Slashdot Mirror


What Struck Earth in 775?

ananyo writes "Just over 1,200 years ago, the planet was hit by an extremely intense burst of high-energy radiation of unknown cause, scientists studying tree-ring data have found. The radiation burst, which seems to have hit between 774 and 775, was detected by looking at the amounts of the radioactive isotope carbon-14 in tree rings that formed during the 775 growing season in the Northern Hemisphere. The increase in 14C levels is so clear that the scientists conclude that the atmospheric level of 14C must have jumped by 1.2% over the course of no longer than a year, about 20 times more than the normal rate of variation (abstract). Yet, as the only known events that can produce a 14C spike are supernova explosions or giant solar flares, and neither event was observed at the time, astronomers have a cosmic mystery on their hands."

344 comments

  1. Quite Obvious, Even to Me by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    You need only look at the years leading up to 775 to unravel this mystery. In 773 at the start of the Islamic Golden Age, the number zero was introduced to Baghdad which would, in 775, surpass China's capital of Chang'an as Earth's largest city. Now, we know from the second law of thermodynamics that 'the entropy of an isolated system that is in equilibrium is constant.' Now with all those people suddenly using zero in tons of transactions and writings, Earth experienced a huge decrease in entropy. I'm sure if you analyze the existing works from the time, you'll find that pervasive use of the hot new number zero increased the frequency of numbers at the time by 1.2%. That means that somewhere there had to be an increase in entropy to maintain the balance described by the second law of thermodynamics. Of course, anyone with a mail-order internet degree can tell you the obvious natural source of entropy at the time would be the decay of nitrogen-14. What? Falsifiability? Just watch, the floods in Thailand have lead to a decrease in production of ones and zeros hard drives which means we'll finally get a break from this 'global warming' or (let's just call it for what it really is) the 'entropic energy extravaganza!'

    Also, for good measure: Nazis.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Flooding in Thailand? That's just the rumblings of Cthulhu in his city of Rl'yeh.

      Also, as far as what hit Earth in 775, that was plainly a time-travelling Chuck Norris.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Oblig southpark: We didn't listen!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by geoffrobinson · · Score: 2

      I was going to answer "Tesla and one of his experiments" but your explanation works for me.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    4. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      I was going to answer "Tesla and one of his experiments" but your explanation works for me.

      Presumably the experiment involving time travel.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    5. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      With that much carbon, it must have been a wet one.

    6. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably the experiment involving time travel.

      No, that was Einstein.

    7. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, the radiation is a resultant of the explosion of the second Death Star; it happened a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away so it took that long to get here.

    8. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, somebody's in a good mood today! :P

    9. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh!

    10. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      My hat is off to you, sir. You clearly understand time cube.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Sparticus789 · · Score: 5, Funny

      All I see is the universal Linux file permission.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    12. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      Solar flare from Bernard's Star in our direction

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    13. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't've been, Hitler is still in my textbooks.

    14. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Funny

      But his name was Josef Gottsdamm before, and he was a plumber from Sheissburg.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    15. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by paiute · · Score: 5, Funny

      Couldn't've been, Hitler is still in my textbooks.

      Duh. We have to go back and rescue him every time one of you noobs gets your time travel license.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    16. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Talderas · · Score: 4, Funny

      All that means is that whomever time traveled failed to kill Hitler.

      Of course, the world has a way of self correcting so even if we had killed Hitler we'd just be dealing with someone else.

      No... to thoroughly get rid of Hitler was must first eliminate the conditions which lead to the Nazi rise in power. To do that it would be desirable to avoid the punitive nature of the Treaty of Versailles. Though to avoid that we really need to have avoided the first World War. Obviously, the best way to avoid that is too prevent Duke Ferdinand from being assassinated....

      Frankly, I don't want to continue stepping backwards but suffice it to say, I think the best course of action is to go back far enough to find the first homo sapiens and brutally murder them all. That should prevent Hitler from creating the Holocaust.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    17. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

      I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens. Obligatory Giorgio A. Tsoukalos reference.

    18. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Surt · · Score: 0

      Alternatively, the worst evil in history asymptotically approaches Hitler from below, and time travelers now know they have done the optimal job of murdering evildoers.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    19. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      A.C. Clarke's explaination: Alien industrial accident.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    20. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by geoffball · · Score: 0

      Wrong. God farted.

      It's true. Everyone knows the methane in God's farts contains exclusively carbon-14.

    21. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Gotta go old school.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    22. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      In 773 at the start of the Islamic Golden Age, ...

      So it was obviously the first ever dirty bomb... Damn terrorists!

    23. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      You assume the timeline is self correcting. Just because someone goes back in time and kills Hitler, we can still go on our merry way without impact.

    24. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Brilliant, but you realize, of course, that your explanation will now be seized on by creationists as "scientific evidence" supporting their superstitious group-think. Next time, take a page from The Flying Spaghetti Monster's book and make your theory more entertaining for those of us who are in on the joke.
      Cheers.

    25. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no no, 775 was the year the Ancient Aliens landed. Their engines must have produced the spike in C-14.

    26. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 4, Funny

      the obligatory xkcd for this was just published last friday: http://xkcd.com/1063/

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    27. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      At the Academy they taught us it was the destruction of a planet in our solar system, creating the asteroid belt, as a side effect of war between galactic powers. But that stupid nerd Wesley claimed that couldn't have been because alpha0 nuclear disintegration technology hadn't been invented that far back, Someday a lot of people on a starship are going to hate that nerd.

    28. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rarely does a Slashdot post make me laugh out loud. Hat's off sir.

    29. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Like the All Spark crash landing?

    30. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by FranktehReaver · · Score: 1

      But if someone time traveled to kill Hitler would their be a reason today when the time travel machine was made to go back in time and kill who? Theoretically it wouldn't make sense to go back in time to alter history because if that history was altered there would be no reason to go back in time to alter it. So then the time travel would of never happened. /mindblown

    31. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by JMJimmy · · Score: 0

      The wet ones cause rainbows too! ;)

    32. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by tool462 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Exactly. In 773, the world had write and execute permissions--clearly a mistake. Mankind tried to correct this error in 774 by making it read-only for the world, but it was too late. By then the world had already installed its payload--a virus for the ages, unlike any that had ever been seen before. There was nothing to be done once the execution bit was enabled in 775 except to mourn for the dead. The cycle is set to repeat itself every 777 years.

      Mind blown.

    33. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      Makes more sense than the Mayan end-of-the-world fiasco

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    34. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Talderas · · Score: 1

      No, see. Another reason would have popped up for time traveling to be invented.

      Had you gone back and destroyed homosapiens, some other creature would have filled the role. So instead of you being a human with two hands, and 11 fingers, you would be, for example, a dolphin and two legged sapient creatures that walked on land would be some aquatic fiction writer's dream. There would have been a dolphin Hitler who had attempted to wipe out the whales in some fucked up genocide.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    35. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by hemo_jr · · Score: 1

      Not so much time travel as paratime (crosstime) travel. It was explorers from a timeline where the Thera supervolcano had not exploded, the Minoan civilization was not destroyed, The scientific method was formulated 1,500 years early and progress was not interrupted by the thugs of Assyria, Roman short-sightedness, nor the barbarians from the steppe.

      Fortunately (or maybe not so fortunately) for us, they took one look at the state of the world then, and decided to stick to uninhabited timelines like the one where the Toba catastrophe had caused H. Sap to go extinct.

    36. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Bah EVERYONE knows who did it....it was those damned aliens! Worse than commies those little gray bastards, it was just their way of trolling the scientists. You can just see the little shits parked in orbit and letting out a big pulse from their engines and going "Figure THAT shit out monkey boys! LOL!" before going to piss on some natives heads to make them think their stupid rain dance worked. Sneaky little shits!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    37. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by FranktehReaver · · Score: 1

      But then in that logic you never truly stop anything because it would always be re-written to justify the means of time travel. But in that regard you would just be perpetually changing time unknowingly because the memories of why you went back in time would be replaced with a new alternate reality and you would then have a new similar reason to go back and kill dolphin hitler and thus continuing the cycle.

    38. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by FranktehReaver · · Score: 1

      And I also only have 10 fingers

    39. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by onepoint · · Score: 1

      I am rather sure then we are riding on a huge turtle and the world is flat. hmmm just might be true

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    40. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by CptNerd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Success!!!

      (and tell your grandmother I said "Hi")

      Just kidding, she wouldn't speak to me at the high school dance...

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    41. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      the obligatory xkcd for this was just published last friday: http://xkcd.com/1063/

      The box thingy looks kind of familiar. "Let's Kill Hitler" was an excellent episode.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    42. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by peragrin · · Score: 1

      http://xkcd.com/1063/

      I killed Hitler. in 1945.

      this guy made a comic about it.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    43. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > whomever time traveled failed to kill Hitler.

      No, actually, he failed to kill Stalin. Hitler is the time traveler's *name*.

      Stalin, of course, was the previous guy who tried to travel back in time to stop WWII by killing the horrible tyrant. He eventually succeeded in killing Trotsky, but by then the war was well underway.

      They both swore to prevent the war and its atrocities and then either return to their own time or die trying, but of course they were both driven mad by the temporal displacement. Happens every time.

      Also, you mean "whoever". The relative clause is the subject (of the verb "traveled" and thus of the clause introduced by "that"), so you use the subjective case. "Whomever" is objective.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    44. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was a time traveler that came back in time to save their great-grandfather from a massacre, that would have been caused by a geriatric Duke Ferdinand, which opened the door for Hitler. The time travelers caused the Holocaust!!

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    45. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thugs were from India.

    46. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      Or each alteration of the past creates a new timeline, in which the past is further altered, and so on...until the system reaches equilibrium with a timeline in which time travel is never discovered (i.e. ours).

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    47. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      This analysis ignores Le Chatelier's Principle. As time travel is invented and timelines are destroyed in favor of new ones, perhaps equilibrium will eventually be reached, in the form of a timeline in which time travel is never discovered.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    48. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by CrosseyedPainless · · Score: 1

      *stares in awe*
      Are you a wizard?!!?

    49. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      wow, some people can't take a joke.

    50. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      lmao, sorry i just have to comment on this post's rating. someone must really have it out for me to put a troll score on this. pathetic.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    51. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      At the Academy they taught us it was the destruction of a planet in our solar system, creating the asteroid belt,

      ... and leaving the question of where the other 99.(something)% of the mass of the planet went. Don't forget how light and inconsequential the asteroid belt is (at least, as long as it stays more-or-less where it is at the moment).

      as a side effect of war between galactic powers.

      Oh, hang on ... is that my phone beeping, or my humour detector going off?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    52. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except, when you kill that first homo sapien, you kill your ancestor, so you can't be born in order to travel backwards in time to begin with, so you've split the timelines, and have actually travelled back to a different timeline and removed homo sapiens from the other timeline. Your own timeline is unaffected and Hitler still existed. And please, don't kill Franz Ferdinand, they're one of my favourite rock bands!!!!

    53. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just get rid of all the jews ca. 100bc.

      This would solve a lot of problems, even the current banking crisis.

    54. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a nice theory, but the year 775 was actually the year 635... if they hadn't invented the 0 until the year 773, there couldn't have been a year 0 (well, there wasn't a year 0 anyway), 10, 20, etc.

    55. Re:Quite Obvious, Even to Me by Surt · · Score: 1

      Abusive moderation: go get 'em metamods.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  2. More articles like this one by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't have a comment other than to say that I enjoy articles like this one. Please bring more like it and i will hit refresh 20 times to get yor page hit count up :)

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:More articles like this one by belthize · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't know, I've read the article and it's still not clear to me whether an iPhone or Android is better, who to vote for, whether I should be mad at banks and who to vote for.

      On a more serious note, I wholeheartedly agree.

    2. Re:More articles like this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't know, I've read the article and it's still not clear to me whether an iPhone or Android is better, who to vote for, whether I should be mad at banks and who to vote for.

      Whether an iPhone or Android is better: Yes. While both iPhones and Android phones also emit radiation, that radiation is for sure less harmful than the high-energy radiation from this event.

      Who to vote for: It was an event of huge radiation. Radiation is bad, so to prevent such radiation in the future, you should vote for the Green: Since they are against radiation, they will certainly make sure that such a disastrous event (so disastrous that even the records about it got destroyed!) won't happen again.

      Whether you should be mad at banks: Banks usually have security personnel, therefore being mad at that place might not be a good idea. On the other hand, if you are a danger to yourself when going mad, it may be a better idea to be mad at a bank than when alone at home. Just make sure it's not your bank you get mad at, because they might not let you in again afterwards.

      Who to vote for: Well, this was possibly caused by solar flares. Now the Green are all for solar energy, which, as this event shows, is not without danger. Therefore you should vote for anyone but the Green.

      SCNR :-)

    3. Re:More articles like this one by Flipstylee · · Score: 1

      I don't have a comment other than to say that I enjoy articles like this one. Please bring more like it and i will hit refresh 20 times to get yor page hit count up :)

      I Third that, i'll be checking for AstronomyCast updates as i surely hope this will make it's way into an episode, there's nothing like
      history being solved by science, rather than... spear-shaking.

    4. Re:More articles like this one by stanlyb · · Score: 2

      Maybe their Obama decided that the treat of Chingiz Han is too big, and wanted to protect his country by using the well forgotten and useful TSA agency, which resulted the before mentioned peek in radiation..... And after that, silence, of the lambs.

    5. Re:More articles like this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Vote for Kodos.

      Puny Human!

    6. Re:More articles like this one by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > I enjoy articles like this one. Please bring more like it.

      You want more articles about huge things hitting the Earth?!?!??

      I'd just as soon there be not much to write about.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:More articles like this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There wasn't any religion bashing either, which is the ultimate Slashdot circle-jerk topic.

    8. Re:More articles like this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 90's called and want their hit counter back.

    9. Re:More articles like this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There wasn't any religion bashing either, which is the ultimate Slashdot circle-jerk topic."

      The planets where the Mormon and Scientology gods are residing weren't invented yet in 775, ditto for the Spaghetti Monster, no edict of Nantes nor anywhere else, so what's to bash?

  3. Lavos by shiftless · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is that you?

    1. Re:Lavos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Virgin alert!

    2. Re:Lavos by hort_wort · · Score: 1

      By total coincidence, I just came here from ordering the CT remake on DS. Apparently this cosmic ray burst happened to make me feel special today.

    3. Re:Lavos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a port not a remake, and all the added content is terrible. Sorry to ruin your special day, you're better to dust off that SNES.

    4. Re:Lavos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No! Have power! We fight, gain more power! Ayla help you, but need Dactyl. Give Dactyl."

      "Need Dactyl? To Tyrano lair?! That's Reptite's place. Dangerous! Ayla want die?"

      "Want to live, so go there! Ayla be OK. Give Dactyl! GIVE MOTHERFUCKING PTERODACTYL!"

    5. Re:Lavos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though it wasn't a particularly great way to do it, the DS version does at least give closure on what happened to Schala.

  4. Behind the Sun? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the supernova was behind or near the Sun, earthlings around 775 wouldn't have been able to detect it.

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    1. Re:Behind the Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      If there was a supernova around then, then there would be remnents of a supernova that we could date back to then, right? We would be able to observe the remnents today and work back to about when that particular star died, even if it wasn't observed back in 775, right?

    2. Re:Behind the Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is a great idea...

      now how do you propose to find this one particular needle in a giant haystack?

    3. Re:Behind the Sun? by forand · · Score: 2

      Two problems with your hypothesis: 1) if the Earth was hit by a huge burst of radiation coming from the direction of the Sun it would have been recorded as a solar flare or something odd. 2) There would be remnants of such a nearby super nova clearly visible now and most assuredly in the months immediately following the event.

    4. Re:Behind the Sun? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You cant see a Gamma Ray burst. Sorry the real world is not like SCI-Fi.

      And no, they would not see it. Can you see ANY nebula in the night sky with your eyes? there are several that are LARGER than the moon up there if they were visible to the eye, but require a camera to show them, something that did not exist back then. Supernovae dont stay lit in the sky for a very long time they fade out to below human visibility within a short time and if it was close to the viewing line of the sun, Nobody would have ever seen it even if it was Lit up for a few weeks..

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Behind the Sun? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can you see ANY nebula in the night sky with your eyes?

      Yes, there are. Orion, Pipe, Eta Carinae and Coal Sack are four you can see with the naked eye. Granted, the people back then wouldn't have known they were nebulas, but those objects were still visible in the night sky.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    6. Re:Behind the Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the event was visible only in the high energy range, maybe a supernova behind a galactic dust cloud so that the visible light didn't get to earth. Since the humans of that time didn't have the means to detect anything but visible light, this would mean they wouldn't have noticed at all. The supernova remains being behind a dust cloud would also explain why we haven't found it.

    7. Re:Behind the Sun? by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Two problems with that theory - a supernova close enough to cause a radiation spike would probably still be visible by the time the Sun moved out of the way, and in 775 someone would have noticed it. Even if it was far enough so it wasn't, the remains would still be very obvious -- it ought to have been much closer than the Crab Nebula remnant (6.5k light years, assploded in 1050 or 1060), and even I have seen that.

    8. Re:Behind the Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      First, we need a llama and then lots and lots of bubble wrap.

    9. Re:Behind the Sun? by bigrockpeltr · · Score: 4, Informative

      M42 (Great Nebula in Orion) is clearly visible with the naked eye even in fairly light polluted areas. Also, people have reported seeing at least one supernova with the naked eye from back in those days when light pollution was essentially zero. but you are right about not being able to notice a SN if it was only visible during the day.

      --
      $ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
    10. Re:Behind the Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the sun farted a supernova? Oh I thought you said the Sun's behind.

    11. Re:Behind the Sun? by JustOK · · Score: 2

      Big magnet and a big fan.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    12. Re:Behind the Sun? by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1, Funny

      Since the humans of that time

      Guess how I know you watch a lot of sci-fi?

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    13. Re:Behind the Sun? by jamesh · · Score: 4, Funny

      that is a great idea...

      now how do you propose to find this one particular needle in a giant haystack?

      Maybe we could start by looking for elevated 14C level's in the tree rings?

      Circular evidence is still evidence right?

    14. Re:Behind the Sun? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 2

      One cannot see the gamma-ray part of a gamma-ray burst, but one can see the afterglow, and afterglows can be very bright. A typical optical afterglow from a gamma-ray burst lasts for several days, and can be brighter than a supernova. If a gamma-ray burst did cause this burst of radiation then it is quite reasonable that the optical afterglow would have been seen. However, if the burst did occur behind the Sun then, because the afterglow fades very fast, it is possible that the afterglow would have faded to the point that it was no longer obvious by the time the Earth-Sun alignment had changed enough for it to be seen.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    15. Re:Behind the Sun? by forand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If a GRB went off in the Galaxy then a few years of increased radioisotopes would be the least of the indicators. A mass extinction would be associated with such an event as most of the ionosphere would be striped from the Earth causing cosmic rays to reach the surface, this would have dramatic and lasting effects on life. I also neither implied nor stated that this was associated with a GRB.

      While supernova do not "stay lit in the sky for a very long time" you need to scale that with your time scale of the event. The Crab Nebula is the result of a supernova that went off in 1054 (Earth time) and was visible to the human eye for a period of approximately 2 years after it went off. There is no associated increase in radioisotopes for that event, thus indicating that a larger (likely closer as well) event would have to be the cause of the increased radioisotopes observed in 775.

    16. Re:Behind the Sun? by forand · · Score: 1

      If you irradiate a galactic dust with enough radiation to block out the visible portion of a supernova you will get dramatically increased thermal emission from the dust, this would very likely be visible. As now you have thermalized a large fraction of the energy released by the SN.

    17. Re:Behind the Sun? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How long can you observe the typical observable supernova?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Behind the Sun? by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unfortunately M42 is not visible from around here, and most people cant spot it until it is pointed out, even in low light pollution areas. People in general dont notice. But the trained eye certainly can, like you point out.

      But, IT would have to be brighter than -2.5 to be seen from Earth during full daylight. Anything near the sun within several sun widths would have to be ungodly bright to even be noticed. Even during a 2 month period a close supernovae would be unnoticed. The could would not stay at -2.5 for very long, so even if it was a super bright -1 it would be close to 6 months before it would swing around into twilight.

      You could have a 4.5 month period of not being able to see it. Plenty of time for a distant one to dim considerably.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    19. Re:Behind the Sun? by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      And if it was in line with the galactic disc it can easily be hidden from the dust and all the light pollution from our galaxy, Very good point.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    20. Re:Behind the Sun? by Iskender · · Score: 1

      Others already pointed out that there are naked eye visible nebulas. However, I'll add a slightly different point: if you didn't know this, make sure you get to see the night sky properly sometime! Light pollution is everywhere these days, I've had astronomy as a hobby for a couple of years and still haven't had the chance to see a proper sky.

      But a better sky is good enough! Grab Stellarium (.org) for free and check what's out there.

    21. Re:Behind the Sun? by pla · · Score: 5, Informative

      If the supernova was behind or near the Sun, earthlings around 775 wouldn't have been able to detect it.

      Nearby supernovae appear as one of the brightest objects in the sky for a few days to a week. The remnants remain visible for months, and then have a habit of leaving a nebula behind.

      The Earth travels slightly more than one degree of its orbit per day; The Sun, as seen from the Earth, subtends half a degree of arc. In the absolute worst case, the sun couldn't completely "hide" a supernova for more than a single day; and half a week later, the supernova remnant would dominate the dusk (or dawn) as the brightest thing in the sky except possibly the moon.

    22. Re:Behind the Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a body to create this kind of effect on the Earth it would have to be close. Something that close would be visible even during the day and would remain so for months.

    23. Re:Behind the Sun? by Mr.+Esterhouse · · Score: 1

      I'm no astrophysicist but I don't think is was a gamma ray that caused this. If it was it would have wiped out half or more of the Earth's atmosphere which would have been catastrophic to life on earth.

    24. Re:Behind the Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Sun's protective field might also experienced a minimum at the same time, greatly increasing the amount of interstellar gamma rays reaching the earth. That would show up in the tree rings as well.

    25. Re:Behind the Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would not stay behind the sun for long as a supernova lasts for days, often over 20 days. I'm pretty sure any competent astronomy would have considered this if it was possible for a supernova to "hide behind the sun".

    26. Re:Behind the Sun? by tool462 · · Score: 2

      Circular evidence is still evidence right?

      Of course it is. Though technically, tree rings aren't perfectly circular. There tends to be a fair amount of variation, primarily due to environmental factors. Perhaps we should compromise and just call it 'oblong evidence'.

    27. Re:Behind the Sun? by CptNerd · · Score: 2

      Gamma rays wouldn't form C14, only neutrons that got caught in the nuclei.

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    28. Re:Behind the Sun? by pla · · Score: 2

      The Earth travels slightly more than one degree of its orbit per day

      Mea culpa - make that slightly less than one degree per day.

    29. Re:Behind the Sun? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      The Crab Nebula is the result of a supernova that went off in 1054 (Earth time) and was visible to the human eye for a period of approximately 2 years after it went off.

      It is extremely far-fetched, but, this could have been an earlier event from the same star that created the Crab nebula. Just saying.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    30. Re:Behind the Sun? by styrotech · · Score: 1

      It's true! My talking dolphin spoke to me (and confirmed it).

    31. Re:Behind the Sun? by goodmanj · · Score: 1
    32. Re:Behind the Sun? by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      And in addition, it's pretty unlikely that the brightest supernova in recorded history would happen to occur in the 5% of the sky that's obscured by the sun's glare.

    33. Re:Behind the Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ehhh...I'm thinking the Sun blew up at night when nobody could see it, then got its shit together before sunrise.

    34. Re:Behind the Sun? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      There is a SNR (SuperNova Remnant) that can be seen with infrared telescopes and is seen to be expanding quite fast. When the maths was done on it's dimensions a couple of years ago, by which time they had a decade or so of adequate IR observations ... they calculated zero size in the 1860s to 1880s.

      A supernova went off in industrial times, in our galaxy and we didn't see it.

      (Which doesn't actually help with the problem of getting a pulse of GR onto the top of the atmosphere, because GR is scattered too so would have been effectively blocked like the visible light.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    35. Re:Behind the Sun? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Light pollution is everywhere these days, I've had astronomy as a hobby for a couple of years and still haven't had the chance to see a proper sky.

      Don't make excuses. Go somewhere with a decently dark sky and experience it. Which part of "don't make excuses" was unclear?

      But a better sky is good enough! Grab Stellarium (.org) for free and check what's out there.

      This is not an adequate substitute for the experience of seeing a properly dark sky, and saying to the universe in general "Mine! It's all mine!"

      Some years ago I had a friend who lived 25 miles outside the city I live in (around 300,000 population ; substantial but not gigantic). One night, actually when Comet Hyakutake was doing it's screamer across the sky, I turned up at his house bearing a packet of weed, a small barrel of beer, a hand-held telescope, and a couple of camping mats. In between tokes, and glugs, and eyes on the telescope we watched a phenomenal comet, and I pointed out constellations, the Orion Nebula and various other things. And finally our eyes were dark-adapted enough to see the Milky Way. My friend had lived there for 15 years, and always thought the sky was too light-polluted to see the Milky Way ; in reality, he'd never let his eyes get sufficiently dark-adapted.

      Having said that, it was also bloody cold that night.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  5. Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Would this mean carbon dating is inaccurate for items older than 1300 years?

    Time to redate the Shroud of Turin?

    1. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do we care when a poorly made fake was made?

      Your first question is more interesting.

    2. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by michelcolman · · Score: 1, Funny

      And maybe the creationists were right all along!

    3. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It should only affect things made on or around the year 775 (which would appear younger). It shouldn't change the results for things before or after the anomaly.

    4. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 2

      Not it just means an adjustment to c14 dating. It would not affect the shroud of turin, since it is clearly from well after 775.

    5. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 0

      No, it's potentially inaccurate for things that were alive in 775 and later. If the shroud was growing plants after 774 then it is a fake.

    6. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by vlm · · Score: 5, Informative

      Would this mean carbon dating is inaccurate for items older than 1300 years?

      Things that were alive in 775 appear to have more C14 than usual, so even after centuries of decay, they'd still have more C14 than usual, which would make them measure younger. This is my understanding from reading the "Amateur Scientist" column in "Scientific American" about doing radiocarbon dating at home. SciAm used to be a pretty cool magazine, well, 50 years ago. When I was a high school kid I spent about two weeks one summer reading on microfilm pretty much every Amateur Scientist column from the 30s (when it was all telescopes) until the 70s when it started sucking. You can buy a collection of those columns on a cdrom now, of course.

      Time to redate the Shroud of Turin?

      I'm not up on my mythology, but I think it's made of woven plant or animal fibers, and this would have no effect unless the plants or animals that made it were alive in 775. If it was grown in 775, then it would be misdated to be somewhat younger. I might misremember but isn't the mythology something along the lines that it was grown just a short time before year 0 ? This error is going in the opposite direction then. Or theres some alternate mythology as regards templars and freemasons and such, which is too recent to be fixed by the error.

      Or the TLDR summary version of the above is ... "no, and no".

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by donutz · · Score: 0

      Just a side comment, but don't you think it's a little demeaning to dismiss the heartfelt beliefs of major segments of today's human population as "mythology"?

    8. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by EasyTarget · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Would this mean carbon dating is inaccurate for items older than 1300 years? "

      No; RC dating uses lots of correction tables to account for events like this (this is not the only such event, just the biggest one that is not explained) and for natural/cyclic variations in C14. So the effects of this will already be catered for when computing dates; it's just the 'WTF' of the event itself being discussed here.

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    9. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... something along the lines that it was grown just a short time before year 0 ?

      This is the same faulty reasoning that makes people think the year 2000 is the first year of the 21st century. There was no year 0 because when the modern calendar was developed they were still using Roman numerals. The calendar goes from 1 BC to 1 AD with no zero.

    10. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by philip.paradis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it's not demeaning, unless you define "demeaning" as failure to place higher value on political correctness than scientific examination of things based on evidence. Beliefs being heartfelt doesn't make them scientifically valid, and oftentimes seems to result in irrational adherence to said beliefs. This occurs in the face of absolute lack of supporting evidence for said beliefs, and/or overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    11. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. A myth is still a myth no matter how many people believe that it is not. If two billion people started to believe that the world was gnawed out of a carrot by The Great Rabbit, it would still be just a myth.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    12. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, scientists have known for a long time that the 14C creation rate isn't quite constant, and have taken this into account in order to do accurate radiocarbon dating. In fact, it was by looking at this carbon-dating calibration curve that they first noticed something unusual in 775.

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11123.html

    13. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by sir-gold · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Carbon dating is already broken

      http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/08/23/the-strange-case-of-solar-flares-and-radioactive-elements/

      Solar flares (specifically neutrino radiation) affects decay rates of all radioactive materials. Carbon 14 dating assumes that the half-life is fairly constant, but the base level of neutrino radiation could have been much higher or lower for extended periods in the past, making carbon 14 gradually less accurate the farther you go back.

    14. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by goodmanj · · Score: 2

      He's not calling Christianity a myth, just the backstory of the Shroud of Turin. And the number of people who believe the Shroud of Turin is actually Christ's burial shroud is quite a bit smaller than the number of Christians in the world.

      That said, though, "myth" has two definitions: one is a "false belief", but the other is "a traditional story, especially concerning early history or origins, typically involving the supernatural", with no judgement made on the story's truth or falsehood. The New Testament certainly qualifies as a myth in the second sense.

    15. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Unordained · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just a side comment, but don't you think it's a little insulting to tell scientists who've put blood and sweat into these scientific discoveries that they need to pander to the religious, to pretend to hold some doubt, to lie that they wish they were wrong, to equivocate when no equivocation is really required, to imply and insinuate and hint rather than outright state what they know (inasmuch as you can know anything -- they'll grant you that), just to make people less sad about the religion they have merely because of the location of their birth and the (recursive) beliefs of their ancestry? I'm not normally one to go and try to de-convert the religious (my parents were missionaries, I'd rather just leave peole alone), but does that mean we have to be on eggshells? Besides -- the religious all feel free to call each other's religions (N) mere mythology and outright lies, why should we hold back about N+1 beliefs?

    16. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      mythology
      4.
      a set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event, arising naturally or deliberately fostered

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      A myth is still a myth no matter how many people believe that it is not

      You might start singing a different tune if all those people had pitchforks...and they do, by the way.

    18. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by BenJury · · Score: 2

      Why doesn't it qualify for the first point?

      --
      Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
    19. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but by the same logic .. scientific examination is a religious belief in and of itself (albeit a much more popular one today) and most all religious beliefs are based on some sort of "evidence" - it's the disputing of this evidence that typically causes the conflicts.

      but religion aside - what I find interesting here is the notion that it's only cosmic radiation causing N14 decay that produces C14 .. this naturally leads us to the thought that there must have been an increase in Y-rays - but could there be other sources (possibly now depleted) that would cause C14 creation?

    20. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's demeaning to tell people that they will burn in hell for eternity, etc.

    21. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by N0Man74 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just a side comment, but don't you think it's a little demeaning to dismiss the heartfelt beliefs of major segments of today's human population as "mythology"?

      Is it only demeaning if the beliefs are held by a major segment? There are still people who believe in or honor the Norse gods too, but I have yet to hear anyone get upset about the phrase "North Mythology".

      Listen, I fully support anyone's right to believe in whatever crazy thing they want (as long as nobody nobody else is being hurt or deprived of rights in the process) but that doesn't mean that I have to legitimize anyone's myths or handle its believers with kids gloves, whether the a vast majority or a tiny minority.

    22. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Great Rabbit will protect me.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    23. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Surt · · Score: 0

      MW gives 4 (plus two subdefinitions):
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

      1
      a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : parable, allegory
      2
      a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society b : an unfounded or false notion
      3
      : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
      4
      : the whole body of myths

      And Christianity meets 1a,b, 2a,b, 3, but not 4. 5 out of 6 isn't bad!

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    24. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by pla · · Score: 2

      don't you think it's a little demeaning to dismiss the heartfelt beliefs of major segments of today's human population as "mythology"?

      Welcome to Slashdot. Please check your cultural baggage at the door.

      We only allow sacred cows with names like "Mac" and "PC" and "Emacs" and "VI" in here - And even those, we'll still butcher and barbecue if it suits our whims.

    25. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by vlm · · Score: 1

      Just a side comment, but don't you think it's a little demeaning to dismiss the heartfelt beliefs of major segments of today's human population as "mythology"?

      No because I thought it was a pretty extreme fringe belief, like only maybe 1% of Christians even know the mythology of the shroud of turin and of that 1% who have heard of it, only perhaps another 1% have the "shroud story" as a heartfelt belief. Not a major segment of today's human population. I am willing to admit I might be wrong and maybe there are tens of thousands of adherents, although I doubt it. As if majority rule defines the truth, or its OK to make fun of people solely because there are not many of them, anyway. I thought it was funny you'd argue on that basis, of all things.

      Besides, religion is just mythology that isn't dead yet. Now that statement is how you demean the beliefs of major segments of today's human population, etc. As you can see I could have done a much better job of it, if I had intended to do so...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    26. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      The Shroud of Turin may be a fake, but it's hardly poorly made. A poorly made fake doesn't troll people for centuries.

    27. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 0

      When it's a poorly made Jebus-y thing it does.

    28. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by just_common_sense · · Score: 1

      Could you elaborate on "poorly made fake"? How was it made? Can you explain the process?

    29. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      So something from the year 775 would seem younger - appear to be, perhaps say, from the 1300s? Like the shroud...

    30. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, very demeaning. I felt so demeaned when my mother warned me not to play in the street and tried to hold my hand when we were near steep dropoffs. Playing in the street was fun.

    31. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 2

      Agreed completely.

      It's half in the usage and half in the reception. Using "mythology" as a descriptor for various religions *can* be offensive to religious folks because "mythology" typically makes one think of the Greek myths and the like. Nobody likes to have their religion compared to obviously metaphorical legends from a couple thousand years ago.

      What these offended believers don't understand is "mythology" is a neutral term, used to describe a belief system not rooted in fact. If you are offended by the term when used in a neutral fashion such as the GGP's post, you should be questioning how firm your beliefs really are, not the intent of the speaker.

    32. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 2

      Dude!! You just blew my pastafarian mind... pitchforks WOULD be the natural enemy of the FSM! This explains everything from medieval times forward! Pirates, we must unite to defend our great propagator using our sporks of injustice!!

    33. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      To some, it does. To others, it doesn't. You've just pointed out the eternal struggle between religion and rationality. Some believers have the wisdom to accept both; the first metaphorically and the second logically (these people are actually pretty interesting to talk to, and I'm atheist!).

      Most people pick a side and rabidly defend it, though. Until that changes (and it's happening now, albeit in fits and starts), you risk a flame war to say Christianity (or any religion, really) fits point #1.

    34. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather just leave people alone, but does that mean we have to be on eggshells?

      This is a great comment. I think it's interesting that so many people get so uppity about their belief systems, regardless of where they stand on the religion chessboard. Of course, from my perspective it seems a little one-sided, but it does happen from all quarters. I think it's fair to say we live in a world of many beliefs, some nutty, some "metaphorical", and some 100% rational (as in, no "leap of faith" is required).

      It'd be nice to think we could discuss the things we discover or believe without people getting all bent out of shape. We all know you can't change someone else's belief system; the best you can do is plant a seed which may find fertile ground. If that seed doesn't take, so be it. As someone who grew up in a pretty religious family, but pulled the cord the chute as early into adulthood as I could, I have to live in both worlds (every holiday, baby!). Our rabid defense of our belief systems make it far more difficult than necessary to explain our thoughts and why we think the way we do. I'm struggling pretty hard to keep my cool and bite off the snark when explaining why the whole "god" thing doesn't jibe for me, and I'm getting better at it. I'd like to think I'm not alone.

    35. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by DinDaddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Curious why you posit a difference between modern religions vs. older Greek religions that leads you to label the latter unequivocally as myths? Maybe I am reading a distinction you did not intend, but I would have said "makes one think of older Greek religions which are now accepted as myths".

    36. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      They'd also need a large spoon-like shovel to effectively twirl him into submission.

    37. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by DinDaddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Carbon 14 dating assumes that the half-life is fairly constant,

      No it doesn't. It accounts for events like this.

    38. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 2

      Fair point, but the age of a story really has nothing to do with whether it is a myth or not.

      Both ancient and more modern religious stories can be correctly labelled as "myth", assuming the intended definition is: "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth

    39. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      It is poorly made, because it is not distorted as it should be by being wrapped around a face.

      There have been many recreations, look online for them.

    40. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Below the 775 and above the tree rings should be perfectly normal. Carbon dating is not solely based on researching tree ring data as that would make dating other things than that particular tree rather difficult, you know. ;)

    41. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      Oh, man... what if they use our giant sporks against us!?

    42. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Would this mean carbon dating is inaccurate for items older than 1300 years?

      One of the reasons 14C in tree rings is measured in such detail is to allow for the correction of 14C dates due to the variation in atmospheric 14C levels over time.

      I used to work in a lab that, among other things, helped put together the atmospheric 14C record going back thousands of years (although I was over in the stable isotope part of the lab, not working on 14C). You can get a very long record by piecing together overlapping information from lots of long-lived (and, depending on circumstances, long-dead) trees.

      So to answer your question: The various spikes, dips, and long-term variations in the 14C record have been known for a long time. The fact that this spike exists is not news - it's the cause of the spike that's news.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    43. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That's like saying "don't you think it's a little demeaning to the British when you Northern Irish bomb their police stations?"* The atheists (actually, a subset of them) are at war with anyone who would dare to believe in a diety, despite the fact that the athiests have noything but faith to back up their extreme beliefs.

      I just shake my head and have pity for them. Such fear, God but it must hurt to be an antitheist.

      * Yes, I know the violence there is supposed to have ended.

    44. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      My dad, who is a retired Lutheran minister, has occasionally stirred up trouble by talking about Christian mythology in the sense of the first of the above definitions while trying to explain a Christian world-view. It seems that a lot of people refuse to understand the word "myth" as anything but "falsehood" and can't grasp the idea of a story illustrating or explaining a deeper understanding of the world. This misunderstanding is common for both religious and the anti-religious people.

    45. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by careysub · · Score: 1

      In which case it is a much earlier fake? The authentic article would have been created around AD 32.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    46. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by careysub · · Score: 1

      ... SciAm used to be a pretty cool magazine, well, 50 years ago. When I was a high school kid I spent about two weeks one summer reading on microfilm pretty much every Amateur Scientist column from the 30s (when it was all telescopes) until the 70s when it started sucking. ...

      The era of its sucking can be traced to 1986, when the its publisher - the U.S. owned textbook company WH Freeman - was sold to the German media conglomerate Holtzbrinck Group. After that its conversion into a light science entertainment magazine proceeded in a number of stages, each sadder than the last. I had a subscription continuously from 1968 (when I was a child) until about 1990 when it finally started printing pretty pictures to illustrate articles that were mere wallpaper, without any informational content whatsoever, and material that seemed simply to have been lifted from a website by a non-technical writer.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    47. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      This is the same faulty reasoning that makes people think the year 2000 is the first year of the 21st century. There was no year 0 because when the modern calendar was developed they were still using Roman numerals. The calendar goes from 1 BC to 1 AD with no zero.

      Astrononomical year 0 (which is what you'd expect to be in use in discussion of astronomical effects) is Julian calendar year 1 BC, and ISO 8601 (another common modern system) year 0 is proleptic Gregorian calendar year 1 BC.

      The phrase "the modern calendar" is meaningless, because there are several modern calendars, many of which have a year 0.

      Of course, the assumption that the Shroud of Turin should (if it were authentic, and if the dates calculated after the fact on which the Christian calendar was based were correct) date from at the latest shortly before before year 0 (astronomical) or 1 BC (Julian) is in error, because it associates either the mythology of the Shroud of Turin or the epoch date for the Christian calendar with the wrong event.

    48. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, fluctuations in tree ring c14 readings form year to year are used as a way to calibrate c14 readings to make them more accurate. Having a spike like this in a year absolutely dated by dendrochronology will be a useful marker for dating wood samples where the tree ring sequence is unclear.

      See:
      http://www.radiocarbon.com/tree-ring-calibration.htm

    49. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by careysub · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity how to you refer to stories of recounted in the Hindu Vedas, the Zoroastrian Avesta, or the oral narratives of indigenous peoples around the world? Have you ever even thought of any of the accounts of Rama or Vishnu, say, as being "Hindu myths"?

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    50. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by spook+brat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is it only demeaning if the beliefs are held by a major segment? There are still people who believe in or honor the Norse gods too, but I have yet to hear anyone get upset about the phrase "North Mythology".

      I'll give you your report about Norse mythology getting people upset, then. During my time in the Army I got to spend some time doing joint ops with the Norwegian military. I was given stern warnings by my buddies that the guys wearing hammer tattoos in the bar on base were not safe to taunt regarding their religion. Reason given: it's likely to get a violent response. I'm sure that when they're sober they would take some friendly ribbing just fine, but I felt no desire to see how a drunk Thor worshiper would react to being ridiculed at their base's bar for believing in a myth.

      --
      Travel the Galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... ...and kill them - http://schlockmercenary.com
    51. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the most extreme atheists would take the irrational position of stating unequivocally that there isn't a god (even Dawkins would call himself agnostic when asked) most would just say it is extremely unlikely there is a god and would change their minds if presented with real proof that god exists. It is absurd to say that atheists rely on faith to back up their beliefs, they rely on a complete lack of evidence for god existing to base their opinion that there is no god, but would be willing to change their minds if there was solid evidence to the contrary.

    52. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      No. A false belief is still false and even if the entire world believes it, it is not demeaning to call it false. That massive and silly death cult (and yes, it is a death cult) is a mythology thus it is not demeaning to call it such.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    53. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carbon dating only work on "dead" items, the trees were alive at the time and thats why they show the higher 14C.

    54. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      The monks of Glastonbury would like a word...

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    55. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by just_common_sense · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's a straw man. You're forming a mental picture of how the "real thing" would look like and then disproving it. The fact is, nobody really knows how the image on the Shroud was formed.

      What surprises me is that there isn't any reasonable explanation (that I know of) for how such a fake could be produced, even though the Shroud is perhaps the most studied artifact in our history. There's pretty good evidence that the image isn't painted. (For instance, the VP-8 image analysis shows a "3D" quality and the image only exists on the surface of the fibers.) So how was it made? If you know of any theories that account for everything, I'd be glad to hear them.

      From what I've heard, the recreations fail in major ways, even though our technology is far, far better than what they had in the middle ages. ;-) If I'm wrong about that, please provide an example. I'd also like to point out that in the middle ages, they didn't have the types of analysis we have today, and would have had no reason, for instance, to fake aspects that can only be seen on the microscopic level.

      I honestly don't know whether the Shroud is a forgery or not, but I've always been quite overwhelmed by the amount of evidence that suggests it is not.

    56. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it only demeaning if the beliefs are held by a major segment? There are still people who believe in or honor the Norse gods too, but I have yet to hear anyone get upset about the phrase "North Mythology".

      I'll give you your report about Norse mythology getting people upset, then. During my time in the Army I got to spend some time doing joint ops with the Norwegian military. I was given stern warnings by my buddies that the guys wearing hammer tattoos in the bar on base were not safe to taunt regarding their religion. Reason given: it's likely to get a violent response. I'm sure that when they're sober they would take some friendly ribbing just fine, but I felt no desire to see how a drunk Thor worshiper would react to being ridiculed at their base's bar for believing in a myth.

      Well i think someone played a trick on you, as there are approximately zero Norwegians who believe in Thor or any of the other Norse gods. I have certainly never met one, and I live here.

    57. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carbon 14 dating assumes that the half-life is fairly constant,

      No it doesn't. It accounts for events like this.

      Um, yeah it does. What accurate dating accounts for is variations in the source of C14 -- that has nothing to do with the half-life which is constant.

    58. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      I'd love to respond to the specifics of your post, but you posted AC. I don't provide meaningful replies for ACs.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    59. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carbon 14 dating assumes that the half-life is fairly constant,

      No it doesn't. It accounts for events like this.

      The *half-life* is constant.
      The amount of C14 in the environment will vary however.

    60. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your friends were messing with you. I'm Norwegian and this is the first time I've heard about people believing in Norse mythology, none the least there being so many of them that they would be able to group up in the army.

    61. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Plammox · · Score: 1

      Hammer/Thor/Mjølner/Norse stuff are more symbols of manhood and viking heritage, and are quite popular in the nordic region.

      But if there are swastikas tattooed alongside, I'd be wary, though...

    62. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You will need some citations for such bold claims, my understanding was that it had been totally disproven.

      Heck, it only dates from the 13th century.

    63. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Have you ever even thought of any of the accounts of Rama or Vishnu, say, as being "Hindu myths"?

      Surprisingly, no. I spent a year in Thailand, a Bhuddist country, and I have the utmost respect for them. Especially one Bhudist priest; I'll recount a story but you'll surely think it's bullshit, because if I hadn't experienced it myself I wouldn't believe it. I probably recounted this story elsewhere, but here it is.

      I was out in the boonies by the ocean visiting some Thai friends, and waited by the side of the road for a bhat bus back to the base (I was stationed in Thailand, it was at the end of the Vietnam war). A bhat bus was a Japanese pickup truck with benches and a canopy in the back.

      I kept looking back and forth for the bus, and when I looked from right to left this portly gentleman in a bright orange robe was standing next to me. It made me think of the TV show Kung Fu. But it got better.

      I exchanged pleasantries with him, and twenty minutes later I looked down the road for the bus and saw it coming. "Oh, there he is" I said, and turned to the priest, and he'd disappeared. The "bus" showed up and I told the driver to wait a minute, that there was someone else there a minute earlier who wanted a ride. He asked me to describe the fellow (remember, this was a dirt road through the jungle). When I did, his eyes got big and he said "wow, you've been blessed! He's special, few have ever seen him." He motioned for me to get in the front passenger seat, I did, and he took off.

      Five minutes later as I was looking out the window he slammed on the brakes, and when I looked, the priest in the flourescent orange robe was sitting between us!

      The driver made me get in the back.

      That was nearly 40 years ago, and although I've tried to think of a rational explanation for what I'd seen, I still can't explain that Asian David Copperfield. God must surely be with the Bhuddists, but after all, he created all this. Including Bhudda.

    64. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly playing to the choir on that one, donutz, this article was posted with a science tag.

    65. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      Probably not as demeaning as condescension, however to avoid offense we could use the more accurate form "braindoggle" if you like.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    66. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Jon_E · · Score: 1

      too lazy to login .. don't slash dots much anymore these days

      actually thinking about this more .. what really throws radiocarbon dating off now (IIUC) is the nuclear testing and bombs that were dropped to end WWII - who's to say that previous civilizations didn't reach similar states in the past and perhaps wipe themselves out? Atlantis anyone?

      the overall point being that every belief system has some degree of "evidence" and there's always some amount of faith involved in accepting said "evidence" and there's still a lot that we don't know.

    67. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Jon_E · · Score: 1

      (somewhat paraphrased conversation between CS Lewis and JRR Tolkein relayed by Humphrey Carpenter that I like)

      CS Lewis: "Myths are lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver."
      JRR Tolkein: "They are not lies. Far from being lies they were the best way — sometimes the only way — of conveying truths that would otherwise remain inexpressible. We have come from God, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily toward the true harbor, whereas materialistic "progress" leads only to the abyss and the power of evil."

      anyhow - read Joseph Pearce's article on the conversation and back story .. quite interesting .. http://catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0107.html

    68. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Would this mean carbon dating is inaccurate for items older than 1300 years?

      No. Because for over 30 years now, carbon dating has been done by comparing carbon isotope ratios with samples of known age (tree-ring samples, counted back from the present day and dated to a precision of <0.5 years). This allows the system to be robust against natural variations in the production rate of C14, including this "spike". The abstract includes a note that the spike in C14 would be consistent with existing C14 calibration curves if there was 10 years of averaging in the sampling process.

      Time to redate the Shroud of Turin?

      No. It's a fake that was made about 500 years after the event under discussion and so is unlikely to have been affected at all by this event. It's ability to extract money and devotion from the credulous remains undiminished by this, at least for the moment.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    69. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      The description of the various beliefs is accurate : they're mythology.

      That some people hold those beliefs to actually be true is them being demeaning - of themselves.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    70. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      You won't get an argument from me that myths aren't valuable. Learning by analogy and parable is very effective, and risk free. My point was simply that the word "myth" should not cause undue stress on anybody. It's not meant to be a derogatory term; hell, it doesn't even necessarily mean a story is untrue!

      CS Lewis' mistake was lumping "myths" in with "lies", which does come across as insulting. Tolkien then goes on to point out the purpose of myths, which is to highlight some life lesson or truism that would be difficult to express otherwise. (He then goes on with the god is great bit, which is where he loses me). Anyway, both myths and lies may be technically untrue (and some myth may even be have roots in truth), but they serve different purposes. There's a category that lies between truth and lie, and that is legend, myth, fable, etc. When you read a bedtime story to your kid, are you lying to her?

      My take on the whole shebang is this: Aesop's fables probably never happened, but it really doesn't matter. They are useful. His fables stop being useful and start being scary when organized religion is built around them being official historical record.

    71. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poorly made fake? By the adjective 'poorly' you seem to imply that it was deliberately made as a fake. (My apologies if you did not mean it that way) It's beleived it was the death shroud of a French Nobel. It wasn't poorly made nor a fake when it came into existence. Yes, some years later some people tried to pass it off as Jesus death shroud, making it a 'fake' in regards to Jesus. But, it isn't fake in the fact it is still an historicly significant find. And carbon dating it, as the parent suggests, would have no benefit as the results would return the same (because if it was Jesus's death shroud, then the events of 775CE would have no affect on the C14 as the plants/animal used to make the fabric of the shroud were already dead). If the plants/animals were still alive in 775CE, then we could have reason to carbon date it again ... not that the parent was suggesting it for that reason.

    72. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fear the coming of the butter sauce with mushrooms and the empty pastry lined pie tin awaiting a rabbit filling.

    73. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by just_common_sense · · Score: 1
      Could you clarify which of my statements are "bold claims"? You are claiming that the Shroud is a forgery from the 13th century, but the origin and dating of the Shroud is still a subject of intense debate in the scientific community. This Wikipedia article has some good information on the subject, including much of the "evidence" that I mentioned earlier.

      It's funny, I was reading through some of the "Skeptical sites" linked at the bottom of the Wikipedia page, and was surprised to find this summary in "the Skeptic's Dictionary":

      Of course, the cloth might be 3,000 or 2,000 years old, as Rogers speculates, but the image on the cloth could date from a much later period. No matter what date is correct for either the cloth or the image, the date cannot prove to any degree of reasonable probability that the cloth is the shroud Jesus was wrapped in and that the image is somehow miraculous. To believe that will always be a matter of faith, not scientific proof.

      So yes, the age of the cloth and image is still very much in question.

    74. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carbon 14 dating has been pretty inaccurate for many years now. This would only continually push it out as a faulty method of determining ages.

    75. Re:Effect on Carbon dating? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Abusive moderation alert.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  6. Solar telescopes? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

    Where people making observations of the Sun in 775?

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Solar telescopes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No. The sun was completely invisible until 1013.

    2. Re:Solar telescopes? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Police wrote a song about that, IIRC.

    3. Re:Solar telescopes? by brusk · · Score: 2

      Everywhere. Not telescope-quality, but historical records do mention unusual sunspot activity and the like. Something this big would have been noted, had it been visible.

      --
      .sig withheld by request
    4. Re:Solar telescopes? by michelcolman · · Score: 0

      Mod parent funny :-)

    5. Re:Solar telescopes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Per Wikipedia's article on solar flares, no. Yeah, it's wikipedia, but a little googling seems to confirm no known observations prior to 1859.

    6. Re:Solar telescopes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I do it'll be because I think it's funny; not because you say so.
      I really wish people would stop with this sort of thing.

    7. Re:Solar telescopes? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare#History
      Says that the first observation of a solar flare didn't take place until the 1800s.
      I am not all that sure about duration of such events but what if it had only been visible from the Americas? You still have the other effects but missing direct observation or no surviving data from direct observation seems very possible.
         

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:Solar telescopes? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I take it that blindness was a common occupational hazard for those observers.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:Solar telescopes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such recommendations on AC posts are useful if moderators don't lower their score threshold when moderating and therefore wouldn't see the AC post at all, but might see the recommendation post for it (because non-ACs get higher default score).

    10. Re:Solar telescopes? by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      He had actually been modded down, which I thought was undeserved, and I had already posted so I couldn't mod him up myself. So I thought I'd show my appreciation this way, which is quite a common thing to do and usually results in the post indeed being modded up by others later.

    11. Re:Solar telescopes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Caution: Do Not Stare Into Sun With Remaining Eye.

    12. Re:Solar telescopes? by tom17 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mod parent insightful!!!!

    13. Re:Solar telescopes? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Informative

      Where people making observations of the Sun in 775?

      Considering that the Camera Obscura dates back to at least 400 BCE, I would say yes, yes there were.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    14. Re:Solar telescopes? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Mod parent redundant!

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    15. Re:Solar telescopes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats why it was the Dark Ages.

    16. Re:Solar telescopes? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Mod parent!

    17. Re:Solar telescopes? by tom17 · · Score: 1

      mod_proxy!

  7. nuttin special goin on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/775
    the usual

  8. Chuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Arrival of Chuck Norris?

  9. It is Quit Obvious by arthurpaliden · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Sol system was the site of a major inter-stellar battle. Two great space armadas firing nuclear weapons at each other. Each one trying to gain a foothold in this part of the Western Spiral Arm until of course they realized there was nothing worth it here.

    Either that or a Vogon constructor fleet started making a hyper space by-pass. They got the planet between Mars and Jupiter and then the funding ran out.

    1. Re:It is Quit Obvious by klik · · Score: 2

      doesn't even need to be in this galaxy. a shot fired and missing will just keep travelling until it hits something.

      --
      open your mind too much and your brain falls out!
    2. Re:It is Quit Obvious by arthurpaliden · · Score: 2

      Yea, Issac Newton is the most dangerous man in the Universe.

    3. Re:It is Quit Obvious by Lord+Lode · · Score: 1

      I read a book once, it was about UFO's, ancient Chinese flying carts, and an ancient nuclear war. Maybe that is it!

    4. Re:It is Quit Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space.

    5. Re:It is Quit Obvious by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      doesn't even need to be in this galaxy. a shot fired and missing will just keep travelling until it hits something.

      Assuming perfect parallel, that is. We are talking about directed energy weapons here, right? Presumably they will tend to have a focus.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:It is Quit Obvious by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      Someone plays way too much Mass Effect.

    7. Re:It is Quit Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Vogons, that's sci-fi, but you guessed right about the battle. What you couldn't know is that the Sol System was declared a no fly zone since then. That's why humans don't see any aliens and the occasional large-eyes gray-skin smugglers are so secretive. I'm sure you'll understand that I have to post this as AC.

    8. Re:It is Quit Obvious by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      I read a book once, it was about ... ancient Chinese flying carts...

      1421? And what a bunch of junk that was...

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  10. Volcano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A Volcano could have spit out the this stuff?

    1. Re:Volcano? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      A Volcano could have spit out the this stuff?

      Stop that! Stop that!

      You're not going to talk about Scientology while I'm here.....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Volcano? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Volcanos don't spit C14.

  11. Behind the Sun?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Behind the Sun?"

    Maximum Prophet, for your information, the Earth rotates around the Sun.

    Being behind the Sun may not matter here, if the effect was strong and _long_ enough to elevate C14 levels.

    1. Re:Behind the Sun?! by rvw · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Behind the Sun?"

      Maximum Prophet, for your information, the Earth rotates around the Sun.

      Being behind the Sun may not matter here, if the effect was strong and _long_ enough to elevate C14 levels.

      Wrong! Back then, the universe rotated around the earth. Everybody knows that. So it could be perfectly true back then, that this supernova hid behind the sun.

    2. Re:Behind the Sun?! by mu51c10rd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wrong again. Everyone knows the Earth was flat in 775...so there was no rotation only spinnning. Perfectly plausible to have a supernova hide under the Earth.

    3. Re:Behind the Sun?! by Surt · · Score: 0

      That the effect was strong enough to elevate C14 levels doesn't change how long a supernova takes. Either a supernova is a valid explanation or not.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:Behind the Sun?! by Jamu · · Score: 1

      And it still does, about once every 24 hours.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    5. Re:Behind the Sun?! by Noughmad · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course, it all makes sense now. The supernove killed all the turtles, so the Earth had no choice but to start rotating.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    6. Re:Behind the Sun?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although it did leave a few mutant turtles in their adolescent years alive.

    7. Re:Behind the Sun?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the way down.

    8. Re:Behind the Sun?! by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      Poor Maturin.. even his enormous girth couldn't save him

    9. Re:Behind the Sun?! by Surt · · Score: 1

      Metamods: Abusive moderation alert.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  12. 1300 ys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, that object still is shrouded in mystery. But, recall, it is not older than 1300 years. It is from 1300AD , more or less.

  13. Southern hemisphere supernova by vlm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yet, as the only known events that can produce a 14C spike are supernova explosions or ... and neither event was observed at the time

    ... was observed at the time in surviving northern written records.

    Are there any detailed written astronomical observations from the southern hemisphere from that long ago?

    Also it would be pretty funny if the two guys recording solar observations in 775 both had a rainstorm the day of the largest solar flare.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Southern hemisphere supernova by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are there any detailed written astronomical observations from the southern hemisphere from that long ago?

      In 775 the Maya were almost certainly making astronomical observations. In the Eastern Hemisphere, I had to Google a bit but the Srivijaya Empire would have had a strong interest in astronomy for navigational purposes. But neither the Maya nor the Srivijaya civilizations have near as many surviving records as do European or Chinese civilizations of the same period.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:Southern hemisphere supernova by goodmanj · · Score: 2

      If it was a supernova, the Arabs and Indians were writing a lot about astronomy at around that time, and were observing from latitude 30 degrees or so. From there, they would be able to see over 90% of the sky, all but the area right at the south celestial pole. So odds are they'd have seen it. Also, the full scientific article points out that if a supernova had occurred close enough to cause the 14C spike, it would still be bright and obvious today. And while medieval Arabs might miss something, our modern full-sky surveys don't.

      If it was a solar flare, northern hemisphere vs southern hemisphere doesn't matter: everybody can see the sun. I suppose if it was an event lasting less than a few hours, taking place during the nighttime in Eurasia, nobody would see it but native Americans and Pacific islanders. But that seems unlikely too.

    3. Re:Southern hemisphere supernova by vlm · · Score: 1

      taking place during the nighttime in Eurasia, nobody would see it but native Americans and Pacific islanders. But that seems unlikely too

      Well that's like 50:50 odds right there, not "unlikely". Then add in lost records, add in weather phenomena (cloudy can't see sun today)...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Southern hemisphere supernova by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The maya are in the Northern hemisphere

    5. Re:Southern hemisphere supernova by jd · · Score: 1

      You've also got to consider this "observable" part. High-energy radiation is required, but we've found plenty of non-visible sources of high-energy radiation. Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) being the most significant. We've never had a GRB close enough to do much beyond screw with gamma-ray detectors, but I would imagine that a direct hit by a relatively nearby one would make for all kinds of interesting effects.

      How far does "known events" take you? Do they mean "events that have historically caused the effect" or "events that physically could cause the effect"? My guess is the former.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Southern hemisphere supernova by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      I agree that the year 775 is kind of a bad time for reliable recorded history, but it's still difficult to explain why nobody saw this.

      Well that's like 50:50 odds right there, not "unlikely".

      Not 50-50, because Eurasia is kind of big. People were recording history from Spain to Kyoto. There are only a couple of hours between sunset in Europe and sunrise in Japan; at any other time of day, someone in Eurasia would have seen the sun.

      And even if they didn't, a massive flare would have created massive auroras visible at night around the world. The great solar storm of 1859 created northern lights down to the Carribean, and that one would have been tiny compared to this.

    7. Re:Southern hemisphere supernova by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Maya were in the northern hemisphere, although quite close to the equator (about 15 degrees north)

    8. Re:Southern hemisphere supernova by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Mayans lived in the northern hemisphere. The Yucatan peninsula in Mexico points to Cuba, which is close to Florida, USA. Chichen Itza is about 200 miles south of Miami. But the Srivijaya empire was located across the equator, that would be a good source.

    9. Re:Southern hemisphere supernova by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Just so you anonymous cowards know, it's not like there's a big concrete wall at the equator that keeps people in the northern hemisphere from seeing the southern sky. If you're at latitude X in one hemisphere, you can see the sky up to latitude 90-X in the opposite hemisphere. Even here in New England (45 north), I can see down to 45 south celestial latitude, which means I can see 85% of the sky. (If that seems wrong to you, read up on solid angle trigonometry.)

      Since the Maya were near the equator, they could see pretty much the entire sky (98%).

    10. Re:Southern hemisphere supernova by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re:Southern hemisphere supernova by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Actually GRBs do have a visible component. If one happened close by, we would definitely see it.
      http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast18may99_1/

      How far does "known events" take you? Do they mean "events that have historically caused the effect" or "events that physically could cause the effect"? My guess is the former.

      There are no historical events that have caused an event like this. None of the supernovae or solar flares we've seen have had such a large effect on 14C production, so whatever this is, it must be bigger than anything we've seen before, or a different category altogether.

    12. Re:Southern hemisphere supernova by jd · · Score: 1

      That's why I'm thinking a GRB sounds like a good candidate. The energy levels are absolutely staggering but because they're bordering on pencil-thin lines, the odds of something being both close AND a direct hit is extremely small.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  14. Has anyone said "aliens" yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of religious turmoil at the time. Maybe the old gods were angry and blew somebody up? You know how those 22nd century time travelers get when you piss them off.

  15. Neither explanation is likely by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since a near supernova enough to increase Carbon 14 levels would leave other effects, and the flares explanation is, similarly, weak.It is just as likely there was a temporary reduction in the earth's magnetic field that allowed more ambient cosmic rays to strike earth. While this amount of variation in the magnetic field is high, it isn't out of range of other events. It has the further advantage of not leaving a large number of highly visible effects, except for very strong auroras, which, given the date, might not have been recorded frequently or unequivocally enough.

    1. Re:Neither explanation is likely by vlm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It has the further advantage of not leaving a large number of highly visible effects

      What about geological magnetic field records?

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

      A lot of the initial geomagnetic reversal theory was figured out by basically plotting magnetic field strips across the sea floor using pretty crude equipment. Screwing around with the field that much would seem easy to detect now?

      I had a geologist roommate once... I know just enough about geology to be really dangerous (like programmer with screwdriver)

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Neither explanation is likely by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Informative

      I had a geologist roommate once... I know just enough about geology to be really dangerous (like programmer with screwdriver)

      Yeah, this probably won't work. Magnetostratigraphy typically gives you information about changes taking place over the timescale that rock formations are created -- millions of years. Those seafloor magnetic field stripes are 100,000 to a million years wide.

      That said, if you found a place with intense, continuous volcanic activity, like Hawaii or Iceland, you might be able to find a series of lava flows the right age that would preserve the magnetic field data. The problem would be precisely dating the lava flows -- you can't use 14C dating for that.

    3. Re:Neither explanation is likely by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1

      Not over a short flux, which is all that would be required.

    4. Re:Neither explanation is likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about knives or swords manufactured at the time? Yeah, rather tough to track down such antique weapons with reliable dates. Would the data be there even?

    5. Re:Neither explanation is likely by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      It's true that weapon steel contains carbon, but the amount of radiocarbon in it is set when the tree that created the carbon grew. If the blacksmith used charcoal, it'll be a mixture of carbon from the many years the tree was growing before the charcoal maker chopped it down. If he's using mineral coal, there will be no radiocarbon at all, because that carbon came from a tree that grew hundreds of millions of years ago.

    6. Re:Neither explanation is likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since a near supernova enough to increase Carbon 14 levels vents.

      Volcanos alter C14. The researchers measured trees in the northern hemisphere, which happened to have multiple class 6 eruptions around that time. This article seems poorly researched.

      Fact: "Spurious radiocarbon dates caused by volcanic emanations depleted CO2 probably also come under the category of reservoir corrections. Plants which grow in the vicinity of active volcanic fumeroles will yield a radiocarbon age which is too old."

  16. Loki by killmenow · · Score: 1

    There Loki goes again, just messin' with us.

    1. Re:Loki by multicoregeneral · · Score: 1

      No no no. It was obviously the Cybermen. Or maybe the Borg. It all depends on which side of the Atlantic you're talking about.

      --
      This signature intentionally left blank.
  17. Oh no... by Vrekais · · Score: 1

    Why does this remind me of Nightfall? *SPOILERS* The scientists of the day in that book discover the fossil record of previous civilisations just prior to the cycle repeating itself, think I'm going to go build a fall out shelter.

  18. But obviously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aliens iradiated earth to stimulate speciation and evolution in the hope that someday we would become good hosts for their symbiotic / larvae pupe form.

    Either this or it's because of the remaining radiations of the top-secret leaving time machine, going back to 2013.

  19. New model of spaceship that year for the grays by Zondar · · Score: 1

    They bought the budget model that didn't include the extra shielding.

  20. Aliens! by oneiros27 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Lister: Your explanation for anything slightly peculiar is aliens, isn't it? You lose your keys, it's aliens. A picture falls off the wall, it's aliens. That time we used up a whole bog roll in a day, you thought that was aliens as well.
    Rimmer: Well we didn't use it all, Lister. Who did?
    Lister: Rimmer, *aliens* used our bog roll?
    Rimmer: Just cause they're aliens doesn't mean to say they don't have to visit the little boys' room. Only they probably do something weird and alien-esque, like it comes out of the top of their heads or something.

    --Red Dwarf, "Kryten"

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  21. There's one other thing that can cause a spike... by BurstElement · · Score: 2

    Atmospheric nuclear expolisions can also cause a spike in C14... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
    The obvious answer is that earth was nuked in the year 775!!!

  22. obviously it was... by DSS11Q13 · · Score: 1

    ALIENS

    is such a thing even possible?

    yes it is

  23. Re:There's one other thing that can cause a spike. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hardly a spike, if we believe the written records of that time (referenced in the comments to the original article) which speak about lights that could be seen for many nights.

  24. god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was god. You know, it acts in mysterious ways, and in things we don't know about yet. And that's proof global warming is a fallacy! god will save us all!

    1. Re:god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps a red crucifix in the sky

  25. The star of Bethlehem by Snaller · · Score: 1

    What was left of it took 775 years to get to earth.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  26. Neither event was observed at the time by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Just because it was not observed, does not mean it did not happen.

    If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, it still makes a sound.

    1. Re:Neither event was observed at the time by aglider · · Score: 1

      If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, it still makes a sound.

      Are you really really sure?

      --
      Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    2. Re:Neither event was observed at the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prove it

    3. Re:Neither event was observed at the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      --Jay Christ & Muhammad

    4. Re:Neither event was observed at the time by aglider · · Score: 1

      No observer, no observation, no reality. Sorry.

      --
      Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  27. Obligatory final line by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

    Rimmer: Just cause they're aliens doesn't mean to say they don't have to visit the little boys' room. Only they probably do something weird and alien-esque, like it comes out of the top of their heads or something.

    Lister: Well, I wouldn't like to be stuck behind one in a cinema.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    1. Re:Obligatory final line by oneiros27 · · Score: 1
      It loses something without the rest of the context. You could've instead gone for one of the other quotes about Rimmer insisting it's aliens:

      Lister: What do you believe in, then? Do you believe in God?
      Rimmer: God? Certainly not! What a preposterous thought! I believe in aliens, Lister.
      Lister: Oh, right, fine. Something sensible at last.
      Rimmer: Aliens, Lister, with technology so far in advance of our own we can't even begin to imagine.
      Lister: Well, that's not difficult. Mankind hasn't even got the technology to create a toupee that doesn't get big laughs.
      Rimmer: Aliens, Lister, who can give me a real body.
      Lister: Ooohhh, I can't wait to see your face in the morning, I really can't.
      Rimmer: And nor I yours, Lister. When that pod opens and from it emerges a beautiful alien woman with long green hair and six breasts.
      Lister: Six breasts?! Imagine making love to a woman with six breasts!
      Rimmer: Imagine making love to a woman!

      -- Red Dwarf, "Waiting for God"

      ... or ...

      Rimmer: Aliens!
      Lister: What?
      Cat: What are you talking about, grease stain?
      Rimmer: It's a well documented phenomenon. They kidnap you, give you a mind probe, erase your memory, and put you back.
      Lister: Okay, aliens came aboard.
      Rimmer: Without question.
      Lister: They broke my leg.
      Rimmer: For some reason.
      Cat: They broke *my* leg.
      Rimmer: Right.
      Holly: And then they did a jigsaw.
      Rimmer: Right.
      Holly: Well, that's cleared that up then.
      Rimmer: Look, you're not thinking alien. That's what aliens are: alien. They do alien things. Things that are... alien. Maybe this is the way they communicate.
      Cat: By breaking legs?
      Lister: And doing jigsaws?
      Rimmer: Why should they speak the way we do? They're aliens.
      Lister: Okay, professor, what does it mean?
      Rimmer: Maybe, maybe, okay? Breaking your leg hurts like hell, okay? "Hel." They do it below the knee, "lo." "Hel-lo," get it? They do it twice. Twice, "two." "Hello two." And the jigsaw must mean "you." "Hello to you."
      Cat: I wouldn't like to be around when one of these suckers is making a speech!

      -- Red Dwarf, "Thanks for the Memories"

      --
      Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    2. Re:Obligatory final line by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      It loses something without the rest of the context.

      I was replying to a post that *does* include more of the conversation- the only bit it missed out was Lister's final comment for some reason, and we couldn't have had that, could we? Hence my one-line reply. :-)

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  28. Someone didn't enter the code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone didn't enter the code when the 108-minute timer reached zero.

  29. The Empire blew up Alderaan by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

    Geeze, and these guys call themselves scientists.

  30. Year of Permissiveness by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    775 was a year of false permissiveness when anyone could read or do anything as long as it was produced by a small cabal known as "the group", headed by "owner".

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    1. Re:Year of Permissiveness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it - hint please.

    2. Re:Year of Permissiveness by WillAdams · · Score: 2
      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    3. Re:Year of Permissiveness by condition-label-red · · Score: 1

      Really ROTFLOL!!!

      This is one of the BEST comments I have seen in a long time!

      --
      Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
    4. Re:Year of Permissiveness by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      Further information was given in the 2nd Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or "ASCII"

  31. here's your explainatiion by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    1908 - 775 = 1133.
    I've checked this several times and it always comes out the same. It's factually correct, so it must be the explanation.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  32. Re:There's other things that can cause a spike... by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

    Large scale: the solar system passed through the debris field of an old super nova and Earth picked up a lot of meteors high in C14.

    Mid scale: Earth was struck by the remnants of a comet that had taken the full force of a solar flare while at its perihelion. The flare was not aimed at Earth, but Earth picked up a lot of meteors high in C14.

    Small scale: The young punk delivery guy who brought the pizza to the Collaborated Alien Archeology Group that was studying Stonehenge kicked his runabout into hyperdrive before leaving the Earth's atmosphere. He would have been ticketed for that, but the mess he left behind would have cost more than the Galactic Overlord had in his budget for cleaning up a pre-industrial world.

    --
    Will
  33. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that, as the article points out, the reamains of any supernova that could account for the levels of radiation needed, would be easily detectable today. And a solar flare that would be powerful enough to have caused that effect, would also result in massive auroras (although that apparently is somewhat debatable), which would be extremely unlikely not to be commented upon in *any* of the surviving 'scientific' or historical documents. So the chances of either event happening and not being observed are miniscule.

    A supernova is pretty much out. And according to our *current understanding of solar flares* it was not a solar flare either. Very interesting little puzzle, even if all it results in, is 'only' a better understanding of solar flares. Or better understanding of how the Earth's magnetic field can fluctuate or whatever. Or even a revisiting of some obscure references to brighter northern lights in old documents.

  34. well by JustOK · · Score: 5, Informative

    A.D. 774. This year the Northumbrians banished their king,
    Alred, from York at Easter-tide; and chose Ethelred, the son of
    Mull, for their lord, who reigned four winters. This year also
    appeared in the heavens a red crucifix, after sunset; the
    Mercians and the men of Kent fought at Otford; and wonderful
    serpents were seen in the land of the South-Saxons.

    http://omacl.org/Anglo/part2.html

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
    1. Re:well by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but probably not a very reliable text. Like so:

      A.D. 789. This year Elwald, king of the Northumbrians, was slain by Siga, on the eleventh day before the calends of October; and a heavenly light was often seen on the spot where he was slain.

      or so:
      A.D. 793. This year came dreadful fore-warnings over the land of the Northumbrians, terrifying the people most woefully: these were immense sheets of light rushing through the air, and whirlwinds, and fiery, dragons flying across the firmament.

    2. Re:well by supercrisp · · Score: 2

      A quick Google search turns up several papers that take the Chronicle seriously enough when it comes to astronomical observation. Sure, some observations, like the convenient "heavenly light," but others, like the "sheets of light"--aurora borealis--seem plausible enough.

    3. Re:well by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Auroras aren't that uncommon at that latitude though.

    4. Re:well by JustOK · · Score: 1

      AD: 793: So, they're reporting sheet lightning and the like, and you find that hard to believe? If they reported Elves or Sprites, would you still complain?

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    5. Re:well by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Lightning is a common phenomenon. They would have seen it frequently...many times a year. But in this instant there was fire in the sky and dragons. What made this noteworthy? It certainly wasn't dragons. It's not said. My point is, it's not an accurate report of what was seen. Something probably happened...but we're left interpreting it many different ways. Could have just been a violent thunderstorm with lots of lightning that moved over the area of the observer. "Fiery and Dragons" could mean a comet, or meteor...could have been witnessed during the storm, or at some other point of the year...or it could be someone's fear induced imagination during a particularly violent thunderstorm. "immense sheets of light rushing through the air" - this could mean auroras, or again, just very violent lightning. Could have happened during the storm, or at some other time.

    6. Re:well by jd · · Score: 2

      Agreed it's not reliable, but texts that old rarely are. It does, however, mean that "no observation" of an astronomical phenomenon becomes either "probably no observation" or "no usable observation". These sorts of records get pinned to actual astronomical events by a mix of confirmation bias and sheer number - record enough events and some are bound to have actually happened, record enough things that can be interpreted as events and some are bound to be interpreted that way because they coincide with actual events.

      Some will have been actual observations of actual astronomical events, and it would be nice to imagine that 100% of those observed events that were real were recorded (although it's likely nowhere near that number), but the level of noise means that very little of what's recorded was an observed event.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good catch! The 'red crucifix' is obviously a star with relativistic jets red-shifted by birefringent hypermorphic dissimulation.

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

      and a heavenly light was often seen on the spot where he was slain.

      Bog lights?

      these were immense sheets of light rushing through the air

      Aurora Borealis?

      and whirlwinds

      Any kind of funnel clouds.

      and fiery, dragons flying across the firmament.

      Meteors?

      Elwald [...] Siga

      Yeah okay, nobody would stick their kids with names like that. The text must be fake.

  35. Alien visitation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its simple - this is the residue of the propulsion blast from the spaceship that brought alien technology to earth. All we need do is find out what giant leaps in technology were made around then & we'll have the answer.

    Either that or Freemasons 8-{D

  36. A few hints by aglider · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First of all, the 14C measurements and related considerations could be simply flawed. It would not be the first time.
    Second, the fact that the primary natural source of carbon-14 on Earth is cosmic ray action upon nitrogen in the atmosphere doesn't mean it's been a super nova for sure. That could also be due to abnormal solar activity (this is said in the article) which could easily go unobserved by civilizations that don't have the proper technology.
    Third, astronomical records at that era were relatively scarce and quite imprecise too.
    Fourth, the article talks about northern emisphere ... which would require a rather large number of samples to be studied and collected from a wide spread area (the whole northern emishere). I wonder how many (precious) samples of wood can be retrieved intact from 1200 years in the past to be literally burnt in order to measured the 14C.
    Fifth, you can also have a not-so-strong abnormal solar activity just lasting months or even quarters to produce the same amount of 14C.

    But all these could be as flawed as the original considerations ...

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:A few hints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it conceivable that something that happened on earth increased the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere, or somehow influenced the nitrogen reactions there?

    2. Re:A few hints by aglider · · Score: 1

      It's not, but it's rather difficult it can spawn fresh new 14C atoms in those required amounts.

      --
      Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    3. Re:A few hints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Following up on some of your points, the paper is based on observations from just 2 trees, both in Japan.

    4. Re:A few hints by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Third, astronomical records at that era were relatively scarce and quite imprecise too.

      That's rather presumptuous. They were neither, actually. They didn't go down to the nits back then, but the records are detailed enough that people today can still rely on them despite most records of that day and age having been lost to time. If anything, astronomical records are more reliable than any other record from that period.

      Now, it's true record-keeping was sparse in the southern hemisphere (as mentioned in TFA and TFS). But there is still information to be gleaned from less-reliable sources, and indirect references.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    5. Re:A few hints by aglider · · Score: 1

      2 trees in Japan != the whole northern emisphere!
      I fear!

      --
      Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    6. Re:A few hints by goodmanj · · Score: 2

      Following up on some of your points, the paper is based on observations from just 2 trees, both in Japan.

      With corroborating evidence from a different dataset, measured by different authors, based on trees in Europe and North America.

      That right there eliminates most (but not all) of the chance of experimental error. If it was just "hey we measured these two Japanese trees", it wouldn't be published in Nature.

    7. Re:A few hints by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      As the paper points out, it's unlikely that an astronomical event big enough to cause this would go unnoticed. The visible signs of major supernovae (1054) and massive solar flares (1859) are so spectacular (new stars as bright as the Moon; bright aurorae visible even in the tropics) that anybody with a pen would have made a note of them. But these events were not nearly big enough to cause a spike in 14C. The 775 even must have been much, much bigger and more obvious.

      I suspect the answer is simpler: unlike the 1054 supernova, nobody has had any reason to go looking through medieval documentation for crazy natural phenomena in 775. This paper will encourage historians to go scurrying off into their manuscript collections: probably in a few years they'll come back and say "Yeah, the great Persian astronomer Ibn Blahblah wrote about this in the Forgotten Tome of Celestial Mysteries"

    8. Re:A few hints by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      With corroborating evidence from a different dataset, measured by different authors, based on trees in Europe and North America.

      (I don't have access to the full paper or it's references, but ...)

      Almost certainly, one of those corroborating sets of data would be from Mike Bailey at QUB (Queens University, Belfast), who has been convinced on dendrochronological grounds that something nasty happened in the late 8th century which hasn't made it directly into the historical record.

      I was reading a textbook on dendrochronology written by Bailey at about the time that Slashdot was getting started. To call him a "grand old man of dendrochronology" would be nothing less than accurate. He must be close to retirement by now.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  37. Obviously it was Atlantis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, the Atlanteans were trying to tell Charles the Great not get too uppity. Needless to say, he wasn't intimidated and instead kicked their butts. And that's why Atlantis is no more and Charles got called the Great.

  38. Hulk smash! by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

    Clearly, he was sent to the past. Dr. Banner got angry, and started smashing anything with carbon in it. There's your source of gamma radiation.

  39. Oops, that was me. by multicoregeneral · · Score: 1

    My time machine broke, and I accidentally irradiated Italy.

    --
    This signature intentionally left blank.
  40. I take no credit for this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Richardcm posted this on reddit:

    "[The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle](http://omacl.org/Anglo/part2.html) gives this curious entry for the year 774: A.D. 774. ... This year also appeared in the heavens a red crucifix, after sunset; the Mercians and the men of Kent fought at Otford; and wonderful serpents were seen in the land of the South-Saxons.
    The Anne Savage translation says 'Men saw Christ's red cross in the heavens after sunset' but in the year 776." Interesting, and noteworthy.

  41. ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Of course

  42. No, it was engine damage by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The Greys landed here to pick up biological components for their spaceship. They were still looking for all the right parts until recently, which is what the anal probing was about. The world is slated to end in late 2012 because that's when they'll get the engines back on line and leave, killing all higher life forms on the planet because their drive is still malfunctioning.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:No, it was engine damage by Zondar · · Score: 1

      Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "up yours"...

  43. Simple answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aliens!

  44. FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he was a plumber from Sheissburg

    Scheiseburg

    1. Re:FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he was a plumber from Sheissburg

      Scheiseburg

      Well, that changed too. It was Sheissburg when Josef Gottsdamm came from there.

  45. It was the arrival of Dame Edna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She came to the Earth on that day.

  46. First Olympic games held in 775 BC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first Olympic games [called the Panhellenic Games] were first held in Olympia around 775 BC. No one knows why the games started...

    Cite Ref: http://www.mce.k12tn.net/ancient_greece/olympicgames.htm

    The games were traditionaly held to honor the gods Zeus, Poseidon and Apollo.

    Kind of makes you wonder...

    Cheers !

    Patrick R. Mullen / MSS

    1. Re:First Olympic games held in 775 BC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Argh ! Sorry, didn't realize the date was 775 AD, not "BC".

      Someone shoot me...

      Cheers !

      Patrick R. Mullen / MSS

    2. Re:First Olympic games held in 775 BC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happened in 774 - 775 A.D. ?

      From various Google / Wikipedia searches:

      In the year 775 AD the first Tibetan monks were ordained...

      King Krishna-I of the Rashtrakuta Dynasty dies [756-775 AD]...

      Borobudur Temple built by Hindu dynasty in Central Java [775 AD]...

      Mohammed El-Mahdi became Islamic Caliph of Baghdad in 775 AD...

      Constantine V dies [741-775 AD]...

      Wall construction at Samye Monastery completed in 775 AD...

      Al-Ukhaidir fortress erected [775 AD]...

      In 775 A.D the last Srivijaya king retreated to east Java...

      Céle Dé reform movement within Irish church established [c.770-c.840 AD]...

      Carolingian minuscule font developed in 775 AD...

      Rome re-introduces organ into church choir services [775 AD]...

      In 775 AD Saxon kingdoms issue silver coins known as “sterlings”...

      First drugstore opened in Baghdad around 775 AD...

      Myan "Altar Q" created by Yax Pasah [775 AD]...

      A monk from a monastery near Amida writes 'The chronicle of Zuqnin' [775-776 AD]...

      East Syriac Catholicos Henanisho-II holds a synod [775 AD]...

      German runic language developed [765-775 AD]...

      Hindu works on mathematics translated into Arabic [775 AD]...

      Charlemagne conqueres northern Italy from the Lombards [774 AD]...

      Charlemagne’s castle at Sigiburg -- "As the Saxons were laying siege to the castle, flying shields that were reddish in color appeared in the sky and rained down fire on the attacking army" [776 AD]...

      Historian [1922] claims Roman Christians established colony in Tucson, Arizona in 775 A.D...
      [I think we can discount this one]

      Cheers !

      Patrick R. Mullen / MSS

  47. Warp Bubble by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    http://news.discovery.com/space/warp-drive-black-hole.html

    It's the only logical explanation - obviously the radiation was the direct result of an advanced race dropping out of FTL within the Sol system.

    You guys and your wacky theories...

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  48. calling Dr. Hans Zarkov... by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    obviously it was the last time the planet Mongo passed close enough for Ming to be interested in us.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:calling Dr. Hans Zarkov... by whitroth · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think we need Dr. Flexi Jerkoff....

                    mark

  49. Mod this up i ran out of mod points by trinity93 · · Score: 1

    This is quite informative and interesting IMHO

    --
    We substituted the coffee Slashdot normally drinks with "Sandoz Crystals", Lets see if they notice the difference
  50. God's piss is pretty much.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God's piss is pretty much all carbon-14. I thought everyone knew that.

  51. Shouldn't this show on the c14 calibration chart? by jdbannon · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiocarbon_dating_calibration.svg To anyone more knowledgeable than me, shouldn't see some major movement on the c14 calibration graph around 775AD? Looks like a pretty boring period to me.

  52. nuclear war by perles · · Score: 1

    Nothing came from above. It was just a nuclear war.

  53. Cry havok! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Isn't that about the time the Klingons dismantled their military and wrote the inspiration for a bunch of popular plays?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  54. I think they are slightly off on their dates... by ekimminau · · Score: 1

    According to the Dragon Ball Z timeline, it occurred in 774.

    - Buu destroys Earth
    - Porunga restores the Earth
    - Vegeta's life is restored when all "good" people who diedon Earth are wished back to life
    - Goku destroys Kid Buu with the Super Spirit Bomb

    http://www.angelfire.com/anime4/vegetapride/Timeline.html

    --
    Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
  55. Re:There's one other thing that can cause a spike. by ekimminau · · Score: 1

    As I stated previously, it was not "nuked". It was "Spirit Bomb"ed.

    http://www.angelfire.com/anime4/vegetapride/Timeline.html

    --
    Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
  56. ET by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    History channel's conclusion: Aliens did it.

  57. More proof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that carbon dating is bullshit that depends on an assumption of constantness that does not exist.

    1. Re:More proof... by careysub · · Score: 1

      Which has been systematically corrected for since the discovery of variation in 1958 (9 years after C-14 dating was invented). This article was about discoveries made while refining that C-14 correction method.

      Even if your books are 54 years out of date, you could have at least read TFA.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  58. Here Is Some Useful Data by careysub · · Score: 2

    The original article links don't provide any useful data to assess the likelihood of either suggested potential cause (supernova or solar flare).

    Here is a nice report that does:
    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690024196_1969024196.pdf also see: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1964)021%3C0134%3APOCBSP%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    What one finds is that the normal rate of C-14 production is around 2.5 C-14 atoms cm^2/sec, normally 95% of it from solar protons. The large solar flare of 1956 Feb 23, if at an opportune time of reduced shielding (the effective shielding fluctuates), would produce an annualized equivalent of 2.33, which would about double the normal production. The closest recent supernova of 1054 on the other hand is only capable of producing up to perhaps 0.2, only 8% more than normal.

    To get a 2000% increase over normal you either need a supernova 16 times closer and 250 times brighter than 1054, or you need one 20-fold super-solar flare, or 20 big normal solar flares at an opportune low shielding period. Whether or not anyone saw or recorded a supernova this close, the remnant would be glaring obvious today - it would be a naked eye object larger than the full moon. On the other hand no one even noticed a solar flare before 1857, except for the auroras seen. It suggests a rare abnormal solar flare, or a rare abnormal series of more typical solar flares is by far the most likely candidate.

    As others have noted on this thread, records do exist of strange events in the sky from that time, which might possibly refer to unusual auroras, and records from that time are terribly spotty anyway so the evidence would be expected to be thin, if present at all.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    1. Re:Here Is Some Useful Data by careysub · · Score: 1

      Also it would have required about 15,000 megatons of nuclear weapons be expended when the survivors of Atlantis destroyed themselves and their island of Mu.

      I leave to others to calculate how a large a supply of antimatter fuel was involved when an alien spacecraft crashed and exploded.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  59. GMB? by meerling · · Score: 1

    Maybe we got grazed by a near miss Gamma Ray Burst, or hit with one that was so far away it's energy levels were greatly depleted.

    1. Re:GMB? by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · · Score: 1

      No, its energy levels were over 9000!!!1one!

      --
      I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
  60. Carbon 14 spike in 775 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the normal process by which Carbon 14 is produced did not increase. The article writer seems to assume that the trees increased uptake of Carbon 14 implies that all the increased Carbon 14 came from a radiation event. How did they eliminate the possibility of a Carbon 14 rich carbonaceous asteroid vaporizing in Earth's atmosphere?

    Maybe they should have asked for alternate theories from Slashdot readers. :)

  61. I tried carbon dating by kawabago · · Score: 1

    I tried carbon dating but kept getting turned down.

    1. Re:I tried carbon dating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to go for silicon?

    2. Re:I tried carbon dating by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · · Score: 1

      More like silicone. Anatomically correct silicone...

      --
      I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
  62. Carbon Neutral? by axlr8or · · Score: 1

    Or were they terrified of global warming at the time?

  63. God did it by kikito · · Score: 1

    That's the logical explanation when you can't find any other logical explanation. Ask any religious person.

  64. Did I do that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did I do that? Fo' shizzle?

  65. The unknown burst explained by Christopher_T. · · Score: 1

    This is where the time machine that crashed at Tunguska lifted off from.

  66. Re:There's other things that can cause a spike... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    meteors high in C14.

    [SIGH] C14 is unstable : it goes away (well, changes into something that is NOT C14) pretty rapidly. Any random nucleus of C14 has a 50% chance of decaying into something else in a period of 6400 (approx) years.

    Unless you have some process that is carefully making C14 on your meteor, immediately before you use it, then you will not have a significant content of C14 by the time that you come to "use" your meteor in a collision. After ten half-lives (64,000 years, or about half the duration of the human species on Earth ; a geological eyeblink), your meteor has one thousandth of the C14 you carefully accumulated on it.

    (There may possibly be things you can do to accelerate this decay ; there's nothing that can retard the decay.)

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  67. I was cars. It is always cars. by terjeber · · Score: 1

    Whatever the problem is, the environuts will supply a solution that invariably involves me reducing my driving, or buying a wholly uninteresting car. Never mind that cars are not the cause of much of any global problems. Environuts will always blame cars. Since science now has shown that effect can come before cause the 775 event is has to be the result of me driving an SUV.

  68. Quite obvious, God isn't a Unix administrator by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    He forgot about SUID/GUID and sticky bits!

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..