Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Scientists claim long-standing mystery about how dying stars spew out material of future planets is now solved   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 16
    More: Interesting, large telescopes, red giants, heavy elements, billionths, white dwarfs, starlight, solar winds, University of Sydney  
•       •       •

3049 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Apr 2012 at 8:59 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



16 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-04-12 12:50:37 AM  
What a dying star spewing out material might look like:
houston.culturemap.com
 
2012-04-12 08:46:14 AM  
how dying stars spew out material of future planets is now solved

Tequila shooters?

/obvious joke is obvious, sorry
 
2012-04-12 09:03:14 AM  

phlegmmo: What a dying star spewing out material might look like:
[houston.culturemap.com image 244x325]


steadfastfinances.com
 
2012-04-12 09:16:28 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: phlegmmo: What a dying star spewing out material might look like:
[houston.culturemap.com image 244x325]

[steadfastfinances.com image 423x302]


Ah, that's what a binary, dying star system looks like, except one has already died and entered the white dwarf phase....
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-04-12 09:25:27 AM  
They filled in some details, but the basic mechanism has been known for a long time.
 
2012-04-12 09:27:06 AM  

Smoky Dragon Dish: StoPPeRmobile: phlegmmo: What a dying star spewing out material might look like:
[houston.culturemap.com image 244x325]

[steadfastfinances.com image 423x302]

Ah, that's what a binary, dying star system looks like, except one has already died and entered the white dwarf phase....


So a phrenologist feels and interprets the size of Walt's black hole?
 
2012-04-12 10:16:01 AM  
Shouldn't there be a "your mom" joke in the headline? If so what would be?
 
2012-04-12 10:26:11 AM  
As a kid I was force-fed what they now call "classic rock" so this is deja vu to me.
 
2012-04-12 10:47:43 AM  
Wasn't this covered in the Madonna thread from the other day?
 
2012-04-12 11:14:24 AM  

neversubmit: Shouldn't there be a "your mom" joke in the headline? If so what would be?


Uranus.
 
2012-04-12 11:18:15 AM  
I wish journalists wouldn't put in doctored images of science stuff without telling us.

From the BBC article:
news.bbcimg.co.uk
"Polarised images of the red giant W Hydrae show the central star and a sphere of dust surrounding it"

From the original Nature letter (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7393/full/nature10935.html (unlinkable)):
www.nature.com
"The white disc represents the uniform-disc star used in the model. A three-dimensional model of a star with a thin scattering shell was constructed, and the scattered intensity observed in each polarization for each point on the shell was ca..."

The astronomers didn't image the star itself, they blocked it out so they could see the dust around it. The white disk represents the extent of the star they use in their model. The BBC seems to have used a figure with a red photo of... the sun?... stuck in for the star.

The image credit is the first author of the Nature letter. Maybe he supplied it and BBC captioneers made shiat up?

Also, FYI, these aren't real images but calculated distributions from the polarization data and a simple theoretical model of the dust shell, as explained in the Nature letter.
 
2012-04-12 01:47:19 PM  
Mt. Honkey

I wish journalists wouldn't put in doctored
images of science stuff without telling us.

`
This wonderful article is making the MSM rounds today :
`
theregister.co.uk/2012/04/12/alien_dinosaurs/
`
Death Star dinosaur aliens could rule galaxy is the frigging headline.
 
jvl
2012-04-12 04:23:57 PM  

Mt. Honkey: I wish journalists wouldn't put in doctored images of science stuff without telling us.


Bloody hell. I sat there for several minutes trying to figure out how they imaged a star at such astounding resolution, and why the article failed to really mention it.

Thank you.
 
2012-04-12 07:45:49 PM  

Mt. Honkey: I wish journalists wouldn't put in doctored images of science stuff without telling us.

From the BBC article:

"Polarised images of the red giant W Hydrae show the central star and a sphere of dust surrounding it"

From the original Nature letter (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7393/full/nature10935.html (unlinkable)):

"The white disc represents the uniform-disc star used in the model. A three-dimensional model of a star with a thin scattering shell was constructed, and the scattered intensity observed in each polarization for each point on the shell was ca..."

The astronomers didn't image the star itself, they blocked it out so they could see the dust around it. The white disk represents the extent of the star they use in their model. The BBC seems to have used a figure with a red photo of... the sun?... stuck in for the star.

The image credit is the first author of the Nature letter. Maybe he supplied it and BBC captioneers made shiat up?

Also, FYI, these aren't real images but calculated distributions from the polarization data and a simple theoretical model of the dust shell, as explained in the Nature letter.


Thanks for the info. I was actually stunned when I saw the doctored images and was going to ask if they were the standard artist conception style shots.

My understanding is that we can barely resolve the surface of the moon from orbit. Something as far away as a light year should resolve as little more than a pinhole of light correct? (Excluding galaxies and nebula of course, due to their size)
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-04-12 08:02:18 PM  
kim jong-un

In recent decades astronomers have resolved a nearby supergiant (Aldebaran?).

Without playing tricks a telescope on the surface of the earth can't do much better than about 1 arc-second resolution. That is enough to resolve an object the size of earth's orbit at a light year away. (Resolve means the object is distinguishable from an infintesimal point of light.)

Modern astronomers have lots of tricks up their sleeves. VLT in Chile does about an order of magnitude better. The VLT web site claims "The smallest detail distinguishable with the VLT's adaptive optics system is smaller than the size of a DVD on the International Space Station, as seen from the ground (about 50 milliarcseconds)."
 
2012-04-12 10:49:21 PM  
Subby: "Scientists claim long-standing mystery about how dying stars spew out material of future planets is now solved"

TFA: "The mechanism by which mass is transported away from these stars is one of the biggest questions in stellar astronomy, and underpins our whole understanding of how heavy elements are spread throughout the galaxy. Our study is just one small piece in this puzzle."
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report