What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
youtube.com - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
35 Comments
- scoot2006, on 01/07/2009, -0/+7Yeah, those astrophysicists have no clue what they're talking about.
You've obviously had more experience, education, and time to think about these things. Please, educate us... - deansfurniture5, on 01/07/2009, -0/+5Uh, what? "the laws of physics on earth doesn't (sic) apply on (sic) outer space"? The laws are the same everywhere, we just don't necessarily understand them all. Gravity governs how objects in space affect other objects, and it doesn't matter where you are in the universe, it still works.
All great discoveries start with speculation--in this case they found some interesting data and are trying to come up with ways to explain it. Then, they'll try and prove that through more observations. It's the scientific method. - DooM, on 01/07/2009, -0/+5Good question - here's a possibility:
"A black hole has been found slowly devouring a companion star at the heart of a dense star cluster - providing the first clear sign that black holes inhabit the dense stellar cities known as globular clusters."
- http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10879 - garryw, on 01/07/2009, -0/+4but your entire argument breaks down at the 5th grade level
- LarianLeQuella, on 01/07/2009, -1/+5I like Dr. Plait's (Bad Astronomer) explanation and insights into this: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/200 ...
- LarianLeQuella, on 01/07/2009, -0/+3Another stellar example of how the US education system is a dismal failure...
- nowhereelse, on 01/08/2009, -0/+3There is something of the truth in gatonegrosky's comments but it is unlikely that the laws of physics aren't universal (although that is an assumption, not a known fact). What is more likely is that some of the assumptions are wrong.
The vast majority of scientists, myself included, are immersed in the accepted dogma of our fields and it takes an exceptional character to question assumptions that are subscribed to by the majority of one's colleagues.
Maybe it's because I'm not a cosmologist that I find the gravity-dominated Big Bang universe suspect in view of the fact that it relies on the hypothetical notion that more than 90% of the matter and energy in the universe is undetectable by any other means than observing the effects it is invoked to explain.
I've even read the paper where Schwartzschild himself showed that singularities are impossible in the physical universe yet he is credited with the notion on Black Holes. Cosmology is the province of mathematicians and yet this fundamental paradox is studiously ignored.
In my own field, there is strong evidence to suggest that some of the results used to refute the work of Pons and Fleischmann (incorrectly labelled 'Cold Fusion') were falsified. Work since that time has overwhelmingly supported the original findings yet it is still nearly impossible to get funding for or publish a paper on the subject.
This is relevant because it demonstrates what tends to happen in any field of study; results which confirm the paradigm are sought while those which contradict it are ignored or labeled anomalous. Speculation is used to produce ad hoc fixes to the dogma to accommodate each new set of data because poor theories consistently fail to predict real observations.
When Mendeleev formulated the periodic table he was able to predict the existence of elements (gallium, germanium, technetium and scandium, as they were later known) which had not yet been identified but were later discovered by experiment. Cosmology doesn't do this sort of thing so it is no wonder that outsiders question its veracity. - mag1c1an, on 01/08/2009, -0/+2Wear a condom tho...
- garryw, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2I see what you did there, I need newer literature.
- youannoyme, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2That perception is mostly because of bad reporting and popular science layman versions. Yeah, there will always be crackpot theories, and sometimes smart guys will just be shown to be wrong. But you don't see the same problem if you are actually walking amongst them in the academic circles and actually understand what is going on.
- pw378, on 01/08/2009, -0/+1Obviously black holes came first, because galaxies are flat and circular. Think of it this way, the planets wouldn't be on a nice flat orbital plane unless there was a star at the center.
- pwdrskier, on 01/08/2009, -0/+1right! we usually find them by studying how objects around them are affected by their immense gravitational field because of the insane amount of mass concentrated in such a small space.
- pw378, on 01/08/2009, -0/+1They do emit energy. The just before the event horizon will be highly energetic particles screaching at incredible speed and energy levels and tossing out gamma radiation. They just aren't visible a human eye.
- pwdrskier, on 01/08/2009, -0/+1black holes are fascination but we know so little about them. unfortunately they are rather hard to study seeing as they dont' emit light
- garryw, on 01/07/2009, -1/+2Then how does one explain globular clusters? They are not known to have supermassive black holes.
- nowhereelse, on 01/08/2009, -1/+2Best preface all this with "Theory has it that..." unless you were actually there.
- oilcan, on 01/07/2009, -2/+2I'm pretty sure it's leprechauns
- LarianLeQuella, on 01/07/2009, -1/+1Invisible Pink Unicorns!
- inactive, on 01/09/2009, -0/+0to garryw: I'd like to hear your reasoning for this false, childish statement.. aimed only at trying to be a digg clown and make people laugh (but miserably failed)
- Thorpe, on 01/07/2009, -2/+2Someone just enter the damn black hole already.
- nowhereelse, on 01/08/2009, -1/+1In his paper "On the Gravitational Field of a Mass Point according to Einstein’s Theory" (1916), Schwarzschild himself showed that black holes couldn't exist.
Even the theory on which they are based is derived from a flawed solution of Schwarzchild's original work. - jaymzdean, on 01/07/2009, -1/+1Go back to my comment...
"about the time areas less dense"
Indirectly, I'm saying there are areas of much (not excluding very, very, VERY much) more density.
I didn't say some areas were earlier, I said there was a variation in density, and areas of less density take LONGER to condense into bodies. - pln2bz, on 01/07/2009, -1/+1What people need to understand is that astrophysicists use the mystery of things like black holes, magnetic fields and dark matter to explain observations that are enigmatic to their Standard Model. Many laypeople may not realize that astrophysics is the only scientific discipline for which magnetic fields are not strictly the result of electric currents. Use your head, guys: Why would things be different in astrophysics than in the other disciplines of science?
http://www.thunderbolts.info
http://www.holoscience.com - Ransack, on 01/07/2009, -1/+1The universe is not 13.7 billion years old as stated in the article. The figure 13.7 billion is based on the assumption of constant rate of expansion of the universe from the big bang to its current size. But we now know the universe is accelerating as it grows, meaning it is much older than 13.7 billion years.
- pandikukka, on 01/07/2009, -1/+0IF black hole formed first, how can anything else form?
I cannot understand this - garryw, on 01/07/2009, -2/+1the early black holes were actually white holes, black holes come later.
- hanger69er, on 01/07/2009, -2/+1black holes are hungry suckers!
- mlfoley, on 01/08/2009, -2/+1GODDIDIT
- jaymzdean, on 01/07/2009, -2/+1As energy began to condense into matter and matter began to condense into celestial clouds (which didn't happen with uniform dispersion, which is still not understood), which began to condense into celestial bodies - the earliest celestial bodies - became black holes, about the time areas less dense in matter had had time to condense into a celestial body. Black holes first, planets soon after that if not sometimes simultaneously.
You'll have to wait another 35 years for that to be figured out and to see it on the front page of digg. - bigdoglj52, on 01/07/2009, -2/+1the article says that they think the holes came first because they are larger then the bulges but couldn't the holes of just grown at a faster rate then the bulges did?
- Nauree, on 01/07/2009, -4/+2Or you could just accept the fact that God is in the center of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_V:_The_Fina ... - phearinc, on 01/07/2009, -3/+1They had me at "black-hole and bulge masses".
- Gatonegrosky, on 01/07/2009, -3/+0please let it be Soulja Boy who's with me?
- Gatonegrosky, on 01/07/2009, -7/+1nowadays every mayor "breakthrough" in space science is just a speculation, just when one believes something in the universe is true there is another thesis that puts it in the trash, when will humans understand that the laws of physics of earth doesn't apply on outer space
- inactive, on 01/07/2009, -7/+0Black holes are pure theory and speculation. The problem with "black holes" is that they will never be able to find DIRECT evidence. All has been indirect. Everything is based on einsteins general relativity, which has proven to be accurate on a large scale.. but totally breaks down at the subatomic level.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is