Rogue Brown Dwarf Lurks In Our Cosmic Neighborhood

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rogue Brown Dwarf Lurks In Our Cosmic Neighborhood

Posted by Soulskill on Friday April 9, 2010 @08:20AM from the brown-dwarf-rogue-lurks-in-ironforge dept.

astroengine writes "The UK Infrared Telescope in Hawaii has discovered a lone, cool brown dwarf called UGPSJ0722-05. As far as sub-stellar objects go, this is a strange one. For starters, it's the coolest brown dwarf ever discovered (and astronomers using the UKIRT should know; they are making a habit of finding cool brown dwarfs). Secondly, it's close. In fact, it's the closest brown dwarf to Earth, at a distance of only 10 light years. And thirdly, it has an odd spectroscopic signature, leading astronomers to think that this might be the discovery of a whole new class of brown dwarf."

151 of 188 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

thats actually really close... by Coraon · 2010-04-09 08:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

I believe at currently achievable theoretical speeds we might be able to make it there with like a robotic probe in 100 years or less!

--
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
1. Re:thats actually really close... by tmosley · 2010-04-09 08:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You think we can send a probe an average of 1/10th C, including acceleration and slowdown?
2. Re:thats actually really close... by Waffle+Iron · 2010-04-09 08:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  To paraphrase Yogi Berra: In theory, currently achievable theoretical speeds are achievable. In reality, they aren't.
3. Re:thats actually really close... by Coraon · 2010-04-09 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  a friend of mine who works with JPL, was talking with me and said that it was possible, but would take far more money then the well planet would be willing to spend, but apparently the science is there. now as for speed up and slow down, well I'll admit I didn't factor that in, the point is that its still going to take several lifetimes worth of time for this to matter.
  
  --
  -Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
4. Re:thats actually really close... by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-04-09 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be curious to know what technology he is talking about. Do you think you could get the name(s) of whatever types of things he is thinking of for me? I'd like to do some further research.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
5. Re:thats actually really close... by WCMI92 · 2010-04-09 08:45 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You think we can send a probe an average of 1/10th C, including acceleration and slowdown?
  
  Theoretically possible using a nuclear power source and ion propulsion. Probably would be decades before we could practically do it, but the idea isn't outside the realm of possibility starting with existing technology...
  It'd be a lot easier though to try this with Alpha Centauri though. It's only 4 light years away, not 10.
  This is an interesting find though. Given the lack of planets or sign of the remnants of the formation of a star/planetary system I'd say this thing is definitely a rogue, that formed in another planetary system that was ejected by gravity. Brown dwarfs actually are able to do deuterium (lower mass ones) and even lithium fusion (higher mass ones) for a short period of time (100MY or so for the fuel to run out) but this one may be too small to have done either.
  We certainly are going to discover a lot more of these as we get better and better instruments. They are likely very common, and we are likely to see the discovery of tons more brown dwarfs and very low mass red dwarfs in the coming decades. What is fascinating would be to know exactly where the line is between a very low mass red dwarf that can initiate and sustain core hydrogen fusion and a brown dwarf that either never starts core hydrogen fusion or cannot sustain it.
  
  --
  Corporatism != Free Market
6. Re:thats actually really close... by linzeal · 2010-04-09 08:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Project Orion is the only one I have ever heard of that claims such speeds.
  
  --
  An Education is the Font of All Liberty
7. Re:thats actually really close... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2010-04-09 08:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  An ion engine? Hardly. BTW, the cheapest way for a long, long time will probably be a reaaally large space-based telescope somewhere far away to keep it nice and cold. Not cheap in absolute terms, but certainly cheaper than any kind of interstellar probe.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
8. Re:thats actually really close... by MBGMorden · 2010-04-09 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  I sort of doubt it. Building things is cheap (relatively). The $$$$ really comes in with R&D - aka figuring out how to do it in the first place. If we already knew how to do it then we would. If it's a matter of investing in R&D, then he's really just saying that he thinks it could be done, not that the tech already exists.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
9. Re:thats actually really close... by ushering05401 · 2010-04-09 08:52 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Slowdown? We won't get military support that way, therefore no funding. We smash something into it at maximum speed and let the military gather transport and devastation metrics from a collision involving speeds never before recorded by human instruments.
  Then the astronomers study the ejecta, the engineers review vehicle performance metrics, the doomsday prophets rework their asteroid impact models, the cosmologists continue to try to convince their mother-in-laws that they really are cosmologists despite not knowing anything about t-zones, foundation blending, manicuring, waxing.... and no, that doesn't mean they went to a bad 'school of cosmology.'
10. Re:thats actually really close... by oldspewey · 2010-04-09 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  That's an awful lot of effort to go and visit failure
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
11. Re:thats actually really close... by Rakishi · 2010-04-09 09:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There is a big difference between the basic technology existing and a practical device using that technology existing. The Apollo project didn't cost $80 billion because the technology was revolutionary. It cost $80 billion because getting something that big to work properly is in itself a massive pain in the ass even if you have all the technology. Hell, just recreating the Apollo project would probably cost close to $80billion without blueprints and we already did it once before. Essentially it's an engineering problem rather than a scientific one.
12. Re:thats actually really close... by sznupi · 2010-04-09 09:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If we would really want to we can get rid of the slow down by simply performing a flyby. Who knows how acceptable the former would be of course, considering the limited science and that such mission wouldn't get funding very often...
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
13. Re:thats actually really close... by sznupi · 2010-04-09 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Patience would work, too...Gliese 710 will be probably less than 1 light year away very soon.
  At least, "very soon" in cosmological terms (a little over 1 million years iirc)
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
14. Re:thats actually really close... by Rakishi · 2010-04-09 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Orion/nuclear pulse propulsion would I think give around 0.04c at best using existing technology. If you got some sort of fussion working Project Daedalus was expected to give 0.12c.
  A solar sail with some sort of laser/lens system in the solar system is also possible. Horribly inefficient and expensive given existing technology but I don't think it's theoretically impossible. This might give you something like 0.2c or more.
  Nuclear salt-water rocket is another option but it only gives you 0.036c at best. Also, if you thought shoving nukes out the back with Orion was insane than this one is Cuthulu. It's basically a continuous nuclear explosion kept just outside the ship by continuously pumping fuel at it. Fun times.
  All of these velocities are for a one way trip I should add.
15. Re:thats actually really close... by khallow · 2010-04-09 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Remember it's a one way trip for that probe. You'd want to make it epic.
16. Re:thats actually really close... by sznupi · 2010-04-09 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Light sail, etc. propulsion powered by beamed energy can have even greater speed than Orion (light sail doesn't have to carry it's own fuel) and be significantly cheaper. Plus the most expensive and massive part of infrastructure stays in the Solar System and can be used for more than one probe.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starwisp
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_sail
  I can see us doing such mission perhaps in lifetimes of some of us...
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
17. Re:thats actually really close... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-09 09:24 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Somebody mod him "insightful but doubtful".
  A *LOT* of money would be saved by performing a flyby. This might be the only way it could be done. Not having to carry the fuel required to slow down cuts the cost by *more* than 50%.
  Consider the Pioneer missions, Voyagers, and the current New Horizons, they're all flybys for one reason: it's cheaper to do a flyby. If you find something really interesting on the flyby, you can then justify funds for an expensive orbital mission.
  Alternative tech like light sails might eventually change this, but for current, self fueled reaction drive technology, flybys are way cheaper than orbitals.
18. Re:thats actually really close... by Lord+Ender · 2010-04-09 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  The fastest probe we've ever launched went about 1/1000 c, not 1/10c. You're off by two orders of magnitude.
  If we had the ability to go that fast, we would already have a probe on its way to alpha proxima.
  
  --
  A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
19. Re:thats actually really close... by EdZ · 2010-04-09 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  No slowdown, but acceleration could be done with a Sundiver. Basically, you take your solar sail, drop it into an orbit that dips it almost to the surface of the sun, then deploy the sail. The combined solar wind and intense sunlight accelerate your probe up to some pretty impressive speeds.
20. Re:thats actually really close... by nofx_3 · 2010-04-09 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  "A solar sail with some sort of laser/lens system in the solar system is also possible. Horribly inefficient and expensive given existing technology but I don't think it's theoretically impossible. This might give you something like 0.2c or more."
  Yeah, but how do you stop?
  
  --
  Visualize Whirled Peas
21. Re:thats actually really close... by Rei · 2010-04-09 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Why do people always bring up Orion? Medusa completely supercedes it in every way.
  And anyway, that's just one of a plethora of high-ISP propulsion methods. Solar sails, various types of magnetic sails, various types of microfission and microfusion (both antimatter-initiated or otherwise), pure antimatter, various larger scale fusion designs, fission fragment (including a favorite of mine, the dusty plasma fission fragment rocket), nuclear saltwater, and on and on.
  
  --
  "Now we're getting to Science -- I love this!" -- Dr. Steven Chu, Energy Secretary confirmation hearings.
22. Re:thats actually really close... by bramblez · 2010-04-09 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly what I was thinking, mod this up! Why take a closer look, when we could just look at the light coming from there?
23. Re:thats actually really close... by corbettw · 2010-04-09 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  You jest, but any probe sent that far away is going on a one-way mission, anyway. So why not orbit it a bit and then smash into it and see what happens (presumably after jettisoning the sensor and communications package so we can send data back to earth)?
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
24. Re:thats actually really close... by geekoid · 2010-04-09 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely, and we should..
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
25. Re:thats actually really close... by orkysoft · 2010-04-09 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Then you'd have to decelerate, orbit, and accelerate again.
  
  --
  
  I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
26. Re:thats actually really close... by Rei · 2010-04-09 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  I believe that one antimatter-initiated microfusion rocket design was also supposed to be able to get up into the 0.1c range while still providing good thrust. Fission fragment rockets might be another good possibility if they can get enough thrust.
  
  --
  "Now we're getting to Science -- I love this!" -- Dr. Steven Chu, Energy Secretary confirmation hearings.
27. Re:thats actually really close... by RMingin · 2010-04-09 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  At 0.1C, that'll be a HELL of a flyby. Anybody have enough napkins to figure out the gravity cone and slingshot distances for that speed? My math broke when I tried.
  
  --
  The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
28. Re:thats actually really close... by Rei · 2010-04-09 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Another option (not really, but just considering it for fun) would be a REALLY extreme form of aerocapture. Basically, not aiming to shoot past the star, but through it. ;) The problem is that your target has a diameter of ~150,000,000 meters and you're going at 30,000,000 meters per second, so even if you went right through the center of the target star, you'd only have five seconds to slow down before you're out the other side ;)
  Oh, and then there's that whole pesky heating thing. Ignoring relativity, 30,000,000 m/s is 450,000,000,000,000 joules per kilogram (125 GWh/kg). Best of luck getting rid of that energy! ;)
  
  --
  "Now we're getting to Science -- I love this!" -- Dr. Steven Chu, Energy Secretary confirmation hearings.
29. Re:thats actually really close... by Gilmoure · 2010-04-09 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Put Vikings on it?
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
30. Re:thats actually really close... by Rakishi · 2010-04-09 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  Ooops, when I said one way trip I instead meant a flyby mission. So to stop you make sure you don't miss the star itself.
  If you do want to survive the experience there's I think a few options:
  * Magnetic sail to brake against the target star's magnetosphere
  * An outer sail that detaches near the destination and reflects backs light onto an inner sail. See wikipedia.
31. Re:thats actually really close... by roc97007 · 2010-04-09 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  > the cosmologists continue to try to convince their mother-in-laws that they really are cosmologists despite not knowing anything about t-zones, foundation blending, manicuring, waxing.... and no, that doesn't mean they went to a bad 'school of cosmology.'
  Sounds personal...
  I had a friend who was a microwave communications engineer. His grandmother persisted in believing he worked on ovens.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
32. Re:thats actually really close... by John+Hasler · 2010-04-09 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, in 100 years or less we may be able to make a robot probe that could get there.
  
  --
  Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
33. Re:thats actually really close... by GigaplexNZ · 2010-04-09 15:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Wouldn't solar sails fail to work once you reach the Heliopause?
34. Re:thats actually really close... by Rakishi · 2010-04-09 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  Solar sails are based on light and not the solar wind. Light does not stop and the heliopause does not matter. It does however start weak and gets horribly weak horribly quickly.
  That is why any decent velocity system requires and uses giant ass lasers in the solar system for light instead of the sun.
35. Re:thats actually really close... by Rakishi · 2010-04-09 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  The question was about what existing technologies could achieve that velocity.
36. Re:thats actually really close... by GigaplexNZ · 2010-04-09 18:50 · Score: 1
  
  Even though it uses light and not solar winds, an equivalent concept of a Heliopause would probably still take effect (the closer you get to the other star the more its light counters Sol). Using an interstellar laser to push it isn't really practical as at those distances it becomes horribly difficult to aim the laser with such precision. Assuming your laser could aim precisely, by the time you realise you are pointing in the wrong direction and make a correction, it will take years for the correction to take effect, by which time the sail has already moved.
37. Re:thats actually really close... by jesset77 · 2010-04-09 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  Meb not, but we've got the lowest pingtimes, so we don't have to wait! For frost psot! xD
  
  --
  People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
38. Re:thats actually really close... by sznupi · 2010-04-09 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  Not a showstopper - you just provide most / all of the acceleration early in the flight (say, when the probe is still firmly in the Solar System), and after that use the source of propulsion for other probe...or even for beaming energy to Earth for use as electricity.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
39. Re:thats actually really close... by sznupi · 2010-04-09 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  Even if we could do it, we should probably never try...lest it will be mistaken for an attack ;)
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
40. Re:thats actually really close... by RockDoctor · 2010-04-10 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't solar sails fail to work once you reach the Heliopause?
  
  I'm trying to work out what could lead you to think that was the case.
  No, seriously, I'd like to know. I fail to imagine how one could possibly think that, so either the sources that you have consulted have given you some erroneous impressions, or you have some interesting pathology, like a growing brain tumour. The former, I can probably do something about by editing the article appropriately ; the latter, you might be interested to know about.
  (For completeness, it is possible that the limits of my imagination of aberrant logic and thought processes are narrower than I think, but I've been dealing with Creationists and such like delusional people for long enough that I thought I'd got a good idea of the depths to which people are capable of sinking. In which case, I'd learn something from the encounter.)
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
41. Re:thats actually really close... by RockDoctor · 2010-04-10 13:31 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Even though it uses light and not solar winds, an equivalent concept of a Heliopause would probably still take effect (the closer you get to the other star the more its light counters Sol).
  True, but not particularly important. Most of the benefit of the "launching lasers" you get by getting up to a high speed fairly soon, reducing your time of flight. If you're only (or largely) powered by launching lasers and solar sails, then you'll be expecting to have an asymmetric journey in both distance and time, because the high intensity of the "launching lasers" at the Sol end of the journey would need to be counteracted by the lower intensity of the light from the target star over a longer distance and duration.
  
  Using an interstellar laser to push it isn't really practical as at those distances it becomes horribly difficult to aim the laser with such precision. Assuming your laser could aim precisely, by the time you realise you are pointing in the wrong direction and make a correction, it will take years for the correction to take effect, by which time the sail has already moved.
  Your laser will have a certain divergence of beam, due to manufacture errors. As you get further away, the intensity will drop (this is part of the reason that you get up to speed as soon as possible, and will, indeed eventually the "launching lasers" will become useless. But regardless, you don't steer the ship by moving the laser, you steer it by tilting the sail.
  With a solar sail, you get two types of drive. Some drive is from particles of solar wind travelling (more-or-less) radially out from Sol hitting the sail and sticking. These transfer their momentum vector directly to the sail, and hence to the towed payload. Their impulse on the sail will always be radial to the target star (to moderate precision). The other source of drive though is from photons that hit the sail and are reflected from the sail's surface. These, as a moment's consideration will tell you, will provide an impulse vector to the sail (and hence, to the payload) which is in the direction of the bisector of the angle between the direction of the incoming photon and the direction of the outgoing photon. In short, the sailor can "tack" his vessel against the light-wind from the "launching lasers". The control system is at the sailor's end, not the launching laser's end ; the launching laser jockey simply points his laser at the target star and leaves it up to the sailor to stay within the beam ; the sailor has to work out how to make the final cruise form the light beam to the target star, knowing that an error either kills everyone on board, or means an unnecessary year in the tin can (which is also likely to be a death sentence for the erring sailor).
  Byproduct : if a solar sail powered probe is launched from star A to star B, then for a number of years before the arrival of the probe at star B, there will be an intense, monochromatic source of light shining from star A at star B. In short, a very bright warning light.
  Reference reading : " The Mote in God's Eye (Orbit Books) (Paperback) by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle (Author) ; classic hard SF.
  Byproduct 2 : if your solar sail-powered craft approaches the target star without being greeted or communicated with ... then the inhabitants are either dead, or live underground, or have yet to learn to bang the rocks together. Or just possibly use visual pigments that work in a very different part of the spectrum to your launching lasers.
  Hmmm : multi-wavelength launching lasers. Possible? Helpful? Problematic? I'll have to think about that.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
42. Re:thats actually really close... by RockDoctor · 2010-04-10 16:09 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  BTW, the cheapest way for a long, long time will probably be a reaaally large space-based telescope somewhere far away to keep it nice and cold. Not cheap in absolute terms, but certainly cheaper than any kind of interstellar probe.
  For certain meanings of "long time" : I'm a geologist, and my meaning of "long time" is rather different to the meaning of a Thai bar girl telling me that she'll "love me long time". Though our meanings of "love" are probably more-or-less congruent. I see your "long time" and wonder if the duration would really be noticeable.
  The process of putting the bigger and bigger telescopes progressively further and further away will of course give us experience in several incrementally important technologies : those of making and moving big things in space, and those of keeping people in a habitable environment in space for longer and longer periods of time. By the time that we're putting the third Outer Kuiper Telescope in place, each one of which involves sending a ten-person crew on a three year mission to the outer edge of the Kuiper Belt, then the prospect of sending ten consecutive thirty-person trips on thirty year missions to Proxima Centauri would appear considerably less daunting.
  The interstellar trip would appear even less daunting if they knew that two ten-person inhabitation modules (a standard design, with a hundred-year proven working life) had arrived and gone into a parking orbit at Proxima, and that another four modules are in flight, due to arrive before they do with additional ones being launched every second year thereafter until Proxima Colony tells Old Home Terra to stop throwing tin cans. The automated solar cell (hmmm, that name will have to change!) factory might also be in flight, so the first things to do on arrival at Proxima would be to collect several gigatonnes of iceballs for reaction mass (just like refuelling the reactors for the Outer Kuiper Telescope), and then settle down to breeding and building another asteroid civilisation. Planets? Well, if there are any, they might get colonised one day, but the important things would need to be done first. After all, terraforming is really hard, and it's hard to envisage how the original Earthlings did it without modern technology.
  The technologies necessary to real long-distance space travel are far more likely to appear incrementally than as a result of some huge politically-inspired push. The only thing that's likely to provide that sort of push at the moment is an incoming "dinosaur killer", and by the time that we've got twenty permanently-inhabited space stations, that is unlikely to be much of a real threat. Otherwise, it's the old "boiled frog" combination of overpopulation and overconsumption that are going to kill your species.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
43. Re:thats actually really close... by GigaplexNZ · 2010-04-10 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  I was under the impression that solar winds played a bigger part in solar sails, which turns out not to be the case (who actually reads the links posted on Slashdot?). But if I did have a brain tumour or some "interesting pathology", that wasn't the most sensitive way of confronting me about it.
44. Re:thats actually really close... by RockDoctor · 2010-04-10 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  I was under the impression that solar winds played a bigger part in solar sails, which turns out not to be the case (who actually reads the links posted on Slashdot?)
  As I suspected from your later posts. The balance would probably change with the colour of the star - higher energy photons have higher momentum. (I think. Hmmm, I can't see how they couldn't have, but I don't actually have a solid datum to hang that assertion on. Have to think on that somewhat more.) Then again, higher temperature stars certainly can have some pretty savage stellar winds too. Odds of a civilisation developing around a Wolf-Rayet star?
  
  . But if I did have a brain tumour or some "interesting pathology", that wasn't the most sensitive way of confronting me about it.
  Life isn't sensitive.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
45. Re:thats actually really close... by linzeal · 2010-04-10 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  Just what we need a terrawatt laser that takes time to correct shooting at earth from somewhere out near Pluto.
  
  --
  An Education is the Font of All Liberty
They probably.... by ArcadeNut · 2010-04-09 08:24 · Score: 1, Funny

Just need to clean their telescope!

--
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
Hmmm... by chadplusplus · 2010-04-09 08:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Ten light years away... How far out does the Oort cloud extend? Its NEMESIS!!
1. Re:Hmmm... by tmosley · 2010-04-09 08:34 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  1/3rd of a light year. The brown dwarf is about 2.5 times further than the nearest bright star, Alpha Centauri. Definitely not inside of the solar system, but well within our cosmic neighborhood.
2. Re:Hmmm... by ShadowRangerRIT · 2010-04-09 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, even the most extreme projections for the Oort cloud have it within three light years, and most put it a mere light year out. No Nemesis for you.
  
  --
  $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
3. Re:Hmmm... by chadplusplus · 2010-04-09 08:41 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Well, according to wikipedia, the largest estimates put the Oort cloud out at 3.6 light years, so this brown dwarf is probably too far away to perturb the Oort cloud, but as an aside observation: If the Sun's oort cloud is 3.5 light years in radius, and Proxima Centuari is only 4.2 light years away, and assuming Proxima Centuri has its own oort cloud (if it didn't get swept away by the gravitational interaction of the multiple stars), would our system's outer members and Proxima's outer members intermingle? IIRC, the Oort cloud objects aren't necessarily on the plane on the system.
4. Re:Hmmm... by medv4380 · 2010-04-09 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  To fit the current Nemesis Theory it would need to be 2 light years or less.
5. Re:Hmmm... by DrVxD · 2010-04-09 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  would our system's outer members and Proxima's outer members intermingle? IIRC, the Oort cloud objects aren't necessarily on the plane on the system.
  Intermingling of members? That sounds like gay porn on a galactic scale!
  
  --
  Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
6. Re:Hmmm... by rsborg · 2010-04-09 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  What if the Oort cloud is actually spread throughout entire known universe (ie, dark matter) What if the heliosheath, the magnetic/radiation field generated by our sun, is our effective "deflector shield" that keeps the solar system as serene as it is? We need to develop better instrumentation and send probes to be able to find this out (when we get data from one of the Voyagers that goes past the bow shock, we'll probably find out clearly).
  
  --
  Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
7. Re:Hmmm... by sznupi · 2010-04-09 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Certainly not Nemesis; the concept of latter assumes that the "rogue companion" is gravitationally bound to the Solar System...indeed is part of the Solar System.
  This new brown dwarf...we're just passing it.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
8. Re:Hmmm... by amazeofdeath · 2010-04-09 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  So that's 10 light years in two years to arrive in time for causing the end of the world in 2012, quite a speed.
  
  --
  U+F8FF
9. Re:Hmmm... by Albinoman · 2010-04-09 16:30 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The Oort cloud is a lot of minuscule particles of ices of different forms (not all water ice). If it were everywhere we'd surely notice this rather thick nebula permeating the universe. We wouldn't see Andromeda much less take the Hubble Deep Field.
10. Re:Hmmm... by Hognoxious · 2010-04-09 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  assuming Proxima Centuri has its own oort cloud
  Qzk'nx78 is not at all happy about you renaming his cloud.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Water Vapor and Methane by ArbitraryDescriptor · 2010-04-09 08:26 · Score: 1

Are they saying this is thought to be the only brown dwarf (thus far) to have water vapor and methane due to its low temperature? Or are they saying this is the only brown dwarf close enough to detect such things?
1. Re:Water Vapor and Methane by ArbitraryDescriptor · 2010-04-09 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  The fine article states that:
  
  Using the Gemini Observatory, follow-up spectroscopic analysis has detected methane and water vapor in its atmosphere.
  I must be new here.
2. Re:Water Vapor and Methane by osu-neko · 2010-04-09 08:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Neither. They're saying it's the only brown dwarf to, well, let me just quote them:
  
  Oddly, when looking at the spectrum from UGPSJ0722-05, there is an anomalous absorption line (i.e. a particular wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum that is missing) that cannot be explained by our current understanding of brown dwarfs. Perhaps the UKIRT has discovered a new breed of brown dwarf; a very cool object with some chemical in its atmosphere that absorbs infrared radiation at a wavelength of 1.25 micrometers.
  Aside from the expected water vapor and methane, they've found this other absorption line pointing to something new and different from previous brown dwarves.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
3. Re:Water Vapor and Methane by Jeng · 2010-04-09 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  I must be new here.
  
  You did just respond to an AC making a joke about an out of work actor.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
4. Re:Water Vapor and Methane by White+Flame · 2010-04-09 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's just swamp gas. Nothing to see here, carry on.
Cue the Nibiru quacks by Craig+Maloney · 2010-04-09 08:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just waiting for the Nibiru and Planet X quacks to say "See? We told you so!".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_collision
1. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by FudRucker · 2010-04-09 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  it will give all those whackos on CoasttoCoastAM something to talk about for weeks.
  
  --
  Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
2. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by Jeng · 2010-04-09 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  The same reason that idiots thought that the world would end in the year 2000.
  Or why some kids think they won't live past their 21st birthday.
  It is just easier for some people to believe that the day after tomorrow will never exist, it just puts some people at ease.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
3. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by idontgno · 2010-04-09 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't aware that 2012-mania was particularly prevalent in, as you put it, "Xtian fundies".
  After all, real Christian fundamentalists will actually read the Bible that they hold as fundamental:
  
  But of that day and hour no man knoweth, no, not the angels of Heaven, but My Father only."
  --Matthew 24:36
  Executive summary: someone who claims to know the end of the world is either lying to you or to himself.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
4. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by sznupi · 2010-04-09 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Remember that pagan is mostly a constructed name, by adherents of one mythology, which means "not us". I wouldn't view them in any stark contrast, really ...especially since, heck, when one honestly compares the Christianity at my place (self-professed defensive bulwark of it over the ages, but also quite in favours of Vatican for some time now) with
  a) official Christianity from 1000 years ago;
  b) local beliefs 1000 years ago (when baptism took place; though of course "national baptism" in a myth, old belifes were quite strong untill XVI-XVII century);
  then it's really not very obvious to say whether the current state took more from a) or from b)...
  And I don't think it's very distinctive.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
5. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by sznupi · 2010-04-09 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Christian fundies will read the Bible allright...but they will hold as fundamental from it only what they want (it's easy with all the ambiguities). If that's the conviction the end is near, so be it!
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
6. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by corbettw · 2010-04-09 10:22 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Or why some kids think they won't live past their 21st birthday.
  I know one kid who won't live past his 13th birthday if he doesn't get his Math grade up!
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
7. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by tomhudson · 2010-04-09 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  Christian fundies will read the Bible allright.
  
  Don't you believe it. Even Mother Theresa admitted she hadn't read it all,
  Professor at Dallas Theological asked 1st-year students how many had read the bible cover-to-cover.
  Answer? ZERO.
  Fast-forward 4 years.
  Professor at Dallas Theological asked graduating students how many had read the bible cover-to-cover.
  Answer? STILL ZERO.
  There is nothing new under the sun ...
  The ignorance of the Bible by the average xian is only matched by the ignorance of the Bible by their leaders.
8. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by roc97007 · 2010-04-09 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but, being ten light years away, it's going to have to really scoot to be here by 2012.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
9. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by freeballer · 2010-04-09 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking the same thing.
  remembers fondly gary coleman on penn and teller pretending to stomp them. (look it up on youtube)
10. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by zeropointburn · 2010-04-09 14:20 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Don't let the next sentence scare you off.
  I have read the Bible from cover to cover, both King James and Strong's Concordance (though not all of the ridiculously exhaustive supplementary material in that one). Most of what I hear from modern Christians does not blend with what I took from those readings. This includes apocalypse beliefs. For starters, the Bible implies a period of 1,000 years for the end of Earth to take place (not that biblical time spans mean anything), and mentions several events that would be fairly obvious.
  Finding nearby objects of interest is worth hearing about. Having another stellar object that close is bound to be useful for astronomy. Consider this, though: if we could miss this brown dwarf until now (even using gravitational investigation), we could have missed one even closer. Since we have closer objects to visit, why don't we start with a probe (or a set of probes) to the Oort cloud? Let's get some more specific density and composition and orbit data on these things. Lots of ice? Cool, destabilize big chunks of it and send them to Mars or something. Long-term, obviously, but there is a lot that we do not know about that region of our solar system.
  
  --
  -1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
11. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by Craig+Maloney · 2010-04-09 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure there will be a logical and rational explanation for why "Nibiru" didn't arrive until ~100 years too late (assuming it's even aware it has an appointment). :)
12. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by sznupi · 2010-04-09 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's kinda also what I've meant - they will read it allright...just the parts they want to read.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
13. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by tomhudson · 2010-04-10 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  I actually typed the whole thing into the 'puter a few decades ago (think DOS-era). That's one way to end up having it "on tap". It was the proof-reading that was a killer.
  The way the earth is going, we may HAVE to terraform Mars AND Venus a lot quicker than we imagine - and it should be possible to terraform Venus - we just don't consider it any more because it's hot as all heck, but crashing enough iceballs into it should do the job ... plus the gravity is better - we won't leak atmosphere nearly as fast as Mars.
14. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by x2A · 2010-04-11 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  They're not, there's no application for them whatsoever, definitely not one involving a discussion!
  --someone who lives thousands of miles away yet knows more about the USA than Sarah Palin voters.
  
  --
  The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
15. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by Bakkster · 2010-04-12 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Christian fundies will read the Bible allright.
  Don't you believe it. Even Mother Theresa admitted she hadn't read it all,
  There's a difference between reading it to say you read it, reading cover-to-cover, reading for purpose or meaning, and reading for comprehension. They are neither mutually exclusive nor equivalent.
  I haven't read the Bible end-to-end, but I've read the Gospels multiple times, and most of the epistles (1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Romans in particular) dozens of times. Why? Because those books are more important to my every day life than, for example, Numbers and its list of genealogies.
  While I agree that there are many Christians who don't put forth any effort to read the Bible, or who take it out of context to push an agenda, I don't think the mere act of reading every word once is significant. What's more important is reading regularly for comprehension and spending further study on passages that challenge previous understanding. You know, putting your faith under scrutiny.
  Of course, I was raised Lutheran, so I may be an outlier.
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
16. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by Veretax · 2010-04-12 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  I actually had read probably all parts of the bible at one time, but the only way I could really confirm that is to do what I did last year, read five chapters a day basically (on average sometimes more) and try to do it within the year. Its actually amazing what things you notice when you read through the bible from cover to cover. Most people don't read the bible that way though, and many christians ignore the richness of the OT as well.
17. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by tomhudson · 2010-04-12 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  So, how can you say yu believe it if you haven't read all of it?
  Disclaimer: I have read all of it, multiple times. It's one of the reasons I could not continue to believe it. Too many contradictions were self-evident, and it required more intellectual dishonesty than I could muster to continue to believe. In the end, I saw it for what it was - a bunch of stories put together by people who were pushing disparate agendas.
18. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by tomhudson · 2010-04-12 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Why not read a whole book at a sitting, to get the proper context. Some of them (1, 2 Kings, for example) are a real death-march in that fashion, but otherwise the "read 3 chapters a day every day", while better than nothing, still misses a lot.
  It's only 750k words long. At a piddling 300wpm (about the average), that's only a bit more than a 40-hour week. For something that so many people claim to base their lives on, and claim to believe, they should at least invest a week and READ it first.
  After all, how can you claim to believe it if you haven't even read it? Isn't that lying?
19. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by Veretax · 2010-04-12 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well that would be nice, but you know we gotta work for this thing called cash to trade for important stuff like water, food, clothing, oh and rent! ;)
  
  No its not lying, you are just trying to make trouble. The problem is many christians, young ones particularly don't always understand some of the literary nuance. The bible contains a lot of literal truth, but not everything should be taken literally, some of it is symbolism, exaggeration, metaphor. If I had tried to read the entire thing in that way as a young Christian I think I would have given up somewhere in the Psalms or prophets.
  
  That having been said, many Christians are lazy, basing their so called 'beliefs' on what their pastor says (without knowing exactly what he is basing that on). I'm a believer you check what people say to the bible, if they don't match up its usually man at fault. However, as another poster said, reading through just to read is one thing, reading with understanding you can't do in one sitting usually, and to be honest I will do it again some day, but right now I'm focusing in on some areas of scripture I've not covered as much personally to dig in more in depth because technically the bible is an Anthology, not a Singlue volume.
20. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by Bakkster · 2010-04-12 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  So, how can you say yu believe it if you haven't read all of it?
  Because, for the most part, the sections I have not read have no bearing on my belief (family trees, recounting battles, etc). In that light, I prefer having good comprehension over an ever increasing portion of the Bible, rather than having simply 'read' every word just to say I did it. I do continue to read, however, and have yet to find something that makes me disbelieve in God. I have certainly come accross passages that change my understanding of who He is, usually due to having a shallow or blatantly incorrect understanding previously.
  
  Disclaimer: I have read all of it, multiple times. It's one of the reasons I could not continue to believe it. Too many contradictions were self-evident, and it required more intellectual dishonesty than I could muster to continue to believe. In the end, I saw it for what it was - a bunch of stories put together by people who were pushing disparate agendas.
  If I could find the time to read the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation while still being able to meaningfully comprehend it, I would. However you found the time to do it, I envy you.
  It's a shame you felt it required you to comprimise your thought processes to justify some bits. I'd be interested to hear which areas in particular they were.
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
21. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by tomhudson · 2010-04-12 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  News flash - most pastors haven't read the whole bible either. It's not a requirement for graduating from seminaries - not even fundie ones like Dallas theological.
  As for "making trouble", religion's been doing that for a LONG time - like this letter that shows it's not just petty gossip.
22. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by tomhudson · 2010-04-12 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Where, oh where, do I start ... there's just so much, and so little time.
  Plus there's so much that has poisoned the well of social interaction. For example, the continual condemnation of lesbians and gays, even though we know it's no more a "lifestyle choice" than being straight is a "lifestyle choice."
  The first crack was the slaughter of the children depicted in the old testament on god's command. There was no way, despite every effort, of justifying that - hence the whole "cognitive dissonance" thing. Even the devil wasn't as bad.
23. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by Bakkster · 2010-04-13 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Plus there's so much that has poisoned the well of social interaction. For example, the continual condemnation of lesbians and gays, even though we know it's no more a "lifestyle choice" than being straight is a "lifestyle choice."
  And of course, that vilification would be another example of those choosing what they want to believe, then finding the verses to back it up.
  As far as my understanding, there is only one right circumstance for sex, and that is between a man and his wife. Anything else would be adultry, whether it be with another of the same sex, a child, a prostitute, otherwise out of wedlock, or even imagining having sex with someone who you aren't married to. None is worse than any other, all are sins, so I hardly agree with the extra villification heaped on homosexuals. I don't even have a problem with a gay man in the clergy, provided they are celibate and therefor not institutionalizing their sin as normal (though many churches disagree, both more and less strict).
  
  The first crack was the slaughter of the children depicted in the old testament on god's command. There was no way, despite every effort, of justifying that - hence the whole "cognitive dissonance" thing. Even the devil wasn't as bad.
  I believe we're all sinful, and thus all deserve to die, even children. It was only through grace in the first place that God had allowed them to continue in the first place (even going back to the Garden, where Adam and Eve deserved death for breaking their only command from God). God chose the Israelites and didn't punish them as they deserved (usually, they frequently turned away and were punished as well). It's harsh, but just, though I definitely see it as a difficult passage to understand.
  That said, I'm glad I live in the New Testament time, where forgiveness is freely given.
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
24. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by tomhudson · 2010-04-13 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  So then you'd be a proponent of same-sex marriage, to "reduce the amount of sin in the world", right? BTW, we have same-sex marriage here and the country didn't descend into hell - quite the contrary.
  Now about that command from god - "do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" - how could you know it was evil, or wrong, to do so unless you already had the knowledge of good and evil? There's no "boot-strap".
  Its why, for example, when we let minors testify in court, we first question them so that we're sure they understand what telling the truth involves, and why they should - "because it's wrong not to."
  Seems to me the only one to blame here is god for releasing a model with incomplete software a la Toyota.
25. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by Bakkster · 2010-04-13 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  So then you'd be a proponent of same-sex marriage, to "reduce the amount of sin in the world", right? BTW, we have same-sex marriage here and the country didn't descend into hell - quite the contrary.
  As far as my religious belief, there is no such thing as a gay marriage. A marriage is one man and one woman. As such, any sex between two people of the same gender is adultry because it is outside the confines of marriage. Thus, there is still the same sin, and I don't believe the Church should condone a relationship based on sin.
  That said, I don't think that simply commiting adultry is reason to be kicked out or extricated from the church. Everyone sins, and everyone who asks is forgiven. So the only problem is when the church says "this lifestyle of adultry is acceptable in these circumstances" when it condones gay marriage. It turns the proper perspective of 'I am sinful, but try not to be' on its head, making it 'I am planning to continue sining, and I don't care'.
  Outside of my church and my religion, I have no objection to gay marriages or civil unions, since they don't follow the same purpose or requirements. I don't even think that state recognized civil unions need to be between people 'in love', just two people with an exclusive connection for legal and tax purposes.
  
  Now about that command from god - "do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" - how could you know it was evil, or wrong, to do so unless you already had the knowledge of good and evil? There's no "boot-strap".
  Its why, for example, when we let minors testify in court, we first question them so that we're sure they understand what telling the truth involves, and why they should - "because it's wrong not to."
  Seems to me the only one to blame here is god for releasing a model with incomplete software a la Toyota.
  Well, I believe God knew that it was going to happen. I don't think God truly intended for us to be little naiive automatons, we were meant to have free will to choose to do good or evil, so as to bring honor to him when we do good. That said, I don't think Adam nor Eve knew what they did was wrong or sinful. However, that doesn't change an outside analysis of whether it was, in fact, wrong.
  It comes down to your point of view as to how you feel about this. I assume you consider the Admiral Ackbar "It's a trap!" perspective correct.
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
26. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by tomhudson · 2010-04-13 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  That said, I don't think Adam nor Eve knew what they did was wrong or sinful.
  
  And this is one of the reasons I finally rejected christianity - when man's laws are both more compassionate, more just, and more reasonable than gods, god can take a long walk off a short peer. We do not condemn people for doing things they didn't know were wrong. You didn't know the mushrooms were poisonous, we don't throw you in jail for murder. You didn't know that the brakes would fail, we don't hold you responsible for killing someone with your Toyota. You didn't know that the person was allergic to peanut butter, we don't charge you with assault with a deadly weapon for spreading their jam with the same knife.
  Or, to paraphrase you, it doesn't change that an outside analysis shows that god is unjust, imperfect, a lousy father and a miserable pr*ck.
  But let's look at another question. Another slashdotter was unable (actually, refused, after I answered EVERY prior objection) to answer this one:
  What happens with a transsexual who is also a believer?
  Should the church consider it okay for her to marry a man, since she is legally a woman, even though genetically she is XY? Or is this a "same-sex wedding" in god's eyes?
  Or should she only be allowed to marry a woman, since she is genetically XY? It might "look" like a lesbian relationship, but god knows better (he sees the hidden places and all that)?
  And no, male-to-female transsexuals are not eunuchs - they can have (multiple) orgasms, same as any other woman, so no "they can't marry either one, because they are eunuchs".
  Or to put it on a personal basis - would YOU marry a transsexual (either male-to-female or female-to-male)? If not, why not? If so, why so.
27. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by Bakkster · 2010-04-14 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  That said, I don't think Adam nor Eve knew what they did was wrong or sinful.
  And this is one of the reasons I finally rejected christianity - when man's laws are both more compassionate, more just, and more reasonable than gods, god can take a long walk off a short peer. We do not condemn people for doing things they didn't know were wrong. You didn't know the mushrooms were poisonous, we don't throw you in jail for murder. You didn't know that the brakes would fail, we don't hold you responsible for killing someone with your Toyota. You didn't know that the person was allergic to peanut butter, we don't charge you with assault with a deadly weapon for spreading their jam with the same knife.
  Of course we punish people for commiting crimes they didn't know were committing! Haven't you heard? Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
  Beyond that, intent isn't always taken into account: note involuntary manslaughter is a crime. As for justice, we have DAs prosecuting teens on child porn and statutory rape charges when both are under age, often resulting in being registered sex offenders.
  Both heard God's command (do not eat of the tree in the middle of the garden) and the consequences (you will die), yet ate it anyways. Whether or not they knew disobedience was wrong, they still disobeyed. Your examples show ignorance of the cause and effect, while Eve and Adam were not ignorant of God's command. If your Toyota example referred to someone who drove his car even after a mechanic told him not to because the brake cable would snap, you better believe he's getting manslaughter if he kills somebody.
  
  What happens with a transsexual who is also a believer?
  Should the church consider it okay for her to marry a man, since she is legally a woman, even though genetically she is XY? Or is this a "same-sex wedding" in god's eyes?
  I will assume they became a transsexual before they became a believer, as I doubt a (strong) believer would undergo 'gender reassignment'.
  Firstly, what the state says doesn't enter into it. Do they have XY? They are a man, end of story, regardless of what they do with surgery and hormones. As you said, God sees the hidden places and formed us in the womb. I also doubt he very much likes 'gender reassignment' for this reason.
  As for whether it is a sin for them (for example, XY transgender male and XX female) to marry, I don't think so. I think any sin would have been the 'gender reassignment', but if they have been forgiven for that I can't think of any sin they would be committing in marriage (since my reading of 'sodomy' refers to actual gender, not sex organs), although I think a case could be made against sexual attraction to someone who looks like a member of your own gender (which could be a sin for the non-transgender person).
  If they should marry is another matter. I can think of two verses (conveniently adjacent) off the top of my head which would provide guidance. 1 Corinthians 7:36-38, speaking of whether it is wrong to take the virginity of an older woman.
  
  If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.
  My thought is that wrt transsexuals, they would be better to stay unmarried if both they and their significant other have agreed that it is best. However, if they are unable to control other sexual sins without being married (which we assume is
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
28. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by tomhudson · 2010-04-14 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Of course we punish people for commiting crimes they didn't know were committing! Haven't you heard? Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
  
  Actually, it's a fine excuse, and used all the time in court. It's hard to get a criminal conviction without mens rea - the criminal intent.
  
  What happens with a transsexual who is also a believer?
  Should the church consider it okay for her to marry a man, since she is legally a woman, even though genetically she is XY? Or is this a "same-sex wedding" in god's eyes?
  
  I will assume they became a transsexual before they became a believer, as I doubt a (strong) believer would undergo 'gender reassignment'.
  
  You would assume wrong in many cases. While people are born gender-incongruent, the environmental pressures to deny it, to suppress it, and to conform to "norms" are strong. Transsexuals don't see surgery as changing their sex so much as affirming their sex and correcting a mistake. For anyone to say to a transsexual woman "you're a man" is not just an insult, it was also never true.
  
  Firstly, what the state says doesn't enter into it. Do they have XY? They are a man, end of story, regardless of what they do with surgery and hormones. As you said, God sees the hidden places and formed us in the womb. I also doubt he very much likes 'gender reassignment' for this reason.
  
  ... and we now know that the part of the brain that controls your gender identity is associated with a specific area of your brain, and that a gene in m2f transsexuals doesn't activate fully in the presence of testosterone, leading to less or no functional differentiation in that part of the brain from the default female configuration, and results in gender incongruity - and it starts in the womb in the 1st trimester. Transsexuals are born, not made, and it all has to do with prenatal hormones and the fetus' genetic makeup.
  It literally is the case of "a woman's brain in a man's body."
  You wouldn't like it. But worse, you wouldn't like being forced to conform to something you aren't. And yet christians are always telling other christians that they cannot get a sex change, it's wrong, they need to "pray it away". Of course, it can't be done - they were MADE that way. It would be like asking someone to pray to change their skin or eye color.
  Here's something to think of. If you know 100 people, then you probably know at least 5 who either have struggled with, or are currently struggling with their gender, at least some of the time. If you're like most people, you've run into several thousand people over the course of your life, so you've certainly interacted with at least one male-to-female transsexual without even knowing it, and you accepted that they were a woman. You may have even felt a twinge of lust in your heart.
  
  I would not marry a transsexual.
  
  If she didn't tell you, how would you know?
  Seriously ... if she didn't tell you, how WOULD you know? Do you think you can tell just by looking at one? By talking to them? Transsexuals aren't all 6'2" with hands the size of basketballs and size 13 shoes.
  And why should she tell you? Do you feel you need to disclose that you had your appendix taken out at 13, or that you had a broken bone set at 17, or that you had a cavity filled at 15, or laser eye surgery at 25, or a measles vaccination when you were a kid? Should she disclose to you that she was raped and beaten by the last man she was in love with when she told him? Or that her family rejects her because they put their religious dogma over any family ties? Or that they put up with years of being bullied in school?
  This is actually a topic of debate - the whole "when do you tell" question. But what I am asking is, how would you know, and what would you do if, after you were married, you found out that the person you love had had a sex change? "What god has joined, let no man put asunder."
29. Re:Cue the Nibiru quacks by Bakkster · 2010-04-14 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it's a fine excuse, and used all the time in court. It's hard to get a criminal conviction without mens rea - the criminal intent.
  Well, back on topic, I don't think that doesn't apply to the story in the Garden. Adam was told not to eat the fruit in the middle of the garden, Eve knew that as well, and both knew the consequences. Perhaps they didn't do it with malice (as in, to spite God), but that simply would have changed the charge (were this a criminal trial). Yet, sin requires no intent to commit (Romans 7), and again we fortunately can be forgiven.
  
  You would assume wrong in many cases. While people are born gender-incongruent, the environmental pressures to deny it, to suppress it, and to conform to "norms" are strong. Transsexuals don't see surgery as changing their sex so much as affirming their sex and correcting a mistake. For anyone to say to a transsexual woman "you're a man" is not just an insult, it was also never true.
  ... and we now know that the part of the brain that controls your gender identity is associated with a specific area of your brain, and that a gene in m2f transsexuals doesn't activate fully in the presence of testosterone, leading to less or no functional differentiation in that part of the brain from the default female configuration, and results in gender incongruity - and it starts in the womb in the 1st trimester. Transsexuals are born, not made, and it all has to do with prenatal hormones and the fetus' genetic makeup.
  Obviously, I am not an expert in gender incongruity or the conditions which cause it. I'm willing to admit that I'm probably totally off-base with some of my assumptions. That said, I still think my initial assessment (though slightly burried) is reasonable for a transgender relationship: it's probably equivalent to a homosexual relationship for one or the other.
  
  You wouldn't like it. But worse, you wouldn't like being forced to conform to something you aren't. And yet christians are always telling other christians that they cannot get a sex change, it's wrong, they need to "pray it away". Of course, it can't be done - they were MADE that way. It would be like asking someone to pray to change their skin or eye color.
  Here is where I will readily admit: I have no clue. If we're talking a physical condition with a mental manifestation (inability to produce a hormone, etc), then that's beyond my knowledge. They would have to study themselves and preferably with someone who has studied this topic specifically. I wouldn't hold it against them if they had done so and were convinced it was not a sin. On the contrary, are you aware what proportion (if any) of gender uncertainty has no known physical cause?
  All that said, even assuming it is a sin, I wouldn't call it unforgiveable, though I would again need to defer to someone who has actually studied this topic. Personally, I have other topics of more personal importance that I spend my time with, though I'm glad you've piqued my interest.
  
  Should she disclose to you that she was raped and beaten by the last man she was in love with when she told him? Or that her family rejects her because they put their religious dogma over any family ties? Or that they put up with years of being bullied in school?
  This is actually a topic of debate - the whole "when do you tell" question. But what I am asking is, how would you know, and what would you do if, after you were married, you found out that the person you love had had a sex change? "What god has joined, let no man put asunder."
  I think that level of trust and love to let each other into your secret life is important. Why should you not tell your husband/wife not tell you? Either they think it's unimportant (which perhaps covers your bullying and such), they don't trust you (huge red flag), or they are deliberately attempting to mislead you. This is all important if you a
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
Probably has water by Meshach · 2010-04-09 08:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

FTA:

Using the Gemini Observatory, follow-up spectroscopic analysis has detected methane and water vapor in its atmosphere

I think that the discovery of water is very interesting. And with organic compounds existing there (in the liked article) this could be a very important discovery in our quest to understand the universe.

--
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
1. Re:Probably has water by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-04-09 08:54 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  On top of that,
  
  It could have a surface temperature as low as 400 Kelvin, even cooler than the team's previous record of slightly below 500 K
  That's only ~127 Celsius, 27 degrees above water's boiling point. That temperature range is far from uninhabitable. Combine the organic compounds with methane and water and a relatively moderate surface temperature and I would say that we have a prime example of one very possible location for life outside of our own solar system. That's pretty damn exciting.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
2. Re:Probably has water by MartinSchou · 2010-04-09 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  That's only ~127 Celsius, 27 degrees above water's boiling point.
  Unless the surface of it just happens to have an atmospheric pressure of 1,013.25 hectopascals that is incorrect. Water boils at 100C at our sea-level atmospheric pressure. At the top of Mount Everest it's only 69C.
  While the temperature may be survivable, there's no guarantee that water will be anything but gas at the surface.
3. Re:Probably has water by jameskojiro · 2010-04-09 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Chemical Life ON a star, that is pretty darned mind blowing!
  What about if there was a companion planet that orbited closely around it? Life could live there as the energy could come from tidal heating and IR radiation from the Brown Dwarf.
  
  --
  Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
4. Re:Probably has water by Lord+Ender · 2010-04-09 09:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Hm? Wouldn't one expect a star to have a much denser atmosphere due to the high gravity?
  
  --
  A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
5. Re:Probably has water by Frequency+Domain · 2010-04-09 10:54 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's not a star . Brown dwarfs generate enough heat at their cores to maintain convection between the core and the surface, which keeps elements from differentiating (separating out), but they don't have enough mass to sustain fusion, which is required to be considered a star.
6. Re:Probably has water by butalearner · 2010-04-09 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  I would think so too. Oddly enough brown dwarfs always have a radius comparable to Jupiter, but the mass is going to be many times greater (has to be at least 13 Jupiter masses to be considered a brown dwarf).
7. Re:Probably has water by MartinSchou · 2010-04-09 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's been quite a while since I studied physics (high school), but I'm fairly certain that the density of an atmosphere isn't a function of the gravity of the body.
  Compare Venus and Earth
  Gravity:
  Earth: 1g,
  Venus: 0.904 g
  Atmospheric pressure at surface
  Earth: 1.013.25 hPa
  Venus: 93,000 hPa
  Mean surface temperature:
  Earth: 287K
  Venus: 735K
  Water's boiling point at surface:
  Earth: 373K
  Venus: 556K (I think. Had to calculate it, as I couldn't find any easy look-up tables for it)
  Anyway, the point is that an atmosphere's density is not a function of the body's gravitational field, but of the gasses that surround it.
8. Re:Probably has water by Lord+Ender · 2010-04-10 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  I would assume it to me a function of several things, radius and gravity being among the most important.
  Why don't very small bodies have thick atmospheres?
  
  --
  A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
9. Re:Probably has water by sznupi · 2010-04-10 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, looking at oceans (and airborne bacteria)...you don't really need surface for life to thrive.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
10. Re:Probably has water by sznupi · 2010-04-10 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  It basically is the function of the body's gravitational field for bodies that are, basically, composed only of the atmosphere.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
11. Re:Probably has water by MartinSchou · 2010-04-10 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously you need a gravity to hold an atmosphere in place. But it's not the gravity that decides how much you get - you only need to compare Mars, Venus, Earth to see that. Mars, 1/3rd gravity of Earth, 1% of the atmosphere and Venus 90% of Earth's gravity, 90 times as thick an atmosphere. After all, it makes little sense that two such closely related planets as Earth and Venus to have such hugely differing atmospheres, if gravity and radius were the primary contributors.
  It's not a matter of the magnetic field protecting the atmosphere from being swept away, as Venus barely has a magnetic field. The Venus Orbiter placed the magnetic field at 10^-5 of that of Earth's.
  But it'd be an interesting thought experiment to know, what kind of atmospheric pressure the Earth would have, if we vaporized our oceans. The oceans contains something like 1.35 × 10^21 kg water. Compare that to the atmosphere which only weighs in at 5 × 10^18 kg. It'd have an effect, definitely, but how much?
12. Re:Probably has water by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-04-12 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  So far as I know, there is no requirement for life to exist that needs water in a liquid state. For all we know, there could be some micro-bacteria something-anothers that could thrive by floating about in gaseous water.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
It's going to get us! by SailorSpork · 2010-04-09 08:27 · Score: 2, Funny

I like how the title implies that having "rogue" brown dwarf "lurking" close by is some sort of security threat. WATCH OUT, IT MAY HAVE WMD'S!!!!!111one
I think we should greet it with open arms and set up McDonald's and Starbuck's franchises as soon as we can to show it that we welcome it as a neighbor!
1. Re:It's going to get us! by Jeng · 2010-04-09 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  If an object such as this drifted into our solar system it could very possibly be the end of us all.
  It could come into contact with the Earth or one of the other planets in the solar system knocking planets out of orbit. It doesn't even need to actually make contact to toss a planet out of its orbit even.
  If an object such as this drifted into our solar system we might as well party till we die cause there won't be much that we could do to prevent our demise.
  Image the Earth drifting out beyond the Oort Cloud, frozen and dark with the sun nothing more than another star in the sky.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
2. Re:It's going to get us! by MiniMike · 2010-04-09 08:44 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I think we should greet it with open arms and set up McDonald's and Starbuck's franchises as soon as we can to show it that we welcome it as a neighbor!
  That will only greatly increase its mass and make it more dangerous!
3. Re:It's going to get us! by myowntrueself · 2010-04-09 09:16 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  OMG, how come it's always the BROWN dwarves that scare people so much, and nobody ever seems to worry about the white ones?
  Well since its a BROWN one you can expect that the US military will bomb it any time now!
  Thats their job in the world; if its brown bomb the fuck out of it!
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
4. Re:It's going to get us! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2010-04-09 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  I like how the title implies that having "rogue" brown dwarf "lurking" close by is some sort of security threat. WATCH OUT, IT MAY HAVE WMD'S!!!!!111one
  Security threat? It depends. A dwarf rogue...are these often chaotic evil or what?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
5. Re:It's going to get us! by DrVxD · 2010-04-09 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Fortunately, it's 10 light years away - so even if it were heading for us, by the time it gets here everyone who's reading this will be long gone.
  
  --
  Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
6. Re:It's going to get us! by John+Hasler · 2010-04-09 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  > WATCH OUT, IT MAY HAVE WMD'S
  If it had nukes it would be a star, not a brown dwarf.
  
  --
  Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
7. Re:It's going to get us! by Teun · 2010-04-09 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  I think we should greet it with open arms and set up McDonald's and Starbuck's franchises as soon as we can to show it that we welcome it as a neighbor!
  Yeah and they have WIFI!
  But I worry about the ping times...
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
8. Re:It's going to get us! by Hognoxious · 2010-04-09 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  What makes you think any of that shit is likely to happen? I mean, there's a star that's much bigger and twice as close.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
9. Re:It's going to get us! by calmond · 2010-04-10 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it could be a threat according to this theory: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/nemesis-comets-earth-am-100311.html It basically says that since extinction events on earth occur every 26 Million years, the orbit of an as-yet-unknown brown dwarf may be causing impacts on earth that lead to these extinction events.
10. Re:It's going to get us! by sznupi · 2010-04-10 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Image the Earth drifting out beyond the Oort Cloud, frozen and dark with the sun nothing more than another star in the sky.
  Earth would go into massive "ice age" (with even most of the atmosphere eventually freezing) and we would learn to live much more sustainably in what would be essentially underwater habitats, probably. Sure, population would be vastly reduced in the process, but we wouldn't die out...
  Thanks to the solidifying of the atmosphere, reaching space would become much easier. Which we would use on the first appropriate occasion to reach something more habitable (if it would be even required for us by then)
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
11. Re:It's going to get us! by sznupi · 2010-04-10 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Brown dwarfs are obsolete as far as causing extinction events goes. We are in the middle of a quite serious and rapid one. All it took to cause it is...us.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
12. Re:It's going to get us! by DrVxD · 2010-04-12 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  That won't help much; all they'll do is criminalise being a failed star.
  
  --
  Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
Ugly name by gmuslera · 2010-04-09 08:29 · Score: 1

What about calling it Nemesis? Maybe is not as close as it is supposed to be, but is the best candidate so far.
Unstable Planets by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-09 08:29 · Score: 1, Funny

If this brown dwarf is truly "rogue" and "lurking in our cosmic neighborhood", then there's only one way to deal with it.
Gimli is in space? by DRAGONWEEZEL · 2010-04-09 08:33 · Score: 4, Funny

He's the coolest brown dwarf I know of too, but how did he get out there?

--
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
1. Re:Gimli is in space? by swanzilla · 2010-04-09 08:42 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  He's the coolest brown dwarf I know of too...
  What you talkin' 'bout Willis?
  
  --
  0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
2. Re:Gimli is in space? by BobNET · 2010-04-09 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  how did he get out there?
  Somebody tossed a dwarf?
Pretty close... by Notquitecajun · 2010-04-09 08:36 · Score: 4, Informative

This chart http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/extra/nearest.html lists the closest objects to earth. The brown dwarf (being a failed brown dwarf and found recently...howzabout calling it FAIL) is about the 12th closest object to our solar system.
1. Re:Pretty close... by QuestionsNotAnswers · 2010-04-09 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  If we do a histogram of that data we get:
  Bin . . . Frequency 02.5 . . . 1 05.0 . . . 3 07.5 . . . 3 10.0 . . . 3 12.5 . . . 5 15.0 . . . 7 More . . . 4 If we have trouble finding "dimmer" stars, there could be a lot of them (Bunch of presumptions, including that the "more" category is small because we are having trouble finding dim stars!!!).
  
  --
  Happy moony
Matter of opinion by glwtta · 2010-04-09 08:43 · Score: 1

For starters, it's the coolest brown dwarf ever discovered

Maybe to astronomers, but most people will think it's pretty lame.

--
sic transit gloria mundi
Re:Perception... by ShadowRangerRIT · 2010-04-09 08:55 · Score: 2, Funny

I hate you, and wish to burn your newsletter.

--
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Alpha Centauri by thoughtsatthemoment · 2010-04-09 09:21 · Score: 1

The closest star system to ours, Alpha Centauri, is 4.37 light years away. People there might not agree that it's just our neighborhood.
1. Re:Alpha Centauri by dark_requiem · 2010-04-09 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, they don't think much of us Earth-centric monkeys. Hell, the plans to doze Earth to make way for a new hyperspace bypass have been sitting in their offices for months, and we haven't even bothered to send someone to look them over!
Well... by catdevnull · 2010-04-09 09:22 · Score: 1

Well, there's goes the cosmic neighborhood...

--

I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Re:Dark Matter? by jameskojiro · 2010-04-09 09:26 · Score: 1

Np, the dark matter scientists are looking for is tied up in the form of the packing material for the instuments that scientists use to look for the dark matter.

--
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Re:Dark Matter? by NotBornYesterday · 2010-04-09 09:28 · Score: 1

No.

--
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Closer Brown Dwarf than this... by jameskojiro · 2010-04-09 09:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just wait till we start getting results back from WISE, we may find some Brown Dwarfs that are close than this and maybe even some that are gravitationally bound to our own sun making us a binary or trinary system....
I think it would be cool if we found a brown dwarf closer than 1LY fron earth that we could use as a testing ground for interstellar probes.

--
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Re:Perception... by idontgno · 2010-04-09 09:49 · Score: 1

Jahava is promptly stunlocked to death by the subtlety-spec gnome rogue he wasn't expecting.
Yeah, they're pretty overpowered.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
My old nemesis by smcdow · 2010-04-09 09:57 · Score: 1

Me: UGPSJ0722-05.
UGPSJ0722-05: We meet again.
Me: It's been a long time.

--
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
Rogue drivers by Zaai · 2010-04-09 10:15 · Score: 1

It is hard enough to deal with rogue drivers here on the planet. Now I have to look out for rogue planets and stars too! Whats next, rogue fish?
1. Re:Rogue drivers by onepoint · 2010-04-09 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  why yes
  Mega Piranha
  http://video.syfy.com/movies_events/syfy_saturday/promos_trailers_8/mega-piranha/v1213554
  
  --
  if you see me, smile and say hello.
wait a minute... by aminorex · 2010-04-09 10:20 · Score: 1

that's no brown dwarf!

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
That's no moon! by Arancaytar · 2010-04-09 10:29 · Score: 1

(...)
That's offensive! by Chris+Mattern · 2010-04-09 11:29 · Score: 1

It's "unconventional height-challenged person of color," and they don't lurk, they add diversity to our neighborhood!
Make up your mind by Frequency+Domain · 2010-04-09 11:38 · Score: 1

Is it rouge, or is it brown?
Oh. Never mind.
Re:Why exactly is this a rogue brown dwarf? by thoughtsatthemoment · 2010-04-09 12:33 · Score: 1

If it had a chance to collide with us, then it's something. Otherwise there is nothing unusual, as it could very well be what's left of a solar system that has run it's course. We may be looking at the eventual fate of our own sun, when the energy is exhausted and planets escaped.
Nibiru! by GastronomicalEvent · 2010-04-09 13:23 · Score: 1

NIbiru! Nasa has been keeping the secret for years

/sarcasm
And UKIRT has no funding after this year. :( by Shag · 2010-04-09 14:18 · Score: 1

The UK's Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC - note similarity to STFU) decided not long ago, in its infinite wisdom, that UKIRT - the UK's national infrared telescope, and the 2nd-largest telescope in the world devoted to infrared astronomy - didn't actually need to keep getting any funding. This latest chunk of interesting/meaningful science or "stuff that matters" shows how myopic that kind of move is.
(And I'm not just saying that because I once observed on UKIRT...)

--
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Dyson Sphere? by tagno25 · 2010-04-09 20:30 · Score: 1

How do we know it is not a type 2 Dyson sphere?
1. Re:Dyson Sphere? by knirps · 2010-04-12 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  I missed this earlier reference to Dyson Spheres. Actually, we do NOT know it's not a Dyson Sphere, but I suspect it's being discussed at JPL and other places. It would be very interesting to get some kind of mass estimate for the object, but with nothing orbiting it and it not in a orbit around anything obvious, that might be difficult.
Coincidence? by RichiH · 2010-04-10 02:39 · Score: 1

Is it really that surprising that they found a very cool, and thus faint, brown dwarf nearby?
This is a serious question. Sure, space is large and everything, but (common) faint stuff should be easier to find nearby.
As an aside, I am always thrilled when interesting things are found nearby. Sure, 10 light years is a long way, but it might be feasible to reach with robot probes within a generation or ten. Add ten years of time for the information to travel back and we have More Data. :)
But for a lot less money and a lot less time... by jeffb+(2.718) · 2010-04-10 05:29 · Score: 1

...we could probably build and deploy a set of space telescopes with REALLY big primaries and REALLY big baselines. I'm talking big enough to resolve surface detail on this object, and objects much further away. I see a lot more payoff along that path, including pushing technologies that will make true interstellar probes more practical.
Folding space... by Yfrwlf · 2010-04-12 01:48 · Score: 1

...is the only way to travel in short periods of time unless you want to cure aging so you actually live to see your destination.

--
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
Dyson Sphere by knirps · 2010-04-12 11:53 · Score: 1

I'm surprised that no one here has suggested the possibility that it might be a Dyson Sphere - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson. (apologies if I missed it) The surface temperature is not wildly different than the 300K predicted by Sagan in "The Infrared Detectability of Dyson Civilizations" (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1966ApJ...144.1216S). This could be very interesting, indeed. We may have just "made contact".