NASA's Fermi Satellite Maps Entire Sky, Finds Mysterious Unknown Object

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's Fermi Satellite Maps Entire Sky, Finds Mysterious Unknown Object

Posted by timothy on Saturday January 9, 2016 @01:26AM from the best-kind-of-unknown-object dept.

StartsWithABang writes: With the launch of the Fermi satellite in the late 2000s, we began observing the highest energy photons in the Universe — gamma rays — all over the sky, to unprecedented precision. Produced from cosmic ray showers in space when high energy protons run into other, stationary protons, these gamma rays locate point sources from supermassive black holes to supernova remnants to pulsars. There is, additionally, a great correlation between the infrared sky and the gamma ray sky, since the great high-energy background scatters off of the diffuse infrared gas, producing gamma rays there as well. But while a great many sources can be correlated with known structures, Fermi reveals at least one unknown, intense behemoth that emits spectacularly in gamma rays.

72 of 133 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It's God. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 01:30 · Score: 2

It's just God.
1. Re:It's God. by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-01-09 02:39 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  "It's just God."
  And because he knows when you're using an ad blocker, He won't let you read the article.
2. Re:It's God. by dmbasso · 2016-01-09 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  This just in: they've decoded the gamma rays signal, and it said "don't masturbate".
  
  --
  `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
3. Re:It's God. by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-01-09 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  This just in: they've decoded the gamma rays signal, and it said "don't masturbate".
  Whoops, too late for me. That lazy fuck- why couldn't he have just told me that 13.4 billion years ago?? But nooooooooooo....
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
4. Re:It's God. by QuantumLeaper · 2016-01-09 03:51 · Score: 2
  
  You should be happy, there "Lite ads" only were 48 ads on the page, I guess that 'Lite' for them.
5. Re:It's God. by grep+-v+'.*'+* · 2016-01-09 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  "It's just God."
  
  And because he knows when you're using an ad blocker, He won't let you read the article.
  No, God knows everything but then doesn't do anything about it. Only Santa Claus takes action if "he knows if you've been bad or good" -- like using an ad blocker.
  
  I'm unclear in this case which state Santa would deem that you're in, though. Maybe we need Schrodinger Claus to determine that: instead of presents or coal, he comes with a bag of dead cats or live kittens and lets you decide which one to take. (Kind of like a lottery draw with fur. And yet more claws.)
  
  --
  If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
6. Re:It's God. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  AC here, mind if I hijack first post... for great justice?
  https://github.com/dhowe/AdNau...
  Start running this on sites with shitty ad blocking policies. Whitelist the sites you support.
  Adblock is designed as a defensive measure, adnauseam is offensive.
7. Re:It's God. by ClickOnThis · 2016-01-09 07:16 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  This just in: they've decoded the gamma rays signal, and it said "don't masturbate".
  Really?
  I would have guessed either "drink more ovaltine" or "never gonna give you up."
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
8. Re:It's God. by kbsoftware · 2016-01-09 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  Or worse http://www.engadget.com/2016/0...
9. Re:It's God. by Arterion · 2016-01-10 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  No, no, there is only one bag of kittens. They are simultaneously dead and alive until you open it. Only then does Schrodinger Claus determine whether or not they are living.
  Your only choice is whether or not to open the bag.
  
  --
  "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
10. Re:It's God. by Arterion · 2016-01-10 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  You mean, you didn't start masturbating until you were 399 ± 21 million years old? Geez, what late bloomer.
  
  --
  "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
11. Re:It's God. by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-01-10 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Geez, what late bloomer.
  "Better latent than never."
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
FORBES!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 01:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

That site is completely out of control with trackers and third-party Javascript.
If I was in their web department I would do the honourable thing and commit seppuku.
1. Re:FORBES!!!! by gtall · 2016-01-09 02:20 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Hehehe....NoScript showed a black page, it caused my browser to load nothing. Then I checked the url, Forbes. End-O-Session, nope, do not want, the Forbes site is the Breath of Satan.
2. Re:FORBES!!!! by weedjams · 2016-01-09 03:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  no kidding! flash control, ad block plus, NoScript, ghostery and privacy badger all lit up...can not get past landing.
3. Re:FORBES!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  And by seppuku, of course you mean bukkake.
4. Re:FORBES!!!! by coastwalker · 2016-01-09 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  Forbes is a blank to me also. However you could read this http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_...
  
  --
  Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
5. Re:FORBES!!!! by wjcofkc · 2016-01-09 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  The sad sad sad sad truth? This is likely the sort of bullshit that more and more websites will start to implement over the next couple of years, en mass.
  
  --
  Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
6. Re:FORBES!!!! by Arterion · 2016-01-10 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  I use uBlock Origin on Chrome. I am using only the included filters, but I might have checked a couple extra over the default configuration. The page loads more or less normally for me. No ads, no flash, no landing.
  
  --
  "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
fucking forbes by czert · 2016-01-09 01:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Um. Does anyone have a non-forbes link?
1. Re:fucking forbes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 01:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2016/01/08/the-first-all-sky-extreme-energy-map-reveals-an-unknown-monster-in-our-galaxy-synopsis/
  Fuck forbes.
2. Re:fucking forbes by hduff · 2016-01-09 02:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Even that story links to Forbes for the "Answer".
  
  --
  "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
3. Re:fucking forbes by czert · 2016-01-09 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  what's worse, it's a blog by this story's submitter.
4. Re:fucking forbes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:22 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Or to be slightly less of an ass:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_Gamma-ray_Space_Telescope
  http://www.universetoday.com/19879/fermi-telescope-makes-first-big-discovery-gamma-ray-pulsar/
  (This one comes with a movie!)
  http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/gr_pulsar.html
  https://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5942/840
  (This one is an actual paper!)
5. Re:fucking forbes by rochrist · 2016-01-09 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Works fine with AdBlock for me. Blocked 16 ads, article is fine.
Ad blocker? by CyberPhart · 2016-01-09 01:45 · Score: 2

Forbes won't allow me onto their site unless I turn off my ad blocker. Eat shit Forbes. Your rag of a magazine isn't worth being forced to look at your pop-ups.
1. Re:Ad blocker? by rochrist · 2016-01-09 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  That's odd. I had no trouble accessing it with AdBlock running.
Click by 110010001000 · 2016-01-09 01:48 · Score: 2

Click to find out what happens next! http://scienceblogs.com/starts...
1. Re:Click by hduff · 2016-01-09 02:02 · Score: 2
  
  Click to find out what happens next!
  http://scienceblogs.com/starts...
  
  Even that story links to Forbes for the "Answer".
  
  --
  "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
2. Re:Click by thegarbz · 2016-01-09 03:55 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Click to find out what happens next!
  Or better yet, don't click at all, and let this idiot who's using Slashdot as his personal advertising platform for every single one of his blogposts disappear into obscurity.
Anyone has a link to a anti-anti-add-blocker ? by itsme1234 · 2016-01-09 01:52 · Score: 1

For obvious reasons...
1. Re:Anyone has a link to a anti-anti-add-blocker ? by Hognoxious · 2016-01-09 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  WTF is an anti-subtract, and why would I want to block one?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Oh, that's just by Hognoxious · 2016-01-09 01:57 · Score: 1

It's hipsters like the author.
They thought everything revolves around them, and it turns out to be true.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Blocked Because I'm Using AdBlock? by hduff · 2016-01-09 01:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

Slashdot should not be accepting stories with links that refuse to work with AdBlock enabled.

--
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
1. Re:Blocked Because I'm Using AdBlock? by complete+loony · 2016-01-09 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Opening the link in a private window seems to work in firefox / iceweasel.
  
  --
  09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
2. Re:Blocked Because I'm Using AdBlock? by thegarbz · 2016-01-09 03:50 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Slashdot should not be accepting stories from some blogger who decides to simply re-link every single one of his articles for free Slashvertising without every contributing to the site, period. The shittyness of the resulting site not withstanding.
  Startswithabang has a post count of 1 and a submission count of 119.
3. Re:Blocked Because I'm Using AdBlock? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 04:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Forbes asked readers to turn off ad blockers then immediately served them pop-under malware.
  http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-say-block-that-malware/
4. Re:Blocked Because I'm Using AdBlock? by rochrist · 2016-01-09 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Worked fine for me. AdBlock blocked 16 ads, no complaints from the site.
5. Re:Blocked Because I'm Using AdBlock? by trawg · 2016-01-09 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. This makes me wonder if a good system for allowing submissions is to limit them to some factor of comments (or even better, comments that have had some positive moderation).
6. Re:Blocked Because I'm Using AdBlock? by JohnVanVliet · 2016-01-09 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Forbs mo longer even works in Seamonkey EVEN with ad block plus disabled
  it needs to be uninstalled
  basically "Forbs" no longer is getting ANY of my traffic
  
  --
  "I don't pitch OpenSUSE Linux to my friends, i let Microsoft do it for me
7. Re:Blocked Because I'm Using AdBlock? by thegarbz · 2016-01-09 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot. News for nerds, by nerds with good karma sounds like a brilliant start.
News stories with Forbes links are useless. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

News stories with Forbes links are useless. You can't read them, and nobody's going to turn off their malware/ad blockers for them. At this time, Forbes is always a case of wait-until-someone-finds-another-link and check the comments for said link.
Submitter and Forbes Relationship? by hduff · 2016-01-09 02:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

There seems to be some relationship between StartsWithABang and Forbes. All the submissions are to Forbes links.
StartsWithABang appears to be a shill and needs to be banned.

--
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
1. Re: Submitter and Forbes Relationship? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  This, for the live of God. And filter all suggestions to discard those that link to Forbes and anything else that requires advertising.
2. Re:Submitter and Forbes Relationship? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Last time I pointed this out, I was mob-modded into oblivion.
  Now, even the so very docile remnant of what used to be slashdot's readership cannot stand it any more.
3. Re:Submitter and Forbes Relationship? by weedjams · 2016-01-09 03:31 · Score: 2
  
  2nd that. smacktardery is from 2008-2009 era
4. Re:Submitter and Forbes Relationship? by thegarbz · 2016-01-09 03:53 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Not at all. All of his submissions however are to his own blogs. EVERY SINGLE ONE. This dates back before Forbes when he was peddling his clickbate on Medium.
  He has made 1 post in the past year.
  He has had 119 stories on the front page.
  He's not a shill, he's just someone using Slashdot as his own personal advertising platform.
5. Re:Submitter and Forbes Relationship? by 110010001000 · 2016-01-09 04:16 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Slashdot is getting paid to accept these submissions (along with HughPickens, etc). They arent getting on the front page via firehose/merit.
6. Re:Submitter and Forbes Relationship? by g01d4 · 2016-01-09 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot is getting paid to accept these submissions
  If that's true, and I wouldn't be surprised, then Slashdot should provide some indicatation that that's the case.
  Though they're typically mainstream stories, HughPickens writes decent summaries with links going outside his domain. I've clicked on a few of his summary links and never been to his domain. This guy writes an okay summary but with the main (and often only) link to his overdone Forbes blog. His posts either should not be allowed or be noted as paid for.
Or, just go to the source . . . by Shane+McEwan · 2016-01-09 02:39 · Score: 3, Informative

http://www.nasa.gov/content/fermi-gamma-ray-space-telescope
One thing is for sure... by MrKaos · 2016-01-09 02:43 · Score: 1

That's no moon

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Most importantly by MarkRose · 2016-01-09 02:48 · Score: 1

Is it shaped like a Big Boy?

--
Be relentless!
Non-Forbes link (Nasa.gov) by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 03:05 · Score: 2, Informative

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasas-fermi-space-telescope-sharpens-its-high-energy-vision
Obligatory Star Trek by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · 2016-01-09 03:06 · Score: 1

EXCELSIOR ENGINEER: Checking all systems, Captain.
SULU: Don't tell me that was any meteor shower.
VALTANE: Negative, sir. The subspace shockwave originated at bearing three two three, mark seven five. Location. It's Praxis, sir. It's a Klingon moon.
SULU: Praxis is their key energy production facility. ...Send to Klingon High Command. 'This is Excelsior, a Federation starship. We have monitored a large explosion in your sector. Do you require assistance?'
RAND: Aye sir.
SULU: Mister Valtane, any more data?
VALTANE: Yes sir. I have confirmed the location of Praxis, sir, but...
SULU: What is it?
VALTANE: I cannot confirm the existence of Praxis.
SULU: On screen! ...Magnify!
COMPUTER VOICE: Computer enhancement.
SULU: Praxis?
VALTANE: What's left of it, sir.
RAND: Captain, I'm getting a message from Praxis.
SULU: Let's have it.
KERLA (on viewscreen): This is Brigadier Kerla, speaking for the High Command. There has been an incident on Praxis. However everything is under control. We have no need for assistance. Obey treaty stipulations and remain outside the Neutral Zone. This transmission ends now.
SULU: An incident?
RAND: Do we report this, sir?
SULU: Are you kidding?
Actually they're decelerating towards us by wisebabo · 2016-01-09 03:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

The aliens have their drive unit pointed at us as they want to decelerate into our solar system and not fly right through it. Their drive emissions are tremendously blue shifted (into the gamma rays) since they are approaching at a fair percentage of the speed of light (and maybe the drive is outputting gamma rays to begin with).
The best way to verify this would be to look at the spectra of the gamma ray emissions and see if they are gradually being redshifted (slowing down). This would give us an idea of how fast they are decelerating and maybe when they will be arriving. Let's hope that their ship isn't really huge or that it's not pointed directly at us so that their drive won't scour away our atmosphere!
(They could also be using a huge solar sail and what we're seeing is the reflection of our own sun but they'd really have to be moving very very close to c in order for it to be reflected as gamma rays. In that case, since they would be traveling just behind the wavefront they would also have to be right on top of us!).
1. Re:Actually they're decelerating towards us by angel'o'sphere · 2016-01-09 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  Actually not as far sketched at it might seem.
  I did not rad the article, about how much power in relation to a photon (antimatter) drive do we talk here?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
2. Re:Actually they're decelerating towards us by david_thornley · 2016-01-11 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  If it's using a solar sail for propulsion, it isn't going to stop anywhere near around here.
  Also, if it's a near-lightspeed ship, to the point that the emissions are blue-shifted into the gamma, it's going to be pretty close behind the gamma rays also.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
As a General Policy, Any Links to Forbes by DesertNomad · 2016-01-09 03:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Should not be accepted by the editors, due to Forbes' ad-blocker policy.
No panic! by Ketorin · 2016-01-09 04:04 · Score: 1

It's just planet Nibiru.
Gamma Burst Monitor Runs RTEMS open source RTOS by joelsherrill · 2016-01-09 04:07 · Score: 2

I thought it would be of interest that at least the Gamma Burst Monitor on Fermi is running the open source RTEMS real-time operating system.
There are multiple references but this is an easy to find one: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0450... This paper details the hardware and some of the timing characteristics of the system. And it has some nice pictures. :)
nice summary by slashmydots · 2016-01-09 04:35 · Score: 1

This just set the record for the least scientifically accurate summary ever posted on Slashdot. I don't actually think one single word of it is true.
Stationary Protons by frovingslosh · 2016-01-09 05:09 · Score: 1

You think it is hype when they talk about "stationary protons"? What gave it away?

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Forbes by wonkey_monkey · 2016-01-09 06:19 · Score: 2

Hi again. Looks like you’re still using an ad blocker.
Cheeky fuckers!

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:Forbes by ClickOnThis · 2016-01-09 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Hi again. Looks like you’re still using an ad blocker.
  Cheeky fuckers!
  Could be worse.
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:Adblock Warning Removal List by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 06:27 · Score: 1

I don't know what the deal is. I'm using Chrome + Adblock Plus and could view the site fine with no ads.
It's probably because I have "Adblock Warning Removal List" enabled. It blocks anti-adblock banners, etc when it can.
I also disable the "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" option.
FYI
Are you also running something to block javascripts like uMatrix? If not, then you're not blocking trackers (third party cookies) and the like so you're not completely safe and that may be why the Forbes site loaded for you. Most of us aren't that foolish to leave things other than just the ads to load in the background. Try uMatrix or another script blocker in conjunction with AdBlock Plus and see how scary things really are before you get pwnd.
Re:"behemoth that emits spectacularly in gamma ray by ClickOnThis · 2016-01-09 07:36 · Score: 1

Saying "in gamma rays" is pithier than saying "in the gamma-ray part of the electromagnetic spectrum."

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Identified source by Tablizer · 2016-01-09 08:47 · Score: 1

Fermi reveals at least one unknown, intense behemoth that emits spectacularly
It's the Great Pop-Up Ad.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Coolest line in the article by kanweg · 2016-01-09 08:51 · Score: 1

"The entire Fermi map, if you’re wondering, contains some 61,000 gamma ray photons, a number that took 80 months of observations to collect. "
Wow.
Bert
Stop Promoting Forbes on /. by Hylandr · 2016-01-09 08:55 · Score: 4, Informative

Stop promoting Forbes on Slashdot please.
Here's some alternative links:
- http://www.redorbit.com/news/s...
- http://motherboard.vice.com/en...
- http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_...
- http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_...

--
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
1. Re:Stop Promoting Forbes on /. by PinkyGigglebrain · 2016-01-09 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you!
2. Re:Stop Promoting Forbes on /. by RockDoctor · 2016-01-12 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'd leave the vice.com links in the cess pit if I were you. They'll make your papers damp and your spliff taste funny.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:"behemoth that emits spectacularly in gamma ray by khallow · 2016-01-09 23:58 · Score: 1

D you really even the slightest difficulty parsing that? Because otherwise, it's not the Americans who are the idiots here.