Slashdot Mirror


Huge Star Quake Rocks Milky Way

SJrX writes "The BBC is reporting that scientists have detected "the biggest explosion observed by humans within [the past 400 years]". The explosion luckily occured about 50,000 light years away form us, on the far side of the Milky Way, as the article goes on to say that had the explosion been within 10 light years of us, it "would possibly have triggered a mass extinction.""

548 comments

  1. Equation constraints by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course the existence of magnetars will place constraints on estimations of life on other planets like the Drake equation, and it might be useful to map out these sources of potential periodic radiation bursts to limit/make more efficient radio/laser surveys of the sky.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Equation constraints by PoopJuggler · · Score: 3, Funny

      What about the existance of Sinistars?

    2. Re:Equation constraints by augmenter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Given that the "constants" in the Drake equation are order-of-magnitude estimates and that explosions like this are very rare, I don't think it will be a real impovement.

      --
      There is no good and bad. There is only cause and effect.
    3. Re:Equation constraints by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Given our rather limited data on the matter, what makes you think the Drake equation is anything more than a structured guess?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    4. Re:Equation constraints by mbrother · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sure, the Drake equation is but a structured guess, but it is a handy way of organizing the important terms and quantifying each and how certain they are. I got to have dinner with Frank Drake a few years ago at Lick Observatory, which was pretty cool.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    5. Re:Equation constraints by Mantorp · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't recall either the creationists or evolutionists mentioning cheese. I'm sure they both will soon enough. One camp will use something called science and the other faith and schoolbook stickers.

    6. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, yes. I completely agree with the things that you have just said.

    7. Re:Equation constraints by operagost · · Score: 1

      BEWARE - They live!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:Equation constraints by SetupWeasel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Then we should stop giving it a title like "equation." That word means something in a hard science.

    9. Re:Equation constraints by mbrother · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Drake equation IS an equation. That's the right term for it in science, hard or soft. The number of technological civilizations in the galaxy we can communicate with is equal to the product of the probabilites/numbers on the other side of the equal sign. Just because some of those numbers/probabilites are uncertain does not stop it from being an equation. For instance, it isn't a proportionality or an approximation (unless you actually start pluggin in approximate numbers). And I wouldn't say that the term equation is a "title." You're reading too much into this.

      These sort of estimation games are really valuable in lots of branches of science and often lead to insight. Enrico Fermi used to do this all the time, which is especially relvant since his "Fermi Paradox" about how it's strange we haven't encountered alien intelligences is the same sort of thing that Drake formalized.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    10. Re:Equation constraints by mbrother · · Score: 4, Informative

      ???

      I guess I've observed there too many times for such a joke to be funny. Lick Observatory is named after James Lick who funded the establishment of the Observatory back in the 1890s. It's an interesting place -- the first observatory put on a mountaintop (it was originally going to be in downtown San Francisco, imagine that). His ashes are kept in a memorial under the 36 inch refractor.

      It's a spectacularly pretty location, overlooking the bay, and the old observatory portion is all marble and brass, 19th century elegance. I got married there and the reception was great (band, catered dinner, and the 36 inch refractor was available for guest viewing).

      The road to Lick from San Jose is a very twisty 19 miles. The mules, originally used to haul material there, wouldn't go up more than a six degree incline, so it's switchback city. This also makes it a popular road for bicyclists. I used to be annoyed with them, since I had to go there semi-regularly for work and often drove while sleepy. I imagined I'd come around a corner and have a tired rider at zero speed in the middle of the lane. They paid me back though one time. I was sitting in the dining room eating breakfast one afternoon, and these two riders and a car pulled up. The car driver switched off to ride a bike, and she stepped in front of the window and stripped out of all her clothes while the milk dripped off my spoon, caught halfway to my mouth. Good times.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    11. Re:Equation constraints by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
      There's one thing about this event that has me wondering. Apparently it was of very short duration. did anybody know it was coming? How did they manage to have equipment pointed in just the right direction, at just the right time, to actually record the event? If it was an 'accidental' thing, ie they were pointed that way for other reasons, wouldn't that raise some questions about frequency of such events?

      Just doing some straw hat quick numbers here, if we assume it requires modern equipment to monitor/record this event, and we define everything built in the last 50 years to be 'modern', then we further (overly conservative) assume all that equipment is always observing, then it's likely we can possibly be watching about 1% of the sky at any given time. If this event was an annual thing in the galaxy, it sounds 'about right' that after 50 years of observing a small portion of the sky, we actually got it 'on tape' now so to speak.

      So I'm curious, just how common are such events, and, how did it happen that this one was directly observed? Was it accidental, or was there enough indication of something happening in advance, that astronomers did have radio telescopes pointed in the right direction on purpose, to observe this particular event ?

    12. Re:Equation constraints by General+Alcazar · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I find the Drake equation very interesting. It is an interesting speculation, but since it is based on all kinds of arbitrary assumptions, it is almost useless. But not totally. One of the most interesting things about it is that it points out that, based on our assumptions, we should be detecting some kind of extra-terran life. Since we are not, clearly some of our assumptions are erroneous. The question is - WHICH assumptions are erroneous?

      Here are some things we do know:

      1. We are here.
      2. We have the means to communicate between ourselves.
      3. The ability to communicate between individual organisms has given rise to something greater than the sum of our parts: culture, society, language, mass consiousness, the internet, music, etc.
      4. We have not encountered any communications to date that are like what we would expect.

      But let's step back a bit, and look at the processes that life goes through as a whole. A long, long time ago, there were no multi-cellular life forms on earth. At first, just organic compounds. Then something appeared (maybe some kind of virus?). Eventually, single cell organism appeared. Things stayed like this for an awfully long time. Then, multi-cellular organisms appeared. These multi-cellular organisms gave rise to something we call consciousness. One version of these creatures - humans - developed quite sophisticated consciousnesses. These units of consciousness, together gave rise to very interesting 'things' such as language, memes, and other insubstantial, but very real 'things'.

      See the pattern? What we see here is a continuous pattern of units coming together and creating units out of their aggregate which possess qualities fundamentally transcendant than those of their parts. Particles > Atoms > Molecules > Compounds > Cells > Organisms > Consciousness > Memes and so on.

      I would buy the argument that life is very common in the Universe, and even the Milky Way. The vastness of it all seems to make it so probable. But what if our current point in evolution is only a brief transitional state, in the grand scheme of things? We have only been radio communicators for about one hundred years or so. That is a super super tiny blip in time. A lot of us seem to assume that the future will be like some sort of Star Trek reality or something, where technological advancement is the primary area of change. But what if what we are going through is more of a spiritual evolution - one that we have only just begun, and one that will ultimately transcend our own existence as we know it?

      For all we know, we could be surrounded by alien consciousness all the time, and not even know it, much the same way a bacteria has very limited awareness of the presence of humans, let alone any concept of what one is.

    13. Re:Equation constraints by mbrother · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know all the details myself, but the article focuses on SWIFT, which is designed to monitor the whole sky for bright gamma ray bursts. It just went up itself in November, although there are other satelites up with similar (but worse) capability). Gamma ray bursts go off about once a day, give or take, and spacecraft like SWIFT detect them, point toward them and localize them, then relay that information to ground-based telescopes for follow-up at other wavelenghts. So some of your analysis is right, but some of your assumptions are wrong.

      It's funny that gamma ray bursts were first discovered by the military who wanted to watch for nuclear weapons. This was in the early 1970s, maybe a bit earlier. They went batshit when these previously unknown bursts started setting off alarms on a regular basis.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    14. Re:Equation constraints by PacRim+Jim · · Score: 1

      Since the expansion of the universe is accelerating, eventually magnatars will be unable to reach out and touch anyone. I'll keep you posted.

    15. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The observatory is only 19 miles from San Jose? Well, jesus fucking christ, my good man, why the fuck didn't you say so earlier? I've been on a business trip in the area for the past week, but I am flying back home tomorrow.

      I am balls crazy about astronomy and we could have like, hung or something. But NOOOO. Thanks for nothing, fuck-o.

      [Maybe next time? :( ]

    16. Re:Equation constraints by StarfishOne · · Score: 1


      I am Sinistar! .... I Hunger!

      Thanks @parent for bringing back some memories :)

    17. Re:Equation constraints by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      You don't read It's Walky, do you?

    18. Re:Equation constraints by Eric604 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      One of the most interesting things about it is that it points out that, based on our assumptions, we should be detecting some kind of extra-terran life

      I am not so sure about that. The avarage distance to other civilisations is proportional to how rare life is. Unless our observation technology improves vastly, I don't think we'll detect anything. Look at it this way, can we detect earth over many lightyears just by searching for human activities with our current technology? I don't think so. Another thing is, since I don't believe in hyperdrives and other scifi tech, if there is extra-terran life then their technology and radio emission won't be much different than ours.

    19. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they are certainly left and probably out of it as well.

    20. Re:Equation constraints by SamBeckett · · Score: 1

      The number of technological civilizations in the galaxy we can communicate with is equal to the product of the probabilites/numbers on the other side of the equal sign.

      Nonsense. This would be like saying you can predict the number of times a coin will come up heads by multiplying it by 1/2 (the probability); you have a good indicator of how many you can "expect," but that by itself is meaningless. (e.g., you still need to know the variance to make any reasonable claims)

      The Drake Equation is the "Expected Number" of intelligent civilizations we could expect to "talk to" given infinite universes.

      Ergo, the number of civilizations we can "talk to" is really a random variable and to even pretend to know any of the probabilities is, to me, stretching it.

    21. Re:Equation constraints by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      You were surprised that you observed a heavenly body while at an observatory?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    22. Re:Equation constraints by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Look at it this way, can we detect earth over many lightyears just by searching for human activities with our current technology?

      Yes, easily. With an instrument like Arecebo telescope we could detect human-like transmissions over hundreds if not thousands of light-years.

    23. Re:Equation constraints by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      RUN, COWARD! (Or is it RON HOWARD!?)

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    24. Re:Equation constraints by Eric604 · · Score: 1

      1000 ly is not much, the milkyway alone is 100K ly across. Life might be rare enough that on avarage only one planet is populated per galaxy.

    25. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the numerical machine that forecasts the future predicted it as was mentioned in a previous SD article.

    26. Re:Equation constraints by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "But what if what we are going through is more of a spiritual evolution - one that we have only just begun, and one that will ultimately transcend our own existence as we know it?"

      Then you're talking religion.

      "...we could be surrounded by alien consciousness all the time..."

      And these consciousnesses would be constructed of what and use what form of power?

    27. Re:Equation constraints by arminw · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      ...Then something appeared...

      Appeared from where and how? We know that in our experience, something man-made, such as a car does not just appear, but is the product of intelligent design and purposeful construction, all arising out of a thing we call mind. Does information just arise out of nowhere? Nobody will postulate that even a pencil just appeared, yet why is it BELIEVED that even a singe cell 'appeared' out of seemingly nowhere? Microbiology has shown that a "simple" cell is more complicated by far than anything ever designed by humans. The astounding design and information content of even the simplest living things is at attributed to all sorts of mechanisms and causes, except one: That a superior MIND is the originator of us and all life. Indeed, as you say, life could be common in the universe, but why can it not be attributed to a mind that has made it happen in many places.

      Why is it so hard to admit that the order and information content of the "natural" world is the product of a mind just as the products of our modern technological world are conceived in the minds of their creators? All of science would still be just as fascinating and useful if that BELIEF were accepted as the cause for the origin of the order, design and laws that scientists seek to explore.

      --
      All theory is gray
    28. Re:Equation constraints by IdleTime · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One thing we need to consider is the following: One plnate has to be the first to develop intelligent life!

      What if it has taken 13 billion years for intelligent life to evolve and we are the first to do so?

      What if life flares up and dies out again within a few million years?

      What if this galaxy only contains a few planets with intelligent life and far apart, but other galaxies contains life in abundance. The distances makes it very difficult to communicate.

      What if the universe is full of life but because of distances it is not possible or extremly difficult to communicate?

      It is a very interesting area, but unfortunatly we can do little more than speculate. And yes, SETI is just a speculation, a speculation based on how WE think another life-form would communicate. Alas, I will never live to find out if there is life on other planets.

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    29. Re:Equation constraints by Flaming+Death · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For most things, life needs a few critical elements, gravity being one (otherwise water may not hang around for life to be created - no amino acids). With gravity then comes the problem of escaping you original home (well down the track of course) - that genuinely requires a tool/assitance of some form. While I dont doubt what you suggest is not a wonderful concept (or new, very Childhoods endish..) .. mankind through tools has begun its move to a new frontier. Transitional?, that is possible, but this is a _critical_ transisitonal state. One which brings the ability to possibly escape 'planet wide destruction scenarios' and to 'spread' our race throughout space - the worry here is we just move to another planet to rape and pillage.

      With our 'advancement' there are some big problems we have created that suggest our 'spiritual side' is extremely flawed. Being an entirely tool based society we no longer rely on our evolutionary/spiritual abilities to get through the day, let alone through life - everything humans do, is through the use of some tool. Even religion and spirituality. Pushing us further away from ever being able to understand/know/feel the true nature of ourselves :-)

      Think carefully about it next time you sit in a church, read a bible, or post on slashdot. As a race, we have irrecoverably doomed ourselves from knowing our true self's. In fact to rid oneself of all posessions, wasnt far wrong from JC..

      Also it is quite hilarious to read how people put humans up on the pedestal of intelligence on earth - making and using tools doesnt make anyone smarter/better. We are happy to even eat some of the most intelligent lifeforms on this planet - octupus, and squid for instance. Yet we think it barbaric/distasteful to eat dolphins - intellegence may as well just be a beauty contest.

      My personal guess is that mankind has to be able to just be kind to one another before anything good can come from this race. Its almost ludicrous to consider ourselves even vaguely intelligent while the western world is happy to rape and pillage the poorer nations, and then also go destroy their countries and homelands in the name of 'good' ?? (Iraq isnt the example here.. there are soooooo many more).. go figure.. humanity needs to be more than rhetoric, vengence, hatred, religious fervour, and snazzy tools...

      Until we have a society based on community rather than economy, I think mankind is probably in for more of the same... so spiritualy or with tools, I dont expect us to go anywhere in the near future at all, let alone see anyone who wants anything to do with us swamp rats..

    30. Re:Equation constraints by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We know that in our experience, something man-made, such as a car does not just appear, but is the product of intelligent design and purposeful construction, all arising out of a thing we call mind.

      Well duh, man made things are made by man.

      why is it BELIEVED that even a singe cell 'appeared' out of seemingly nowhere?

      It isn't. A single cell is thought to be the product of about 1-2B years of evolution, starting with much simpler organisms.

      Indeed, as you say, life could be common in the universe, but why can it not be attributed to a mind that has made it happen in many places.

      So aliens are seeding life though the universe? Who made them? When you get down to it, someone has to be the first and, new evidence notwithstanding, it may as well be us.

      Why is it so hard to admit that the order and information content of the "natural" world is the product of a mind just as the products of our modern technological world are conceived in the minds of their creators?

      That's a religious argument and has no place in science. Specifically, it allows no new understanding or predictions. Save your ID stuff for philosophy.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    31. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
      > why is it BELIEVED that even a singe cell 'appeared' out of seemingly nowhere?

      It isn't.

      It's believed that self-replicating molecules appeared. It's believed that self-replicating molecules that synthesized lipids were better replicators than those that didn't. It's believed that mitochondria - which aren't much more than bits of RNA with a wrapper around it - were once independent lifeforms, predating cells by a wide margin. Single-celled organisms that use mitochondria as fuel source are a pretty natural extension -- just a big lipid layer around a benign environment for self-replicating molecules.

      > Microbiology has shown that a "simple" cell is more complicated by far than anything ever designed by humans.

      It's also a lot more complicated than anything taught at the high school (or even undergraduate) biology classes.

      > Why is it so hard to admit that the order and information content of the "natural" world is the product of a mind just as the products of our modern technological world are conceived in the minds of their creators? All of science would still be just as fascinating and useful if that BELIEF were accepted as the cause for the origin of the order, design and laws that scientists seek to explore.

      Because most people (such as proponents of ID) find something they can't explain, bow down before it as evidence of God's genius, and then stop investigating. After all, if something's "irreducably" complex, why bother investigating it any further?

      Meanwhile, us scientists (whether we believe in God or not -- and I, as a scientist and a Christian, see no contradiction between evolution and my faith) will continue on doing science.

      Here endeth the science lesson and beginneth the metaphysics/theology.

      Have you ever considered that a God smart enough to create a universe 13.8 billion years ago out of a few physical constants, just might be smart enough to create a universe in which intelligent life spontaneously evolved (on Earth, and perhaps on billions of other worlds) to recognize His existence?

      Have you ever further condidered that a God smart enough to pull off a stunt like that is probably a hell of a lot smarter than one who had to manually kludge in lifeforms, regardless of whether he whipped the thing up a mere 6000 years ago, or even if he created the universe, and has spent most of the past 3 billion years constantly hacking in things like cells, multicellular organisms, eyes, lungs, exploding beetles, and the human cerebral cortex and what-not every few hundred million years?

      I know which one I'd consider the more glorious. Why do you cram your God into such a small box?

    32. Re:Equation constraints by CokeFiend · · Score: 1

      I would tend to agree with such a theory. And I would add that it seems logical that life, in at least form, could be one single characteristic of every similar galaxy in the universe. Given the vastness and infinite nature of the universe coupled with the fact that life DOES exist here, it is completely illogical to think that life would not exist somewhere else in the universe.

      To comment on the article, there is at least one characteristic of all animals particularly humans that the 5 senses do not account for. Emotion. Or to take that to a more spiritual level, your soul. The combination of environment, interaction, relationship, and the other 5 senses, combined to form one singular "sense" that can control them all. In that respect I would agree with the article in saying that a human at the very least possesses a "sixth sense". I would agree with the other poster, that our reliance on tools will forever prevent us from truly understanding that sense however.

      How is that a humming bird, the size of a ping pong ball can navigate the EXACT path of his 3000 mile migration route every year? The same birds have been caught in the same nets year after year. How is that 300 birds can fly in unison through some reasonably complex path without one going astray? Why is that dogs seem to be able to sense fear, anxiety, and happiness, or detect tumors for that matter? It seems reasonable to believe that we posses that ability as well, however less in touch with it we may be.

    33. Re:Equation constraints by Mantorp · · Score: 1

      No, should I?

    34. Re:Equation constraints by mesach · · Score: 1

      You know that was a pretty insightful FP, I was expecting something like

      the last thing heard by anyone on the planet

      "thats no moon"
      or
      "its a trap!!!"

      or possibly, heard just before the explosion

      "I assure you this space station is FULLY operational"


      Anyone know the name of the planet? was it Alderaan? can we name it that?

      --
      moo.
    35. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Appeared from where and how?

      We don't know. But you think you do. Why is that?

      We know that in our experience, something man-made, such as a car does not just appear, but is the product of intelligent design and purposeful construction, all arising out of a thing we call mind.

      Yes, man-made things do not "just appear" because, well, they are man-made. So what? That doesn't mean that everything in the universe is "intelligently designed", any more than everything in the universe is man-made.

      Nobody will postulate that even a pencil just appeared, yet why is it BELIEVED that even a singe cell 'appeared' out of seemingly nowhere?

      This is the typical ID false analogy. "Let me give a whole bunch of examples of things that we already know are designed, because we have seen them been designed by people -- and then argue that everything else is designed too." The logic doesn't work. Consider an alternative substitution: "Nobody will postulate that even a snowflake just appeared, yet why is it BELIEVED that even a single cell `appeared' ..." But nobody thinks that snowflakes are individually designed by an intelligence; we know how they form from simple physical principles. Why do you use pencils instead of snowflakes as your example? Because you know pencils are designed and are hoping to bolster your argument that way.

      Besides which, fully-functioning complex cells did not appear out of nowhere. That's another ridiculous strawman. The first "life" was likely nothing more than simple self-replicating chemicals.

      Microbiology has shown that a "simple" cell is more complicated by far than anything ever designed by humans.

      Even if true, again, so what? If you proceed from the ASSUMPTION that complex things must be intelligently designed, then of course you will always conclude that they are intelligently designed. But what is the justification for that assumption? Complex life itself follows natural laws, not requiring constant divine intervention to keep going; why is it so hard for you to imagine that natural laws can't give rise to complexity as well as sustain it? We know how natural law can give rise to all kinds of complexity, like stars, weather patterns and turbulence, geological processes, etc. Why does your mind turn off when we get to life and you can only see a Mind at work?

      The astounding design and information content of even the simplest living things is at attributed to all sorts of mechanisms and causes, except one: That a superior MIND is the originator of us and all life.

      We have direct observational evdience of all kinds of natural mechanisms and causes that give rise to complexity in living things. We have no evidence of the involvement of a "superior mind". If you disagree, please present the evidence. Note that "but how else could it have arisen" does not constitute evidence for a designer, nor does "here are a bunch of complicated things that humans have designed, therefore all complicated things are designed".

      Indeed, as you say, life could be common in the universe, but why can it not be attributed to a mind that has made it happen in many places.

      It could be so attributed, if there were any evidence supporting that contention. We know that intelligent beings (= humans) can perform genetic engineering and such, so it's theoretically possible that some life in the universe has been designed by other life or sentience. The problem with that theory is, we have no evidence that this is the case, whereas there is plenty of evidence of natural processes that influenced the evolution of life.

      Why is it so hard to admit that the order and information content of the "natural" world is the product of a mind just as the

    36. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have difficulty understanding how a post that makes no coherent arguments, nor presents any actual evidence, can be modded "Insightful". Its content can be boiled down to, "Life is intelligently designed because it's complicated, QED." But it gives no justification for why one should believe that complicated things must be designed.

    37. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So-called intelligent design "theory" is vacuous. It consists of nothing more than attacks on evolutionary biology. Tell me: independently of any purported arguments AGAINST natural evolution, what is the evidence FOR intelligent design? If we are to believe that intelligent design took place, then belief in that process should be supported. No one can be asked to believe that something happened if nothing can be said about what happened. So, then, what is the theory of intelligent design? Who was the creator(s), and how do you know? What is the nature of the creator(s), and how do you know? What were the mechanisms of creation, and how do you know? When did this design take place, and how do you know?

    38. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit banging your retard drum, Corky. No one has suggested that a single cell just materialized out of the aether. The suggestion is that basic chemical reactions resulted in the eventual production of the cell over many eons. This is a claim which is supported by experimentation, and one which is not nearly as ridiculous as asserting that there is an omnipotent being who ejaculated into the void and produced man.

      Fucking Jesus-freak troll-bitch.

    39. Re:Equation constraints by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is it so hard to admit that the order and information content of the "natural" world is the product of a mind just as the products of our modern technological world are conceived in the minds of their creators? All of science would still be just as fascinating and useful if that BELIEF were accepted as the cause for the origin of the order, design and laws that scientists seek to explore.

      Because what you are describing is metaphysics, not science. I generally have no problem with you or anyone holding whatever metaphysical beliefs you want. It's when you attempt to substitute the metaphysics for science or impose the metaphysics on science that I have a problem.

      Your stated metaphysical belief is sufficiently vague as to not conflict with science. You do not seem to be trying to impose your metaphysical beliefs on others. However, we've seen time and again, through out history into the present what happens when scientific development challenges metaphysical notions of those with political power, especially when that power is based on those metaphysical notions.

      Furthermore, if you rely on supernatural explanations, why bother doing science? Why attempt to understand the physical world when the supernatural world trumps it? (I realize that your stated beliefs are more akin to that of the Deists, many of whom compared the universe to a clockwork that had been set into motion by some "Mind" and left to run on it's own. By seeking to understand the universe, one was also seeking to understand the mind that created it.)

      Anyway, as I said, I don't have a problem with your personal metaphysical beliefs, but I think they're totally extracurricular to science.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    40. Re:Equation constraints by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Think carefully about it next time you sit in a church, read a bible, or post on slashdot.

      Dude, that's .sig material.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    41. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit banging your retard drum, Corky. [...] This is a claim which [...] is not nearly as ridiculous as asserting that there is an omnipotent being who ejaculated into the void and produced man. Fucking Jesus-freak troll-bitch.

      Don't hold back now. Tell us how you really feel.
    42. Re:Equation constraints by bondgrrl · · Score: 1

      If you're interested in any of the concepts that the parent writes about then be sure to read Olaf Stapeldon's Star Maker. Lots of thoughts on how mind, spirituality and how a species transcends into the next organisational grouping, resulting in galaxies full of merged species trying the contact the Star Maker...

      And no, I didn't include my affiliate id in that link...

      --
      "What can I say? I'm the queen of java."
      subduction.net
    43. Re:Equation constraints by AxelBoldt · · Score: 1
      Does information just arise out of nowhere?

      Well, several patentable inventions have been constructed using genetic algorithms, by random mutation, selection and recombination of inferior structures. The eventual inventions were much better than anything the programmers could have come up with on their own, so it's clear that new information can and did arise under those conditions.

      For an example from biology, just take bacteria that mutate to become resistant to a new antibiotic. The experiment is done in every microbiology class. Clearly, the information about how to resist the antibiotic arises by random mutation and selection.

      life could be common in the universe, but why can it not be attributed to a mind that has made it happen in many places

      That mind would surely be part of some life form, just like our own minds? So every scientist would immediately ask: how did that life form come about? Did it arise by random mutation and selection? If not, what other process was at work? You can't just arbitrarily stop in the middle of your chain of explanations, unless you are talking religion and not science.

    44. Re:Equation constraints by Severious · · Score: 1

      Just because you do not know how something came about doesn't mean you get to make up the existence of some Deity to fill in the blanks. Especially when you have no evidence for the existence of said Deity while there are piles of evidence for the other argument. You just cling to a few gaps in the knowledge as evidence of your argument. Just because you do no have the intellectual capacity to see what evolution can do over such vast time spans doesn't make what happened any less true.

      --
      Tinfoil hat? Naa, I long since replaced it with a reinforced titanium alloy.
    45. Re:Equation constraints by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Both the parent and the grandparent post are using an essentially wrong definition of N in the Drake Equation. N is defined as the number of communicating civilizations, not the number of civilizations that we can communicate with.
      To see how this is different, you can use the probability estimate in the Birthday Paradox. Just substitute communicating civilizations for people sharing the same birthday. You will find that the probability of N communicating civilizations will always be higher than the probability of us being able to communicate with them.
      I have always wondered why the Drake Equation was not stated as an inequality i.e. the left hand side could always be less than or equal but never greater than the right hand side. Consider for instance the possibility that some civilisation X has heard civilisation Y but simply never bothered to reply...

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    46. Re:Equation constraints by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...then stop investigating...

      If you found a watch or other technological gadget somewhere, which you had never come across before, and realized it was the product of an intelligence, does it naturally follow that you then stop investigating the object?. ...a mere 6000 years ago....

      I did not make any reference to time at all and the time it takes to create an intelligent complicated device is not relevant. What is relevant however is that the device contains an incredible amount of INFORMATION, which CANNOT, according information theory arise from randomness, but only from another source of information. 10^99 monkeys will NOT ever type the works of Shakespeare in the known or conjectured time the Universe has been in existence. This can be mathematically proven. ...It's believed that self-replicating molecules... ... It's believed that mitochondria....

      Yes indeed -- "It is BELIEVED" and yet you tell me that belief has no place in science. I always thought that science is what we KNOW, not what we believe! Why should believing in a Creator stifle science? Early scientists, who discovered many of the principles and physical laws our modern world operates under, such as Newton, Pascal, Faraday and most of their contemporaries believed in a Creator God who created order and symmetry in the cosmos and therefore man could explore this order and derive benefit from knowing some of the details of how the Creator put this world together. I see no contradiction of true science and faith in an intelligent creator God. ...and I, as a scientist and a Christian, see no contradiction between evolution and my faith...

      Neither do I. Evolution can explain certain aspects of our Cosmos reasonably well, but has severe problems with others. The origin of information is one of them. This subject was not given much thought in Darwin's time, but with the advent of advanced information processing devices, much work has been and is still being done on information theory. One of the goals of information science is to come up with a self-programming computer, but sofar no one has even developed a workable theory how that might be accomplished without supplying the needed information externally first.

      --
      All theory is gray
    47. Re:Equation constraints by rickbrodie · · Score: 1
      I like Alastair Reynolds' explanation for the seeming lack of intelligent life: something is either stopping life from developing intelligence, or eradicating it wherever and whenever it is found.

      *SPOILER* :)

      The story goes that it is forseen that at some distant point in time, our galaxy will suffer a devastating cataclysm, eradicating for all time the potential for intelligent life. This cataclysm will, in some part, be caused by the very presence of intelligent life (ironically, trying to avert the event). It is predicted that if all intelligence can be prevented from developing until after this event, the future will be secured. To this end, machines, calld Inhibitors, are created. Their task is to stop or inhibit intelligence.

      It makes for a thrilling story, and happens to be quite an interesting (if slightly implausible) explanation for the silent skies.

    48. Re:Equation constraints by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...what evolution can do over such vast time spans ...

      I never mention time at all in my orginal post. Evolution may be able to explain some things, but there are some others that do not fit the evolutionary model, no matter how much time, short of infinity, you postulate. When the theory of evolution was first put forth, scientists of that day believed that the Universe has always existed. Einstein and other modern physicists have laid that notion to rest. We now know that space-time and matter-energy did not always exist, but had a definite beginning. No matter how far in time you place this beginning, it limits how many times the evolutionary dice can be rolled. Evolution without the input of some direction from a source of information does not allow enough time for the incredible complexity of living things. Men have always had various notions of what or who that source of intelligence may be like and that is of course the realm of faith, not science. However I do not think that science and faith need to be in an exclusive OR relationship, but can exist peaceably side by side and even be complementary. Early scientists, such as Newton, Pascal, Faraday and many others were also men of faith. Of course there have been and are some, both in the camp of faith and in the camp of science who have preached that the two are contradictory and cannot both be true. I don't see why not.

      --
      All theory is gray
    49. Re:Equation constraints by arminw · · Score: 0

      ...but I think they're totally extracurricular to science...

      Indeed they are, not contradictory, but complementary. The God who is invites His creatures to carefully study what He has created as an additional avenue to get to know Him. He tells us this in a book called the Bible, but He leaves the choice of whether you want to accept this up to you. Contrary to what so many have done and still do in His name, given the chance, He does NOT cram Himself down your throat, but invites you gently to get to know Him. As you do get to know Him personally, you will appreciate and stand in awe of the superlative design of this world all the more and if you are a scientist, wish to explore it with renewed energy.

      --
      All theory is gray
    50. Re:Equation constraints by Mandrel · · Score: 2, Informative

      I did not make any reference to time at all and the time it takes to create an intelligent complicated device is not relevant. What is relevant however is that the device contains an incredible amount of INFORMATION, which CANNOT, according information theory arise from randomness, but only from another source of information.

      While the total entropy of a closed system must rise, that doesn't mean that there can't be isolated pockets of entropy reduction (information creation), balanced by regions of increased randomness. For example the sun is graduallly messing itself up to allow the earth to be more ordered.

      The interesting question is where all the potential inherent in the big bang came from.

    51. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What is relevant however is that the device contains an incredible amount of INFORMATION, which CANNOT, according information theory arise from randomness, but only from another source of information.

      This is, of course, nonsense. "Random" processes can generate information in any meaningful sense of the term.

      10^99 monkeys will NOT ever type the works of Shakespeare in the known or conjectured time the Universe has been in existence.

      This is totally irrelevant to evolution, because the random processes of evolution are quite biased in favor of certain outcomes. That's the whole POINT of evolution. Try doing a function optimization by generating random numbers until you get to the maximum. Then try it using a genetic algorithm, which applies not just the random process of mutation, but also of recombination or crossover (combining features of different solutions), and most particularly of natural selection, which discards suboptimal solutions.

      I always thought that science is what we KNOW, not what we believe!

      Incorrect. You never "prove" anything in science, you merely amass more support in favor of one theory than another, thus strengthening your relative belief in one theory. Bayesian probability is a natural framework in which to understand the scientific method.

      Why should believing in a Creator stifle science?

      "What causes lightning?" "The gods are angry." "Oh."

      Believing in a creator need not stifle science, but it can, as soon as you introduce ineffable supernatural causes, because they, by definition, preclude further investigation.

      Evolution can explain certain aspects of our Cosmos reasonably well, but has severe problems with others. The origin of information is one of them.

      Only in your made-up fantasy version of information theory and evolution. Real evolution has no problem with real information theory.

      One of the goals of information science is to come up with a self-programming computer, but sofar no one has even developed a workable theory how that might be accomplished without supplying the needed information externally first.

      For a sufficiently vague definition of "supplying the needed information externally" that is true, but trivial and irrelevant. Obviously, nobody is ever going to design a computer without, well, DESIGNING it. But so what? What does that have to do with whether evolution can produce the complexity we see in living organisms?
    52. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't accept a cell appearing out of nowhere ... but you're perfectly okay with the creator of that cell appearing out of nowhere.

      Stop trying to dress up your mythology like it was some kind of science.

    53. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the theory of evolution was first put forth, scientists of that day believed that the Universe has always existed.

      Whether the universe is eternal is quite irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

      We now know that space-time and matter-energy did not always exist, but had a definite beginning.

      No, we do not know any such thing.
      No matter how far in time you place this beginning, it limits how many times the evolutionary dice can be rolled.

      So?

      Evolution without the input of some direction from a source of information does not allow enough time for the incredible complexity of living things.

      Prove it. A Nobel Prize awaits you. Note: nonsense arguments like monkeys typing Shakespeare or a tornado in a junkyard building a 747 are just that: nonsense. All calculations that ID theorists present are specious, because they do not model evolution; they model a silly caricature of evolution in which all outcomes are assumed to have equal probability, ignoring the biases introduced by mechanisms of crossover, natural selection, self-organization, etc.

      However I do not think that science and faith need to be in an exclusive OR relationship, but can exist peaceably side by side and even be complementary.

      That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that there are no scientific arguments supporting the existence of an intelligent designer.
    54. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it so hard to admit that the order and information content of the "natural" world is the product of a mind just as the products of our modern technological world are conceived in the minds of their creators?

      It's hard to admit because it's so bloody hard to believe. Get the picture? Now go do your chanting, you want to make sure the fiery chariot keeps rising in the morning, don't you?

    55. Re:Equation constraints by arminw · · Score: 0

      ...the sun is graduallly messing itself up...

      Actually, the sun is and remains a highly ordered, very carefully balanced thermonuclear fusion device, the power output of which is far more constant, over vast spans of time, than what comes out of the sockets in your walls. There is nothing "random" about the structure of the sun. The universe is a closed system and there is no known transport mechanism other than intelligence that can reduce entropy in one part of it at the expense of increasing in another part.

      The creation event, or "big bang" created the raw material from which the things that science can deal with are constructed. Like the raw materials we dig out of the Earth, it requires information to order these into the advanced functionality we endow our human creations. Likewise the raw materials created in the "Big Bang" have been ordered very carefully into all the things studied by science through an input of immese amounts of information. Religion is the postulating of the source of this information. Only faith can, but science cannot determine the source, but only explore its effects and by understanding and exploring these effects accrue benefits to us all.

      --
      All theory is gray
    56. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, the sun is and remains a highly ordered, very carefully balanced thermonuclear fusion device, the power output of which is far more constant, over vast spans of time, than what comes out of the sockets in your walls.

      The Sun has enormous entropy, which is increasing all the time, and the energy it transmits to us powers chemical and other physical processes which locally decrease entropy on Earth.

      There is nothing "random" about the structure of the sun.

      Of course there is. That's the whole point of statistical mechanics and thermodynamics.

      The universe is a closed system and there is no known transport mechanism other than intelligence that can reduce entropy in one part of it at the expense of increasing in another part.

      Pardon my French, but give me a fucking break. Have you taken a chemistry course, EVER? Chemical processes that decrease entropy in the system abound all over the place. They require an input of energy into the system, and the radiation of waste heat out of the system. That's exactly what the Sun provides on Earth: tons and tons of energy to drive processes that can lower entropy here.

      Good grief. If entropy couldn't be decreased in one part of the universe, refrigerators wouldn't exist.

      Aren't you embarrassed to spout off that ignorantly? I mean really, you shouldn't even be allowed to use the word "entropy".

      Like the raw materials we dig out of the Earth, it requires information to order these into the advanced functionality we endow our human creations. Likewise the raw materials created in the "Big Bang" have been ordered very carefully into all the things studied by science through an input of immese amounts of information. Religion is the postulating of the source of this information.

      There is an entire science of self-organization, not to mention thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and information theory, devoted to explaining how information is provably produced through random natural processes. Religion may be YOUR postulated source, but it is already known that natural system can produce information on their own.
    57. Re:Equation constraints by jasonbowen · · Score: 1

      That game, more than any other coin-op arcade game, got my adrenalin flowing as a kid.

    58. Re:Equation constraints by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

      Of course there all around us, haven't you seen "Men in Black"?

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    59. Re:Equation constraints by Malenfant · · Score: 1

      The astounding design and information content of even the simplest living things is at attributed to all sorts of mechanisms and causes, except one: That a superior MIND is the originator of us and all life. Indeed, as you say, life could be common in the universe, but why can it not be attributed to a mind that has made it happen in many places.

      You seem to imply that a hypothetical creator is less complex than the self-replicating molecules that led to human life. I would think that this creator would be more complex, and therefore much less likely to evolve or poof into existance, based on random chance.
      Many people believe in a creator-god from outside the universe, but why would this be more likely than if our universe exists in a larger framework that creates universes due to its natural properties. It seems odd to anthropomorphize whatever force caused the universe to come into being.

      Why is it so hard to admit that the order and information content of the "natural" world is the product of a mind just as the products of our modern technological world are conceived in the minds of their creators?

      There's nothing to admit. As far as we can tell, our existence is the result of the physical processes of the universe playing out over time.

      All of science would still be just as fascinating and useful if that BELIEF were accepted as the cause for the origin of the order, design and laws that scientists seek to explore.

      You have a very unusual perspective. I don't know of anyone who is staying free of creationist beliefs to try to make science more interesting. If there was the slightest evidence for mystical beings, scientists would be all over it. We've learned a lot about our world, and the time for creationist beliefs passed a long time ago.

    60. Re:Equation constraints by balloonhead · · Score: 1

      It's on oversimplification. A single celled organism didn't just appear. It started off as random molecules which were generated by the primordial soup. Eventually one of these molecules happened to be a catalyst for it's own formation. This in turn gave rise to more complicated molecules, then eventually groups of molecules.

      The beauty of the theory is that until a suitable compound is attained, nature will keep banging it's head off that wall. Like the infinite monkeys theory.

      To jump suddenly to the single cell ignores many millions of incremental steps.

      I believe that putting what was thought to be the 'primordial soup' - methane, carbon dioxide, a few other chemicals - in a hot electrical environment, in a fiarly short space of time, gives rise to simple organic molecules. To wait for the next human race to appear from this experiment may only be a matter of time.

      --
      This idea was invented by Shampoo.
    61. Re:Equation constraints by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...Like the infinite monkeys theory...

      The problem is that the Universe is finite and infinity is only a mathematical concept that does not exist in the Universe that science can understand. The length of time the Universe is BELIEVED to have existed is FAR too short for even the simplest life forms to have come into being without some sort of intelligent input.

      --
      All theory is gray
    62. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, the Drake equation's utility is entirely in how well it frames the problem -- and it doesn't do it very well. It telescopes far, far too much biology into a mere two terms after spending multiple terms on the physics of the situation. The first conference that discussed the equation made the situation even worse, when they decided that the value of fi was 1.

      Given what we know of how quickly single-celled organisms evolve, and what we know of how many billion years it took until multi-celled organisms emerged, and the fact that all multi-celled organisms are descended from a single group of the single-celled organisms, we know that the evolution of multicellular life from unicellular has extremely low odds. Astronomically low ones.

      Then, given what we know of the history of multicellular life, we know that evolution is remarkably given to not exploring all possibilities. The hundreds of millions of years of the age of the dinosaurs, for example, had dozens of types of two-legged predators, and virtually none that had four legs. The tens of millions of years of the age of mammals lacks two-legged predators (except man), but has many varieties of four-legged.

      And as far as the utility of intelligence, it seems to actually be selected against. Over and over again, smart animals have small ranges and short survivals as species throughout the fossil record. Only one time has a lineage managed to mutate across the "intelligence gap", to a point where the brain provides survival advantage to outweigh its drain on the resources of the animal.

      The result is that, after breaking fi into the steps of "muticellular development" and "development of tool-use-capable intelligence", with appropriately small values estimated from Earth's history, we get less than 10 intelligent species in the entire history of the Milky Way Galaxy as our approximate guess.

      That is, low enough that there isn't any Fermi Paradox. If Earth is "normal", there are a number planets where intelligent life originated in the universe . . . but only a few, if any, in each galaxy.

    63. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The length of time the Universe is BELIEVED to have existed is FAR too short for even the simplest life forms to have come into being without some sort of intelligent input.

      This is nonsense. If you think so, prove it.

      "Infinite monkeys" is not a proof. It has nothing to do with evolution, which does not depend on all outcomes being equally likely, as is the case with the metaphor of random monkeys typing.

      If a bunch of monkeys were allowed to type, and you could combine the output of different monkeys into text that's closer to Shakespeare than any individual monkey (recombination), and you throw out all cases that don't look like Shakespeare (selection), and have quadrillions upon quadrillions of monkeys (how many biomolecules are there on the entire planet?) typing for billions of years, they would produce Shakespeare. Heck, look at Dawkin's "methinks it is like a weasel" example.

      We have vast amounts of evidence that life DID come into being, without a need to introduce intelligent intervention. All creationist "calculations" trying to prove that evolution can't happen are so flawed it's ridiculous; they never take into account any evolutionary mechanisms other than, at best, mutation. But selection is vastly powerful, as is recombination, and there are new self-organizing principles being discovered as well. Just look at how vastly more efficient genetic algorithms are over random search (random search being your strawman "infinite monkeys" example).
    64. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given what we know of how quickly single-celled organisms evolve, and what we know of how many billion years it took until multi-celled organisms emerged, and the fact that all multi-celled organisms are descended from a single group of the single-celled organisms, we know that the evolution of multicellular life from unicellular has extremely low odds.

      We don't know any such thing. For all we know, the emergence of multicellular life from unicellular is a virtual certainty, given a few billion years.

      All multicelled organisms sharing a common ancestor doesn't imply otherwise, either. (Or are you making the fallacy of claiming that if it happened once, new multicellular organisms should still be arising from unicellular life today? That's not true, for the same reason that we don't expect new life to keep arising from inorganic chemicals; they can't compete with the extant forms already here.)
    65. Re:Equation constraints by PopCulture · · Score: 1

      Evolution can explain certain aspects of our Cosmos reasonably well, but has severe problems with others. The origin of information is one of them. This subject was not given much thought in Darwin's time, but with the advent of advanced information processing devices, much work has been and is still being done on information theory. One of the goals of information science is to come up with a self-programming computer, but sofar no one has even developed a workable theory how that might be accomplished without supplying the needed information externally first.

      self-programming computers?!?!? Sorry lets stick on topic. We can in a labratory create organic compounds from the basic interstellar mess that exists everywhere. Do your own fucking research, there is no excuse for your ignorance. You don't believe in evolution? Well then prove it wrong or shut the fuck up you stupid fuck

      sorry I wouldn't normally be so profane but the sheer volume of ignorant fucking people like you in the U.S. scares me, lets have stem cell research, lets have a womans right to choose, because the American Justice system should not be held hostage to every whim that your religious leader decides to have.

      Ignorance has no place in my school district... creationism included.

      --

      Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
    66. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got a few facts wrong. Lick funded the observatory well before the 1890's. First light was in 1888; and it was funded even before Lick died in 1876.

      Also, it's his body that lies there, not his ashes. As the inscription says "Here Lies the Body of James Lick".

    67. Re:Equation constraints by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Another to notice is that we are getting more and more effecient with our communications meaning less wasted energy broadcast into space.
      Most radio transmissions meant for surface to surface to surface communications go out in a donut pattern that broadcasts mostly along the ground, this way most of the eneregy goes out to recievers rather than up into space and you need less total wattage to reach a given distance.
      Also a lot of communication now goes out on fiber optics, not radio waves.
      We also use techniques like spread spectrum and others that cause many transmissions to look like noise if you don't know the settings to recieve them.
      So even if other civilisations develope the kinds of communications we did you still only have a small exapanding sphere of easily detected radio wave, perhaps a shell no more than 100 light years thick. This is a pretty thing slice of time and space as things go.
      When you take into account that this shell of emmisions is more easilly detected by a more advanced civilization than the one emiting them it becomes less likely for us to get an 'answer' as we have nothing much to offer a more advanced civilization other than mere contact which may have no value at all to them.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    68. Re:Equation constraints by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      The problem with your argument is that it's recursive. If the complexity of a single cell was Intelligently Designed by some kind of God, then who designed God? And who then designed the designer of God? Where does it end?

      I prefer to think of life as an emergent phenomenon, a result of a system of rules known as "the laws of physics".

    69. Re:Equation constraints by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Your hypothesis implies that complexity is a function of intelligence. This is not so.
      Also order/dissorder(entropy), you keep using that word I don't think it means what you think it means.
      Some say the universe is to awesome not to be created, I say it's to awsome to be created.
      Another way of saying it is that your arguing infinities, which of course is like trying to define x/0.
      I can't understand it therefore god is not good logic.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    70. Re:Equation constraints by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      In other words only if they are next door right this minute and not past the noisy stage we're starting to get out of.
      If you're assesment of our current detection abilities isn't shy at least an order of magnitude seti would have to be pretty lucky indeed (lottery levels at least) to pick up anything.
      The thing about space is it's not big, but mindshatteringly hugely enormously big.*

      Mycroft

      *my appologies to Mr Adams may he rest in peace.

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    71. Re:Equation constraints by Decaff · · Score: 2, Informative

      In other words only if they are next door right this minute and not past the noisy stage we're starting to get out of.

      Are we?

      If you're assesment of our current detection abilities isn't shy at least an order of magnitude seti would have to be pretty lucky indeed (lottery levels at least) to pick up anything.

      Only if we were watching out for everyday TV and radio signals. If we looked for a directed signal we could detect it half way across the galaxy.

      The thing about space is it's not big, but mindshatteringly hugely enormously big.

      Well, not really in terms of SETI. Even a very slow moving civilisation that drifted across space at far less than sub-light speed, spending a long time colonising each new solar system, could have filled the entire galaxy dozens of times over. If not organisms, then robotic probes could have done this. We are nearly at the stage of being able to do this. The galaxy looks empty.

    72. Re:Equation constraints by clayanderson · · Score: 1

      That's a religious argument and has no place in science. Specifically, it allows no new understanding or predictions. Save your ID stuff for philosophy.

      Goodness, that's an awfully narrow understanding of science.

      Science is the pursuit of truth about the physical world. Yet that truth will be very different for a world that has developed solely via physical evolution versus one resulting from the intervention of an intelligent being. Philosophical or not, this is a question that cannot be ignored by science. The conclusions of science (and for that matter, the methodology of science) can be radically different depending upon the answer.

      If science intends to honestly pursue authoritative answers about the physical world, it must not discard viable solutions prematurely; nor can it discard relevant questions simply because they are philosophical in nature. (This type of compartmental thinking is wreaking havoc in the realms of medical research, where the ethical ramifications of such research are dismissed as irrelevant and distracting to the purity of the science.)

      If we are the least bit honest with ourselves, we must admit that the possibility of God has not been disproven. In fact, in many cases, it offers a much more robust solution than any offered by science alone.

      Are there unanswered questions about God? Of course! But there are just as many questions raised by the possibility of a godless universe as there are by one in which a divine being presides over life. You are correct that many of these questions--regarding morality, beauty, evil, and the like--are philosophical ones, but if philosophy has not yet come to a conclusion about God, then neither should science.

      Finally, you suggest that the presence of religious arguments "allows no new understanding or predictions". Do you not understand that this is precisely what evolutionary dogma has done to research on the origin of life? This is why ID advocates are up in arms--because the academic mainstream has jumped to a premature conclusion about the origin of life that eliminates God from the equation. If we want science to be pure and accurate, we must seek to remove the intellectual arrogance, financial gain, personal agenda, and (to get theological for a moment) human pride that taints so much research.

      It is only through a multi-disciplinary open-mindedness that science can remain pure and truth may be discovered. Now how often do you hear a Christian say that? ;-)

    73. Re:Equation constraints by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...If the complexity of a single cell was Intelligently Designed by some kind of God, then who designed God?...

      That is not a question science is equipped to nor needs to answer, but is a question reserved for faith and religion. I do not need to know the designer of say an automobile in order to explore its function and use it to get me around. If it is a well designed car, I can gain a measure of respect and admiration for the genius of its designer, but whether I appreciate the designer or not does not prevent the vehicle from being useful. Its design might even generate the desire in me to want to get to know the designer.

      All "laws" in the human realm are made by lawgivers, legislators. Why is it so incongruous to conceive of a lawgiver who authored the laws of physics. If the laws and parameters of physics were not exactly as they are, you and I would not be here to discuss them. Thus the laws of physics are the product of a mind also. We can study and apply these laws of physics, appreciate their wisdom and completeness and stand in awe and admiration of their author. Whether we decide to appreciate the author does not prevent these laws from governing us and our world and for us to make them work in our favor by seeking to understand them.

      --
      All theory is gray
    74. Re:Equation constraints by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Science is the pursuit of truth about the physical world.

      No, that's religion and philosophy. Science is about the pursuit of understanding and knowledge. Exactly what does a god offer in the way of predicting how things work? Especially one that condemns those who seek to know his mind?

      evolutionary dogma...

      ID is creationism with a new coat of paint. Come back when you have an actual theory.

      It is only through a multi-disciplinary open-mindedness that science can remain pure and truth may be discovered. Now how often do you hear a Christian say that? ;-)

      Frequently. How often do they live that? The more they shove their Christianity in your face, the less they act it.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    75. Re:Equation constraints by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...what evolution can do over such vast time spans ...

      No system has ever been OBSERVED to have become more orderly over time. Time is the enemy of evolution by probabalistic processes. To create order it takes at least two things: Energy and Information. If evolution as commonly postulated were true, why have the best efforts of intelligent scientists failed so far to make *any* kind of self-replicating device of even a millionth of the number of functioning parts that a living single cell contains. This would not have to replicate a cell, but be *any* kind of device that can perform the equivalent functions of a "simple" one celled living organism. Why does something that escapes the best efforts of science get attributed to a probabalistic mechanism? The gap between living and non-living matter is astronomical.

      --
      All theory is gray
    76. Re:Equation constraints by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...gives rise to simple organic molecules...

      The gap between simple organic molecules and a living single cell is huge. DNA molecules are code carriers, analagous to say floppy disk, containing the digital (not binary but 4 level) instructions for building a variety of proteins, including the proteins that make up the DNA. One nagging question: What came first, the DNA that carries the instructions to make proteins or the proteins that make up the DNA carrier of these instructions?

      What came first, the computer hardware or the software that gives the instructions on how to build the computer? Probabalistic evolution does not give a satisfying answer to this, but the postulating of a designer does in both the case of the DNA and the computer. Of course even the most careful examination of the design does NOT give us any information of the origin of the designer. That is the realm of faith and religion, NOT science.

      --
      All theory is gray
    77. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we are the least bit honest with ourselves, we must admit that the possibility of God has not been disproven.

      Of course it hasn't been disproven. It can'twhy it's not science.

      In fact, in many cases, it offers a much more robust solution than any offered by science alone.

      More "robust"? Saying "goddidit" whenever science doesn't have an answer does not "solve" anything, it does not explain anything, and it does not lead to new understanding.

      Finally, you suggest that the presence of religious arguments "allows no new understanding or predictions". Do you not understand that this is precisely what evolutionary dogma has done to research on the origin of life?

      Nonsense. There is a whole field devoted to understanding and making predictions about abiogenesis.

      because the academic mainstream has jumped to a premature conclusion about the origin of life that eliminates God from the equation.

      If the God hypothesis can make objective, independently verifiable, and falsifiable predictions, then it can be included in science. So far, the only predictions put forth based on religion that are at odds with mainstream science have been proven false. (e.g., creationist attempts to describe a global flood, a young Earth, etc.) All other "predictions" are either too vague to constitute science, or agree with the predictions of theories that don't require God.

      It is only through a multi-disciplinary open-mindedness that science can remain pure and truth may be discovered. Now how often do you hear a Christian say that? ;-)

      All the time. Christians get very open and postmodern when it comes to including theism in science -- "let's consider all views" -- and then get very closeminded whenever that theism is challenged.
    78. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not need to know the designer of say an automobile in order to explore its function and use it to get me around.

      Yes, but if you're going to claim that it was designed, you do need to know the designer. The whole reason why you claim that automobiles are designed is because you know a lot about the designers of automobiles. If presented with something totally unlike what humans design, like stars, or life, concluding the existence of design is not so automatic. You can only do it if you have evidence that there was a designer and how that designer operates. Saying "I don't know how else it could have come about" does not constitute evidence for design or a designer.
    79. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No system has ever been OBSERVED to have become more orderly over time.

      Manifestly false. Just look at the formation of snowflakes. And if by "become more orderly over time" you mean "decreases entropy", that's ridiculously false. Systems decrease entropy all the time.

      If evolution as commonly postulated were true, why have the best efforts of intelligent scientists failed so far to make *any* kind of self-replicating device of even a millionth of the number of functioning parts that a living single cell contains.

      Why should we? Why do you think human designer is better than an entire planetful of biochemical reactions taking place over billions of years?

      Why does something that escapes the best efforts of science get attributed to a probabalistic mechanism?

      Because we have enormous evidence that "probaiblistic mechanisms" drive the evolution of populations. You should try reading about that evidence sometime. As well as about thermodynamics, since you have so ludicrously claimed that entropy cannot locally decrease.

      And, for that matter, every single thing in the entire universe is governed by "probabilistic mechanisms" -- that's the point of quantum mechanics.
    80. Re:Equation constraints by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...Science is about the pursuit of understanding and knowledge....

      Really!? The understanding of what? Science is really good at answering "how" questions, marginally capable of answering a few "why" questions and totally unable to answer "who" questions. The "who" questions centered on God is the realm of faith and religions as are the most important "why" questions, such as: Why are we here? Science can only reveal some truth in the areas our senses or extensions thereof can perceive. When it comes to questions of origins, there are no experiments we can do to verify or discount any particular theories or conjectures. There are many theories of origins, but all of them rest on untestable assumptions.

      --
      All theory is gray
    81. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What came first, the DNA that carries the instructions to make proteins or the proteins that make up the DNA carrier of these instructions?

      DNA is not made up of proteins, dumbass. Anyway, there are varying theories about what happened first, including RNA-first, protein-first, etc. It is of course very difficult to determine what actually happened.

      Of course even the most careful examination of the design does NOT give us any information of the origin of the designer.

      What a cop-out. The origins of the Big Bang are not off-limits to science, and indeed there are many theories concerning that very subject. Why should a Designer be off-limits? Perhaps because you don't have a metaphysical leg to stand on ? "A being of unknown properties poofed everything into existence by unknown means. No further inquiry is permitted." Don't pretend that ID is science if it doesn't say anything about the designer or the processes used to implement design.
    82. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really!? The understanding of what?

      The natural world.

      Science is really good at answering "how" questions, marginally capable of answering a few "why" questions and totally unable to answer "who" questions.

      This is nonsense. See, for instance, forensic science.

      The "who" questions centered on God is the realm of faith

      Why? If this God intervenes in the physical world, then we can scientifically study that intervention. If you're going to retreat and claim that God is just a matter of faith, not science, then you cannot claim that there is scientific evidence of God's works. If there is such evidence, then we can use it to study God.

      as are the most important "why" questions, such as: Why are we here?

      Yes, science can't answer that question, because it's not a question about the natural world, but of teleology.

      When it comes to questions of origins, there are no experiments we can do to verify or discount any particular theories or conjectures.

      That's false. Already there are theories of both abiogenesis and the Big Bang, which make predictions that could in principle be falsified.

      There are many theories of origins, but all of them rest on untestable assumptions.

      On the contrary, there is scientific debate on theories of origins, precisely because the assumptions they make lead to different testable predictions.
    83. Re:Equation constraints by clayanderson · · Score: 1

      No, that's religion and philosophy. Science is about the pursuit of understanding and knowledge.

      Your semantic distinctions are confusing, if not inaccurate. How is the "pursuit of understanding and knowledge" distinct from "the pursuit of truth"? Can "knowledge" be "knowledge" if it's not true?

      I also think my distinction that science is about the physical world is important, and Webster seems to agree: "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena."

      If there's a distinction to be made, it's that science explains the what and the how, while philosophy and religion address the why. But I hold that it is irresponsible science to only ask the what and the how questions, and ignore the why. They are inextricably interrelated.

      (Of course, even in arguing this point, we must venture into the philosophical: if we are bound to uphold moral obligations in our pursuit of science--protection of life, environment, etc.--then where does this sense of morality come from, if not from God? The physical world itself does not seem to share the burden of any of our moral concerns.)

      Exactly what does a god offer in the way of predicting how things work?

      If God designed and created the world, then who better to help us understand how it works?

      However, as a Christian, I think it's fascinating to note that God didn't feel the details of the natural world were terribly important to communicate to us. And what wisdom that seems to be! We've done more harm to the earth in the past hundred years as a result of our newfound "scientific knowledge" than in the millenia proceeding. Sure, our lives are easier and more comfortable, but the planet's getting torn apart, we have the unprecedented ability to destroy our entire race, and the class distinctions from rich to poor are more exaggerated than ever. If knowledge is power, and power corrupts...

      In any case, if we think of science as the process of "reverse-engineering" nature--attempting to discover the processes of nature without having designed them in the first place--then an understanding of God (as designer/creator) can add significant insight to our understanding of the world. Just as when reverse-engineering a man-made device: if we understand the designer's intention and purpose for the device, we are able to more easily draw conclusions about its inner workings.

      Especially one that condemns those who seek to know his mind?

      I hate to break it to you, but you're defeating your own argument against God here. If God does not exist, then he hasn't a mind, nor is he able to condemn those who seek to know it.

      I get the impression that you're resistant to the idea of God not because of scientific evidence against his existence, but because you don't care for your notion of what he is like. To that, I offer two responses:

      1) Does it matter what we think God is like? If he does exist, wouldn't it be wiser for us to seek to understand him, rather than deny his existence?

      2) Where do you get this notion about his character? In my studies of the Bible, I constantly find God asking us to seek him out and know him. In fact, his only condemnation is reserved for those who refuse to do so.

      ID is creationism with a new coat of paint.

      Of course it is! What else would you expect it to be? Those of us who believe in God understandably reject a theory that fails to include him.

      But if God is God, and if God created the world, then honest science will inevitably lead us to a better understanding of God. ID is not a theory, so much as an effort to merge two truths--religion and science--into one, which is something that neither the agnostic scientific community nor the literalist Christian community attempts to do. ID keeps an open mind both to the existence of God and to the disco

    84. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If God designed and created the world, then who better to help us understand how it works?

      As you point out yourself, God isn't real communicative about such things. It appears it's up to us.

      an understanding of God (as designer/creator) can add significant insight to our understanding of the world

      And what insight is that? It doesn't appear to have advanced scientific understanding, at any rate. "Intelligent design theory" has taught us exactly zip about our world so far.

      If he does exist, wouldn't it be wiser for us to seek to understand him, rather than deny his existence? [...] I constantly find God asking us to seek him out and know him. In fact, his only condemnation is reserved for those who refuse to do so.

      Ah, yes. The typical Christian arrogance. Like petulant children, we "deny" God and "refuse" to admit he exists. Totally unable to accept that perhaps we disbelieve in God because there is no compelling reason to believe in God -- because having a legitimate reason for disbelieving in God runs counter to your dogma. (After all, if there was a legitimate reason to doubt, then God would be unjust in sending people to hell... oh yeah, I forgot, "we send ourselves to hell". Heh heh. Nice dodge there.)

      But if God is God, and if God created the world, then honest science will inevitably lead us to a better understanding of God.

      And why is that? It doesn't follow that science will tell us diddly about God, even if God does exist.

      ID keeps an open mind both to the existence of God and to the discoveries of science, and believes that each enhances the other.

      Listen up: There is no theory of intelligent design. ID consists nothing more of the bald statement that things in the universe are designed. It's not real specific about which things required active intervention by a Designer and which just follow natural laws. (Do snowflakes require design? Does the evolution of the eye?) It doesn't say anything about who did the designing, or how. It says nothing more than an unknown being performed unknown acts by unknown means. Get back to us when it can say something more, without already having to accept a particular religion's revealed "truths" on faith to begin with.

      Christians can act like idiots, but when they do, they invariably are failing to understand the message of the gospel.

      Spare us the No True Scotsman fallacy.
    85. Re:Equation constraints by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Sorry, in reference to seti I was intending to refer only to the discovery of incedental radiations, not intentional 'hey we're here' signals and failed to say so, mea culpa.
      Though to be honest finding those allows (as you rightly point out) much greater detection range, it also suffers from the enormity of space problem. In this case we have to be in the path of the beam. Still a better prospect since intelligent 'life as we know it' is likely to choose 'good' prospects to beam at and not empty slices of space or O supergiants to aim at.
      We are tending towards technologies that reduce our levels of obvious emissions. Most terrestrial only radio brodcasts use patterned emissions that use most of the power to push the signal out along the ground and not wast any upwards toward space. Also we're using tech like spread spectrum (originally developed in part by Hedi Lemar IIRC the actress from the 30's-50's to help get around jamming and eavesdroping) that makes transmissions harder to detect from background noise unless your reciever knows the exact pattern used. Add in the amount of fiber being used that used to be copper and you get less singal leak there as well.
      As to whether we've reached the point where these technologies are reducing emissions faster than rate at which our communications infrastructure is growing I don't know, but it shure looks like we'll eventualy reach a point where our total leakage to space will start delcining if it hasn't already.
      Now as far as the problem with they've had time to colonize the galaxy at even sublight speeds at least with probes, I have no answer there other than ALL this assumes other civilisations would do these things. Though I don't know we would have enough in common with such a civilization to carry on a meaningfull dialog even should run into one by chance.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    86. Re:Equation constraints by Severious · · Score: 1

      Just because something has not been does yet does not make it impossible. Youa re using circular reasoning. If what you say is true then nothing new could ever be made, it would be impossible because it has never been done before.

      --
      Tinfoil hat? Naa, I long since replaced it with a reinforced titanium alloy.
    87. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If something takes billions of years in evolution, it has one of two features. It either takes literally quadrillions of generations of conserved mutations, or it takes a handful of mutations each with odds of billions-to-trillions-to-one against. Given the small size of even the largest genomes, the first is demonstrably false.

      Second, the cases of new life emerging from inorganic chemicals and the new emergence of multicellular life are not parallel. Life is everywhere on Earth; multicellular life is not. There is plenty of space for new colonial and eventually multicellular life to emerge in places free of the descendants of colonial eukaryotes.

    88. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If something takes billions of years in evolution, it has one of two features. It either takes literally quadrillions of generations of conserved mutations, or it takes a handful of mutations each with odds of billions-to-trillions-to-one against. Given the small size of even the largest genomes, the first is demonstrably false.

      I fail to see how the first is "demonstrably false". Please demonstrate it.

      In any case, the odds of any particular mutation is always incredibly small, but that doesn't mean mutations don't happen. (It's like claiming that nobody can win the lottery because the odds are millions against. But somebody wins, even if any particular number is unlikely.)

      In point of fact, the evidence indicates that multicellular organisms appear to have arisen from unicellular life independently in each of the kingdoms, and several times in some phyla. This suggests that multicellular life isn't all that unlikely, but conditions are no longer suitable for it.
    89. Re:Equation constraints by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Now as far as the problem with they've had time to colonize the galaxy at even sublight speeds at least with probes, I have no answer there other than ALL this assumes other civilisations would do these things.

      Yes, but I think it's reasonable - after all, life expands and grows. I think that arguing that there must be very few cultures and none of them expand is pushing things. My view is that technological culture is so rare that we are the only one.

      Though I don't know we would have enough in common with such a civilization to carry on a meaningfull dialog even should run into one by chance.

      I used to think this, but I have changed my mind. There are examples on our planet of intelligence that has evolved independently but we can still communicate in some way with them. The cephalopod (octopus/squid) brains and the brains of birds such as parrots have very little in common with ours.

    90. Re:Equation constraints by Decaff · · Score: 1

      How is that a humming bird, the size of a ping pong ball can navigate the EXACT path of his 3000 mile migration route every year? The same birds have been caught in the same nets year after year. How is that 300 birds can fly in unison through some reasonably complex path without one going astray? Why is that dogs seem to be able to sense fear, anxiety, and happiness, or detect tumors for that matter? It seems reasonable to believe that we posses that ability as well, however less in touch with it we may be.

      Actually, these are reasonably simple to explain and have nothing to do with a sixth sense.

      How is that a humming bird, the size of a ping pong ball can navigate the EXACT path of his 3000 mile migration route every year?

      Birds use a variety of navigational tools, including positions of Sun and stars, magnetic direction and learned landscape features.

      How is that 300 birds can fly in unison through some reasonably complex path without one going astray?

      This is called 'emergent behaviour'. Birds simply watch the nearest few birds around them. If all birds do this, you get a pattern of behaviour over the whole flock. The same thing works with shoals of fishes.

      Why is that dogs seem to be able to sense fear, anxiety, and happiness, or detect tumors for that matter?

      Dogs have good sight! Also, they can not only see how we behave, they have an amazing sense of smell and can detect excess sweat etc. As for tumours, when that has happened it is thought to be due to changes in smell.

    91. Re:Equation constraints by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I was getting tired of arguing with this guy.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    92. Re:Equation constraints by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...does not make it impossible...

      I did not say impossible, but improbable and those two are not the same. It is possible for all the air molecules in your room all congregate in one corner and you die for lack of air, but it is not likely. If you do the math, the probability of a living cell coming into being in any other manner besides the input of energy and INFORMATION, you'd find that the probability of you dying for lack of air is many orders of magnitude greater. If you were to play the multi-state lottery every day of your life and win the jackpot on every ticket, for about 90 years, you begin to approach the odds against the making a single living cell by any known or conceivable method that does NOT require the input of detailed INFORMATION for its construction. I am talking about numbers with three and four digit EXPONENTS of powers of ten. It is estimated that there are about 10^80 atomic particles in the known universe. Your odds of finding ONE particularly identified of these is many orders of magnitude better than the odds of making a single living cell by chance. Still it is not IMPOSSIBLE.

      --
      All theory is gray
    93. Re:Equation constraints by Severious · · Score: 1

      At this point the discussion is over because you are just making stuff up.

      --
      Tinfoil hat? Naa, I long since replaced it with a reinforced titanium alloy.
    94. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you do the math, the probability of a living cell coming into being in any other manner besides the input of energy and INFORMATION, you'd find that the probability of you dying for lack of air is many orders of magnitude greater.

      Put up or shut up. Let's see the math. I predict that it will, inevitably, be the same junk calculation as the rest of the "tornado assembling a 747 in a junkyard" creationist crowd -- namely, that it incorrectly assumes that cellular formation was nothing more than random search, ignoring all of the processes like selection, recombination, self-organization, etc. that serve to knock many zeros off the exponents in those calculations.

      Nobody -- scientist or creationist -- actually knows how to calculate the probability of a cell forming. But it's for damn sure that the probability isn't nearly as low as a naive creationist calculation suggests.

      And what is that "input of energy and information" comment supposed to mean? It's already experimentally proven that natural processes can both provide energy and generate new information. As you would know if you knew anything at all about evolution.
    95. Re:Equation constraints by benhaha · · Score: 1

      The big bang was a large amount of energy compressed into a very small space, so it had very low entropy.

      Since then it has been spreading out, increasing in entropy as it does so.

      Simple as that.

      --
      NO ID: BEING FREE MEANS NOT HAVING TO PROVE IT
    96. Re:Equation constraints by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      The problem is it's all guesswork. We only have just this ONE planet to base guessework on. And while relatively speaking some of the animals here are very different seeming, thier still MUCH more alike than different.
      Parrot and cephalopod brains are still composed of neurons built up from the instructions encoded in DNA and such. The layout may be different, and some other functional details may very, but what about the other ways it might work? Or are there any? Who knows, not us, not yet.
      To put it bluntly most speculation about alien life and or intelligences is just that, pure speculation.
      About the only thing we can say is it happened once, and space is huge with lots of stars like ours, and some other stars do have planets. All this proves however is that there is no reason yet known to say categorically we're the only ones out there. Sofar there isn't even that much data to suggest we are alone.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    97. Re:Equation constraints by Mandrel · · Score: 1
      The big bang was a large amount of energy compressed into a very small space, so it had very low entropy.

      Is there currently any scientific explanation for the spontaneous creation of such an energy-laden pinprick of a universe? Quantum fluctuation in another universe? Does cosmology still need a God of the first cause?

    98. Re:Equation constraints by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Sofar there isn't even that much data to suggest we are alone.

      There is a HUGE amount of data to suggest that we are alone. The stars are undisturbed. There is nothing that we see in our galaxy or anywhere else in the Universe that needs to be explained by life or other civilisations.

    99. Re:Equation constraints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't know how the Big Bang came about, but there are some theories.

    100. Re:Equation constraints by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      That's not evidence, that is lack of evidence, therefore proving nothing.
      Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean I don't have a time machine that can also make good coffee. See how that arguement goes?

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    101. Re:Equation constraints by Decaff · · Score: 1

      That's not evidence, that is lack of evidence, therefore proving nothing.

      It is evidence. I have a hypothesis that all astronomical objects can be explained using physics and chemistry alone. Combine that with the reasonable assumption that any intelligent life even moderately more advanced than us would have some effect somewhere on something. Does the evidence support my hypothesis? It does.

      There is a huge amount of evidence of absence - all observations back in time to the microwave background, all explained by (relatively) simple physics and chemistry. Would ALL civilisations have been so careful to leave no footprints in the universe?

    102. Re:Equation constraints by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      O.K. that's a bit more substantial.
      The assumtions are that a) we would know such footprints if we detected them and b) We have the capability and will to detect them.
      The answer to A is maybe, the answer to B is only in a rather limited sense on both sub-parts.
      It's not a bad hypothesis, it does however currently lack good testability as we don't know what if any actions other intelligent life would take, indeed we only have ourselves (a sample of ONE) to tell us what such life would be like.
      Of course there is also the (pretty weak IMHO) idea (not even really worthy of a hypothesis) that at least one intellegent civilisation (perhaps even a secretive subset of our own if you belive some of the UFO/Art Bell crowd) has decided to prevent us from detecting any such and has the ability to do so. But I only through that out because it amuses me, not because I grant it any credibility.
      My original retort was based on the well accepted principal that failure to prove does not axiomatically disprove.
      While I'll agree there is a lack of evidence, and some reasoned thinking as to why that might not be so if there was intelligent life elsewhere, it's not conclusive or even a strong argument because of the large number of assumptions based on a sample of ONE. When you add in our limitations it weakens even further.
      An equally weak counter is the fact that space is huge with many stars. We already know that at least some percentage of stars have planets. Given that once (but only once that we can show) life has arrisen on a planet, and given the likely number of 'chances', for only one planet to develope life seems unlikely.
      We have a huge haystack to search for a needle we can only poorly define with poor eyesight and have anly piddled around about finding it. I find it no suprise we've had no luck yet.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    103. Re:Equation constraints by Decaff · · Score: 1

      We have a huge haystack to search for a needle we can only poorly define with poor eyesight and have anly piddled around about finding it. I find it no suprise we've had no luck yet.

      I am still not convinced.

      I strongly support the views of the writer Stephen Baxter that if there was intelligent life out there, it would be blindingly obvious, unless absolutely all spacefaring cultures make an effort all the time to hide all traces of everything they do, which does not seem reasonable to me.

      I think we have great eyesight - we can see minute ripples in the light from billions of years ago, and we use that to test subtle theories of physics. We can see individual stars in distant galaxies, and we are now even measuring the atmospheres of planets around other suns. Nowhere do we see anything that needs explanation in terms of intelligence - from microwaves, gamma rays, neutrinos etc. - its all pure physics and chemistry. It is all pristine and un-harvested and untouched as far back as we can see.

      I think there are two (remote) possibilities of how there still might be other intelligent species. Either intelligences move quickly to a nano-scale, with minimal energy requirements and they tend to stay in one place, or they quickly find some way to use other dimensions, so it is as if the universe we can see is like the bottom of the ocean, and far above us in other places it is full of intelligent life. These are rather far-out suggestions, but I can see no other way that the universe can appear so untouched and there still be other intelligent technical civilisations.

    104. Re:Equation constraints by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Our sight is still very limited. Shure we can dectect some interesting things, but only where we specifically look and within some rather sharp limits. Space is a lot bigger than big.
      Not necessarily just nanotech. The more efficient your technology the less wastage you have, without significant wastage of energy what exactly are we going to detect? No guarantee an alien species would have as strong a preference for efficeincy as we do, but considering how fast we're reducing our relative levels of waste I'd not be suprised by finding out more advanced civilisation don't really was enough to make the huge glaring mess we'd need to spot them.
      I might be more concerned if we were looking hard for aliens and finding nothing. But we've barely scratched the surface, and this is the big teller as to why any conclusions would pre-mature. We simply haven't looked that much. Seti@home is nice and all, but it's just one tiny section of the em spectrum covering a small portion of the sky looking for what are current assumptions believe an alien signal would look like.
      It'd be like a hunter deciding there were no deer in the road because there's no blindingly obvious evidence in his bedroom, before he's even open his eyes all the way.
      I'm sorry just because we haven't found anything yet with our very limited looking proves only that we don't know.
      For an alien civilisation to be spottable enough for us to be likely to spot them by chance (or nearly so) they would have to be at least as inefficient as us and/or in just the right place (likely very close) OR specifically targeting us for notice.
      But to tell the truth you eigther have to eplain away the lack of life despite or the lack of detection on purely speculative grounds.
      As far the chemistry and phyics go. What does a spread spectrum signal look like? It looks like background noise with some pretty sophisticated equipment and knowing pretty much what your looking for (or equiment set to recieve the specific signal). Spread spectrum was originally devised to have high resistance to jamming in WWII. Now would any other civilisation have NO reason to develope technologies that tend not to leave traces for various reasons. If our own tech is hard for us to spot as other than normal noise, how much harder would a more advanced civilisations be?
      I find the sheer number of different reasons why an alien civilisation would not be highly visible and thus spotted by near random chance a better explanation than expecting them to make so much noise we couldn't miss them despite the raw hugeness of space.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    105. Re:Equation constraints by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Our sight is still very limited. Shure we can dectect some interesting things, but only where we specifically look and within some rather sharp limits. Space is a lot bigger than big.

      I totally disagree. Our sight is good and deep. we can see everything from radio waves to gamma rays, and we can see incredible detail: With radio telescopes we can see details the size of our solar system in nearby galaxies. Not only do we see detail in size, we see detail in intensity: we can detect infinitesimal ripples in the microwave background.

      For an alien civilisation to be spottable enough for us to be likely to spot them by chance (or nearly so) they would have to be at least as inefficient as us and/or in just the right place (likely very close) OR specifically targeting us for notice.

      I think you are missing an important point. Life spreads. Unless there was a very good reason for all civilisations to keep quiet and hide, they should be abundantly visible everywhere - there has been more than enough time for all the galaxy to have been colonised dozens of time over. The 'space is big' argument just doesn't hold.

      If our own tech is hard for us to spot as other than normal noise, how much harder would a more advanced civilisations be?

      In general, our tech is very easy to spot over normal noise. In terms of some radio frequencies the Earth outshines the sun!

      I find the sheer number of different reasons why an alien civilisation would not be highly visible and thus spotted by near random chance a better explanation than expecting them to make so much noise we couldn't miss them despite the raw hugeness of space.

      what are these reasons? I find it hard to think of any...

    106. Re:Equation constraints by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      I don't know what to say to make my point at this juncture, especially if your not even really paying atention to what I said.
      You say our eyesight is so good we could miss them? Yet we're still finding new quasars to point out just one type of very high eneregy object. And not only that we simply are not looking for life with but a tiny fraction of our ability.
      Space is very huge, I can understand how you fail understand just how trully huge it is, the human mind cannot as readilly grasp such hugeness as it can other things. Your failure to grasp this doese not invalidate the very fact that it's raw size gives us to much to search to say nothing is there. IF we made a solid search for life of just the milkyway galaxy THE priority of the human race it would be many centuries before we had done so with just our current technology (over 200 billion stars spread out over a disc 300pc by 30kpc).
      And while CURRENTLY we're detectable against the background noise we're reducing that fairly quickly, and indeed any civilazation that values efficiency at all would tend towards zero wastage. And thus would only be detectable by a civilization near thier own level or higher. So really the only civilizations we could detect are those within a fairly narrow band of technological capability, or those that didn't care about wastefullness, or those trying to get our attention.
      We're getting harder to detect by the year, or will be shortly, as we get more efficient. We are not looking for life very hard, and We are not trying very hard to be spotted ourselves. If you are going to extrapolate from a statistical sample of one (admittedly the only thing we can do, and quite fun, but we should should remember it means it's all a guess), then try not to compound the unknown errors by only extrapolating on one side of an argument while ignoring the contradicting data.
      The only thing our not having stumbled across an other civilization proves is we haven't stumbled across another civilization. It niegther proves there are none or that there are many.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    107. Re:Equation constraints by Decaff · · Score: 1

      I don't know what to say to make my point at this juncture, especially if your not even really paying atention to what I said.

      I feel the same.

      You say our eyesight is so good we could miss them? Yet we're still finding new quasars to point out just one type of very high eneregy object. And not only that we simply are not looking for life with but a tiny fraction of our ability.

      Quasars are billions of light years away. The stars in our galaxy are millions of times closer.

      Space is very huge, I can understand how you fail understand just how trully huge it is, the human mind cannot as readilly grasp such hugeness as it can other things. Your failure to grasp this doese not invalidate the very fact that it's raw size gives us to much to search to say nothing is there

      You are repeatedly failing to grasp the immense passages of time that have passed, and the nature of the Fermi paradox. The basis of this paradox is that, effectively, space is rendered small by time. There has been enough time for civilizations to have arisen at a single planet and drifted lazily across space - colonizing new planets and stars at FAR less than light-speed - hundreds of times over and over since the galaxy started. Let me repeat that again - there has been enough time for the galaxy to have been fully colonised from nothing hundreds of times. Even if this had happened ONCE, we would see the evidence.

      The only thing our not having stumbled across an other civilization proves is we haven't stumbled across another civilization. It niegther proves there are none or that there are many.

      Yes it does! It is VERY strong evidence for absence!

      I don't know how I can put things any clearer, but I will try again:

      Life spreads. We only have to assume that ONE such civilization would have arisen at any time in the past 10 billion years (since the origin of the galaxy) and life and intelligence should be EVERYWHERE - we should find it hard to avoid bumping into them! The stars should be visibly harvested for energy.

    108. Re:Equation constraints by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      The reason I characterized your reply as not paying attention is because AFTER giving several good reason why an alien civilisation might be hard to detect I mention them in summary then you said you couldn't think of any.
      Quasars, although billions of light years away at the closest, are also putting out energy levels that excede the some galaxies. If we haven't mapped out all of them, how the heck would we have found much weaker signals even if much closer (with comparable to weaker recieved signal strength). You have to look at something to see it and we quite simply have NOT looked in meaningfull way wrt life at most of the sky.
      I'm not missing the 13-16 billion years of age of the universe, nor the last 8-10 billion years in which heavier elements (presumed needed for intelligent life) have been around. I'm just not assuming that it's the only factor, nor so overwhelming as to dominate like you think.
      The problem is all that time to expand niegther guarantees expansion nor wastefullness on the part of expandind races nor miraculously makes us diligent and wise enough to spot them. And your (and Fermi's) use of it misses that time to grow is also time for disaster to strike. And it wouldn't even have to strike a whole civilisation, just a big enough chunk near enough to us not to long ago. We've had more than just the one mass extinction that meteorite caused. Something along the lines of a good supernova could concievably wipe out a healthy chunk of life including not quite sterilizing earth should we be on the fringe of the 'blast radius'. The result would be us in a rather underpopulated area.
      If your going to use Fermi's 'paradox' one could just as easily counter with drakes equation. Both use pure speculation and assumption.
      The absence of proof being proof of absence is a known fallacy and insisting otherwise does not give it credence.
      Beside that we're barely looking and we can't even say for certain what we should be looking for. We can reasonably speculate as to what WE would do, and phyisical laws do impose some guidelines (though we provably don't have all those figured out, could be some interesting things in the parts we don't know that changes the whole picture wrt this discussion).
      The biggest problem with trying to guess anything about an alein life, let alone civilisation, is that it would be alien. We only have ONE example of a populated planet. Guessing is all we can do as to what an alien civilisation might do. Perhaps they'll all have agoraphobia so bad even thinking of space kill them from fear. Maybe they don't care to spread. Maybe they spoted us first and are deliberately hiding. Maybe we've looked right at the crowning achievement of thier race and not even recognized it, there are a few things out there we've managed to explain away with our understanding of physics as natural phenomena, perhaps we're wrong, maybe quasars are actually local navigation beacons that just look really far away.
      BOTH of us are just speculating untill we do have evidence one way or the other.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    109. Re:Equation constraints by Decaff · · Score: 1

      If your going to use Fermi's 'paradox' one could just as easily counter with drakes equation. Both use pure speculation and assumption.

      But Fermi's paradox has hugely less assumptions that Drake's equation, so is more rational.

      The biggest problem with trying to guess anything about an alein life, let alone civilisation, is that it would be alien.

      You are making the assumptions! You assume that all civilsations would either not spread or be effectively invisible.

      The problem is all that time to expand niegther guarantees expansion nor wastefullness on the part of expandind races nor

      Actually, it does. The analyses of how expansion would occur have been repeatedly done by many scientists. You need only the most feeble expansion: Each new colony could hang around for millenia, and then only send of 1 or 2 spacecraft and you would still fill up the galaxy in 100 million tears. Wastefulness would actually encourage expansion, because of the need to find new resources.

      I really suggest you read Stephen Baxter's book 'Deep Future' for a good review of the situation before you comment further - all of your objections are well-known and have been dealt with.

      miraculously makes us diligent and wise enough to spot them.

      You seem to keep missing the key point. We don't have to be diligent or wise! If any civilisation expands, they would be right here! We should see their ships in our skies!

      The absence of proof being proof of absence is a known fallacy and insisting otherwise does not give it credence.

      No. I have plenty of proof that all observations made of the universe can be explained without the need for extra assumptions.

      Observing and not finding is certainly evidence. I feel that your attitude is like someone looking over a huge dry desert and saying that there is lots of aliens out there. When asked why they can't be seen, you reply that we aren't inspecting the sand grains closely enough, or that all aliens that there have ever been are invisible. Its nothing but special pleading - trying to insist that something is there despite evidence is more like religion than science.

      Perhaps we should stop - it has been fun, but we are going round in circles :)

      I would seriously suggest you read that Stephen Baxter book - all your points are fully explained (or so I think).

      Remember, I am not saying there is no life out there - I believe that life is abundant. What I am saying is that there is now a lot of evidence that there are no other technological spacefaring civilisations.

    110. Re:Equation constraints by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1
      Eighter assuming alein civilisations would be highly visible and expanding or not, same assumptions from opposite ends.
      I never said they were there, I just said fermi's paradox has bigger assumptions (more than drakes equation because the unknowns are guaranteed >0, as at least one planet has life and a civilisation on it), and missed to many possible explanations, to be anything more than speculations. And books and articles argue-ing drakes equation have been written as well as have been about fermi's paradox.
      The real 'paradox' is in fact that while reason based on what little we know shows that life should be visibly abundant, we have not found it outside our own planet. Given how compelling the arguments are on both sides it becomes clear the we have reasoned from a false premis somewhere on one side or the other and lack the data needed to pinpoint the error. Untill we have that data assuming one side or the other correct is just that, an assumption.

      But on to what has been the biggest problem with your stance all allong.

      The absence of proof being proof of absence is a known fallacy and insisting otherwise does not give it credence.

      No. I have plenty of proof that all observations made of the universe can be explained without the need for extra assumptions.

      Observing and not finding is certainly evidence.


      At this point I have to assume you are next going to argue 2+2=9. If you can't understand that the CONCEPT of lack of proof not being proof of the opposite being a KNOWN fallacy, same as saying 2+2=9, then I suspect any further attempt at explaining or discussing anything is a waste of time if you cannot accept this simple fact. This simple fact has been my major point.
      There is NO need to explain the lack of proof to show it is NO proof of the lack.
      Just because you've seen no black swans doesn't mean there are none. It only means you haven't seen any.

      Mycroft
      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  2. Gee... by gumpish · · Score: 5, Funny

    The explosion luckily occured about 50,000 light years away form us, on the far side of the Milky Way, as the article goes on to say that had the explosion been within 10 light years of us, it "would possibly have triggered a mass extinction."

    Yeah... that would have been a real loss.

    (Yes folks, I'm just that bitter.)

    1. Re:Gee... by gardyloo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, I have relatives who voted for Bush, too.

    2. Re:Gee... by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      Woo! Go mass extinction!

    3. Re:Gee... by Loconut1389 · · Score: 4, Funny

      With mass extinction, everyone wins! SGR-1806-20 is an equal opportunity destroyer.

    4. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, there *was* a minor quake that triggered a tsunami around that time...cue Twilight Zone music...

    5. Re:Gee... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      What, 50,000 years ago?

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    6. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      In related news, Bush "scientists" claim that it wouldn't have affected life on Earth, that it was all God's plan, and that it was probably caused by liberals.

    7. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QUIT. quit his fucking whining. not quick. quit

    8. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Who is more bitter, someone who whines on Slashdot, or someone who whines about a whiner on Slashdot. Or someone who replies to a whiner about a whiner on Slashdot... the mind boggles.

    9. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      luckily , we don't need star quakes to trigger a mass extinction.

    10. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No dumbass, he was referring to the flash of radiation on 27 December when it reached earth.

    11. Re:Gee... by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry. I'm sure Luke wasn't on that thing when it blew.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    12. Re:Gee... by metamatic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That was my thought too, why do people always talk about the mass extinction of humanity like it's some kind of cataclysmically bad thing?

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    13. Re:Gee... by Ghettoceleb · · Score: 1

      I wonder how that would have played itself out if the explosion actually was within range to hit the earth.

    14. Re:Gee... by lionheart1327 · · Score: 1

      Because I'm sure that if I came over to your house tommorow and chainsawed you and your family, you'd thing it was a bad thing.

    15. Re:Gee... by Neop2Lemus · · Score: 4, Funny

      it's true, the eggs predicted it.

      --
      Needle Nardle Noo
    16. Re:Gee... by Neop2Lemus · · Score: 1

      this above cursory comment is the most insightful thing I've read on /., ever.

      --
      Needle Nardle Noo
    17. Re:Gee... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why would we have worried? Given Luke's inherited genes, wouldn't we want him to go? I'd think people would ask for Jar Jar to have been in the area though.

    18. Re:Gee... by operagost · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Because all the ones who voted for Kerry and Nader don't live on Planet Earth.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    19. Re:Gee... by SidV · · Score: 1

      I saw a report that it blew up due to high levels of CO2

    20. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because I'm sure that if I came over to your house tommorow and chainsawed you and your family, you'd thing it was a bad thing.

      Chainsaw? You can bring lethal amounts of drugs to my house. My wife and I will give you our solemn word that we will overdose on them after you leave.

      (The LD50 for marijuana is somewhere around 10 g/kg, and my wife and I are each about 80 kg, to give you an idea of how much to bring.)

    21. Re:Gee... by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

      Not really a equal oppurtunity destroyer. The unlucky ones are on the side of the planet facing the explosion when it happens.

    22. Re:Gee... by metamatic · · Score: 1

      I said "humanity", not specific humans.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    23. Re:Gee... by Gil-galad55 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for one of the funniest responses on slashdot of all time!

      --

      To follow knowledge like a sinking star, / Beyond the utmost bound of human thought. ("Ulysses", Tennyson)

    24. Re:Gee... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Well, supposing I survived it, I'd rather miss my fellow humans. On the scale of the entire history of the planet, it might be neither here nor there, but for me (since I was human last time I checked) it would be a pretty bad thing. It'd ruin my whole day. There'd be no more Slashdot.

    25. Re:Gee... by SpinJaunt · · Score: 1

      No, I'm still here, thanks!

      --
      /. is good for you.
    26. Re:Gee... by StarfishOne · · Score: 1


      "No Star Left Behind?" ;D

    27. Re:Gee... by metlin · · Score: 1


      The no-planet left behind thingy, eh?

    28. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      80Kg ! You little porkers.

    29. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      With mass extinction, everyone wins!

      Especially the ants. They haven't been able to arrange one of their BBQ parties for ages. (The facination for the magnifying glass-thing in young males is a racial-memory revenge urge.)

    30. Re:Gee... by Angostura · · Score: 1

      Because humanity is comprised of specific humans?

      Moreover, I actually think that the earth's biosphere, including humanity is wonderful and that human kind, for all its faults has made some amazing accomplishments in both the arts and the sciences in its long, rich history. So yes, a mass extinction *would* be a bad thing, it would remove some complexity and interest from the universe.

    31. Re:Gee... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Even if you didn't miss all your fellow humans, and were set on spending the rest of your life reading great literature, you'd probably accidently smash your glasses on the steps of the New York Public Library.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    32. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shame that you think that way, because you seemed like such an intellectual until you started talking.

    33. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing around here that blew was that joke.

  3. Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, Now all the Aliens are dead. We are truely alone.

    1. Re:Aliens by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

      But this means the aliens have been dead for 50,000 years... So really, we've always been alone (or for all of recorded history).

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    2. Re:Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks, now I really feel alone

    3. Re:Aliens by mayonase · · Score: 1

      Hey, if the aliens are dead, then could we be distant offspring of theirs that they planted on here thousands and thousands of years ago?

    4. Re:Aliens by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 1

      Interesting theory. Who can say with any certainty that it's not true?

      --
      bash: rtfm: command not found
    5. Re:Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks, now I really feel alone

      Well...you are posting on /.

    6. Re:Aliens by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

      But why would they have to be dead for that to be true?

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  4. This is evidence of the Death Star by Coldglow · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Is Star Wars in are backyard? Be warned the Sith are coming.

    1. Re:This is evidence of the Death Star by simplemachine · · Score: 2, Funny
      The empire could not destroy the entire planet. It would take a thousand ships with more firepower then I've...

      A still hopefull Star Wars fan.

  5. Pffft... by mtrisk · · Score: 0

    They mean in the past 50,000 years, since the star is 50,000 light-years away, it didn't happen 400 years ago, but rather 50,000 years ago.

    Ok, I'm nitpicking, but I didn't see enough pretty pictures.

    --

    Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
    1. Re:Pffft... by xSquaredAdmin · · Score: 1
      Actually they meant 400 years.

      "We figure that it's probably the biggest explosion observed by humans within our galaxy since Johannes Kepler saw his supernova in 1604," Dr Rob Fender, of Southampton University, UK, told the BBC News website.
      --
      Crushing dreams at the speed of sarcasm
    2. Re:Pffft... by salvorHardin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought it was just that it was the biggest such explosion recorded by humans within the last 400 years.

    3. Re:Pffft... by nuclear305 · · Score: 1

      Had you actually read the article Johannes Keplar spotted a suprnova in 1604, which apparently was stronger than this event--hence this flare is the strongest witnessed SINCE 1604.

    4. Re:Pffft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh great, now we all get modded -100 Redundant.

    5. Re:Pffft... by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      Of course the explosion didn't happen 400 years ago.

      They are just saying that ever since we began observing large explosions of any sort 400 years ago, THIS particular explosion is the biggest one recorded.

      You're getting the numbers all crossed.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    6. Re:Pffft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      it didn't happen 400 years ago, but rather 50,000 years ago.
      And they're just now reporting it? I know /. tends to be a little slow, but damn...
    7. Re:Pffft... by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      He was just nit-picking stating that it didn't happen within the last 400 years. The event happened 50,000 light years away, and since light travels at the speed of light, that the event actually happened 50,000 years ago.

      Pretty lame, I know.

    8. Re:Pffft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but this is the 7,204th dupe.

    9. Re:Pffft... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Informative
      since the star is 50,000 light-years away, it didn't happen 400 years ago, but rather 50,000 years ago

      It depends on your frame of reference. IIRC, from the viewpoint of the gamma ray photons themselves, there was no delay at all between the time of the starquake and reaching earth.

    10. Re:Pffft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually imagine Kepler's supernova was only 10K light years away... then the more recent witnessed actually was first. But since I don't know the date of Kepler's observance, nor do I care, I cannot determine which was definitely first.

    11. Re:Pffft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is my favorite kind of slashdot post...

      Ahem! Correction!

      Except...there's nothing to correct. The disconnect was in the ultra-rigid interpretation. Next time, I might suggest trying to understand what they were attempting to communicate instead of intentionally misunderstanding it. Nitpicking doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what you were doing.

    12. Re:Pffft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where's the /. redundant post counting firefox extension?

    13. Re:Pffft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the post said "the biggest explosion observed by humans in the past 400 years" so it is correct and the poster has no right to nit-pick.
      The explosion happened 50,000 years ago but was observed this year by a human so it still fits
      the bill of being "the biggest explosion observed by humans in the past 400 years".
      It would probably not fit the bill of "the biggest explosion in the past 400 years" and if that had been the statement, the previous loser would have had the right to nit-pick.

    14. Re:Pffft... by bob65 · · Score: 1

      But it certainly wasn't recorded 50000 years ago.

    15. Re:Pffft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only lame, but completely wrong. The phrase "the biggest explosion observed by humans within the past 400 years" clearly indicates it is the observation, not the event which has occurred within 400 years. You're all morans.

    16. Re:Pffft... by tricops · · Score: 1

      We are morans, take us to your leadar.

      --
      (\(\
      (^v^)
      (")")
      This is the cute vorpal bunny virus, copy to your sig or runaway, runaway in fear!
    17. Re:Pffft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would likely make it the biggest such explosion recorded by humans ever. Though I suppose the Atlanteans might have recorded bigger...

    18. Re:Pffft... by i41Overlord · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You're all morans.

      No, I live in New Jersey. The Morans live in Kansas, Missouri, Texas, and Wyoming.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moran

    19. Re:Pffft... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      They're talking about when it was _observed_, not when it _happened_.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    20. Re:Pffft... by rokzy · · Score: 1

      don't worry he probably just reads too much New Scientist. they go miles out of their way to intentionally misunderstand simple things "with hilarious consequences" (see 'Feedback')

  6. Finally! by OSXpert · · Score: 0

    Our Star Wars missle defense system worked, succesfully detonating the oncoming warheads 50,000 light years away!

  7. Give Me The Stars by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's say 50Kly is as far away as this starquake can be (obviously not). And they happen on a 10ly granularity. That's something like 1 in 50K^3/10, or 1.25E13 to 1 against it happening in 400 years. Staring down the barrels of nuclear and Greenhouse extinction in the next century, I'll take those odds.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Give Me The Stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gimme a break dude.

      what a load of pretentious tripe, but thats normal for you I would imagine.

    2. Re:Give Me The Stars by sdo1 · · Score: 1
      Actually according to this article, the odds are pretty much zero of this happening to us....

      "There are no magnetars close enough to worry about, however, Gaensler and two other astronomers told SPACE.com."

      -S

      --
      --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    3. Re:Give Me The Stars by pVoid · · Score: 5, Funny
      Jebus man...

      You should be a numerologist. You know, those people who ask you when you were born, and you answer "uuh... 4th of january, 1972", and they say "well, if you add 72 and 19, that makes 91 and you add 4 and 1, that makes five, and five plus 9 plus one gives you 96, modulus three, that's THREE!!!

      THE HOLY TRINITY!!!

      You are the chosen one, my son.

      **ding**

      Times up, that'll be $29.99 dear, my assistant will take your fee out front no cheques, only cash please. You can ask her for a receipt too. Thank you, come again!

    4. Re:Give Me The Stars by AddressException · · Score: 1

      It says that in the BBC article too: "Fortunately there are no magnetars anywhere near us."

    5. Re:Give Me The Stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      96 modulus 3 is 0....

    6. Re:Give Me The Stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nyah nyah nyah to you too, clever dick

    7. Re:Give Me The Stars by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Careful, when infinite probability is involved, bad things will happen.

    8. Re:Give Me The Stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, get a refund, but our EULA explicitly forbids you from telling others about our service.

    9. Re:Give Me The Stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your calculation does not make sense. You need to take a 'safe' radius - say 100 ly (instead of 10) and actually count the number of magnetars inside the corresponding volume (whether you make it a sphere or a cylinder, given that the Milky Way is rather flat around here). If you get zero, you're 99.9999+% safe, barring someone around the center of the galaxy throwing one at us with the right timing.

    10. Re:Give Me The Stars by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase Esmerelda Weatherwax in the Discworld books:

      "1.25E13 to 1 chances happen 9 times out of 10."

      We're screwed.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
  8. Magnetars.. by salvorHardin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apparently there's no Magnetars anywhere near Earth, and I'm wondering, since this star was 'the other side of the galactic center', could such things possibly be closer to the center than we thought? Would this explain what we currently think is the gravity of a central black hole?
    Oh, and check out the New Scientist article.

    1. Re:Magnetars.. by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 1
      could such things possibly be closer to the center than we thought? Would this explain what we currently think is the gravity of a central black hole?
      We are quite sure that 3.6 million solar masses are in an extremely compact region, so small that if it were multiple objects, they would very quickly collide and merge into one. Here's the observational evidence. Note that some of the data is projected into the future.
      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
  9. IIM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If such a thing were to occur closer by, all we have to do is put the Iraqi Information Minister on the job. He'll have everyone convinced that everything is fine even as the Earth is crumbling around them.

  10. Yeah, Right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if you believe that, I've got some lands in the Everglades to sell you...

  11. Star Quake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I blame Oprah.

    1. Re:Star Quake? by kabdib · · Score: 1

      Damn you, Microsoft!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.
  12. Faintly heard by SETI by Boyceterous · · Score: 4, Funny

    just before the explosion:
    "Damn you, you bloody baboon!"

    1. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by ari_j · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you sure it wasn't "USS Voyager self-destruct sequence, in 10, 9, 8, ..." ?

    2. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will teach them to arbor terrorists and hide weapons of mass destruction

    3. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am sure that is a reference to something, I just don't know or remember what it is.

    4. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by vchoy · · Score: 1

      Don't laugh,

      Detection of other signs of life could be from unstable parts space...eg in the form SOS/warning beacons etc.

    5. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      What does arbor day have to do with anything?

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    6. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't blow stars instead of calling 911

    7. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by isny · · Score: 3, Funny

      Other possible answers:
      1. Whoops.
      2. What does this button do?
      3. ...
      I'm sorry I can't think of any more, but I'm sure that someone around here has saved up a similar list for just such an occasion.

    8. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You didn't get it. The beacons would not be exploding stars, the beacons would warn ships not to go near an unstable star.

    9. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by KFK+-+Wildcat · · Score: 3, Informative

      That must be the Dynamite Monkey by Random McEric, originally on Fark's The last thing you'll ever see photoshop contest.

    10. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by Boyceterous · · Score: 4, Funny

      3. Cut the RED wire. 4. But first, cut the BLUE wire.

    11. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by IceFoot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just after the explosion:
      D'oh!

    12. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by Neop2Lemus · · Score: 1

      no, that wouldn't make the news.

      --
      Needle Nardle Noo
    13. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by Agripa · · Score: 4, Informative

      It does not look like FARK's link to the Dynamite Monkey is hosted anymore. It is too good to miss:

      http://www.banishedsouls.org/635850d13f/Dynamite_M onkey.jpg

    14. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

      1. Whoops.
      2. What does this button do?

      3. PROFIT!!!!

    15. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5.?????
      6. PROFIT!!

    16. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 1

      1. Whoops.
      2. What does this button do?
      3. Shoot Rick Berman out of a cannon!
      4. PROFIT!!!!

    17. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean just *BEFORE* the explosion.

    18. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by metlin · · Score: 1


      You forgot - "grab the fucking cat!" ;-)

    19. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Also heard: "I knew I shouldn't have had that burrito!".

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    20. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by apuku · · Score: 1

      It's...a...giant space goat!

      --
      Look, it's trying to think - Albert Rosenfield
    21. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4. Profit! ...
      Woops

    22. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      1. Give me a light

      2. No! Bud-Ligh^*#$%^H*$^(#&%^

      --
      Huh?
    23. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Detection, yes. But what good does it do us? Isn't SETI supposed to find other intelligent life in the universe for the purpose of eventually making contact? It's gonna be really tough to get in touch with anyone whose entire star system (and probably any colonies they may have had in nearby star systems) got blown up 50,000 years ago. ;)

    24. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by jpatters · · Score: 1

      HAMMMMERRRRRRRR!

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    25. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's from one of the Planet of the Apes movies?

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    26. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

      damn, I was gonna say that.

      *pout*

      Like three people will get the joke though.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    27. Re:Faintly heard by SETI by irg1231491 · · Score: 0

      "People of SGR 1806-20, my name is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. Your planet has been scheduled for demolition."

  13. Breaking news! by freeweed · · Score: 1

    If the sun was only 10 kilometres from your house, a mass extinction might occur.

    Seriously, this has to be the most bizzare astronomy story tagline I've ever read. I figured this was the submitter's quote, or possibly the article writer - nope, it was from one of the physicists.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    1. Re:Breaking news! by greypilgrim · · Score: 1

      The key difference is, the sun has an equitorial radius of about 700,000 km, whereas this star has an equitorial radius of about 20km.

    2. Re:Breaking news! by multiplexo · · Score: 2, Informative
      If the sun was only 10 kilometres from your house, a mass extinction might occur.

      Seriously, this has to be the most bizzare astronomy story tagline I've ever read. I figured this was the submitter's quote, or possibly the article writer - nope, it was from one of the physicists.

      Then you didn't read the New Scientist article which had this gem:

      But Christopher Thompson, an astrophysicist at the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Physics, says that may not be so. The neutron star in question is rare magnetar, with a magnetic field so strong it could wipe a credit card clean from a distance of 160,000 kilometres. And this magnetar is even rarer yet, one of three "soft gamma repeaters" (SGRs) in the Milky Way.

      Ya know, IANAPOAPOA (I Am Not A Physicist Or AstroPhysicist or Astronomer) but I'm willing to bet that if I were 160,000 kilometers from this object, or even our sun, I might be worried about other things than my credit cards getting wiped.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    3. Re:Breaking news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you'd think he'd be american, worrying about his credit cards like that...

    4. Re:Breaking news! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ya know, IANAPOAPOA (I Am Not A Physicist Or AstroPhysicist or Astronomer) but I'm willing to bet that if I were 160,000 kilometers from this object, or even our sun, I might be worried about other things than my credit cards getting wiped.

      That's why YANAPOAPOA. I can imagine the interview.
      "If you were 160,000 kilometers from this black hole... we'll, you'd be in space, so you'd be dead! So don't go there!"

      Magnetic fields are difficult to characterize. What are you going to do, tell people the field is 1000000000000 Tesla? (Yawn, what's a Tesla?) You can't compare magnetic fields to hens eggs or Libraries of Congress. The only thing you can really do is compare them to a field strength that people are intuitively familiar with- like a refrigerator magnet's field, an MRI field, or a field sufficient to wipe magnetic cards. Refrigerator magnets and MRIs come in a variety of field strengths. Plus, smartasses would make comments about refrigerators and magnetic imaging machines in space.

    5. Re:Breaking news! by Air-conditioned+cowh · · Score: 1

      " If the sun was only 10 kilometres from your house, a mass extinction might occur."

      What? The goldfish might die?

    6. Re:Breaking news! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      If the sun was only 10 kilometres from your house, a mass extinction might occur.
      Seriously, this has to be the most bizzare astronomy story tagline I've ever read. I figured this was the submitter's quote, or possibly the article writer - nope, it was from one of the physicists.

      Why is it bizarre? When I read it I understood what he meant and why he said it. Light years are big. For anything ten light years distant to have a measurable effect on the Earth is pretty amazing!

      The radiation intensity at the surface of the Sun is 63,000,000 watts per square meter. (Your 10 km makes no real difference.) The intensity 10 light years (10^17 m) away from a 10^40 watt source would be approx. 100,000 watts per square meter. So you'd have to be 25 solar radii away from the Sun for its radiation intensity to be equivalent to this magnetar if it were ten light years distant. (For comparison, mercury orbits at about 86 solar radii.) Nitpickers may note that the Sun is mostly radiating UV through IR, and the magnetar's energy is brief and in the gamma ray spectrum, but this is still impressive.

    7. Re:Breaking news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider this: Pluto is 244 times further away from the sun than we are, so something like 32 light hours away from the sun. If you were standing on the surface of Pluto, the sun at high noon would look like just a slightly larger star, and it would not appear to be significantly brighter than any of the others. This is due to the inverse square law: the irradiance (power per unit area) decays with the square of the distance away from the source. As a analogy, think of a balloon. You only have so much rubber, and as you blow it up, its walls become thinner and thinner, and not only that, but the rate of thinning increases as well. Now think of the energy output by the star as that rubber: in a certain amount of time, some amount of energy is released from its surface, and as that "shell" travels outwards, the energy per unit area gets lower and lower.

      In comparison, this star is on the other side of the galaxy and managed to light up our entire atmosphere! Now considering that Pluto is close to a billion (10^9) times closer to the sun than this magnastar is to Earth, I sure wouldn't want to be caught within 10 light years of there!

    8. Re:Breaking news! by en4ca · · Score: 1

      If the sun was only 10 kilometres from your house, a mass extinction might occur.

      Seriously, this has to be the most bizzare astronomy story tagline I've ever read. I figured this was the submitter's quote, or possibly the article writer - nope, it was from one of the physicists.

      10 kilometres is a heck of a lot smaller than 10 Light years which is what the article actually says.
    9. Re:Breaking news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They why not say "This would have wiped out any possible life without 10,000 light years from the explosion" instead of firing off sensationalist rhetoric that has no meaning what so ever? Oh that's right, he couldn't sell newspapers then.

    10. Re:Breaking news! by anshil · · Score: 1

      This sounds like Commander Data babbling on Startrek nobody understands but sounds impressive smart.

      I just say, recalibrate the quantum-warp-spools so they do not emmit so much tachions!

      --

      --
      Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
    11. Re:Breaking news! by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      I'm not following your math.

      The Sun's emits a total power of P=3.83e26 W. At Earth, the power density is P/4pi(1 AU)^2 or 1362 W/m^2. A power source of P=1e40 W at a distance of 10 lyr gives a power density of 88,912 W/m^2. So, the Earth would receive about 65 times as much power from the magnetar at 10 lyr as it does from the Sun at 1 AU.

    12. Re:Breaking news! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Your math agrees with mine- you're calculating something different (the effects at 1 AU). I was calculating how close you'd have to be to the sun for it to be as bright as this star- roughly 0.1 AU. (You should round 88192 to 100000 since you start with less than one significant digit from "1e40".)

    13. Re:Breaking news! by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      Ahh, when I read "25 solar radii" my mind somehow interpreted that as 25 AU, for some weird reason.

      Given the scenario, the power rating is multiplied by a factor of about 60 (to one sig-fig). Now, another article claimed the burst only lasted for 0.25 seconds. Therefore, the total energy delivery (to the Earth) of the burst would be equivalent to what Sol delivers in 15 seconds. I don't see what the big deal would be (aside from, perhaps, the frequency of the radiation).

    14. Re:Breaking news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Plus, smartasses would make comments about refrigerators and magnetic imaging machines in space."

      I, for one, welcome our new ice-making overlords...

      How about the old standard unit: the Volkswagen? Magnetic fields could be stated as strength relative to the field needed to suspend a VW in normal Earth gravity.

      On this scale, the explosion produced magnetic fields in the order of 10^23 volkswagens.

    15. Re:Breaking news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 Telsa = The attractive power of a nude cheerleading squad.

  14. Science by Press Release by Einer2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Come on, give me a break. I've seen some of the science being done on this flare. There are enough cool things without being needlessly sensational, and invoking the Wipe-Out-All-Civilization radius definitely counts as sensational. After all, isn't the nearest magnetar something like 5 kiloparsecs away?

    --
    Microsoft delenda est!
    1. Re:Science by Press Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You've blown your cover. Now everyone on /. knows that you weren't really a Marketing major.

    2. Re:Science by Press Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is a "kiloparsec". Did you make that up to sound cool or is that a unit of measure, also used to sound cool?

    3. Re:Science by Press Release by Dunkelzahn · · Score: 1

      A parsec is equal to the distance where an object will show a parallax of one second (as in a 360th of a degree, not an increment of time). Its a little over 3.1 light years, IIRC. A kiloparsec is a thousand of those. Figure over 30,000 light years per kiloparsec.

      --
      .
    4. Re:Science by Press Release by dhalgren · · Score: 1

      http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/K/kilopa rsec.html

      Careful, or you might learn something.

    5. Re:Science by Press Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ack, typo... 3,000 light years.

    6. Re:Science by Press Release by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Sounds like 1000 parsecs to me, but I could be wrong.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec

    7. Re:Science by Press Release by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

      "After all, isn't the nearest magnetar something like 5 kiloparsecs away?"

      Pssh. The Millineum Falcon could reach that in no time!

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    8. Re:Science by Press Release by blackomegax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      well still, you gotta feel some pity for whatever lifeform died in that area. (hey, its POSSIBLE) ;)

    9. Re:Science by Press Release by syukton · · Score: 1

      Google is our friend, there's 3.26163626 light years per parsec.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    10. Re:Science by Press Release by jesterzog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are enough cool things without being needlessly sensational, and invoking the Wipe-Out-All-Civilization radius definitely counts as sensational.

      I couldn't agree more. There are only 10 stars within 10 light years of us -- one trinary, two doubles and three individual stars. None of them are anywhere near being potential supernovae. The BBC sensationalism was pointless and misleading.

      The actual quote from which that comment was derived was probably the one in the New Scientist article:

      That relatively small distance, coupled with an accurate energy measurement by NASA's RHESSI satellite, means the explosion was not as powerful - at source - as more distant bursts linked with black holes. Nevertheless, it "may have sterilised any planets within a few light years of it", says Rob Fender, an astronomer at Southampton University, UK, who is studying the lingering radio emission from the flare.

      Assuming this is correct, the BBC journalist seems to have taken an off-hand comment and put it into an unreleated and meaningless context.

    11. Re:Science by Press Release by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      3.26163626 lightyears, of course.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    12. Re:Science by Press Release by gnuman99 · · Score: 1
      Eta Carina http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/ releases/1996/23/, when it blows, will kill all all life at a much greater distance than this puny thing. But then again there was this supermasive explosion thingy http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/18 may98.html and no one know what that was, so....

      But I would worry about nuclear war, pollution and overpopulation than anything from the stars! :)

    13. Re:Science by Press Release by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      How many nanometers in a yoctoparsec?

      Or just do a search for yoctoparsec. Some words only ever appear in link farms.

    14. Re:Science by Press Release by Perdo · · Score: 1

      Do WOAC radii have a LOC conversion factor?

      --

      If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

    15. Re:Science by Press Release by syukton · · Score: 1
      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    16. Re:Science by Press Release by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just under 417 Kessel runs.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    17. Re:Science by Press Release by kaalamaadan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Assuming this is correct, the BBC journalist seems to have taken an off-hand comment and put it into an unreleated and meaningless context.

      Perhaps. But "Earth" seems much more immediate than "any planets within a few light years of it". Just like in "Earthly" disasters, irrespective of the fact that 200,000 people died, people are much more shocked when they think that ~300 of their countrymen are missing. In the words of Ursula K Le Guin, this is "making a molehill out of a mountain.".

    18. Re:Science by Press Release by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      That's not *quite* accurate - it's speculated that Eta Carinae will become a gamma-ray burster when it finally does end its life as a supernova, and that the gamma-ray radiation could be deadly out to a distance of several thousand light-years, but with a caveat - the really intense radiation will expand in a ring from the star's equator. The equator points away from us by about 45 degrees or so, so we'll be spared the worst of it. It will still certainly be a big explosion, and Eta Carinae will be the brightest object in the sky after the Sun and Moon, but the off-axis radiation will likely only be harmful to satellites and such at our distance.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    19. Re:Science by Press Release by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      How many Imperial Libraries is that?

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    20. Re:Science by Press Release by jonadab · · Score: 1

      This highlights what we already know: the prospects for survival are best
      at certain positions. At both the system and galaxy level, there's a band,
      a certain range of distances away from the center, where things are best.
      At the system level this has to do with the amount of energy reaching you
      from the primary; whereas, at the galaxy level, it has to do with things
      like the overall density in star systems per cubic whatever. There are
      other reasons at the galactic level why the same band is best -- e.g., the
      concentration of relatively heavy elements at certain distances from the
      galactic core. There are also other positional factors, such as whether
      you're in one of the spiral arms or between them, whether there are larger
      planets further out in your system to broom up loose asteroids within the
      eccliptic, and of course the size of your own planet. (There are also of
      course non-positional factors, such as the amounts of various elements and
      compounds, most notably liquid water.) Earth is pretty much smack dab in
      the middle of the band, at both the system and galaxy level.

      So anyway, as I was saying, magnetars are more common closer to the galactic
      core, and pretty sparse out here, so we're fairly safe from that particular
      threat. Also, a supernova is fairly unlikely in this general vicinity, as
      vicinities go.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    21. Re:Science by Press Release by CristalShandaLear · · Score: 1
      There are enough cool things without being needlessly sensational, and invoking the Wipe-Out-All-Civilization radius definitely counts as sensational.

      I couldn't agree more. There are only 10 stars within 10 light years of us -- one trinary, two doubles and three individual stars. None of them are anywhere near being potential supernovae. The BBC sensationalism was pointless and misleading.

      I find this is an interesting cosmic take on the classic "it just barely missed me by this much" story.

      The truth of our culture is mired in tall tales like these even if the miss was more like a parsec or two instead of the millimeters we claim. I'll even go so far as to say that despite the possible lack of scientific accuracy, we need more stories like these...more Independence day type stories where it's us against the universe. Not discovering an alien race; we're not ready and we don't need anyone else to discriminate against or fight with. Maybe just the equivalent of a cosmic tsunami to shake us up and pull us together. It seems disasters are the only time the people on this planet are at their best anymore.

      Maybe a galactic "Scared Straight" program is exactly what Earth needs.

    22. Re:Science by Press Release by magarity · · Score: 1

      The BBC sensationalism was pointless and misleading

      True, but we need something to galvanize action. The sooner we get off this dirtball deathtrap of a planet the better; there's all kinds of stuff that can kill off all larger life forms. Just as a dinosaur.

    23. Re:Science by Press Release by jesterzog · · Score: 1

      True, but we need something to galvanize action. The sooner we get off this dirtball deathtrap of a planet the better; there's all kinds of stuff that can kill off all larger life forms. Just as a dinosaur.

      Well I guess my point was that a nearby star possibly blowing up and wiping us out has nothing to do with us needing to get off this planet. It's not going to happen -- at the very least, not in any way like the article suggests it might. If there are all kinds of things that can kill us off, I'd rather hear about them than be told that something unrealistic will kill us.

      Dr. Fender was quoted in the article (near the end), stating this as a comparison to show how powerful it was. That's fine with me, because at that point the context is clear. Unfortunately, the anonymous journalist went out of their way to play this up at the beginning of the article, with no relevant context, as if it were something that might actually happen and we should be concerned about it.

      I'd rather journalists stuck to the facts in their reporting. If they think it's important for us to get off this planet, then they should tell me why they think it's important, and I'll decide if I agree. Spinning people's comments on unrelated matters as if they're facts that support your own unrelated opinion isn't responsible reporting. It's inaccurate, and making things up.

    24. Re:Science by Press Release by jesterzog · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. But "Earth" seems much more immediate than "any planets within a few light years of it".

      Yes, that's true. I'd just rather that journalists stuck to the facts rather than made things up. If there's actually a reason for us to be concerned, which there isn't in this case, it'd be nice if they'd actually tell us what that is rather than invent something and tell us to be worried.

      Dr Fender was quoted near the end of the article, using the example as a comparison to demonstrate the power of the explosion. The anonymous journalist took this off-hand comment, and emphasised it at the beginning of the article with the impression that it could actually happen here. That's irresponsible reporting as far as I'm concerned.

    25. Re:Science by Press Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the future, living near a star like that will be like living on a volcano in hawaii. when it happens, yeah, you'll feel some pity, but you also know that it was going to happen eventually

    26. Re:Science by Press Release by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      We should thank our Founding single celled Founders for having the foresight to choose earth, and not some planet within the magnetic blast radius. Can you imagine the chaos if we woke up tomorrow and no one could use their credit cards?

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    27. Re:Science by Press Release by magarity · · Score: 1

      I'd rather journalists stuck to the facts ... Spinning people's comments on unrelated matters as if they're facts that support your own unrelated opinion isn't responsible reporting

      If you think this is a problem in science articles, try reading the political news.

  15. Whew by SafteyMan · · Score: 1

    That was a close one

    1. Re:Whew by Fizzl · · Score: 1

      Well. It was only half an order of magnitude away from the bad scenario. (10ly vs 50ly).

      In astronomical scale; yes it was quite fucking close.

    2. Re:Whew by Fizzl · · Score: 1

      Whops. Sorry. Didn't even read the fucking summary roperly. So it was 50.000 vs 10. never mind :P

      Disregard that last one :)

  16. Does not matter by Haxx · · Score: 1

    The population of the universe per capita is Zero, so none of this matters.

    1. Re:Does not matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The population of the universe per capita is One. For each person in the universe there is one person.
      But you meant the population per cubic light year is zero (or nearly so) so I'll stop nit-picking. [Insert Manitoba joke]
      Magnetars kick ass! I want one for christmas.

    2. Re:Does not matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm...isn't the population of the Universe per capita 1?

      N / N = 1

    3. Re:Does not matter by stalbott972 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since no one seemed to catch this :

      POPULATION OF UNIVERSE : None.

      It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in it. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

      Courtesy of the late Douglas Adamas

      --
      Only 8 away from being prime (569919 - 569927) And mom told me I'm unique!!! Sheesh
  17. More Informative by dev_sda · · Score: 5, Informative

    I though that the New scientist article on it was a bit more informative.

    1. Re:More Informative by Scott7477 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed...it quoted one researcher as saying that the distance to the magnetar could have been as low as 30,000 light years. And it said the magnetic field generated by this star could wipe a credit card that
      was 160,000 kilometers away.

      --
      "Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
    2. Re:More Informative by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      That's less than half the distance to the moon. I think anyone that was a mere 160,000km from a star, exploding or otherwise, would have a lot more to worry about than their credit cards getting demagnetized. Like spontaneous atomization, perhaps.

  18. How powerful was it really? by graveyardduckx · · Score: 0

    TFA said that it was 10,000 trillion trillion trillion watts... how powerful is that compared to the Hiroshima bomb? Seriously. It just doesn't sound all that powerful when it's measured in the same units as my microwave.

    1. Re:How powerful was it really? by skeptictank · · Score: 0

      You can't really compare this explosion to something as insignificant as a nuclear bomb. I don't know right off what the energy output of the hiroshima bomb was in watts but probably no more than a few hundred billion. Not only that but the superstrong magnetic field around the magnetar will funnel the energy released by the explosion into tight laser beam type jets. If one of those jets hit a planet in a nearby system it would probably vaporize it.

    2. Re:How powerful was it really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hiroshima was approximately 1x10^20 watts This is 1x10^40

    3. Re:How powerful was it really? by CrazyDuke · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your trying to do an apples to oranges comparison. A Watt is a unit of power. The bomb is usually measured in kilotons or megatons, energy units. But I'll try:

      P = E/t
      A Watt is a Joule per second.

      The energy released by a ton of TNT exploding as a unit of energy is 4.2 x 10^9 Joules. So divide 10^39 (10,000 trillion trillion trillion watts) by 4.2x10^9 and get 2.38095238 x 10^29 tons of TNT per second. That's 2.38 x 10^26 kilotons or 2.38 x 10^23 megatons.

      The Hiroshima bomb released about 12.5 kilotons of TNT of energy. That means at one point the magnetar was releasing the energy at the rate of about 1.9 x 10^25 (19,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)Hiroshima bombs per second.

      Of course assuming all my math is correct...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    4. Re:How powerful was it really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this means that it was in the order of 1x10^20 Hiroshimas all at once.

      I want to see that with zeros.

      100 000 000 000 000 000 000 Hiroshima bombs with a tiny delay fuse would probably come close to being equivalent.

      Not by any means trivial.

      I don't have the dimensions of the Hiroshima bomb, otherwise I could work out if all those bombs would even fit one layer deep on the surface of all the land mass on the planet.

      -JB

  19. Re:Excuse me but... by salvorHardin · · Score: 1

    Not sure if you're trolling, but IIRC, the Sun is 8 light minutes from us (or maybe 8.5, depending on who you ask). So three times the distance would be 24 light minutes.

  20. Big Astronomy is way cool, dude.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yeah, I saw it happen. Like there was this blinding flash. It was just fucking brilliant. Better living through astronomy, that's what I say. It's better than sex, drugs, and bungy jumpin'. Fuckin' far out.

    1. Re:Big Astronomy is way cool, dude.... by handsome+b · · Score: 1

      I've experienced a lot more sex and drugs than I have bungee jumping or astrology

    2. Re:Big Astronomy is way cool, dude.... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Astrology != astronomy

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    3. Re:Big Astronomy is way cool, dude.... by handsome+b · · Score: 1

      I'm an idiot... a typo idiot though... I know the difference between the venus and virgo.

  21. Now it just needs a bumper sticker that says.... by ArmchairGenius · · Score: 1

    if this galaxy is a rockin' don't come a knockin'....

  22. It was another one of those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    industrial accidents.

  23. Nevermind extinct!... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...what happened to the data on all my magnetic media?

    1. Re:Nevermind extinct!... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean your porn?

    2. Re:Nevermind extinct!... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I couldn't possibly reveal the nature of my data because it's all confidential work-related stuff which is, er... oh, alright, I'm a pizza boy. It was porn. TERRABYTES of PORN! ALL GONE!

    3. Re:Nevermind extinct!... by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

      I'm a pizza boy. It was porn. TERRABYTES of PORN! ALL GONE!

      How does a Pizza Boy afford Terrabytes worth of storage media?

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    4. Re:Nevermind extinct!... by salvorHardin · · Score: 1

      Thank-you for the $3 tip, Mr Smith. Now if you want the antidote to the poison you just shovelled in your face, it'll cost you $3,000.
      Just a thought.

    5. Re:Nevermind extinct!... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, a pizza boy could never amass the $75 or so that would cost these days.

    6. Re:Nevermind extinct!... by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding, that would only cost a few hundred dollars if using DVDs or a few thousand if using hard drives. Storage is getting so damn cheap these days. I can't wait to have a 200 disk jukebox with terabyte holographic discs.

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
  24. Al Queda at it again... by 00Monkey · · Score: 1

    We've all been wondering what they're gonna try and blow up next... now we know.

  25. 50,000 light years = 50,000 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I'm thinking I'm wrong, but I'm sure someone here knows: 50,000 light years... does that mean the explosion happened 50,000 Earth years ago, and cause light is so damn slow, we're just now seeing the blast? Or are light years and Earth years not equal?

    1. Re:50,000 light years = 50,000 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A light-year is the distance traveled by light in one Earth year. So yeah, this explosion occurred 50,000 years ago if the resulting light is just reaching Earth now.

    2. Re:50,000 light years = 50,000 years? by thelizman · · Score: 1

      Roughly 50,000 light years ago. Remember that because it's on the far side of the galaxy, our astronomical observations are warped by gravity fields of massive objects between. So it could have happenned 50,001 years ago.

      Basically, yes. Given the standard of a year as it is now, this event occurred 50,000 years ago (give or take a few minutes) and we're just now seeing it.

    3. Re:50,000 light years = 50,000 years? by hugesmile · · Score: 2, Funny

      You are slightly off in your estimate. Originally, astronomical events were measured in years. Then Light Years were invented, which had a third less calories than our regular years. So the energy in a Light Year is one third less than a full-bodied year.

    4. Re:50,000 light years = 50,000 years? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      It's all to do with mass, as you probably know time can be affected by mass and more massive objects experience time more slowly.

      A light year is an adjusted time interval representing the length of time we experience as a year as it would be experienced by the vacuum ( which is of course much less massive than the Earth hence the term "light year" ) in our terms light years are roughly 14,823 of our Earth years, but it does vary slightly depending on the background gravity.

    5. Re:50,000 light years = 50,000 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isnt a light year supposed to be how long it takes light to reach the earth from the sun?

    6. Re:50,000 light years = 50,000 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      keep your units straight

      light year - distance over time
      earth year - time

      14823 Earth years at what speed?
      Or, are you talking about the distance the earth travels around the sun (an ellipse, but close to 2*pi*93000000miles)

    7. Re:50,000 light years = 50,000 years? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      A standard year is calculated at a speed of 29.658 Km/s which would mean that a 'light year' is calculated to be around 10,000 times faster.

      Obviously these are straight line measurements, it becomes far more complex to perform the calculations around trick curves or through chicanes to avoid the effects of further massy objects which will also have an effect on the value of the 'light year'

  26. Re:Excuse me but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10 light years = 631000 times Earth-Sun distance...

    Mind you, 10 light years IS extremely local by most astronomical standards. Depends who you talk to though, the definition of "local" varies from inside the asteroid belt to a redshift of 1 (i.e. 6x10^9 light years away).

    There are only 12 stars within 10 light years, including the Sun, as any scientist/Elite 2 player will tell you. There are billions of stars in the Milky Way.

  27. Re:Excuse me but... by El+Gordo+Motoneta · · Score: 1

    you mean more like 39420000 times the distance from us to the sun. (roughly).

  28. SGR 1806-20 a Quark Star? by skeptictank · · Score: 0

    It's spin rapidly and accreting matter from a companion. It should go through the quark stage before becoming a black hole.

  29. Re:Excuse me but... by Ced_Ex · · Score: 5, Informative

    10 light years is really close... Thats like only 3 times the distance form us to the sun.

    Considering that it takes 8 mins for light from the sun to reach Earth, I think your calculations are a bit off.

    365 days x 24 hours x 60 mins = 525600 mins/year

    525600 mins/year x 10 years = 5256000 mins

    5256000 mins / 8 mins = 6.57x10^6 times

    Therefore 10 light years is actually 6.57x10^6 times the distance from us to the sun.

    QED

    --
    Live forever, or die trying.
  30. Re:Excuse me but... by El+Gordo+Motoneta · · Score: 1

    whoops, i forgot to divide by 60. scratch that =oP

  31. Hooray Atmosphere... by helioquake · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thanks goodness for Atmosphere. It has protected us once again!

    ps. It happened in August 1998. Back then it was SGR1900+14. Apparently a weaker event, but it knocked our socks off back then.

    1. Re:Hooray Atmosphere... by machoromeo · · Score: 1

      So, what happens to the astronauts in the space station? Do they have any kind of protection?

    2. Re:Hooray Atmosphere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Thanks goodness for Atmosphere. It has protected us once again!"

      Yeah, not having an atmosphere would suck.

    3. Re:Hooray Atmosphere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So, what happens to the astronauts in the space station? Do they have any kind of protection?"

      They don't need any, those guys don't swing that way.

    4. Re:Hooray Atmosphere... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Who modded the atmosphere (-1 Overrated) anyway?

      **whistles**

      Carry on, nothing to see here.

  32. Disaster Area by randomiam · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did anyone else think that maybe we just saw the end of a Disaster Area Concert from the back row?

    1. Re:Disaster Area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah.... probably just a Vogon Constructor Fleet creating another hyperspace bypass.
      Progress, you know...

    2. Re:Disaster Area by chiph · · Score: 1

      Could be worse I suppose -- it could have been the friendly folks from Planet Kricket with their very small bomb.

      Chip H.

  33. Re:Excuse me but... by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

    Correction: 6.57x10^5 times

    --
    Live forever, or die trying.
  34. Trillion Trillion Trillion? by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 2, Funny

    From the article
    One calculation has the giant flare on SGR 1806-20 unleashing about 10,000 trillion trillion trillion watts.

    Very impressive but as reading those consecutive huge "units", I just had to:

    Dr Evil: I'll hold the world ransom for.....
    1 Hundread, Billion, Trillion TRiLLion TRILLION Dollars! *pinky*

    1. Re:Trillion Trillion Trillion? by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      10,000 trillion trillion trillion watts...

      I need that in measurements I can understand. What is that in Pentium 4's?

    2. Re:Trillion Trillion Trillion? by chinakow · · Score: 1

      That is;
      1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000 watts or
      1.0 * 10^39 watts
      A number that few people could actually comprehend

    3. Re:Trillion Trillion Trillion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      I'm from the US you insensitive metric clods

      that's

      13.41 trillion trillion trillion Horsepower.

    4. Re:Trillion Trillion Trillion? by MP3Chuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I never understood why they coulnd't just use scientific notation... a lot of articles do this. I mean, is "10^40 Watts" just not impressive enough? Did they really take the time to figure out what 10^40 watts was in "10,000 trillion trillion trillion watts?"

    5. Re:Trillion Trillion Trillion? by miyako · · Score: 1

      10,000 trillion trillion trillion watts in Pentium 4's = 0.997

      --
      Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
    6. Re:Trillion Trillion Trillion? by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

      10,000 trillion trillion trillion is silly. The number is ten tredecillion.
      10 to the 40th is ok too.

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    7. Re:Trillion Trillion Trillion? by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      That depends on what kind of trillion we are talking about 10^12 or 10^18.

      Furthermore, what does it mean for a flare to unleash (pick your favorite number) Watts? That's a power rating and not a total energy output. TFA mentioned 1/10 of a second, but didn't say if that was actually the duration of the event, or just used for comparison purposes.

    8. Re:Trillion Trillion Trillion? by Punboy · · Score: 1

      wouldn't it be easier to say 1 * 10^39?

      --
      If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
    9. Re:Trillion Trillion Trillion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like ten duodecillion, assuming that the 10^40 number is correct.

    10. Re:Trillion Trillion Trillion? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      However, if you use a pentium 3 to calculate this, you come out with 0.996 ;)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    11. Re:Trillion Trillion Trillion? by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

      More like ten duodecillion, assuming that the 10^40 number is correct.
      You're right, I was 3 orders of magnitude off. I always forget to count undecillion. And I even double checked before attempting to make an intelligent post :)

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    12. Re:Trillion Trillion Trillion? by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

      10^12 US system.

      I've always been tought:
      1,000,000 = 1 million
      1,000,000,000 = 1 billion
      1,000,000,000,000 = 1 trillion
      1,000,000,000,000,000 = 1 quadrillion
      1,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 1 quintillion
      etc. up to centillion 10^603.
      Never figured out for sure how they are named after that.

      And my favorite number would have to be 69 sexsexagintillion or 6.9 * 10^202 (I'm just imature like that)

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    13. Re:Trillion Trillion Trillion? by SparklingClearWit · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's easier to say and read, but too many people will give you the blank gaze of "whafuck?"

  35. GRBs? by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1
    It's hard to understand just exactly what happened from the BBC article, but could objects like these be responsible for some of the previously unexplained gamma ray bursts? Is this a new type of event?

    Just FYI, GRBs are extremely short (on the order of minutes) events that release huge amounts of gamma rays. There are many different types of these GRBs, some lasting longer than others, some related to quasars, but they are still quite a mystery.

    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
    1. Re:GRBs? by skeptictank · · Score: 0

      This object was classified as a soft GR burster, before this explosion, and it lies inside the galactic plane. The BBC article is short on details and I haven't been able to find anything other than observational reports on the net. Maybe soft bursters can also produce GRBs??

    2. Re:GRBs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually no. There have a number of recent articles about the GRBs. Current models shows that they can be explained by overlapping pressure waves from massive star explosions rather than an original source themselves. Check out recent sciam articles.

  36. geeky question for physics students... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    would this have been visible to the unaided eye if all the energy had been released in the visible spectrum?

    1. Re:geeky question for physics students... by skeptictank · · Score: 0

      No. It was definitely bright enough to see if all of the energy was in the visible spectrum, but the visible light would have been obsorbed by the intervening dust clouds. The densest part of the galaxy lies between us and this object.

  37. Big numbers. by Tibe · · Score: 1

    "10,000 trillion trillion trillion watts" - BBC
    "0.25-second flash" - New Scientist
    Does this mean 10^40 Joules aka a bit more than duodecillion joules?

  38. Re:Excuse me but... by j235 · · Score: 1

    10 light years = 632,396.717 Astronomical Units
    Straight from the Google's mouth (well... I added a comma)

  39. Which rock star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huge Rock Star Plays Quake, Eats Milky Way

    *blink*

    huge rock star.. do they mean he's really fat, or really popular..

    hey .. wait a minute... never mind..

    Badly Edited Slashdot Headline strikes again!!!

  40. Re:Excuse me but... by dhalgren · · Score: 1

    This is probably a troll, but...can't restrain the urge...

    10 light years is around 632,428.7 times as far from Earth as Sol is.

    There. I feel better now.

  41. Dang! Starting Fresh Would Be Fun! by zapadoo · · Score: 4, Funny

    had the explosion been within 10 light years of us, it "would possibly have triggered a mass extinction."

    Dang! Extinction has an upside -- it would be nice to start over and ditch the red-state, blue-state stuff and perhaps come out better for starting anew. Maybe the next batch of primordial ooze will grow up smarter than us, and perhaps along the way find something less verbose than XML in the process!

    1. Re:Dang! Starting Fresh Would Be Fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlikely. The last mass extinction delivered us from kingdoms and INI files.

    2. Re:Dang! Starting Fresh Would Be Fun! by AngryElmo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Primordial ooze is already much smarter than us. It is happy in its oozingness and has no reason to buy a car or a house, thus doesn't need a dead-end job and surf slashdot for hours at a time.

      In short, Primordial Ooze has it all over slash-dotters...

    3. Re:Dang! Starting Fresh Would Be Fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, everyone repeat after me: "One state, two state, red state blue state" --and I will appologise to Dr. Susse right now!

    4. Re:Dang! Starting Fresh Would Be Fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > [...] find something less verbose than XML in the process!

      XML.bz2 ?

    5. Re:Dang! Starting Fresh Would Be Fun! by elmartinos · · Score: 1

      YAML is a great alternative:
      http://www.yaml.org/

    6. Re:Dang! Starting Fresh Would Be Fun! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      and JSON makes YAML look like XML; the writers of YAML should have stopped about halfway through the spec

  42. offtopic karma burn by koreaman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is offtopic and I'm karma burning, yeah, but you all just have to read this, it's 1337 the microsoft way... one of the funniest things I have read in a long time.

    the link

    1. Re:offtopic karma burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teen Angels has a whole list of acronyms for their 1337 - english translator. Teen Angels

    2. Re:offtopic karma burn by koreaman · · Score: 1

      It's mainly the shock factor in seeing "ph34r my l33t skillz" on Microsoft's website...

    3. Re:offtopic karma burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If I had mod points I would have modded you up.

      You know 1337 speak is also one of the "languages" google supports. It's kinda fun (in a lame way) to set that as your language preference.

  43. AHAH!!! by RootsLINUX · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So that's where Iraq was keeping their weapons of mass destruction! I bet Bush feels pretty dumb for looking everywhere but up!

    --
    Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
  44. Don't panic... by catdevnull · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...I regret to inform you that in order to make room for the hyperspace express route...

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
    1. Re:Don't panic... by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      woo! off topic but check out the new trailer to the film

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
  45. Drudge beats slashdot to story! by Bohemoth2 · · Score: 1, Informative

    A sad day indeed. Drudge Repor "News for nerds. stuff that matters".

  46. I don't get it... by LinuxGeek · · Score: 2, Funny
    "would possibly have triggered a mass extinction."
    But matter is energy and energy cannot be destroyed, only change its form
    --

    Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:I don't get it... by potpie · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you are confused on the definition of "extinction." They mean that the planet would be altered in such a way that species would die out completely. It's not about matter and energy. Maybe you're thinking of "anihilate?"

      --
      Esoteric reference.
    2. Re:I don't get it... by potpie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok I get it now... they mean "mass" as in "total" or "complete," not mass as a noun. Sorry for the double-post.

      --
      Esoteric reference.
    3. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But matter is energy and energy cannot be destroyed, only change its form

      Your have your choice... kinda human shaped or kinda a chunky burnt pancake shape. It's your choice, choose well. Be a mass formation for all I care.

  47. No wonder... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

    No wonder a big disturbance in the force was felt...

    1. Re:No wonder... by clem · · Score: 1

      That's just the breakfast burrito talkin'.

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
  48. Correct by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Radiation.

  49. That's not the star... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    somebody took out the Borg.

  50. Worst Post Ever by AddressException · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Worst... Post... Ever....

    1. Re:Worst Post Ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Behold the power of cheese!

    2. Re:Worst Post Ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderators modded this post down as offtopic, but not it's parent which started out as +2????

      You guys are crazy!

  51. Missing the point slightly by savage1r · · Score: 0

    They mean that one of that magnitude hadn't been observed in the past 400 years because before that they wouldn't have been able to. Of course other large explosions have probably hit earth of that size before then, and yes, that explosion happened 50,000 years ago, but who would have known to observe gamma and xrays 50,000 years ago?

  52. Re:Excuse me but... by decep · · Score: 1

    >>> 10 light years = 631000 times Earth-Sun distance...

    >>> you mean more like 39420000 times the distance from us to the sun. (roughly).

    >>> Therefore 10 light years is actually 6.57x10^6 times the distance from us to the sun.

    >>> 10 light years is around 632,428.7 times as far from Earth as Sol is.

    The people on slashdot sound so smart. :-)

  53. It all makes sense now... by alyawn · · Score: 1

    No wonder my dog rolled over. I was worried.

  54. How's this news? by melted · · Score: 3, Funny

    According to TFA this shit happened 50000 years ago. Is this some kind of slashdot record, posting news that mattered 50K years ago?

    1. Re:How's this news? by dreamer-of-rules · · Score: 1

      It's all relative.

      --
      Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
  55. No, it won't by Einer2 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From what I know, magnetars radiate most of their energy on an extremely short timescale, of order tens of thousands of years or so. Considering how rare they are, the number of stars that are irradiated by SGR flares must be pretty small, and so any additional term in the Drake equation would be very, very close to unity.

    If anyone wants to cruise for mod points, you could do an order-of-magnitude estimate of the fraction of irradiated stars using the age and total volume of the Milky Way, the mean time between SGR flares of this magnitude (call it a decade to a century), and the radius of OMG-We're-All-Gonna-Die that was specified in the article.

    Of course, the supernova explosion that led to a magnetar's formation would would have already done quite a bit of damage to the surrounding area, so they aren't likely to have any meaningful impact on any planetary systems around them anyway.

    --
    Microsoft delenda est!
    1. Re:No, it won't by clem · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hell, to cruise for mod points you wouldn't even have to be remotely accurate.

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    2. Re:No, it won't by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 4, Insightful
      the supernova explosion that led to a magnetar's formation would would have already done quite a bit of damage to the surrounding area

      Put another way, it would be like worrying about being deafened by the shock wave of a nuclear bomb going off a mile away.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    3. Re:No, it won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or on-topic.

    4. Re:No, it won't by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's the first time on slashdot I've actually seen a decent analogy. Wow. Have a biscuit!

    5. Re:No, it won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your post is the first time on slashdot I've ever seen someone compliment someone else's analogy instead of coming up with specious, one-upsmanship ways to puncture it.

    6. Re:No, it won't by Severious · · Score: 1

      Not that you are wrong, but I can't belive people bother to moderate your comment up. Come on Mods have some sense.

      --
      Tinfoil hat? Naa, I long since replaced it with a reinforced titanium alloy.
    7. Re:No, it won't by clem · · Score: 1

      You know, I'm actually in agreement with you. Didn't really deserve the moderations. Some people are born to be beautiful, some people are born to be brilliant, I'm born to be a karma sink.

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
  56. Tsunami? by jasonmicron · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With what little understanding we have of Universe, I seriously wonder if this ties in any way to the Tsunami. Remember, it happened only hours before this was "recorded", depending on where you were on this planet.

    Either that or God was just drinking too much of the haterade. ;)

    1. Re:Tsunami? by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

      Maybe a wave of, oh, let's say gravitons, preceeded the gammas, caused the Earth to oscillate a bit and set off the quake.

      I dunno. I don't think any current theory would allow you to tie them together. But two events only a coincidence makes.

    2. Re:Tsunami? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      On the one hand, there are so many "events" happening all the time, something can always be linked to another - like "your stars" astrology in magazines.

      On the other hand, for all we don't know about the universe, perhaps there is some unknown force that travelled a minuscule bit faster than the recorded electromagnetic waves, which over 50,000 years edged ahead a bit. Or more likely, something occurred on the star shortly before the recorded electromagnetic waves were radiated, which radiated some other force which we aren't equiped to detect.

    3. Re:Tsunami? by Punboy · · Score: 1

      Sure, the particles could've sent a shockwave through the fabric of space causing a large seismic disturbance.

      --
      If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
    4. Re:Tsunami? by roguer · · Score: 1

      Eddy's in the space-time continuum. And look, that must be his couch!

      --
      It's a penny for your thoughts, but you put in your two cents worth. Somebody, somewhere is making a penny. SteveWright
  57. WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only half the planet would be radiated to death.

    1. Re:WRONG by mbrother · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it's more complicated. Yes, the radiation/heating would not be uniform, but the bigger killer would be from the destruction of chemicals like ozone in the upper atmosphere that protects us from the sun's radiation. The details are kind of complicated, and depends on exact distances, fluxes, and spectral energy distrubution. And atmospheric science.

      Yeah, excuse me, big science nit-picker tonight.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
  58. A 'back - slash' is a "slosh" by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 0

    ... according to Neville Holmes (UTAS). :-)

    --
    You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
  59. Screw that by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm from the Bush administration. Put that in terms of burning Libraries of Congress.

  60. Re:A Silly Thought. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps. In the conceivable future people may rise above their collective arrogance, conceit and hubris to invent a machine which enables the downtrodden and dispossessed to answer these difficult ponderings.

    1.light-year:a unit of length in interstellar astronomy equal to
    the distance that light travels in one year in a vacuum or about
    5 878 000 000 000 miles.
    2.speed-of-light:

  61. Re:Not close enough? by jasonmicron · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    AHHHHHHHH

    The REPUBLICAN ATTACK MACHINE is almost at full force! Soon you will feel the power of the dark side! (c'mon laugh, you know you want to)

  62. Mass extinction? Already have one, thanks. by Admiral+Burrito · · Score: 1
    had the explosion been within 10 light years of us, it "would possibly have triggered a mass extinction."

    Trigger a mass extinction? Wouldn't that be redundant?

    1. Re:Mass extinction? Already have one, thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Trigger a mass extinction? Wouldn't that be redundant?

      Not only would it kill everyone and everything, but do it many times. A regular extinction is bad enough, but the following redundant extinctions after the fact grow tiresome. We're dead, you can stop now!

  63. Poor ET. by WindozeSux · · Score: 1, Funny

    Noooooooooooo! ET was killed in mass extinction. Now the ugly finger glowing midget is out of show-biz. *cries*

    --
    Fallout 3 will suck.
  64. This is old news. by JPriest · · Score: 5, Funny

    This happened 50,000 years ago and it is just now being posted to Slashdot? :)

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    1. Re:This is old news. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Yes. Slashdot is approving submissions much quicker lately.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:This is old news. by l0b0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, this joke is getting old. ...did I just say that?

  65. Another Galactic Darwin Award? by Tablizer · · Score: 1
    ...some civalization was probably playing with artificial black holes.


    "But wait", I hear you say, "Has anyone considered that creating artificial black holes might not be the best idea?" The idea of creating black holes in the laboratory has to give one pause. I mean, how can anyone resist the urge to imagine future headlines like "Artificial Black Hole Escapes Laboratory, Eats Chicago" or some such thing? In reality, there is no risk posed by creating artificial black holes, at least not in the manner planned with the LHC...

    We don't even know if our models of physics are correct.
  66. I feel a disturbance in the force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    as if millions of stars suddenly blinked out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

  67. 10 light years? by detritus. · · Score: 1


    OK, so if it would have happened, wouldn't have technically been on Dec. 27 1994 (assuming that was the date it would have hit us?)

    Disclaimer: IANAAP (I am not a astro-physicist)

  68. Hey! by DeputySpade · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least it's not a repost. :D

    --


    This space intentionally left blank
    1. Re:Hey! by isorox · · Score: 0

      Actualyl it is, I still have the original comments somewhere. You really dont want goatse engraved in stone though, but back in the day that's all we had.

    2. Re:Hey! by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Actualyl it is

      Apparently, you are lacking the ^H chisel. =)

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    3. Re:Hey! by chiph · · Score: 2, Funny

      It is now :-(

      Chip H.

    4. Re:Hey! by isorox · · Score: 1

      YEah, It's like ssh to a bourne shell on solaris.

    5. Re:Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yet

  69. I am sure glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that this was FORM us, and not FROM us.

    Slashdot speak is so in right now.

  70. People of SGR 1806-20 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    People of SGR 1806-20, your attention please. This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council.

    Plans for development if the outlying regions of the galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system, and regrettably your star is scheduled for demolition.

    The process will take slightly less that two of your SGR 1806-20 minutes. Thank you.

  71. Did it fry the cosmonauts on the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They make this thing out to be so powerful, what happened to them? Did they end up like those flies I caught in the microwave?

  72. Who to blame? by toupsie · · Score: 2, Funny
    as the article goes on to say that had the explosion been within 10 light years of us, it "would possibly have triggered a mass extinction."

    And it still would be George Bush's fault, right?

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:Who to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is /., so...
      Yes.

    2. Re:Who to blame? by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      No, but you mentioning him does give me an idea.. We could get the space program into ultra high-gear if someone could persuade Bush that the possible-mass-extinction-causing explosion out there is proof that there are Weapons of Mass Destruction 50,000 light years away and we need a warp drive to go find them.

    3. Re:Who to blame? by Punboy · · Score: 1

      Didin't you hear? The terrorists' signs were apparently Saggitarius, and thus he declared a police act on that star system.

      --
      If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
  73. Mass extintion? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Funny

    From the article:

    This is a once-in-a-lifetime event

    I bet the aliens who lived less than 10 light-years from there couldn't possibly deny what you just said.

    1. Re:Mass extintion? by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Well, not anymore, no :)

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  74. God says by EEproms_Galore · · Score: 1

    it wasnt me I swear I didnt fart.....dont look at me like that.

  75. Re:Excuse me but... by handsome+b · · Score: 3, Informative

    10 light years is 3 times the distance from earth to the sun? Light takes approx. 8 minutes to reach the earth from the sun. Thus, the earth is 8 light-minutes from the sun. Thus, the earth is not 3.33- light years from the sun.

  76. MODS: We have a troll here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...mod him\her appropriately.

    1. Re:MODS: We have a troll here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay. :-)

  77. It couldn't have been "The Empire" by Port-0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We know that's in a different galaxy... far far away...

  78. Re:Excuse me but... by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2, Informative
    1- light years = 632,396.717 Astronomical Units.

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  79. Somewhere... by Cytlid · · Score: 1

    ...across our galaxy, aliens are sitting there laughing, saying "Stupid humans. They just don't get our april fools jokes."

    --
    FLR
  80. Don't tell me that was any meteor shower! by Leebert · · Score: 2, Funny

    "It's Praxis, sir. It's a klingon moon."

  81. ya know... by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

    if it had only been 10 light years away, it would have happened 49,990 years ago.

    For all I know, one did happen back then. There is a mysterious mass extinction within a few thousand years of that time. Up until now I thought it was a result of a mega-volcano... but now I wonder.

  82. Eta Carinae: It's Gonna Blow! by ispdrudge · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I remember reading about the variable star Eta Carinae, which has varied greatly in brightness over the years. It varies because it's a huge, unstable star that has already blown off a big gas nebula. It's expected to go supernova eventually. One scientist claims that it's close enough to bathe the earth in so much gamma radiation that the nitrogen in the upper atmosphere turns into NOx, and the sky becomes opaque. Like in the Matrix.
    Google for pix of thy Doom.

  83. Constraints on where they can afford to live! by jd · · Score: 2, Funny
    Total output - ten thousand trillion trillion trillion watts. Not sure of the duration, but let's say that it lasted a second.


    At an estimated cost of 3 cents per kilowatt/hour, that would put the total cost at $8.3 billion trillion trillion, which is more than the Galactic Lending Limit.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Constraints on where they can afford to live! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you mean is kilowatt*hour. You have to _multiply_ power with time to get energy...

  84. Onions by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

    >> "the biggest explosion observed by humans within [the past 400 years]...would possibly have triggered a mass extinction."

    Well, I did warn her to go easy on the onions. They always do that to me.

  85. Ladies and Gentlemen: by zbuffered · · Score: 1

    Welcome to Friday Night on Slashdot.org.

    --
    Synergy is your friend
  86. 1.21 Giga Giga Giga Watts!!!! by The+Lord+of+Chaos · · Score: 1

    The only thing that can generate that kind of electricity is a magnetar flare! Unfortunately you never now when and where there going to strike.

    1. Re:1.21 Giga Giga Giga Watts!!!! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Remember that article last week about the star that was speeding out of the Milky Way at a hell of clip? It's disappeared! .. just some blue lines fading off into space ..

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  87. Do I cut the blue wire or the red wire? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

    Doh!

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  88. Just out of curiosity by DeMarko · · Score: 1

    Has this been the biggest explosion on the other side of Beta Carotene since Red dye #4?

    --
    Sing a song in the age of paranoia....well maybe not. They just might DRM it
  89. Of course, the trillion-dollar question is... by achurch · · Score: 1

    . . . are those British trillions or American trillions? ;)

  90. Awesome writeup of the effects... by blincoln · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...this would have on the Earth at close range, courtesy a really smart guy who posted on POE News.

    --
    "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    1. Re:Awesome writeup of the effects... by justins · · Score: 1

      Fun, but a bit too much of a drama queen. Yes, airplanes would fall out of the sky. We got that when you said all electronics would fail. Yes, GPS would fail. We got that when you said satellites would be wiped out.

      Sort of entertaining but I sort of imagine the guy masturbating while he was writing it.

      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    2. Re:Awesome writeup of the effects... by Detritus · · Score: 1

      The problem with the writeup is that the atmosphere is relatively opaque to x-rays and gamma rays. They don't travel far before being scattered and absorbed. The energy is absorbed and reemitted at lower wavelengths.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Awesome writeup of the effects... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Relatively" opaque is key. When you have that much radiation, even a small fraction getting through is a large amount.

  91. By my count by tekunokurato · · Score: 1

    By my count there are only eleven stars within ten light years of the sun... Sure, if one of them happened to experience the same sudden phenomenon we'd be screwed, but the poster makes it sounds like it's likely.

    1. Re:By my count by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      By my count there are only eleven stars within ten light years of the sun...

      Do we know where the nearest 20-km-diameter (or any other size) neutron stars are? How far away would such a star be detectable (BEFORE it explodes)?

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
  92. ISS? by bStrom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How did it affect the astronauts/cosmonauts on the ISS?

    --
    Try eMusic. DRM free, legal, MP3 downloads.
  93. Re:Excuse me but... by drxray · · Score: 1

    Google for light year, astronomical unit, divide the two and multiply by 10. You get 632396.7165

    1: is pretty good. Wrong in the last place.

    2: is wrong, and probably sarcasm

    3: is a factor of 10 out, plus some change

    4: is actually the closest, but gives the answer to 7 places when it's wrong in the fourth. So, it's more wrong than 1: i.e. it claims an accuracy of + or - 0.05, and is out by 32, that's a factor of 640. 1: (presumably, though it's not actually using standard form) claims + or - 500 and is 1396.7 out - a mere factor of 2.8

    Therefore, after some consideration (and in the anticipation of controversy), the drxray prize for accuracy in pointless calculation goes to Mr Anonymous Coward!*

    *unless someone's found a Mersenne Prime recently :)

    --
    Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
  94. Effect weather and satellites? by failedlogic · · Score: 1

    "... unleashing about 10,000 trillion trillion trillion watts"

    Wow! This event released a massive ammount of energy.

    With lesser "solar flares" from the Sun causing interference with radio signals and satellites, would this event also have cause disruptions? Also since it reached the atmosphere, did it also change the weather patterns?

    (Any signs of a look-alike of Harrison Ford and a hairy ape escaping in a space shuttle?)

    1. Re:Effect weather and satellites? by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      It might seem pedantic, but this is a silly error for a science article. Nowhere do they actually specify how much energy was released.

      "watts" is a measure of power - you need to multiply it by a duration to get "energy" (eg joules).

  95. Re:Excuse me but... by goon+america · · Score: 2, Informative

    You put the comma in the wrong place. So sayeth Google!

    http://www.google.com/search?q=astronomical+units+ per+light+year

    1 light year = 63 239.6717 Astronomical Units

  96. Bush and SETI by Punboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    George W. Bush is now working with SETI to negotiate the disarmament of SGR 1806-20's WME's (Weapons of Mass Extinction).

    --
    If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
  97. BBC now corrected the typo by Air-conditioned+cowh · · Score: 1

    I first saw this article yesterday and they had printed that if this magnetar was within 10 000, not 10, lightyears away then Earth would have suffered a mass extinction!

    Now, that would be worrying.

  98. Danger not past yet... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    Huge Star Quake Rocks Milky Way

    Everybody brace yourselves, make for darker ground if you can. We should all know by now that a huge star quake will probably generate a huge lightwave tsunami.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  99. Chtulhu ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was posted 20000 years ago , when the Great Old Ones ruled the earth .

  100. Quantify ??? by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    How can you quantify something you cannot measure????

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:Quantify ??? by mbrother · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How many piano tuners are there in Chicago? This is an example Fermi used to use. Yes, maybe you could go out and measure this, using the "job" field in tax returns, the yellow pages, etc., but you can also get an idea of the number by figuring out how many people live in Chicago. How many of those people on average have pianos? How often do they need tuning? How fast can they be tuned? You have a pretty good idea (or he did anyway) of the answers to those individual questions, you can put an estimate on the number without actually making a direct measurement. Some problems in science can be tackled this way, and it's a type of reasoning scientists ought to be able to use well.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    2. Re:Quantify ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How can you quantify something you cannot measure????

      You mean Dennis Kucinich's chances of being elected to any office other than dogcatcher in West Flatulence, IA?

    3. Re:Quantify ??? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Well, there's a fundamental difference between this example and Drake's.

      None of the variables in Fermi's example were unmeasurable, just tedious.

      Drake's has four (fl,fi,fc,fL) which cannot be measured.

      There is no "pretty good idea" as to what percentage of planets with life evolve intelligent life (fi).

      We have here a science fiction formula, no more.

  101. Yes but ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1

    ... but at that point the universe will have frozen from entropy. So the point is moot.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:Yes but ... by PacRim+Jim · · Score: 1

      Actually, I take back what I said. Local associations of galaxies will remain gravitationally bound, so they will not accelerate away from each other. The magnatar problem will remain. In fact, the energy pulses from several nearby neutron stars may be headed our way right now. Scotty...I need...those warp engines...now!

  102. Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least it's not a repost. :D
    --

    This space intentionally left blank

  103. FB!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The BBC is in Old Europe FB!!!

  104. Not Luke.. by carlmenezes · · Score: 1

    He was still in his trailer. That explosion was caused by some idiot trying to fly a Rebel battle cruiser for the first time. It left George Lucas with scorch marks on his ass.

    --
    Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
  105. There goes the Death Star... by SpaceTaxi · · Score: 1

    Somewhere, Ewoks are celebrating the destruction of the Galactic Empire

    1. Re:There goes the Death Star... by Ashtray+Heart · · Score: 0

      Don't be a dumbass. "Star Wars" happened "a long time ago..." - remember? It's an *historical drama*.

    2. Re:There goes the Death Star... by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      It also happened "in a galaxy far, far away" ;p

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    3. Re:There goes the Death Star... by Shin+Chan · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it take nearly 50000 years for the light to reach us in the first place? *wonders*

      --
      Proud owner of BOT2K3 [ bot2k3.net ]
  106. 10 lightyears... instead of 50,000. Do the maths by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 2, Informative
    as the article goes on to say that had the explosion been within 10 light years of us, it "would possibly have triggered a mass extinction.""
    Ok, let's look at a toymodel:

    Say the density of such stars is uniform in the galaxy. Then the frequency of such explosions within 10 ly from us should be something like

    (1/400) * (10/50000)^3

    if we assume that the frequency of these things within 50000ly is on the order of 400 years. That is... wait... *tiptiptip* 2*10^-14, i.e. once (or twice) in about 10 trillion years (the universe has an age of a few 10^9 years!).

    Well, the galaxy is more like a disc. So let's try the same with an exponent of 2 instead of 3. This gives 1*10^-10, still less then one of these "mass estinction" events in the age of the universe. Not much to fear here...
  107. yeah, so? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    So... If it occured within 10 light years, it might have caused a mass extinction. But it wasn't that close. It was 5,000 times that far away.

    So, in other words, it's about the same as a fly terminating in a frog's fart on the other side of the world.

    Meanwhile, there was a drive-by shooting 5 blocks from my house two weeks ago, a hostage situation with a woman armed with a knife two blocks from here this week, and the shooting and stabbing murders and a suicide just on the edge of town two days ago.

    Bookmark this in the "looking for relevance" section.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:yeah, so? by demmer · · Score: 0

      yay, its ignorance trolling day.

    2. Re:yeah, so? by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, there was a drive-by shooting 5 blocks from my house two weeks ago, a hostage situation with a woman armed with a knife two blocks from here this week, and the shooting and stabbing murders and a suicide just on the edge of town two days ago.

      If some people were to be aware of the wonders of the universe and their own self insignificance they would turn away from violence and seek greater ends. This sounds good, though it may be falser than you think. Perhaps the problem is cultural.

      Generic culture does not really encourage average people to invent or risk. Many inventors and researchers believe they are in a do-or-die mode and must achieve their ends with any means.

      The conclusion may be that the complexities of the universe just make people cranky.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    3. Re:yeah, so? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1


      If some people were to be aware of the wonders of the universe and their own self insignificance they would turn away from violence and seek greater ends.


      Why would they, exactly? Because the grandois nature of hte universe makes them realize there's a God? That's the only possible explanation for such a change in my mind. Otherwise, it would just make them feel small and insignificant, as if everything they do does indeed have no meaning, and thus they can do whatever the fuck they want.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    4. Re:yeah, so? by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      Why would they, exactly? Because the grandois nature of hte universe makes them realize there's a God?

      So they want to live up to the expectations of a higher power? Or they are motivated by love for a higher being?

      But why is God necessary? Amoebas living in a drop of tap water could realize their own insignficance and simply desire to live out their lives according to their own tastes, but a long time ago single-celled organisms banded together to form more powerful life forms capable of breaking away from their confines.

      We have minds that can contemplate infinity. All I'm saying is that this is a source of motivation.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  108. Insightful?!?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insightful???!!

    What kind of a seizure-ridden ape could have moderated this as Insifhtful?!??

  109. BBC News Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, the quality of BBC reporting seems to be going downhill lately. Probably because of trying to compete with big commercial satellite companies like BSkyB on their own terms; a big mistake for an organisation that has different strengths entirely. Luckily, they're doing good codec work and are (at least planning to) release much of their archives to the public, so their news isn't a big issue for me :)

  110. Watts of power by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > One calculation has the giant flare on SGR
    > 1806-20 unleashing about 10,000 trillion
    > trillion trillion watts.

    Bah! Superman could take it from one nanometer away!

    Thor would be easily fried, though.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  111. NASA needs to update it's 2002 article ... by ManyLostPackets · · Score: 1

    Guess this page needs to be updated eh?

    2002 headline "Scientists Measure the Most powerful Magnet Known"

  112. Red Dwarf Hypothesis by Hanzie · · Score: 1

    One of the working assumptions in the Red Dwarf books is that Earth is the only planet that developed intelligent life. (later series changed that, but it was explicitly stated in the first two books)

    Mabye we're the only intelligence life of the "techno" variety.

    Either that, or no technological society survives long after discovering fission.

    I'd assume that any Dyson sphere or ringworlds would be putting out quite a bit of electronic noise, and we'd hear about it. Mabye we will, when we start deploying antenna arrays hundreds of miles across in space.

    --
    ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
  113. It will soon be our turn! by Daath · · Score: 1

    It will soon be our turn! You know, it's because of the new inter-galactic highway they're building! It will be Earth's turn soon, so get your towels out! ;-)

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
  114. Raw reports of the burst by vrmlguy · · Score: 4, Informative
    http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/other/180620041227.gcn3

    This is a series of emails that discuss the burst. Interesting posts include the following:

    There were a series of small bursts observed before the big one, but no one seems to have realized that they were precursors until after the big one arrived. "During 21 December more than 30 SGR-like bursts were detected by Konus-Wind and Helicon-Coronas-F" satellites.

    The burst was detected by the Mars Odyssey spacecraft. "A very preliminary analysis indicates that the arrival time at Odyssey is indeed consistent with an arrival direction from SGR1806-20."

    There is also discussion of an Earth-orbiting satellite that did not have a direct view of the flare; however, it picked up a faint echo 7.70 seconds after everyone else saw it. "This value corresponds exactly to burst travelling time from the Wind to the Moon and back to the Coronas-F."

    Finally, serendipious observations were made by spacecraft whose primary mission is solar observation. "The SGR was 5 degrees from RHESSI's pointing axis which was directed toward the Sun."

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  115. Classical vs. Quantum physics... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Ok, so this is a neutron star, but it has got to have other stuff in it, right? I mean, a spinning neutron star can't have a magnetic field, right? There are no charged particles moving around... there's no charge, period, right?

    Or is it some quantum physics thing that lets neutrons have a magnetic field if they're dense enough..

    Anyone care to weigh in? I'm just curious about this...

    1. Re:Classical vs. Quantum physics... by man_ls · · Score: 3, Informative

      My understanding is, at the densities we're talking about, the force of gravity is stronger than the nuclear forces of the atoms -- you get funny things like electron orbits being heavily deformed.

      A spinning neutron star that's charged on one side more than another due to gravity pulling electrons around, would induce a magnetic field. Probably a damn strong one too, seeing the forces involved.

    2. Re:Classical vs. Quantum physics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neutrons have a magnetic moment, regardless of their density.

    3. Re:Classical vs. Quantum physics... by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      Neutron stars generally have huge magnetic fields. The neutron liquid which makes up the star has small numbers of protons on electrons in it. These move very freely (I think it's a superfluid, so actually frictionless), and so conduct electricity very easily.

      The type of star considered likely to be respnsible for SGRs has an even huger magnetic field, possibly created by a "dynamo" effect similar to that responsible for the Earth's magnetic field which operated during the first 10 seconds or so of the neutron star's life. A google search on magnetar finds several excellent articles.

  116. If we had known...could I have seen it? by Danathar · · Score: 1

    Just curious, was it visable to the naked eye? Could we have seen it if we had known before hand?

    1. Re:If we had known...could I have seen it? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I'm more curious as to how it "rocked the Milky Way".

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  117. Re:Faintly heard by SETI afterwards .. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    "Ah there we go! Nothing like a good campfire when roughing it in the wilderness."

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  118. Super Giant race plays with "atomic bombs" by $1uck · · Score: 1

    So yeah... what if its really some incredibly huge race of beings, discovering fission(or fusion) on some huge level? or what if its Us? What if the universe is cyclic upon itself? what if our atoms are really stars, or our galaxy is a quark inside of an atom somewhere on earth? Really were just witnessing the effects locally and galactically. Ok, really need to keep the psychedelics away from hte scifi nerds away from the physics people.

  119. What I want to know is . . . by dheltzel · · Score: 1

    how are they going to blame this on "Global Warming" ?

  120. Moon base by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

    It's amazing that we were affected 50,000 light years away. I wonder how much damage could have occured to humans on the moon; i.e. radiation exposure, physical damage to structures. Ever more amazing was we could have been killed if the Magnatar was closer, "only" 10 light years away.

    Wouldn't you love to be flying around in a spaceship and have that Magnatar blast a couple of trillion, trillion, trillion watts of energy at you? This would certainly eliminate most life in the area, as someone mentioned earlier, no worries about aliens from that section of the Galaxy!

    Maybe the Goa'uld caused the explosion, trying to kill the members of SG-1?! :P

  121. That's what all the psychopathic tyrants say. by ccmay · · Score: 1
    I said "humanity", not specific humans.

    Boy, are you in good company.

    • "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic." --Stalin

    Did you ever wonder why the Left is so thoroughly marginalized, and why the average person scoffs at ecological alarmism? Look in the mirror.

    -ccm

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
    1. Re:That's what all the psychopathic tyrants say. by metamatic · · Score: 1

      The problem is, he's right.

      If one person I know dies, it's a tragedy.

      When 10,000 people I've never heard of die in a Tsunami, it's not 10,000x as heartbreaking. It's not even 1x as heartbreaking. Grief is not linear.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  122. Lick Observatory by Heisenbug · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess I've observed there too many times for such a joke to be funny.

    Especially when there's so many better jokes. Like, did you ever come out in the winter to see some guy with his tongue stuck to the sign, going "I thought they were inthructionth!"

    You also don't mention what the road to Lick is paved with. Somehow I doubt it's good intentions.

  123. The meaning of "IF" by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    "pointless and misleading...meaningless context" - Putting it into the context of our home planet emphasises the POINT that it has awesome power without changing the MEANING of what Rob Fender was saying (ie: it's not healthy to be anywhere near a magnatar while it is rearranging it's magnetic field). In other words TFA said "If.." and that can only be misleading to a reader with either a "wet blanket" attitude or a total lack of imagination.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  124. Not within the last 400 years... by Sir_Real · · Score: 1

    We haven't been able to detect gamma/x-rays for the last 400 years. The 300 years prior to this last century could've been endemic with magnetar quakes and we'd never know it. Might as well claim that it's the largest in human history.

    EDIT!!

  125. Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That happened 50,000 years ago.

  126. The End? by behindspace · · Score: 1

    hmmm... Maybe it would have been better if it were closer, it would have stopped microsoft...

  127. A scary theory by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Briefly, I think it is quite probable that the characteristics that allow a species to become dominant and develop advanced technology ensure the species' destruction once the technology becomes sufficiently advanced.

    A short post cannot contain much detail. As far as humans are concerned we see

    • A period of struggle for survival. During this period, gradual development of some basic technologies helped. However, a willingness to band together in groups and fight and kill or enslave humans in other groups (as well as animals) to gain access to critical resources was probably most important.
    • To ensure cohesion of an individual group and optimise its effectiveness as a fighting force, dominant leaders who could dicate to the rest of the group were necessary. As a practical matter, the leader was normally an individual who was single minded in his pursuit of power and totally amoral in the methods used to achieve it. This was combined with more positive strengths such as physical prowess and general intelligence to allow him (usually, occasionally her) to win and maintain his position.
    • Once technology reached a certain point, both
      1. the instinct to band together in groups and seek conflict with other groups, and
      2. the tendency to allow amoral, power-mad individuals to gain leadership of the groups
      became counter productive. However, they are built into our genetic makeup and few would be willing to even consider genetic engineering to eliminate these traits.
    • Technology tends to develop at an exponential rate. While initial developments occurred over a very long time period, once technology reaches a certain level, progress becomes very rapid. There is insufficient time for scientists to educate the population as whole as to the dangers of new technologies before the amoral leaders have already started misusing them.
    • It is inevitable that power crazed individuals, eventually possessing enormous power, will clash with each other: destroying the rest of us in the process. There is no way of predicting how the end will come, but quite likely in a totally different way to that any of us currently imagine -- and I guess it might happen in less than 50 years.
  128. So Halo is true? by wfolta · · Score: 1

    It's hidden behind a government conspiracy, but I know the truth. These so-called "magnetars" are in fact Halo rings. We're just darn lucky that the one we witnessed malfunctioned and did not trigger all the others in the galaxy.

  129. Intense EM field? by CptnKirk · · Score: 1

    Dumb question but how can a star made up entirely of nutrons (particals without charge) have a strong magnetic field? Something to do with spin?

    1. Re:Intense EM field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neutrons don't have to be charged to have a magnetic moment. Their magnetic moment is about 70% that of protons.

  130. were doomed, head for the caves by POds · · Score: 1

    Maybe this explosion still will cause mass extinction? Maybe we just have to wait another 50,000 years or more likely longer? :) Keep your eyes on the sky!

    --


    Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
  131. Re:Moon base/ISS by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

    It's amazing that we were affected 50,000 light years away. I wonder how much damage could have occured to humans on the moon; i.e. radiation exposure, physical damage to structures.

    Aren't there still a couple of people on the International Space Station? I imaging it's protected from most such radiation by the Van Allen belt, but I'd still worry.

    Wouldn't you love to be flying around in a spaceship and have that Magnatar blast a couple of trillion, trillion, trillion watts of energy at you? This would certainly eliminate most life in the area, as someone mentioned earlier, no worries about aliens from that section of the Galaxy!

    Robert. L. Forward's stories Dragon's Egg and Starquake discuss life evolvong on a neutron star (okay, it's not hydrocarbon based), as well as [relative to this] very 'minor' quake. I found them a really fun read.

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
  132. Ummm, wrong about mitochondria there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Mitochondria contain DNA for one, they are basically full blown prokaryotic organisms, very similar to extant species of aerobic microbes.

  133. Re:Excuse me but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pet peeve: saying "QED" is redundant if you have already stated a conclusion.

  134. Classify this one! by prjames · · Score: 1

    20km across. Is this a star, a planet or an asteroid?

  135. Re:Excuse me but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a stab in the dark, but....I'll bet you spend a lot of time washing your hands.

  136. Bubble Bus Starquake by paj1234 · · Score: 1

    Oh, come on, folks. This just means someone playing the classic Starquake game on the other side of the galaxy lost and their Sinclair ZX Spectrum took the plot a bit too literally.

    "Starquake from Bubble Bus sees the return of Steve Crow, programmer of the much acclaimed Wizard's Lair. Starquake revolves around a small Bio-Logically operated being named Blob, who's been landed with the menial task of saving the universe from a savage destruction.

    An unstable and potentially dangerous planet is emerging from a black hole somewhere among the backwaters of the galaxy. The planet is so unstable that it'll blow into a million fragments if its Planetary Core isn't fixed."

    http://www.crashonline.org.uk/22/starquke.htm

  137. "could have"? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Gee, the comments I skimmed were *awfully* thin....

    Folks, it this happened 10 ly away, you not only would not be reading about this on any media, since it would *all* be toast, but by now most of us would be rotting corpses...assuming that even bacteria were still alive above, say, 30 meters undersea.

    mark "medium toast, please"

  138. did the dinosaurs witness it .. ever? by middlemen · · Score: 1

    hey maybe this is why the dinosaurs r extinct...

  139. Statistical sampling ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    If you can sample, you can get a good idea of density. But we cannot sample because we have not identified a SINGLE earth-like planet (distance from sun and water) outside our solar system.

    Perhaps the proposed space inferometer will change the equation and we will be eventually be able to map our galactic "neighborhood". Even then, you have to take into account the probability for life existing and that life becoming intelligent. And that really cannot be measured without a profoundly more sophisticated brand of technology.

    The Drake equation is junk science. It has ZERO practical application to the world. We'll know if aliens exist the day they come to take over the earth ;-)

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:Statistical sampling ... by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      The Drake equation is junk science. It has ZERO practical application to the world.

      Yes and no.

      Yes because it is not falsifiable. How do you prove the Drake equation wrong? How can you perform tests that will either confirm it or fail to confirm it?

      No because it is an one practical application: it is an EXCELLENT example of well-accepted junk science.

  140. This assumes ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    This assumes that a habitabal planet will be found FARTHER away from an energy burst.

    You'd be far better off digging a deep whole bunker and stocking it with: food, water, and fuel (nuclear if possible). A cryogenic zoo would also be helpful.

    Every time the Trek-heads see justification for outrageous space exploration appropriations, I see justification for Tunnel Boring Machines. Dollar for Dollar ... you'll save a LOT more people.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:This assumes ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see justification for Tunnel Boring Machines.

      What a boring machine.

  141. In that case.... by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

    RUN, COWARD!

    Pity you didn't post as an AC :)

    --
    --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
  142. bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how long before bush uses this as an excuse to invade iran? there is certainly as much connection between this magnastar explosion and iran as there was between iraq and 9/11.

  143. Michael Moore, stop farting! by Retired+Replicant · · Score: 1

    You're endangering the galaxy.

    1. Re:Michael Moore, stop farting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sense of humour (rather, your lack of it) is endangering life as we know it. Please, earn a Darwin Award, and die.

  144. MSNBC buried the headline... by Coming+soon! · · Score: 1

    "The star, named SGR 1806-20, spins once on its axis every 7.5 seconds, and it is surrounded by a magnetic field more powerful than any other object in the universe." Looks like they buried the headline, the entire universe has been mapped and we now know the upper limit for a magnetic field...

  145. considered.. by GonerDoug · · Score: 1

    Has anyone double-checked the timing on this to see if the energy that hit us coincided with the earthquake that caused the tsunamis? Mass-extinction, indeed...

  146. Sensationalism... by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

    Let's face it, without all the sensational conjecture science is "boring".

    It needs to be sexed-up for public consumption.

  147. Just once I'd like to see... by Vandil+X · · Score: 1

    Just once, I'd like to see a space explosion with a "Praxis wave" flying out.

    I know this particular blast was invisible to the human eye, but man, if it were visible, it probably would have been pretty sweet to see.

    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
  148. Mod Parent Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think parent deserves 5 karma-points for copying the same old joke from today:

    http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1399 53 &threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=160&mode=thread&cid =11720374

    1. Re:Mod Parent Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That link IS the parent post you idiot. You are reading the first thread, not the second one.

  149. Nothing just "appeared" by Namarrgon · · Score: 1
    A superior mind, or ~1,500,000,000 years of random combinations of chemicals might also eventually result in something self-organising (simpler than a cell). Hard to disprove either theory.

    My problem with the superior mind hypothesis is, how did the superior mind originate? Did it just "appear" one day itself?

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    1. Re:Nothing just "appeared" by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...how did the superior mind originate?...

      To do true science, it is totally unneccessary to answer that question. That is the realm of religion and faith. Science tries to figure out how this world works, not who originated it. Science cannot answer that question. We would very much like to know how this world originated, but that is a question that science cannot probe. Science can tell us that there was a beginning, but nothing about what there was before that "beginning". That is in the realm of faith and religion. There are many religious theories, but science cannot prove or disprove those.

      The mathematical definition of "random" does not exist in the physical world; neither do the mathematical constructs of nothing (zero) and infinity. Even so called empty space is not a nothing but has definite electrical and magentic properties.

      --
      All theory is gray
    2. Re:Nothing just "appeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To do true science, it is totally unneccessary to answer that question.

      That's true. But to do science involving a designer, you have to be able to scientifically study something about the designer and how the designer works, not merely claim that things in the universe "must have been designed".

      We would very much like to know how this world originated, but that is a question that science cannot probe.

      Maybe it can, maybe it can't.
  150. December 27,2005... by peeon · · Score: 1

    One day after the tsunami hit...eery. A sign, even though it happened 50,000 light years away?

    1. Re:December 27,2005... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  151. Krypton and farm living by newpath4comVersion2 · · Score: 1

    All the more reason for someone to buy my engine theory. http://www.newpath4.com/forsalespacecraftenginecon stantpowertheory.htm . Once all our cars have interstellar capability we can all just drive away. Or, in the case of earthquake activity or a tsunami, raise above the ground floor til the arrow passes. Beats th heck out of one child becoming Clark Kent.

  152. With our luck... by Cyhawkalewagee · · Score: 1
    [offtopic]

    "..within 10 light years of us, it "would possibly have triggered a mass extinction.""

    Course if some people had their way, it would only hit us blue states =(

    [/offtopic]

  153. Just in Time Too by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    the sky becomes opaque

    Concurrently we'll have eliminated our ozone so we'll need the extra sunblock.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  154. World:Alien Deth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we're al; doomed

  155. Re:Excuse me but... by shanen · · Score: 1
    Well, he says "from us", so maybe he's posting from Alpha Centauri. Of course in that case, he apparently has a faster-than-the-speed-of-light Internet connection, or his message would have been dated at least 3 years ago.

    Must be one of those phase-inverted tachyon thingamajiggers.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  156. Re:Excuse me but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Always a metamod, never a moderator (but once).

    Maybe thats because of your freakin unbalanced parenthesis, retard

  157. Re:Excuse me but... by aneroid · · Score: 1
    10 light years = 632,396.717 Astronomical Units

    which would be better understood by all if they knew that 1 au (Astronomical Unit) is the approx distance between the earth and the sun (approximately 150 million km or 93 million miles).

    so 10 light yrs is 632,396.717 times the distance between the earth and the sun.

    Correction: 6.57x10^5 times (above by Ced_Ex) is 657,000 times.

    so that's more than 600,000 au (or more than 600,000 times the dist. between...)

    i doubt most ppl have an idea of how far that is. not to make it any clearer, here are some other distances ppl would have little idea of, to compare:
    • Proxima Centauri (the nearest star) is ~268,000 AU away from the Sun
    • As of February 2005, Voyager 1 (the farthest human-made object) is 94 AU from the Sun. (no chance of surviving the quake if 10 light yrs away)
    • The mean diameter of the Solar system, including the Oort cloud, is ~100,000 AU.
    • the Oort cloud is approximately 1000 times the distance from the Sun to Pluto.