digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Scientists Now Say: We're Not From Here

viewzone.com — 'Imagine the shock of growing up in a loving family with people you call "Mum" and "Dad" and then, suddenly, learning that you are actually adopted! This same sense of shock came as scientists announced that the Sun, the Moon, our planet and its siblings, were not born into the familiar band of stars known as the Milky Way galaxy, but we actually..

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • deadowl, on 10/11/2007, -29/+62Have you ever wondered whether scientists get paid by textbook companies? There really ought to be price caps on school textbooks (yes, please include my really expensive college textbooks), otherwise they'll never be able to keep up.
    • Ninjab3ar, on 10/11/2007, -37/+9Seriously, I don't know why some people complain about texbook prices. Yes, they're not cheap, but they aren't really expensive unless you're buying 5-6 books a semester, which I doubt. I'm an architecture student, and along with having to purchase these "really expensive" textbooks I have to spend on average $40 a week on architecture supplies (wood, mylar, vellum, felt tip pens, tape etc), and around $90 before mid-terms and finals.

      Sorry, I just get pissed when I hear a person complain about their $60-$100 texbook.
      • HUKI365, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I'm a law student. If I was doing the full compliment of units per semester I would do four units. Times that by two books per unit (sometimes more), that's eight new books per semester.. Times that by an average of AU$80, that's AU$640 (over US$500) per semester. The average college wage in AU is about $15/hour. That means you have to work 43 hours to pay for your books each semester (Or 1.5 hours per week every week of the year to cover both semesters). ON TOP OF incurring an average AU$3500 dollar debt every semester in "HECS fees".

        I get pissed when people say textbook prices are okay. And hence why I always grab them from the library or friends (though usually I still have to buy at least one per unit).
      • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5if only my math and physics books were $60-$100 :( ... i would only be a moderately poor college student.
        • esotericguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3thank god i'm still in highschool.
      • CaptMonkey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1When I was in college, I actually was buying 5-6 books a semester. I was averaging $500ish a semester just on books. (before I started buying previous editions that were dirt cheap and mostly the same) It's completely ridiculous when I can find non-textbooks of similar size in hardback from Amazon for like $20-$30. It's not like the people writing the books came up with all of that information on their own, they just stole it from somewhere else. I never did get what my $100+ per book was paying for other than textbook company greed.
    • mtheoryx83, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19Yeah, it does make a difference when you're taking 4-5 courses per semester, and some of those require multiple textbooks, solutions manuals, lab kits, etc.

      Textbooks are way more expensive than your "wood, mylar, vellum, felt tip pens, tape etc". We're not in arts & crafts, and may actually have to drop some serious change for our education.
      • Whaines, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13I'm retaking a math course for a better grade at my school and in two terms they've changed math books for the same exact course at the same school...

        Good thing I bought the new $160 math book because math changes ever so quickly!
        • takeda, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'm saving by buying used books using half.com, most of the time it works great, once in a while there's a problem with the seller, but they allow to fill complaint.

          I bought older book by mistake, but saved a lot that way. The material is pretty much the same, they just reorganized the exercises (I'm pretty sure they did it on purpose).
          Copying the exercises from newer book cost me about $6-$7 (0.10 per page) so I think I saved. I think everyone should do that, because those ***** authors want to rip us off.
      • slayerab, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Hey, mtheoryx83, I respect and totally agree with your rant about science textbooks but after taking ap photo and having to spend literally hundreds of dollars on a camera and film, don't talk down to my hobby.
    • Physicsnarf, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2The real sad part is that it is more of a problem in the US then in other places such as the UK. I recently finished a BS in physics. My textbooks were >$100 each for physics and math class. The same books in the UK would often be 30-40% less. A better example: I was taking a class where the assigned book was almost worthless and made no sense, talking around I found a book that was used at other Universities. It had just released a new addition mid-semester that had not been picked up as a textbook anywhere yet. The following semester it went up in price, as it became a mainstream textbook. The price in a three month period went up $50.
      • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1under $100? O_O that has to be in the UK
    • kurtu5, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2***** textbooks. Eschew compulsory schooling and use the internets.
      • Bamborzled, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You know, in many jurisdictions, that's illegal...
    • jerrysizzler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17what the hell does this have to do with the article? did you just look at the pictures and move on to the ads?
      • LaueOfficer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Something changes in science == textbooks change == profit!!!!!
      • scrumdiddly, on 11/07/2007, -0/+0Maybe if we launch all obsolete textbooks (and there are a lot of them) into space, we'll somehow gravitate less towards this raging mass of Galactic Space Death, thus saving ourselves from certain doom. Nothing to do with this article? Shows what you know!
    • Samus, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2I always knew it, we're from Hiigara.

      (don't digg me down unless you've played Homeworld)
    • abandonnship, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's not the $100 textbooks I don't like, it's the $150-$200 textbooks that are only used for one semester which I find a little ridiculous
  • guywhodoesstuff, on 10/11/2007, -54/+11But did you hear Paris Hilton is getting out of jail?
  • Turambar, on 10/11/2007, -6/+72this is pretty neat. I'd love to see what happens, but chances are I won't live nearly long enough.

    damn time....
    • EXreaction, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15It is some pretty damned interesting information. No, you won't live that long...it said 1 revolution of our galaxy to go around the milky way takes 240 million years, it will be billions of years before our solar system is destroyed by the milky way.

      Really sends the message home about how slow time moves in the expanse of time with our universe, how short our life is, and how little we know. If it is true, the life on our planet could have started around the same time that our galaxies started to interact.

      Its hard to comprehend time once you get past a few decades, let alone billions of years, and space once you go beyond a few thousand miles, let alone thousands or millions of light years.

      Oh how insignificant we are in this universe.
      • esotericguy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2if i could, i'd live forever. sure i'd see everyone die. but, i'd also get to see everything that will ever happen, like a guy eating his own head. *crosses fingers*
    • boobees, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2i'll probably live that long...
    • mongrel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well according to THIS GUY you might get your wish... http://viewzone.com/endtime.html
    • tybris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Chances are that if you get to see it ... you won't for live for very long either.
    • ironrex, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Total perspective vortex!
  • moosepile, on 10/11/2007, -18/+85What's truly amazing is how easy that is to believe. Is it time for an IM IN UR SPASE EATIN UR GALAKSY?

    Preface: I'm not an environmentalist in any active form, so please don't consider this some of the same ***** that BOTH sides of the warming debate espout...

    ...however, I do question the fact that this would have a major role in our climate situation. Our world is warming on a scale that is just not, imho, on a scale with being caused by an intergalactic event. Our warming is likely a mix of humans and natural phenomena, with MAYBE a smidgeon of galaxy-sex.
    • moosepile, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6How rude, making my own comment..

      On the animation linked in the article, how come this event causes no distortion of the milky way? You'd think there would be some "tidal" activity of sort, or the dwarf galaxy bringing some Milky Way trailers with it.

    • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -9/+26I don't want to get into it here, but ALL the planets in our solar system are warming. Earth isn't warming a huge amount faster than the others (if faster or more at all), either. Just something to think about. (Didn't digg you down because you seem a reasonable sort. Digging down only because you disagree with someone who is trying to be honest and thoughtful is petty.)
      • moosepile, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6No worries, I agree. I tried to make my original post echo that I've no real opinion on the source of warming, just that I feel it is happening faster than the situation in the article proposes alone. I truly feel it is a combination of factors, and I don't feel human industry is the main factor at all.

        The whole warming debate has become (much like a galaxy?) absorbed into the environmental debate and polarized to the point that many seem not to want to consider any other factors, evidence, or as you state - signs that it is further reaching.
      • magamiako, on 10/11/2007, -9/+73 Billion years of Earth's existence there have been periods of warming and cooling. The past 100 years have warmed faster than it has warmed since the last ice age, and you believe it to be "natural" causes? Well if you want to consider the processes causing it specifically as being natural, yes--but the contributing factor is most definitely humans.

        What we are doing is pretty pathetic, really. We have science to help us get away from all of this but the pockets of politicians won't be lined as easily if everyone has availability of cheap, clean fuels.
        • TantrooM, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2The Mammoths and Dinosaurs also concur... them damn humans warmed up that planet too fast... should have eaten them when we had the chance.
        • Narasil, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Well according to the article in the Earth's 4.5 Billion (read a text book) year history we've never hit the Galactic plane before either. So your argument is completely meaningless. It certainly COULD be solely due this natural cause.
      • Grok22, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1you guys play nice.
      • rhinopig, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Just wanted to say I agree with your comment digging policy. Digging down should be reserved for spammers, trolls, and obvious retards (ie non-thought out comments), not simply people you disagree with (I hate those political threads where everyone on one side is dugg down by everyone on another side.)
    • SunbearOZ, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Galaxy Sex? My pants just exploded....
      • Doghound, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Was it a big bang?


        ... ok, I feel wrong for making that horrible joke :(
    • beardsauce, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2The order of the three most influential things that dominate a planet's properties on a global scale according to "moosepile".

      1. Human beings.
      2. The planet itself.
      3. The universe.

      Yeah dude, you're probably right, it's mostly our doing. We're way more powerful than those other two.
      • moosepile, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3If you insist on that interpretation, go for it.

        What I was saying is that the timescale of a galactic "merge" doesn't jive with the very relative timetable of the symptom we commonly refer to as "warming". I also make it clear that I don't make judgement on other factors, so piss off. I consider the order 1) Natural cycle, enhanced, albeit minor, by 2) Humans with a little 3) Galaxy sex tossed in.

        My comment total is so low because it seems so many people never actually read them as they were written.

        Galactic friction and heating based on near objects can't change that much in 50 years.
    • Thefatheroftime, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Cmon. Massive increase in world population (O2 breathers, CO2 emitters), huge populations of farmed cattle, deforestation of jungles (10k acres/ year), and fossil fuel use (sending carbon into the air from previous solid in-the-ground form)! Ya don't think, maybe, these factors may lend to the increasing CO2 blanket in the upper atmosphere?!?
      • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Ya don't think the hottest temperatures on and in the sun in over 1000 years has anything to do with it? And not just temperature, but activity? The Earth is not warming significantly more, if more at all, than the other planets in the solar system from what scientists can tell.
    • pcdescha, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's not like this galaxy collision the article speaks of just started happening in the last few years. It's been going on for millions.
    • ironrex, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"on a scale with being caused by an intergalactic event."

      Unless you've won a Nobel Prize I don't know about, I don't think you can gauge how big or small an intergalactic event would actually be. It's completely within the realm of possibility that that effect is what we are feeling now.
    • ironrex, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"on a scale with being caused by an intergalactic event."

      Unless you've won a Nobel Prize I don't know about, I don't think you can gauge how big or small an intergalactic event would actually be. It's completely within the realm of possibility that that effect is what we are feeling now.
    • drewskyjones, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If it makes the sun burn hotter, then all of the planets should have warming. I think it would be interesting to see an analysis of the temperature change for all of the planets compared to Earth. Theoretically you could isolate the "people effect" of global warming from the "galactic effect" that is causing the sun to burn hotter. That could give us an idea of how much of the problem is caused by us and how much we would have to do to reverse/slow down global warming. If it's mostly us, changing our ways could help immensely. If it's mostly related to the increase in solar temperature, we might not be able to make much of a difference. Either way we still need better energy efficiency and reduced pollution for numerous reasons.
      • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Whether this "intergalactic event" is causing the sun to burn hotter or not, the sun IS at its most active in over 1000 years and other planets in the solar system are warming as well. We are agreed in that we need better energy efficiency and reduced pollution in general, but not at the great expenses something like the Kyoto treaty would cost the economy, and worse.
  • Electric_Sheep, on 10/11/2007, -7/+213Noooo!! You're not my real Solar system!! I hate you!
    • JackHarkness, on 10/11/2007, -8/+0***** emo's
    • DJDark, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Uhh Sol is our real Sun, so yes this IS our real Solar System, just not our real Galaxy :/

      ... That made sense right?
      • CeeJayDK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It makes perfect sense, why some people are digging you down for it I don't know.
    • Kratisto, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Despite DJDark being correct, that made me laugh unusually hard. Maybe it's the sleep deprivation.
  • josh1413, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3Next: A man comes from another planet claiming he's God.........
  • digitallysick, on 10/11/2007, -14/+9Zenu will have your souls for this!
  • desistere, on 10/11/2007, -7/+43I thought everyone knew that we were put here by the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy Xenu.
  • volanin, on 10/11/2007, -21/+107From the article:

    "It has been postulated that this is the real reason for both global warming since higher energy levels of the Milky Way are almost certain to cause our Sun to burn hotter and emit higher energies. Indeed, temperatures have been seen to rise on virtually all the planets in our system. This seems quite apart from any local phenomenon like greenhouse gases etc."

    Oh, come on.
    This process is going on for MILLIONS of years now.
    And it's the real reason for the LAST CENTURY global warming?
    Very nice galaxy gobbling theory, but this last paragraph killed the article for me...
    • Carsonauto, on 10/11/2007, -15/+22These people are scientists. They have PHD's and are respected. You are known to your internet buddies as "Volanin".
      • zephc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22The article is claiming things and drawing conclusions that scientists are not.
        • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1I suppose all the involved scientists personally contacted you and told you so, eh?
        • zephc, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10@Glynth: Ok, fine, take your flakey, fishy science and have fun with it. http://viewzone.com is filled with pseudoscience (try looking at the front page) and the validity of anything there should be questioned, not accepted outright.
        • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7wow, seriously, go to the link zephc gave... "You Can See the Future!" ... this article, while still pretty cool, just lost a lot of credibility.
        • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Eh, I do take it with a grain of salt, but there's a difference between doing that and just assuming it's false. This is a real scientific theory, widely accepted or not:
          http://astsun.astro.virginia.edu/~mfs4n/sgr/

          Granted, viewzone isn't a great source of information, but if a widely-accepted story were discussed there, should that heard said story's credibility? Viewzone didn't make this story up. They went a bit too far, especially toward the end, but the beginnings of the theory are worth looking into.
    • Snarfy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Maybe they had to throw a global warming nugget in there just to get it past the administration's war on science? I agree there was no need for the political statement at the end of what was supposed to be a scientific article. That statement certainly feels out of place within the context of the article.
      • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Which is why entire scientific articles are considered "out of place" in the body of science. You just won't want to accept alternative theories about global warming, do you? (Not that I accept this particular viewpoint, but certain other ones make a lot of sense, like involving the *fact* that the sun is at its most active in 1000 years and other planets in the solar system are experiencing warming, not just Earth.)
    • yfph, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Geeze, you guys think the scientists in the article started worshiping the golden calf or something. As with any scientific discipline, it is best for them to keep an open mind when new data is presented. What explains the concurrent warming trend we see on other planets? Can human activity on our planet somehow accelerate this warming phenomenon to a deleterious level? It doesn't take half a brain to see that they are simply hypothesizing a possible explanation for the warming phenomena given the recent data--no more, no less. As for the comment: "Oh, come on; this process is going on for MILLIONS of years now", who is to say that there couldn't be intervals of cooling and heating, excluding terrestrial influences, based on dynamic changes in the positioning and shape of the aforementioned galaxy interacting with ours? Again, this idea is in its infancy and it requires additional data to either corroborate or disprove their assertions. As with any new exciting data, scientists are quick to offer up a myriad of ideas to fit the data and I highly doubt they had Bush's grievances in mind.
    • freebirdpat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Yeah, this article seemed to be scientific till the end of the article where I wouldn't actually be surprised to see a message about catching a ride on a comet ala Heaven's Gate.
    • scut, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13What do we really know about the author of the story? I tried to find out more about him, and found that he is an independent researcher and not affiliated with any of the universities that did these studies. It appears he has made these interpretations himself based on their data. His ideas can be construed as theories at this point, but I've not seen any scientific agreement on his article. Here is a link to another discussion about this story... http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=1015747

      I agree that this is all very interesting. We'll have to see what shakes out after serious scientific debate and discovery.
    • SEN5241, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10This story lost me when they linked to the Mayan Doomsday Prophesy. What a load of nonsense.
      • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1That has nothing to do with this story. Viewsource isn't *the place* to get news, not by a long shot, but that doesn't mean if they include a story it MUST be false. It's a site of 'interesting' items. Did you read the doomsday prophecies page? It's a look at Mayan beliefs and theories about it, not some guy yelling "OMG THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH."
    • alappat1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7TO ALL the haters above, the reason we don't consider this article genuine, is that they are opinions of people who have no proffessional expertise in the said fields, making wild claims with no background evidence (for example- the global warming connection) . I am an electrical engineer who is going to do aerospace engineering as my masters/ phd. If you are a true scientist/ a person who isn't gullible enough to fall for the pseudoscientific crap coming out of that site, you will ask the the following questions...

      1. where is your data that backs up all you claims?
      2. does your data conflict with current evidence collected by other scientists, if so how do you explain the discrepancy (for your new theory must match ALL the facts collected)? in order to get this answered i would either read their papers (assuming i have the necessary backrgound), or ask that they be published for peer review by other 3rd party experts in the field who will verify their answers (peer review is the only way to make sure crackheads don't make stupid claims)

      if you don't do that, then how do you know the author isn't ***** you hmm? he could be refering some obscure theory that was disproved years ago but you would think he was correct. Its like if i claimed as an electrical engineer who dabbled in physics, i created antigravity using superconducting elctromagnets, and provided the explanation using electro-gravitics (something if i remember right that the physics community threw out in the 50's due to the fact it never made correct predictions on experiments). A normal person who is not familiar with the theories involved , wouldn't know what the hell i was talking about and has no right to say whether i am right or wrong....
      and neither do you haters with regards to this site- personally any refernce to mayan doomsdays and finding the bones of jesus makes this site a joke
      • jtorkbob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Perhaps in your post-graduate work you can pursue an English Composition class? Your point is rather muddy in there.
        • alappat1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I'm sorry if its a bit muddled. In essence I am saying that most people here do not have the technical knowledge to decide if this is real science (relating to the first part of the article which seems to quote some viable data) . If this is the case, then stop calling it science, wait till its been peer reviewed by experts in the field, and then rejoice in a new discovery!

          I also made a point in my last sentence that any article referencing a Mayan doomsday prohecy as a reliable source of information shouldn't be taken that seriously.
        • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Stop with the Mayan doomsday link nonsense. The article doesn't say it's viable, just "INTERESTING." The History channel and Discovery also talk about the Mayan doomsday prochecies. Are they no longer viable sources of information when they discuss the World Wars or whatever else?
        • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Note this isn't to say that Viewsource is a good source of information, but instead look at the article's sources, not the other stories it's lined up next to on their silly site.
      • pjam3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I agree.. Nobody cares what you are pretending to do in real life. The article looked legit at some points but the further research you do, the more you start to think, Who is this person and what authority does he have? So far nobody else has said anything about this "theory."
    • dcmdale, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1So... Did anybody notice that the first part of the article--the part that seemed plausible--originated as a press release from the U of Virginia (http://astsun.astro.virginia.edu/~mfs4n/sgr/). The global warming trash is appended garbage.
    • larowebr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1{shrugs} I'd give it a far, outside chance that the two are related. I mean, it's *possible* that gravitational sheering or moving into an energetic plane might account for increased temperature. It's possible... But that does seem pretty damn convenient that this alignment of the Milky Way with Earth happened right around the same time we started burning fossil fuels like madmen.
  • eridius, on 10/11/2007, -24/+54Did anybody notice how at the end of this article, it claimed the Mayan calendar is "the most accurate on the planet"? That seems pretty fishy. I'm pretty sure our own calendars are more accurate than the Mayan calendars. And an error this elementary casts doubt on the rest of the article.

    I want to see some sort of confirmation in a well-known science magazine/website before I believe this article.
    • Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -10/+6Yeah, I agree... (I posted below too before I read your comment) The general "feel" of this article just isn't right as an article well supported by science, and it seem to try cover so much ground at once that it almost turns from science to philosophy. :-/
      • superjanna, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5This isn't a scientific paper, it's just a summary of findings, lots of which is written in more easily digestible language
    • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -6/+48Sorry, but you're incorrect. Just recently I saw something about this on the History channel or Discovery, in fact. The Mayan calendar is by FAR more accurate than our current calendar. It requires far fewer adjustments, like leap years and such silliness.
      • Tiak, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4Any accurate calendar would NEED "such silliness" like leap year, as the period with which the earth rotates around the sun isn't neatly divisible into days, unless of course their day was some neat chunk of 31,556,926 seconds.... Honestly, they had a 365 day calendar, with nothing extra hanging off, and they lost a quarter of the day (leading to a seasonal shift from time of year) every year... That is LESS accurate than ours, not more.

        Likewise, he was right to question the article, notice how not one of the quotes includes anything about the idea that sol was formed there?... And notice that the Sagittarius Dwarf Eliptical Galaxy is made mostly of Generation II stars, unlike are Generation III, which is more like those of the milky way?...
    • capn_caveman, on 10/11/2007, -15/+4Yeah, my BS detector is going off here as well. If this was true, then this would be on every major network right now...
    • 1b2a, on 10/11/2007, -2/+29It's true the Mayan calendar really is the most accurate. It's just much more difficult to decipher for the common man which is a good reason for your disbelief and why we choose not to use it.
    • RNEMESiS42, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26Mayan calendars ARE very accurate, it's not BS. Everything down from star and planet orbits, to how long a year on Earth really is. I read about it in books when I was younger, and saw some programs on the National Geographic or History Channel. Here are some links I pulled up quickly off of Google:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar
      http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-mayan.html
      http://www.civilization.ca/civil/maya/mmc06eng.html
      http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/cjc.htm
      • Tiak, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Did you actually read those links?... Let's look at your first one, the wikipedia....:

        "As a calendar for keeping track of the seasons, the Haab' was crude and inaccurate"..... Seriously....
        • MaximumPig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2maybe the mayan calendar was discontinued because there are no mayans left (as such)
    • shadowmoose, on 10/11/2007, -0/+25After all said and done at the end of one of our years we have a 1/4 of a day left over, thats why every 4 years we add a new day. The Maya don't roll that way.
      • eridius, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1It's been said by other commenters, but if the Mayans didn't have anything like a leap day, then what did they *do* with that extra .2424 day? I mean, the length of a day isn't made up, it's defined by a standard physical property (the rotation of the earth) which is the same between all calendar systems.
        • nepawoods, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Rational comments like yours (and tiak's, somewhere else in this tree) seem to get dug down. You're absolutely right - you can't change the actual length of a day, or the actual length of a year, so your calendar has to somehow adjust for the fact that an actual year isn't an integer number of actual days. That's why we have a 366 day year every 4th year, except for every 100th year, when we only have it every 400th year. And even then, we need to add some "leap seconds" occassionally.
        • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Not to be rude, but however it may defy what seems like common sense, it is TRUE that the Mayan calendar (I believe it was the Long Count - they had more than one) is more accurate than the calendar in use today. Not just "more accurate," but MUCH more accurate. You can do the complex math and research on your own time. I've read it again and again in reputable books, seen it on Discovery and History.... It's simply a plain and simple fact, whether you understand it or not. You make good points, but in the end, I'm trusting the accredited archaeologists, scientists, and mathematicians over some guy on Digg.
    • elk1, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5If the mayan's calendar was so good then how come they are all dead?

      Oh RNEMESIS and your sources, my gut tells me we are better than them and that enough for me to call shenanigans.
      • ElCazador, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hey, good point elk1!
        Where ARE all the Mayans? Hmm? Them and their spiffy calendars!
        My question: did they see their demise coming, perhaps in "Doomsday: The Mayan Prophecy"?!

        (sorry, couldn't resist!) =)
      • rarson, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You are an idiot.
        • ElCazador, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I'm not really an idiot, I just play one sometimes on digg. Lighten up!
      • sunshinemonster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Perhaps they were too busy making a perfect calender?
    • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1bah, we have clocks that won't gain or lose a second in some 60 odd million years, i'm not impressed with some calender ;P
    • j4200, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6those clocks of ours are all based on atomic vibrations of molecules. Not to mention the current calander needs all sorts of catch up days. a leap year is the most common one. the mayan's may all be gone now, but their calander system they had is still keeping an accurate account of time without anything but their original measurements of all the stars.
      • Tiak, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1You seem to be implying that there is something wrong with the leap year, but it really is completely necessary... Not having the leap year leaves the Mayan calendar FAR less accurate in the short term, even if it does catch up in the long term. The way they catch up in the long term of course, is to have a REAL leap year (meaning they have two years in a row while only adding one year to their calendar), every 3018 years....

        So basically, they let spring come at every time of the year until it's back at the original place, then have two years in a row to celebrate this...
      • choopie911, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1They measured ALL the stars you say? I didnt think anyone had ever done that.
    • SEN5241, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2I'm sorry, but any article that keeps pointing out a 365 day mayan calendar is the most accurate, if full of *****. Try 365.242 years, nubtards.
      • SEN5241, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Wow, you pro-Mayan-calendar tards are really good with a shovel. Take my Tandy Color 16 computer (circa 1983) with "Solar System Mapper" you beyotches! How do you like 'dem apples'?
    • neko, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Everyone should just express their dates in terms of the number of seconds elapsed since 00:00:00 on January 1, 1970. There, I fixed it.
    • MaximumPig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3i totally agree with eridius, at the end of that article my BS detector was way in the red. "natrium" atmosphere on the moon? natrium is the latin word for sodium. my favorite though was we should expect "A Change in the Quality of Interplanetary Space Towards an Increase in Its Interplanetary and Solar-Planetary Transmitting Properties" as a result of the galaxies merging. It may be true that there is a Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy being consumed by the Milky Way but this is not what you'd call a quality source for that type of information. Plus, the process takes millions of years so I doubt there are any dynamic phenomena we would observe over our lifetimes as a result of it.
    • sxtxixtxcxh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1http://astsun.astro.virginia.edu/~mfs4n/sgr/
    • mrgreen4242, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The actual calender may be more accurate, but our ability to measure time is much better, which is after all what calendars are for. We keep the sloppy calendar we have now purely for convenience sake, and simple adjust it every so often to make it line back up with our very, very accurate measure of time.
  • Buddybot111, on 10/11/2007, -14/+5Buried for a completely misleading title. It suggests that the article was about how were not from earth, but in reality asserts that the fact is were not from the milky way. Is this as big as a deal as learning that your adopted? I think not.

    Furthermore almost all the science listed seemed very dodgy at best, and the arrogance of the entire article ticked me off. It's bad science written by a bad journalist.
    • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2I think your problem with the article is more personal than scientific.
    • MrChow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If we arent from earth how'd we come here? A rocketship?
    • Buddybot111, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I dunno, thats why I clicked on the article :P
    • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's not considered science fact, certainly, but it's interesting nonetheless and a real theory, not something made up by viewzone (which I agree is definitely not a reputable source for news). The reason I thought you had something personal against it is that I just didn't see how you'd think the story title is misleading enough to bury it for that reason. That seems silly to me.
  • abdim, on 10/11/2007, -13/+5so... galaxy sex is responsible for global warming... and not al gore? or manbearpig
  • Idgit, on 10/11/2007, -8/+21Why can't news sites report interesting stories like this instead of the garbage they usually report? Well i guess thats one of the reasons i keep coming back to Digg.
    • blandrys, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This article is most likely garbage, scientific lingo aside.
    • white1827, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2My rubbish meter is pointing to "high". They are blaming global warming on an immensely slow universe event.
    • TeatimeGrommit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2So, the answer to the question would be, "because the major news sites hate getting egg all over their collective faces."
  • Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -3/+45I wish there was a more authorative source than that article that ends with "Readers may also be interested in Doomsday: The Mayan Prophecy". :-/ I mean, have NASA or ESA been able to confirm this? Which are the scientists the article is actually citing? Is it an independent team on a university that have quite unsupported ideas, or is this a widely supported theory?

    I just have a hard time getting a grasp of the importance of this story. Because if what they're saying seem to hold water among more established (?) scientists, this would be some pretty big news. It also seem to try cover so many aspects at once -- the "origin" part, the greenhouse part, and the Mayan calender. Hmm...
    • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Readers may also be INTERESTED in a story about doomsday prophecies. And they are. No one said it was science fact. You seem rather aggressive in your opposition of the article. It's almost as if your political sensibilities were offended. :P
    • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Glynth, the article loses all credibility once you apply some criticism to it and then go to the front page of that site and see what other subjects they cover. as kick ass as this would be, i'll believe it when i read it on physorg or some other science site.
      • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I'm not putting my faith in the article. Just saying that the very fact a doomsday link is in place, in the context it was placed, doesn't discredit the actual story. If this same information can't be found on a hard science site then yes, that hurts it, but that link alone doesn't do it.
    • Tiak, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The strange thing is, I can't find much that justifies the claims in the mentioned journal, Majewski has many papers published in it, but only 4 of these seem to involve the Sagittarius dwaf galaxy, and none of them were published in the last 3 years....

      see:
      http://ucp-wnwww.uchicago.edu:2001/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=FILTERSEARCH&QueryZip=%28%28Majewski%29%3CIN%3E+author%29&Filter=all1%2Ehts&ResultTemplate=ApJresults%2Ehts&Collection=C7&ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10
      • hkfczrqj, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Out of a quick search:
        "A Deep Proper-Motion Survey in Kapteyn Selected Areas. I. Survey Description and First Results for Stars in the Tidal Tail of Sagittarius and in the Monoceros Ring", The Astronomical Journal, volume 132 (2006), pages 2082–2098

        http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/508274

        Not that I believe the blog article, I think this is the paper they're blabbering about.
  • crunkykd, on 10/11/2007, -6/+27All Your Galaxy Are Belong To Us!
  • dgreichert, on 10/11/2007, -2/+112First we disowned Pluto, and now we find out we're adopted?
  • chrisdancy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15Someone call Kirk Cameron with this urgent update
  • decepto, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Mum?
  • dgreichert, on 10/11/2007, -2/+93Maury: "The results are in...Milky Way- You are NOT the father!"
  • AstralAutomaton, on 10/11/2007, -1/+82Well that may be true but as long as you are gravitationally bound to me you are going to live by my rules. Now go to your room.
    • Dougman82, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I should sign up for a new account just to digg you up again!
  • identifiedlogo, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2"we are not from here" what does that suppose to mean, thats the most cyclical remark i heard in a while.
  • mr2master, on 10/11/2007, -3/+34"the abrupt large-scale growth of Uranus"
  • 1b2a, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16I, for one, welcome our new Sagittarian... oh wait.
  • kizzbizz, on 10/11/2007, -5/+51What an interesting article! Especially the sister article about how the world is going to end in 2012: http://viewzone.com/endtime.html

    "im in ur scienz, teachin ur kidz flawed theories that are based on several blogs without any strong, definitive sources"
    • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6From a cursory glance, it seems to me that that article isn't about how the world is going to end in 2012. It's about how the Mayans seem to have predicted it was going to end then. Such stories are common simply because they are interesting; you don't have to believe it's really the end of the world soon to create an article or a History-channel special (which they've done) about the end of the world. I think you've got something personal against this article.
      • ElCazador, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Um... Glynth? You wouldn't happen to be the writer of said article, would you?

        I ask because you seem to doing a lot of defending of it, and attempting to counter anyone's logical questioning of it by accusing them of having "something personal against this article", or that perhaps their "political sensibilities were offended".

        While I cannot speak for those that you questioned, I personally have nothing "personal" against the writer (I don't 'personally' know them, so how could I?) And I have no qualms about making science "interesting". BUT, I would say that I have a problem with people who present pseudo-science as fact, because not everyone has the same level of critical thinking skills to discern fact from fallacy. To mislead others, either deliberately, or out of laziness or poor writing skills, is wrong.
      • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1To repeat what I posted earlier:
        I'm not putting my faith in the article. Just saying that the very fact a doomsday link is in place, in the context it was placed, doesn't discredit the actual story. If this same information can't be found on a hard science site then yes, that hurts it, but that link alone doesn't do it.
    • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2glynth, are you the viewzone troll or something? i see a pattern being established with your posts.
    • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1great, so i pay off this car and we're all dead.

      ***** science.
  • CraigCarlyle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+42Have you ever noticed that whenever something like this is reported, the source is always "Scientists"

    Like, do all scientists meet and discuss it before we know?
    • hkfczrqj, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Sure we do. We don't want to BS you. Really!
    • naldwell, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yeah, it's called 'peer review'.
    • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1sounds a lot better than "36 year old stoner in parent's basement has revelation about universe"
  • Scheissen, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2lol "mum" what moron says that?
    • engwar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Uh, maybe someone from England?

      Stupid Scheissen-head.
  • IllBeBack, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8And if we ever know the truth (which we will not), what difference will it make? None.
  • ScrabbyDoo, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4That was a really well written article with plenty of illustrative pictures, made me look at the front page. Its a really cool website, viewzone.com.
    • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3sure, if you think pseudo-science is cool. it sure is.
  • MrChow, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1In 250million years something will happen. Even before that, but ill be dead by then
  • opusaz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Wasn't there a theory that said that as the solar system revolved around the Milky Way galaxy it also bobbed up and down, so that as the solar system sunk or rose through the densest part of the galactic plane there'd be increased meteor/comet activity as stuff was knocked out of the oort cloud?

    I wonder how this new idea will effect that theory.
  • eatsushi, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Xenu?
  • Hangender, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20Sagittarius Dwarf sounds way cool than the wussy and fruity "Millky way"
    • ElCazador, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Hmm, cool name for a band:

      "Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... Sagittarius Dwarf!!!"

      "Hello Cleveland!"
      • VirtualCtor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"Are you ready to ROCK?!?!?"

        "Not yet, give us five minutes!"
  • Drkboarder, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Dwarf galaxies must be known for their oil...
  • blacklilyninja, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21i didnt want to read it for fear of ending up in the prince of bel air song again.
    • sxtxixtxcxh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1dwarf sagittarius, born and raised...
  • BlueInGreen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18"The mystery of why the Milky Way has always been sideways in the night sky has never been answered -- until now"

    Right, 'cause if the Milky Way were our true galaxy, the Earth's axis of rotation would be perfectly aligned with that of the galaxy's arms. Uhhh...
  • Lnomis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+30I think there's actually quite a lot of rubbish in this article. I don't know whether the "galaxies merging" section of it is widely accepted, but it's facinating anyway. However, the second half of the article stinks of pseudo-science.
    It looks as if the article is trying to use the "merging galaxies" theory to write off global warming.

    From the article:
    "The "marriage" of our birth galaxy with our new adopted Milky Way galaxy is causing energy shifts that are obvious just about everywhere. Here are some changes being watched by scientists:

    A first stage atmosphere generation on the Moon, where a growing natrium atmosphere is detected that reaches 9,000 km in height."

    The other points look dubious, but this is definitely wrong. Natrium is another word for Sodium, which is a gas at 883 degrees celsius, a hell of a lot hotter than the surface of the moon. Not only that, but the moon simply does not have enough mass to hold onto an atmosphere.

    "We have now been "adopted" by a new system, a stronger and more powerful system, and we can expect changes on almost every level of energy."
    This is not science.
  • p51d007, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16My god........it's full of stars!
  • knobtwiddler, on 10/11/2007, -2/+35i call *****
    this is quite possibly the most poorly-written "scientific" article i've ever read.
    • ahknight, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Amen. I love this part, though:

      > * A first stage atmosphere generation on the Moon, where a growing natrium atmosphere is detected that reaches 9,000 km in height.

      Anyone know what natrium is? Sodium. Sodium, which is solid at Earth temperatures, is suddenly a gas on the frozen moon? WTF? Lies, all of it.
    • coldskool, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1yea, those two colliding galaxies are clearly photoshopped
    • spidur1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Agreed. It is all total *****.
    • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2i think it was a typo, i think they meant "scientologists now say..."

      hell hath no fury like a scientologist scorned in germany.
  • AJ4289, on 10/11/2007, -2/+30For anyone questioning the legitimacy of the claim, the true source can be located here: http://astsun.astro.virginia.edu/~mfs4n/sgr/

    By the way, the bit at the end about global warming is suspiciously missing from this version. Buried as inaccurate and spam and just plain stupid. Someone submit this page instead.
    • opusaz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Interesting. Your article says our solar system is part of the Milky Way and just happens to be around where the Sagittarius is 'falling through'. This thread's article says we're part of the Sagittarius galaxy.
    • dromni, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4That's only saying that the Sagitarius galaxy is being eaten by the Milky Way and that our Solar System is close to the stream of extragalactic stars. However, that does not imply that our system is part of Sagitarius. In fact the orbit of the Solar System along the Milky Way Core was computed a long ago, and it is very close to a circle, not following at all this spaghetish Sagitarian stream...
    • scut, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Your article = original article that the author used (among others) in making these claims. The more I research this, the more it looks like fark. Too bad...it was a very interesting read...except the whole nonsense about global warming being caused by this galaxy merger. Really? Reallllly. Over one hundred years? Does anything truly noticeable happen over 100 years in a galaxy's time line? That has to be like a second at that scale.
    • mmmork, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The link posted to the U. Virginia is the straight dope. It an interesting piece of cosmology, nothing more.

      Why the hell was some new-age spin version with a barrow to push about GLOBAL WARMING of all things dugg? Thankfully some proportion of readers has noticed how ludicrous that proposition is. And the usual proportion of diggites had no clue what they were reading.

      What are we hippies?

      Bury the damn thing.
    • wood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2AJ,

      I was just about to point to the original source article when I saw your comment. Funny out the press release put out by the actual scientists doesn't say anything at all about our solar system being ripped out of another galaxy. But then, these are the same guys covering up the reptiloid base hidden under Area 51.

      In all seriousness, the guy put the link to the source material right on the page. It would have taken any one of you Diggers mere seconds to look at the original press release to know that this guy's a member of the tinfoil beanie brigade. Think!
      • ElCazador, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@wood:
        Dugg you up for "tinfoil beanie brigade". I like that!
    • kemiller, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The kookier parts, about galactic adoption and global warming come from another article: http://curezone.com/blogs/m.asp?f=1207&i=2

      Money Quote:

      MATTHEW PERKINS ERWIN, an independent researcher began studying the new map in 2006 and made
      what are coming to be called the 3 Most Pivotal Discoveries of our Time:


      And it just gets weirder from there, folks. He seems to have got the idea by putting the above article together with another (linked on his site) which suggests that Sol is not moving in the same direction as the rest of the Milky Way. Pretty big leap from those two observations to the idea that we did not originate in the MW. Also, the latter article is in a mainstream news source, not straight from the scientists, so perhaps something was lost in translation.
  • thesixthdesign, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2I bet you it's another "global warming is not caused by us" conspiracy by Bush. =P
  • microchp, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Ever since I can remember, I have had the same dream about once every ten months that something really big is slowly crashing/landing on earth and everyone on earth felt it at the same time. I don't know if anyone survived because I always wake up. It is not a scary dream, quite peaceful instead.

    Im sure froyd would say it has something to do with my mother.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3That's just perfectly ordinary paranoia. Everyone in the universe has that.
      • ElCazador, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1No, I've seen his mother, and it's DEFINITELY about her. Terrifying!!!

        (Just kidding Microchp! Nothing personal, that was just too good to pass up! I hope you (and your ma) have a good sense of humor!) Cheers!
        • BGFeltenink, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Of course he does, he quoted Douglas Adams.
  • cultist667, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Galactus is coming to dinner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactus
  • thinker1999, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Art Bell has been talking about this for years people get with it...

    Zenu is still coming after Tom Cruise I can feel it.
  • romanxau, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Give it a week, they'll say we came through the Stargate.
    • Oldschoolhack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'm more convinced there is a Stargate then there is a Xenu. Hail Ra! Wait.. we blew him up.... hrmmm.
  • barimann, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Take this article with a grain of salt. Most of it was 'borrowed' from the press release from university of Virginia. Theres a bunch of end of the world and Atlantis stuff up there too.

    Its an interesting conclusion he draws about our solar system actually belonging to another galaxy getting consumed by the milky way. I wonder if theres any science out there to support it.
  • Thex1138, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Hey the end of the article mentions changes in every other planet in our solar system except Earth...Artfully dodged or would it put a convenient dent in the cred of the article if he added some Earth effects ?
    • scratt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1What do you need? They mentioned global warming being affected by it. Try putting your reading glasses on, creationist!
  • Iknowyourtricks, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3One of the most interesting articles out there, IMO
  • bokumo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I am currently working on a physics thesis at the University of Utah along the same line of research as was mentioned in the article. However, the article on viewzone.com is just a spiced up version of the press release with a few extraneous global warming comments thrown in so if you want the real source, go to:
    http://astsun.astro.virginia.edu/~mfs4n/sgr/

    My thesis involves running an N-body simulation similar to that which is depicted in the mpeg clip found on the press release site. If you are interested in learning about N-body simulations done in Ruby, I recommend:

    http://www.artcompsci.org

    Or you could download and play with my gravitational N-body simulator (Kaliope) at:
    http://www.physics.utah.edu/~jasonu/kaliope/
    • wishninja, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Thanks for the post, I have know idea who is digging you down. The article you link does not mention the global warming or Mayan calender crap. I am digging down the article as an inaccurate hoax. You should post your real link with digg.
  • jcofstl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Lots of pseudo-science thrown in this article, esp. towards the end. Buried as inaccurate.
  • whiterussian, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Could someone tell me how they get these photos (are they photos?) of the Milky Way. Now I'm very naive in the ways of astronomy, but I always thought the furthest any satellite has gone was in our own solar system. Yet I see pictures where the entire Milky Way is visible and even other galaxies are included.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.