An anonymous reader writes 'Jupiter's gravity captured a comet in the mid-20th century, holding it in orbit as a temporary moon for 12 years. The comet, named 147P/Kushida-Muramatsu, is the fifth body known to have been pulled by Jupiter from its orbit around the Sun. The discovery adds to our understanding of how Jupiter interferes with objects from the 'Hilda group,' which are asteroids and comets with orbits related to Jupiter's orbit.'
In mathematics, there are two conventions for the set of natural numbers: it is either the set of positive integers {1, 2, 3,...} according to the traditional definition or the set of non-negative integers {0, 1, 2,...} according to a definition first appearing in the nineteenth century.
Every prime number is a natural number, and every natural nu
The comet's shape was revealed to be rectilinear Though some thought it a doorway with stars in here with an aspect ratio comprising the squares of the first 3 non-zero positive primes. Burma shave
You're thinking of the dimensions of the TMA-1 Monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey. In The Sentinel (which 2001 was very loosely based on), the beacon is not a cuboid and has no such geometrical connection to prime numbers.
The importance of this theorem is one of the reasons for the exclusion of 1 from the set of prime numbers. If 1 were admitted as a prime, the precise statement of the theorem would require additional qualifications, since 3 could then be decomposed in different ways
3 = 1 3 and 3 = 1 1 1 3 = 13 3.
Until the 19th century, most mathematicians considered the number 1 a prime, the definition being just that a prime is divisible only by 1 and itself but not requiring a specific number of distinct divisors. There is still a large body of mathematical work that is valid despite labeling 1 a prime, such as the work of Stern and Zeisel. Derrick Norman Lehmer's list of primes up to 10,006,721, reprinted as late as 1956,[4] started with 1 as its first prime.[5] Henri Lebesgue is said to be the last professional mathematician to call 1 prime.[citation needed] The change in label occurred so that the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, as stated, is valid, i.e., "each number has a unique factorization into primes."[6][7] Furthermore, the prime numbers have several properties that the number 1 lacks, such as the relationship of the number to its corresponding value of Euler's totient function or the sum of divisors function.[8]"
Actually, had there been no Jupiter in our Solar system, the aliens would have probably parked the monolith in the orbit of Iapetus instead of Europa. Europa only made commuting easier for them.
Yes, it did. A planet like Jupiter may actually have been essential for complex life to develop on Earth.
Maybe. However in addition to capturing bodies that could have threatened earth, Jupiter also attracts objects from the Oort Cloud etc. that would not have been any threat to Earth otherwise. The jury is still out on whether Jupiter is actually a net positive.
Yeah, and it's been thrown around the table a few times, but we still haven't figured out what sort of payment Jupiter will accept (or how to get it there). Hiring out gas giants for protection turns out to be less easy than you'd expect.
But srsly, if we were to focus on generating models of our solar system, it could lead to a better understanding of which comets/asteroids will stay in Jupiter's orbit, which will be hurled out of the system, which will be thrown into the sun, and - most importantly - which will cross earth's orbit.
We also need to start practicing with deflecting/destroying asteroids/comets.
These should be our top priority.
And yet we are only tracking a small percentage of potentially dangerous objects.
NASA should be spending most - if not all - of its budget preparing to avert a comet/asteroid from hitting earth.
With all due respect, I disagree. Yes, some resources should be directed at that problem. But there is so much more that can and should be done by NASA. The Hubble, Chandra, and Spitzer telescopes are a good example.
But what is the point in surviving if all we are doing is treading water? Sure we could spend billions on monitoring near space for potentially dangerous objects, but IMO we're better off spending those billions on things that can advance technology.
And in the (very) long run, our currently feeble attempts at space travel may lead to the best defense against catastrophic collisions -- another colonized planet.
Sorry, but how is colonizing another planet going to prevent a catastrophic collision?
Imagine when all of what would become the human race lived in one valley in Africa. One particularly harsh winter or dry summer could wipe out the whole species, right? If that happened today it might still be a catastrophe but humanity would go on. If we had self-sufficient colonies on other planets, an asteroid could destroy the earth without killing off humanity.
It won't help prevent a body from hitting the earth.
What it will do is lessen the relative damage caused by such an impact.
Instead of wiping out all of humanity, and drastically change the ecosystem humans live in, it will only wipe out part of humanity, and some of the ecosystems we live in.
You know that old adage about putting all your eggs in one basket (don't do it!) -- we currently have all our eggs in one basket, and it would be nice if we could change that situation.
We are the first and only known organism that has the ability to improve the state of it's species. We have the ability to make ourselves great and prosper and you propose we do nothing more than simply survive. Take about underachievement.
NASA should be spending most - if not all - of its budget preparing to avert a comet/asteroid from hitting earth.
Everything else is moot if we let that happen.
Unfortunately Congress is more concerned with steroids in baseball. Sometimes I think we deserve to become extinct.
If we just gave enough steroids to the baseball players, they could probably hit any threatening meteors, asteroids, or comets out of the solar system, thereby solving both problems.
Who cares about the species? I want to detect the coming apocalypse and move before it happens. Frying all human life on planet earth will be game over for me, and I find very little comfort in the knowledge that humanity will survive elsewhere in the galaxy.
I'd just like to go on records as saying Numbers is painful to watch from a mathematical point of view. It most definitely does not earn you any geek points.
SPOILER (to explain why the movie is relevant to my post, if you haven't seen it and don't mind reading a complete spoiler):
Knowing is about an impending massive solar flare which destroys all life on planet earth. An alien race abducts a couple of kids to restart the human race. Nicolas Cage, who plays the dad of one of the kids, has to come to terms with his own approaching doom, and also with allowing his son to be taken by t
The dinosaurs saved it there for eventual revenge on the mammals. It's like a snowball in the freezer so that you can pound your enemy in the summer, when they least expect it.
The article says that the comet had an orbit around Jupiter of 12 years. Well Jupiter has an orbital period around the sun of almost exactly 12 years also. Does this mean that the comet was in orbit around Jupiter or that it was merely in an orbit that was very similar to Jupiter's (in relation to the sun).
I believe that there is a NEO that basically does the same thing around earth. It travels in an orbit around the sun just slightly different from the earth so that sometimes it is in front of the earth on it's path and sometimes it is behind. From our perspective it makes a complex lissajous (spelling?) track. But I seem to remember it is definitely NOT "orbiting" the earth.
The article doesn't specifically state whether or not the comet is gravitationally bound to Jupiter which I guess is the definition of "orbiting" (I'm not a professional astronomer). Even if it was orbiting Jupiter, with a period of 12 years it was very loosely bound. In any case, how was it brought into Jupiter's proximity? How did it get ejected? Where is it now?
"between 1949 and 1961 two full revolutions around Jupiter were completed" (by the comet in question, around Jupiter)
Two revolutions is not much. It's an orbit, but not a steady orbit. Shoemaker-Levy 9 did 12 orbits in 50 years, a little bit more stable, but alas, it crashed into the planet.
Does this mean that the comet was in orbit around Jupiter or that it was merely in an orbit that was very similar to Jupiter's (in relation to the sun).
The astronomer in the article said that the comet was in orbit around Jupiter -- ergo moon, not simply an object in a similar orbit around the sun.
I never really understood the whole "Hot Ice" thing (former jewel thief, maybe?) but Hilda was awesome. Pity she had to buy it early on in the series so Gene could be the star.
The comet's shape (Score:5, Funny)
The comet's shape was revealed to be rectilinear, with an aspect ratio comprising the squares of the first 3 non-zero positive primes.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
My God, it's full of stars.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
non-zero positive primes
Isn't that somewhat redundant?
Re: (Score:2)
No, because "non-zero" can be negative too. Although I suppose the end result will be positive regardless...
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Prime number [wikipedia.org]:
Natural number [wikipedia.org]:
Every prime number is a natural number, and every natural nu
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The comet's shape was revealed to be rectilinear
Though some thought it a doorway with stars in here
with an aspect ratio comprising the squares
of the first 3 non-zero positive primes.
Burma shave
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The comet's shape was revealed to be rectilinear, with an aspect ratio comprising the squares of the first 3 non-zero positive primes.
I thought only Uranus was rectalinear.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was not an entirely settled matter when The Sentinel was written.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The comet's shape (Score:5, Informative)
From Wikipedia:
At least I came by it honestly.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, it was for 12 years
Re: (Score:2)
Good catch Jupiter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good catch Jupiter (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it did. A planet like Jupiter may actually have been essential for complex life to develop on Earth.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What an intelligent design to put it there, to dispose of all the garbage.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And if it wasn't there, we may not be here to wonder why.
Re:Good catch Jupiter (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it did. A planet like Jupiter may actually have been essential for complex life to develop on Earth.
Maybe. However in addition to capturing bodies that could have threatened earth, Jupiter also attracts objects from the Oort Cloud etc. that would not have been any threat to Earth otherwise. The jury is still out on whether Jupiter is actually a net positive.
Deep Thought (Score:5, Funny)
"Whether they ever find life there or not, I think Jupiter should be considered an enemy planet." - Jack Handey
This should be NASA's focus (Score:3, Insightful)
NASA should be spending most - if not all - of its budget preparing to avert a comet/asteroid from hitting earth.
Everything else is moot if we let that happen.
Unfortunately Congress is more concerned with steroids in baseball.
Sometimes I think we deserve to become extinct.
Re:This should be NASA's focus (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, and it's been thrown around the table a few times, but we still haven't figured out what sort of payment Jupiter will accept (or how to get it there). Hiring out gas giants for protection turns out to be less easy than you'd expect.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Haha.
But srsly, if we were to focus on generating models of our solar system, it could lead to a better understanding of which comets/asteroids will stay in Jupiter's orbit, which will be hurled out of the system, which will be thrown into the sun, and - most importantly - which will cross earth's orbit.
We also need to start practicing with deflecting/destroying asteroids/comets.
These should be our top priority.
And yet we are only tracking a small percentage of potentially dangerous objects.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
They already did: They created Jupiter!
Re:This should be NASA's focus (Score:5, Insightful)
With all due respect, I disagree. Yes, some resources should be directed at that problem. But there is so much more that can and should be done by NASA. The Hubble, Chandra, and Spitzer telescopes are a good example.
But what is the point in surviving if all we are doing is treading water? Sure we could spend billions on monitoring near space for potentially dangerous objects, but IMO we're better off spending those billions on things that can advance technology.
And in the (very) long run, our currently feeble attempts at space travel may lead to the best defense against catastrophic collisions -- another colonized planet.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This should be NASA's focus (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but how is colonizing another planet going to prevent a catastrophic collision?
Imagine when all of what would become the human race lived in one valley in Africa. One particularly harsh winter or dry summer could wipe out the whole species, right? If that happened today it might still be a catastrophe but humanity would go on. If we had self-sufficient colonies on other planets, an asteroid could destroy the earth without killing off humanity.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
What it will do is lessen the relative damage caused by such an impact.
Instead of wiping out all of humanity, and drastically change the ecosystem humans live in, it will only wipe out part of humanity, and some of the ecosystems we live in.
You know that old adage about putting all your eggs in one basket (don't do it!) -- we currently have all our eggs in one basket, and it would be nice if we could change that situation.
Re: (Score:2)
>> But what is the point in surviving if all we are doing is treading water?
Wow. Really? You're joking right?
You're saying survival should not be #1 on our priority list.
That is just plain stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We are the first and only known organism that has the ability to improve the state of it's species. We have the ability to make ourselves great and prosper and you propose we do nothing more than simply survive. Take about underachievement.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
NASA should be spending most - if not all - of its budget preparing to avert a comet/asteroid from hitting earth.
Everything else is moot if we let that happen.
Unfortunately Congress is more concerned with steroids in baseball.
Sometimes I think we deserve to become extinct.
If we just gave enough steroids to the baseball players, they could probably hit any threatening meteors, asteroids, or comets out of the solar system, thereby solving both problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about the species? I want to detect the coming apocalypse and move before it happens. Frying all human life on planet earth will be game over for me, and I find very little comfort in the knowledge that humanity will survive elsewhere in the galaxy.
Yes, we both just watched Numbers, didn't we?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd just like to go on records as saying Numbers is painful to watch from a mathematical point of view. It most definitely does not earn you any geek points.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant Knowing. I haven't seen Numbers.
I can't believe I didn't remember that.
SPOILER (to explain why the movie is relevant to my post, if you haven't seen it and don't mind reading a complete spoiler):
Re: (Score:2)
>> We wouldn't have the capability of deflecting asteroids and comets if it wasn't for the technologies we've developed for exploration.
So f***ing what?
"in the mid-20th century" (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdot
History for nerds. Stuff that mattered.
I'll bet if I go back 50 years, I'll find a dupe in the archive.
Old News (Score:2)
'Jupiter's gravity captured a comet in the mid-20th century
Old news?
Avenge the Mammals! (Score:2)
The dinosaurs saved it there for eventual revenge on the mammals. It's like a snowball in the freezer so that you can pound your enemy in the summer, when they least expect it.
Wait a second... article may be overstating case (Score:3, Interesting)
The article says that the comet had an orbit around Jupiter of 12 years. Well Jupiter has an orbital period around the sun of almost exactly 12 years also. Does this mean that the comet was in orbit around Jupiter or that it was merely in an orbit that was very similar to Jupiter's (in relation to the sun).
I believe that there is a NEO that basically does the same thing around earth. It travels in an orbit around the sun just slightly different from the earth so that sometimes it is in front of the earth on it's path and sometimes it is behind. From our perspective it makes a complex lissajous (spelling?) track. But I seem to remember it is definitely NOT "orbiting" the earth.
The article doesn't specifically state whether or not the comet is gravitationally bound to Jupiter which I guess is the definition of "orbiting" (I'm not a professional astronomer). Even if it was orbiting Jupiter, with a period of 12 years it was very loosely bound. In any case, how was it brought into Jupiter's proximity? How did it get ejected? Where is it now?
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA!
"between 1949 and 1961 two full revolutions around Jupiter were completed" (by the comet in question, around Jupiter)
Two revolutions is not much. It's an orbit, but not a steady orbit. Shoemaker-Levy 9 did 12 orbits in 50 years, a little bit more stable, but alas, it crashed into the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean that the comet was in orbit around Jupiter or that it was merely in an orbit that was very similar to Jupiter's (in relation to the sun).
The astronomer in the article said that the comet was in orbit around Jupiter -- ergo moon, not simply an object in a similar orbit around the sun.
The Hilda Group? (Score:2)
I never really understood the whole "Hot Ice" thing (former jewel thief, maybe?) but Hilda was awesome. Pity she had to buy it early on in the series so Gene could be the star.
and i exclaimed, (Score:2)
by jove, another moon!
Re: (Score:2)
That would be "Giovian" not Jupiterian.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)