I've been a fan of Neil DeGrasse Tyson for some time now. He's both super smart and cool as hell. Listening to him talk science is a joy. Now, thanks to this handy chart, I finally understand just how this man can possibly be as damned awesome as he is.
Yesterday, Fox TV made an announcement that I would never have guessed was coming. They are making a follow up series to what is in my mind the greatest science series of all time, Carl Sagan's Cosmos.
For those of you who have never seen Cosmos, go watch it right now. You have no excuse. The entire series is available on Netflix's instant play feature. Cosmos was a groundbreaking achievement of television. It's the most watched science series ever and has been seen in multiple countries around the world. I grew up watching Cosmos and I credit both it and Carl Sagan personally with introducing me to a number of scientific topics and concepts. It is Cosmos that inspired in me the love of science and exploration that I still have today. It is also due to Sagan's infectious childlike wonder for the universe and our place in it that I myself have kept that same sense of wonder since I was a little kid.
Initially, hearing the announcement that Fox of all channels is making a follow up to my most favorite of documentary series made me very skeptical, but then I read the following details and I was a bit reassured.
Fox has greenlighted Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey, a 13-part docu-series from Family Guy creator MacFarlane and late Sagan's original collaborators – his widow, writer/producer Ann Druyan and astrophysicist Steven Soter. Envisioned as a successor to the Emmy and Peabody Award-winning original 13-part program, which was hosted by Sagan, the new Cosmos series will be hosted by renowned astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Neil deGrasse Tyson? Are you serious? Holy crap! He's one of the smartest guys alive today, and aside from that he is totally awesome and funny and cool. Don't believe me? Just watch this. If you were going to get anyone to try to step into Carl Sagan's legendary shoes, I would be perfectly happy with it being Tyson. And the fact that Sagan's original collaborators are also working on it lends the new series a huge amount of cred.
I know what you're thinking though. Produced by Set MacFarlane? The Family Guy dude? How could that possibly be good? I'm personally not too worried about that one, and here's why. Seth MacFarlane was born in 1973. That means he was seven years old when the original Cosmos started airing on PBS, which in turn means he was most likely raised on the original series, much like all of us kids of the 70's and 80's were. This must be a passion project for him, for something he loves from his childhood. If I'm right about that, then he'll want to do right by the original series and will go out of his way to make a quality follow-up program.
Personally, I can't wait for this one. Sadly, it won't be out until 2013 though. I'll be counting down the days though, I promise you that.
Yes, Robots are awesome. It's just too bad that they will inevitably turn on us and kill us all, terminator style.
Until that happens though, we can enjoy their cute robot ways and learn what we can about them. In fact, someone's even gone to the effort and made this handy dandy infographic all about Robots. It's filled with all sorts of fun facts about their history. For example, did you know that robots have already killed people? It's true. The first robot to ever murder someone happened back in 1979?
This video has been floating around the internet for a few days now, but I figured it deserved a post here on geek-tastic. com. Felicia Day has done a video for NASA of all people about galaxies colliding. It is a fun watch. The best part though is genius that Day is she admitted to not knowing much about Astronomy. So what did our girl Felicia do before she filmed this piece. She downloaded 20 books on Astronomy to her Kindle just to educate herself so she could thoroughly understand what she was saying and now she claims she can't stop. This woman is my geek girl idol!!!!
As far as I'm concerned, July 20th, 1969 is one of the greatest days in all of Human history. Why is that, do you ask? It's because that's the day that we managed to propel two members of our species off of this large rock we call home and sent them out farther beyond where anyone had ever gone before. We sent them so far out that they were able to land on and wander around on our closest galactic neighbor. That's the day we landed on the Moon.
As I'm sure you've heard everywhere else on the news by now, today marks the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing where NASA Astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin forver marked their places in history by stepping out of the lunar lander and out onto the Moon's surface. They were the first humans to ever walk on another planetary body, and while Armstrong's first words on the moon may be a bit cliche nowadays, it doesn't make them any less true. It truly was a giant leap for mankind.
Sadly, I'm not old enough to know what it must have been like to see the Moon landing live as it happened. I can only imagine the wonder and the awe that the world must have felt as they watched these two spacesuit wearing earthlings walking around on a planetary body that wasn't our own. It was the day that science fiction became science fact. Even 40 years later I still strongly believe that this has been our greatest technological achievement. Sure, the internet is cool and all, modern technology makes our lives better and easier and the science of medicine performs miracles on a daily basis . . . but for my money, managing to get two dudes onto the surface of another the Moon makes everything else pale in comparison.
When you sit back and think about it, it sounds impossible. In 1969, when computers were still as big as a room and well before anyone had ever heard of the world wide web, we managed to design machines that could carry human beings out of the Earth's gravity well, out into space, onto the Moon and then back again . . . and they even managed to do it safely. Hell, even with today's technology that achievement would be considered amazing. Back then, it should be considered the most impossible, incredible and exciting thing we've ever done.
I sat down this morning and watched a few youtube clips of the original Moon landing. Even though I've seen these videos a million times and have seen countless hollywood copies or parodies or homages, the original black & white grainy footage still manages to spark that same sense of adventure and desire for exploration I've had since I was about 5 years old. It still manages to make me believe that the stuff we see in science fiction stories can indeed one day come true.
I believe in the final frontier, and even though I know I will most likely never live to see the day when we have fully populated colonies on other planets or somehow find a way to travel between the stars, I know whenever I look back at things like the Moon landing that the impossible can happen and one day all of those things that we dream about can be made to come true. With the right desire and spirit and motivation, we can accomplish anything. NASA proved that 40 years ago today. It's one of mankind's greatest traits, the desire to boldly go where no one has gone before. I can't wait to see where we go next.
As geeks, we've all known for a long time that one day we'll rule the world. One day, we'll be the popular kids in school who get all the love and attention of our peers. Football jocks and cheerleaders will bow before us, and we will be lauded as heroes.
Well, it looks like that day has finally come. At least, it has for a few of our number.
Meet 12 year olds Simon Shkreli, Benjamin Kelk and Gregory Chin. They're from Brooklyn, New York and they've just become the most popular kids in their school. At a recent school rally, the cheerleading team announced their entrance like they were rock stars, and the school even played their theme song over the loud speakers. Just what did these three young men do to deserve this treatment? They built robots, of course.
The three young geeks, along with two graduates from the school (Richard Chian and Daniel Alvarez), recently built a robot out of LEGO's. That robot went on to win the New York City FIRST LEGO League Robotics Competition. The victory has entered the team, dubbed the Nerd Herd, into an international competition that will be held in Atlanta, Georgia next weekend. This victory has somehow managed to bring their school together to rally support for the Nerd Herd. In fact, they've even managed to raise $18,000 for the team's trip to Atlanta.
Nearly 300 St. Edmund's Elementary School students stomped and cheered at the school's sendoff celebration for the so-called Nerd Herd, five child prodigies who will represent the city at an international robot competition.
"I'm so pumped up," exclaimed team member Simon Shkreli, 12, pointing to the crowd. "Look at this - it's amazing."
Cheerleaders waved their pompoms and the students formed an aisle down the middle of the gymnasium.
"Nerd Herd, Nerd Herd!" they chanted over and over as the high school's band played Survivor's thumping "Eye of the Tiger," the herd's unofficial theme song.
Simon, along with team members Benjamin Kelk and Gregory Chin, both 12, ran down the aisle, high-fiving their screaming fans, like they were playing in an all-star game or something.
The school presented the robot fanatics with an "I Love New York" banner to take to the Robotics World Festival next weekend in Atlanta.
Way to go guys! You are giving a positive name to nerds and geeks everywhere. You honor us all, and we're proud of you. We here at Geek-tastic wish you the best of luck in the competition. And may your sudden rock star status stay with you as long as possible.
Take a look at the above picture and by awed by it. What you see in the image is not a trick. No touching up or photoshopping has been done to the image in any way. That really is a red, glowing light coming from the right eye socket of that man.
Meet filmmaker Rob Spence. He lost the use of his right eye during a childhood accident and ever since then he has had a prosthetic replacement for cosmetic purposes. However, a little while ago he realized his vacated eye socket could be used for a whole lot more than just as a place to hold a fake eye. Last week, Spence worked together with engineer Kosta Grammatis to produce what you see here . . . a working red LED, complete with powersource, that fits inside his occular cavity.
The LED, while really cool looking, isn't the ultimate goal though. No, this was just a test to see if they could make a powersource small enough to fit into his eye socket. Now that this has been proven possible, Mr. Spence is moving on towards his main goal . . . to install a functioning wireless video camera into his eye.
The camera will record anything and anyone that enters Spence's field of vision and relay the footage back to a computer. That video will provide a unique perspective on the way video surveillance is becoming more popular in western societies, he told New Scientist.
Once completed, Rob Spence has said he will be the world's first official "Eyeborg". There has even been talk of including an LED in with the video camera as well, assuming that it won't drain the battery too fast.
On behalf of all of us here at Geek-tastic, I wish Mr. Spence the best of luck in completing his goals. I find it incredibly cool that he's taking what most would see as a handicap and is turning it into something that could not only be an interesting art project, but could also advance the way in which occular implants are seen. Let's assume he can get that video camera to work. Who's to say that in a number of years, doctors won't be able to find a way to get the brain to be able to decode certain types of video signals from eye cameras, thus enabling those who have lost their sight to be able to see again.
It could happen, you never know. And it's always enterprising people like Mr. Spence who get this sort of thing rolling. The best of luck to you sir. May you be a functioning eyeborg soon.
NASA currently has an open voting forum up on it's site (located here) in which it is asking for the public's help in choosing a name for a new module that is to be added to the International space station at the end of this year. Currently, the module is only called Node 3, but the other nodes that were previously added were given names too Node 1 = Unity, Node 2 = Harmony) and now Node 3 will be getting a new name too. Here are the options you can vote for:
Earthrise
Legacy
Serenity
Venture
Or you can suggest your own name (my vote is for "Spaceball One")
Notice the third name on that list though? Serenity? Yep, that's right. The good folks over at NASA have once again proven their true nerdyness and are allowing us to vote to name the new module after the much beloved starship from the sadly cancelled Fox TV show Firefly. In the show, Serenity was a Firefly class starship that was used by the cast to wander around the Verse smuggling things or delivering cattle or running away from both the Alliance and the Reavers. It looked like this:
So to all you Browncoats out there, be sure to do your part and help get Serenity launched into space...but this time for real. You have until March 20th, at which time voting will be closed. I've done my part, now it's time to do yours. Don't le me (or Captain Mal) down.
A lot of Star Wars fans hate George Lucas. It's just a basic fact. In the course of his career he has gone from beloved father figure of every Sci-fi geek's favorite movie series to a reviled and often mocked character whom most view as loathsome. It's amazing what one prequel trilogy will do to the public's perception of you.
But it's not just Episode One that has people hating on the man who made Greedo shoot first. No, there's far more to it than that. There's science!
At the website VeryEvolved.com, they have fascinating article up that takes a look at nostalgia and how it affects how our brains process memories and how when those processes are disrupted a change in emotions can take place.
Our brain isn’t the hard drive of a computer, and our memories aren’t hard coded and unchangeable. Every time you recall a memory it may become subtly altered and associated with what ever it was that triggered that old memory. If this trigger happens repeatedly, then you’re adding new layer of interpretation that will be recalled automatically with the old memory next time it’s called up.
A great example of this in action that also demonstrates fluid nostalgia, is the backlash against George Lucas. A large portion of 70’s and 80’s children had grown up owning Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader figures and playing in the backyard pretending sticks were light sabers. Fond childhood memories.
When the first abysmal Star Wars Prequel was released the strong feelings against the film weren’t just those of disappointment at a bad movie. If it were that simple, we should also feel the same way about Police Academy 7.
The reaction can be partly explained by the sense of attack on our previously fond feelings. Watching the new movie automatically calls up memories from the previous series and all the pleasant childhood playtime memories associated with it. But recalling these fond memories in the context of a negative experience begins the process of re-coding, or modifying our old memories. This is an undesirable outcome for nostalgia as it is usually such a pleasant feeling. Naturally there is some resistance and cognitive dissonance when this happens and the brain will try to avoid it like any other unpleasant experience.
Cognitive dissonance is the important term there. It is the technical term for that really uncomfortable feeling you get when you are simultaneously holding on to two contradictory concepts or ideas. In the case of Star Wars, it is the result of loving the original films, but hating the new ones. They're all Star Wars, so technically our brain is telling us we should love all the films equally. We've always loved Star Wars before, so anything else Star Wars that comes out too should therefore be loved just as much as the original films. The fact that we don't like the new films is in conflict with the pre-set construct we have in our brains, and this results in confusion, anxiety and eventually anger.
And for George, unfortunately, that anger seems to have been directed at him. As the creator of the franchise, as well as the writer and director of the prequels, fans everywhere have made him the focus of the negative emotions that have arisen due to the cognitive dissonance that the prequels have created in them.
Which leads me to this next item. In what could be considered a case study for these new findings, a new documentary film is coming out called The People vs. George Lucas.
The documentary takes a detailed look at how George Lucas is perceived around the world, both by the fans of the Star Wars films as well as people inside the film industry. He's become a rather controversial figure over the last decade or so, and people's opinions of him certainly do run the gamut from angry and vengeful bitterness to to exalted worship.
Personally, I will admit to having been a total Lucas hater in the past. The prequel films (Episode I mainly, II and III weren't so bad) really bothered me and as a result I, like many other people, turned that anger at Lucas for what I felt was a betrayal of what I have loved.
However, my opinions on this have changed a lot lately. I don't really hate Lucas anymore, nor do I hold any real blame for him anymore for making Episode I the way it was. Maybe I'm getting softer as I get older, but I'd rather look at it as having gotten wiser. The key question I asked myself that changed my mind on things was, "What would you say to George Lucas if you met him on the street one day?" It's a really important question actually, so let me ask it again.
"What would you say to George Lucas if you met him on the street one day?"
What would you say? Would you bitch him out for making some really horrible films? Would you slap him out of anger? Or would you say thank you for creating something you loved so much? Something that had such a profound impact on your life?
Personally, I realized I would do the latter. I would have to shake his hand (maybe even hug him) and say thank you. Thank you for creating something that has forever altered how I view the world. Thank you for creating something that has turned me on to so many other things in this world that I love like Star Trek and comic books and toys and books and sci-fi and fantasy. Thank you for giving me something I can bond with others over, thus creating life long friendships that have already spanned decades. Thank you for expanding my mind and my imagination as a child and for making me dream dreams I probably wouldn't have ever dreamed about otherwise.
I'm actually finding myself getting angry at fans nowadays who say that they hate George Lucas. Like the guys in the trailer that are singing the song "George Lucas Raped My Childhood." It's funny how the roles have reversed lately. A few years I would have gotten a chuckle at that song and would have said that I agreed with it, but today stuff like that just makes me want to smack the people saying it and then yell at them, "George Lucas didn't rape your childhood you stupid ignorant douchebag!!! He GAVE you your fucking childhood!!! Without him you would have spent the 80's playing football in your back yard with your friends instead of playing with Star Wars figures. You would have grown up to be a jock date rapist who wears DC shoes and clothes that say Volcom or Famous Stars and Straps on them. You'd be driving around in a truck with a big Metal Mullisha sticker on the back instead of that X-Wing decal you have."
Without George Lucas and Star Wars, life as we know it would be totally different. It was the merchandising machine that Star Wars created (which everyone bemoans by the way) that paved the way for pretty much everything you've ever loved as a kid to exist. Without Star Wars and the incredibly popular and money making line of Star Wars toys, large toy companies may never have learned that TV and Movies can be used as vechicles for massive toy advertising.
Without that realization, pretty much everything else from the 80's disappears. GI Joe, Transformers, He-Man, MASK, Rainbow Brite, Care Bears, Thundercats, Silverhawks, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and about a million other toy lines and shows all disappear. All of it.
The impact of Star Wars on our lives really can't be measured. Even today we have things like the current run of the new Battlestar Galactica on the Sci-fi channel which I absolutely adore and am convinced is the best damn show on TV. But it's a remake. And what was the original BSG? It was a knock off of Star Wars. So without Star Wars there is no BSG. And that's just one show as an example. Give me 10 minutes and I'm sure I can think of a hundred more.
My point is, I have realized the error of my ways. To hate George Lucas is to hate myself. Does this mean I have to like everything he does? No, I don't. I will still like or dislike anything he does based on the product itself, but I am no longer going to hate him for what he's doing. He created Star Wars, nothing else he will ever do, short of turning into a new Hitler and starting a holocaust, will ever take away the joy that his creations have already brought into my life. He can make a new trilogy of films based solely on Jar Jar for all I care. It doesn't matter. Nothing he ever does will ever take away what he's already given the world. The only reason people are so mad at him all the time is because they love what he created so much, and what does that say about what he's given them?
Ever wonder what it feels like to be killed by falling into a black hole? Now you can find out.
In the above clip is from the video site fora.tv and it features Neil deGrasse Tyson (astrophysicist, frequent guest on the Colbert Report, and all around cool guy) as he explains exactly what would happen to your body if you ever find yourself unfortunate enough to be caught within the gravational pull of a black hole. Let me just tell you, it's even less pleasant than you think.
The video is a great thing to watch, Mr. deGrasse Tyson is an excellent and engaging storyteller and he can make even death by black hole sound humorous. Also featured in the video is some interesting information about a cataloged asteroid that may hit 500 km west of Santa Monica in the year 2036.
And if that's not enough, the video also taught me a brand new word which I will use whenever possible simply because it is so awesome. That word is.....Spaghettification.
How do you get young kids excited by science and interested in possibly pursuing a career in different fields of science? Well duh, you give them scientific comic books!
Stuff of Life is the first in a series dedicated to the hard sciences. The author is Mark Schultz, a DC Comics veteran and creator of the postapocalyptic classic Xenozoic Tales. The 160-page work, illustrated by Kevin Cannon and Zander Cannon (improbably, no genetic relation), covers the regenerative processes of DNA, human migratory patterns, cloned apples, and stem cells. In a rapidly changing field, it's as up-to-date and accurate as possible.
Schultz, like Zimmerman, was attracted by the possibilities of using comics as an educational medium. "It's not prose, and it's not documentary film," Schultz says. "It's kind of its own animal." And the graphic novel market is drawing in different readers than he's accustomed to at DC. "The manga phenomenon," he notes as one example, "is attracting new demographics, like younger women, who weren't picking up on traditional comics."
Maybe I'm just an above average geek, but I totally would have loved science comics as a kid. I would have read and reread those things more times than I could count.
I just finished watching this rather interesting debate on whether the term "sci-fi" is a derogatory term that debases and bastardizes actual science fiction, and now I'm trying to make heads or tails of it.
The debate itself is from a show (ironically enough on the sci-fi channel) called the SF Vortex. It took place back in 1997 and features some amazing talent on the panel discussing the topic. Featured in the Debate are writers J. Michael Straczynski, Harlan Ellison, Yvonne Fern and Herbert Solow. If you're unfamiliar with any of those names, let me break them down for you
J. Michael Straczynski - Creator of Babylon 5, writer of shows like He-Man, She-Ra and The Real Ghostbusters. He has also writes comics like Rising Stars and is the man responsible for raping Spider-man's greatest story of all time (sorry, that last bit is a personal problem I have with the man)
Harlan Ellison - Writer for TV and film for over 40 years. His works include such things as the original Star Trek episode "City on the edge of forever".
Yvonne Fern - Biographer and author of books such as The Star Trek Sketchbook and Gene Rodenberry: The Last Conversation
Herbert Solow - The man who helped Gene Rodenberry develop Star Trek into a TV series.
The argument starts off with a reference to an article for Newsweek that Harlan Ellison had written called Strangers in a Strange Land. The article argues that science fiction and sci-fi are two different things. Science fiction is literary and deals with the nature of man and how people interact, while sci-fi is monsters and space aliens and big hollywood movies with lots of explosions. He argues the point more eloquently than that, but that's the basic idea.
Now I've had this argument before with friends of mine (my friend Michael mainly), but the terms we used were different. I've always seen sci-fi as just a shortening of the term science fiction. I've never really thought of it as a separate term. However, I do classify two different types of science fiction. There is proper science fiction, which is what Ellison describes in his article, and which the panel debates about above. Proper science fiction is works like Isaac Asimov's novel "I, Robot". It's books about what science can teach us about the nature of being human, and what science's impact is on that nature.
Then there is fantasy science fiction. Under this classification I would include things like Star Wars, Independence Day, Terminator and a ton of other movies and TV shows. They're there for entertainment value. They use space or aliens or robots as a setting to tell adventure stories. They don't really question the nature of man. So while I've used the term science fiction and fantasy in this argument, they're using the terms science fiction and sci-fi.
For the most part I agree with a number of their statements about the differences between the two types of science fiction, but I think they're missing some big stuff in the middle. There's a large gray line between science fiction and sci-fi. There are plenty of stories that blur the lines of the sub-genres and take a little from both sides. I think the perfect example of this is Star Trek. Star Trek is definitely a fantasy setting. A bunch of people in a big spaceship wandering the galaxy, meeting aliens, getting into large laser battles and generally blowing a lot of stuff up. But at the same time, a lot (and I mean A LOT) of Trek stories are science fiction at their core. The stories are about the crew of the ship, they challenge the characters and make them question themselves and humanity as a whole. Moral dilemmas are ripe in Star Trek plots. So what is it then, science fiction or sci-fi?
Here's another example. Let's look at my earlier science fiction example of I, Robot by Isaac Asimov. A more solid science fiction novel you will not find. The book involves two roboticists as they go from one situation to another where the AI in robots have broken and they have to delve into the philosophical basis of the robots' programming to see what is causing the logic breakdowns in the androids. The entire book is about philosophy and programming and how the two interact and what that says about how the human mind works.
Then there's I, Robot: The Movie. A big budget action film starring Will Smith. The same Will Smith from Independence Day. If that doesn't have the making of a sci-fi film by their definition, I don't know what does. But take a closer look at the plot of the film. While departing vastly from the source material (the film is about a police officer who is investigating the first case of a robot killing a person), the film does a solid job of bringing up some of the same questions the book did. In the film, it is discovered that the robot suspected of murder is built differently from other robots in their world. He was made with a second brain that can ignore the moral codes built into all other robots. This extra hardware allows him to think and feel differently than other androids. He even has dreams, like peole. Underneath the big hollywood chase scenes and the pretty explosions is a solid science fiction plot. What does it mean to be human? Where is the line drawn between artificial intelligence and human intelligence? At what point do robots become sentient beings with thought and feelings and dreams? What does this tell us about humanity?
I'm sure that, if given time, I could think of a number of other examples of films that bridge this gap between science fiction and sci-fi. I just can't see the two terms as mutually exclusive. I can agree with a part of the argument expressed by Straczynski and Ellison that to most people, mistaking sci-fi for science fiction can be a detriment to science fiction as an art form and a forum for intellectual thought (let's be honest, most people would classify something like the Chronicles of Riddick as science fiction). But I whole heartedly disagree with the concept that ALL sci-fi is detrimental to science fiction.
Early in the debate, Yvonne Fern argues that to her, the difference is you can make a film or a TV show about a sci-fi topic easily, but you can't film science fiction stories. I think that's so horribly wrong and is an insult to a number of great science fiction shows. What about the Twilight Zone? What about the new Battlestar Galactica? I'm sorry, but you cannot tell me that shows like that are not bringing up important arguments about humanity and philosophies about human nature. Has she never seen these shows? Well, of course she hadn't seen Battlestar yet because it hadn't come out yet when this was recorded, but what about the Twilight Zone? Or Quantum Leap? Or Star Trek? Or even Doctor Who?
What do you think? Is sci-fi better or worse than science fiction? Is sci-fi a detriment to science fiction? Are the two even different? What's your opinion?
One last question: Why the hell does the Sci-Fi network never have anything near this cool on its programming anymore? Seriously, I'd love a deeply philosophical debate show like this to be on the air today. Instead, all we get are horrible made for TV movies like Aztec Rex. Shame on you Sci-Fi Network. You could be so much better than you are.
It's been a while since I've posted a bit of science news, and the above image was so pretty I had to share. Taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, the image shows some of the most massive stars in our Galaxy, as they've never been seen before.
The Hubble Space Telescope has revealed two of the most massive stars in our galaxy as never before. Located 7,500 light years away from Earth in the Carina Nebula, these stars are rare ultra-hot, super-bright stars that emit primarily ultraviolet radiation, that gives them a blue hue.
WR25, the brightest of the stars near the center of the image, is actually a large star 50 times the size of our sun with another star half that size orbiting around it. To the upper left of WR25, the third brightest star in this image is really a triple star cluster. Two are so close together that telescopes with less resolution can't resolve them. The third star may take hundreds of thousands of years to orbit around them.
The second brightest star, to the left in the image, is actually a less massive star that appears bright because it is much closer to earth than the others.
No, unfortunately we have not made contact with any alien races just yet. But the next best thing has happened. For the first time ever, astronomers have taken direct pictures of planets from outside of our solar system that are orbiting distant stars.
Using the Gemini North telescope and the W. M. Keck Observatory on Hawaii's Mauna Kea, researchers observed in infrared light three planets orbiting around a star about 130 light-years away from Earth, called HR 8799. The discovery, published today in Science Express, is a step forward in the hunt for planets, and life, beyond Earth.
The alien system is supersized compared to our own: All three planets are gas giants, weighing roughly 10, 10 and 7 times the mass of Jupiter, circling a parent star 1.5 times the mass of our sun, and 5 times as bright. The giant bodies (two of which are pictured above) are orbiting at roughly 25, 40, and 70 times the distance between Earth and our sun. If there are Earth-sized planets present, they are too small to see with current technology.
Planets from outside our own solar system have been known about for a while now, but we've only been able to determine their presence through the wobble of the stars they orbit as their gravitational pull affects the star. Never before have we seen direct evidence of the existence of other planets. Now we have pictures of them.
This is an amazing moment in history. Photographic proof that we are not the only solar system in the universe. And if there are planets around other stars, then there could possibly be life out there somewhere too.
Ok, not really. It's actually Einstein and Eddington, but it does have David Tennant in it.
In yet another example of how British TV is better than American TV, BBC2 is going to be running this rather cool looking movie about British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington who championed Einstein's Theory of Relativity during World War I, a time when the world was paranoid of Germans and German science.
The movie looks like it should be fairly entertaining, and much more intelligent that just about anything on Network TV here in the US right now. Sadly, it won't be airing here in the US, but that's what bit torrent is for, am I right?
I know I haven't posted much in the past few weeks, but I saw something that excited my inner geek so I had to post.
Have you ever wanted to ask an astronaut a question? Here's your chance to not only ask a question, but also have the answer sent from the internation Space Station straight to YouTube.
According to the YouTube page: "Post a video response to this video or visit nasa.gov/ask and submit a question there. Chamitoff's schedule will not allow him to answer many questions, but he will attempt to answer a few each week."
What are some geeky questions the Geek-Tastic community can come up with?
Ok, so I'm a few days late on this, but better late than never. SpaceX, a space-transportation startup company founded by Pay-Pal co-founder Elon Musk has made history. On September 28th, they became the first privately funded company to ever successfully send a rocket into orbit.
After three failed launches, the company founded by Elon Musk worked all of the bugs out of their Falcon 1 launch vehicles.
The entire spectacle was broadcast live from Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. Cameras mounted on the spacecraft showed our planet shrinking in the distance and the empty first stage engine falling back to Earth.
As the rocket ascended, cheers rang out during every crucial step of the launch sequence, and at the final stage their headquarters in Hawthorne, California erupted in excitement.
The tensest moment came just before stage separation. At that critical juncture, the third launch attempt had failed. This time, it worked out perfectly.
Eight minutes after leaving the ground, Falcon 1 reached a speed of 5200 meters per second and passed above the International Space Station.
"I don't know what to say... because my mind is just blown," said Musk, during a brief address to his staff after the successful launch. "This is just the first step of many."
Maybe it's just me, but I find this whole thing super cool. Private companies are now going to be able to send their own rockets into space. No longer will the US government and NASA have a monopoly on space travel in the US.
And how awesome is the founder of SpaceX, Elon Musk? The man became super rich from creating pay-pal, but instead of blowing his vast amounts of cash on mountains of cocaine and expensive prostitutes (like most of us would), the guy decides to found a company that will revolutionize the space industry.
Next up for SpaceX is the launching of their Falcon 9 rocket, a larger rocket that is capable of carrying a lot more cargo into space. I wish these guys all the luck in the world!
But that doesn't mean it won't. After all, today is supposed to be the day the world ends, according to a bunch of people. Although it should be mentioned that pretty much all of those people are insane. Why do they think the world is going to end? Because today is the day that the CERN Hadron Collider gets fully turned on.
We've covered the Hadron Collider here on Geek-tastic before, so I'm not going to go into full detail right now. But to recap, it's a really really big science experiment/particle accelerator that will be able to recreate events like the big bang.
Anyways, the aforementioned crazy people are convinced that turning on the collider will create a black hole that will destroy the earth or will suck us all into a parallell dimension or something to that effect. So keep your eyes open today for any strange happenings. If things seem off today, it may not just be you. We may have gotten sucked into Star Trek's evil parallell dimension or something.
And for those of you who share an equal love of science and booze (like myself), then you're going to love IO9.com's Large Hadron Collider Drinking Game!
It's science, it's drinking, what's not to love! And if for some reason the world does end today, at least it'll happen while you're good and drunk.
We here at Geek-tastic are big fans of science. Being geeks, we can't help but love science. Without science, we wouldn't have awesome things like Tang and video games and internet porn.
However, we are aware that science hasn't exactly been properly represented here at the site. This is a problem that will be addressed going forward. Along with entertaining geeky news bits from the world of movies and video games and whatnot we will also be trying to educate you a little bit with random science articles.
My personal favorite item was #18: Gamma ray telescopes can detect light from the most violent explosions in the universe, probably caused by stars collapsing into black holes. If a gamma ray burst occurred within 6,000 light-years of us, we’d all be fried.
If only life was more like comic books. If a giant gamma ray blast went off near the earth in the comics, we'd all turn into the Incredible Hulk. Imagine that, an entire planet of people turning large and green whenever they got angry. I wonder how long society would hold together with that going on.
I would so want one if these ever actually got made. It appears that Harry Potter style invisibility cloaks may not be that impossible to actually make.
Researchers have demonstrated for the first time they were able to cloak three-dimensional objects using artificially engineered materials that redirect light around the objects. Previously, they only have been able to cloak very thin two-dimensional objects.
The findings, by scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, led by Xiang Zhang, are to be released later this week in the journals Nature and Science.
The new work moves scientists a step closer to hiding people and objects from visible light, which could have broad applications , including military ones.
Screw the military. I want one. Of course, even if these do get made, you know they'll never be made available for consumer purchase. Can you imagine the immediate skyrocketing of crime rates as invisible bandits everywhere started robbing banks and liquor stores? Or the sheer number of lawsuits that would start from the families of people who die after being hit by a car while crossing the street under their cloaks?
If people really could run around invisible, the world would devolve into chaos pretty quickly I'm sure. But still, it's nice to dream of just me having one.