backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 93 comment(s) - last by RalphWSiegler.. on Jan 13 at 1:58 PM

Supermassive black holes help to shape our universe, but their behavior is still poorly understood.  (Source: PureInsight.org)

A new NASA study examined the supermassive black hole at our galaxy's center and found that it sucks up less matter than previously thought, due to pressure from radiation.  (Source: NASA/CXC/MIT/F.K. Baganoff et al.)
The Milky Way's black hole is causing a mess, but isn't gobbling matter as fast as was thought

One of the most complex and intriguing astrophysical phenomenon is the supermassive black hole.  A superdense cluster of mass, the supermassive black hole gobbles up surrounding matter, sucking it into its gravity well.  Despite the tremendous importance of these celestial bodies to the structure of our universe, scientists still remain confused about specifics of how they operate.

It is a well known fact that there is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way.  Dubbed Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the black hole is rather weak, due to its inability to successfully capture significant mass.  The black hole is bordered by dozens of young stars.  It pulls gas off these stars, but is only able to suck in a small percentage of this high velocity stream.

Past estimates put its consumption rate at a mere 1 percent of the gas it pulls away from the stars.  Now a new study, using data garnered from the NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, has determined that the black hole is likely eating far less than that figure even --- new models indicate it to be consuming a mere 0.01 percent of the gas it sucks off.

The observed data allowed the development of a theoretical model, which explains energetic behavior inside the region between the fuel source (young stars) and the event horizon (the central boundary of black hole, beyond which light can not escape).

The new model offers an explanation as to why even more gas was rushing away from the black hole than expected.  Apparently, the black hole's accretion disk gets very hot due to the densely packed gas.  Some of this gas escapes, colliding with neighboring gas particles in the "wind" in a phenomena commonly known as radiation.  This radiation heats up the gas in the stream surrounding the black hole, and creates an outward pressure, driving gas away from the black hole.  As a result the black hole is only able to eat a very small amount of gas.

That's good news for the Earth, as a hungry black hole could eventually suck in much of the Milky Way, including the Earth (of course, there's plenty of other cosmic disasters that could strike before then).  With fears of the Milky Way's black hole allayed, the public can go back to worrying about their other phantom fears, like micro-black holes and the Large Hadron Collider.

The new study was among the best efforts to date showcasing the potential of NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory.  The observatory was able to record a wealth of data -- nearly one million seconds (two weeks) worth.  Most of this data came from observations of gas traveling off of a supernova remnant.

Among the other fascinating phenomena observed was mysterious X-ray filaments.  The filaments are thought to be the result of huge magnetic structures interacting with streams of energetic electrons produced by pulsars ( rapidly spinning neutron stars).  This strange phenomena is known as a pulsar wind nebula.

The new view of Sgr A* and its smaller appetite were revealed at the 215th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in January 2009 by Roman Shcherbakov and Robert Penna of Harvard University and Frederick K. Baganoff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
meh
By Proxes on 1/6/2010 5:08:12 PM , Rating: 4
Unless the Earth is going to be sucked up into a black hole before Dec 21, 2012, we probably don't need to know about it.




RE: meh
By TSS on 1/6/2010 5:44:15 PM , Rating: 5
That date is annoying.

Not that it will destroy the earth or humanity, but the shear fact that it's still nearly 3 years away, and thus we need to hear about it for the next 3 years.

I'll keep saying nothing will happen. Either i'm right, and everybody who said something would happen will look like a jackass, or if i'm wrong.... well i think that'll be the least of my worries at that point.


RE: meh
By ClownPuncher on 1/6/2010 5:45:43 PM , Rating: 5
I'm still reeling from the effects of Y2k, Conficker, and SARS.


RE: meh
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/6/2010 5:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
or the hundreds of nut cases that claim the sky was falling because god told them so... Over the past 500 years I bet there has been at least 40 or 50 guys that really scared the day lights out of thousands of people.


RE: meh
By ertomas on 1/6/2010 6:04:06 PM , Rating: 3
Add H1N1 to that list maybe?


RE: meh
By ertomas on 1/6/2010 6:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
I must PREVIEW before posting!

The reply was to the post above this one...

Feel free to rate me down!


RE: meh
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/7/2010 10:11:12 AM , Rating: 2
It's been swine flu for several decades maybe over 100 years... so it stays swine flu.. New H1N1 here.


RE: meh
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/7/2010 10:15:32 AM , Rating: 2
sorry... No H1N1 not new H1N1, phone rang as I was entering it and did not review my post... ooops.


RE: meh
By Captain Orgazmo on 1/6/2010 6:15:23 PM , Rating: 5
You can add Al Gore to that list...


RE: meh
By tallcool1 on 1/7/2010 7:56:16 AM , Rating: 5
and add his Global Warming BS.

Places all over the globe are having the coldest weather in decades.
quote:
From accuweather.com:
While frigid air is already in place, yet another brutal shot of arctic air will grip the entire eastern two-thirds of the nation through Saturday. The last time severely low temperatures froze a large swath of the nation was in 1985. New waves of cold air will continue to spread southward from Canada in the coming weeks, possibly causing this winter also to rival the bitterly cold winters of 1982 and 1977-78. Some of the greatest temperature departures from average this winter may yet to come.
quote:
BEIJING (Reuters) - Cities across eastern and central China are rationing power for industry and urging residents to limit gas use after a wave of icy weather sent energy demand soaring while straining supplies of coal that were already tight.
quote:
Much of the UK was blanketed in heavy snow this morning as the extreme weather headed south and forecasters warned that the country was on course for its coldest winter in 30 years.


RE: meh
By evalese on 1/7/2010 10:18:00 AM , Rating: 3
That's just the planet getting ready to go into the next ice age. I can feel the ocean currents slowing down already.


RE: meh
By cornelius785 on 1/7/2010 11:01:33 AM , Rating: 1
WEATHER != CLIMATE


RE: meh
By phattyboombatty on 1/7/2010 12:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
If, instead, the Northern Hemisphere was enjoying a record-breaking warm winter, we'd never hear the end of it from AGW proponents who'd scream from the mountaintops that the warm winter proves their climate models are correct and that hellfire and tragic calamity are about to strike the Earth in less than five years. But, record-breaking cold is simply an isolated, unimportant weather event that has no significance in the large scheme of things and can be fully explained by their precious climate models.


RE: meh
By hashish2020 on 1/11/2010 12:09:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'm an "AGW proponent" as you say, and I certainly would not and did not that one winter that NYC had a green christmas.

But totally, keep using strawmen to excuse your thinking instead of actually responding to the point at hand.

It's funny, if you think AGW proponents are idiots for thinking that way...then why do you use it as an excuse to act equally stupidly?


RE: meh
By RalphWSiegler on 1/13/2010 1:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
the "climatologists" (politically funded AGW shill) cooked their book to conform to weather several times already, claiming "climate change" caused drought, stronger hurricanes, weakening trade winds, flooding at various times since 1998 when the weather was acting up temporarily. Just as the hot time period of the late 90s itself was due to slightly more than normal solar activity and pacific current warmth, so now in the last three years with cooling PDC and deep solar minimum we've completely fallen off the "hockey stick" and likely will see below average temperatures for perhaps two decades or more it is estimated (superposition of three forcing functions tending to minimum).

Ah well, it certainly was humorous if nothing else, to watch billions of dollars and euros and yen being spent on completely nonsensical and useless climate "models".

I would agree excessive pollution is very bad, including CO2 emissions. But that comes under another category of "killing the oceans is foolish", not under any of man's negligible influence on either climate or weather.


RE: meh
By Scabies on 1/6/2010 10:06:15 PM , Rating: 1
RE: meh
By mattclary on 1/7/2010 10:01:37 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
or the hundreds of nut cases that claim the sky was falling because Al Gore told them so...


There, fixed that for you.


RE: meh
By delphinus100 on 1/9/2010 12:27:40 AM , Rating: 2
Or the solar system 'alignment' in the late 80's that was supposed to increase the probability of Earthquakes (and the idea kept going, even though the researchers that originally conceived it, formally abandoned it)


RE: meh
By lco45 on 1/7/2010 8:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
That is the only problem I have with that date as well. Why must it be so far away I need to endure the BS for another 3 years?

Simple response: You Can't Destroy the World with a Calendar.

Luke


RE: meh
By chmilz on 1/6/2010 5:45:00 PM , Rating: 5
Oh, but this will be the next big disaster movie with ridonculous special effects and bad acting.

Tagline: Los Angeles must act today or in 12.4 trillion years, it may be pulled away from the continental US!

What's that? Not all disasters hit LA? Pshaw.


RE: meh
By ClownPuncher on 1/6/2010 5:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
Funny that. If all disasters DID hit LA, that would get rid of all that bad acting...and smell.


RE: meh
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/6/2010 5:55:49 PM , Rating: 3
Funny I did not see Al Gore talking about this on his "Inconvenience of Truth" video. I might not be a great scientist but I can not imagine a black hole being good for the environment... For starters it's black verse green.


RE: meh
By Captain Orgazmo on 1/6/2010 7:41:15 PM , Rating: 5
It's simply because that green hole hasn't figured out a way to tax space-time yet.


RE: meh
By FITCamaro on 1/6/2010 9:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
Because he hasn't claimed to have invented it yet. DUH!


RE: meh
By Kaleid on 1/7/2010 6:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
RE: meh
By fatedtodie on 1/7/2010 7:44:26 AM , Rating: 2
You do know their "false" is retarded right?

he did not claim to invent it... that is correct he just said he was responsibe for CREATING IT.

(po-tay-to .... po-tah-to). Create/invent... either way Gore is an idiot that says whatever he wants.


RE: meh
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/7/2010 9:48:11 AM , Rating: 1
Just goes to show nothing on the internet should be trusted as 100% accuracy. Even Snopes is playing a Democratic favor card by being bias towards Al Gore, verse just saying, "yes, true he claimed to help create internet.. but not inventing."


RE: meh
By mattclary on 1/7/2010 10:04:37 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, I've noticed snopes political leanings on several occasions.


RE: meh
By lco45 on 1/7/2010 8:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
Snopes uses reason and intelligence. That naturally appears to lean away from political standpoints that lack both.

Luke


RE: meh
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/8/2010 9:29:02 AM , Rating: 1
Luke it leans towards the democrats which are very, very far from reason and intelligence. Being a Democrat is the first step towards socialism and communism which all fail time and time again. Only a republic has real long term success, however has a habit of its people going soft and turning to more government control (socialism and communism)... Example are Rome and now USA (in process of turning). A monarch can be a good government if you have a good, smart, and fair family at the top... but just one nut job in the family tree can ruin or harm the people greatly.


RE: meh
By lco45 on 1/10/2010 7:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps.
My personal view is that we have a duty to provide a minimum of care to everyone in the country (I'm actually in Australia, but same goes for US).

So I think medical treatment should be provided as a public service. Other welfare I'm less sure about; I don't like the welfare abuse we see in this country (or yours).

Luke


RE: meh
By omnicronx on 1/7/2010 2:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
Gore's wording there was terrible, but only because morons like yourself do not seem to be able to interpret the English language. Create/Invent do not have the same meaning, thus your stupid '(po-tay-to .... po-tah-to)' reference makes no sense.

Did he invent the internet? No.. Did he have a major part in its implementation via legislation i.e did he have a great influence in the creation process of the Internet as we know it today. Yes..

Furthermore this was an interview with Wolf Blitzer, its target audience was not those with a 4th grade reading level.

That being said, Gore can take his Inconvenient Truth and stick it where the sun don't shine, but that shouldn't take away from his previous accomplishments and surely does not make him an idiot.


RE: meh
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/7/2010 3:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
cre·ate [kree-eyt] Show IPA verb, -at·ed, -at·ing, adjective
Use create in a Sentence
–verb (used with object)
1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.
3. Theater. to perform (a role) for the first time or in the first production of a play.
4. to make by investing with new rank or by designating; constitute; appoint: to create a peer.
5. to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to: The announcement created confusion.
6. to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design: to create a revolution; to create an opportunity to ask for a raise.

in·vent [in-vent] Show IPA
Use invent in a Sentence
–verb (used with object)
1. to originate or create as a product of one's own ingenuity, experimentation, or contrivance: to invent the telegraph.
2. to produce or create with the imagination: to invent a story.
3. to make up or fabricate (something fictitious or false): to invent excuses.
4. Archaic. to come upon; find.

You may find it interesting that the dictionary uses the word create to define invent. No, he actually did not understand the internet existed before he put his name to whatever paperwork he signed. He said this several times on several different interviews and speeches, once to the US military (Army I believe). Which would be like standing in front of Henry Fords great grandchildren and telling them, I create the assemble line and a great car company called Ford. For the USA the internet origins can go back to WWII the President at that time started a program to make sure data could flow from any where in the country to anywhere in the country no matter what part of the country was up and running or what part was destroyed. This become the Internet as we know. Al Gore had little to nothing to do with the internet and the way it is today. He may have signed a piece of paper which allowed the public to access to the internet that the military had created... that maybe.


RE: meh
By omnicronx on 1/7/2010 4:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
5. to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to: The announcement created confusion.
6. to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design: to create a revolution; to create an opportunity to ask for a raise.

I said it before and I'll say it again, the two words are not interchangeable.

quote:
Al Gore had little to nothing to do with the internet and the way it is today.
Hmmm... Then why did leaders in the sector claim as such?
quote:
Vinton Cerf, Nicknamed the "Father of the Internet:" "I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator.
quote:
Marc Andreessen, the Inventor of the Mosaic Browser: Marc has credited Gore for making his work possible. Andreesen noted that while he was a student at the University of Illinois, he was able to access a federal grant program that was funded through Gore's High Performance Computing Act, which allowed Andreessen to work on the technology that led to the creation of the Mosaic browser.


Gore definitely exaggerated his involvement, but involved he was. I think its pretty clear that there was no true inventor of the internet, but a collaboration over the years to get to this point. That being said, Gore was definitely one of the front-men in pushing it at the government level as its potential was realized.

I'm not a Huge fan of Gore either, but you have to respect some of his earlier work..


RE: meh
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/7/2010 5:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
Did you miss my point... The internet was around well before Gore. He may have put monies out there for people like Marc Andreessen to create/invent easier browser, but the interest was already there. So, if you want to tell me he was a player in making the internet available to the average Joe citizen and helped people/corporation develop better more user friend software to surf the web, well that I could not say no or disagree. However the backbone of today internet, was in place and run during the late 60's if not earlier. Only Government use, Military - However I'd bet NASA was allowed access to it as well.
Everything you've talked about runs on top of the Internet. Like a car running down a road... The internet is the road, browsers are the cars. Data of course would be the people inside the cars. AL was not in office when the internet was created... Either that or he a lot older then I realize. :)


RE: meh
By omnicronx on 1/7/2010 4:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You may find it interesting that the dictionary uses the word create to define invent.
No, if that were true it would have said.
1. to create, to originate.. etc etc.. The definition in which create is being used is a sentence, the word 'create' by itself does not define the word invent.


RE: meh
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/7/2010 5:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
they can be interchangeable in some cases.
Like:
You can create a song (the music) but you can not really invent a song.
You can create a musical instrument and you can also invent a musical instrument.
or another example:
Al Gore claims he created the internet...
Al Gore claims he invented the internet...

:)


RE: meh
By Flunk on 1/8/2010 9:16:48 AM , Rating: 2
Drop it already, even if Gore did, years ago, say something stupid. It has no relevance to anything he said afterwards nor does he genuinely believe that he "invented" the Internet. Latching on to one stupid thing and repeating it forever isn't getting us anywhere.


RE: meh
By rmclean816 on 1/8/2010 5:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
words being interchangeable doesn't mean they have the same meaning.
troll


RE: meh
By SilthDraeth on 1/6/2010 11:49:00 PM , Rating: 5
I thought the Green movement, and Global Warming science were synonymous with "black holes".

No matter how much money you throw at it, it disappears, and the danger is always touted, but never realized.


RE: meh
By Mitch101 on 1/7/2010 10:22:23 AM , Rating: 2
Making the phone call to Michael Bey and Bruce Willis right now.

Actually its this black hole that sucked up my homework back in 1986. Science finally proving what happened to my work in sociology.


RE: meh
By delphinus100 on 1/9/2010 12:29:40 AM , Rating: 2
Nah, LA only gets Tokyo's leftovers...


RE: meh
By LANDRY1986 on 1/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: meh
By LANDRY1986 on 1/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: meh
By afkrotch on 1/6/2010 9:35:09 PM , Rating: 3
I'm more worried about Oct 20, 2010. How about Nov 20, 2011?


RE: meh
By fredthelight on 1/7/2010 3:47:50 AM , Rating: 2
Well, very little chance a black hole's gonna eat us anytime soon, but as far as big disaster coming our way, we may keep an eye on this http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/09...
Some previous civilizations did disappear misteriously and maybe it was simply due to a shift in our magnetic field, that we know does happen from time to time...


RE: meh
By stlrenegade on 1/7/2010 10:59:39 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting read. But they really don't describe what would happen if the magnetic poles continue to shift. So what would happen if the magnetic north pole goes into Siberia, or beyond?


RE: meh
By Ammohunt on 1/7/2010 2:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
Our compasses would be worthless?


RE: meh
By tygrus on 1/7/2010 8:01:12 AM , Rating: 2
It's not the end on Dec 21 2012, it's just they had a Y2K12 bug that they left for us to fix :)


RE: meh
By tygrus on 1/7/2010 8:02:21 AM , Rating: 2
Or is that a Y2K13 bug ?


RE: meh
By KING1986 on 1/8/10, Rating: -1
Black holes / Fuzzballs
By ertomas on 1/6/2010 5:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
Reading this article on wikipedia gave me a headache:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzball_(string_theo...

:S




RE: Black holes / Fuzzballs
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/6/2010 5:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
What do you mean? That is just simple first grade science. We studied Fuzzball right after learned how to use a conjunction. I only received a B+... stupid me forgot to invert the square root of the hypo-extended diameter cubed to the 9th power dividend by mass minus 0.0132. Duhh...


RE: Black holes / Fuzzballs
By Camikazi on 1/6/2010 5:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
You make me head hurt, go home :P


RE: Black holes / Fuzzballs
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/6/2010 5:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
go home... naw, I'm going to wait for the black hole to come here... or is the hole going to bring us to it? Of course in the end I suppose I'll be both here and there once the distortion of time kicks in.


RE: Black holes / Fuzzballs
By Camikazi on 1/6/2010 6:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
you're silly :P


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/6/2010 6:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
:D


RE: Black holes / Fuzzballs
By MrBlastman on 1/7/2010 11:31:20 AM , Rating: 2
I think we're in this for a stretch. (I love dual meanings). ;)


They should name it....
By AEvangel on 1/6/2010 5:04:14 PM , Rating: 5
Rosie O'Donnell




RE: They should name it....
By TheEinstein on 1/6/2010 5:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
The big bang happened when someone popped her with a knife (from the inside, she had eaten everything at that point).

True Story...


RE: They should name it....
By FITCamaro on 1/6/2010 9:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think she attracts matter at a greater rate.


RE: They should name it....
By Kurz on 1/7/2010 2:19:59 AM , Rating: 2
No wonder food Gravitates to her Mouth.

:)

If only her own Gravitational field was strong enough to prevent me from hearing her.


RE: They should name it....
By theapparition on 1/7/2010 10:26:04 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong, I think she repulses anyone who get near.


Hysterical much?
By MrTeal on 1/6/2010 5:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's good news for the Earth, as a hungry black hole could eventually suck in much of the Milky Way, including the Earth (of course, there's plenty of other cosmic disasters that could strike before then).


It's a black hole, not a roomba. The sun in a stable orbit around it is no more likely to get sucked into the black hole than the earth sucked into the sun.




RE: Hysterical much?
By DominionSeraph on 1/6/2010 7:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
Oh no the Earth is going to get sucked into the sun?


RE: Hysterical much?
By teflonbilly on 1/7/2010 1:56:27 AM , Rating: 2
But if balance is lost, like something causing mercury to be knocked in could blow our solar system out of balance. Same goes for the milky way. if the nearby stars fall in, it might change the dynamics of the Black Hole and make it stronger, or cold weaken it. I have no idea. but I won't assume it can't happen.


RE: Hysterical much?
By FaaR on 1/7/2010 12:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
The black hole at our galaxy's center already masses at least a million times that of our sun, adding even several very large stars is literally going to have zero net effect on our galaxy as a whole, which has roughly 100 billion stars in it.

Compare this to our insignificant solar system with only a handful of major bodies and where 98 or so percent of the entire mass of the system is in the center (our sun)... Well, actually there is no comparison.

Also, we're located very far from the center of the galaxy, about 25,000 light-years add or take. Any trivial changes in the central core is not going to be noticed out where we are.

If you or anyone else want to be worked up over nothing, consider that we're on a collision course with the andromeda galaxy (which is roughly equal to our own in size and complexity.) You better liquidate all your assets and move to a cabin in Montana right away, because THAT event will be slightly more upsetting than wether our central black hole eats a couple stars or not. :D


RE: Hysterical much?
By delphinus100 on 1/9/2010 1:07:52 AM , Rating: 2
'Balance?' This isn't 'The Force.' Neither the Solar System, nor the Milky Way Galaxy are as delicate as you think.

Pushing Mercury into the Sun isn't going to have a meaningful effect on the rest of the planets (especially as the mass hasn't gone away), and having a few more stars fall into an object that's already 3-4 million solar masses (especially as the mass hasn't gone away...the black hole will become slightly more massive [What else would you expect from bringing two close masses together? a single more massive object.], but the galaxy is still circling the same amount of stuff at the center, and doesn't know the difference) won't affect anything there, either.

Now, black holes can decrease in mass, evaporating by a quantum process that Stephen Hawking described (and is referred to as 'Hawking Radiation.' sometimes), but there's an inverse relationship between the rate at which that happens, and the black hole's mass. A black hole with the mass of a subatomic particle disappears almost instantaneously (LHC, anyone?), a supermassive galactic black hole may take 10^100 years to do so. Everything else will have become cold, dead black dwarfs and neutron stars of a galaxy that's fallen apart for other reasons, long before that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expandin...


RE: Hysterical much?
By Quijonsith on 1/12/2010 7:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
You were expected non-sensationalistic commentary in a Jason Mick article?


Oh thank God...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/6/2010 5:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
So in a nut shell I have enough time to finish my term papers.

Can we really call it a "real black hole" if it can not even suck up a couple of local stars inside a billion years?? It sounds like a wimpy black hole. Maybe it should be classified as a black hole wanna-be.




RE: Oh thank God...
By Mojo the Monkey on 1/6/2010 7:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
or a pseudo-black hole... like how pluto is a pseudo planet


RE: Oh thank God...
By teflonbilly on 1/7/2010 1:54:29 AM , Rating: 3
We could call it a brown hole. But gives the wrong idea. Dirty minds all of you!


RE: Oh thank God...
By MrBlastman on 1/7/2010 11:32:14 AM , Rating: 2
That would be nuts... well, maybe corny too. :)


RE: Oh thank God...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/7/2010 4:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
In time all the nuts and corn will be in the black hole... just no way to get around that I guess.


modeling
By knutjb on 1/6/2010 10:56:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The observed data allowed the development of a theoretical model,

Hope they're not using the same guys who built the Global Warming models to build this one. If so, it will be our fault, caused by co2, and the universe will end in 5 years if we don't act now.




RE: modeling
By Kurz on 1/7/2010 2:30:43 AM , Rating: 2
Damn it, don't give those Maniacs more fuel to burn.

Oh nos its the Carbon Space Monster.
Here to eat its creator!

On a serious note.
They have less reason to lie about the data and the model since they are well establish/Funded.

I swear These climatologists should of picked a more substantial field. Why the hell are we letting them sway us that they can see XX years in the future when their friends in Meteorology have trouble seeing 10 days into the future?


RE: modeling
By lco45 on 1/7/2010 7:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
GW predictions are more reliable that tomorrow's weather predictions.

You can comfortably predict that summer will be warmer than winter. It's that kind of certainty we are looking at with the GW predictions.

Luke


RE: modeling
RE: modeling
By lco45 on 1/10/2010 7:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that proponents of AGW are too quick to jump on short term rises, but this is also too short term to prove AGW is not happening.

The models have a high probability that AGW is happening, and either way it's better not to take chances with something so important.

Luke


White Hole!
By rklaver on 1/6/2010 6:58:16 PM , Rating: 5
"Oh why does it have to be called a black hole!" LOL

http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/0...




Call Chuck Norris and get done with it
By velanapontinha on 1/7/2010 2:10:54 PM , Rating: 3
Chuck Norris can swallow a black hole.




By johnsonx on 1/9/2010 1:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
i dunno y, but I lol'd


Sooo...
By zinfamous on 1/6/2010 6:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
this means we now have ~500 billion years until disaster as opposed to the previous estimate of ~70 billion years?

Sweet!




RE: Sooo...
By Camikazi on 1/6/2010 6:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
*phew* I was so worried about that 70 billion year deadline there, I was about ready to start running around screaming that the world is gonna end. 500 billion years at least gives me a little more time to get ready before running and screaming.


How much time we got?
By vapore0n on 1/7/2010 7:52:04 AM , Rating: 2
How long till we have to call in Bruce Willis?




RE: How much time we got?
By delphinus100 on 1/10/2010 2:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
How long until you fall in, Bruce Willis?


Oh yeah?
By Oobu on 1/6/2010 5:06:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well that's good.




By StraightCashHomey on 1/6/2010 5:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
Which is nice.




Romulans
By Spookster on 1/6/2010 6:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
Oh noes they are coming back!!! Damn it Jim, I thought you destroyed them and the red matter last time.




Slow but still bad for PCs
By rburnham on 1/7/2010 9:53:57 AM , Rating: 2
Well it is a good thing I backed up my hard drive. Just in case the black hole gets it.




It burps
By Regs on 1/7/2010 4:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe it's tummy is full. What if it burps? I do not want to be in the path of a black hole burp. Instead of being sucked in, we just get blown away.




galaxy
By neilmacengi on 1/8/2010 12:58:12 AM , Rating: 2
if we knew we were approaching a Black Hole or the anomaly, we would know it was happening. But, we could not measure it.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Force-Factor-Reviews---D...




By William Gaatjes on 1/8/2010 11:57:24 AM , Rating: 2
A black hole is as important to life as is a sun in a solar system. Without a black hole, no guided formation of a galaxy. No guided formation of a galaxy means no chance of solar systems save enough to support life and give it the chance to evolve.




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




16 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki