Slashdot Mirror


Hubble Finds Unidentified Object In Space

Gizmodo is reporting that the Hubble space telescope has found a new unidentified object in the middle of nowhere. Some are even suggesting that this could be a new class of object. Of course, without actually understanding more about it, the speculation seems a bit wild. "The object also appeared out of nowhere. It just wasn't there before. In fact, they don't even know where it is exactly located because it didn't behave like anything they know. Apparently, it can't be closer than 130 light-years but it can be as far as 11 billion light-years away. It's not in any known galaxy either. And they have ruled out a supernova too. It's something that they have never encountered before. In other words: they don't have a single clue about where or what the heck this thing is."

144 of 716 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's no moon!

    1. Re:Obligatory by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is what happens when God plays with lighters after eating mexican food.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Obligatory by Eudial · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Didn't you get the memo? A meme that is 20+ years old is an old meme. A tired meme. A meme that needs to rest in peace.

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  2. That's no moon. It's a space station. by lecithin · · Score: 4, Funny

    FTA-

    "Apparently, a scientist at the LHC declared that the object is similar to the flash that an Imperial Star Destroyer does when reaching Warp 10.

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    1. Re:That's no moon. It's a space station. by rodney+dill · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...but can it do the Kessel run in 12 parsecs?

      --

      Use your head, can't you, use your head,
      You're on earth, there's no cure for that
      - S. Beckett
    2. Re:That's no moon. It's a space station. by jaguth · · Score: 5, Funny

      "They've gone plaid!" - Barf - Spaceballs

    3. Re:That's no moon. It's a space station. by jd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait a minute - since when do Imperial Star Destroyers use warp drives? They use Bistromath. That's why the commanders always seem drunk.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:That's no moon. It's a space station. by neltana · · Score: 5, Funny

      Come on, everyone knows that a Kessel is a measure of volume. Geez.

    5. Re:That's no moon. It's a space station. by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Then what *do* they have in that thing? A Cuisinart?!

    6. Re:That's no moon. It's a space station. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 4, Informative

      And a parsec is a measure of distance.

      My thought (admittedly based on other folks on the 'net) is that the kessel run is a race from one point on the surface of the volume of Kessel, to another point on the far end of the volume.

      The fact that you can do it in a particularly small number of parsecs suggests that you are getting really close to the even horizon of a black hole at the center of Kessel.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    7. Re:That's no moon. It's a space station. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      *dorkhat*

      Ding ding, the post-original movies explanation was that the run to kessel involves passing a cluster of supermassive blackholes where the goal to avoid detection as a smuggler was to trim the trip as close to the event horizon as possible without falling past the horizon.

      The closer to the event horizon you go, the faster you need to be going to get out again, which requires a higher maximum velocity. Doing so in 12 parsecs is apparently a good indication of a fast ship.

      *dorkhat off*

    8. Re:That's no moon. It's a space station. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Funny

      My amp can do it in 11 parsecs.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    9. Re:That's no moon. It's a space station. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 3, Informative

      Kessel is actually a planet where "glitterstim" (an heavily controlled drug with mind-enhancing powers) is mined. The Kessel Run is a smuggling route from Kessel back to the standard trade routes. The direct path leads through the Maw, a deadly cluster of black holes; all but the most suicidal or desperate keep their distance.

      The rest is much as you described -- once, while being chased by Imperial ships, Han takes the Falcon through the Maw to escape. Much to his surprise, he discovers that not only did he make the trip in record time, but in record distance as well -- less than twelve parsecs -- due to proximity to the black holes.

      Basics about Kessel, the Kessel Run, and the surrounding region of space can be found in The Han Solo Trilogy, Book #2, "The Hutt Gambit". The record-setting run itself occurs in Book #3 of the same series, "Rebel Dawn".

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    10. Re:That's no moon. It's a space station. by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course, that's all after-the-fact explanation by competent SF writers. Lucas just didn't know that "parsec" was a measure of distance at the time. And that's not the *real* Han Solo trilogy!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  3. I'm betting by debrain · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... it's a Bowl of Petunias, or a sperm whale (again).

    1. Re:I'm betting by gardyloo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, Agrajag is going to be even more touchy now.

    2. Re:I'm betting by rev_g33k_101 · · Score: 2, Informative

      yes, yes it was
      "The bowl of petunias was created during one occurrence when the Heart of Gold's Infinite Improbability Drive was activated. It appeared in mid-air, and promptly fell to the ground and shattered.

      Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again. Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that, we would know a lot more about the nature of the universe than we do now. "

      http://www.hhgttgonline.com/html/petunias.html

      "The whale has only one scene in the TV show and movie, but nevertheless he tries to make productive use of his limited time to attempt to come to terms with his existence, naming things that he discovers along the way, such as his tail and the wind whipping past him very rapidly as he approaches the large thing coming towards him very quickly that he names "ground", and wonders to himself whether or not it would like to be his friend."

      http://www.hhgttgonline.com/html/whale.html

      --
      "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
  4. Logical conclusion by incognito84 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe they should try cleaning off the lens?

    1. Re:Logical conclusion by ogre7299 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, it was observed with multiple telescopes, so it's not an artifact. The full paper can be found here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0809/0809.1648v1.pdf

    2. Re:Logical conclusion by bluesk1d · · Score: 3, Informative

      When your optics are focused at 11tybillion miles, lens artifacts are not visible/in focus. Even if they were, they do not self-illuminate.

  5. All thermal sensors are jammed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    One shows a million degrees. The others, minus five thousand.

  6. Aliens must own stock too. by tjstork · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's obvious that this was the flash of an extraterrestrial civilization that just destroyed itself when it realized that all of its savings were tied up in Lehman Brothers stock.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Aliens must own stock too. by eebra82 · · Score: 5, Funny

      *Bursts out in sporadic laughter*

      It's clear to me... I just know... I just know what it is!

      *Sporadic laughter again*

      This is direct evidence of Xenu's lost civilization.

      Best regards,
      Dr. T. Cruise

    2. Re:Aliens must own stock too. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know, for something that is likely to get the already 3/4 paranoid Slashdot audience to not only tape their tin foil hats on with extra duct tape, but to start digging holes in the basement...

      It's a pretty lousy picture. All that money for a little black dot. My 10 year old photocopier can do that.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Aliens must own stock too. by loftwyr · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's it! Scientology is wrong! Xemu didn't land here, he landed on that bright light.

      The light was the 1000's of nuclear warheads killing off the people on that planet, not this one!

      No wonder Scientologists are crackpots. They're looking for theatans that aren't there!

    4. Re:Aliens must own stock too. by k2r · · Score: 5, Funny

      > My 10 year old photocopier can do that.

      Your 10 year old photocopier can reproduce, so you don't have to.

  7. Ominous! by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Funny

    Two and a half millennia ago, the artifact appeared in a remote corner of space, beside a trillion-year old dying sun from a different universe. It was a perfect black body sphere and it did nothing. Then it disappeared. Now it is back.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:Ominous! by CdBee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Time to call up a few friends

      Regards

      GSV Steely Glint
      (cc Fates amenable to change, Ethics Gradient)

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    2. Re:Ominous! by JPRelph · · Score: 2, Funny

      Certainly Interesting Times...

    3. Re:Ominous! by CdBee · · Score: 2, Funny

      take care - someone always gets affronted

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    4. Re:Ominous! by khakipuce · · Score: 2, Funny
      [ tightbean, M16, tra.n4.228.987.193302 ]

      X ROU Killing Time

      O Steely Glint

      On my way ...

      I think we should dispatch the nearest LSU

      --
      Art is the mathematics of emotion
    5. Re:Ominous! by arktemplar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those who didn't get it - Ian M. Banks has a set of novels set in the 'Culture' universe. There was one called 'Excession'.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession

      --
      blog plug -> The Darker Side of Light
  8. My keys? by Pedrito · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did I leave my keys out in space again? I keep doing that. Sorry.

  9. The 5th element by webappsec · · Score: 5, Funny

    For those of you who have seen the movie the fifth element be scared, be very scared.

    1. Re:The 5th element by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why? An incredibly gorgeous super weapon will save us. I think those of us who have seen the movie should start looking for a secret temple in Egypt to await her arrival.

  10. fly on the lens? by mytrip · · Score: 2, Funny

    shame hubble doesnt have windshield wipers

    --
    Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly. It just happens to be particular about who it makes friends with.
    1. Re:fly on the lens? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Funny

      If there was a fly on the lens of the Hubble, then we've got bigger problems than unknown objects 11 million light years away!

      (Insert "I for one..." meme.)

    2. Re:fly on the lens? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I, for one, welcome our new meme-inserting overlords!

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  11. I know what it is... by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...that dam' kid down the block with his laser pointer again!

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.
  12. Re:In unrelated news... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mike broke the Hubble! Mike broke the Hubble!

  13. Obvious answer by bobdehnhardt · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a gigantic sphere of single socks, nonworking ball point pens, car keys, reading glasses, coffee mugs....

    Well, they have to go somewhere....

  14. His noodly appendages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    it must be the flying spaghetti monster!

  15. Probably. by Markimedes · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say it's a rock.

    1. Re:Probably. by blincoln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say it's a rock.

      A rock that appears suddenly and then disappears later? And is visible from light-years away? And has a spectral signature that doesn't match anything in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey? That's some rock.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  16. Re:they found God ? by gardyloo · · Score: 4, Funny

    When god is a bit more impressive than 21st magnitude, let me know.

  17. Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's no moon!

    Exactly! NASA obviously needs to do a better job of keeping the lense clean. :-P

    Joking aside (at least I HOPE I'm joking!), I have to wonder if this wasn't a large matter/antimatter event. Given that the "object" was described as suddenly appearing, increasing in brightness, then falling off until it disappeared.

    Current physics, to my understanding, postulate that the universe had to have consisted of 50/50 matter and antimatter at the beginning. One of the current puzzles the LHC is trying to solve is, what happened to all the antimatter?

    Since this is open space, it stands to reason that clouds of matter and antimatter may still be floating around, undisturbed. If the two attracted each other over a cosmically long period, we may be seeing the resulting fireworks.

    That's my best guess, anyway.

    1. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by Xaositecte · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe it's another Alien civilization that just annihilated itself in nuclear\fusion\antimatter\something hellfire?

    2. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by beetlenaut · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a common misconception that the Hubble has a lens. But, like all large telescopes, it has a curved mirror instead.

    3. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by g0bshiTe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe it's the server of the site after getting /.'ed

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    4. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have to wonder if this wasn't a large matter/antimatter event.

      That's optimistic. I have to wonder if they found the Higgs boson.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    5. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by mrops · · Score: 4, Funny

      Correction, its an alien civilization that just did their first experiment on the LHC.

    6. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by drDugan · · Score: 5, Funny

      my money would be on a Vogon Construction crew

    7. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by Columcille · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gamma Globula V just ran their first particle collision. Will we learn from their mistake?

      --
      I love my sig.
    8. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by MrMarket · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's no moon!

      Exactly! NASA obviously needs to do a better job of keeping the lense clean. :-P

      Those darn Water Bears are already causing havoc.

    9. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by bickerdyke · · Score: 2, Funny

      lots of.. lots of, baby...

      --
      bickerdyke
    10. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by lilomar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, that was us doing our first experiment on the LHC, how we got back in time and so far away... well I guess we'll find out in a few weeks...

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    11. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by lgw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's no real point anymore in making a bomb > 1 MT, and those we still have around are just for show. If the military wants an antimatter bomb, it's to make a small yet potent explosive device.

      I'm all for the military figuring ut how to make an anti-matter bomb! The military gets more funding for groundbreaking open-ended research than anyone else, and *somebody* needs to figure out how to make and stabilize anti-matter fuel if we're ever going to send a probe to the nearest star.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by olclops · · Score: 3, Informative

      It has a lens now. Although not originally. NASA had to add a lens element to correct for the mirror aberration.

    13. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by lenehey · · Score: 3, Informative

      It doesn't have an objective lens, but it has internal lenses and optics, and the "retrofit" inserted an additional corrective lens to compensate for improperly preparing the main mirror.

    14. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by verbamour · · Score: 4, Funny

      The shadowy figure waves back at you!

    15. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by rkanodia · · Score: 5, Funny

      Liar. Antiswitzerland couldn't have a budget for fundamental research - all their money would be spent supporting their enormous military in aggressive wars.

    16. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by wootest · · Score: 5, Funny

      Especially their enormous fleet.

    17. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by denmarkw00t · · Score: 3, Funny

      It was actually our own LHC, but in 28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes and 12 seconds!

    18. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why? We already have bombs that are big enough (a) to kill us all, so there's no additional risk, and (b) that the military doesn't actually want or need bigger bombs at this point. I'm not seeing a downside.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    19. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by deglr6328 · · Score: 3, Informative

      wrong. The Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement (COSTAR) package contained only mirrors not lenses that corrected Hubble's vision.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    20. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Arms salesman: "This is our new anti-matter bomb, it can blow up half the planet"

      Dictator: "Just what I was looking for, I'll take two!"

      Appologies to Billy Connelly.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    21. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Funny
      If the military wants an antimatter bomb, it's to make a small yet potent explosive device.

      I foresee a slight problem with developing a hand-grenade that has a 2km blast radius...

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    22. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by Krupuk · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean their SHAB, the Small Hadron Apart Breaker.

    23. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by theycallmeB · · Score: 2, Funny

      Especially their enormous fleet.

      Well, yeah. After all, Antiswitzerland would be a low-lying island.

  18. The Borg! by MarkvW · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's the Borg! I'm selling my Lehman stock now!

  19. please stop with the inane star wars jokes by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    what is wrong with you people?

    we all know deep in our hearts it is the decepticons

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  20. Modding system by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I do wish the Funny mod wouldn't make so many posts appear so prominently on a thread. Maybe the first few 'funny' modded posts can appear, after than 'insightful,' 'informative' or 'interesting' get priority. I mean, I've read all the posts above and they're very funny (even the /. cliches), but it starts to get a bit old when you scroll all the way down a thread and can't find anything that adds a bit of information to the discussion.

    I clicked on here hoping someone with an astrophysics or cosmology background might be able to have a stab and guessing what this thing might be, or have something interesting to say about Hubble.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:Modding system by TheCycoONE · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But there's nothing insightful, informative, or interesting to say. The summary covered that: "they don't have a single clue about where or what the heck this thing is."

    2. Re:Modding system by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Funny

      I clicked on here hoping someone with an astrophysics or cosmology background might be able to have a stab and guessing what this thing might be, or have something interesting to say about Hubble.

      hahahahaa!!... Oh wait, you were serious...

    3. Re:Modding system by Tipa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can't get much funnier than getting your astronomy news from a gadget site.

    4. Re:Modding system by tmosley · · Score: 2, Funny

      I SO wanted to mod this funny.

    5. Re:Modding system by crow · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can change your preferences to change how various moderations affect the score. If you are annoyed by funny posts, change the funny moderation to be a -1 instead of a +1.

    6. Re:Modding system by Jonny_eh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How insightful can a comment be when even the NASA astronomers don't know what it is? It's a post of ignorance, i.e. there's nothing more to be said unless someone has more data. The funny's just filling the void that would otherwise be filled with the chirping of crickets.

      In the absence of insight, funny wins out.

    7. Re:Modding system by oldspewey · · Score: 2, Funny

      it starts to get a bit old

      Impatient much? Nobody has even chimed in yet with any Soviet Russia memes or Uranus jokes.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    8. Re:Modding system by Bemopolis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Speaking as someone with an astrophysics background, I can say with great certainty that I have no idea what it is. And likely no one else will unless and until a decent spectrum of the object can be taken. Because, whereas a picture is worth a thousand words (and, if you are diligent, a light curve), a spectrum is worth a thousand pictures.

      If I had to guess, I'd say it's an *extremely* distant explosion (perhaps the hypernova of low-metallicity star), based on the weird light curve and the complete lack of an associated visible parent object. But I wouldn't bet more than a beer on that hypothesis.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    9. Re:Modding system by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you want insightful, informative, or interesting posts, don't read the article within 8 hours of it having been posted. Funny happens now, intellectual discourse happens later. That's simply how it works. If you've ever heard the joke /. tagline, "Slashdot: Yesterday's news, Today," it makes even more sense. Just read today's articles tomorrow and you'll get precisely what you're looking for. :)

      -G

      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    10. Re:Modding system by Tmack · · Score: 5, Informative
      Its called User Preferences. Use them, thats what they are for. Set "Funny" to -6, and bump up the "insightful" or "Interesting" ones to your liking. If you want funny, do the opposite.

      Tm

      --
      Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    11. Re:Modding system by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

      I do wish the Funny mod wouldn't make so many posts appear so prominently on a thread.

      If that ever changed, I'd stop reading it. I already get all the dry tech news I need, but come to Slashdot for the twisted geek view on things. A huge part of that is a shared sense of humor, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

      Think of Slashdot as a bar you go to after work. Sure, you'll hear some serious conversations, but you'll hear a lot more people telling jokes and enjoying themselves away from the office.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    12. Re:Modding system by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I haven't read anything funny yet, despite the massive number of posts with +5 Funny at the top of them. All I've seen is the same old cliched Star Wars and Hitchhiker's Guides we've all seen a million times before, you know the same jokes you yourself came up with in the first 5 milliseconds after reading the headline.

    13. Re:Modding system by clone53421 · · Score: 5, Funny

      No kidding. I read the summary on the /. front page and thought to myself, "Wow, how boring. Don't think I'll be hitting that article." Then shortly thereafter, "Wait, did they say wild speculation?!" Here I am...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    14. Re:Modding system by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Funny

      The funny's just filling the void that would otherwise be filled with the chirping of crickets.

      Please tell me more about these space crickets when you get a chance.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    15. Re:Modding system by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The fact that a post explaining that it was impossible to post something insightful was moderated insightful reminds me why I love Slashdot.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    16. Re:Modding system by pgfault · · Score: 2, Funny

      OK, I'll bite. It's obviously a small Klingon that's been orbiting Uranus for the past 6 months.

    17. Re:Modding system by meiocyte · · Score: 5, Informative

      after work?

      --
      The thing in the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something; for the box might even be empty.
    18. Re:Modding system by Lije+Baley · · Score: 5, Funny

      Slashdot is no place for manual-reading freaks like you!

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    19. Re:Modding system by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cheers! Now where's all that free beer I've been hearing about?

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    20. Re:Modding system by Matt+Perry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you are annoyed by funny posts, change the funny moderation to be a -1 instead of a +1.

      Unfortunately you can't do that. You can only apply a value that is added to the posts moderated funny. You can't change the actual value that is applied by a moderation. I wish we could. I'd set funny to zero so funny moderations wouldn't increase the score.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    21. Re:Modding system by joh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But there's nothing insightful, informative, or interesting to say. The summary covered that: "they don't have a single clue about where or what the heck this thing is."

      OK, here's something informative: Slashdot linked to a Gizmodo article, which made fun of a Sky and Telescope article, which reports about a scientific paper and then 95% of those commenting the Slashdot article never even read the Gizmodo article, 95% of those looking at the Gizmodo article never got as far as looking at the Sky and Telescope article and only about 3 Persons read the actual paper.

    22. Re:Modding system by El_Oscuro · · Score: 2, Informative

      This post should have been moderated insightful, not interesting.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    23. Re:Modding system by Matt+Perry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That doesn't work the way I'm talking about. What I want is for Funny mods to not count towards the total. If a post is posted by an AC (score 0) and is modded funny, insightful, and interesting, then it will have a score of 3. I want funny to count for 0 not +1, thereby giving the post in question a score of 2 when I view it. If I set funny to -5 then something with many +1 insightfuls would get buried if someone added one funny mod.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    24. Re:Modding system by Shag · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I could maybe mod you up, or I could just reply, and at least you, as one of the few people who's paying attention, might get something out of it. :)

      A few of the people in the authors list of that paper (maybe 4 or 5) are also in another research collaboration that's sort of a spinoff/descendant of the supernova cosmology project. I'm one of their collaborators in that other thing, and I asked one of them about 06F6.

      His "best guess" was a neutron star (and your comment here is the only one to mention neutron stars seriously) - possibly formed by a "failed" supernova - which has accreted some material, maybe just gas it was passing through, and flared up/fused that material/blew that material off, or something.

      Since SCP (like the collaboration that I'm in) is specifically interested in supernovae, it is likely this thing was found, and they weren't sure whether it might be a supernova, so they took a bunch of data on it, then ultimately decided it wasn't and wrote it up.

      Unfortunately, it appears even the collaboration that discovered it aren't sure enough to say what it is, which isn't really surprising; there's a lot of specialization in astronomy and cosmology these days, and even though survey projects give everyone a whole bunch of cool data to analyze, someone who's looking for supernovae wouldn't necessarily also be able to tell you that a set of exposures of a chunk of space also showed an asteroid, a kuiper-belt object, or a whatever-this-is, let alone give you much insight into those other non-supernova objects.

      The good news is that as the surveys really ramp up, with things like Pan-STARRS and the LSST coming, there will be a lot more data, and it will take less time to find the second, third, etc. examples of whatever weird new thing gets discovered. For example, the math for relating type Ia supernova (SN Ia) mass to light curve was worked out in 1993, it took ten years after that to find the first super-chandrasekhar-mass SN Ia, three years after that to find the second and one year after that to find the third (which is titled "a second example" because the second one found hadn't been formally written up and announced at the time, I think. :)

      So whatever 06F6 is, it's likely we'll be seeing more of them... first of a class, yeah.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  21. Scooped! by LaminatorX · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm picturing a staff meeting at Engadget where the editor is yelling, "If Gizmodo beats us to press with a previously unknown class of celestial object one more time, heads are gonna roll around here!"

  22. Race to theorize by Itninja · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whatever it is you can bet the scientist community will be quick to publish a theory as to its' identification. And that theory will be immediately disseminated to the public as a fact. And then any following theories (even more plausible ones) will be discarded as foolish.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    1. Re:Race to theorize by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "will be discarded as foolish..." by the public.

      Yeah, could be. An excellent argument for better education leading to a smarter public, and better science journalism.

  23. Loop by halcyon1234 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's the Universe's backup of itself. It would store it offsite, but it's kinda hard when everywhere is here.

  24. That's no Space Station, that's an LHC by CorporateSuit · · Score: 5, Funny

    a scientist at the LHC declared

    LHC scientists then assured the public that it was not an LHC being used on a different planet by an alien civilization, then being burned in a fierce flash of particle fusion before being enveloped within a subsequent black hole. "The chances would be like winning the lottery ten times in a row" they said. "Not that we would know about any alien civilizations, their freaky purple skin and glowing eyes, or whether they were using an LHC modelled after the one we made on Earth. Speaking of which, I'm not really qualified to talk about it, because this is astronomy and has NOTHING to do with LHCs... Ha ha right? No more questions."

    Next week, a new LHC song is promised from the CERN labs and should be another smash hit on Youtube. One of the scientists sung a few of the lines to us as a preview. "We didn't share our technology with a now-extinct alien race less than a few lightyears away. They were probably pretty dumb and annoying anyway. Let's turn this bugger on! Let's turn this bugger on! Smash some particles, yeah!"

    --
    I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    1. Re:That's no Space Station, that's an LHC by lgw · · Score: 3, Funny

      Large Hadrosaur Collider?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  25. Gates/Seinfeld? by jmhowitt · · Score: 2, Funny

    Could be the next Gates/Seinfeld ad?

  26. A Matrioshka Brain decloaking by bradbury · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A Matrioshka Brain decloaking (tilting the orbiting computronium so it is parallel to the direction of star-to-earth line of sight rather then perpendicular) would fit the bill. But if it has disappeared again they need to go looking for it with their best IR telescopes and I suspect the observing time committees aren't going to be in a rush to approve time to look for a Matrioshka Brain. :-(

    Physicists, and to a lesser extent astronomers, have a real problem starting with the assumption that the universe may be populated by species which have evolved there technology and intelligence to the limits allowed by physical laws...

    1. Re:A Matrioshka Brain decloaking by Eighty7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Physicists, and to a lesser extent astronomers, have a real problem starting with the assumption that the universe may be populated by species which have evolved there technology and intelligence to the limits allowed by physical laws...

      Huh?? Why in Zeus' name would you start out from that assumption when there's no evidence for it at all?

    2. Re:A Matrioshka Brain decloaking by bradbury · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Largely due to claims of a sudden appearance and the fact that astronomers don't have another explanation. I've been to 2 gravitational microlensing conferences attempting to convince astrophysicists that they should consider that the microlensing objects (large invisible masses) could be Matrioshka Brains. They don't simply reject the idea. The reject it with extreme prejudice. That is in spite of the fact that the eventual development of molecular nanotechnology makes the development of Matrioshka Brains a very short project (100-1,000,000 years) on astronomical time scales.

      To assume that there are not Matrioshka Brains out there you are forced to assume that *we* are the only intelligent technological species in the universe (within say 5 billion light years) and I don't notice astrophysicists writing a lot of papers which make that assertion!

  27. Sky and Telescope Article by Quantum+Jim · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Sky and Telescope article is much better than the Gizmodo blog. The article explains why it can't be closer than 130 ly due to no parallax, though IDK why they didn't use a more sensitive satellite for measuring parallax of objects up to 1600 ly away. Maybe it was only seen after the fact, or the other satellite was not sensitive enough? The thing could not be farther than 11 billion ly either, since otherwise the light would be distorted as it passed through interstellar hydrogen clouds (i.e. "cosmic hydrogen absorption in its spectrum"). The Sky and Telescope article even includes a reference to the original paper describing the phenomenon. I suggest you read that article instead. It is much more interesting!

    --
    It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
    - Jerome Klapka Jerome
    1. Re:Sky and Telescope Article by beetlenaut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There was a satellite (called Kepler) that could measure parallax out to about that far, but it takes too long. The baseline it used between the two angle measurements was 300 million kilometers--the diameter of Earth's orbit. It got that baseline by simply waiting six months! This thing wasn't there long enough. (Even if Kepler were still operational.)

  28. battlestar? by lucky130 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm just going to go ahead and assume it's a Cylon base ship jumping around.

  29. Uh Oh... by dhj · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's what happened the last time a civilization constructed a 14 TeV large hadron collider! I need some protection. Where's my tinfoil hat!

    1. Re:Uh Oh... by molotovjester · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think we are witnessing our own selves blowing up. Literally. Due to the nature of the universe, we are looking at an extremely long hall of mirrors, which wraps back upon itself. What we see is either our past, or our future, depending on our frame of reference (which direction you are looking in the hall of mirrors).

      In this case, it is (obviously) not our past. The event that was witnessed was 31 light-days away. The same amount of time until the LHC creates the first 5Tev collision...

  30. Is this for real??? by jstott · · Score: 2, Informative

    Is this blog post for real, or is it just a way to grab some traffic and ad revenue?

    I can't find a likely looking original article on the astro-ph preprint server, nor on the Astrophysics Journal site [subscription required?]. Furthermore, the researchers who made this alleged disocovery aren't credited or even mentioned in the blog post, so there's no names to Google for ("hubble AND unknown" only comes up with the original article). Does anyone know the original source, or this just some blogger's idea of a joke?

    -JS

    --
    Vanity of vanities, all is vanity...
    1. Re:Is this for real??? by Gordo_1 · · Score: 5, Informative
  31. Serious guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Couldn't it be a new star forming? I don't think we've ever witnessed a star being born before, so its early days as it starts fusion and begins emitting light could look like nothing we've ever seen before. It might wink on and off like a baby taking its first steps.Just a college student's guess.

    1. Re:Serious guess by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Couldn't it be a new star forming?

      This is probably ruled out for two reasons. First, there's no detectable nebula in the area. Stars usually form out of dust or plasma clouds. The brightness magnitude at its max suggests that its near our galaxy if its a star, meaning its mother nebula should be detectable if it had one.

      Second the spectrum does not match any known object, according to the Sky and Telescope article somebody linked to. They've studied birthing stars such as those in Orion, so the spectrum of such would be an approximate match.
           

  32. Makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    At 11 billion light years out, he would have had to lose his personality well into his late 20's.

  33. It's been there all along. by Thelasko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's so far away, that it's light finally reached earth.

    In other words, it was beyond the particle horizon and now it's not.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:It's been there all along. by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except that the source couldn't have been more than 11 billion light years away (No distortion from intergalactic hydrogen) and the particle horizon is 13.6-13.9 billion light years away. Plus the fact that it faded away after about 100 days would seem to indicate it was some kind of event, not just an object.

  34. I bet... by javilon · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... its dimensions are 1 by 4 by 9

    --


    When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
  35. It was Sam. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2, Funny

    It was Major Carter, exploding another star.

    Once you blow up one star, they expect everything from you.

  36. Well, Good by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since there are now about 100 idiotic "joke" comments on this thread, perhaps I can put in a serious note. Hubble finding something presently unidentifiable is fantastic. One of the best things you can hear in scientific circles is something along the lines of "What the hell is that?"

    1. Re:Well, Good by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The most exciting phrase in science, the one that heralds a new discovery, is rarely "Eureka!" and more often "That's funny. It's not supposed to do that..."."

  37. It's Evil! by MikeyToo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where is Korben Dallas when you need him?

    --
    "Well Ranger Brad, I'm a scientist. I don't believe in anything." - Dr. Roger Fleming
  38. Gamma rays and other frequencies by In+hydraulis · · Score: 5, Informative

    This object supposedly faded into existence over 100 days or so, and then took just as long to fade. I'm curious to know what frequency was the most intense during this time.

    Did we observe anything with our other space telescopes? Gamma ray burst?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray_burst_progenitors

    There are astronomical phenomena we've theorised to exist, but so far have had little if any observations of such. Take this little beauty:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark-nova

    Okay, so our astrophysicists are throwing that one out there. Perhaps we have seen a few - SN2006gy, SN2005gj, SN2005ap - but maybe we're kidding ourselves, and this is the Real Thing.

    What do we call it when a quasar effectively goes supernova? (Not hypernova, that is reserved for very large stars.) Could a quasar even do this?

    Perhaps what we've witnessed is the formation - or destruction - of a truly exotic object. And no, we don't have to resort to Dark Matter.

  39. Any connection to the "oh-my-god" particle? by Ihlosi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I wonder. As far as they know, there was nothing particular in the direction that said particle came from. Might there be any connection to this "event"?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_Particle

  40. OMG GUYS ITS THE... by Verdatum · · Score: 2, Funny

    GUYS! It's the *INSERT "random ultra-geeky sci-fi reference that may or may not have been mentioned a thousand times in comments above" HERE* !!! good thing about that *INSERT "obligatory unfunny reference to the recent Lehman bankruptcy protection announcement" HERE*!!! ROFLCOPTR!

  41. Hey! by Peet42 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Where did CERN go???

  42. Re:Won't be too long before we are all by mahdi13 · · Score: 3, Funny

    you mean the ones that blew themselves up?

    --
    "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
  43. God! You come here right this instant! by Murpster · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dammit, God, stop putting your compact discs in the microwave!

  44. Probably not antimatter based on measured spectra by IdahoEv · · Score: 5, Informative

    IANAP, but my understanding is that the spectra emitted by matter/antimatter annihilation is fairly well-understood, and that most of the energy is carried in very high frequencies, like gamma rays.

    Meanwhile, if you scan through the paper itself (arXiv link is downthread), they discuss spectra and absorption bands that are roughly similar to other stellar events in overall energy profile; a lot of it was in the visible spectrum.

    My admittedly very poor understanding is that an M/AM event would look roughly like a gamma-ray burst, whereas this looked a lot more like a nova, albeit a very unusual one that didn't match any known profile.

    The authors' best suggestion was a stellar merger event of unknown type.

    Corrections from people who know astrophysics better than I would be quite appreciated...

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  45. Quasi-space portal by Junta · · Score: 4, Funny

    It happens pretty regularly, go through and we should be able to ask the Arilou what the hell they have been doing to Earth all this time.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  46. Re:Why is antimatter a mystery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can someone point me out what's wrong with this ultrasimple explanation?

    You mean other than the fact that antimatter does not travel backward through time?

  47. Extreme example of a gravitational lens? by phorest · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't laugh... OK, so I don't remember a lot of space physics from 35 years ago (been that long too) and I am not a star watcher either, but I do seem to remember something about gravitational lenses and the bending/focusing of light from large bodies in space and astronomers having to make adjustments accordingly.

    What if there is another type that we haven't considered that will focus another object into a place that can only be observed under very special circumstances? Just a thought, I'll let you space-geeks argue now.

    --
    God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
    1. Re:Extreme example of a gravitational lens? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 3, Informative

      The paper already discusses why a microlensing event (that's the name for what you describe) is an unlikely explanation. (You should probably pat yourself on the back for a good try though.)

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  48. The paper by gcranston · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's a link to another, slightly more serious article, which also links the paper itself.

  49. Re:Probably not antimatter based on measured spect by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm shocked that it took this many posts for a reasonable response to pop up. Yowza. Slashdot is losing its touch.

    Meanwhile, if you scan through the paper itself (arXiv link is downthread), they discuss spectra and absorption bands that are roughly similar to other stellar events in overall energy profile; a lot of it was in the visible spectrum.

    You're right, it appears that the energy peaked in the infrared spectrum. Which is not at all consistent with antimatter annihilation.

    My next best guess would be a failed star birth. If there was enough hydrogen collecting to ignite, but nothing that lit it from where we could see, the star would appear to simply come into existence. Of course, that raises all kinds of questions about how a star could ignite without sufficient fuel to sustain it. Unless the trigger was some other event. e.g. If we poured enough energy into Jupiter (say, terrawatt lasers), would it be possible to briefly ignite the gas giant?

    Hmm... it's tough to come up with ideas without venturing out into the land of "maybes". Which is all idle speculation unless one is willing to test the theory in some manner. (Either crunch the numbers or run an experiment to determine the viability of such concepts.)

  50. IT'S DUKE NUKEM FOREVER! by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 2, Funny

    At long last the game has been released, but due to a mix-up in the marketing department it was accidentally released in the wrong galaxy.

  51. I know what it is... by ianalis · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's Russel's teapot.

  52. Re:BADsciencejokes.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why don't we just rename slashdot.org to BADsciencejokes.org???

  53. It's a dyson beacon by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How insightful can a comment be when even the NASA astronomers don't know what it is? It's a post of ignorance, i.e. there's nothing more to be said unless someone has more data.

    When the experts have no clue that's when they need a shot of imagination from some laymen -- enough crazy hairbrained ideas and something might stick.

    Personally, I think it's a dyson sphere composed of satellites that is set to 'shutter' over a long period (by rotating flat sattelites to allow light to pass). It's probably counting primes from 1 to 101 over the course of a few years by blinking on/off.

    Think about it, if you want to get the attention of very distant aliens you need massive power of a sun, and you need a signal that changes gradually so that aliens studying that particular star see the change if actively studying it, or that see the change over a long time when doing sweeps of the area (present in this image, but not in the images a year later, etc). Tweak the spectrum using the material of your dyson sphere itself to add interest by making it not look like anything else.

  54. My guess by Burz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am guessing that it is a new type of 'nova' produced by a stellar collision. Perhaps a white dwarf tearing open a faint main-sequence star (or a gas giant) like a bursting soap bubble.

    The failed starbirth idea is interesting too. What if a very large 'planet' with a lot of heavy elements reached some sort of critical mass and began to fuse for a short time before running out of fuel?

  55. Re:Probably not antimatter based on measured spect by dlevitan · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're right, it appears that the energy peaked in the infrared spectrum. Which is not at all consistent with antimatter annihilation.

    This is actually not accurate. The article contains a spectrograph from 4000 to 10000 angstroms. It does not contain any shorter wavelengths. The way you find an object's redshift is by matching known absorption/emission lines with the object's emission lines. The offset is the redshift. As the article points out, there's no obvious match to the few narrow lines, thus, we don't know what the redshift is. For some reason (possibly because the object was too faint), they did not observe in the UV or X-ray ranges, which would've been helpful for higher energy events, especially if it was galactic.

  56. Have you ever read Flashforward? by juancn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The gist of the plot is that a strange interstellar event happens at the same time they start the LHC, with some interesting consecuences. The timing gives me the creeps ;)
    See Flashforward

  57. Re:LHC nope...Cylon's....nope...Borg...nope...it's by Rick+Genter · · Score: 3, Funny

    That was Alan Shepard's golf ball. Apollo 14.

    --
    Don't underestimate the power of The Source