Re: Astronomers claim first 'dark galaxy' find

From: Franz Heymann (notfranz.heymann_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 02/25/05 

Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:44:13 +0000 (UTC)

"John Sefton" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:421e0777$1@news.accesscomm.ca...
>
>
> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> > "Gautam Majumdar" <gmajumdar@XSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote in message
> > news:jbfTd.171636$B8.50470@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> >>On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:39:19 +0000, MrPepper11 wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>nature.com
> >>>23 February 2005
> >>>
> >>>Astronomers spot invisible galaxy
> >>>Discovery supports most recent theories about exotic dark matter
Mark
> >>>Peplow
> >>>
> >>>A galaxy that is made almost entirely of dark matter has been
> >>>discovered. It's the first galaxy found to have no stars at all,
but it
> >>>fits well with predictions made by astrophysicists about where
the
> >>>Universe's missing mass should be.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Why should it be called a "galaxy" and not just a rotating gas
cloud or a
> >>rotating cloud of dark matter ?
> >>
> >>Dictionaries say a galaxy contains star, gas, dust, etc.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Good point, but maybe it has some faint stars not detectable yet.
The INT
> > is a relatively small telescope, and if the "galaxy" contained
only old,
> > faint stars such as those found in globular clusters, but spread
thinly in
> > space, I'm not sure they could be detected that far away without
very
> > special efforts being made--and maybe not even then. Such stars
would be
> > individually as faint as 30th mag (a quick and rough guess).
> >
> > A galaxy does not have to contain gas and dust to be so
called--most
> > elliptical galaxies have very little of either, but we still call
them
> > galaxies. But they ought to have at least some stars...
> >
>
> Does a Hydrogen atom without
> an electron qualify as an atom?

No. 

-- 
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley