Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Find Doublehelix at Center of Milky Way

An anonymous reader writes "Astronomers report an unprecedented elongated double helix nebula near the center of our Milky Way galaxy, using observations from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. The part of the nebula the astronomers observed stretches 80 light years in length."

148 comments

  1. Light is fast, but not as fast as we think by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

    It takes light about a second to make a roundtrip from the Earth to the Moon. It takes 8 minutes for light from the Sun to reach the Earth. Light can travel around the Earth 7 times in 1 second.

    While it may seem really fast, when broken down into comprehendable units, light is not really that fast. Sure, it's faster than anything else, but that just means that everything else is pretty slow too.

    So this new nebula is 40 light years across. That's only 10 times the distance from the Earth to our second-closest star. It's like comparing the distance of the Earth to the Sun vs Pluto to the Sun. It may seem intractable, but it's really not that big.

    1. Re:Light is fast, but not as fast as we think by techno-vampire · · Score: 1, Informative
      So this new nebula is 40 light years across.

      No, it's 80 light years across. I don't expect anybody here to RTFA, but at least you could read the summary!

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Light is fast, but not as fast as we think by dshaw858 · · Score: 1

      So this new nebula is 40 light years across. That's only 10 times the distance from the Earth to our second-closest star. It's like comparing the distance of the Earth to the Sun vs Pluto to the Sun. It may seem intractable, but it's really not that big.

      Well, compared to the vast darkness that stretches between different galaxies, and galaxy clusters... well, yes, it's pretty close in the grand scheme of things.

      - dshaw

    3. Re:Light is fast, but not as fast as we think by themysteryman73 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The fact is, it doesn't matter how big it is compared to our second-closest star, they're not comparing it to anything, they're saying that they've discovered something new. Noone's ever seen a nebula of this shape before and that's what this story's about. Well, that and the large, strong magnetic field at the centre of the galaxy.

      According to the story, the magnetic field has energy equivalent to 1,000 supernovae, although it's overall magnetic field is 1,000 times weaker than the sun. Therefore this magnetic field must cover an immense volume, if the sun was as powerful as a supernovae (which it's not, so think even larger than this figure...), then that would mean that this magnetic field is coming from a volume 1,000,000 times larger than the sun (something like that anyway, it sounds pretty good :P). Sure there's much, much bigger things in the universe, but, as already stated by others, you can't just say "oh, it's so big!" that's all relative. So, yeh, I could say that it's a really big thing and be shot down by someone telling me it's not so big, or I could give you a figure.

      A magnetic field in the middle of the galaxy over 1,000,000 times the volume of the sun. That's big :P

    4. Re:Light is fast, but not as fast as we think by duffel · · Score: 5, Interesting
      While it may seem really fast, when broken down into comprehendable units, light is not really that fast


      You can't think of something incomprehensibly fast in terms of something incomprehensibly large and say you understand it.

      If anything, the fact that it takes a measurable amount of time to traverse the earth-moon distance by something so fast it seems instantaneous to us is just an indication of how far the moon really is away. (385000 km, about ten times further than the circumference of the earth.)

      And the circumference of the earth is a bloody long way. 40000 km. If you were to try walking this distance, it would take you more than a year of continuous walking (no sleep)

      As said, the moon is about ten times further away than that, 385000 km, about ten years of walking.

      The sun is one astronomical unit away. (150 Million kilometers) 4280 years of walking. You'd have to have started walking about the time the first pyramid was built to get there by today.

      The nearest star to the sun is just over 4 light years away (40 Million Million km) One thousand million years of walking. I'm running out of timescales to compare this to now, because human experience doesn't date anywhere near as far back. This timescale now compares roughly to the age of life on earth, and even the age of the earth itself is only about four times as large.

      The nebula in the article is about ten times that size. Ten thousand million years of walking. If you wanted to walk that distance, you'd have to start at a time where neither earth nor sun existed, or would exist for billions of years. The solar system around that time would probably be little more than a localised gravitational aggregation of spinning gas.

      You're right that one could keep going for quite a lot longer. Once one starts considering the distances in the universe, you can think of them only in numbers, they're so huge. The upshot of this is that in a universe where all mayor distances are unimaginably huge, this one is one of them.

      But if you're interested in experiencing these speeds and distances, I'd suggest you give Celestia a try. It's a 3d simulation that puts you smack bang into the middle of our solar system, and you can whiz around, visit nicely textured planets and even leave and visit other stars, other galaxies. Really beautiful graphics. You can actually move from the earth to the moon at walking speed, or at light speed.
    5. Re:Light is fast, but not as fast as we think by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 3, Funny

      The sun is one astronomical unit away. (150 Million kilometers) 4280 years of walking. You'd have to have started walking about the time the first pyramid was built to get there by today.

      Your estimate appears 50% short. You fail to take into account that in order to safely walk to the Sun, especially at closer distances, you'd have to walk only at night.

    6. Re:Light is fast, but not as fast as we think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nearest star to the sun is just over 4 light years away (40 Million Million km) One thousand million years of walking. I'm running out of timescales to compare this to now, because human experience doesn't date anywhere near as far back.


      I agree with your analysis, but you missed a very important point.
      The universe is expanding, so the distance between objects in space is getting larger. Since the expansion velocity increases with distance, there are places you'll never get to if you go at the speed of walking. Of course, the faster you walk, the further away are the things you _can_ get to.
    7. Re:Light is fast, but not as fast as we think by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Nah, just bring plenty of SPF 10e250 sunblock.

    8. Re:Light is fast, but not as fast as we think by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1

      "Light can travel around the Earth 7 times in 1 second."

      Does that mean that Superman can fly faster than light? Is Superman faster than The Flash?

    9. Re:Light is fast, but not as fast as we think by themysteryman73 · · Score: 1

      All this walking! Wouldn't it be easier to just push off something and let a lack of exterior forces and the Law of Conservation of Momentum do the rest of the work?...
      Sorry, I had to say it.

  2. I was going to joke about DNA... by Gamiac · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    But then I realized it wasn't a double-helix.

    --
    A horse with 2 back legs and fore-legs has 6 legs-an odd number of legs. The only number odd and even is infinity.
    1. Re:I was going to joke about DNA... by slashflood · · Score: 1

      I was going to joke about DNA, but then I realized it wasn't a double-helix.

      It isn't?

      A horse with 2 back legs and fore-legs has 6 legs-an odd number of legs. The only number odd and even is infinity.

      Please explain.

    2. Re:I was going to joke about DNA... by Kredal · · Score: 1

      replace fore with four... it's a pun. Not sure why that's an "odd number" since it's even, and 6 isn't infinity.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    3. Re:I was going to joke about DNA... by teraph · · Score: 1

      It's an odd number of legs for a horse to have.

    4. Re:I was going to joke about DNA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of an episode of star trek where they find DNA distributed around the galaxy in a double-helix pattern. It turns out to be a message from an ancient civilization.

    5. Re:I was going to joke about DNA... by Alioth · · Score: 4, Funny

      What makes jokes funny is the way they are told. He didn't exactly tell it right. Here's the full thing about a horse having an infinte number of legs, and when told properly makes better sense, from /usr/games/fortune:

      Every Horse has an Infinite Number of Legs (proof by intimidation):

      Horses have an even number of legs. Behind they have two legs, and in
      front they have fore-legs. This makes six legs, which is certainly an
      odd number of legs for a horse. But the only number that is both even
      and odd is infinity. Therefore, horses have an infinite number of
      legs. Now to show this for the general case, suppose that somewhere,
      there is a horse that has a finite number of legs. But that is a horse
      of another color, and by the [above] lemma ["All horses are the same
      color"], that does not exist.

  3. Err.... by brian0918 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You've not really made a clear comparison, as you have compared a measurement involving lightyears (the distance from Earth to Proxima Centauri) to another measurement involving lightyears (the length of the nebula). It would be like comparing an apple to a pea by saying that an orange is about the same size as an apple. You haven't really said anything...

    So you've only given the appearance of an insightful comment... though I'm sure you'll hit +5 in no time.

    1. Re:Err.... by gold23 · · Score: 1

      You obviously were not paying attention to the GP poster's nick.

      --
      Trust not a man who's rich in flax / His morals may be sadly lax
    2. Re:Err.... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      "You obviously were not paying attention to the GP poster's nick."

      I noticed his nick right after I submitted.

  4. If you look REALLY closely by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 5, Funny

    You will see a large, light absorbing, black monolith - howling Ligeti - in the center of the nebula.

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:If you look REALLY closely by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      "You will see a large, light absorbing, black monolith - howling Ligeti - in the center of the nebula."

      That's fine with me, as long as they don't start chanting "Koyaaaanisqatsiii"...

    2. Re:If you look REALLY closely by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Informative
      If no one gets the joke, the music played in "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite", the last part of 2001: A Space Odyssey was composed by György Ligeti, noted composer born in Dicsöszentmárton (now Tarnaveni), Romania, educated in Budapest, and finally based in Germany and Austria after fleeing Hungary. The first piece played is the Kyrie from his "Requiem for soprano, mezzo-soprano, mixed choir, and orchestra", whose definitive recording according to the composer is on Warner Classics' The Ligeti Project Vol 4 . The second piece is "Atmospheres" for orchestra, whose definitive recording is on The Ligeti Project Vol 2 , although the recording used by Kubrick was highly altered and only a portion is heard. In another portion of the film, when Floyd is travelling over the lunar surface to visit the monolith, Ligeti's "Lux Aeterna" for choir a capella is heard.

      Kubrick never asked Ligeti for permission to use his music, and the composer was very unhappy when he found out. He filed a lawsuit against MGM, but later had to settle out of court for a paltry sum (just $4,000 or so). The joke in Steinitz's biography Gyorgy Ligeti: Music of the Imagination goes that Ligeti once met an MGM employee who said that Ligeti was mad to file the suit in England, where it would go nowhere, instead of in the United States.

    3. Re:If you look REALLY closely by GundamFan · · Score: 1

      Thanks Capitan Wiki!

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
    4. Re:If you look REALLY closely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know you need to get out more, and mabye get a girlfriend, when....

    5. Re:If you look REALLY closely by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Why do you think I looked at Wikipedia for this? Any Ligeti fan would know this.

    6. Re:If you look REALLY closely by GundamFan · · Score: 1

      I was just kidding... I tend ot call people Capitan "something" when they spout trivia.

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
    7. Re:If you look REALLY closely by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      thanks, Captain Something

  5. Then again... by brian0918 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe that's why he calls himself "BadAnalogyGuy".

  6. Not Drawn to Scale by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We're just viruses infecting a milkyway cell.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Not Drawn to Scale by my+$anity++0 · · Score: 1

      That would be a very short strand of DNA. Most DNA arranges itself into fibrous structures inside the nucleus of the cell. Also, DNA is normally not a flaming mass of gases.

    2. Re:Not Drawn to Scale by terrahertz · · Score: 1

      As Bill Hicks said: "We're a virus with shoes, OK?"

      --
      Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
    3. Re:Not Drawn to Scale by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      Also, DNA is normally not a flaming mass of gases.

      That's all a matter of perspective. If you're much smaller than quarks living in a super-submicrocosm, you might hold a different opinion on that matter.

      (I am of course kidding... but then again...)

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    4. Re:Not Drawn to Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick let's head to the eye before them corpuscles get us!

    5. Re:Not Drawn to Scale by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I think the last team in left their ship behind to blast the patient's brains out... to the sequel, stat!

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  7. Latest News by inKubus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scientists have discovered a restaurant at the end of the universe.

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
    1. Re:Latest News by Welsh+Dwarf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nop, since looking far is also looking back in time, they probably saw the Big Bang Burger Bar.

      --
      Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
    2. Re:Latest News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been there, don't try the fish... uhg...

    3. Re:Latest News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as it is not a Big Bug Burger Bar, ...

    4. Re:Latest News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it a McDonalds?

    5. Re:Latest News by platypuszero · · Score: 1

      As long as its not the restaurant from the end of Spaceballs we're cool.

  8. Journal link by brian0918 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is the Nature article abtract:

    "A magnetic torsional wave near the Galactic Centre traced by a 'double helix' nebula"

    The magnetic field in the central few hundred parsecs of the Milky Way has a dipolar geometry and is substantially stronger than elsewhere in the Galaxy, with estimates ranging up to a milligauss (refs 1-6). Characterization of the magnetic field at the Galactic Centre is important because it can affect the orbits of molecular clouds by exerting a drag on them, inhibit star formation, and could guide a wind of hot gas or cosmic rays away from the central region. Here we report observations of an infrared nebula having the morphology of an intertwined double helix about 100 parsecs from the Galaxy's dynamical centre, with its axis oriented perpendicular to the Galactic plane. The observed segment is about 25 parsecs in length, and contains about 1.25 full turns of each of the two continuous, helically wound strands. We interpret this feature as a torsional Alfvén wave propagating vertically away from the Galactic disk, driven by rotation of the magnetized circumnuclear gas disk. The direct connection between the circumnuclear disk and the double helix is ambiguous, but the images show a possible meandering channel that warrants further investigation.

    1. Re:Journal link by EmagGeek · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... and if we modulate the subspace fields around the magnetodynamic plasma conduits while simultaneously emitting bursts of tachyon particles, we can spin the double-helix around and make it do a little dance...

    2. Re:Journal link by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      Sounds like electric universe theory is
        getting another evidence claim.

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

      Plasma cosmology is a cosmological model based on the electromagnetic properties of astrophysical plasmas. Advocates of plasma cosmology have offered explanations for the large scale structure and evolution of the universe, from galaxy formation to the cosmic microwave background, by invoking electromagnetic phenomena associated with laboratory plasmas. Plasma cosmology is considered by both proponents and critics to be a non-standard cosmology.[1]
      Plasma, electrically conducting gas in which electrons are stripped away from atoms and can move freely, makes up the stars and the interstellar medium. Astrophysicists agree that electromagnetic effects are important in stars, galactic discs, quasars and active galactic nuclei but in the standard big bang model the formation of structure is dominated by gravitational effects. Plasma cosmology advocates assert that the universe has no beginning, whereas in the big bang model the universe, as we know it, has existed for only a finite time.

  9. Deep thoughts by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I like the night sky, it always provokes deep thoughts. Like, what if the entire galaxy were just a single cell of a universe sized creature? If we were mere atoms, no not even on a scale that big; perhaps the tiniest of particles of particles of an atom, could we ever fully grasp the universe?

    Could a single cell grasp, by which I mean sense, beyond its tiny neighbors to sense its place in the minute band of cells that make up even large tissues that in turn form the organ; themselves only part of the larger human creature. Still more, that human itself a seemingly insignificant speck in a sea of billions comprising the organism deemed 'Society.' That "insignificant" speck, like the cell that could be a white blood cell or a cancer cell, has the potential to help, harm or affect that gobal entity it is a part of.

    What if the galaxy is not just a cell but an early cell; one undeveloped and still growing. Perhaps its culturing intelligent orders. Intelligents vast, streached thin between its stars; creating networks like those in a cell yet not governed by chemical interaction but in the perhaps equally predictable economics of cultural interaction. A growing cell; incubating intelligence that would mature the galatic cell in a way to interact with neighboring galactic cells, ultimatly tailoring (based on the surrounding galactic cells) the function of this galaxy.

    A galaxy only a fraction of a fraction of a greater whole. A galaxy of intelect unaware beyond simple sensing of the galaxies beyond its neighbors, of its place; perhaps like a human cell. A universal organism ordered by a force greater and more mysterious than comprehensible; not unlike a comparison of the chemical interactions that govern a cell's behavior and the economical interactions that govern society. A Universal organism beyond conventions of the word. A Universal Organism that provokes its own environment and leads its own...


    ...deep thoughts.

    --
    Demented But Determined.
    1. Re:Deep thoughts by qazsedcft · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But as far as science is concerned whatever may be beyond our universe is irrelevant because we have no way of observing it. It's exactly like the falling tree in a forest question.

    2. Re:Deep thoughts by Umuri · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      and it's wondering why this tiny planet named earth is trying to kill it from the inside. I mean look at it, if there's a universal organism, we're as close to a parasitic infection as you can get. Long live captialism McKing Fries w/ extra nonbiodegradable plastic and toxic waste sauce!

      --
      You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
    3. Re:Deep thoughts by brian0918 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "But as far as science is concerned whatever may be beyond our universe is irrelevant because we have no way of observing it."

      That may be, but I'm confident that some day we'll successfully explore the region north of the north pole...

    4. Re:Deep thoughts by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      "and it's wondering why this tiny planet named earth is trying to kill it from the inside. I mean look at it, if there's a universal organism, we're as close to a parasitic infection as you can get. Long live captialism McKing Fries w/ extra nonbiodegradable plastic and toxic waste sauce!"

      Problems only have clear solutions when you ignore the details.

    5. Re:Deep thoughts by inKubus · · Score: 1
      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    6. Re:Deep thoughts by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Don't bogart that joint, my friend.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    7. Re:Deep thoughts by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Actually the "does a falling tree make a sound if no-one is there to listen" can be answered quite easily, as you just need to leave behind a recording device.

    8. Re:Deep thoughts by marcello_dl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IMHO the falling tree in a forest is a philosophical question. Since we're on /. I'd say that we have no way of observing what's beyond our reality just like a process cannot know for sure if it's running on a perfectly virtualized environment or not. A process cannot know if it's running on a simulator in a completely different architecture than the one it was designed to run in, like Pac Man under MAME.

      So we can define scientifically our representation of the universe in detail but it's still a representation.

      This is not another "Life is a dream" opinion. Comparing reality to something else is pointless because we cannot define reality.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    9. Re:Deep thoughts by qazsedcft · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously the recording device counts as "someone listening". The point is whether something that cannot be observed in any way exists at all.

    10. Re:Deep thoughts by qazsedcft · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...we cannot define reality

      Well, science defines reality as the set of observables. That's why the post I originally replied to is pure methaphysics.

    11. Re:Deep thoughts by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Information can't travel faster than the speed of light, so anything that large would have to be incredibly slow. Also the universe is homogenous, and expanding, and doesn't resemble any part of any small or subatomic particle.

      <inhales>

      Oh I mean deeeeep dude, peace.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    12. Re:Deep thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May be that could explain quantum physics. the apparently un predictable "spontaneous" events are not spontaneous after all. the really tiny particles flying out from "mother-particle" could be a space probe launched by a micro-( or should i say atto-)civilization. and I can say from empirical evidence that since human civilization is unpredicatable, so is the atto-civilization. I mean if we can be part of a larger being, why can't we extend the same to atomic levels and be universe to some other beings. btw, this guy would be happy as hell to read this comment. he thinks exactly that way, claims alien abduction, and that the aliens told him about this infinitely huge creature and millions of infinitesimally small worlds.

      but seroiusly speaking, hindu mythology also mentions that zillions of universes come and go out of existence in a "moment" on the time scale of vishnu. may be they were refering to this after all. ... and I would like to welcome our universe-sized overlords but there is not enough space.

    13. Re:Deep thoughts by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      pure methaphysics

      Indeed.

    14. Re:Deep thoughts by Gulthek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ha! You think we're killing the *planet*? Sorry, we're only killing our ability to live on the planet, if that. Earth's true species is the bacteria.

      In the late 1970s, marine biologists discovered the bacterial basis of food chains for deep-sea vent faunas and the unique dependence of this community upon energy from the earth's interior, rather than from a solar source. Two kinds of vents had been described: cracks and small fissures with warm water emerging at temperatures of 40 degrees to 70 degrees F and large conical sulfide mounds, up to 30 feet in height, and spouting superheated waters at temperatures that can exceed 600 degrees F.

      Bacteria had long been identified in waters from small fissures of the first category, but it was only in the early 1980s that John Baross and his colleagues discovered a bacterial biota, including both oxidative and anaerobic species, in superheated waters emanating from the sulfide mounds (also known as "smokers").

      They cultured bacteria from waters collected at 650 degrees F and then grew vigorous communities in a laboratory chamber with waters heated to 480 degrees F at a pressure of 265 atmospheres. Thus, bacteria can (and do) live in high temperatures (and pressures) of waters flowing beneath Earth's surface.


      Yeah. We got nothing on these guys when it comes to survival of the fittest. We've even given Earth's bacteria a ride out of the solar system on our space probes, decades or centuries before we'll make the trip.

    15. Re:Deep thoughts by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. He's done a good job of stating the position of a large number of the high energy physicist and cosmologist communities.

    16. Re:Deep thoughts by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Well, science defines reality as the set of observables.

      You have just asserted one helluva big assumption, and one that is clearly false.

      Look into the Copenhagen Interpretation that has been a major influence on basic physics and cosmology for about 75 years. Heres teh wpedia: Wikipedia on CI. Or just adopt Paul Dirac's dictum for a successful career in physics: "Shut up and calculate!"

      A loose phrasing of the core of CI is that human limitations in observations are such that the universe cannot be understood; physics and cosmology can at best develop models that approximate the real world. But the real processes are forever hidden by observational limitations like the Heisenberg principle and the mysteries behind the values of Plancks constant and even Pi.

      To paraphrase someone (Feynman?), the CI means that not only is reality more complex than we think it is, it is more complex than we can possibly ever understand.

      To put this in context, it means that science recognizes that it has nothing whatever to say about reality; science is an endeavor to develop a more elegant model of a largish cluster of blackbox phenomena.

    17. Re:Deep thoughts by qwijibo · · Score: 1

      It's actually much simpler - yes, it does.

      I've always wondered what kind of inflated ego it would take to believe that a physical characteristic would not exist without the observer. Sure, it's possible that sound is a major scam regularly perpetrated by nature, but that's like debating possibility with a person who uses "assume that anything is possible" as a premise. If the only way to justify something is to assume the conclusion, it's probably a load of crap.

      Consider an alternative scenario: a gun is set to fire based on a unpredictable event, such as how long it takes for ambient wind to spin a windmill 10000 revolutions. The shot could be heard from at least a mile away. What we hear is the rapid escape of hot gas under high pressure. That's a physical characteristic. In order for the sound to not be made, there would have to be some characteristic about the sound generation that went out and detected any form of device that could hear the sound and used that detection to decide if the sound wave would be generated.

      Alternatively, if a person were to fire the gun, is the presence of that individual the amplifier that makes it possible for someone very far away, unaware of that individual, to hear the shot?

      On topic: fortunately, the scientists who found this double helix believe in observing science, not making it up. It's interesting to see something large like this that is a large scale, observable physical object that looks like something that's very small to us and is kinda important to our being.

    18. Re:Deep thoughts by qwijibo · · Score: 1

      Most of the details exist to support agendas and perceptions that are wrong. It's perfectly reasonable to ignore irrelevant details.

      I'm extrapolating from my software development experience. The user is often the least capable of defining the requirements because they hold many opinions and views based on what their current experience what they believe could be done. When it comes down to what they actually do and what problems they have (ie, it's all labor intensive and done on papers which get lost), that's a small part of what most people will write down as "requirements". On the other hand, developers often don't listen to users and push the solutions that they can provide. The devil is in the details. Not the real details, but all the ones that are there to make the clear solution much more opaque.

    19. Re:Deep thoughts by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      I chose the wrong term: one can indeed define reality. What I meant is that one cannot know for sure what reality is made of, its intimate nature, by observing from inside reality itself.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    20. Re:Deep thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      next time you state something so matter-of-factly, why dont you actually check your facts. you're wrong.

      study some quantum physics and then tell us that information cant travel faster than light, idiot.

    21. Re:Deep thoughts by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Fleas that bite little Dogs
      Have lesser Fleas to bite 'em
      So lesser Fleas bite little Fleas
      And so on ad infinitum

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    22. Re:Deep thoughts by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Your speculations, while interesting to read, are unlikely to be taken seriously by scientists due to their high level of compatibitibility with ID.

    23. Re:Deep thoughts by NinjaFodder · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who wants to pummel the poster for this? Hasn't this universe=cell=atoms been done to death? Smoke some more buddy. We've heard it before.

      --


      Cause everyone wants a free Xbox360
    24. Re:Deep thoughts by itchy92 · · Score: 1

      I used to hate the "tree falls" question, too... "Of course it makes a sound. Energy is released as sound waves, and dissipates through air and other matter before vibrating our inner ear membranes."

      But now I figure it alludes to the idea that reality is an illusion, and exists only to the bounds of your senses; crudely equivalent to cogito, ergo sum: "I can only be sure of what I know and perceive." At least, that's what I tell myself to keep from cringing every time I hear it.

      --
      Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff tha-- MICRO$OFT IS THE DEVIL!!1
    25. Re:Deep thoughts by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Vodka is the clear solution to all problems.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    26. Re:Deep thoughts by qwijibo · · Score: 1

      Reality may be an illusion. However, if we don't define reality as that which can be observed independently, we can't prove that anything exists. Defying the existence of reality may be an interesting intellectual exercise, but nothing productive can come of it. If reality is an illusion, the tree does not make a sound when there is no observer. Of course, it also doesn't make a sound when there is an observer because the tree, sound and observer do not exist from that perspective. Is the point of the koan that I must simultaneously believe both conflicting explanations?

      The thing I disliked most about the Matrix trilogy is that it didn't end with Zion being a second computer system that was miserable and more likely to be accepted as real. Agent Smith talks about humans defining themselves through misery, so it would make perfect sense. That would have been a great existential ending. It would be like the Buddhist concept of enlightenment - you go through all of this work to end up being exactly the same person you were before you started, just with a more all encompassing perspective. Also, it would have been cool if we sat through all three movies and were left not knowing whether or not any of the people actually exist. It could have been nothing more than a complex simulation.

    27. Re:Deep thoughts by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      If Zion wasn't a simulation, then how is it that Neo had his powers outside of the matrix? That seemed to clinch things for me.

      Bear in mind, the cross that appears when Neo sacrifices himself is not the Christian cross. It's the gnostic cross. An even-armed cross inside a circle. It means somthing different than the Christian cross.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    28. Re:Deep thoughts by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      You should study some quantum physics before you condescend to other people. You can have action at a distance faster than light, but you can't use it to transmit information.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    29. Re:Deep thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of Heisenberg? Quantum Encryption? From WP:

      "The concept of probability distributions pervades the science of measurement. Until the beginning of the discovery of quantum physics, it was thought that the only uncertainty in measurement was caused by the limitations of a measuring tool's precision. But it is now understood that no treatment of any scientific subject, experiment, or measurement is said to be accurate without disclosing the nature of the probability distribution (sometimes called the error) of the measurement. Uncertainty is the characterization of the relative narrowness or broadness of the distribution function applied to a physical observation."

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

      Heisenberg may have written this.

    30. Re:Deep thoughts by darthwader · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This really comes down to terminology. People use the same word to mean different things, and then argue about who's right, without actually realizing that they disagree about the meaning of key words.

      If you define sound as "pressure waves through the air", then the tree makes a sound. If you define sound as "pressure waves striking the eardrum (or other organ of hearing) and producing sensations", then the tree does not make a sound.

      (Interesting, my dictionary includes both meanings, so you can defend either a "yes" or a "no" answer from the same dictionary.)

      It's not deep. Just define your terms, and the question is easy to answer.

      --
      I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
    31. Re:Deep thoughts by Professr3 · · Score: 1

      Neo's powers affected only the machines, if you look at the scenes closely. My guess is, he had evolved some sort of extension of himself that linked with the machine network. Call it metaphysics, something incredibly complex, or just a plot device.

    32. Re:Deep thoughts by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Or the simplest explanation of them all, he never "left" the Matrix.

    33. Re:Deep thoughts by kestasjk · · Score: 1
      You should study some quantum physics before you condescend to other people. You can have action at a distance faster than light, but you can't use it to transmit information.
      Which might be why I said "Information can't travel faster than the speed of light".
      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    34. Re:Deep thoughts by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Oh, sorry I didn't notice you were replying to someone else. My bad.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  10. The Moon is a bit farther away than that! by Bob+Hearn · · Score: 1

    A round trip to the moon takes light more like 3 seconds, actually.

    1. Re:The Moon is a bit farther away than that! by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Where's that from though? If it is from the edge of the atmosphere as compared with the center of the Earth I'd say the numbers would be slightly different. Although if you were to say how long it REALLY took light to make the trip it would be even longer as it travels faster through a vacumn then air, and even faster through air then solids, and there's no way it's penetrating the crust of the Earth at all, so it would actually take forever to make a round trip.

    2. Re:The Moon is a bit farther away than that! by Tango42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The speed of light in air is only marginally less than in a vacumn (refractive index of air at sea level: 1.0002926, says wikipedia) and the atmosphere drops in pressure very rapidly on a lunar scale. The exosphere starts at, at most 1000km from the earth's surface, and that's the "beginning of the end" of the atmosphere. The moon is around 400000km away. The light is travelling through the atmosphere for only 0.25% of its journey. The difference in light time from the surface of the earth and the exosphere would be a tiny fraction of a second.

  11. Not insightful... by qazsedcft · · Score: 1

    Terms like "fast", "slow", or "big" are comparative. They don't mean anything without having a point of reference to compare to. Okay, so everything is slow compared to light, but just saying "light is slow" doesn't mean anything. Compared to speeds of everyday experience light is pretty damn fast. Protons can be considered huge or tiny depending on what you compare them to. Stars can also be considered huge or tiny.

    1. Re:Not insightful... by martinultima · · Score: 1

      Either way, however, qualitative adjectives still do require a frame of reference (or whatever the scientific term is) – for something to be considered "big", for example, there would still be an implied "normal" size, whether you are consciously aware of it or not. Unless it's given in absolute, quantitative units, it's relative to something.

      --
      Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
  12. Real Deep thoughts by Silentnite · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe in order to understand mankind we have to look at that word itself. MANKIND. Basically, it's made up of two separate words "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery and that's why so is mankind.

    Jack Handey
    Deep Thoughts

    Haha, he makes me chuckle

    1. Re: Real Deep thoughts by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Maybe in order to understand mankind we have to look at that word itself. MANKIND. Basically, it's made up of two separate words "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery and that's why so is mankind.

      I see that you follow the philosophy of Obi Wank Enobi.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Real Deep thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, free dummy.

    3. Re: Real Deep thoughts by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid I somehow convinced myself that Obi-Wan was named like the droids. You know, R2-D2, C-3PO, OB1-Kenobi...right?

  13. Size is the greatest power of all... by LiquidAvatar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As the man in black explains to Roland in the first book of Stephen King's Dark Tower series, "The greatest mystery the universe offers is not life but size. Size encompasses life, and the Tower encompasses size... ... For the fish, the lake in which he lives is the universe. What does the fish think when he is jerked up by the mouth through the silver limits of existence and into a new universe..?"

    What great poetry in the universe, that we should gaze out into the infinite deep of space, only to see the same elegent beauty that we see when we probe the mysteries deep within ourselves.

    --
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
    -Voltaire
    1. Re:Size is the greatest power of all... by brian0918 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "What does the fish think when he is jerked up by the mouth through the silver limits of existence and into a new universe"

      I guess that's why flying fish return to the water, they fear the unknown... Call it intelligent falling.

    2. Re:Size is the greatest power of all... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "What great poetry in the universe...

      I know that repeating themes are fantastic for bubblegum pop music and advertising, but poetry that says the same thing over and over should be left in the third grade classroom where it was written.

      With this kind of microcosm/macrocosm symetry it makes me wonder: how boring would it be to reach enlightenment and realize that the universe is really homogenous throughout and it is only ignorance that lets us differentiate the parts.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    3. Re:Size is the greatest power of all... by LiquidAvatar · · Score: 1
      I know that repeating themes are fantastic for bubblegum pop music and advertising, but poetry that says the same thing over and over should be left in the third grade classroom where it was written.

      "Quoth the Raven, Nevermore"

      While I have heard many critiques of "The Raven," I don't believe that anyone has ever said that it came from the third grade classroom before. Dealing in absolutes absolutely sets you up to be proven wrong. It is possible to use repetition without falling victim to a simple homogenous existence, and finding the common threads that exist throughout nature only serves to remind us that everything is connected, at some basic level.

      --
      It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
      -Voltaire
  14. Is it just me... by agent+provocateur · · Score: 3, Funny

    or does anyone else see Cthulhu looking out at them from this picture... Come to think about it I see Cthulhu looking at me from most pictures ... oh there he is now...oh my god!! he's everywhere!!!

    --
    Siggy Sig Sig? Where is the sig?
    1. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dread Cthulhu, elder god from the stars...
      If you see him and live, you'll hang out more in bars...

    2. Re:Is it just me... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      good thing you didn't mention His name three times in your post, the last slashdotter that did that got his head gnawed off.

    3. Re:Is it just me... by Nyrath+the+nearly+wi · · Score: 1

      Actually, it looks more like one of those energy critters from Gregory Benford's "Galactic Center" novels.

  15. simulate that! by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

    Someone should simulate it! Bonuspoints for combining a double helix, the universe, and a very big supercomputer!

    --
    molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
  16. Higher Res Picture? by edward.virtually@pob · · Score: 1

    Anyone know where one can download a higher resolution version? The website mentioned in the article has a flickr link, but only to a low resolution source.

    1. Re:Higher Res Picture? by edward.virtually@pob · · Score: 5, Informative

      To answer my own question, here is the link.

  17. THE obligatory question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but will it run Linux?

  18. It's A Logo! by NickFortune · · Score: 2, Funny
    What I reckon is, in some higher space, the DoubleHelix Corporation created this galaxy and did the primary gen-eng work on our ecosystem. All they're doing is trademarking their products.

    hmmm... would corporate involvement disqualify this as "intelligent design" I wonder...

    --
    Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
  19. Looks like someone beat them to it by sugarman · · Score: 1

    Now we just need a way to get to the Spiral Path before Baron Karza...

    --
    --sugarman--
  20. What's the ratio of the cosmic DNA to regular DNA? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

    Maybe then we can tell how big God is. (Attempt at humour.)

  21. Re:What's the ratio of the cosmic DNA to regular D by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

    ... notes The Outer Limits episode "In the Blood".

  22. Electric universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it is Birkeland current. You can learn about electric universe theory here:

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm

  23. Proof of intelligent design? +5 Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hmmmm... that wasn't there before!

  24. Double helix in the sky tonight... by lxs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Behold the predictive powers of ROCK!!!

    ...Double helix in the sky tonight
    Throw out the hardware, let's do it right...


    Steely Dan - Aja (1977)

    1. Re:Double helix in the sky tonight... by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, maybe smokin' that stuff's not only good for glaucoma patients' eyesight...

      --


      This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
    2. Re:Double helix in the sky tonight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the link. Christ, without that, hardly anyone would've gotten your obscure reference to a certain glaucoma treatment which was only largely used as the basis for major attempts at partial legalization in six states. Hey, next time could you link to definitions of the single syllable words as well? Not all of us have IQs over 70. Maybe you could write down the digits 0 through 9 in numerical order to help us learn how to count too. Just a suggestion. Keep up the good work, and THANKS AGAIN!!!

      You fruit.

  25. Was the telescope... by ricepudd · · Score: 0

    ... powerful enough to spot Sybok?

  26. Interesting star or image artifacts? by BlueMonk · · Score: 0

    I noticed in the picture a bright/large star in the lower half of the picture right along the right edge that appears to have an interesting organization of equally spaced light spots around it. Is this just an artifact of some lense? I can't imagine that this would go unnoticed if it were real ... unless this is all part of an elaborate April Fools prank.

    1. Re:Interesting star or image artifacts? by Golden+Section · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the higher resolution image, and you'll see that every star has that pattern.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    2. Re:Interesting star or image artifacts? by CXI · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's most likely due to the fact that those stars are much, much closer to us in the forground of the shot and therefore are out of focus. Being out of focus means the flaws in the optics are exagerated. Remember, lens, mirrors, beam splitters, etc all need mounting elements and have edges that bounce or block light. That's what you are seeing in the out of focus stars.

    3. Re:Interesting star or image artifacts? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that *ANY* star is at infinity to an earth-made telescope. It's a simple matter of focal length to lense diameter, and we got REALLY SMALL lenses.

    4. Re:Interesting star or image artifacts? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      What you are seeing is a halo effect common to mirrored lenses. I'm not sure if the cause is extra reflections from the primary or secondary mirror or both, but you wouldn't get that effect from a refracting telescope (which most major observatories are not).

  27. Scientology, It's true!! by resonte · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yet another 'Sign' from the heavens that we were created in the image of our beloved mystical alien gods. They must've made this nebula after the wonderous design bestowed upon us. ....Yes, it makes perfect sense

    --
    \(^o^)/
  28. Glad I wasn't the only one... by plorqk · · Score: 2, Funny

    who thought of 2001 (and the Simpsons) when I read that headline.

    --
    When travelling, it's ok if the airlines lose your emotional baggage.
  29. An observation of my own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The phrase "magnetic field" appears 20 times and that short article. Most annoying.

  30. Shape of space-time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Shape of gravity,shape of space-time,Shape of magnetic field lines.They all have one thing in common . hexagonal

  31. That's peculiar. by RoffleTheWaffle · · Score: 1

    A double-helix floating around the nucleus of our galaxy? Eerie coincidence.

  32. Double helix is a naturally occuring shape! by master_p · · Score: 1

    Which means that our DNA is formed by natural processes and not by a supernatural being.

    1. Re:Double helix is a naturally occuring shape! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly the natural processes were designed by an supernatural being with the purpose of creating DNA.

  33. It's done procedurally! by Cruciform · · Score: 3, Funny

    So we start out with a strand of DNA, and the camera zooms out, and you see the cells, the organism, skip a few, then the earth, solar syste, galaxy, big DNA helix in space, and start over.

    So if we're just in someone else's cells, how long until we're all wiped out in 'The Big Sneeze'?

    1. Re:It's done procedurally! by Rick+Genter · · Score: 1

      Didn't you see Men in Black? Our galaxy sits in the middle of an alien's marble...

      --
      Don't underestimate the power of The Source
    2. Re:It's done procedurally! by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I'd rather be lung-butter. If only because the impact isn't as bad.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  34. Powers of Ten by murderlegendre · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're describing a famous film short "Powers of Ten" by Ray & Charles Eames. I'm too lame to make a clicky link, so here is the URL:

    http://www.powersof10.com/

    Fantastic film, one of the few (good) films that most schoolchildren saw in the 1970's, along with "Our Mister Sun". If there is a better method of presenting The Relative Size of Things in the Universe, I've yet to see it. Ray & Charles were way ahead of their time.

    --
    There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
  35. Apples and peas by coyote-san · · Score: 1

    Apples and peas are about the same size when the context includes the 18-wheeler about to run over them in the middle of the road.

    It's the roadkill theory of relativity.

    The most familiar example, for many of us, is the nearly identical appearance of prairie dogs and squirrels, post-impact, on country roads.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    1. Re:Apples and peas by brian0918 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They were pretty much identical in appearance before the semi made them 2D, give or take a big fuzzy tail.

  36. An interesting coincidence by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 4, Funny
    Doesn't everyone else find it intriguing that the distance between the sun and the earth is exactly one Astronomical Unit??

    If that isn't a sign of an Intelligent Creator, I don't know what is.

    *removes tongue from cheek*

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:An interesting coincidence by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but it takes exactly one year for us to orbit the sun. What are the odds? And get a load of this: The sun has never been seen at night. Not once in recorded history. Coincidence?

      I think not.

    2. Re:An interesting coincidence by slashnik · · Score: 1

      The sun has never been seen at night. Not once in recorded history. Coincidence?
      Are you sure, not even in the land of the midnight sun?

  37. Reply to: In Response To: RE:Re:Deep thoughts(RE) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why I chose hallucinagenic drugs. Placing myself outside of reality makes reality more observable. All scientists should be on LSD.

    I thought I thaw a putty tat.

  38. Who says... by Trikenstein · · Score: 1

    the gsm ain't got no sense of humor.

    1. Re:Who says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean the "FSM"?

  39. No, it'snot Cthulhu. by jd · · Score: 1

    I forget which one was at the center of the Universe - Azathoth? Besides, it looks FAR more like the crystalline entity from Star Trek.

    --
    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)
  40. What if... by Seeth42 · · Score: 1

    What if I jogged?

  41. And as we zoom back... by moochfish · · Score: 1

    And as we zoom back you'll realize we're just part of a microbe on a giant marble being tossed around by an even bigger being.

  42. Apples are a naturally occuring shape! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which means that Macintosh computers are formed by natural processes and not by a turtleneck-wearing being.

  43. Did anyone else... by Kittie+Rose · · Score: 1

    Get a weird "MYSTERIES OF EXISTENCE REVEALED!" tingle down their spine when seeing that? Reagardless of whether it's formed by magnetism or not, delving into it that way detracts from the fuller picture. A more apt endeavour would be to ask why a magnetic field forms a shape similiar to that found in our DNA, and nowhere else in particular.

    --
    EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!
  44. Birkeland Current by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It makes typical astronomers very uncomfortable when it is mentioned that this is precisely the expected form of an interstellar-scale Birkeland current.

        http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/elec_currents.ht ml

    These were predicted by Alfven, and have since been detected indirectly by noting self-segregation by mass of interstellar medium ion Doppler shifts.

        http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/CIV.html

    Similar structures have been noted in radio-telescope images, albeit not with such textbook-perfect structure.

        http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/plasma.universe. intro.html

    The reason typical astronomers are uncomfortable with this is that the very active field of plasma dynamics is almost entirely neglected in their education. Most are ill-equipped to evaluate or contribute to work involving real-world plasma interactions. They are handicapped not only by this neglect, but by having been taught, early on, an entirely unphysical, if mathematically elegant, substitute for plasma dynamics under which all these phenomena are supposed to be impossible.

    Plasma dynamics, as a field of study, is fundamentally hard because the mathematics that describe actual, natural phenomena is entirely untractable. Practitioners depend on fiendishly difficult scaled-down high-voltage laboratory vacuum-chamber experiments, and absolutely enormous computer simulations. Astrophysicists, by a natural process, are strongly self-selected from among those with a distaste for laboratory work, and a preference for abstract, elegant mathematical constructs, so it's hardly surprising to find them disinclined to fill in the gaps in their education. Instead, certain sorts of evidence are just considered impolite to mention in their company.

    (Incidentally, it is precisely this phenomenon which makes press releases about "geysers" on Enceladus -- and two-mile-wide "lava tubes" on Mars and the moon -- especially comical.)

    1. Re:Birkeland Current by jnik · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Practitioners depend on fiendishly difficult scaled-down high-voltage laboratory vacuum-chamber experiments, and absolutely enormous computer simulations.

      And, er, observations of space plasmas. I know a couple of astrophysicists who are quite well-versed in plasma physics (one of whom grilled me nicely on my oral qualifier). And the planetary scientists who are dealing with Enceladus and Mars are generally cut more from the space physics cloth than the astrophysics cloth--they probably have somebody doing plasmas next door.

      Yes, many astrophysicists are used to gravity as the force that organizes the universe, but there are plenty who deal with gas and plasma dynamics, not to mention tons (relatively) of observational space plasma physicists.

  45. oops by fftl4life · · Score: 1

    i knew i was forgetting something when i left my tour of the galaxy with the crab people, paid 5 bucks for that thing.

    --
    ~FFTL4LIFE~
  46. Conspiracy not coincidence! by Teun · · Score: 1
    Thank you for pointing out what till now was so close that I couldn't see it!

    Clearly this is proof of the conspiracy the ID crowd has been talking about.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  47. Re: Reply to: In Response To: RE:Re:Deep thoughts( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that you're NOT outside reality. You just have a screwed up perception of it. Also, no matter what you do to escape reality, even if involves death and resurrection, you just cannot prove to others and yourself that your perceived being out of reality isn't a different manifestation of reality itself.