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."

12 of 71 comments (clear)

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

    Astronomist and cartoonist... a true Renaissance man.

  2. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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).

  3. 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?"



  4. 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?

  5. 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 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.

  6. 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...