you do and don't know and you discuss the articles, not the posters (most of the time).

Good to be real.
no fate
3 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2014
I would be interested in knowing the makeup of these dwarf galaxies (ie - globular, spiral, etc) and the degree of angle that the "disk plane" is, relative to the ecliptic plane of Andromeda.
Anybody with suggestions on where to point me?


If you search "andromeda dwarf galaxies" you can obtain a listing of their designations. Plug each designation into your preferred search engine or just go to Wiki for the known physical characteristics of each one.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2014
If you search "andromeda dwarf galaxies" you can obtain a listing of their designations. Plug each designation into your preferred search engine or just go to Wiki for the known physical characteristics of each one.

Did just that. got my answers except a more exact one as to the angle of the disk plane relative to the ecliptic. Can't seem to find any info on that. (admittedly, I only peruse 2 google pages to not waste a lot of time)
So, looking at the pics, I'm guessing 30 to 40 degrees...
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 23, 2014
@cd
well, there are certain things that we can dismiss right out of the gate, like eu, because they are based upon a fallacious set of claims, and it has been debunked fairly thoroughly using physics and a little common sense...

So logically, if eu makes a claim based upon their pseudoscience, it can be summarily dismissed as more pseudoscience because ANY hypothesis who's foundation is pseudoscience

Well Captain Stupid, I guess the AIP is promoting pseudoscience as well. The have officially accepted the Plasma Universe theory as an official field of study, being the EU is based upon those physics your claim is spurious at best. It's about time you dislodge your lips from ol' Timmy Thompson's junk and start thinking for yourself.

Here's a paper;
http://scitation.....4886135

Note the list of references, Alfven, Peratt, and Bostick are at the top of the page. Your claim of pseudoscience is bunk.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2014
Well Captain Stupid, I guess the AIP is promoting pseudoscience as well. The have officially accepted the Plasma Universe theory as an official field of study, being the EU is based upon those physics your claim is spurious at best
@cd
this is NO DIFFERENT than BIGFOOT TRACKERS saying that BIGFOOT is real because it is based upon Mammalian biology. Or jk saying his nonsense about mutations not being a viable method for evolution.

IOW - just because you base your philosophy on science, doesn't mean that it is valid, does it? NO
YOUR EU has SOME valid science... that is the HOOK used by the CON
the CATCH and LINE used is the pretty pictures for idiots who don't know science or empirical data (see your posts about fractals, lightning and Saturn)
The SINKER is the CON selling books that are NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALIDATED like mundy.

you've been CONNED
there might be a few science things in there, but your PHILOSOPHY is DEBUNKED PSEUDOSCIENCE

now go buy another EU book, acolyte boy
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2014
I'm sure you can point out a specific point.
barakn
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2014
Huh?

When did doing science produce valid results that are attributed to 'chance'. Forget the 'big bang' ... It's a fortunate coincidence our universe exists. Forget logic or math to explain any physical phenomenon .. It's just a lucky coincidence. No reason needed to explain anything? What a dumb Toad is bluehigh.

I am going to give you a box into which I have injected a single Radon-210 atom. Your challenge is to accurately predict when that atom radioactively decays. The half-life is 22 years, if you think that will help. Pick a date, and if your atom decays on exactly that day (no cheating by bombarding it with gamma rays), I'll eat crow. Until then, STFU, you mindless twit.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2014
Hi. :) Just catching up with Phys.Org news items. Saw exchange involving bluehigh and barakn. I'll just make an objective observation re barakn's 'isolated Radon-210 atom' scenario, and then leave y'all to it again. :)

Consider: By isolating a Radioactive atom from an 'ensemble' of such atoms, one is effectively removing the first-order effects of 'ensemble dynamics/resonances' fluctuations (which already being attenuated/affected by second-order effects from AMBIENT ENVIRONMENT energy flows into/through the erstwhile 'ensemble'...ie, Neutrinos/Muons/Quantum Perturbations and other yet 'unknown/undetectable' energy inputs/throughputs), and so leaving the atom's internal/ambient dynamics/resonances fluctuations as the new 'primary determinant' of its new isolated 'lifetime'.

So 'lifetime' of isolated radioactive atom will depend only on its 'isolated' atom dynamics/resonances decay 'clock' processes, and its 'new' in-isolation' 'interaction cross-section' with its ENVIRONMENT. Bye.:)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2014
I need a bit of educating here. Just how much of this linked to the 'missing satellites problem' and expected tidal stripping? If more DG's (expected?) are there but 'invisible' to us at present how would the affect any simulation? Does Dark Matter enter into the question? Would appreciate some help...thanks.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2014
The reason dimwits attribute probability or chance to an event is because of a lack of understanding as to the associated cause. If we fully understood the entire mechanism regarding radioactive decay then precise predictions could be made. We don't, so we add a probability or chance. Same with dwarf galaxies that have coordinate orbits. Its not chance or luck, its that *you don't know the cause*. No amount of bluster is going to help you gloss over your ignorance, barakn. I grow pineapples smarter than you.

yep
1 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2014
The con is a gravity based reality in the assumption of a big bang forcing us to believe in dark energy, dark matter, and black holes.
Your empirical evidence based on a priori is pseudoscience. Garbage in garbage out.
Reading about the history of science might help you question all the physics defying magic you believe in. This theoretical magic crud has been rammed hard down our throats in popular culture if you want to talk about making money off of bogus books and movies.
"...many times in the history of science, scientists have resisted new discoveries by selectively interpreting or ignoring unfavorable data. Previous research has shown that the assessment of the quality of scientific studies seems to be particularly vulnerable to confirmation bias. It has been found several times that scientists rate studies that report findings consistent with their prior beliefs more favorably than studies reporting findings inconsistent with their previous beliefs"
http://en.wikiped...ion_bias
yep
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2014
Empirical evidence based on a priori is pseudoscience. Garbage in Garbage out, the con you have placed your faith in, magic of a gravity based reality. Big bang forcing the belief of dark matter, dark energy, and black hole fantasies. Whats your validation, popular culture selling bogus books and movies creating generations of dupes. Look at the bewildering number of articles every month on this site and almost every one a surprise that theory does not match observations. Time to get a clue.
"..many times in the history of science, scientists have resisted new discoveries by selectively interpreting or ignoring unfavorable data. Previous research has shown that the assessment of the quality of scientific studies seems to be particularly vulnerable to confirmation bias. It has been found several times that scientists rate studies that report findings consistent with their prior beliefs more favorably than studies reporting findings inconsistent with their previous beliefs."
theon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2014
It's easily explained in gravitational hydrodynamics (GHD), it all stems from condensations out of vortex structures. After so many other setbacks for LCDM, it is wisely declared dead. The LCDM-king is dead, long live the GHD-king.
yyz
5 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2014
W.G. asked "I would be interested in knowing...the degree of angle that the "disk plane" is, relative to the ecliptic plane of Andromeda."

This 2012 paper by Ibata et al contain an illustration of the co-planar dwarf disc as seen from the center of the Andromeda Galaxy (as well as other dwarf galaxies not in the disc)(Fig 2):

http://fr.arxiv.o...0446.pdf

Additionally Fig 3 is a 3D representation of the 27 dwarf galaxies studied in this paper (about half of which constitute the co-planar dwarf disc) that can be manipulated in Adobe Reader. Hope that helps :)
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2014
W.G. asked "I would be interested in knowing...the degree of angle that the "disk plane" is, relative to the ecliptic plane of Andromeda."

This 2012 paper by Ibata et al contain an illustration of the co-planar dwarf disc as seen from the center of the Andromeda Galaxy (as well as other dwarf galaxies not in the disc)(Fig 2):

http://fr.arxiv.o...0446.pdf

Additionally Fig 3 is a 3D representation of the 27 dwarf galaxies studied in this paper (about half of which constitute the co-planar dwarf disc) that can be manipulated in Adobe Reader. Hope that helps :)

Thanks, Z.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2014
Interesting. Admittedly, since I have to translate the Astronomy-speak to art-speak, much of it is kind of confusing. But, I did get the info I requested.

BTW - to RC.
That was a proper contribution to a discussion.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2014
Interesting. Admittedly, since I have to translate the Astronomy-speak to art-speak, much of it is kind of confusing. But, I did get the info I requested.

BTW - to RC.
That was a proper contribution to a discussion.

I meant - the proper WAY to contribute to a discussion....
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2014
Whats your validation
@yep
EMPIRICAL DATA. you are posting about popular means to spread the knowledge bug, not the peer reviewed publications that REQUIRE empirical data for support
Empirical evidence based on a priori is pseudoscience
so then why don't you fall up from the surface of the earth? (your logic is atrocious)
Gravity is a KNOWN observation effectively described by Newtonian and Einstein physics. it is also universal unless you can prove otherwise, of which you've FAILED
bewildering number of articles every month on this site and almost every one a surprise
don't assume that the surprise OF THE AUTHOR or a single scientist is the SHARED SURPRISE of ALL PHYSICISTS. this assumption is not supported by FACT, nor is it logical.
THIS is why EU is based upon PSEUDOSCIENCE. your lack of empirical data and knowledge, plus your fallacy based pseudoscientific proclamations are fed by the acolyte system, NOT empirical data or logical science using the SCIENTIFIC-method
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2014
I'm sure you can point out a specific point
okee dokee... lets start with the following links TO WHICH YOUR EU bullshite has YET to logically refute (so far they've TRIED to, but failed MISERABLY... why? BECAUSE OF PHYSICS)

http://www.tim-th...eas.html

http://www.tim-th...sun.html

http://www.tim-th...lar.html

ALL relevant to arguments found on YOUR EU site. all completely debunk YOUR EU. ALL proof that your philosophy is BASED UPON A FALLACY, because there are MORE papers published using these basic assumptions as proof or evidence.

YOU HATE THOMPSON, and you will likely argue against HIM, rather than the physics, HOWEVER, you will NOT be able to argue against the PHYSICS becuase he provides PLENTY of proof... and that is why your people attack HIM rather than the physics. that is why YOU attack him/hate him especially, cd. because he made you look the FOOL here: http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

checkmate
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2014
It appears Arties (Zephir) has discovered the "1" star voting activity.
If you wouldn't mind, Arties - an explanation please?
(for your downvote of my last posts and even the Cap'ns)
Not that it matters, but I am curious...
johnsonrichard650
1 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2014
Well, this is my first visit to your site! We are a group of volunteers and starting a new initiative in a community in the same niche. Your blog provided us valuable information to work on. By the way, more space and astronomy related material exists at http://www.nanowerk.com/ This site is also more resourceful with science, nanotechnology, biotechnology, space and astronomy related latest inventions and news.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2014
Hi Whyde. :)
It appears Arties (Zephir) has discovered the "1" star voting activity.
If you wouldn't mind, Arties - an explanation please?
(for your downvote of my last posts and even the Cap'ns)
Not that it matters, but I am curious...

Does your "curiosity" extend so far as to ask for an explanation of the Captn-Stumpy-Uncle-Ira 'entity' for why "it" downvoted my above post? :)

I already know why; but I'm just curious myself as to what their 'explanation' to you about that might 'look like'? :)

By the way, your earlier comment was appreciated. Thanks. And, as a friend in science and humanity, it's good to know you haven't been sucked in by the troll-group. Cheers and bye for now, Whyde, forum. :)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2014
Uncle-Ira 'entity' for why "it" downvoted my above post? :)


Because it was a 1 type postum. You want I should ask you what I should vote before I vote? You are one stupid individual if you need to ask anybody why I give the 1's.

Now don't be putting my name in anymore of your postums so I don't have to come back and take care of your dishonorable unscientifical foolishments.

Do better Cher.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2014
Hey, Whyde. :)

There you go, mate. Does that 'explanation' from the bot-operating fraud-troll 'entity' satisfy your curiosity? It does mine. Insane-bot-troll manipulating and sabotaging a SCIENCE site's discussions/impressions and ratings system is the epitome of ANTI-science-ethics. This bot-dummy doesn't even have a clue about the science content/info in the relevant post; yet anyone should take "Uncle Ira" troll-bot idiocy as 'normal'? :)

Anyhow, good luck and good thinking, Whyde, Forum....and just ignore the "Uncle Ira"-Captan Stoop hysterical, hypocritical and uncomprehending-bot lunacy. Becaue obviously 'it' is taking you for suckers who will believe that crap. Bye for now. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2014
Hi. :) Just catching up with Phys.Org news items. Saw exchange involving bluehigh and barakn.
@RC TROLL
if you are suggesting that I 1starred this post with this quote above, then you are not only WRONG but an idiot. I haven't voted on it yet...

or did you miss that when searching thru your page?
perhaps you should be more careful about your idiot posts and MUCH more specific in what you say, TROLL
It appears Arties (Zephir) has discovered the "1" star voting activity.
If you wouldn't mind, Arties - an explanation please?
(for your downvote of my last posts and even the Cap'ns)
Not that it matters, but I am curious...
@WGyre
It doesn't matter much. Zeph hates it when I go after fringe troll pseudoscience and thinks that if he downvotes me for it, I will get mad.
I ignore him anymore... he isn't even much use for the psyche study... all he does is repeat the same stuff over and over, like cantdrive. no matter HOW debunked it is... just repeat.

looking for more believers?
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2014
Hey, Captn-Hysterical Hypocrite and half-truths lying moron, drop the 'innocent act', already. You've been busted. Here, look at the 'daisy chain of wanking' pattern which my little internet experiment exposing your troll-bot 'groups' idiocy has ellicited from your own unwitting fat mouths...https://sciencex....k/?v=act

...note the daisy chain of self-goosing wankers rating in a 'block' following the "Uncle Ira" con-bot-jobby?

Pull the other one, Captain Busted. lol

Your "conversations" and "exhortations" to "Uncle Ira" BOT-OPERATING scumbag to "continue" trolling and sabotaging irrespective of post content is PROOF of your lying ass, dumbass.

And your continuing Hysterical Hypocritical 'versions' rationalizations for continuing "Uncle Ira" ANTI-science-ethics agenda of site/discussion/person sabotaging here and elsewhere is part of 'pattern' of sock-bot behavior, readily observed in the linked ratings page. Mindless 'group' of self-goosing goons. Sad sods.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2014
Hey, Captn-Hysterical Hypocrite and half-truths lying moron, drop the 'innocent act', already. You've been busted. Here, look at the 'daisy chain of wanking' pattern which my little internet experiment exposing your troll-bot 'groups' idiocy has ellicited from your own unwitting fat mouths..

...note the daisy chain of self-goosing wankers rating in a 'block' following the "Uncle Ira" con-bot-jobby?

Pull the other one, Captain Busted.

Your "conversations" and "exhortations" to "Uncle Ira" BOT-OPERATING scumbag to "continue" trolling and sabotaging irrespective of post content is PROOF of your lying ass, dumbass.

And your continuing Hysterical Hypocritical 'versions' rationalizations for continuing "Uncle Ira" ANTI-science-ethics agenda of site/discussion/person sabotaging here and elsewhere is part of 'pattern' of sock-bot behavior, readily observed in the linked ratings page. Mindless 'group' of self-goosing goons.

Just...Wow
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2014
checkmate


I think I mentioned you should unwrap your lips from Timmy's junk, instead you just throated him and started gagging Timmy links. Dated Timmy links that refer to pith ball electrostatics and other rudimentary explanations of blogosphere blather.

'Toward a Real Cosmology in the 21st Century '
http://www.bentha...OAAJ.pdf

One article after another are being written about how the standard model has failed this test or that prediction but yet the Timmy junk lovin from Cap'n Stupid doesn't miss a beat(ing).
barakn
5 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
The reason dimwits attribute probability or chance to an event is because of a lack of understanding as to the associated cause. If we fully understood the entire mechanism regarding radioactive decay then precise predictions could be made. We don't, so we add a probability or chance. Same with dwarf galaxies that have coordinate orbits. Its not chance or luck, its that *you don't know the cause*. No amount of bluster is going to help you gloss over your ignorance, barakn.

Ignorance, huh? You've obviously never studied the connection of radioactive decay to quantum mechanics and hence to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle or Bell's theorem. Uncertainty and chance does not result from incomplete knowledge of a system, but rather are a fundamental part of the system, and an attempt to fully know the system irrevocably alters it. But you, you are stuck in the 18th century with a simplistic, deterministic view of the world.
bluehigh
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
The only dwarf galaxies left will the lucky survivors who by chance have coordinate orbits.


Are you saying that dwarf galaxies that have coordinate orbits are explained scientifically by using quantum mechanics? No sir, it is you that are mistaken. There is a reason these dwarf galaxies have particular orbits, you just don't know why. Chance is just a word to say that you don't have enough information to deduce the cause.

To paraphrase Voltaire (again) ...

Chance is the known effect of every unknown cause.

In any case to follow your straw-man, FYI .. You are correct I don't subscribe to QM explanations. I believe Dr Randall Mills and his theories much better explain nuclear reality. The Copenhagen model for QM is a faith based religion.

yep
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2014
My logic is that gravitational accretion as the standard theory for thermonuclear star formation is severely lacking in sense and if we can not understand our own sun what kind of ego gives us the haughtiness to believe we can understand anything outside of the solar system. Because your mental map was formed so long ago breaking you out of that gaslight reality is an impossibility as you will continue to take the evidence under a false priori and believe in magic to keep it real. It seems you relish in being the high priest gate keeper of the holy science. So rail on with your cries of heresy and the data will slowly wash away our sins in the oblivion of history.
Pexeso
3 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2014
The only dwarf galaxies left will the lucky survivors who by chance have coordinate orbits.
Are you saying that dwarf galaxies that have coordinate orbits are explained scientifically by using quantum mechanics? No sir, it is you that are mistaken.
He didn't say that and you're fighting with ghosts in rather annoying and OT way.
bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
Another fool that can't read or comprehend. It's an exact quote. Followed by his strawman argument. Just to be clear for the brain dead ... Chance plays no part in genuine scientific inquiry. Yes he did say and imply the statements then tried to conflate two disparate phenomenon. Piss off you annoying nobody.
barakn
5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
Pexeso/Zephir, I didn't say that but I will. Quantum fluctuations during the inflation period of the big bang are responsible for the random distribution of matter immediately afterwards, and that matter eventually coalesced into stars and galaxies.

I am disappointed in the lack of a cogent argument from bluehigh. Simply repeating one's initial assertion is just so much hot air. It suggests bluehigh has no evidence to support the initial assertion and is trying to avoid thinking about it, because it's obviously wrong.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2014
The ultimate purpose of science is to remove "chance" from our observational reality. TO know all.
What actually really happens by "chance" is our understanding of how to do that.

There is no random.
I'm not espousing a creation/design theory, just a statement of what is.
swordsman
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2014
EM all the way. Science will eventually catch on.