Slashdot Mirror


Planck Telescope Is Coolest Spacecraft Ever

Hugh Pickens writes "Launched in May, BBC reports that Europe's Planck observatory has reached its operating temperature, a staggering minus 273.05C — just a tenth of a degree above what scientists term "absolute zero." and although laboratory set-ups have got closer to absolute zero than Planck, researchers say it is unlikely there is anywhere in space currently that is colder than their astronomical satellite. This frigidity should ensure the bolometers will be at their most sensitive as they look for variations in the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) that are about a million times smaller than one degree — comparable to measuring from Earth the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon. Planck has been sent to an observation position around the second Lagrange point of the Sun-Earth system, L2, some 1.5 million km from Earth and Planck will help provide answers to one of the most important sets of questions asked in modern science — how did the Universe begin, how did it evolve to the state we observe today, and how will it continue to evolve in the future. Planck's objectives include mapping of Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies with improved sensitivity and angular resolution, determination of the Hubble constant, testing inflationary models of the early Universe, and measuring amplitude of structures in Cosmic Microwave Background. 'We will be probing regimes that have never been studied before where the physics is very, very uncertain,' says Planck investigator Professor George Efstathiou from Cambridge University. 'It's possible we could find a signature from before the Big Bang; or it's possible we could find the signature of another Universe and then we'd have experimental evidence that we are part of a multi-verse.'"

196 comments

  1. rabit from the moon by Hadlock · · Score: 0

    comparable to measuring from Earth the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon

    Is anyone else dissapointed we don't already have this capability? I can stream Top Gear in HD from youtube in faster than real time but we lag this far behind in (optical? thermal?) imaging? I know the atmosphere creates a lot of optical distortion... but really? Not even a rabbit (which have unusually high body temps if I recall correctly)?

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:rabit from the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Uh, yea. Atmopheric distrotion is bad enough for visible radiation...thermal would basically be a second level of distortion.

    2. Re:rabit from the moon by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Funny

      I just want to know how long the rabbit's been sitting there. I mean, is it still a living rabbit, and does it get hotter for a few seconds as it thrashes around without breath in the moon's almost nonexistent atmosphere?

      Or do scientists just know how hot SPACE RABBITS get? When will the invasion come?

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    3. Re:rabit from the moon by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Space rabbits are a minimal threat. The space vixens keep their population in check.

    4. Re:rabit from the moon by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to Japanese and Aztek folklore, a rabbit has been there for a long time. I could never really make out the face or the rabbit in the moon's craters when I look.

      Ryan Fenton

    5. Re:rabit from the moon by nih · · Score: 0

      Its too late, the invasion has begun!

      --
      I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life :(
    6. Re:rabit from the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm just disappointed they couldn't find a way to turn it into a car analogy instead of rabbits.

    7. Re:rabit from the moon by maxume · · Score: 1

      Behind what?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:rabit from the moon by El+Cubano · · Score: 2, Funny

      comparable to measuring from Earth the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon

      Is anyone else dissapointed we don't already have this capability?

      I'm actually a little disappointed that this wasn't expressed in standard metric terms. I thought here on Slashdot, the agreed upon standard was something in terms of libraries of congress. Is there a conversion factor or something we can apply here?

    9. Re:rabit from the moon by Asclepius99 · · Score: 3, Funny

      20 rabbits = 5 hares

    10. Re:rabit from the moon by Ann+Coulter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      MUAD'DIB: the adapted kangaroo mouse of Arrakis, a creature associated in the Fremen earth-spirit mythology with a design visible on the planet's second moon. This creature is admired by Fremen for its ability to survive in the open desert. [1]

      [1] Herbert, Frank. Dune. 1965.

    11. Re:rabit from the moon by Kratisto · · Score: 1

      I dunno. What's the temperature of the library of congress? How long can it maintain that temperature if we put it on the moon, and for how long has it been on the moon?

      --
      Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
    12. Re:rabit from the moon by Colourspace · · Score: 2

      Easy. Has slightly less temperature than a truck full of tapes on the highway, simple really.

    13. Re:rabit from the moon by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      Volkswagen makes a model of car called the Rabbit.... what makes you so sure it isn't a car analogy?

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    14. Re:rabit from the moon by thrawn_aj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      comparable to measuring from Earth the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon

      Is anyone else dissapointed we don't already have this capability? I can stream Top Gear in HD from youtube in faster than real time but we lag this far behind in (optical? thermal?) imaging? I know the atmosphere creates a lot of optical distortion... but really? Not even a rabbit (which have unusually high body temps if I recall correctly)?

      Actually, that's an interesting question. It has been answered in this thread but I'd like to address a deeper issue here. Technical challenges usually come in two flavors, one which can be solved simply by making a device better and better and the other, which has to do with the signal you're trying to measure just not being there (or is otherwise masked by "noise"). I put "noise" in quotes because people always assume the signal can be separated from the noise. Not so. In most cases, you have to know the source of the noise to reliably subtract it out. In other cases, you can be lucky and the noise will be random so that greater averaging of the data filters out the noise automatically. For ALL other cases, people have to resort to making assumptions about the noise, which means that the "filtered signal" you end up with has (sometimes huge) contributions from the person who made the assumption. Is it a rabbit or an artifact of my assumptions?

      This particular question you raise is in that final category. There just isn't enough signal there that is distinguishable from the surrounding crap for you to tell with any certainty that you have rabbits on the moon and not a migratory bird flock here in the sky. You could always throw money at the problem (in principle) by having a dozen weather satellites constantly monitoring the patch of atmosphere in direct line of sight between you and the moon and feeding you detailed real-time data of temperature, pressure, index of refraction, chemical composition of air(/dust) in there (affects absorption/reflection/transmission). THEN, you MIGHT stand a good chance of catching a glimpse of your elusive rabbit.

      Technology can always be improved. Ambient conditions will always be the ultimate threshold for the actual utility of that technology.

      That is not to say that a particular phenomenon always stays of out of reach. One simply realizes that certain constraints stated in the problem are actually ridiculous. For instance, if the goal was really to observe rabbits on the moon, the constraint that the instrument be on the earth is highly artificial. Instead, one would relax that constraint, put a satellite above the atmosphere, satisfy one's rabbit fetish and the problem's solved :).

    15. Re:rabit from the moon by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1
      Well as we all know:

      Hey diddle diddle,
      The cat and the fiddle,
      The cow jumped over the moon,
      The little dog laughed to see such fun,
      And the dish ran away with the spoon.

      It seems to be well within the capability of current measurement techniques to determine whether bovines are leaping over natural satellites, so we should be able to figure out if a rodent is sitting on one.

    16. Re:rabit from the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the energy content derived from burning a library of congress's worth of books? I propose this as the conversion factor.

    17. Re:rabit from the moon by linzeal · · Score: 1

      How would a Volkswagon Rabbit get to the moon, some German hippies taking acid back in the 70's teleported themselves there?

    18. Re:rabit from the moon by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Depends on the rabbit. some of them yield 14kg of meat each.

    19. Re:rabit from the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big Bunny is Watching!!!!
      [Goodies reference for those who don't remember the 70's].

    20. Re:rabit from the moon by distantbody · · Score: 1

      Or do scientists just know how hot SPACE RABBITS get? When will the invasion come?

      Now that we know of their retreat to the moon, make no mistake, they are building their numbers rapidly. The space rabbit invasion will come.

    21. Re:rabit from the moon by akayani · · Score: 1

      Sorry but the man in the moon eat the first bunny and none have been seen since.

    22. Re:rabit from the moon by PacoCheezdom · · Score: 1

      Aztek folklore? That must be some prety brutally ugly stuff right there.

    23. Re:rabit from the moon by tylerni7 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, let's say 1 Library of Congress is about 20TB, a measure of information. If we want to convert that into Rabbits * arc length, a unit of temperature * arc seconds, we can use the laws of entropy.

      We know that entropy=k*ln(O) where k is the Boltzmann constant and O is the number of microstates of the system. If we really wanted, we could express the number of microstates as 1 LoC, since both are really just measuring information in one way or another.

      Now if you recall temperature = change in heat/change in entropy. The average body temperature of a rabbit is about 312 degrees kelvin according to google.

      To get a change in entropy and heat, we can look at both over an arbitrary time step t, so 312 K [one rabbit]=(heat/t)/(k*ln(2TB [one Library of Congress])/t)

      Solving for one Library of Congress, we get one Library of Congress = e^(k*heat [in joules]/312 degrees K)=e^(4.4252x10^-26 joules^2/(degree kelvin)^2)

      Now assuming a rabbit is about 0.2 meters in diameter, at a distance of about 384,000 km, that's about 3*10^-8 degrees.

      So, putting that all together, the conversion factor is about e^(4.4252x10^-26 joules^2/(degree kelvin)^2)*1.1*10^5 arc seconds.

      Hope that clears things up for you!

    24. Re:rabit from the moon by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      If you ever see a hot moon rabbit just don't look her in the eye for your sanity's sake.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    25. Re:rabit from the moon by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Its too late, the invasion has begun!"

      That was '72, the goodies came to our rescue and defeated big bunny's transistorized carrots in '73.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    26. Re:rabit from the moon by barath_s · · Score: 1
      the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon ....... the agreed upon standard was something in terms of libraries of congress .......... conversion factor
      Libraries of Congress is a measure of amount of information. The more information is contained, the less the entropy.

      Heat difference provides also is quantified by entropy. So obviously the heat produced by the rabbit can be converted into libraries of congress.
      The applicable equation is the first one in http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking_entropy which relates entropy to the planck length (to bring it back on topic of TFA). The actual conversion factor is left as an exercise to the reader ....

      Yes, of course informational entropy vs thermodynamic entropy as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy, but the one is a function of the other per black hole theory. (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking_entropy)
      This is also clearly the reason why we perceive intelligence as hot .... http://www.mediamarksurveys.com/playboy/

      So .... how hot is the Library of Congress anyway ?

    27. Re:rabit from the moon by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Dude! Same thing! http://www.vw.com/rabbit/en/us/ ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    28. Re:rabit from the moon by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      What he really wanted to say was; When will the space vixens invade earth? And will they make us their sex slaves.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    29. Re:rabit from the moon by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Same way as a Desoto, just drive there!

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    30. Re:rabit from the moon by smoker2 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dick [1]

      [1] Head.

    31. Re:rabit from the moon by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

      How many station wagons do you get per truck ?

      --
      Squirrel!
    32. Re:rabit from the moon by MateuszM · · Score: 1
      It's pretty easy:
      1. Let's assume that a standard rabbit continuously emits 310 K (that's about 37' C or 99' F for all you types thinking in those old-fashioned units). Further, let's assume that it emits this heat over the area of 0.1 square meter, continuously.
      2. To obtain the same with Libraries of Congress (LoC for short) we first need to convert its information to heat. This can be easily done by burning books.
      3. As we all know paper burns at 506 K (that's 451' F if you don't quite remember). A standard A4 page has about 0.062 square meters, a letter page about 0.06 square meters. We'll assume 0.061 for further calcuations.
      4. As 1 LoC contains 32 Mbooks and 61 Mmanuscripts, counting on average 250 pages per book and 100 pages per manuscript we get 14.1 Gpages.
      5. Now we do simple math and we obtain that we need to burn 71 pLoC (picoLoc) to emit the same heat as 1 rabbit. As we need to emit that heat continuously this gives burning 71 pLoc / s.

      And you can see now why they gave you old-fashioned rabbit instead of uniformly accepted units - 71pLoC/s does not sound too sexy.

      --
      I'm a haiku hunter. Trophies are displayed here.
    33. Re:rabit from the moon by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

      we should be able to figure out if a rodent is sitting on one.

      As any fule knoe, rabbits are considered to be leporids or lagomorphs.

      --
      Squirrel!
    34. Re:rabit from the moon by alx5000 · · Score: 1

      Just a little nitpicking. Noise randomness doesn't mean that you'll get a good estimation of the signal by averaging.

      The mean estimator works all right (it's the MVU, IIRC) when you're getting zero-mean noise, or noise whose PDF is symmetrically distributed around its expected value (in this case, you could correct the bias by extracting the mean of the noise).

      But I just flunked an exam on this very topic, so to hell with me :D

      --
      My 0.02 cents
    35. Re:rabit from the moon by gphilip · · Score: 1

      Is anyone else dissapointed we don't already have this capability? I can stream Top Gear in HD from youtube in faster than real time but we lag this far behind in (optical? thermal?) imaging?

      And what prevents you from inventing this capability for all of us, so that we are no longer disappointed? Just like the way you solved the streaming problem in the first place? Oh wait...

    36. Re:rabit from the moon by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Yikes, it's fucking huge.

    37. Re:rabit from the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When will the invasion come?"

      Its already started!! One of my cats killed a rabbit yesterday (and brought him in the house - damnit, they just don't get the concept of leaving their furry "toys" outside). Chock one up for Earth in defeating the Massive Mutant Outer-space Rabbit Pre-invasion Group (MMORPG)!! :-D

    38. Re:rabit from the moon by thrawn_aj · · Score: 1

      Just a little nitpicking. Noise randomness doesn't mean that you'll get a good estimation of the signal by averaging.

      The mean estimator works all right (it's the MVU, IIRC) when you're getting zero-mean noise, or noise whose PDF is symmetrically distributed around its expected value (in this case, you could correct the bias by extracting the mean of the noise).

      But I just flunked an exam on this very topic, so to hell with me :D

      You're quite right. I should have been more precise when I said "random". What I meant was zero-mean random so that by repeated averaging (done intelligently), the signal survives while the noise averages out to give a large signal-to-noise. Thanks :)

  2. That's pretty cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know what else to say about that.

  3. Don't think so. by nebaz · · Score: 3, Funny

    They call that a cool space craft? It doesn't even have warp drive, let alone quantum torpedoes. It doesn't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase "reverse the polarity". Cool. Bah!

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:Don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It doesn't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase "reverse the polarity".

      I would be surprised if it didn't have a battery somwhere...

      By the way, didn't the US military say that they were going to take and hold the Legrange points to prevent their use by foreigners, since they were strategically important? Surely we should be nuking Plank, to assert our manifold destiny to grab anything that's grabable...

    2. Re:Don't think so. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      It might actually have one or more peltier devices, which could definitely merit the phrase "reverse the polarity".(though, given the needs of the experiment, I suspect that reversing the polarity would be a terrible plan...)

    3. Re:Don't think so. by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Hmm... If you reverse the polarity of the bolometers, you might be able to CAUSE galactic background noise rather than measuring it! This would disturb the subspace plextrons the borg craft uses for propulsion, causing it to self destruct!

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    4. Re:Don't think so. by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Neat idea, taken a little farther. An advanced civilization prevents a more primitive one from developing advanced physics by making astrophysical observations look funny locally. The primitives assume the weak anthropic principle holds, come up with all these really strange theories about cosmic strings, dark energy and such, and never become competition.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    5. Re:Don't think so. by zMaile · · Score: 1

      You sir, just blew my mind. We've been looking for the wrong things this whole time! it all makes sense now.

    6. Re:Don't think so. by jmv · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase "reverse the polarity"

      Of course it does. I heard it's powered by AA batteries.

    7. Re:Don't think so. by syousef · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase "reverse the polarity".

      You can reverse the polarity on anything electrical. Just swap the positive and negative terminals. Don't ever expect to use many of those things you do that to ever again though. Most of the things that die will wimper but some higher voltage things will get dangerous and explode.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    8. Re:Don't think so. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      In a device like this, I'm certain they can reverse the polarity on something for some useful purpose. Its just too complex for there not to be SOMETHING.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    9. Re:Don't think so. by kamatsu · · Score: 1

      I know it's irrelevant, but boolean logic would suggest you probably want -1: Troll || -1: Flamebait, cos && would mean it could be just one. I mean, StronglyDisagreeAndWishToCensor == Troll may still be true.

  4. Now that's COOL.....if....... by spazekaat · · Score: 0

    If the rabbits don't have the Holy Hand Grenade in their arsenal..... :-)))

    (Monty Python and the Holy Grail for all you unwashed masses....)

    But, seriously, being to cool down the detectors so low is great, although I don't think that it is a "first" (citation needed).
    Didn't COBE have super-cooled detectors also? I'm too lazy to look that up..... ;-)

    1. Re:Now that's COOL.....if....... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      If the rabbits don't have the Holy Hand Grenade in their arsenal..... :-)))

      Step away from the hand grenade and the drum. -- Its a Plan Nine reset server.

  5. One Planck telescope for mankind... by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

    That's a pretty small telescope you have there, and it doesn't last very long either ; ).

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    1. Re:One Planck telescope for mankind... by youn · · Score: 1

      I guess NASA will have to have a service mission to plank like they did for hubble to change the batteries, add functionality & extend its life... making it the first human presence in L2

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
  6. Signature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Sorry for the Inconvenience"

  7. Planck telescope by Bromskloss · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Planck telescope is the smallest telescope that, according to our current understanding of nature, it is meaningful to speak about. This property sets the Planck telescope apart as the natural unit (also called Planck unit) for telescopes.

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    1. Re:Planck telescope by Eudial · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Planck telescope is the smallest telescope that, according to our current understanding of nature, it is meaningful to speak about. This property sets the Planck telescope apart as the natural unit (also called Planck unit) for telescopes.

      I think the technical term is telescope quantization. Telescopes can only exist as integer multiples of the Planck telescope.

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    2. Re:Planck telescope by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

      And we can call the first repair job, "Walking the Plank".

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
  8. Worst metaphor ever? by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A rabbit sitting on the moon will be at a much different temperature than its surroundings, not a millionth of a degree kelvin. The only thing interesting about measuring the temperature of a rabbit on the moon is resolution, not sensitivity. So essentially completely the opposite of what the Planck telescope does.

    Sorry, just had to release my inner pedant - this was too good to resist.

    1. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by RichardJenkins · · Score: 2, Funny

      A rabbit sitting on the moon will be at a much different temperature than its surroundings

      Not for very long. How's that for pedantry?

    2. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      heat != temperature.

      The summary said "heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon". Somehow that went through your brain and came out as "measuring the temperature of a rabbit on the moon". So the problem is you, not the metaphor.

    3. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      The only thing interesting about measuring the temperature of a rabbit on the moon is resolution

      Well yeah, that and the obvious question of "what the hell is a rabbit doing on the moon, and how did it get there?"

      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    4. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Jeek+Elemental · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe its measuring the temperature of a human on earth?

    5. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      obviously it is suffering an agonizing demise since it doesn't have a pressure suit, O2 supply, or thermal protection.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    6. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Too much asparagus.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Mogster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well yeah, that and the obvious question of "what the hell is a rabbit doing on the moon, and how did it get there?"

      Obviously it should've taken that left turn at Albuquerque =)

      --
      ACK NAK RST
    8. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rabbit will be at the temperature as its surroundings, because without an atmosphere, it's dead.

    9. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Asclepius99 · · Score: 1

      Actually all you need is a fishbowl, oxygen tank, and a wetsuit.

    10. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by scjohnno · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. The summary said to measure the rabbit from Earth, the whole point of which is to illustrate the distance involved. At such a distance, the radiant heat from the rabbit will have weakened such that it would be nearly indistinguishable from other sources much closer. This is where you need sensitivity.

    11. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by zMaile · · Score: 1

      It's a metaphor?

    12. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by mellon · · Score: 1

      Er, no. The variation in temperature between the rabbit and its surroundings is substantial. The variance being measured in the microwave background are tiny. The distinction between heat and temperature here doesn't matter (or if it does, you haven't yet explained why).

    13. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by mellon · · Score: 1

      Presumably the rabbit is protected somehow, or else it wouldn't be sitting. Of course, that protection would probably smooth out the variance in the amount of energy being radiated, and so make the measurement process more interesting...

    14. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They use bolometers. Read the link. Bolometers measure incoming energy, and it doesn't matter if the energy comes from something hot or something cold.

      The rabbit wasn't a metaphor. Planck can *actually* detect a rabbit on the moon by its heat. The rabbit size won't be resolved, but enough watts will reach the instruments.

    15. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, that and the obvious question of "what the hell is a rabbit doing on the moon, and how did it get there?"

      The Goodies dunnit.

    16. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      If you're going to MacGyver an exposure suit to keep the rabbit alive, you'll probably need some duck tape. Wetsuits don't form a watertight seal, let alone an airtight seal, so you need some way to prevent the air from escaping from the fishbowl.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    17. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Lunar surface cycles between -200C (at the end of a night period) and up to +150C (at the end of day period). So at some point in between the rabbit and the surface could be of identical temperature

      Source http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/maan.html#12

    18. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by mellon · · Score: 1

      Call it a metaphor, call it an illustrating example. The main reason I felt it was not a good example is that doing what the Planck telescope *actually* does is a lot more impressive to me than detecting a rabbit on the moon. The rabbit is so close it might as well be in your living room.

      Perhaps both jobs are equally difficult, but mapping variances in the cosmic background radiation to a millionth of a degree kicks ass. Taking snapshots of the energizer bunny on the moon is boring by comparison.

    19. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ***whooooooooooooooosh***

      If you were on the Moon, you would not have heard that.

    20. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Its some kind of Plan Nine server. -- Granny was told that an electric car had a range of 300 miles. She said "they shouldn't make them go that fast."

    21. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      That's fairly obvious - it's a Suicide Rabbit. Obviously it hitched a ride on the LRO

    22. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Asclepius99 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking less real life application and more it worked on Mars in Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders.

    23. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Sjefsmurf · · Score: 1

      And what exactly is the temperature of a space rabbit anyway?

    24. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pedantic???.... I??? (Alexei Sayle)

    25. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by laederkeps · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't met Glenda, The plan 9 bunny.

    26. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1
      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    27. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must of took a wrong turn at Albuquerque. So, whats up Doc?
      Obviously the devilbunny - Fudd war has escalated, and this "telescope" is really part of the fudd's sdi network.

    28. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news the radiation emited by a black hole is the heat released by all the local rabits as they are suck by the black hole, that has been tested by a MIT black hole simulation and the data correlate for the expected average of rabits around a black hole with an error lower than 0.0.0.1%, so there you got

    29. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by infolation · · Score: 1

      obviously it is suffering an agonizing demise since it doesn't have a pressure suit, O2 supply, or thermal protection.

      Won't somebody please think of the MoonRabbits

    30. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yeah, that and the obvious question of "what the hell is a rabbit doing on the moon, and how did it get there?"

      Sorry to go off-topic, but has anyone seen Fluffy?

      There was this bully and he wanted my lunch money. But I listened to my mom and said no you can't have it! He said he'd get me back somehow but... nevermind... I don't care about that right now... I lost my poor bunny!

    31. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      mars is low pressure, the moon has no pressure

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    32. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by tychof · · Score: 1

      Not true. For quite a while, actually. There's nothing to move the heat away from the rabbit (black-body radiation not withstanding). You would not freeze to death in outer space - depending on how the sun shine hits you, you could actually warm up quite a bit.

      --
      If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants have stood on my shoulders. -- Hal Abelson or Jeff Goll
    33. Re:Worst metaphor ever? by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps it's just a regular Moon Rabbit.

  9. I'll bet there's plenty of polarity to reverse by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

    They call that a cool space craft? It doesn't even have warp drive, let alone quantum torpedoes. It doesn't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase "reverse the polarity". Cool. Bah!

    Dude, you can reverse the polarity on anything with a DC circuit. Sometimes, with spectacular results.

    1. Re:I'll bet there's plenty of polarity to reverse by Mitchell314 · · Score: 2, Funny

      In other news, the coldest telescope became the hottest telescope upon the discovery of two coincidental mistakes where all analog switch were labeled backwards and the purchased fuses closed on failure.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  10. Why a rabbit? by Mishotaki · · Score: 1

    Really, it doesn't have a reason to go on the moon.... if they would give the mouse for example, i'm sure that little critter would love to be on the moon much more than a rabbit, so that it can eat all the cheeze there is there!

  11. NPOV by michaelmalak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    just a tenth of a degree above what scientists term "absolute zero."

    This is where the so-called "neutral point of view" ceases to be useful.

    1. Re:NPOV by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      I scratched my head over this, too.

      Why is "absolute zero" in quotes? And what do "people" who aren't "scientists" call "0" on the "temperature scale" that "scientists" term "Kelvin"?

    2. Re:NPOV by michaelmalak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The idea of absolute morality is so forbidden in mainstream media that anytime anyone uses the word "absolute", it has to be portrayed in a relativistc sense. So in this case, scientists believe in some sort of "absolute zero", but that doesn't mean everyone does, and thus the myth that there are no absolutes is preserved.

    3. Re:NPOV by muridae · · Score: 1

      I think it was a wikipedia meets special relativity pun. Since there can be no absolute reference frame, how can there be an "absolute zero". Maybe, somewhere outside our 4 dimensional reference, an object we think is at complete rest is vibrating and contains energy. Then you match that with Wiki's intended neutral point of view . . .

      And if it wasn't a really horrible pun, then maybe the GP was trolling

    4. Re:NPOV by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      summary reads like it was meant for CNN.com not slashdot.org. I am certain that nobody with a slashdot account would be both ignorant of what absolute zero is and incapable of JFGI

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:NPOV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You're an absolute moron for confounding something simple like temperature with something like morality. I don't know how many logical fallacies you made there, but I'm absolutely sure you're a demented tool.

    6. Re:NPOV by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that's even the worst infelicity of the summary. The start, "Launched in May, BBC" establishes that BBC (perhaps "the BBC") was launched in May.

    7. Re:NPOV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know what JGFI stood for... the first two google matches indicate Jakarta Growth Fund Inc. The third was hard to decipher. It looks like something to do with certification of electronic components, so I'm guessing you mean the summarizer can't certify electronics components right?

    8. Re:NPOV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well its absolute to all data known because we don't know of nor have meaningful data of any other dimension.

    9. Re:NPOV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolute zero is not the point at which matter is at complete rest. It is the point at which matter is at the lowest possible energy state. Complete lack of kinetic energy is not allowed. See the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

    10. Re:NPOV by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      Just Fucking Google It

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    11. Re:NPOV by cyberseptic · · Score: 1

      I kinda' stopped reading the article at that sentence. It makes me feel dirty to do so...but you have to draw a line somewhere.

  12. Planck to measure variations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope the Cosmic Microwave Background temperature doesn't turn out to be constant...

  13. Re:some 1.5 million km from Earth? by BeeRockxs · · Score: 4, Informative

    L2 is behind the earth, as seen from the sun. And the distance given is correct.

  14. Re:Did you ever notice ? by eltaco · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    apparently you've never heard of the company powergen, that went international and opened up an italian branch.
    www.powergenitalia.com

    --
    It's not about fate, it's about character.
    there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
  15. In case you're wondering, by robogobo · · Score: 1

    that's colder than a witch's titty (-273.04C).

  16. Re:some 1.5 million km from Earth? by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 2, Informative
    The distance in the article is correct. Plank is at L2. Perhaps you were thinking about L4 or L5 (both 1 AU away), or L3 (~2 AU away).

    Wikipedia has an excellent article describing each of the Legrangian points and why each of them is pseudo-stable.

    --

    Don't Bogart the fish sticks
  17. Now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is the rabbit alive or not? And who wants to look?

  18. Re:some 1.5 million km from Earth? by LakeSolon · · Score: 1

    You did a lot of typing in your post. I think perhaps you could have saved a lot of it in your quest to enlightenment if you'd have chosen a text field on a different web page. May I suggest http://google.com/ and the phrase "earth sun l2"? The first link even has a very descriptive map. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

  19. Algorithm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    while (measured_age_of_the_universe != 6000)
            launch a better satellite;

  20. Why is it so hard for people to understand? by leehwtsohg · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is no "before the big bang"? Time was created at the big bang. There is no "before time began". Before time, there is no before. A bit like there was no spelling bee champion 65 million years ago. Maybe very little like that. Or maybe a bit like asking what is west of the moon. Hmmm... ok, very little like that, too. How about like asking at what date 13 became a prime number? Yes, more like that. You get the gist. Time is part of our universe. The big bang created the universe, space and time together.
    If there was no big bang, then maybe there was something before whatever was then. But if there was a big bang, there was nothing before that.

    1. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      People just don't read Gertrude Stein any more.

      rj

    2. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is no "before the big bang"? Time was created at the big bang."

      That's certainly an interesting hypothesis. In what way do you propose we test it out?

    3. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by fatski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless our universe exists within something larger, with its own time. If there were universes prior to this one in that larger space then there would have been something before the big bang, regardless of our universes local time. You might not think so, but really, nobody knows.

    4. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by V50 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is no "before the big bang"? Time was created at the big bang. There is no "before time began". Before time, there is no before. A bit like there was no spelling bee champion 65 million years ago. Maybe very little like that. Or maybe a bit like asking what is west of the moon. Hmmm... ok, very little like that, too. How about like asking at what date 13 became a prime number? Yes, more like that. You get the gist. Time is part of our universe. The big bang created the universe, space and time together.
      If there was no big bang, then maybe there was something before whatever was then. But if there was a big bang, there was nothing before that.

      So basically what you're saying is that in the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.

      And you wonder why people have a hard time grasping current big bang theory. :-)

    5. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by leehwtsohg · · Score: 0

      Sorry. It isn't a hypothesis. It is something that should be true or false by definition. Like you can't test if a circle has a start and an end. It could be that I am babbling out of the wrong part of my anatomy, and I certainly should have said something like: "if I understand what the big bang is supposed to be, its geometry, then time began at the big bang..."
      How do you test the hypothesis that there was no date at which 13 became a prime number?

      And, I didn't mean to say anything against the spacecraft! It will certainly teach us a lot about the big bang, and whether it happened or not, and probably teach us many things that we didn't expect. And it can probably also teach us much about what time is.

    6. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're probably mean hammer time, the time that our time is embedded in.
      Like your time perception started when you were born from your mother, the time of our universe started when it was born from hammer space.

      Please don't talk about stuff you obviously know nothing about..

    7. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by leehwtsohg · · Score: 1

      I'm saying there is nothing "before" a space-time singularity...

      But, yes, I certainly don't grasp it.

    8. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by leehwtsohg · · Score: 1

      Why not? I can learn so much if I do.

      "One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined."
      [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 8-9.]

      Obviously, taken out of context.

      But, in this "hammer time" (I never heard that phrase), which direction would an egg break to little pieces? Which direction would entropy increase? Is there an answer to this, otherwise, I have a hard time telling what is before, and what is after.

    9. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      They're probably mean hammer time, the time that our time is embedded in.

      Stop. Hammer time?

    10. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1
      Because it is unintuitive and because our language is limited. You yourself just wrote:

      Before time, there is no before

      Our language relates to the universe we live in so all we have is words like "before" whether we are talking about time or a causally related chain of states. For us they are the same thing.

      You may be right about time as we know it not existing until the big bang (and I say "may" on purpose, your statement was rather definitive for something that is really on the edge of our theory and understanding).

      That doesn't mean there wasn't something else which, in a causal sense, existed 'before' the big bang and resulted in it. It's difficult to talk about and difficult to conceptualise because both our language and science are based on describing, analyzing and explaining the universe as we do experience it. When we approach something fundamentally different from what we experience it gets very difficult indeed.

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    11. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by leehwtsohg · · Score: 1

      You are right. It could be that it is more like a question about what could have caused the big bang, or why did the big bang happen. Or if there was something that could effect HOW the big bang happened.

      Even then, causality and time are so closely related....

    12. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 1

      "It is something that should be true or false by definition."

      I don't know anything about the definition of Big Bang including the idea that time began with it. As far as I know Big Bang is the name for the explosive expansion of all matter in the universe at some point in the past from a primeval dense condition.

      That time originated there as well is just a theory, nothing definitional about it as far as I know.

    13. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But consider f(t) = 1/sqrt(t) and f(t) = 1/t^2. Both are singularities (go to infinity as t->0).

      You can't draw 1/sqrt(t) left of t=0 without involving complex numbers, but you can draw 1/t^2 left of t=0.

      It's just not clear to us why you're so sure the universe is of the first type.

    14. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      "It is something that should be true or false by definition."

      I don't know anything about the definition of Big Bang including the idea that time began with it. As far as I know Big Bang is the name for the explosive expansion of all matter in the universe at some point in the past from a primeval dense condition.

      That time originated there as well is just a theory, nothing definitional about it as far as I know.

      Well, he's wrong in that the big bang is by definition true or false. There are many different aspects of the theory that do indeed require testing and as to the how do we test these things, that's a very good question on your part.

      You did, however, made me cringe when you used the "just a theory" line. It implies you don't understand the meaning of "theory" in science. It's not the same as the meaning of the word outside scientific circles. In science, a "theory" is basically as close to truth that you can get apart from direct observation. We accept the fact that nothing can ever be proven to be true beyond the shadow of a doubt, but if a theory gives accurate predictions, is falsifiable but has not been falsified, then it can't get better than that until you come across something that the theory does not explain. That's not a bad thing, that's a great thing: it allows us to learn more about the universe, refine the theory, and come up with something that is even closer to the truth.

      The big bang is not the explosive expansion of all matter in the universe from a point. It's the explosive expansion of all spacetime. Don't think of it as matter shooting off from a single point in the universe into already existing space. Think of it as the space between particles growing. The universe used to be infinitely small (and thus infinitely dense)--as in, there was no volume, no place for matter to go into. Then there was more space. The center of the big bang is right where you are standing now. Right where I'm standing now. Everywhere is the center of the big bang, the dimensions of the universe just got bigger...and that includes time. So, the grandparent is right that, in a way, it does not make sense to talk about "before the big bang." However, the term "before the big bang" is usually how scientists refer to conditions upon which a big bang occurs. There's a theory that we are not the only universe, that big bangs happen all the time, and this environment where big bangs occur is what these scientists typically mean when they say "before the big bang."

      So yes, the definition of the Big Bang does include the idea that time began with it, and although being the currently accepted theory means quite a lot more than "just a theory" would imply, it doesn't mean we shouldn't test the hell out of it. Look this stuff up. Plenty of material available, and it's all interesting stuff.

    15. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by jmv · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm pretty sure what happened before the big bang is similar to what will happen after eternity.

    16. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet people still ask who created God.

    17. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by leehwtsohg · · Score: 0

      As far as I understand, according to general relativity (and we know something is wrong with GR), time has to start at the singularity of the Big Bang.
      I don't have a good reference for the source of my info on this -- different talks in different places, but this seems to have a good summary:
      http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/62

      But I realized now that I mixed up a pet peeve of mine with something that doesn't have to do with it.

      The problem I had was with people who answer to the statement: "time started at the big bang" with the question: "but what was before that"?
      Since our experience states that there must be something before anything.

      And, general relativity states that time started at the big bang. So I just followed he logic saying that if time started at the big bang, then the question of what was before the big bang has no meaning.

      But, general relativity doesn't have exclusivity on the big bang. A better theory might say that the universe expanded from something that was not a singularity, or maybe was a singularity through which timelines can pass, or something else that I/we don't understand yet, and then there would be a meaning to the question what was before the big bang.

      I was wrong. An observation might tell us about the structure of the big bang, to cause us to conclude that there was indeed something before the big bang.

      (So only according to GR there is no meaning to the question)

    18. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...The big bang created...

      So who created the Big Bang? The Bible says God created the Universe and that God has always existed. The Bible says that God created the universe out of nothing and scientists say that the Big Bang came from a singularity. Where does the singularity come from?

      --
      All theory is gray
    19. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...there is no "before the big bang"?...

      Bible says that God is eternal that is he has always existed and he created the universe. He may well have started it off with a bang. God is eternal and is not subject to time, space, gravity or any other quantifiable thing in this universe. This cannot be tested but can only be believed or disbelieved.

      --
      All theory is gray
    20. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      and then who created the guy that created "god".... etc.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    21. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by leehwtsohg · · Score: 1

      [If people where commenting that I don't know what I'm talking about before, now I really am just going wild - but hey, this IS /.]

      Since time is part of the universe, the universe did not start to exist when time began. Existence of the universe and time have nothing to do with one another.

      My personal view is that you can think of many many possible universes. (and there are even more you can't think of). Of all these, only ours seems to exist. Why do we think this one does exist, and the other ones we aren't really sure about? Because we exist in it, and we observe it. So, why does our universe exist? Because we are in it. Actually, that is the only evidence we have that it exists. And, a not logically following conclusion from all of that is that if any of these other virtual universes holds things "sufficiently similar to us", who "claim to observe their universe", then their universe, for them, also exists.

      Now find how one can try to test this hogwash.

    22. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....There's a theory that we are not the only universe, that big bangs happen all the time....

      Too bad that is not a theory but a conjecture, because it is not falsifiable and does not give any predictions of anything. No predictions based on this so-called theory can be made.

      If you believe in the law of cause and effect, then the so-called Big Bang has to have a cause. If time began with the Big Bang, then it's cause has to be eternal, beyond time, before time, God. The Bible tells us that God is eternal, he just is, the great I am.

      --
      All theory is gray
    23. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Bible says that God is eternal that is he has always existed"

      Why do you assume I'll care about what the Christian Bible says, even to disbelieve in it?

      I'm not burdening you with the Aztec tales of creation, to tell you you can only believe or disbelieve in them -- why? Because you most probably don't care about the Aztec tales of creation, or the Babylonian tales of creation, or the Chinese tales of creation. You probably don't care enough to even "disbelieve" in them.

      So, please spare me the Judeochristian parochialism.

    24. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by arminw · · Score: 0, Troll

      ...If there were universes prior to this one....

      So where along the infinite progression of universes do we come in? Somewhere in there has to be a beginning, the first universe, even if we truly are one of many. Other than being distasteful to the rebellious human spirit which wants to be responsible to no one, what is the big deal of postulating an eternal being, God? The reason I said distasteful, is because as soon as we admit such a God, we feel we may be responsible to him and somehow innately feel that we don't measure up to God's standards.

      The Bible says that it is appointed unto men to die once and after that comes judgment. (Hebrews 9:27) It is not possible to dispute the fact of death, but many people do dispute the second part of this sentence. It is the secret fear of the outcome of this judgment that causes humans with feigned certainty to deny the existence of God.

      --
      All theory is gray
    25. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by khchung · · Score: 2, Informative

      For your statement to make sense, you assumed the same property "time" exists within and outside the universe, and that it made sense to connect the two. It is like saying since Earth existed within something larger, there might be something due North of Earth's North Pole.

      Unfortunately, North/South is a local property of Earth, while there is plenty space above the North Pole, you cannot go more north from the North Pole. Similarly, spacetime is a property of our observable universe, and that property breaks down at Big Bang. Trying to simply extrapolating spacetime from the universe to beyond is like trying to reach space by just keep going North on the Earth.

      --
      Oliver.
    26. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      why is it so hard for you to understand there are many models of the universe, there are those that have events before the big bang, including an endless sequence of big bangs.

    27. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      false, that is just one model of what the "big bang" is, there are many more, some with time extending before the big bang. as soon as you start running off at the mouth about "space-time" you show yourself to be constrained to variations of the G.R. model. There are more models than you have pairs of socks.

    28. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

      Doooyaaah doooooyaaaahh dooooyaaaah!

    29. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....There's a theory that we are not the only universe, that big bangs happen all the time....

      Too bad that is not a theory but a conjecture, because it is not falsifiable and does not give any predictions of anything. No predictions based on this so-called theory can be made.

      If you believe in the law of cause and effect, then the so-called Big Bang has to have a cause. If time began with the Big Bang, then it's cause has to be eternal, beyond time, before time, God. The Bible tells us that God is eternal, he just is, the great I am.

      There are some theoreis that allow for communication between universes. Those make predictions and are falsifiable. At least in the same way string theory is, in that some tests require technology we do not yet have. Then again, we do call string theory a theory, so...

    30. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a helpful tutorial for understanding the concept of "hammertime". It needs to be viewed in its entirety.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c4L4CPfQY8

    31. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      why is it so hard for you to understand there are many models of the universe, there are those that have events before the big bang, including an endless sequence of big bangs.

      Endless does not necessarily imply no beginning.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    32. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Prove it.

      Oh, wait, thats part of what they are trying to do isn't it?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    33. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      It is the secret fear of the outcome of this judgment that causes humans with feigned certainty to deny the existence of God.

      Wowee, so I don't believe in your religion because I believe in your religion. Thanks for the tip.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    34. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The big bang is originally just a result of General Relativity, together with the observed fact of the expansion of the universe. If you put it into the equations, you find that at some time in the past, you get a singularity, that is, a point where the theory fails. Since the theory fails at that point, it cannot make any statepents about that point. Now if you assume that time is exactly what this theory describes, this means that time cannot be continue backwards through this point because actually the theory can't describe it. However, that assumption is not correct. We already know that General Relativity is only a good description of time away of the Planck scale. So if you define big bang as exactly what General Relativity describes, then the answer is simple: For that definition there was no big bang, because the theory doesn't apply in that regime.

      Now, when we speak about big bang today, we are actually speaking about a the expansion of the universe from a very small early state. That part is already well-established and experimentally well-tested. What happened at the time when the size of the universe was of the order of the Planck length, we don't know, because we don't yet have a well-tested theory of quantum gravitation. Therefore we simply cannot tell for sure if there was a time before big bang or not, or whether the question even makes sense.

      However, even for the "pure GR big bang" I take issue at the claim that "time began at the big bang". General relativity describes the "GR universe" up to the initial singularity. The singularity itself isn't part of what the theory describes. That is, it describes times which are arbitrary close to the singularity, but it does not describe the "time zero". Therefore for any point in time (or rather in spacetime) GR describes, there's a point in the past of it. Therefore there strictly speaking was no beginning. Every single event did have a past. That's not a contradiction to the fact that there's only finite time before that event. Think of the positive numbers: Every positive number has a finite distance to zero (heck, the number is it's distance to zero), but for every positive number, there's another positive number even closer to zero. There's just no "beginning of positive numbers" - the positive numbers have an infimum, but not a minimum. And the same is true for the "pure GR big bang": While all space time points described by GR in a big bang solution are only a finite time after big bang, there's no time point at big bang. So in some sense, even in the pure GR there wasn't a beginning of time; the big bang never happened, but there's only an after the big bang; it's just that this after can get arbitrarily close to the big bang (remember, GR is still a classical theory, all variables are continuous). Therefore the big bang singularity had neither cause nor effect, because it isn't itself part of the space time. It only exists as a property of the "later" events. It's a limit, not a point in time or spacetime.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    35. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

      It's not the same as the meaning of the word outside scientific circles. In science, a "theory" is basically as close to truth that you can get apart from direct observation.

      Utter bollocks. Theory is a term that is in no way used with such precision, even in science. See string theory etc etc.

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    36. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      The big bang is not a definition. It, and the details of what got created how/when and what happened shortly after and whether it's meaningful to talk about "before" are all hypotheses and theories, not definitions.

    37. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Draek · · Score: 1

      That time originated there as well is just a theory, nothing definitional about it as far as I know.

      This may be an interesting read and likely what the GP meant, but in short: you can't say what's going "back" and what's going "forwards" in time without measuring entropy, and you can't do that without an universe. Though IANAP so perhaps I'm not understanding the page right, so dunno.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    38. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you're right, and that would imply more models,,,

    39. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by arminw · · Score: 0, Troll

      ...Why do you assume I'll care about what the Christian Bible says...

      If the Christian Bible is true, and there is every indication that it is, you will stand before God at the judgment and then you will care. The Bible is the Word of God and is like an anvil, upon which the atheistic hammers are worn out.

      --
      All theory is gray
    40. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...Now find how one can try to test this hogwash...

      You can't, you can either believe or disbelieve it. The same is true of God and what is written in the Bible. I choose to believe what is written about God in the Bible, rather than some conjecture about multiple universes. It is is written in the Bible that it is impossible to please God without faith.

      --
      All theory is gray
    41. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      So basically what you're saying is that in the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.

      AIUT, there was dimensionless energy. No length (1D), width (2D), depth (3D), or time (4D). Then somebody exec'ed our universe.

      People who understand math can show that time loops back on itself as it approaches time zero. Hawking explains this far better than I could.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    42. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by tibman · · Score: 1

      Isn't there a galactic north pole too? Doesn't the galaxy have a North/South property of it's own? The earth fits inside the galaxy and each has it's own North pole. I don't see what's wrong with the idea that there might be something larger than the universe with it's own time property?

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    43. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      I think we can figure it out once we understand what mass is.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    44. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 1

      [quote]the Christian Bible is true, and there is every indication that it is,[/quote]

      Other than the universe being six thousand years old.
      And other than Noah's flood.
      And other than rainbows not existing since always, but instead having been made into existence since the flood of Noah.
      And other than the tower of Babel.
      And other than lots of other things, too, which are about as unscientific as any other mythology.

      [quote]you will stand before God at the judgment and then you will care. [/quote]

      Strangely enough you know what is the one thing that the bible doesn't say is required to be saved? Belief in the Bible.

      You know why? Because there existed Christians for a long time before there even was a Bible.

      So, even if your God exists, which I very much doubt, I doubt I'll be caring what was said in a compilation of books made hundreds of years after Jesus lived and died, and which God and his apostles themselves didn't seem to care about. (One would think it'd be easy for Jesus to instruct his apostles what to write and what not: Mohammed did after all)

      So, no.

    45. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ... Belief in the Bible....

      I believe in the Bible in the sense of a belief in the God of the Bible and that the Bible is his message to mankind. When you compose a letter on your word processor it might be said to be the writer of the material, but you are the author. In the same way, the human writers were merely a word processors, but God is the author. The remarkable nature of the Bible itself testifies that it is a very unusual book, in fact the most unusual book ever written.

      For thousands of years, all human writing had to be laboriously copied by hand. When the art of printing was finally invented by Johannes Gutenberg, guess which human writing was first printed? Guess which human writing is distributed more widely than any other and translated into more languages and dialects than any other? Guess which book its enemies have endeavored to destroy more than any other? There are many religious writings, but none of them come even remotely close to the content and distribution of this remarkable book. A modern book may get translated into a few of the most popular languages, but the Bible has been translated into thousands of languages, even very obscure ones.

      I am not trying to make religious propaganda, but simply pointing out that even science hints at a realm beyond time and space. Partially, that is what this thread is all about, determining the origin of the universe. This remarkable book is not a science textbook, but whenever it touches on the real world it has never been proven wrong. In the very first sentence of this book, we are essentially told what Einstein discovered thousands of years after it was written. No actual statement of fact, but sometimes its interpretation, has ever been proven to be erroneous by either science or history.

      All of the so-called supposed scientific myths you talk about involve INTERPRETATION of the scientific facts. The existence of fossils is always given as evidence for evolution, but nobody has yet made a fossil. If you wish to turn the body of a living creature into a fossil today, you need to figure out how to prevent decay. The biblical record tells us that the fountains of the great deep broke open. This water, which initially would have been boiling hot, came to the surface. We still use boiling water today to kill microorganisms and thus prevent decay. There is seismic evidence even today that the amount of water stored in the mantle of the earth is several times as much as in all oceans.

      (...Because there existed Christians for a long time before there even was a Bible....)

      If you really knew Christian history and had read the New Testament you would know that the Bible of Christians was the Old Testament is given to the Jews.

      --
      All theory is gray
    46. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Your conjecture about your magical supreme being who created people so he could require their ignorance to please himself is not compelling.

    47. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their point is the Big Bang theory could be wrong. Time might not have started with a singularity exploding, and that singularity might not contain all matter in the (or all) universe(s).

      It represents wonderful emperical evidence, something that would be silly to be "sure" of prior to having it.

    48. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Darby · · Score: 1

      The same is true of God and what is written in the Bible.

      Idiocy. This is true only for the Diest god. The Judeo/Christian god and the bible are known with 100% certainty to be nonsense. It's trivially easy to prove that your god is nothing but fairy tales. Heck, the entire book of Exodus is obvious nonsense. There were no Hebrews building the pyramids because the Hebrews as a tribe didn't even exist for thousands of years. Think it through, Sparky and actually engage your brain. Even human history goes back much much further than your god has even lived. I mean seriously, that's how damn dumb and dishonest you Christian scumbags are. We have buildings still existing on the planet that were here before your god was. We know this to be an absolute fact, yet you, contrary to everything you claim, don't care enough about what your god says to even be bothered to figure it out. Hell, I don't even believe your god exists, and I can't be as insulting to him as you are by refusing to even think and then claiming that he wants you to be that damn dumb. Truly, you are a disgusting example of the type of stupid slave religion was designed to create.

    49. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....The Judeo/Christian god and the bible are known with 100% certainty to be nonsense...

      That is why there are millions of Christians some of whom are every bit as educated and smart as you are and why the Bible has been translated into more languages and is more widely distributed than any other book. The reason you got so angry and resort to name calling, is because deep down in your heart you know the Word of God is true and you will some day be judged by God. Jesus Christ claimed to be God, which is something that the people of his day understood and accused him to be a blasphemer. However, He proved his claim by rising from the dead. He talked of Adam and Noah and other parts of the Old Testament which you claim are fiction, but he was there, being God, but you were not there. Since Jesus was God in human form he has affected life on this planet more than any other human being because he was also God. We still mark our calendar by his appearance.

      Anyone who has to resort to name-calling and insults has automatically admitted that they are really are completely unsure of themselves and their arguments. You are just totally and utterly wrong.

      --
      All theory is gray
    50. Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Darby · · Score: 1

      That is why there are millions of Christians some of whom are every bit as educated and smart as you are and why the Bible has been translated into more languages and is more widely distributed than any other book.

      There's a world of difference between being "popular" which is what you describe and "correct" which I demonstrated that the bible isn't.

      Anyone who has to resort to name-calling and insults has automatically admitted that they are really are completely unsure of themselves and their arguments.I resorted to nothing of the sort. It's a fact that your religious beliefs are demonstrably false. You still claim it must be magically true because you really really want it to be in spite of the fact that there isn't any evidence for it at all and plenty against. You are delusional because you still demand that your favorite fairy tales must magically be true. That's what delusional means. It isn't "calling names", it's using the correct term to describe what you're demonstrating.

      You are just totally and utterly wrong.

      Of course, everyone who doesn't see your imaginary friend must be wrong. It couldn't be, you, the one with the magical invisible friend, who's wrong. Oh, no, that would be quite impossible. I mean really, the Hebrews did build the pyramids...and then disappeared for thousands of years before magically reappearing back in time. Of course, that's the only thing it could be since your delusional conclusion has to magically always be true facts be damned.

  21. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our lunar rabbit overlords.

    1. Re:Obligatory by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      In soviet russia, moon rabbit measures you!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always preferred lunar camels

  22. Go north from the North Pole by khchung · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A simpler analogy would be to try to go north from the North Pole.

    --
    Oliver.
    1. Re:Go north from the North Pole by leehwtsohg · · Score: 1

      Yes! That is much better.
      One good analogy is much better than three bad ones.

  23. What's that in libraries of congress? by RCC42 · · Score: 1

    Hmm, so we're measuring telescope resolution and fidelity by the ease at which we can look at rabbits on the moon? How many libraries of congress worth of data can these 1-rabbit-resolution telescopes transmit back to earth per hogshead?

  24. Re:some 1.5 million km from Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm confused... if L2 is behind the earth as seen from the sun, how does it get data to my processor so quickly?

  25. Just for Curiosity... by stms · · Score: 1

    How would scientist tell exactly or even generally what was making the Cosmic Microwave Background. If anyone on slashdot knows (and yes I am insulting your ego to get more answers).

    1. Re:Just for Curiosity... by SpectreBlofeld · · Score: 1

      The cosmic microwave background is the residual heat left over from the Big Bang event. It was discovered quite by accident (in the 60's or 70's I believe) by Bell Labs, who were trying to figure out where the interference in their communication satellite transmissions were coming from. Its existence had already been conjectured to exist (by Edwin Hubble himself, if memory serves).

  26. Re:some 1.5 million km from Earth? by ari+wins · · Score: 1

    I have nothing to add, save the fact your slashid's are exactly 200,000 apart. Neat.

    /wrists

    --
    Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.
  27. WAP? by daemonburrito · · Score: 1

    we must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers

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

  28. Great... by Dirtside · · Score: 1

    So is moon-rabbits the new metric standard unit for measuring instrument sensitivity?

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  29. A rabbit?! On the moon??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, matey, I know a dead rabbit when I see one, and Iâ(TM)d be looking at one right now. It 'd have passed on! This rabbit would be no more! It 'd have ceased to be! It 'd have expired and be gone to meet its maker! This would be a late parrot. It'd be a stiff. Bereft of life, it 'd rest in peace, if you had sent it to the moon, it 'd be pushing up the daisies! It'd be rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This would be an ex-rabbit!

  30. Planck hath a blog and a twitter! by davecl · · Score: 3, Informative

    For more information you can catch up with Planck on the mission blog on Planck's twitter, and on the Planck outreach website.

    I help maintain the blog and work on both the Planck and Herschel missions.

    1. Re:Planck hath a blog and a twitter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For more information you can catch up with Planck on the mission blog on Planck's twitter, and on the Planck outreach website.
      What a nerd this Planck guy is having time to write all these technical blogs. I guess he does not have any life.

  31. I call Bollocks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that /bow-low/ meter, or /bollo/ meter (as in bollocks).

  32. I don't know but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hot SPACE RABBITS

    I know that late this night I will have the weirdest fantasy ever.

  33. Re:The ESA is awesome. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why have the Europeans achieved so much for humanity, yet the Africans have achieved so little?

    Actually the Africans achieved a lot at the time the Europeans were hunting witches. Later the Europeans discovered and built upon that African knowledge.

    Of course the Africans also built upon prior knowledge. Part of that came from Europe, mostly Greece, some other came from Asia. But were it not for the Africans, even most of the old European knowledge would have been lost in the middle ages.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  34. Re:Did you ever notice ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their UK office is in Scunthorpe.

  35. Stupid units by the_other_chewey · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just to clarify: -273.05C equals 0.1 Kelvin. That looks much more impressive, as it
    indicates how close to absolute zero it is - and even is easier to grasp in my opinion.
    Come on, we're on Slashdot, dammit!

  36. You mean a twentith, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to be too picky, but calling .05 a tenth is just bad math.

    1. Re:You mean a twentith, right? by Dire+Wo1f · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero Absolute zero is -273.15. Therefore -273.05 - (-273.15) is a tenth.

  37. It's a Conspiracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bunch of us amateur astronomers pwned it. We imaged it in UV, optical, NIR, IR, microwave and audio too. We tapped directly into its downlink, and guess what ... Turns out this whole thing is a cover for a top secret military mission, possibly to intercept or interact with alien ships lurking at the Lagrange Points.

    First off, turns out the Bolometer, officially allegedly used to measure Cosmic Microwave BG, seems to be doing nothing of the sort. It's just continuously looping this music. Either the Big Bang is a dance party gone uncontrollably wild, and/or God is South American, and/or this top secret military mission was partly funded by Latin American drug money, built with Gitmo prison labor.

    Tellingly, the spacecraft itself in optical imagery iooks like this galaxy. Obviously this is a rather pathetic camouflage of some sort to hide the real mission from public scrutiny, or a telling clue as to its Latin drug money financing source. OR, the said aliens come from said galaxy so our military is just being friendly. Take your pick as to the likely truth - all of the above.

    Also a whistle blower revealed that the subcontract to camouflage the spacecraft was outsourced to this now bankrupt Indian IT shop, which in turn was bought up by this other Indian company that makes civilian and military SUVs! That explaines why, bizzarely sometimes the spacecraft looks like thisthis SUV, at other times like this older one which was made under license by the same Indian company! This too, points either to the military nature of this mission, or it's just a glaring bug in the camouflage code, coming as it is from habitually incompetent Indian coders.

    Imagine, if Indian outsourcers screw up a mega military project in this fashion, how can the American taxpayer trust them with our credit cards and jobs?

    In higher resolution IR images, we could clearly read the mission code name painted in invisible ink. It read Operation Bolero, also clearly indicating its military origin!

    Interestingly, hidden right next to the mission name was a tiny nude picture of the actress Bo Derek from this movie. Clearly, only a sex starved military rookie or an Indian geek (also sex starved) or more likely, a Gitmo prison laborer could slip such a tasteless Easter Egg on a super secret military mission!

    All this evidence - admittedly circumstantial - clearly supports our hunch that this is a top secret military mission, illegally outsourced to India in defiance of congressional regulations - not to mention at grave risk to the security of homeland - and possibly financed by drug money from Latin America!!

    This needless to say, is a humongous threat!! Evil FUD against righteous FLOSS!!

    Wake up netizens!! Exercise your 2nd Ammo rights and load up on its name sake, ammoooo! Who else can defend this great nation from a grave threat - of alien invasion, Latin American Drug peddlers, or worse, our own military in collusion with aliens - but the self-righteous Joe Public armed with hunting rifles! Think of the children! Who will save them from such evil resident at the Lagrange Points!

    Wake up! Before its too late and Earth turns into Soviet Alienia, and clocks are forced to freeze at 1984; where outlandish Sombrero Hats top you, and the white noise drone of the Cosmic Microwave BG is broadcast from loudspeakers at every street corners!!

    We amateur astronomers, of course plan to climb down pronto from roof tops and retreat to our mom's Windows-less basements, where we plan to dance the Bolero with our Linux Powered RealDolls until the threat passes.

  38. Dont point it at the sun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder what sort of protection measures it has against random stuff flying in front of the sensor/bolloneymeter/whateverotron.

    Obviously, if those sensors ever point at the sun, they going to be pushing up mechanical daisies, what about Mars flying past, or Venus?

  39. Offtopic! by pinkj · · Score: 1

    i wish i could mod everyone offtopic! less rabbit, more Planck telescope!

  40. rabbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'll be dead cold within seconds