Slashdot Mirror


Huge Hydrogen Cloud Will Hit Milky Way

diewlasing points us to a story about a hydrogen cloud, eleven thousand light-years long, which will collide with the Milky Way in a devastating crossfire of shock waves and star formation...in 20-40 million years. Mark your calendars. At least it will give us something to watch while we're waiting for Andromeda to hit us in a few billion years. Hopefully, it will look at least this cool. "The detailed GBT study dramatically changed the astronomers' understanding of the cloud. Its velocity shows that it is falling into the Milky Way, not leaving it, and the new data show that it is plowing up Milky Way gas before it as it falls. 'Its shape, somewhat similar to that of a comet, indicates that it's already hitting gas in our Galaxy's outskirts,' Lockman said. 'It is also feeling a tidal force from the gravity of the Milky Way and may be in the process of being torn apart. Our Galaxy will get a rain of gas from this cloud, then in about 20 to 40 million years, the cloud's core will smash into the Milky Way's plane,' Lockman explained."

220 comments

  1. Hindenstromics by Chairboy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh the hugegalaxy!

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

      I for one welcome our new single protoned overlords.

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

      ...but I bet it won't look this cool.

    3. Re:Hindenstromics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as we don't paint the galaxy with aluminum paint, all will be OK.

      Nothing to see here. Move along.

  2. Shot in the Dark by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It seems to me that something with enough gas to create 1M stars akin to the Sun might have a noticeable impact on the revolutionary nature of the galaxy. Nothing astounding, probably akin to the added wobble of the Earth after the giant 2004 earthquake (the one that caused the tsunami) but it's probably something that, on the off chance we or some other life form is around, would be really awesome to observe. Also, assuming we don't have all the answers yet, seeing how the galaxy responds to such a sudden, massive change compared to our models could really tell us exactly how much mass there is, how it's distributed, etc.

    --
    I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    1. Re:Shot in the Dark by evwah · · Score: 1

      well the only way we'll have survived that long is if we get off this planet, and I'm assuming that if we master the technology to do that, we'll have any of the answers related to that problem.

    2. Re:Shot in the Dark by Laguerre · · Score: 1

      Actually, since the galaxy has about 100 billion stars, a gas cloud with enough gas to create 1 million stars only has about 0.001% the mass of the galaxy. Since it's not very dense either (nebulous cloud), the effect of it colliding with the milky way will be like a bug colliding with your windshield.

    3. Re:Shot in the Dark by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Since it's not very dense either (nebulous cloud), the effect of it colliding with the milky way will be like a bug colliding with your windshield.
      That's kind of ambiguous. Are we the windshield, or the bug?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Shot in the Dark by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1, Informative

      Don't forget to multiply! It's actually 0.01% so it's more akin to throwing a baby at an 18-wheeler. Not a huge effect, but when it's traveling fast it might dent a small portion of it, which is all we would need, really.

      However, I was more referencing the ability of the cloud to interact with everything else going on. A baby/bug will either bounce or splat against a truck/car but the gas can and will interact with nearby stars, solar systems, etc. THAT's what would be cool to measure - aside from the fact that it'd be very complex and unpredictable (although, by then, who knows) any minute deviation could give an indication of the amount of dark matter (not) floating around, for example.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    5. Re:Shot in the Dark by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's interesting is that apparently they don't know where it came from, and it's supposedly strange to just have a relatively small cloud of hydrogen coming towards us from a totally empty area of space.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    6. Re:Shot in the Dark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems to me that something with enough gas to create 1M stars akin to the Sun might have a noticeable impact on the revolutionary nature of the galaxy. Nothing astounding, probably akin to the added wobble of the Earth after the giant 2004 earthquake

      Probably not so much. The difference is that the Earth is a rigid object, while the galaxy is a swirling pile of unconnected particles. It would take a very long time for tidal locking to redistribute the energy.
    7. Re:Shot in the Dark by king-manic · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's interesting is that apparently they don't know where it came from, and it's supposedly strange to just have a relatively small cloud of hydrogen coming towards us from a totally empty area of space. God, Cthulu, and the FSM went to a Mexican place for lunch.
      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    8. Re:Shot in the Dark by ppanon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Both. It's a windshield made of bugs.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    9. Re:Shot in the Dark by misleb · · Score: 1

      That's kind of ambiguous. Are we the windshield, or the bug?


      We are a passenger sitting behind the windshield.
      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    10. Re:Shot in the Dark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      love that sig mate :)

    11. Re:Shot in the Dark by SageMusings · · Score: 4, Funny

      it's more akin to throwing a baby at an 18-wheeler

      Interesting example. I would have used the puppy vs large wood chipper example.

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    12. Re:Shot in the Dark by novalogic · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that it turns out in a case of gross miscalculation the entire cloud will get swallowed up by a Jack Russell...

      --
      --
    13. Re:Shot in the Dark by somersault · · Score: 1

      I've often wondered if doing stuff like harvesting tidal energy would mess up the tides enough to disrupt the orbit of the moon or somesuch. There's no such thing as a free lunch!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    14. Re:Shot in the Dark by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      [OffTopicPendantry]
      It's a gas, so it won't have much of an impact at all. It might have an effect, however. Bullets and meteors impact.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    15. Re:Shot in the Dark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It seems to me that something with enough gas to create 1M stars..."

      I have enough gas to create 1M stars, you insensitive clod!

  3. Oh? Only 40 million years? by benburned · · Score: 1

    Wonderful! I can just hardly wait to see this happen

    1. Re:Oh? Only 40 million years? by edwardpickman · · Score: 1

      Actually I wish I would get as chance to see it the event should be beautiful and very long lived. As far as affecting us it's a non event it hits a different arm of the Galaxy. If it does cause super nova there'll be some neutrino events but if there's no civilization left no one will notice. Anything alive will see some pretty lights but I'm guessing other than novas you'd need a telescope to appreciate it.

    2. Re:Oh? Only 40 million years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well only 20-40 million years. I mean, how could you expect to pin this down to a mere million year time period?

  4. Shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think there's a chance of us discovering intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy, something which the milky way has thus far lacked. Perhaps it's fortunate that the embarrassment known as "humanity" will be long gone by then.

    1. Re:Shame by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, the milky way does have intelligent life. Their intelligence can be seen by the fact that they didn't get in contact with us.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  5. I don't think it means what you think it means... by Chelloveck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anyone else have a problem with the word "smashing" to describe the contact of two bits of not-quite-vacuum passing through each other?

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  6. Stock Market and Banks by karvind · · Score: 1

    Lets see how the stock market and banks respond to this tomorrow. I wonder if I should pull all my savings. Jokes apart, this is interesting that they can predict with reasonable accuracy at such large time and distance scales. Do classical newtonian theories work ?

    1. Re:Stock Market and Banks by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Do classical newtonian theories work ?

      Yes, provided neither the mass/energy densities nor the speeds involved are too large.

      Of course, we will not really know how accurate that prediction is until in about 20 to 40 million years.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Stock Market and Banks by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 3, Funny

      we will not really know how accurate that prediction is until in about 20 to 40 million years.
      I'll put the kettle on, shall I?
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    3. Re:Stock Market and Banks by Thexare+Blademoon · · Score: 1

      Of course, we will not really know how accurate that prediction is until in about 20 to 40 million years. We might know sooner, if they screwed up.

    4. Re:Stock Market and Banks by console0 · · Score: 1

      Of course, we will not really know how accurate that prediction is until in about 20 to 40 million years.

      Speaking of accuracy, if this is an event that is happening 40 million years from now, shouldn't the illustration in the article show some sort of rotation of the Milky Way?
  7. Hydrogen economy by ShadeOfBlue · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is god's answer for all those people who said hydrogen was just an energy storage mechanism, not a solution to the energy crisis. Look, there's untold millions of barrels of the stuff headed our way!

    1. Re:Hydrogen economy by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why would we wait that long? Hey, there's a decent ball of the stuff just mere 8 light minutes away...

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Hydrogen economy by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Terrorists set fire to it. Fortunately, there's a smaller ball 4-6 AU from us that they haven't got to yet.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Hydrogen economy by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      That hydrogen is non-renewable. Once those untold millions of barrels are gone, and the cloud has swept by, what are we going to do then?

    4. Re:Hydrogen economy by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      *hands you a pair of Welders' glasses and a pair of oven gloves*

      OK smartypants, go get some ;)

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
  8. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Does anyone else have a problem with the word "smashing" to describe the contact of two bits of not-quite-vacuum passing through each other?

    You mean, like a stone smashing into a window? You don't actually think the electrons or atomic nuclei of the stone actually come into contact with the electrons or atomic nuclei of the window, do you?
    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  9. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's gas! It's deadly! Protect yourself! Protect your kids!

    I bet quite a number of folks will stock up on gas masks when they'll hear these news...

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  10. Alternative energy source? by o517375 · · Score: 1

    I have already invested in a company that plans to tap this hydrogen cloud for cheap alternative hydrogen fuel. :)

    1. Re:Alternative energy source? by BSAtHome · · Score: 2, Funny

      ROI in about 40M years. Must be a profitable venture for your grand^(1M) -children (unless they win a Darwin award).

    2. Re:Alternative energy source? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Just put $0.01 into a money market fund today instead.

  11. A warming thought by Z00L00K · · Score: 1
    that the hydrogen gas cloud exists - it means that there is material for a lot of new stars to form yet.

    Time to bring out the spaceship and start spreading humanity into the galaxy. :-)

    But when the cloud hits humanity will have disappeared and diverted in so many different forms that it's probably not interesting anymore. But is humanity at it's height right now? Inhumanity sure is!

    On a geological timeframe humanity is insignificant, and on a universal scale we are merely a static crack. That we still are able to fathom the scale of the events to come is still rather cool!

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:A warming thought by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      If our descendants are still around in 40 million years, and especially if they have diversified into many different forms, I'm pretty confident things overall will be "interesting". If even one of those forms preserves and extends technological civilization, minor things such as gas clouds will also be completely safe for transhumanity.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    2. Re:A warming thought by nguy · · Score: 1

      On a geological timeframe humanity is insignificant, and on a universal scale we are merely a static crack

      That remains to be seen; humanity is very young, but it has the potential of lasting billions of years and spreading across the galaxy.

    3. Re:A warming thought by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Billions of years? Please. If humanity survives the next 10,000 years I expect it to come up with a way of destroying the universe as a whole. Mere centuries left after that.

  12. fuel for the fire by macurmudgeon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hey, that's just the fuel we'll need for a Bussard ramjet

    1. Re:fuel for the fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One moon circles! Eyes in the dark!

  13. Statistically, they're very poor estimates. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can't make that accurate of a prediction. Like the summary says, they're estimating 20 to 40 million years. That's basically 30 million plus/minus 10 million years. That is, they could be off by 33% both ways. In the field of statistics, we consider such estimates to be slightly better than useless.

    1. Re:Statistically, they're very poor estimates. by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      In the field of Astronomy, 10 million years is about as negligible as the plus/minus sign.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    2. Re:Statistically, they're very poor estimates. by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      This along with the whole "Its velocity shows that it is falling into the Milky Way, not leaving it."

      That means that before this their data showed it was never going to collide. Which means that new data may show that is never going to collide, again. Nothing in the universe (or our observations of it) is quite as certain as the conclusions drawn here on /.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    3. Re:Statistically, they're very poor estimates. by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      Nothing in the universe (or our observations of it) is quite as certain as the conclusions drawn here on /.

      Except for global warming. We may have doubts about everything else, but not global warming. 'Cause Al Gore says so, and he invented the Internet and was a vice president and therefore is well qualified to know everything there is to know about the climate. :)

    4. Re:Statistically, they're very poor estimates. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Except for global warming

      And that uranium can be used to create a weapon of incredible power. And that a flood in New Orleans would be really bad. And that travel to the Moon is possible.

      Each of those predictions had less consensus than human-aggravated Global Warming does today. Ten years ago, maybe, you could stand by your argument. Not in 2008.

  14. Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Something to watch while were waiting Duke Nukem Forever

  15. The Earth is 6000 years old by Gothmolly · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wait, since the Earth is only 6000 years old, how can this be possible?

    /Seriously, how do religious people deal with this sort of thing?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by evwah · · Score: 1

      "god made it that way"

      makes perfect sense right? right??

    2. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "makes perfect sense right? right??"

      It's all part of his ineffable plan.

      Hah, I bet you didn't see that one coming!

    3. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God works in mysterious ways.

      /textbook answer when facts can't be dealt with

    4. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by piltdownman84 · · Score: 1

      Its actually 6012 years old, 2008 + 4004 BC ( Bishop Ushers's date of the world creation) stop spreading your heathen propaganda of that gods people only think the world is 6000 years old.

    5. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by Cairnarvon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In general, they don't. Young Earthers aren't really known for their tendency to read science journals.
      When they are confronted with it somehow, they either ignore it or pull out some variety of Last Thursdayism: the universe was created with all of the bits already in motion, and the light from distant stars already underway, and the fossils neatly buried. Rationalisations as to the reasons for this range from "test of faith" to "giving us something to look at in the night sky".

      Remember: evidence against scientific hypotheses mean the science is wrong, but evidence against the Bible means the evidence is wrong.

    6. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wow, that came out of left field. So now we're doing 6000 year jokes and spewing religious insults with articles that don't even involve the earth's age. Interesting.

    7. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wow, that came out of left field. So now we're doing 6000 year jokes and spewing religious insults with articles that don't even involve the earth's age. Interesting.


      Listen, you Methodist monster... it's people like you who make the Bhuddists weep when killing Catholics. I watch Will & Grace, just like everyone else, but that still doesn't make the facts of photosynthesis any more plausible than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_theory but still you complain about things coming out of left field. Well, mister "oh why oh why am I a Sheik", Slashdot is much more than genetically induced baseball analogies. I happen to play right field, so you cannot say my rantings come from that place with which you previously referred to.

    8. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very simple really. God created the cloud yesterday, because he knows that 30 million years from now people will commit a sin so grave that we cannot even imagine what it will be yet.

    9. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a troll, but the parent poster isn't? What are the mods smoking and, more importantly, where can I get some?

    10. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by Linus+the+Turbonerd · · Score: 1

      By not subscribing to Young Earth Creationism?

    11. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by kartune85 · · Score: 0

      Wait, since the Earth is only 6000 years old, how can this be possible?
      Seriously, how do religious people deal with this sort of thing? I suppose young earth creationists would respond the same to this, the same as they respond to a theory that life evolved from a rock.
      Seriously, kick your rational mind into gear. Who's going to test this... this educated guess? I don't think you can even call it a hypothesis, simply because we cannot observe or test the result. Anything can happen between 2008 and 20,002,008-40,002,008 that could drastically change the predicted course of events.
      If the earth were to hypothetically be around for such a long period of time, new discoveries would be made regarding the universe that would make theories of today obsolete. Although the world should be coming to an end well before that time.
      --
      "Failure to conform to majority belief does not make you a troll."
    12. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by MishgoDog · · Score: 1

      Stop it!
      Don't you dare bring reasonableness into a typical /. religion bashing!

      Don't you know that science "pwns" religion, and the two cannot possibly co-exist? And that anyone associated with religion is a "n00b" deserving nothing less than complete and total flaming?

    13. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by kartune85 · · Score: 0

      [Young Earthers] When they are confronted with it somehow, they either ignore it or pull out some variety of Last Thursdayism: the universe was created with all of the bits already in motion, and the light from distant stars already underway,... You'll find more observable evidence that the planets and other "bits" were set in motion at a particular point, as opposed to the theory that a chaotic explosion caused rocks to become spherical planets, perfectly revolving and orbiting as is needed for the universe to exist as a balanced, functioning universe, which also subsequently allowed for conditions on planet earth to be such as to support life.

      ...and the fossils neatly buried. Apparently you dogmatically follow the doctrine of the theory of evolution set before you by worldly, deceptive scientists and have been brainwashed into not even considering or exploring alternative possibilities.
      I have not heard of a Young Earth Creationist that claims that fossils were neatly buried during the creation of the earth. As far as creation scientists can ascertain, is that the fossils exist due to a world wide flood.
      Coincedentally, there just happens to be a world wide flood written about in the Bible. Interestingly, it is supported by indigenous cultural groups all over the world. The majority, if not all, have stories passed down through their ancestors of a massive flood.

      Remember: evidence against scientific hypotheses mean the science is wrong, but evidence against the Bible means the evidence is wrong. Have you considered that evidence against the Bible is wrong, not just for the sake of being wrong, but because it actually is wrong and unproven.
      You may want to jump on you tube and watch a few presentations from Kent Hovind. He has answers to alot of these questions and false claims. At least then you can consider this issue by looking at both sides of the debate, rather then blindly following writings of misleading men.
      --
      "Failure to conform to majority belief does not make you a troll."
    14. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Except for that little nagging problem of the only evidence for there being a world wide flood is the bible, and not that the bible happens to back up all the evidence of a world wide flood.

      The "Dinosaurs etc were burried in the flood" argument also holds no water because there is this bizzare trend in the fossil record where the deeper you go the more primitive the organism is. And I don't want to hear any of that "smaller simpler organisms sunk faster" garbage because that's based on density and unless you can prove that a dinosaur is denser than a modern horse or a prehistoric mammal is denser than a modern mammal somehow...

      *Author product of 12 years of christian science education, has read the entire bible from start to finish, grew up in household with father who is PhD Systematic Theology and has heard every possible conceivable defense, argument and explanation conceived by the young earth researchers.*

    15. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by swordfishBob · · Score: 1

      Only since you asked, seriously...
      Some who believe in "6000 year old earth" claim that the universe started with a white hole rather than a big bang. The sole difference is whether the universe has a size, and therefore a middle, or is infinite and the "bang" happened on an infinite scale immediately. (Curiously, when you ask people to describe the big bang, they usually describe a white hole). Both concepts are equally supported by the same theories in physics. The question of size is an assumption.

      If the start of the universe was a white hole, then there was immense matter density during the early stages. This means immense gravity, which means slower time. Same rules of physics. During the blast of a white hole, the outer reaches may travel for many orders of magnitude more "time" than the inner areas. Should our galaxy be anywhere near the middle of the universe, it could well be orders of magnitude younger than the universe's extremities.

      --
      -- All your bass are below two Hz
    16. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by kartune85 · · Score: 0

      Except for that little nagging problem of the only evidence for there being a world wide flood is the bible, and not that the bible happens to back up all the evidence of a world wide flood. Riiight... not only is the Bible clear on the flood but if you look at other sources, they support the Biblical story. I've added a reference below to 'Deluge (mythology)', found on Wikipedia. Not only that, but the layers that fossils are found in could also be attributed to the flood.
      It's something you can test and observe for yourself. What happans if you place different types of dust, rock and soil in a container, fill it with water, mix it up, and then allow the water to drain or evaporate?
      Apart from theories, there is no hard evidence to support millions of years in the making. Man just wants to accept something that is in opposition to what the Bible says, and has no interest in even testing theories that involve anything to do with actual historical Biblical accounts.

      Genesis 7:19-23
      They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished--birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

      Consider the following quote from Wikipedia under "Deluge (mythology)":

      The story of a Great Flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution is a widespread theme among many cultural myths. Though it is best known by the Biblical story of Noah, it is also well known in other versions, such as stories of Matsya in the Hindu Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology and Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. A large percentage of the world's cultures past and present have stories of a "great flood" that devastated earlier civilization, which has led to theories that they correspond to an actual (pre)historical event. -

      ...there is this bizzare trend in the fossil record where the deeper you go the more primitive the organism is. I'm not sure of the reasoning behind that, and I'm not going to try and create an assumption based on my limited knowledge. If there are Young Earth Creationist Scientists that think that issue is worth researching, then I'm sure they can come up with an educated theory on the reasons for why it might have turned out that way. Although, any theory that is pieced together based on that evidence, regardless of which side comes up with the theory, it is still just a theory based on the same set of evidence.

      *Author product of 12 years of christian science education, has read the entire bible from start to finish, grew up in household with father who is PhD Systematic Theology and has heard every possible conceivable defense, argument and explanation conceived by the young earth researchers.* Not sure if you're talking about yourself here or someone else, but judging by your opening statement, I take it you haven't really read the Bible. I would suggest you at least re-read Genesis.
      --
      "Failure to conform to majority belief does not make you a troll."
    17. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Well, in MY religion, our sun is the direct result of my Lord lighting one of his mighty hydrogen farts - so this discovery is entirely consistent with that.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    18. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      Some religious groups prefer their adherents not to look up.

      It's even better if they don't have a good education - faith don't need learnin'!

    19. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      And fear is instilled for looking down.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    20. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

      Quite easily. It is called Einsteinian relativity plus the inflationary model of the Big Bang.

    21. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by mike2R · · Score: 1

      Does it ever occur to you that you might be wrong? I mean do those arguments actually convince you of something, or do you simply know that they are true since you take their conclusions on faith?

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    22. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by kartune85 · · Score: 0

      Does it ever occur to you that you might be wrong? I mean do those arguments actually convince you of something, or do you simply know that they are true since you take their conclusions on faith? Sure, that question does pop up every now and then, "What if I'm wrong?". But then I think about it, what if I am wrong, what if this whole time I followed something that some men wrote, and there is no life after death, no judgment, no damnation? Then I evaporate into thin air, into a state of unconsciousness. In that case, I don't see why more people don't off themselves, cause you've probably noticed that life isn't smooth sailing, in fact far from it, and why are people so terrified of dying if there's nothing to be concerned about on the other side.
      Then there's the alternative, what if the Bible, the inspired Word of God, which is still well and truly alive after thousands of years, is correct? What if the following verse was true:

      John 14:6
      Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

      If I'm right in accepting that Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice so that I could be free from sin, and he rose again and ascended into heaven, only to come again in the future to restore His church and rid the world of evil, and to replace it with a new heaven and a new earth... then all those that reject Jesus as their Saviour need to be very concerned about what happens to them after this life.
      Salvation is free, man cannot do anything to rescue himself from death, only God can save man, and it is through grace that we receive salvation. It's so simple, all we have to do is accept that Jesus died for us, believe in Him, and choose to live how God commands, to live by the spirit.

      Galatians 5:16-26
      So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
        The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
        But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.


      As far as my faith goes, well you can refer to this verse:

      Romans 10:17
      Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
      --
      "Failure to conform to majority belief does not make you a troll."
    23. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      The story of a Great Flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution is a widespread theme among many cultural myths. Though it is best known by the Biblical story of Noah, it is also well known in other versions, such as stories of Matsya in the Hindu Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology and Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. A large percentage of the world's cultures past and present have stories of a "great flood" that devastated earlier civilization, which has led to theories that they correspond to an actual (pre)historical event.
      You think this is the only story repeated in many civilizations? You can explain it with plagiarism, taking inspiration from older (greek?) works, or even the collective unconscious.
      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    24. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by Cairnarvon · · Score: 1
      Thank you for this demonstration that Young Earthers are, in fact, still as batshit insane as they've always been.

      You'll find more observable evidence that the planets and other "bits" were set in motion at a particular point
      By all means, show us this marvellous evidence.

      chaotic explosion
      Mischaracterisation of the Big Bang.

      rocks to become spherical planets, perfectly revolving and orbiting as is needed for the universe to exist as a balanced, functioning universe
      Lack of understanding of how gravity works.

      which also subsequently allowed for conditions on planet earth to be such as to support life.
      Fine-tuned universe fallacy.

      Apparently you dogmatically follow the doctrine of the theory of evolution set before you by worldly, deceptive scientists (...) brainwashed
      Conspiracy-theorist-like paranoia, mischaracterisation of science.
      It's particularly ironic that you try to cast science as just another religion (dogma, doctrine, &c.), with the implication that this is disparaging, while also believing your own religion to be absolute truth.

      As far as creation scientists can ascertain, is that the fossils exist due to a world wide flood.
      Except that we know what stuff buried by flooding looks like, and we know how old fossils are, and none of the evidence is consistent with rapid burial by flooding.

      Coincedentally, there just happens to be a world wide flood written about in the Bible. Interestingly, it is supported by indigenous cultural groups all over the world. The majority, if not all, have stories passed down through their ancestors of a massive flood.
      And if we ignore facts, all kinds of things are true!

      You may want to jump on you tube and watch a few presentations from Kent Hovind. He has answers to alot of these questions and false claims.
      http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

      (That's really the only reply that deserves.)

      At least then you can consider this issue by looking at both sides of the debate, rather then blindly following writings of misleading men.
      I don't believe in evolution (and the fact that the universe is billions of years old) just because some guy told me. I've examined the evidence and found it to be rock-solid. I've also examined creationist claims against it, and every single one I've come across has turned out to be total bullshit.
      If you have new "evidence" against evolution and against the universe being billions of years old, by all means lay it out so we can judge it. I'm not holding my breath, though.
    25. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      ... evidence against the Bible means the evidence is wrong.

      Mind you, "young earth" is, strictly speaking, an interpretation of the Biblical. An interpretation with which many thoughtful Christians disagree, on the basis that the "young earth" interpretation is shockingly unsupported--contradicted, even--by lots of really good science, and that the Biblical narrative allows for other interpretations that are supported by scientific evidence.
      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    26. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by mike2R · · Score: 1

      While I can accept that as an argument in favour for having faith, you were making specific "scientific" arguments against the theory of evolution. Now I've got no evidence against a God, and no evidence that contradict God as a first-cause for the universe or the origin of life (I could argue metaphysics with you but anyway.. ;).

      However the scientific arguments for evolution (ie what got us from the first bit of life up to the present day) are so comprehensive and compelling that the only reason I can see to object to it is if you find it incompatible with your faith.

      If this is the case then I would classify your arguments in favour of Creationism (as a replacement for evolution, not simply saying that God created life) as part of your faith; presumably you disagree with those who interpret Genesis as an allegory, as many Christians are willing to do. As such you can't expect anyone who is approaching the question scientifically to take your arguments very seriously - atheists or believers; the Vatican has stated that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity I believe.

      If you do think Creationism is reasonable from a purely scientific standard then I really would advise reading up on it. I'm sure this sounds arrogant but there is so much anti-evolution propaganda out there that it is likely that you don't actually understand it properly.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    27. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I may disagree, I applaud your decorum on the subject.

    28. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Huh? I don't get it. How would the Earth being 6000 years old preclude a hydrogen cloud from coming into the galaxy 20-40 million years from now?

    29. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by kartune85 · · Score: 0
      I see where you're coming from, but I have to say, after reading the article on Blaise Pascal, he makes his case based on probability rather than focusing on what the Gospel says, which God revealed to us through His Son, and is written in the Bible.

      He contends the wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed. This statement, amongst others, shows his lack of understanding of the Bible.
      "If you lose, you lose nothing"... This is the same philospohical tripe as is still cropping up today. If you look at what the Bible says,

      Matthew 25:44-46
      "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
      "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
      "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."


      John 3:36
      Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

      Choosing between eternal life or damnation is not a trivial decision. Noone is going to force you to accept Jesus (except maybe some cults might), but rejection of Gods Word does have dire consequences.
      --
      "Failure to conform to majority belief does not make you a troll."
    30. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by kartune85 · · Score: 0

      You think this is the only story repeated in many civilizations? No, probably not. I was simply pointing out that a majority of ancient cultures all around the world tell the same story. Did all these ancient cultures liaise with each other via the internet, or is it possible they say it because it actually happened?

      You can explain it with plagiarism, taking inspiration from older (greek?) works, or even the collective unconscious. I'm sure there are many ways to explain it away, but the explanations all seem to direct one to a common point somewhere in history... maybe it was some world-wide disaster that only left 8 people remaining on earth?
      Where or who was this material plagiarised from, and who originally said or wrote it? Who would have written these "older (greek?) works" and why would they write about a world-wide flood? What is the root of this co-called "collective unconscious", and where did it stem from?

      It begs the question, could this historical book actually be true? If so, what does it teach and tell us?
      --
      "Failure to conform to majority belief does not make you a troll."
    31. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by kartune85 · · Score: 0

      However the scientific arguments for evolution (ie what got us from the first bit of life up to the present day) are so comprehensive and compelling that the only reason I can see to object to it is if you find it incompatible with your faith. Sure, you could put it like that. Although, I would question the methods they utilized to come to their conclusions on evolution. The "evolution" model is based on a presupposition that the world is millions, if not billions of years old.
      Where did this presuppostion come from, who decided on that period of time?
      This amount of time is in contradiction to the time period as can be reasonably deduced from the Bible using methods such as genealogy. The entire model of the "theory of evolution" revolves around this presupposed large period of time that was decided upon by men. Men who build things like the Challenger Space Shuttle, Minneapolis Bridge, etc. What I'm getting at is man is not all knowledgable or infallible, man makes mistakes, and lots of them. If the model that evolution is based on is founded on a presupposition that the earth is millions of years old, then I would certainly question where that number came from and who implemented it into the theory of evolution.

      Also, the claim that life evolved from absolute nothingness (and I mean absolute), and has since evolved over this "millions of years" presupposition, to what it is today. The notion that something can come from a lack of anything is absurd and is also in contradiction to what the Bible says. God was, is, and is to come. His eternal existence is outside human comprehension. So to claim that nothing was ever created and that space, time, and matter appeared from a void, is contrary to what the Bible says.

      If you do think Creationism is reasonable from a purely scientific standard then I really would advise reading up on it. I'm sure this sounds arrogant but there is so much anti-evolution propaganda out there that it is likely that you don't actually understand it properly. Science I don't have a problem with. People can study, observe, and test things in this world to their hearts content. Although, when so-called "scientific" theories, based on these presuppositions as discussed in this post, are being pushed through the education system as fact, then there is a problem, particularly also because it is in opposition to the Gospel.
      There is propaganda from both sides. The question that needs to be asked is what are the consequences for rejecting the theory of evolution, and what are the consequences for rejecting the Gospel.
      --
      "Failure to conform to majority belief does not make you a troll."
    32. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      I never thought there could be someone capable of typing who'd be incapable of understanding Pascal's wager...

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    33. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      It begs the question, could this [allegedly] historical book [the wholly babble, which is historical only in the sense that it's been around for a while and is no longer even slightly relevant] actually be true? If so, what does it teach and tell us?

      Given that it's been repeatedly proven false the first allegedly begged question is easily answered "No", rendering the second question irrelevant and also easily answered "Nonsense and fairy tales respectively".

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    34. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by skeeto · · Score: 1

      Seriously, how do religious people deal with this sort of thing?

      Easy! Like this,

      *claps hands on ears*
      LA LA LA LA!!!

    35. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by kartune85 · · Score: 0

      Given that it's been repeatedly proven false the first allegedly begged question is easily answered "No", rendering the second question irrelevant and also easily answered "Nonsense and fairy tales respectively". Not only did you deliberately misquote me, but I fail to see any evidence or reasoning that the Bible has "been repeatedly proven false". Please provide even one (1) legitimate time the Bible has been proved false. Amazingly, after several thousand years, it is still widely believed all over the world, despite it allegedly being "proven false".

      Romans 1:18-20
      The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
      --
      "Failure to conform to majority belief does not make you a troll."
    36. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by mike2R · · Score: 1

      The "evolution" model is based on a presupposition that the world is millions, if not billions of years old.

      ok, but this hardly weakens evolution, while the copious evidence that the Earth is a few billion does rather knock a literal interpretation of Genesis on the head. Entire major fields of the physical sciences support the conventional age of the Earth - geology, astrophysics etc.

      The only claims against it are from people who need to believe otherwise for religious reasons. There are plenty of forums where scientific argument to contrary could be presented, but those who claim to be Creation "scientists" restrict themselves to the popular press where they don't have to face peer review, and mutter about conspiracies to keep them out of scientific circles in the same way believers in Astrology or Homoeopathy or psychic powers do.

      Also, the claim that life evolved from absolute nothingness (and I mean absolute), and has since evolved over this "millions of years" presupposition, to what it is today. The notion that something can come from a lack of anything is absurd and is also in contradiction to what the Bible says. God was, is, and is to come. His eternal existence is outside human comprehension. So to claim that nothing was ever created and that space, time, and matter appeared from a void, is contrary to what the Bible says.

      This is kind of what I was digging at when I said I thought you might not really understand evolution. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the actual origins of life and only deals with what happened to get from the first primitive life to the current state of life on Earth. Yes an atheist such as myself might speculate on some method not involving God as the origin of life, but this is 100% entirely separate from evolution. There is absolutely nothing in the theory of evolution that contradicts even slightly your belief that life was created by the direct intersession of God.

      Although, when so-called "scientific" theories, based on these presuppositions as discussed in this post, are being pushed through the education system as fact, then there is a problem, particularly also because it is in opposition to the Gospel. There is propaganda from both sides. The question that needs to be asked is what are the consequences for rejecting the theory of evolution, and what are the consequences for rejecting the Gospel.

      If science is being taught as fact then the problem is a poor understanding of what science is - either by those teaching it or possibly by those criticising the teaching of it who are so angry that they aren't assessing it fairly. Science is not about "The Truth", science is about observing the world, building mathematical models based on our observation and then testing those models. Most hypothesises die early, some become widely accepted due to the evidence for them and lack of any evidence against them; at this point they are known as Theories. Any theory can be disproved or replaced if contrary evidence or a more encompassing model comes to light.

      Some theories acquire so much evidence that it becomes almost impossible to believe they will be disproved, evolution being a prime example. It could happen, but to do so you would either have to provide clear contradictory evidence, or provide a better more predictive model which is as well supported by the evidence as evolution.

      You worry about "rejecting the Gospel". I worry about rejecting science. To be honest religion has little or nothing to add to science, since science requires hard, reproducible evidence. People who try to get religion mandated in the science class are not going to make their God any more or less true. What they will do is churn out a generation of people who simply don't understand science or how to look at a problem scientifically. I see this as a very worrying trend.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    37. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      Your babble has been refuted dozens of times since you started "blessing" us with your presence here. You are a liar who spouts a chunk of babble in response to every piece of evidence that disagrees with you and your bearded sky faerie, and claims that as the evidence disagrees with the babble that the evidence is by definition wrong, and that this somehow proves the babble right.

      I've stopped wasting the effort on you. You are a lost cause. But your dangling is still amusing.

      (Footnote for any sentients that might read this: The parent post is by a very special troll named Kartune which has taken it on itself to correct the universe (starting with Slashdot) regarding the infallibility of the Wholly Babble, the vast conspiracy that forces the religion of Darwinism into the schools and the lack of need for rational thought as it only leads people to doubt the bearded sky faeries word and blaspheme by suggesting that the Earth might not have been created fully formed around about tea-time on a Tuesday 5,197 years ago. In June).

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    38. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by kartune85 · · Score: 0

      ok, but this hardly weakens evolution, while the copious evidence that the Earth is a few billion does rather knock a literal interpretation of Genesis on the head. Entire major fields of the physical sciences support the conventional age of the Earth - geology, astrophysics etc.

      Actually, evolution very much relies on this presupposed, extravagantly large number to explain away developing advancments of DNA and the like. Species for example, scientists have claimed (since Darwin's Theory) that man has evolved from primitive species, and that we have "transitional" forms. Although, they neglect to point out that, in the case of apes evolving into humans, that these "transitional forms" are in fact either true human, or true ape. There are no missing links to prove this aspect of evolution, though many assume there are from what they are taught.
      The whole basis that evolution has built it's theory on a presupposed number, is like having a right angle triangle to which we know how long the bottom side is and we know the calculation to obtain the hypotenuse but we don't have the height of the side, so we can either label it indeterminate, or we could use a suggested measurement... or we can make one up. If the measurement is assumed, the size and shape of the triangle in theory appears to be correct, but in reality, the triangle is completely different. In this "case of the triangle", the suggested measurement happens to be the right one.

      The only claims against it are from people who need to believe otherwise for religious reasons.

      That is a way to put it, mainly because people who base their theories, study and research around this questionable foundation, that was laid down a hundred or so years ago, aren't going to question it, because they've put too much time and effort into studies and research that is based on that theory.

      This is kind of what I was digging at when I said I thought you might not really understand evolution. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the actual origins of life and only deals with what happened to get from the first primitive life to the current state of life on Earth.

      Evolution and the origin of life are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is based on a prediction of when life originated. For instance, if evolution was based on the origin of life, as per the accounts of the Bible, it would not be held as a plausible theory because of the time restraints. All they did to make evolution sound like a possible explanation, was stretch that amount of time to such a large extent as can not be comprehended or feasibly tested in our life span. Evolution can not be reliably tested or observed because our lifetimes are much to short to reach any conclusions. We have neither witnessed one species transitioning into another species (if that were even possible), nor have we witnessed new information being added to existing genes. Adaptation within species through mutation, maybe yes, completely new information writing itself out of nowhere, no.

      Yes an atheist such as myself might speculate on some method not involving God as the origin of life, but this is 100% entirely separate from evolution. There is absolutely nothing in the theory of evolution that contradicts even slightly your belief that life was created by the direct intersession of God.

      I'm going to assume that you mean "intervention", I can't seem to make sense of the sentence with the word "intersession". And you're right, the area of evolution that you're referring to doesn't directly contradict with the belief that a god may have created everything, although evolution does contradict with many aspects of the Bible, as authored and revealed to us(everyone in the world) by God.

      Science is not about "The Truth", science is about observing the world, building mathematical models based on our observation and then testing those models.

      You make a good point. Science is about testing and observing thi

      --
      "Failure to conform to majority belief does not make you a troll."
    39. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by mike2R · · Score: 1

      I'm really not too sure how you can reject the age of the Earth being in the low billions of years, every indication we have for the date points to it - dating by radioactive decay, geological examination (hundreds of millions of years of sedimentary rock build-ups, mountain ranges which conform to the idea of plate tectonics and then erosion), the fossil record, the observable history of asteroid impacts on the Earth and other observable bodies in the solar system, examination of other stars and galaxies (which allow us to examine all stages of their lifecycles). Simply the fact that we can detect EM radiation from things billions of light years away indicates the universe is that age (admittedly not the Earth, but my understanding of Creation is that it is meant to be a fairly all encompassing event). All of this fits with the conventional age of the Earth.

      Now an all powerful God could fake any of this of course, but that doesn't seem to fit too well with how God is generally portrayed by believers.

      My Grandmother was a Roman Catholic and I asked her once about how she viewed Genesis (annoying teenager sniping at his elders religion basically), she said (from memory, this was over ten years ago) she viewed the early books of the bible as chronicling the journey of the Jewish people towards an understanding of God - that much of the Old Testament shouldn't be taken literally, but it was still a vital guide towards knowledge of God. I find this explanation quite a lot easier to buy than the idea that God buried the fossils in order to test our faith or whatever.

      As I understand it (and I apologise if I'm wrong) the 6000 year figure for the age of the Earth comes from essentially figuring out the timeline of the bible and adding it all together - particularly the various begats and other family information. Now while any Christian obviously holds that the bible comes from God, the simple fact that we have different sects of Christianity with differing scriptures surely must indicate that men have had input into the bible. For this reason I think that, even accepting a very literal interpretation of the early books of the Old Testament (and Christianity itself in my case) for the sake of this point, using the bible as a guide to the age of the Earth is unsound.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    40. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by kartune85 · · Score: 0

      I'm really not too sure how you can reject the age of the Earth being in the low billions of years, every indication we have for the date points to it - dating by radioactive decay, geological examination (hundreds of millions of years of sedimentary rock build-ups, mountain ranges which conform to the idea of plate tectonics and then erosion), the fossil record, the observable history of asteroid impacts on the Earth and other observable bodies in the solar system, examination of other stars and galaxies (which allow us to examine all stages of their lifecycles).

      All the means and methods of dating used to date the age of the earth are still relying on a predicited age, and observed amounts of time (i.e.: half life, decay constant, etc) which we can obtain results for here and now, are then projected onto the presupposed timescale of the earths age. To apply legitimate results obtained by scientific research, carried out in our lifetime, to a presupposed number(thought up by men just a few generations ago), and then claim it as fact even though it's unobservable and untestable, is bad science... in fact it isn't science when it crosses outside of our physical world.

      Simply the fact that we can detect EM radiation from things billions of light years away indicates the universe is that age (admittedly not the Earth, but my understanding of Creation is that it is meant to be a fairly all encompassing event).

      Because something is billions of light years away, doesn't add value to the evolution theory. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1), billions of light years doesn't discredit this opening verse of the Bible. For something so complex as the earth and everything in it to evolve (from nothing might I add), the odds would be next to nil. For a universe, billions if not trillions or more light years across to evolve from absolutely nothing has even more drastically minute odds. Evolving planets or stars have never been observed, and even if they claim that a small change in formation constitutes evolution, well the only way they can support it, is if they project that small observed change onto that preconceived timeline.

      My Grandmother was a Roman Catholic and I asked her once about how she viewed Genesis (annoying teenager sniping at his elders religion basically), she said (from memory, this was over ten years ago) she viewed the early books of the bible as chronicling the journey of the Jewish people towards an understanding of God - that much of the Old Testament shouldn't be taken literally, but it was still a vital guide towards knowledge of God. I find this explanation quite a lot easier to buy than the idea that God buried the fossils in order to test our faith or whatever.

      The Roman Catholic Church and their views, do not necessarily line up with Christianity as taught in the Bible. I'm not saying that there aren't Christians in the Roman Catholic Church, but the Reformation came about due to the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
      Saying that the Old Testament was mostly symoblic rather than literal can put one on shakey ground, wherein it encourages a low-view of the Bible, even though it is "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16).
      Also, "the idea that God buried the fossils", is not a view held by anyone I've talked to or even heard about. Many Young Earth Creationists do however believe that fossils were buried during a world-wide flood, as per the account in the Bible (Genesis 6-8), which is very plausible.

      Now while any Christian obviously holds that the bible comes from God, the simple fact that we have different sects of Christianity with differing scriptures surely must indicate that men have had input into the bible.

      Tis true, there are many different sects, and I'm not sure if by that you mean "sects" as in "denominational divisions", or as in "cults". Either way, different denominations within the Christian Church do have slightly different interperetati

      --
      "Failure to conform to majority belief does not make you a troll."
    41. Re:The Earth is 6000 years old by mike2R · · Score: 1

      I imagine we'll have to agree to disagree on the age of the Earth. I don't have enough knowledge of the various fields myself to say much more than I already have, but I remain completely convinced that those who do have a watertight case.

      I guess you might say I have faith in science (well scientists anyway). Now there's an uncomfortable position for an atheist to be in ;) Despite that, you can't go through life verifying everything for yourself, and I know which side of the debate I find most convincing.

      Something interesting I've taken from this conversation: I've always assumed that Creationists hold their positions because of an unwillingness to give up the old Argument from Design - evolution directly contradicts this formerly compelling proof for the existence of God, and I've always seen this as the main point; the 6000 year old Earth being merely a necessary assumption that must be made if you want to contradict evolution with even a pretence at rationality.

      The impression I've go from your posts is that you hold to the young Earth for biblical reasons, and reject evolution principally because it is incompatible with this. I'm not sure exactly why I find that interesting - possibly just because it is a more internally consistent position, even if based on what I consider a seriously flawed axiom.

      Anyway, it's always a pleasure to talk with someone who holds very different opinions to mine and is willing and able to argue them, so thank-you.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
  16. Sorry about the cloud, guys by russlar · · Score: 4, Funny

    You know what these high-fiber diets do to you.

    --
    Anybody want my mod points?
  17. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not a matter of coming into contact (at the smallest level, every elementary particle may well be mathematical points), but of getting close enough for an interaction force to be produced.

  18. Huge Gas Cloud Will Hit Milky Way by maroberts · · Score: 2, Funny

    God wishes to extend an apology to all inhabitants of the Milky Way for the after effects of the Chilli and Beans he consumed a while ago....

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  19. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gas masks? Just hope no one lights a match when that thing's passing through.

  20. Hold your breathing... by rasantel · · Score: 1

    ... after the cloud passes by. Hydrogen bad for health.

  21. Reaches us in... by scuba0 · · Score: 1

    Our Galaxy will get a rain of gas from this cloud, then in about 20 to 40 million years, the cloud's core will smash into the Milky Way's plane
    Yes but when will we start noticing changes, it says it already reaches the outscrirt of the Milky Way's plane. By looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_way we are not that far away as 20 million years.
  22. Nice show, little chance of danger by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

    Reading the article, it seems like it will be a nice show, but poses little chance of danger to Earth.

    Just another on a growing list. (NEOs, Gamma Ray Bursts, Rouge Black Holes, Giant Hydrogen Clouds, etc.)

    --
    Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    1. Re:Nice show, little chance of danger by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      Reading the article, it seems like it will be a nice show, but poses little chance of danger to Earth. Just another on a growing list. (NEOs, Gamma Ray Bursts, Rouge Black Holes, Giant Hydrogen Clouds, etc.)

      Wait, I'm confused. Are they red or black?

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    2. Re:Nice show, little chance of danger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you... I hate that.

  23. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by dummondwhu · · Score: 1

    Better get a roll of duct tape and some plastic too.

  24. This is extremely important by edwardpickman · · Score: 4, Funny

    We need to start building ships and load them full of our most important people. Politicians, Lawyers and phone sanitizers. It would best not to wait until the hydrogen hits these people are far too important and should be saved now! The future of our civilization depends on it!..... We'll start building ships for the rest of us when they are safely on their way.

    1. Re:This is extremely important by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 3, Funny

      Has anybody else noticed that the gas cloud looks a lot like a giant space goat?

    2. Re:This is extremely important by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      Fully equipped with nasally-fitted fire, I hope.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    3. Re:This is extremely important by OldCrasher · · Score: 1

      I think there is just time for a bath.

    4. Re:This is extremely important by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about Hank Aaron and the magician, for goodness sake!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:This is extremely important by cbart387 · · Score: 1

      A hoopy frood always knows where his towel is.

      --
      Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
    6. Re:This is extremely important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was an enormous mutant star-lizard!

    7. Re:This is extremely important by King+Jerk · · Score: 1

      What kind of freaky ass goats are in your petting zoo?

    8. Re:This is extremely important by dwye · · Score: 1

      > Politicians, Lawyers and phone sanitizers.

      Oh, yes, then we will have a wonderful civilization, until we all die of the plague from unsanitized telephone receivers, just like the last time (and don't say to convert to personal cell phone, because then it will be the exit doors from restrooms, or something).

      Idiots! Don't you ever learn?

  25. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by barakn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe people who don't understand what will happen will have a problem. Like the kind of people that think they will simply pass through each other. What really happens is that colliding clouds form a shock front and can heat up to millions of degrees C.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  26. Hydrogen Fuel Economy by Ryukotsusei · · Score: 1

    At least we solved the problem of where to find our hydrogen.

  27. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by letxa2000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's gas! It's deadly! Protect yourself! Protect your kids!

    Oh come on. By now you should know the only deadly gas is CO2.

  28. hydrogen by overcaffein8d · · Score: 1

    we better start building those damn hydrogen cars...

    damnit, is within the next 20 million years good enough for you?

    --
    Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
  29. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by donaggie03 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure that was exactly his point. He's saying that an interaction force would be produced when this astronomical event occurs, therefore the word "smashing" would apply just as much as it applies when dealing with rocks and windows.

    --
    Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
  30. furlongs and donkey forthnights by viking80 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is just some useful unit conversations:
    suns = 2E30 kg
    light year = 1E16 meters
    So this cloud has a density of 28 H2 molecules per liter.
    That is pretty good vacuum. Actually about a million times better vacuum than "deep vacuum" in outer space here in our solar system, which again is much better vacuum than what is achievable here on earth.

    So this "collision" will be quite soft in terms of energy density: One feather landing on an area the size of the earth.

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
    1. Re:furlongs and donkey forthnights by RealUlli · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Disclaimer: I didn't read the article.

      So this "collision" will be quite soft in terms of energy density: One feather landing on an area the size of the earth.

      Right at first, yes. But there will be collisions, there will be gravity interaction.

      There also is the fact that (1000000 suns x 2e30 kg = 2e37 kg) of mass coming in at 150 miles/second contain a *lot* of energy...

      Some of that mass will combine with the gas in milkyway and push some areas over the threshold into collapsing and forming stars.

      Hope this helps ;-)

      Ulli

      P.S.: I might have gotten confused with the numbers for the suns...

      --
      Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
    2. Re:furlongs and donkey forthnights by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

      Using Kilograms and meters to describe astronomical masses and distances is like using nanometers to describe the distance between London and New York. It's pretty silly, isn't it?

      This is why a few new conventions were adopted. A "Solar mass" is indeed a valid measurement of stars, nebulae, galaxies, and black holes. The only difference is the language used to describe such things in press releases, since the public doesn't actually know what a solar mass *is*.

      There are also astronomical units, which is the mean distance between the sun and the earth throughout the year. Less useful in actual calculations are light years, but they're way easier to explain to the public than a parsec, which is the parallax of one second of arc. If you even knew what that meant, then you are only a fraction of the way to understanding what that means in actual distance. So light years it is.

      As someone else has noted, such a collision of a "gas cloud" (since you point out that it's a million times less dense than the vacuum in the solar system) with a galaxy has real and profound effects, and has been observed elsewhere in the universe.

      However, you might also want to take note of something here. Notice how we have actually been able to detect this astoundingly sparse cloud of hydrogen? It doesn't even emit any light, but it does emit radio waves. This means that there are places in the universe - between galaxies and even galaxy clusters - where there is literally *nothing*. Zero H2 molecules per liter, or even cubic kilometer. So when someone comes up with some calculation of the mass of all the matter of say, the milky way or some nearby galaxy, you know that that accounting is correct. And just as importantly, when they say "There's not enough mass here for the galaxy to form cohesive structure under its own gravity - structure that is obviously there", you can believe that no matter how cold or hot that matter is, we know for certain that it's there, and how much it all weighs. Moreover, you can believe that when someone says "50% of the mass of the galaxies we've observed is missing".

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    3. Re:furlongs and donkey forthnights by proxima · · Score: 1

      Using Kilograms and meters to describe astronomical masses and distances is like using nanometers to describe the distance between London and New York. It's pretty silly, isn't it?

      You'd think that, but professional astronomers use some seemingly-bizarre units sometimes (though IANAPA). For example, they sometimes use centimeters (obviously with scientific notation). What I don't get is why they don't use the "base" unit of meters, but there you go; it's probably some historical oddity, or who knows, they might have a very good reason. In the end the base unit of measurement is arbitrary, and what's more important is agreeing to some consensus.
      --
      "The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
    4. Re:furlongs and donkey forthnights by sponga · · Score: 1

      Good than we still have about 5 billion years before the Sun goes out.

      I wonder if this will affect the moon much?
      Maybe it could even help push the moon a little closer since it is moving farther away from Earth every year.

    5. Re:furlongs and donkey forthnights by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Astronomers often use CGS (Centimeters, grams, seconds) instead of MKS (meters, kilograms, seconds) because it makes the calculations easy. "CGS units are still occasionally encountered in technical literature, especially in the United States in the fields of electrodynamics and astronomy. SI units were chosen such that electromagnetic equations concerning spheres contain 4, those concerning coils contain 2 and those dealing with straight wires lack entirely, which was the most convenient choice for electrical-engineering applications. In those fields where formulas concerning spheres dominate (for example, astronomy), it has been argued that the CGS system can be notationally slightly more convenient." -- Wikipedia

      --
      Not a sentence!
    6. Re:furlongs and donkey forthnights by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Unless said astronomers are in NASA. There they use standard units like lbs/m^2.

  31. MegaMaid by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 2, Funny

    If in 20-40 million years we're still having an energy problem I'll recommend breaking out MegaMaid. Let's make sure she's set to suck (not blow) so we can collect all of this hydrogen to use in our H2 powered vehicles :) I better get cracking on canning air to sell to the Spaceballs in payment for MegaMaids services.

  32. Life that one down, Milky Way. by nick_davison · · Score: 4, Funny

    If there's one thing I find more embarrassing than gas trapped in my outskirts, it's when it causes a "devastating crossfire of shock waves and star formation." It's almost impossible to blame on the dog.

    Don't expect to be invited to too many parties in the 20,002,007AD-40,002,007AD season.

    1. Re:Life that one down, Milky Way. by rant64 · · Score: 1

      What timezone you in? That should read 20,002,008AD-40,002,008AD.

  33. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by Adambomb · · Score: 1

    Meh, If someone were to actually say that one would just remind them of beans =)

    --
    Ice Cream has no bones.
  34. Everyone ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... light a match as the cloud goes by.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Everyone ... by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Great idea, then we can collect precious Phlogiston as it is burned out of the cloud.

  35. Depressing... by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

    .. to read about cool stuff like this but realize I'll never be around to see it. I really wish sometimes I could just sit back and watch the whole universe and not have to worry about time.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    1. Re:Depressing... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      Actually, it would be the opposite. Imagine you are immortal and will
      never die. How would you prevent boredom? Besides seeding planets
      with life, and observing the changes, what else would there be to do?

      OK, *beside* waiting for Duke Nukem Forever to be released.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    2. Re:Depressing... by Linus+the+Turbonerd · · Score: 1

      Eh, when the people of 20,000,008 AD are reading through the Slashdot archives, and come across this item, I'm sure they'll travel back in time to retrieve you.

    3. Re:Depressing... by nyonix · · Score: 1

      Do you think God is Bored?

  36. Gravitation is an interaction force by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    close enough for an interaction force to be produced

    There are four known forces in the universe, the weak and strong nuclear forces are short-range, while the electrical and gravitational forces are long-range, which means they will produce interactions everywhere in the universe.


    Electrical forces come in two polarities, positive charges balance out negative charges, but gravitational forces always add up. There's no known way to block gravitation, therefore one can say that any two galaxies in the universe are "close enough for an interaction force to be produced", given enough time.


    In the context of the article, I suppose "smashing" means close enough to produce significant distortion in the overall shape of the hydrogen gas cloud.

    1. Re:Gravitation is an interaction force by Satevis · · Score: 1

      There are four known forces in the universe, the weak and strong nuclear forces are short-range, while the electrical and gravitational forces are long-range, which means they will produce interactions everywhere in the universe.


      What about dark energy? As I understand, it's more contentious than electromagnetism, gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces. But, isn't it widely enough accepted these days to merit inclusion in that list of the known forces of the universe? I'm really asking, here. I'm curious. Does anyone know if dark energy is generally agreed to be one of the fundamental forces of the universe these days?
    2. Re:Gravitation is an interaction force by torako · · Score: 3, Informative
      Dark Energy is really just a term to describe the fact that we can't come up with an expanding universe even if we add up all the known effects that could cause an expansion. There isn't a working theory of Dark Energy yet, so while we know that "something" has to provide for the expansion of the universe, we still don't know what that might be.

      The four forces are an entirely different matter. Electromagnetism, the strong and weak forces are summed up in the Standard Model of Particle Physics (in the form of the Electroweak Theory + Quantum Chromodynamics), which is very well tested and in fantastic agreement with experiments. Gravity doesn't fit into the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics, but the theory of General Relativity has been tested experimentally and is almost universally accepted.

      So that's basically the reason... You have four interactions for which we have very well tested theories and mathematical tools, while we know almost knothing about Dark Energy except for the fact that we need it to make our cosmological models work

    3. Re:Gravitation is an interaction force by Satevis · · Score: 1

      But isn't that the same as the four fundamental forces? We can't explain how those exist either... can we? I mean, we know a lot about how they behave and all that (or, more accurately, how they make matter behave), but as far as I know we don't know why they work... other than gravity, which is supposed to be warped spacetime, but is also supposed to be identifiable in the form of... gravitons? The fundamental forces just plain work, so we study them and accept them as a part of our reality. (Or is there something I'm missing?) Has it ever been proposed that dark energy (as the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe) might simply be a fundamental force that acts on a very large scale, or am I way off the mark here? I'm really confused by all this.

    4. Re:Gravitation is an interaction force by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      The simplest theory of dark energy is just Einstein's cosmological constant, which doesn't make it a new interaction, but rather a peculiar long distance aspect of gravitation. It has also been interpreted as the gravitational effect of the quantum zero point energy.

      There are fancier dynamical theories of dark energy in which dark energy is due to a new kind of particle (e.g., quintessence), but there it is still ultimately due to the gravitational effects of this new quantum field.

    5. Re:Gravitation is an interaction force by Satevis · · Score: 1

      All this stuff about gravity and electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces, and now the whole dark energy thing... it's starting to remind me of those old models of the cosmos with the Earth in the center and all the other planets, moons and stars going around it on zillions of complicated little circles. Is this what the search for a "grand unified theory" is all about? Can anyone recommend any good books on the subject?

    6. Re:Gravitation is an interaction force by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Well, the Standard Model of particle physics is kind of messy, which indeed is one reason why many theorists would prefer a grand unified theory.

      The electromagnetic and weak interactions are actually already unified, into the electroweak interaction. A theory which unifies electroweak with the strong interaction is called a "grand unified theory", or GUT. A theory which unifies a GUT with gravity is called a "theory of everything" (TOE).

      There are a number of GUT candidates out there, basically all of them are ordinary Yang-Mills theories like electroweak and strong, but with larger symmetry groups. These more symmetric theories contain electroweak and strong within them, and the two interactions appear distinct from each other at lower energies via spontaneous symmetry breaking. This is analogous to how the electromagnetic and weak interactions look different at low energies but unify into one electroweak theory at higher energies.

      As for TOEs, string theory is pretty much the only workable candidate right now.

      (There were other, earlier attempts at TOEs using extra dimensions in Kaluza-Klein theory (KK theory), but they were as hard to quantize as general relativity is — which is to say, nobody knows how to do it despite tons of effort, and it may be impossible without modifying the theory as in string theory — and Witten proved that KK theory cannot contain a symmetry group large enough to embed the entire Standard Model.)

      Second Creation by Crease and Mann is an excellent history of particle physics which, IIRC, gives some treatment of GUTs at the end. The New Physics, edited by Paul Davies, is a collection of scientific essays on these and many other topics in modern physics. (Well, "modern" as of two decades ago ...) The essays are of various difficulty, some aimed at laymen and many aimed at other physicists who aren't in that specific subfield. You might skim it for more of a flavor for what these theories are really about. For string theory, you'll want to read Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe.

    7. Re:Gravitation is an interaction force by Satevis · · Score: 1

      Wow, this is really interesting stuff. Thank you so much!

    8. Re:Gravitation is an interaction force by torako · · Score: 1
      The "why" that you are referring to seems to be a rather philosophical "why", which is not what most physicist will be after. The important point is that we can calculate results for processes that involve the four interactions and compare them with our experiments. That's as far a "why" as physics is going to give to you.

      We can't calculate or predict anything involving Dark Matter / Energy yet, because we know almost nothing about them except for the fact that they are needed at some point to make our models work.

    9. Re:Gravitation is an interaction force by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "There are four known forces in the universe, "
      I thought that they unified the electromagnetic and the weak force into the electro-weak force.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Gravitation is an interaction force by Satevis · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's philosophical, in that sense, at all. Any theory worth its salt should show how fundamental behaviours arise naturally from the way things are, like evolution arising naturally from imperfect genetic copying- i.e. mutation- and natural selection. If it doesn't, then while it might be useful, it's probably not an accurate model. Take gravitation: there's a difference between knowing that objects accelerate toward the center of the Earth at 9.81 m/s^2 or that the force of attraction between two masses is proportional to the mass of an object and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the objects, and knowing that gravitation is caused by the curvature of spacetime. Matter and energy don't just agree, throughout the universe, to follow certain rules. Particles don't have minds, they just are what they are. They behave in certain ways because that behaviour arises naturally from what they are. So what they are is the same thing as why they behave the way they do, which certainly is what most physicists are after.

    11. Re:Gravitation is an interaction force by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Dark Energy is really just a term to describe the fact that we can't come up with an expanding universe even if we add up all the known effects that could cause an expansion. You mean an accelerating expansion, not an expanding universe. An expanding universe (with decelerating expansion) is easy to explain with known physics.
    12. Re:Gravitation is an interaction force by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      There isn't a working theory of Dark Energy yet, so while we know that "something" has to provide for the expansion of the universe, we still don't know what that might be.

      I thought there was a theory out there that modeled a non-smooth early universe that would have resulted in different timescales for different 'bubbles' in the universe, and would account for Dark Energy's perceived effects? Maybe I was just daydreaming again...

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  37. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by greginnj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think the question that the original poster raised is best expressed as, "can someone give a description of this 'gas cloud' in terms of average units of mass per units of volume?" And perhaps adding in "what is the total volume of this cloud, if we consider the boundary of the cloud as the zone where local mass-per-unit-volume descends to 10% of average mass-per-unit-volume?" While your point may be technically correct, talking about a temperature of millions of degrees C for such a sparse cloud would mislead exactly the same people you're feeling superior towards, and they'll assume it's some sort of intergalactic lava flow.

    --
    Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
  38. Just in time by RevMike · · Score: 1

    Just in time to fuel the "hydrogen economy"!

  39. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

    What!?!? The content of this stuff in fresh air already varies between 0.03% (300 ppm) and 0.06% (600 ppm), and I'm running out of duct tape! :O

  40. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the case of rocks and windows the little neighborhoods of interaction around each particle overlap to cover the whole object. In the case of this hydrogen "cloud" they don't, so there is no "smashing".

  41. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by osu-neko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Two points:
    (1) The sun's outer atmosphere is already in the millions of degrees.
    (2) Our planet orbits within the sun's outer atmosphere.

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  42. Discrimination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The detailed GBT study dramatically changed the astronomers' understanding of the cloud.

    No lesbian astronomers involved in the study, then?

    1. Re:Discrimination? by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      No need; transsexuals astronomate for two.

  43. Let remind me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks. Let me remind me again when it's 2-3 years away. I really don't have time to deal with this now.

  44. hudrogen rush by wikinerd · · Score: 3, Funny

    now it's time for the hydrogen economy!

  45. 20 million years? by philspear · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you think by then we'll be able to make a black hole and shoot it in the direction of the cloud to suck it up before it hits us?

    I realize there are probably other ways to keep it from hitting our solar system, but I'd like us all to agree right here and now that a black hole cannon is how we are going to deal with this, just so we're all on the same page and can get our act together in time.

  46. You sure it's intelligence? by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Funny

    You sure it's intelligence? I can think of a more high-school scenario there. I mean, picture two fashionable grey-alien girls after a cow-tipping tour to Earth.

    "Oh, like, those Sol guys are, like, soo nerdy, always with their, like, radio-teles-wossnames and their gizmos. And, like, God, they just can't take a hint when they're, like, not wanted. You'd think, like, after they got ignored a dozen times, they'd, like, quit trying to get our attention already. I mean, gah, gag me with a spoon, like I'd ever want to be seen talking to some geek who's, like, fiddling knobs all day. Those SETI guys should, like, so get a _life_. I mean, like, geesh, like they'll ever get laid if they're, like, fiddling with that telescope all day. And, geesh, what's with those _clothes_? Fer crying out loud, those suits are sooo, like, last _millenium_. And have you seen those haircuts? Like, gag me with a spoon. They should, like, take a hint from those guys from Rigel. Mmm, those are soo dreamy. 'Course, I bet they don't want to be seen, like, nursing a bunch of nerds either."

    Well, it's a possibility ;)

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:You sure it's intelligence? by DigitalWallaby · · Score: 3, Funny
      If those gray alien chicks are ignoring us, I have just one question.

      Who is doing the rectal probing?

    2. Re:You sure it's intelligence? by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Funny

      The gray alien football players. It's like an intergalactic wedgie.

  47. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure we're talking about a description of what it looks like, not the technical details of the actual physics involved -- no need to show off your knowledge of sub-atomic theory.

  48. Re:The next big thing for the Global Warming Crowd by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1

    Fortunately their delusion has the useful side effect of making politicians clean up the planet a bit. Cranks can be useful. :P That's actually why I don't care whether or not the climate change (something's definitely changing, no doubt about it) is caused or is affected by us. The end result is a cleaner planet for us and other organisms to live.
  49. Re:The next big thing for the Global Warming Crowd by samkass · · Score: 1

    Global Warming Crowd

    aka "folks who believe in science"

    will start yammering about Galaxy Warming

    It's an interesting model... there's a lot of energy in these incoming hydrogen atoms, but adding extra gas between the stars-- especially if some coalesces-- could absorb some energy and keep it from the planet. It makes one wonder what effect it will have, and whether it's happened in the past. A few tens of millions of years is a flashbulb on the geologic time scale. (The amount of time between now and when it will "hit" is less than the amount of time since the dinosaurs.)

    --
    E pluribus unum
  50. Has this happened before - in "recent" times? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anyone else have a problem with the word "smashing" to describe the contact of two bits of not-quite-vacuum passing through each other?

    I don't. (At least not until I find out the relative masses and densities of the gas cloud vs. both the sections of the Milky Way it's about to encounter and the interstellar-gas components of them.)

    The cloud may be a very hard vacuum - only slightly softer than the intergalactic space around it. But at galactic scales it still amounts to something quite dense and massive, which will not pass through the interstellar gas and solar winds of our galaxy without interacting repeatedly - let alone through the magnetic fields of the galaxy and the stars and planets that compose it.

    I'd expect it to coalesce with the galaxy. That much mass at that much relative velocity will dump enormous amounts of energy into compression and heat at the shock front (similar to the graduation of "falling pebble" to something akin to a bomb when the pebble is falling at cometary speed, or a nuclear bomb when the "pebble" is also a couple miles in diameter). The energy density might be small, but over half the sky the radiant temperature can add up. Over that much matter, even at near-vacuum densities, even fusion events could be non-trivial - especially since magnetic effects could produce concentrations.

    In gas clouds I'd expect it, at a minimum, to kick off a round of star formation. Also to sweep the gas and dust out from between existing stars and their planetary systems (and fractionate it), as dense accumulations are accellerated little while gas and dust encounter something of comparable density.

    Even if the density is so low that the above effects aren't significant for planetary systems like ours, the passage of the cloud (especially the shock front) would wreak non-trivial havoc on the solar wind and magnetosphere - and thus planetary radiation shielding. Because the solar wind -> radiation shielding -> water condensation nucleation -> cloud cover -> solar heat reflection connection seems to be a major contributor to (geologically) short-term planetary temperature changes, the arrival and passage of the gas cloud could have a major effect on climate. (Even if its impact on the magnetosphere doesn't "stir up" some change in activity on the solar surface or modify the sunspot cycle.)

    Which brings up the questions:
      - Have similar events occurred in the geologically "recent" past?
      - If so, do they have any relation to ice ages and interglacial periods or to mass extinction events?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  51. Until this passes... by cmacb · · Score: 1

    Don't anybody light a match!

  52. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I bet quite a number of folks will stock up on gas masks when they'll hear these news...

    and duct tape

  53. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's easy. Just use the last several inches to cover your mouth and nose. That'll be sure to keep all those nasty gases out! Problem solved!

  54. God's Fart by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    First God gives us the finger, and then he farts our way. He must be trying to tell us something about our conduct.

    1. Re:God's Fart by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Comments from NASA: "This Carina sub-cloud is particularly striking partly because its clear definition stimulates the human imagination (e.g. it could be perceived as a superhero flying through a cloud, arm up, with a saved person in tow below)."

      Oh, bugger, that made my day :)

  55. Sensationalist Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you just love how the news media is jumping on this with wild headlines suggestive of impending doom? Hell, why not throw up a headline that says, "Sun to Expand and Destroy the Earth." It wouldn't be a lie.

  56. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to protect my ex-wife too. ;)

  57. You wanted hydrogen fuel? Here you go. by Venik · · Score: 2, Funny

    Our Galaxy will get a rain of gas from this cloud... Not if Gazprom gets to it first.
  58. Oblig Douglas Adams Tribute by Lunatrik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't Panic

  59. Large Hydrogen cloud coming... by Karem+Lore · · Score: 1

    Point to self: Another reason to stop smoking

    --
    When all is said and done, nothing changes...
  60. Collision by mjwx · · Score: 1

    a hydrogen cloud, eleven thousand light-years long, which will collide with the Milky Way
    It's coming right for us.
    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    1. Re:Collision by o0OSABO0o · · Score: 1

      Remember to duck and cover! Head down between your knees, fingers interlocked around the back of your neck. Cover you head with a copy of the New York Times... NOTHING GETS THROUGH ALL THE SH*T PUBLISHED IN THAT NEWSPAPER!

      --
      The Spice Must Flow!
  61. Re:Pre-empt! by Linus+the+Turbonerd · · Score: 1

    If I had any moderation points left, I would have used them here. Sadly, I don't, so I didn't.

  62. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by mqduck · · Score: 1

    You mean, like a stone smashing into a window? You don't actually think the electrons or atomic nuclei of the stone actually come into contact with the electrons or atomic nuclei of the window, do you? Me? Yes, but I get the feeling I'll look stupid if I say so. ....Oops.
    --
    Property is theft.
  63. OH NO!!! by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 1

    Will someone think of the children!!!

    --
    Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
  64. What next? A Cloud of Oxygen. by o0OSABO0o · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If a cloud of oxygen of the same size were to come at the Milky Way from the opposite size, would the resulting cloud of water be enough to put out all of the stars?

    --
    The Spice Must Flow!
  65. chocolate milky way?? by freeasinrealale · · Score: 1

    mmmmmm

    --
    A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
  66. GBT? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

    The detailed GBT study dramatically changed the astronomers' understanding of the cloud

    Can someone tell me what the Gay, Bisexual and Transgender study has to do with astrophysics? Or were the astronomers just assuming the cloud was "hetro", and now they understand it better?

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  67. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by Garridan · · Score: 1

    Don't worry. It's a hydrogen cloud, not a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen. Without oxygen, hydrogen won't burn. The time-scale this stuff happens on is ridiculously slow. Stars, or masses not quite large enough to become stars, will syphon bits of cloud off, and grow. There will be some star formation going on, and some enlargement going on. OTOH, it's a *huge* amount of mass, so I'd hazard to guess that the orbits of things nearby will go pretty screwy... so this could mess stuff up pretty bad, without any "explosion" until millions of years have passed and the inflated stars go supernova.

  68. Global Warming by Samah · · Score: 1

    Better plan ahead now or in 20-40 million years we'll have another "could have done something about it" crisis like global warming.

    --
    Homonyms are fun!
    You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
  69. they do by nguy · · Score: 1

    Since it's the Pauli exclusion principle (rather than electrostatic interactions) that makes solid matter solid, in a sense, the electrons and atomic nuclei do actually "come into contact". The notion of the atom as being a tiny electron buzzing around a tiny nucleus is as much as a myth as the "we only use 10% of our brain" notion.

  70. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by PitaBred · · Score: 1

    But the total mass of the hydrogen cloud will have a hell of an effect. Ever seen a tornado or a hurricane? That's just a gas traveling at a sub-sonic speed. The two masses will collide traveling at a relative non-insignificant portion of the speed of light. There will be a very large amount of "smashing", gravitational combination, possibly new stars being born. All kinds of fun stuff.

  71. No more wars right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So at last we will have enough fuel and not to go in wars because it.

    1. Re:No more wars right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So at last we will have enough fuel and not to go in wars because it. No, they'll just be on a larger scale.
  72. So, the galaxies are rushing "away" from us, huh? by cavebison · · Score: 1

    See, this is why the public are so mistrustful of science. First they say the universe is an amazing, beautiful place, then they proceed to explain why it's going to destroy life as we know it.

  73. 20 million years? by VShael · · Score: 1

    Wasn't that about as long as Man was going to survive in Olaf Stapleton's "Last and First Men"?

  74. new tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    duck

  75. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by aegisvirgae · · Score: 1

    I've also heard that it is silent too!

  76. Big words by jandersen · · Score: 1

    A devastating crossfire of shock waves and star formation ...

    smash into the Milky Way's plane These are rather heavy words for the fact that a rather rarified cloud of gas is going to seep in between the stars in our galaxy. Even in the highly unlikely event that there are humans around when this begins to happen, we wouldn't notice on a day to day basis. A star system takes long to form, in human terms, in the order of 100,000 to millions of years. Even the collision between two galaxies is not something that anybody would notice in their daily lives.
  77. depends by rastos1 · · Score: 1

    Hopefully, it will look at least this cool.
    Entirely depends on your point of view. Literally.
  78. Heh by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Heh. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if that was for the benefit of some alien zoophilia site.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  79. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by Kagura · · Score: 1

    Don't worry. It's a hydrogen cloud, not a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen. Without oxygen, hydrogen won't burn.

    It's a good thing we don't live on a gigantic ball of oxygen floating in space. :)

  80. Don't forget... by hummassa · · Score: 1

    if the Milky Way is the 18-wheeler, the gas cloud is the baby, our solar system can be a (still alive) bug in the windshield. That is to say, if the baby hits the windshield in the right place, our descendents can be in for a big "splat".

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  81. No ... it can't be possible. by dreamsofcaffeine · · Score: 1

    That Large Hydrogen Cloud is actually the Large Hadron Collider. Just look at the characters! If you change some characters here and there, munch some characters up and then write it again, you get "Large Hadron Collider"!

  82. Re:I don't think it means what you think it means. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    Well, when it his (comes into contact, if you prefer) it's expected to cause shock waves that will trigger a burst of star formation. Many of those stars will be large, which will then supernova in short order.

    Sounds like a smashing good time to me.

  83. Wecome!! by Ohmaar · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new Hydrogen cloud overlords!

  84. happens frquently by peter303 · · Score: 1

    There are lots of papers about "fossil galaxies" lurking in the Milky Way. Often its a a cluster or cloud with an unusual internal orbital trajectory/velocity. This means it hasnt reach an equilibrium state since merger and converted to a normal orbit.

  85. Better run out to the supermarket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snow, galactic clouds... panic shop! anyone else here from Long Island?

  86. Uhhh, right. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > Our Galaxy will get a rain of gas from this cloud, then in about 20 to 40 million years,
    > the cloud's core will smash into the Milky Way's plane

    I wonder if Jesus will have returned by then.

    He'll prolly return within the next few to few thousand years. Then the devil will be allowed to reign for another thousand.

    Then 19.999 million to 39.999 million years from now, this will happen. I wonder what humanity, walking with God as he is their God, will be doing when this happens?

    I humbly await my downmod. Still, ya gotta respect a guy who builds karma so he can afford to take jabs.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  87. would this make the earth uninhabitable? by sentientbrendan · · Score: 1

    Although this is quite a ways off, I am still curious whether this or some other event is going to make the earth uninhabitable. My understanding was that our planet had at least a couple of billion years left in it. Reducing that to 40 million is significant, even if it doesn't effect this years elections.

  88. Huge Hydrogen cloud will hit milkyway???? by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    Over my cold dead decomposited reincarnated (multiple times) body, it will!!

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  89. Flic My Bic by IAmRenegadeX · · Score: 1

    Solution -- send small robitic probe with a book of matches. Upon reaching menacing hydrogen cloud, strike match. Kabloey, galaxy saved. Bonus: cool light show.

  90. Shields To Maximum ... by NoSalt · · Score: 0

    Shields To Maximum ...

  91. Reply to a troll by kartune85 · · Score: 0

    I never thought there could be someone capable of typing who'd be incapable of understanding Pascal's wager... Ah, were you on holidays? You missed out on attacking some of my previous posts.

    Please, enlighten me with your amazing, insightful interprative capabilities, what is the true meaning of Pascal's Wager?
    Please let me know if the wikipedia explanation is misleading me into a false sense of understanding of his philosophical theory.

    Instead of trolling, you need to at least reply with opposing views on where you think I am misleading. All you're doing is attempting to discredit my posts with no valid arguments. You should try reading posts before clicking the "Reply To This" button, and re-typing words you saw mentioned in the post.
    --
    "Failure to conform to majority belief does not make you a troll."
    1. Re:Reply to a troll by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      Discredit your posts? Ha-ha, it is but to laugh.

      No-one can discredit your posts, and I need not waste the effort. You thoroughly discredit yourself long before anyone else gets the chance (which really isn't playing fair).

      It leaves us rational sentient types facing the task of having to de-leg a snake or de-fang an earthworm. Understandably most just declare "job done" and walk away, but you amuse me.

      I do thank you for the inspiration to proceed with my work though. 19 of the 33 I have approached thus far have seen fit to blaspheme the allegedly Holy Spirit thus far. Good work.

      (Footnote for any sentients that might read this: The parent post is by a very special troll named Kartune which has taken it on itself to correct the universe (starting with Slashdot) regarding the infallibility of the Wholly Babble, the vast conspiracy that forces the religion of Darwinism into the schools and the lack of need for rational thought as it only leads people to doubt the bearded sky faeries word and blaspheme by suggesting that the Earth might not have been created fully formed around about tea-time on a Tuesday 5,197 years ago. In June).

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.