Dying Star Betelgeuse Spews Fiery Nebula

astroengine writes "Betelgeuse is dying a nasty death. The star is in the final, violent stages of its life, shedding vast amounts of stellar material into space as it quickly approaches a supernova demise. But now, with the help of the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope, Betelgeuse's extended nebula has come to light. Comprised of silica and alumina dust, ESO astronomers have been able to image the nebula in infrared wavelengths for the first time. This is the most detailed view we've ever had of the imminent death of a titanic red supergiant star."

Comments

How soon is soon?

[Hatta]

Can we expect Betelgeuse to go supernova in our lifetimes?

Re:How soon is soon?

[Infiniti2000]

If so, then it has already gone supernova. But, no one can yet provide a realistic guess as to when it will self-terminate.

Re:How soon is soon?

[Infiniti2000]

Well actually, it already happened years ago (thousands, millions?). So soon may already be in the past... depending on where we are at the time....

my monkey brain hurts

Do you not realize that Betelgeuse is only 640 light-years away? I.e., if it went supernova more than 640 years ago, we would know? Monkey brain indeed.

Re:How soon is soon?

[Anonymous Coward]

When will then be now?

Re:How soon is soon?

[Joce640k]

According to Wikipedia it's about 640 light years away so that's the maximum delay before we see it die.

It also says "Betelgeuse is expected to explode as a type II supernova, possibly within the next million years" so it doesn't seem to have happened yet.

Re:How soon is soon?

[MozeeToby]

It generally makes more sense to think about the timing of individual events in terms of when the event's light cone gets to us. Granted, Betelgeuse is in a similar reference frame to us, but that doesn't change the fact that there's no such thing as simultaneity at astronomical scales. The exact time it happened relative to earth isn't the same time it happened relative to somewhere else, and even the apparent time on Earth would be different if measured by an observer moving in one direction or another relative to Earth.

Re:How soon is soon?

[icebike]

In the Future Semiconditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional tense, yes it would, but in the present tense (on-book haventa forewhen presooning returningwenta retrohome) its a toss up.

Re:How soon is soon?

[jfmiller]

Let's rephrase the question then: Can we expect to observe Betelgeuse going supernove in our lifetimes?

Re:How soon is soon?

[RoverDaddy]

Soon.

Re:How soon is soon?

[NatasRevol]

Because material travels faster than light??

Re:How soon is soon?

[Gilmoure]

Wait, what century is this?

Damn it! It's not the fall of the second American Empire but the first. Gonna totally have to re-write my term paper now!

Re:How soon is soon?

[arth1]

According to Wikipedia it's about 640 light years away so that's the maximum delay before we see it die.

I'd argue that the star hasn't died yet until the information about its demise could theoretically have reached the observer.

There isn't such thing as a universe time on which events can be noted to have happened. Time is always a local phenomenon.
If you were to travel with the photons from Betelguese to Earth (impossible as it is), your journey would take 640 years from the point of view of someone infinitely far away with an infinitely powerful telescope, but from your point of view, it would not - the explosion just happened for you.

Re:How soon is soon?

[Anonymous Coward]

... you are aware that supernovas give off... how shall I put this delicately... a massive fuckton of light, right?

Re:How soon is soon?

[gmuslera]

"Next millon years"... and how much considering that now reached the stage that we are seeing now? No matter if have been 640 years ago, the problem is when we will see it, considering what are we seeing right now.

Re:How soon is soon?

[gstoddart]

According to Wikipedia it's about 640 light years away

Bah, 640 light years out to be enough for anybody. :-P

And, slightly more on topic, I love some of the verb tenses that arise from contemplating such distances ... "In the future, we will know if the star has already died sometime between 640 years ago and now". It really does hurt my head.

Re:How soon is soon?

[Pausanias]

It has a roughly uniform chance of supernova within the next million years. So one in a million chance that it will go off this year.

Re:How soon is soon?

[chemicaldave]

I was under the impression that it could be observed anywhere from right now to 10,000 years from now. So don't get your hopes up.

Re:How soon is soon?

[D'Eyncourt]

The answer is: no one (yet) knows. The light from the now-supernova of Betelgeuse might get to Earth just as I'm typing this or anytime in the next million years.

Re:How soon is soon?

[mcgrew]

Looks like the Vogons decided to reroute that hyperspace bypass! Phew!

Re:How soon is soon?

[nospam007]

"Can we expect to observe Betelgeuse going supernove in our lifetimes?"

Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse!
About now.

Re:How soon is soon?

[stealth_finger]

a massive fuckton of light, right?

Is that the technical term?

Re:How soon is soon?

[mcgrew]

Time is an illusion. Especially lunch time.

Re:How soon is soon?

[MozeeToby]

Time is an illusion. Lunch time doubly so.

FTFY

Re:How soon is soon?

[mcgrew]

Someone please mod parent up some more! Interesting, insightful, AND informative (informative to most here anyway, considering some of the other comments).

Re:How soon is soon?

[TheABomb]

Massive fucktons are heavy, not light.

Re:How soon is soon?

[SpongeBob Hitler]

a massive fuckton of light, right?

Is that the technical term?

No. The technical term is an Imperial Fuckton.

Re:How soon is soon?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's expected to be observable from Earth on December 21, 2012. ;)

Re:How soon is soon?

[HornWumpus]

Photons might not have rest mass but they have mass.

Massive fucktons are massive not heavy. Enough high energy photons equal a massive fuckton.

Re:How soon is soon?

[Dogtanian]

There isn't such thing as a universe time on which events can be noted to have happened.

What really baked my noodle was discovering that theoretically in certain cases, events can be seen occurring in a different order depending on one's viewpoint. And that (in the spirit of Relativity) both these orders are "correct", or rather, there is no definitive order more "correct" than the other.

This doesn't create problems with causality because it can (apparently) only happen in cases where the two events are separated by sufficient distance that neither could possibly have *caused* the other (since the effects of either event can never propogate to the location of the other faster than the speed of light).

Re:How soon is soon?

[Culture20]

a massive fuckton of light, right?

Is that the technical term?

No. The technical term is an Imperial Fuckton.

If NASA would have just been using Metric Fucktons, we'd have some Astronauts still with us today.

Re:How soon is soon?

[Quirkz]

One in a million? That means it's practically guaranteed, right?

Re:How soon is soon?

[duhjim]

Time is an illusion. Especially lunch time.

Time is a fun house mirror.

Re:How soon is soon?

[RockDoctor]

And, slightly more on topic, I love some of the verb tenses that arise from contemplating such distances ... "In the future, we will know if the star has already died sometime between 640 years ago and now". It really does hurt my head.

Send your head back to the designer for refund or repair.

I believe that there are many organisations purporting to represent the designer, and each one of them is potentially liable for their designer's error(s), if they pass on the designs as being fit for use.

If you don't like the design, sue the distributors and let them pass the costs on to the manufacturers..

I suspect this could also realistically apply if you are harmed by flaws in the original structure's designs, e.g. poor reaction times, poor shock resistance. So sue the designer's representatives. Sue them hard, and let them reclaim their costs from the designer, if they can get the purported designer to appear in court.

Awesome

[mistiry]

I'm amazed that humans are able to see extra-terrestrial events with such detail.

What's even crazier is that we know more about outer space than we do about our oceans.

Oh, and, maybe...first post?

Re:Awesome

[odin84gk]

I'm amazed that humans are able to see extra-terrestrial events with such detail.

What's even crazier is that we know more about outer space than we do about our oceans.

Oh, and, maybe...first post?

I truly hate this statement. We DO NOT understand outer space more than our oceans.

We don't understand outer space enough to ask the proper questions. People are making assumptions that planets outside of our solar system are composed of 118 elements, and that is all. (Just another hunk of rock/gas)... This is a dumb assumption to make.

Our oceans are finite, so there are a finite number of questions to ask. Space, to our understanding, is infinite. Therefore, we will never understand outer space as well as we can know our own oceans.

Re:Awesome

[starfishsystems]

I'm amazed that humans are able to see extra-terrestrial events with such detail.

Ah, that's where you're mistaken. You have to read the article carefully. It says that the ESO astronomers are "comprised of silica and alumina dust." They're not human at all!

Re:Awesome

[Normal Dan]

What's even crazier is that we know more about outer space than we do about our oceans.

How is knowledge quantified here?

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't the point that we DO know more about outer space than we do about our oceans (in terms of raw data available)

NOT

that we WILL know more about outer space than we can ever about our oceans at some unspecified point in the future as your argument concludes.

while your conclusion is probably correct it doesn't relate to the original statement.

Re:Awesome

[jawtheshark]

People are making assumptions that planets outside of our solar system are composed of 118 elements, and that is all. This is a dumb assumption to make.

May I ask why it is a dumb assumption to make, that everything existing is composed of the matter we know? Many elements (like gold) are made in events like these: supernovas, as normal stellar fusion allows only elements up to iron to be synthesized within stars.

What do you suggest anything else is made of? Antimatter? Why? It's not impossible, but very improbable and on top of that it wouldn't change all that much except we'd better never get into direct contact with such material.

Also keep in mind that from the scientific point of view, anything we cannot observe is indistinguishable from not existing. That doesn't mean that unobservable object/thing/essence/whatever doesn't exist, but it makes no scientific sense to talk about it. If the object/thing/essence/whatever finally is observed, then we can talk. Our Universe is defined by what we can observe. So if there is something that is so far away that it hasn't reached us yet by electromagnetic radiation (basically, "what we can observe"), it doesn't exist in our universe.

Re:Awesome

[QuantumLeaper]

Since we know what the Stars are made from mainly Hydrogen gas, we can make a good guess that the planets going around those star will be made of since all the planet in our solar system is made of them. If you only see one thing out there in space its unique but you see two then a good chance it something common, that goes for stars, planets and the rest.

Re:Awesome

[Pope]

Ignore, it's another one of those stupid new age hippie bullshit statements.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

What's even crazier is that we know more about outer space than we do about our oceans.
 
Just about anyone with the interest and a few thousand dollars can sit and observe the cosmos for hours a day. Can you say that about the oceans? More people have seen the stars than the ocean. It's more accessable and it's cheaper too. And that's not to even begin to touch on needed tons of equipment to be able to see more than a few feet deep or a few yards off the shore of an ocean.
 
What I find crazy is people who never thought about why we know more about the stars.

Re:Awesome

[BitZtream]

What's even crazier is that we know more about outer space than we do about our oceans.

Wrong. We THINK we know more about space than our own oceans.

The reality of it is, almost everything we think we know about space is highly speculative theory based on very bad observations, and we regularly find out that our theories are not only wrong, but were so far from right that its mind blowing that anyone came up with them in the first place.

Most of our space knowledge, ESPECIALLY about how stars work is based entirely on someones imagination in inventing some formulas that appear to match reality ... sometimes ... occasionally even most of the time, but scientists regularly talk about 'how supernovea work' but we've only observed a VERY VERY small number of them in our entire history, and for all intents and purposes none with modern equipment. The ones we have observed ... we speculate on what the data actually means based on more theories. In short, most of our knowledge of the universe is imaginary crap we made up and shoehorned into looking like reality matches.

Until VERY recently, the entire world thought their couldn't possibly be life anywhere else in our solar system because none of the planets/moons matched what we KNEW was how life worked ... then we find out ... even here on Earth ... we have life that 'could not possibly exist' according to most people in the field.

Then all of the sudden someone realized ... hey ... you know what ... life as we know it might ... just maybe ... NOT be the ONLY WAY it can happen.

We may not know shit about our oceans in the grand scheme of things, but we know billions of times more about them than we do about space, regardless of what any theoretical physicist or astrophysicist tries to make you believe. Try to remember what theory means. And then add onto that what most scientists talking about space call theories are actually nothing more than completely untested and often unbased hypothesis on the idea, they haven't even made it to theory yet, even though thats what they call it.

We've assumed until the last couple of years that all live was carbon based, must have water, needs oxygen or carbon and some other highly reactive element, and a hole bunch of things ... then we go find something in a mine, miles underground, that completely proves every accepted theory of live wrong, overnight, yet we still pretend we have a clue.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

People are making assumptions that planets outside of our solar system are composed of 118 elements, and that is all. (Just another hunk of rock/gas)... This is a dumb assumption to make.

We've done spectroscopy on extrasolar planets and found that they have lines that match up with known elements and molecules (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702507 for example, but there's been quite a few more publications since then on the subject). Not a dumb assumption at all.

In fact, just about all the work that has been done on the spectra of objects outside of our immediate neighborhood lines up very, very nicely with the assumption that it's all made of the same stuff. Outside of the more extreme objects (neutron stars, black holes, and to a lesser extent, white dwarfs), everything is made of the elements up through uranium or so (with stuff below iron more common, and hydrogen by far the most common). All in line with theory.

There's dark matter, too, and it isn't completely crazy to say that it could clump up and form "planets," but that a bit unlikely - the fact that DM doesn't interact other than via gravity means there's no way for clumps of DM to stick together like normal matter can.

Re:Awesome

[BitZtream]

That doesn't mean that unobservable object/thing/essence/whatever doesn't exist, but it makes no scientific sense to talk about it.

Really? It would appear that a lot of astrophysicist should be told this then cause they seem to have no problem talking about shit we've never observed like its fact.

When someone shows me the video of the big bang, and proof that they were there when it happened, I believe it, until then its just someones imaginary friend. Anything you speculator on without direct observation is pure speculation. They seem to forget that any number of things may have occurred before our observations started that could completely and totally change the perception of history because we simply don't have the knowledge of them and what they do.

For instance (and I realize I'll get called a nutter for this statement) there is absolutely no proof that carbon dating works long term. It is entirely possible (admittedly unlikely) that some sort of stellar event occurred 10k years ago, or during the last meteor impact, or solar flare hurricane or whatever, which completely messed with the decay rate of carbon14 for some short period of time that causes the ratios to change in a non-linear fashion. Do we know of anything that would cause this? Well, I don't, but until this year I didn't realize life could survive miles under ground for millions of years without sunlight or oxygen, and neither did most other scientists ... and now that we know it can happen, it can effect all sorts of theories about the evolution of life, right down to ... when did life REALLY start on planet Earth? Due to plate tectonics, its entirely possible life evolved before anything we've ever found, yet has been carried back to the mantle and there is no trace left for us to find. Continents and crust don't last forever. Does that mean it didn't happen, or that we're just morons for thinking we know what happened without actually having the full picture?

Interestingly enough, but ignoring the possibility, you're already being a completely shitty scientist for making assumptions that you (if you have a clue) know you can not possible prove or even have a educated guess on seems pretty standard for these guys ... they have no problem talking about shit they've never observed.

Re:Awesome

[tibit]

You have a bit of a point, but be very careful claiming that we found anything that "completely proves every accepted theory of live[sic] wrong, overnight" -- for there have been no such discoveries. For your statement to be true, the life would need to be truly extraordinary -- not using DNA and/or RNA, not using common energetic cycles, etc. I'm all ears to citations as to the contrary, but so far you're just way ahead of yourself. You have good intentions, but you know, hell is paved with those.

Re:Awesome

[rlseaman]

Astrophysics has as tightly constructed empirical investigations as any laboratory science. See for example, http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item2326793/

That you find astrophysics unpersuasive is itself unpersuasive.

Re:Awesome

[mcgrew]

That life as we know it is carbon based and needs water and oxygen is far more than just "theory". So far, fact fits theory. Even extremophiles are carbon based. When and if the facts prove theory wrong, the theory is modified or discarded.

Science is always changing. That's how it works. If science didn't work, engineering wouldn't work and that computer you're typing on wouldn't exist.

Re:Awesome

[Chris Mattern]

What's even crazier is that we know more about outer space than we do about our oceans.

Unless you are claiming that we do not understand the basic nature of 80% to 90% of the matter in the ocean, that is a bald-faced lie.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Space, to our understanding, is infinite.

I really hate this statement. Space is finite but unbounded: the canonical ant on the balloon's surface may be able to walk forever without encountering a wall but that doesn't mean the balloon itself is infinitely large.

Next:

People are making assumptions that planets outside of our solar system are composed of 118 elements, and that is all. (Just another hunk of rock/gas)... This is a dumb assumption to make.

And why, pray tell, is it a dumb assumption? Our understanding of nucleosynthesis is pretty good as such things go; why is assuming the existence of stars and planets composed of elements we know to be unstable a less dumb assumption?

Our oceans are finite, so there are a finite number of questions to ask. Space, to our understanding, is infinite. Therefore, we will never understand outer space as well as we can know our own oceans.

That's some pretty bad reasoning you have there. For one thing outer space is, for the most part, practically empty. If you mean the Universe as a whole than even the meanest of intelligence can see that it's harder to understand than all the oceans of the Earth because - for a start - the Universe includes all the oceans of the Earth.

If you can find a proper subset of A that's larger than A then you'll go down in history.

Re:Awesome

[HornWumpus]

Carbon dating is calibrated against tree ring and ice layer dates at the short end and other dating methods at the long end.

None of that will convince a young earth creationist, but sane skeptics are pretty much convinced. Changes in Carbon-14 would have to correspond to changes in other longer lived radioisotopes.

Re:Awesome

[jawtheshark]

Anything you speculator on without direct observation is pure speculation.

Stop right there... You're doing a Ken Ham, and I'd like you to read this

I've got mixed feelings

[93 Escort Wagon]

I've always loved looking at the stars, and a sky without Orion will be somewhat diminished. But, since this is going to happen anyway, I'd really like to see a spectacular supernova in my lifetime!

Re:I've got mixed feelings

[jd]

This was the basis of one of Fred Hoyle's many novels based on the science of the time. (He was an astrophysicist and used fiction as a means of exploring the implications of the science.) In short, his theory was that the supernova would cause such severe global change that it would essentially end civilization and borderline-end humanity.

Re:I've got mixed feelings

[circletimessquare]

betelgeuse is in orion's armpit, so it's only going to blow his arm off

luckily for orion the star that's going to blow isn't the one at the tip of his dick:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Orion_constelation_PP3_map_PL.jpg

oh wait... M42 already IS a nebula. he's already blown his interstellar load

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/nebulae/m42.html

cosmic spooge

apparently orion gets too easily sexually excited when he's hunting

wait, i'm sorry, it's not his dick, it's his SWORD

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Orionurania.jpg

riiiight

that's what the ancients were thinking?

riiight

Re:I've got mixed feelings

[blair1q]

Today is Fred Hoyle's birthday, it turns out.

http://www.todayinsci.com/6/6_24.htm

Re:I've got mixed feelings

[necro81]

Chances are pretty good that, even once it blows, the supernova remnant will be bright enough for long enough that Orion will still be recognizable as such. It won't be as bright, for certain, but there'll be a visible pinprick of light that will maintain the constellation for a while. Over hundreds and thousands of years it'll diminish, but we'll all be long dead by then.

Re:I've got mixed feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

Orion's cock is really his sword? Makes sense, did you know what "scabbard" is in Latin? See -> here <-

Re:I've got mixed feelings

[Teancum]

From a statical and historical perspective, we've been in an unseasonably long drought of supernovas throughout the sky in general. There may be some reasons for that which can be speculated based upon some theories for the position of our sun through the Milky Way, but it could be like tossing a coin ten times in a row and getting heads all of the time. Several supernovas have been visible to the naked eye in the past, including a couple that could even be seen during the day or even bright enough to cast a shadow (you could see) at night.

The interesting thing about Betelgeuse is that it has already been a fairly well studied star for some time, in part because it is "relatively" close and one of the brighter stars in our night sky even without it going nova. I guarantee that if it would go supernova, it would be something that would be heavily studied.

That said, a really close supernova (within 1000 light-years) would likely cause some fits for many astronomers because their telescopes would be too sensitive to be able to accurately do much in terms of photographing the actual supernova. A supernova like SN 1987A is generally much more preferred as you can use high power telescopes where the light doesn't overwhelm the instruments yet the object can still be studied in some considerable detail.

An interesting list of supernova candidates is on the wiki where it is noted several stars that are anticipated to go supernova in the next million years or so. It is certainly an interesting list of stars, of which Betelgeuse is on that list.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is a hrung and why should it choose to collapse on Betelgeuse?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Have a nice day.

Old news

[PPH]

What's wrong with Slashdot editing these days? This happened 640 years ago. And you're only posting now?

Re:Old news

[ColdWetDog]

What's wrong with Slashdot editing these days? This happened 640 years ago. And you're only posting now?

We've been complaining that all this AJAX crap is slowing things down, but this is ridiculous!

Re:Old News

[Joce640k]

Um, it's 640 light years away...

Re:Old news

[Anonymous Coward]

This happened 640 years ago.

Maybe they just released a Special Edition of the movie on BluRay?

Re:Old news

[mswhippingboy]

Oh, come on. Michael Keaton can't be that old!

Re:Old news

[Anonymous Coward]

640 years ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:Old news

[quintus_horatius]

No, this is just the re-post.

Re:Old News

[jd]

Yeah, but the AC has an extra-laggy connection.

Re:Old News

[nedlohs]

Congrats, the Universe is much smaller than you think it is.

That's a really rare condition...

Re:Old News

[blair1q]

Yes, but that means they won't know we know what they know until 640 years from now.

Unless they know what the speed of light is, then they know we know what they know now.

Just knowing the speed of light means it's not a limit to your knowledge.

Re:Old News

[mcgrew]

Space is big. REALLY big. I mean, you can't imagine how amazingly big it is (or how microscopically insignifigant we are). Asimov wrote "pebble in the sky", he should have named it "dust mote in the sky". Niven and Pournelle were closer with "The mote in God''s eye", as far as sci fi titles were concerned, but that's still far bigger than the reality of a star (let alone a planet) compared to the universe.

Re:Old news

[Xtifr]

This happened 640 years ago.

Plus or minus 150 years! I know you were joking, but this seems like an opportune moment to point out that Betelgeuse's size and associated blobbiness has made it extremely hard to get an accurate parallax. Note that the margin of error (300 ly) is nearly half the estimated distance! I don't believe that there's another star anywhere near as close which has as much uncertainty about its distance. Also note that it's only in the last couple of decades that we've even been able to pin it down this closely! Estimates during most of the 20c. ranged from 120 ly to 1300! The Gaia mission in 2013 should finally resolve most of the remaining uncertainty.

Re:Old news

[kayditty]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deneb#Distance_and_physical_characteristics

Re:Old news

[Xtifr]

That's pretty impressive, but Deneb is estimated to be two to three times as far away as Betelgeuse, and the margin of error in that estimate is a smaller percentage of the total distance (just over 1/3 rather than just under 1/2). Still a good example, though. Thanks!

What?

[canajin56]

Comprised of silica and alumina dust, ESO astronomers have been able to image the nebula in infrared wavelengths for the first time.

The ESO astronomers are made of silica and alumina dust?

Re:What?

[MacGyver2210]

The astronomers are the indirect object, putting the 'comprised of' descriptor onto the direct object, which is the Nebula.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we've been communicating with intelligent extra-terrestrial entities for quite a few years now, but you haven't seen headlines about extra-terrestrial "life", because these creatures are comprised of inorganic chemicals. Ho hum.

Re:What?

[HBI]

Excuses can't save a bad sentence,

Re:What?

[starfishsystems]

Bzzt. Back of the class. The "astronomers" are the subject of the sentence. "Infrared wavelengths" is the indirect object. In this example, it's clear that the adjectival phrase binds to the subject. There's no syntactic ambiguity about it whatsoever.

Re:What?

[jd]

Well, yes! That should be obvious.

Re:What?

[TrisexualPuppy]

The astronomers are the indirect object, putting the 'comprised of' descriptor onto the direct object, which is the Nebula.

Umm, excuse me. ESO astronomers is NOT an indirect object. ESO astronomers is the subject of have been which is a linking verb. Just so that you know, linking verbs don't have DOs or IDOs. They have predicate nominatives and predicate adjectives. Comprised of silica and alumina dust is a phrase that is used adjectivally and is intended to modify nebula. However, since the phrase was placed in the front of the sentence, at best, it is dangling. As the phrase is placed now, it modifies astronomers. Whoever modded up the parent needs to go back to grade school.

Re:What?

[bitfarmer]

Comprised of silica and alumina dust, ESO astronomers have been able to image the nebula in infrared wavelengths for the first time.

The ESO astronomers are made of silica and alumina dust?

Anthony Weiner imaged himself, too.

Re:What?

[Xtifr]

I was with you till your penultimate sentence. The prhase doesn't modify astronomers. English tolerates a certain amount of danglingness, though it severely lowers the register. You wouldn't use that ordering in formal writing, and it's awkward even in casual, but its meaning is clear from context. Of course, relying on context to disambiguate your modifiers is a serious disservice to your readers, and most grade school teachers (who believe in a far more rigid and Platonic version of English than the one that actually exists) would call it wrong, but, in fact, it's merely lame.

I still prefer this sort of dangling modifier to the awkwardness that results from using ambiguous verbs in sentences like "BP caps ruptured well, but more hurdles remain" or "May axes labour police beat pledge", even though Miss Thistlebottom would be hard-pressed to find a rules-based objection to these.

That said, I agree with everything else you said. The person who tried to claim that "astronomers" was the indirect object must have been on drugs. But faced with the imminent loss of a prominent and beautiful star from our sky, I find it hard to get too worked up about language nits. I spent the winter and spring checking Betelgeuse every night too see if it was still there, till it disappeared behind the sun. I'm excited at the prospect (however remote) of seeing a supernova that's visible with the naked eye, but saddened that it has to be this star which offers the prospect.

Re:What?

[blair1q]

Correct.

Now, as for "comprised of"...

(activates light saber)

Re:What?

[PingPongBoy]

Comprised of silica and alumina dust, ESO astronomers have been able to image the nebula in infrared wavelengths for the first time.

The ESO astronomers are made of silica and alumina dust?

Har har. They should have known without even looking that it's made of beetle juice.

Re:What?

[HornWumpus]

All yaall grammarians can kiss my pasty white ass. Hold the tongue.

I'm telling off this whole inbread tree of pendantic morons with one post.

Cousin post grammarians can kiss my dogs furry black ass. You better pet him first or he will bite you.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, "in infrared wavelengths" is an adverbial phrase modifying "to image".

Re:What?

[arth1]

The astronomers are the indirect object, putting the 'comprised of' descriptor onto the direct object, which is the Nebula.

"Comprised of" is always wrong. As a general rule, you can use comprise where you use contain, and in the same way. "Contained of" should jar anyone's language ear.

Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I know that Slashdot tends to put up articles weeks or months after the event has happened, but this is ridiculous. This happened millions of years ago. You guys are really slipping.

Bioexorcist

[operagost]

Once it's gone, if you call its name three times it'll pop right back!

3 times

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't say its name 3 times, otherwise the fucker will show up in your backyard and make all of your mother's terrible sculptures rape you.

Worried

[lightbox32]

What will this mean to Ford Prefect's home planet?

Re:Worried

[Ukab the Great]

Good News: they won't panic, as they're hoopy froods who know where their towels are.
Bad News: Earth has the largest supply of towels in 1000 light-years, so we can expect an invasion any day.

Re:Worried

[dkleinsc]

Not all that much - it was already basically wiped out by the Great Collapsing Hrung Disaster.

Re:Worried

[jellomizer]

That is only for Hitchhikers. Hopefully most of them have pearl sensitive sunglasses so when they get vaporized they will have a relaxed last few minutes towards it... In the dark...

Re:Worried

[pjbgravely]

I think you mean "Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses".

Re:Worried

[BitZtream]

It has already been destroyed, in Sidereal year 03758. Did you not read the book at all? A collapsing Hrung destroyed it, hence he never learned to pronounce his name in his native tongue and his father died of shame soon after.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Great_Collapsing_Hrung_Disaster_of_Galactic_Sidereal_Year_03758

Re:Worried

[Anonymous Coward]

We must all sing the famous Betelgeuse death anthem then: Zaglabor astragard! Hootrimansion Bambriar!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJPpg9CQu3w

Re:Worried

[jellomizer]

Maybe, I got something like that and it goes dark everytime I need to look at Perl code. So I figured they are Perl Sensitive Sunglasses.

Poor Mr. Prefect

[Suffering Bastard]

Can anyone confirm if Ford was able to hitchhike out in time?

Re:Poor Mr. Prefect

[Suffering Bastard]

Looks like I can't type faster than the speed of bad jokes. I guess I'll just go back to sucking cocks.

Re:Poor Mr. Prefect

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes he survived, but whelk had no chance.

Re:Poor Mr. Prefect

[BitZtream]

Yes, since the collapsing hrung destroyed it long before the supernovea will. His planet is already destroyed, the supernova won't do anything to whats left that matters to Ford, especially if he's stuck in another reality again.

Orion

[HikingStick]

So, Orion's BO is now so strong they can see it with a telescope. Pretty cool. He'd better watch out how high he holds that arm, otherwise he's going to blow out that shoulder joint.

Re:Orion

[Anonymous Coward]

You tried so hard. Too hard.

Re:Orion

[HikingStick]

lol

Betelgeuse...what's in a name

[kakyoin01]

Am I the only one who also read that as Beetlejuice? Man, first that show, and now this star is going out too? Bummer...

Re:Betelgeuse...what's in a name

[devjoe]

The similarity is intentional. The name of the film was based on one possible pronunciation of the name of the star.

Re:Betelgeuse...what's in a name

[uninformedLuddite]

I have always pronouced it as belt-a-goose

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

For the love of KHHHAAANNN are you an english teacher?

We can always bring it back:

[Culture20]

"Betelgeuse! Betelgeuse! Betelgeuse!"

And OT:

[Culture20]

28 spam ACs posted in succession... distributed AC posting? That could make it painful to read at less than 1 (I usually read at -1).

Re:And OT:

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashing a tiny dot brings out the crazy.

Obligatory Hitchhiker's comment:

[ChrisKnight]

It's a good thing Ford Prefect left home.

VLT != VLA

[Anonymous Coward]

The ESO instrument is the Very Large Telescope (VLT). The VLA (Very Large Array) is a radio telescope in New Mexico.

Re:VLT != VLA

[Culture20]

The ESO instrument is the Very Large Telescope (VLT). The VLA (Very Large Array) is a radio telescope in New Mexico.

The entire second page is Score 0 comments, and this was the only one that wasn't spam. Replying just so that it's not lost amid the noise.

Actuarian

[jabberw0k]

If that million-to-one remained constant, there would be a 1-in-10,000 chance of it happening in a 100-year span. However, as with "life expectancy" tables, the likelihood of the star's demise increase slightly with every passing year. Even worst-case, however, is probably 1-in-1,000 chance over a 100 year span... (Source: WAG)

Sad news for Ford Prefect...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess he won't be getting home anytime soon now.

Photo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can an astrophysicist or someone otherwise knowledgeable explain to me why are we able to get juicy nice looking photos of distant galaxies but can only get a blurry splat for a star exploding 640 light years away from us?