New Rare Dwarf Galaxies Discovered By Hubble Space Telescope

Hubble-Space-Telescope

Cosmologists working with the Hubble Space Telescope’s Advanced Camera for Surveys have spotted a new dwarf galaxy. Russian scientists found an previously obscure dwarf galaxy (named Kks3) around 7 million light-years away on the way to southern Hydrus constellation.

This revelation is strange as Kks3 is really well inside the comparatively well-mapped “Local Group” of 50 known galaxies where the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are found. Actually, discovering the new galaxy has led cosmologists to start speculating about how many other close-by dwarf galaxies have gone undiscovered.

More on dwarf galaxies

With only one ten-thousandth of the mass of our galaxy, the “dwarf spheroidal” galaxy does not have the peculiarities viewers commonly expect, for example, spiral arms.

Dwarf galaxies are irregular as they don’t have the gas and dust needed to make new stars. That implies most dwarf galaxies are antique, and watching them is something like an celestial archeological burrow. By the same token, as they are so old, the stars of dwarf galaxies are faint, making it hard to identify them.

Dwarf are typically found in orbit with bigger galaxies, and cosmologists accept their star-forming gasses were stolen by bigger neighboring galaxies. Though,  Kks3 is not particularly near to another galaxy; it is totally secluded and is one of only two known isolated dsph galaxies. The other secluded dsph galaxy in the Local Group was found in 1999 and is named KKR & Co. L.p. (Nyse:kkr) 25.

Analysts accept that secluded dsph galaxies were shaped uniquely in contrast to bigger, orbiting galaxies. Secluded dsphs were not affected by the gravitic forces of their neighbors, so they likely held onto the majority of their star-forming gasses, however then expended almost the majority of the material in an early blast of star development. Given the absence of interstellar gas, cosmologists need to examine intergalactic space deliberately so not to miss the dim stars of dsph galaxies.

“Discovering items like Kks3 is thorough work, even with observatories like the Hubble Space Telescope. However, with diligence, we’re gradually developing a guide of our nearby neighborhood, which ends up being less vacant than we suspected,” remarked Dimitry Makarov, of the Special Astrophysical Observatory in Karachai-Cherkessia, Russia.

“There is a possibility that there are countless dwarf spheroidal galaxies out there, something that would have reflective results for our thoughts regarding the advancement of the universe,” he added.

About Cliff Jenkins Scott

Cliff likes to describe himself as made for the hard road. Freelancing is taking off across the world. And yet, valuable opportunities are hard to find he thinks, particularly when it comes to writing. After graduating with an MA degree in Communication as a major and Technology and Writing as minors, Cliff decided to give his own website hosting creative writing a boost and engage in an overwhelming number of projects, all of them focused on writing. He didn’t look for a quick burnout, but his eagerness to learn as much as possible as rapidly as possible kept him going.
  • Steve powers

    cool.

  • David Capettini

    Astronomers talk so confidently about the structure of the universe and the physical laws that govern it. But, whenever they actually get to see things, they race around to reformulate these theories to accord with empirical evidence. Perhaps they should not be so confident speaking on the Science shows. As soon as they get actual data, they have to can the shows and shoot them all over again. If there are “countless dwarf spheroidal galaxies out there” wouldn’t that have an effect of their determining the amount of visible matter in the universe and their calculations regarding “dark matter”, for example?

    • Andrew Collins

      Smart ass, right?

    • NA

      Yes, this is how Science works. They don’t really destroy their theories 100% as you imply, they just adjust them with more precision.

      • David Capettini

        Really? Just how did we “modify” phlogiston theory?

        • NA

          There are some rare exceptions — Phlogiston Theory as well as the idea that Aether existed, especially in the infancy of the learning process. It happens much less frequently as we approach the modern era, though, because we invented standards like the Scientific Method (which didn’t exist when Phlogiston Theory was first speculatively postulated). Nobody legitimate asserted that Aether or Phlogiston were necessarily true, as Science requires that an idea be testable and falsifiable before making any assertions. They were simply speculations that were proven incorrect by evidence.

          • David Capettini

            Those “rare exceptions” include most of Biology until the late 19th century. All of Astronomy until Newton. Geology until the advent of plate tectonics in the middle of the 20th century and so on.

          • NA

            We didn’t throw out all of Biology before the late 19th century.
            We didn’t throw out all of Astronomy before Newton.
            We didn’t throw out all of Geology until the middle of the 20th century.

            And so on.

          • David Capettini

            What parts did we keep, other than some terminology?

          • NA

            Come on, seriously? Do your own homework about this. SO much was kept, I don’t have the energy to paste everything to you across at least 3 major science topics.

          • David Capettini

            You would have thought that with your extensive knowledge and grasp of all of these disciplines that examples would have flown off your head like bats out of a belfry at dusk; too bad, I was ready to learn something at the feet of the master.

          • NA

            You’re asking me to list off 43462763 unique prime numbers, when you can go ahead and learn about them yourself. I have only energy enough to guide you in the general direction.

          • David Capettini

            I’m sorry! Just what do prime numbers have to do with physics and astronomy?

          • NA

            It was just an analogy relating to you asking me for a gigaton of information that you could yourself dig up with as much effort as it would take me to.

          • David Capettini

            In other words, you are unable to come up with even a single example, Some adherent to “Scientific Method”.

          • NA

            No, in other words, I am simply not inclined to do your homework for you. Unwilling and unable are two very different concepts, and have nothing to do with adhering to the Scientific Method whatsoever. Not quite a nice try in baiting me.

          • David Capettini

            My doesn’t this sound like the schoolyard boast “Well, if you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you” Goodbye. Teach. You have become tiresome.

          • NA

            Your response is no less or more childish. You could complain, or you could actually go do the research yourself. It’s not that I know and am keeping it a big secret from you, it’s that you’ve asked a HUGE question with an answer that takes more energy than I am willing to put forth to give to you, when you can merely expend that energy yourself and discover it for yourself. If that’s too tiresome for you, then so be it, we would have nothing further to discuss.

            You’re supposed to reject the null hypothesis, not assert it to be true. You claimed “Those “rare exceptions” include most of Biology until the late 19th
            century. All of Astronomy until Newton. Geology until the advent of
            plate tectonics in the middle of the 20th century and so on.”, I should ask you how much of it was thrown out and how much of it was kept, in order to continue the evaluation of your statement itself, not you asking me which parts were kept. The burden of proof of how much of it has been discarded lies upon you, the maker of the claim.

    • Henry Chang

      not really. The dark matter is proportional to the visible matter in that x amount of dark matter is needed in y galaxy to keep it from flying apart. It’s proportional, there will likely be a similar proportion in a dwarf galaxy. That said, yes, science is always changing and that’s good because otherwise reality would be very boring.

      • David Capettini

        Henry, you have no idea what “dark matter” is or how it works. All the evidence is based on its gravitational effects. To then say that this speculation is settled fact is to misunderstand your own process. You have put the cart before the horse. One day the another Einstein will reconcile macro physics with micro physics to some degree and the process will begin all over again.

        • NA

          Macro physics and micro physics do not disagree. Newton’s theories were not made obsolete by Quantum theory at all. Both are correct. When the two are reconciled, I am willing to bet that neither current macro theory nor micro theory will at all be thrown out, as you suggest, because at present both are shown to be true. How would they magically be made false when eventually reconciled? They wouldn’t.

          • David Capettini

            “True”? Perhaps you do not know the meaning of the word. Quantum Mechanics and Einsteinian Macro physics are incompatible. Therefore, they cannot both be true, by any definition of the word. They both have proved useful for making certain predictions, but geocentric predictions of celestial movement and locations exceeded the precision of modern astronomy until very recent times. Was it “True”? Some very fine minds have devoted decades to reconciling quantum mechanics and macro physics without result. Perhaps an entirely new understanding of both is required.

          • NA

            Perhaps it is you who does not know how a scientific theory needs to be testable and falsifiable before it is asserted to be true.

            Quantum physics and Newtonian physics are NOT incompatible. You are just used to living in a scale where your intuition is exposed to only one part of physics (Newtonian) and therefore you have cognitive dissonance between Quantum level physics and Newtonian level physics in your mind. They are indeed both true simultaneously. Neither needs to be thrown out, since both are proven true by testability and falsifiability and logic and math and reason that doesn’t elude all of us. Are there some missing gaps in the complete picture? Absolutely, but you are suggesting these gaps are unfillable because of your biases, and I contest this.

          • David Capettini

            I did not realize that I am a Physics bigot. The “gaps” between quantum mechanics and Einsteinian physics is more than just filling in some gray areas. Neither can predict or explain anything about the other.

          • NA

            The English alphabet can’t predict something about prime numbers. I guess both ideas are therefore bunk, right? According to your logic.

          • David Capettini

            Are you having a bad Christmas? You seem to have nothing to do but try to insult me. I have the excuse of advanced age. What is yours?

          • NA

            Thank you for your concern for my personal life. I can assure you it is not relevant to my statements. I’m not trying to insult you, I’m merely pointing out the logical inconsistencies in the things you are saying. My regard for my own emotions or yours or anyone else’s in doing so is non-existent.

          • David Capettini

            Ah, now you are treading on my turf. I assure you that there are no “logical inconsistencies” in anything I have said. As a trained Philosopher, I have more than a passing acquaintance with Logic.

          • NA

            Ok, philosophy, I now understand why you say the things you say in previous responses. I applaud your relationship with formal logic. My own background is in Physics, and mathematical logic is not alien to me, either, for reference.

          • David Capettini

            What about the “logical inconsistencies”? As Whitehead and Russell proved in ‘Principia Mathematica’. mathematics can be reduced to logic. So, I don’t see much difference between “mathematical logic” and logic, per se.

            Your dig that my educational background explains my lack of understanding is pompous beyond belief. I assume that you teach high school Physics, given your inability to actually explain any of your claims.

          • NA

            Assume what you will, I’m not offended at all by the things you say. I don’t mean to insult you, but I don’t place a lot of value in claims that are untestable, which is Philosophy. Mine involves only claims that are of practical value — testable, verifiable, falsifiable. I don’t want to engage in a philosophical debate over semantics, I only care about stuff that I can put to practical use beyond the imagination.

    • Catsailor

      This discovery is akin to one someone calculating the volume of a hundred meter swimming pool, and then a honey bee lands in it. One must re-calculate, huh?

      • james

        depends on how much honey the bee just ate!

      • richard dumas

        Actually the volume would remain the same, only the density of the volume would change.

      • David Capettini

        “Countless dwarf galaxies” sounds like more than a honey bee.

    • EVHappy

      Scientists are not 100 percent sure of their knowledge, unlike religious nuts. Scientists are also willing to listen and then change their minds when new evidence comes out, also, unlike religious nuts.

      The scientific process is the best system humans have come up with and is the reason we have gained so much knowledge about our universe. There is much more to learn and thankfully we don’t have to live in the Dark Ages where people would burn women at the stake if they thought they had supernatural powers. How primitive is that?

      • richard dumas

        Actually we do live there, that stuff just happens around the corner from us, remember?
        That “I cant see it from my house” crap is a bad way to view things.
        If ever we are so fortunate to live in a world where innocent people are no longer brutally destroyed by savages, it will be due to the efforts of humanitarian people who will most likely be people of some faith or another. The benefits of the scientific process are of another type entirely, think GE mini-cannon and intercontinental ballistic missile, two beautiful examples of science in action.

        • EVHappy

          The following is something religious people cover their ears and eyes when confronted by these facts:

          “The German Army belt buckles said GOTT MIT UNS which means GOD WITH US. Nazi soldiers also took an oath to Hitler saying – I SWEAR BY GOD THIS HOLY OATH….TO ADOLF HITLER.”

          When you think you have a god that tells you your group is superior to other groups, bad things happen, often, as history shows us time after time.

          Humans cannot evolve to the next social level until supernatural nonsense is given up.

          • richard dumas

            Don’t really get your point about the Nazi thing if there was one, also don’t know of any “god” that speaks of superiority…..
            At first glance I thought you were just a cynic, though you are starting to appear as a boring atheist internet troll. So check it out BAIT, you are not only in the social minority as you are unaware that 75% percent of the populace believe in some sort of spirituality, you are apparently in the scientific minority as well. Science is responsible for the vast majority of pain and suffering in our modern world. Science is a true double edged sword, each breakthrough comes with overwhelming responsibility. Here are your study words for today BAIT; napalm, anthrax, mesothelioma, depleted uranium ordinance, fallout, toe popper land mines and fracking. Have mommy help you with those, ok?

      • TwinkleStar2

        Scientists are willing to listen? That’s a laugh. Most of them are more opinionated than any “religious nuts” I know. Science is just another religion and scientists are its practitioners. Ho hum.

        • EVHappy

          No, the evidence goes against everything you claim. There have been major shifts in scientific thinking over the past several hundred years yet over 40% of Americans still think Earth is only 6000 years old, regardless of overwhelming evidence. Who are those 40%? Religious people who have closed their minds to evidence.

          I guess blind faith rules over rational thought and evidence for some people, unless of course religious people get in trouble. Then they run to their scientific based doctors and lawyers. I guess they really don’t believe in their supernatural nonsense. Otherwise, they would just go home and pray or go see their priests. Think about that.

          • Kyle Wagner

            The old support their old theories and the new bring in new evidence to disprove these theories.

          • TwinkleStar2

            You more or less prove my point with your “There have been major shifts in scientific thinking over the past several hundred years.” That is an incredible understatement of vast magnitude bordering on the ludicrous. Then again, you say “I guess blind faith rules over rational thought.” Exactly my point regarding scientists who unquestioningly accepts such theories as the Big Bang Theory. Science is just another religion and scientists are its chief rabbis. ‘Nuff said.

      • David Capettini

        I hardly think that I proposed relying on dogma rather than science. My rather mild protest was that the science that is handed to us via popular media talks of these matters as if the purveyors had overwhelming evidence of their pronouncements when in actuality, much of what they flatly state to be true is speculation based on much too little evidence. From reading the history of Science this seems to have been a problem for most of its duration. “Leading” scientists treat their theories as if they were settled truth, only to have them toppled by new data or an accumulation of anomalies. The various theories of planet formation are an excellent example of this.

  • If you’d like to explore an extraordinary, revolutionary concept of time, space and ultra-extraterrestrial intelligence, read my book length treatise, UFOs-WHERE FROM HERE. Available wherever fine books are sold or ordered. Simply enter my name, FRED WORFE, or the name of one of my books in your browser. Or, get the E-books for less cost.

    • troRx

      I know you don’t have the ability to stop being a moron. Could you please, however, stop inflicting your stupidity on the general public? Science and scientific inquiry are already under siege from all sides. The ‘Anti-Enlightenment’ movement will do just fine without you foisting your imbecilic delusions in to the fray. Go be stupid somewhere else!

  • KU37

    It sounds like maybe Royce has spent too much time waxing analytically about financial news. This is automated gobbledegook, not journalism. Shame on Google for linking to this from their main news page.

    From the article:

    “The other secluded dsph galaxy in the Local Group was found in 1999 and is named KKR & Co. L.p. (Nyse:kkr) 25.”

  • EVHappy

    So, no starts in a dwarf galaxy? It was not clear in the article. I don’t think a mass of gas should be called a galaxy unless there are at least a few stars.

  • UFOs-WHERE FROM HERE — (page 8 of the book) The main hope for this treatise is to start a serious thought process and dialogue among the nations of planet Earth about the critical importance—if not the imperative—of getting humankind in touch with this intelligence at the soonest time possible.
    Central to the argument for a relentless quest is the premise that we have already found extraterrestrial aptitude in the form and appearance of UFOs. We only have to find a way to communicate effectively with them.

  • From page 8 of UFOs-WHERE FROM HERE by Fred Worfe —-

    In this unprecedented mental reach for the stars, there are two

    basic and compelling possibilities, either of which is sufficiently

    awesome to spark unprecedented global consideration, effort, and

    deployment of resources. We life forms on earth are the unique

    and only hope and source of procreating our DNA throughout

    infinite time and space, or we are not alone, and the universe has

    been populated for untold eons by intelligent beings that in our

    wildest imaginings, we cannot even describe.