Another amazing astronomy story
Discussion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-210...
Sorry it's from the Mail again! It's not all bad then..?
Sorry it's from the Mail again! It's not all bad then..?
Eric Mc said:
Your reputation is sinking fast.
As with the Mars thread, the comments by DM readers exhibit shocking thickness.
Didn't know I had one.As with the Mars thread, the comments by DM readers exhibit shocking thickness.
I don't read any (physical) paper but on-line searches against several science related themes often throw up the DM. It seems to cover scientific research etc. better than many other, even more 'serious' newspapers.
Oh, I haven't looked at any comments, yet...
I think this is a very interesting story and it sounds like impressive science.
I read reports elsewhere but the thought that immediately sprang to mind for me was... why did these stars do this apparently unusual thing?
I am in no way proposing this as an explanation but I think it's an interesting idea:
If you were looking for other intelligent species, and were advanced enough, quite a good way to get attention, albeit limited by the speed of light (presumably you know this is a limit anyway) is to blow up a start in an unusual way.
i wonder
I read reports elsewhere but the thought that immediately sprang to mind for me was... why did these stars do this apparently unusual thing?
I am in no way proposing this as an explanation but I think it's an interesting idea:
If you were looking for other intelligent species, and were advanced enough, quite a good way to get attention, albeit limited by the speed of light (presumably you know this is a limit anyway) is to blow up a start in an unusual way.
i wonder
Eric Mc said:
Your reputation is sinking fast.
As with the Mars thread, the comments by DM readers exhibit shocking thickness.
The reference to the DM is nothing more than an Ad-Hom, which, as you are well aware, is invalid in any scientific discussion.As with the Mars thread, the comments by DM readers exhibit shocking thickness.
The Daily Mail did nothing more than make a "Hublesite" article more accessable to the general public. This, IMHO, is actually a good thing.
You can read the (very slightly) more intellectually challenging version here:-
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/...
It looks like this is very real science. It could give us the means to study past supernovae explosions, which would be very useful.
Don
--
don4l said:
Eric Mc said:
Your reputation is sinking fast.
As with the Mars thread, the comments by DM readers exhibit shocking thickness.
The reference to the DM is nothing more than an Ad-Hom, which, as you are well aware, is invalid in any scientific discussion.As with the Mars thread, the comments by DM readers exhibit shocking thickness.
The Daily Mail did nothing more than make a "Hublesite" article more accessable to the general public. This, IMHO, is actually a good thing.
You can read the (very slightly) more intellectually challenging version here:-
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/...
It looks like this is very real science. It could give us the means to study past supernovae explosions, which would be very useful.
Don
--
jmorgan said:
Gravity......
Is it so unusual?
if you read the story, yes, the gas clouds had an unusual bilobal shape rather than being spherical as you would expect from a supernovae, so it had been thought that the 'eruption' was caused by a powerful solar wing from another start. the spectral analysis of the light, according to the recent paper, doesn't back up this model because the eruption/explosion was too cool. Is it so unusual?
Lost_BMW said:
The story, and many more very like it - almost word for word, with some more detailed etc. - is around on quite a number of websites.
True!The hubble team issued a press release that was designed to catch the attention of the general public. Nothing wrong with that, IMHO.
Making Science available to the public is a good thing.
Don
--
don4l said:
The reference to the DM is nothing more than an Ad-Hom, which, as you are well aware, is invalid in any scientific discussion.
The Daily Mail did nothing more than make a "Hublesite" article more accessable to the general public. This, IMHO, is actually a good thing.
You can read the (very slightly) more intellectually challenging version here:-
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/...
It looks like this is very real science. It could give us the means to study past supernovae explosions, which would be very useful.
Don
--
I wasn't dismissing the story, which had been featured on Radio 4's science programme, "Material World" on Thursday. I was just referring to the moronic comments in the "Comments" section below the story. I wasn't having a pop at you either - except in a jocular way.The Daily Mail did nothing more than make a "Hublesite" article more accessable to the general public. This, IMHO, is actually a good thing.
You can read the (very slightly) more intellectually challenging version here:-
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/...
It looks like this is very real science. It could give us the means to study past supernovae explosions, which would be very useful.
Don
--
It obviously wasn't a Daily Mail story as such. It would have been based on a press release issued by the scientific organisation that released the research paper.
Use Psychology said:
jmorgan said:
Gravity......
Is it so unusual?
if you read the story, yes, the gas clouds had an unusual bilobal shape rather than being spherical as you would expect from a supernovae, so it had been thought that the 'eruption' was caused by a powerful solar wing from another start. the spectral analysis of the light, according to the recent paper, doesn't back up this model because the eruption/explosion was too cool. Is it so unusual?
Eric Mc said:
I wasn't dismissing the story, which had been featured on Radio 4's science programme, "Material World" on Thursday. I was just referring to the moronic comments in the "Comments" section below the story. I wasn't having a pop at you either - except in a jocular way.
It obviously wasn't a Daily Mail story as such. It would have been based on a press release issued by the scientific organisation that released the research paper.
Sorry, Eric.It obviously wasn't a Daily Mail story as such. It would have been based on a press release issued by the scientific organisation that released the research paper.
I probably misunderstood your "reputation is sinking" comment, which is what I was reacting to.
Don
--
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff