Slashdot Mirror


A Symmetrical Cosmic Red Square

Remember the hexagon surrounding Saturn's north pole? Now for our delectation Ano_Nimass Coward sends us to Space.com for a look at a nebula with near perfect bilateral symmetry surrounding a dying star. The so-called Red Square ranks among the most symmetrical objects ever observed by scientists. "If you fold things across the principle diagonal axis, you get an almost perfect reflection symmetry," said the leader of a study of the object, recently published in Science. A possible explanation for the structure's glow, if not its shape, was advanced in a paper appearing in PNAS, which attributes the glow of a similar object — dubbed, confusingly, the Red Rectangle — to exotic space-hardened organic molecules called Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. PAHs are normally unstable but may occur in places like the nebula in question, in nanostructured clusters that are extremely stable and radiation hardened.

152 comments

  1. Geometry by Stormx2 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Quoteth the article:

    dubbed, confusingly, the Red Rectangle
    Quoteth wikipedia:

    A square (regular quadrilateral) is a special case of a rectangle as it has four right angles and parallel sides.
    How is it confusing?
    1. Re:Geometry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sarcasm?

    2. Re:Geometry by adrianmonk · · Score: 3, Informative

      How is it confusing?

      The difference between Red Rectangle and Red Square is confusing because, if you read the article, they are different things. From the article:

      The researchers propose that similar conditions are contributing to the extreme symmetry of another system, the Red Rectangle, whose central star is cooler than that of the Red Square.
    3. Re:Geometry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you read the article


      You must be new here, welcome to slashdot!
    4. Re:Geometry by owlnation · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Good grief, when will people here STOP quoting wikipedia as an authority. That definition of Square is utterly worthless.

      Though admittedly, I'd have modded you "funny", cos I think that's what you intended. Insightful, seems like someone didn't get the joke. It was a joke right?

    5. Re:Geometry by Stormx2 · · Score: 2

      Seems like you didn't get the point.

      And I don't see why it is worthless. imho it is completely relevant, on face value. No, I didn't RTFA. I was only saying that calling a square a rectangle isn't confusing if you look at it from a geometric perspective. The other replier cleared up the difference.

    6. Re:Geometry by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1
      It's not confusing so much as tautologous.

      A square (regular quadrilateral) is a special case of a rectangle as it has four right angles and parallel sides.
      Any rectangle fulfils that criterion, not just a square. A square is a special case of a rectangle in that it has four equal sides.
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    7. Re:Geometry by Stormx2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ah, that bit is a tad unclear. The reasoning "as it has four right angles and parallel sides." is the reason it is a rectangle, not a special case of a rectangle.

    8. Re:Geometry by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 0, Troll

      And yet another Wikipedia fan proves himself, at last, a pedantic, literal-minded little shit. Why am I not surprised?

    9. Re:Geometry by theuedimaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      Remember children, every Red Square is a Red Rectangle, but not every Red Rectangle is a Red Square.

    10. Re:Geometry by Stormx2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      See if you'd put that on a wikipedia article, someone would add the {{Original research}} tag, because the link between being a "pedantic, literal-minded little shit" and being a wikipedia fan hasn't been proven, yet. How about {{NPOV}}? But seriously, stop trolling.

      Oh, and in answer to your question, you aren't surprised because you were all too happy to find a coincidental link.

    11. Re:Geometry by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 3, Funny
      Let us put this on a scientific basis. The first step is to create a proper acronym to speed discourse. Henceforth, we shall use "PLLS" instead of the longer "pedantic literal-minded little shit."

      I, of course, am not a PLLS, as I spell and punctuate correctly and wipe myself properly after every bowel movemnet, because Nanny would beat me severely if I didn't...er.. I digress. Where was I? Oh yes, the 32nd poster previous failed to spell 'incunabula' correctly. Oh, and there are 152 toothpicks on the floor.

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

      It's not confusing. A square is a type of rectangle. Therefore, this is both at once!

    13. Re:Geometry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, you got confused.

    14. Re:Geometry by David+Gould · · Score: 1

      Good grief, when will people here STOP quoting wikipedia as an authority. That definition of Square is utterly worthless. More shocking is that anyone (on slashdot, yet) would find it necessary to cite any source for a definition of a square.
      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
    15. Re:Geometry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  2. Optical illusion? by RyanFenton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not a astrophysicist, but I've seen enough photographic artifacts to know you can get some interesting symmetrical single-color polygons through reflection and refraction that look remarkably like what is shown here. Is there any way to verify that this isn't a visual artifact, as opposed to an actual physical cloud? Or is the artifact itself a sign that there has to be a highly symmetrical set of objects creating it?

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Optical illusion? by barakn · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are some artifacts in the image. Notice the stars with 6 rays. The rays are created by support structures holding the secondary mirror of the telescope in front of the primary mirror. The fact that the square doesn't have hexagonal symmetry argues for its existence as a real object.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    2. Re:Optical illusion? by RyanFenton · · Score: 3, Informative

      But it highlighted star still does show the six-ray spikes the other starts do... the white light in the center just seems to have an hourglass shape that matches with the hexagonal spikes (also likely an artifact) that makes a square as it radiates out. Is it possible that the core of this star is collapsing into a quasar-like object, radiating in two opposite directions, each mostly perpendicular to our viewpoint? Those two narrowing radiating jets of light could match the hexagon thatches to make that white hourglass in the center, making the red square on the outside.

      Ryan Fenton

    3. Re:Optical illusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Stop overanalyzing a particular picture of it. The Red Square has been imaged thousands of times by hundreds of instruments over the past decade. The square *is there*.

    4. Re:Optical illusion? by barakn · · Score: 4, Interesting
      First of all, I'd suggest looking at this higher resolution image, available from this page with other fascinating graphics. I would agree that the more-or-less horizontal component of the central X (the sides of the hour glass) is in the same direction as the two "horizontal" components of the stars' hexagonal rays (by coincidence, I presume). However the vertical part of the central X does not point in the same direction as any of the hexagonal rays. This may be a simple demonstration of how an hourglass doesn' have hexagonal symmetry, but more importantly it suggests the hourglass isn't produced by the same process as the hexagonal spikes.


      Having said that, there are some faint hexagonal spikes created by the central object, but they are much fainter than the hour glass shape..


      I wouldn't use the term "quasar-like" because the word quasar is an acronym for "quasi-stellar radio source" and i don't think this object is the source of many radio waves

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    5. Re:Optical illusion? by barakn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Anonymous Coward is quite wrong. All the news articles about the Red Square are referring to it as a new nebula. It hasn't been "imaged thousands of times by hundreds of instruments over the past decade." It has only been imaged by two intruments over the last several years. It wasn't imageable until recent advance in adaptive optics, as AC should have known had AC read any of the articles. Mod parent uninformative.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    6. Re:Optical illusion? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Red Square has been imaged thousands of times by hundreds of instruments over the past decade. The square *is there*. You are confusing the "Red Rectangle Nebula" which has been imaged hundreds of times over the past decade with the newly-discovered "Red Square Nebula" which this article is about.
    7. Re:Optical illusion? by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm not an astrophysicist either, but I suspect they kind of check for stuff like that.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    8. Re:Optical illusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Actually, what Anonymous Coward (btw that's his real name) failed to mention is that he's from Blarus 4.
      They have imaged the Red Square thousands of times, it being much closer to them.
      It's only us here on earth that have not imaged it so many times.

    9. Re:Optical illusion? by Basehart · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the links. The higher res images make it easier to look at the image as if the radials are pointing away from us instead of towards us, making it look like a pyramid from a birds eye view.

      Although it's a pretty long stretch to assume that a distant civilization is responsible somehow for all the pyramids on Earth and in space, it would make sense if you were into creating them to make some kind of statement to have them visible in space to beings on the planets that have them.

    10. Re:Optical Illusion? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      I suspect that nobody mentions the possiblity of the appearance being an optical illusion caused by some object between us and it because where that the case, then signs of such would stick out and detection of such an object would be trivial. First off, it only affects this star. That it does not affect the other nearby stars and give similar appearance in the same wavelengths that this photo was taken, including other stars within the area of the nebula would seem to rule that out.

    11. Re:Optical illusion? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      I am an astrophysicist and yes, we do check - ever since the infamous discovery of the slightly-smudgy-fingerprint cluster. The debacle surrounding the OMG-it's-shaped-like-a-giant-beetle nebula didn't do the profession's reputation much good either.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  3. Civilisation by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The Star Egyptia towered over the sky, from the far reaches of the empire would look up at the stars and teach their children where it came from.
    One night, it went nova.

    The Egyptian outlanders throughout the galaxy built huge temples to honour the billions dead from their home system. The dead on these worlds would rest in similar surroundings.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  4. Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it obvious? The Borg are watching!

  5. mmmmmm bacon by Bazuul · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "bacon was smoldering on the range, filling the house with gas-phase polycyclic aromatics-my favorite carcinogen by a long shot" - Sangamon Taylor from Neal Stephenson's "Zodiac" Wonder what that nebula smells like?

  6. Look, it's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A principle describes an idea. Principal means "main". I'm not gonna have to repeat myself I hope? And on Space.com too. For shame.

    1. Re:Look, it's easy by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      Sorry, bud. You got it wrong. The article is correct.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:Look, it's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry bud, looks like you were whacking off while the baby Jeebus was handing out brains. So it was symmetrical about its idea axis? Not its main axis? Okey dokey then...

    3. Re:Look, it's easy by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      Yeeps. I stand corrected. : (

      --
      This guy's the limit!
  7. Too obvious... by adrianmonk · · Score: 3, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, the Red Square ejects stars.

    On a more serious note, in present-day Russia, the Red Square really does eject -- and beat and arrest -- stars[1] when they show up to demonstrate against the government. Things are getting kinda shaky over there, it would appear.

    [1] Garry Kasparov, specifically.

    1. Re:Too obvious... by rbanffy · · Score: 0

      Things are getting shaky all over the place...

      I am worried.

  8. Obligatory by Rubinhood · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, you don't observe Red Square, but Red Square observes you.

    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this point, is it really obligatory?

      We need to mod down -1 give it a rest.

    2. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @04:34PM (#18743861)
      At this point, is it really obligatory?

      We need to mod down -1 give it a rest. But sadly, moderation is done by Slashdot members, and not us. As long as this rule, this example of awful lockstep slashbot groupthink stands, things that are funny to Slashdotters will get modded up, while our anonymously posted manifestos of political quackery and GNAA trolls will continue to be modded down. INJUSTICE, I say!
  9. Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Red Square? Clearly, this is proof that while the Americans were busy trying to land on the moon, the Soviets had set their aim higher and constructed a copy of their Red Square in space. In fact, if you look closely enough, there is a Red Star in the middle.

  10. 2d objects in 3d space by Mononoke · · Score: 1
    Do we have to use 2d terminology for objects that are (hopefully) 3d?

    (Anyway, it looks like a lens flare.)

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    1. Re:2d objects in 3d space by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know where you come from, but in my reality, we call a 3d rectangle...


      wait for it...


      a box.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:2d objects in 3d space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a 3d rectangle? Clearly you must be talking about Time Cube

  11. Right angles by chroma · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Objects that are extremely regular and have right angles are usually considered to be artificial in origin.

    --

    Your design to a real part online: Big Blue Saw
    1. Re:Right angles by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      How long will it be until someone posts a comment misinterpreting "organic"?

      The pools are open!

    2. Re:Right angles by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Objects that are extremely regular and have right angles are usually considered to be artificial in origin.
      Yeah, like a sodium chloride crystal. :)
      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    3. Re:Right angles by MarkRose · · Score: 2, Funny

      Objects that are extremely regular and have right angles are usually considered to be artificial in origin.
      Yeah, like a sodium chloride crystal. :)
      That response has gotta burn like salt in a wound.
      --
      Be relentless!
    4. Re:Right angles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely. Sodium Chloride chrystals were made by our lord Jesus to feed us. This clearly proves that the Universe was made by God using an enormous pencil and ruler.

      So REPENT HEATHEN!!!

      Oddly, the capcha at the bottom is: "villains" Coincidence? I think not.

    5. Re:Right angles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly someone has never heard of nature's harmonious timecube.

    6. Re:Right angles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Objects that are extremely regular and have right angles are usually considered to be artificial in origin. That's what she said!
  12. Looks like a lot of things by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I first looked at it I two 90 degree cones of ejecta blasting from a central point along the rotation axis of the original star. Like the Eye Nebula would look if seen from the side.

    My second thought was it looked like those things we made in kindergarden where you wrap colored yarn around two sticks. I think my mom still has the one I made her, she used to put it on the Christmas tree.

    It is most devinitly NOT a lens artifact, look at the other stars, they have six points, those are definitly caused by the camera, the Keck telescope uses hexagonal mirrors in its array.

    Absolutly beautiful no matter how you look at it.

    1. Re:Looks like a lot of things by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 3, Informative

      When I first looked at it I two 90 degree cones of ejecta blasting from a central point along the rotation axis of the original star. http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Phot os/040511/040511_hubble_bcol_10a.jpg
    2. Re:Looks like a lot of things by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1

      It is most devinitly NOT a lens artifact, look at the other stars Indeed, look at the other stars. At the edges of the photo they are all oval-shaped pointing towards the center. That implies there is something wrong with the imaging.

      http://opostaff.stsci.edu/~levay/color/HandoutIIIc .pdf
    3. Re:Looks like a lot of things by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      Yep, I've seen the same thing in smaller telescopes. I remember it being caused by the curvature of the mirrors around the edges being off a true parabolic, or something like that, it has been a long time since I read about it. I don't usualy see them in photos from big telescopes but in this case it might be an artifact of compositing the data from the different telescopes.

      It would have been so cool to have watched this star blow up, at least until the radiation/shockwave/neutron flux killed me, but till then it would have been sooo coool.

    4. Re:Looks like a lot of things by Squatting_Dog · · Score: 0

      If I recall correctly....those things made in kindergarden you refer to were called "God's Eyes".....and yes my mother still puts mine out at Xmas too..after 40+years!

  13. Not flat by pifactorial · · Score: 0

    It appears as a square to us... what's its 3D structure? Is there a shape that would appear as a square regardless of what orientation it's viewed with?

    1. Re:Not flat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a shape that would appear as a square regardless of what orientation it's viewed with?
      Don't be such a stupid bastard, of course there isn't.
  14. It's Another Hourglass Morphology by pln2bz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Observant space enthusiasts will notice the excessively large number of hourglass morphologies that continue to appear in NASA's press releases. These hourglass morphologies can only be awkwardly called the result of gravitation. A cursory familiarity with laboratory plasma physics will help people to recognize that the most likely explanation is that these are in fact z-pinches wich result from Birkeland Currents. In a zoomed image, you can see the filamentary Birkeland Currents on two opposing sides of the red "square" being pinched down to a central point. These same filaments are also observable, but in cross-section, in the 1987A supernova remnant. Which components are visible varies from image to image, but the general morphology of the hourglass remains discernible.

    Here are some additional hourglass morphologies with pictures that have been observed:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4953165/
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0510 05eta-carinae.htm
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 26bug-nebula.htm
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 15milkyway.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Supernova-1987a .jpg

    Since hourglass morphologies are somewhat disconfirming to traditional mainstream cosmologies (ie, the Big Bang), the fact that they continue to be observed all over the universe escapes the notice of professional astrophysicists, whose primary concern is to prove the Big Bang Theory and Stellar Evolution Theories. Objectively interpreting these shapes for what they most likely represent means dropping complicated, mainstream astrophysical explanations, and accepting the notion that electricity flows through space over plasma as we know it does within the laboratory. In these particular instances, at least, it is clear that the electrical force is dominant to gravity. We can opt to devise all sorts of gravitation-centric explanations for hourglass morphologies, but in doing so, we consciously opt to violate Occam's Razor.

    The implications of such strong evidence of electricity in space are overwhelming -- which provides all of the explanation necessary for avoiding abandonment of the traditional, more popular gravity-centric theories. When astrophysicists eventually accept that plasma in space has electrical resistance just like the plasma we observe in the laboratory, then they will begin to re-interpret all of our observations in terms of Maxwell's Equations rather than fluid and gas laws. And the enigmas of dark matter and dark energy will forever disappear, as this substitution can provide the exact forces necessary to explain things like how spiral galaxies can spin as if they are solid plates and how matter might repel other matter. The fact that we as a culture currently prefer to consider imaginary forces and particles to explain these "anomalies" rather than forces that we already understand will forever paint us to future generations as people who decided to favor the mathematicians and theories over our observational data and decades of experimental laboratory physics work.

    The evidence for electricity in space is not a sparse patchwork here and there. It is a flood of data that is only allowed to escape the notice of the public with the help of overconfident astrophysicists and a mob mentality within the space enthusiast community. Anybody who is intellectually curious about the universe and less concerned with what the people around them believe than what in fact appears to be true should consider learning more about plasma physics and the electric universe we live in. Don Scott

    --
    "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    1. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by HuguesT · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I essentially agree, this structure could simply be a cone like SR1987a, seen edge on.

    2. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by barakn · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's just one problem with your argument. The stuff in the Red Square image is relatively cool uncharged dust and gas (it's an infrared image after all), not a hot plasma, and therefore can't carry a current. Typical Birkeland Current/Electric Universe fanboy spouting off without having a clue...

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    3. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People who seem more concerned about the politics of existing theory than the tenuousnous of their own personal theories (electricity in space, in your case) are generally viewed as crackpots. This is science, show us your testable theory that can explain what we are seeing better than existing theories, or go back to work.

    4. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      "And the enigmas of dark matter and dark energy will forever disappear, as this substitution can provide the exact forces necessary to explain things like how spiral galaxies can spin as if they are solid plates and how matter might repel other matter."

      I'd love to see how do you explain such fenomena using eletricity. Also, if you make an actual explanation the entire physics community will probably aplaud and recognize you (and teach your name on classrooms for decades to come).

      But, of course, nobody was able to create such explanation until now (at least that we know about), so if you aready has one, please, share it with the rest of us.

    5. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by pln2bz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How you're able to determine charge density on the basis of temperature is somewhat of a mystery. We can't even do that for our own Sun. We know from the laboratory that plasma has three distinct modes of operation -- the dark mode, the normal glow mode and the arc mode -- and that it continues to conduct electricity within its dark mode even though plasma in this mode would emit neither photons nor infrared light/heat whatsoever. So, even if the process that creates the charged particles would emit infrared, the allegation is not that this process is occuring within this image. If it helps, you might consider that when you pass electricity through copper wires (which is also a form of plasma), your wires conduct quite well without glowing. Gaseous plasmas in fact conduct better than copper wires.

      The fact that you are not objectively considering the subject matter is evident in your decision to take a condescending tone. If you ever do decide to investigate the matter objectively, I think you will be surprised to find that there is indeed a serious debate here.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    6. Re: It's Another Hourglass Morphology by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      I essentially agree, this structure could simply be a cone like SR1987a, seen edge on. Surely it's a pyramid seen from the top.
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      It's NASA's choice to interpret all observations through one single cosmology. It was also the choice of the astrophysical community to ignore Hannes Alfven's realization that the techniques that he devised to model plasma in magnetohydrodynamics were in fact "pseudo-pedagogical" -- an idea that appears to help, but in fact causes great harm to our understanding of the universe. To blame people for pointing these things out is unfair.

      From what I can gather, the people who are proposing the Electric Universe concept receive no government funding for any of the work they do. They survive by sales of their publications. In order to understand what they are arguing, you must purchase their books. Don Scott has published a very good book called "The Electric Sky" and Wallace Thornhill is about to publish his book, "The Electric Universe", which I've read and personally find to be very compelling. Reading "The Electric Universe" is an interesting experience because the sheer weight of the evidence can become overwhelming. The www.thunderbolts.info site and the www.holoscience.com site (I particularly enjoy that latter site) are provided free of charge, but they lack the comprehensive big picture analysis provided by the books.

      The Electric Universe Theory is not a tenuous theory. It is against-the-mainstream, but the primary premise is a simple one: that plasma in space perfectly reflects the activity of plasma within the laboratory. In other words, it has resistance and charge density. Mainstream astrophysicists assert that plasma in space instantaneously neutralizes any charge imbalances, that plasma has frozen-in-place magnetic fields and that magnetic fields can exist in the absence of a current flow. None of these assertions are supported by laboratory plasma physics. They are mathematical tricks that astrophysicists have decided are fair game. We know for a fact that plasma pervades nearly all of space. We better be damn sure that it's being modeled properly. Any allegation that plasma is being incorrectly modeled in space should be seriously investigated due to the sheer magnitude of the discrepencies that would result.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    8. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      The explanation has been provided. The real problem is that it's not the answer that people expected or wanted to hear. I refer you to Don Scott's "The Electric Sky". You can also view their www.thunderbolts.info site, but you won't get the complete picture from that site that you would get by reading the entire theory all at once.

      Anthony Perratt can generate spiral galaxies using nothing but the electrical properties of plasma in both computer simulations and in laboratory physics experiments. No dark matter is required. What is required is that we have to change the way that we educate our astrophysicists. The magnetohydrodynamics professors must stop or at least severely restrain their use of gas and fluid laws in modeling plasma in space. There's no good reason to believe that plasma in space would act any differently than plasma in the laboratory does. Electrical plasma -- the stuff in the labs -- acts completely differently than gases and fluids. If you've ever seen a novelty plasma globe, you'll recognize this. The movement of those filaments is in no way similar to the actions of gases or fluids. Electrical plasma naturally forms filaments called Birkeland Currents. And depending on the current flow, these filaments will attract one another and pinch together -- without ever combining. The force that results from this pinching can collect matter and condense it into spheres. Given enough charge density, these spheres will then split into two separate spheres. This is all natural for plasma, and all of our space observations can be interpreted within the framework of these laboratory plasma physics processes.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    9. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by ruiner13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Typical Birkeland Current/Electric Universe fanboy spouting off without having a clue You, sir or madam, just made soda squirt out my nose.
      --

      today is spelling optional day.

    10. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It's NASA's choice to interpret all observations through one single cosmology."

      Most people with a scientific education would have stopped reading after the first line because it is a distortion of the truth based on total ignorance of how science and skepticisim work (and they do work!).

      You have been duped/mislead and when/if you learn how to determine what is credible science you will be pissed off at those who duped you. A good place for you to start learning genuine skepticisim would be Carl Sagan's book "Demon haunted world".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    11. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Is it me or does the poster sound like he's a got a chip on his shoulder to push a plasma cosmology. Although I haven't sufficient information to clearly debunk you at the moment, I do recall some allusions as to how electromanetic forces simply do not have enough power over stellar distances to actually cause any of the stuff you imply. That is the primary reason astrophysisits have not examined the theory. Most people who point to the establishment and say to the effect of "they say I'm wrong because they're poo heads" tend to be wrong.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    12. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Most people with a scientific education would have stopped reading after the first line because it is a distortion of the truth based on total ignorance of how science and skepticisim work (and they do work!).
      You might want to check your facts. My sources tell me that NASA freely admits that it will not fund any research antithetical to the BB Theory. If people stop reading after my first line, it's not because of any dispute over that fact. It's generally accepted that funding only goes to the BB studies. Wallace Thornhill, for instance, accurately predicted all of the anomalous results of the Deep Impact mission, but it did not earn him any funding. NASA would rather fund traditional explanations for our cometary data that have produced no predictions whatsoever (or even a coherent theory of how comets work) than any sort of plasma-based theories -- which can explain every single aspect of the Deep Impact's mission results.

      You have been duped/mislead and when/if you learn how to determine what is credible science you will be pissed off at those who duped you. A good place for you to start learning genuine skepticisim would be Carl Sagan's book "Demon haunted world".

      I've read enough of "Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky" to realize that Carl Sagan wasn't scared to take a hypocritical stance in order to "prove" a point. In his public statements against Velikovksy, he frequently contradicted his own writings. I prefer people who invest a little less emotion in their interpretation and arguments, and who are willing to admit to being wrong. I don't see that character trait much in the mainstream astrophysicists or the enthusiasts on these forums -- which is odd because, regardless of the fact that the mainstreamers have proven to be good labelers, they still can't account for the particles that they've named.

      When you're an against-the-mainstream theorist, it doesn't matter how amazing your theory is these days. The EU Theorists do not pay me to spend my free time trying to get people to read their materials. I do it purely out of goodwill because I've come to the realization that the only thing standing in the way of people realizing what these guys have accomplished is the barriers that people have raised to considering alternative theories. Every person that I convince to just read the materials will realize that these guys are onto something. I've already received appreciative letters from people suggesting as much.

      On some level, you guys have to realize that your beliefs in cosmology are the result of an intensive public relations campaign. I assert no knowledge for *why* this is happening. I only know that it is happening. Being scientists and programmers, slashdotters are not immediately privvy to the PR side of things. But this is a fact. You are being inundated with materials that encourage you to support the status quo theories. It's up to you to turn your brain back on and start analyzing the data in an objective way.

      The first step is to learn what plasma does in the laboratory. Plasma permeates all of space and you cannot understand the universe until you understand what matters does when it's in the plasma state. I'm telling you that plasma is being incorrectly modeled in magnetohydrodynamics as a fluid. Plasma in the laboratory conducts electricity, which means that it behaves according to completely different equations. Plasma in the laboratory has resistance. Why should plasma in space be any different? If we have any eminent authorities here who want to show me to be some uninformed jackass, please answer for me this one single question.
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    13. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe this guy is not right about the reasons behind the shape, but it definitively looks like an hyperboloid rather than a square or diamond.

    14. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Although I haven't sufficient information to clearly debunk you at the moment, I do recall some allusions as to how electromanetic forces simply do not have enough power over stellar distances to actually cause any of the stuff you imply. That is the primary reason astrophysisits have not examined the theory. Most people who point to the establishment and say to the effect of "they say I'm wrong because they're poo heads" tend to be wrong.

      Let's look at the bigger picture of what's happening here. I'm telling you that these *observations* are best represented by z-pinches. You're responding to me that some people did some *calculations* that demonstrate a lack of energy for an electric Sun. This is largely the story of this debate. When Halton Arp, for instance, points to pictures that demonstrate high-redshift quasars in front of low-redshift spiral galaxies, Big Bang theorists tell us that we should believe their theories over these "chance" observations.

      There are calculations to demonstrate lots of things. There are calculations that possibly demonstrate a neutrino deficit from a fusion-only Sun and there are calculations that possibly demonstrate a lack of charged particles to externally power the Sun. Neither calculation should qualify as being disconfirming to the theories they impugn. Observations should always take priority over calculations when it comes to evaluating cosmologies.

      A detailed treatment of everything we know about comets at this point in time is sufficient in itself to suggest that EU Theory is perhaps the *only* theory at the moment that can explain comets:

      http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

      The fact that solar neutrinos appear to inversely correlate with the number of sunspots should inspire a second look at the notion that the Sun is a fusion reaction at its core. Unlike back-of-the-envelope calculations, this observation is in fact disconfirming to the notion that the Sun is a fusion reaction at its core. Anomalies related to planetary rilles and craters are similarly disconfirming to traditional theories (especially when we observe rilles to travel both up and down with the topography), and yet make sense when planets are allowed to accumulate and trade charge with foreign bodies and each other.

      The combined weight of these anomalies represents a far more serious problem than some guy calculating that something shouldn't be possible. By only reading the materials that confirm traditional theories, a lot of people have failed to challenge their own mainstream beliefs. The refusal by large numbers of people to actually read the EU materials acts as the sole barrier to its adoption. Whether or not you believe them, there is in fact nothing technically wrong with what they are saying.
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    15. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Check out the wiki images for z-pinches. They refer to the same morphology ...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics )

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    16. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by barakn · · Score: 2, Informative

      How you're able to determine charge density on the basis of temperature is somewhat of a mystery. We can't even do that for our own Sun.
      Using the spectrum of a star, not only can the densities of various ions and electrons be calculated, but also the relative abundances of the elements. It's unfortunate that you are unaware of an entire branch of science, but not unexpected. I'd also like to know why you think that a large current in space would z-pinch in only one central point along the length of the current rather than along the entire length. Even if one were to accept the possibility of large currents forming the structures of nebulae, an X shape is not what one would expect.


      Anyway, if the ions and electrons were at a high enough density to carry a large current, they would also be at a high enough density to recombine, in which case they would be releasing a large quantity of visible and ultraviolet light, which they aren't What you neglected to explain is that a dark mode plasma at extremely low densities is not going to carry much of a current at all.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    17. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by mako1138 · · Score: 1

      Resistive MHD? Two-fluid MHD? PIC? Magnetic reconnection?

    18. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "I've read enough of Carl Sagan..."

      No you haven't, you missed the bit about self criticisim being the skeptics starting point.

      "It's generally accepted that funding only goes to the BB studies...it did not earn him any funding...NASA would rather fund traditional explanations for our cometary data that have produced no predictions whatsoever (or even a coherent theory of how comets work)...Carl Sagan wasn't scared to take a hypocritical stance in order to "prove" a point...I prefer people who invest a little less emotion in their interpretation and arguments, and who are willing to admit to being wrong. I don't see that character trait much in the mainstream astrophysicists or the enthusiasts on these forums -- which is odd because, regardless of the fact that the mainstreamers have proven to be good labelers...When you're an against-the-mainstream theorist, it doesn't matter how amazing your theory is these days. The EU Theorists do not pay me to spend my free time trying to get people to read their materials. I do it purely out of goodwill because I've come to the realization that the only thing standing in the way of people realizing what these guys have accomplished is the barriers that people have raised to considering alternative theories. Every person that I convince to just read the materials will realize that these guys are onto something. I've already received appreciative letters from people suggesting as much....you guys have to realize that your beliefs in cosmology are the result of an intensive public relations campaign...Being scientists and programmers, slashdotters are not immediately privvy to the PR side of things...You are being inundated with materials that encourage you to support the status quo theories. It's up to you to turn your brain back on and start analyzing the data in an objective way....

      I agree with the part I have highlighted, so much so that you have convinced me to ignore your emotional rants.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    19. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if one were to accept the possibility of large currents forming the structures of nebulae, an X shape is not what one would expect.

      You're quite right. Gravity makes that X shape explanation so much easier...

      No wait...sorry...i forgot - dark matter & energy will surely explain it...or better yet we can make something else up to explain it! A Dark Spider Web perhaps...no wait - that might be electrical in nature....arrrghhh!

    20. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If we have any eminent authorities here who want to show me to be some uninformed jackass, please answer for me this one single question.

      See, the thing is, if your theory wasn't bunk, you wouldn't require an eminent authority to back it up. You would simply be able to present us with some links to credible science sources on the web.

      Invoking a global conspiracy to explain the lack of acceptance for your theory, and just resorting to "prove me wrong" when backed into a corner is like having a giant neon "CRACKPOT" sign mounted on your head.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    21. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Invoking a global conspiracy to explain the lack of acceptance for your theory

      I never mentioned anything about any conspiracy. I've merely stated that NASA is not willing to fund any theory that is antithetical to the Big Bang Theory -- even when the mainstream theories are producing no results (as is the case for comets). The fact that Wallace Thornhill predicted a pre-impact flash remains unexplained to this day. How did he know that that would happen? How is it that he was so confident about this that he publicly proclaimed the prediction? Why was he ignored when his prediction turned out to be correct? Why does he continue to be ignored even though he can fully explain all of the anomalous data associated with comets using nothing more than laboratory plasma physics and electrodynamics? What is technically wrong with his analysis?

      http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    22. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      I've admitted that I was wrong on at least a couple of occasions within these forums. I'm not afraid to do so when it appears in fact that I am wrong about something.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    23. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      I've run into a very good website that you may be interested in that discusses the issue of electricity in space by focusing explicitly on the concept of the charge sheath vortex:

      http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/tornado/Dark_Matter _and_the_Expanding_Universe.html

      There are other links on that same site that you may be interested in as well. All of this material appears to be in complete agreement with Electric Universe concepts.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    24. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by iantresman · · Score: 1

      While the Red Square nebula may well include dust and cooler material, many nebulae are observed to contain matter in the plasma state [Ref], and the material is moving through interstellar space which also contain significant amounts of plasma (ionized material).

      Partially ionized plasmas, even less than 1% ionized, and containing dust and smaller grains will behave as a plasma, and will still be highly electrically conductive. For example, the F-ring of Saturn has been suggested to carry a "dust ring current"[Ref]

      Dust and gas does not rule out a current through the plasma in a nebula, which is further supported by its morphology (hourglass shape), any observed synchrotron radiation (due to the acceleration of charged particles by electric fields through magnetic fields), and filamentation (pinched currents).

      Regards,
      Ian Tresman
      plasma-universe.com

      --
      Ian Tresman plasma-universe.com
    25. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Using the spectrum of a star, not only can the densities of various ions and electrons be calculated, but also the relative abundances of the elements. It's unfortunate that you are unaware of an entire branch of science, but not unexpected. I'd also like to know why you think that a large current in space would z-pinch in only one central point along the length of the current rather than along the entire length.
      We are fortunate in that Wallace Thornhill has posted a response to the Red Square press release on his holoscience.com site. In that response, he explains that "The Birkeland current filaments will only be visible where the plasma density is high."

      Even if one were to accept the possibility of large currents forming the structures of nebulae, an X shape is not what one would expect.
      From the holoscience article:

      Exploding double layers are very important in stellar outbursts. It is the only stellar explosion mechanism that naturally produces bipolar remnants and equatorial ejection disks (as distinct from hypothetical 'accretion' disks) and lends itself to empirical testing in the lab.

      [...]

      A number of double layers develop in series between a star and its galactic environment. Strong electric fields exist across them summing to the voltage difference between the star and the galactic plasma environment. Cosmic rays allow us to estimate the voltages of stars at tens of billions of volts. Ions and electrons are accelerated across the thin double layers and collide. The 'linear rungs or bars' of the Red Square fit Alfvén's circuit diagram as polar 'double layers,' symmetrically situated along the Z-pinch filaments, some distance from the star's two poles. Their thinness and electrical excitation results in the enhanced glow and sharp definition of the 'rungs or bars.'

      Alfvén pioneered the stellar circuit concept and it seems his 'wiring diagram' is essentially correct but incomplete because it does not show the star's connection to the larger galactic circuit. Alfvén remarked, "The current closes at large distances, but we do not know where." Plasma cosmologists have supplied the answer by mapping the currents flowing along the arms of spiral galaxies. It is but a small step from there to see that all stars are the focus of Z-pinches within a galactic discharge. Normally the current flows in 'dark mode' so we don't usually see the spectacular bipolar 'wiring harnesses' of hyperactive stars, like that at the heart of Red Square. All we witness, closest to home, are the effects on the Sun's 'surface,' in its superheated corona, and the solar 'wind.'
      Your thoughtful skepticism is actually appreciated. These are the sorts of conversations that people should be having on this forum. A lot of time is wasted with condescension and remarks intended only to convince people that there is no serious debate here. The fact that every single technical objection within this discussion can be responded to should, in an objective world, cause people to think.
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    26. Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The problem is that you are being used by people to advance an agenda you do not understand.

      You consistently demonstrate a fantastically strong ability to repeat and rephrase complex abstractions without recourse to any maths whatsoever.

      This is a familiar pattern for people in academia -- there are plenty of students who understand how to rework prose for emphasis and tone, but who do not understand the fundamental science behind the arguments they're editing. This is one reason why multiple choice exams with subtle differences among four answers is a popular testing method in hard science disciplines, as a way to distinguish between people who can write well (good grammar, good use of paragraphs, straightfoward narrative) from people who actually understand what they're writing.

      There are many science writers who can write for lay people -- or people in very different academic disciplines -- who do not really grasp the details of what they write. There are also many science writers who are essentially propagandists. The target is usually potential investors who also do not understand the science, but who are nevertheless readily persuaded by analogy and metaphor, and made insecure by appeals to common knowledge ("everyone knows that..." or "you should go back and study elementary..." are key indicators).

      Some of these science writers are used rather than acting as willing accomplices to people who know that an unemotive maths-only treatment of their (anonymized) argument would fail under the scrutiny of anonymized peer review. Unfortunately, they are unaware of this because they do not fully understand the maths themselves.

      Astrophysics, astronomy and cosmology have become incredibly specialized in the past thirty years, and many branches have invented jargon which is nearly impenetrable (astronomers and cosmologists sometimes even use the same words as professional jargon meaning fundamentally different -- and incompatible -- things, and everyone in the West has the habit of describing formulas and observations by the name of discoverers even when there is not really a consensus on who the discoverer happens to be (cf. "FLRW" at wikipedia).

      Gifted amateurs and lay people who can explain bits and pieces to lay people have an important role in observational space science funding. However, there is a fundamental difference between someone who helps prepare a funding request, and someone who engages in astroturfing.

      Let's consider this one snippet of yours:

      Mainstream astrophysicists assert that plasma in space instantaneously neutralizes any charge imbalances, that plasma has frozen-in-place magnetic fields and that magnetic fields can exist in the absence of a current flow. None of these assertions are supported by laboratory plasma physics.

      None of these assertions is even mainstream!

      1) All mainstream astrophysicists are gauge theorists, and thus reject the concept of instanteneity and frozen-in-place fields altogether.

      2) The dimensionless ratio of electrostatic to gravitational forces is about 1e40, so even the weak equivalence principle suggests that any gravitationally bound object is statically chargeless. Large self-gravitating objects are dealt with under the strong equivalence principle, which is believed true by mainstream astrophysicists, for which there is some evidence in planetary orbits (both within our star system and in others we have observed), studies of nucleosynthesis and the CMBR, negative results for all short-range probes of failures of the inverse square law, VLBI measurements of longwave vs sun (and Jupiter) interactions, longer range gravitational lensing observations, lunar ranging, and so forth.

      3) Static chargelessness does not require an absence of dynamic electric behaviour, and in fact some is essentially guaranteed given the Standard Model. Charge motion is limited by the propagation of the electric charge carrier.

      4) Mach's principle allows

  15. PAHs by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 1

    These structures are where I get the raw material for my Polycyclic Aroma Therapy (PAT) sessions.

  16. dude, it's the borg by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    look away, don't send any signals in that direction, or they'll soon follow up, and we'll have to travel back in time to 1980s san francsico to save the whales, or something

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  17. God's rendering engine running out of steam by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Appearently the universe is expanding faster than God's hardware can handle, and we are seeing rendering polygon effects. Boundary detection problems will appear next.

    1. Re:God's rendering engine running out of steam by nacturation · · Score: 1

      That explains black holes -- it's an attempt to cut down on the number of polygons by culling large sections. A supernova must be what happens when God overclocks a particular region of space and it backfires.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    2. Re:God's rendering engine running out of steam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all we know, we might be living inside a matrix...

    3. Re:God's rendering engine running out of steam by SharpFang · · Score: 4, Funny

      Boundary detection problems will appear next.

      Yeah? They've been reported decades ago, and the exploits are out in the wild and in common use (tunnel diode, tunneling microscope and so on).

      Will these pesky scientists be surprised when the next batch of patches comes. :)

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    4. Re:God's rendering engine running out of steam by bky1701 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Probably just an effect of the memory leak in "humanity()". Don't worry, the garbage collection function "meteor->collide(earth)" will be called eventually to fix it.

  18. It's an imaging artifact by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 0

    It's an artifact of the imaging process. Notice how the stars in the corners of the image are all oval-shaped with the major axis of the ellipse pointing exactly towards the "artifact" (not a square nebula) at the center.

  19. "stay tuned" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  20. Pool's closed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    due to AIDS

    1. Re:Pool's closed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lurk moar

  21. Hurricanes on earth also do that sometimes by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    I have seen photos of hurricanes that have poligonal eyes. This is unusual, but not exactly rare. A circular eye is probably just a high order poligon.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Hurricanes on earth also do that sometimes by ColombianKid · · Score: 1

      Isn't a circle just a polygon with an infinite number of sides?

  22. Hour Glass by egommer · · Score: 1

    It looks like a round Hour Glass shape to me which is more like to inverted cones such as from extreme magnetism. Cones are caused by in series the ejecta of rings of gas in series like blowing a long smoke ring.

    The Hexagon on Saturn appears to be shaped by unseen elliptical convergences just below the surface. Think of a group of soap bubbles together to form the shape of a hexagon. No matter how twisted the wire frame of a bubble blower or how hard you blow, the bubbles will always be spherical. When contrdiciton exist, check your premises.

    --
    Two Towers-Two Worlds.One seeks triumphs and freedom for man.The other deems man unworthy and wrecks them.
  23. It's a artifact from a Type II civilization! ;) by wisebabo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wouldn't it be great if this was found to be an artifact from a Type II civilization? It would be an immediate and overwhelming proof that there is super-intelligent life out there.

    Type I - civilizations capable of harnessing the energy of a planetary body, Type II - civilizations capable of harnessing the energy of a star, Type III - civilizations capable of harnessing the energy of an entire galaxy. We are a Type I civilization.

    1. Re:It's a artifact from a Type II civilization! ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, We are type zero, unless you happen to control the weather, volcanos, ect.

    2. Re:It's a artifact from a Type II civilization! ;) by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be great if this was found to be an artifact from a Type II civilization? Like this?
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:It's a artifact from a Type II civilization! ;) by Sibko · · Score: 1

      Actually, we're more of a Type 0.7 than a Type 1. Type 1 civilizations are able to harness the entire energy of their planet. Type 2, the entire energy of their star. Type 3, the entire energy of their galaxy. There's a nice wiki article on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

    4. Re:It's a artifact from a Type II civilization! ;) by istewart · · Score: 1

      No, Type II civilizations typically dedicate themselves to following the touring schedules of jam bands like the Grateful Dead and Phish. Their artifacts can be seen rusting away in junkyards that specialize in German cars.

    5. Re:It's a artifact from a Type II civilization! ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Type I - civilizations capable of harnessing the energy of a planetary body, Type II - civilizations capable of harnessing the energy of a star, Type III - civilizations capable of harnessing the energy of an entire galaxy. We are a Type I civilization.

      I for one welcome our new pot-occupying overlords.

    6. Re:It's a artifact from a Type II civilization! ;) by slaida1 · · Score: 1

      What would be the best way to know one's location in space? With an origin, of course. Jump anywhere in the (relative) vicinity of it, scan surroundings for its spectrum to locate it and see what is its orientation.

      Whether or not it is artificial, it could still serve as navigational aid. In addition, it has growth rings like trees so you cold tell your distance from it just by counting the rings.

      Visual space navigation beacon. Nice.

      Or, it's still spherical and only looks like square (from all directions) because light bends from its particles in some unusual way.

      --
      Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
  24. So many stars by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    How can there not be life out there?

    --
    What?
  25. Maybe they can use the adaptive optics by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    To provide some really cool stereo(3D?) images.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Maybe they can use the adaptive optics by Karthikkito · · Score: 1

      That would be very cool. Unfortunately, these objects are so far away that there is very little parallax (measurable by instruments using various points on the Earth's orbit as the locations of the two pictures) and thus can't be seen by the human eye.

  26. Hurricane pictures show same shapes by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Hurricane pictures show same shapes by dosle · · Score: 1

      Space hurricanes! AHHHH!!!1

  27. More info by ByteSlicer · · Score: 2, Informative

    NewScientist has an article with an explanation here.

    1. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  28. Proof of God ... by HW_Hack · · Score: 3, Funny

    Not really - a million monkees blowing up a million stars could achieve the same result

    --
    Its not the years, its the mileage .....
    1. Re:Proof of God ... by halovaa · · Score: 1

      Yes but the Monkees didn't write their own songs, or play their own instruments...wouldn't that imply a more powerful being running the show behind the scenes?

  29. Ah, the famous old riddle... by oddaddresstrap · · Score: 2, Funny

    If a nebula with near-perfect bilateral symmetry has exotic space-hardened organic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and there's no one around to smell it, does it have an odor?

  30. remember odyssey 2001? by Kvasio · · Score: 1

    Feel warned! This is what may happen in planetary system near you when you try to heat up your local monolith.

  31. HELP us all!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It appears as though we are all trapped in some sort of maths problem.
    Now, if we can get the Square(more like hour glass) into the hexagon on saturn, then we can be saved from something which isnt apparent yet, and someone will make up some belief structure about it.

  32. symmetrical? by Fluorophore · · Score: 1

    This is admittedly off topic, but does the word symmetrical bug anyone else besides me? Doesn't symmetric work just as well? Sure its commonly used, but what about the word dynamical? That's been popping up in scientific journals for at least the last decade or so. And orientated? wtf?

    --
    --- I am NaN, I am a free man!
  33. You see symmetry because... by Ankh · · Score: 1

    ...the celestial object in question is right at the corner where two edges of the universe meet. The edges are of course mirrored to fool astronomers. :-)

    --
    Live barefoot!
    free engravings/woodcuts
  34. Lucky perspective? by smitth1276 · · Score: 1

    Do we know that it is symmetrical on all axes? Maybe our view to the nebula just happens to coincide with the one axis that exhibits that sort of symmetry?

  35. What am I looking at? by mshurpik · · Score: 1

    The photo is 163x110 pixels. Is this supposed to be a photo of outer space or what?

    1. Re:What am I looking at? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Click the image on the right.
      http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space. com/images/070412_red_square_02.jpg
      It's like, 650x650. Not that that's very high quality, but it's better than 163x110 for sure.

  36. Optical Illusion? by LuYu · · Score: 1

    How can these scientists prove this image is not an optical illusion caused by some object between us and it? I find it very hard to believe that an object actually exploded into such a shape, and the fact that the researchers involved do not even mention that as a possibility seems absurd to me.

    --
    All data is speech. All speech is Free.
  37. HeheheHuuhhuhhhuuh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... he said PNAS!

  38. Obviously by Svenne · · Score: 1

    It's a beacon of light built by the inhabitants of Cydonia. How do I know then? Well, when it's examined closely, it will no longer look special, and instead look like a normal natural phenomenon. They're tricky that way, those cydonians.

    Or it could have been the egyptians.

    --

    Slagborr
  39. Route of Ages by BoaZaur · · Score: 2, Funny

    But why this is the "Route of Ages" as spoted by Andromeda's crew long ago in the futur year of 5017 bc

    Free Life
    Boaz

  40. 4 faces by bronney · · Score: 2, Funny

    timecube.com

  41. Critique of "The Electric Sky" by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Informative

    "The explanation has been provided."

    But has failed to convince these guys who correctly categorise "The Electric Sky" as a popularization and point to an excellent critique of the book.

    If you are so eager to be a skeptic then start testing YOUR ideas and acknowledging their known flaws. If you do have the courage to test your convictions you will also notice that these "established scientists" are actively looking at alternatives to the big bang that involve plasma, including those that appear in popular science.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Critique of "The Electric Sky" by pln2bz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Tim Thompson's site does not critique "The Electric Sky" book. It was written a few years before Don Scott published his book and it is limited to addressing Wallace Thornhill's Electric Sun hypothesis. It fails to address planetary rilles that track the topography of rock-based landscapes both up and down, in apparent violation of gravity; it fails to address all of the anomalous data associated with comets, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy, black holes and supernovae; it says nothing about stars that are too small and cool on their surface to have internal fusion reactions (T-type Brown Dwarfs). It's hardly a rebuttal to Don Scott's book either temporally or even topically.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    2. Re:Critique of "The Electric Sky" by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yes I did get the title wrong but you are splitting hairs, the plasmas.org site credits Scott with both the book and the hypothisis so I assumed they are related in a similar way as creationisim is related to ID.

      "It fails to address..."

      Tim has probably got better things to do with his time, at least until his current objections have been answered.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Critique of "The Electric Sky" by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Yes I did get the title wrong but you are splitting hairs, the plasmas.org site credits Scott with both the book and the hypothisis so I assumed they are related in a similar way as creationisim is related to ID.

      Other than the fact that EU Theory is against-the-mainstream, there are very few similarities between creationism and EU Theory. EU Theory lacks any political or religious agenda whatsoever. When you opt to make such comparisons, it is misleading to people who are just trying to figure out what to believe about the theory because it suggests that there is something about it that is more religious than BB Theory. This acts to dissuade many people from learning about it on the basis of a slander.

      I hope for your own sake that you are right in your infinite wisdom. These are on some level serious issues. EU Theory proposes that charge density for the solar system can increase without warning, and potentially result in the fissioning of our Sun in a nova outburst -- and that evidence from ancient writings is in agreement that this has happened before for our solar system. Those are some pretty serious consequences for being wrong. We've seen evidence for warming on multiple planets within the solar system. NASA brushes it off because it is disconfirming to the consensus that warming on Earth has a primary manmade component. I've also seen it argued that at any given moment, some number of planets should be observed to be warming. But, this is a double-standard for consensus science. The consensus is that there is something wrong with the Earth if it doesn't have a stable average temperature. Why should the other planets be judged by a different standard? Judging what to believe based upon what other people believe can be tricky "science".
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    4. Re:Critique of "The Electric Sky" by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Other than the fact that EU Theory is against-the-mainstream, there are very few similarities between creationism and EU Theory."

      Read the words that you quoted, because your reply (quoted above) has nothing to do with it nor did I say anything like that. What it was was sarcasm revolving around the fact that creationisim and ID amount to the same thing in different words, as I assume the electric sky/sun/universe books/theories/myths do.

      As for the rest of your rant: Creationists are but one group amoungst a wide variety of anti-science groups.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Critique of "The Electric Sky" by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      My purpose on these boards is to clarify for people who are intellectually curious what Electric Universe Theory states. These are scientific debates that have nothing to do with religion or politics. I'm trying to inform people of the material. When the material is over my head, I will consult directly with the theorists themselves and relay their responses. I am serving the purpose of a middle-man, free of charge, so that the EU Theorists themselves can continue to spend their time doing what they do best -- theorizing. Imagine if you read a theory that you regarded as highly as Einstein's materials. If you had the time to spend on it, you too might decide to do exactly as I am doing. My hope is that we can eventually get past the initial arguments over whether or not there exists electricity within space because their theories discuss so much more that has relevance to people and our future. If anybody brings up creationism or ID or anything of that sort, you can bet that I will closely disect their invocation of those concepts so that there is no confusion amongst people who are still trying to learn what the theory states. EU Theorists and enthusiasts are certainly no strangers to hostile or demeaning remarks.

      If you are annoyed by my presence, then all I can say is that I'm sorry. I'm doing my best to perfectly represent their theory. I've read a good amount of their materials and I find them to be compelling. Like many other EU enthusiasts, I am an electrical engineer. This site is read by a large number of other electrical engineers and software engineers with circuitry experience. The fact that mainstream cosmologists and mainstream space enthusiasts do not recognize the importance of the role that plasma plays in cosmology does not faze us because this is precisely what they are taught in school to believe. What is happening right now is a direct result of the astrophysical educational system. This is why there is a valid debate here. It is our belief that astrophysics has run astray. It is the only field of science that is allowed to cherry-pick from the other sciences as it sees fit (which it does for laboratory plasma physics). And it is the only field for which it is customary and routine to invent particles and forces when the observations do not match the theory. Even though mainstream astrophysics is an interpretive science that largely refutes the utility of laboratory science in formulating its theories, astrophysicists still believe that they have a right to rewrite the textbooks of those sciences from which they draw upon. In this way, the field has become both a scourge and a spectacle that is buoyed by consensus science and support for the fanciful stories it generates with the public. The EU Theorists merely assert that laboratory plasma physics does indeed scale to galactic scales (and to many scales in between), and that we can see the evidence for this within our observations.

      You and I surely disagree on many of the points that I outline here. What I ask of you though is to give me the respect that you would afford anybody else in your responses. If you have evidence that contradicts my statements, then let's discuss the issues on that level. But please let me serve my purpose as a conduit for the EU Theorists so that you and others can understand what they are saying without people having to purchase their materials, and so that we can have a technical conversation about the observations and theory. We are both experts in different areas. By offering each other information that relates to our own expertises, we can continue to believe whatever it is we wish while simultaneously learning from the other person. This is in fact what the Internet was designed to do. My hope is that after being exposed to enough of the evidence for their theory, that you and others will realize that neither hostility nor condescension has any place in this conversation.

      Although I am certainly not the first to discuss these materials on this forum, I am apparently

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    6. Re:Critique of "The Electric Sky" by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I did read some of the materials well before I started talking to you and it seems to me they are claiming to have reinvented pratically all of modern science along with disproving man-made global warming. They (like yourself) attack "consensus science" without understanding that consensus amoung investigators is what defines a scientific finding as "established", leading to the term "established science".

      Your posts contain a large amount of ad-homs that target the competence of the scientific community and the value of "established science" yet you/they are proposing we should throw it all out and replace it with a theory that cannot make it past the first level of peer-review. It is not the astrophysicist's "lack of education" that is the problem here, it is the inability of EU theory to withstand formal scrutiny.

      If you enjoy that sort of thing you may also like reading Michael Chritchton's "State of fear", Dan Brown's "Davinici code" or Eric Von-Daniken's "Chariot of the gods". They all work on the same principle, ie: selective facts, biased interpretations and incorrect conclusions. This does not mean these books do not contain usefull information/ideas but it does mean they fail to qualify as science.

      As for a "purpose" for my posts I don't really have one, but I do have a habit of objecting to psuedo-science and psuedo-skepticisim where and when I see it.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Critique of "The Electric Sky" by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      it seems to me they are claiming to have reinvented pratically all of modern science along with disproving man-made global warming.

      What you have to understand is that there are limits to their allegations. They are not alleging that there is anything wrong with chemistry, for instance -- which we can establish through laboratory science works. The idea that astrophysics and the science of global warming have attained the maturity of something like chemistry is not supported by the evidence. When we do a chemistry experiment, we can predict the result. Astrophysics is producing very little in the way of successful predictions relative to the other sciences.

      They (like yourself) attack "consensus science" without understanding that consensus amoung investigators is what defines a scientific finding as "established", leading to the term "established science".

      There's a good time and a wrong time for consensus. When you can't account for 95% of the particles within your universe, it's a little bit premature to be forming consensus. Don Scott and Wallace Thornhill do a very good job of explaining the large number of solar observations that were never predicted by the thermonuclear model for the Sun. Even though we can create equations that can model most of these things without relying upon things like double layers and Birkeland Currents, we should not form a consensus on how the Sun works until we can demonstrate that we are very good at predicting the Sun's behavior. And yet, if you're paying attention, you'll realize that the Sun continues to surprise us with each new piece of equipment we launch to observe it. The consensus for comets remains in spite of the fact that the consensus is completely contradicted by our recent missions to comets. The consensus that Einstein was "correct" has completely derailed science away from trying to identify what gravity actually is. Everybody ignores the fact that Einstein can be computationally correct while not correctly explaining *why* his equations work. The consensus that lightning results from processes inherent to storm clouds continues in spite of the fact that we can now observe lightning extending to the edge of space; the consensus persists even though we see disturbances within the Van Allen radiation belts that correlate with terrestrial lightning bolts. The consensus that Mammoths were killed by hunters completely obscures the really strange findings that people have made with respect to that particular situation; the consensus actually has *nothing* to do with the data. The consensus that Venus is our sister planet has actually caused us to disregard the data we received from probes that have landed on that planet, which told us that the planet's surface was discharging heat.

      In other words, it appears that we have prematurely formed consensuses on many issues. And once solidified, the consensus is used as a mechanism to prop up the status quo. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you accept, for instance, that the Mammoths were just slaughtered by a bunch of Indians, then this will drastically reduce the chances that you will be motivated to actually learn about the completely surreal circumstances of their death.

      Your posts contain a large amount of ad-homs that target the competence of the scientific community and the value of "established science" yet you/they are proposing we should throw it all out and replace it with a theory that cannot make it past the first level of peer-review. It is not the astrophysicist's "lack of education" that is the problem here, it is the inability of EU theory to withstand formal scrutiny.

      There is hardly a fair playing field here. EU Theorists cannot even launch probes to investigate the interconnections that they allege. When your theory asserts that the universe is electrically connected and that plasmas that contain less than 1% charged particles can be conducting currents in a dark mode,

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    8. Re:Critique of "The Electric Sky" by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "In other words, it appears that we have prematurely formed consensuses on many issues. And once solidified, the consensus is used as a mechanism to prop up the status quo. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you accept, for instance, that the Mammoths were just slaughtered by a bunch of Indians, then this will drastically reduce the chances that you will be motivated to actually learn about the completely surreal circumstances of their death."

      Excellent example of what I mean when I say that you don't understand the scientific method and skepticisim, the whole point of building a consensus is to give people a solid target to attack. It's simple to dissmiss EU as unsupported conjecture, all I have to say is "show me the peer-reviewed research".

      Now before you go into a rant about how EU has been suppressed by a conspiracy that prevents them from being published in a recognised journal, take a deep breath, sit back and look at it in a dispassionate way. From what your posts say (and the bits I have read) the EU proponents are claiming astrophysics is wrong, cosmology is wrong, climatology is wrong, nuclear physics is wrong (and thus chemistry is wrong), "ancient writings" are a warning, something mysterious happened to mammoths, ect.

      This many things cannot be wrong unless we have seriously fucked up centuries of research into physics, chemistry and maths. The chances that Don Scott and Wallace Thornhill are correct and the rest of us are complacent morons who spend their time supressing obvious genius is not zero, but it might as well be.

      "When you can't account for 95% of the particles within your universe"

      What are you talking about, everyone knows the Universe is mainly hydrogen and ignorance.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:Critique of "The Electric Sky" by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Excellent example of what I mean when I say that you don't understand the scientific method and skepticisim, the whole point of building a consensus is to give people a solid target to attack. It's simple to dissmiss EU as unsupported conjecture, all I have to say is "show me the peer-reviewed research".

      Now before you go into a rant about how EU has been suppressed by a conspiracy that prevents them from being published in a recognised journal, take a deep breath, sit back and look at it in a dispassionate way. From what your posts say (and the bits I have read) the EU proponents are claiming astrophysics is wrong, cosmology is wrong, climatology is wrong, nuclear physics is wrong (and thus chemistry is wrong), "ancient writings" are a warning, something mysterious happened to mammoths, ect.

      You appear to possess very idealistic views of the peer-review system. Instead of acknowledging that consensus science deprives out-of-the-mainstream scientists from receiving funding that would enable them to debunk the consensus, you specifically focus on the idealistic notion that it somehow makes the consensus more of a target. But in your analysis, you presume that there is this objective pool of money out there which universities and governments are willing to disperse to anybody with a good idea. This ignores the fact that a premature consensus will shift the dispersal of monies in favor of the safe bet. You also assume that the pre-existing faculty at universities would embrace people who wish to do research that violates the consensus (and possibly their own research). You ignore all of these politics. The real problems are happening in the details of how money is distributed and how students are increasingly taught to be a part of a scientific society where they oftentimes literally vote to resolve their disputes, as if science is comparable to a democracy. Had any of the great minds of the 19th and 20th centuries been coerced by their peers to vote rather than debate their beliefs, we would not be where we're at today. Scientists should be taught that disagreement and debate is fundamental to the notion of advancement within the sciences. Ideas are not right just because they are the most popular. Ideas should be evaluated on the basis of the evidence.

      This many things cannot be wrong unless we have seriously fucked up centuries of research into physics, chemistry and maths. The chances that Don Scott and Wallace Thornhill are correct and the rest of us are complacent morons who spend their time supressing obvious genius is not zero, but it might as well be.

      Now we get to the meat of the problem: the refusal to believe that our prior assumptions and speculations within astrophysics can be wrong. Astrophysicists will freely admit that they do not understand what causes Type 1a supernovae. The models for the exact process are all guesses, and we now have observations that indicate that the current theories may be wrong. This is a fact. And yet, there exists further speculation regarding dark energy based upon the notion that Type 1a explosions have a consistent brightness. You don't have to talk to EU Theorists in order to learn about this situation.

      By ignoring the observational anomalies that are oftentimes freely admitted by mainstream scientists within space.com press releases, and focusing explicitly upon the theories that are taught within popular books and textbooks, you have convinced yourself that there is no reason to even have a debate on this issue.

      The fact that the universe can be explained in terms of gravity does not mean that the explanation is correct. There is nothing technically wrong with an analysis of the universe based upon laboratory observations of plasma. There are in fact two separate possible explanations for the universe now. And we as a society are favoring the former for the sole reason that it was conceived first. What people will eventually wise up to is that the latter explana

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    10. Re:Critique of "The Electric Sky" by pln2bz · · Score: 1
      Okay, it's time for us to get into some specifics here. To demonstrate my point that we can interpret every relevant NASA press release in terms of EU Theory, let's look at two articles that are currently featured on Space.com:

      http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070419_shaki ng_asteroid.html and
      http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070418_star_ dangerzone.html

      In the asteroid article, we're told that scientists do not understand how it is possible that some parts of the asteroid Itokawa can possibly be covered in fine dust while the rest is instead boulders and gravel. To explain this unusual finding, they suggest several patently absurd propositions:

      regolith's patchy distribution is the result of shaking, which causes the finest and lightest materials to accumulate in dips on the asteroid's surface, where the local gravity is lowest.

      "It's sort of like if you poured water over Itokawa, all the water would tend to pool in these [low] regions," said study team member Daniel Scheeres of the University of Michigan. "The water would flow downhill until it couldn't go downhill anymore."

      A shaky asteroid

      The new findings suggest seismic activity of some kind is occurring on Itokawa, a small asteroid only 1,600 feet (500 meters) in diameter.

      "Even though it's this tiny little guy, it is in some sense geologically active," Scheeres told SPACE.com. "Things are happening on the surface. Stuff moves from one point to the other."

      The regolith distribution suggests Itokawa has been shaken up in the past, but what might have rattled it is still an open question.

      One hypothesis is that smaller asteroids occasionally strike Itokawa and shake the space rock up. Because of its diminutive size, even tiny impacts could send Itokawa into a tremor. Another idea is that Itokawa might occasionally fly close enough to the Earth, where our planet's gravity could jostle it.

      Jostled by sunlight

      Perhaps the most intriguing hypothesis, however, is one recently put forth by Scheeres. In a study to be published in the scientific journal Icarus, Scheeres ties Itokawa's periodic shaking to the YORP effect, in which sunlight provides a small nudge that can speed up or slow down an asteroid's rotation.

      Every single one of these propositions are defied by common sense. However, the electrical view follows from the laboratory (and even the manufacturing industry that was used to create the computer you're using right now). From http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 17deepimpact3.htm:

      Cathode sputtering has an effect that is simply "beyond the reach" of evaporating volatiles. It can create an exceedingly fine dust down to 1 micrometer or even finer. (One micrometer is just 40 millionths of an inch). This unique capability of cathode sputtering is why the process is used in the manufacture of highly reflective mirrors for modern telescopes. So again, a comparison of practical electrical technology with the discoveries of Deep Impact is only reasonable.

      This line of investigation introduces another surprise: Astronomers could not understand what occurred when the 800-pound projectile hit the comet nucleus. An enormous volume of an extraordinarily fine dust was thrown into space at high speed, creating an extremely bright cloud due to the dust's remarkable reflectivity. NASA scientists estimated that the dust particles were only .5 to 1 micrometer in diameter.

      But was the surprise justified? Almost twenty years earlier the visit to Halley had investigators wondering how "sublimating ices" could produce such fine comet dust. But that surprise, like so many others, seems to have been quickly

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    11. Re:Critique of "The Electric Sky" by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "You appear to possess very idealistic views of the peer-review system. Instead of acknowledging that consensus science deprives out-of-the-mainstream scientists from receiving funding that would enable them to debunk the consensus, you specifically focus on the idealistic notion that it somehow makes the consensus more of a target."

      You sir have demonstrated through your tedious, rambling posts that you are a crank, like the majority of cranks you have little or no understanding that science is a process. Until you actually attempt to understand how this process works in the real world I see little point in continuing the discussion (refer to implication 2 in my link).

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:Critique of "The Electric Sky" by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      I'm very happy to discuss the evidence that supports the theory if you are unimpressed by the philosophy of science arguments. To be honest, you've failed to respond to absolutely any of the evidence that I've brought up regarding the differences between how plasma acts within the laboratory and how astrophysicists speculate that it operates in space as it is modeled within magnetohydrodynamics. These are very simple facts to check up on. It is within your powers to validate these statements for yourself and it could be done in under a half-hour, and yet you opt to avoid it. I get the sense that you will believe whatever it is you are told so long as the person telling you is "qualified". Since I don't match this criteria, it appears your sole purpose is to either prove to others that I am a crank, as you allege, or to induce me to believe as yourself and others. This ignores the fact that I have legitimate complaints about astrophysics that I have attempted to detail for you. You don't care about this disconfirming evidence; like many others, you'd be happy if we just ignored the fact that comets, for instance, do not behave in accordance with the models because for you the mainstream theories are more important than the data. Usually, when people are told of data that contradicts their knowledge, fair-minded people would not immediately propose that the data is skewed before actually hearing it out. They might challenge the person to present the evidence. But your belief in a gravity-centric universe is so strong that, like others, there is no evidence that can contradict this belief -- and thus, you display no curiosity in anything that might contradict this "knowledge". You have attained this level of conviction by confusing established scientific facts with assumptions, speculations and premature consensus. It is not your fault. The material was all presented to you as if it is fact. Like many others, you have no idea that, for instance, nobody has ever observed matter to gravitationally contract into a ball. And so, you have no idea what level of confidence you can place into the notion that matter gravitationally contracts into a ball over billions of years to form a planet. In the absence of this critical information, you just assume that you have 100% confidence in all of it. If you read the EU materials -- even if you didn't believe in the theory itself -- you would learn the difference between what we know for a fact and what is assumed and speculated.

      It was less than 12 months ago that I possessed beliefs very similar to your own. It wasn't until I started reading materials that challenged my beliefs that I realized that my beliefs about the space sciences were based upon some very weak evidence. In this way, you have stunted your ability to intellectually mature. Your ideas about astrophysics will continue to be fixed at that last moment in time when you closed your mind to disconfirming evidence. One day, your kids will make fun of you for believing in things like black holes. Before you know it, you will have become the crank that you believed that other people were as the education process continues (sometimes never ends) for younger and more open-minded people. When we are young, we like to think of ourselves as contemporary individuals. But we are in fact only contemporary so long as we try to keep our minds young and available to new ideas. If you had read the evidence and decided that you did not agree with it, then perhaps you could make a case. But you display no interest in doing as much.

      The only thing that will change your mind is for you to directly observe some sort of anomalous electrical activity within the sky. What you fail to realize though is that if we as a society collectively wait for something like that to happen, we may have sealed our fate and go the way of the mammoths. Charge density in an electrically interconnected space can change very dramatically overnight. You don't realize this because of the very evidence that you refuse to read.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
  42. Damn dumb dirty apes. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Somewhere, there's an unbelieveably advanced civilization trying to communicate across the unbridgeable distances of space. After beggaring their economy and pillaging their planet for resources, they finally were able to construct the "GIANT SIGNAL TO INTELLIGENT RACES ACROSS THE GALAXY", supposing that it was self-evidently clear that no natural stellar process can form such a perfect square shape.

    I mean, sure, it might confuse the more primitive, stupider races. But how important are they?

    --
    -Styopa
  43. I've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TRON!

  44. lense glare??? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

    Am I the only person that thinks it looks like standard lense glare? All of the other stars around it have similar effects, but they aren't nearly as drastic because they aren't nearly as bright, thus they simply look like blurry rings instead of prismatic (is that the right word???) effects.

    --
    "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  45. Giant space spiders! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do NOT let your starships get caught in its web!

  46. Almost perfect is not good enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost perfect? We have been hearing recently about almost perfect this, almost perfect that. It may be news when they find something that is *actually* perfect. To the limit of our ability to measure. And as we improve that ability, to the limit of anything we are able to come up with.

  47. Hexagon Explained?? by spiedrazer · · Score: 1

    Speaking of the Hexagon on Saturn, one of my co-workers found this math paper that sems to describe the phenomenon. At the time, the article stated that they were still looking for a cause for the pattern. Anyone with a subscription to the chaos journal want to see if the paper really applies?

    --
    Keep passing the open windows...
  48. It's a Double Splash - from the side by TomRC · · Score: 1

    Looks to me like it's two stars that slammed into each other, creating a double splash, which we just happen to be seeing from the side - so an hourglass shape if viewed in 3D.