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."

36 of 71 comments (clear)

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

    Astronomist and cartoonist... a true Renaissance man.

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

    Suprnova. There, I've said it :)

  3. 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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

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

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

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    7. 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).

    8. 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?

    9. 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.
    10. 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!
    11. 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!
    12. 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.)

    13. 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"

    14. 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!
    15. 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!
    16. 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.
    17. 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!
    18. 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!
    19. 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!
  4. 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

  5. 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
  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. 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...

  9. 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. :)

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

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