Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tycho's Supernova

Posted by michael on from the plus-ca-change dept.

blamanj writes "Over 400 years ago, a supernova was visible in Nothern Europe. Astronomer Tycho Brahe helped bring about the collapse of the Ptolemaic system by showing that the 'new star' was not a local phenomena like a comet, but actually existed in (supposedly) unchanging heavens. The star that went nova was part of a binary system, and the supernova explosion sent the companion star shooting off into space. Now, that companion star has been found."

71 comments

  1. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    And all this time I thought Tycho Brahe was the co-founder of Penny Arcade!

  2. wow by the+quick+brown+fox · · Score: 3, Funny

    Astronomist and cartoonist... a true Renaissance man.

    1. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beat you to it, but I didn't want to waste Karma if the Mods were cranky today ;)

    2. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like the Karma mods were cranky today. Even though you were first, it got modded offtopic, while "the quick brown fox" remains unscathed.

  3. Re:Suprnova by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Suprnova. There, I've said it :)

  4. Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really hate when "Intelligent Design" advocates pop up in threads like this only to tell that Supernovas are too old and complex to evolve in 6000 years so they must have been 'intelligently designed'.

    Please. I find that such distrust in the machinations of Nature itself shows us how narrow minded these "scientists" are. "I can't understand it, so God must have done it," essentially. This does not open the door to further research and understanding. On the contrary it closes the door because there is nothing more to be understood beyond "God did it".

    Nature is a truly amazing thing. Evolution, Physics, Gravitation, the Stars, the Cells, everything is absolutely beautiful. Why the need to spoil Gaia with your imaginary friend?

    1. Re:Creationism? by GTRacer · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Why does believing that a Supreme Being constructed the Universe and its systems take away from the awesomeness of any part thereof? Supernovas, pulsars, dragonflies - they're all cool no matter how they came to be.

      I choose to believe that God set it up and let it run. Questions of design, evolution, deity are merely tests of faith as well as intellect.

      GTRacer
      - My robot OTOH, chooses to believe what he was programmed to believe

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    2. Re:Creationism? by Goyuix · · Score: 1

      I find it very closed minded to think that science would consider it understood because "God did it". Quite the opposite really, as science would (should?) continue to try to figure out how it was done.

      Let me pose this question to you AC - what if God were bound to physical laws (as I believe he is). Not some magical mythical creature that could bend reality as he sees fit. Assuming he had a perfect understanding of the universe around him, why couldn't he have started a supernova in action long before the "6000 year" creation period of OUR PLANET?

      Personally, contemplating evolution, physics, gravitation, the Stars, the Cells, everything is absolutely more beautiful when you know that there is rhyme and reason behind it. Not to mention how the impulse to dig deeper and understand more how it all relates is ver satisfying to me.

      Before closing your mind, try opening it a little wider.

    3. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does believing that a Supreme Being constructed the Universe and its systems take away from the awesomeness of any part thereof? Supernovas, pulsars, dragonflies - they're all cool no matter how they came to be.

      Most scientists regard "creation science" and the existanse of "supreme beings" as, at best, a pseudoscience.

      Creationists posit that certain assumptions, procedures, theories, and findings of science, particularly the theory of evolution through natural selection, are scientifically incorrect. Creation science is a modern movement that attacks these ideas on scientific grounds and proposes alternative theories that are more compatible with creationism. This article uses the term creation scientist to mean a scientist who believes in creation science. Because creation science is not accepted by most scientists, this article uses the term mainstream scientist to mean a scientist who does not believe in creation science.

      The term "creation science" covers a broad range of beliefs. There are many different creation scientific theories, each of which has its own supporters and detractors, both within and without the creation science community. Additionally, there are differing interpretations of what creation science is among those who consider themselves creation scientists. Some creation scientists do not seek to challenge mainstream scientists. Others deny the applicability of the scientific method and Occam's razor to their religiously-inspired beliefs about the physical world.

      Not all creationists are creation scientists. Some creationists view scientific truth as separate from spiritual truth and are unconcerned by apparent contradictions between the two. Others believe that neither mainstream science nor creation science is appropriate, and prefer to be guided by revelation alone.

      Creation science has been criticized by many mainstream scientists for making scientific errors. Consequently most mainstream scientists regard creation science as, at best, a pseudoscience.

      I think that all "creation scientists" attempt to falsely disguise the Biblical myth of creation as science, only to force their irrational religion upon us. Of course you will disagree, I am sure...

    4. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me pose this question to you AC - what if God were bound to physical laws (as I believe he is). Not some magical mythical creature that could bend reality as he sees fit.

      And please tell me, what if an army of invisible pink unicorns were bound to physical laws? I can answer both of those equally pointless questions: it would be, like, totally awesome! It doesn't mean that is the case, though.

      Assuming he had a perfect understanding of the universe around him, why couldn't he have started a supernova in action long before the "6000 year" creation period of OUR PLANET?

      I see you don't know the myth of creation. Hint: seven days.

      Personally, contemplating evolution, physics, gravitation, the Stars, the Cells, everything is absolutely more beautiful when you know that there is rhyme and reason behind it.

      If you know, or if you wish? What exactly made you even consider that possibility if not reading some book? Have you found some interesting evidence of creation and then started to formulate your hypotheses, or meybe you just assume it a priori, because it would be so unimaginably great, that it just must be true?

    5. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does believing that a Supreme Being constructed the Universe and its systems take away from the awesomeness of any part thereof? Supernovas, pulsars, dragonflies - they're all cool no matter how they came to be.

      Hints: scientific method, Occam's razor, falsificationism. By asserting that some kind of a "supreme being" exists, you essentially negate all three of those principles.

      I choose to believe that God set it up and let it run. Questions of design, evolution, deity are merely tests of faith as well as intellect.

      You seem to have been brainwashed, but let me ask you a question: why exactly do you believe in what you believe?

    6. Re:Creationism? by Goyuix · · Score: 1

      Apparently neither of us know the myth of creation as I quoted your 6000 year reference. (Hint, God rested on the seventh day).

      Regardless of that, how can you back up your arguments that He is not bound by the physical laws. Hopefully you realize there is an awful lot about the universe and physics that we just don't understand. Why should our own lack of understanding cause us to block out the opportunity to explore thoughts and ideas? What is there to say that invisble pink unicorns don't exist somewhere in the universe?

      On a personal note, I certainly feel as though I know certain things, and recognize in other areas I have a lot of room to grow. Religion and Science are both fascinating to me - especially how they interact together as more is discovered (or revealed if that is your cup of tea). I have contemplated many of these issues for a number of years and have formed my own beliefs (hypotheses?) which may or may not entirely agree with a given religion/scientific view. While perhaps my evidence isn't a stark as blood-stained carpet to you, it is more than sufficient to allow me to examine the possibility that there is something much bigger than myself out there.

    7. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, Occam's razor states that explanations should never multiply causes without necessity. When two viable explanations are offered for a phenomenon, the simplest full explanation is preferable. The principle is most often expressed as "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem," or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." William wrote, in Latin, "pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate," which translates literally into English as "plurality should not be posited without necessity." That forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called parsimony, which I personally don't agree with, because "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" is an argument against the existence of higher being, and as such is not falsifiable.

      Also, talking about Occam's razor you should mention Chatton's anti-razor, saying that if three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on. That forth thing is often God for people who believe in Him. In the philosophy of religion Occam's Razor is often used to challenge arguments for the existence of God and I think that explaining it we should also mention that it is only a hypothesis, especially when many scientists today agree that the universe is (superficially) non-random, so it must have been designed by an intelligent designer. Personally I think that if people in all times and in different places have believed in God, it is unlikely that he does not exist, besides morality cannot exist without God, but I clearly state that it is a matter of my personal opinion. I believe that talking about Occam's razor you should likewise state that it is only your personal belief.

    8. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently neither of us know the myth of creation as I quoted your 6000 year reference. (Hint, God rested on the seventh day).

      According to the Bible, the Creation occurred on October 23, 4004 BC at roughly 9:30 in the morning. This fact is well known at least since the 17th century when the detailed Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar was first published by Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh and John Lightfoot of Cambridge University, but that knowledge was known long before to any even remotely intelligent person who has ever read the Bible. Please do your homework.

      Regardless of that, how can you back up your arguments that He is not bound by the physical laws.

      I can back it up with, well... Omnipotence? Duh...

      What is there to say that invisble pink unicorns don't exist somewhere in the universe?

      "You shall have no other gods before me. [...] you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."

      Enough?

    9. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have contemplated many of these issues for a number of years and have formed my own beliefs (hypotheses?) which may or may not entirely agree with a given religion/scientific view.

      Existence of "supreme beings" or any supernatural phenomena is not even a hypothesis, because it is not falsifiable (disprovable) and as such makes completely no sense from the standpoint of reason and science.

      While perhaps my evidence isn't a stark as blood-stained carpet to you, it is more than sufficient to allow me to examine the possibility that there is something much bigger than myself out there.

      It's pretty hard to say whether your "evidence" is "a stark as blood-stained carpet" to anyone until you present it, isn't it?

    10. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your point exactly? The whole point of Intelligent Design is to explain the religion with science, faith with reason, God with observations. Intelligent Design and Creationism IS science, no matter what you Evolutionists want us to believe. How can you say that God doesn't exist?? How can you even try to UNDERSTAND Him, if He is infinitely omniscient and omnipotent??? I seriously don't uderstand people like you.

    11. Re:Creationism? by Johnno74 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Where I once worked there was a guy, who was a software dev, and a smart guy, who was 100% in the creationism camp. One day me and another guy I worked with (Tom) were questioning him about his beliefs.

      We said, "So, you beleive that earth was created 2000 years ago?" "Yes."

      "And the fossils and things, were they just put there by god to test our faith?" "Yes, of course."

      So Tom said to him:
      "So... how do you know the earth is really 2000 years old and the older stuff was created by god then? Maybe the earth is only 500 years old, and everything before that was placed there by god... Maybe the earth was created when you were born, and everything before you was put there by god."

      "Infact, maybe the earth is only 5 minuites old, and everthing older, including all your memories was just placed there by god?"

      We left him at his desk thinking about it. He looked troubled.

    12. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is utter bullshit. Can you show me where in the Bible God said that He created the world five minutes ago? Can you quote the Word of God to prove your point? No? Then shut the fuck up!

    13. Re:Creationism? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Who are you to question why your god wants you to believe in evolution?

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    14. Re:Creationism? by numbski · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bah. I'm a christian. Not the over-the-top poke'n'prod everyone else into believing what I believe type. I take the new testament very seriously. Everything before that I take with a large salt lick.

      The fact of the matter is that the Bible, especially the old testmament simply CANNOT be read literally. Sure, there are some stories in there I'm sure happened, but when you have multiple authors claiming to be Moses in a few cases...eh....

      Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with all your heart and mind.

      Love thy neighbor as thyself.

      I don't mean to oversimply it, but if you get those two points, I mean REALLY get them, you get more of christianity than many proclaimed christians do. You could *almost* toss out the rest. You'd be missing out on a whole lot of good stuff but if it came right down to it....

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    15. Re:Creationism? by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      According to the Bible, the Creation occurred on October 23, 4004 BC at roughly 9:30 in the morning.

      Eeeek! 6000 years exactly (almost). Is this Gregorian date or Julian date?

    16. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you claim that god is incapable of lies? What if he told you lies in the Bible, 5 minutes ago? What if I'm a figment of God's imagination, trying to tempt you as Devil did to Job and if god created everything and everything is his will, Devil and evil are his will as well?

    17. Re:Creationism? by Xentax · · Score: 1

      "especially when many scientists today agree that the universe is (superficially) non-random, so it must have been designed by an intelligent designer"

      Care to provide any tidbit of fact or otherwise cite a source for such a rediculous claim?

      Intelligent Design, like creationism in general, CANNOT BE A THEORY. As others have alluded to, you cannot DISPROVE the "theory" of intelligent design, therefore it is not a theory at all.

      So, pitching it as "an alternative" to evolution is wrong-minded and potentially damaging to the scientists of tomorrow (the kids of today).

      Xentax

      --
      You shouldn't verb words.
    18. Re:Creationism? by GTRacer · · Score: 1
      Some creationists view scientific truth as separate from spiritual truth and are unconcerned by apparent contradictions between the two.

      ...and...

      think that all "creation scientists" attempt to falsely disguise the Biblical myth of creation as science, only to force their irrational religion upon us. Of course you will disagree, I am sure...

      I'm not bothered by apparent contradictions because I believe they are part of His larger design. Carbon-dating for example. A truly omnipotent deity could easily create fossils in such a way that they appear older than the accepted 6,000 year timeline. Now it's up to faith to decide!

      And no, I'm not disagreeing. I think there are many zealots who take things too far. I'm actually a big fan of science. I see no reason why I can't have both!

      GTRacer
      - This brings me back...

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    19. Re:Creationism? by GTRacer · · Score: 1
      I'll leave Occam's Razor to the other poster, but as for my personal choice?

      As I explained in an eighth-grade Debate class: Choosing a faith (or not) is like playing poker. I have no way to know what the winning hand will be until after the fact. But i do know that choosing nothing gets me nothing, so in choosing something, I chose what I belived was the "best hand".

      Yes, I was raised Christian, but my beliefs then and now are my own. I've never agreed with someone merely because they wore a collar or a title. Yes, I accept the KJV Bible (or its close variations) as authoritative. No, I don't comply fully with the dictates therin: I *am* human, after all. I do what I can!

      GTRacer
      - Freaky Friday

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    20. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *APPLAUDS*

    21. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How can you even try to UNDERSTAND Him, if He is infinitely omniscient and omnipotent???

      > I seriously don't uderstand people like you.

      Ah, your parent poster must be omniscient and omnipotent, then.

    22. Re:Creationism? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      IMHO, modern science isn't seeking answers to the same questions that modern religion is providing answers to.

      Sometimes religious leaders and theologists, for whatever reason, stomp into the realm of scientific speculation, but after a few hundreds years of scientific research, they're generally discredited.

      What some vocal religious minds generally fail to account for is that science is merely studying the universe we live in, whether or not a higher being created it -- it just doesn't matter. In a strict sense, by trying to avoid a human interpretation of the outcome, science is *cough* seeking a better understanding of *cough* God *cough*. Those who impede man's understanding of the universe, are impeding man's understanding of God's works.

      While those who are devout followers of the cult of "I am not religious" may object strongly to the notion, I don't think that the personal drive for many scientists is all that far from that of most religious scholars.

      The statement that morality is somehow tied to religion is a little spooky to me, it implies that you might think that the agnostic, and/or cult-like science worshippers are incapable of "moral" behaviour. (By the way, there's a modern line of thinking that morality appears as a natural consequence of game theory... A Google search on "ethics" and "game theory" bring up a few results.)

    23. Re:Creationism? by secretsquirel · · Score: 1

      "The fact of the matter is that the Bible, especially the old testmament simply CANNOT be read literally"

      Sure it CAN

      "And Jacob saw a ladder stretching all the way to the heavens, on which angels were traveling to and from the earth"

    24. Re:Creationism? by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1
      How can you even try to UNDERSTAND Him, if He is infinitely omniscient and omnipotent???

      Let's assume that's true; I am unable to comprehend It's actions. Well... Who, then, deliberately made me too stupid to understand It? Where does the fault lie? :->

      In any case, the Jewish/Christian/Islamic god is logically inconsistent, so I believe It cannot exist.

      We can reason about infinite quantities, no problem. For example, there are infinitely many integers, and infinitely many real numbers. We can't conceive of them all. But it's possible to prove that, even though they are both infinite in number, there are more real numbers than integers.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    25. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the Bible, the Creation occurred on October 23, 4004 BC at roughly 9:30 in the morning.

      Eeeek! 6000 years exactly (almost).

      Almost exactly 6000? Almost exactly 6007 and one week.

      Is this Gregorian date or Julian date?

      Julian.

    26. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Who are you to question why your god wants you to believe in evolution?

      If God wanted me to believe in Evolutionism, He would have written it, wouldn't He?

      (By the way, God is capitalized. Lowercase god means pagan and mythology gods, not the real God.)

    27. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That guy is clearly a dumbass, even among creationists. Taken literally, word for word, the bible makes it clear that the world was created more than 2,000 years ago, so even insane creationist types shouldn't be arguing about that.

      My thoughts on the matter (not that you asked)? Everything else God created works within our laws of nature... he created those, too. Rain, wind, earthquakes, whatever, so I don't see why the development/evolutions of animals (including people in that) wouldn't also.

    28. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's assume that's true; I am unable to comprehend It's actions. Well... Who, then, deliberately made me too stupid to understand It? Where does the fault lie?

      You are not stupid, I don't think so. You are just not omniscient, that's all.

      In any case, the Jewish/Christian/Islamic god is logically inconsistent, so I believe It cannot exist.

      God doesn't have to be logically consistent, for Heaven's sake! What part of the word "omnipotent" don't you understand?! He can be immanent and transcendent at the same time. He can be only one and in the form of Trinity at the same time. Is it logical? Of course it isn't! Can He do it? YES!

      We can reason about infinite quantities, no problem. For example, there are infinitely many integers, and infinitely many real numbers. We can't conceive of them all. But it's possible to prove that, even though they are both infinite in number, there are more real numbers than integers.

      That's a poor example because no one has ever seen infinitely many integers. Also, it is easy to understand the concept of omnipresence, omnipotence or omnibenevolence, or even omniscience per se. It is a completely different thing to try to understand the plans and actions of someone who is omniscient and omnipotent. We just cannot do that, it is beyond our logic, reason and understanding. (I tell it because I know that you were going to introduce Leibniz, theodicy, and the problem of evil -- don't deny it.)

      (Also, "it's" means "it is" or "it has" -- "it's" != "its" && "he's" != "his")

    29. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if there is some omnipotent God, why does he use means to achieve ends?

    30. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not bothered by apparent contradictions because I believe they are part of His larger design. [...] I'm actually a big fan of science.

      Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it. I was respecting you up to this point even though you seemed to be on the other side, but now I see that you don't even have guts to make up your mind.

      Carbon-dating for example. A truly omnipotent deity could easily create fossils in such a way that they appear older than the accepted 6,000 year timeline. Now it's up to faith to decide!

      A truly omnipotent deity could easily create a universe five seconds ago and 1000000000000000 years ago. That's not the point.

    31. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to provide any tidbit of fact or otherwise cite a source for such a rediculous claim?

      Do you think everything is random and unorganized? Do you think there are no planets, plants, animals, no conscious persons? We must live in different worlds then.

      Intelligent Design, like creationism in general, CANNOT BE A THEORY. As others have alluded to, you cannot DISPROVE the "theory" of intelligent design, therefore it is not a theory at all.

      Of course you cannot disprove it, just like everything that is true.

      So, pitching it as "an alternative" to evolution is wrong-minded and potentially damaging to the scientists of tomorrow (the kids of today).

      Can you prove Evolutionism? No? Then end of discussion.

    32. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I explained in an eighth-grade Debate class: Choosing a faith (or not) is like playing poker. I have no way to know what the winning hand will be until after the fact. But i do know that choosing nothing gets me nothing, so in choosing something, I chose what I belived was the "best hand".

      You are committing a logical fallacy of false dilemma, relying on the assumption that the only possibilities are:

      1. the Christian God exists and punishes or rewards as stated in the Bible, or

      2. no God exists.

      The problem is that you cannot rule out the possibility that there is a God who instead rewards skepticism and punishes blind faith, or rewards honest reasoning and punishes feigned faith. In societies where faith is often rewarded by economic and social benefit, its potential moral significance is dubious.

      Also, you fail to mention any costs relating to belief. In fact, there may be both direct costs (e.g. time, health, wealth) and opportunity costs (e.g. scientific theories such as evolution that appear to some to contradict scripture could theoretically enable a non-believer to discover things and accomplish things the creationist could not). Remember that belief incurs a cost by not allowing the believing person to participate in and enjoy actions forbidden by dogma.

      Yes, I was raised Christian, but my beliefs then and now are my own. I've never agreed with someone merely because they wore a collar or a title. Yes, I accept the KJV Bible (or its close variations) as authoritative. No, I don't comply fully with the dictates therin: I *am* human, after all. I do what I can!

      What a strange coincidence! You were raised Christian, and then you chose to be Christian! Wow! Impressive!

    33. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you claim that god is incapable of lies?

      You are understanding the ompipotence without a proper context. Remember that God is also omnibenevolent.

    34. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That guy is clearly a dumbass, even among creationists. Taken literally, word for word, the bible makes it clear that the world was created more than 2,000 years ago, so even insane creationist types shouldn't be arguing about that.

      2000 years ago? Who said that? The world was created 6007 years and a week ago, more or less. The Creation occurred on October 23, 4004 BC at roughly 9:30 in the morning.

    35. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

    36. Re:Creationism? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

      Please. I find that such distrust in the machinations of Nature itself shows us how narrow minded these "scientists" are. "I can't understand it, so God must have done it," essentially. This does not open the door to further research and understanding. On the contrary it closes the door because there is nothing more to be understood beyond "God did it".

      Amen Brotha! But the way you trip up these idiots is with the follow up question: 'Ok, god did it. Now just how> did he do it?

      If religion was really interested in God (they aren't), mabey they should try to study his handy work, say, like a scientist does...

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    37. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, how conveniently politically correct you are! You just have no balls.

    38. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, what's wrong with letting people believe what they want to believe? Is there any essential reason that you need to convince a software dev that evolution is the one true way and that everything else is false?

    39. Re:Creationism? by Xentax · · Score: 1

      This is such an obvious troll it's laughable. On the off-chance that you're just slow:

      It's not "everything is random and unorganized" or "Intelligent design" - there's plenty of room in between. Gravity and the interactions it tends to bring about can explain an awful lot of the organization in our universe, and I'm sure you're not attributing intelligence to, or behind, the force of gravity.

      If I say "you are a figment of my imagination", how would you prove me wrong - to ME, mind you, not some random observer. You can't (of course), so does that mean it's true? No. Anything that is held to be true as a FACT is held so because there are a set of conditions, events, or other evidence that could DISPROVE them, and since there are none such, it is held to be true. Anything that is neither provably true nor provably false is a *belief*, not a "truth" or fact.

      It would be quite simple to disprove evolution in favor of (let's say) divine manifestation - God could create a new species right in front of me. I'm sure you'd hope said new species would kill and eat me on the spot in light of my intransigence.

      The discussiou, of course, is about *disproving*, not *proving*. Either you don't yet understand the difference, or you're deliberately pretending not to. I actually sort of hope it's the former, because there's hope for your future usefulness in the universe if so.

      Xentax

      --
      You shouldn't verb words.
    40. Re:Creationism? by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1
      God doesn't have to be logically consistent, for Heaven's sake!

      Ah, if logic doesn't apply, then God is a ham sandwich. Pickles! Pickles! Vampire frogs, they're everywhere!

      (As Ethan Allen said: Those who invalidate reason, ought seriously to consider, whether they argue against reason, with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle, that they are laboring to dethrone; but if they argue without reason, (which, in order to be consistent with themselves, they must do,) they are out of the reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.)

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    41. Re:Creationism? by GTRacer · · Score: 1
      The problem is that you cannot rule out the possibility that there is a God who instead rewards skepticism and punishes blind faith...

      How did I not allow for that possibility? I chose my hand out of many possible choices. i chose what I did based on my prsonal makeup and desires.

      And I didn't mention the cost of faith because it's not all that relevant. Sure I don't bang loose women, get high and cheat on my taxes. But I don't miss those things. I'm happily married with a stable extended family and I don't feel the urge to "go heathen". Does that mean I'm sinless? No, far from it. And yes, my few vices do bother me. But again with the "only human".

      GTRacer
      - What else ya got?

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    42. Re:Creationism? by GTRacer · · Score: 1
      Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it.

      Sorry buddy, but this tin of Sara Lee says otherwise. All joking aside, why can't I have it both ways?

      I ask again, how does having faith in God preclude science? Yes, i know it's a bit of a "deus ex machina" to say that anything sufficiently complex or ordered is simply the whim of the Creator, but why not? How is it hurting me? I took up a geek's career in comuting because of my love for science and technology. I started reading some of Asimov's nonfiction science when I was 8. And yet I believe I'm in the middle of the most complex SimUniverse running on God's own desktop.

      Explain why this bothers you.

      I spend my whole day being logical and analytical. It's what they pay me well for around here. And I enjoy it. 'S why I'm still talking to you, despite your barbs. But having a cool, calculating mind doesn't precude me from having passions and "irrational" beliefs.

      A truly omnipotent deity could easily create a universe five seconds ago and 1000000000000000 years ago. That's not the point.

      Maybe not the point in your classification system of science-v-$deity, but it's the whole point to me. And that's the way I like it!

      GTRacer
      - Even Spock of Vulcan had an illogical side

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    43. Re:Creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brian? Is that you?

  5. Re:Suprnova by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you just mentioned it, so ... sack yourself, buddy!

    mods: sack him!

  6. Suppose it was heading toward Earth... by Nos. · · Score: 1

    lets see Bruce Willis handle an incoming star, don't think you'll be landing on it and drilling a hole to drop a nuke into. Suddenly an asteroid passing nearby doesn't seem quite so bad

    1. Re:Suppose it was heading toward Earth... by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 1

      By the time any known star reaches us, I'm sure that we'll have the means to escape.

    2. Re:Suppose it was heading toward Earth... by DogBarf · · Score: 1

      Bruce Willis could definitely handle it. You're just thinking of the wrong movie

  7. Signs that you watch too much daytime TV by yabbo · · Score: 3, Funny

    The star that went nova was part of a binary system, and the supernova explosion sent the companion star shooting off into space. Now, that companion star has been found."


    ...Next week on Oprah: "We've found his long lost companion star, and we're ready to reunite these two stars. What will be their reaction? Will he take his companion back now that he's gone nova?"



    1. Re:Signs that you watch too much daytime TV by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

      And a surprise gift: every member of the audience has a star named after them!

      --
      The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
    2. Re:Signs that you watch too much daytime TV by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

      Oprah's gravity well cannot sgnificantly alter the course of this star.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
  8. Faintly related by blamanj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmmm. Seems to be the day for supernova news. This report says Germain scientists are investigating the possibility that a (relatively) nearby supernova affected earth's climate in a way favorable to human evolution.

    1. Re:Faintly related by Quarters · · Score: 2, Funny

      Those scientists are germain to what, exactly?

  9. Hmmm. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If the star that went hurling through the Cosmos had planets, I wonder how they fared; would they be yanked off their orbits or simply follow the remaining primary?

    And if any of them had life, one better not think what would have happenned to it...

    1. Re:Hmmm. by Charvak · · Score: 1

      Given the fact that the accompaining planets are only 1% of the total mass of the star system, I belive that the planet will be moving along merrily with the star.

    2. Re:Hmmm. by kjs3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the operative concept is "they were right next to a friggin exploding star". In other words, they are ciders if they weren't completely vaporized.

  10. local life by geoswan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    And if any of them had life, one better not think what would have happenned to it...

    Radiation from the supernova would have wiped any local planets clean of life, and the planets of stellar systems within a dozen light years or so...

  11. Another AC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A god being bound to physical laws? This allows a non-physical entity the ability to do nothing. Certainly not create energy or matter, or even gently nudge atoms togethor to start life. It just ain't happening.

    "Before closing your mind, try opening it a little wider."

    Personally, I used to be very open-minded and spiritual. You bet I believed in God.

    Now I find beauty and truth, blah blah blah everywhere, without god, and I'm certainly no worse off for it. So been there, done that, it didn't stick.

    1. Re:Another AC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A god being bound to physical laws? This allows a non-physical entity the ability to do nothing.

      Hey! *I* am a supreme being bound to physical laws, you insensitive clod!

  12. Sorry, you're wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is there to say that invisble pink unicorns don't exist somewhere in the universe?

    They wouldn't be pink if they were invisible!

    1. Re:Sorry, you're wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > > What is there to say that invisble pink unicorns don't exist somewhere in the universe?

      > They wouldn't be pink if they were invisible!

      They are omnipotent. They can be pink and invisible at the same time. This is no more illogical than a creator god who is transcendent and immanent at the same time, isn't it?

  13. Where is the PICTURE ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really have to critize The Register. How can there be an article about astronomy without a single picture ? How can there be any scientific article without a picture ? They don't even cite correctly or give a link to a site where you can get further information, either the site of the original scientists or at least the site where one can find the article (which is, btw, P. Ruiz-Lapuente et al., Nature vol431, p.1069). Amateurs!

    Here are some _usable_ information: page of University of Barcelona.
    And some pictures can be found here (scroll down two pages), there is even a download link for the full paper preprint!

    1. Re:Where is the PICTURE ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, some of you guys might be surprised that the first author of the paper is a female astrophyics professor; a picture of her can be found here.

  14. Get your very own DARK MATTER!! by Cragen · · Score: 1
    If you click on the story in the post, it takes you to the Register, where, on the side of the right page, there is a link to ebay where there is "DARK MATTER For SALE!". If only the scientists had known before they started all that research, think of the dollars that could have been saved! Nice way to start the day. :)

  15. Nothern, Yea next to Sockland, and Spireland by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

    So many spelling mistakes on this site. Spellchecker training anyone?