A Star Grazed Our Solar System 70,000 Years Ago, Early Humans Likely Saw It (space.com) 164
schwit1 shares a report from Space.com: Some distant objects in our solar system bear the gravitational imprint of a small star's close flyby 70,000 years ago, when modern humans were already walking the Earth, a new study suggests. In 2015, a team of researchers announced that a red dwarf called Scholzs star apparently grazed the solar system 70,000 years ago, coming closer than 1 light-year to the sun. For perspective, the suns nearest stellar neighbor these days, Proxima Centauri, lies about 4.2 light-years away. The astronomers came to this conclusion by measuring the motion and velocity of Scholzs star -- which zooms through space with a smaller companion, a brown dwarf or "failed star" -- and extrapolating backward in time. Scholz's star passed by the solar system at a time when early humans and Neanderthals shared the Earth. The star likely appeared as a faint reddish light to anyone looking up at the time, researchers with the new study said. The study has been published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters.
Grazed? (Score:5, Informative)
One light year is still WAY beyond the bounds of our known solar system and lets nor forget that the oort cloud is still pretty theoretical and no one has actually seen one of these objects yet in situ (though the claim is this is where comets come from) unlike those in the kuiper belt. So saying it grazed out solar system is pushing it a bit. If it had strayed into the kuiper belt yes , otherwise, umm, not really.
Re: (Score:2)
Grazing
Grazing is a method of feeding in which a herbivore feeds on plants such as grasses, or other multicellular organisms such as algae.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd best hope that the clue-by-four heading your way just grazes your cranium.
Re: (Score:2)
graze(2)
rez
verb
gerund or present participle: grazing
scrape and break the surface of the skin of (a part of the body).
"she fell down and grazed her knees"
synonyms: scrape, abrade, skin, scratch, chafe, bark, scuff, rasp, break the skin of, cut, nick, snick; excoriate
"he grazed his knuckles on the corner of the fuse box"
touch or scrape lightly in passing.
"his hands just grazed hers"
synonyms: touch, touch lightly, brush, brush against, rub lightly, shave, skim, kiss, caress, sweep, scrape, glance off, cl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's more complicated than that. The extent of the Oort cloud is determined by where things that are nearly stationary WRT the gravitational dominants would fall towards the Sun rather than towards some other source. So a star approaching will alter the shape (and membership) of the cloud, as it's moving a new strong gravitational field into the area. Also it's not a sphere, being shallower in the direction of the Alpha Centuari system, because that's got it's own area of dominance, and it extends furthe
Re: (Score:2)
Most comets are part of the solar system in the sense that they simply orbit the sun, the rest are in the Kuiper belt.
If there is a Oort cloud (we actually don't know that) objects from there only get kicked closer to sun when their orbits are changed by a passing big object.
Claiming that objects that are a light year away belong to our solar system is rather esoteric, don't you think so? The solar system is traveling with about 83000 km/h or 52000mph through the galaxy.
If the Oort cloud would be similar fa
Re: (Score:2)
"Less than one light year" leave a lot of slop.
If the wayward sun perturbed the Oort cloud,
it likely showered the Earth with random crap
for 10s of millions of years.
Static systems are sensitive.
Re:Grazed? (Score:5, Interesting)
I read both thanks, and saying it might have perturbed objects in a currently purely theoretical cloud of objects is just speculation.
Re: Grazed? (Score:5, Informative)
Read the first link in the summary, or even just the first sentence in the quote.
This isn't just some theoretical perturbation. We have quite the catalog of objects with hyperbolic orbits, and their points of origin is rather clumpy instead of randomly spread out across the soy or even a plane. The clumps suggest specific events that caused changes in distant orbits.
We've known this star got close in the past for some time, the news is that someone showed that there is a category of these objects that matches the effects expected from the location and timing of the star, basically connecting the dots with some work.
That is the exact opposite of your claim that this only affects hypothetical objects not observed, which should have been obvious if you did read and comprehend the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
That the number of objects out there isn't as high as they estimate is a possibility, but I'd give odds in the other direction. The number of objects estimated is based on those that are visible, and smaller objects almost always greatly outnumber larger objects.
Now if you were instead talking about the total mass of the Oort cloud...there you might be on firmer ground, though I don't recall seeing any recent estimate of the mass.
Sigh. (Score:4, Insightful)
1 light-year is 63,241 AU.
An AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun.
The solar system is about 40AU (depending on your definition of planet).
So "close" is really... well, testing things a bit. Astronomically, yes, very close.
Practically? It's 20,000 times the size of the entire solar system away and to my knowledge only two objects have ever left the solar system.
Chronologically? It happened 70,000 years ago which, again, is tiny in astronomical terms but it's already long gone. We could do nothing about it in a reasonable time, we'd barely be able to study it, and if it was slightly to the left we'd all be interstellar dust (again) by now.
Though interesting, it's hardly close or anything we can really utilise or study,
I'd be more worried along the lines of "chances are something else could come and go this and wipe us out and likely we'd never know it was going to happen". Not just stray asteriods (which obviously would be knocked for six by something like this straying close) but an entire damn star. That's solar-system-ending.
Re:Sigh. (Score:5, Informative)
1 light-year is 63,241 AU.
An AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun.
The solar system is about 40AU (depending on your definition of planet).
So "close" is really... well, testing things a bit. Astronomically, yes, very close.
Practically? It's 20,000 times the size of the entire solar system away and to my knowledge only two objects have ever left the solar system.
Chronologically? It happened 70,000 years ago which, again, is tiny in astronomical terms but it's already long gone. We could do nothing about it in a reasonable time, we'd barely be able to study it, and if it was slightly to the left we'd all be interstellar dust (again) by now.
Though interesting, it's hardly close or anything we can really utilise or study,
I'd be more worried along the lines of "chances are something else could come and go this and wipe us out and likely we'd never know it was going to happen". Not just stray asteriods (which obviously would be knocked for six by something like this straying close) but an entire damn star. That's solar-system-ending.
The solar system is way bigger than 40 AU. The Oort cloud is part of the solar system and it extends to about 3 light years. So, the solar system extends, at least, to 3 light years. Not to mention, the sun's magnetic bubbles extend that far. I'm not sure why you stopped at the last planet and not include the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud as part of the solar system.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the poor gentleman wanted to feel smarter than he was and superior to "them experts".
Re: (Score:2)
and if it was slightly to the left we'd all be interstellar dust (again) by now.
Who's left? Sol's left, or Scholtz Star's left? How do you express left in three dimensions?
Re: (Score:2)
The solar system is about 40AU (depending on your definition of planet).
There are many more sattelites of the sun than just the planets, some with known orbits that go far beyond 40AU out. You can look at some of the known ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. There are doubtless many more that have not yet been observed.
Re: (Score:2)
And what's the range on gravity again?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd prefer to trust a professional in the field than an AC.
Re: (Score:2)
5 technically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
But the furthest is still only 141AU away.
A star a light year away (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's be sensible here. We are talking about a very faint star, faint enough that we didn't bother to or even couldn't measure its path until now. Passing our solar system at the distance of a light year. Remember the "family portrait" Voyager took? Now, that's about 19 lightHOURS out. Or roughly 500 times closer.
Do you really think a human 70,000 years ago without any astronomic tools would have noticed? Or even cared?
Re:A star a light year away (Score:5, Insightful)
Some beetles navigate by the Milky Way.
Ancient cultures all named thousands of stars and gave them associated legends, as well as navigated by them. They knew about comets, meteors, stars and galaxies.
To be honest, they were more likely to notice something unusual - especially if it moved over time - than the average person would be today. The naked eye doesn't pick up much in a city nowadays.
You know how I got into astronomy at age 30? I saw Venus for the very first time, while driving to Scotland for 9 hours.
A culture that revolves around day-time and can't do anything of an evening because of insufficient light, yet being a species that naturally wakes up throughout the night - they're going to spot a red star going across the sky just like they could spot Venus doing so. And it would be a "Oh, look, that's unusual" rather than "ARGH! We're all gonna die!" purely because it wouldn't actually be that unusual or interesting to them, given the size and brightness of said star in the sky.
Re: (Score:2)
It was still a red dwarf that might have been barely visible and would have taken perhaps a thousand years or more to cross the sky. Very doubtful that it would have been noticed.
Re: (Score:2)
They wouldn't have noticed it as something unusual. It moved much too slowly for that, but the Arabs used to use one of the stars of the handle of the Big Dipper as an eye test. If you could see that there were two stars rather than one, you had sharp eyes. So it's quite possible that some of them saw it and used it in some way. But you're right that they wouldn't have thought it remarkable.
Corrections: Re:A star a light year away (Score:2)
Sorry, that star would have been invisible except for brief flares, so it would indeed have been seen as something quite usual, if noticed. And the flares would have been brief and irregular, so someone reporting seeing them probably wouldn't have been believed. Only if a group of people say it at the same time would it have been believed. And then it would probably have been counted less remarkable than a meteor.
Re: (Score:2)
"In a big city you should still be able to see Venus and Mars with the naked eye. Likely Jupiter and Saturn too. I know I can within the glow of San Antonio."
Inner-city London, with over-cast skies for most of the year? Good luck!
P.S. I am now an amateur astronomer. It's... technically possible with the right kit in a dark place to see some things. I have a photo of Saturn (tiny but you can make out the rings). And you can see Venus. But with the naked eye? Not a chance for the majority of the year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sailing about once a year, most of the time we don't spent the night at sea, but even inside of a small towns harbour at the mediterranean sea, you see stars over stars over stars. ...
The term Milkyway suddenly makes sense
Re: (Score:2)
Venus is one of the brightest objects on the sky, unless it is clouded, you should always be able to see it. (I mean when it is possible to see it, ofc.) However if you have a bright light source in front of it, then you can't (you could try to shadow it, though)
Re: (Score:3)
Saturn and Jupiter, yeah, you need to know where you are looking to find them.
You can download the SkyMap app (formerly Google Sky) to your phone and it will point them out to you.
Re: (Score:2)
It took you 30 years to see Venus?
In the UK that would be perfectly normal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about London, but here we get clear nights occasionally, and the street lights are such that about all I can recognize is the belt of Orion.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think a human 70,000 years ago without any astronomic tools would have noticed? Or even cared?
What else were they supposed to look at?? Their women were all covered with hair.
Re: (Score:2)
Homo Sapien was around 70K years ago. They had the same genetic makeup as you do today, so the women would be body hairless as well.
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem unlikely. However a flood of comets or even meteors triggered by disturbing the Oort Cloud with a stellar flyby seems a possibility. I'd welcome an analysis of that potential consequence.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think a human 70,000 years ago without any astronomic tools would have noticed? Or even cared?
Reading the article, while it is normally a 10th magnitude and not visible to the unaided eye, it apparently is the type of star that flares up a thousand times brighter which would put it in the range of a bight star in the sky. Given the importance of the sky, comets, stars are to primitive cultures, I'd say a new bright red star in the sky probably would be of some note to any living people at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as we have recorded history, that means written, and still available to read: mankind was interested in stars. Basically everything we have in our days time in measuring of time and geometry comes from observing the stars and the sun.
So yes: I'm pretty confident that early humans at that time cared about the sky, noticed the star, and probably made cave drawings of it.
But: we likely never find any evidence for that.
Mankind at that time was primitive in tools, for some reason finding stone that bleed
We need to be worried... (Score:4, Funny)
The star was not visible to naked-eye observers. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
But the headline is still wrong. The real situation is:
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Scholz's star is currently 18.3 magnitude, and these flares are supposed to subtract 9 magnitudes.
This should be visible by the The All Sky Automated Survey [astrouw.edu.pl] which monitors everything brighter than 14 magnitude.
So we probably already have the data to answer the question of likelihood. It's surprising that the Scholz's star researchers aren't doing it.
Incorrect reporting (Score:5, Informative)
Whoever authored the science news did not check their facts. Scholz's Star had an estimated absolute magnitude of 11.4 at closest approach, which is nowhere near visible enough to be seen with the naked eye. Unless telescopes were in use 70,000 years ago, it's clear that nobody would have had any clue what was going on.
It can so close that ... (Score:4, Funny)
For perspective, the suns nearest stellar neighbor ...
It came so close that it dislodged nearly all of our apostrophes, leaving /. editors unable to use them for 70,000 years to come.
Rediscovering Mars (Score:3)
Brace yourself for the comet rain! (Score:3)
Just brace yourselves fellas. In just 200,000 years one of these comets will strike the earth and kill 99.9% of all known species. Projections are humans will be only species left at that time subsisting on eating each other. But why engage in idle speculation?
Since the Earth is going to be hit by a comet anyway in 200,000 years, why bother with conservation, environmentalism and organically grown tomatoes? Just enjoy life.
Re: (Score:3)
Frist GoT post (Score:2)
What nobody thought to claim this was the red comet indicating change, or the Red Lady, or something?
New? 2015? Which is it? (Score:2)
a new study suggests. In 2015
So quite an old new study, then.
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon. We're talking about interstellar events here. It came out in the last thousand years, so it's really really new.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people are theorizing that the pair interfered with the orbits of comets in the Oort cloud, some of which might have come closer to, or even hit the Earth as a result.
As for "early humans saw it", down-scaled to "appeared as a faint reddish light to anyone looking up at the time".. "Hey, look up! The sky is slightly redder than it was last week! Wow, that hasn't happened since the last volcano."
Re:Terminology (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently it would have been a tenth magnitude object, undoubtedly visible in Neanderthal telescopes.
Re:Terminology (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe the coastal tides were 0.001mm higher.
I'm sure they were logging that data back then. It was important for Henge building.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently it would have been a tenth magnitude object, undoubtedly visible in Neanderthal telescopes.
Although not normally visible, it is the type of star that flares up to a thousand times brighter at times. Estimates are that with the time is spent in the Sun's neighborhood, it would have had such a flare up and be able to be seen. Probably in the range of Sirius or some other bright star. How aware "people" were 70k years ago of the night sky, importance given to it, and ability to tell others and preserve knowledge are probably no well known, but with nothing else to do at night but look up or go to sl
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Modern humans (Score:5, Informative)
It means they're talking about Homo sapiens (same species as all the idiots wandering around on the planet today) who were around 70,000 years ago along side Homo neanderthalensis (who were not modern humans and are no longer around, unless you count some DNA left over from our ancestors fucking anything that held still long enough).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You extremely underestimate ancient humans ...
There is a place - somewhere in Ukraine, I believe - wich was visited every summer during the previous 'ice age' (yes, there was still summer and winter and the low parts, depending on latitude melted and had grass and trees)
That place was basically occupied _every_ summer for over 60,000 years. It was a hunting place where they hunted horses (very small, as big as a big dog) and left a pile of horse bones and others, over that extreme long period.
The people liv
Re: (Score:2)
That was to mean some 5000km south ... strange that I deleted the 0s somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit hard to believe. If true it's going to take a lot of explanation, but do you have a link? The evidence is going to need to be pretty good before I'll accept it.
Re: Modern humans (Score:2, Funny)
As someone who identifies as a member of the neaderthal community, I still am discriminated against on a daily basis. This has been going on since human life began - somewhere in the middle East - and continues till this day. Daily occurrences of being pulled over for what is likely "driving while neanderthal" are all to common. When I suggest that is the reason for stopping me, they play dumb about my obvious neanderthal heritage. Will this ever end? When will you homo sapiens pay for the suffering of m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not clear to me that the Neanderthals, the Denisovians, etc. were actually separate species rather than merely geographic variants. There clearly were some anatomical differences, but that doesn't really suffice. Saint Bernards and Chihuahuas are the same species.
Re: (Score:2)
It is supposed that the "red hair" genes are Neanderthal genomes, and probably many others too.
The interesting question is, if Asian or African people have also Neanderthal genes.
Re:It vexes me (Score:5, Funny)
While I consider that everything is at a safe distance
Re: (Score:2)
While I consider that everything is at a safe distance
Tell that to the dinosaurs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely, since the oldest known evidence of writing is like 6,000 years, if you're not counting cave art.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the volcanic eruptions left evidence, so we don't need to look for an alternate explanation. And, for that matter, so did various large floods. And so did a few meteor impacts.
Now we mean something different by a "supervolcano" than did our ancestors. Something that wiped out everyone (except a few) within walking distance would once have been a universal catastrophe, but we wouldn't even count an eruption of the Yellowstone super volcano as a universal catastrophe. Horrendous, yes, and kill
Re: (Score:2)
Except one is extrapolation from direct measurement and the other is, in your words, a 'short leap of imagination' which I think is being very generous about how long a leap it is.
The electric universe isn't a theory, it's a random hodge podge of assertions with no predictive powers. It's not science, it's barely mythology.
I think if you read up a bit more about Gerald Pollack you'll see that the folks who are co-opting his work are other crackpots extrapolating from his book and work to make bizarre clai
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "Except one is extrapolation from direct measurement and the other is, in your words, a 'short leap of imagination' which I think is being very generous about how long a leap it is."
"Eighty-four distinct high-energy-density Z-pinch categories have been identified in petroglyphs, nearly all of which belong to the archaic [50] class. Only a small percentage of these petroglyphs, or petroglyph patterns, do not fall into any of these categories." [scribd.com]
I've created a graphic here [controvers...cience.com] which I think reduces the confu
Re: (Score:3)
And, by the way, they actually do make predictions [thunderbolts.info] -- which is the first link that comes up if you type into Google "electric universe predictions".
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the most important ideas in science came from people who clearly understood the field they were working on. Academic pet theories do not in general contradict what's generally accepted. You are showing no signs of understanding the theories you want to supplant, or of understanding the reasoning and observations behind those
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
the best way to explain the earliest stories mankind told -- mainly the mythological archetypes -- is with the suggestion that a foreign star entered into our solar system in human-historical times.
What myths are you talking about here?
Re: (Score:3)
David Talbott, Ev Cochrane and Dwardu Cardona refer specifically to the oldest mythological archetypes -- the "archaic" ones. For specific examples, you'd want to search for their talks on youtube.
Realize that Plato broadly cast all of the earliest stories as a recounting of a single event [google.com]. This quote is very important, due not only to its specificity but also for the unrecognized fact that Plato would appear to be describing the action of gravity -- a concept which he did not understand -- drawing back t
Re: This is why you should be tracking controversi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need a clearer idea about how bright a 10th magnitude star is. Even when flaring it would be barely visible. Or perhaps you should read one of the links.
Re: (Score:3)
That's missing the point. Scientists have for years now struggled to explain how to get from gravitational accretion to the planetary system we see today. And observing other stellar systems has only served to elevate the mystery. So, what would we expect to see if a foreign star was to come close enough that it actually was very much visible? We'd expect that it should shuffle the planets around in a manner which leaves us as confused as we are.
We might also expect to see something very much like this [space.com]:
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If somebody was to ask you in the street -- without access to wikipedia or any other resources -- what the Electric Universe actually is, the nature of the problem would become immediately obvious. You would observably struggle to explain the idea's details.
The fact of the matter is that the most vocal critics here on Slashdot generally know the least about the idea. We need not perform such a survey, actually, because we can tell as much from the fact that none of the comments here exhibit the overt host
Re: (Score:3)
Well then you've hit the nail on the head. Your concern seems to be that as soon as someone sees a buzzword associated with unprovable claims, they dismiss the idea before even examining it. If you were to not use a loaded word and specifically state your hypothesis, critics would have to to directly refute the hypothesis (assuming it is disprovable).
To put it another way, if I start saying that black holes exist due to Quantum Mechanics and String Theory, people will ignore or dismiss me. And rightly so
Re: (Score:3)
It's just a conceptual label. The core claim of the Electric Universe -- the most important -- is simply that we can model cosmic plasmas as laboratory plasmas. Astrophysicists disagree, and instead model them as fluids subject to gravity. Yet, there is no fluid model which can ever accurately explain the behaviors of electricity and magnetism -- so where we see cosmic plasmas conducting, realize that the models in widespread use by astrophysicists today cannot explain this. By contrast, astrophysicists
Re: (Score:3)
Let's review each of the many problems and oversights in your logic.
First, realize that Einstein died 3 years before (1955) anybody definitively understood that the universe is dominated by plasma (1958). Do you know why? Because for 24 long years -- from 1920 to 1944 -- the American public ridiculed Robert Goddard, the first person to suggest that we could send a rocket to the Moon, for not understanding that a "rocket would have nothing in space to push against" (a common misconception back then). Do y
Re: (Score:2)
You're not giving me any incentive to look into this.
In your first paragraph, you compare Einstein's death date and something about the estimated amount of plasma, without saying what relationship they have, or what the US public's attitude towards Goddard's rockets has to do with anything. (If you're trying to find an example where scientists were wrong, you can, but this isn't one of them.) You have a limited amount of words to entice people into looking into the theory, and you waste them with irrel
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"'Space' was invented on Earth before we knew what was out there" [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "Because it is mysticism instead they claim that all things are plasma (because complex nuanced positions are hard to sell)"
Each quote admits that plasma is 99% of what we can see, so realize that if there is no dark matter, plasma is next in line for being the explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
Skepticism is not the same as hostility.
Also, it's not clear to me why this event/analysis should cause me to be dubious about conventional science. The step from the event to your conclusion needs considerable justification.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing at all rigorous about judging something to be "meritless", and then acting upon that judgment by ostracizing anybody who conveys the important message that you have missed some important details since your decision. That's human behavior at its worst, and in terms of process, it should be rid from our academic institutions.
Truthfully, there is no need at all to judge cosmological claims. What is this pressing need to identify a solution? Is something about to happen? There is only need
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you believe it? I'm not asking for a quote from some authority.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I believe it because I spent a few years running the Electric Universe claims against their critics. I observed the reactions, and came to realize that there is a widespread refusal to simply let the cards fall where they may. Everybody is trying to force-fit the data into their pre-existing narratives and conclusions.
I also noticed that vindications for electrical cosmology occur far more often than people realize. They convince themselves that they can ignore the idea, then they don't notic
Re: (Score:3)
This [holoscience.com] is a photograph of one of those imprints made by a plasma filament. See the article [holoscience.com] for more information.
Re: (Score:3)
There is actually some merit to these claims that astrophysicists are not cultured in the observations of laboratory plasmas. When it comes to double layers, plasma pinches and the numerous forms of plasma instabilities, the very specific geometries of filamentation in plasmas (just last week observed at Jupiter's pole, and not a single astrophysicist acknowledged it!), the simple fact that microwaves are produced by electron beams (and hence a CMB can be explained with electricity in space just as easily
Re: (Score:3)
On the specific issue of magnetic reconnection, I was really referring to the fact that there are two separate sides to that debate -- and the astrophysicists, if pressed, would have a difficult time explaining the opposing arguments.
In my opinion, a huge aspect to this problem is the institutional aversion to telling certain awkward stories that relate to these topics. The mistaken assumption of empty interplanetary, interstellar and intergalactic space is perhaps a prime example of a story which academic
Re: (Score:2)
Astronomers and astrophysicists know that interplanetary and interstellar space isn't a complete vacuum. That isn't controversial. There is a known galactic magnetic field, although it's very weak.
You also seem to be arguing from a theory of science as individual authorities. Eddington had a reputation for eccentricity, and his work is pretty old by now. There's been more work since. Einstein did die in 1955, but that doesn't mean General Relativity was finished at that point. Lots of physicists ha
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the first post was pretty good, but not *that* good.