The coolest star-like bodies yet
An artist's rendering of the newly revealed Y dwarf.
August 24th, 2011
01:53 PM ET

The coolest star-like bodies yet

NASA's WISE (Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer) mission has discovered the coolest star-like objects yet - literally. Dubbed "Y dwarfs," these celestial bodies have temperatures that can be as cool as that of a human body. The coldest one discovered so far has a temperature of less than 80 degrees Fahrenheit.

Y dwarfs are technically a subclass of the brown dwarf category and are nearly impossible to see with visible-light telescopes.

WISE uses infrared, allowing astronomers to confirm the Y dwarfs' existence after 10 years of looking. The telescope spotted six of the dark objects within a distance of 40 light-years of our sun.

Brown dwarfs are sometimes referred to as failed stars, because they start out like stars but never accumulate enough mass at their cores to start the reactions that allow them to shine. Instead, they cool off over time and give off most of their light in infrared wavelengths.

The study of brown dwarfs helps astronomers understand how stars form and tells them more about the atmospheres of planets outside our solar system. Brown dwarfs have atmospheres similar to those of gas giant planets, but they are easier to observe because they're away from the light of a brighter star.

WISE data has exposed 100 new brown dwarfs so far, six of which are classified as Y dwarfs. Scientists expect more discoveries as they continue to examine the data coming in from the telescope.

Post by:
Filed under: Discoveries • In Space
soundoff (276 Responses)
  1. Priestess Auset Ra Amen

    Great now can we ship all the yt people there and get their destructive war monger asses off the planet.

    August 27, 2011 at 9:42 am |
  2. Knowing

    There's only one written record of how the creation was formed. Now, it is because man wrote the bible that men discount its validity. Yet, all that we know or believe is written by men. The bible explicitly states that God inspired man to write the words of the bible to communicate to us in a form that we can understand. Is the bible the only way to know God, not at all? In fact Psalm 19 describes the creations itself as "speaking or declaring" the work of God's hand. However, the bible is a powerful collection of book that tells an amazing story of God's desire to be known by His creation. The bible says man was formed from the clay of the earth. The human body naturally produces and/or is made of most of the minerals you'd find in soil. Does one suppose that's a coincidence? Creation did not evolve. We were formed by God. Again, just like anything else that's manufactured, we were made by design. God did not make us progressively from one species to the next. Each species was created independently from the other. All return to dust. Yet man holds a special place in His creation because when He designs us He used Himself as the template. How can one argue against this? Look at all the amazing thing we've created and ask yourself, isn't it possible that God in fact made us exactly as the bible describes it? Look at all the things that other creatures build or form: termite mounds, beehives, beaver dams, etc. Again, it is insulting to attempt to convince me that this happened by happenstance. When humans build things, it does take eons of time from us to do it. And we're not nearly as intelligent or powerful as God is. Why is it such a stretch of the imagination to believe that a Being so omnipotent could form the worlds and the universe? If He in fact is what the bible describes Him as being, then it is not impossible. Look, I know this an endless discussion. For years I've stayed out of comment threads for that very reason. But I have to say something. Science, if seen through the prevue of the bible, confirms God's existence not discredits it.

    August 25, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
    • Scott Glenn

      @Knowing – Why is it "insulting" to suggest that things happen by chance for the most part – aren't we engaging in intellectual debate? Your posting is difficult to respond to because you are suggesting that certain things are facts when they actually are not. Your argument is an oversimplification of the matter and none of it is backed up by actual facts derived from repeated observation. Science does not imply the existence of God other than the fact that it is limited and therefore you can look to a higher power as an explanation of that which Science cannot explain. First of all, your first sentence is inaccurate – there are many written (and oral) records of creation that differ greatly depending on where on the globe they originated from; yet, none of them is grounded in actual observable fact. Furthermore, there is, in fact, evidence of species transitioning into other species, such as is the case with various fossil records of pre-human homonids. It seems in your earlier post (and I suggest you read mine) as if you are implying that evolution is flawed or else we would witness an ape turn directly into a man or a horse turn directly into a zebra (the latter example using two species that are extremely closely related). But this is not how evolution works – it occurs over a very long time frame that is difficult for humans to comprehend and is governed by genetic forces such as natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, which have been identified, studied and validated. You must keep in mind that the rise of "civilization" and modern man is but a tiny drop in the bucket in the larger scope of the evolutions of life as we know it, which has occurred over literally billions of years. It is precisely because of human evolution that humans are limited in our ability to conceive of such grand quantities, simply because for hundreds of thousands of years it served as no individual or species-wide advantage for us to be able to contemplate numbers in the billions, trillions and beyond. Therefore it is extremely difficult to conceive of a what a billion years truly represents relative to our own sense of time and as such it may seem counter-intuitive at first how life could have evolved from a single-celled organism into something as complex as a fish or an elephant or a human. However, just because it is difficult for humans to comprehend such long timelines does not mean that evolution did not occur. There are other examples that humans find challenging to understand because they are not intuitive to our nature, including but not limited huge distances in astronomy and tiny distances in quantum mechanics and how speed effects time such that the closer something gets to the speed of light the slower it ages relative to other matter and lifeforms (Einstein's relativity). I'm not trying to convince you not to believe. Its ok if it makes you feel good and/or leads you to lead a better life. And I don't have the answers to Why humans are on Earth?, Where our consciousness goes after death? and other such metaphysical Why-based questions that are unexplainable at present (and probably always will be). Nonetheless, I will not turn over my knowledge and understanding across various disciplines and my rational thought in favor of explanations that seem highly unlikely, highly self-serving / self-centered and intellectually irresponsible so that I can feel more comfortable with my own evolutionary desire to explain the world around me.

      August 25, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
      • Knowing

        @ Scott Glenn – You place a lot of emphasis on your intelligence and rationale. Yet can you understand how irrational it is for someone to accept this reply? You said I did not understand how evolution "worked"; that the process of natural selection is one of the means in which we've come to this "drop in the bucket civilization". Somehow I cannot wrap my head around this chaotic process having some kind of "order", which your reply and the theory suggest. You say that it has been "validated". By whom? Man? By what process? Observation? No. No one has ever observed evolution occur. You say that discoveries of fossils that appear to have been human are evidence that evolution exist is mere conjecture. Simple because a concept is repeated enough and accepted by a small community of scientist does not make it fact. It’s like fitting every discovery into a fixed set of criteria. Bible students do the same thing. This is why there are many different understandings of God's bible. It's human nature to seek for the truth. This is what I admire most about science. And, by the way, I love science. Each discovery brings me closer to God. I'm in awe each time we find out something new in His universe. However, just remember that is a "dis-covery"; something that was hidden and is now revealed. When very intelligent, God-gifted persons (such as you) apply that intellect to science, it is great. But don't ever condescend to others that are not as gifted. While you have this ability to comprehend the way many things work, you, by your own admission, do not understand the inner "universe" of the soul. The depth and breadth of that space is equally as vast and complex as the universe, if not more. Fossils and dinosaurs can never lead one to understanding human spirit. Yet we all have one. It is unique. You too are over-simplifying "consciousness" as you call it. No science, not even psychology, can or has explained the profoundness of our hearts. Perhaps that's why science stays away from those areas: there's no way to explain love, hate, ambition, why we are the way we are. You very own passion for science is a testament to this truth. The pyramids of Egypt and the sky scraper of NYC are testimonies not only of mathematical and engineering advancement, but of human ambition and a desire to create from our God-given imagination. Dare I say it is easier to study and explain things external than things internal, and eternal. Well, this will never end this discussion. But I am always glad to have it. Bless you Scott.

        August 25, 2011 at 11:08 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      @ Knowing (which is funny 'cause you really don't KNOW all that much) Case in point: you said : "There's only one written record of how the creation was formed" So, you've discredited Babylonian Creation Myth, African Creation Myth – Olori, 4 African Creation Myths, Korean Creation Myths, Navajo Creation Myth, Norse Creation Myth, Creation Myth from India, Japanese Creation Myth, Comanche Creation Myth, Chinese Creation Myth, Chelan Creation Myth, Pima Creation Myth, Mayan Creation Myth, Miwok Creation Myth, Scandinavian (Norse) Creation Myths, Salish Creation Myth, Australian Aboriginal Creation Myth, Hopi Creation Myth, Tahitian Creation Myth, Yokut Creation Myth, Egyptian Creation Myths, African – Mande, Yoruba Creation Myths, Several different short Creation Stories, Micmac Creation Myth, Lakota Creation Myth, Several Creation Stories: India, Romania, Mongol, etc.., Chinese Creation / Flood Myth, Assyrian / Babylonian Creation Myth, Maori Creation Myth, Aztec Creation Myth, Digueno Creation Myth, Apache Creation Myth, African Creation Myths, Dakota Creation Myth, Hungarian Creation Myth, Iroquois Creation Myth, Inuit Creation Myth, Huron Creation Myth, Hawaiian Creation Myth and found that the Christian & Jewish Creation Myth (Genesis) is the only one that is true.

      First of all, I've blown your initial uneducated statement that the Bible is the only recorded creation story. Second, you'll find that the ancient culters (Egypt, Greek and Babylon) had very similar mythologies, but with very different gods as to the Christian/Jewish story. What do they all have in common? NOT ONE HAS A SINGLE OUNCE OF TRUTH TO THEM. Stay off the science blogs and go to the BeLIEf blog, where you belong.

      August 26, 2011 at 12:18 am |
      • Knowing

        @fimeilleur: I am aware of many of those creation stories you cited. So let me be abundantly clear. The bible is the only VALID creation account of how the worlds were made. And IF one such as yourself would take the time to make a comparison you'd see the important vast differences (perhaps). I appreciate your passion for science. But last I checked, this is AMERICA, where one is allowed to express themselves. If you thought that my comments were uneducated, why take the time to reply? Dare I say VANITY. It had nothing to do with EDUCATING me, but rather getting off on your own little smidgen of knowledge you've acquired. And by the way, vanity is a sin. It's in the bible you deem mythological. But I guess you don't believe in sin. Persons such as you compartmentalize life like an egg carton. What you may not be willing to except is that all of life is intertwined: science is not separate from God or His word.

        August 26, 2011 at 7:16 am |
      • TheGardener

        @Knowing, every single time I read you theists, I laugh as you guys have been such laughing stocks for centuries.

        August 27, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Knowing,
        So you are aware of the other creation myths, you obviously must have drawn some similarities (especially between the ones from the middle east/north africa and Christianity) but you still CHOOSE to insist that Christianity is VALID. Tell us all then, without resorting to circular reasoning, what makes the Judeo-Christian myth more valid than... the Egyptians? They have some pretty impressive hocus-pocus stuff in their myth as well... or is it that people STOPPED believing in the Egyptian polytheistic religion... if so, then when people (finally) stop believing in Christianity, the Bible story will be also shelved as "just another story".

        Why take the time to reply to you? 'Cause someone else might come along and read your crap... and I want that person to be made aware of the crap you're spewing... let him/her know that there is a truth out there, and you're not it.

        "science is not separate from God or His word" You are absolutely right.... that's why all the major hospitals refer to their Bibles when looking for treatments for leprosy.... I think they keep a whole flock of birds on the mechanical floor, just for that occasion. (oh, and don't think this is the only example... but you won't do the research)

        And you're right, I don't believe in sin, not the original sin, not the deadly sins, none of them. Your religion is based on guilt and control. Keep your shackles if you want... it is America, and you are free to be a slave if you wish.

        August 27, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
    • Fritz

      That's all baloney. I get so sick of arrogant men claiming they know what 'god' 'is' or means. You know nothing about 'god' and neither do I. just as one example I finally figured out why the bible, both new and old, are so male oriented. I mean, their 'god' is male. All their prophets and messiahs are male. The angels, demons and jinn? All male. It's because religious scriptures are written by men, for men. The root purpose of it all is the diminishment of the female gender for men to better control them. Their greater egos allow them to do this. Women figured out religion first then was commandeered by men when they figured out they could control women and other men with it. Personally, I prefer the see the cosmos as born from a cosmic egg created by a female goddess rather than exploding into existence like some glorified super male come shot. I really don't believe in that craziness because I just can't figure out 'god'. But neither can any other man. I am humble before god because it's more powerful than me and I don't know what it means but I bow before no MAN! So as far as I'm concerned, you men can take your male god and shove him up your behind. Why can't you gals break your psychological conditioning on religion and come up with something better instead of just following the male line? Afterall, you are the primary gender.

      August 26, 2011 at 12:25 pm |
      • george

        Don't forget that the bible is also Hebrew-oriented. That's because it was written mostly by Hebrews.

        August 26, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        I just have to say, your comment (although I appreciate what you're trying to say)... aren't you just making up your own god? (Just like the hebrews did 6000 years ago)

        August 27, 2011 at 7:42 pm |
      • someGuy

        What does genitalia have to do with an eternally present omnipotent super being? Why would such a being need a vagina or a penis? The mere idea that someone would try and equate a gender to something like god is ludicrous.

        As a species we each exist as one part which when added together creates one whole species. God is whole, more than that god would be the only one of his kind.

        Plus seriously you're just the female version of that angry male who rages against women because one time he got burned by one. I know men have dominated the world for far too long, it's a big part of the reason why things have been so screwed up throughout history. But it's not because men dominated, it's because one gender out of two did. It's all about balance, if women dominated everything throughout history we would still have major problems, they just wouldn't be the same ones. Anytime I see someone talk about how if women ruled the world all our problems would be solved, all I see is a completely short sighted moron who is just lashing out based on things that happened to them in their life. It's the same thing I think when I hear a man talk about how women were meant to be subservient, short sighted moron. To think of all the progress we could've made by now if women had always been encouraged to become educated as men had. Just think of the reverse. Sir Isaac Newton, Einstein, Darwin, the list goes on, these people wouldn't have done what they did had the roles been completely reversed. On the same note we wouldn't of had Hitler or Stalin, but who knows who we would've had instead. What brilliant women out there were beaten down throughout history that would've made breakthroughs we have yet to see, or at the very least how much faster would we have progressed and moved beyond this point by now.

        To reiterate, balance. That is what we need. Whatever the job may be, get the right person, penis or vagina is irrelevant, all that matters is getting things done right. To any woman who says 'well you had 5000 years now we want ours' I say have fun going through the same 5000 years of crap.

        History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. -Mark Twain

        August 27, 2011 at 8:20 pm |
    • Katmajere

      Scott Glenn –

      You're an idiot. Read your fairy tale books. NOT CNN. This article posts scientific facts. Not fairy tale crap.

      August 26, 2011 at 12:30 pm |
      • Katmajere

        Sorry Scott Glenn – the post was meant as a reply to "Knowing" and the rest of the fairy tale believers out there.

        August 26, 2011 at 12:31 pm |
    • Scott Glenn

      @ Knowing – The opinions expressed are mine and mine only. I have attempted to not come across as condescending or even didactic, and if I have failed in some way then it is due either to limitations in my ability to express myself and/or to sensitivities on your end. I am not angry at your views and I am not going to be aggressive like some other posters. However, it has been identified that your retort was a strawman's argument and that you avoided my comment that their are a multitude of creation stories from around the world, though you then go on to address this in your response to fimeilleur. Yet you do not make any substantial points about why your religious point of view is any better than anyone else's, i.e. why your Bible (presumably Christian) is any more valid than other religious text or metaphysical theory on how the universe was created. All you state is that the bible is the only valid account without any support for that position. (Neither using capital letters nor listing your screen name as "Knowing", which is arrogant at best and silly at worst, makes any of your statements more true and you'd be better off abandoning these practices). You also accuse others of a sin through some kind of manufactured argument stating that their posting in response to you is a reflection of vanity. But you posted first, does that make you vain? Furthermore, it seems as if you presume that someone cannot identify sin and likewise have a strong set of morals and ethics without being a believer in a traditional God, yet there are many people who don't believe who live benevolent, charitable lives working to better themselves and the world. On many levels you write intelligently and I agree with you that Science cannot explain what it is to experience life as a human; while it may be able to explain how evolution led to certain chemical reactions in our brains, it cannot sum up the richness of those experiences on an individual level. You may choose to call this "spirit" or "soul" but I do not since they are words that carry certain connotations that I do not intend to communicate, though I know you do. Just like creation we can debate possible explanations of what the uniqueness of the human experience is endlessly but that does not change the fact that no one really knows (despite your screen name). Its interesting, too, if you are particularly concerned about the "inner self" that you have adopted a Christian point of view whereas Eastern religions and philosophies (buddhism, taosim, etc.) place a higher degree of emphasis on this aspect of spirituality. And since you've addressed me, personally, I must say that I am not a Scientist, though I am knowledgeable to some extent in various fields of study within the discipline. Science is only one ongoing field of interest for me amongst many and I have studied and travelled extensively. I, too, search for truth and have some thoughts on spirituality but would never present them as fact. And since they are not observable we could go back and forth endlessly discussing and debating these things but it would just end in a stalemate and after all, this is a science blog. If you find comfort in your belief system and it makes you happy and want to lead a good life then more power to you and I'm happy for you. If blessing me makes you feel good, that's ok with me, too. However, I'm not prepared to adopt your point of view, I'm going to keep searching...

      August 26, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
      • Knowing

        @Scott: I did not supply supporting citations because all of them would come from the bible and my personal experiences with God. Since this is indeed a science blog I did not want to go on and on with biblical references to which most on this blog do not deem scientific and therefore not real support. Yet, can one deny someone there own personal experience and the subsequent change in their lives? How is that any less real or evident of a real life changing encounter? If one encounters God on a very intimate and personal level, and is radically changed as a result, how is this any less evidence than the law of cause and effect. When a force, whether natural or supernatural, encounters an object or person, and changes that object, whether human or non-human, how can one argue that the outcomes of both events are not equally measurable and valid? And if someone records those events and shows an absolute difference post-event, how is this less worthy of acceptance. If a gust of wind knock someone over, and that person is injured as a result, though that person could not show you proof of the wind, they'd give you their testimony, perhaps a witness, and the bruise as evidence. It is the same when someone meets God. Their lives are changed and other testify to that change by acknowledgement of the difference in that person's life. No one has ever seen wind. We only see the effect of it. It is the same with God. Truly, no one has ever seen God (Jesus excluded). But, it is hard pressed for someone to say that this universe was not created. So while we may not see God, His force and power can be felt and known. By the way, my "Knowing" name implies just that: I am in the proces of knowing. I do not pretend to know all. That would be arrogant.

        August 26, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Knowing,

        Wow, you put all your eggs in one basket... OK, I'm going to show you AGAIN that you don't know what you're talking about.

        You said: Truly, no one has ever seen God (excluding Jesus). Well, you're wrong.
        Genesis 32:30: And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
        Numbers 14:14: Thou, Lord, art seen face to face. (by Moses)

        Do you even read the tripe and dribble you profess to believe in?
        Why does the Universe need a "creator"? Who created the "creator"? Oh the problems with infinite regression... if you're going to have a beginning... why start with something that cannot be proven... start with the Universe, at least we (theists, atheists, Taoists, Buddhists, etc.) can all agree it's there.

        August 27, 2011 at 7:53 pm |
    • Scott Glenn

      @ Knowing – that response provides me with nothing really to work with and obviously I can't live my life through your personal experiences. If you're happy and take comfort in the conclusions that you have drawn from them then I am happy for you and wish you well. I'm glad you found what you were looking for as I truly believe some people need that and are better off for it. Unfortunately, this conversation is not providing me with much more value so I must conclude it to pursue other intellectual exchanges. I have heard your point of view and there's no need to rehash things again and again... you probably feel the same way. Thanks for the conversation and be well.

      PS – I still don't think your name is effectively communicating what you want it to, why not change it to "in process" – that would come across a lot less arrogant. ...or maybe even just keep it simple and stick with your given name..."God-given" if you prefer.

      August 26, 2011 at 7:47 pm |
    • Dr. Mumbai

      ___ Religion = Superstitious Nonsense for Ignorant Simpletons ___

      Period !

      August 26, 2011 at 11:13 pm |
    • Anonymous Coward

      I see that the slashdot debates are infiltrating into CNN comments. Although the arguments do tend generate a lot discussions, they also contribute to a significant increase of off-topic noise. I guess it's better to give people a place to express themselves about these issues not discussed out of courtesy in the "real world" than to deny it, though.

      August 27, 2011 at 10:47 am |
  3. Ottis Johnson

    I just want to know how in the heck they can see something that is 40 light years away? Seems very much impossible if you ask me.

    August 25, 2011 at 8:23 am |
    • I'm The Best!

      Not nearly as hard as you would think. Most the stars you see in the night sky are at least that distance. You get a good enough telescope and looking for the right wavelength of light (Infrared here) then they would probably be pretty easy to spot, assuming you actually find one (space is big). I'm honestly surprised they didn't find them sooner.

      August 25, 2011 at 8:43 am |
    • Scott Glenn

      Check this out, Ottis– using our satellite and telescopic technology we can actually see things millions of light years away. Furthermore, a light year is a distance determined by how far light travels through space within a one year time span. Its a fixed distance since the speed of light is fixed. Because the way humans see is by processing light through our eyes and in our brains this means that when we see something 40 lightyears away, we are processing the light that has traveled 40 years to get from that object to us and what we are seeing is literally the image of the object 40 years ago. For an object millions of light years away this means that the light we are looking at literally took millions of years to get to us and so the image we are seeing is millions of years old. And this is how astrophysicists are able to understand how our solar system, our galaxy and our universe developed – because by looking at far away objects we are essentially looking back in time.

      As a practical example of how it takes light time to travel through space, consider what happens when you are watching a news report from, say, the Middle East. The newscaster, located in the US at CNN or Fox News' headquarters, asks questions about a situation on location and the correspondent reports back. But notice there's always a delay between when Anderson Cooper (or whoever) asks the journalist a question and when they respond. The reason for this is that when Anderson speaks the message is converted to light and sent to a satellite that then beams it back down to the reporter in the Middle East. It takes a second or so for light to travel that distance and so that reporter does not hear what Anderson says for just a bit, essentially getting a message that is a second old. This is the same with stars only the difference is instead of getting a message that is 1 second or so old, we are receiving visual information from light reflected off an object that is years old.

      August 25, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
    • Katmajere

      At one time, it was "impossible" to see many of the moons of Jupiter. At one time, it was "Impossible" to circumvent the globe. Your "impossibilities indicate extreme ignorance and lack of factual education.

      At one time, it was "Impossible" for us to fly.

      August 26, 2011 at 12:33 pm |
  4. getreal74

    sarah palins ancestors had pet dinosaurs

    August 24, 2011 at 7:27 pm |
    • Dr. Mumbai

      Yabba Dabba Doo !

      August 26, 2011 at 11:14 pm |
  5. Chris

    This is important strictly for knowledge. Wish people could get out of there daily lives just for a second and realize how vast, and how much we do not know out in space. We cannot be the only intelligent life form, and everything we learn helps next generations. Would love to be able to come back in a thousand years, assuming earth still exists, to see what it is like. See how far we have come in 100 years even. Would be unbelievable! Knowledge.

    August 24, 2011 at 7:08 pm |
  6. stvnkrs10

    I have heard they will soon be blaming Obama for these failing to become stars.

    August 24, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
    • Ca Ed

      Nope, it couldn't be his fault; wrong theory and he wouldn't touch it.

      This was too small to start.

      August 24, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
  7. Rod C. Venger

    SOME of us have understood for decades that Jupiter is likely a failed star. It just needed some more mass to light up, and then we'd have two suns in our sky.

    August 24, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
    • ChaoticDreams

      1. wouldn't be our sky, we'd be dead.
      2. jupiter has 10% of the needed mass to become a FAILED brown dwarf star, so it's not even close

      August 24, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
      • MsAttitude

        I love you.

        August 25, 2011 at 10:42 am |
    • ChaoticDreams

      ummm, thank you?

      August 25, 2011 at 11:26 am |
      • MsAttitude

        No, thank YOU for sharing your knowledge and awesomeness to the world.❤

        =)

        Okay, so that might've been a TAD creepy, but I live in the bible belt, and miss people who speak akin to you.

        August 26, 2011 at 12:19 pm |
      • ChaoticDreams

        lol just a TAD lol, and that sucks, I don't think I would be able to survive that many biblistic people in one place (and no that's not a word, but it fits)

        August 26, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
  8. Norm

    The National Association for the Advancement of Colored Planets is offended and demands reparations.

    August 24, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
    • MsAttitude

      teehee

      August 26, 2011 at 12:44 pm |
  9. God DOES exist

    No science can dismiss the possibility of God's existence.

    Big bang? No problem. Big bang came from WHAT? Did I hear properly, no proof of what existed before the big bang? No explanation of how matter can encroach into something that has yet to exist and said to be infinity?

    Science = Ultimately a fail when it gets too "big-headed".

    August 24, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
    • ChaoticDreams

      before bing bang is cyclic 3-branes colliding to produce big bangs. m-theory, try reading into it

      August 24, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
    • ChaoticDreams

      before big bang is cyclic 3-branes colliding to produce big bangs. m-theory, try reading into it

      August 24, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
    • David

      one thing is certain; the appeal to ignorance is unending

      August 24, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
      • ChaoticDreams

        it never ceases to amaze

        August 24, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
    • Matt

      What the hell is the point of this post? Seriously? You are offering nothing to the discussion, you just further cement the idea that a good portion of religious people are afraid of/do not understand science. Science does not set out to prove the existence of God. It is impossible to prove it. You just sound like a crazy.

      August 24, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
    • BoDacious01

      What part of the article mentioned God? I keep searching but God does not come up in Science articles..

      August 24, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
      • ChaoticDreams

        i came here to see what new things were discovered, yet people will invariably somehow bring religion into it

        August 24, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
    • Scott Glenn

      The fact that science cannot yet explain what happened before the Big Bang and that it cannot answer greater existential questions like Why are humans on earth? and Where do we go after death? does not mean that there is, in fact, a god. It's fine if you believe in God but to suggest that he must exist simply because the power of science is limited is a flawed argument at its core. And while science cannot determine why humans are here, it can explain through evolutionary theory how life evolved into the human form. At a certain point during this process humans developed various degrees of "self-awareness", which allowed us to contemplate "time" and "self" on a greater scale than other earthly life forms. One of the most critical aspects of self-awareness is the ability to contemplate one's own life span and more specifically–our own death. The realization that we as individuals are going to eventually die comes into direct conflict with one or our strongest and most basic human drives – survival. Less intelligent life forms that are not self-aware, such as dogs, do not have this problem because they don't contemplate their own life and death. The awareness of death burdened us with the weight of our own mortality. Through evolution, human intelligence also incorporated fundamental traits such as curiosity and problem-solving, which are of great benefit to humans as individuals and as a species – simply put, a large part of why we dominate is because of brainpower. Furthermore, we have evolved to become social animals and like other primates, our social order and the ability to function in units as a group gave us a power greater than more solitary species and likewise a major evolutionary advantage over other forms of life... and possibly even other lineages of man such as Cro-Magnon Man and Neanderthals, though there are a number of theories with no one as of yet validated.

      It becomes clear why the concept of God (or gods as it can be for some religions) was a positive evolutionary development at a certain point in time (which is not to say that for certain groups or individuals it cannot still hold a positive influence). It allows us to explain death, which comforts humans and helps us deal with our own mortality, our fear of death, and what "happens" to us after we expire. Socially, it provides moral and ethical justification for societal law and order that allows us to determine "right" from "wrong" and likewise function in more stable and complex social hierarchies that again provided major advantages to humans as both individuals and as a species. It also provides us the ability to answer questions such as those that are" Why?"-based and set our mind at ease in explaining the unknown, i.e. that questions that we do not now and may not ever have the ability to answer, like "Why does the universe exist?". However, if an individual now comes to understand the reasons why God may be merely a convenient answer to these greater questions and not a factual answer, one may choose to reject the notion of God altogether. In summation, while believers in cannot necessarily criticize those who subscribe to Faith since Science cannot provide all the answer, there is no observable factual evidence to support the existence of God, e.g. there is simply no observable evidence of any afterlife. As such the Faith-based community has no right either to criticize those who reject the notion of God or who simply acknowledge that we just don't really have answers to certain questions.

      August 24, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
      • MsAttitude

        Thank you for enriching my life with your presence on the net. Your response is gorgeous.

        August 25, 2011 at 10:48 am |
      • Knowing

        While it is not the objective of science to disprove God's existence, it’s very principles and foundation discounts Him by default. Looking at this Theory of Evolution objectively, one must question its possibility. How can intelligent human beings accept that by chance and over many years that the correct materials and matter came together to become all that we see today; that by shear chance the proper proteins and amino acids lined up in such a way to gender this complexity of a creation called human. Yet, without exception, nothing else occurs this way. Everything that exists today must have a blue print or a plan built into it to become "something". Apples cannot become oranges. Humans beget humans. If we came from this supposed evolutionary process, wouldn't it be conceivable that we'd produce an amphibious creature every now and again. In other words, how is it that something so random and imperfect could have stabilize itself (another interesting dilemma, how can something unstable become stable on its own) and then never stabilize. The bible's answer is that "each seed produces after its own kind". It seems that's what we've been observing for all of recorded history. It the last 10,000 years, no one has ever observed a creature of another species become a creature of another species. Should there be some evidence to this end? Should there be recorded phenomenon of such observations? Listen, I love science. But to me they confirm the existence of a creator, not the absence of one. It is because of the intelligence and precision in which thing we designed that we are able to pre-determine flight patterns to the moon with that same precision. It is why we can look both forward and backward and tell exactly were the stars and other heavenly bodies were or will be. Could this ability have been possible from a random act of some chaotic explosion million and billions of years ago? And, by the way, why is it that that is always the answer: when it doubt, add more years to it. It's like, since we can't understand how something so complex and profound could have happened, science add years in order to help it make sense. Yet, if one takes all of the material needs to make a building and toss them together in a heap, time would do nothing to erect that building. It's the same for organic materials. There are principles that govern the existence and process of everything. Are we saying that those principles were sorted out on their own? Yet, again, nothing else happens this way. There are laws that govern every level of creation, whether it's human, animal, insect, or an amoeba. Does one suppose that happened by itself? To one accept this is an insult to one's intelligence. Look, if you don't believe in God, that's your choice. But don't ask other's to believe in your religion. For it takes as much, if not more, faith to believe all of the things that godless scientist purport than to believe the bible or that God exists.

        August 25, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
      • Knowing

        1 While it is not the objective of science to disprove God's existence, it’s very principles and foundation discounts Him by default. Looking at this Theory of Evolution objectively, one must question its possibility. How can intelligent human beings accept that by chance and over many years that the correct materials and matter came together to become all that we see today; that by shear chance the proper proteins and amino acids lined up in such a way to gender this complexity of a creation called human. Yet, without exception, nothing else occurs this way. Everything that exists today must have a blue print or a plan built into it to become "something". Apples cannot become oranges. Humans beget humans. If we came from this supposed evolutionary process, wouldn't it be conceivable that we'd produce an amphibious creature every now and again. In other words, how is it that something so random and imperfect could have stabilize itself (another interesting dilemma, how can something unstable become stable on its own) and then never stabilize. The bible's answer is that "each seed produces after its own kind". It seems that's what we've been observing for all of recorded history. It the last 10,000 years, no one has ever observed a creature of another species become a creature of another species. Should there be some evidence to this end? Should there be recorded phenomenon of such observations? Listen, I love science. But to me they confirm the existence of a creator, not the absence of one. It is because of the intelligence and precision in which thing we designed that we are able to pre-determine flight patterns to the moon with that same precision. It is why we can look both forward and backward and tell exactly were the stars and other heavenly bodies were or will be. Could this ability have been possible from a random act of some chaotic explosion million and billions of years ago? And, by the way, why is it that that is always the answer: when it doubt, add more years to it. It's like, since we can't understand how something so complex and profound could have happened, science add years in order to help it make sense. Yet, if one takes all of the material needs to make a building and toss them together in a heap, time would do nothing to erect that building. It's the same for organic materials. There are principles that govern the existence and process of everything. Are we saying that those principles were sorted out on their own? Yet, again, nothing else happens this way. There are laws that govern every level of creation, whether it's human, animal, insect, or an amoeba. Does one suppose that happened by itself? To one accept this is an insult to one's intelligence. Look, if you don't believe in God, that's your choice. But don't ask other's to believe in your religion. For it takes as much, if not more, faith to believe all of the things that godless scientist purport than to believe the bible or that God exists.

        August 25, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
      • Retired Army in San Antonio

        "Knowing" Stated: "While it is not the objective of science to disprove God's existence, it’s very principles and foundation discounts Him by default. Looking at this Theory of Evolution objectively, one must question its possibility. How can intelligent human beings accept that by chance and over many years that the correct materials and matter came together to become all that we see today...."

        .

        Knowing, I disagree with you.....completely.

        What you're doing is excluding the posiblity of ANY relationship between God and Evolution (most people do this, BTW). We (at least most of us) accept Evolution as FACT......but then we also exclude the POSSIBILITY the God uses Evolution as his tool. People, who don't even believe in the Bible's 'Word', still take that Word literally when it comes to Creationism.....and in doing so, they discount the possibility that the 'Evolution of Species'.....could actually be the work of God!

        I, for one, refuse to place any limit on the power of God.....nor do I presume to know God's intent or purpose in doing something....anything....one way or another.

        I believe in God.....I believe Evolution is real....and I believe that it was not a matter of "chance" but that God made it real.

        August 25, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
      • Retired Army in San Antonio

        @ Knowing:

        OK.....I just read your entire post......and it seems that you and I are on the 'same sheet of music'.

        That ought to teach me to respond to a post.....without reading it entirely😦 !!!

        August 25, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Knowing,

        Wow, take a class in biology... I'll make it easy for you, here's a link to a YouTuber AaronRa, he uses big words but... you can figure it out... pictures and words together do this...

        http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/u/12/_r0zpk0lPFU

        Watch his other videos if you like. You may learn something about evolution...

        August 27, 2011 at 8:32 pm |
    • Kool Aid

      So let me get this straight...just because we cannot determine what lies beyond the visible universe and what happened before the Big Bang, that proves there is a guy who looks like a backup singer for ZZ Top running eveything? Gee, I wonder what else we can prove up using that same logic.

      Utter drivel. Please leave this blog and go find a home in some crazy evangelical ministry where you can sing, smoke crystal meth, and beat yourself over the head with a bible. There is simply no place for your kind here

      August 24, 2011 at 8:32 pm |
    • you guys should stop feeding into this

      Wow. Epic Troll Win.

      August 25, 2011 at 8:34 am |
    • Joel B. Martin

      I'd like to how the nature of God's existence figures into this bit Astrophysics? You're basically suggesting we're meddling with things that we humans should not because of an omnipotent power such as God.. God's existence doesn't matter in this issue. He, she, it, God that is, therefore exists because it is human nature to use myth to explain the unexplainable -and so we have now these parables, myths and stories collected to a thing called the Bible. Perhaps God is simply love among human beings already and your facile interpretation of God has you further at odds with he, she, it, because you're just a common zealot with no extendable perspective. Go to college.

      August 25, 2011 at 1:32 pm |
  10. Joe here in Colorado

    Man I want to stick my weiner in that.

    August 24, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
    • I Love Joe from CO

      LOL!!!!!!

      August 24, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
    • MsAttitude

      TBH I was a little hesitant opening this up, fearing it was an entertainment article...

      August 25, 2011 at 11:00 am |
  11. POE

    Gays and now cold Dwarfs? CNN is so liberally biased... Shame on you!

    August 24, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  12. Spacissa Ghustue

    Brown dwarf stars are racist.

    August 24, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
  13. JMO

    OK CNN, nice to throw a little science our way but can anyone answer a few simple questions:

    1) I assume these objects are only powered by gravitational collapse. Is that true?
    2) Are these objects in binary systems are are they alone?
    3) Have we gotten any measurements of the atmospheres yet? Mainly H2? CO?

    If there is a real astronomer watching this thread, I would love to hear a bit more on this.

    August 24, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
    • ChaoticDreams

      I'm an undergrad, but it's pretty minor stuff.

      1. They don't generate their own energy through fusion because they don't have enough mass. Gravitational collapse on large scale generally results in supernovae/black holes (+neutron stars, magnetars, etc.)
      2. They are probably alone, but it doesn't matter too much if they were in binary systems.
      3. No atmospheric makeup yet, black body curves (which yield temperature gauges) are generally easier and quicker to measure than spectroscopy line, which measure composition.

      Hope that helped.

      August 24, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
      • ChaoticDreams

        The heat it generates is from shedding it's thermal energy, sorry forgot to add that

        August 24, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
    • Normal Norm

      Any heat generated by the star is likely due to the fact that gas will heat up when compressed. The gravitational field of the star is supplying the compressional force.

      August 24, 2011 at 7:15 pm |
    • mikel

      I think I can answer the 1st question (I have a degree in astrophysics). I believe that the gravitational pull on these small dwarfs cannot overcome the electro-magnetic repulsion of the inner core. therefore would not collapse like a supernova.

      It could also be a inner core surrounded by a thick atmosphere that gives it the appearance of a failed star.

      The second question is general answered by the fact that binary stars are commonplace and single ones are rare.

      August 24, 2011 at 7:41 pm |
    • Andrew

      Even Jupiter is still heated by gravitational contraction. (I assume that's what you really meant by "gravitational collapse". They're similar but subtly different.) With this in mind, I'd expect many of these Y dwarfs to generate heat through continuing gravitational contraction.

      August 24, 2011 at 11:29 pm |
      • ChaoticDreams

        it's also heated by its churning metallic hydrogen ocean

        August 26, 2011 at 10:22 am |
      • Andrew

        @ChaoticDreams: Where does the churning metallic hydrogen ocean get its heat? Either radioactive decay (like Earth) or gravitational contraction. In Jupiter's case it's probably the latter. As for the Y dwarfs, I wouldn't be surprised if they also have churning metallic hydrogen oceans.

        August 31, 2011 at 9:33 am |
  14. Doomsday Cometh

    Derp, you people. This is another obvious subtle warning about NIBIRU! RUN!!!!!!!!!!

    August 24, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
  15. cpc65

    Brown Dwarf? Wasn't he like a half cousin to the Seven Dwarfs who lived from the city?

    August 24, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
    • Devilen

      Brown Dwarf was Gary Coleman

      August 24, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
      • dave

        That was unexpectedly hillarious.

        August 24, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
  16. Andrew Friet

    How long before there is a battle between the Science and God?

    August 24, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • Levi

      Retard... why even go there. this article is about stars. No where does it contest your beliefs. Stars are reall. Just look up at night

      August 24, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
      • Mark

        Retard is not a nice term to use for regular people. I say light a match and see if it'll light up

        August 24, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
      • Batman

        Fight! Fight! Thunderdome! Two men enter, one man leaves!

        August 24, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
    • conoclast

      Which side would YOU be on, hmm?

      August 24, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
      • Alex in Bremerton, WA

        Science! My Chemistry degree got me some nice jobs but they never paid as well as what a mega-preacher gets.

        August 24, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
      • JMO

        Alex: too true. Bilking the naive has always been a better gig than science.

        August 24, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
      • InfinitySquared

        Both🙂 They are not incompatible, you know.

        August 24, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
    • JMO

      Not that I believe in the whole, "God"-thing, but if I did, metaphysically who would have created natural law in the first place, the tooth-fairy? The "God vs Science" debate is really, "too stupid to understand science" vs "science, I get it".

      August 24, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
      • MsAttitude

        Then you come across those who think they are compatible. They're the "I passed all my science classes with flying colours, but still attend church more religiously (hah!) than work..." crowd.

        August 25, 2011 at 11:05 am |
      • 144000Elohim

        Science and God are 100% compatible in ways you cannot comprhend yet.

        I will say this, if science would ever be willing to look at their theories as theories (guesses) and not laws (prooven, repeatable, testable scientific surity) it would help explain many truths remaiining hidden through thier intellectual vanity.

        and if Bible readers/beleivers will ever stop trusting in a false interpretation of scripture, through language translations and hidden agendas, learn the two languages still alive today (Hebrew/Greek) the Bible was written in and with the guidence of God's spirit truely beleive the logos "relevatory thought" (word) of God.

        Both parties would actually be in awe and wonderment at the reality of existance both through science, and faith and how perfect all things are when truth is known, tested, and prooven.

        Take Care,

        August 26, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
  17. RMATTEN

    Maybe we should send Michelle Bachmann there to figure out how she is going to reduce the price of gas to $2/gal.

    August 24, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
    • John Hein

      Eat it RAMATTEN! No ones cares about your clever attepmt to circumvent your grand philosophic ideas about the upcomig election with a dimwitted post. Just like no one cared enough to tell your great grandmother that her thanksgiving pies were absolutely fantastic. She should have gone into the pie making business and sold them to third generation chicken pox survivors. Seriously no one cares.

      Baba Booey!

      August 24, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
      • kite005

        I care too but I don't think she can figure out the gas thing. Just send her there.

        August 24, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
      • Go back to /b/

        Please go back there you failure of a troll. Considering your trying to flame people on a CNN article, I'd say you're probably 35. So please, let me inquire more about this subject without you saying incredibly stupid things.

        August 24, 2011 at 7:09 pm |
    • Hank the angry Dwarf Star

      I care.
      I like pie.
      Bachmann is not too bright.

      Baba Booey to y'all!

      August 24, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
      • John Hein

        Of course Hank would care! He is finger licking good. No one else.

        August 24, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
    • Joe here in Colorado

      Are some people really so consumed with politics that they can not read a science article without bringing their political baggage into the conversation?

      Really??

      August 24, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
      • MsAttitude

        =) Yeah...but what's the fun in not dragging EVERYONE you come across on the net into a good, old fashioned political debate? I mean, we do it from the moment we start to clique off in kindergarten, it's human nature.

        August 26, 2011 at 12:47 pm |
  18. Jim Slim

    Well they will need to re write physics Now, The hydron collider found no higgs particle. So that was a waist of 7.5 billion euros.think of the poverty we could have got rid of.
    Oh well these stars are smashing things to look at.
    anyone up for the theory that gravity is formed by twisted dark energy?. no thats to easy, lets make it complicated?. and spend another 7 billion.

    August 24, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • Batman

      Agreed. 7 billion it is. Smashing idea. Simply smashing.

      August 24, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
      • John Hein

        Eat it Batman. That is a terrible idea just like you idea to wake up and chase the Penguin. Just let him be. The next time you think will be your first so stop wasting everyones time and start remodelling your laundry closet already. Everyone knows it is full of detergent from the 70's an old war memoriabilla. Maybe you you use a couple of throw or a nice vase. Think about it.

        Baba Booey!

        August 24, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
      • kite005

        Where did you get smashing? I thought it was BOOM and POW with you!

        August 24, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
      • MsAttitude

        @kat005, it's the 2010's...get with the program!

        August 26, 2011 at 12:51 pm |
    • YoureADoofus

      Yes, Jim Slim, we should definitely "waist" another 7 billion – YoureADoofus

      August 24, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
      • Mark

        Its going to cost more than 7 billion to get rid of the waist of fat Americans

        August 24, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
    • IdahoTom

      Wow, you are retarded past recognition Slim Jim. Higgs boson is not "debunked" yet. Since you obviously do not have any professional career experience in science (no not political science), or you are a wannabe know-it-all physics major undergraduate, here's a short explanation of how science is really done.

      For a large collider like LHC (Large "HADRON" collider, no Hydron), it takes upto 6 month to slowly accelerate the relativistic particles in which it is finally ready to be collided. Then after they start collision, they have to keep a very very very good statistics that can take another couple of years. Then after the statistics are taken, they have to perform a statistical analysis (usually the later two are done in parallel) which can take another couple of years. LHC came online in 2008. It's only been 3 years, nothing has been debunked. Higgs boson is a "prediction" at this point and the predicted mass changes based on the iteration between theorists and the experimentalists exchanging new thoughts and results.

      I'm sorry you lack any sense of reality. 7 billion in poverty is yet another short term solution, creating jobs through a scientific discovery and subsequent technological development is a long term solution. It's because people always only look at short-term effects is the reason why most people are in poverty in the first place. Look into the future. Be patient kiddo.

      August 24, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
      • John Hein

        Eat it IdahoTom! No on cares about your fancy deep though producing brain. No one. Oh your so fancy that you can beak a simple generalized comment into thousands silly little letters. Impressive. Did you learn that when you were training for your government job. You know the one where you randomly do stupid things and claim it is policy. Your so vein, you don't even know what the song is about. it is about you and you sinster later ego, YOU!

        Baba Booey!

        August 24, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
      • YoureADoofus

        I wonder what "professional career experience in science" you have had?!

        "Then after the statistics are taken, they have to perform a statistical analysis (usually the later two are done in parallel) which can take another couple of years."

        I am no expert, but I am pretty sure that "statistics" are not "taken" (maybe you mean, "measurements are taken") – and I do know that writing that makes you sound like a doofus.

        August 24, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
      • humble

        thanks Tom for that good info on the LHC.

        August 24, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
    • Mark

      You really think we could have gotten rid of some poverty by giving away 7 billion? Have you heard of the stimulus package? Oh yeah, poverty in the U.S. is gone because we gave away 1 trillion dollars. Giving money away doesn't fix poverty. People fix poverty.

      August 24, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
    • wrong - wrong - wrong - wrong

      Nope – just because HB hasn't been found yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It took them 10 years to find these babies after theorizing about them.

      AND, what's the likelihood of $7 B not spent on science going toward curtailing poverty? I like the odds of finding the HB better.

      August 24, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
    • JMO

      7 billion wasted? I should point out that the work of Newton has survive much longer the Newton or anyone else of his age. All dead and gone: King, pauper, servant, slave, sinner and saint. All dead. Only science and art give civilization immortality. The work of LHC will survive, regardless of the outcome, far beyond the lives of the scientists that are working on it. 7 Billion is cheap.

      August 24, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
    • kite005

      That project is pretty much just beginning. The Hubble had a rockier start and wound up being pretty good. When it comes to R & D there are more failures than successes but if one doesn't try than one can never succeed.

      August 24, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
    • Alex in Bremerton, WA

      Edit spelling and grammar much? Your waist is above your hips!

      August 24, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
  19. bob

    i saw a dwarf on Uranus last night

    August 24, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • Mark

      That was a pimple

      August 24, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
    • rc roeder

      uh huh...wipe your chin you are drolling with delight at i would call a lame joke. Your 15 millisecons of fame is up

      August 24, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
  20. Gary Coleman

    Brown Dawrf = Gary Coleman.

    August 24, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
    • Batman

      R.I.P. Arnold.

      August 24, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
  21. Brian

    I want to take a whole bunch of these brown drawfs and smash them into each other. That would be fun.

    August 24, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
  22. Barry G.

    Just imagine. Only 40 light-years away of our sun.

    Now let's see...

    Given the rate of speed our space craft currently travel....and the distance that light travels in forty years...

    ...carry the one...

    ...divide that...

    o.k., I got it.

    It would take us a very, very long time to travel to this brown dwarf star.

    We're fortunate to have these marvelous telescopes.

    August 24, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
    • LOGAN

      ROFL!!!😀

      August 24, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
    • TexMik

      So...are you saying pack an extra lunch and a light jacket for the trip?

      August 24, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
  23. Gilles

    >Control F "Nibiru"
    >0 results

    Everything went better than expected

    August 24, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
    • Lol

      People are dumb... Planet X really?

      August 24, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
  24. study hard

    Maybe instead of toilets,you should study about planet x. You might start getting your affairs in order.December 21,2012 is not far away

    August 24, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
    • Batman

      So, let me see if I've got this straight... the world is going to end, so we should get our affairs in order?

      August 24, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
      • world

        So on December 22, do we get an apology from the religious fanatics, or is it on to the next bit of mind control.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
      • John Hein

        Eat is Batman. Get your affairs in order and stop hassling the Joker. Seriously, bark up your own tree.

        My tree is filled with berries from Robin Quivers. Baba Booey!

        August 24, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
      • John Hein

        I'm sorry... that was mean. I am going to eat it instead. I like eating it.

        August 24, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
      • L

        I thought the 2012 fiasco was started by archeologist not religious fanatics. So every dooms day prediction is from religion?

        August 24, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
      • standingwave

        John,you really should eat it.

        August 24, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
      • Greg

        Dont look at us Christians we didnt come up with that date in December

        August 24, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
    • LuisWu

      You should give me all your money since you won't be needing it.

      August 24, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
      • Batman

        That what I'm thinking... take out some big-a$$ loans, get a mountain of coke, and call the h00kers... the party starts now, not on Dec 21, 2012 (that's when the party ends). Or are you saying that God is going to check my credit score?

        August 24, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
      • John Hein

        Eat it Luis Wu. Quit being a little baby and act like a man. Oh here do you want a bottle? How about a warm blankie? No! You get nothing becasue you did not beat Tampa Bay in Tecmo Bowl. Seriously go play your little mind games with something from your own dimension and stop hassling the Joker.

        Baba Booey.

        August 24, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • Tim

      Dec. 2012 isn't a religious prediction, it's an idiot prediction. It's funny to see just how dumb and fear-based people can be, all based on nothing at all but some ridiculous rumor or mention of it that no one would otherwise take seriously. Anyway, I think most people mention it trying to be funny. At least I hope for their sake.

      August 24, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
    • MsAttitude

      It amuses me that your screen name is study hard and you talk about 2012 like the average dolt. If you actually did 'study hard', you'd realize it's not a prediction of the end of the world. It is where the Mayan calendar ends. People ASSUME it means many things. Silly, read. There are many out there who think it's the beginning of a new era. There are whackos who think the Mayans will return from some super-celestial travel, or that the world will end. Ever wonder if they just ran out of room?

      August 25, 2011 at 11:14 am |
      • Retired Army in San Antonio

        Correct.....the Mayan calendar ENDS in 2012......and that is all THINK ABOUT IT! It was carved into a stone; the entire surface of the stone was used; THE SPACE FOR THE CALENDAR WAS FINITE!

        It ended in 2012 because there was NO MORE SPACE for additional days.months/years!

        Seriously......it's not like today where we have computers to calculate calendars out to the year 3000 and beyond.

        And speaking of which......any of hever seen a calendar for the year 2512? Does that mean the world is gonna end in 2512, or there abouts?????

        August 25, 2011 at 11:27 am |
      • MsAttitude

        No...but my desk calendar ends December 31, 2011 – it's a Saturday. Should I be concerned?

        August 26, 2011 at 12:23 pm |
  25. Koco B-Ware

    I always thought that Brown dwarf stars were midget Bollywood actors. Wow, I guess I learned something new today!

    August 24, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • standingwave

      Either that or famous Mexican midget wrestlers.

      August 24, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
  26. I'm The Best!

    This is pretty cool. Basicly the same as jupiter though. It gives off more heat than it takes in from the sun, I'd assume these Y Dwarfs are the same thing, just not orbiting they're own star.

    August 24, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • I'm The Best!

      oops,
      They're = Their in that last sentence.

      August 24, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
      • CommonSense

        Phew! Close one! Good thing you corrected that mistake or the spelling police woulda been all over your a$$!! It's brutal out here...

        August 24, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
    • Matt

      Brown dwarfs are still much larger than Jupiter, and even the smallest are greater than 10 Mj (Jupiter masses). Many have also experienced some type of fusion in their life times.

      August 24, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
      • Batman

        Poor things... really? They experienced fusion at some point in their lives? That's terrible. Maybe George Clooney can do a Stop the Fusion telethon.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
      • John Hein

        Eat it Matt! No one care about your vast knoledge of Jupiter Masses or the fact that your left side profile makes you look like an extra from the fruit Loops commercial. Just shut the business end of yourself with a high colonic.

        Baba Booey.

        August 24, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
  27. Yakobi.

    Yesterday I gave birth to a brown dwarf in the toilet. I took a picture of it and posted it on Facebook.

    Shine on you crazy diamond!

    August 24, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
    • Batman

      OK, that one made me laugh out loud. Nice work.

      August 24, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
    • This guy

      I wish i could give birth to a brown star because it always seems like I am exorcising a demon

      August 24, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
      • Batman

        The power of Christ compels you.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
    • Celso Arai Jr.

      LOL

      August 24, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
      • LOGAN

        ROFL!!😛

        August 24, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • John Hein

      Eat it Yakobi! No, seriously, eat it.

      Baba booey.

      August 24, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
  28. palintwit

    Soon to be released new movie... " Invasion of The Enema Bandits From Uranus " starring Sarah Palin and her entire dysfunctional family.

    August 24, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
    • LuisWu

      Please. I was eating. Now you've spoiled my lunch.

      August 24, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
      • RCWhite364

        Or you blew it all over your screen.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
      • LuisWu

        That too.

        August 24, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
    • ncvbnsdfwn

      jknfvnpia kcdnio[ sdkas asdk[ 7823786TE3T5 B C J ..
      And I take it you think O'mama is the greatest thing since apple pie.
      I started typing in my planets language but decided you weren't smart enough to translate it.

      August 24, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
      • trigtwit... America's favorite tard baby

        Here's a wet one for you from my planet... ***poot***

        August 24, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
  29. Nofoldems

    Couldn't they get a better image instead of using a shot of an inverse colored Jupiter?

    August 24, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
    • Batman

      Maybe you missed that part in the article... it's infrared, man! Infrared. You need those 3-D goggles to see it....

      August 24, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
    • Lou

      Maybe with the James Webb telescope...

      August 24, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
  30. Tanker

    Yeah, very interesting.

    Still waiting for the Space Women in tin foil bathing suits...

    August 24, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
    • AGuest9

      From the looks of the posts, many here wear tin-foil hats.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
      • Batman

        tin foil hats? is that some sort of astronomer dis? "you sir, wear a tin foil hat!". "hey, now I know why tigers eat their young! whoa, baby you must have been something before electricity!"

        August 24, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
    • Tanker

      In the Star Trek Episode, the Gamesters of triskellion, the babe in the tin foil bikini was played by Angelique Pettyjohn.

      Your nerd momemt has been brought to you by the number 12, and the letter "G"

      August 24, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
      • MsAttitude

        ❤ this!!!!

        August 26, 2011 at 12:26 pm |
    • LuisWu

      That's the real reason we cancelled the last Apollo mission. No moon babes.

      August 24, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
      • Chris.

        Would you rather see moon babes, or babes moon?

        August 24, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
  31. Deep North

    I saw a brown dwarf once....he lived in Watts!

    August 24, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
    • Batman

      Why do we have to call them brown dwarfs? I don't see colors of Dwarfs. Can't they just be referred to as Dwarf Americans?

      August 24, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
      • MsAttitude

        Turning a blind eye as such is rather disrespectful. Learn to accept, honor, and value those of different colours. =P

        August 26, 2011 at 12:28 pm |
      • MsAttitude

        at such*...not as such. Silly, silly keyboard...

        August 26, 2011 at 12:50 pm |
    • LuisWu

      That would be stature challenged Americans.

      August 24, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
      • John Hein

        Eat it LuisWu! Just stop pranciing around here like a large elk or delicate gray moose with one antler. What did you do with the other antler? Oh thats right you lost it while looking for you baby bottle. Stop it and go sit in the corner with you high colonic waste water.

        Baba Booey!

        August 24, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
  32. Mike

    It is sad to see such ignorance of science in these comments! 1. Yes we can detect atmospheres at 40 light years. 2. No that is too far for their gravity to have a significant effect. There are hundreds of stars 40 light years away or closer.

    August 24, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
    • Tom

      I know! Too bad we can't ship most of this losers into deep outer space!

      August 24, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
      • AGuest9

        I understand the Russians still have rockets.

        August 24, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
      • Cedar Rapids

        They have one less today

        August 24, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
      • MsAttitude

        @Cedar Rapids:
        HAHAHAHA

        Do you really think they lost it? >=D

        August 26, 2011 at 12:29 pm |
    • Batman

      The horror..... the horror.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
    • JohnGalt69

      We simply can't afford more government spending on 'science', looking at things millions of miles away when we've got so many problems here at home and a President who spends more time on the golf course than he does killing bin Laden! Tax and spend liberals and their quest for truth and harmony in understanding the vast and incomprehensible cosmos...you don't need to spend money to get truth, it's in the bible for free!

      August 24, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
      • palintwit

        Why aren't there any titty pictures in the bible?

        August 24, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
      • LuisWu

        The truth? In the bible? You'd rather get your "truth" from an ancient book of mythology than from modern science? Get a brain.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
      • Batman

        Holy.... wow... i'm speechless..... talk about serving it up on a silver platter... oh boy... who wants to take this one? If someone doesn't take this one baby jesus is going to cry.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
      • Mike

        Posted signage: Please don't feed the troll.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
      • Brian

        So what I'm supposed to get from this is that you want the president to take his time killing the likes of bin Laden. At least as long as it takes to play 18 holes of golf. I could support that. Maybe some bamboo growing through the chest. That can take days.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
      • 3vix6

        People like you are the reason why I stopped voting Republican.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
      • Cedar Rapids

        It was an attempt to get all the talking points into one post

        August 24, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
      • someone

        The Bible is a book of religion, not of science. As a religious person I can tell you that religious books are not the best place to search for science at all. Not all truth can be found in a single book.

        August 24, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
      • MsAttitude

        @ someone – kudos. I was 13 when I was introduced to the idea that text books were merely HIS story...him being the champion, he gets to rewrite it to better suit his side. *cough cough 1984, Braveheart cough cough*.

        That teacher forever changed my world.

        August 26, 2011 at 12:34 pm |
  33. Jesus Lover

    The bible tells me that y dwarfs do not exist.

    August 24, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • Paranoid Nutcase

      and i must have missed the part where God said we should be sticking our noses into his realm.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
      • Batman

        soooo, you're saying Y Dwarfs are God's realm, but the other places in our solar system are ok for us to explore? Ok. That makes sense. Just checking.

        August 24, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
      • AGuest9

        "All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landings there."

        August 24, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
      • The Jackdaw

        thank you for the Calrk quote!

        August 24, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
      • Barry G.

        Don't you recognize sarcasm, when you read or hear it!

        August 24, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
      • MsAttitude

        @ Batman – so if Y dwarfs are in his realm, then are Z dwarfs in ours?

        August 26, 2011 at 12:35 pm |
    • Abnostic

      The bible doesn't tell you alot of things. After all, this restrictive philosophy is lacking in current events..........

      August 24, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
    • Mike

      [citation needed]

      Seriously. Where in the bible does it say 'Brown dwarves do not exist'?

      August 24, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
      • Batman

        Page 43.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
      • MsAttitude

        Doesn't that depend on what version you have? Paperback and hardback are typically printed differently.

        August 26, 2011 at 12:37 pm |
  34. Raphael

    I wish people would stop calling them 'failed stars'. Why 'failed'? They might have their own place in the scale of nature, the great chain of being. 'Great / Or bright infers not excellence' as the poet said.

    August 24, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • Foot Stomper

      yes, we wouldn't want to hurt their feelings.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
      • Batman

        Too bad failed stars don't get to vote in this country. Otherwise the Dems would put them on some sort of inter-galactic entitlements.

        August 24, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
      • standingwave

        Actually I think they'd more comfortable with current GOP presidential contenders.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
    • Neanderthal at heart

      We shouldn't call them failed stars, it might their self esteem

      August 24, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
      • MsAttitude

        It might...WHAT...their self esteem!? The suspense is KILLING me!

        ps love your s/n

        August 26, 2011 at 12:42 pm |
  35. Garth Vader

    SO now we can detect atmospheres' at 40 light yrs away.........plzz

    August 24, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • RSFan

      ignorant

      August 24, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • Christopher

      You might want to stick to reading articles that have nothing to do with science. CNN's religion blog might be more appropriate.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
      • Batman

        wow, brainiacs commenting on space and religion blogs at the same time... won't that open up some sort of worm hole or cause the planet to implode?

        August 24, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
      • someone

        Not the religion blog, the idiot blog. It has a secret URL. We should go there!

        http://www.thiswebsiteisactuallyusedbytheunitedstatesgovernmenttoaffectyourneuralfunction.gov.

        August 24, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
      • someone

        I forgot something, when you go there, don't forget to bring your state-of-the-art tinfoil hat. This will help your mind remain coherent so you can report this conspiracy to the websites that cover them.

        Haven't you people realized that there is no conspiracy? The government/MNC's would be taking action against you if there had been one, to ensure its success. That has not happen.

        August 24, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
    • Paul

      It's called spectroscopy, pick up a science book for once in your life.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
      • Batman

        Ah, spectroscopy... I had one of those tests done once. They didn't find anything though. Thank God. Oh sorry, didn't mean to cross the streams and bring religion to this board.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
  36. JeffinIL

    The first rule of Death Stars is no one talks about Death Stars.

    August 24, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
    • JeffinIL

      D'oh! That was a reply that missed. Sorry.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
  37. mirrorview

    Uranus is safe from being explored now!

    August 24, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
  38. Naomi

    As cool as a human body? Can we be really stars, then? Yey!!

    August 24, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
    • Advanced Civilization

      You ARE a star! Shine Naomi, shine!

      August 24, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • Skeptic

      I don't know about you, but, yes, I am a star, a porn star.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
    • AGuest9

      How did you escape the Belief Blog? Please stay out of Science! You are barely tolerable in Religion.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        I was thinking the same thing.... Why would such a religious nut even come close to the science blog...?

        August 24, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
    • Gary

      Your named backwards is I Moan. You're already a star in my book.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        EPIC!!!! ROFLMAOSHIAPMP.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
  39. failed_star

    Perhaps our president is a failed star... I have no doubt obama at the very least had something to do with their failure, just like he's failed with our country! LOL, just kidding, this is me making a joke as to the ridiculous nature of our current politics in this country....

    August 24, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • Tanker

      That analogy is to pained its almost a war crime...

      August 24, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
    • Abnostic

      More than likely a closet racist.................

      August 24, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
      • Batman

        soooo, anyone who thinks that Obama has failed is.... a racist. Right. Of course. That makes sense.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
  40. Paul

    6 within 40 light years?? Astronomically speaking that is way to close. Since these are failed stars, how does the gravitational forces of 6 of these things effect our solar system?

    August 24, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • Advanced Civilization

      We are about to send them at Earth for a gelactic game of billiards.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
      • PDT484NMA

        "Gelactic"? Is that like space Jello?

        August 24, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
      • Advanced Civilization

        It is from where we stand. We also didn't standardize spelling.

        August 24, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • AGuest9

      At up to 40 ly, not at all. Gravity follows the inverse-square law function.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
      • Batman

        RIght, the old inverse-square law function, of course! Can we use Pi? Pleeeeaassse? "Whadda ya gonna use, 220?", "Yeah. 220. 221. Whatever it takes."

        August 24, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • phearis

      Well, considering that our solar system had been here for over 4-Billion years; I'd say the odds that they will effect us are probably somewhere around Zero to None. lol

      August 24, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
    • Astro-nut

      Since there are over 50 actual stars within 20 LY of Sol, I'd think 6 Y-class dwarf celestial bodies within twice that distance is sparse.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
      • Adam

        Kudos on knowing the name of our star...so few people actally do.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
      • Batman

        I just checked with the Sparse people, and I am happy to say that I can confirm that this officially counts as Sparse.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • Phil

      There are dozens of stars within half that distance of our solar system; I don't think we'll notice these 6 objects' influence. A light-year is a very, very long way.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
    • John

      You're looking at one measurement in AU, and the other in light years. Result? No effect.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
      • Batman

        AU? What does Australia have to do with this? Who cares what they think, they drive on the wrong side of the road with the steering wheel on the wrong side too.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
    • Deep North

      It affects it the way it always has...You haven't noticed the difference and wont!

      August 24, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
    • Jell

      Wow, you DO know there are 26 stars within 12 light years, and 3 within 5, right? 6 failed ones within 40 is not really significant.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
    • Jessica

      "how does the gravitational forces of 6 of these things effect our solar system?" Not at all. Not even close to affecting us in any way. Gravity is the weakest force out there. Even a pencil that fell on the floor can be picked up by you meaning that you are stronger than Earth's gravity.

      August 24, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
      • Batman

        I don't know, Jessica.... A pencil is pretty small. I'm thinking that if a brown dwarf fell on the floor, you wouldn't be able to pick it up.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
      • Brian

        I fell down last week and let me tell ya, gravity is a bitch.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
  41. Jack Be Humble

    Would Jupiter be considered a brown dwarf or failed star?

    August 24, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
    • Advanced Civilization

      It would be if it wasn't a planet.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • Matt

      Im under the impression it is too small to count as either.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
      • Retired Army in San Antonio

        Jupiter's radius is roughly the same as any 'common' brown dwarf'.

        August 24, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
    • Jovian

      Jupiter is estimated to have about 10% of the mass required to become a star. One could perhaps consider it to be a brown dwarf.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
      • Vipergtsrgt1

        I read somewhere a number much larger than that. Either way, it's definitely lacking the mass to have come close to being a star. At least as our understanding of stars is concerned right now.🙂

        August 24, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
      • Batman

        I saw a chick at lunch who I'm pretty sure had enough mass to become a star. Just sayin'.

        August 24, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
  42. TheTruth72

    Check out Elenin. The mainstream media wont tell you much about it, but it will be passing earth late Sept.

    August 24, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
    • Batman

      Elenin – wasn't that the kid from Cuba like 10 years ago?

      August 24, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
    • AGuest9

      It's going to pass well ahead of Earth.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
      • Vipergtsrgt1

        So.... you mean the Nibiru Collision isn't going to happen this October? Man, I have to stop joining doomsday cults. They never quite pan-out.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
  43. Hashim

    For more info on wonders of the universe read novel - king of Bat'ha

    August 24, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • JohnGalt69

      For moer info on how the stars and space r non of our bisness read book – teh BIBLE

      August 24, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
      • LuisWu

        For someone who thinks (wrongly) that he knows it all, you sure don't know anything about basic spelling.

        August 24, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
      • T-Ray

        LuisWu, now that's funny!! And you are so right.

        August 24, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
  44. SoundGuy

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD6YZejahFI&w=640&h=390]

    August 24, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
    • MDW

      Could these types of objects be the "missing matter" that led to the need for the elusive "dark matter" that represents the majority of the matter in the universe? Could these cold bodies and unknown numbers of black holes add up to the supposed missing matter of the universe?

      August 24, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
      • Batman

        For all of this and more, tune in next week. Same bat time. Same bat channel.

        August 24, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
      • Andrew

        If the frequencies of stellar types continues down to the Y dwarfs, they should be very common. However, they're too low mass to contribute significantly to the missing mass even if there are very many of them. Also, I believe their contribution to the visible mass has been included as an estimate. You ask a good question, but unfortunately I believe the answer is no.

        August 24, 2011 at 11:41 pm |
  45. BRogers

    So, are any inhabitable???

    August 24, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
    • Sybaris

      "have atmospheres similar to those of gas giant planets"

      August 24, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
      • Advanced Civilization

        We use them as petting zoos for creatures that float by the production and capture of their own methane.

        August 24, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
  46. Rory

    Wow, the universe is filled with so many wonderful things. It's so intriguing to think of what else is out there that we haven't discovered yet. In a way, for me it's kind of reassuring that it is almost definitely not just us in this big, cold place.

    August 24, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
    • Batman

      Hey man, can I get a hit on that, too?

      August 24, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
      • Rory

        Lmao Batman, you are my hero

        August 24, 2011 at 7:55 pm |
    • Deep Space Fine

      Absolutely right Rory! Considering that we're still discovering new things on our planet daily, I'd say you're onto something there!

      August 24, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
      • Batman

        Yay, Rory!

        August 24, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
  47. Kore

    Oh no, you are wrong. they are just fake stars.. they are Death stars. An advanced civilization has created many of them in key points of the galaxy in order to control it. :C

    August 24, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
    • Advanced Civilization

      We would appreciate it if you would not tell people about this.

      August 24, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
      • JeffinIL

        The first rule of Death Stars is no one talks about the Death Stars.

        August 24, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
      • Advanced Civilization

        We do not allow fight clubs on Deth Stars. There is far too much work to be done for that kind of cockfoolery.

        August 24, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
      • JeffinIL

        Maybe after lunch?

        August 24, 2011 at 3:43 pm |

Contributors

  • Elizabeth LandauElizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia DengoSophia Dengo
    Senior Designer