+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/18/2018 08:31 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.859 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
03/25/2010 05:04 AM ID: 83500 Permalink   

Number of Galaxies Underestimated by 90%


According to Europe´s Very Large Telescope located in Chile, an uncovering of previously unseen galaxies has occurred.

Some parts of the universe may have been underestimated by up to 90%. According to the leading investigator, it means that for every 10 galaxies located, 100 were not being observed.

Interstellar clouds and space dust may have blocked light from reaching Earth. HAWK-1, a special camera able to observe signature emissions at a specific wavelength, unveiled clusters of previously unseen galaxies.

    WebReporter: MannyisHere Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  Expand by 90%  
an expansion of 90% would be just under doubling the number of known galaxies. The source cites that the number of galaxies was underestimated by about 90% which is not the same as the number of galaxies expanding by 90%. anunderestimate of 90% means that the number of galaxies expands by about 900%.
  by: hothot   03/25/2010 05:39 AM     
To be clear you had it correct in your article "it means that for every 10 galaxies located, 100 were not being observed. " But just that your title was incorrect.
  by: hothot   03/25/2010 05:41 AM     
Thanks for the tip, I corrected the title
  by: caution2     03/25/2010 07:36 AM     
  yes but  
the article (and the summary) stipulates that it is only in SOME PARTS of space that there is an underestimation, not the whole Universe...
  by: LeTonduZ   03/25/2010 08:47 AM     
  Just give me one..  
where we can survive and I am packing.
  by: captainJane     03/25/2010 02:44 PM     
  Dark Matter...  
Bare with me, I´m an idiot... I remember years ago hearing/reading that scientists theorized the existence of "dark matter" because close to 90% (or something) of the mass that should be there in the universe "is not", and therefore might exist in some primordial state that we are unable to detect. Does this latest finding negate the need for the dark matter theory?
  by: spiggy   03/25/2010 07:20 PM     
  @ hot hot  
oh, I didn´t catch that, I wanted to point that the number expanded, and the
percentage uncovered.

but yeah thanks for the fix
  by: MannyisHere     03/25/2010 08:53 PM     
  How academic  
I swear this sort of information won´t be useful for hundreds of thousands of years yet.
  by: H. W. Hutchins   03/26/2010 09:03 AM     
  I want one named  
after me. After all there is plenty to go around and it´s the only way any of them will be useful, ever.
  by: Hytekhik   03/28/2010 08:18 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: