[acecharly (OP)]

Because of our position in the galaxy we cannot see the space beyond the other side of our galaxy. Do we know what is there?

Any ideas?

Cheers

Ace

[Soul Surfer]

We can see the other side of the galaxy in longer wavelengths than light notably infra red and radio.  21cm hydrogen line radio is particularly good because it shows where the spiral arms are.  Although directly towards the centre it is not easy because detecting them depends on Doppler shift in the spectral line.

[Pmb]

Because of our position in the galaxy we cannot see the space beyond the other side of our galaxy.

That seems about correct to me.

Do we know what is there?

Nope. Not precisely.

[Pmb]

Our view is not totally obscured.

Why not?

I think about ten mini satellite galaxies have been identified while the general form seems to follow that of other spiral galaxies 

I don't follow!? Where are these ten mini satellite galaxies? How do they fit into this topic?

[Pmb]

May I suggest for your reading this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

Wow. Some of those Wiki articles seem like they could be a small book, they are so large.

[Pmb]

May I suggest for your reading this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

While I'm reading it may I ask you if this is an article that you yourself have read already? If not then on then why did you refer this article to me?

[Æthelwulf]

Because of our position in the galaxy we cannot see the space beyond the other side of our galaxy. Do we know what is there?

Any ideas?

Cheers

Ace

Perhaps the simplest answer is: the rest of the universe.

[Pmb]

Because of our position in the galaxy we cannot see the space beyond the other side of our galaxy. Do we know what is there?

Any ideas?

Cheers

Ace

Perhaps the simplest answer is: the rest of the universe.

That statement is inonsistent with your initial response. As for this response: if, when you say "rest of the universe", you mean "everything that the center of the universe occulates" then I agree with you. As for that long article - I don't think I'll be reading it. I'd rather have the person who posted the link state simply what he means by his response, or better yet, to prove what I said is wrong.

[Pmb]

Pmb

I have of course read the article quoted although I was familiar with much quoted there in and thought it well put

Then what was the purpose of posting the link? I.e. what is it you think I'd gleen rom reading it that is lacking in my background and education? By the way, you neglected to answer my questions I asked you above, I.e. Where are these ten mini satellite galaxies? How do they fit into this topic?

[Æthelwulf]

Because of our position in the galaxy we cannot see the space beyond the other side of our galaxy. Do we know what is there?

Any ideas?

Cheers

Ace

Perhaps the simplest answer is: the rest of the universe.

That statement is inonsistent with your initial response. As for this response: if, when you say "rest of the universe", you mean "everything that the center of the universe occulates" then I agree with you. As for that long article - I don't think I'll be reading it. I'd rather have the person who posted the link state simply what he means by his response, or better yet, to prove what I said is wrong.

This is indeed why I said what I said.

[Pmb]

Hi again acecharly. Your question never seemed to have really gotten a good answer, including mine. The answer is no. We don't know what's there.

However astronomers have good reasons to make assumptions about what's there. For example; astronomers assume that the matter density of the galaxy is continuous evrerywhere and thus also is  continuous in the occulated (sp?) region. They assume that the portion of the galaxy occulated by the center can be predicted from the distribution of the galaxy that isn't ocullated. It should be stated that what is actually occulated and what isn't will depend on the wavelength of the light being observed.

[Geezer]

syhprum - I had a lot of trouble understanding your last post if I were to take it literally since there are a lot of gramatical errors in it. For example; you wrote

Your question seem to imply ...

That makes no sense. You had to have meant either of the following

(1) Your question seems to imply ....

(1) Your questions seem to imply ....

Were you aware that the first paragraph in that post there is only one run on sentance?

I can respond to it better if you were to rephrase that last post of yours. Thanks.

The last paragraph does not pertain to this thread.

If you are going to object to grammar, you might also want to check your own spelling   []
 
Please do not critique other members in this manner. If you have a complaint about a post, please report it.
 
MODERATOR.

[Pmb]

Please do not critique other members in this manner. If you have a complaint about a post, please report it.
 
MODERATOR.

I was not "critiquing" another member. I was asking syhprum a question so as to preprare a response if one is called for.

The purpose of my post was to explain that there were two different ways to read that part of his post.  In this case the problem was with punctuation, not grammar as I, mistakenly, assumed before. For me to properly understand his comments and construct a possible response I had to ask that question (or something similar).