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.'"

Comments

Ah ha!

[grub]

Astronomers think [a] supernova's shock wave knocked the pillars down about 6,000 years ago.

Just as the the Earth was being created!

Re:Ah ha!

[AndroidCat]

They weren't destroyed, just modded down. Set your telescopes to view -1.

Re:Ah ha!

[UbuntuDupe]

The earth is actually older than 6,000 years.

*please mod informative, please mod informative*

Re:Ah ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, atheism is a religion in exactly the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

If you lived in the Eagle Nebula

[andy314159pi]

There was a gimmicky sign left by the pillars of creation:

If you lived in the Eagle Nebula, you'd be destroyed by now.

Bad use of "already"

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Really, when will people learn not to use the past tense for events outside of our past light cone!

The pillars have already been destroyed by the shockwave

The guy's modeled the pillars and claims that they were destroyed 6000 years ago, 7000 light years away. But if this is the case, then their destruction is outside of our past light cone. So someone else here and now, moving past as at high velocity, using English in the same way, could claim that this event is actually in their future. It doesn't mean that they could visit the destruction because they're outside of any possible future lightcone of any observer starting from here now. Events outside of our light cones are neither past nor future, and you certainly can't go bandying around the word 'already' when you talk about them.

Re:Bad use of "already"

[Jerf]

There is no such thing as "instantaneously".

Re:Bad use of "already"

[baldass_newbie]

Actually, this is a *ahem* perfect use of the pluperfect tense.

Re:Bad use of "already"

[nacturation]

So if I fart and you're 100 meters away, will you say that I haven't yet farted because it's outside of your smell cone?

Re:Bad use of "already"

[mcvos]

So if I fart and you're 100 meters away, will you say that I haven't yet farted because it's outside of your smell cone?

I'm afraid the speed of fart is not a fundamental constant of our space-time continuum.

topple

[Feyr]

i find the idea that anything in space can "topple" or "fall down" highly amusing

some of these reporters need to check their gravity :)

Proper Time Travel Grammar

[Peter Trepan]

They willan on-have collapsen.

Re:Cool... hope it didn't cost too much

[redcane]

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.

Re:Cool... hope it didn't cost too much

[wrook]

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.

speed of light speed of pressure wave

[mstrcat]

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.

Philosophy is not faith

[Pfhorrest]

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