What is Digg?123 Comments
- fisj139, on 10/10/2007, -6/+74Superman...duh?
- dougallj, on 10/10/2007, -3/+53Am I an idiot if I can only find one "artist's illustration" and no actual pics?
- gmc74, on 10/10/2007, -8/+40Plumes of gas? You sure it isn't uranus?
- yujie, on 10/10/2007, -7/+32It's what's left after Halo 3
- peeinian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24There is no actual picture of it. There is a single drawing. Title should read: Bizarre Object Found Circling Star [Drawing]
- nallelcm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20We can't dock here, it's bat quadrant.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+23Is it a teapot?
- MisterNetHead, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20"The neutron star spins hundreds of times a second—faster than a kitchen blender."
What an inane comparison. Just reading that makes me feel stupid. - worksmart, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Drawing! or it didnt happen...
- bryxal, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11if you want smart comments you go to slashdot, if you want a whole bunch of ***** articles that repeat themselves every few days but you want to waste time you come here....
- neodorian, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11A crappy artists rendition does not count as "pics"
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -6/+15Oh, *****.
Space bats. - gllopc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You will not get the diggs you deserve!
- kmattso, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9No friggin way it's faster than my blender!
- TremorX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Cthulhu awakens!
- Bklynadam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Wake me when its raptor jesus
- typographics, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I really wish space looked like that to the naked eye, and that it didn't take an artist to fake it to us.
- EuphopiaB, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Anyone find the celestial coordinates? Or the name of the star? Or anything real/scientific? All I see are words and fictional renderings...
- cgruber, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I've been touched by his noodly appendage!
- meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It was a powerbook. All alien spacecraft use PowerPC processors. Duh!
- imacashew, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3no dummies.....it's the solar guy for superman 4....
- da_bradler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3looks more like a whale and a pot of petunias
- CptBuck, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Buried for inaccuracy, BA has a much better article on his site about this. To call it "planetary mass" is a stretch, its about 8 times the size of Jupiter which almost guarantees that it's a star.
- JustinPM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Buried as inaccurate. Look, it could be what it looks like!! I have an artists rendering of awesome, should I submit it?
- longbow486, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2plus the fact that they used X-Ray sats to find it, if any of you have ever seen X-ray imagery, you know that you can barely tell what the image really is
- RaviChopra, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Interesting finding, crap pic.
- nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No [Pics], and no "vibrant outbursts visible from Earth". Inaccurate.
- elementop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2There is no dark side of the moon. Matter o' fact, it's all dark.
- johnnyzero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2artist's rendition isn't really worthy of the 'picture' tag when it comes to astronomy
- tuxidomasx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2well...considering that the worldwide death index is 1, implying that 100% of people who are born, die... i'd say you make a pretty valid prediction
- Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Also, artist renditions always look awesome. It's like a rule of science.
- samgod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Hourly orbiting at a distance of about 230,000, means it's traveling at 1.4 million mph, or 401 miles/second. This puts it at .215% of the speed of light. The fastest neutron star was discovered in 2005 heading out of the galaxy at a speed of 670 miles/second (.36% speed of light).
The fastest spinning neutron star found to date has a diameter of 20 miles and rotates 716 times each second. With a surface velocity of 44,987 miles/second, that's a whopping 24% the speed of light. What's the upper limit of the surface velocity of a neutron star, or even black hole? Is the rotational velocity determined by the star's original rotational speed and mass, and that amount of force is preserved into the smaller body? Or, is the speed determined by the supernova's explosive force and unequal ejection of mass (like a spinner firecracker)?
If a neutron object with a 30 mile radius spun at 1000 revolutions per second, its surface velocity would exceed the speed of light. How far-fetched is this? Which law of physics prohibits this? Einstein's first law?
My first Digg,
Thank you,
Samrod - da_bradler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2you can't take pictures of stuff like this, what they do is took for the effects and then figure out what is causing those effects. like detecting planets, we can't actually photograph planets outside our solar system because they are to dim and to small for our telescopes. what they do is look at stars wobble and other things to conclude if there are planets orbiting said star. Then when they apply all the information you can figure out exactly what is there. the way they most likely figured this out is from hundreds of different types of pictures, all of which would most likely be utterly boring to look at just lots of little points of light.
- xaeon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Has anyone actually done the maths here? This star must be spinning faster than the speed of light. If it spins at a rate of 100 times a second, that means that the circumference can be no bigger than 2997924.58 metres. If my maths is correct (which, in all honesty, it might not be), the diameter of this star can be no more than approximately 1953.73389 metres: under 2km across! Does this sound right, or is my maths completely off here? Add to that the fact that this star is orbiting another star in under an hour. This just doesn't cut the mustard for me, I'm afriad.
- robszol, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3could there be a comment that gives some meaningful thought into the subject other than uranus jokes.
- Wacer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Amen, I think almost every post on this discussion is garbage. If these are the same people that are protesting the war, they have lost.
- crushfan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Remaining energy of the virgin masses?
- burkay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because it is too far away to have a beautiful actual picture. Most space pictures you see are illustrations. We don't really "see" distant stars and objects. We guess what they might be by looking at refractions of light.
- theshizzler, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5The Formics are coming.
- SkeletaLlama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Now might be a good time to ask yourself why that is...
- Indyanna, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Sounds like the same method that anthropologists use to draw "***** sapiens" when they find a partial jaw bone in the dirt in BoraBora. :-)
- uptwolait, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm still confused on what fraction of the speed of light my blender spins, and how safe it is to stand next to that potential gravity sink. Bose-Einstein milkshake, anyone?
- codemonkeysteve, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Is there a gas torus? Sounds almost exactly like The Smoke Ring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smoke_Ring
- Narfmaster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I demand Hubblepics!
- da_bradler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1in the article they pretty clearly state that's what it is, they say there were two stars one went nova and the other when turned into a red giant, the neutron star has been fueling itself by stealing gas from the other star. if you read past the first paragraph...
- Asianwaste, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You mean that thing that MonStar from Silverhawks rode?
- supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wake me when its a ***** Jesus Phone in Canada.
- Markpdotcom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1When I read: "The neutron star spins hundreds of times a second—faster than a kitchen blender." I knew this wasn't going to be an article with much detail!
- JameSEO, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1hubblesite.org
- TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Pffft! Neuton stars... everyone knows they're the Kato Kaelins of binary systems.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is