Dying star suffers 'irregular heartbeats'

August 26, 2015, University of Warwick
This is the "South Pillar" region of the star-forming region called the Carina Nebula. Like cracking open a watermelon and finding its seeds, the infrared telescope "busted open" this murky cloud to reveal star embryos tucked inside finger-like pillars of thick dust. Credit: NASA

Some dying stars suffer from 'irregular heartbeats', research led by astronomers at the University of Warwick has discovered.

The research confirms rapid brightening events in otherwise normal pulsating white dwarfs, which are stars in the final stage of their life cycles.

In addition to the regular rhythm from they expected on the white dwarf PG1149+057, which cause the star to get a few percent brighter and fainter every few minutes, the researchers also observed something completely unexpected every few days: arrhythmic, massive outbursts, which broke the star's regular pulse and significantly heated up its surface for many hours.

The discovery was made possible by using the planet-hunting spacecraft Kepler, which stares unblinkingly at a small patch of sky, uninterrupted by clouds or sunrises.

Led by Dr JJ Hermes of the University of Warwick's Astrophysics Group, the astronomers targeted the Kepler spacecraft on a specific star in the constellation Virgo, PG1149+057, which is roughly 120 light years from Earth.

Dr Hermes explains: "We have essentially found rogue waves in a , akin to 'irregular heartbeats'. These were truly a surprise to see: we have been watching pulsating white dwarfs for more than 50 years now from the ground, and only by being able to stare uninterrupted for months from space have we been able to catch these events."

The star with the irregular beat, PG1149+057, is a pulsating white dwarf, which is the burnt-out core of an evolved star, an extremely dense star which is almost entirely made up of carbon and oxygen. Our Sun will eventually become a white dwarf in more than six billion years, after it runs out of its nuclear fuel.

White dwarfs have been known to pulsate for decades, and some are exceptional clocks, with pulsations that have kept nearly perfect time for more than 40 years. Pulsations are believed to be a naturally occurring stage when a white dwarf reaches the right temperature to generate a mix of partially ionized hydrogen atoms at its surface.

That mix of excited atoms can store up and then release energy, causing the star to resonate with pulsations characteristically every few minutes. Astronomers can use the regular periods of these pulsations just like seismologists use earthquakes on Earth, to see below the surface of the star into its exotic interior. This was why astronomers targeted PG1149+057 with Kepler, hoping to learn more about its dense core. In the process, they caught a new glimpse at these unexpected outbursts.

"These are highly energetic events, which can raise the star's overall brightness by more than 15% and its overall temperature by more than 750 degrees in a matter of an hour," said Dr Hermes. "For context, the Sun will only increase in overall brightness by about 1% over the next 100 million years."

Interestingly, this is not the only white dwarf to show an irregular pulse. Recently, the Kepler spacecraft witnessed the first example of these strange outbursts while studying another white dwarf, KIC 4552982, which was observed from space for more than 2.5 years.

There is a narrow range of surface temperatures where pulsations can be excited in white dwarfs, and so far irregularities have only been seen in the coolest of those that pulsate. Thus, these irregular outbursts may not be just an oddity; they have the potential to change the way astronomers understand how pulsations, the regular heartbeats, ultimately cease in white dwarfs.

"The theory of stellar pulsations has long failed to explain why pulsations in stop at the temperature we observe them to," argues Keaton Bell of the University of Texas at Austin, who analysed the first pulsating white dwarf to show an irregular heartbeat, KIC 4552982. "That both stars exhibiting this new outburst phenomenon are right at the temperature where pulsations shut down suggests that the outbursts could be the key to revealing the missing physics in our pulsation theory."

Astronomers are still trying to settle on an explanation for these never-before-seen outbursts. Given the similarity between the first two stars to show this behaviour, they suspect it might have to do with how the pulsation waves interact with themselves, perhaps via a resonance.

"Ultimately, this may be a new type of nonlinear behaviour that is triggered when the amplitude of a pulsation passes a certain threshold, perhaps similar to rogue waves on the open seas here on Earth, which are massive, spontaneous waves that can be many times larger than average surface waves," said Dr Hermes. "Still, this is a fresh discovery from observations, and there may be more to these irregular stellar heartbeats than we can imagine yet."

The research, A second case of outbursts in a pulsating white dwarf observed by Kepler, is published in the current issue of the Astrophysical Journal Letters. The first case of outbursts in a pulsating white dwarf was published in the 10 August 2015 issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

Explore further: Astronomers discover pulsations in crystalized, dying star

More information: "A second case of outbursts in a pulsating white dwarf observed by Kepler." arxiv.org/abs/1507.06319

Related Stories

Astronomers discover pulsations in crystalized, dying star

June 20, 2013

(Phys.org) —Astronomers from The University of Texas at Austin and colleagues have used the 2.1-meter Otto Struve Telescope at the university's McDonald Observatory to discover pulsations from the crystalized remnant of ...

Survivor of stellar collision is new type of pulsating star

June 28, 2013

A team of astronomers from the UK, Germany and Spain have observed the remnant of a stellar collision and discovered that its brightness varies in a way not seen before on this rare type of star. By analysing the patterns ...

Binary white dwarf stars

May 4, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- When a star like our sun gets to be very old, after another seven billion years or so, it will no longer be able to sustain burning its nuclear fuel.

White dwarf may have shredded passing planet

April 17, 2015

The destruction of a planet may sound like the stuff of science fiction, but a team of astronomers has found evidence that this may have happened in an ancient cluster of stars at the edge of the Milky Way galaxy.

Recommended for you

Active galactic nuclei and star formation

October 15, 2018

Most galaxies host a supermassive black hole (SMBH) at their nucleus. (A supermassive black hole is one whose mass exceeds a million solar-masses.) A key unresolved issue in galaxy formation and evolution is the role these ...

30 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2015
Jets of material ejected from brown dwarfs indicate that they form via the same mechanism as ordinary stars: http://phys.org/n...on.html, and active auroral phenomena have been discovered on the same brown dwarfs: http://phys.org/n...ul.html.

Honestly, whether you think that stars are powered by nuclear fusion like Birkeland did, or powered entirely by an electric current like Juergens, the idea of a z-pinch in a galactic current - exactly like the one producing the auroras on these brown dwarfs - bringing the plasma together to form stars is really making more and more sense with all of these finds.

These irregular pulsations could really easily be the product of rapid drops in the current flow, which should naturally produce explosions in the double layers on the star's surface.
my2cts
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 26, 2015
whether you think that stars are powered by nuclear fusion

Stars are powered by nuclear fusion.
carlo_piantini
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2015
Stars are powered by nuclear fusion.


Thanks for sharing your opinion. It was extremely productive.
carlo_piantini
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2015
"These were truly a surprise to see: we have been watching pulsating white dwarfs for more than 50 years now from the ground, and only by being able to stare uninterrupted for months from space have we been able to catch these events."

When I talk about the need for extreme skepticism in astrophysics, and a reduction of theoretical modeling, this quote helps to prove the point for me. After five decades, this was only discovered by the use of a new satellite watching the star.

No one is debating the very long, and arguably successful modeling of nuclear fusion as the power source for stars. I'm saying that until it's proven in a lab, and more importantly, *until other hypotheses are also tested and falsified*, no one should be making definitive, declarative statements like yours.

And its more than likely that the *actual* picture is a combination of nuclear fusion and current flow, they're not mutually exclusive.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2015
Stars are powered by nuclear fusion.


Thanks for sharing your opinion. It was extremely productive.
it's not opinion when there is empirical evidence supporting the conclusion

the electric star model of the eu is a failed model for reasons... starting with PHYSICS
you can read some of those reasons here: http://www.tim-th...sun.html

i told you once that you should start your education here: http://ocw.mit.ed...=physics

until you learn some basics, you will continually fall into the same trap that most people fall into when reading pseudoscience... unless you can comprehend the basics, you will assume that the presenter knows their stuff and that they are infallible

you've demonstrated this already here on PO with your support of failed pseudoscience in the face of physics when conversing with JeanTate and others (some of which are PhD's and astrophysicists, BTW)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2015
*until other hypotheses are also tested and falsified*, no one should be making definitive, declarative statements like yours
but you do it, cp
you've continually supported known debunked claims that have been falsified by actual physics

the problem is that you think that the "experiment in a lab" is somehow relevant just as long as it looks close enough... this was demonstrated elsewhere with JT
you also make grandiose assumptions that we cannot extrapolate data from what we DO know in the lab and apply it, but somehow pseudoscience like eu can????

that is the defining characteristic of pseudoscience and Dunning-Kruger
the *actual* picture is a combination
take the ASTROPHYSICS courses in the link i left above to MIT

it requires you to learn PLASMA PHYSICS, just like every other curriculum of astrophysics, including the experimental stages. then you will learn WHY we know about the sun/stars.

until you do, you will fall prey to con men
carlo_piantini
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2015
Hey Stumpy! I thought you'd left PO actually, haven't seen you in a minute.
(1) It is an opinion when you're making a definitive statement on any theory that isn't replicable in a laboratory. That is my criteria for a theory to be deemed "proven." If that's not yours, then fine - your threshold for "certainty" is lower than mine, and that's perfectly fine. I have no issues with fusion models of solar power; it's a sturdy theory, fairly well-tested despite its own *history* of problems and failures, and Birkeland suggested it back in 1908. When a sustained fusion reaction occurs, I'll consider it "proven." Until then, I consider his comment opinion.
(2) I've read Tim Thompson's critique, Don Scott's rebuttal, and Tim's own rebuttal.

cont.
carlo_piantini
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2015
(3) Dude, I've got the link. It's bookmarked. Right now I'm teaching myself mathematics, as I've said many times. When the time comes, I'll study the primary astrophysical literature *from its historical beginning* up to now - right alongside the primary plasma physics literature, which will be treated likewise. If you're right, then chill out, I'll get there eventually.
(4) Your constant assertion that "I should learn the basics of astrophysics" excludes the fact that Alfven criticized the astrophysical paradigm for its treatment of cosmic plasmas, for several reasons. You *seem* like you'd like me to throw out that criticism outright, take no consideration in it, and carry on with the same curriculum as everyone else. I'm *not* going to do that, it's biased and unnecessary. I want to study Alfven's work and criticism simultaneously with the material you're advocating, which is perfectly objective.

cont.
carlo_piantini
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2015
(5) I have never advocated an "as long as it looks close enough" approach to science, or lab work. I have advocated Birkeland's method of astrophysical research - gather extraordinary large amounts of data about the phenomena you're studying, use it to form a hypothesis, build a lab model to test the hypothesis, and compare it to that data you've collected. For that reason, when I see work like Bostick's or Peratt's, I believe that it is *on the right track* because it replicates part of the phenomena we're trying to study. The idea that improving or expanding this research is *unhelpful* to our models, is ridiculous. I've asked you and JT many times that if there is any research, by anyone, who improves on Bostick's work on developing spiral morphologies from plasmoids, to show it to me. You responded with the same MIT link…

cont.
carlo_piantini
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2015
(6) I've never said that astrophysicists can't extrapolate data from the lab, I've said that theoretical mathematics shouldn't be the foundation of cosmological models. The entire point of extrapolating data is to *test* new hypothesis in a lab, to see if the mathematics are sound. If you can't test it in a lab, you have *no idea* if the physical relationships described by the equations are still sound in new conditions. I don't advocate any part of the EU that isn't borne out of plasma experiments, which is the same treatment I give to the mainstream community.

cont.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2015
That is my criteria for a theory to be deemed "proven."
@cp
please read: https://en.wikipe...c_method

pay attention to this too: https://en.wikipe...c_method#/media/File:The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg

now goto: http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

it doesn't matter what "you" think. the key is evidence
your threshold for "certainty" is lower than mine
no, it isn't. i just happen to be more educated in certain areas and can spot the con
I thought you'd left PO
i do have a life other than interwebz... i was vacationing
Right now I'm teaching myself mathematics
VERY GOOD, i honestly hope all the best for you... i also recommend watching the video's on physics as you do the math courses. it will help
ALSO: use THIS
http://openstudy....0Physics

great resource...
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2015
(7) Your insistence that these ideas have been "debunked" implies that you insist new evidence can't prove a theory, previously deemed incorrect, as actually correct. The extraordinary irony is that this is the *exact* situation that happened to Birkeland and his model of the aurora. This is likely because you refuse to acknowledge any historical criticism of the astrophysical community, regardless of whether it comes from a primary physics journal like the IEEE, or if it's recorded in a biography like "The Northern Lights", which has six full pages of primary sources for reference.

cont.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2015
Your constant assertion that "I should learn the basics of astrophysics" excludes the fact that Alfven criticized the astrophysical paradigm for its treatment of cosmic plasmas
@cp
no, it doesn't. it is YOU who is making the assumption that things cannot and did not change in the past 50 years. read the curriculum: astrophysicists MUST learn plasma physics. that is a well known fact. in fact, ALL modern astrophysics dealing with stars, star physics and anything with gasses/stars/ejecta that is ionized deals with plasma physics... i proved this point repeatedly to cantdrive, all you have to do is actually READ the studies, including methodology and techniques, etc... also note, some stuff is in the supplemental material
You *seem* like you'd like me to throw out that criticism outright, take no consideration in it
I DO... and i do it because I RESEARCHED THIS and i still research it... goto http://www.pppl.gov/
you can SEE it is false on that single page
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2015
(8) There shouldn't be any scientist anywhere who calls themselves "objective" or "unbiased", and have some kind of resentment or disagreement with running an experiment like SAFIRE. It's a perfectly empirical piece of electrical equipment, that can be used to test whether the Sun is discharging as an anode or cathode. If the observed physical phenomena of the experiment are the same as the Sun, and if the spectral/thermal/electromagnetic measurements align with satellite observations, then yes, the Sun is an anode.

VERY GOOD, i honestly hope all the best for you


Well that's genuinely very nice of you! I appreciate it, and hope the best for you as well. I hope you had a really nice vacation.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2015
I'm *not* going to do that, it's biased and unnecessary. I want to study Alfven's work and criticism simultaneously
@cp
your choice. but you are doing exactly what i am doing. i am just actually reading studies as well... which prove the point i just made re: astrophysics, Alfven and modern times
I have never advocated an "as long as it looks close enough" approach
yes, you have. that is why JeanTate used the phrase "looks like a duck", etc. it is not becoming to lie when it can be proven and demonstrated here with your own commentary. JT tried to show you that... you ignored it
you should know better
when I see work like Bostick's or Peratt's, I believe that it is *on the right track*
and when you actually read and learn physics, you will ALSO know how you got conned by them... give it time
your problem is that you dismiss evidence b/c you don't understand it, or because you think someone is trying to "flame" or attack you/others
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2015
it is YOU who is making the assumption that things cannot and did not change in the past 50 years


I am not making *any* assumptions whatsoever. I'm dedicating how every many *years* it will take me to study decades of scientific literature across two domains simultaneously, while working with plasma in a lab, so that I know *exactly* what is true and what is false. Saying that I'm making assumptions is disingenuous.

I DO... and i do it because I RESEARCHED THIS and i still research it... goto http://www.pppl.gov/ you can SEE it is false on that single page


What you've researched has absolutely no worth to my perspective. I have no idea who you are, what you're done, what work you've published or experiments you've conducted. What does your opinion on your own research me to me? That link is the homepage, it provides no information at all.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2015
and when you actually read and learn physics, you will ALSO know how you got conned by them


Much better idea: why don't you explain to me the physics involved, and how I got conned? I'm here having a discussion with you, you're more than welcome to explain it for me. I *am* listening.

yes, you have. that is why JeanTate used the phrase "looks like a duck", etc. it is not becoming to lie when it can be proven and demonstrated here with your own commentary.


No, I have not, and I *welcome* anyone to go back and look at my comment history. I've never once said that their research was the end all be all of cosmic plasma physics. I've said that if there's is the *only* research who has formed these structures, then logically, there research is the only place to begin with further lab work.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2015
The idea that improving or expanding this research is *unhelpful* to our models, is ridiculous
@cp
who said it was unhelpful? see: [url]http://www.pppl.gov/[/url] I've asked you and JT many times that if there is any research i gave the MIT link, JT gave you evidence which you ignored
don't play semantics games, the evidence is in the verbose flods you posted to JT
I've said that theoretical mathematics shouldn't be the foundation
sigh - again: [url]http://www.pppl.gov/[/url]
(7)...implies that
i am implying nothing. if something violates the laws of physics and the known validated maths/physics, then we can either test the laws or know that something is not right in the skunk cabbage: it is you who is assuming what is being said, not i
you refuse to acknowledge any historical criticism
no, i don't. HOWEVER, i will ALWAYS research a subject and find evidence. i am a professional investigator. i follow the evidence, i don't make my mind up first
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2015
There shouldn't be any scientist anywhere who calls themselves "objective" or "unbiased", and have some kind of resentment or disagreement with running an experiment like SAFIRE
@cp
WTF? where do you think i said EVER that i disagree with running SAFIRE? no scientists i know disagrees with it
I hope you had a really nice vacation
i did
you and i are not that different... my point is/always has been: follow the evidence
this means that you must also either: learn what it means OR find someone who knows
i prefer the first
I am not making *any* assumptions whatsoever
actually, you are. you just did it above in the post that i answered re: ALfven
Alfven might have had a valid point at one time but the self-policing peer reveiw & science changed. it is the only inevitable [change]
so that I know *exactly* what is true and what is false
no, you can only know then when educated to the facts first. the basics... otherwise you are assuming someONE is right
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2015
don't play semantics games, the evidence is in the verbose flods you posted to JT


I'm not playing any semantics game. *You* didn't provide any evidence at all, you posted the same link to MIT that you keep posting, the same way you're repeatedly posting a link to Princeton's website. And JT gave me evidence in an attempt to rebut Alfven's ideas on galaxy formation - which yes, it's interesting but it *is not what I asked for.* I didn't ask for evidence to *prove or disprove* anything, I've asked explicitly for research on spiral morphologies in lab plasmas because I want to learn about it! If you can't give me anything more recent then Bostick's work on plasmoids, then he is *obviously* where I need to start.

no, i don't.

Actually you do though. I posted two published journal articles discussing the history of Alfven's work, a website from a college universe, and you discounted it as being "pro-Alfven."
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2015
nice of you! I appreciate it
@cp
you're welcome. thank you
What you've researched has absolutely no worth to my perspective
didn't say it did... however, if you are researching, then you WILL come to the same conclusions UNLESS you have a predetermined mindset, especially re: Alfven, history and plasma physics
That link is the homepage, it provides no information at all
it also has links in the homepage you can access, from ABOUT to RESEARCH to EDUCATION, all of which will, if you peruse the site, lead you to the understanding that plasma- and astro- physicists work side by side there, they also SHARE data with everyone
Much better idea: why don't you explain to me the physics involved, and how I got conned?
if you didn't comprehend the dumbed down version JT gave you, why have me repeat it? i would only re-link you back to JT's posts
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2015
WTF? where do you think i said EVER that i disagree with running SAFIRE? no scientists i know disagrees with it


No where, I'm commenting about the reception I received in other threads about SAFIRE. Nothing to do with you specifically.

no, you can only know then when educated to the facts first. the basics... otherwise you are assuming someONE is right


Studying the mainstream astrophysical literature, plasma physics literature, and then comparing it to Alfven's criticism is not me "assuming" Alfven is right. It's me giving him a fair chance to see if his criticism is valid or you. You're saying it isn't, that's great. I'll decide for myself, the exact same way you did.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2015
however, if you are researching, then you WILL come to the same conclusions UNLESS you have a predetermined mindset, especially re: Alfven, history and plasma physics


If that's the case then why are you working yourself up over my comments? Calm down, or better yet, just click the ignore button by my username. I won't take offense if you want to, and it may make your reading experience on PO nicer.

i would only re-link you back to JT's posts


Re-link me! I'd appreciate it very much.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2015
I've never once said that their research was the end all be all of cosmic plasma physics
@cp
you are being disingenuous again... i didn't say you said that, i said you advocated an ""as long as it looks close enough" approach", which was demonstrated in your support of certain claims- JT was trying to explain it to you which you refused to accept evidence, even though she also references material that validated the claim (validated material, not "supposition" or single studies, mind)
I'm not playing any semantics game
see the beginning of this post
*You* didn't provide any evidence at all
i not only provided proof by linking the MIT site, which has the evidence in the courses, which i also STATED, but i also told you to read JT's posts and the references, which is the same as corroboration/supplying evidence
you discounted it
perhaps you should link exactly what i said and then re-read for comprehension?
i have had to tell you that before as well
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2015
I'm commenting about the reception I received in other threads about SAFIRE. Nothing to do with you specifically
@cp
then why comment to me about it?
You're saying it isn't,
i am saying IT ISN'T NOW
why are you working yourself up
i'm not
and this conversation is simply arguing in circles with you continuing the same tactic you did with JT...
until you actually provide evidence of a claim, it is nothing but personal conjecture
PERIOD
Re-link me! I'd appreciate it very much
learn this now: go to google [or a search engine], type in the basic requirements (your name, JT, phys.org) https://www.googl...filter=0

now sift the data and/or expand as needed. you can also go to your own profile, under the comments section, and sift thru your own comments to see dialogue between you and others

i will check back and see if you've stopped your circular argument later
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2015
you are being disingenuous again... i didn't say you said that, i said you advocated an ""as long as it looks close enough" approach", which was demonstrated in your support of certain claims


This is going to spiral out real, real soon...I never said "as long as it looks close enough." If you, or anyone else wants to go through my posts and find that, then very well. I advocated that laboratory experiments should drive cosmological modeling, not theoretical physics. I advocated Bostick's work as a starting point, but *to my knowledge* his is the only work that has replicated spiral morphologies in lab plasmas, and I asked *both of you* to provide me with *more recent work* that has done the same. You and JT provided evidence to refute Bostick's work, which is *not what I asked you for.* I wasn't asking, in any way, for proof one way or the other. I was asking for more recent research on plasma morphology, which *neither* of you provided.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2015
Until you actually provide evidence of a claim


I'm not making any claims! Of course what I'm saying is personal conjecture - I'm posting my opinions and thoughts on a sci-news blog, not publishing a treatise on natural philosophy. If people disagree with that I think re: need for more skepticism, less theoretical physics, more laboratory modeling, etc., then they're more than welcome to ignore it.

i will check back and see if you've stopped your circular argument later


Lol you're as guilty for circular argument as I am, and the reason is most likely because of a *massive* miscommunication between both of us.
Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2015
I know I'm real late to the party guys.

@CP
While you are looking into "alternative" theories that aren't backed by modern Science don't forget to give equal time to:
The Emission Theory of Vision
Caloric Theory
Astrology
Geocentrism
Phlogiston
Phrenology
Spontaneous Generation
Luminiferous Aether
Telegony
Time Cube(Just as accurate as the rest I suppose)

After all we haven't learned anything since Ptolemy so his scientific criticisms are still worth investigating. Fact of the matter is that you are basically looking at a black and white television and wondering if the claims that TV will never be in color hold weight while leaning on a color TV. You say you will evaluate the claims in time while asking for evidence TVs can be in color. JT/Stumpy provide you with the remote to turn on the color TV and you are like, "I'll get to it later. I'm learning soldering right now."
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2015
What the men can give to God except love and humility?

Respect enough for "god" to not babble on about him on a science site making yourself look like a self centered moral zealot who has nothing of any value to add because they feel like they've got it all figured out and that the answer for everything is " god did it, he told me himself. No need to look any further." ?
You are not helping your religion doing this over and over.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2015
""This is the "South Pillar" region of the star-forming region called the Carina Nebula. "

Another bold claim which has no scientific basis.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.