I'd like to point out, however, that not once in the article are the words "supernova", "nova", "explode", "boom", etc. ever mentioned. One sentence from the article reads as follows:
This could be a sign of a long-term oscillation in its size or the star's first death knells.
after which the rest of the article goes on to discuss much less spectacular but no less interesting causes of the change in luminosity (pulsations, instabilities, a potato-shaped star that is turning such that the narrow axis is perpendicular to our line of sight, etc.).
A tad sensationalist of a headline for what is a perfectly cromulent NewScientist article.
Wow, Great Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it THAT slow of a news day, or could no one else possibly outdo this clown of a submitter?
Re:Wow, Great Summary (Score:2)
I'd like to point out, however, that not once in the article are the words "supernova", "nova", "explode", "boom", etc. ever mentioned. One sentence from the article reads as follows:
This could be a sign of a long-term oscillation in its size or the star's first death knells.
after which the rest of the article goes on to discuss much less spectacular but no less interesting causes of the change in luminosity (pulsations, instabilities, a potato-shaped star that is turning such that the narrow axis is perpendicular to our line of sight, etc.).
A tad sensationalist of a headline for what is a perfectly cromulent NewScientist article.