What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up-Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
60 Comments
- Me1000, on 06/25/2009, -3/+14I think you're all missing the obvious sarcasm.
- NJDevils30, on 06/24/2009, -3/+11cool story bro
- WebCommoner, on 06/25/2009, -0/+4If only Carl Sagan was here to digg
- robertisaar, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3how the hell did she get airborne?
- Shogi, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3You've been years Englishing.
- inactive, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2There are black hos all over highway 80 and I can tell you they ain't much to look at.
Crack ho, Meth ho, stupid ho- they all look the same. - EntropyFan, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2No, that would be impossible. Imaging would require collecting light, and as we all know, the one thing that makes a black hole black is that not even light can escape its gravitational field.
Are We Close to Imaging the effects of a Black Hole? Maybe. - undervalued, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2Are you making a comment or writing a novel?
- inactive, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2So then based on our knowledge of physics, what are some proposed alternatives?
thats what i thought. - Spoomeister, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2You're one of those annoying steampunk fans who spend their weekends dressed in long flowing coats, spouting gibberish about dirigibles while wearing headgear made from old watches and bicycle parts, aren't you?
- DaviDTC, on 06/25/2009, -1/+2Even though this might be meaningful, I dugg you down to get to the next comment.
And now that I buried you and saw that there is no comment below yours, but I am going to leave it buried in case I come back to read more comments. - inactive, on 06/24/2009, -16/+17How about using a camera idiots? Point and click. Done.
- punkcat, on 07/25/2009, -0/+1true, all we really know is it's black.
- dylbrwn2, on 06/24/2009, -5/+6OMG, it's so simple. How did we not think of it before?
- bobertoq, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1Wouldn't a black hole just look... black?
- mentallyinhell, on 06/25/2009, -5/+6Yeah sure, let's take a picture of a black hole in space. It'll look great.
- DaviDTC, on 06/25/2009, -1/+2That is only true cause we can't get close enough to one where nothing is in between a black hole and the person/thing taking the picture.
- punkcat, on 07/25/2009, -0/+1ok, get a video then.
- denizen42, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1That's no moon.
- punkcat, on 07/25/2009, -0/+1ok, so it can be something that acts just like a black hole.
but we shouldn't say its a black hole because then... - YojanV, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1Anyone else read the title and worry that our collective imaginations were creating a black hole?
- Propethic, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1But are you sure it's a hole?
- inactive, on 06/25/2009, -1/+2Black holes exist.
All of you tards who say otherwise must ignore mainstream astrophysics, otherwise you'd know about this:
http://www.physorg.com/news148069800.html
This isn't something that's up for debate anymore. Tell me what else is going to cause stars to orbit the center of our galaxy at speeds that would require what it's orbiting to be 4 million solar masses? Not some ***** plasma theory from 1988, thats for sure. - pln2bz, on 06/25/2009, -1/+2Maybe you should consider Adderall ...
- hybridcreation, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1Isn't that what broke the LHC?
- hybridcreation, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1Dude, this is Digg...not a creative writing contest. Get to the point.
- hybridcreation, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1Dugg for Carl Sagen. Visionary.
- yocouchdigga, on 06/24/2009, -9/+9Psh, silly scientists, that's not a black hole! Oprah went out for a swim.
- kyloe, on 06/25/2009, -0/+0*that they may be redundant with our current innovative technologies.
Before, it wasn't such a logical statement after all. - hybridcreation, on 06/25/2009, -1/+1It has nothing to do with attention span. No one is interested in reading the first 5 pages of your Master's thesis. Look how many positive comments and diggs it generated. Right...none. But I'm sure you feel 10x smarter for having posted it.
Douche. - AReallyGoodName, on 06/25/2009, -3/+3For those that don't want to read all that; he's referring to Plasma cosmology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiplasma
Black holes may or may not be what we think they are but plasma cosmology is a stupid leap to a stupid conclusion. - criticol, on 06/25/2009, -0/+0Black Holes constitute the Sink Hole draining points for all the objects? that have reached their final gasp of usefullness to existance.These black hole sites exist throughout the universe ? in innumerable numbers, (if uni-verse, means one verse only (uni) then wheres the rest of the poem?) Of course the opposite mentality has to be a White Hole,(which exists at the other end of the black holes) (Suns etc) which spew out the materials (that are disseminated to their raw micro cosmeticability inside the black holes), and which are of absolute neccessity to the continuation of all universal operations.
To picture this,imagine a funnel shape (vortex), with the entrance to the black hole being the inlet of the funnel, and the white hole being at the emission point of the funnel. ( or where the sun shines).
- dromni, on 06/25/2009, -1/+1No.
And maybe they don´t even exist. All evidence collected so far just shows that there are ultra-dense objects in some points of the universe, but maybe they are composed of just some exotic form of matter governed by yet-to-be-discovered laws of quantum gravity, with no such things as an event horizon or singularities. - pln2bz, on 06/25/2009, -1/+1Re: "No one is interested in reading the first 5 pages of your Master's thesis."
That's not quite true. Many people do actually listen to logic and reason when they are encouraged to trust their own judgment, and when they are encouraged to learn a second opinion. Anybody who reads a movie review before seeing a movie already inherently understands the wisdom of procuring a second opinion. Our astrophysical beliefs demand just as much scrutiny as going to the movies.
Re: "Look how many positive comments and diggs it generated. Right...none."
I've received just as many positive Diggs over time as negatives, actually. But it's irrelevant. The process of getting people to think about complex issues is not something that deserves to be rated as good or bad. Science is inherently controversial. People inherently need to learn to think for themselves. The only way to do that is to have a discussion. We all have to start somewhere.
Re: "But I'm sure you feel 10x smarter for having posted it."
Some people actually do possess an inherent curiosity in our surroundings, and in how Nature works. And many of us care what others believe on these points for the sole reason that we want to see the world become a better place. I want to see the technologies that will result from a better understanding of the universe, within my lifetime. And I want to see the scientists who have figured these things out get their due credit. If you actually knew me at all, you'd realize that I don't do this for the sake of impressing people.
Let me create some context ...
The current over-reliance upon invisible entities within astrophysics is completely pseudo-scientific. Do you really understand anything about the universe when it is filled with 95% non-baryonic matter? Normally, when somebody says they understand 5% of something, they are basically admitting that they don't understand it at all.
In their attempt to prove that gravity binds the universe, astrophysicists pretend that they can infer their own causes for magnetic fields (since they'd otherwise have to admit that electric currents created them); they propose that magnetic field lines can be broken and reconnect (an idea that would flunk you in an electrical engineering class); they frequently invent matter and forces for which no laboratory observations exist; and they ignore anybody within any other discipline who challenges them. Many even refuse to acknowledge papers published within IEEE, the world's largest scientific institution, and the institution which is arguably most responsible for the electronic revolution that permits us to have this online conversation in the first place.
It wasn't too long ago (the 1950's) that nobody took cosmology seriously. It only really took three pieces of evidence to change the public's mind (redshift, nucleosynthesis and the CMB). But, you know, a lot has happened since then. Halton Arp has observed that raw redshift values have an inherent QUANTIZED component; nucleosynthesis does not explain why we frequently observe elements in space to be sorted (they should generally all mix together); and plasmas, which we've since (Gamow's proposal of the Big Bang Theory) discovered to fill all of space, naturally emit microwaves when they conduct electrical current, providing good reason to be suspicious that the CMB may not be a relic radiation at all. For those of us who have been following along with an open mind, unafraid to think for ourselves and unafraid of online bullies who ridicule anybody that appears to be different, there is great reason to harbor doubt about the conventional theories -- which are oftentimes offered to the public as if they are unassailable fact. The dominant astrophysical theory is not getting any more believable over time. It has completely stalled, and we'd all be wise to start looking elsewhere. But there is this amazing echo chamber filled with people like yourself who, for whatever reason, imagine that it is their duty to ridicule the very people who are trying in earnest to resolve the problem.
People who are more aware of the situation than yourself understand that there is much need for discussion. Don't be a part of the echo chamber. Become a part of the conversation. - srgtTarantula, on 06/25/2009, -1/+1durrr.. one time, i was at wal-mart, and i thoughts i saw a black hole, i dun shook it and asked if it was a black hole, and it saids outlook not so good, so maybes it was one of them plasma things yous talking about, but it thought thems were in the electronic section.
- cl2yp71c, on 06/25/2009, -2/+2This guy lives in New Jersey.
I don't think he knows the definition of sarcasm. - BrendanSheehan, on 06/25/2009, -1/+1We've been years imagining them.
- TheTikiTony, on 06/29/2009, -0/+0It's all a freak show pln, don't think it's not.
Black holes aren't theoretical, we have proven they exist, the principles of how they work are simply unknown, they are what's theoretical.
You need to set laws and theories aside, separate them from the facts.
And we don't know what the inside of the sun is, or any star. We can make a good guess, but until we split one open, we don't know. - kyloe, on 06/25/2009, -0/+0Nice shortcut, but I chose the long haul on this one.
- kyloe, on 06/25/2009, -0/+0Vortex?
So, the milky way is drawing in on itself as a "vortex", and not dissipating away as friction? That's a scary thought; that all matter are actually anti-matter aligned terrorists!
...and I thought I had heard all conspiracy theories.
Energy is, like it or not, a force. A force cannot be anti upon itself, though it may be a condenser of other matter to generate as a larger Force.
The universe was formed from matter, and I'll submit in my most logical sense, that they may become redundant for our innovative technologies. But really, we have absolutely no true concept of what 'nothing' actually is.
But again, It'll make for a little script. - ArthorBearing, on 06/25/2009, -0/+0...I still see a black hole. I'm less inclined to dive into Oprah's though
- pln2bz, on 06/27/2009, -1/+1Also, I forgot to mention it probably because it's so obvious and has been discussed ad nauseum in countless articles, but people should know better than to consult wikipedia for obviously controversial issues. Wikipedia's stated purpose and rules are designed to favor consensus. Anybody even remotely familiar with wikipedia editing "wars" knows full well that wikipedia always sides with conventional wisdom. And yet, a cursory review of the history of science -- especially within astrophysics -- reveals that scientific consensus has frequently been wrong.
- mww101, on 06/26/2009, -0/+0its a space station
- ArthorBearing, on 06/25/2009, -0/+0Yeah and maybe all existence as we know it is a fish's dream. Don't give me empty speculation, this is a science thread... on digg. Fine, give me empty speculation
- ArthorBearing, on 06/25/2009, -0/+0Well said
- Propethic, on 06/25/2009, -0/+0Ok here's more. What if when the universe finally dies of heat death, there isn't some unknown mechanism that springs into action and compresses it back together? What if there are giant forces that span our entire universe either inside of it, on the edge or outside of it, that suddenly change their behavior once some universal conditions are met either in the very beginning or end of the lifecycle?
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is