DailyDirt: Astronomy Makes Astrology Kinda Complicated

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The universe is filled with some weird stuff, and astronomers are always looking out to find new, unexplained phenomena. If our lives were really governed by the motions of distant stars, there’d be a looot of movements to take into account…. Still, there are plenty of folks who are wondering what their new astrology sign might mean. But however the stars move, astrologers probably enjoy all these new astronomical discoveries, if only because it makes their jobs more interesting. So, here are a few cool observations.

  • The Hubble is looking at a green gas cloud called Hanny?s Voorwerp. The object was discovered in 2007 by Dutch schoolteacher, Hanny van Arkel. [url]
  • The Kepler telescope found a solid planet about 40% bigger than Earth. That planet is more than a bit too hot for our biology, but there are at least a few hundred more planets in Kepler’s sights. [url]
  • Mars might have giant caves! Or at least, it has big dark craters of some kind. [url]
  • Here’s a “mysteries of space” timeline. Seriously not drawn to scale… especially a googol years in the future. [url]
  • Filed Under: , , , , , ,

    Rate this comment as insightful
    Rate this comment as funny
    You have rated this comment as insightful
    You have rated this comment as funny
    Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
    You have flagged this comment
    The first word has already been claimed
    The last word has already been claimed
    Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

    Comments on “DailyDirt: Astronomy Makes Astrology Kinda Complicated”

    Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
    9 Comments
    JB says:

    Mystery of Space Timeline

    Seriously, we are now predicting the end of the universe at 10^100 years from now? Also, I find the notation about the Big Bang being ‘confirmed’ in 1990 to be quite interesting. How exactly can one ‘confirm’ a theoretical possibility that supposedly happened over 5 billion years ago? I can understand perhaps rationalizing the theory by extrapolating the expansion discovered; but, that does not confirm nor deny the existence of an explosive point of matter that later congealed into the universe as we know it.

    Then, there’s the claim that basic elements did not exist prior to 3 seconds following the ‘big bang.’ That would imply the evolution of elements, thereby leading to a slow, but constant, flux in the properties of current elements.

    Even though I don’t think it should play into such a discussion; I will note that while I am a scientist and have studied evolution and other theories, my faith still sits squarely with creation. I am more than willing to listen to any criticisms and opposing ideas, but do not be surprised when I do not agree; I love debates.

    Add Your Comment

    Your email address will not be published.

    Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

    Comment Options:

    Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

    What's this?

    Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

    Follow Techdirt

    Techdirt Daily Newsletter

    Techdirt Deals
    Techdirt Insider Discord
    The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
    Loading...