In other words, the dwarf galaxy would remain a coherent object even after being incorporated into the Milky Way. If they were rich in dark matter, the mass and gravity of that dark matter would have helped keep most objects in their orbits even in the face of some disruption. The destruction experienced by the dwarf galaxies that entered the Milky Way brings the amount of dark matter in these galaxies into question. When these galaxies crashed into our own, there was so much turbulence that they lost their gas, and their structures were drastically changed. By identifying galactic remnants, they determined that most dwarf galaxy remnants within the Milky Way only entered it within the last 3 billion years or so. The researchers used Gaia data to date objects within the Milky Way that originated in smaller galaxies that had previously been swallowed. It is possible dark matter has something to do with this. “Most dwarf galaxies are star systems that arrived late in the Milky Way… in sharp contrast with a long-term satellite hypothesis,” an international team of researchers said in a study recently published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.īased on data from the European Space Agency’s Gaia mission, this study has found that many dwarf galaxies that were orbiting the Milky Way only a few billion years ago have ended up destroyed after being pulled in by our much more massive galaxy. Though scientists used to think that all those dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way were going to stick around for tens of billions of years, that might not be the case. But when its intense gravity inevitably draws them to venture too close, they will probably be annihilated. About 50 dwarf galaxies surround the Milky Way. I plan to update it to a newer version soon and that update should bring in a bunch of new word senses for many words (or more accurately, lemma).NASA/JPL-Caltech/STScI reader comments 54 Special thanks to the contributors of the open-source code that was used in this project: the UBY project (mentioned above), and express.js.Ĭurrently, this is based on a version of wiktionary which is a few years old. I simply extracted the Wiktionary entries and threw them into this interface! So it took a little more work than expected, but I'm happy I kept at it after the first couple of blunders. The researchers have parsed the whole of Wiktionary and other sources, and compiled everything into a single unified resource. That's when I stumbled across the UBY project - an amazing project which needs more recognition. ![]() However, after a day's work wrangling it into a database I realised that there were far too many errors (especially with the part-of-speech tagging) for it to be viable for Word Type.įinally, I went back to Wiktionary - which I already knew about, but had been avoiding because it's not properly structured for parsing. ![]() ![]() This caused me to investigate the 1913 edition of Websters Dictionary - which is now in the public domain. I initially started with WordNet, but then realised that it was missing many types of words/lemma (determiners, pronouns, abbreviations, and many more). The dictionary is based on the amazing Wiktionary project by wikimedia. And since I already had a lot of the infrastructure in place from the other two sites, I figured it wouldn't be too much more work to get this up and running. ![]() I had an idea for a website that simply explains the word types of the words that you search for - just like a dictionary, but focussed on the part of speech of the words. Both of those projects are based around words, but have much grander goals. For those interested in a little info about this site: it's a side project that I developed while working on Describing Words and Related Words.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |