Skip to main content

Name a galaxy and win a book

Colliding galaxies
Sometimes scientists are really good at giving names to things. 'Photon' springs to mind. What a great name, even if it did come from a chemist. Even 'quark' has a certain quirky charm (in-joke for the particle physicists there) - although Murray Gell-Mann intended the word to be pronounced 'quork' which, oddly, sounds significantly more like a meat substitute than quark.

However, science types have to be having a good day to come up with something so effective. So I've a challenge for you. But first a bit of background. The main reason we know that the universe is expanding is that almost all galaxies are redshifted. The light from them is lower energy than expected, shifted into the red, because they are moving away from us. But a few galaxies are blueshifted. They are close enough that the gravitational attraction between them and our galaxy is more powerful than the expansion, so they are heading in our direction.

Our nearest big neighbour, the galaxy in the constellation Andromeda, is on collision course. In about 5 billion years it will plough into the Milky Way, forming a single, mega galaxy. In case you are worried about possible effects on the Earth, don't be. a) You won't be around. b) Earth will have already been crisped by an expanding, reddening Sun.

But the point here is that this new, merged galaxy formed from Andromeda and the Milky Way needs a name. The suggestion I have seen, Milkomeda, is, frankly, terrible. It sounds like a disease. And the obvious alternative, Androway sounds like a property development company. We need something better. So here's where you come in. I am asking for suggestions for a better name for the merged galaxy. Provided I get suggestions from at least 10 people I will offer the best (according to me) a free copy of one of the following books:
Just add your suggestions as comments below. I will announce the winner in a blog post on 16 August and ask them to email details to me to send their chosen book. So get your thinking caps on, and encourage friends and relations to take part as I need those 10 entries...

Image from NASA


  1. Duchess (as in, posh mashed potatoes)

  2. • Mandromeda
    • Andromedary
    • The even milkier way
    • Cream
    • Creameda
    • Andanotherdromeda
    • Andromedus
    • Androgeny
    • Galaxius
    • The Whole Selection Box
    • Twirl
    • Chocolate Heaven
    • BigBar
    • Bar 6 (remember them?)
    • Collidia
    • Androx
    • Endgamea
    • Creamedus

  3. Hodmandod

    Because it looks like a snail.

    (my totally unbiassed answer)

  4. Just throwing in one I've received from Louisa Radice via LinkedIn: "How about Perseus?"

  5. CTD. Standing for Crash Test Dummy. Look at that shape, it's a CTD head in profile, right? Tell me it's not just me who sees that.

  6. Just a teensy pointer. That is not a photograph of the Milky Way crashing into Andromeda. It hasn't happened yet - that's two other galaxies colliding. So don't read too much into the photo.

  7. Well, using the Latin form of Milky Way - Via Lactea - perhaps one of the following:


    or the Greek form - Galactea


    Androlaxy sounds more like a remedy for constipation.

  8. You make a good case for calling it "George" in your next blog up the line so in the interests of equality I suggest "Mildred".

    Or the two together.....

  9. THE RESULTS (roll on the drums):

    Technically we only got 9 people entering, but I'm feeling generous. I rather liked Gordon's Malandry, but it sounded too much like a Victorian novel. Henry would win the 'most entries' award, but the theme was too chocolate oriented. In the end, I have to choose...

    ... Mildred, because I want to see po-faced astronomers referring to the Mildred Galaxy and trying to keep a straight face.

    If Ian (Laurasdad) would like a copy, just drop me an email at


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope