Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mystery Alignment of Planetary Nebulae Discovered

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the mass-of-flying-mantrid-arm-drone-thingies dept.

Space 86

astroengine writes "Astronomers have discovered something weird in the Milky Way's galactic bulge — a population of planetary nebula are all mysteriously pointing in the same direction. They noticed the mysterious alignment in the long axes of bipolar planetary nebulae. 'This really is a surprising find and, if it holds true, a very important one,' said Bryan Rees of the University of Manchester, co-author of the paper (PDF) to appear in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 'Many of these ghostly butterflies appear to have their long axes aligned along the plane of our galaxy.' The team of astronomers, who used data from Hubble and the European Southern Observatory's New Technology Telescope (NTT) to survey 130 nebulae, posit that powerful magnetic fields may be behind the phenomenon."

cancel ×

86 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bipolar planetary nebula (5, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#44758199)

One moment, they're saying "Yeah, this is great, we're going to make terrestrial and gas giant and ice ball planets and dwarf planets and everything", but before you know it they're just sitting there sulking.

Re:Bipolar planetary nebula (4, Informative)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about a year ago | (#44758219)

I too was thinking that the nebulae and myself have something in common.

Re:Bipolar planetary nebula (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44762227)

a galactic bulge?

Re:Bipolar planetary nebula (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759435)

That is no mystery, the butterflies are Vogon fleet on the mission to expunge (CAPTCHA) the scum called Earth out of the way to construct a bypass.

Link to preprint (3, Informative)

mdsolar (1045926) | about a year ago | (#44760413)

Here is the preprint: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1307.5711R [harvard.edu]

We use high-resolution H {\alpha} images of 130 planetary nebulae (PNe) to investigate whether there is a preferred orientation for PNe within the Galactic Bulge. The orientations of the full sample have an uniform distribution. However, at a significance level of 0.01, there is evidence for a non-uniform distribution for those planetary nebulae with evident bipolar morphology. If we assume that the bipolar PNe have an unimodal distribution of the polar axis in Galactic coordinates, the mean Galactic position angle is consistent with 90{\deg}, i.e. along the Galactic plane, and the significance level is better than 0.001 (the equivalent of a 3.7{\sigma} significance level for a Gaussian distribution). The shapes of PNe are related to angular momentum of the original star or stellar system, where the long axis of the nebula measures the angular momentum vector. In old, low-mass stars, the angular momentum is largely in binary orbital motion. Consequently, the alignment of bipolar nebulae that we have found indicates that the orbital planes of the binary systems are oriented perpendicular to the Galactic plane. We propose that strong magnetic fields aligned along the Galactic plane acted during the original star formation process to slow the contraction of the star forming cloud in the direction perpendicular to the plane. This would have produced a propensity for wider binaries with higher angular momentum with orbital axes parallel to the Galactic plane. Our findings provide the first indication of a strong, organized magnetic field along the Galactic plane that impacted on the angular momentum vectors of the resulting stellar population.

Re:Bipolar planetary nebula (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44762525)

Galaxy says, "You're just jealous of the high amount of pointing in my massive bulging package and a Milky Way of spooge that goes from horizon to horizon"

Why is that surprising? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44758201)

Why is this surprising?

It makes sense that if all of the stars that formed the nebulae came from the same giant swirling cloud of gas, then the stars formed would tend to have angular momenta mostly aligned upon that same axis. When those stars explode later, the axis of the planetary nebula will be along this same axis.

Re:Why is that surprising? (2)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year ago | (#44758261)

Yes but they don't stop once they've formed. They keep on turning - asynchronously - or maybe not asynchronously.

Re:Why is that surprising? (0)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year ago | (#44758399)

The idea seems to be that once you're dying you start ejecting mass out of both your mouth and anus, in which case they would be aligned perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy.

Re:Why is that surprising? (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44759303)

Well, actually we don't know a whole hell of a lot about the revolution of stars that far away, but it sound to me like said dual-orifice ejections tend to protrude out of the poles of the stars.

That many of the poles of these stars tend to be aligned is not all that unexpected when the Galaxy itself is one huge gravitational system.

Re:Why is that surprising? (3, Insightful)

CreatureComfort (741652) | about a year ago | (#44760803)

The kicker is that the poles all seem to be perpendicular to what the presumed orientation of the rotation should have been.

The trick, is figuring out why the poles were aligned with the galactic plane, and not perpendicular to it, which the spinning of the galactic gas cloud would suggest.

Re:Why is that surprising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44766807)

The damn nebulae wont learn.. If you see one nebula suffering from dual-orifice ejectctions, DONT EAT THE SHRIMP!

Re:Why is that surprising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759309)

Those are some pretty stellar Ebola symptoms.

Re:Why is that surprising? (5, Interesting)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year ago | (#44758595)

It makes sense that if all of the stars that formed the nebulae came from the same giant swirling cloud of gas, then the stars formed would tend to have angular momenta mostly aligned upon that same axis. When those stars explode later, the axis of the planetary nebula will be along this same axis.

I was thinking the same thing, but now I'm not so sure. We have at least 8 decent points of data in our solar system for orbital bodies like stars orbiting the center of gravity. Among the 8 planets, 3 of them (Me, V, J) have an axial tilt of less than 4 degrees, 4 of them (E, Ma, S, N) have an axial tilt between 23 and 29 degrees, and one of them (U) is damn near sideways. In other words, our planets are all over the place. So it would seem to make some sense if the stars orbiting the galactic center were also all over the place on their axial tilt, so it wouldn't make sense that the bipolar nebulae are all oriented in the same direction. I wonder how many nebulae this includes though. If it is roughly half of them then that would seem to be in line with our solar system.

Re:Why is that surprising? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759057)

Axial tilt on planets is tought to be hugely influenced by colisions when they were forming. I'm far from being a scientist, but I don't think you can use planets as a baseline.

Re:Why is that surprising? (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44759389)

Or is it that Axial tilt tends to be more likely aligned perpendicular to the plane of the Galaxy due to small, but real gravitational influences on those stars as they orbit around the galaxy center?

(Galaxy Rotation [universetoday.com] period is about 225 million earth years).

Would whirling a fully gimbled gyroscope around your head on a string have any effect on the orientation of the gyroscope's axis?

Re:Why is that surprising? (1)

davewoods (2450314) | about a year ago | (#44765177)

Would whirling a fully gimbled gyroscope around your head on a string have any effect on the orientation of the gyroscope's axis?

Not sure what you are getting at here, my head is not massive enough to create any kind of significant gravitational pull, nor does it have a magnetic field. My head would in no way affect the gyroscope, unless it were touching, or there was a wind blowing.

Now my EGO, on the other hand, maybe, but there is no scientific data on the mass of an ego that I know of, so I am unable to give a proper answer on that one. Also, I left my fully gimbled gyroscope at home, I do have a half-gimbled one, but that is not in question here.

Re:Why is that surprising? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#44768969)

> Not sure what you are getting at here, my head is not massive enough to create any kind of
> significant gravitational pull, nor does it have a magnetic field. My head would in no way affect the
> gyroscope, unless it were touching, or there was a wind blowing.

Ahh, but to whirl a gyroscope about your head, you must be attached to it in some way. So to make it whirl like that, you would have to be giving it a constant (or as close as you can muster) inward force that is perpendicular to its current travel.

So while you are not exerting a real gravitational pull, the act of whirling it simulates such a pull. It also simulates the pull of gravity (or magentic forces). Now, its easy to think that the answer is yes, because if you start holding a gyroscope up, and attach the string to the bottom or top, starting to whirl it WILL change the axis since your force is not going through the center of mass, which would be a bad approximation of what we are trying to model.

So I think the right answer is the axis will change until the force pulling to the center aligns through its center of mass. However, in the case of a spinning star, since gravity acts on every particle, it ALWAYS is through the center of mass, so no matter what orientation you start with, the axis will not change from gravity.

I imagine there might be an exception if the distance between the bodies is short enough relative to their masses that tidal forces become significant.... but if tidal forces are significant in the kind of distances between stars.... well that is pretty wow in and of itself.

Re:Why is that surprising? (2)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year ago | (#44759569)

Axial tilt on planets is tought to be hugely influenced by colisions when they were forming.

And what, forming stars wouldn't go through similar processes? You realize that the major difference between a gas giant and a star is mass, right? It's not like they are completely different kinds of bodies, one of them just got so much mass that fusion started.

Re:Why is that surprising? (2)

Princeofcups (150855) | about a year ago | (#44760197)

I was thinking the same thing, but now I'm not so sure. We have at least 8 decent points of data in our solar system for orbital bodies like stars orbiting the center of gravity. Among the 8 planets, 3 of them (Me, V, J) have an axial tilt of less than 4 degrees, 4 of them (E, Ma, S, N) have an axial tilt between 23 and 29 degrees, and one of them (U) is damn near sideways. In other words, our planets are all over the place. So it would seem to make some sense if the stars orbiting the galactic center were also all over the place on their axial tilt, so it wouldn't make sense that the bipolar nebulae are all oriented in the same direction. I wonder how many nebulae this includes though. If it is roughly half of them then that would seem to be in line with our solar system.

In astronomy/astrophysics, you have to extrapolate the macro from what we know of the micro, but in this case, I'm not sure that your analogy holds water. The difference in mass between a star and a planet is orders of magnitude. This is like comparing the spin of a baseball to the movement of the tectonic plates. If you look at the solar system as a whole, even though the planets themselves have tilted spin, in general the planets are all on the same plane orbiting the sun.

Re:Why is that surprising? (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44761213)

Perhaps collisions of stars with other things big enough to have an effect (i.e. other stars) is much rarer than planets being knocked around by other planets (and planetoids) and even non-collision stars passing by.

I wonder if gas balls will re-orient to surrounding rotations a lot more easily than rocky planets.

Re:Why is that surprising? (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#44762699)

Among the 8 planets, 3 of them (Me, V, J) have an axial tilt of less than 4 degrees, 4 of them (E, Ma, S, N) have an axial tilt between 23 and 29 degrees, and one of them (U) is damn near sideways.

In other words, considerable orientation with the plane of orbit. They aren't all over the place, especially with those three with near zero axial tilt.

Re:Why is that surprising? (1)

jbengt (874751) | about a year ago | (#44759079)

Why is this surprising?

It makes sense that if all of the stars that formed the nebulae came from the same giant swirling cloud of gas, then the stars formed would tend to have angular momenta mostly aligned upon that same axis.

It's surprising because the bipolar axis observed is at right angles to the axis of angular momentum. It even says as much in TFS:

'Many of these ghostly butterflies appear to have their long axes aligned along the plane of our galaxy.'

Re:Why is that surprising? (4, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44759197)

Why is this surprising?

It makes sense that if all of the stars that formed the nebulae came from the same giant swirling cloud of gas, then the stars formed would tend to have angular momenta mostly aligned upon that same axis. When those stars explode later, the axis of the planetary nebula will be along this same axis.

Well first, you have to read the SUMMARY where you will find

a population of planetary nebula are all mysteriously pointing in the same direction.

(I will point out that "a population" is very vague, and could in fact refer to a very small subset.).

Then from TFA you see the actual quote:

However, a new study by astronomers from the University of Manchester, UK, now shows surprising similarities between some of these nebulae: many of them line up in the sky in the same way

So from SOME in the article, we get the implication of ALL (wrapped in weasel words) by the submitter, someone named "astroengine".
An unfortunate level of HYPE that we've come to find all too often in Slashdot.

Re:Why is that surprising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44768373)

get used to it, the dominating ideology nowadays is TL;DR

Lithium? (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#44758203)

They noticed the mysterious alignment in the long axes of bipolar planetary nebulae.

Perhaps they forgot to take their Lithium and Prozac?

Re:Lithium? (3, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#44758369)

They have plenty of Lithium.

Re:Lithium? (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#44758869)

They have plenty of Lithium.

Apparently they don't. Or perhaps one doesn't and the other are just autistic and imitating the bipolar nebulae.

Nebula Art (1)

StefanJ (88986) | about a year ago | (#44758253)

View them from the right solar system and the nebula spell out WILL YOU MARRY ME SQUARDANTELLA?

Amazing what a few dozen carefully arranged nova bombs can do.

Yup, the marriage proposal that wiped out 17 promising young civilization.

Re:Nebula Art (2)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year ago | (#44758671)

View the entire universe background radiation from the POV of our planet and it has stranger properties [wikipedia.org]

Re:Nebula Art (2)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#44759899)

View them from the right solar system and the nebula spell out WILL YOU MARRY ME SQUARDANTELLA?

Close. It actually says, "We apologize for the inconvenience."

Re:Nebula Art (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44759977)

All because of the DeBleeznux corporation pushing nova bombing as the only socially acceptable way to propose back in 21000BC. It's been an ingrained social custom ever since.

magnets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44758289)

how do they work?

Remember to check monthly (1)

The_Star_Child (2660919) | about a year ago | (#44758299)

For any galactic bulges.

Re:Remember to check monthly (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | about a year ago | (#44758321)

during your meteor shower?

Electric Universe? (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year ago | (#44758385)

Anyone?

Re:Electric Universe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44758981)

The electric universe nonsense has been scientifically debunked ages ago.
It's esoteric humbug.

Re:Electric Universe? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44762653)

Actually, what happened was a bunch of people passed around some Tom Bridgman links, and nobody actually read them. Wal Thornhill suggests that these bipolar morphologies are bipolar for the same reason that the laboratory-observed z-pinch is bipolar: because they are conducting electrical currents.

It takes a number of years to actually understand these arguments in depth. There is a LOT to know on this subject. If you spent less than this, and you're speaking up, you are creating noise.

Bah! (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44758417)

This is just a fashion statement among galaxies ... like slouchy pants or sideways hats.

A couple of million years, and they'll all be wearing their bipolar planetary nebula crossways.

This is essentially just like bell-bottom pants. :-P

Damn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44758461)

we just found the protector fleet.

Re:Damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759145)

+1 Niven reference
(or +1 Bussard ramjet reference for the non sci-fi folks)

sign post from the Gods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44758467)

Now we know which way to go, or not go.

Re:sign post from the Gods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44758535)

Just another part of the lost puzzle, they found a "go this way" clue.

Puppeteers (3, Funny)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | about a year ago | (#44758475)

Obviously these are the Pierson's Puppeteers fleeing the explosion at the galactic center. It's not a rosette, but Niven may have been misinformed.

Re:Puppeteers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759221)

+3 "I know that was a reference to something nerdy so I'll give you points for it, but I don't know what the reference is so I won't give you very many"

Re:Puppeteers (1)

MiniMike (234881) | about a year ago | (#44773807)

I would start with Ringworld [amazon.com] and go where you will from there.

As far as galactic bulges go (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#44758493)

The direction the axis points has a lot more to do with comfort than magnetism.

Re:As far as galactic bulges go (1)

green is the enemy (3021751) | about a year ago | (#44758727)

Can you elaborate? I'm not even sure how galactic magnetic fields could align the star's rotational axes parallel to the galactic plane. Intuitively I would expect alignment perpendicular to the galactic plane, such that the galactic and stellar magnetic fields align. Perhaps the ancient galactic magnetic field was for some reason perpendicular to the rotation of the galaxy itself... it seems unlikely.. especially unlikely to last for a long time..

Re:As far as galactic bulges go (1)

green is the enemy (3021751) | about a year ago | (#44758873)

And then I read http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields [scholarpedia.org] and sure enough in the Milky Way "outside the central region, the large-scale [magnetic] field is mostly parallel to the plane of the Galactic disk." The central region is the exception, yet it still shows nebula alignment.. something still doesn't mesh.

Electric Universe (1, Insightful)

IMarvinTPA (104941) | about a year ago | (#44758509)

"The team of astronomers, who used data from Hubble and the European Southern Observatory's New Technology Telescope (NTT) to survey 130 nebulae, posit that powerful magnetic fields may be behind the phenomenon."

Hey, you mean that mainstream science may be coming around to what http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/ [thunderbolts.info] have been suggesting?

Good luck!

Re:Electric Universe (1)

fredrated (639554) | about a year ago | (#44758587)

No.

Re:Electric Universe (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year ago | (#44758763)

No. Since contrary to the claims about mainstream science by such people they already know what electric and magnetic forces are at play and do in fact cause some observed features.

I assure you though, this does not mean mainstream science is coming around to the sun being an electrified iron ball, or that the Earth used to orbit Saturn which was a brown dwarf at the time, or that the Earth's gravity was significantly lower and then the sudden increase in it (caused by changed in electric charge of course) is what killed the dinosaurs.

You'll need just a tad more evidence...

Electric Universe = Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44758923)

And the more extravagant claims you mentioned aren't legitimate.

Concerning mainstream astronomy though, it does not know all the locations in which electromagnetic forces are at play on galactic scales. They believe they do, but creating imaginary matter such as dark matter indicates they don't. Moreover, electric fields which are studied on a daily basis on earth, can neatly account for the galactic rotational speeds we see obviating the need to invoke fictional matter.

And as for the center of the galaxy, and other galaxies, it's far more likely that EM fields that are observed on a daily basis in our own solar system and on earth in labs accounts for the rapid spin seen, than imaginary black holes which have never even been directly observed.

I imagine in 40 years dark matter and black holes will be seen the way we now see 15th Century maps labeling oceanic areas not explored as "here be dragons."

Re:Electric Universe = Yes (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year ago | (#44759429)

Yeah I mistyped that second sentence. I meant to type "... know that electric ..." not "... know what electric ...". The "what" claim is ludicrous, I'm surprised you would then reply with "they believe they do" since they clearly don't and don't claim to. That's an electric universe level of certainty that mainstream science doesn't have.

Re:Electric Universe = Yes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759749)

They believe they do, but creating imaginary matter such as dark matter indicates they don't.

You should be made aware that the above has never happened.

No one on Earth created dark matter. At all.

What happened was we LOOKED into space, and see massive gravitational effects that are right there in front of you for anyone who really does care to see such things.

Dark matter is the temporary name assigned to whatever is causing that effect.

If somehow electricity didn't exist on earth, and thus we didn't have billions of points proving your pet 'electric universe' theory as incorrect, and had even one factor to show it might be... then "electricity" would be what dark matter consists of.

Of course electricity does exist, and that disproves the electric universe theory, so we know dark matter does not consist of electricity.

More importaintly we don't know what it does consist of. But that doesn't mean there isn't something causing the effect we observe, and that also doesn't mean we can't name that effect, and even assign a name to what ever is causing it. Dark matter is that name, for whatever "it" is.

Re:Electric Universe = Yes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44760193)

And the more extravagant claims you mentioned aren't legitimate.

Concerning mainstream astronomy though, it does not know all the locations in which electromagnetic forces are at play on galactic scales. They believe they do, but creating imaginary matter such as dark matter indicates they don't. "

Actually the really exotic thing about dark matter is that it doesn't have an observable electromagnetic interaction. That's why they call it "dark matter", because whatever it is can't be observed electromagnetically (it's presence is inferred by gravitational interactions with things that can be detected electromagnetically).

Re:Electric Universe (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#44759829)

Please, I know the lies of a worldwide gangsrer computer god parroting puppet assasain when i see them. You are not going to fool anyone here with your frankenstien controls.

Re:Electric Universe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44763625)

Do you mean the four billion eye-sight television camera guinea pig communist gangster computer god? Or are you referring to the staged con artist parroting puppet con gangsters, with instant communist gangster computer god television print out promptings? It’s hard to tell with this deadly insidious inevitability of gradualness conspiracy.

Re:Electric Universe (1)

Azure Flash (2440904) | about a year ago | (#44758895)

We gonna rock on through Electric Universe And then we'll take it higher!

Re:Electric Universe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759019)

No

And anybody whose actually taken a class in E&M knows they're dead wrong because their crank theory doesn't actually match real world experience.

Re:Electric Universe (1)

Mac_OSX-1 (632402) | about a year ago | (#44762627)

Astronomers explored electric fields in cosmic enviroments before the name 'plasma' was coined for an ionized gas.

Claims that galaxies, or stars, are actually powered by giant electric currents have more problems than 'dark matter' because such currents emit microwaves. We don't detect these microwave streamers passing through stars or galaxies. For stars like the Sun, such currents create all kinds of severe problems for satellites and astronauts.

For more details, see the "Death by Electric Universe" series at: Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists' [blogspot.com] .

And the big question is where is the battery or generator that powers all this? Where does it get its power!?

More important then the fact they're pointing... (3, Insightful)

arpad1 (458649) | about a year ago | (#44758525)

... is what they're pointing at.

Notice how that's left out of the article. Coincidence? I think not!

Re:More important then the fact they're pointing.. (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year ago | (#44758573)

They left it out to try and get dinner reservations before anybody else.

Re:More important then the fact they're pointing.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44758829)

That is left as exercise to the student.

Re:More important then the fact they're pointing.. (1)

laejoh (648921) | about a year ago | (#44759153)

Conspiracy theorists beware, even more important is what they're pointing away from!

Re:More important then the fact they're pointing.. (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about a year ago | (#44759529)

They're all pointing at Hoags object.

Re:More important then the fact they're pointing.. (1)

meglon (1001833) | about a year ago | (#44760073)

... and laughing

Mean, cruel nebula!!!

Re:More important then the fact they're pointing.. (1)

Guest316 (3014867) | about a year ago | (#44762495)

> ... is what they're pointing at. Notice how that's left out of the article.

True, they were rather nebulous about it.

Rotation of galaxy (1)

deodiaus2 (980169) | about a year ago | (#44758569)

The rotation of the galaxy imparts a rotational momentum onto objects in its gravitational field? Thus the nebula begin to rotate in the opposite direction. When the suns explode, the majority of the mass looks as if it travels along the axis of rotation. The expelled mass's path of minimal energy is towards the original body's axis of rotation. Is it this easy, or did I miss something?

Re:Rotation of galaxy (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year ago | (#44758957)

Yes. You missed entropy. It all turns messy in the end.

Re:Rotation of galaxy (1)

bughunter (10093) | about a year ago | (#44761831)

You also missed the part in TFA where they compared the planes of rotation of these disks and the galactic plane and discovered no correlation.

Wait some billion years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44758655)

... and the formed arrow will point to a Walmart

Galaxy exploding (1)

linear a (584575) | about a year ago | (#44759173)

Yeah. Galaxy is exploding. Not news.

Re: Galaxy exploding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759587)

Which one? The S3 or the S4?

The S3 is known to explode.

Follow it! (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year ago | (#44759265)

It's the direction the Precursors left the galaxy!

Re:Follow it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759823)

Thank you. This was my immediate reaction too.

Remnants of a SPACE WAR (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year ago | (#44759549)

Of course if they were all being WASTED by some giant space-cannon from a single galactic source, that might be a reason they're all aligned similarly too...but none of the astronomers will talk about THAT, will they?

Obvious! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759889)

What a bunch of airheads. Inexplicable astronomical phenomenon? Dark Matter is the cause!

Avalon Hill says: (1)

meglon (1001833) | about a year ago | (#44760129)

My army of globular clusters with longbows will slay thy army of planetary nebula with long axes before they even get in range to attack!!!!

Most possibly... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44762013)

An explanation may be found in some theories found here http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium

Dark strings (3, Funny)

devloop (983641) | about a year ago | (#44762255)

I have worked out an elegant solution that can be collapsed to only 88 dimensions, where infinitesimally small unbound super strings made of pure dark energy are curled up in tiny unobservable sub-plank scale vibrating loops that create immeasurable gravity-like dark froth along the alignment axis.

Getting sucked up? (1)

starshinecruzer (192162) | about a year ago | (#44767825)

Could it be they're all being stretched as they're attracted towards one black hole?

Not a single comment about (1)

PJ6 (1151747) | about a year ago | (#44815019)

rainbow worlds or Groombridge?

Y'all missed out on a great game, and I'm getting old.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>