BREAKING NEWS: The Galaxy's newest satellite

The Milky Way's newest satellite

Astronomers spot the faintest galaxy ever seen--orbiting the Milky Way.

***EXCLUSIVE***

By Ken Croswell, author of The Alchemy of the Heavens

A diffuse collection of stars southwest of the Big Dipper's bowl is a small
galaxy revolving around our own, say astronomers in the United States and
Europe. The newfound galaxy is roughly 330,000 light-years away--only twice
as far as the Large Magellanic Cloud, the Milky Way's brightest satellite
galaxy.

Full story: http://KenCroswell.com/UrsaMajorDwarf.html .

Correct email: MagnificentUniverse "at" yahoo "dot" com.

In message , Magnificent
Universe writes
The Milky Way's newest satellite

Astronomers spot the faintest galaxy ever seen--orbiting the Milky Way.

By Ken Croswell, author of The Alchemy of the Heavens

A diffuse collection of stars southwest of the Big Dipper's bowl is a small
galaxy revolving around our own, say astronomers in the United States and
Europe. The newfound galaxy is roughly 330,000 light-years away--only twice
as far as the Large Magellanic Cloud, the Milky Way's brightest satellite
galaxy.

Full story: http://KenCroswell.com/UrsaMajorDwarf.html .

If pushed I can work it out for myself :-) but what's the visual
magnitude?

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , Magnificent
Universe writes
The Milky Way's newest satellite

Astronomers spot the faintest galaxy ever seen--orbiting the Milky Way.

By Ken Croswell, author of The Alchemy of the Heavens

A diffuse collection of stars southwest of the Big Dipper's bowl is a small
galaxy revolving around our own, say astronomers in the United States and
Europe. The newfound galaxy is roughly 330,000 light-years away--only twice
as far as the Large Magellanic Cloud, the Milky Way's brightest satellite
galaxy.

Full story: http://KenCroswell.com/UrsaMajorDwarf.html .

If pushed I can work it out for myself :-) but what's the visual
magnitude?

Yet another nail in the Big Bang coffin! Galactic clusters may be
explainable in the time frame of the universe's age, but 'satellite'
galaxies?????

Jim G
c'=c+v

Jim Greenfield wrote:
Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...

In message , Magnificent
Universe writes

The Milky Way's newest satellite

Astronomers spot the faintest galaxy ever seen--orbiting the Milky Way.

By Ken Croswell, author of The Alchemy of the Heavens

A diffuse collection of stars southwest of the Big Dipper's bowl is a small
galaxy revolving around our own, say astronomers in the United States and
Europe. The newfound galaxy is roughly 330,000 light-years away--only twice
as far as the Large Magellanic Cloud, the Milky Way's brightest satellite
galaxy.

Full story: http://KenCroswell.com/UrsaMajorDwarf.html .

If pushed I can work it out for myself :-) but what's the visual
magnitude?


Yet another nail in the Big Bang coffin!

Say, are you *completely* mad now? The existence of satellite galaxies
has been known for *decades* now. So why on earth would the discovery
of a new satellite galaxy suddenly disprove the BBT, although none of
the already known satellite galaxies disproved it?



Galactic clusters may be
explainable in the time frame of the universe's age, but 'satellite'
galaxies?????

Hint: the existence of satellite galaxies is a prediction of current
cosmological models, and, as far as I know, has always been. Read up
on "hierarchical clustering".


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...

In message , Magnificent
Universe writes

The Milky Way's newest satellite

Astronomers spot the faintest galaxy ever seen--orbiting the Milky Way.

By Ken Croswell, author of The Alchemy of the Heavens

A diffuse collection of stars southwest of the Big Dipper's bowl is a small
galaxy revolving around our own, say astronomers in the United States and
Europe. The newfound galaxy is roughly 330,000 light-years away--only twice
as far as the Large Magellanic Cloud, the Milky Way's brightest satellite
galaxy.

Full story: http://KenCroswell.com/UrsaMajorDwarf.html .

If pushed I can work it out for myself :-) but what's the visual
magnitude?


Yet another nail in the Big Bang coffin!

Say, are you *completely* mad now? The existence of satellite galaxies
has been known for *decades* now. So why on earth would the discovery
of a new satellite galaxy suddenly disprove the BBT, although none of
the already known satellite galaxies disproved it?



Galactic clusters may be
explainable in the time frame of the universe's age, but 'satellite'
galaxies?????

Hint: the existence of satellite galaxies is a prediction of current
cosmological models, and, as far as I know, has always been. Read up
on "hierarchical clustering".

So while the Milky Way has performed a mere 50 or so revolutions, this
other galaxy has been able to able to obtain an orbit around it of how
many? 3?

Hint: Where in BB theory does it say that galaxies winked into being
(in that short period after BB) ALREADY orbiting each other?

Jim G
c'=c+v

Jim Greenfield wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Jim Greenfield wrote:

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...


In message , Magnificent
Universe writes


The Milky Way's newest satellite

Astronomers spot the faintest galaxy ever seen--orbiting the Milky Way.

By Ken Croswell, author of The Alchemy of the Heavens

A diffuse collection of stars southwest of the Big Dipper's bowl is a small
galaxy revolving around our own, say astronomers in the United States and
Europe. The newfound galaxy is roughly 330,000 light-years away--only twice
as far as the Large Magellanic Cloud, the Milky Way's brightest satellite
galaxy.

Full story: http://KenCroswell.com/UrsaMajorDwarf.html .

If pushed I can work it out for myself :-) but what's the visual
magnitude?


Yet another nail in the Big Bang coffin!

Say, are you *completely* mad now? The existence of satellite galaxies
has been known for *decades* now. So why on earth would the discovery
of a new satellite galaxy suddenly disprove the BBT, although none of
the already known satellite galaxies disproved it?




Galactic clusters may be
explainable in the time frame of the universe's age, but 'satellite'
galaxies?????

Hint: the existence of satellite galaxies is a prediction of current
cosmological models, and, as far as I know, has always been. Read up
on "hierarchical clustering".


So while the Milky Way has performed a mere 50 or so revolutions, this
other galaxy has been able to able to obtain an orbit around it of how
many? 3?

How many revolutions? I don't know. So what? What's your point?


Hint: Where in BB theory does it say that galaxies winked into being
(in that short period after BB)

You want to call several hundreds millions, up to a billion, years a
"short period"?


ALREADY orbiting each other?

Err, galaxies form from gas clouds. These gas clouds orbit each other
already before galaxies form from them.

Thanks for showing yet again that you have no clue of the BBT.


Bye,
Bjoern

"JS" == Jonathan Silverlight writes:

The Milky Way's newest satellite

Astronomers spot the faintest galaxy ever seen--orbiting the Milky
Way.

By Ken Croswell, author of The Alchemy of the Heavens

A diffuse collection of stars southwest of the Big Dipper's bowl is
a small galaxy revolving around our own, say astronomers in the
United States and Europe. The newfound galaxy is roughly 330,000
light-years away--only twice as far as the Large Magellanic Cloud,
the Milky Way's brightest satellite galaxy.

JS If pushed I can work it out for myself :-) but what's the visual
JS magnitude?

Here's the abstract from the discovery paper,
URL:http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0503552:

Title: A New Milky Way Dwarf Galaxy in Ursa Major
Authors: Beth Willman, Julianne J. Dalcanton, David Martinez-Delgado, Andrew A. West, Michael R. Blanton, David W. Hogg, J.C. Barentine, Howard J. Brewington, Michael Harvanek, S.J. Kleinman, Jurek Krzesinski, Dan Long, Eric H. Neilsen, Jr., Atsuko Nitta, Stephanie A. Snedden
Comments: Submitted to ApJL

In this Letter, we report the discovery of a new dwarf satellite
to the Milky Way, located at (ra, dec) = (158.72,51.92) in the
constellation of Ursa Major. This object was detected as an
overdensity of red, resolved stars in Sloan Digital Sky Survey
data. The color-magnitude diagram of the Ursa Major dwarf looks
remarkably similar to that of Sextans, the lowest surface
brightness Milky Way companion known, but with approximately an
order of magnitude fewer stars. Deeper follow-up imaging confirms
this object has an old and metal-poor stellar population and is
100 kpc away. We roughly estimate M_V = -6.75 and r_1/2 = 250 pc
for this dwarf. Its luminosity is several times fainter than the
faintest known Milky Way dwarfs. However, its physical size is
typical for dSphs. Even though its absolute magnitude and size are
presently quite uncertain, Ursa Major is likely the lowest
luminosity and lowest surface brightness galaxy yet known.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

In message , Joseph Lazio
writes
"JS" == Jonathan Silverlight
id writes:

The Milky Way's newest satellite

Astronomers spot the faintest galaxy ever seen--orbiting the Milky
Way.

By Ken Croswell, author of The Alchemy of the Heavens

A diffuse collection of stars southwest of the Big Dipper's bowl is
a small galaxy revolving around our own, say astronomers in the
United States and Europe. The newfound galaxy is roughly 330,000
light-years away--only twice as far as the Large Magellanic Cloud,
the Milky Way's brightest satellite galaxy.

JS If pushed I can work it out for myself :-) but what's the visual
JS magnitude?

Here's the abstract from the discovery paper,
URL:http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0503552:

Thanks Dr Lazio. I get a rough figure of +18, spread over a field about
1/4 degree across.
I have no idea why my post triggered an argument about the Big Bang!

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , Joseph Lazio
writes
"JS" == Jonathan Silverlight
id writes:

The Milky Way's newest satellite

Astronomers spot the faintest galaxy ever seen--orbiting the Milky
Way.

By Ken Croswell, author of The Alchemy of the Heavens

A diffuse collection of stars southwest of the Big Dipper's bowl is
a small galaxy revolving around our own, say astronomers in the
United States and Europe. The newfound galaxy is roughly 330,000
light-years away--only twice as far as the Large Magellanic Cloud,
the Milky Way's brightest satellite galaxy.

JS If pushed I can work it out for myself :-) but what's the visual
JS magnitude?

Here's the abstract from the discovery paper,
URL:http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0503552:

Thanks Dr Lazio. I get a rough figure of +18, spread over a field about
1/4 degree across.
I have no idea why my post triggered an argument about the Big Bang!

Sorry :-( Just me pointing out once again, glaring contradictions
in BBT
and observation.
Read the "metal poor" bit? That tells us that the orbitting galaxy is
much younger than the Milky Way. But BBT postulates all the galaxies
forming in the same time frame! Do you not spot a SIGNIFICANT problem
for BB?

Jim G
c'=c+v

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...

Sorry :-( Just me pointing out once again, glaring contradictions
in BBT
and observation.
Read the "metal poor" bit? That tells us that the orbitting galaxy is
much younger than the Milky Way. But BBT postulates all the galaxies
forming in the same time frame! Do you not spot a SIGNIFICANT problem
for BB?

You have it exactly the wrong way round again Jim,
the problem is for anything other than the Big Bang.

In a very old universe, there should have been time
for _all_ galaxies to produce higher metalicity so
they need to explain why metal poor galaxies exist
at all. Then they need to explain the elemental
abundances in those metal poor regions, something
that BBN does extremely well.

Big Bang only says that galaxies could not have
been produced more than roughly 13 billion years
ago. Galaxy formation continues to this day but
at a reducing rate as the primordial gas clouds
get used up. There is only so much stuff out
there. That is exactly what is seen.

In contrast, a steady state model would predict a
uniform rate of galaxy formation at all times.

George