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!

A Symmetrical Cosmic Red Square

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the dyson-square dept.

Space 152

Remember the hexagon surrounding Saturn's north pole? Now for our delectation Ano_Nimass Coward sends us to Space.com for a look at a nebula with near perfect bilateral symmetry surrounding a dying star. The so-called Red Square ranks among the most symmetrical objects ever observed by scientists. "If you fold things across the principle diagonal axis, you get an almost perfect reflection symmetry," said the leader of a study of the object, recently published in Science. A possible explanation for the structure's glow, if not its shape, was advanced in a paper appearing in PNAS, which attributes the glow of a similar object — dubbed, confusingly, the Red Rectangle — to exotic space-hardened organic molecules called Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. PAHs are normally unstable but may occur in places like the nebula in question, in nanostructured clusters that are extremely stable and radiation hardened.

cancel ×

152 comments

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

Geometry (2, Funny)

Stormx2 (1003260) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743585)

Quoteth the article:

dubbed, confusingly, the Red Rectangle
Quoteth wikipedia:

A square (regular quadrilateral) is a special case of a rectangle as it has four right angles and parallel sides.
How is it confusing?

Re:Geometry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18743621)

Sarcasm?

Re:Geometry (3, Informative)

adrianmonk (890071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743659)

How is it confusing?

The difference between Red Rectangle and Red Square is confusing because, if you read the article, they are different things. From the article:

The researchers propose that similar conditions are contributing to the extreme symmetry of another system, the Red Rectangle, whose central star is cooler than that of the Red Square.

Re:Geometry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18743679)

if you read the article


You must be new here, welcome to slashdot!

Re:Geometry (3, Funny)

theuedimaster (996047) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744961)

Remember children, every Red Square is a Red Rectangle, but not every Red Rectangle is a Red Square.

Re:Geometry (1, Flamebait)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744159)

Good grief, when will people here STOP quoting wikipedia as an authority. That definition of Square is utterly worthless.

Though admittedly, I'd have modded you "funny", cos I think that's what you intended. Insightful, seems like someone didn't get the joke. It was a joke right?

Re:Geometry (2)

Stormx2 (1003260) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744275)

Seems like you didn't get the point.

And I don't see why it is worthless. imho it is completely relevant, on face value. No, I didn't RTFA. I was only saying that calling a square a rectangle isn't confusing if you look at it from a geometric perspective. The other replier cleared up the difference.

Re:Geometry (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744627)

It's not confusing so much as tautologous.

A square (regular quadrilateral) is a special case of a rectangle as it has four right angles and parallel sides.
Any rectangle fulfils that criterion, not just a square. A square is a special case of a rectangle in that it has four equal sides.

Re:Geometry (4, Informative)

Stormx2 (1003260) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744711)

Ah, that bit is a tad unclear. The reasoning "as it has four right angles and parallel sides." is the reason it is a rectangle, not a special case of a rectangle.

Re:Geometry (0, Troll)

ratsnapple tea (686697) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744745)

And yet another Wikipedia fan proves himself, at last, a pedantic, literal-minded little shit. Why am I not surprised?

Re:Geometry (3, Funny)

Stormx2 (1003260) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745257)

See if you'd put that on a wikipedia article, someone would add the {{Original research}} tag, because the link between being a "pedantic, literal-minded little shit" and being a wikipedia fan hasn't been proven, yet. How about {{NPOV}}? But seriously, stop trolling.

Oh, and in answer to your question, you aren't surprised because you were all too happy to find a coincidental link.

Re:Geometry (3, Funny)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 7 years ago | (#18747037)

Let us put this on a scientific basis. The first step is to create a proper acronym to speed discourse. Henceforth, we shall use "PLLS" instead of the longer "pedantic literal-minded little shit."

I, of course, am not a PLLS, as I spell and punctuate correctly and wipe myself properly after every bowel movemnet, because Nanny would beat me severely if I didn't...er.. I digress. Where was I? Oh yes, the 32nd poster previous failed to spell 'incunabula' correctly. Oh, and there are 152 toothpicks on the floor.

Optical illusion? (3, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743617)

I'm not a astrophysicist, but I've seen enough photographic artifacts to know you can get some interesting symmetrical single-color polygons through reflection and refraction that look remarkably like what is shown here. Is there any way to verify that this isn't a visual artifact, as opposed to an actual physical cloud? Or is the artifact itself a sign that there has to be a highly symmetrical set of objects creating it?

Ryan Fenton

Re:Optical illusion? (5, Informative)

barakn (641218) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743671)

There are some artifacts in the image. Notice the stars with 6 rays. The rays are created by support structures holding the secondary mirror of the telescope in front of the primary mirror. The fact that the square doesn't have hexagonal symmetry argues for its existence as a real object.

Re:Optical illusion? (3, Informative)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743761)

But it highlighted star still does show the six-ray spikes the other starts do... the white light in the center just seems to have an hourglass shape that matches with the hexagonal spikes (also likely an artifact) that makes a square as it radiates out. Is it possible that the core of this star is collapsing into a quasar-like object, radiating in two opposite directions, each mostly perpendicular to our viewpoint? Those two narrowing radiating jets of light could match the hexagon thatches to make that white hourglass in the center, making the red square on the outside.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Optical illusion? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18743885)

Stop overanalyzing a particular picture of it. The Red Square has been imaged thousands of times by hundreds of instruments over the past decade. The square *is there*.

Re:Optical illusion? (4, Informative)

barakn (641218) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744153)

Anonymous Coward is quite wrong. All the news articles about the Red Square are referring to it as a new nebula. It hasn't been "imaged thousands of times by hundreds of instruments over the past decade." It has only been imaged by two intruments over the last several years. It wasn't imageable until recent advance in adaptive optics, as AC should have known had AC read any of the articles. Mod parent uninformative.

Re:Optical illusion? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745871)

Actually, what Anonymous Coward (btw that's his real name) failed to mention is that he's from Blarus 4.
They have imaged the Red Square thousands of times, it being much closer to them.
It's only us here on earth that have not imaged it so many times.

Re:Optical illusion? (3, Informative)

Derling Whirvish (636322) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744193)

The Red Square has been imaged thousands of times by hundreds of instruments over the past decade. The square *is there*.
You are confusing the "Red Rectangle Nebula [google.com] " which has been imaged hundreds of times over the past decade with the newly-discovered "Red Square Nebula [google.com] " which this article is about.

Re:Optical illusion? (4, Interesting)

barakn (641218) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744091)

First of all, I'd suggest looking at this higher resolution image [usyd.edu.au] , available from this page [usyd.edu.au] with other fascinating graphics. I would agree that the more-or-less horizontal component of the central X (the sides of the hour glass) is in the same direction as the two "horizontal" components of the stars' hexagonal rays (by coincidence, I presume). However the vertical part of the central X does not point in the same direction as any of the hexagonal rays. This may be a simple demonstration of how an hourglass doesn' have hexagonal symmetry, but more importantly it suggests the hourglass isn't produced by the same process as the hexagonal spikes.


Having said that, there are some faint hexagonal spikes created by the central object, but they are much fainter than the hour glass shape..


I wouldn't use the term "quasar-like" because the word quasar is an acronym for "quasi-stellar radio source" and i don't think this object is the source of many radio waves

Re:Optical illusion? (1)

Basehart (633304) | more than 7 years ago | (#18746991)

Thanks for the links. The higher res images make it easier to look at the image as if the radials are pointing away from us instead of towards us, making it look like a pyramid from a birds eye view.

Although it's a pretty long stretch to assume that a distant civilization is responsible somehow for all the pyramids on Earth and in space, it would make sense if you were into creating them to make some kind of statement to have them visible in space to beings on the planets that have them.

Re:Optical illusion? (2, Funny)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744677)

I'm not an astrophysicist either, but I suspect they kind of check for stuff like that.

Civilisation (1, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743625)

The Star Egyptia towered over the sky, from the far reaches of the empire would look up at the stars and teach their children where it came from.
One night, it went nova.

The Egyptian outlanders throughout the galaxy built huge temples to honour the billions dead from their home system. The dead on these worlds would rest in similar surroundings.

Obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18743643)

Isn't it obvious? The Borg are watching!

mmmmmm bacon (0, Offtopic)

Bazuul (561189) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743649)

"bacon was smoldering on the range, filling the house with gas-phase polycyclic aromatics-my favorite carcinogen by a long shot" - Sangamon Taylor from Neal Stephenson's "Zodiac" Wonder what that nebula smells like?

Look, it's easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18743663)

A principle describes an idea. Principal means "main". I'm not gonna have to repeat myself I hope? And on Space.com too. For shame.

Re:Look, it's easy (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743735)

Sorry, bud. You got it wrong. The article is correct.

Re:Look, it's easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745977)

Sorry bud, looks like you were whacking off while the baby Jeebus was handing out brains. So it was symmetrical about its idea axis? Not its main axis? Okey dokey then...

Too obvious... (3, Funny)

adrianmonk (890071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743703)

In Soviet Russia, the Red Square ejects stars.

On a more serious note, in present-day Russia, the Red Square really does eject -- and beat and arrest [buffalonews.com] -- stars[1] when they show up to demonstrate against the government. Things are getting kinda shaky over there, it would appear.

[1] Garry Kasparov, specifically.

Re:Too obvious... (0)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745243)

Things are getting shaky all over the place...

I am worried.

Obligatory (5, Funny)

Rubinhood (977039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743733)

In Soviet Russia, you don't observe Red Square, but Red Square [wikipedia.org] observes [slashdot.org] you [iht.com] .

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18743861)

At this point, is it really obligatory?

We need to mod down -1 give it a rest.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18744829)

by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @04:34PM (#18743861)
At this point, is it really obligatory?

We need to mod down -1 give it a rest.
But sadly, moderation is done by Slashdot members, and not us. As long as this rule, this example of awful lockstep slashbot groupthink stands, things that are funny to Slashdotters will get modded up, while our anonymously posted manifestos of political quackery and GNAA trolls will continue to be modded down. INJUSTICE, I say!

Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18743751)

The Red Square? Clearly, this is proof that while the Americans were busy trying to land on the moon, the Soviets had set their aim higher and constructed a copy of their Red Square in space. In fact, if you look closely enough, there is a Red Star in the middle.

2d objects in 3d space (1)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743777)

Do we have to use 2d terminology for objects that are (hopefully) 3d?

(Anyway, it looks like a lens flare.)

Re:2d objects in 3d space (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743947)

Well, I don't know where you come from, but in my reality, we call a 3d rectangle...


wait for it...


a box.

Re:2d objects in 3d space (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18744933)

a 3d rectangle? Clearly you must be talking about Time Cube [wikipedia.org]

Right angles (0, Offtopic)

chroma (33185) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743781)

Objects that are extremely regular and have right angles are usually considered to be artificial in origin.

Re:Right angles (1)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743829)

How long will it be until someone posts a comment misinterpreting "organic"?

The pools are open!

Pool's closed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18744143)

due to AIDS

Re:Pool's closed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745541)

lurk moar

Re:Right angles (5, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743841)

Objects that are extremely regular and have right angles are usually considered to be artificial in origin.
Yeah, like a sodium chloride crystal. :)

Re:Right angles (2, Funny)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744135)

Objects that are extremely regular and have right angles are usually considered to be artificial in origin.
Yeah, like a sodium chloride crystal. :)
That response has gotta burn like salt in a wound.

Re:Right angles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18744197)

Precisely. Sodium Chloride chrystals were made by our lord Jesus to feed us. This clearly proves that the Universe was made by God using an enormous pencil and ruler.

So REPENT HEATHEN!!!

Oddly, the capcha at the bottom is: "villains" Coincidence? I think not.

Re:Right angles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18746389)

Clearly someone has never heard of nature's harmonious timecube.

Looks like a lot of things (4, Insightful)

PinkyGigglebrain (730753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743827)

When I first looked at it I two 90 degree cones of ejecta blasting from a central point along the rotation axis of the original star. Like the Eye Nebula would look if seen from the side.

My second thought was it looked like those things we made in kindergarden where you wrap colored yarn around two sticks. I think my mom still has the one I made her, she used to put it on the Christmas tree.

It is most devinitly NOT a lens artifact, look at the other stars, they have six points, those are definitly caused by the camera, the Keck telescope uses hexagonal mirrors in its array.

Absolutly beautiful no matter how you look at it.

Re:Looks like a lot of things (1)

Derling Whirvish (636322) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744137)

It is most devinitly NOT a lens artifact, look at the other stars
Indeed, look at the other stars. At the edges of the photo they are all oval-shaped pointing towards the center. That implies there is something wrong with the imaging.

http://opostaff.stsci.edu/~levay/color/HandoutIIIc .pdf [stsci.edu]

Re:Looks like a lot of things (1)

PinkyGigglebrain (730753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745831)

Yep, I've seen the same thing in smaller telescopes. I remember it being caused by the curvature of the mirrors around the edges being off a true parabolic, or something like that, it has been a long time since I read about it. I don't usualy see them in photos from big telescopes but in this case it might be an artifact of compositing the data from the different telescopes.

It would have been so cool to have watched this star blow up, at least until the radiation/shockwave/neutron flux killed me, but till then it would have been sooo coool.

Re:Looks like a lot of things (1)

Squatting_Dog (96576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745921)

If I recall correctly....those things made in kindergarden you refer to were called "God's Eyes".....and yes my mother still puts mine out at Xmas too..after 40+years!

Not flat (0)

pifactorial (1000403) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743873)

It appears as a square to us... what's its 3D structure? Is there a shape that would appear as a square regardless of what orientation it's viewed with?

It's Another Hourglass Morphology (4, Informative)

pln2bz (449850) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743909)

Observant space enthusiasts will notice the excessively large number of hourglass morphologies that continue to appear in NASA's press releases. These hourglass morphologies can only be awkwardly called the result of gravitation. A cursory familiarity with laboratory plasma physics will help people to recognize that the most likely explanation is that these are in fact z-pinches wich result from Birkeland Currents. In a zoomed image, you can see the filamentary Birkeland Currents on two opposing sides of the red "square" being pinched down to a central point. These same filaments are also observable, but in cross-section, in the 1987A supernova remnant. Which components are visible varies from image to image, but the general morphology of the hourglass remains discernible.

Here are some additional hourglass morphologies with pictures that have been observed:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4953165/ [msn.com]
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0510 05eta-carinae.htm [thunderbolts.info]
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 26bug-nebula.htm [thunderbolts.info]
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 15milkyway.htm [thunderbolts.info]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Supernova-1987a .jpg [wikipedia.org]

Since hourglass morphologies are somewhat disconfirming to traditional mainstream cosmologies (ie, the Big Bang), the fact that they continue to be observed all over the universe escapes the notice of professional astrophysicists, whose primary concern is to prove the Big Bang Theory and Stellar Evolution Theories. Objectively interpreting these shapes for what they most likely represent means dropping complicated, mainstream astrophysical explanations, and accepting the notion that electricity flows through space over plasma as we know it does within the laboratory. In these particular instances, at least, it is clear that the electrical force is dominant to gravity. We can opt to devise all sorts of gravitation-centric explanations for hourglass morphologies, but in doing so, we consciously opt to violate Occam's Razor.

The implications of such strong evidence of electricity in space are overwhelming -- which provides all of the explanation necessary for avoiding abandonment of the traditional, more popular gravity-centric theories. When astrophysicists eventually accept that plasma in space has electrical resistance just like the plasma we observe in the laboratory, then they will begin to re-interpret all of our observations in terms of Maxwell's Equations rather than fluid and gas laws. And the enigmas of dark matter and dark energy will forever disappear, as this substitution can provide the exact forces necessary to explain things like how spiral galaxies can spin as if they are solid plates and how matter might repel other matter. The fact that we as a culture currently prefer to consider imaginary forces and particles to explain these "anomalies" rather than forces that we already understand will forever paint us to future generations as people who decided to favor the mathematicians and theories over our observational data and decades of experimental laboratory physics work.

The evidence for electricity in space is not a sparse patchwork here and there. It is a flood of data that is only allowed to escape the notice of the public with the help of overconfident astrophysicists and a mob mentality within the space enthusiast community. Anybody who is intellectually curious about the universe and less concerned with what the people around them believe than what in fact appears to be true should consider learning more about plasma physics and the electric universe we live in. Don Scott's new book, "The Electric Sky", is a great starting point. Or, go to www.thunderbolts.info.

Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology (3, Insightful)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744005)

I essentially agree, this structure could simply be a cone like SR1987a, seen edge on.

Re: It's Another Hourglass Morphology (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745833)

I essentially agree, this structure could simply be a cone like SR1987a, seen edge on.
Surely it's a pyramid seen from the top.

Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology (5, Informative)

barakn (641218) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744223)

There's just one problem with your argument. The stuff in the Red Square image is relatively cool uncharged dust and gas (it's an infrared image after all), not a hot plasma, and therefore can't carry a current. Typical Birkeland Current/Electric Universe fanboy spouting off without having a clue...

Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology (4, Interesting)

pln2bz (449850) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745617)

How you're able to determine charge density on the basis of temperature is somewhat of a mystery. We can't even do that for our own Sun. We know from the laboratory that plasma has three distinct modes of operation -- the dark mode, the normal glow mode and the arc mode -- and that it continues to conduct electricity within its dark mode even though plasma in this mode would emit neither photons nor infrared light/heat whatsoever. So, even if the process that creates the charged particles would emit infrared, the allegation is not that this process is occuring within this image. If it helps, you might consider that when you pass electricity through copper wires (which is also a form of plasma), your wires conduct quite well without glowing. Gaseous plasmas in fact conduct better than copper wires.

The fact that you are not objectively considering the subject matter is evident in your decision to take a condescending tone. If you ever do decide to investigate the matter objectively, I think you will be surprised to find that there is indeed a serious debate here.

Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology (2, Informative)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 7 years ago | (#18746341)

Typical Birkeland Current/Electric Universe fanboy spouting off without having a clue
You, sir or madam, just made soda squirt out my nose.

Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18744235)

People who seem more concerned about the politics of existing theory than the tenuousnous of their own personal theories (electricity in space, in your case) are generally viewed as crackpots. This is science, show us your testable theory that can explain what we are seeing better than existing theories, or go back to work.

Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology (1)

pln2bz (449850) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745933)

It's NASA's choice to interpret all observations through one single cosmology. It was also the choice of the astrophysical community to ignore Hannes Alfven's realization that the techniques that he devised to model plasma in magnetohydrodynamics were in fact "pseudo-pedagogical" -- an idea that appears to help, but in fact causes great harm to our understanding of the universe. To blame people for pointing these things out is unfair.

From what I can gather, the people who are proposing the Electric Universe concept receive no government funding for any of the work they do. They survive by sales of their publications. In order to understand what they are arguing, you must purchase their books. Don Scott has published a very good book called "The Electric Sky" and Wallace Thornhill is about to publish his book, "The Electric Universe", which I've read and personally find to be very compelling. Reading "The Electric Universe" is an interesting experience because the sheer weight of the evidence can become overwhelming. The www.thunderbolts.info site and the www.holoscience.com site (I particularly enjoy that latter site) are provided free of charge, but they lack the comprehensive big picture analysis provided by the books.

The Electric Universe Theory is not a tenuous theory. It is against-the-mainstream, but the primary premise is a simple one: that plasma in space perfectly reflects the activity of plasma within the laboratory. In other words, it has resistance and charge density. Mainstream astrophysicists assert that plasma in space instantaneously neutralizes any charge imbalances, that plasma has frozen-in-place magnetic fields and that magnetic fields can exist in the absence of a current flow. None of these assertions are supported by laboratory plasma physics. They are mathematical tricks that astrophysicists have decided are fair game. We know for a fact that plasma pervades nearly all of space. We better be damn sure that it's being modeled properly. Any allegation that plasma is being incorrectly modeled in space should be seriously investigated due to the sheer magnitude of the discrepencies that would result.

Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology (2, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#18746701)

"It's NASA's choice to interpret all observations through one single cosmology."

Most people with a scientific education would have stopped reading after the first line because it is a distortion of the truth based on total ignorance of how science and skepticisim work (and they do work!).

You have been duped/mislead and when/if you learn how to determine what is credible science you will be pissed off at those who duped you. A good place for you to start learning genuine skepticisim would be Carl Sagan's book "Demon haunted world".

Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology (1)

pln2bz (449850) | more than 7 years ago | (#18747259)

Most people with a scientific education would have stopped reading after the first line because it is a distortion of the truth based on total ignorance of how science and skepticisim work (and they do work!).
You might want to check your facts. My sources tell me that NASA freely admits that it will not fund any research antithetical to the BB Theory. If people stop reading after my first line, it's not because of any dispute over that fact. It's generally accepted that funding only goes to the BB studies. Wallace Thornhill, for instance, accurately predicted all of the anomalous results of the Deep Impact mission, but it did not earn him any funding. NASA would rather fund traditional explanations for our cometary data that have produced no predictions whatsoever (or even a coherent theory of how comets work) than any sort of plasma-based theories -- which can explain every single aspect of the Deep Impact's mission results.

You have been duped/mislead and when/if you learn how to determine what is credible science you will be pissed off at those who duped you. A good place for you to start learning genuine skepticisim would be Carl Sagan's book "Demon haunted world".

I've read enough of "Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky" to realize that Carl Sagan wasn't scared to take a hypocritical stance in order to "prove" a point. In his public statements against Velikovksy, he frequently contradicted his own writings. I prefer people who invest a little less emotion in their interpretation and arguments, and who are willing to admit to being wrong. I don't see that character trait much in the mainstream astrophysicists or the enthusiasts on these forums -- which is odd because, regardless of the fact that the mainstreamers have proven to be good labelers, they still can't account for the particles that they've named.

When you're an against-the-mainstream theorist, it doesn't matter how amazing your theory is these days. The EU Theorists do not pay me to spend my free time trying to get people to read their materials. I do it purely out of goodwill because I've come to the realization that the only thing standing in the way of people realizing what these guys have accomplished is the barriers that people have raised to considering alternative theories. Every person that I convince to just read the materials will realize that these guys are onto something. I've already received appreciative letters from people suggesting as much.

On some level, you guys have to realize that your beliefs in cosmology are the result of an intensive public relations campaign. I assert no knowledge for *why* this is happening. I only know that it is happening. Being scientists and programmers, slashdotters are not immediately privvy to the PR side of things. But this is a fact. You are being inundated with materials that encourage you to support the status quo theories. It's up to you to turn your brain back on and start analyzing the data in an objective way.

The first step is to learn what plasma does in the laboratory. Plasma permeates all of space and you cannot understand the universe until you understand what matters does when it's in the plasma state. I'm telling you that plasma is being incorrectly modeled in magnetohydrodynamics as a fluid. Plasma in the laboratory conducts electricity, which means that it behaves according to completely different equations. Plasma in the laboratory has resistance. Why should plasma in space be any different? If we have any eminent authorities here who want to show me to be some uninformed jackass, please answer for me this one single question.

Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744491)

"And the enigmas of dark matter and dark energy will forever disappear, as this substitution can provide the exact forces necessary to explain things like how spiral galaxies can spin as if they are solid plates and how matter might repel other matter."

I'd love to see how do you explain such fenomena using eletricity. Also, if you make an actual explanation the entire physics community will probably aplaud and recognize you (and teach your name on classrooms for decades to come).

But, of course, nobody was able to create such explanation until now (at least that we know about), so if you aready has one, please, share it with the rest of us.

Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology (1)

pln2bz (449850) | more than 7 years ago | (#18746027)

The explanation has been provided. The real problem is that it's not the answer that people expected or wanted to hear. I refer you to Don Scott's "The Electric Sky". You can also view their www.thunderbolts.info site, but you won't get the complete picture from that site that you would get by reading the entire theory all at once.

Anthony Perratt can generate spiral galaxies using nothing but the electrical properties of plasma in both computer simulations and in laboratory physics experiments. No dark matter is required. What is required is that we have to change the way that we educate our astrophysicists. The magnetohydrodynamics professors must stop or at least severely restrain their use of gas and fluid laws in modeling plasma in space. There's no good reason to believe that plasma in space would act any differently than plasma in the laboratory does. Electrical plasma -- the stuff in the labs -- acts completely differently than gases and fluids. If you've ever seen a novelty plasma globe, you'll recognize this. The movement of those filaments is in no way similar to the actions of gases or fluids. Electrical plasma naturally forms filaments called Birkeland Currents. And depending on the current flow, these filaments will attract one another and pinch together -- without ever combining. The force that results from this pinching can collect matter and condense it into spheres. Given enough charge density, these spheres will then split into two separate spheres. This is all natural for plasma, and all of our space observations can be interpreted within the framework of these laboratory plasma physics processes.

Re:It's Another Hourglass Morphology (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18747249)

Is it me or does the poster sound like he's a got a chip on his shoulder to push a plasma cosmology. Although I haven't sufficient information to clearly debunk you at the moment, I do recall some allusions as to how electromanetic forces simply do not have enough power over stellar distances to actually cause any of the stuff you imply. That is the primary reason astrophysisits have not examined the theory. Most people who point to the establishment and say to the effect of "they say I'm wrong because they're poo heads" tend to be wrong.

PAHs (1)

virgil_disgr4ce (909068) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743943)

These structures are where I get the raw material for my Polycyclic Aroma Therapy (PAT) sessions.

dude, it's the borg (4, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743969)

look away, don't send any signals in that direction, or they'll soon follow up, and we'll have to travel back in time to 1980s san francsico to save the whales, or something

God's rendering engine running out of steam (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18743981)

Appearently the universe is expanding faster than God's hardware can handle, and we are seeing rendering polygon effects. Boundary detection problems will appear next.

Re:God's rendering engine running out of steam (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744099)

That explains black holes -- it's an attempt to cut down on the number of polygons by culling large sections. A supernova must be what happens when God overclocks a particular region of space and it backfires.
 

Re:God's rendering engine running out of steam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18744173)

For all we know, we might be living inside a matrix...

Re:God's rendering engine running out of steam (4, Funny)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744213)

Boundary detection problems will appear next.

Yeah? They've been reported decades ago, and the exploits are out in the wild and in common use (tunnel diode, tunneling microscope and so on).

Will these pesky scientists be surprised when the next batch of patches comes. :)

Re:God's rendering engine running out of steam (2, Funny)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744325)

Probably just an effect of the memory leak in "humanity()". Don't worry, the garbage collection function "meteor->collide(earth)" will be called eventually to fix it.

It's an imaging artifact (0)

Derling Whirvish (636322) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744035)

It's an artifact of the imaging process. Notice how the stars in the corners of the image are all oval-shaped with the major axis of the ellipse pointing exactly towards the "artifact" (not a square nebula) at the center.

Hurricanes on earth also do that sometimes (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744253)

I have seen photos of hurricanes that have poligonal eyes. This is unusual, but not exactly rare. A circular eye is probably just a high order poligon.

Re:Hurricanes on earth also do that sometimes (1)

ColombianKid (1088839) | more than 7 years ago | (#18746739)

Isn't a circle just a polygon with an infinite number of sides?

Hour Glass (1)

egommer (303441) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744283)

It looks like a round Hour Glass shape to me which is more like to inverted cones such as from extreme magnetism. Cones are caused by in series the ejecta of rings of gas in series like blowing a long smoke ring.

The Hexagon on Saturn appears to be shaped by unseen elliptical convergences just below the surface. Think of a group of soap bubbles together to form the shape of a hexagon. No matter how twisted the wire frame of a bubble blower or how hard you blow, the bubbles will always be spherical. When contrdiciton exist, check your premises.

It's a artifact from a Type II civilization! ;) (2, Interesting)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744321)

Wouldn't it be great if this was found to be an artifact from a Type II civilization? It would be an immediate and overwhelming proof that there is super-intelligent life out there.

Type I - civilizations capable of harnessing the energy of a planetary body, Type II - civilizations capable of harnessing the energy of a star, Type III - civilizations capable of harnessing the energy of an entire galaxy. We are a Type I civilization.

Re:It's a artifact from a Type II civilization! ;) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18744675)

No, We are type zero, unless you happen to control the weather, volcanos, ect.

Re:It's a artifact from a Type II civilization! ;) (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745857)

Wouldn't it be great if this was found to be an artifact from a Type II civilization?
Like this [e-scoutcraft.com] ?

Re:It's a artifact from a Type II civilization! ;) (1)

Sibko (1036168) | more than 7 years ago | (#18746427)

Actually, we're more of a Type 0.7 than a Type 1. Type 1 civilizations are able to harness the entire energy of their planet. Type 2, the entire energy of their star. Type 3, the entire energy of their galaxy. There's a nice wiki article on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale [wikipedia.org]

Re:It's a artifact from a Type II civilization! ;) (1)

istewart (463887) | more than 7 years ago | (#18746727)

No, Type II civilizations typically dedicate themselves to following the touring schedules of jam bands like the Grateful Dead and Phish. Their artifacts can be seen rusting away in junkyards that specialize in German cars.

So many stars (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744367)

How can there not be life out there?

Maybe they can use the adaptive optics (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744407)

To provide some really cool stereo(3D?) images.

Re:Maybe they can use the adaptive optics (1)

Karthikkito (970850) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744717)

That would be very cool. Unfortunately, these objects are so far away that there is very little parallax (measurable by instruments using various points on the Earth's orbit as the locations of the two pictures) and thus can't be seen by the human eye.

Hurricane pictures show same shapes (3, Informative)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744409)

Re:Hurricane pictures show same shapes (1)

dosle (794546) | more than 7 years ago | (#18747305)

Space hurricanes! AHHHH!!!1

More info (2, Informative)

ByteSlicer (735276) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744513)

NewScientist has an article with an explanation here [newscientist.com] .

Proof of God ... (3, Funny)

HW_Hack (1031622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18744601)

Not really - a million monkees blowing up a million stars could achieve the same result

Re:Proof of God ... (1)

halovaa (774219) | more than 7 years ago | (#18747201)

Yes but the Monkees didn't write their own songs, or play their own instruments...wouldn't that imply a more powerful being running the show behind the scenes?

you FaI7 It (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745097)

fly...don't feaR the project faces, so on, FreeBSD went a sad world. at would mar BSD's the political mess open platform,

Ah, the famous old riddle... (2, Funny)

oddaddresstrap (702574) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745197)

If a nebula with near-perfect bilateral symmetry has exotic space-hardened organic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and there's no one around to smell it, does it have an odor?

fiNrst (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745623)

the fruitlees Since then. More will recall that it vary for diiferent

remember odyssey 2001? (1)

Kvasio (127200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745699)

Feel warned! This is what may happen in planetary system near you when you try to heat up your local monolith.

HELP us all!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18745827)

It appears as though we are all trapped in some sort of maths problem.
Now, if we can get the Square(more like hour glass) into the hexagon on saturn, then we can be saved from something which isnt apparent yet, and someone will make up some belief structure about it.

symmetrical? (1)

Fluorophore (675422) | more than 7 years ago | (#18745853)

This is admittedly off topic, but does the word symmetrical bug anyone else besides me? Doesn't symmetric work just as well? Sure its commonly used, but what about the word dynamical? That's been popping up in scientific journals for at least the last decade or so. And orientated? wtf?

You see symmetry because... (1)

Ankh (19084) | more than 7 years ago | (#18746433)

...the celestial object in question is right at the corner where two edges of the universe meet. The edges are of course mirrored to fool astronomers. :-)

Lucky perspective? (1)

smitth1276 (832902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18747331)

Do we know that it is symmetrical on all axes? Maybe our view to the nebula just happens to coincide with the one axis that exhibits that sort of symmetry?

What am I looking at? (1)

mshurpik (198339) | more than 7 years ago | (#18747377)

The photo is 163x110 pixels. Is this supposed to be a photo of outer space or what?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?