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!

Hubble Confirms Nature of Mysterious Green Blob

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the send-in-kilowog dept.

Science 140

An anonymous reader writes "In 2007, Dutch secondary school biology teacher Hanny van Arkel spotted something mysterious in the night sky. Combing through Galaxy Zoo, an online database set up to enlist the public's help in classifying galaxies, she came across a glowing green smudge of light approximately 650 million light-years away. The object, which became known as Hanny's Voorwerp (Dutch for 'object'), is one of the most mysterious in the universe. Now, detailed Hubble Space Telescope images and new x-ray observations presented here today at the 217th meeting of the American Astronomical Society may finally confirm what it is."

cancel ×

140 comments

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

And for those not interested in reading TFA (5, Informative)

gomiam (587421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835822)

... the blob is, according to observations, a gas cloud who was irradiated until recently by a now dead quasar. The irradiation excited the oxygen atoms in the cloud, making it glow green.

I think it wouldn't have been too much to add this to the entry.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (5, Funny)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835870)

I think it wouldn't have been too much to add this to the entry.

But unnecessary. Everyone on Slashdot would have read the entire article and found out anyway, right?

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (4, Funny)

thynk (653762) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836060)

Wait... what? There are articles?

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (3, Funny)

Stele (9443) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836390)

I only read Slashdot for the articles - honest!

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34836542)

I sure hope you aren't looking at slashdot for the nude photos.

Ewwwwww.

Remember that which has been seen cannot be unseen.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (3, Funny)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837182)

I read it for the goatse

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836450)

No, but don't say that around any of the believers. There's a strange religion (or possibly cult) that claims to have seen the mythical 'articles' but there's no scientific evidence for them. People claim to have received enlightenment as a result of 'reading' what believers refer to as 'TFA', but often this enlightenment is simply some misleading factoids.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837156)

Wait... what? There are articles?

I once saw this on Star Trek (TOS). We won.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34838196)

It's news to me! I only read Slashdot for the pictures.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34836604)

No, everyone would have slashdotted the site, and only the lucky few gotten to read the TFA.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836858)

Yep.

And this way it prevents anyone who wanted to pitch a few Galactic North jokes.

Some new kind of kink (4, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835912)

.. a gas cloud who was irradiated until recently by a now dead quasar. The irradiation excited the oxygen atoms in the cloud, making it glow green.

Well, that certainly sounds like a kink that I have not heard of yet. Exciting irradiation? With a dead quasar? Hmm ... maybe the necrophilia gang ...

Re:Some new kind of kink (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835962)

Which is so much better than boring irradiation from "living" quasars...

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835932)

You don't want to make that cloud angry.

Anger = red glow, jealous = green glow. (1)

crovira (10242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836178)

Okay. Its green with jealousy (or envy.)

Or someone just got sick after drinking Chartreuse.

do not taunt happy green cloud? (2)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836256)

> You don't want to make that cloud angry.

Do not taunt happy green cloud?

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (2, Funny)

SailorSpork (1080153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835960)

This is Slashdot. People read the work "Voorwerp," chuckled, and went on to look for a new article to try and fan an Apple vs. Linux flame war .

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (0)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835998)

What are you? A Microsoft Fanboy?
Huh?
What?
Bring it.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (2)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836136)

I read the word and wondered if Douglas Adams wrote the article.

Ob Dave Barry (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836872)

"Hanny's Voorwerp" would be a great name for a Rock Band.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (4, Informative)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835966)

You can find out a bit more information here [discovermagazine.com] .

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836142)

Not to mention a link to a larger photo... thanks.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34836446)

Of Hanny, or the voorwerp ? :)

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (0)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836678)

Of Brian May, of course!

Brought to you by a proud owner of a Brian May Red Special Guitar.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (0)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835994)

I think it wouldn't have been too much to add this to the entry.

What else can you expect from an anonymous source? Hell, the "summary" is simply the first paragraph from the article. Fucking useless. Anonymous article submissions just shouldn't be allowed. Put at least two minutes into the summary for Christ's sake.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34836004)

a gas cloud who was irradiated until recently by a now dead quasar.

a gas cloud who was irradiated until 650 million years ago by a now dead quasar.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

gomiam (587421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836156)

Actually, the gas cloud is about 650 million light-years away. The quasar would have died just 200.000 years ago (which is quite recent in astronomy, AFAIK). Perhaps I should have made it clear that I meant recently relative to the gas cloud.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34836292)

ah, I see that I read it wrong.. It's mind boggling that the cloud will still be glowing for almost 650 million years

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

mldi (1598123) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836366)

No it won't, but we'll be able to observe it from planet Earth for another 650 million years.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34836454)

I was assuming the radiation from the quasar behaved like light and would continue to bombard the gas cloud for 650 million years after the death of the quasar. So we would be able to observe the cloud from earth for approximately twice that?

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

gomiam (587421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836504)

Sorry for being such a nitpicker. Actually, if the quasar that lit up the cloud died about 200.000 years ago, I don't expect the cloud to glow much longer than that, as in... perhaps just a million years? I guess it basically depends on the distance between the quasar and the cloud, so I might be mistaken by several ordes of magnitude.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34836658)

I'm just trying to understand.. from the article, it sounded to me like the quasar was 200,000 light years from earth, and the cloud is 650 mil light years from earth.. so the distance between the two would be around 649.8 million?

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

Jerrry (43027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836938)

"Sorry for being such a nitpicker. Actually, if the quasar that lit up the cloud died about 200.000 years ago, "

If the quasar died 200,000 years ago, how would we know this? If the quasar is 650 million LYs from Earth, wouldn't the evidence of its death take 650 million years to reach us?

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837054)

That depends on what you mean by "now".

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837256)

That depends on what you mean by "now".

*head explodes*

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837348)

You're trying to be too clever, the lights travel time is irrelevant. When light from an event reaches us, that is when the event happened as far as we are concerned.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (4, Interesting)

ErroneousBee (611028) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837178)

The Voorwerp and galaxy are both 650 million light years away from Earth, and they are about 200,000 light years away from each other.

I think this is the timeline ( I do a bit of galaxyzoo now and then):

So ( about 650 million ) + ( some millions ) of years ago the galaxy had a big ole black hole in the middle, which was gobbling up matter in the galaxy. The matter fell into the hole like water down a drain, spinning round the hole as it fell in. All this spinning matter creates enormous magnetic fields that create jets at the poles of the spinning matter. The matter in these jets blasted off at sub-light speeds and became the voorwerp cloud in space. There should be a cloud on the opposite side of the galaxy, but I havent seen any mention of this, so it entirely possible that the cloud was there anyway and was not shot out of the galaxy.

So we now have a galaxy and a cloud of gas nearby.

Then ( about 650 million ) + ( a few million ) years ago the galaxy is a Quasar, the black hole in the middle is powering a massive outpouring of light, the whole of the middle of the galaxy is glowing, and that light is running off into space and causing the voorwerp cloud to glow. Pressure from the light is also causing the cloud to collapse and start forming stars.

So we have a really bright galaxy (Quasar) and a glowing gas cloud.

Then ( about 650 million ) + ( about 200,000 ) years ago the black hole stops gobbling matter and can no longer power the Quasar. The galaxy stops glowing, but its massive light outpouring is still travelling through space and is still causing the Voorwerp cloud to glow.

Then ( about 650 million ) years ago is the picture we see today:

  1. A Galaxy looking pretty normal.
  2. A cloud of gas that is glowing as it is still illuminated by light that took 200,000 years to get from the galaxy to the cloud.
  3. We see stars in the cloud that are no older than a few millions of years old, as the Quasar started up, light pressure caused the gas cloud to collapse into stars and has now shut down again.

In the future the cloud will stop glowing as the wave of Quasar light passes through it and is gone. There will still be stars that we can view. The Voorwerp will become a dwarf galaxy orbiting the ex-quasar galaxy.

From the above time line, we infer these facts:

  • The galaxy is not glowing like a quasar, but the voorwerp 2000,000 light years away is under full illumination from the Quasar. So the Quasar has gone from full blast to completly shut down in 200,000 years.
  • The stars in the voorwerp are only a couple of million years old, so the Voorwerp was only illuminated by the Quasar for a few million years.

Notes:

  • The sun is about 4 billion years old.
  • The green colour mentioned in the article is simply the fact that hot oxygen emits radiation at a specific wavelength that is not actually green, but has to be represented as a colour in telescope images for us to view. This wavelength just happens to be represented as green by Hubble. It was Blue in the galaxyzoo image (supplied by the Sloan automatic survey scope).
  • This never gets mentioned, but Hanny had a hairstyle and guitar that made her like a bloke in her avatar image on galaxyzoo.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837986)

The green colour mentioned in the article is simply the fact that hot oxygen emits radiation at a specific wavelength that is not actually green, but has to be represented as a colour in telescope images for us to view. This wavelength just happens to be represented as green by Hubble. It was Blue in the galaxyzoo image (supplied by the Sloan automatic survey scope).

It really is green, see http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/research/voorwerp.html [ua.edu] . Blue is

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (2)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837476)

650 million years has nothing to do with anything, that's only the lights travel time. Ignore it. The quasar stopped 200,000 years ago from our frame of reference. The lights travel time to get to earth is irrelevant and seems to be only confusing you.

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

qinjuehang (1195139) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836030)

... the blob is, according to observations, a gas cloud who was irradiated until recently by a now dead quasar. The irradiation excited the oxygen atoms in the cloud, making it glow green.

I think it wouldn't have been too much to add this to the entry.

... the blob is, according to observations, a gas cloud who was irradiated until recently by a now dead quasar. The irradiation excited the oxygen atoms in the cloud, making it glow green.

a gas cloud who was irradiated until recently by a now dead quasar

a gas cloud who was irradiated

a gas cloud who

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

Tragedy4u (690579) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836216)

Science, schmience! Don't you know this is the end of the world as we know it? Hollywood, H.P. Lovecraft and the Mayans predicted our doom. This green cloud is elder god Azathoth growing, and slowly devouring the universe. Grab your tinfoil hats folks, pack food into your backyard bomb shelter and call NASA to find out when we need to duck and cover!

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (2)

damien_kane (519267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836374)

Don't you know this is the end of the world as we know it?

/shrug... I feel fine

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (4, Insightful)

yakumo.unr (833476) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836322)

They leave out such pertinent points intentionally to encourage you to fill them in and score some easy mod points, instead of "first post" every article.

I bet you'd find they even get removed if you submit with them included ;)

Re:And for those not interested in reading TFA (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837108)

Sigh.

So little time to point to other green blobs [amazon.com] .

Misleading Title? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835830)

The summary leads me to believe that we've only gotten better images, and that we still have yet to confirm what it is. Am I right or wrong?

Re:Misleading Title? (1)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835888)

Title: "Hubble Confirms..."
Summary: "...may finally confirm..."

In the submitter's defense, the article is just as confused.

Hubble Confirms... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34836740)

FreeBSD is dead?

Re:Misleading Title? (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836090)

A theory, widely considered "plausible", was made last year. New evidence confirms it, making it more-or-less "confirmed".

Reminds me of a Star Trek quote (5, Funny)

Kufat (563166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835852)

Kirk: Bones, there's a... voorwerp... out there.
Bones: Why is any object we don't understand always called "a voorwerp"?

Re:Reminds me of a Star Trek quote (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836198)

Kirk: Bones, there's a... voorwerp... out there.
Bones: Why is any object we don't understand always called "a voorwerp"?

Kirk: Because Hanny is a hottie who found something any geek worth their salt thinks is cool, and she can call it anything she likes. Be thankful she didn't call it Hanny's BonesIsAPooHead. Now if only she were green...and had 3 breasts!

Re:Reminds me of a Star Trek quote (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34838330)

Kirk: Bones, there's a... voorwerp... out there.
Bones: Why is any object we don't understand always called "a voorwerp"?

Kirk: Because Hanny is a hottie who found something any geek worth their salt thinks is cool, and she can call it anything she likes. Be thankful she didn't call it Hanny's BonesIsAPooHead. Now if only she were green...and had 3 breasts!

Humble Telescope reveals all.

Obligatory (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34837038)

Kirk: What about the Quasar?
Bones: It's dead, Jim.

Re:Reminds me of a Star Trek quote (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837334)

Only the Dutch could take a word like "object" and make it sound so..... naughty.

Re:Reminds me of a Star Trek quote (1)

grikdog (697841) | more than 3 years ago | (#34838152)

Only the Dutch could take a word like "object" and make it sound so..... naughty.

Hairsplitting ("mierenneuken") is even more psychically formidable in tje urginal Dertch (slapping down wooden alien hand).

Gratuitous black-belt hamster reference. (1)

crakbone (860662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835856)

"Was found to be a type of radioactive jello. A space mission with hamsters was expected to be sent shortly. "

for those who don't like to RTFA: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34835872)

...a gas cloud near an inactive quasar that shut down quite recently, irradiated by the quasar while it was still active.

Interesting (5, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835898)

The article also brings up an interesting point: since the glow is caused by radiation from a quasar a few hundred thousand light years away, but that quasar is not currently active, it means that quasars can die extremely quickly, in about 200,000 years if TFA is correct. That's a blink of an eye in astronomic terms.

It also counts as physical evidence for black holes evaporating, which is good.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34836124)

No, no, no. Hawking radiation would take many billions if not trillions of years to evaporate a quasar. (I forget the numbers, but we're talking many, many times the age of the universe.) All this shows is that the trajectories of either of the two objects have taken them out of necessary alignment for irradiation.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34836210)

Or the black hole isn't currently consuming any matter.

Re:Interesting (5, Interesting)

InsurrctionConsltant (1305287) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836372)

Nope, even then. You need to read up a little about the timeframes here.

The evaporation of black holes according to Hawking radiation is an unimaginably, incomprehensibly, comically slow process. So slow, that in this universe, the passive absorption of the cosmic microwave background is sufficient to render it irrelevant –the black hole still absorbs background photons at a greater rate than it generates radiation:

A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background. Stellar mass (and larger) black holes receive more mass from the cosmic microwave background than they emit through Hawking radiation and will thus grow instead of shrink. To have a Hawking temperature larger than 2.7 K (and be able to evaporate), a black hole needs to be lighter than the Moon (and therefore a diameter of less than a tenth of a millimeter). (wikipedia.org)

Elsewhere I have seen the figure of 10^61 times the age of the universe for the evaporation (and this is in a black-body condition: no matter absorbed whatsoever) of a BH of merely 30 solar masses. Recall we are talking about a Quasar: something hundreds of millions of solar masses and up. These things have lifetimes so vast as to render even the word "astronomical" meaninglessly trifling. Think numbers of years with more digits than you could write in your lifetime.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34836608)

"consuming matter" != "evaporating"

Read the words you're replying to before you go on a 3-paragraph rant.

Re:Interesting (1)

InsurrctionConsltant (1305287) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836698)

Oh my apologies. To be fair, your post was ambiguous. I thought you were saying the black hole isn't consuming matter, therefore it was evaporating faster. In fact you were suggesting it is merely inactive, which is another reason the OP’s conclusion is erroneous. I hope the OP found what I wrote informative, anyway.

Re:Interesting (0)

InsurrctionConsltant (1305287) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836814)

Who on earth modded this down? I just tried to add some scientific numbers to discuss the original claim!

Re:Interesting (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837080)

The article on Bad Astronomy actually specifically mentions that the black hole is no longer consuming matter. The AC did not say the black hole evaporated, but that it is no longer consuming matter, therefore there are no jets. Perhaps you meant to respond to gman003?

Re:Interesting (1)

InsurrctionConsltant (1305287) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837234)

I misunderstood the parent to my post –sorry. My response was elaborating on the first AC who pointed out gman003's misconception – trying to add some figures.

I think a lot of people have heard that "block holes gradually evaporate", without having read any further, making the erroneous assumption about the timeframes involved is understandable.

In fact:

  1. large black holes evaporate so slowly they are likely to be the most long-lived objects in the universe
  2. at the current background radiation level of the universe, even small black holes absorb much more radiation than they emit, and are therefore growing at the present time
  3. quasars are enormous black holes –many millions of solar masses –and are therefore calculated to be emitting radiation ("evaporating") so slowly as to result in a mathematical absurdity.

Re:Interesting (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836262)

It also counts as physical evidence for black holes evaporating,

Or perhaps there isn't enough gas falling into it to excite it.

Re:Interesting (1)

InsurrctionConsltant (1305287) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836770)

Precisely. Black holes can't "die extremely quickly" –they evaporate unimaginably slowly. (See my other replies.) They can, however, become inactive at the drop of a hat –if & when the accretion disc becomes depleted.

Re:Interesting (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837280)

Black holes can "die extremely quickly." BIG ones can't.

Since we're striving for accuracy and all.

Re:Interesting (1)

InsurrctionConsltant (1305287) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837394)

Heh - true.

It's interesting to note how small they have to be, though: according to wikipedia, to radiate more than the it absorbs from the cosmic miscrowave background, the BH would have to be lighter than the moon. In other words, since the microwave background is always decreasing, all stellar-remnant BHs in the universe have always been, and are still (and for the next N times the age of the universe, will remain) increasing in size.

Re:Interesting (1)

InsurrctionConsltant (1305287) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837432)

(PS –there's "striving for accuracy", and there's "trying to correct an error billions of orders of magnitude in size"... ! :P

What is that green smudge? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835900)

Initial imaging of Hanny's Voorwerp by a wide range of telescopes on the ground and in space indicated that it was a giant cloud of hot gas.

Excuse me! I had chili for lunch. Extra beans. Thanks I'll be here all week. Tip your waitstaff.

Re:What is that green smudge? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836118)

Thanks I'll be here all week. Tip your waitstaff.

Try the waitress, tip the veal. Tastes better; lasts longer.

Vogsphere's aura (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34835904)

I guess this means we've finally spotted the Vogons first!

Intergalactic snot. (3, Funny)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835926)

This is what happens when Cthulhu gets a nasty head cold.

Re:Intergalactic snot. (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835968)

Cthulhu does not get a cold. A cold gets a Cthulhu. In this way, Cthulhu is sort of like Chuck Norris. Now don't even get me started on the terror known as Cthulhuck Norris

Re:Intergalactic snot. (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837806)

At last, conclusive evidence that the Great Green Arkleseizure is the creator (or at least, the origin) of the universe. Now we just have to worry about the Coming of the Great White Hanky.

not just here vs there (2)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835948)

I'm used to thinking about the fact that objects "out there" are mind-bogglingly far away from us, such that their light takes eons to reach us. This is a reminder that they are also mind-bogglingly far away from each other.

This was identified in the 70s. (4, Funny)

NevDull (170554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34835952)

Green blob in the sky? Hanny van Arkel?

Is it not exceedingly obvious what it is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Arkleseizure#Great_Green_Arkleseizure [wikipedia.org]

I, for one, welcome the coming of the Great White Handkerchief.

This was identified in Futurama (4, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836080)

He is Melvar! Seer of the Tapes, Knower of the Episodes. Tremble before his encyclopedic knowledge of Star Trek.

Re:This was identified in Futurama (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836368)

Star Trek?! Hand over your geek card, now!

Re:This was identified in Futurama (3, Informative)

uberjack (1311219) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837512)

"Melllvar" has 3 "L"'s. One would hope that you'd done enough Star Trek conventions to know how to spell "Melllvar"

Re:This was identified in Futurama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34837948)

Pssh, I would have thought you would have been to enough conventions to know how to spell Melllvar.

Re:This was identified in the 70s. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34836186)

I, for one, would like to check out her voorwerp!

http://twitter.com/hannyvanarkel [twitter.com]

http://www.hannysvoorwerp.com [hannysvoorwerp.com]

A great mystery answered? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34836006)

Could this be were Happy Fun Ball came from!

Shouldn't that read.... (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836194)

Shouldn't that read "Hubble telescope allows astronomers to confirm nature of mysterious green blob?" Unless, that is, there was a really big upgrade to the telescope that has been kept secret!

Re:Shouldn't that read.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34836270)

There should be a +1, Nitpick mod.

Re:Shouldn't that read.... (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837124)

Or Hubble came back from the dead to confirm it.

hmm... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836306)

looks like a Vorlon ship to me...

DeCloaking Romulan WarFrog? (1)

aoeu (532208) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836338)

srsly

These are commonly found in the home. (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836480)

I just opened my fridge and found a mysterious green blob. I for one welcome our all-powerful voorwerp overlords.

Hanny's voorwerp is made of people! (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836508)

Oh, the humanity!

How can a black hole emit something? (1)

scandalon (1021347) | more than 3 years ago | (#34836584)

From the linked article: "The idea is that the galaxy harbors a giant black hole in its core that once gobbled up gas and stars, emitting two opposing jets of hot gas and high-energy radiation." I am far from an expert so perhaps you all can help. How is it that a black hole can emit anything? Aren't they so dense that nothing can escape their pull?

Re:How can a black hole emit something? (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34838038)

The stuff that's emitted isn't actually coming from the black hole, it comes from the accretion disk around the black hole. Do some reading on quasars for more information.

bright green, drawing a green mist behind it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34837414)

At midnight on the twelfth of August, a huge mass of luminous gas erupted from Mars
and sped towards Earth...

Image Search (2)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837692)

I'm just going to float this out there. It's not really relevant to the article, nor is it particularly valuable to any discussion, but the discoverer of the Voorwerp, Hanny Van Arkely, is absolutely lovely. Many 'dotters could probably kill an hour or two sifting through her images on Google.

I always thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34837810)

I always thought it was just a great green glob of greasy grimy gopher guts

Hanny is cute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34837902)

Yes, yes, nice green whatsit and all that.

But there is a photo of Hanny, and she's cute.

Wait... did I say that out loud?

Obvious (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34837930)

This is obvious to anyone who has ever been around kids. A large green blob, it's obviously snot.

Green Blob?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34837968)

Neil Armstrong took a dump on his last "space walk" and now it's a breaking news story?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>