Milky Way, Now 50% MORE MASSIVE my brothas and sistas!

the problem though.. is laymen will think "OMG they are clueless.. this proves science isnt all that" or w/e
when just cause they are surprised, doesnt really mean they are wrong, just that the models need tweaking.
Er there is wrong wrong and then there is wrong.. science is taking us from one to the other.
wrong wrong is saying the moon is made of cheese.
wrong is saying the moon is one solid rock.
one can be tweaked and one is just wrong.

personally i cant wait to visit the big rock candy planet. or maybe take a vacation to the carniverous pony planet....on second thought, maybe somewhere else.

"the problem though.. is laymen will think "OMG they are clueless.. this proves science isnt all that" or w/e
when just cause they are surprised, doesnt really mean they are wrong, just that the models need tweaking."

Besides, you don't see any laymen making estimates as to the size of the galaxy.

I think it's tougher to gauge the size of our own galaxy that it is to size up others because we're inside of our own.  It'd be like asking you to tell me how tall you are when you can only see to the end of your own nose, but you can see everyone else's full body.

Also, just for mathmatic's sake, this headline is incorrect.  If the Milky Way is 50% bigger, it's not twice as big.  If size = 2, 50% of 2 is 1.  2+1=3.  It is 1.5 times as big as we thought.

JC/Joules -

I think that the popular press (in this case, the NYT) does 'scientists' a disservice when they report 'science stuff' with more certainty than it deserves.  I haven't gone to the original report on which this article is based to check - but I wouldn't be surprised if the scientists involved didn't caveat their work with words like 'estimated' - as you suggest, JC.  I've only been involved in a few newsworthy studies, and I've been surprised that any hint of uncertainty was stripped out of any comments that I made.  I've categorically stopped talking with any 'reporting' entity.

SMR-MO -

The headline is farther off than even you point out.  According to the headline of the seeded article, the galaxy is "50% bigger". 

Now, if what is "bigger" than once was thought is the diameter (a linear measurement) - then your calculations are correct. 

On the other hand, if "bigger" refers to the area of the galaxy, then if the original estimate was 2 square-somethings the original diameter of the galaxy (assuming that the galaxy is a circle if viewed from 'above) would have been thought to have been 2*sqrt(2/pi) = 1.59 units.  Now, if the area was "50% bigger" the new area would be 3 square-somethings, and the new diameter would be  2*sqrt(3/pi) = 1.95 units, or only 1.95/1.59 = 1.2 times as large as we thought it once was. 

Of course, the "bigger" could refer to the volume of the galaxy. Then if the original estimate was 2 cubic-somethings the original diameter of the galaxy (assuming that the galaxy is a sphere) would have been thought to have been 2*(1.5/pi)^1/3 = 1.56 units.  Now, if the volume was "50% bigger" the new volume would be 3 cubic-somethings, and the new diameter would be  2*(2.25/pi)^1/3 = 1.79 units, or only 1.79/1.56 = 1.15 times as large as we thought it once was. 

However, when we actually read the article (and not just the headline) we learn that neither the diameter, nor the area, nor the volume of the galaxy is greater by 50% than we originally thought.  It's the mass that is 50% greater.  So - with tears in our eyes, and with our excitement dashed - we realize that the galaxy is actually the same size as we originally thought - it's just more dense.

JC -

Much better!  I like it!  More gravitas.  Sounds like our galaxy is back to its fightin' weight!

Of course, now folks are going to wonder just what the heck were SMR-MO and I writing about.  Oh well ...

Just had to mention, I wasn't criticizing scientists for having to update long-standing estimates.  I'm actually hoping they are able to laugh the same way as I do when something that's assumed turns out to be completely off.  I just figure it's better to approach such things with a sense of humor while re-examining the new reality such a situation presents rather than get angry about it or hold on to an obviously-disproven theory.

The Roche Limit, for example, stated no sizable moon could be closer than a certain multiple of the home planet's diameter; it would be broken up by gravity and become a ring system of much smaller fragments.  Then Voyager found moons inside the Roche Limit around Saturn.

I don't see it as invalidating science when something like this happens.  I just take it as a reminder that the universe doesn't have to conform to our assumptions or theories.  Besides, wouldn't it be a really boring place if we really knew everything?

Yosho -

I can't speak for others, of course, but I can say that when I have my "scientist's hat" on and something that I've assumed turns out to be wrong - I'm more excited and curious than I am angry.  Of course, when I have my "engineer's hat" on it doesn't work that way - we try not to make to many assumptions in engineering.

You moon story reminded me of a test question I had once in school.  Try it out:

"Although the moon is only 1/5th the size of Earth - it is farther away.  Why?"

See - even scientists can have a sense of humor.

About the universe not conforming to our assumptions or theories - you may want to look at a couple of interesting (at least, I thought so) books: 1) Where Does the Weirdness Go?, 2) The Search for Schrodinger's Cat, and/or its younger sister Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality, and if you want an introduction to non-Copenhagen interpretations of QP, 3) Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality?.  Of course these books concern themselves with the micro-universe instead of the macro-universe - but it's all one, now - isn't it?

Don't tell Donald Trump. He'd buy a planet or two if he could.

i think he would probably go for the sun, or maybe a couple of them along with his lunar base equipped with giant lazer

So instead of the galaxies colliding in 10 billion years, it will be more like 7 billion?

Yes. Scary stuff!  Start digging those galactic collision shelters now!!

Maybe it'll be 2012 (December 21, 2012) if you believe the post (I can't remember who posted it) re. Nostradamus found here:  http://cooper1.newsvine.com/_news/2009/01/06/2278693-tim-rowland-we-should-be-worried-about-2012

50% more mass translates to 50% more gravity.....when talking about the 'event' in Dec. 2012.....it makes the possibility of some sort of alignment with the sun and the core of the milky way, and it's effect on earth 50% more compelling, I'd suggest... hmm....everyone is gonna be gazing skyward with their third eyes.... if we live that long...

You can find really basic software that can run accurate demos of the collision.  It's not going to happen for millions of years... I promise

I'm not a pro at physics, astronomy or anything like that, but I do love science and strongly believe in thought experiments, so bare with me on this...

If I'm running at you and you are running at me in space, and all other objects around us are moving, the only measurement of speed that I can take, to see when we will collide, will be the combined speed.  Because I have no other point of reference for movement, I can't determine your speed from my own. 

Now, add in gravity.  Gravity will make us accelerate toward each other, and this, too, is a measurement I can take, but will represent the total of your acceleration toward me and my acceleration toward you.  Based on that acceleration and my other observations of our two bodies, I make some estimates about your size (and how much it will hurt when you run into me), and I estimate my size (because I can't see enough of me to truly know my size either).

Using the our combined speed and our combined acceleration due to gravity, I can project when we're going to run into each other, and as long as no other objects are acting on me or you, we should hit each other at that time.

Now I realize something based on a separate observation of my body.  It turns out, I've actually always been quite fat, and didn't realize it!  Now my mass (and therefore my gravity) is much more than I thought!  In this "closed system", no additional acceleration or speed can be added.  We must assume that I'm bigger and you're smaller that previously estimated, and therefore our individual (not combined) acceleration is adjusted proportionately to better represent the facts. 

Using this new information, I look back over at you and you're still coming at me at the same rate of speed and accelerating at the same rate as well, and we will look forward to running into each other in the same amount of time that we initially calculated.

..very sensical, metaphorical interpretation....I get it..

Good news, nica.  Had you been stuck in an airport during any of the number of recent storms, you'd see the new enormous Snickers bars that all the airport snack shops are selling.  I had several.  (burp) Yum!

aaaawwwwwwsssssommmmmeeee - heehee - gonna have to get me some of those

Thank god nica, I thought i was the only one.

Wonder if Almond Joy will now offer a bigger package with more almonds?

oh dear... lol.

JC -

Sorry.  You know - I didn't realize it was your headline at the top and not the title of the original article.  When I read the seeded article I didn't pay any attention to the title.  I didn't see your original title - only the 2nd one - and that's why I responded to SMR-MO. I wasn't sure why he (she?) posted that message and what he (she?) was trying to get at.  Now I understand that it was in response to the first title you used.

I'll pay more attention next time.  If I had realized it was your title I would have simply let it go - and would not have been so 'picky'.  You generally seed good science-related articles - keep it up.

 Minnie -

The article doesn't actually say anything about the size of our galaxy being different (i.e. larger).  The article says it's more massive.  Therefore - assuming that the 'old' galaxy is the same size as the 'new' galaxy - it would seem that our galaxy has been on a fitness program, and has traded in fat for muscle! Sorry you can't think of it as 'pleasingly plump' - can you warm up to a more 'ripped' galaxy?

So you're saying that we have a Schwartzenegger galaxy as opposed to an Orson Welles galaxy?

Yep - think "Conan the Galaxy" rather than "Hank Quinlan".

fat for muscle!

...caught my vibe on that one...funnyfunnfun...yeah, a Swaasonegguw kinna heavenly bowwdee....pump me aupp, Ahhnowwldd..

I think the recent change in the title of this article is great.  Just shows that even science geeks can be funny - right, JC?

I think it's great too.  That's why I commented on it.

*pushes his glasses up his nose by the bridge*

fair enough, I've enjoyed watching it's continual metamorphasis.

recoil, with all due respect, we humans had lived through the scare through religious teaching, when Halley( Hope I'm pronouncing it right)  first showed up or was visible, we humans claimed it was the end the of the world attributed it to religious texts.

I fear too many terrestrial things (war, hatred, inprisonment, okra, sharks, car accidents, air pollution, etc.) to even start to worry about cosmic events that will never happen in my life time.

Yeah - especially okra - the world's only greasy vegetable.

Ha, txtj1!  Though if beings on other planets in our dear Milky Way are eating and breeding as much as we are on this planet there is definitely more mass.

Most excellent seed, JC.