Slashdot Mirror
Hubble Captures the Violent Birth of a Star
The Bad Astronomer writes "In what is one of the most staggeringly beautiful Hubble pictures ever taken, a newly-born massive star is blasting four separate jets of material into its surrounding cocoon, carving out cavities in the material over two light years long. But only three of the jets appear to have matter still inside them, and the central star is off-center. This may be a gorgeous picture, but the science behind it is equally as compelling."
Were the Vogons notified of this latest development? Were all the forms properly filled in, signed, stamped and approved?
How many government forms does it take for a new star to be allowed to be born? There are all sorts of special interests that may not like this new star from appearing, it's new energy competition, there could be new life forms created, that would compete with the existing interests and it's obviously bad.
You can't handle the truth.
farrting?
The Bad Astronomer writes
Bad is quite the understatement here, considering that this story is over 2000 years old.
the violent birth of Kim Kardashian's ass niglets.
This may be a naive question (and will almost certainly be derided as such). I remember from Astronomy 101, many years ago, the prevailing idea about stellar formation. But I don't remember anyone ever explaining studies that verify the hypothesis is valid. What I'm saying is that it's pretty obvious this is a star surrounded by a cloud of material (gas or dust, I can't remember), but how do we know the star is forming rather than, say, dying? Or are we just supposed to take it on faith because we read it in a book?
A related question-- this is an awesomely cool picture, but does it or does it not tell us much about how stars form?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
That's the first image that immediately came to mind when I saw this picture. Not the awesomeness of the universe, but someone's bum. Tragic.
How many government forms does it take for a new star to be allowed to be born?
whereas if your lord and savior ron paul were president, then the births of stars would be determined by whatever the invisible (and benevolent!) hand of the free market allows.
three comments and I am forever at terrible karma
Nah, NASA wouldn't do anything that sleazy.....
http://io9.com/5659951/nasa-caught-photoshopping-an-image-of-saturns-moons-what-were-they-trying-to-hide
http://news.discovery.com/space/nasa-conspiracy-image-processing.html
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the colorful photos that you see from the Hubble are only pretty because it's been 'shopped like nobody's business. Sure what you're seeing is really out there, but it doesn't actually look like that... and if you were to be at a point in space such that your normal field of vision only envelops roughly the same area as what the photo contains, you would surely see similarities... probably enough to even make a strong connection between them... but not the vibrant colors that space photos so often contain. It is like the difference between a decorated christmas tree, and a decorated christmas tree with many hundreds of lights.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
looks like it
What's with the shitty lens flare?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The four flare lines out of each bright spot in the image are very distracting. Can't they be properly removed in postprocessing to give a truer image?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
But I don't quite see where the center or new star is. There is a bright star showing from a bit below the center but I think that is just a star behind it. Is there something I am missing that is obviously the "center"?
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
I love how one can pick out an image that isn't there, but an Angel is what I saw... just not a happy one....
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Especially the 3D video:
ahref=http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2011/38/video/rel=url2html-24467http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2011/38/video/>
This is not the sig you're looking for.
The universe is his toilet.
I don't do well with Freudian ink blots.
the problem is that it presents an image that doesn't reflect what people expect when they see a photo - which is a duplicate of what they would see if they could see it with their own eyes.
Yes, I hate it when I am flying through the galactic core, and I notice a super nova that I have a poster of, and I am like, OMFG, they totally shopped that photo.
I am pretty sure nobody is going to be looking at this object with 'their own eyes' for a very long time, if ever.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Prettiest background jpeg ever.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
If this star is being born 2000 years ago, could it be Christ?
"My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.”
Now obviously this happened 2000 years ago, but does anyone know how long it will last/has been going on for?
In more general terms, I'd like to know whether they scan new parts of the sky periodically for changes, or whether they just concentrate on different parts of the sky and see what they see. For instance, if you could go back 2000 years (taking Hubble with you), would the image look similar? How static are these images?
My first guess would be millions of years, so when astronomers look in the sky and find something cool, it's not by fluke of timing, more by fluke of angle and elevation.
We do what we must because we can,
For the good of all of us,
Except the ones who are dead.
So who is to say that these stars are not alive in the real sense, and that like a buttefly, at this great size, ends up being a cocoon like beast that emerges a different entity in the end....I am sure when another alien life form looks at us as bags of almost pure water, they might wonder how we are alive as they could not accept us to be alive upon their definition, but likewise, we look at these stars and planets in orbit and think they are just things, yet they could actually be primitively intelligent living beings...of which we have no real way of knowing, unless getting up close and personal to see maybe a (heart) center was actually making that earth/star live/stay alive.....
At a quick glance, I mean if you think about it Angels.. in the sky.. of course the fact that any older civilization would have the technology to view something like this and associate it to Angels, Gods or whatever celestial bodies are popular at time seem extremely far fetched but that was my first thought when looking at it.
It looks like boobs to me.
That appears to be the 2 meatballs and appendages of his noodly goodness...