Difference between revisions of "Globular cluster"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (grammar fix)
(Undo revision 752999 by Fanngo (Talk) Just a bunch of spam.)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Something about Nothing'''
+
{{image request}}
 +
A '''globular cluster''' is a spherical grouping of [[star|stars]] that share a common origin and orbits the galactic core of a [[galaxy]] as a satellite.  They are very tightly bound by [[gravity]] and contain anywhere from tens of thousands to million of stars in an area that is only some 300 light years across or less, and are generally oblate spheroids in shape.  The density of the clusters are on average around 0.4 stars per cubic [[parsec]], but increases toward to the center of the cluster, reaching as high as 100 or even a 1000 stars per cubic parsec.<ref>http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/workx/globulars/globulars.html</ref>
  
Before reading this articlea, it is neccessary to explain what nothing is. Nothing does not exist, that is to say, something that is nothing doesn't not exist, or to put it another way, nothing is something.
+
Unlike [[open cluster|open clusters]], which contain [[metallicity|population I stars]] and reside in the [[galactic disk]], globular clusters are made up of population II stars and are found in either the [[galactic bulge]] or [[galactic halo]]. Some globular clusters are found as far out as 131,000 light years from the core of the galaxy.<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...313..119D</ref>  Current, there are 158 known globular clusters around the [[Milky Way]], with several more perhaps yet to be discovered, all moving in highly eccentric orbits.<ref>http://www.seds.org/~spider/spider/MWGC/mwgc.html</ref>  Beyond the Milky Way, most other galaxies in the Local Group and beyond have globular clusters.  [[Andromeda_galaxy|Andromeda]] is known to have some 500.
  
'''Nothing''' is nothing that cannot be explained because there is nothing to explain about nothing. Except that Nothing has a thing for Everything. Nothing is an A+
+
==History==
answer and it is used everywhere so if it's nothing then why are we talking about nothing since there is nothing to talk about? Nothing started when nothing began, so if something is beginning consider it as nothing, it will delight you greatly. You must also remember that nothing is also something, so you can consider it as both nothing and something. If nothing is happening you get depressed, but if something is happening you get even more depressed when that something finishes. Sometimes this leads to suicide which can also be considered as nothing because it takes time, and if time is something it is also nothing. So if you're reading this article you must be either bored or nothing, which can also be something. If you want to be nothing you must leave the universe, which means that you will be something in nothing and the things inside of the universe will consider you as a something that is nothing at all, others may want to join you and become a something in nothing or nothing in something that we know nothing about, and if we know nothing about that something we therefore know something about it and that something is nothing.
+
  
But we must remember what was said earlier, nothing is something, so you must say both nothing and something when using either nothing or something in a common sentence. To achieve this almost
+
Abraham Ihle, an amateur [[astronomer]] from [[Germany]] was the first to discover a globular cluster when he found the cluster M22 in 1665, however at the time his telescope was not able to resolve the individual stars. [[Charles Messier]] was the first to identify globular clusters as being made up of individual stars when he observed the cluster M4. It was [[William Herschel]] though who first coined the term globular cluster in his catalog of deep sky objects in 1789. Herschel also discovered 37 such clusters alone, as well as fully resolve the stars in 33 previous discovered ones.
impossible task, we do this something the American way; by simplifying nothing (or something). For example we can join both nothing and something together to form somenothingthing. The word somenothingthing is to be used as something and nothing because something is nothing and nothing is
+
something. This something (or nothing) will be a required word added to each sentence of either something or nothing and as i just said something is two things because something is nothing.  
+
We could do the logical something by using the word "everything" as both something and nothing instead of somenothingthing and that will make everything a 4 worded word. And if everything is everything including nothing and something (or somenothingthing) each word is a 4 worded word regardless of if it is referring to a thing, nothing, something, somenothingthing and everything. Because of this the entire English language will have to be changed. This new English language; which is something and therefore as I have said earlier it is nothing, somenothingthing and everything; can be called 'English Somenothingthing'. To conclude this meaning of somenothingthing which is nothing and something and everything, if you add it up Everything contains 8 words due to the change in the English language.  
+
  
For the most simplistic yet most explainable explanation of "Absolute Nothing", see the essay "Berashith" by A. Crowley (which can be found easlily online).
+
In 1918, [[Harlow Shapley]] used his studies of globular clusters and their asymmetrical distribution in the galaxy to calculate both the distance of the [[Sun]] to the galactic center, and the overall dimensions of the [[Milky Way]] itself.  Although the measurements he made were off from the actual size of the galaxy, due to not taking into account dust in the Milky Way diminishing light from the various clusters, he did in fact show the galaxy was much larger then previously believed.<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1918PASP...30...42S</ref>
  
==An example of Nothing==
+
==Composition==
  
Tiananmen Square 1989 - Nothing happened
+
The stars themselves that make up globular clusters are all metal-poor population II stars, similar to those located in the central budge of the [[Milky Way]].  There is also no detectable gas or dust in these clusters.
  
1937-1945 Japan - Nothing Happened
+
Globular clusters are further divided into two major groupings known as ''Oosterhoff groups'', the difference between the level of [[metallicity]] found in the stars in the cluster.  Clusters of the type I group are found to have somewhat weak metal absorption line in their spectra, while Type II have very weak metal lines.  As such, Type I clusters are referred to as "metal-rich" and Type II as "metal-poor".  Both types are metal-poor in comparison to population I stars found in the [[galactic disk]].<ref>van Albada, T. S.; Baker, Norman (1973). "On the Two Oosterhoff Groups of Globular Clusters". Astrophysical Journal 185: 477–498. do:10.1086/152434.</ref>  In the Milky Way, the more metal-poor type II clusters are located in the outer part of the galactic halo, while the more metal-rich clusters are found near the galactic budge.<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976AJ.....81.1095H</ref> Both types of globular cluster populations have been found in several galaxies, being most common in large [[elliptical galaxy|elliptical galaxies]].  What causes the difference between the two types of clusters is not exactly known.  Some scenarios to explain this include galaxy mergers, the absorption of satellite galaxies, and staggered star formation within galaxies.<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002astro.ph..7607Y</ref>
  
The Crusades - Nothing happened (not even [[cannibalism]])
+
==Old Universe View==
  
==Nothing recipes==
+
In the cosmological model of a billions of years old universe, it is theorized that globular clusters are around 9 to 13 billion years in age and initially form as a loose collection of stars.  The current theory in this model suggests as the cluster passes into "adolescence", the stars near the center of the cluster begin to collapse in towards each other. This collapse ends when the interaction of [[binary star|binary systems]] and prevents any further contraction, at this point the cluster is at what is referred to as "middle age". Over millions of years, the stars in the binary systems are ejected by gravitational disruption as the cluster passes through "old age".  Virtually all globular clusters are theorized to be far along int the "old age" portion of their evolution.  However a more recent study of 13 globular clusters suggests though that some of the clusters may actually be much younger then initially believed.  From observations by the [[Chandra X-Ray Observatory]], three of the clusters were found to have a large number of [[x-ray]] binaries, suggesting to them that not enough time has passed to eject many binary companions from the cluster, if the current models are correct.  If these new observations are are confirmed, this would challenge the current theories on the evolution of such clusters within the old universe cosmology.<ref>http://www.astronomynow.com/Oldglobularclusterssurprisinglyyoung.html</ref>
Flat Nothing<br>
+
Take out a rolling pin. Roll it across the table. Serves no one.
+
  
''Nothing Stir-Fry''<br>
+
[[Category: Astronomy]]
On a saucer, wave a wooden [[spoon]] around. Enjoy.
+
  
''Nothing Delight''<br>
+
==References==
On a clean plate, twirl your fork for a few seconds.  Enjoy.  (Serves 1)
+
{{reflist}}
 
+
''Nothing Like It''<br>
+
Break all of your plates except for one of them, then take out the last one. (Serves 3)
+
 
+
''Nothing Quite Like It''<br>
+
Break all of your plates, then drive to the store where you buy all of your kitchenware, and break all of their plates.  (Serves 1)
+
 
+
''Crispy Nothing''<br>
+
Heat a pan on the stove to 450 degrees for 1 minute, then preheat your oven to 350 degrees, making sure nothing is inside.  After 10 minutes, open your oven.  Wait until your house is in equilibrium with the oven.  (serves 5)
+
 
+
''Nothing Double Decker''<br>
+
In between two slices of sandwich bread, wave your hand twice, holding one of the slices 7 inches above the other.  (Serves 2)
+
 
+
''Nothing Upside-Down Cake''<br>
+
Turn pan over.
+
 
+
 
+
Such tasty delights, these treats will keep you hungry for more or less. Yum!
+
 
+
The Nothing Diet:
+
 
+
Don't eat.
+
 
+
This is our famous diet program which has helped many people to regain their long absent youthful self-image. This much publicized diet can help you lose weight, help you save money, save time by reducing trips to the restroom, reduce clothing costs by allowing you to "retro-fit" into your old clothing, even save space in your compact car.
+
 
+
Of course, there are more possible benefits than the obvious personal benefits. Another great use for our diet program is righting the wrongs of history. Use our diet program to make people take notice of your social concern. Many have changed the world or died trying using our great diet program! Please note: If you use our program to adjust the social climate please remember to get a good publicist.
+
 
+
This diet is back by popular demand.
+
 
+
==Technical problems of Nothing==
+
{{wikipedia}}
+
[[Image:Black.png|140px|thumb|Artist's depiction of Nothing. Except that it is too[[Africa| black]], so you cant see the nothing. '''ARGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!''']]
+
 
+
Nothing is the absence of existence. However, since there is an article '''about''' nothing, then obviously there has to be '''something''', right? And then there's the name. Nothing has a name. That name is void. Therefore nothing has a name and therefore since there is nothing in nothing nothing has to be a concept. But that means it '''is''' something, but nothing is nothing, it's void, it's empty, there '''is nothing''' in it. But there is something there, there is a void. '''THERE IS A VOID'''. The void '''IS THERE'''. Right '''THERE''' in front of you, '''THERE IS A VOID. IT IS THERE. IT EXISTS!'''
+
 
+
Nothing is a word it is not a void it is not anything except for a word but that would mean it is something not nothing but nothing is a word to describe well.... nothing. It is not a void and you cannot die and join nothing because if anyone could die and just join nothing then nothing would not have even existed millions of years ago so therefore nothing is as the word states...
+
 
+
nothing. 
+
Nothing is nothing yet something all at the same time... '''HOW DOES THAT WORK???'''
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
... What you just saw is a blank. There is NOTHING ON THE PAGE except tiny particles of dust on my screen.
+
But that means there IS something on the page. (long sigh).
+
I think i'm going to give up now. I'm going to lay down and die and enter the VOID! But wait! That means that when i enter it, it will no longer be a void, there will be something in it! ME!
+
 
+
This is hopeless. Give it up buddy. you're going to learn nothing from this article.
+
Darn. That means YOU ARE going to learn something. But THAT IS NOT NOTHING! RRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!
+
 
+
One version of the story of nothing goes as follows: Nothing started out as an ordinary nothing. However, it was sick of being misnamed so it worked hard, and harder, and harder until it became included in every darn song made by the Beatles. But even this wasn't enough, as it became power hungry and began invading the houses of ordinary people, dressed as encyclopedia sellers, door salesmen, and it also came in the form of pie-eating contest; a form no one saw coming. Nothing soon took over nothing and everything.  It became CEO of CBS, which is why that channel has absolutely nothing, and sometimes even less than nothing, which is an incredible feat that ABC is trying to do itself.
+
 
+
Another version of the story of nothing goes like this:
+
 
+
Still others believe the following: Nothing has ever existed, in the sense that “it” hasn’t. Nothing wasn’t always called nothing. And at some point there were “intelligent” beings that “doubted, thought, and were”. Doubt was a thing. And they doubted the existence of so many things that virtually nothing escaped their doubt. Since nothing escaped doubt, it was thought that nothing was the only thing that was real. Never did they stop to doubt the thingness of nothing. Really, “it” was nothing, and therefore nothing to doubt. But still, nothing seemed all the more real.
+
 
+
Even more have come to believe this lie: After an eternity of doing nothing, “it” was so well known for “its” accomplishments that nothing was knighted by the Queen of Salmon.
+
 
+
In short, [[humans]] cannot comprehend "nothing".
+
 
+
== Horacio's Philosophical Implications of Nothing ==
+
 
+
[[Image:Nothin_lg.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Nothing. Except that is is a newspaper article, so ''is'' something. '''<big>[[AAAAAAA!|AAAAAA]]RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!</big>''']]
+
Nothing is the absence of existance. The human mind is incapable of comprehending something that doesn't exist, and it could be argued that simply by trying to imagine it we bring an approximation of it into existence, so the only "nothing" that can truly be called "nothing" is "nothing" that no one ever thinks about. Say "nothing" at least ten times, and listen carefully to the sound of it. The word then ceases to mean anything, but not even this nonsense nothing is close to the true nothing that doesn't exist in the minds of men, AND WOMEN.
+
 
+
To put it simply: Any form of nothing there is - on any level of existence - is "something", only that which is not is "nothing". Or even simpler: nothing does not exist.
+
 
+
Perhaps the simplest definition yet of nothing is this: '''nothing (n)--the active ingredient in homeopathic remedies.'''
+
 
+
Corollary ([[Existentialism|existence proof]]): You are presently reading all the [[Main-page|proof]] necessary to demonstrate that nothing not only exists but if it did not, humans would be compelled to create it.
+
 
+
==Empirical evidence: A statistical approach==
+
:In order to fully comprehend the the ramifications of the following section, please carefully follow the instructions of the following [[HowTo:Become Stupid in 21 days|link]].
+
The question about nothing is heavily being disputed among scholars and research scientists. What is this all about???????????? I don't know, anyway, to continue.....Based on  statistics research at DumbBell Labs as part of Mathematical Sciences research, and also part of Computer Science research via a "dotted-line" relation a  tradition of fundamental research driven by real-world applications going back to Walter Shoe  and John Turkey shows that  by continuing to focus on data from a host of challenging applications,  new ways to think about, look at, and compute with nothing are being formulated.
+
 
+
Traditional statistical tools were used to analyze the wealth of data  of nothing . The problem is perhaps most acute in the quest to understand how nothing interact to regulate  nothing of loci, or locations around nothing. Such loci are often situated within nothing that participate in the same pathway as nothing being influenced, and a central goal is to understand this network of mutually influential nothingness and loci. Consider piecing together this puzzle for each of the many thousands of nothings and many thousands of potentially influential loci, and the old analytical tools simply can't keep up. In this article of  nothing, statisticians and colleagues tackle the challenge with a new approach.
+
 
+
==Historical Event==
+
[[Image:nothinghappened1.JPG|thumb|right|150px|Historical Marker where nothing happened in [[1897]].]]Recently historians interpreters in collaboration with professional researchers are promoting public awareness about nothing that occurred [[somewhere]] in 1897 and its subsequent impact on the modern world. Analysts interviewed about the said event replied "Duhh, What!!?? I don't know! What the fuuck is this all about!!". A witness was asked to give his personal testimony and replied : "Well, I was just doing my thing then at exactly between 1 AM and 12 PM, nothing happened."
+
 
+
== Nothing - The Chemical Element ==
+
 
+
[[Nothing]] is an element that defies description, easily the least reactive, and it is virtually impossible to find a contaminated substance. It is recognized by its structure: no electrons orbiting a nucleus of no protons and no neutrons. Its oxidation states are something of a mystery. It has every possible oxidation state imaginable, since there is no element that it can't bond to without being obliterated, yet it has none, since there are no valence electrons for it to share.
+
 
+
The alchemists trick of turning lead into gold may be something of a medieval quackery but the practice of turning [[Nothing]] into [[gold]] is not only achievable but easy (with the presence of gold)
+
 
+
Ng + Au = Au
+
 
+
In fact when [[Nothing]] comes into contact with any substance, [[Nothing]] is obliterated. Likewise, when a substance is totally destroyed, [[Nothing]] is left. Harmful levels of the element have been detected on planet [[Earth]] on multiple occasions. When the [[Americans]] dropped the [[Atom Bomb]] on Hiroshima, [[Nothing]] was left and thus the population became sick. Likewise, in several African nations where [[Nothing]] is eaten by the general public, famines usually strike. Nothing is the primary export of the [[Nothing belt]].
+
 
+
{{Elementdata|symbol=Ng|name=Nothing|number=0|melts=-0|boils=+0|left=[[Shit]]tium|right=[[Anus|Analium]] |above=[[The Force|Forcium]]|below=[[Telekinesis|Telekenisium]]}}
+
|-
+
|Atomic Weight || 0
+
|-
+
|Known Isotopes || Ng-0
+
|-
+
|Electric Charge || 0 eV
+
|-
+
!colspan="2" bgcolor="#ffdead" | Properties Only Real [[Nerd]]s Understand
+
|-
+
|Hefner Force || 0
+
|-
+
|Magnetic Domain Sensitivity || 0
+
|-
+
|Oxidation States || '''+0''', 0, '''-0'''
+
|-
+
|First Ionization energy || -0 kJ/mol
+
|-
+
|Second Ionazation energy|| -0 kJ/mol
+
|-
+
|Elector affinity|| +0 kJ/mol
+
|-
+
|Xenobilogical potential ||
+
|-
+
|Prototronic value ||
+
|-
+
|Iso-ptero-ortotronical protuberation status ||
+
|-
+
|Tachyon capability ||
+
|-
+
|Tachyon incapablily status ||
+
|-
+
|Unified physics using ||
+
|-
+
|Tachyon amel-thet field status ||
+
|-
+
|Pozitronic matrix capability ||
+
|-
+
|Teleinfiltration transphase coordination ||
+
|-
+
|Subatomic particle string state ||
+
|}
+
 
+
== What does nothing look like? ==
+
 
+
[[Nobody]] knows what nothing actually looks like. If you could see nothing, then you wouldn't be able to see anything at all. Hence, you would be blind, and would not know what anything else looks like to be able to differentiate between nothing and something. Nothing is rumored to look like a plain-white space, but how could this be true if one could see it? It couldn't be, because it's nothing. You could say that nothing is transparent, but if it was, then how would you know if nothing was there or not?
+
 
+
It is much easier to say that nothing looks just like “it” tastes or smells. In fact, nothing looks the same as “it” appears, sounds or feels like.
+
 
+
== Riddle about Nothing ==
+
 
+
What man loves more than life
+
 
+
Fears more than death or mortal strife
+
 
+
What poor men have, the rich acquire
+
 
+
And all contended men desire
+
 
+
What Misers spend and the Wastrels save
+
 
+
And each man carries to his grave
+
 
+
What would enjoy being sick
+
 
+
And the only thing worse than most chick flicks
+
 
+
== Poem about Nothing ==
+
 
+
NOTHING LIKE A POEM IS WRITTEN HERE because there's nothing to write. (no, seriously, there IS a poem about nothing, except for reasons that it may be [[copyright]]ed, it is not allowed to appear). You'll just have to find the poem about nothing, in hopes that it has not disappeared into nothingness. Good Luck!!! However, we can assure you that it is nothing compared to other poems.
+
 
+
==The Ultimate Truth of All Truths==
+
The ultimate truth in the universe is absolute nothing exists. The only thing that is constant in the universe is absolutely nothing***. Nothing defines nothingness.
+
 
+
It is said "we come from nothing and shall return to nothing". Blame [[Eric Idle]] for this, though that Bowie chap with his "ashes-to-ashes" had it pretty much right, as ashes are pretty much nothing (but not actually nothing).
+
 
+
As [[Douglas Adams]] observed, with an infinite improbability anything can happen. The reciprocal of this, is that with 100% certainty nothing must happen simultaneously. Spontaneous temporal problems (such as the appearance of a small piece of fairy cake) can arise in this situation. Typically, someone eats this cake, thus rendering it (and the accidental appearance) back to nothing, correcting causality. The Total Perspective Vortex uses this mechanism to point out to the observer that they are, in fact, nothing. In a very big thing, which is also nothing. And then we get to [[Escher|M.C. Escher]]'s etching of the two hands of nothing drawing each other. But that's another article, shurley?
+
 
+
See also a discourse on this by Nothing (0.) itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dspart&oldid=119563146].
+
 
+
Actually, the ultimate truth in the universe is 42, but nothing is a part of everything...so nothing also is the ultimate truth in the universe.
+
 
+
== Common Criticisms ==
+
 
+
{{Q|Exactly the same, Proog! Nothing!|Emo|nothing (to Proog)}}
+
 
+
Nothing can, and usually does, go terribly, horribly wrong. This commonly results in [[Good thing|good things]] happening, which is [[Logic|logically]] impossible. 27 out of 30 [[The Beatles|Beatles]] agree that nothing should be avoided at all costs.
+
 
+
{{Q|Nothing really matters.|Freddie Mercury|nothing}}
+
 
+
 
+
{{Q|About much ado.|William Shakespeare|nothing}}
+
 
+
== What Isn't Nothing? ==
+
[[image:Absolutely_nothing.jpg|thumb|275px|Nothing.]]
+
Nothing is the large piece of land commonly known as Russia.
+
 
+
Nothing is nothing if not itself. And it isn't itself, or anything else for that matter, which is the very thing that makes "it" exist. The selflessness of nothing is nothing of note. Due to this notoriety many existentialist works have been written to debunk nothing, and it worked! They have proved that nothing can possibly exist without itself. I don’t know about you, but I’ll take that to the bank! Note too the fact that nothing is in the very same sense that "it" isn't. It naturally follows that nothing is the same wherever you go. This is true in both senses, and creates a certain constant.
+
 
+
==Summary==
+
 
+
[[Nihilism|This page intentionally left blank]], because Bastian was too scared to name the childlike Empress in a timely manner. See ''[[Never Ending Story]].''
+
 
+
==This Section Has Nothing In It, Thats Why I'm Explaining Things In The Title, You See If It Was In The Article It'd Have Something In It Therefore Making Nothing Redundant, But You May Be Thinking "Hey IF Its Nothing Why Doesn't The Title Have Nothing, Well You Were Obviously Thinking Of Nothing When You Found This Article So Keep Thinking It==
+
 
+
==Buy Nothing Day==
+
Buy Nothing Day is a cunning advertising plot, forcing you to buy twice as much the day before, thereby running up and even bigger credit card debt that you can be surcharged for and leaving nothing in your wallet. To compensate for this stroke of bad luck, try some [[shopping|retail therapy]].
+
 
+
==Nothing in popular culture==
+
* There's nothing like a [[HowTo:Play_%22Eruption%22_by_Van_Halen_on_guitar|nice tune]], is there?
+
* There's nothing on TV at the moment, which is why you're on the internet (or you're bored at school or work).
+
* According to "The X-Files," "Nothing Important Happened Today."
+
* Steve Perry's career, while once something else, is now nothing.
+
 
+
== ==
+
 
+
==Explanation of the previous section==
+
 
+
See how there's nothing at all under the previous section? That's to show what nothing at all is. Therefore, Uncyclopedia does a great job of explaining what nothing at all is.
+
<br>
+
 
+
==Not for Nothing, but. . .==
+
 
+
 
+
But what happens if you take Nothing and eliminate from it everything that does not exist, and then eliminate Nothing itself?  And then eliminate what's not left?  What do you have then, flyboy?
+
 
+
Huh?
+
 
+
''[[Something Else]].''
+
 
+
== Situations in which Nothing can be used ==
+
 
+
* [[Mathematics|Purgatory]]
+
* Zen Buddhism
+
 
+
==How to see nothing ==
+
# Look at this:
+
# Type <code>about:blank</code> in your [[web browser]]'s address bar.
+
 
+
==Dividing by Nothing==
+
Scientifically speaking, it is impossible to divide something by nothing. Whenever you try to divide something by nothing, you will almost certainly get an "ERROR" sign. However, there is a .000000000431% percent chance that you will manage to successfully divide something by nothing, and you will cause a black hole to erupt in the space-time continuum where you are currently sitting. Afterward, this will bring about [[Armageddon]]. Therfore, despite the rather low chance that you actually will cause the world to be sucked into oblivion and be ripped apart atom from atom, we, the experts of Uncyclopedia, simply suggest you do not attempt it. Any attempts to do so is a direct violation of the 4th law of Uncyclopedia, and will cause those Mofo PoPo to come arrest your sorry ass.
+
 
+
==Have you tried this==
+
Simply lie still. Even this is not nothing, but it is the closest you will ever get. If you wish to actually do nothing, talk to your local scientist. He will know nothing on how to do this. Eureka!
+
 
+
==See also==
+
 
+
*[[Template:Nothing|A useful template for those interested in the subject]]
+
*[[Nothing belt]]
+
*[[Not Anything]]
+
*[[No]]
+
*[[Nihilism]]
+
*[['Tain't neither]]
+
*[[Thing]]
+
*[[North Dakota|The largest amount of nothing in any given place]]
+
*[[Nothingness]]
+
*[[A Related Link]]
+
*[[Everything There Is To Know About Everything There Is]]
+
*[[Seinfeld]]
+
*[[Something]]
+
*[[Air]]
+
*[[End of the Internet]]
+
*[[An article that contains nothing but a full stop|An alternate view on nothingness]]
+
<center>{{cleanup}}</center>
+
<center>{{Ape-Shit Crazy}}</center>
+
 
+
[[Category:Everything]]
+
[[Category:Materials]]
+
[[Category:Chemistry]]
+
[[Category:Things that may be out to get you]]
+
[[Category:Stuff that lonely women mastuurbate over]] [[Category:Ape-Shit Crazy]]
+
[[Category:Things George Bush most certainly cares about]]
+
[[Category:Things that don't exist]]
+
[[Category:things you can't destroy with a million daleks]]
+
 
+
[[pt:Nada]]
+
[[cs:Nic]]
+
[[de:Nichts]]
+
[[es:Nada]]
+
[[fr:Rien]]
+
[[hu:Semmi]]
+
[[it:Niente]]
+
[[nl:Niets]]
+
[[no:Ingenting]]
+
[[pl:Nic]]
+
[[sk:Nič]]
+
[[zh:没有东西]]
+
[[zh-tw:沒有東西]]
+
[[he:כלום]]
+
[[ru:ничего]]
+

Revision as of 11:59, 9 February 2010

A globular cluster is a spherical grouping of stars that share a common origin and orbits the galactic core of a galaxy as a satellite. They are very tightly bound by gravity and contain anywhere from tens of thousands to million of stars in an area that is only some 300 light years across or less, and are generally oblate spheroids in shape. The density of the clusters are on average around 0.4 stars per cubic parsec, but increases toward to the center of the cluster, reaching as high as 100 or even a 1000 stars per cubic parsec.[1]

Unlike open clusters, which contain population I stars and reside in the galactic disk, globular clusters are made up of population II stars and are found in either the galactic bulge or galactic halo. Some globular clusters are found as far out as 131,000 light years from the core of the galaxy.[2] Current, there are 158 known globular clusters around the Milky Way, with several more perhaps yet to be discovered, all moving in highly eccentric orbits.[3] Beyond the Milky Way, most other galaxies in the Local Group and beyond have globular clusters. Andromeda is known to have some 500.

History

Abraham Ihle, an amateur astronomer from Germany was the first to discover a globular cluster when he found the cluster M22 in 1665, however at the time his telescope was not able to resolve the individual stars. Charles Messier was the first to identify globular clusters as being made up of individual stars when he observed the cluster M4. It was William Herschel though who first coined the term globular cluster in his catalog of deep sky objects in 1789. Herschel also discovered 37 such clusters alone, as well as fully resolve the stars in 33 previous discovered ones.

In 1918, Harlow Shapley used his studies of globular clusters and their asymmetrical distribution in the galaxy to calculate both the distance of the Sun to the galactic center, and the overall dimensions of the Milky Way itself. Although the measurements he made were off from the actual size of the galaxy, due to not taking into account dust in the Milky Way diminishing light from the various clusters, he did in fact show the galaxy was much larger then previously believed.[4]

Composition

The stars themselves that make up globular clusters are all metal-poor population II stars, similar to those located in the central budge of the Milky Way. There is also no detectable gas or dust in these clusters.

Globular clusters are further divided into two major groupings known as Oosterhoff groups, the difference between the level of metallicity found in the stars in the cluster. Clusters of the type I group are found to have somewhat weak metal absorption line in their spectra, while Type II have very weak metal lines. As such, Type I clusters are referred to as "metal-rich" and Type II as "metal-poor". Both types are metal-poor in comparison to population I stars found in the galactic disk.[5] In the Milky Way, the more metal-poor type II clusters are located in the outer part of the galactic halo, while the more metal-rich clusters are found near the galactic budge.[6] Both types of globular cluster populations have been found in several galaxies, being most common in large elliptical galaxies. What causes the difference between the two types of clusters is not exactly known. Some scenarios to explain this include galaxy mergers, the absorption of satellite galaxies, and staggered star formation within galaxies.[7]

Old Universe View

In the cosmological model of a billions of years old universe, it is theorized that globular clusters are around 9 to 13 billion years in age and initially form as a loose collection of stars. The current theory in this model suggests as the cluster passes into "adolescence", the stars near the center of the cluster begin to collapse in towards each other. This collapse ends when the interaction of binary systems and prevents any further contraction, at this point the cluster is at what is referred to as "middle age". Over millions of years, the stars in the binary systems are ejected by gravitational disruption as the cluster passes through "old age". Virtually all globular clusters are theorized to be far along int the "old age" portion of their evolution. However a more recent study of 13 globular clusters suggests though that some of the clusters may actually be much younger then initially believed. From observations by the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, three of the clusters were found to have a large number of x-ray binaries, suggesting to them that not enough time has passed to eject many binary companions from the cluster, if the current models are correct. If these new observations are are confirmed, this would challenge the current theories on the evolution of such clusters within the old universe cosmology.[8]

References