The title is a small out of context quote from the linked article at phys.org; I used it to start a discussion for that inference, and the other implications in the article. The article does not necessarily represent my view for any of its implications.I did however think it would make a good topic for discussion. Please read the article in its entirety before jumping to conclussions about it in this thread. The article can be found here: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-universe-dwarf-galaxies-dont-standard.html
The article sounds completely bogus, because there are not any dwarf galaxies in the Milky Way. The Milky Way is a galaxy, and there are not any other galaxies in our galaxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellanic_Clouds It's a good thing for you that you never tire of being wrong.
Yes, yes read the article... And as usual most do have sensationalistic headlines, as you have in this thread. Firstly the findings are preliminary, secondly, they were yelling the same sensationalistic stuff when the Pioneer anomalies were the flavour of the month, thirdly, again the same sensationalist stuff when the the galactic angular momentum anomalies were being discussed, before DM was hypothesised and finally accepted after evidence of its existence [the bullet cluster] and fourthly it's not invalidating GR at all, rather the opinions of a select group re an apparent possible anomaly. As with the advent of the likely logical causes for the so called Pioneer anomalies, and the evidence for DM, I probably see a likely reason/s for the present findings. It's a great big Universe out there you know!
This is an interesting disagreement on experimental methodology. This analysis claims three different analysis supporting the standard model of cosmology are wrong and their analysis is correct. They mention the result 'they get' is supported by MOND. I haven't delved into the difference in methodology but my initial guess would be 'three against one', 'GR against MOND', these folks are probably wrong. Just my guess. http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.1799 ps Check out Pavel Kroupa and his dark matter crisis. Bit of a crank fest.
The current theory of gravity, GR is a near certain modeled reality of gravity. A future QGT will not overthrow it, rather encompass it.
He was correct to say there are no any galaxies in the Milky Way galaxy. That's a satellite galaxy, orbiting our galaxy, it's not inside of it. It's "inside" only if we are talking about an image of the Milky Way, but in 3 dimensions it's outside. Galaxies can not be inside other galaxies, unless they collided and merged together, in which case they become a single galaxy.
Take a closer look - our Galaxy is about 31-37 kpc in diameter, 90% of the spheroidal halo lies witing 30kpc of of the galactic center. Sgr dSph has a galactocentric distance of 13-41 kpc. It is, by any meaningful definition, a dwarf galaxy within the milky-way - probably in the process of merging with it (a process that, you know, takes some time).
The SagDEG is still listed as a satellite of the Milky Way and not part of it. Some current theories attribute the Milky Way's spiral arms to collisions with SagDEG. Astronomy Picture of the Day
I didn't say it was part of the milkyway, I suggested it was a dwarf galaxy within the bounds of the milkyway. The difference is not subtle but it is important.
did anyone notice the overprint of the apod is exactly like the disk formed by collision, friction, and the stated of motion. the overprint is a continuation, one of the shapes as the force geometries' evolves. snowball against the wall, a rock into a pond (photo of). the same thing.