Slashdot Mirror


Alpha Centauri Turns Out Not To Have a Planet After All. At Least, Not Yet (forbes.com)

StartsWithABang writes: In 2012, astronomers announced that the nearest star system to us, the Alpha Centauri system, possessed at least one exoplanet around it. A periodic signal that recurred just every 3.24 days was consistent with an Earth-sized exoplanet orbiting and gravitationally tugging on the second largest member of the star system: Alpha Centauri B. That planet, named Alpha Centauri Bb, turns out not to actually be there. A reanalysis of the data shows that a combination of stellar properties and the times at which the observations were made conspired to produce this spurious signal: a signal that goes away if the data is handled correctly. Accounting for everything correctly reveals something else of interest, a periodic 20-day signal, which may turn out — with better observations — to be Alpha Centauri's first exoplanet after all.

91 comments

  1. Known unknowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    handling data correctly got rid of the 3 day signal, but another 20 day signal showed up. So they measured it wrong? Or did they measure it wrong the second time?

    1. Re:Known unknowns by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since 2012, we have much greater experience with exoplanets, more data, and better algorithms. So a mistake today is less likely than a mistake 4 years ago.

    2. Re:Known unknowns by bondsbw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And how many exoplanets discovered to date are the result of handling data incorrectly?

      And how has that information influenced scientific research?

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    3. Re:Known unknowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're drowning in data or meltwater from Greenland, it doesn't matter. You're still drowning.

    4. Re:Known unknowns by arcctgx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's noisy data. In the plots in TFA, you'll see that the residuals are expressed in meters per second. Meters! It's at the limit of detection even for our best spectrographs.

      It's very hard to work with noisy data. If you work on bad data the results get extremely dependent on methods of analysis. How do you prepare the data? Do you reject outlying measurements before you even get to analysis? If so, how? Why reject *this* point, but leave *that* one? Are you doing any filtering of the data (and how)? Any windowing? Smoothing? There's a lot of tricks you can use to make bad data appear acceptable. But in the end, it's garbage in, garbage out. That other signal can very well be an artifact. Or could be real, but not a planet. Or indeed a planet. We have no way of knowing without getting more observations of better quality (which is difficult and costs a lot of $$$).

      On the other hand, if the data is good, then any data analysis method will give you consistent results (provided that the method is used correctly).

    5. Re:Known unknowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Signal processing is difficult, and it's easy to come up with spurious results if you're just using cookbook routines without deeper awareness of ways that you can be fooled. And I'm not sure that all astronomers are well versed in techniques needed for crunching signals embedded in noise.

    6. Re:Known unknowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And all of this is a good reason for making the data (raw and processed) publicly available so that others can look at it.

    7. Re:Known unknowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please. It's a fucking Fourier transform.

    8. Re:Known unknowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please. It's a fucking Fourier transform.

      Case In Point

    9. Re:Known unknowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At's applied math. That means that infinite precision doesn't exist.
      As a result it not only matters how the processor handles floating point values internally, but also how the compiler puts the things together.
      Pushing a value on the stack versus keeping it in a register could have a significant result on the calculation.

    10. Re: Known unknowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That level of insight is how you end up with those types of mistakes. Do a little reading on digital signal processing.

    11. Re: Known unknowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please. And let a myriad of wannabe "scientists" mess up with it and inundate the local media with discoveries that turn out to be bogus? Leave research to the professionals.

    12. Re:Known unknowns by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      And how many exoplanets discovered to date are the result of handling data incorrectly?

      And how has that information influenced scientific research?

      Depends on what you mean by "discovered". If you mean any instance where somebody suspects there may be an exoplanet, then somewhere over 50% are false positives. That's probably why they typically require multiple confirmations from different sources before they actually consider something an exoplanet.

    13. Re: Known unknowns by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Not sure if serious?

      I seem to recall a similar attitude. In fact, it's similar enough to be uncanny. "Leave interpreting God's will/word/Bible/signs to the priests. You lay people wouldn't understand."

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re: Known unknowns by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean like NS not sharing methods, RS getting fundamental math wrong, RT cherry picking datasets, avoiding BEST data to exploit hadrut flaws, etc. yes, the manipulation a needed to be a trick cyclist in climastrology is alarming.

      Of course! And that's to say NOTHING about the how NNH changed the ASSYMETRICAL PLASMA NETWORK midstream and GN withheld crucial data on ASTROPHYSICAL QUANTUM COUPLING's effect on the RECIPROCATING GRAVIMETRIC MATRIX and PSRT dishonestly sourced the NUCLEONIC DAMPENING CONTROLLER so that it emitted an INVERTED FREQUENCY SIGNAL

      Oh the scandal!

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
  2. The first thing I think of by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

    when I read that summary is: How do we know that *this* time the data was handled correctly?

    I am sure that the original researchers thought they were handling the data correctly too....

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    1. Re:The first thing I think of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are entering into the dangerous field of philosophy.
      No one who has ever been wrong has at that time known that he was wrong. (This is different from being right but stating a lie.)
      Also the amount of people thinking the same thing is irrelevant to if something is correct or not.
      This means that you can never fully prove anything.
      Descartes believed that one could at least know one thing for sure. Even with brain in a jar or simulations there is something that thinks your thoughts. From there you could prove your own existence for yourself.
      There is a flaw in this reasoning since it is based on the idea that a though requires something to carry it. That idea comes from our view of the world and if we just are simulations the "real" world doesn't necessarily require something to contain the thought.

      So to sum it up, even if we know that the data was correctly handled we don't even know for sure that Alpha Centauri is there.

    2. Re:The first thing I think of by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Well, look at it this way ... if it exhibits a periodic dimming, then either something is orbiting it, or some feature of the star has a periodicity which needs to be explained.

      People forget that they're mostly inferring based on what they can see of the light from the star dimming in some interval (something transiting in front of it), or in measuring a wobble in the star (again light, suggesting gravity is at work and deflecting the star).

      It's not like they can directly photograph it, and we have to be lucky enough to get the right view of it to even see it.

      It's basic science ... observe, hypothesize, observe some more, refine your hypothesis ... keep going.

      I'm also sure nobody is saying the original researchers were faking it or did it wrong. It's just now several years later and we have better techniques.

      If it was easy, everybody would be doing it.

      Me, I read the summary and think "damn, this stuff is cool". Because it's only really around 20 years since we've been able to do this. Before that it was speculative science. Now people treat it like it's commonplace.

      For me, as always, thanks to the people who keep the universe wondrous and awesome by showing us just how complex and amazing it really is.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:The first thing I think of by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      The first thing I thought of was "why the fuck is this scientific topic linking to an article from Forbes, of all places?"

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:The first thing I think of by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I believe they announce a "find" when a certain statistical confidence level is reached.

      For example, if the statistical confidence threshold is 95%, then they have to be at least 95% confident, based on statistical analysis of the data, before they formally announce.

      But that would also mean that the "new" find, when formally announced, has a 5% chance of being wrong.

      If the press or public complains often about false finds, they may decide to raise the threshold. (I don't know the actual current target level.)

    5. Re:The first thing I think of by Kjella · · Score: 1

      when I read that summary is: How do we know that *this* time the data was handled correctly?

      I am sure that the original researchers thought they were handling the data correctly too....

      Nothing is absolutely certain, even mathematical proofs depend on them actually being correct. I'm sure a lot of people here have introduced a new bug when fixing an old one. All we can do is see what stands up to scrutiny...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:The first thing I think of by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      This one was detected with doppler shift, not dimming.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    7. Re:The first thing I think of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when I read that summary is: How do we know that *this* time the data was handled correctly?

      I am sure that the original researchers thought they were handling the data correctly too....

      We take more observations and see how the results look.

    8. Re:The first thing I think of by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      This means that you can never fully prove anything....Even with brain in a jar or simulations there is something that thinks your thoughts....There is a flaw in this reasoning...

      It's okay, we are all just simulated cows. Relax, say "moo", and chew some cud.

    9. Re:The first thing I think of by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      That was my second thought.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    10. Re:The first thing I think of by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm very confident that they were careful not to repeat the same mistake the original researches made, so it is at least a less wrong analysis =)

      --
      entropy happens
    11. Re:The first thing I think of by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Now see, I had you pegged as a grumpy old man with an onion on his belt. The façade has cracked slightly and I see the awe and wonder. Nice.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    12. Re:The first thing I think of by peragrin · · Score: 1

      It gets better. most of the planets discovered to date, have orbits of their star that is closer to venus than earth.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    13. Re:The first thing I think of by Opyros · · Score: 1

      We need a new tag for stories like this: ohnoitsethan

    14. Re:The first thing I think of by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Oh, don't get me wrong ... I am a grumpy old man with an onion on my belt.

      But for cool stuff like this, I'm as giddy as a schoolgirl. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    15. Re:The first thing I think of by narcc · · Score: 1

      There is a flaw in this reasoning since it is based on the idea that a though requires something to carry it.

      Lol, wut? There are a number of criticisms, though you'll find this, in particular, is not among them for the simple reason that it is completely incoherent.

    16. Re:The first thing I think of by dywolf · · Score: 1

      First thing I thought of was "dammit, the arcologys are already on their way".

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    17. Re:The first thing I think of by dywolf · · Score: 1

      not even Forbes.

      its a forbes.com/sites/ page, ie, a blog, though they don't call it that.
      forbes.com is notorious for giving anyone a voice under /sites/
      Sometimes sane, frequently not.
      But being under forbes they also get a little bit of authority that they don't necessarily qualify for.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    18. Re:The first thing I think of by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Yes but the Simulation argument has a fatal weakness - a simulation requires some kind of computer and that requires a universe to run it in.. and the computer would require some kind of beings to build and program it. In effect no reduction in complexity or in the need for a 'previous' cause. Also to fully simulate a whole universe it takes more energy to create the simulation than just to have a real universe..
      A belief in Gods or Animism is technically identical to the simulation argument but has lower overheads.. and more believability..

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  3. Oh good by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 3, Funny

    We'll finally be able to go our local planning department to see if there's any planning charts or demolition orders for our solar system.

    Or at least, see if there's any small furry creatures living there.

    1. Re:Oh good by jfdavis668 · · Score: 3, Funny

      When men were real men, and women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.

    2. Re:Oh good by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Or at least, see if there's any small furry creatures living there.

      Beware of the Leopard

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  4. Hyperspace Bypass by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 4, Funny

    Has it occurred to you that perhaps the planet isn't there because the Vogons had erroneously demolished it after having mistaken it for Earth?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:Hyperspace Bypass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't a mistake, it was a trial run. Besides, the backup archives with the copy of contract indicating Vogon culpability in the destruction(s) of a world in a plural zone was getting dusty, and this was the most efficient way to clean things up...

    2. Re:Hyperspace Bypass by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Has it occurred to you that perhaps the planet isn't there because the Vogons had erroneously demolished it after having mistaken it for Earth?

      No it was devoured by an Acturan Mega Goat

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    3. Re:Hyperspace Bypass by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Not a mistake.
      It was simply in the way of the same intergalactic highway construction project.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    4. Re:Hyperspace Bypass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pffft. You can't even explain what a hrung is let alone why it would collapse on Betelgeuse Seven particularly.

  5. Sid Meiers lied to me. by Sowelu · · Score: 2

    Either that, or the Transcendence ending was really, really hardcore.

    1. Re:Sid Meiers lied to me. by blazer1024 · · Score: 1

      The drones revolted ... really... hard.

    2. Re:Sid Meiers lied to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should have just nerve stapled them.

    3. Re:Sid Meiers lied to me. by captjc · · Score: 1

      Look on the bright side, at least you don't have to worry about any damn Mind Worms. Vicious little bastards.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
  6. Damn it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had my Species Migration Bug Out Bag(tm) all ready with a 3D printer in it! Now you're telling me I'll have to travel a bit further before securing mankind's future among the stars??

  7. Exocise this word by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    It has (maybe) a planet around it, not an exoplanet.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Exocise this word by mark-t · · Score: 1

      In what way are you suggesting that such a planet would not be an exoplanet?

    2. Re:Exocise this word by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Maybe he is implying that Alpha Centauri B is gravitationally bound to Sol.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  8. Re:Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by Sowelu · · Score: 1

    Is that a clever reference I'm missing, or are you just nutty?

  9. Honey! How about this exoplanet? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Alpha Centauri B is just trying planets on, looking for one that doesn't make her look fat.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Honey! How about this exoplanet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alpha Centauri B is just trying planets on, looking for one that doesn't make her look fat.

      Yes, this one makes Uranus look fat......*SMACK*

  10. Re:Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a nutty trying to add their own spin to "The Wages of sin is death" from Romans 6:23. How it has anything to do with the possibility of a planet orbiting another star is an open question, as is how "death" = "everlasting torment in the mouth of the beast" too.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  11. Sorting out the data to find... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    BB-8 @ Alpha Centauri

  12. Returns policy by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

    Crap. I hope I can get a refund on this ticket I bought.

    1. Re:Returns policy by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Crap. I hope I can get a refund on this ticket I bought.

      Good luck with that; the mailing address is on the "missing" planet.

    2. Re:Returns policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already sent a large group of people on a generation ship there. In cryostasis. To a planet that doesn't exist. Oh well, they have several centuries to course correct or find another planet!

  13. Shit! by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Aw shit.

  14. Where is Zefram Cochrane going to retire to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alpha Centauri is supposed to be the retirement system!

    1. Re:Where is Zefram Cochrane going to retire to? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Investing in real-estate wiped mine also

  15. Re:Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    How it has anything to do with the possibility of a planet orbiting another star is an open question

    That's easy: Christians hate science and think you're thumbing your nose at God if you pursue studies like this, instead of going to church and giving as much of your money as possible so that they can build athletic centers and buy private jets for their pastors.

  16. Not yet??? by Xtifr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow, I think that may be one of the worst headlines I've seen on Slashdot, and that's saying something. "Not yet" does not mean "we're not sure yet." And "turns out not to have a planet" does not mean "we don't know if it does, but our earlier assumption turns out to be wrong."

    From the headline, I assumed that they'd managed to establish that Alpha C. actually did not have a planet, but did have coalescing clouds that would soon (in astronomical terms) become one. That would be an extremely cool discovery! Unfortunately, neither of those things appears to be true (or if it is, we haven't established it).

    How about "Reports of Alpha Centauri's Planet Proven to be Premature"? It's even got some nice alliterism to it. And, possibly more importantly, it's got some relationship to the facts (at least as presented in TFS).

    1. Re:Not yet??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fool, if they said it YOUR way, they'd be allowing for the expectation that headlines are not infallible thought-mandates.

  17. Books need updating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My copy of Flight of the Dragonfly needs updating ...

  18. Re:Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Christians hate science

    Wow, that's not flamebait at all, edgelord. Go sharpen your katana and straighten your fedora.

  19. Re:Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Mexicans are rapists.

  20. Re:Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How it has anything to do with the possibility of a planet orbiting another star is an open question

    That's easy: Christians hate science and think you're thumbing your nose at God if you pursue studies like this, instead of going to church and giving as much of your money as possible so that they can build athletic centers and buy private jets for their pastors.

    Dang... Did somebody who called themselves Christian hurt you or something? That's pretty harsh.

    BTW - If you think the Christian religion is all about money, private jets and big pretty buildings, you are woefully ignorant of the truth. In my view, these things are about as far from the Christian ethic and belief as you can get. Just because somebody uses the term "Christian" to describe themselves or justify their behavior does NOT mean they are what they claim. Just because somebody claims they are a CMH winner, has a uniform and the ribbon, does not mean they are a hero.

  21. Lost in Space... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The crew of the Jupiter II is really lost in space now!

    CAP === 'Danger Will Robinson!'

  22. Re:Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Except Catholics created the first universities, and have always supported science. Perhaps you should read up on history a bit more before bashing a whole religion (even if the religion is Islam).

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  23. Re:Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by HiThere · · Score: 2

    When the other christians publicly accept those who do so as christian, then those who act that way ARE christian.

    Your point, that some christians don't accept them as christian, is quite weak when all the recognized mouthpieces of the religion accept them as christian.

    Now, personally, speaking as a non-christian gnostic, I don't consider that were I a christian I would accept many of the spokespeople chosen by the religion as valid christians. But historically, they're closer to christians as defined by the council of Nicea than the average. E.g., few of them support burning people alive.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  24. Peer review? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    You know, so many problems with science could be solved if peer review was mandatory precondition prior to blabbing to the press.

    1. Re:Peer review? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      But that wouldn't be any fun. Meme first, then have someone check the data.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Peer review? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, so many problems with science could be solved if peer review was mandatory precondition prior to blabbing to the press.

      This result was peer reviewed. In one of the most prestigious journals out there - the original result appeared in Nature.

      I think that you may not understand what peer review does.

      Peer review does not check the correctness of the result. It certainly isn't going to go through the code to make sure that the data analysis algorithm is perfect.

      The point of peer review is to provide a fairly low hurdle. It makes sure that the author(s) isn't a complete idiot, or didn't make any completely elementary errors. But really the main point is to make sure that the paper lays out everything that was done in a reasonable way.

      The point is that putting a result into the scientific literature is the BEGINNING of the discussion, not the end. You are saying that you did some observation, did some analysis, got some result, and interpreted it in some way. Other scientists are supposed to read that and follow up on it - this happens AFTER something is published.

      This is actually a good example of science working correctly. The original result was published, the discussion happen, and the followup showed that the original result was actually not correct. It happens quite a lot if you are doing something new and challenging. The real problem in science is that there aren't enough of these followup studies (especially in medical and biological fields).

      I think that you need to understand that if you are reading a blog about some result that has only appeared in one paper...well, that can be challenged in future papers. That's how good science works.

    3. Re:Peer review? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Somebody please mod up the parent post. This is an excellent explanation of the peer review process.

  25. Our position is correct, except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It ain't there. It's been totally blown away.

    Destroyed... by the Empire!

  26. Re:Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    Except that Catholics aren't real Christians, according to all the evangelicals in America.

    They also prosecuted Galileo for supporting heliocentrism instead of geocentrism. How is that "always supporting science"? From Wikipedia: "In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be 'foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.'" Doesn't sound very scientific to me. He ended up spending the rest of his life under house arrest and his scientific opinions being silenced.

    Maybe **you** should read up on history before defending a religion.

  27. Re:Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, just in case you missed this in history class....

    The term "Christian" usually implies "like Christ" or adherence to Christ's teachings according to the dictionary. In history, the term was derived from "Christ" (Greek) and "ianos" (Greek for like, or little) which when translated into Latin gets you really close to the modern "Christian". So considering the etymology of the word one must derive the meaning of the term in terms of what Christ did and taught, not what people who claim the title do and teach.

    I dare say that Christ never when around doing the 1st century version of begging for money, building buildings or buying expensive ways of getting around and those who do so in His name today are decidedly NOT followers of Christ. Christ did quite the opposite during his ministry years in fact, a tradition that was carried forward by his initial followers and many who have come since. Don't be fooled by those who put on the title, but don't seem "Christ Like" in their confessions and practice.

    Paul said: "For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve." 2 Cor 11:13-15

    And: "Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!" Gla 1:7-9

    Check into the *real* meaning of the title and judge those who use it inappropriately for what they are doing, lying. Judge what a Christian is by what Christ taught and did for which we have four excellent sources, three eye witness accounts (Matthew, Mark, & John) and one investigative report (Luke), then knowing what the label means, go look for those who are striving to teach and live the same things. Trust me, you will find people who fit this model.

  28. Re:Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    BTW - If you think the Christian religion is all about money, private jets and big pretty buildings, you are woefully ignorant of the truth. In my view, these things are about as far from the Christian ethic and belief as you can get.

    Wrong: No True Scotsman fallacy. Countless churches are like this, especially the ever-more-popular megachurches, and millions of Christians attend these churches and give money to these preachers.

  29. Re: Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't say that on /. Most people here hate Christians because their lives were made a living hell by Christians. If atheists were a majority, their lives would have been a living hell by atheists but this is not the case. They have to vent their rage against someone.

  30. Deathstar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    handling data correctly got rid of the 3 day signal, but another 20 day signal showed up. So they measured it wrong? Or did they measure it wrong the second time?

    The first signal was from the still fresh debris of a destroyed planet while it was dispersing. The new signal they've found is from the Deathstar that destroyed it.

    The good news is that the Rebel Base is no longer near us so we may be spared. Unless...

  31. Re:Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the real persecution was over his attempts at reinterpreting the bible in support of his thesis, and thus ultimately questioning the authority of the Church as the final authority on the bible (and in life in general), at a time when the church, and specifically the current Pope, were being accused of weakness in defending the Church, and that Pope, being consumed with affairs of intrigue and politics, needed to prove his strength.

  32. Re:Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Galileo was asked to write a paper giving the evidence for both viewpoints, he instead decided to insult the pope by making a fool use his words in the paper instead. That is hardly not supporting science, it is trying to get Galileo to use the scientific method and give evidence to support his claim instead of just saying it is right.

    Perhaps it would be better if you read the whole story before making the church out to be anti science.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Galileo's championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[8] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[8] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could only be supported as a possibility, not as an established fact.[8][9] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[8] He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[10][11] It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he wrote one of his finest works, Two New Sciences. Here he summarized the work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials.[12][13]

    The church asked him to support his position with observation and facts, he decided instead to attack the pope, who was his supporter and friend, which caused him to remove his support and instead the morons in the inquisition were able to bring their case against him. The church attempted to be reasonable with him, and asked him to follow the scientific method of providing evidence for your claims, and instead he used insults against the very same people who were reasonable to him.

    As for the evangelicals, who the hell cares what they think, they broke off from the protestants, who broke off from Catholicism because of a womanizer king, they are hardly the original authority that the Roman Catholic Church can claim through succession.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  33. Re: Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    All I can say about that is that people who truely follow Jesus should be loving and accepting, not pricks telling others how to live their lives. My Ex's family was much like the former, they kicked their daughter out of their house when she got pregnant and removed all support from her. This is now something Jesus would have advocated, he after all forgave everyone for their sins, never judging.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  34. Re:Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    As for the evangelicals, who the hell cares what they think

    Considering they're a huge portion of the American populace, and they vote, I'd say that all Americans should care what they think. We could very well get an evangelical President later this year. We just suffered through 8 years of an evangelical President from 2001-2008.

  35. Re:Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are not the arbiter of who qualifies as "Christian". There are over a billion people claiming to be Christian in this world, and your definition is the epitome of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Christians are people who claim to be Christian, and who practice the religion, regardless of how different it may be from your personal ideal or your interpretation of its roots.

    Go read about the No True Scotsman fallacy.

  36. Re: Wrong about that. Wrong about everything? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    What Jesus may or may not have advocated is completely irrelevant to the Christian religion. The religion is defined by its adherents, and their actions. Your ex's family is a good example of how typical Christians are these days (at least in America, things could be different elsewhere).

  37. Story by WallyL · · Score: 1
    Alpha Centaurs, 2012: Come to our star system! We can haz Class M planet.

    Alpha Centaurs, 2016: j/k