Milky Way kicks out star for eternity

One of the fastest moving stars ever discovered is on its way out of the Milky Way, but Hubble can still see it.

Nasa’s Hubble Space Telescope has detected a rare hypervelocity star that was spat out of the centre of our galaxy and is travelling three times as fast as the Sun.

Scientists believe that it was created when three stars travelling together passed too close to the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way around a hundred million years ago.

One of the stars was captured while the other two were flung out of the galaxy and merged to form a super-hot blue star travelling at around 1.6 million miles per hour.

Creationist interpretation: a deceitful designer placed the star at a high velocity in just such a way that we would be tricked into thinking something plausible had happened instead.


Here are a couple images. The first is a NASA graphic while the second is the actual image.

14 Responses

  1. I don’t really get the creationist reference here. What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

  2. The star necessarily shot around the center of the galaxy around 100 million years ago. That presents a problem for YECs.

  3. Only for those who believe the earth is very young though. Doesn’t present a problem for me, I think God set things off 14ish billion years ago.

  4. So, Nate, who ‘set off’ God?

  5. Would he need to be ‘set off’?

  6. Nate: why do you need God to ‘set off’ the universe?

  7. The real question is why are you satisfied with: “We dunno.”

  8. Nate: We may not know, but neither do you. We, however, are working on it. How about you guys?

  9. Well that’s exactly it. No one has any idea.

    I entertain the thought that I may be wrong just as any reasonable atheist must assume that they too might be wrong.

    I find it hard to operate on the assumption that I am wrong, so I go with the opposite.

  10. Well, Nate, if ‘nobody has any idea’, why even bother with ‘I think God set things off 14ish billion years ago.’ Why not say ‘I think Santa brought the universe as a present 14ish billion years ago?’ I know I am being snarky, but since ‘I don’t know’ is a perfectly good answer to some things, then carrying on with ‘so God musta dunnit’ is just annoying filler.

    The fact of the matter, though, is that science has some plausible scenarios for where the universe came from, none of which require divine intervention. The ‘god set if off’ hypothesis seems to have been falsified by the available evidence.

  11. Nothing has been falsified until something has been proven. The closer you get to the Moment of “creation” the fuzzier the physics get and the more apparent, at the very least, some new theory will be required to explain the conditions present and the forces at work.

    That being said, we as humans may not be able to explain it.

    If you want to call God a ‘filler’ than do so. Its no worse than what the inadequate scientific theories are at present.

    I’ve said before that I am certain that my understanding of God is flawed. Its the best I have and so that’s good enough for me. If my belief in God helps me to be a better person or helps me through difficult situations than it is worth it.

    Being a soldier I encounter many difficult situations and from experience I can tell you that many persons would find certain circumstances unacceptable and impossible to deal with otherwise.

    There are atheists in the service, as there always have been and always will be. That doesn’t negate the value that faith has for the rest. The military is an extreme, but it underlines my point that faith for many people helps them deal with difficult things.

    Call it whatever you want, ignorant, mindless, foolish, that doesn’t negate its value to a lot of people.

  12. Nate, I have not used the words ignorant, mindless or foolish to describe you or your beliefs. I stand by the statement that the available evidence concerning the origin of the observable universe seems to falsify the hypothesis of any supernatural source. If you posit a god or gods you have the burden of producing evidence to support your hypothesis. It is not enough to say ‘nobody knows so I can say whatever I want.’

  13. I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth. Don’t take it that way.

    Experience is proof. I, as have many people, experienced God as a comfort. Whether or not God could be measured, observed or studied is inconsequential.

    Assume there is no God. Would that lack of existence make any difference in how a believer experiences God? (assuming they don’t know that God doesn’t exist)

    I think the issue is that atheists do not experience God, therefore God is not real for them. They cannot measure it, feel it, etc.

    Imagine I don’t know that there are other galaxies, they do not exist for me as I have never experienced them in any way. They certainly would still exist, but I could not measure them, feel them, study them.

    Some take the position that if science doesn’t give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That’s simply the false assumption of “scientism.” (new word)

    I don’t.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: