No, unfortunately I'm not wired like Mary, wish I was but I'm way more control freak than she is and less adventurous and open to going with the flow of life. I'm improving, at least I'm looking for new and different types of thinking and people on the internet if not in real life. It's been a buzz really, pity I hadn't tried it decades ago but .. ce la vie.
Not smart Stanky, just curious and cynical. siiiigh.
Thought of another question about those stars. It says they're short lived. Then it mentions that they haven't had time to reach those speeds within this galaxy.
So .. how many parsecs away is the Large Magellenic Cloud?? Further than the centre of the Milky Way to where they are now I'd have guessed. Wouldn't they be at least fading if they'd traveled that distance and time??
Quote:The Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy with a diameter between 100,000[sup][30][/sup] and 180,000 light-years.[3
So .. the radial distance would be 50 to 60 thousand light years, and they didn't have time to acquire their 'anamolous' traits over that distance.
Quote:The Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) is a satellite dwarf galaxy of the Milky Way that is among the closest galaxies to Earth. At about 163,000 light-years from Earth, the dwarf galaxy looks like a faint cloud in Southern Hemisphere skies. It lies on the border of the constellations Dorado and Mensa.Apr 11, 2014
Now that says "from Earth" not from the edge of the Milky way so deduct a few thousand LYs?
... but still, they had time to travel at least twice as far and retain the 'anamolies'
Quote:
But these type of stars only last a few hundred million years and this would not be enough time for them to reach the speeds needed to travel so far out from our galaxy's centre.
.. how many is 'a few'? You lads will have to do the maths but I'm guessing they didn't travel at the speed of light between the 'Cloud' and the Milky Way, and covering 163,000 light years would take a lot longer than 'a few hundred million years' even in their 'speedy' case .. wouldn't it?
So why are they still 'youngish' stars??
No, I haven't overlooked that the gravity of our galaxy may have actually slowed them down a bit, but .03% of C now is slowed down from what? Certainly not a lot more than .3% of C originally.
I'm not even going to attempt to do the math on how long it takes to cover 163,000 light years at even .5% of C
even if the galactic speeds of approach are included.
I read that firing a canon from a moving train thing, but seriously?? How much would that impetus reduce traveling time? Enough to account for their current levels of energy?
'Splain it to me cos it doesn't add up to me.