Slashdot Mirror
Brightest Supernova Discovered
Maggie McKee writes "Astronomers have spotted the brightest supernova ever seen — it is intrinsically two to three times brighter than any previously recorded. It has many characteristics of a type Ia explosion, but has hydrogen in its spectrum, unlike other type Ia's. That suggests that this supernova resulted from the collision of two stars — most likely a white dwarf and a red giant — rather than from an exploding white dwarf. If so, it might affect the interpretation of previous cosmological studies that depend on type Ia 'standard candle' observations, like dark energy. But other astronomers say merger-triggered explosions are probably rare and therefore won't throw a wrench in the works."
If you are really interested in the topic I recommend
Fraser, Craig G.
Title The cosmos : a historical perspective
Westport, Conn. : Greenwood Press, 2006.
I learned a lot from it about novas.
Maybe this one will draw in a bigger crowd than Lukas Rossi.
...)
(I kid, I kid! He's an upstanding Canadian guy
Do not look into the supernova with your remaining eye!
(theres a lot of bright shiney things around at the moment, I'm surprised anyone can see anything at all)
liqbase
If, hypothetically, you found yourself to have evolved first or to exist in an otherwise empty galaxy - then you might look for an easy way to get the attention of any civilizations in any other galaxies. If you could move a star (details, details) then this would be a good way to get yourself noticed.
Of course, you would want to do it several times over a short period, and you would want it to coincide with a radio transmission that actually contained some data. So the way it works is, a hundred million years from now another civilization sees the stars go up, so they point their radio telescope at the galaxy, and they hear your message.
I realize this is all just a fantasy, but it's a cool one.
someone write it up
If it was so bright, how come nobody ever saw it before?
FTA, it looks like the supernova is brighter than the host galaxy's core. Not a bad way to go out, if you're a star.
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
OK, so this is calling into question one of the "standard candles" of astronomy and cosmology. But I'm curious exactly how? There's a fairly simple formula that relates absolute magnitude, relative magnitude, and distance. If you know any two, you can calculate the third. The whole concept of standard candles is that there are some events for which we know the absolute magnitude. This article is saying this is one of the standard candle events, but much brighter than ever before. The big question for me is, how do they know it's not just closer than ever before? My understanding is that the standard candle equations are the only way to determine distance at these ranges.
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
Actually, they are all being written by myself. And I will continue to write them until people start paying attention because their points are valid and their theory is sound. Their message needs to get out so that the theory can be investigated (I don't want to have to wait until 2018 when the Solar Probe reveals that our solar theories are wrong). The current field of astrophysics is cherry-picking their science to the extent that it is useful to confirm their pre-existing *assumptions*, even when those assumptions appear to be inconsistent with our modern-day observations. They've succeeded in convincing the world that astrophysics is too complicated for most people, and that we should relinquish all of the critical thinking about space to them. This would almost be okay if it weren't that they believe this of other physicists too -- including plasma physicists who have earned nobel prizes and who taught them everything they currently know about electricity in space (Hannes Alfven).
If your point is that since it has to do with electric universe theory then it's not worth reading, then that would imply that reasoning no longer affects your judgment -- and you are in terms of physics, at least, like an old dog unable to learn anything new. In that case, I'm not speaking to you with my postings, and as science oftentimes does, it will wait until the old guard dies off in order to introduce the new ideas. On the other hand, if you are grateful that somebody is taking the time to point out the electric universe perspective so that it can be contrasted with the traditional paradigms whenever its relevant, then you're welcome. Forums like Slashdot are most useful when lots of people who have different ideas about the world get together and compare and contrast their beliefs. Pithy comments and jokes can be fun, but they should take a backseat to real discussions when those discussions are about serious things. And this notion that we should all agree on cosmology is outright dangerous because the chances that we have anything right at this point in time are negligible in light of the fact that new space anomalies pop up on a weekly basis. I will continue to ignore the voices of the mob with hope that people will once again decide that it is okay to think different and have your own opinions about complicated subjects. We didn't get to the point we're at today in science by trying to all think alike.
One of the reasons I'm doing this is so that in the decades to come as astrophysicists finally begin to accept *real* plasma physics into their domain more and more, and people here on Slashdot begin to realize that they were wrong to invoke the term pseudoscience without actually learning about the topic that they were ostracizing, we can all go back over my postings and the responses to them, and we can all *learn* from the experience with the hope that it will never happen again.
Once you guys all realize that all of this business about dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, black holes, and stellar evolution is all nonsense, it's going to suddenly hit you that you've all been wasting a bunch of time and that you may not live to see the day where we actually understand the mechanics of the universe. The unfortunate thing is that I won't get to know *with* you even though I didn't fall for the bullshit like you guys did.
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
Actually, the hypernova is an already established term :)
Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
http://www.classicnovas.net/features/snova/index.h tm
Inversing the colors provides a more lifelike image. For the lazy.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Actually it's not a *theory* as far as the scientific community is concerned. There isn't sufficient evidence, no peer review, etc. It seems to draw about as much concern from the scientific community as Creationism, if not less since it's nowhere near as prominent in the public eye. I hadn't even been exposed to it until now; just passing along what I gathered.
I like basketball!!1!
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/1999/09/24/
One of the reasons I'm doing this is so that in the decades to come as astrophysicists finally begin to accept *real* plasma physics into their domain more and more, and people here on Slashdot begin to realize that they were wrong to invoke the term pseudoscience without actually learning about the topic that they were ostracizing, we can all go back over my postings and the responses to them, and we can all *learn* from the experience with the hope that it will never happen again.
So what you're basically trying to say is, "WAAAH! Don't be mean to me!"?
Anyway, I'd just like to let you know that I'm not discounting what you say because it derives from the Electric Universe theory. I'm discounting it because of the ratio of words to actual evidence. As far as I can tell from what you have written, the main basis for this theory is something that a Nobel prize winner said during his acceptance speech.
Peer review, motherfucker! Do you speak it?
I actually enjoy being abused. I think it's comical in a sick sense. It is a weird, yet exciting, feeling when you know that you understand more about what's happening and more about where things are moving in science than the mob that surrounds you.
I do believe in the peer review system. The real problem is that we never made a distinction between the sciences that you can perform input on and those that you cannot. For those sciences that you cannot do much better than uniformitarianism (which is complete speculation), scientists need to learn to learn to live with uncertainty. The thing is, people don't like uncertainty. The mass media wants to *know* what's going on. If your press release doesn't tell a fanciful story, it may not get published. Forget peer review. Why bother when you can just create some color-enhanced images and release them directly to the public? That appears to work just as well as publishing in a journal these days. The fact that all of you guys let it work too this past year means that you can expect to see more of it. I can't wait!
I just explained to you in my previous posting that the entirety of electricity and magnetism as far as astrophysics is concerned is based upon theories that have since been recused by the nobel physics laureate that "discovered" them. That is a very serious allegation that makes the peer review system irrelevant if it is true. Peer review is not a perfect system. It is good, but it is susceptible to problems. Astrophysicists have been interpreting all of their observations through the traditional paradigms for decades now. There is no grant yet, as far as I know, for the theory that proves that the last 50 years have been a huge waste. I'd love to get awarded that grant, but I have a feeling that I shouldn't waste my time.
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
That right there is an example of logic in spite of the mob. What are the currents? Can we detect and measure them? I wonder how many decades it will take to get to the point where we're sending out probes to answer this question. Will I still be alive to see this?
...
But even without doing that, for now, I'd be somewhat happy to see an explanation for solar system rilles that defy gravity. What is causing canyons on planets where those canyons follow the topography of the land both *up* and down? If you need examples, go to www.thunderbolts.info. Very curious
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
Peer review is meaningless if everybody in your field is operating on incorrect assumptions. And that's exactly what's happening right now within astrophysics. Some time ago, a man named Hannes Alfven, who is today considered the father of plasma physics, founded the field of magnetohydrodynamics. This field treats plasma as a fluid and assumes that currents cannot flow through the plasma because it treats plasma as an ideal conductor with no resistance. This is actually not *anything* like the way that plasma operates in the real world, and since plasma represents 99%+ of all observable matter within the universe, this massively incorrect assumption yields absurd results in astrophysics today. Plasma is in fact electrically conductive and its electrical properties interact with its mechanical motions, and vice-versa. If you've ever seen a novelty plasma globe, then you intuitively know that plasma is not like a fluid. You can tell by looking closely at a plasma globe that the plasma creates filaments and these filaments pair up and twist around one another. These twisting currents are called Birkeland Currents. As the current flow increases through them, they pinch together with increasing force and this pinching action can actually condense matter into a ball. When Hannes Alfven received his nobel prize for plasma physics in the 70's, he recused himself from the field that he created (magnetohydrodynamics) and warned astrophysicists to abandon it, and that the path they were taking would eventually dead-end. But they completely ignored him and continue to do so.
This is how we end up with terms like "solar wind" -- which is more properly identified as plasma coming from the Sun operating under the influence of the Sun's weak electric field that fills all of the heliosphere, which extends out beyond Pluto. If you can only think in terms of fluids and gravity, then movement of particles in space would look to you like a "wind". But where have we ever seen winds that steadily increase in velocity for millions of miles as the solar wind does? It's *still* accelerating as it moves past the Earth. What can possibly cause that? There is nothing about fluids or gravity that can cause that. In order to explain that, you *must* resort to electrical concepts. It's a stark reminder that our earlier astrophysical assumptions have led us astray.
It's that simple. Electric Universe, the supposed pseudoscience, uses non-idealized plasma physics to understand the universe (plasma cosmology). Traditional astrophysics, the collection of "real" sciences, ignores the possibility that electricity might be flowing over plasma in space because of their earlier assumptions about plasma being a *fluid* with ideal conductivity, and this inherited notion that gravity is the strongest force within the universe. One would expect that astrophysicists would fully understand plasma physics and electrodynamics, but they're taught in school that these things are much less important than gravity, and it appears that they are given nothing more than this "crash course" of magnetohydrodynamics as a substitute. This is in spite of the fact that we now know that electrically conductive plasma fills nearly all of space.
There actually is plenty of evidence for EU Theory. The real problem is that once you are branded as pseudoscience, then nobody will take you seriously. In fact, for every silly notion like black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy, etc, etc, etc, there is a corresponding simple electrical explanation. Let's look at pulsars and neutron stars, for instance. They have been observed now to "spin" at something like 300 revolutions per second, and people just accept this concept that a star can spin at 300 revolutions per second as if it doesn't bother them at all. But it's ludicrous to start with, and if you actually look at images of the Vela Pulsar, you'll notice that you are seeing filaments coming out of it that look a hell of a lot like sparks (
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.