Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

First Evidence of Supernovae Found In Ice Cores

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the hot-and-the-cold-of-it dept.

Space 145

KentuckyFC writes "Supernovae in our part of the Milky Way ought to have a significant impact on the atmosphere. In particular, the intense gamma-ray burst would ionize oxygen and nitrogen in the mid to upper atmosphere, increasing the levels of nitrogen oxide there by an order of magnitude or so. Now a team of Japanese researchers has found the first evidence of a supernova's impact on the atmosphere in an ice core taken from Dome Fuji in Antarctica. The team examined ice that was laid down in the 11th century and found three nitrogen oxide spikes, two of which correspond to well known supernovae: one event in 1006 AD and another in 1054 AD, which was the birth of the Crab Nebula (abstract). Both were widely reported by Chinese and Arabic astronomers at the time. The third spike is unexplained, but the team suggests it may have been caused by a supernova visible only from the southern hemisphere or one that was obscured by interstellar dust."

cancel ×

145 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965115)

It's still gay.

An Introduction to Anal Masturbation (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965329)

It's four thirty a.m. and the house is asleep.

I. . . am not asleep.

I am crouched in the bathtub in a frog-like stance, small puddles of urine and liquid shit at my feet. I'm leaning forward, gripping the side of the tub and biting my knee, overwhelmed by a mixture of pain and pleasure as I piston a dildo in and out of my ass.

You see, I really love anal masturbation.

Ever try it? No? You should.

Doesn't matter who you are. God gave all of us, male and female, an abundance of nerve endings in our rectum - and one life to live. So why don't you go ahead and test out the equipment? Have some fun. No point in having a gun sitting on your shelf your entire life and never killing anyone, right?

But I realize there's a fairly persistent misconception among guys that I'm gonna have to dispel before we go any further:

Stimulating your own ass is not "gay."

That notion doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I mean, how could anything you do to your own body be gay? Nobody ever freaks out in the middle of jerking off like "Holy fuck, I've got a fistful of cock! I've gotta cut this gay shit out!" Well, what's the philosophical difference between playing with your dick and playing with your ass?

There is none.

Look fellas, here's the scoop:

If you have a girl wearing a foot long strap-on, smacking your face and screaming "WHO'S MY BITCH?!?" while she pounds your asshole until it bleeds, that would be a *heterosexual* act. Girl on guy. Simple.

Now if it's a guy that's fucking you, that would be homosexual. And if you're doing it to yourself, well, that's plain old masturbation.

But listen - if you're still sitting there being stubborn, all macho and uptight going "My ass. . . is EXIT ONLY!!!" then lemme just ask you a question.

You know that feeling you get when you take a really big shit?

You know what I'm talking about. You're sitting on the couch, eating Cheez-Its and watching Larry King, when all of the sudden you feel that familiar burning. . . so you get up and bound off to the bathroom all bow legged, clenching your sphincter real tight, and then you furiously rip off your boxer briefs and plop down on the seat just in time to let a huuuuuuge thick turd come sliding out of your ass?

Ahhhhhhhhh!!!!

That feeling.

That tingling, chills up your spine, this-is-absolutely-the-pinnacle-of-human-existence feeling.

Well guess what. That's the feeling of a massive rod moving through your rectum, tickling those wonderfully abundant nerve endings. You love it. It's okay. We all do. It doesn't make you a fag. Or at the very least, we're ALL fags. So indulge yourself.

(Yes, I understand that said feeling is partially due to the sensory experience of toxins leaving the body, which is unique to defecation - but the operative word here is "partially." You like the log movement, too. Don't try to argue.)

So anyway, now that you've decided to be bold, and not a homophobic pussy, and poke around the cornhole a little bit - good for you. But there's something you should remember. Anal masturbation is just like playing the accordion, or shooting a jumper, or really anything else that's worth doing. That is, it requires practice.

You see, back when I was a kid I would get curious and stick a finger or a toothbrush up there, but I wasn't fucking around with anywhere near the kind of pleasure I'm achieving now. It was uncomfortable even. So I worked on it.

And conversely, I know I'm still far from expertise in this particular discipline. I don't claim to be an ass master. There's a whole world of lengths, girths, textures, and vibrations that my eager browneye has yet to inhale.

But since I have honed my skills to a pretty decent level, I'll share with you my current technique. Without further ado:

SpunkyBrewster's Anal Masturbation Technique

What You Need:

1. Lubricant of your choice
2. Fake cock (eight inches, approx.)
3. Ridged anal wand (seven inches, approx.)

Procedure:

1. Apply a generous amount of lube to your index finger, and swirl the lubricated finger lightly around your butthole. Add another drop or two of lube, and then simultaneously push your finger into your butthole while pushing back with your anus muscles.

2. Slide your finger into your ass up to the knuckle and feel around for turds. Unless you're an anorexic, you probably will come across one.

3. Circle your finger around your anal walls pressing outward, as if you were an umpire signaling a home run. You should be near the toilet, because this is intended to stimulate a bowel movement. Once you've shit, and your rectum is empty, then you're ready for some heavy duty fun.

4. Lube up a second finger and slip them both into your poopchute. Let your asshole get comfortable with the new mass, and then begin to pump a little. Repeat with a third finger if you so desire.

5. Slather lube all over the ridged anal wand. Squat over your tool and press the tip to your now greasy anus. Just as you've done with your fingers, ease the dildo into your cornhole as you push back onto it with your ass muscles. Go slowly, stopping at each ridge and letting your ass adjust to the increase in width, until you have it in as far as it will go.

6. Now it's time to start pounding. I'm not gonna get more specific than that. Do it your own way. Experiment with different positions and rhythms until you find what you like.

7. Once your ass has been thoroughly fucked by the anal wand, it's time to move up to the larger dildo. Again, you're going to repeat the process that you've done twice already, with your fingers and the wand. Entering slowly, pushing back on it, letting yourself adjust, and then starting to pump.

8. At this point your asshole is really loose, gaping even, and it's time to move on to my favorite part. Crouch down, or get into whatever position you feel comfortable with, and hold the fake cock in one hand and the wand in the other. Work the fake cock in and out, building the pace until you are doing a high intensity rectal plundering. Slide it in really deep, pause, then pull it out all the way - quickly jamming in the anal wand to fill its place. The rapid transition from smooth to ridged textures will send waves out of pleasure rippling through your entire body. Then give yourself a nice hard fuck with the anal wand, and repeat as many times as you'd like.

*In carrying out these steps - even if you take the dump at the beginning - you still might at some point fuck the shit out of yourself. This is why I recommend doing it in a bathtub, or on some other surface that is easy to clean. Now at first you might be squeamish about the poo, but I think that as you get hardcore into the pleasure of all this, you'll just naturally get desensitized. Kind of like a heroin addict quickly gets over his fear of needles.

In fact, I've found that the right kind of poo can easily be incorporated into the festivities. Sometimes while I'm pounding away I will feel a sudden rush of heat travel through my ass, and I'll know that I'm coating the dildo with a somewhat viscous liquid shit. At this point in the ass ramming, my pain tolerance is rather high, so I'll simply jam the shitty dildo back up my ass, and let the sudden decrease in lubrication create an effect similar to the aforementioned smooth-to-ridged transition. As a matter of fact, this is probably the most intense sensation that I've come across in my entire anal masturbatory experience.*

So that's how it's done. Quite the activity, I must say. Maybe next time you're feeling bored and restless, you can give it a shot. Unless you're a fucking prude, in which case I'd recommend suicide. Or do a goddamn crossword puzzle, I don't really care.

One more thing I want to say on the subject: I really think anal penetration should be an Olympic sport. Wouldn't that be neat? I mean for Christ sakes, we've all seen how much those little Japanese bastards can eat - can you imagine how much they could stuff up the other end? It could even be a team sport where one of them has to take their partner's entire head up their ass.

Well. . . I don't really know how much support I'm gonna get for my petition to add competitive rectal insertion to the Olympic Games, we'll have to see - but seriously, speed walking? FUCKING CURLING?!? It would be far from the dumbest event on the schedule.

Re:An Introduction to Anal Masturbation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965737)

I don't suppose you have a newsletter, kind sir?

The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (3, Insightful)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965143)

1054 AD, which was the birth of the Crab Nebula

The Crab Nebula is 6,500 light years away from earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_Nebula).

This means the birth of the Crab Nebula was in the year 5446 BC. Mankind witnessed it 6,500 years later.

News stories on such phenomena invariably leave out this little fact, i.e., that which is witnessed by man in the sky usually happened thousands of years earlier than when he actually saw it. This makes it confusing for the average reader.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965195)

But isn't it more sensible when speaking in a historical tone to refer to a celestial objects birth relative to our time line and not the objects actual birth?

I suppose it would be astute to word it in the tune of, "1054 AD, which was when man observed the Crab Nebula". This isn't accurate either as it may suggest that the Nebula could have existed prior to the observed date. ::shrug::

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (4, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965351)

Try: 1054 A.D. which is when man observed the birth of the Crab Nebula

One thing I'm curious about. Does this mean that we admit freely that extra-solar events affect the climate of this planet? Anyone have a slide rule handy and some star charts or galactic weather maps? Can we calculate probable effect on current climate conditions from extra-solar events?

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965493)

It's been heavily studied and ruled out as a major cause of global warming, however, it's not my field of study, so I can't say much more.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965591)

but niggers in Africa did not widely report the supernova. weren't they looking?

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965655)

maybe but we can't possibly know since WHITE FUCKTARDS came and messed with everything.. ty very much.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (4, Informative)

ankhank (756164) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965983)

It appears a nearby supernova could affect the climate, by ending it:

Dec 1, 2005 ... Is there a possibility that a nearby star could go supernova and destroy the earth? Or have other bad effects on us? ...
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980521a.html

They said, in part:

If you are talking about the life on Earth, then there is a detailed calculation of the risks due to a nearby supernova on the web:

http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/snrisks.txt [rit.edu]

The author concludes that a supernova has to be within 10 parsecs (30 light years) or so to be dangerous to life on Earth. This is because the atmosphere shields us from most dangerous radiations. Astronauts in orbit may be in danger if a supernova is within 1000 parsecs or so.

No stars currently within 20 parsecs will go supernova within the next few million years. ...

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (4, Informative)

Entropy2016 (751922) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966103)

No. Assuming the resesarch is all legit & valid (I don't feel like carefully reading their methods right now), this still isn't relevant to Global Climate Change because this didn't affect climate.

You've got short term weather. Then you've got the average/trend of weather over very long periods of time, which is the climate. A 3 year (eyeballing it from the graph) spike in nitrogen oxide concentrations isn't considered climate. An effect on Earth, yes it appears that way, but not one that yields biological consequences. That burst vanished as quickly as it appeared. This sorta of stuff isn't even close to causing mass extinctions or new selection pressures.

Besides, the CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions correlating pretty nicely with with the effects we're seeing, I'm not aware of any spikes in the temperature record that we need gamma ray bursts to explain.

Even more relevant to the debate... (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967427)

I think one important fact here is that scientists can measure the effect on the atmosphere of an event that happened a thousand years ago. Would it be reasonable to assume that they couldn't measure the effects of what's happening right now?

Yes, the sun variations influence climate. But human emission of gases into the atmosphere also influence climate, and scientists have means to determine the amount of influence due to each effect.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26968147)

Dunno about climate but the astrophysicists are pretty sure that many of the heavier elements come from extra solar events.
See e.g.: http://www.nscl.msu.edu/science/nuclearastrophysics

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (3, Informative)

khallow (566160) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965205)

There's a good reason to leave that fact out. It doesn't have bearing on the story. And your date is too precise. I don't know if we know it's position and motion well enough to determine how far away the Supernova was to the nearest year.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

adamchou (993073) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965279)

It doesn't have bearing on the story. And your date is too precise.

I beg to differ. Although I agree with you that it isn't important to get across the subject at hand, it is still very important. If this was something posted up on Yahoo!'s front page, then fine, I can understand. The layman doesn't care about these details.

However, this is being posted on an astro physics website. It may be overly detailed but if you're going to be detailed, you need to be correct. This is especially so when your audience is a bunch of scholars, scientists, and enthusiasts that are in the know and recognize glaring mistakes like this.

when I read that sentence, the first thing that came to my mind too was "wait, what?!"

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26966167)

Glaring error? Frankly, I thinking giving 1054 AD as the birth of the Crab Nebula is the most precise way of pinpointing that event. We could have obtained absolutely no information about the event before that date anyhow.

Given general/special relativity, appealing to some objective background time and saying that the supernova occurred "simultaneous" to events in 5446 BC on Earth is the truly ridiculous claim on a cosmic scale. To another equally valid observer, those two events are not simultaneous, and could be in a different order.

If our understanding of cosmology or general relativity ever fundamentally changed, it's the date of the observation that's going to actually be relevant. If your audience *is* a bunch of scientists, they're going to recognize this...

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

adamchou (993073) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968231)

saying that the supernova occurred "simultaneous" to events in 5446 BC on Earth is the truly ridiculous claim on a cosmic scale.

so if it didn't occur during 5446 BC on Earth, then when did it happen?

seems like you are suggesting the date when an observer viewed the event is the correct date to record. based your other point that the birth date is wrong because of "another equally valid observor", i'm going to assume you mean someone not on earth (continuously traveling at an extremely high speed on earth isn't possible yet nor does it seem to have any point) otherwise we'd all be the "same" observers and you're argument doesn't make sense. so therefore, doesn't it follow that the date we view the event is effectively useless because there are various potential observers all viewing it at different dates. which one do you want to record? seems to me like specifying the date the event occurred is much more standard than the date an observer viewed the event.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (2, Insightful)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968411)

Relativity of simultaneity [wikipedia.org]

There is a lot of material for the layman to easily understand. Enjoy the reading ;)

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (4, Interesting)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966195)

This is especially so when your audience is a bunch of scholars, scientists, and enthusiasts that are in the know and recognize glaring mistakes like this.

Or, rather, people who are already damn well aware of this fact. If somebody took the time to point this out in an astrophysics journal, I would assume that they were either being paid by the word, or an exceptionally patronizing person.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

adamchou (993073) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968127)

of course explaining it is unnecessary. but proper verbiage would have been better. saying that they they witnessed the birth of the nebula in 1054 is much more correct than saying that the nebula was born in 1054.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26966503)

RTFA, the only place the sentence quoted above is used is in the slashdot summary. The article correctly uses the words "witnessed" and "just 48 years later saw the birth of..."

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965389)

The relative motion of a celestial body is easily determined by the red/blue shift of its emission spectrum.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968123)

Yes. I was thinking the proper motion (the motion perpendicular to a vector between the Solar System and the object) also mattered, but it doesn't.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (5, Funny)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965333)

That's because it's CORRECT. There's no such thing as 'absolute time'.

1054AD _was_ the time of birth of the Crab Nebula from _our_ point of view.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965605)

That's because it's CORRECT. There's no such thing as 'absolute time'.

1054AD _was_ the time of birth of the Crab Nebula from _our_ point of view.

Point of view is contentious, after all, our point of view should take into account the knowledge of the time taken for the photons to reach us.

Seems strange to have modded the parent down to troll - considering the validity of the point being made.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965663)

meta-wooosh?

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

Opyros (1153335) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966475)

Maybe not.At least, the Bad Astronomer has argued [discovermagazine.com] in the past that Cyberax's point really is valid.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966567)

Is that the sound the pendant made as it swung back and forth in the classic Edward Allen Pooh story "The Pendant and the Pit?"

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965969)

Point of view is contentious, after all, our point of view should take into account the knowledge of the time taken for the photons to reach us.

Correct! In fact, one could accurately say that 1054 AD was the birth year of the Crab Nebula from the point of view of the photons!

Since they are traveling at the speed of light, all points along their path occupy the same time. Hence, 1054 AD on Earth coincides with the birth of the Nebula. The summary is photocentric.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965723)

1054AD was the time the signal arrived, from our point of view. 5446BC was the time the signal originated--the birth of the crab nebula--*from our point of view* as well. That's what it means to receive a signal at light speed.

An observer in a different frame of reference may observe different times, but those are the times from our point of view.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966491)

That's because it's CORRECT. There's no such thing as 'absolute time'.

1054AD _was_ the time of birth of the Crab Nebula from _our_ point of view.

I'm amused that this was modded Funny. You know that this is what a relativistic physicist will tell you, right?

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

jnnnnn (1079877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966611)

I resent the implication that we share a point of view.

1054 AD in your time or mine?

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26966917)

Mod parent Insightful!

Mod parent insightful pls (1)

assert(0) (913801) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967317)

There's nothing particularly funny about the above correct statement.

I really can't believe people are having such a hard time grasping the consequences of "no absolute time."

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965339)

You seem very confused about reference frames. There's no "fixed" time reference for the universe, so it seems perfectly reasonable to use the one on Earth where all the readers live. Sure it give jerks like you something to complain about, but the rest of us understand exactly.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965601)

No. I know perfectly well that all inertial frames are equals.

I object to parent's statement that the true birth of the Crab Nebula was in 5446 BC. It just makes no sense because it assumes that time is absolute.

Also, why 5446 BC? The Earth (and the whole Solar System) moves relative to the Crab Nebula, so we need to compensate for the time dilation. It'll be small, but it's there.

And it gets even more fun if you are talking about quasars and remote galaxies when you need to consider effects of space expansion.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1, Troll)

novakyu (636495) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965631)

There's no "fixed" time reference for the universe, so it seems perfectly reasonable to use the one on Earth where all the readers live.

Well, while the special relativity may claim that all inertial reference frames are equal, the general relativity—especially the Big Bang theory—suggests that there *is* one inertial reference frame that is more equal than others: the rest frame of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which could be termed the "inertial reference frame for the universe".

Having said that, yes, we should give the dates for when the events were observed on Earth. The universe may not revolve around earth (earth is not even at the inertial reference frame of the universe), but it sure gets confusing if we start dating events by when they actually happen, since then, in order not to get utterly confused, one must know how far this Crab Nebula (or any other intra-galaxy or deep-space objects) is.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966621)

Nice argument but.... Observing the CMBR I can deduce I am at the 'center of the universe' (big-bang's ground-zero). Another observer 10 billion light years away would observe the same thing and is therefore also at the 'center of the universe'.

ie: The big-bang only accounts for the observable universe, it does not account the entire Universe unless you assume universe = Universe.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965653)

Seems like you're the one confused by reference frames. In Earth's reference frame the Crab Nebula was born around 5446 BC. All the "no fixed time reference for the universe" thing says is that there are *other* reference frames for which the answer wouldn't be 7455 years ago. But even if you found one for which the answer was 955 years ago, you still couldn't call it 1054 AD because the unit "AD" implies Earth's reference frame.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

jmv (93421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965695)

He is technically correct. Even from our reference frame, the supernova was ~7,500 years old. The time of an event doesn't change with it's location, only with the velocity of the observer. For any observer in the galaxy which is stationary wrt the Earth, the time of the supernova is the same. But for an observer on earth moving close to the speed of light, the time of the event is different from ours.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

mysticgoat (582871) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966413)

The time of an event is dependent on the moment when the event enters the light cone of the observer. So 1054 AD is the correct time of the supernova wrt Earth. We can infer that the event occurred at some other time in a different frame of reference but that is not directly observable. Just as we cannot know anything about any events that might be occurring on the opposite side of an event horizon.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965435)

But the universe didn't exist before 4004BC, that doesn't add up!

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (2, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965437)

the birth of the Crab Nebula was in the year 5446 BC. Mankind witnessed it 6,500 years later.

Traveling at the speed of light no time passed between the explosion and the observation at Earth. So the explosion really did happen in 1054.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965769)

Traveling at the speed of light, no time passed and everything happened in 2009. Traveling at the speed of light until 1054 AD and then switching to Earth's frame for 955 years, everything happening before 1054 AD happened in 1054 AD. Your point?

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

Skyth (1477907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966093)

That is not how time and the speed of light work. From the reference point of people on earth, we Witnessed it in 1054. It went supernovae ~6,500 years before 1054. Depending on which reference point you are claiming... your first sentence comes close to something that makes sense... but no matter what reference point you take, the supernovae still happened ~6,500 years earlier than 1054 to someone standing on earth.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

berend botje (1401731) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967147)

Not according to the photons that got emitted in the supernova. If you ask them, they will tell you that they got created far away and instantaneously smashed into a human eyeball over here.

Yeah, physics is weird that way :-)

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (3, Insightful)

jmizrahi (1409493) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965477)

The whole point of relativity is that there is no such thing as absolute time. Your statement assumes that there is meaning to simultaneity, which is incorrect.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (4, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965523)

This means the birth of the Crab Nebula was in the year 5446 BC. Mankind witnessed it 6,500 years later.

AIUI, it's customary in Astronomy to ignore the time it took for the light to reach us and consider that things in the sky happen when we see them happen. Not that they're not aware of it, it's just that it makes things easier to talk about, especially to laymen. In general, people either understand about the time lag and take it for granted, or neither understand nor care.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965691)

Your version may have been close to the original version, before the editor got his or her hands on it. That's when a few pedantic sentences fell on the newsroom floor, so to speak.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966359)

Don't forget to add in the correction for the universe expanding in that time, and any corrections required for the relative motion between us and the nebula and....

Or you could just quit being pedantic and realize that the standard practice of referring to astronomical events happening when we observe them is not only justified by physics but is also the simplest way that makes sense.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (1)

mysticgoat (582871) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966363)

This means the birth of the Crab Nebula was in the year 5446 BC. Mankind witnessed it 6,500 years later.

Actually what this means is that those who think the logic in parent post is valid need to bone up on relativity and light cones. Relative to the Earth, and therefore the majority of correspondents on Slashdot, the event happened in 1054 AD. Probably by coincidence, it also happened when the Earth-Moon double planet was at its aphelion. (And yes, the sinusoidal path of the Earth about the Sun due to the Moon's influence is significant when looking for accurate aphelion and perihelion points. Learned that while researching my book.)

Re: In AD 2101 war was beginning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26966939)

We get transmission, main screen turn on.

Re:The Crab Nebula wasn't born in 1054 AD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26968433)

News stories on such phenomena invariably leave out this little fact, i.e., that which is witnessed by man in the sky usually happened thousands of years earlier than when he actually saw it. This makes it confusing for the average reader.

I'd say the average reader doesn't even think about it. Anyone with a scientific understand of what is taking place know they are talking when the reached the earth(when the NO was formed).

You are a pendant that can't miss an opportunity to reminded everyone else how smart you are.

Supernovae Found In Ice Cores (4, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965149)

Only a matter of time until they find an actual frozen supernova in the ice.

Re:Supernovae Found In Ice Cores (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965177)

Could we harness that puppy as a safe source of clean energy?

Re:Supernovae Found In Ice Cores (1)

FearForWings (1189605) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965355)

No, but we may be able to use it to cancel out the world ending black hole caused by the LHC when it comes online.

Re:Supernovae Found In Ice Cores (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965409)

All the current radioactive material came from one or more supernovas, so I'd have to say "no".

Re:Supernovae Found In Ice Cores (2, Funny)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965189)

Once we find it then how long until we can clone it, and make an island full of them?

Re:Supernovae Found In Ice Cores (1)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965709)

So the plot of NG Evangelion REALLY did happened? Are you positive? They were Japanese scientist and all.. OMG! OMFG!

*runs to the basement*

Don't be so grandiose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965725)

If they find a nova in the ice, it may very well be a pretty darn good nova. But a super nova? Unlikely.

If you didn't read TFA (1)

BlackusDiamondus (945259) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965165)

...It seems the third spike (assuming I am reading the graph correctly) occurred around 1060-1080AD.

Dies the Fire (1)

marcushnk (90744) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965197)

ha! am reading this book atm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dies_the_Fire [wikipedia.org]
Made me think for a moment :-P

Re:Dies the Fire (1)

AgentOJ (320270) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965417)

That entire series is excellent, but having read all of the books in the series that have been published up to this point makes the wait until next fall for a new hard! Be sure to read the other series that starts with Island in the Sea of Time by S.M. Stirling as it ties in with the event in Dies the Fire.

Your Sig Is Fucked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965633)

your sig is truncated. try checking it out after you save a new one. that is all.

global warming. (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965217)

clearly this is a conspiracy by oil companies to prove global warming isn't man made.

Re:global warming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26966023)

More likely it's a conspiracy by Al Gore to prove that the climate on Earth isn't determined by natural cycles alone.

Supernova are bad.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965225)

Supernova causes extinction:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3900550/

Supernova leads to ice age during the bronze age:
http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/BronzeAge.pdf.

It would be interesting to see if they can extrapolate general weather patterns for the 50 years following these 2 (or 3) supernova. Maybe this will give us a definitive answer on whether or not they can impact our weather and by how much.

Re:Supernova are bad.... (1)

DigitalWallaby (853269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965545)

Wasn't it somewhere around the 1000's to 1200's when the little ice age occured?

Re:Supernova are bad.... (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968429)

Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org] that the little ice age started in 1250 at the earliest, and 1650 at the latest. If the supernova caused it, there was at least a 200 year lag. If you want another coincidence, the Medieval Warm Period [wikipedia.org] peaked during the time of the supernova.

Oddly, there's a quote in the Little Ice Age article from 200 years before the earliest accepted start date (very near the time of the supernova - did the gamma rays precede the visible light photons?) that supposedly predicts the coming cold. That sounds an awful lot like modern-day people claiming a particularly cold day/week/month is evidence against global warming.

Among the earliest references to the coming climate change is an entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles dated 1046: "And in this same year after the 2nd of February came the severe winter with frost and snow, and with all kinds of bad weather, so that there was no man alive who could remember so severe a winter as that, both through mortality of men and disease of cattle; both birds and fishes perished through the great cold and hunger.

Point of View (5, Funny)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965265)

Hmm... "birth of the Crab Nebula" or "death of the Great Crab Civilization"?

You decide.

Re:Point of View (5, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965323)

Hmm... "birth of the Crab Nebula" or "death of the Great Crab Civilization"? You decide.

Yet another thing for Dr Zoidberg to be neurotic about.

Re:Point of View (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965357)

Hmm... "birth of the Crab Nebula" or "death of the Great Crab Civilization"?

On that note, it looks like the data doesn't go back far enough to provide any evidence for the scenario in Clarke's "The Star"

Re:Point of View (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965463)

Hmm... "birth of the Crab Nebula" or "death of the Great Crab Civilization"?

On that note, it looks like the data doesn't go back far enough to provide any evidence for the scenario in Clarke's "The Star"

Well they have only gone down a hundred metres or so to get this data. I wouldn't be surprised if they could double that. Calibration may be an issue until other dates are measured for older volcanoes, etc.

Re:Point of View (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965483)

Tastes like crab, talks like people... CRAB PEOPLE!

Re:Point of View (1)

Adilor (857925) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965577)

Attack their weak points for massive damage?

Re:Point of View (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965595)

What weak points? Their body is made out of armor!

Re:Point of View (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966527)

This is just a test

Re:Point of View (2, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965503)

I believe 1054 AD (minus 6000 light years of travel time) was the approximate date that the residents of what is now the Crab Nebula finally got their Large Hadron Collider working...

Tale of Genji (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965305)

The Japanese novel Tale of Genji [wikipedia.org] was supposedly written between 1008 and 1021 A.D.

It's been decades since I've read it... I wonder if there's any reference in there to smog around Mt. Fuji?

A bit further west, the Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066 A.D.

how do they know? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965377)

How do they know that the spike wasn't cause by some Connecticut Yankee's magic, hmmm?

Model A/B (1)

spitzak (4019) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965461)

Look at the image in the article:

image [arxivblog.com]

If these really are the supernovae, doesn't this mean that "model B" is right and "model A" is wrong?

Re:Model A/B (3, Informative)

radtea (464814) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965625)

If these really are the supernovae, doesn't this mean that "model B" is right and "model A" is wrong?

The two models look like extrema that bound the dates.

More interestingly, the sharpness of the spikes indicate that the sealing of atmospheric gases in the ice happens very suddenly. If it did not we would expect to see much broader and probably asymmetrical peaks.

This is consistent with, but does not absolutely prove, a rather prompt mechanism for such sealing, rather than the long lagtime process that is sometimes invoked to explain why temperatures always rise tens or hundreds of years before CO2 levels do in ice core data. It would be very peculiar, albeit not impossible, to have a process that sealed the ice tens or hundreds of years after it was laid down as snow, but did so on a timescale of a year or so.

parent is troll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965745)

mod parent down; parent is a global warming denier.

Re:parent is troll (2, Insightful)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967007)

Typical response, from a religo nut job.

Debate is good, and everyone is permitted to have there opinion and ideas, more so when there is perhaps new data.

Why should we not discuss them? Being denied to speak anything against the consensus is what church and queen have done for centuries to keep everyone inline. It not science when you must agree with consensus or get silenced.

Snow crystal structure? (2, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967495)

It would be very peculiar, albeit not impossible, to have a process that sealed the ice tens or hundreds of years after it was laid down as snow, but did so on a timescale of a year or so.

Why peculiar? That's exactly what I would expect. As snow gets piled higher, there will come a point when the weight from the accumulated snow is more than the strength of snow crystals can support. At the crystals get crushed, the structure will change from a porous mass of snow crystals to solid ice with some bubbles of gas.

This shift from snow to ice will happen quickly, because as a snow crystal breaks the weight it supported will shift to nearby crystals, increasing the stress on them. It could well be that the shift from porous to solid ice happens in a short period of time and, depending on average amount of snowfall, this could take tens of years of accumulated snow to happen.

Drill down deeper (2, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965473)

I want to know if there was a supernova around the year 0 that would have been visible from the middle east...

Re:Drill down deeper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26965497)

There was. His name was Jeebus.

1054 A.D. (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965715)

The Crab system civilization turns on it's first Large Hadron Collider......

Re:1054 A.D. (1)

zipherx (1150327) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967045)

Outch

Betelgeuse (1)

Big_Oh (623570) | more than 5 years ago | (#26965995)

The crab nebula is 6500 light years away. The SN1006 event was 7200 light years away. The Betelgeuse supernova could appear to earthlings at any moment, and it's only 640 light years away.

Re:Betelgeuse (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968055)

I actually happen to be from the vicinity of Betelgeuse.

But there was no ice in the 1500's (1)

DrkShadow (72055) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966151)

Forgive me for the attention-seeking headline, but I've read very interesting things about Antarctica and its ice sheets.

Primarily, there were maps made in the 1500's that closely resemble an ice-free Antarctica. They document mountains we've detected in the 1900's by sonar, and reflect the Antarctic coastline closely.

If these maps are correct, and there was no ice in the 1500's... how were these ice cores found?

If the ice cores were found, and they date back to 1000 AD, how were these maps made with knowledge of Antarctica having no ice?

I'm very curious. One good article I found is here:
http://www.diegocuoghi.it/Piri_Reis/PiriReis_Hoye-Lunde.htm [diegocuoghi.it]

Quite plausibly, it seems that the maps are, in fact, not maps of Antarctica. I wonder how that affects the arguments given... thoughts?

Re:But there was no ice in the 1500's (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26966239)

This was a central piece of evidence in Charles Hapgood's theory of crustal displacement. That theory has been pretty well debunked, the evidence that works in favor of continental drift works against crustal displacement. Similarly, the ice cores from Antartica are datable both by depth and by debris and gasses trapped inside.

Of the Piri Reis map itself, it has some innaccuracies, and seems to have been cobbled together from other maps, but it does have a level of accuracy concerning the New World that one wouldn't expect in a 1500s map. The most likely explanation, assuming the map is not simply a hoax or put together in error, is that certain bits were copied from vastly older maps.

Re:But there was no ice in the 1500's (4, Informative)

Entropy2016 (751922) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966349)

You're citing an 1980 article from "Aramco World Magazine" to introduce a bunk story on par with lost-city-of-atlantis myths. It's not even a peer reviewed journal. It's a magazine. You're giving these Piri Reis maps much more credit than they deserve. You say they

closely resemble an ice-free Antarctica

but from what I just read the maps didn't even have a waterway between Antarctica and South America. An ice free antarctica should have a *huge* friggin' waterway there.

If these maps are correct, and there was no ice in the 1500's... how were these ice cores found?

They aren't correct. See above.

We have ice cores that we know go back more than 400,000 years. Give the guys who date these cores some credit. To me this iceless-antarctica idea just looks like a retired old historian/cartographer pushing a crackpot hypothesis. Yes, Antarctica wasn't always covered in ice, but that was millions of years ago.

Re:But there was no ice in the 1500's (1)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966759)

There are maps from the 1500s that show california as an island.

Seriously, is there a dumbass around to belive _anything_?

do you even imagine how much it would have needed to snow in antarctica to build up the amount of ice there is now in only 5 centuries?

Learn to Swim (1)

shadowofwind (1209890) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968333)

There are maps from the 1500s that show california as an island.

Those are maps from the FUTURE, when the ice caps have melted and Los Angeles is Arizona Bay.

Re:But there was no ice in the 1500's (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966937)

"If these maps are correct, and there was no ice in the 1500's... how were these ice cores found?"

Excellent question, perhaps you could use an encyclopedia [wikipedia.org] to find out more about these so called "ice cores".

Re:But there was no ice in the 1500's (1)

nicklott (533496) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967073)

They couldn't make ships that would routinely survive the antarctic sea until about 1750. How could they be be maps of antarctica in 1500?

Re:But there was no ice in the 1500's (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 5 years ago | (#26968171)

The hypothesis is that Antarctica was ice free in 1500 and that someone mapped it, but we have 400,000 year old ice and a huge pile of ice overall that couldn't have been dumped in five centuries. So the hypothesis is wrong.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>