Slashdot Mirror


Near-Perfect Einstein Ring Discovered

Fraser Cain writes "Universe Today is reporting on the discovery of a nearly perfect Einstein Ring; a gravitational lens of a nearby galaxy working as a natural telescope to focus the light from a more distant galaxy. Gravitational lenses have been seen many times before, but never so complete, with a close lensing galaxy and a distant magnified galaxy."

205 comments

  1. A fitting discovery for Einstein's year by kkumer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, this is a nice discovery to celebrate the 100 years of the Einstein's miraculous year and 50 years since the guy passed away.

    1. Re:A fitting discovery for Einstein's year by dawnread · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's been dead 50 years and they only just found his ring?

    2. Re:A fitting discovery for Einstein's year by stevey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well just look at other famous figures who've lost their rings for precedent.

      Sauron lost his ring for a whole age, so in comparison this was quite a quick job!

    3. Re:A fitting discovery for Einstein's year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is it the One Ring, or one of the lesser ones?

    4. Re:A fitting discovery for Einstein's year by Poeir · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's a tenth as long as it took to find Sauron's.

      --
      Sigs are like bumper stickers.
    5. Re:A fitting discovery for Einstein's year by Mozk · · Score: 1

      I sometimes wonder if everybody who visits Slashdot is a geek. There are two comments here about a LOTR characters and his missing ring.

      --
      No existe.
    6. Re:A fitting discovery for Einstein's year by quanticle · · Score: 1

      If you're not a geek, what are you doing at Slashdot?

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    7. Re:A fitting discovery for Einstein's year by LPetrazickis · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was going to say 'Ah, this is obviously some strange use of the word "historical" that I wasn't previously aware of.' but then realized that you did actually use the word "historical" to describe Sauron. Ooops.:P

      --
      Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  2. Hmmm..... by Punboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    See, now they have a really good reason to get up there and maintain Hubble. I mean seriously, what better reason than to focus hubble on that Einstein ring and get a very upclose view of a distant galaxy

    --
    If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
    1. Re:Hmmm..... by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 2, Funny

      See, now they have a really good reason to get up there and maintain Hubble. I mean seriously, what better reason than to focus hubble on that Einstein ring and get a very upclose view of a distant galaxy

      What if we see people dressed in white and dancing amongst the clouds?

      *imagines*

      OMG! The righties will eat us alive! I'd say we blow up Hubble right now!

    2. Re:Hmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I still say instead of fixing Hubble, we spend the money on a new Hubble. Just like it just doesn't pay to fix a lot of items on Earth, the delivery charges for new parts for satellites are way too high.

    3. Re:Hmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're going to have more powerful ground based (and therefore maintainable) telescopes very soon. A more important science project to keep alive is the Voyagers. It has taken decades to get them where they are, and the deviation of their trajectories from the predicted trajectories is very valuable to get an idea of the dark matter present in our own solar system.


      The information available from tracking them, can only be obtained again after more decades of having launched a probe, and it is therefore less easily replaceable.

    4. Re:Hmmm..... by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was thinking about those the other day. Personally, I have not understood why GWB's henchman are cutting these little ones. I was thinking that they, like hubble, can be replaced by superior sats. In fact, if we finally get the nuclear power going for remote sats, that we can have something past the voyagers in under a decade and with better instruments.
      But then I think about how little the voy. program costs us ( less than a couple million / year total ). Considering that our current deficit is out of sight, I seriously doubt that it will launch the replacements for voys as they cost 1 BILLION each back in the 70s. If we used ion engines, laser transmission, nuke engines, etc., these baby are going to cost 5 billion for a single launch. Not going to happen anytime soon. So best to keep the voys going until they are gone.

      As to the hubble, well, there is an new appointee coming who does understand the science.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Hmmm..... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Personally, I have not understood why GWB's henchman are cutting these little ones.

      So they can buy more bombs.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Hmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      So they can buy more bombs.

      Please. Liberation devices.

    7. Re:Hmmm..... by b-baggins · · Score: 0

      GWB's henchman are cutting these little ones.

      Yep. GWB sent his goons down to NASA and told the administrators: Now, we don't care that we write you a check each year. You really can't spend it on whatever you want. You have to cut the Voyager program.

      Sheesh.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    8. Re:Hmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they can buy more bombs.

      Please. Liberation devices.


      Freedom bombs. Because everybody loves "The Freedom."

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

      The residents of any country should be proud to be bombed by the U.S. government!

    10. Re:Hmmm..... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 3, Insightful
      A more important science project to keep alive is the Voyagers. It has taken decades to get them where they are, and the deviation of their trajectories from the predicted trajectories is very valuable to get an idea of the dark matter present in our own solar system.

      If that is the cause of the deviation. The dark matter thing is a wild guess there.

    11. Re:Hmmm..... by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Please sign the petition against discrimination of WMD.

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

      (Score:2, Insightful)

      I wish you could metamod something as "Funny"...

    13. Re:Hmmm..... by Gulthek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have not understood why GWB's henchman are cutting these little ones

      FUD. As poor a President that GW is, laying Voyager on his Resolute Desk isn't fair. NASA is trying to use the Voyager program as leverage to reduce their proposed budget cuts.

      Essentially GW's budget includes a NASA funding cut. NASA says that if the budget goes through as it is, then it will be forced to cut funding to maintaining Voyager and other fun science projects.

      As I see it, their hope is that those in Washington will balk at potentially losing a famous project from their generation.

    14. Re:Hmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In writing this article I learned that Remi Cabanac - the discovering astronomer - has request HST time to better resolve the Einstein Ring and gain invaluable spectroscopic info. I asked him why he needed such a small scope when he had the 8m VLT available. Apparently the VLT is not fit with adapative optics which means sky conditions (limited to about .5 arcsec resolution 1/3rd the size of the ring) prevents getting a good look at it.

      Let's hope we get n image from the HST before it turns into a non-functional memorial in space!

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

      Cutting the Voyagers is O'Keefe's work, who is GW's man ( a political appointee, as opposed to a real empoyee ). And you can bet that he does not do much without GWB's approval.

      It may be a tactic to try and get sympthy, or it may not. Hard to say, but this could backfire badly. Losing them would be insane.

    16. Re:Hmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the image credits, the picture comes from the VLT http://www.eso.org/paranal//. I'm not sure Hubble can compete with its resolution.

  3. Bright boy by leonbrooks · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Havaing a look at Einstein's other interests is a worthwhile exercise too.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Bright boy by nandu_prahlad · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean like his womanizing? ;-)

    2. Re:Bright boy by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, I think being the father of Quantum Mechanics entitles one to a little booty every now and again.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    3. Re:Bright boy by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that title go to Planck ?

    4. Re:Bright boy by supmylO · · Score: 1

      From what I've read the 'chance' involved in Quantum Mechanics always gave Einstein a bad feeling in his gut. He tried to develop many experiments to disprove QM because he didn't want to accept the probability of it, and thought it incomplete.

      So I don't know how much he is the father of it...

    5. Re:Bright boy by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      hold this. here's some bread.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    6. Re:Bright boy by peculiarmethod · · Score: 1

      "spooky science" and "I can't believe that God throws dice"..

      yup.. the guy liked nice, fit, logical equations..

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    7. Re:Bright boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Einstein did some pioneering work in quantum mechanics. His name is on some of the most important ideas in quantum theory, namely Einstein-Podolski-Rosen (EPR) pairs, which are valuable examples of entanglement and have several useful applications, and Bose-Einstein condensates, the principle behind superconduction and superfluidity, whose applications have not yet been fully explored.

      Don't slight his contribution to quantum physics.

    8. Re:Bright boy by mbrother · · Score: 1

      His EPR paper (which I have read) is a thought experiment designed to discredit quantum mechanics. I think he would have been annoyed that the experiments validate the "spooky action at a distance" that he found nonintuitive.

      His 1905 paper on the photo-electric effect, and the idea that light energy is quantized, is indeed pioneering work in quantum mechanics. Also his work on radiative transition probabilites from discrete energy states, is a huge contribution to quantum mechanics and in part the basis for lasers.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    9. Re:Bright boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, those girls are like 14.

      And not that attractive. :P

  4. It can't be long now that we discovered the Vorgon by expro · · Score: 4, Funny

    It can't be long now that we noticed the lens of the Vorgon sighting device. Are you sure those are galaxies on the other side, and not the twinkling of a charging energy device of a demolition crew?

  5. IF we can see them better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we can see that universe better, the opposite is true, they can see us better.

    That being said, I want to be the first to welcome our new voyeuristic overlords.

    1. Re:IF we can see them better... by planetoid · · Score: 1, Funny

      Somewhere out there, some alien creature out there has a penis shaped just right that it can use a Toblerone box for a condom. And his alien girlfriend has pyramids for breasts.

      Let's hurry up with this intergalactic space exploration already!

      --
      Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
    2. Re:IF we can see them better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever looked into the wrong side of binoculars? Have you tried looking into an apartment through the door spyhole? Your statement reveals an intelligence similar to that of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.

    3. Re:IF we can see them better... by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Come on, insightful? For a fortune cookie slogan?

      And no, they cant see us better, because the light from our direction that is visible in the target galaxy is from a time where out sun didnt exist.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    4. Re:IF we can see them better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What an idiot.

    5. Re:IF we can see them better... by Ethelbert · · Score: 1

      Regardless of whether or not your if-then is correct, I enjoyed (i.e. got) your "first to welcome" line. And who knows, it could be ants on the other side of the lens.

      Hmm. Do ant-eyes work like inverse binoculars?

      Thanks for the smile.
    6. Re:IF we can see them better... by b-baggins · · Score: 0

      The lens is more than 4 billion light years away?

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    7. Re:IF we can see them better... by zkn · · Score: 1

      So if i'm standing lets say 10km away from you looking trough binoculars would we have a equaly clear view of each other?

    8. Re:IF we can see them better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it's not binoculars, its one big huge lens in between you.

      Which means you can both look through it.

    9. Re:IF we can see them better... by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Read the friggin article. It's 7 billion LY away.

    10. Re:IF we can see them better... by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      He didn't say that galaxy, he said that side of the universe. Light from the earth, headed for that lens (wherever the lens is now, if it's sill in a similar orientation) might be picked up by some other galaxy that happens to be drifting by the other side of it in 11 billion years or so.

    11. Re:IF we can see them better... by omega_cubed · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is NOT true. Ever picked up a telescope? Just because you can see that bird 500 yards away nesting on its little twig doesn't mean that it can see you just as well.

      --
      Engineers also speak PDE, only in a different dialect.
    12. Re:IF we can see them better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's quite a big difference between a universe and a galaxy.

    13. Re:IF we can see them better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we can see that universe better, the opposite is true, they can see us better.

      The grass is always greener on the other side of the gravatational lense.

    14. Re:IF we can see them better... by mbrother · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind the speed of light. We see this object in the early universe. If anyone there is looking in this direction, they see the very young Milky Way before our sun was even formed.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    15. Re:IF we can see them better... by b-baggins · · Score: 0

      Why when I can get such a nice, considerate and polite answer from upstanding people like you?

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
  6. Get the paper here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Get the paper here by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      I red the paper but I did not understand it. Must have been written in elvish.

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  7. Re:It can't be long now that we discovered the Vor by longbot · · Score: 1, Redundant

    You mean Vogons, don't you?

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! --Longbottle
  8. Re:It can't be long now that we discovered the Vor by OneDeeTenTee · · Score: 1

    It can't be long now that we noticed the lens of the Vorgon sighting device. Are you sure those are galaxies on the other side, and not the twinkling of a charging energy device of a demolition crew?

    What's a Vorgon?

    --
    Stop the world; I need to get off.
  9. Twisted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    My mind has become twisted during the years spent on the internet. Whenever I see the word "Ring" I instantly think of the goatse.

    Surely you realize what a showstopper this is, should I ever want to get married?

    1. Re:Twisted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Surely you realize what a showstopper this is, should I ever want to get married?
      No. The male and female reproductive organs function in a manner blatantly obvious to the casual observer.
      The fact that other, novel, arrangements exist, while undeniable, is unspeakable, and beneath manhood.
      Focus: wise.
      Shun: foolish.
      Tolerate and enjoy people; eschew fruitless ideas.
  10. IF we can see them better...The Honey Moon-ers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "If we can see that universe better, the opposite is true, they can see us better."

    Well humans being the rascals they are, will simply moon them.

  11. Re:It can't be long now that we discovered the Vor by Myrmi · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's a Vorgon

    When you have five apple and you eat all but one, you have Vorgon.

    --
    "I think everyone is an agnostic but just doesn't know" - Frazz
  12. What? by Lipsius · · Score: 0, Troll

    Einstein? Who's that? Don't you mean Stephen Hawking?
    You know, the guy that discovered black holes...

    1. Re:What? by imsabbel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Moron.

      FYI: Black holes were predicted (in rough sketches) in the 19th century, and the exact formulations were made by Schwarzschild 1917 (iirc) after recieving word of Einsteins publications.

      You may have heard Hawking and black holes mentioned to gether, but this is only about hawking radiation (which still hasnt been verified (although it is very likely)).

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey moron,
      Stephen Hawking didn't discover black holes.
      Black holes were inferred from Einstein's General Relativity theory by Einstein and Schwarzschild

      Hawking didn't start working on black holes until 1967.

    3. Re:What? by planetoid · · Score: 0

      You're right.

      Hawking didn't discover black holes.

      He invented them.

      --
      Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
    4. Re:What? by Skiron · · Score: 1

      Recieving...

      Remember, I before E after C, except when it isn't.

    5. Re:What? by kristopher · · Score: 1

      Dude, don't have an Hawking Asplosion!

    6. Re:What? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 4, Informative
      Here's what Hawking himself writes:

      The term black hole is of very recent origin. It was coined in 1969 by the American scientist John Wheeler as a graphic
      description of an idea that goes back at least two hundred years, to a time when there were two theories about light:
      one, which Newton favored, was that it was composed of particles; the other was that it was made of waves.
      [...]
      John Michell, wrote a paper in 1783 in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London in which he pointed out that a star that was sufficiently massive and compact would have such a strong gravitational field that light could not escape: any light emitted from the surface of the star would be dragged back by the star's gravitational attraction before it could get very far.


      Stephen Hawking - A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: Black Holes.
    7. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And the Brittis Empire funded the construction of black holes to be used as weapons. Alas, the breakdown of the Empire happened before they black holes could be used. Oh well, better luck next time.

      -- Dillon Schnetter, Historian Royal

    8. Re:What? by FhnuZoag · · Score: 0

      1983, surely. In 1783, they didn't even know what light was. In any case, cosmic astrophysics is pretty much based entirely on Einstein's papers on General Relativity. The 'discovery' of the black hole is simply rereading his theories to find new consequences. The black hole concept was found by Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.

    9. Re:What? by tootlemonde · · Score: 1

      John Michell, wrote a paper in 1783 in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London...

      Michell's reasoning was interesting, as explained here:

      The fact that the speed of light is finite was known in 1696 and a close approximation of the speed was determined in 1728. Newton had devised a formula for the escape velocity for an object from a planet based on the mass of the object and the planet.

      Michell then imagined a sun so large that its escape velocity would be greater than the speed of light.

      However, Michell's speculation depended on light being a particle. When the wave theory of light become popular, it was assumed that light would not be affected by gravity.

      The idea proposed by Einstein in 1915 that matter curves space and thus affects the path of light confirmed Michell's speculation in a way Michell could not have imagined.

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

      ANGER PROBLEM!!! Someone is a moron because he doesn't know who discovered the concept of black holes?

    11. Re: What? by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

      Weird

    12. Re:What? by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

      Recieving...

      Remember, I before E after C, except when it isn't.


      I always thought it was "I before E except after C"

  13. Improbable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the heart of gold is somewhere around here, thats much to improbobalbe that we would find something like this...

    1. Re:Improbable by KDR_11k · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Well, during the jump the Heart of Gold is in fact everywhere so it doesn't surprise me that it's near Earth.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  14. Einstein's ring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Today in science, experts focus on Einstein's gigantic ring to see what they can find.

    Scientists report their need to explore the depth of the dark matter in Einstein's ring sometimes called Einstein's black hole.

    "In the interests of space science, we need to plunge into the ring and extract the hidden dark matter" said one scientist from NASA's space laboratory.

    "Soon we anticipate manned explorations inside the ring that will explain the enormous amounts of strange gas and dark matter inside. We are very excited about this" concluded NASA officials.

  15. Einstein's genius by fallendove · · Score: 1, Interesting

    With all the miraculous things he did for the world in the realm of science, one wonders what we'd have if he'd devoted his mind to politics, or computers.

    1. Re:Einstein's genius by Shard013 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They had computers in the early 1900's?

    2. Re:Einstein's genius by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Insightful
      With all the miraculous things he did for the world in the realm of science, one wonders what we'd have if he'd devoted his mind to politics, or computers.

      Something a lot less worthwhile?

    3. Re:Einstein's genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he should've been an athlete.

    4. Re:Einstein's genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a porn star

    5. Re:Einstein's genius by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With all the miraculous things he did for the world in the realm of science, one wonders what we'd have if he'd devoted his mind to politics, or computers.

      Politics: Not that much. At best, we'd have no nuclear bombs and another dead jew in Germany. (Or, at most, we might have entered WWII earlier, but with no A-bomb we'd still be fighting it...)

      Computers: Diddly. Einstein's genius was seeing the correlation between things, not the minutae of math. He would have sucked at the personnal computer.

    6. Re:Einstein's genius by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Something a lot less worthwhile?

      Meh, that's actually something he was quoted on! "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber". I think it was refering to his work that essentially gave the world the nuke.

    7. Re:Einstein's genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all the miraculous things he did for the world in the realm of science, one wonders what we'd have if he'd devoted his mind to politics, or computers.

      Or, more importantly, baking pastry. Just think, an "Einstein Ring" could be a fantastic type of doughnut!

    8. Re:Einstein's genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:Einstein's genius by r4bb1t · · Score: 1

      I take it you haven't read any of the "Why War" correspondence between Einstein and Freud (can be found here), though most of what is there is part of Freud's letters. "Not that much" is really lowballing it.

    10. Re:Einstein's genius by saskboy · · Score: 1

      " They had computers in the early 1900's?"

      I know you meant that as a joke, but maybe we didn't have digital ones, because Einstein didn't focus enough of his life on computers, and instead opted to spend time on courting women, with his gi-normous hair.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    11. Re:Einstein's genius by danila · · Score: 1
      With all the miraculous things he did for the world in the realm of science, one wonders what we'd have if he'd devoted his mind to politics, or computers.

      Actually, you make a good point. From Einstein's "Why Socialism?":

      "The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor--not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules...

      The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists... Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights... This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism.

      I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    12. Re:Einstein's genius by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      iirc it was watchmaker not plumber

      don't have an exact copy of the quote handy though

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    13. Re:Einstein's genius by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      "Not that much" is really lowballing it.

      Clarify of political vision does not equate with political effectiveness.

      More to the point, by showing that Einstein *was* concerned with poltics you only prove my point--that if he had devoted himself to politics, he would not have had that much more of an effect than he did.

      The fact of the matter is that we *had* a means by which to prevent war. And then it failed, and so we tried it again--and while the UN has prevented WWIII, it hasn't "prevented war" by anyone's measure.

      Neither Einstein nor Freud had sufficient understanding of the human species to do this. I'm not sure that anyone did, but I am rather sure that if both of these men had spent their entire lives working towards this one direct end, we wouldn't be any closer than we are today.

      (And while I'm on that point, Einstein's involvement in the atom bomb *did* help end war...)

    14. Re:Einstein's genius by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      iirc it was watchmaker not plumber

      He said several different variations. He was around at the right time for the explosion of media, so he's quoted a lot, and much of it's the same as the other stuff! :-)

  16. Blackhole sucking in Slashdot comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Recently a tiny blackhole was discovered near ./ server room. It causes most of astronomically related comments to vanish into another dimention.

    As a proof, I show you 34 comments in about 90 minutes. There's simply no other reasonable explanation for this phenomenon, but I'm currently using a galaxy telescope to conduct further investigation.

    1. Re:Blackhole sucking in Slashdot comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even first posts travelling at the speed of light can not escape this monster!

    2. Re:Blackhole sucking in Slashdot comments by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Recently a tiny blackhole was discovered near ./ server room. It causes most of astronomically related comments to vanish into another dimention.

      You spelled "dementia" wrong.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    3. Re:Blackhole sucking in Slashdot comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you spelled "dimension" incorrectly.

    4. Re:Blackhole sucking in Slashdot comments by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      and you spelled "dimension" incorrectly.

      It was a joke. You see, I riffed off his misspelling of "dimension" bearing a similarity to the word "dementia". Now that I've had to explain the joke, it's totally ruined. Thanks.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    5. Re:Blackhole sucking in Slashdot comments by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

      Recently a tiny blackhole was discovered near ./ server room.

      Is ./ the antimatter version of /. ?

  17. I can't think of the punch line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...But the joke includes Einstein's ring and Uranus.

    1. Re:I can't think of the punch line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nothing since neither are a match for modern science's massive telescope hope a little oil helps

  18. Re:It can't be long now that we discovered the Vor by Alsee · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The Vogon have an Earth accessible website with a small excerpt from of one of their poems. It's at goatse.cx.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  19. Re:It can't be long now that we discovered the Vor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eye of Thundara, give me sight beyond sight.............

  20. Re:*ducks* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and they'd still fit on a 8.5"x11" sheet of paper

  21. Ok, that was retarded. by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

    Oops, ignore previous comment for being utter rubbish. Sorry...

    1. Re:Ok, that was retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You see how you scum..."

      --Luigi, The simpsons

  22. "Nearby"? by theufo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's seven billion lightyears away! The article specifically notes that the great distance makes it even more special.

    And because it's so far away, while still in focus, we can look back further than ever before. It'll be interesting to see some theories about the early universe shattered to pieces.

    1. Re:"Nearby"? by Cinquero · · Score: 1

      Well, I'll rather expect some more evidence.

    2. Re:"Nearby"? by MoogMan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but when the universe is of infinite length, width, depth and time, everything seems nearby.

    3. Re:"Nearby"? by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      Doesn't looking back in time, in the respect of astronomy, infer a direct linear, or near linear view toward the center of the big bang? What I mean is, if you are looking orthoganaly at light eminating from a point not coming directly at you, you are not seeing as far back as you might if the light was coming directly toward you.

      Can anyone explain this?

    4. Re:"Nearby"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no "center of the Big Bang", and all distant galaxies at a given distance are receding directly away from us at the same rate.

    5. Re:"Nearby"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One must be careful about spacial relationships when dealing with space-time.

      At such large distances/times, the concept of "linear" direction of travel with respect to our (as in human-sized/timed) frame of reference does not seem to fit.

      One can look in "any" (within reason) direction and look back at about the same number of light-years distance and yet the earth is not at the center of the universe (or at least not in the simplistic terms that we humans usually thing in)

      This is all mind-bending type of stuff (or should I say space bending) The simplistic answer is to just think of the light as having not really been in a straight line from a frame of reference other than its own. (Light always goes in a straight line as far as the light itself is concerned :-)

    6. Re:"Nearby"? by BiDi · · Score: 1

      It'll be interesting to see some theories about the early universe shattered to pieces.

      Don't forget that this is not a window but a blurry keyhole. You won't see much trough it. Maybe a few blurry spots with not a lot of meaning (try driving a car looking trough a keyhole while wearing fogged up glasses).

  23. they are going to rename uranus to stop that joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    instead it will be known as urectum

  24. How hard is it to type one more.... by UlfGabe · · Score: 0, Troll

    Word.

    I'm looking at the title and i KNOW einstien did not discover any sort of ring thing....

    how about 'Near perfect gravitational Lensing observed"

    or

    "Gravitational lensing futher supported by exceptional evidence." ..... /. editors...

    --
    Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
    1. Re:How hard is it to type one more.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The official scientific term for gravitational lensing that produces a ring image is an "Einstein ring". The submitter/editors didn't make it up; it's right in the title of the paper.

  25. let the war of the worlds begin by icepick72 · · Score: 5, Funny
    with a close lensing galaxy and a distant magnified galaxy.

    It's like having our own super-weapon -- we can shine our sun through it and fry their planets.

    1. Re:let the war of the worlds begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, no! Maybe they have suns in their galaxy too! We're DOOOOOOOoooooomed....

    2. Re:let the war of the worlds begin by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 0

      We can hold them for ransom for..... one MILLION dollars!!!

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    3. Re:let the war of the worlds begin by saskboy · · Score: 1

      "we can shine our sun through it and fry their planets."

      Now where did I put my Sol Watt Amplifier? ...

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  26. Visible? by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FTFA:

    According to the paper, the ring inscribes a "C-shaped" circle of 270 degrees in near-complete circumference with an apparent radius of slightly more than 1 3/4 arc seconds - roughly the size of a star's "virtual" image seen at high power through a small amateur telescope.

    So would this thing be visible with a small amateur telescope, or is it too dim? Does it even emit in the visible spectrum?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Visible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not visible to an amateur scope; it's magnitude 22.2, and I don't think the largest amateur scopes can get past 17 or so. That translates to about 100 times too dim to be seen by them. The value I quoted is the R_c band, which is visible (around 650 nm), if I'm reading the paper correctly. You can read all this yourself in the paper; see the bottom of section 1 on page 2, and Figure 2.

    2. Re:Visible? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      To dissolve it as a ring, you would need about 1" resolution (else you couldnt see the dimming in the centre).
      This is possible through the earth athmosphere without adaptive optics (barely), but you would need at least a 25cm mirror because of the defraction limit.
      And even with it it should be to dim to be visible with an integration time thats possible with normal equipment (LN2 cooled CCDS,ect).
      This thing may be a galaxy with 10^12 L_sol, but it has a z>3, so its really damn far away...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:Visible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry folks this thing was imaged using an 8 meter telescope - very few amateurs have the backs of the bucks to have a setup like this.

  27. What we'd have by Sean+Clifford · · Score: 1
    We'd kiss a lot of this high-tech goodbye without Einstein's contributions to math and physics.

    Just because Einstein was good at math and physics doesn't mean that he would have been good at politics or some other career field.

  28. 7 days? by dioscaido · · Score: 2, Funny

    Crap, now I have to show the picture on the site to someone else, otherwise I'll be visited by Einstein's ghost.

    1. Re:7 days? by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Q: What's so scary about Einstein's ghost?
      A: Physics are scary enough without being taught by a dead guy..

  29. A better ring, and references on lensing by StupendousMan · · Score: 4, Informative

    The summary states incorrectly:

    Gravitational lenses have been seen many times before, but never so complete ...

    Way back in 1989, radio astronomers found a gravitational lens near the galaxy MG1643+1346 which creates two images, one of which is a nearly complete circular ring. Take a look at this radio image from Langston et al., AJ 97, 1283 (1989):

    Click to see radio image of lensed quasar.

    So, this newest system is a pretty good lens, but not the "most complete" one yet found.

    By the way, if you want to understand how gravitational lensing works, you can read some lectures I wrote for an introductory astronomy class:

    --
    Michael Richmond "This is the heart that broke my finger."
    mwrsps@rit.edu http://stupendous.rit.edu
    1. Re:A better ring, and references on lensing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This newest system is the best known optical (visible light) lens. The only other optical lens known has an arc of 170 degrees, according to their paper. This new lens has an arc of 260 degrees, and is also nearly 60% larger in angular size.

    2. Re:A better ring, and references on lensing by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Er.
      The paper especially states that its the best sample yet that is
      a) visible in the optical
      b) having a "strong" lense

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:A better ring, and references on lensing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are numerous examples of rf einstein rings -there are but 4 optical lenses and FORS 0332 is as as close to perfect as they've come...

    4. Re:A better ring, and references on lensing by gnu-sucks · · Score: 1

      So, my question is (and I post it as a reply because you might know the answer):

      Does the lense work in both directions? That is, can whatever is on the other side "see" earth in its early moments?

    5. Re:A better ring, and references on lensing by laing · · Score: 1

      Earth has only existed for 4.5 billion years. The far side object is over twice that old so the short answer is no.

      Also, just because the near and far objects appear to be lined up with our galaxy, it doesn't mean that our galaxy and the near object were in line with the far object 13 billion years ago. You must shed the notion of light traveling instainiously and in straight lines. The source object is nowhere near where it was then, and there is no such thing as "now".

      --
      This space for rent. Inquire within.

  30. New Hubble vs. fixing the old one by ACNSlave · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Oddly enough, this has been part of the discussion on Hubble for quite some time. Apparently there are upgrades to a number of the modules for Hubble that could just as easily be incorporated into a new telescope for a fraction of the cost of another "rescue" mission. Of course that does not solve the issue of needing to maintain the new telescope...

    Bruce

    http://bruceneufeld.com/

    --
    Today is a good day to code.
    1. Re:New Hubble vs. fixing the old one by magarity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course that does not solve the issue of needing to maintain the new telescope

      Actually, it goes a long way towards that goal. By discovering that parts X, Y, and Y are prone to breaking on the Hubble, those parts can be redesigned for a new model to be much more break resistant and longer lasting.

  31. Re:It can't be long now that we discovered the Vor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was a Vorgon conclusion that you didn't know what Vorgon meant...

  32. How about Electricity?! by jimijon · · Score: 0

    The article talks about dark matter and energy in the same breath as lensing, computer sifting, etc., I don't know if what they are saying can actually then be correct. Especially in light of the fact that we have no clue about dark matter or energy! Anyway, here is an interesting link about the electric universe which I feel is much more compelling.. http://www.rense.com/general64/glow.htm -jimijon

    --
    Mind | Body | Spirit | Cash
    1. Re:How about Electricity?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, much more compelling -- if you don't know any science. Sorry, there are no "galactic currents" capable of powering a star, and the solar spectrum is exactly that produced by nuclear fusion; electricity doesn't produce anything like that. But hey, if you want to eat up whatever some random crackpot puts on his web page, feel free. I think, however, you would be better served by reading some texts on stellar astrophysics and study the evidence supporting those models.

  33. Re:they are going to rename uranus to stop that jo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Urectum? That must be an area with lots of dark matter inside.

  34. before inflationary epoch by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

    I thought inflation preceeded all star formation, so how can the source be a pre inflationary epoch galaxy ?

    1. Re:before inflationary epoch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're talking about something before the current inflationary epoch (the accelerating expansion due to dark energy), not the very early-universe inflation.

    2. Re:before inflationary epoch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of the time delay it takes light to travel here... d'uh! Bush hasn't been elected THERE yet, We'll start seeing heavy inflation when the light starts to catch up to real-time.

    3. Re:before inflationary epoch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Inflation occured in the 1970's and 80's as a result of rising gas prices - the light from the source galaxy emanated during the expansionary - not the inflationary phase of the Universe 11 billion (and 4 billion years) before "inflation".

      We may now be experiencing a new inflationary era as a result of expansionary economic policies - or am I crossing up my disciplines here???

  35. Re:It can't be long now that we discovered the Vor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems the mods don't know the meaning of the word "Redundant".

  36. Einstein and politics by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

    Just because Einstein was good at math and physics doesn't mean that he would have been good at politics or some other career field.

    That's probably why he turned down the presidency of Israel. What he DID recognize was that scientists had a responsibility as citizens to be involved in politics, even if it was at the advisory/cautionary level which he himself chose as a pacifist advocate. Smart guy, that Einstein.

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
  37. Recursive lensing dependent on our side? 3 Q's by mattr · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I was wondering if there might be a way to improve resolution of image by scanning across the lens periodically as our planet and solar system move in spacetime, similarly to the way you can get higher resolution by composing many frames of video into a single high resolution (or at least high contrast) print.

    Well that seems to be relatively obvious and maybe insignificant compared to what can be done just by improving the receiving setup.

    So I thought, if we increase our telescope resolution to the point where we can get a very high resolution image of the 11 bn ly galaxy, and find a perfect Einstein ring in that, might it not be then possible to find an even farther (say 20 bn ly galaxy) that might by fabulous luck be lined up with it, and thereby (luck again) piggy back all the way up to the end of visible space?

    So question 1) If we had a 1 AU wide telescope and enough Einstein rings, just how far do you think we could really see?

    This sounds similar to the idea of pointing a big telescope at the edge of a black hole to view the entire universe (since light can orbit many times before leaving, at least according to a neat story called the Planck Dive). So 2) assuming the black holes or something close enough to them really exist in our galaxy, what could such a large telescope reveal by focusing on the edge of such a black hole, and 3) is there any way possible to use one possibly in conjunction with piggy backed Einstein rings to see light beyond what is the "visible universe" i.e. the point at which expanding space has expanded beyond our light cone.

    It would seem that an image that had been captured by a black hole before much expansion had occurred could conceivably be accessible now (if black holes truly can be "read" that way not just in fiction) even though the space being imaged has long expanded far beyond the edge of the visible universe. IANA astronomer but interested in where fact and fiction separate and neat ways to use computer graphic techniques and telescopes. Can anybody experienced answer some of these questions?

    1. Re:Recursive lensing dependent on our side? 3 Q's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So question 1) If we had a 1 AU wide telescope and enough Einstein rings, just how far do you think we could really see?

      I assume you're talking about floating a set of telescopes at the stable lagrange points in Earth's orbit, aye?

      If we could do that, there's not really anything other than the cost that would prevent us from floating space telescopes in the L points of other planets in our system, too. Mars and Venus, and something further out like Jupiter would give us an extremely sensitive telescope that works a lot like the global observatory does, only on a larger scale. The problem is that they'd be a bitch to maintain, and we would need feasible interplanetary travel before we could do that. (current technology isn't anywhere near efficient or fast enough to maintain such a network, though we could probably put it together and fly it within a decade or two)

      In response to your question, though, we probably wouldn't *need* Einstein lenses to see to the beginning of the Universe. Hell, we've got telescopes on Earth that can see very bright objects at the edge of the Universe. The question is how dim an object we could pick up with such a telescope, and while I'm not an astronomer, I'd wager that such a telescope could pick up extremely dim objects at extremely great distance without the benefit of lenses. With them, who knows? We might even be able to photograph the surface of extra-solar planets if the resolution is high enough.

    2. Re:Recursive lensing dependent on our side? 3 Q's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >>So question 1) If we had a 1 AU wide telescope and enough Einstein rings, just how far do you think we could really see?

      Well each einstein ring is a distant lump of matter, and at a distant time in the past, matter wasn't lumpy. So I guess using a multi einstein ring telescope you could see back no farther than that point (without somekind of refinement at least)

    3. Re:Recursive lensing dependent on our side? 3 Q's by mattr · · Score: 1

      Thank you for replying! It certainly would be interesting to see extrasolar planets in detail!

  38. Computers did exist in the early 1900's! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They sure did ... they power supply ran off of coffee, food, and oxygen, and they required at least 8 hours of downtime a day for them to function properly [and to prevent overheating]. The results they produced were displayed on dead tree paste that was flattened and gathered together in groups.

    And then mathematicians and physicists would use the results of these computations instead of wasting time computing things like the square root of 3021377 by hand.

  39. Re:It can't be long now that we discovered the Vor by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

    Was that from the Redneck Dictionary?

  40. Re:It can't be long now that we discovered the Vor by Myrmi · · Score: 1

    Nope - all of my own creation ^^

    --
    "I think everyone is an agnostic but just doesn't know" - Frazz
  41. Would this work two ways? by baadger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Would this ring, or others like it, work in two directions? i.e. diverging electromagnetic radiation sourcing from here across the space we see 'through' the lens?

    Just curious.

    1. Re:Would this work two ways? by baadger · · Score: 1

      Actually I guess being a gravitational distortion it'd actually focus radiation from here to somewhere 'out there'..?

      Focus or scatter?

    2. Re:Would this work two ways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but we got the "small end" of the telescope -the view of our galaxy from "the other end of the tube" would be less impressive due to the massiveness of the source galaxy compared to our own.

      Keep in mind this is all pretty complicated - that giant elliptical is only a couple billion years old at the time we see it due to the vastness of the distance (11BLYs) and Einstein's highway sign saying "max speed 300,000KPS!

  42. Re:It can't be long now that we discovered the Vor by GotenXiao · · Score: 2, Informative

    Uh, if you're referring to the Vogons from H2G2, see previous spelling.

    --
    Goten Xiao
  43. At last! by bananahead · · Score: 1

    my wife has been bugging me to buy her one of these for years...

    --
    A most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a bit.
  44. META MODDERS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do your stuff. In fact, if you look at the time stamp, the last line was before the story that mentions about hubble.

  45. Re:It can't be long now that we discovered the Vor by Vreejack · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Thank you for not making that link clickable. I am eating my lunch.

    --
    "Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
  46. obligitory goatse reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope it's not god doing the goatse pose.

  47. ot: ww2 + a-bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but with no A-bomb we'd still be fighting it...

    I strongly suspect that's bullshit Americans tell themselves to feel better about having killed so many civilians.

  48. Gollum Says by Meester+Nice+Guy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    My Precious ...

  49. Which telescope will you install them in? by hpulley · · Score: 2, Informative

    The James Webb telescope is not even on the drawing board yet and will not work in visual wavelengths so any spare HST hardware would only be useful if it were designed for IR. What space telescope are you going to launch by 2008 when the HST will fail? The JWST isn't going up until around 2015 (originally expected to launch in 2011 but now very unlikely). Do we want to go 3-7 years without a good space telescope? I know of no other plans for a telescope to go up using those HST parts. By the time you design one, build it and launch it I'm not sure it will have been worth it. Expensive or not, fixing the HST with astronauts and the space shuttle is the fastest (and probably the only real) solution to keeping a space telescope working continuously in the near future.

    --
    $#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
    1. Re:Which telescope will you install them in? by ACNSlave · · Score: 1
      The James Webb telescope is not even on the drawing board yet and will not work in visual wavelengths

      I was referring to a discussion, not another project, specifically, another visual wavelength telescope on the order of Hubble. I fully agree that we need to do something to continue the work of Hubble, sooner rather than later. I pay a LOT of taxes and I'd like to see them well spent for a change!

      Bruce

      --
      Today is a good day to code.
  50. Bob's quick guide to the Apostrophe by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    Because of Einstein's insight into the conversion of mass and energy, we now understand how distant Sun's illuminate the cosmos

    Is this a print publication? Because the editor must be an illiterate moron..

    Also, the capitalized 'Sun' refers to the star at the center of our solar system. Stars in general may be referred to as 'suns'.

    1. Re:Bob's quick guide to the Apostrophe by Fraser+Cain · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I caught that after I'd sent out the newsletter. Calling me a moron, though, ouch. I wonder what term you reserve for improper use of commas, or sentences in the passive voice.

      --
      Publisher, Universe Today - http://www.universetoday.com
  51. Fun with Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "Einstein's lens" is caused by the fact that gravity attracts light.

    You can use Google to calculate how much weight each photon has.

    First, we start by deciding the frequency of the light. Let's say it's red light:

    500 THz

    Next, we compute the energy of each photon by using the equation E=hf :

    h * 500 THz

    Next, we compute the mass of each photon by using the equation m=E/c^2 :

    h * 500 THz / (c^2)

    Finally, we compute the weight of the photon (on the Earth's surface) by using the equation F=mg, where g is 9.8 N/kg:

    h * 500 THz / (c^2) * (9.8 N/kg)

    Typing this into Google, we find that each photon of red light weighs 3.6*10^-35 N.

    For comparison, an electron weighs

    (9*10^-31 kg) * (9.8 N/kg) = 8.8*10^-30 N.

  52. Slashdot's genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Something a lot less worthwhile?"

    Politics: Founding Fathers.

    Computers: keep your comment in mind when next time you wonder why no one's going into CS. Besides, were's all that "love" you all profess to have?

  53. odd moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the parent post is not offtopic, but the reply to the parent is? Makes not sense. Not to mention the fact that the post IS on topic. Someone's abusing the mod system. Offtopic is supposed to handle posts that are genuinely of a different topics.

  54. Long Look Forward by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Can we use this ring lens to search for a rotating black hole, through which to study the future history of the universe?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Long Look Forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, no.

  55. Had I mod points, parent would get for funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got a good extended belly laugh. Thanks...

  56. IHBT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I strongly suspect that's bullshit Americans tell themselves to feel better about having killed so many civilians.

    By "Americans", you mean...?

    First of all, as an American, I don't think at all we'd still be fighting WWII. I doubt very many people at all hold that opinion. More likely, the US would have wiped out a larger portion of the Japanese population and lost far more of their own soldiers as well.

    Secondly, how am I, born in the US far after the fact, responsible for killing anyone? Because, by sheer chance, I was born in this country? Or because I didn't leave in disgust as soon as I learned of it? What country do you live in that has never killed any civilians in its entire history?

  57. Re:Fun with Google -- Incorrect by Baudelaire76 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Weight, which is a Newtonian concept, is not really applicable to an inherently relativistic particle such as the photon. In addition, the effect of gravity on a photon is actually about twice as large as you would expect from Newtonian gravitation. This comes from the weak-field limit of general relativity, and was one of the first tests of the theory. In 1919, Sir Arthur Eddington observed the bending of starlight around the sun during a solar eclipse, and showed that the bending was, lo and behold, about twice as large as the Newtonian prediction, and consistent with general relativity.

  58. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    > If we can see that universe better, the opposite is true, they can see us better.

    Don't be ridiculous. Something you are looking at through a telescope cannot look back at you. The something looks BIG. The you looks SMALL.

    BIG.

    SMALL.

    BIG.

    SMALL.

    Alright children.

  59. Re:ot: ww2 + a-bomb by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

    I strongly suspect that's bullshit Americans tell themselves to feel better about having killed so many civilians.

    You'd suspect wrong.

    Us Americans don't feel bad about having whiped out Nagasaki or Hiroshima with a single bomb. After all, it was just a quicker way of the same thing we did to Tokyo and Berlin.

    But if the USA didn't have the Manhattan project, or if we didn't think the Germans had one, we might not have had such fierce opposition to them. We may have sued for peace with Germany rather than invade--and if we had done that, at the right time, there'd likely still be a cold war going on.

  60. Re:Hmmm..... (Voyager Anomoly) by BarfBits · · Score: 1

    I thought the Voyager anomolies where caused by
    uneven solar gravitational effects -- kind of like
    the gravitational fluctuations found when a
    satellite is used to map out varying surface
    densities of a planet or a moon. Crap, maybe I
    read this from the Hitchikers Guide!

  61. Re:Fun with Google -- Incorrect by mbrother · · Score: 1

    I think the way most astronomers and physicists these days prefer to approach the issue is that light has no rest mass, but does carry momentum (e.g., radiation pressure, is one example). Radiation fields have an energy density, but no mass. Sure, you can calculate a mass equivalent to the energy, but what does that mean, really?

    --
    Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
  62. Let us not forget Einstein's other accomplishments by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
    Einstein did more than than just come up with the theory of relativity and postulate bathtub rings around Ford Galaxies.
    Here are some of Einstein's other achievements:
    • Was the first American to climb Mt. Everest.
    • Was co-creator of the hit TV shows "The Newlywed Game" and "Escape from Gilligan's Island".
    • Contributed to the success of the George Forman Grill by suggesting that the grill be tilted so that the fat will run off.
    • Was the third James Bond.
    • Single-handedly captured John Wilkes Booth after the latter assassinated President Neville Chamberlain.
    • Helped write two of the Gospels in the Christian Bible, and provided technical assistance with some of Paul's Letters to the Thesolonians (sp?).
    • Was the first human to defeat Commander Data in a game of Poker.
    • Was the inspiration for "Romeo" in Larry Shakespeare's epic mini-series "Romeo and Juliet".
    • Had two songs in the Top 40 at the same time for six weeks in 1971.
    • Coined the term "asshole", which he first used to describe Jerry Falwell. (He also helped popularize the acronym "WTF?", although he did not coin that term.)
    • Widely recognized, along with Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton, as inventor of the Internet.
    • Discovered fire.
    These are just some of the things that Einstein managed to do before his life was tragically cut short in a freak accident involving a fishing pole, two bungee cords, and an Elvis impersonator.
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  63. Sitting on it by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    Well, he was sitting on it, and I guess no one wanted to move him in case they messed up his hair...

  64. Incredible by drsquare · · Score: 1

    Forget all the jokes which are 99% of this article.

    I've never heard of this focussing-galaxy before, and to me this is absolutely incredible. That there could be a huge mass of billions of stars, could bend light and act as a telescope to see even further galaxies, that's a fucking unbelievable phenomenon. And to think that most people on this site today will spend their time arguing about Star Trek or some other insignificant shit, whilst all this amazing crap is happening on such a collosal scale.

    I mean, on this sort of scale, galaxies of billions of stars mbillions of times the size of the Earth, separated by vast voids, interacting in such a way. The Earth could disappear entirely and it wouldn't even register on such a scale, no more than a speck of dust matters to the Earth. Sort of puts all the shit that happens on Earth into perspective. Compared to this, a nuclear war wiping out the entire planet is completely irrelevent and unnoticeable.

  65. I have a very strange feeling about this by xv4n · · Score: 0

    That's no ring... That's a space station!

  66. Re:*ducks* by planetoid · · Score: 0

    Because making fun of one of the worst science fiction movies ever made is Flamebait.

    /. = gay.

    --
    Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.