Arsenal 1-3 Man United
Like the great Emperors of the past, Sir Alex Ferguson will attempt to rule Rome in three weeks' time.
This was after Manchester United produced an awesome attacking display to destroy Arsenal.
A fortuitous opener from Park Ji-sung was followed by a thunderous 40-yard free-kick from Cristiano Ronaldo to effectively book a Champions League final date with Chelsea or Barcelona on May 27 after only 11 minutes.
Ronaldo capped a fine performance and drew howls of glee from David Beckham, who had made the trip from Milan to witness a victory that will go alongside that staggering win over Juventus in 1999 that the former England skipper was a part of, by sliding home a third goal, his 25th of the season.
It was not quite a perfect night for United. How could it be when Darren Fletcher ended it in disbelief at the red card for a tackle on Cesc Fabregas which will rule him out of the Italian job.
However, it was not far off, leaving United to await events at Stamford Bridge on Wednesday with so many neutrals, if not a Chelsea side hell-bent on revenge, hoping Barcelona set up what would be a dream decider.
No amount of meticulous planning can legislate for bad luck.
It is the unknown factor that, in an instant, can screw any amount of hopes and dreams into the tightest ball and throw them out of the highest window, never to be seen again.
Kieran Gibbs has not been a first-team regular very long. Fitness permitting, he has almost a decade and a half in front of him in the Arsenal side.
It is a fair bet, at the end of his career, the 18-year-old still regards the horror that unfolded eight minutes into what was such an eagerly-awaited contest as the worst moment he had to endure.
In his head, Gibbs was about to control Ronaldo's cutback, then decide whether to play a short pass out of defence or present Manuel Almunia with a routine clearance. Fate had other plans.
Instead, poor Gibbs lost his footing and hit the ground with a thump. Like lightning, Park seized on the loose ball, delicately lifting it over Almunia, whose arrival came just too late.
The United contingent went delirious. Fans, coaches, manager, players, Beckham alike all knew what it meant. They knew the prospect of Arsenal getting three to go through was so remote to be beyond comprehension.
But if United's opener came courtesy of good fortune, their next was the result of audacity, mixed with high ability.
To even think of going for goal from the spot when Robin van Persie had clattered into Ronaldo would be dismissed by most professionals as foolhardy.
Yet, in Porto three weeks ago, the world player of the year drove home a shot measured at exactly 39.1 yards. As Ronaldo stepped back and waited from even further out, ready to unleash his missile, Almunia knew what to expect.
Indeed, it could be argued that from such distances, not goalkeeper should be beaten.
But as Ronaldo let fly, with venom, and watched his shot dip and flicker, Almunia was powerless to prevent it ripping into the net.
If three was unlikely, four was an impossibility, turning the remaining 79 minutes into an extended wake, leaving Arsene Wenger on the bench wondering what had hit him, knowing his Champions League obsession will not end in Roman triumph.
In fairness, Arsenal tried to rally. It was just that by pushing forward, they left wide open gaps that United are too experienced to ignore.
Almunia's fingertips denied Wayne Rooney, Ronaldo's header from the corner whistled wide, then two more free-kicks from the latter were saved.
When the Portuguese player cut inside Emmanuel Eboue, on as a half-time replacement to put Gibbs out of his misery, the shot would have found the bottom corner had Almunia not denied him.
There was nothing the Spaniard could do when United attacked again, Ronaldo supplying the finish to Rooney's cross.
As his players cavorted in glee, Ferguson ordered them to tone down their celebrations out of respect to the hosts.
It was the only mercy the Red Devils showed all night, although for Fletcher there was a nasty sting in the tail.
The Scot got studs on the ball before sending Fabregas flying in the penalty area, earning him a red card which will rule him out of the final. Van Persie impressively converted the spot-kick - but it was little consolation for Arsenal.

Ronaldo: Money, money, money
Newspaper reports in England are claiming that Cristiano Ronaldo is to be offered a mega-money deal to stay at Old Trafford.
According to the News of the World tabloid, Manchester United will offer the Portuguese star a mind-boggling 200,000 pounds-a-week deal in an attempt to keep their prized asset out of Real Madrid's clutches come the end of this season.
The proposed deal would, according to the paper, see Ronaldo pocket a 160,000 pound weekly wage, a barrowful of cash that would be topped up by earnings from image rights and commercial activities.
If Ronaldo was to sign, the reigning World Player of the Year's income would make him the highest paid Premier League star, brushing aside other high rollers such as Chelsea's John Terry and Liverpool favourite Steven Gerrard.
Spanish giants Real came close to signing Ronaldo after EURO 2008 last summer only for the flying winger to have a change of heart and stay at Old Trafford.
United boss Sir Alex Ferguson believes Ronaldo, whose new contract would keep him in Manchester until 2014, is key to his side's immediate success and has gone on record to say that there is no chance of Ronaldo leaving.
Having rejected Real once, Ronaldo looks set to do the same again having convinced himself that he has more chance of achieving his personal goals at United.
"Cristiano wants to clear his head of the Real Madrid move once and for all," the News of the World quoted a source close to Ronaldo as saying.
"When he agreed to stay at United last summer he thought it would be just for one more year
"But now he seems to be setting his mind on the long term because he realises he can fulfil all his ambitions at Old Trafford."

Fergie concerned over wasteful Devils
Sir Alex Ferguson admitted Manchester United's inability to convert their chances is becoming a major concern.
Dimitar Berbatov scored the only goal of the game, volleying home from close range in the 69th minute after Michael Carrick's left-wing cross had bounced back off Boro defender David Wheater
Berbatov, who replaced Boxing Day's match-winner at Stoke Carlos Tevez after he returned to Argentina on a "family issue", was one of the guilty culprits in the first hour of the match.
But he was not the only one with Wayne Rooney, Cristiano Ronaldo, Rafael, Nemanja Vidic and Ji-sung Park all squandering chances against a determined Middlesbrough side.
United could easily have been out of sight by half-time but a combination of poor finishing and good goalkeeping from Ross Turnbull kept them at bay.
The match statistics showed United had 25 chances in all and the fact United scored only once was something of a worry to Ferguson, who also saw his team win 1-0 at Stoke on Boxing Day.
"We missed a lot of chances and that is the big concern," he said.
"If we can't take those chances we will suffer from it.
"But I think you have to see how well Middlesbrough played tonight. For a team in their position (one place above the relegation zone) it belies their ability."
Ferguson also had praise for Berbatov who popped up in the right place to snatch the winner.
"He is a marvellous player and I thought he was absolutely superb for us. He took his goal well," added the manager.
United are now seven points behind Barclays Premier League leaders Liverpool with two matches in hand but Ferguson said he was comfortable with the situation.
"We are in a good position come the turn of the year. We have two games in hand, both at home, and it is going too be a great run in," he said.
"The important thing is to do our own job, look after ourselves and we'll do okay."
Middlesbrough manager Gareth Southgate admitted they were disappointed not to have held United at bay.
"I thought there were a lot of good things about that performance," he said.
"We were very disappointed how we played on Friday (a 1-0 defeat to Everton) and it was important to restore some pride.
"I thought we were quite bright in a lot of our play, we were very resilient today and our keeper has made some good saves, but generally our discipline in terms of tactics was good.
"Our quality in the final third was what let us down. We got in some good positions and made some good breaks but didn't make the most of the situations we were in and didn't really test the keeper.
"It was an improvement. We knew it was a shot to nothing because only Newcastle have drawn here but today was really about giving a performance that gives us some belief going forward.
"I thought that did, which was important, because it is what we do from here on in that matters."

MAN UTD VS TOTTENHAM

Heurelho Gomes left White Hart Lane a hero as his last-minute save earned Tottenham a goalless draw against Manchester United.So often ridiculed for his error-prone presence in the Spurs goal this season, Gomes' confidence has begun to return.And as United desperately searched for a winner to ensure they left for Club World Cup duty in happy mood, the Brazilian produced a fingertip save to turn away a Ryan Giggs free-kick that was going to creep in.It left the Red Devils rueing their failure to take advantage of second-half superiority and opened the door for Chelsea to surge clear in the Barclays Premier League title race by beating West Ham tomorrow.Dimitar Berbatov will have been particularly disappointed at his failure to make an impact, which just gave the Spurs fans - so used to losing this fixture - more reason to cheer.Sir Alex Ferguson predicted a hostile reception for the old Tottenham favourite and the Spurs fans obliged with a stream of boos and jeers that began when Berbatov emerged for the warm-up and continued throughout the game.It should really have been no surprise that the four men Ferguson claimed were major doubts should be in United's starting line-up, Berbatov and Cristiano Ronaldo among them.United would have wanted the quartet on the field too as, with Arsenal and Liverpool failing to win earlier on, they had been presented with a perfect opportunity to stamp their presence on the championship picture before heading to Japan.Yet the visitors' attempts to break the Tottenham defence did not get them very far, even though Ledley King's frail knee prevented him from taking part and Jonathan Woodgate lasted just 10 minutes after coming off worst in a tackle with Carlos Tevez.Ji-Sung Park and Michael Carrick both had shots deflected wide but Gomes, who Redknapp is persevering with despite a string of awful mishaps, was relatively untroubled until Rio Ferdinand forced him into a save in first-half stoppage time.Tottenham did not exactly lay siege to United's goal but at least they made Edwin van der Sar work to keep them out.The veteran Dutchman has just been awarded a new one-year contract, with Ferguson adding a ringing endorsement of his enduring ability.Van der Sar backed up the assessment with a couple of excellent saves.The first denied David Bentley, who flicked the ball up perfectly for a volley that had Van der Sar scrambling to make a low left-handed save.Van der Sar's next effort was even better as he palmed away a shot from Aaron Lennon, who had been allowed to get too near the United penalty area, then reacted quickly enough to block Roman Pavlyuchenko's follow-up.Luka Modric then launched himself at Didier Zokora's inswinging cross but his diving header was just off target.With Pavlyuchenko getting in the way of a Tom Huddlestone piledriver, it was easy to see why the Spurs fans were disappointed their team were still being held at the break, although at least they could revel in the failure of Berbatov to make a significant contribution.It took the 27-year-old just seven minutes of the second half to suggest he intended to be more of a threat, spinning superbly on halfway before embarking on a charge into the Spurs box that was only halted by Michael Dawson's despairing lunge.Ronaldo - another peripheral figure - had the ball in the net from the corner. The Ballon D'Or winner claimed it should have stood but referee Mike Dean correctly ruled it out for handball.It was the beginning of a long period of United pressure, although it took the introduction of Paul Scholes and Giggs to bring an air of real menace to their attacks.Giggs supplied the cross from which Nemanja Vidic's header forced Gomes into his best save and the veteran Welshman was also responsible for the corner Ferdinand nodded over at the near post.A goalmouth scramble that ended with Michael Carrick driving a low shot at Gomes also came from Giggs' set piece delivery.Park tested Gomes with a rasping drive but Van der Sar would have been beaten if Modric's shot had curled just under that bar after flicking off Ferdinand rather than just over it.Two Ronaldo free-kicks brought no reward, which was probably why he left Giggs to take the last one and give Gomes the chance to be a hero.

Big Bang Theory

Big Bang Theory

Big Bang Theory - The PremiseThe Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.
Big Bang Theory - Common MisconceptionsThere are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe. Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.
Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the TheoryWhat are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?
First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4 In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.
Big Bang Theory - What About God?Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question:

Supernova

Supernova

A supernova (plural: supernovae) is a stellar explosion. They are extremely luminous and cause a burst of radiation that often briefly outshines an entire galaxy before fading from view over several weeks or months. During this short interval, a supernova can radiate as much energy as the Sun could emit over its life span.[1] The explosion expels much or all of a star's material[2] at a velocity of up to a tenth the speed of light, driving a shock wave[3] into the surrounding interstellar medium. This shock wave sweeps up an expanding shell of gas and dust called a supernova remnant.
Several types of supernovae exist that may be triggered in one of two ways, involving either turning off or suddenly turning on the production of energy through nuclear fusion. After the core of an aging massive star ceases to generate energy from nuclear fusion, it may undergo sudden gravitational collapse into a neutron star or black hole, releasing gravitational potential energy that heats and expels the star's outer layers. Alternatively, a white dwarf star may accumulate sufficient material from a stellar companion (usually through accretion, rarely via a merger) to raise its core temperature enough to ignite carbon fusion, at which point it undergoes runaway nuclear fusion, completely disrupting it. Stellar cores whose furnaces have permanently gone out collapse when their masses exceed the Chandrasekhar limit, while accreting white dwarfs ignite as they approach this limit (roughly 1.38[4] times the mass of the sun). White dwarfs are also subject to a different, much smaller type of thermonuclear explosion fueled by hydrogen on their surfaces called a nova. Solitary stars with a mass below approximately nine[5] solar masses, such as the Sun itself, evolve into white dwarfs without ever becoming supernovae.
On average, supernovae occur about once every 50 years in a galaxy the size of the Milky Way.[6] They play a significant role in enriching the interstellar medium with higher mass elements. Furthermore, the expanding shock waves from supernova explosions can trigger the formation of new stars.[7]
Nova (plural novae) means "new" in Latin, referring to what appears to be a very bright new star shining in the celestial sphere; the prefix "super-" distinguishes supernovae from ordinary novae, which also involve a star increasing in brightness, though to a lesser extent and through a different mechanism. According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, the word supernova was first used in print in 1926.