What is Digg?86 Comments
- moofree, on 07/03/2009, -3/+24Mass != size
- Durrok, on 07/03/2009, -5/+19These comments suck. Also keep in mind that in the grand scale of the universe our sun is pretty small. There are suns out there that make our sun look like the head of a pin in comparison.
- TheLee, on 07/03/2009, -8/+19You science noobs. It's 500x more massive (ie mass) not "larger". Science fail.
- robertisaar, on 07/03/2009, -2/+13we can say vagina, this is the INTARwebz...
- jeffness, on 07/03/2009, -3/+10Okay, wow, rarely have I seen such a haphazard incorrect summary in a topic of a real article. Big fat F for reading comprehension and summarization.
The article isn't about finding super massive blackholes, we already know of those, they are generally considered to be the blackholes which anchor galaxies. The very first paragraph of the article talks about how super massive blackholes are billions of times the mass of our itty bitty sun.
When it comes to mass, 500x the MASS of our sun is pretty darn small compared to the super massive type, but still larger than the "stellar" blackholes created in a super nova. A black hole is by definition an extremely small (if not infinitely so) point with some amount of mass I don't think there's such a thing as a blackhole "500x the size" of our sun by definition of what a blackhole is, afterall. - TheTaoOfBill, on 07/03/2009, -1/+7I'll be impressed if it can make original jokes.
- seekretive, on 07/03/2009, -0/+6Because the universe is really ***** big?
- ZackM, on 07/03/2009, -1/+7Maybe I'd be able to see it if your fat ass mom wasn't blocking my view.
- j1ggy, on 07/03/2009, -0/+6Probably because it's in one of the many billions of galaxies out there that we've never looked at... until now. This isn't something next door.
- inactive, on 07/03/2009, -0/+5Get to the choppa!!!
- inactive, on 07/03/2009, -1/+6Thank you for being too stupid to create one. Your momma jokes are not unfunny.
- thelastcivilian, on 07/03/2009, -0/+5Hey Digg, you need a dupe checker for comments!
- jgzman, on 07/03/2009, -1/+5Actually, you're both right. Smaller stars are more common, but there are stars out there, not all that uncommon that make Sol a tiny, tiny point of light.
And any star is a tiny, tiny point of light next to (or in) a galaxy. - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -1/+5Wrong, generally speaking, our sun is pretty big. The super big stars are very rare, things like brown dwarfs, that are much smaller then our sun, is a lot more common.
- RatherBKayaking, on 07/03/2009, -0/+4I at least like the Muse reference.
- stolemybike, on 07/03/2009, -4/+8I'll be impressed when it can run Crysis.
- moofree, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3I'm hoping for your brain to parse that inequality definition, not a compiler or interpreter.
Indeed, the pascal work I've done in the past makes me tend toward thinking it as "<>", but I went with != for clarity. - Barackalypse, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3Its the Federal debt, isn't it?
- blindhammer, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2This article is NOT about black holes. Read it carefully. It is about discovering a very large source of X-rays. The scientists in this article then "hypothesize" that "[o]nly a medium-size black hole could create an X-ray signature that bright."
Again, the scientists are merely postulating based upon the conventional model of the universe.
In a plasma model of the universe, for instance, these xrays could be created by current densities getting too high in z-pinch double layers. Look into the work of Hannes Alfvén, a Nobel Prize winner, if you are interested. - youannoyme, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2@Cheesepuffly
The Schwarzschild radius of the SMBH in our own galaxy is only a factor of 10 or so larger than the radius of our sun. A measly 500 solar mass black hole will not be larger
@TheLee
Astrophysicists themselves typically use 'larger' interchangeably with 'more massive'. Largeness doesn't have to refer to physical extent (think 'large debt' or 'large ego') and since Astro people talk about mass vastly more often than they talk about radius, it is a natural thing to say. - Wilddigi, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2Probably because of the Prime Directive
- Cheesepuffly, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2Well, does it say it is not larger? Although you are right there is obviously a good chance it is bigger.
- jgzman, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2They probably haven't died out, but they are kinda hard to detect. If one happened to be in intergalactic space, and either not close to something, or lined up so we attributed it's gravity to something else, it would be DAMN hard to find.
- inactive, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2Takes many billions of years for them to die out though, so many billions of years that none has most probably died out yet, not even the earliest of black holes.
- RamezaniK, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2I thought we'd known of Lindsey Lohan's vagina for a while now.....
- TheMu, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2I bet Matthew Bellamy will be pleased.
- Mejogid, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2@jeffness
You can't use the concept of infinity in that way - it isn't a number in the traditional sense. You can't square root infinity, and a black hole of infinite mass would by that definition contain the universe and be a single singularity. - themastersb, on 07/03/2009, -2/+4I'll be impressed when it's OVER 9000 times larger than the sun.
- youannoyme, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2That's not quite how it works. During the big bang, it's not that all matter was condensed to a single point of space, but space itself was wrapped up "smaller". It really is nonsensical to talk about without doing the math and playing with the metric, but even though things were "closer" and "more dense" things still also extended infinitely in every direction. And since matter was distributed (roughly) evenly, the gravitational pull in every direction was the same and you didn't get any sort of collapse into a star until much later when things have "expanded" more. It is true that the first stars were much larger than what generally gets created now, but not for the reasons you are thinking, and we are only talking a factor of 100-200 larger than our sun, nothing like a SMBH.
- inactive, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1Holy *****!
- Toshibi, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1For a black hole to die out, at even one solar mass through evaporation, would take about 10^67 years. That's a long time.
- inactive, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1@Both of you
Yeah we know that, but the big stars are obviously MUCH easier to detect then the smaller ones, that's why we see a bunch of big stars when we look up in the skies, even with our own eyes, and not small brown dwarfs but we know for a fact that small stars are WAYYY more common then suns the size of our star, and bigger stars. Fact - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -1/+2They basically mean the size of the event horizon, aka point of no return.
- DWatch, on 07/03/2009, -1/+2Because the title of the article fails.... black holes are not 'larger' than a sun, they are incredibly tiny, almost the size of a single atom. The fact that they contain an entire star's worth of matter in that small size means they have an insane amount of gravity for their size, and thus, nearby light cannot escape their pull.
It doesn't matter if the black hole is 500 times more *massive* than our sun, all that matter is still packed into a volume smaller than a flea's eyeball.... and, oh yea.... its completely dark. So.... good luck finding one yourself. - LocalDocal, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1"Because the title of the article fails.... black holes are not 'larger' than a sun, they are incredibly tiny, almost the size of a single atom."
Yeah, this is completely incorrect. What you're referring to is the singularity, which is not the only part of the black hole. The event horizon is also taken into consideration; some also includes the accretion disk. - AmnesiacJack, on 07/03/2009, -5/+6Shouldn't there be super duper gigantic sized blackholes left over from after the big bang? I mean for a while after it happened with all that matter so close together shouldn't massive stars have formed and collapsed into blackholes bigger than even the ones in the centers of galaxies?
- Fallout911, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1I have nothing to say other than Moon people.
- christoast, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1I say old bean, is this indeed fact, or is it but a clever ruse?
- LocalDocal, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1I don't see why you're getting dugg down as this is a very legitimate and good question. There have been quite a few theories that black holes were important in the creation of galaxies (thus why there appears to be one in the center of every galaxy) indicating they are among the oldest objects in the universe, so it does seem interesting that there doesn't appear to be one very old, ultra massive black hole.
However, we have not seen everything space has to offer. We have, in fact, already found one galaxy that is as large as an entire galaxy (OJ287 at 18 billion times the mass of our sun) and it took us a very long time to find it, so who's to say there isn't a black hole out there that completely dwarfs every galaxy we know of? - Buckwyld, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1I bet it sucks.
- dandaman0345, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1really I thought I saw one in my backyard a second ago...of cource there are no black holes on our planet
- blindhammer, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1"Saying something we can quite plainly see as being real, that really does happen"
We can plainly see a black hole? NO ONE has ever seen a black hole. In fact, they are called "black holes" because, by definition, it is impossible to view them since light cannot escape from them. So, no, we cannot "see" a black hole at all.
Oddly enough, it is possible that Einstein actually disproved Black Holes:
"The black hole is alleged to contain an infinitely dense point-mass singularity, produced by irresistible gravitational collapse (see for example [17, 24], for the typical claim). The singularity of the alleged Big Bang cosmology is, according to many proponents of the Big Bang, also infinitely dense. Yet according to Special Relativity, infinite densities are forbidden because their existence implies that a material object can acquire the speed of light c in vacuo (or equivalently, the existence of infinite energies), thereby violating the very basis of Special Relativity. Since General Relativity cannot violate Special Relativity, General Relativity must therefore also forbid infinite densities. Point-mass singularities are alleged to be infinitely dense objects. Therefore, point-mass singularities are forbidden by the Theory of Relativity."
From http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/DPS%20talk.pdf
More at: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7qqsr1 ...
I'm not taking a position. I'm merely pointing out that you should not automatically accept every "hypothesis" that scientists have. - LoudMusic, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1Unless the "black hole" is rally close, wouldn't there be stuff between us and the "black hole" emitting light in our direction that wasn't getting swallowed up by the "black hole" ?
I put "black hole" in quotes because it is neither black nor a hole and the term has bothered me for quite some time. - Nzx0824, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1***** awesome. I need to go on one of those rides into space when it opens.
- BahamutSalad, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1@youannoyme
100% correct. Even a brief investigation of black holes will tell you this. Sucks that you're getting dugg down by idiots that don't know ***** about the subject. - dandaman0345, on 07/03/2009, -0/+0lmao dugg up because of the flea's eyeball comparison
- inactive, on 07/03/2009, -1/+1Buried! It is called a black hole for a reason, you cant see it. Thats why they are so good at stealing your tv.
- TheZorch, on 07/03/2009, -1/+1No, there are plenty of stars much larger than our sun. one is so big its diameter is equal to the size of Jupiter's orbit. That really big ***** star!!!
- TheMu, on 07/03/2009, -1/+1Someone call the burn ward.
-
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is