Slashdot Mirror
Pillars of Creation Destroyed
anthemaniac writes with news about the Pillars of Creation, an iconic structure in the Eagle Nebula some 7,000 light-years distant. The Hubble Space Telescope's image of this structure is one of the most widely recognized astronomy images ever captured. Now a new image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope suggests that the pillars probably toppled 6,000 years ago. From the article: "Astronomers think [a] supernova's shock wave knocked the pillars down about 6,000 years ago. But because light from that region of the sky takes 7,000 years to reach us, the majestic pillars will appear intact to observers on Earth for another 1,000 years or so.'"
Astronomers think [a] supernova's shock wave knocked the pillars down about 6,000 years ago.
Just as the the Earth was being created!
Trolling is a art,
that's it, pack up the space program, nothing left to see out there
I wonder if any of us (that is, humans) will be around to see the destruction, or if anyone alive then will ever know what they looked like today?
Meta, Meta, Meta
There was a gimmicky sign left by the pillars of creation:
If you lived in the Eagle Nebula, you'd be destroyed by now.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
What else are we looking at and taking images of that is actually nothing like it is in real time. This also boggles my mind with the fact that much of what we see of our universe is actually just nothing like it currently is since the light takes soooo long to get to us. Perhaps I am wrong with that assumption... maybe somebody knows better than I and can clue me in :)
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
Astronomy messes with my head almost as much as time travel...
So, if we have detected a supernova that exploded 6,000-9,000 years ago, and a picture of the Pillars 7,000 years ago, wouldn't that mean that the supernova is some place between us and the pillars, ~1,000-2,000 lightyears closer to the pillars than the median of us and the pillars? IANAA so could someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Demented But Determined.
i find the idea that anything in space can "topple" or "fall down" highly amusing
:)
some of these reporters need to check their gravity
They willan on-have collapsen.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
Google "standard candle" with the quotes.
The first link I got was Wikipedia which is as good a starting place as any.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_candle
I was so intrigued by what I didn't know I did an Astronomy Masters with no intention of changing career (ie. a recreational degree).
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Less than 1% of every US tax dollar goes to space. Do you really think that, if that money were not going to space, it would go to the programs that you want it to go to? Do you not think that the exploration of our universe is a noble cause, worthy of public funding? Even if for no other reason than no other oranization has the money or motivation to fund that kind of exploration? It seems a rather trivial cost to me...
Rhapsody in Numbers
The above poster is correct, in physics parlance, observers will not agree on the temporal ordering of events separated by a space-like interval (outside the light cone, i.e. the two events can't affect each other because you'd have to travel faster than light to connect them), conversely, they will always agree on the temporal ordering ordering of events separated by a time-like interval (inside the light cone, slower than light). This why the concept of information being transmitted faster than light automatically introduces causality issues, because different observers will disagree of what caused what.
:) This is the key to resolution of the so-called "Twin Paradox" as well. As soon as one of the twins turns around his line of simultaneity changes, and what his idea of "right now" changes. The key is that there's never really any "paradox", observers will always agree once they go to "meet each other" at the same point in the same reference frame. The universe doesn't always play by our common sense notions, some concepts like what "right now" means for widely separated events, for instance, may not be meaningful or need to be reinterpreted.
So someone zipping by the Earth at a good percentage of the speed of light away from the Eagle Nebula will say that the collapse hasn't happened yet, although presumably if we were both good scientists, we'd agree that the event exists in the space-time continuum and understand why we disagree.
This article takes the cake! This has to be the oldest story I've seen posted on Slashdot!
HEY! Stop wasting time posting messages on the internet and get back to work on your urgent energy research!
The value is in knowing. The more we know about the universe, the more we can make use of it. Especially when it comes to the point that we *need* to get off this rock. At that point all the AIDS vaccines, wells and roads all over the world become worth squat. Of course I don't think it will happen in our lifetime, and you can certainly debate if it will happen. But I'm sure that more primitive societys saw mucking around with plant extracts as pointless when it was more useful to gather food for the tribe. Of course some of those plant extracts are now medicines.
NASA's budget is 16.8 billion
Isn't the total budget for the US around 2 trillion dollars (from gpoaccess.gov which I got from the source you provided)? And doesn't that make 16.8 billion around 0.8% ?
I'm sure you'll agree that pure physics research has produced led to some pretty useful stuff - electromagnetism and quantum mechanics are behind most of the cool toys geeks love. Just as quantum mecahnics wasn't initially developed with the aim of producing transistors, current theories being developed and tested have no specific technological aim in mind. But it's a certainty that with greater understanding of our universe will come a greater ability to manipulate it. Every advance in physics has brought with it technological advances and I fully expect any future advances will bring further technological advances. Certainly some scientists and engineers need to be working on clean renewable energy tech (and they are), but some need to be working on the tools that those scientists and engineers use - physical theories, mathematical techniques; astronomy is part of that making the science that makes the technology possible.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Basic research often has no short term value that we can see. A hundred years ago a couple of guys tried to measure our speed through the "ether". They found that there was no ether. This lead to the idea that light must travel at the same speed no matter what reference frame you're in. This (and a few other things) lead to the ideas of quantum physics. This ultimately lead to several inventions already with many more on the way.
But a hundred years ago, did anyone see the point in measuring our speed through the ether (which pretty much everyone accepted had to exist)? What would be the point? Just a waste of money.
Astronomical measurements are used to test basic theories of physics. The basic theories of physics are then used to create new and wonderful things. These things save lives and make us more comfortable. Just because we don't know what we'll end up using the information for doesn't mean we should stop searching for it.
Good answer. I'll vote for an extension to NASA's budget :)
I was not actually aware quantum mechanics were involved in transistors. Doesn't that technically make every computer a quantum computer?
Care about privacy? Read this!
Good answer... but I'm shocked to hear that there is no ether... next you're going to tell me Pluto is not a planet.
It's actually made of plasma in the glow discharge state. That's the same state of plasma that you see within a neon sign. Plasma can also exist in the arc state, which is like an arc welder (very bright) and in a dark state, which you cannot see (like the electricity that flows through your lamp cord; notice the cord does not brighten). It's resistivity changes throughout these modes depending upon the current density. Plasma is the fourth more common state of matter next to gas, solid and liquid. Thing is, 99%+ of the universe's matter is in the plasma state, which makes it a pretty big deal to understand it. You'd think, in fact, that our theories about how the universe operated would be based upon how plasma acts to a great extent, but astrophysicists have oddly convinced themselves that accurately modeling the properties of plasma is not all that important to understanding the universe.
... hey, it's fluid! Unfortunately, for the past several decades, astrophysicists have been refusing to admit that plasma can transfer electricity and it's led to all sorts of weird results within astronomy like black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy, the Big Bang Theory, etc.
Since astrophysicists like to incorrectly model plasma as a *fluid* (magnetohydrodynamics), they tend to just vaguely call it "gas and dust" even though it is by definition filled with charged particles like ions and electrons. As you may know, ions and electrons can carry electricity, which makes plasma a very special type of matter. The electricity that flows through plasma can affect its shape, and vice-versa. So, its electrical and mechanical energies are interdependent, and this makes it very complicated. If you've ever seen a novelty plasma globe at Spencer's in the mall, the first thing that probably came to your mind was not
This whole article is actually complete bullshit because contrary to what it states, supernovae are likely electrical phenomenon as well. We've imaged many remnants of supernovae (like 1987A) that are bipolar symmetric like an hourglass. This isn't anything like what astrophysicists told us that they should be -- a spherical shell of expanding gas. In fact, it corresponds better to something called Birkeland Currents, which is a plasma physics term that astrophysicists aren't very familiar with. The supernova can become extremely energetic because it is the confluence point for energy arriving from foreign energy sources in the same way that energy created at your power plant ends up being used at your house.
Of course, this isn't the *standard* view and I'm sure that there are people who would consider me to be heretical, or at least misleading you. But so long as the filaments within a novelty plasma globe do not appear to you to act like the water in a similarly shaped fishbowl, then you should not buy much into the rest of astronomy either because this single assumption is so devastating to all of the calculations that are done for the universe that the end result is pretty much garbage. We know enough about space to get probes out to the planets, but that's pretty much it these days. Very few of the pretty pictures we see through our amazing telescopes were actually expected by the theories that we've been pursuing for the past few decades. The scientists spend a bunch of time, in fact, trying to figure out ways to create those pictures *without* electricity because it's considered more appropriate for some strange reason to invent mysterious matters than to assume that electricity can flow over plasma in space (which we can do in the laboratory). You'd never know any of this from the public relations releases though for space articles because people tend to believe whatever it is they are told when it comes to space stuff and there are no "investigative journalists" asking the tough questions in the space industry.
We live in a very strange world. Our reality is basically what we tell ourselves that it is and will continue to be so until a day whe
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
Um, isn't the IP version field only 4 bits?
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
Ambulances use GPS-based navigation systems now to save lives faster by improving dispatch efficiency. GPS has to deal with relativistic effects or it's off in a big way. We wouldn't know about these effects unless we had folks doing this silly science stuff, sometimes on the taxpayer dime.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
> next you're going to tell me Pluto is not a planet.
The names some people choose or don't choose to give chunks of matter in orbit around a star is of little importance to real science.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
.....explain how they can determine something like this if light from that event hasn't even reached us yet? Like, say who now? I assume it just an educated guess based on other activity in the area, but what exactly is it that they look at for clues like this?
adventure-today.com
Physics and Astronomy help us understand the true nature of God (and she's not a vindicitive gay hating abortion clinic bombing fat old white bearded man, FYI). So why not spend at least as much money on Physics and Astronomy to understand the universe, instead of giving money to preachers, who just lie to you, then spend it on crystal meth, blow jobs from gay hustlers, political favors, molesting little kids, and paying off lawsuits for molesting little kids.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
They were obviously destroyed during the Shadow War, as documented on Babylon 5 episode Into the Fire...
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
Transistor-based computers, while they rely on quantum effects for their operation, perform calculations using large numbers of quanta (electrons) on a large (in quantum terms) scale. When we look at sufficiently large numbers of quanta on a large enough scale, we analyse the bulk properties as electricity. It's at that larger scale that computation happens in a microchip - they are electrical devices, with many electrons representing each bit. The term 'quantum computer' refers specifically to computers which perform the actual computation at the scale of individual quanta.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Especially when it comes to the point that we *need* to get off this rock. At that point all the AIDS vaccines, wells and roads all over the world become worth squat.
I would imagine people with AIDS would respectfully disagree with you.
I came here for a good argument
The parent isn't just picking nits here. A lot of responses say something along the lines of "yes, but in our frame of reference, with x=0,t=0 being Earth and Now, this explosion happens at t0" -- and this is perfectly correct. It's not the case, though, that we're stuck with that frame of reference. 1000 years -- the length of time it will take the explosion's light to reach us -- is a really long time. In 400 years, maybe someone will build a spacecraft that could accelerate fast enough to reach 99.9% of the speed of light (relative to Earth's velocity) -- not an entirely ridiculous proposition.
Looking back at the fast-receding Earth, and the fast-receding Pillars of Creation, our intrepid astronaut could reasonably say "Oh -- those pillars will be destroyed in just a few thousand years, and then the light will take a few thousand more to reach me." And that's not just a technicality -- that's honestly what would be true in the astronaut's frame of reference, even if he were the same fellow who wrote today's article.
Your statement is a bit contradictory. You present your position as if it is opposed to the previous post, but when you argue that the value of knowledge is that we can eventually use it to save ourselves, you are practically saying the same thing as the post you are responding to - that the primary goal of our research and knowledge should accomplish practical objectives. In other words, the value is in the fruits of the knowledge, not in knowing itself. The time period of these objectives just differs. Your example of escaping the planet is a problem that's a bit further down the road than AIDs and energy depletion, but you both seem to be of the opinion that the value of knowledge is in its practical applications. You think we should look further ahead, and the other poster wants to look more at the problems of the present day.
I think it would be much more interesting to look at the position that your first statement suggests - that the value is in knowing itself, or at least something a little further away from the idea that the primary value of knowing about the universe is in using it to our ends. While improving the life of its people might need to be the stated goal of a government organization to a certain point, I think expanding human knowledge and understanding could be its own reward. Yeah, the knowledge may save us some day, but does that need to be the reason we ask the questions? It seems to me that a lot of world-changing questions aren't asked in an attempt to solve a problem. They're inquiries that deeply stir us for what can seem to be no particular reason. The awe the sky inspires must have stirred humans for many ages. For the people who ask these questions, knowledge is its own reward. Sure, people may put it to use hundreds of years later, but finding answers provided a great deal of value to searchers on their quests for knowledge before others found additional value in practical applications.
I think a truly inspired scientist is probably just as interested in the means as the ends.
I wish I could be alive 1,000 years from now so I could watch a time lapse movie of it happening...
It's sad when choosing an installation directory on your own qualifies you as an "advanced user."
There's a lot of use in astrophysics, whether it's confirming essential theories about physics, or applying what we know about other systems/galaxies to our own. There's, of course, the pure curiousity of finding out about the universe, but also there's stuff we'd never have a clue about if it wasn't for it - dark matter, et cetera. And some particle physics hinges on it: an awful lot of rare particles come from outer space, and if you're going to go about detecting them it's helpful to know where they came from, what kind of frequency you expect them at (and et cetera).
Also, a lot of the research is multipurpose - I'm sure that you know about the amount of technology that was kickstarted by the moon landings.
Finally, knowledge is an odd thing, in that you never know when you're going to need it. You never would have thought number theory would have been useful, but just look at modern day encryption. It's good to keep everything going at once, because science doesn't require just money - it requires time as well. I should also mention that funding for stuff like this doesn't automatically get granted, a lot of a scientist's time is spent pitching their research projects, showing that they're potentially useful to somebody or something. Nobody's going to fund useless research (or at least, the bias should be against it).
I've got the spirit, lose the feeling.
All of the comments about time travel, light cones, ect are a complete and utter waste of time. While the article doesn't do a very good job of explaining it, the light from the proposed super nova that will cause changes in the Pillars of Creation has already reached us. What hasn't reached us yet is the light from the changed Pillars of Creation. This difference is due to two factors, one small and one huge. The small one is that fact that the star that went nova is closer to us than the Pillars are. The largest factor is the difference in the progagation of the light from the super nova and that of the wave that will physically re-arrange the Pillars. A simple model is the light and sound from an explosion. You'll see the light flash before you hear the bang.
Great answer. Thanks.
Why is this modded up?
Its electric universe BS. On the level of cold fusion and UFO conspiracy nuts.
Don't make the mistake that all those who believe in God also think evolution is a lie. Some believe that evolution could just be a mechanism and that the bible is full of metaphors and not everything in it is literal. I am one of those. It is also why I loathe most *organized* religions who seem to require everything they read to the literal truth and forget that the book was written by plain ol' men. I don't usually like nor get along with most religious literalists/legalists, or those who can only mimic what ever they read in a book... ANY book... religious or not. You can choose to agree with the book, but it is best if you understand why you agree as opposed to some who just do without thought.
I believe in God. I also have a Darwin fish on the back of my car. It was my protest while living in the bible belt against the ubiquitous Jesus fish that was on so many of the cars there (St. Louis), and the nearly absolute religious literalists that drove those cars (thank goodness not everyone was like that there!). That was were I first ran into the pseudo science creationism of intelligent design... but that is another story already raked over the coals. :-)
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Here is a really good example where the observers don't even need to be going very fast at all, as the great distances involved make the lines of simultaneity vastly different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk-Putnam_Argum ent. In the Rucker book I mention below there's a thought experiment similiar to this one about a trial to determine if a ship's captain turned on his engines before or after an attack occurred.
A philosophical position is not the same thing as an article of faith. While you could argue that a given philosophical position is not "proven", inasmuch as you (or perhaps someone besides yourself) may not be convinced by the arguments in it's favor, others may find the argument absolutely convincing such that any disagreement with it seems necessarily irrational.
I wouldn't call myself an atheist exactly (I'm a sort of pantheist), but I'm certainly a naturalist, so lets look at that first "article of faith" you listed:
1) that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter)
I assume by "natural" or "material" phenomena, you (or they) mean observable phenomena, as in 'observable in principle'; you could by some means, perhaps not *yet* technologically possible, empirically tell whether or not that phenomena in fact occurred. That is, there is some observation you could make, some experiment you could do, that perhaps we are presently unable to do due to practical limits, which would tell you whether the sentence describing that phenomenon was true.
Given that that is what is meant by that, it seems patently absurd to conclude that anything non-natural exists (which is the same thing as to say that there are unknowable truths), on the basis that:
(A) Conceivability is possibility (and vice versa). Something is logically possible if and only if it could be conceived of; if you couldn't even conceive of what it would be for something to be the case, then you clearly have no idea what it even is that is in question, and so that non-idea cannot possibly be true.
(B) One can only conceive what one could, hypothetically, perceive. Consider someone asks you to conceive of "a foo upon a fweep". You have some rough notion of something placed on something else, but in order to conceive of these things, you have to ask "what is a foo?" and "what is a fweep?", and the descriptions which follow in response must ultimately cache out in some sort of perceptual terms (it looks like this, it sounds like this, it feels like this, etc). So to conceive of something, you must understand what it woud be to perceive it; thus, you could only conceive what you could (if such a thing existed) perceive. (As an aside, this does not mean that you must undertake the act of consciously imagining something every time you are asked to conceive of it; it is merely enough to note that "yes, that is a sort of perception I could have; now what about it?")
From A and B, it deductively follows that the only things logically possible are things which are perceivable (a.k.a. observable); so if "natural" or "material" phenomena are understood to be just such observable phenomena, as it seems they are, then it deductively follows that only natural/material phenomena are logically possible. From there, the atheist can perhaps derive his other two items of doctrine, but my point here is not to defend atheism; it is to defend philosophy from the accusation that it is mere baseless comparison of different articles of faith.
Now... maybe you can find some flaw in my argument there. Maybe my premises A and B are false somehow, and I've overlooked something. Maybe my understanding of "natural" or "material" phenomena is not correct, and those terms rightly denote something other than what I take them to. Maybe you can't find any flaws but you just don't buy it anyway. The point is, there is good, some (like I) would say irrefutable evidence to support such a position. I certainly consider such a thing quite easily proven; I have just done so. So to accept naturalism is hardly an article of faith; and it seems that something like atheism - or at least, something quite unlike the supernaturalist theism common to most modern major religions - logically follows from such a position. So the atheist (of a certain variety at least) has good grounds by which to claim that his position is not one of faith.
Now, there are some logical arguments for the existence of God as well, which I'm sure you're aware of; the ontol
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
So, your belief is that arguments should be rated on the basis of popularity rather than logic? Should we vote on science just like we do for our presidents?
Electric Universe Theory is nothing more than the application of plasma physics to cosmology. It is based upon laboratory experiments and is driven by contemporary observational data. It also corresponds with numerous writings by ancient literate astronomical cultures on Earth. It is the astrophysicists that are trying to convince people that the plasma lab results and plasma computer simulations do not apply to large-scale space structures, and that their idealized fluid models with frozen-in-place magnetic fields and perfect conductivity accurately model plasma.
Where plasma cosmologists postulate nothing more than electricity flowing over plasma, bread-and-butter astrophysicists are the ones postulating invisible matter and impossible forces. Plasma, by definition, involves mobile ions and electrons. Why should it not conduct electricity? If you saw a horse with a horn, would you suspect a genetic deformity or a unicorn?
Why can't diffuse plasmas exist? Just because something seems diffuse to us humans, does that mean that it would be too diffuse for large-scale structures within the universe to use it for energy transfer? Why would the universe care how things appear to us?
Plasma represents the state of nearly *all* observable matter within the universe. Why should we not seriously consider cosmologies based upon it? Wouldn't it be irresponsible to *not* do so?
If the man who invented the math that astrophysicists currently use to model plasma recused himself from his own invention during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, shouldn't astrophysicists listen? Or are astrophysicists allowed to make up science as they see fit?
Perhaps people are paying attention because it makes *sense*.
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
Actually, in the UK ambulances use GPS to kill people... An ambulance crew recently turned what should have been a 20 minute drive across town into a 4+ hour trip between major cities because they just trusted what the GPS told them :(
If the man who invented the math that astrophysicists currently use to model plasma recused himself from his own invention during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, shouldn't astrophysicists listen? Or are astrophysicists allowed to make up science as they see fit?
Ah, I see you're back and you still don't have any evidence other than the acceptance speech of a Nobel laureate.
But you've used so many words that you must be on to something, right?
Anyway, your theories are clearly being suppressed by the powers that be. I highly recommend setting fire to yourself in front of a major landmark in order to draw attention to this.
I hereby nominate this last line for understatement of the month.
If we all had your attitude, we'd have never left the caves.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
No we left the caves to escape simpletons like you. :)
Seriously though, I would say that most innovation is driven out of necessity even if it is artificial necessity... now several other people have responded to me and pointed out that although the direct value of this research is on par with calculating the total # of daises on the mountains (not much) the mathematics and physics used and tested in these types of exercises is quite valuable. That was of course my original question... why should we do this, and a few of the answers I got back helped me understand.
Atheism is a religion in exactly the same way that refusing to ever collecting a stamp is a hobby. :-)
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
That's why it's good to research strange things in Civilisation.
Deleted
Are you saying that God lost his erection?
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
In fact as it is being funded using tax you can 100% guarantee the benefits don't out weigh the costs, else you wouldn't need to force people to hand over their hard earned money, they would do it willingly.
I think perhaps your model of human nature needs some work. After all, casinos make thier money by offering a service such that statistically benefits do not outweigh the costs. The so called "house percentage".
And yet many people clamor to avail themselves of this service, gambling.
So why can't the opposite case exist? Where the benefits do outweigh the costs, but some people try to weasel out of thier share of the cost.
Want a more concrete example? A vaccination program can effectively eradicate a disease. (such as has been done Smallpox). So the smart choice is to have the program, right? Of course there will be some people who have a bad reaction to the shot, but the cost in human suffering would be less than not having the program at all.
But unfortunately, some people will not see the decision matrix as VACCINATE/NOT VACCINATE, but as VACCINATE/NOT VACCINATE/VACCINATE EVERYONE BUT ME. For an individual, Option 3 is best, because it has the advantages of having the program, yet avoids the possibility of an adverse reaction. But if many people try for option 3, it becomes effectively option 2.
So then force logically gets involved, even if its just 'Keep away from my family (who may be too young to get vaccinated yet) or I'll use force, you potentially contaminated unvaccinated SOB.'
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
First things first: (A) seems like an axiom to me; I would like you to demonstrate or elaborate that unconceivable entities cannot exist, if possible.
But, furthermore, even if A is a truism, A+B just would prove that if there is a Deity, it's not supernatural -- it's part of the Nature. IOW: A+B = (so-called Supernatural entities/events) is contained in (Natural entities/events). Now, substitute "Nature" for "Next-level Deity" and you have a theism again. Remember that some theisms consider that our Universe is contained in the Deity -- part of it.
You are right that "philosopy is not faith", but faith, OTOH, is a philosophical stance. And to firmly believe in the non-existence of any Deity without any evidence whatsoever that it's true is a faith statement, instead of simply a philosophical statement. Now, not believing in the existence of a Deity (nor believing its non-existence) is a simple philosophical statement, because the subject is not believing something despite the absence of evidence (which would be the definition of "faith").
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Hey! Did you guys hear? The (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/ 09/2330251)Pillars of Creation were destroyed!
The most important thing to do in your life is to not interfere with somebody else's life. -FZ
Sorry for the apparent magnitude joke...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Nebula
A hundred years ago a couple of guys tried to measure our speed through the "ether". They found that there was no ether. This lead to the idea that light must travel at the same speed no matter what reference frame you're in. This (and a few other things) lead to the ideas of quantum physics.
That's interesting -- another addition to the always-growing list of things I didn't know. I poked around for a link and found this: Is The Speed of Light Constant? Scroll down to the "Special Relativity" section for a description of how the search for the Speed of Light in the Ether led to the discovery of the slippery notion of "spacetime".
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
I am curious about this idea that we choose our beliefs.
Consider: I would very much like to believe that human beings are basically good and decent. That although we are flawed there is a limit to what we are prepared to do to one another, to how bad we can become.
I cannot, however, believe this, because half an hour's perusal of any history of the twentieth century proves otherwise in the most horrible detail. We're capable of every horror imaginable. I hate it but it's true, and I have no choice to believe it because it happened, over and over again.
Or similarly: I offer you a million dollars to believe that the sky is green. Can you comply? Sure, you can lie to me to get my money, but can you truly look at the sky and believe it is green, if I offer you a large enough sum to do so?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
You're the one who needs to look things up.
h uxley.html
Atheism is from "a-" meaning "without" and "theism" meaning "belief in god". It literally means, without a belief in god.
Agnosticism was defined by T.H. Huxley, who was quite specific as to his meaning: An agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know whether god exists.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
something, if they do it freely, they benefit from for what ever reason.
So your claim apparenltly is that if a compulsive gambler, loses all his money, loses his job, his home, lets his family go into desperation, and dies penniless in a gutter leaving all his responsibilities for someone else to clean up after, it is somehow a 'benefit' because he was free to it?
Mighty harsh defintion for a word derived from the latin for "good deed"
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
So an atheist could accept a proof of god (and presumably cease to be an atheist as a result) whereas an agnostic would deny the existence of such a proof?
Meanwhile even theists would cease to be theists in face of a proof for god, becoming... what? Knowists?
Anyway, I say foo to all this saying they were toppled 6,000 years ago. For the purposes of causality it hasn't happened yet for us, and won't for another thousand years. It cannot affect us until then. They just don't want to say that they're predicting that it will have happened 6,000 years ago.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I never left. What you apparently see as so many words, others read and understand as logic. Like some others, you are quite stubborn about your ignorance. I'm not speaking to people like you any more than I would speak to my couch. The only reason you believe that I don't have much evidence is because you haven't critically read the material yourself. You have blinders on, and only you can take them off.
People are responding that my input is valuable and it is people like you that are having to remind everybody else that we're supposed to believe that this is pseudoscience. I don't think you're going to have much success by ranting about UFO's and conspiracies. You're going to have to come up with some actual material to work with if you care.
I recommend that you block my postings so that you can continue to believe in your nonphysical idealized plasma world. I'm not here to force my ideas upon you. I'm educating those who are ready for it. The rest of you won't take notice until the herd around you has because your most important basis for believing an idea is how many people around you already believe it or if NASA is saying it. It's a very simplistic conception of pseudoscience that I'm fine with you believing.
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
The "pillars" that the article is referring to are not massive solid structures that will, all of a sudden, crumble one day; they are gargantuan clouds of "space stuff" (stars, protostars, gases, etc...). Like clouds in our atmosphere, they are continuously, slowly and gradually changing. Wondering if humans 1,000 years from now are going to remember what it looked like to us now is as silly as wondering if the other kids on my 3rd grade field trip remember that cloud that looked like Bugs Bunny's head.
The only press that it might get 1,000 years from now would be from some historian that found this article in his archives and decides to fill a column with pointless reminiscing of "how naive we used to be". It would be today's equivalent of going back to articles written in the 1980's about predictions of "how great life and technology will be 20 years from now" and just pointing out that the author was incredibly off.
If you want perspective, just ponder the sheer SIZE of the Eagle Nebula compared to the size of our planet (which is, for now, the only thing our human civilization can affect directly). We are no more than a speck of sand on the beach dude.
Karma: NaN
Good ol' electric universe. Proving, once again, that you can fool all of /. all of the time.
If "fooling" people means believing that plasma lab results scale up to universe scales; that plasma consists of mobile ions and electrons that can conduct electricity; and that plasma does not act anything like a *fluid* with ideal conductivity; then I'm proud to be fooled. In fact, that guy Hannes Alfven that recused himself from magnetohydrodynamics was so fooled about electricity flowing in space that he was the first to predict the large-scale filamentary structure of the universe in 1963. He was such a fool that he developed the basic tools that we use today to describe the Van Allen radiation belt twenty years before it was discovered. He was such a complete idiot that he proposed an explanation for the acceleration of cosmic rays that is now known as the Fermi Mechanism -- except that he did it before Fermi. Alfven was so stupid that he played a pivotal role in the development of plasma physics, the physics of charged particle beams and interplanetary and magnetospheric physics. What a complete imbecile! We definitely shouldn't pay any attention to what that guy had to say.
The real problem is that you mainstream'ers are not even aware of all of the assumptions that have been made within traditional astrophysics in order to maintain your gravity-centric conceptions.
There is a pseudoscience. It's called magnetohydrodynamics and it's what we teach astrophysicists in classrooms today.
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
90% of Christians don't really believe in God; they just like to say they do. If they really believed in the God of the Bible, their behavior would be totally different.
I don't think that is quite accurate. It's more analagous to millions of americans believe in democracy, but still break the law.
It is difficult for mankind to continuously follow any set of laws religious or otherwise, with the exception of physics. So most people try and do the best they can.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Ah, A college philosophy major in the process of matriculation!
... well, I think it is an unjustified dismissal in this case, but I'm going to criticize your actual arguments now.
;) ), therefore your argument is, again, semantical and vapid!
Ah, a condescending Anonymous Coward.
I love philosophy, and I do not take issue with your attempt to defend your own personal views; however, I do detect a sent of conceit in your arguments. They would, by many people, be called sophomoric. You seem to discount the intelligence of a great many people, merely calling them irrational hoodlums. Now, this is not always a bad thing to do, I do it with creationists for instance, but
I'm not afraid to call a bad argument a bad argument. I'm not calling the people who came up with those arguments stupid - plenty of bright people come up with bad arguments. I've come up with plenty of my own before.
1) Now, it seems to me you are using an overly broad interpretation of naturalism. The accepted public usage of the word, as used by the parent, and which you chose to ignore, would more properly be summarized by "The universe is nothing but Standard Model particles / vibrations in strings / Your favorite physics model."
That's not naturalism, that's "scientism", in the pejorative sense used by postmodernists and religious folk - the belief that our current model of science is completely correct. Maybe some people do hold that belief, but I don't think any even mildly introspective scientist, or any scientist working on the forefront of science where there are many as-yet-unexplained phenomena, would accept that view.
Certainly no one who believed that angles are real would claim that they are theoretically un-observable. [they look like people and teleport through space time. There I have conceived of it. How do they teleport through space time? I don't know, how do quantum entanglements manage to do it?] Therefore, according to you, belief in angles is compatible with a materialistic philosophy. Poppy cock.
Are these angels made of matter? That is, you can see, hear, touch, taste, smell them, etc? (Or at least some of them above?) Then their existence is compatible with a materialist philosophy. It is not compatible with our present scientific cosmology (that is, we don't think that such object actually exist), but they *could* exist and are not meaningless nonsense. But show me an angel or some evidence indicating their existence and then we'll talk. If you can't, but you've seen them yourself... I can't rightly tell you not to believe in them, but you can't convince me to believe in them without showing me something that might incline me to such beliefs. I am angel-agnostic... and fairy-agnostic, and leprechaun-agnostic, Loch-Ness-Monster-agnostic. These are meaningful ideas of objects that could exist. I just see no reason yet to postulate that they do. God, on the other hand, *if claimed to be something fundamentally beyond scientific proof or disproof* (as so many theists seem to claim), is a meaningless concept altogether. Other concepts of God may not be so meaningless. I am also Zeus-agnostic and Odin-agnostic and so forth.
Now let me look at that again. I read that as "something beyond the universe - is utter nonsense; because [the universe is] by definition, the sum of all that exists "
May I point out that many physicist postulate other universes beyond our own. So, starting from the assumption that physicists are not monumentally stupid, I deduce that they are not making the error you are accusing them of, therefore, they are not using your definition of universe. Therefor, your formal definition of universe is not the universally accepted definition (i.e. there exist other definitions
Fine then - substitute "multiverse" or whatever term you like for "that set of all physical phenomena", which in traditional (materialist) philosophical usage is called "the universe". My original argument
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
(I had to make a monthly visit to the local jailhouse while I worked in the DA's office, to make sure the inmates were being treated humanly) I will tell you that the only ethical way of dealing -- for instance -- with convicts is to choose to believe that every human being is basically good and decent. If you don't, you de-humanize them and you start treating them like animals. I have seen lots of people working for the recovery of convicts, and they all believe that convicts are good and decent people if you give them the opportunities, a strong guidance, and a clean and simple set of rules. Other people just beat them up and pile them in their cells.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
And from the image caption ...
You can clearly see in the images that the filaments of *plasma* have changed shape over time as you would expect plasma to do as electricity flows over it. Remember, its kinetic motions are affected by the current and the current affects its kinetic motions -- just like a plasma globe.
Where mainstream astronomers see light traveling 50 light-years and illuminating a cloud of "gas" in space, plasma cosmologist and Electric Universe Theorists see plasma doing the same stuff we've seen it do within laboratories:
From http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0604 05plasmoid.htm:
You can see a very detailed picture of the center of the Milky Way Galaxy at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 15milkyway.htm. Far from being some invisible black hole like object, we can see it and it's the same plasma torus that we can generate within laboratories.
The problem for astrophysicists today is that they need to come up with a mechanism that can explain how the gas itself is illuminating in x-rays because x-rays indicate an unusually high amount of energy is being released. And their idealized non-resistive gas laws that they use to understand how gas behaves in space do not allow for x-rays to be produced by the gas except in some very specific situations (like violent collisions). For the center of the Milky Way, the Chandra X-Ray Telescope has imaged temperatures for this gas of both 10-million degrees C and 100-million degrees C. This is anomalous to current theories. From http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040715 space.htm:
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
One says "You're an eternal, flaming idiot", and the other says "You'll be in eternal flames, you idiot".
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
But that's just a strawman since practically nobody actually believes anything of the sort. How come? many atheist people in this thread said exactly that they firmly believe in the non-existence of any Deity. They also did not state any evidence that leads them logically to believe in the non-existence of some Deity. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's also begging the question since you're assuming that there is a god, or at least that belief in one has merit which is what you're trying to demonstrate. No, if you paid attention you would see that I am assuming that believe that there is a Deity has as much merit (none, IMHO) as the believe that there is not any Deity. Given that there is no evidence for a god, then not buying into it is just basic common ense nad the default position. So, given that there is no evidence of superstrings and branes, then not buying into it is just basic common sense and the default position, also? They are in no way symmetrical positions.
One is blind faith in an entirely unsupportable position, while the other is simply not buying into an entirely unsupportable position. Not really, because most atheists (in this whole thread, for instance) affirm categorically that Deities, and other "supernatural" fenomena do not exist. And many theists had experiences that they qualify as real and that make, for them, unreasonable and unsupportable that God does not exist. I don't believe in Zeus either. Do you? Why or why not?
If not, please explain exactly how you mananged to choose between two identically supported views.
It certainly isn't reason though. Rationally every god ever invented is identically likely. I don't know anything about the existence or non-existence of Zeus. I think my position is based on pure logic. And so, logically, one should not believe on the existence or the non-existence of YHVH or $DEITY also.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048