Mysterious Stars Surround Andromeda's Black Hole

Duh. by ackthpt · 2005-09-21 05:02 · Score: 5, Funny

strange blue light coming from the center of the Andromeda galaxy.

It's the resurgence of K-Mart!

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Duh. by Tackhead · 2005-09-21 05:12 · Score: 1

> > strange blue light coming from the center of the Andromeda galaxy.
>
>It's the resurgence of K-Mart!
I'm thinking more like blue as in Vedrans, powered by the rapid rotation of Gene Roddenberry's corpse, and all centered around a 140-million solar-mass abyss of suck.
"That's no resurgence of K-Mart. It's the restoration of the K-ommonwealth!" (You GNOME types, stay out of this!)
Re:Duh. by AviLazar · 2005-09-21 05:13 · Score: 1

"Don't follow the light"
"I can't help it..."

--

I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Re:Duh. by Zediker · 2005-09-21 05:14 · Score: 1, Funny

It's the resurgence of K-Mart!

Danger! Danger Will Robenson!

--
I love to slaughter the english language.
Re:Duh. by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2005-09-21 05:14 · Score: 4, Funny

The Sears/KMart merger caused the resulting mass of "suck" to collapse into a gigantic black hole, composed of pure suckiness. The proposed Northwest/Delta airline merger will do a similar thing, providing a rare opportunity to observe a black hole of suckiness in the process of formation.

--
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Re:Duh. by ackthpt · 2005-09-21 05:19 · Score: 1, Funny

The Sears/KMart merger caused the resulting mass of "suck" to collapse into a gigantic black hole, composed of pure suckiness. The proposed Northwest/Delta airline merger will do a similar thing, providing a rare opportunity to observe a black hole of suckiness in the process of formation.
Assuming K-Mart isn't driven out but a critical mass of Walmarts. Soon to be followed by Starbucks clusters.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Duh. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:27 · Score: 0

All I can say is, SHLD certainly has been sucking as of late.
Re:Duh. by Rei · 2005-09-21 05:35 · Score: 1

No, no, no. You see, when an object moves away from you, it gets "red shifted", while when it moves toward you, light coming from it gets "blue shifted". Andromeda, a galaxy famous for its bad acting, must have its stars move rapidly toward the viewers, lest they get sucked into the soulless black hole residing in its core that has already consumed much of the galaxy's ratings.

--
Also, I can kill you with my brain.
Re:Duh. by schon · 2005-09-21 07:25 · Score: 3, Funny

Andromeda, a galaxy famous for its bad acting

Well thank god there's no Babylon5 galaxy, or we'd all be doomed!
Re:Duh. by Mattsson · 2005-09-21 21:23 · Score: 1

"Buy smart, buy S-Mart."
- Ash

--
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
Re:Duh. by tabrnaker · 2005-09-23 04:41 · Score: 1

K-mart sucks.

It's too bad... by parasonic · 2005-09-21 05:03 · Score: 0

...that we are too far away to send a probe into this black hole.

Re:It's too bad... by ackthpt · 2005-09-21 05:12 · Score: 3, Funny

...that we are too far away to send a probe into this black hole.
The thing about space, is it's really really big, huge, you know? So the distances are in light years which means whatever we're seeing happend that many years ago. If we were to launch a probe to see it we'd probably find much of the excitment has moved on, especially by the time the signals make it back to us and all the probe finds is a few empty popcorn buckets and candy wrappers left by aliens who beat us to the show and got better seats besides.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:It's too bad... by nothingx · 2005-09-21 05:22 · Score: 2, Informative

HA! Dude, no it's not. If we were close enough to a black hole to send a probe into it, we'd also be close enough to have the entire Earth sucked in and squeezed down to a grain of sand... or you know, whaver actually happens when you get sucked into a black hole.
Re:It's too bad... by AviLazar · 2005-09-21 05:31 · Score: 1

Well anytime I get sucked into a black hole, well I tend to feel really good. So maybe the Earth is just trying to get laid?

--

I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Re:It's too bad... by phliar · 2005-09-21 06:06 · Score: 1

... or you know, whaver actually happens when you get sucked into a black hole.
If you get sucked towards a black hole, assuming you survive the tidal forces, you will never reach the event horizon. Time dilates in the strong gravitational field, and at the event horizon the time dilation is infinite. At small distances from the event horizon you could watch the rest of the universe speed up. (In fact the Restaurant At The End of The Universe is very close to an event horizon!)

--
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Re:It's too bad... by lgw · 2005-09-21 06:37 · Score: 1

It's the singularity you're thinking of. For a large enough black hole, the time dialation isn't even noticable at the event horizon. You could still watch the rest of the universe speeding up as you fall towards the center, however, as the event horizon doesn't prevent you from watching what's going on outside.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:It's too bad... by jav1231 · 2005-09-21 06:50 · Score: 1

Well, given that only 50% of scientific reports are accurate we might fall into a black hole and well...merely fall into a black hole. The whole space/time stretching, mass collapsing, and matter altering could all be completely false. In fact, we might get close enough one day to hear something like,
"Hey! Anyone out there? We've fallen into this HUGE black hole and well...can't get out! WTF was this thing, anyway!? Like some kind of old mining hole? Was someone mining stars or planets or something? Anyway, throw a tow rope or something, will ya? EGADS!"
Re:It's too bad... by lgw · 2005-09-21 07:39 · Score: 1

While the "only 50% accurate" thing doesn't apply much to theoretical work, that doesn't change your point much. General relativity is about as thouroughly tested as a theory can be, but trying to understand what happens inside a black hole is extrapolating beyond the theory's bounds and there's a lot of "hmmm, the result is an imaginary number; well *I* imagine that means this!" going on. Entertaining, but probably not very predictive.

Fortunately, there aren't any black holes nearby with which to sort out the theories emperically.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:It's too bad... by Neurotoxic666 · 2005-09-21 09:14 · Score: 1

If we were to launch a probe to see it we'd probably find much of the excitment has moved on,

Actually, if the probe was to move fast enough, it wouldn't miss the show, but rather see the whole thing in fast-forward.

--
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
Re:It's too bad... by jav1231 · 2005-09-21 09:15 · Score: 1

Eh. It won't stop the young minds full of mush around here from accepting it as...uh...gospel.
Re:It's too bad... by budgenator · 2005-09-21 10:37 · Score: 1

If the radius of the event horizon was big enough, tidal forces would be minimal, as tidal force is actualy the delta-G at two points such as your head and feet. So if the event horizon is big enough, you could "fall" into a black hole and survive becuase there wouldn't be enough tidal forces to hurt you. Now because time dilation is infinite at the event horizon, you'd never even get to the event horizon so getting past it would be out of the question.
I guess that means that you can't fall into a black-hole, you an just get really close unless you had no mass. Getting all the mass sucked out of your matter would probably hurt alot.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Heavy elements by pcraven · 2005-09-21 05:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Speaking of stars, what is the source of the heavier elements? I thought most came from star fusion, but I don't think that can account for all the elements. Plus planets seem to have a higher distribution than hydrogen-rich stars.

Re:Heavy elements by InfiniteWisdom · 2005-09-21 05:10 · Score: 1

And just why don't you think fusion can account for all the elements?

The higher distribution of heavy elements is not surprising at all... lighter elements easily escape the light gravity of the smaller planets. The gas giants, on the other hand hava a composition much more similar to stars.
Re:Heavy elements by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:10 · Score: 0

Ever heard of intelligent design? Ah! thought so...
Re:Heavy elements by pcraven · 2005-09-21 05:12 · Score: 1

Once the star gets to iron, doesn't it stop? I didn't think you could sustain fusion with iron.
Re:Heavy elements by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:13 · Score: 0

Planets are made out of star guts aren't they?
Re:Heavy elements by MaskedSlacker · 2005-09-21 05:15 · Score: 1

Essentially, yes.
Re:Heavy elements by InfiniteWisdom · 2005-09-21 05:24 · Score: 1

It's not like the entire star turns to iron.... it's an extremely tiny fraction of the mass of the star that gets converted to heavier elements. Don't forget that the sun is not an especially large star, but it's mass is 168,334.136 times the mass of all the inner planets combined
Re:Heavy elements by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:30 · Score: 1, Funny

Love is now the stardust of yesterday
Re:Heavy elements by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:34 · Score: 2, Informative

There are several methods for the creation of elements including the r-process (supernovae), the s-process (red giants), the cosmic ray interaction, and the big bang. See this thread for more information:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=249157

and wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis
Re:Heavy elements by MightyMartian · 2005-09-21 05:40 · Score: 1

Planets are made out of star guts aren't they?

Save for hydrogen, most helium and lithium, all the matter we observe, ourselves included, is made out of star guts.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Heavy elements by Your+Anus · 2005-09-21 06:24 · Score: 1

I wonder if, at the speeds of matter orbiting a black hole, there wouldn't be some sort of vortex process because of the radical difference in rotational energy between layers close to the black hole and layers farther from a black hole. It would be similat to hurricanes forming near the equator because of differences in angular momentum. Such votices at such high energies might compress gas enough to start a reaction.

--

In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
Re:Heavy elements by lgw · 2005-09-21 06:45 · Score: 1

You've more-or-less described a quasar.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Heavy elements by swelke · 2005-09-21 06:47 · Score: 2, Informative

While it's true that you lose energy when you fuse to stuff heavier than iron, that doesn't mean that it never happens. In a supernova, for instance, there is a short time when there's energy to burn (pardon the pun) and heavy stuff like lead and uranium etc. can form. That's why you see that the solar system is made up of mostly hydrogen and helium (stuff not yet fused), several percent the stuff heavier than helium but lighter than iron, and only a tiny fraction of a percent of the stuff heavier than iron. The heavy stuff almost never gets a chance to form.

--
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
Re:Heavy elements by mmkkbb · 2005-09-21 09:30 · Score: 1

Not to mention 745.4 times the mass of all the planets combined.

--
-mkb
Re:Heavy elements by cswiger2005 · 2005-09-21 10:06 · Score: 3, Informative

The initial gas mix of stars is approximately 95% Hydrogen (H) and about 5% Helium (He), with a very tiny fraction of Lithium and heavier elements. Anything heavier than Helium is considered a "metal" to an astronomer, BTW. Stars produce the most energy by fusing H into He, and they can also gain some energy by fusing heavier elements, but the amount of energy declines until you reach Iron (Fe), after which fusion no longer results in an energy gain. Once a star starts having a lot of Fe in its core, the fusion synthesis process stops producing the energy needed to keep the star going, so it collapses, and the rebound shock causes a nova, also producing elements heavier than Iron as a result. The approximate distribution of elements in Sol, our sun, today is: {'H':.785, 'He':.197, 'O':.0097, 'C':.004, 'N':.001, 'Si':.001, 'Mg':.00076, 'Ne':.00058, 'Fe':.00014, 'S':.0004} Planets like Earth have a much higher distribution of heavier elements than stars do, for a very simple reason: they aren't big enough to have enough gravity to keep things like H and He from escaping over time, unless the planet is above a critical mass, in which case it forms a gas giant like Jupiter, Saturn, etc, which are big enough to retain such very light gasses. Here's a table of the planets in our solar system, with mass measured in 10**24 kg, density relative to water, then the heaviest molecular weight of a gas the planet will retain, and the lightest common atmospheric gas which is kept: Mercury mass: 0.33 density: 5.43 moleculelim: 43.5 gas: CarbonDioxide Venus mass: 4.87 density: 5.24 moleculelim: 7.3 gas: Methane Earth mass: 5.97 density: 5.51 moleculelim: 6.3 gas: Methane Mars mass: 0.64 density: 3.93 moleculelim: 31.1 gas: OxygenGas Jupiter mass: 1899.00 density: 1.33 moleculelim: 0.2 gas: HydrogenGas Saturn mass: 568.00 density: 0.69 moleculelim: 0.6 gas: HydrogenGas Uranus mass: 86.80 density: 1.27 moleculelim: 1.7 gas: HydrogenGas Neptune mass: 102.00 density: 1.64 moleculelim: 1.4 gas: HydrogenGas Pluto mass: 0.01 density: 1.75 moleculelim: 578.5 gas: None In particular, oxygen gas, O2, has a molecular weight of 32, and N2 is 28. If Mars were just a little bit heavier, it would have a much more substantial atmosphere which would be much more similar to that here on Earth. -Chuck PS: Why yes, that's a Python dictionary above, you didn't think I'd write the table above by hand or post using "Code" frivolously, do you...? :-)

--
"The human race's favorite method for being in control of the facts is to ignore them." -Celia Green
Re:Heavy elements by MaskedSlacker · 2005-09-21 12:59 · Score: 1

Elements heavier than iron are not prodcued through fusion. See above.
Re:Heavy elements by swelke · 2005-09-22 04:12 · Score: 1

Supernovae generate tremendous temperatures, and under the right conditions, the fusion reactions that take place during the peak moments of a supernova can produce some of the heaviest elements like californium.

Read up.

--
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
Re:Heavy elements by MaskedSlacker · 2005-09-22 04:23 · Score: 1

*sigh* Fixed.
Re:Heavy elements by MaskedSlacker · 2005-09-22 04:29 · Score: 1

Those composition numbers for the sun are significantly off. I forget the exact figures, and i don't have time to dig the papers up out of arxiv.org, but its closer to H=0.707 He=0.28 and Z=.013.
Re:Heavy elements by cswiger2005 · 2005-09-22 06:56 · Score: 1

The numbers you're quoting are fractional composition by *mass*, right? I was trying to quote relative composition, ie 18 kg of water has 16 kg of O and 2 kg of H, which is {O: .89, H: .11} by mass but only {O: .33, H: .67} by relative frequency of composition.

--
"The human race's favorite method for being in control of the facts is to ignore them." -Celia Green

They Also Noticed Klingons Near Uranus by Real+World+Stuff · 2005-09-21 05:07 · Score: 0, Funny

Yeah yeah in soviet russia...grits...fail it...etc...

Where is the Cabal?

--
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.

Cold fucking cathode by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:07 · Score: 5, Funny

Stinking ricers have taken over a whole galaxy. If you think galactic undercarriage lighting is bad, wait till you hear them blasting that galactic bass late at night.

Re:Cold fucking cathode by DarthStrydre · 2005-09-21 05:31 · Score: 1

While galactic bass is nothing to sneeze at, at least we can all take comfort knowing that ricers do not particularly care for the music of Hotblack Desiato of Disaster Area.
Re:Cold fucking cathode by HuckleCom · 2005-09-21 07:28 · Score: 0

Not even, it's the starship enterprise!

Elements past iron by benhocking · 2005-09-21 05:08 · Score: 4, Informative

Elements past iron can only be created in a supernova explosion. Google on "supernova elements" for more information. Of course, the element synthesis during a supernova explosion is due to fusion, but I'm not sure one could call it "star fusion".

--
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?

Re:Elements past iron by MaskedSlacker · 2005-09-21 05:11 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually its neutron accretion that produces elements heavier than iron, not fusion. Iron disintegrates at temperatures lower than what it will fuse at.
Re:Elements past iron by temojen · 2005-09-21 05:27 · Score: 1

Wouldn't neutron accretion be the fusion of a heavy element with hydrogen?
Re:Elements past iron by MaskedSlacker · 2005-09-21 05:47 · Score: 5, Informative

No, because hydrogen is a single proton, not a single neutron. I forget the exact mechanics of neutron accretion, as its not my field of direct study, but it occurs in two forms, the r-process (rapid) and the s-process(slow) (we physicists are not known for being creative with names). The r-process occurs in supernovae when heavy nuclei are bombarded by many neutrons, ad rather than splitting the target nuclei, the neutrons stick (at the same time the nuclei are radiating particles away, but not as fast as they are gaining them). Once the process stops, the new, super neutron rich nuclei give off beta radiation (changing neturons into protons) until they reach a stable configuration. The s-process occurs in large, but otherwise stable stars. This process however only produces elements as heavy as lead. Anything heavier is produced by the r-process.
Re:Elements past iron by phliar · 2005-09-21 05:53 · Score: 1

Wouldn't neutron accretion be the fusion of a heavy element with hydrogen?
An ordinary hydrogen nucleus is a proton.

--
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Re:Elements past iron by lgw · 2005-09-21 06:10 · Score: 1

we physicists are not known for being creative with names

Better than astronomers/cosmologists who call carbon a metal and a free neutron "non-baryonic". Being creative with *existing* terms is not a Good Thing.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Elements past iron by swelke · 2005-09-21 06:43 · Score: 1

Wouldn't neutron accretion be the fusion of a heavy element with hydrogen?

Nope. A hydrogen ion is a proton, not a neutron.

--
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
Re:Elements past iron by temojen · 2005-09-21 06:52 · Score: 1

D'Oh. I really shouldn't comment when I'm this tired.
Re:Elements past iron by MaskedSlacker · 2005-09-21 11:14 · Score: 1

well, as for calling carbon a "metal" its only a metal in terms of its ionization properties with respest to how this affects the scattering and absorption of light. To be more clear, hydrogen and helium only have one layer of electrons. They scatter and absorb light differently from anything that has more than one layer (because they ionize completely at solar temperatures, whereas elements with multiple electron shells generally do not.
Re:Elements past iron by Alsee · 2005-09-23 10:33 · Score: 1

we physicists are not known for being creative with names

Ah yes, like the obvious charm flavor quarks.
In fact charm is my favorite flavor of icecream. :)

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

An escaping star?? HA! by lightyear4 · 2005-09-21 05:09 · Score: 4, Informative

Wouldnt matter too much...our Milky Way and Andromeda are on a slow collision course anyway - by the time an ejected star got here, the rest of the galaxy would be right behind it. But no need to go hide in a cave just yet, we've still got about 3 billion years.

Re:An escaping star?? HA! by Intron · 2005-09-21 05:17 · Score: 5, Funny

FEMA announced plans to start working on the problem in 3.1 billion years.

--
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Re: An escaping star?? HA! by Black+Parrot · 2005-09-21 05:25 · Score: 2, Funny

> But no need to go hide in a cave just yet, we've still got about 3 billion years.

Might want to avoid buying 5 billion year treasury bonds, though.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:An escaping star?? HA! by AviLazar · 2005-09-21 05:35 · Score: 1

I still wouldn't worry about that. According to the GP (or GGP) poster from Here even if the galaxies collided, we probably wouldn't be effected in a catastrophic level. Meaning, even if you were alive in 3 billion years, playing your X-Box 360 version 1.5e30 you would still be playing it.
The article say our solar system may get darker (from lack of stars) OR it may get very bright (enough light to make a night at the country-side look like a night in the city of downtown Toronto)

--

I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Re:An escaping star?? HA! by Hatta · 2005-09-21 05:44 · Score: 1

I don't understand how the Milky Way and Andromeda can be on a collision course. What implications does Hubbles law have for this?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:An escaping star?? HA! by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · 2005-09-21 05:49 · Score: 1

Uh- I hate to break it to you, but if you read FEMAs charter, and the executive orders (wait- are executive orders in the Constitution? Oh, no, they aren't), FEMA is there to protect the government, not the people.
So when the star impacts with Earth, the politicians will be safe in some space pod on the far side of the moon.

--
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
Re:An escaping star?? HA! by lightyear4 · 2005-09-21 06:03 · Score: 1

Two cars(stars) are speeding on highway away from a city (center of the universe). They're heading in the same direction, yet move laterally towards each other and collide. Now how does that violate hubble, exactly?
Re:An escaping star?? HA! by LandKurt · 2005-09-21 06:13 · Score: 1

What implications does Hubbles law have for this?

Hubble's law says the universe as a whole is expanding. However locally things can be approaching each other. On a cosmological scale the Andromeda galaxy is local to us, part of the Local Group actually.

So you see, at 2.9 million light years away the Andromeda galaxy is too close for Hubble's law to apply.
Re:An escaping star?? HA! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 06:26 · Score: 0

correction:

FEMA announced plans to start working in 3.1 billion years.
Re:An escaping star?? HA! by lgw · 2005-09-21 06:34 · Score: 1

The latest "Cosmological Constant" is though to be on the orders of millimeters per second per light year. I think it's just the latest wrong answer in a long string of wrong answers myself, but the numbers don't preclude nearby galaxies heading towards one another.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:An escaping star?? HA! by jahudabudy · 2005-09-21 06:52 · Score: 1

Yep. A nice list of executive orders can be found here. I realize the rest of the page is a bit paranoid sounding, but this is a pretty good list to get you started on objective research.

--
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Re:An escaping star?? HA! by budgenator · 2005-09-21 08:01 · Score: 3, Funny

So when the star impacts with Earth, the politicians will be safe in some space pod on the far side of the moon.
I hope you took some stupid pills this morning, because if you thought being on the far side of the MOON would be any help to you if a STAR hit the EARTH with your native intelligence; your going to have some serious life-issues when you move out of your mother's basement!

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:An escaping star?? HA! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 08:04 · Score: 0

The word you're looking for is affected.
Re:An escaping star?? HA! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 08:40 · Score: 0

Now, the word he is probably looking for is "Shut the Fuck Up you stupid grammar Nazi asshole!" Crawl into a tiny hole and die you worthless twat!
Re:An escaping star?? HA! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-22 04:59 · Score: 0

No. I'm pretty sure he was looking for "affected".

Re:Duck... by nothingx · 2005-09-21 05:09 · Score: 1

Yeah, cause God forbid, in 2.9 million years we'd all be dead!!

Get it right.. by beldraen · 2005-09-21 05:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Stars form when a knot of gas and dust collapses under its own gravity.

No... Stars form however they damn well please. Our current models suggest it is done under their own gravity, but our models are not reality. They are our understanding of reality and are modified or thrown out when we find our understanding is wrong. The universe is always right.

P.S. Sorry, it's one of my pet pieves when someone says "that not how physics works!"

--
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me

Re:Get it right.. by amdotaku · 2005-09-21 05:16 · Score: 1

Yeah, and apples fall from trees because thats what they want to do, not gravity. Gravitational acceleration is just a model we use to approximate what happens! C'mon, physics is about models, or the physics answer for absolutely everything would be "we don't know, we just have a working model". Hell, even concepts like "human being" or "rock" are really just working models of more complicated processes that we still can't fully detail. The fact is, a good, predicative, working model is usually better to express whats going on than the standard "We don't know, and will probably never know".
Re:Get it right.. by Shadow+Wrought · 2005-09-21 05:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Our current models suggest it is done under their own gravity, but our models are not reality.
Physicists see equations as a reflection of reality.
Engineers see reality as a reflection of equations.
Mathematicians haven't made the connection.

--
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Re:Get it right.. by milimetric · 2005-09-21 05:23 · Score: 1

I have no problem with what you said. In fact, I totally agree. But your signature... is wrong. It's like... that's obviously what Isaac meant. He, you, or I could stand on the shoulders of giants at any time we choose. If you're standing on the shoulders of idiots it means you did it to yourself.
Re:Get it right.. by ifwm · 2005-09-21 05:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

"No... Stars form however they damn well please"

No, stars form however the rules of the universe allow them to.

P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people anthropomorphize inanimate objects.
Re:Get it right.. by AviLazar · 2005-09-21 05:28 · Score: 1

P.S. Sorry, it's one of my pet pieves when someone says "that not how physics works!"

I guess you really didn't like Einstein then?

Stars form however they damn well please
Unless you can prove otherwise, I am pretty sure Stars don't "please" to do anything. Also, do you have a better - scientifically accepted model as to a stars formation? If you don't have that, can you at least scientifically prove the current understanding is wrong?
If you cannot do these things, you should not really speak against them.

--

I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Re:Get it right.. by oGMo · 2005-09-21 05:38 · Score: 1

They are our understanding of reality and are modified or thrown out when we find our understanding is wrong. The universe is always right.

True, but first we have to determine that our understanding is wrong, and this isn't just an unforeseen/unpredicted case within the current system.

--
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Re:Get it right.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:38 · Score: 0

That being said, there's no chance that these are 'caught' stars from a previous galactic/nebulae/(other) collision?

Guess it would depend on timeframes of Andromeda Galaxy, said stars, size of Core blackhole, etc.... /cosmological hobbyist
Re:Get it right.. by bluGill · 2005-09-21 05:40 · Score: 1

Also, do you have a better - scientifically accepted model as to a stars formation?
To nitpic, you asked the question wrong. It should be "Do you have a model of star formation that doesn't contradict any known facts, that you are working on getting accepted?" Clearly whatever his model is, it is not currently accepted. Science itself will admit the possibility that the current theories are wrong. So we need to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, if by some chance he has a model that is different, but not flawed in any known way, then perhaps it is correct and the rest of us need to revise our understanding of the universe.
More likely he is an idiot saying anything that sounds good in hopes of getting modded up. Still he could be smarter than Einstein, but not recognized yet.
Re:Get it right.. by Rorschach1 · 2005-09-21 05:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Yeah, and the inanimate objects don't like it either.
Re:Get it right.. by temojen · 2005-09-21 05:45 · Score: 1

No, stars form however the rules of the universe allow them to.

I hate it when people anthropomorphize the universe.
Re:Get it right.. by TemporalBeing · 2005-09-21 05:51 · Score: 1

Science itself will admit the possibility that the current theories are wrong.

It will? I know that's how it is suppose to work, but so far as I can tell, it certainly doesn't work that way - at least not in the last 50 years. As of recent, anything that goes against the politics/religion of the scientific community, no matter how well founded in the data, seems to be ignored, discredited, and thrown out simply because of the politics/religion and biases of the community as a whole.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:Get it right.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:52 · Score: 0

That's because you have no imagination for using communication that is not literal. Bet you don't get poetry either.
Re:Get it right.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:52 · Score: 0

That was great. :)
Re:Get it right.. by FreeUser · 2005-09-21 05:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, stars form however the rules of the universe allow them to.

P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people anthropomorphize inanimate objects.

It is currently an unknown as to whether or not stars are living beings or inanimate objects. Our understanding of plasma physics and the internal electrical structure of stars is simply too small to tell for certain.

P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when peope assume we know more than we do.

(this is a little tongue in cheeck, but only a little: I don't believe for a minute stars harbor life or are themselves alive, much less intelligent--but that is a belief based on lack of evidence stemming more from lack of knowledge than any evidence to the contrary)

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Re:Get it right.. by MightyMartian · 2005-09-21 06:08 · Score: 1

It will? I know that's how it is suppose to work, but so far as I can tell, it certainly doesn't work that way - at least not in the last 50 years. As of recent, anything that goes against the politics/religion of the scientific community, no matter how well founded in the data, seems to be ignored, discredited, and thrown out simply because of the politics/religion and biases of the community as a whole.

Perhaps you can give some examples. And perhaps you can tell me what your definition of "religion" is as well.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Get it right.. by Achromus · 2005-09-21 06:12 · Score: 1

No, stars form however the rules of the universe allow them to. I hate it when people anthropomorphize the universe. That statement isn't an anthropomorphization, Mr. Contrary. A seatbelt doesn't allow you to get flung from a car, and a birdcage doesn't allow the bird to get out. No anthropomorphization necessary.
Re:Get it right.. by lgw · 2005-09-21 06:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

The physics answer for everything *is* we don't know, we just have a working model!

Physics has little to do with "what's really hapening," and has everyhting to do with refining predictive models. This is on the whole a good thing, as predictive models are *useful* and understanding "what's really happening" is merely interesting.

Still, it's important not to eat the menu.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Get it right.. by Rakshasa+Taisab · 2005-09-21 06:15 · Score: 1

Actually, or models do *not* currently suggest they form by their own gravity alone. Or rather, that's no how it normally happens. Surrounding stars warm up the molecular clouds, and only those below 10K (iirc) in temperature will be able to form stars. The gas "pressure" usually counteracts the gravitational pull.

So in addition to this, you often need some outside force to compress the molecular cloud, like supernovas. These give birth to a large number of stars and since the stars that end up as supernovas are short lived, it usually causes a cycle of star formations.

Your right in that the model you presented is wrong, but that's cause it's a strawman rather than the real one.

--
- These characters were randomly selected.
Re:Get it right.. by spongman · 2005-09-21 06:16 · Score: 1

I wonder if it's possible for a toroidal star to form around a bloack hole?
Re:Get it right.. by lgw · 2005-09-21 06:17 · Score: 5, Funny

One night a physisist, and engineer, and a mathematician each awoke to a fire in their kitchen. The physisist calculated the precise amount of water necessary to extinguish the fire, measure out just that amount of water, poured it on the fire, and went back to bed. The engineer poour water on the fire till is went out, added some mor for good measure, then went back to bed. The mathematician proved that is was possible to extinguish fire with water, then went back to bed.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Get it right.. by greg_barton · 2005-09-21 06:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, stars form however the rules of the universe allow them to.

P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people anthropomorphize inanimate objects.

And you know for a fact that stars are not intelligent and self aware?

P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people deny out of hand the possibility of intelligence beyond humans.
Re:Get it right.. by ifwm · 2005-09-21 06:33 · Score: 1

It's a good thing I didn't do that then.
Re:Get it right.. by ifwm · 2005-09-21 06:36 · Score: 1

"And you know for a fact that stars are not intelligent and self aware?"

No, because you can't prove a negative.

PS It's one of my pet peeves when people try to look smart, but instead actually just look like contrarian assholes.

Oh wait, no it's not, it's just funny.
Re:Get it right.. by sgt_doom · 2005-09-21 06:38 · Score: 1

Excuuuuuuuse me!
I've had an ongoing conversation with one particular star, and she says you're wrong, totally wrong, dude! Got run, the wind just blew my tinfoil hat off my head.....
Re:Get it right.. by ifwm · 2005-09-21 06:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

How exactly could I prove stars are NOT intelligent? You do realize you can't prove a negative.

In your rush to appear smart, you made a classic mistake. Next time think it through a bit more.
Re:Get it right.. by temojen · 2005-09-21 06:41 · Score: 1

Sorry. I'm really tired. I didn't read the "rules of" part, without which it sounds like Universal Deiism.
Re:Get it right.. by ifwm · 2005-09-21 06:43 · Score: 1

"How is trolling insightful?"

It's not, that's why YOU got modded down.

BURN!
Re:Get it right.. by spun · 2005-09-21 06:47 · Score: 1

Yes, science still works like its supposed to. It seems that disgruntled english majors have taken to dissing science in retaliation for not being taken as seriously as they think they should be. Never mind that they got themselves into the mess by throwing out science in the first place and embracing a kind of sophistry where something is true, relatively speaking, if enough post-modern deconstructionists believe it's true. Said uninformed, ignorant pedants believe that everything is relative and science is just another form of evil patriarchy that they need to reform.

Now sure, scientists have biases, but there is no "bias of the community as a whole." Everyone has their pet theories and ideas, and the only way to make a real name for yourself is to prove a major theory incorrect and come up with something better. However, to do that you actually need proof, as in repeatable experimental proof. Not just a smart sounding paper with lots of big meaningless words in it that might pass for proof in english major circles. So things that are thrown out are not well founded in the data, because if they were, some smart upstart would have tried and succeded in making a name for himself based on it.

Can you tell that this trend of anti-intellectualism in academia pisses me off? English majors should stick to things they know and not try to critique science. They end up sounding like illiterate morons. If you still think science isn't working, try taking a look around at all the cool stuff it has brought us, like TVs, computers, automobiles, refrigeration, and medicine to name a few. Surprise, surprise, there continue to be advances in technology to this very day because science continues to do its job.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Get it right.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 06:50 · Score: 0

Actually, "Allow" does have an anthropmorphic implication.

Check out the defintion if you don't believe me.

Most good editors will recommend 'enable' rather than 'allow' and 'prevents' rather than 'does not allow' when the subject is an inanimate object.
Re:Get it right.. by greg_barton · 2005-09-21 06:53 · Score: 1

It's one of my pet peeves when people try to look smart, but instead actually just look like contrarian assholes.

Kettle: Hey Pot, is 'dat you?
Re:Get it right.. by ifwm · 2005-09-21 06:54 · Score: 1

Except in this case "allow" speaks to rules, not the universe.

If anything, I would be anthropormorphizing rules. I didn't, I'm a better writer than that.

By the way, enable ALSO has an anthropomorphic implication, so if you're going to suggest alternatives, suggest one that's not worse than what you're replacing.

Thanks
Re:Get it right.. by greg_barton · 2005-09-21 06:59 · Score: 1

No, because you can't prove a negative.

And, of course, that's the point. Your disdain at the original post's "anthropomorphism" was misplaced as you can't prove that it was misplaced and/or invalid.

P.S. Go fuck yourself.
Re:Get it right.. by ifwm · 2005-09-21 07:01 · Score: 1

I love it.

No "you know what, you're right you CAN't prove a negative"

No "I apologize, you have a valid point"

Just a pathetic attempt to salvage some shred of dignity after making a classic beginners mistake.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh, one last thing. MY post had a valid point about anthropomorphizing a star. Your post was just a lame, incorrect attempt at a slam.

So, it's not even the pot calling the kettle black.

I think it's hilarious that you managed to screw up TWICE in the same thread.
Re:Get it right.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 07:03 · Score: 0

No.
Love, Science
Re:Get it right.. by Intron · 2005-09-21 07:04 · Score: 1

What an interesting idea. Black hole forms an accretion disk, which ignites to form a star. So instead of the usual incandescent star, it would look like one of those low energy flourescent bulbs coiled around a black hole. The shape would be more like a flat disk with a hole than a toroid. The light would be red-shifted due to climbing out of the gravity well of the black hole. Imagine being on a planet in a polar orbit. It would probably look like an eye.

--
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Re:Get it right.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 07:04 · Score: 0

Actually, 'enable' is almost always used with a non-anthropomorphic subject.

When used with a human subject, it can almost always be replaced with a better word or phrase choice.

e.g.

"Frank enabled us to solve the problem by using his logic skills."

is not nearly as nice as

"Frank's logic skills enabled us to solve the problem."

Seems you're not quite as good a writer as you think you are.
Re:Get it right.. by Black.Shuck · 2005-09-21 07:14 · Score: 1

I think the pair of you should get together and have a mass debate.
Re:Get it right.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 07:15 · Score: 0

well, I can't stand it when people keep peeves as pets instead of letting them run free
Re:Get it right.. by greg_barton · 2005-09-21 07:23 · Score: 1

Man, that post plus this little asshettery is ample proof of your unpleasant personality. I feel sorry for you, d00d. Too bad you've got to be you.
Re:Get it right.. by jahudabudy · 2005-09-21 07:24 · Score: 2, Funny

You do realize you can't prove a negative.

Prove it.

--
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Re:Get it right.. by techno-vampire · 2005-09-21 07:25 · Score: 1

P.S. Sorry, it's one of my pet pieves when someone says "that not how physics works!"
Back in the Golden Age of Science Fiction, there were a number of stories about disabled space ships "spiraling into the Sun." The best response to that type of plot is "No, that's not how physics works."

--
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Re:Get it right.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 07:26 · Score: 0

And you know for a fact that stars are not intelligent and self aware?

The Dosadi Experiment by Frank Herbert.
Re:Get it right.. by techno-vampire · 2005-09-21 07:31 · Score: 1

Hot, brught, blue-white stars don't last long. As there's no sign of a recent collision, or any nearby galaxy that Andromeda could have collided with, there's no way they could have lasted long enough for us to see them if they'd been captured by an earlier collision.
BTW, and a bit off-topic, if anybody asks how far a person can see under ideal conditions, the answer's 2,000,000 light years. The Andromeda galaxy is that far away, and is a naked-eye object.

--
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Re:Get it right.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 07:44 · Score: 0

No, it seems your pet peeve is when people anthropomorphize stars rather than the universe.
Re:Get it right.. by MajorBlunder · 2005-09-21 07:58 · Score: 5, Funny

While the statistician was running around starting new fires because he needed more samples.

--
"I'm making perfect sense, you're just not keeping up."
Re:Get it right.. by StalinsNotDead · 2005-09-21 08:12 · Score: 1

How exactly could I prove stars are NOT intelligent?

Get one elected to any public office.

--
Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
Re:Get it right.. by IthnkImParanoid · 2005-09-21 08:20 · Score: 1

I bet you're one of those people who is kept awake at night by their fear of Invisible Pink Unicorns stealing our precious bodily fluids to give to gay martians.

P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people don't properly respect the Invisible Pink Unicorns.

--
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
Re:Get it right.. by mikael · 2005-09-21 08:29 · Score: 1

Tru discussing religious philosophy with it, with goal of preventing it from going super-nova.

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:Get it right.. by fabe3k · 2005-09-21 08:36 · Score: 2, Funny

Actually, you speek of the theoretical physicist. The experimentalist died while searching for the thermometer.
Re:Get it right.. by g2devi · 2005-09-21 08:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

> > You do realize you can't prove a negative.
> Prove it.

Actually, he can't because you *can* prove a negative.

Here's an example of what I mean, "Prove that the moon is not made of green cheese."

What's the method of proof? Go to the moon and find out what it's made of. If it is made of something other than green cheese, then you've proved the negative.

BTW, it's not always possible to prove a positive either. For instance, prove that the world outside actually exists and it's not just your dream or some shared VR simulation. I seriously doubt you can come up with a proof that what you *perceive* to be reality is real, especially since senses can be easily fooled.

The problem here isn't "prove a positive" or "prove a negative", it relates to a class of problems that can only be proven if you can step outside the system. Such problems exist, curtesy of Godel's Incompleteness theorem. Flatlanders on a 2-D plane would never be able to detect 3-D space. They may be able to theorize what 3-D could look like and how their universe might look like in 3-D, but they couldn't know that 3-D exists unless they can leave their 2-D universe.
Re:Get it right.. by guhknew · 2005-09-21 09:01 · Score: 1

Maybe because you can prove a negative? The same argument is used by theists, and it gets old to say the least. So please stop deluding yourself by the thought that your ineloquant and childish quips should ever garner any kind of respect from anyone, even in the exceedingly high improbability that anything you've said might have some shade of truth.
Re:Get it right.. by ArsenneLupin · 2005-09-21 09:27 · Score: 1

No, stars form however the rules of the universe allow them to.
P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people anthropomorphize inanimate objects.
... such as the rules of the universe ;-)
Re:Get it right.. by TemporalBeing · 2005-09-21 09:44 · Score: 1

Now sure, scientists have biases, but there is no "bias of the community as a whole."

Lol.

For a starters, try looking for one scientist who is held with any kind of respect in the scientific community who believes there is a god/God - and I'm not saying what god/God they believe in, or how many thereof.

The scientific community as a whole has a tendancy (and the replies/flames to this post might very well show it - if people bother to reply) to completely and utterly ignore and discredit what anyone who believes that there is a god/God says - no matter how well the data might back them up; the scientific community simply doesn't want to hear it, much like Victorian Europe didn't want to hear that they weren't the center of the universe.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:Get it right.. by noamsml · 2005-09-21 10:21 · Score: 1

The scientific community just does not switch to auto-belief mode. no one has yet to have come with overwhelming positive evidence of the existance of any god. flaws in the current model don't count, since it can hardly be true that it's either the current scientific model or god/God. sheesh, the fact that I don't austomatically agree with you when you say "god" does not mean that i'm not listening to you. science is all about PROOFS and EVIDENCE, not "I believe, therefore it is true". science is simply not based upon such low doorstep standards for theory.

--
My new blog
Re:Get it right.. by galen · 2005-09-21 10:24 · Score: 4, Funny

And the software engineer refused to do anything until a second or third fire had started arguing that if the bug's not repeatable...
Re:Get it right.. by builderbob_nz · 2005-09-21 10:41 · Score: 1

No... Stars form however they damn well please

No, stars form however the rules of the universe allow them to.

P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people anthropomorphize inanimate objects.

Well I guess that depends on which Andromeda galaxy we are talking about.

--

Karma? Hey I just call it as I see it.
Re:Get it right.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 10:50 · Score: 0

Ahh. So you are a total fucking weirdo.
Re:Get it right.. by glitch23 · 2005-09-21 11:08 · Score: 0

Gee, and I wonder how these precise rules and laws got created? They are too complicated and work together too well for it all to be an accident.

--
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Re:Get it right.. by budgenator · 2005-09-21 11:17 · Score: 1

There are accretion disks arround massive objects the are heated until glowing that would look like what your describing, but more technicaly a star is heated by nuclear fussion and it's hard to immagine conditions that extreme to allow an orbiting gass ring to acheive enough presure to enable fusion

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:Get it right.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 11:29 · Score: 0

I agree you weren't anthropomorphizing the universe but you were being anthropocentric.
The universe doesn't have rules. Shit happens, we observe the shit, and hyphothesize rules. The rules are our invention. Even the notion that there are rules is our invention.
The claim that star formation is constrained by the rules of the universe is merely a statement of your own biases.
Re:Get it right.. by rthille · 2005-09-21 12:03 · Score: 1

How do you know Stars aren't thinking feeling beings? Have you read Frank Herbert? He's got some stories where they are...

Wierder things have been true :-)

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Re:Get it right.. by Dolda2000 · 2005-09-21 13:29 · Score: 1

P.S. Sorry, it's one of my pet pieves when someone says "that not how physics works!"
Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people spell simple words wrong. ;)
Re:Get it right.. by David+Gould · 2005-09-21 13:30 · Score: 1

That was great. :)

A good joke, but he should work on his delivery. It's: ...Yeah -- they hate that.

--
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
Re:Get it right.. by jc42 · 2005-09-21 14:41 · Score: 1

Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people anthropomorphize inanimate objects. ... such as the rules of the universe ;-)

Well, my pet peeve is when people reify abstract concepts. ;-)

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Re:Get it right.. by pyrrhonist · 2005-09-21 15:10 · Score: 1

For a starters, try looking for one scientist who is held with any kind of respect in the scientific community who believes there is a god/God
Kip Thorne is a Morman.

--
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Re:Get it right.. by stonecypher · 2005-09-21 18:41 · Score: 1

Well, that's cute and all, except that we actually do have photographs of this occurring. Just because you don't know about what's going on doesn't mean the sciences don't.

Sure, there's a chance we don't understand what we're looking at. There's also a chance that evolution is wrong, or that mathematics is wrong, or that we're all shackled up in Plato's cave. That said, the Skeptic movement died out some 2500 years ago, because living your life by saying "you can't prove that" is futile. Sure, we can't prove it. But we've got damned strong models, huge amounts of supporting data, and some surprisingly pretty pictures.

Find something credible that suggests that a cloud of hydrogen acting under its own gravity wouldn't collapse and form a star, and we'll talk. Unless, of course, you think gravity is suspect too? Or, maybe hydrogen just doesn't fuse? Perhaps Wile E Coyote was putting dynamite in the particle colliders, trying to keep us from accreting a road runner.

By the way, it's one of my pet peeves when someone who can't even spell peeve gets on a soapbox ranting at other people about their fundamental capacities.

I'd say mod parent down, but given that he doesn't seem to believe in simple gravity, it's not clear whether he'll realize in what direction he's going.

--
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Re:Get it right.. by stonecypher · 2005-09-21 18:45 · Score: 2, Funny

A physicist, mathematician, priest and lawyer were arguing about whose profession was older.

The physicist noted that even apes study their world, which was the fundamental practice of a physicist; thusly certainly theirs was the first profession.

The mathematician retorted that even simple animals could count, such as to check whether all their children remained, and that since counting was the basis of study, his occupation surely was older.

The priest remarked that more primal was to sort normalcy from chaos, such as to flee from fire, or to help the wounded, and that since god was the core of order, clearly his vocation was still older.

All then turned to the then silent lawyer, who simply leaned forward and said, "who do you think made that chaos?"

--
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Re:Get it right.. by stonecypher · 2005-09-21 18:51 · Score: 1

It is currently an unknown as to whether or not stars are living beings or inanimate objects. Our understanding of plasma physics and the internal electrical structure of stars is simply too small to tell for certain.

Nothing is alive until shown otherwise. By that logic, the core of the Earth is also alive, because there's a lot of energy down there too, and our understanding of the spinning molten core is simply to small to tell for certain.

The default is "no," not "maybe." You watch too much Andromeda. Stars don't hold councils, nor do they fight vaguely demonish enemies. They're big furnaces, and until Betelgeuse says "hi," that's not changing, no matter what your crystal chakras or aether buddies tell you.

Resent the implication that you're a mystic? Fine, and as well you should. By the way, a mystic is someone who says "well you don't know it isn't there." That's exactly what you just did.

By the way, the chances that any form of life could tolerate the immense stresses placed onto it by thermonuclear furnaces are vanishingly small. Dice aren't life, and there's nothing but dice inside a star. Life needs order to survive. Nothing can withstand its constituent matter being blown apart literally billions of times a second, no matter how badly you want for it to.

When you show me a Burger King at the center of the sun, I'll apologize.

--
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Re:Get it right.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 23:59 · Score: 0

Flatlanders on a 2-D plane would never be able to detect 3-D space. They may be able to theorize what 3-D could look like and how their universe might look like in 3-D, but they couldn't know that 3-D exists unless they can leave their 2-D universe.

Actually, they could know that a third dimension exists if they live on a 2D surface that is not perfectly planar, just like some scientists today are trying to check if our universe is "curved" and if more dimensions exist beyond the three spatial dimensions that we know.

For the 2-D surface case, they could draw a very large circle and check if the ratio between the diameter and perimeter is equal to pi or not. If the 2-D surface they live in is not a plane, then they would get a different ratio.
Re:Get it right.. by TemporalBeing · 2005-09-22 01:41 · Score: 1

The scientific community just does not switch to auto-belief mode. no one has yet to have come with overwhelming positive evidence of the existance of any god. flaws in the current model don't count, since it can hardly be true that it's either the current scientific model or god/God. sheesh, the fact that I don't austomatically agree with you when you say "god" does not mean that i'm not listening to you. science is all about PROOFS and EVIDENCE, not "I believe, therefore it is true". science is simply not based upon such low doorstep standards for theory.

I never said anything about "the existance of any god". All I said was that someone who believed there was a god/God would be completely and utterly discredited on that basis alone, no matter what the data behind their studies showed.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:Get it right.. by spun · 2005-09-22 02:12 · Score: 1

That's utterly untrue. There are plenty of scientists in all fields who believe in God. Belief in God doesn't preclude a belief in science and vice versa. Not only that, but the scientific community doesn't care what beliefs a person holds, they only care about the accuracy of their science. Really, I don't know where you are getting this "science is anti-religion" viewpoint. It certainly isn't coming from any actual experience with real scientists.

Do you really believe what you are saying or just trolling? If you do believe what you are saying, where in the world did you pick up the mistaken belief that scientists not only don't believe in God but will act prejudicially towards someone who does regardless of the validity of their research?

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Get it right.. by wrp103 · 2005-09-22 08:30 · Score: 1

In general, if you can prove a positive, then you can prove the negative as well. You can also prove something by contradiction. Often, one will be easier than the other, so you can use that feature to decide what is the best / easiest / most practical approach.

For example, if I want to prove / disprove the statement "All crows are black", I can do one of two things: either find all the crows in the world and verify that they are black, or find all the non-black things in the world and verify that none of them is a crow.

Proving by contradiction is to assume the negative of what you want to prove, then see if you can derive a contradiction from your initial assumption. If you are able to do that, then that proves that your initial assumption is incorrect, which in turn proves what you were trying to prove.
Re:Get it right.. by tabrnaker · 2005-09-23 04:59 · Score: 1

Of course there is a bias. Our population as a whole has a bias that sees reality in terms of static physical objects.
Science knows there is not such thing as a static physical object and yet it colors the way we do everything.
Why is your body lighter the more relaxed it is? Enlightenment? Science knows the weight of an object can fluctuate but the view of the world we have rebels against it.
Re:Get it right.. by Alsee · 2005-09-23 10:37 · Score: 1

it's one of my pet pieves when someone says "that not how physics works!"

Yeah, me too. I hate it when Tarzan tries to talk about physics.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Get it right.. by TemporalBeing · 2005-09-25 10:01 · Score: 1

or just trolling?

No, I am not trolling. And, whilst I may not be in the "scientific" community as much as thou, it is there. For instance, look at anyone dating something. Various groups with religious affiliations will point out the circular logic and inconsistencies, the problems with why evolution simply cannot be - which are quite evident and are becoming more so every day. Without having to reinterpret the data, the basic points can be shut down and proven false. However, should any of these groups point that out, the "scientific" community will simply ignore them, disqualify anything said, etc.

Now compare that to someone who is generally friendly to the ideas putting forth the same basic points, and either without a public religious affiliations or a complete anti-religious view, and the outcome will be much different.

Science - it's a wonderful thing if you like agreeing with the majority.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:Get it right.. by spun · 2005-09-26 02:09 · Score: 1

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and while you may be satisfied with the logic and evidence in favor of, say, reevaluating hundreds of years worth of dating, scientists are not. Not because the data doesn't say what they want it to, but because it does. Dating methods are not as you claim controversial in any way. They are tried and true, tested methods where the many different methods agree with and support each other, building a web of evidence that would require massive rethinking to change, not just of archeology and anthropology, but even such disciplines as physics. If dating methods were wrong, then the physics we use to help us build things like TVs and computers must be wrong as well, and that just isn't the case. The problem with people who believe in creationism is that they aren't practicing science. They start from the thing they want to prove and construct a chain of reasoning backwards. Fortunately, that chain simply doesn't hold up to any kind of critical, dispassionate thinking.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Get it right.. by TemporalBeing · 2005-09-26 04:23 · Score: 1

The problem with people who believe in creationism is that they aren't practicing science. They start from the thing they want to prove and construct a chain of reasoning backwards. Fortunately, that chain simply doesn't hold up to any kind of critical, dispassionate thinking.

Wow...what a bias statement, and what a wrong one. It's interesting that you've made that point, since it is mostly creationist teachers/professors who are open to teaching about all of the different views and letting their students decide; but dare an evolutionist do the same or he would be called unscientific.

Not because the data doesn't say what they want it to, but because it does. Dating methods are not as you claim controversial in any way.

Actually, they are quite controversial. For example, the equations in the Carbon dating (C14, I think) require that the person making the calculation make an assumption - is it stable or not. If it is stable, then the equation goes as evolutions agree; however, if it isn't, it very much favors Strict-24-hour-7-day Creationists. (Long Day Creationists can easily agree with the evolutionists.) Additionally, evidence is coming from Mars and other space phenomena showing that various formations (like the Grand Canyon) may have been created a lot, lot faster than previously thought by evolutionists (by though all along by Creationists) - in days or months, not thousands of years. There is a ton of data that really does favor Creationists and requires a very warped view to support Evolutionists.

However, you're going to find what you want to find. The data is there, and it may not support exactly what you think it does due to the bias of the last few generations of scientists.

Though to note, what I am saying does not necessitate that physics is wrong. It might necessitate (at worst) that physics is again the best approximation we have based on the assumptions we've thus far made. (Isn't it always?)

If evolution were true, a grand unified theory of everything would be easy, and the more we look we would see simplicity, not complexity. It's odd that science is showing that the deeper we look into the microscopic the more complex things are, and the deeper we look into the macroscropic the more complex things are as well. While that presents a big problem for evolution; it is an easy fact for Creationists.

Do the research.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:Get it right.. by spun · 2005-09-26 07:07 · Score: 1

Carbon dating requires no assumptions. The evidence of decay is crystal clear, and in every case, carbon dating agrees with other methods used to date the same object. Creationists are not open about teaching anything and letting anyone decide. They have a world view and will do anything to uphold it and get others to agree to it. It is not far from a creationist to the torturers of the inquisition who would torture a captive until he confessed, repented and accepted God. Then they would kill him, his sould saved the only justification they needed. Creationists are cut from the same evil cloth and care only about their delusional ideas about saving fictional souls.

Any scientist that could actually prove evolution false would be lauded as a scientific genius and remembered through the ages. Just because no creationists have managed to prove anything doesn't mean that scientists wouldn't accept it if they did. Look, I can say that invisible elves make the sun rotate around the earth, and the fact that I am wearing a plaid shirt proves it, but that doesn't mean it's true or that I have in fact proved anything other than the fact that I am an uneducated idiot.

Evolution does not mean that a grand unified theory would be easy. Evolution deals with an entirely different field. I have no idea where you could have gotten so misguided an idea. Simplicity flows from complexity and vice versa. Think of the economy, it is incredibly complex, and if any one part were removed, it would cease to function in the same efficient way. if there were no steel mills, there would be no trucks, and without trucks, there would be no steel mills. How then did the economy form? Why, obviously it must have been designed by someone! Well, no, but we have a word for people who think economies must be designed. We call them communists. A free market capitalist knows that the market is governed by the "invisible hand" (which is not any sort of mystic force, but merely a force that originates from millions and millions of simple interactions.)

Creationism is not merely wrong, it is an evil idea propagated by evil people bent on malicious mind control through fear, intimidation, and forcing people to accept completely illogical thoughts. Once these evil control freaks have broken a persons mind and spirit, they are easy to control and profit from. Breaking spirits, dulling minds and profiting off the hard work of others are the only real reasons religion exists. Religion is a curse upon humanity that must be exterminated before we can truly evolve as a species.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Get it right.. by TemporalBeing · 2005-09-26 07:30 · Score: 1

Creationists are not open about teaching anything and letting anyone decide. They have a world view and will do anything to uphold it and get others to agree to it. It is not far from a creationist to the torturers of the inquisition who would torture a captive until he confessed, repented and accepted God. Then they would kill him, his sould saved the only justification they needed. Creationists are cut from the same evil cloth and care only about their delusional ideas about saving fictional souls.

Uhh...you're about 300 years late on that one.

Try going to and participating in the various "Creationist" and "Theo-evolutionist" colleges. Here's a few just to make it easy for you: Calvin College, Messiah College. And yes, there are some who will not allow anything else, but the majority are looking at all views.

Now compare what you find there to any state college, and you'll find a vast difference in who is providing thinkers. Colleges such as Calvin and Messiah challenge students to think against the grain - to challenge what is being put before them - yes, challenge creationism and evolutionism, and all the other theories out there. Comparitively, state colleges simply put forth "evolution or the highway".

There is actually a good book out on it called God on the Quad: How Religious Colleges and the Missionary Generation Are Changing America. (Note: The author is not a creationist, far from it actually.)

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)

Re:Duck... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2005-09-21 05:10 · Score: 1

Umm, dude, the stars in question are at the center of a completly different galaxy. Even if by some miracle of probability they did come in our direction, our sun would have gone nova by the time they arrived.

--

Technoli

Neato. by Pxtl · 2005-09-21 05:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sounds similar to Saturn's rings. A ton of matter spread into teeny blocks in space by tidal forces, but still with enough mass to pull together into a bazillion little blobs. Perhaps the radiant matter/antimatter/energy from the black hole (I'm fuzzy on Hawking's theory on the subject) is heating the surrounding star-spray enough to light some of them?

Re:Neato. by JohnPM · 2005-09-21 06:02 · Score: 1

The intensity of Hawking radiation falls away rapidly with with size. Only miniscule black holes shine brightly and quickly "evaporate". Large ones like this radiate incredibly faintly due to the intense gravity gradient near the event horizon.

Meanwhile there's massive gamma-ray radiation from the acretion disc due to plain old friction outside of the event horizon (nothing to do with Hawking radiation though).

--
Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
Re:Neato. by wwest4 · 2005-09-21 06:10 · Score: 1

I think that the supermassive black holes that tend to be at the center of galaxies would actually "emit" less energetic photons than a smaller black hole because the energy per photon emitted via the hawking radiation model is inversely proportional to the black hole's radius.

Oh, you mean like 'stars'. by say__10 · 2005-09-21 05:11 · Score: 0, Redundant

When I first read this I imagined some sort of weird high profile skin flick staring a bunch of 'mysterious' dudes and a hot black chick named Andromeda.

--
Home of the midwest loser - www.say-10.net

Hubble by Bonhamme+Richard · 2005-09-21 05:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just another example of how valuable Hubble is.

Its too bad we only have one giant eye in the sky...

Re:Hubble by eclectro · 2005-09-21 05:24 · Score: 1

Its too bad we only have one giant eye in the sky..

Don't worry, there is another one. We will always have this giant eye in the sky.

--
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Re:Hubble by prisoner-of-enigma · 2005-09-21 05:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Obi-Wan Kenobi: "That eye is our last hope"

Yoda: "No, there is another."

--
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Re:Hubble by Rolan · 2005-09-21 06:39 · Score: 1

Except that the JWST isn't built, and "sees" things quite differently from hubble.

--
- AMW
Re:Hubble by Mr_Huber · 2005-09-21 06:59 · Score: 1

Except there will be an observation gap between the time Hubble goes dark and Webb goes online. Plus, for all its grandure, Webb is not serviceable. We cannot fly up to Webb and install a spiffy new camera. So we will have a cutting edge telescope for the first couple years, a middling 'scope for the next few and an antique for the last part of its life. Compare this with Hubble, which is on its third or fourth camera at this point, each camera bringing a wealth of new data and new capabilities, all for the cost of a camera and a shuttle shot, as opposed to a new 'scope.
Re:Hubble by prisoner-of-enigma · 2005-09-21 07:27 · Score: 1

Except that the JWST isn't built, and "sees" things quite differently from hubble.

Very true. The JWST is designed to see further into the infrared than ever before. This is good because (a) dust obscures lot of visible light whereas infrared is less affected and (b) galaxies at the furthest reaches of the universe are speeding away from us rapidly, and the corresponding redshift makes observing them via the JWST preferrable to HST.

JWST might not produce the same pretty pictures as HST, but it will produce as much if not more useful scientific data.

--
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Re:Hubble by prisoner-of-enigma · 2005-09-21 07:35 · Score: 1

Except there will be an observation gap between the time Hubble goes dark and Webb goes online.

And during that time the universe will be going...where, exactly? It's not like galaxies are suddenly going to disappear after the HST comes down. Sure, we might miss some amazing astronomical event between HST and JWST, but it's worth noting that terrestrial 'scopes have improved dramatically since HST was launched. Observation from Earth is rated by some as good as HST since terrestrial 'scopes have larger mirrors, later technology, and aren't whizzing around a planet at 18,000mph. Sure, the atmosphere blocks certain things (cosmic rays, for instance), but by and large the terrestrial 'scopes can handle things very well between HST and JWST.

Plus, for all its grandure, Webb is not serviceable. We cannot fly up to Webb and install a spiffy new camera.

Seeing as how the JWST is going to be at a LaGrange point quite some distance away from Earth, serviceability would be impractical to begin with. There's no vehicle in our current inventory that can get a human being there, much less return. This is an expected tradeoff, but the benefits of being at L2 as opposed to LEO are significant, especially for the type of observation JWST will be performing.

Compare this with Hubble, which is on its third or fourth camera at this point, each camera bringing a wealth of new data and new capabilities, all for the cost of a camera and a shuttle shot, as opposed to a new 'scope.

You haven't been keeping track of Shuttle launch costs very well lately, have you? For the cost of one or two servicing missions, NASA could've launched a whole new 'scope. Oh, and if you haven't noticed, the Shuttle is in the shop right now and it's questionable whether it'll ever come out of it again. So, even if the JWST was designed for serviceability and even if it was in LEO, it's very likely no service missions could be performed due to lack of Shuttles. Viewed in that light (no pun intended) the JWST looks like a very good successor to HST.

--
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Re:Hubble by ifwm · 2005-09-21 08:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

If I have one major quibble with NASA, it's not blowing up astronauts, but losing Hubble. It seems like the Hubble puts out new stuff all the time, and some if it is absolutely amazing. I think they got their priorities wrong with that decision.
Re:Hubble by iamlucky13 · 2005-09-21 09:52 · Score: 1

Don't forget the Spitzer, Chandra, and the James Webb observatories. Science will not end with the Hubble. Data will just have to come from different sources, and if they find they really need the wavelengths Hubble observed at, a follow-on will eventually make it's way spaceward.

And nerds need no fear for their precious space wallpaper collections. We will continue to have entrancing false color images, every bit as real as those from Hubble, generated from these other sources, as well.
Re:Hubble by stonecypher · 2005-09-21 19:02 · Score: 1

Eh. Hubble's neat and all, but the honest truth is we're too technologically primitive to put anything significant into space. Instead of putting money into a replacement Hubble, we need to put that money into the technologies that would support putting something huge into orbit or on the moon instead.

It's a little like saying "we could do a lot of good shipping rice across the ocean in frigates." Well, we could do a lot more good researching planes, then sending those. Priorities are a bitch, but they're also pretty nessecary. First things first, and infrastructure is required here.

--
StoneCypher is Full of BS

Re:Duck... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2005-09-21 05:12 · Score: 1

Ok, I was guessing about the nova part. I didn't know off-hand how far away andromeda was.

--

Technoli

One black hole by Black+Parrot · 2005-09-21 05:13 · Score: 5, Funny

To rule them all,
And in the Darkness bind them.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:One black hole by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 06:41 · Score: 0

Yeah, I was scared by goatse too

I like this one... by kkek · 2005-09-21 05:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

I Loved this link at the bottom of the article... Survival Tips for Black Hole Travelers
... Since that has SO much to do with a cluster of stars in another galaxy.

Re:I like this one... by east+coast · 2005-09-21 05:24 · Score: 1

Since that has SO much to do with a cluster of stars in another galaxy.

But these stars orbit a black hole. Better understanding of the black hole makes a better understanding of this star cluster.

--
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Re:I like this one... by George+Beech · 2005-09-21 05:26 · Score: 1

Only when they are [racing] around a black hole at the center of the Andromeda Galaxy"
Re:I like this one... by Skye16 · 2005-09-21 06:13 · Score: 1

Gasp!

"The singularity inside a Schwarzschild black hole is destructive, and any physical object which approaches it is necessarily and unavoidably pulverized by it," Burko explained in an e-mail interview. "Specifically, any such object is infinitely stretched in one direction and infinitely squeezed in two other directions. That is sometimes called 'spaghettification.'"
Proof, once again, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists!

Re:Duck... by iLogiK · 2005-09-21 05:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

well....i haven't read TFA, but i'm assuming that the stars are going at a fraction of the speed of light, which as you all now is the speed limit in the Universe...(at least that's the theory)

but even at the speed of light it would take something from the Andromeda Galaxy a few million(/billion?) years to get here....
(of course the light is only reaching us now, so the stars might be half way here by now :D)

and even if you think you'll still be alive by then, the chances of them being on a collision course with our galaxy (let alone Earth) are REALLY small.....

oh...and the energy necessary to make leave orbit (considering that it's a FREAKING star, orbiting a FREAKING black hole!!!) is...well....a LOT!!!

Well... by slobber · 2005-09-21 05:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

IANAA, but could these stars have formed prior to being caught by the gravity of that black hole?

--
"You mortals are so obtuse." -Q

Re:Well... by StyroCupMan · 2005-09-21 06:03 · Score: 1

It is not very likely because blue stars are the youngest sort. They must have formed sometime fairly recently (in astronomical terms) which means that they could not have travelled very far from their birthplace.

--
If I may say so, life is a game, and there's so much to do and so few turns.
-Reiner Knizia
Re:Well... by swelke · 2005-09-21 06:28 · Score: 5, Informative

That's quite possible. If they formed in a wider orbit around the black hole, for example, they could well have been caught by tidal drag and slowly moved into lower orbits.

The real question is how they can exist at all in such a low orbit (or, more accurately, how they can exist in such a strong gravity gradient). What happens is that if they tidal difference between the two sides of the star (the difference between the black hole's gravity at the closest edge of the star and that on the furthest edge) exceeds the star's escape velocity, matter will be able to leave the star and it just falls apart. The implication (which the Yahoo! article was too low-tech to get right) was that the stars must be very dense. A dense star will have both (a) less distance between that nearest and furthest edge and (b) a steeper gravity well for material to get out of in the first place.

The other interesting bit is the rather close estimate of the black hole's mass. Most of the other estimates of galactic center black hole masses I've seen are based on things orbiting them far more distantly, such as 10-100 light years.

--
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
Re:Well... by stevelinton · 2005-09-21 11:21 · Score: 1

I don't think the tidal forces are that bad. Let's consider a 2million kilometer diameter star 0.1 light years from a 2.2 million solar mass black hole.

distance from centre of black holes (I know...) to inner edge of star: 0.999 * 10^15 meters, to outer 1.001*10^15 meters.

Acceleration due to black hole gravity at inner edge: 0.000292570237 ms^-2
Accleration due to black hole gravity at outer edge: 0.000291402294 ms^-2

for a difference of 0.0000012 ms^-2, or about 0.12 millions of a G, easily overcome by the stars gravity.
Re:Well... by radtea · 2005-09-21 12:18 · Score: 1

These are blue giants from the sound of it, which means that they are very short-lived (millions of years short-lived.) That means that any scenario in which they stars formed elsewhere and migrated to this region needs to make the migration happen very quickly. Furthermore, unless this is an anomalous situation, this has been going on continuously for the past few billion years.

So which is less probable? Stars forming in a region where we don't expect stars to form, or stars forming in another region and then for some reason being dropped into fast orbits around the central black hole? As near as I can tell, there isn't a whole lot to choose from between these options--both of them involve things that seem implausible given our current understanding of the physics involved.

The density of stars (~400 within a one light-year radius, apparently) is suggestive of star-burst formation. On the other hand, if we posit that there's some kind of attractor dropping stars into these orbits, that might account for the density as well.

The really fun thing is that the very notion of giant black holes in galactic centres was a pretty way-out idea only a dozen years ago. Now, it's almost as if scientists looked at the evidence and changed their minds.

--
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Re:Well... by swelke · 2005-09-22 04:06 · Score: 1

Read the article. The black hole in question is about 140 million solar mass.

--
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
Re:Well... by MaskedSlacker · 2005-09-22 04:35 · Score: 0

Actually, for very very massive black holes tidal forces are negligable. Sounds weird I know, but you could actually "stand" at the even horizon of a 300 solar mass black hole and not get ripped in half. Of course, a star is much larger than you, and so would have larger tidal forces, but they're also much farther away. Furthermore of the blackhole/massive star binary pairs that we see, all the stars still exist in those cases, much closer to much smaller black holes, with greater tidal forces. They merely lose mass, but they do not fall apart.
Re:Well... by stevelinton · 2005-09-22 06:20 · Score: 1

Oops wrong black hole. So multiply by 70. 8+ microgravities is still not going to pull a star apart.

Re:Duck... by It+doesn't+come+easy · 2005-09-21 05:17 · Score: 1

Fortunately for you, the Astronomy police were at lunch at the time...

--
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.

Re:Duck... by aiabx · 2005-09-21 05:18 · Score: 1

If they have them there, we might have them here. In which case we may be doomed in a mere 10 million years.
-aiabx

--
Just this guy, you know?

Get your tin foil hats by Perl-Pusher · 2005-09-21 05:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

"Such frenetic activity was thought to prevent star formation. Stars form when a knot of gas and dust collapses under its own gravity."

Maybe this group of stars is not a natural phenomena? Que the twilight zone theme.

All kidding aside, they could have formed outside the vicinty and got pulled in. What keeps them from ripping apart from tidal forces is interests me.

Re:Get your tin foil hats by Sponge+Bath · 2005-09-21 06:06 · Score: 1

Maybe this group of stars is not a natural phenomena?
Are you suggesting this could be the handiwork of the Flying Spagetti Monster?
Because, if you are, I down with that.
Re:Get your tin foil hats by Is0m0rph · 2005-09-21 06:07 · Score: 1

Of course it's not natural. It's the Photino Birds trying to get all stars sucked into Black Holes!
Re:Get your tin foil hats by LandKurt · 2005-09-21 07:11 · Score: 1

What keeps them from ripping apart from tidal forces is interests me.

If you crunch the numbers you'll find that tidal forces one light year from a galactic black hole are no problem.

TFA says the mass of the black hole is 140 million suns, but at 63,000 AU the gravity is only 1/30 that which the earth feels from the sun. And tidal forces work as the inverse cube of the distance, so they are 1.7 million times weaker than the solar tides on earth.

At that sort of distance tidal forces are only a problem for large diffuse clouds of gas.

For that matter, since event horizon size scales linearly with mass, the tidal forces at the event horizon of a galactic black hole are much gentler that a stellar black hole's. It would probably rip a star apart, but I seem to recall it's survivable by small objects like ships and probes.
Re:Get your tin foil hats by lgw · 2005-09-21 07:22 · Score: 1

Didn't TFA say the stars were moving at 1000 km/s? That would give an orbit radius of 128,500 AU, no? Or did you find the size of the prbit spelled out explicitly somewhere? In any case, that would only make your argument more powerful, as the tidal forces at 17 light years wouldn't be very strong at all.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Get your tin foil hats by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 07:37 · Score: 0

Turned on it's side, it's a galactic bill board that reads:

Eat At Joes
Re:Get your tin foil hats by LandKurt · 2005-09-21 07:39 · Score: 1

The article said: "The stars are packed into a disk that is just 1 light-year across".

So I guess I should have used a radius of half a light year. My mistake, I confused diameter with radius. That would make the gravity at the edge of the disk four times greater and the tidal forces eight times larger. That's still pretty insignificant.

I don't know whether that size agrees with the 1000 km/s mentioned. I haven't verified that the articles figures are internally consistent.
Re:Get your tin foil hats by TheRaven64 · 2005-09-21 08:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

In The City and The Stars, Arthur C. Clarke suggested a ring of starts left by an earlier civilisation as evidence of their advancement - a very large calling-card to anyone visiting the galaxy.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Terrible secret of space by October_30th · 2005-09-21 05:20 · Score: 2, Funny

It's the terrible secret of space!

--
The owls are not what they seem

Re:Terrible secret of space by KingEomer · 2005-09-21 05:40 · Score: 1

So did the pusher robot shove them into orbit, and now the shover robot is pushing them around the black hole?

power center of advanced civilization by peter303 · 2005-09-21 05:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

If it appears to be physically difficult to explain these stars, perhaps it is an artificial constuction. I'd expect an advanced extra-terrestial civilization to exploit the immense power of the galactic core black hole. Who knows what they are doing with it? Sustanence? Wormhole transport? Communication? Entertainment? Maybe one hundred infant stars whizzing around the center has something to do with this.

Re:power center of advanced civilization by Rupert · 2005-09-21 07:14 · Score: 2, Funny

It's a reality show. Each week, one star gets voted into the black hole.

You know that if we could do this, we would.

--

--
E_NOSIG
Re:power center of advanced civilization by Cally · 2005-09-21 07:41 · Score: 1

If it appears to be physically difficult to explain these posts, perhaps it is an artificial constRuction. I'd expect an advanced extra-terrestial website to exploit the immense power of the IP cloud and the core routers. Who knows what they are doing with it? Sustanence? Goathole transport? Communication? Entertainment? Maybe one hundred infant geeks whizzing around the front page has something to do with this.

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe

Re:Duck... by milimetric · 2005-09-21 05:21 · Score: 1

DUDE!!! holy shit. As you probably know, this discovery actually happened a while ago in time (cause of the time it took the light to travel). So the star could be flinging itself at us AS WE SPEAK. It could be __cking halfway here ALREADY!!!

DUUUUUUUUUCK

You could say ... by Ranger · 2005-09-21 05:22 · Score: 1, Funny

... the same thing about Pamela Anderson. She's had some strange stars surround her black hole. Like Tommy Lee or Kid Rock.

--
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"

Re:You could say ... by NatasRevol · 2005-09-21 06:28 · Score: 2, Funny

Her hole isn't black.

It's more of an off-grey rotting color. Think mold on a peach :-)

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:You could say ... by Ranger · 2005-09-21 07:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Think mold on a peach

A shaved peach? Some people are just bastards. This started off as being ranked funny and now it's been modded down to a troll. I've had more stuff modded funny than troll. Some moderators have no fucking sense of humor.

--
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Re:You could say ... by MrPink2U · 2005-09-21 07:27 · Score: 1

That's not mold on her peach.
Re:You could say ... by stonecypher · 2005-09-21 19:05 · Score: 1

Well, you got the mold part right, at least.

--
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Re:You could say ... by NatasRevol · 2005-09-22 00:51 · Score: 1

Yeah, the shaved peach was the reference I was reaching for. Didn't think it was that far a reach.

Though I wouldn't want to have a bite of that peach. Tastes like >>

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Re:Duck... by AviLazar · 2005-09-21 05:23 · Score: 2, Informative

According to Here Our sun will still be burning brightly.
According to the article, it should happen in about 3 billion years

On a side note---considering the lifespan of planets, galaxies, universis - it is kind of depressing we won't be around to see spectacular things (i.e. Star Trek space travel). Ah I need to find me a "Q" and get them to let me join up :)

--

I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.

You, sir, by benhocking · 2005-09-21 05:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

are correct. Thanks for the correction.

--
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?

Re:Duck... by 2short · 2005-09-21 05:24 · Score: 2, Informative

The sun won't go nova in any case; it's too small.

Andromeda is the closest major galaxy to the Milky Way, a mere ~2 million light years away. It's moving toward us rather rapidly though, and the two galaxies should collide in about 3 billion years; if one of these stars was "thrown free" (how exactly?) it might get here well before that, but your basic point is right on: By the time it got here, there is basically no chance that the earth will still be a habitable planet.
Of course, the chance of an object randomly thrown from that far away hitting the earth is like... Let's see, if I randomly threw a dart (really hard), the chances of hitting the bullseye of a dartboard on the planet neptune... are much much better.

bad explanation? by peter303 · 2005-09-21 05:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

My explanation is almost as bad as the fundamentalists. If something complicated happens, they say God made it rather some scientific explantion. I'm just substituting advanced aliens for God.

Re:bad explanation? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2005-09-21 05:42 · Score: 1

Nah, saying that aliens did it implies that we could do it too with enough tech and time.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:bad explanation? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:51 · Score: 0

Indeed, we all know the stars were coaxed into place by a giant fork, and the black hole is about to devour the Flying Spaghetti Monster!! The stars are just the meatballs; we can't see His Noodly Appendage from this distance.
Re:bad explanation? by RAMMS+EIN · 2005-09-21 06:41 · Score: 1

``Nah, saying that aliens did it implies that we could do it too with enough tech and time.''

Saying that some god did it doesn't imply we can't do it. We've already created new lifeforms, built land where once was sea, built weapons that can destroy the Earth, put satellites in orbit and sent men to previously uninhabited bodies. How many of these things would people have believed were only possible for a god to achieve?

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Re:bad explanation? by Fastolfe · 2005-09-21 07:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

If a god did it, and you tried to repeat the act, people would scream, "Don't play God!"

But if aliens can do it, then it's practically a God-given mandate to one-up them.
Re:bad explanation? by thesandtiger · 2005-09-21 07:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's a fair statement, except for one thing:

We know we exist, and we advance. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that it is possible that other species, like us, exist, and are just more advanced.

However, we've absolutely no reason what-so-ever to believe in god. We don't see little gods, running around, creating things out of thin air, so what possible reason for extrapolating to a bigger/more advanced god is there?

--
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Re:bad explanation? by marcosdumay · 2005-09-21 07:58 · Score: 1

The problem with the fundamentalists answer is that they know that God did it, they are sure. You made it pretty clear that it is an hypotesis, you are not sure. So, you are not the same.

--
Rethinking email

Isn't blue light a side-effect of Viagra? by mbreuer · 2005-09-21 05:26 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Subject said it all... but since a comment is required, here it is.

Re:Duck... by Pxtl · 2005-09-21 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

what I've heard is that while galactic collisions look like all holy hell breaking loose, the stars so rarely pass actually close to each other that they never meat - it's like two clouds of sand passing through each other. The only worry is that something massive brushing within a few lightyears of our solar system might screw with the oribits.

Nitpick, level 2 by Quiet_Desperation · 2005-09-21 05:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Um, dude, the Sun does not have the required mass to go nova. :)

We get a slow expansion to red giant, then it peters out to a dwarf. I think we at least get a planetary nebula in the deal.

Re:Nitpick, level 2 by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:41 · Score: 0

I still think we're getting screwed on that deal. I say we kick Oprah into the sun and increase the mass enough that we get our precious black hole. Let's add Dr. Phil while we're at it, too.
Re:Nitpick, level 2 by Princeofcups · 2005-09-21 05:50 · Score: 1

> Um, dude, the Sun does not have the required mass to go nova. :)

You mean super nova. A nova is a white dwarf in a binary+ system.

jfs

--
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Re:Nitpick, level 2 by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:56 · Score: 0

That's a novel approach to stop global warming. Use oprah's fat ass to block the sun.
Re:Nitpick, level 2 by lgw · 2005-09-21 06:01 · Score: 1

A white dwarf in a binary system is a Type 1A supernova. A massive (>4 suns) star going boom is a Type II supernova. I don't think "nova" is a technical term at all any more.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Nitpick, level 2 by lgw · 2005-09-21 06:06 · Score: 1

Hmmm, seems I spoke too soon, and there's less agreement on the terminology than I would have expected.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.

racing by ShentarZ31 · 2005-09-21 05:31 · Score: 1, Funny

I think this is the first evidence of galactic NASCAR.

False advertising by halivar · 2005-09-21 05:32 · Score: 1

From the subject line, I was looking forward to reading a pithy and scathing remark. Now I have to go kick someone.

Kit from Pep Boys? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:33 · Score: 0

Are there loud "pffffffffftttttttttt!!" engine sounds and ground shaking bass noises being emitted as well? My guess is Andromeda just picked up one of those lame "soup up your bad little import star with blue lights" kits at an auto parts store.

Re:Kit from Pep Boys? by stonecypher · 2005-09-21 19:10 · Score: 1

The "pfft" sound you hear is coming from your readers, not the stars.

--
StoneCypher is Full of BS

Black egg and Blue sperms by CDMA_Demo · 2005-09-21 05:36 · Score: 1

I'm thinking more like blue as in Vedrans, powered by the rapid rotation of Gene Roddenberry's corpse, and all centered around a 140-million solar-mass abyss of suck.

I think they are just trying to make a new baby galaxy!

Take it! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:38 · Score: 0

TAKE THE STAR KNOT!

interesting comments... by hashfunction · 2005-09-21 05:38 · Score: 0

but maybe we are ALREADY in a black hole... we ARE the grain of sand in some black hole in some part of some universe...

--
Staying one step ahead!

Re:interesting comments... by spongman · 2005-09-21 06:22 · Score: 1

or maybe we are all part of some Matrix-like simulation in someone else's universe.
Iain M. Banks extendes this into a religion in The Algebraist the premise of which is that if enough of the 'simulated' subjects believe that they are in a simulation then the simulation would be worthless and the people running it would just turn it off - a kind of cosmic Judgement Day, but without the judgement.
Re:interesting comments... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 06:36 · Score: 0

We're atoms looking through telescopes at atoms. Why do ppl always have to read something into that?

Secondary eddies by revscat · 2005-09-21 05:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

Like most of the morons around here, I am not a physicist, but I'm going to toss and idea out there anyhoo.

I've noticed that sometimes when dealing with spiral phenomena (hurricanes, tornadoes, whirlpools, etc.) there are secondary, much smaller spirals that are thrown off from the main body. Could this be in effect here? Could the black hole be throwing off gravitational "eddies" that cause stars to be formed?

Re:Secondary eddies by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 06:11 · Score: 0

"Eddies," said Ford, "in the space-time continuum."
"Ah," nodded Arthur, "is he? Is he?"
Re:Secondary eddies by LiquidCoooled · 2005-09-21 06:14 · Score: 1

For reference, go looking into fractal theory.

Self similar shapes repeat themselves in mathematics, science and nature.

Wander around a Mandelbrot set for a while or go outside and look at a fern.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:Secondary eddies by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 06:27 · Score: 0

Ah, the acclaimed Magic Roundabout Theory of Cosmology!
Re:Secondary eddies by swelke · 2005-09-21 06:38 · Score: 1

Those spirals you're talking about all happen on the surface of the earth, where things like the coriolis effect matter. I think that for a vortex to throw off sub-vortices, it has to be happening in a continuous fluid, with no vacuum allowed. (But I'm not positive of that. I never finished fluid dynamics.)

This isn't really a spiral effect at all. Gravity is more circular/elliptical, and the group of stars is disc-shaped. The only spiral aspect is that as tidal forces reduce the orbital energy of a particular star, its orbit will decay closer to the primary (the black hole in this case), resulting in a (very slow) spiral.

--
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
Re:Secondary eddies by coolGuyZak · 2005-09-21 08:37 · Score: 1

I think that for a vortex to throw off sub-vortices, it has to be happening in a continuous fluid, with no vacuum allowed. (But I'm not positive of that. I never finished fluid dynamics.)
But what if space is a continuous fluid?
DISCLAIMER: I have no idea of the plausability of the above statement. However, if we are living in an extradimentional world (as supersting/M theory describes)... It would seem perfectly plausible to me that our 3D space could exhibit properties in n-D space similar to those of matter in "present" space.
Re:Secondary eddies by Anpheus · 2005-09-21 08:58 · Score: 1

The secondary effects are due to turbulence, but without any other forces to act on the black hole then there is no reason secondary gravity fields would be formed that attract enough matter to cause fusion. If particles around the edge of the event horizon collided enough to cause a large number to reach escape velocity they would follow a curve away from the blackhole unless some other force (other than the blackhole's gravity) acted on the particles. This is assuming you have enough mass slowly falling into the blackhole in an orbit in the first place.

In short, gravitational eddies are the stuff of Star Trek until shown otherwise.

Thats just rude by waterlogged · 2005-09-21 05:48 · Score: 3, Funny

"Mysterious Stars Surround Andromeda's Black Hole"

Thats just rude to refer to Kevin Sorbo's career that way. Sure I know he sucks in stars that are never heard from again, but thats no cause to put the man down.

--
I couldn't fail to disagree with you any less.

Re:Thats just rude by Rick+Genter · 2005-09-21 06:58 · Score: 1

Except for Lexa Doig.

Mmmmmm.....Lexa Doig.......

--
Don't underestimate the power of The Source

Argghh by GmAz · 2005-09-21 05:48 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Why can't people just say it. Things like this are the way they are because God wanted it that way. "The formation of these stars goes against everything we know (should be speculate)." 12 billion years...sure, why not. Thats the only way they can explain their theories because there is no proof from 12 billion years ago. You think that if God can create life, he can make something old too?

--
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!

Re:Argghh by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 06:00 · Score: 0

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Do you think if God created the universe, he did not also create scientists who would seek to understand it?
Re:Argghh by Rycross · 2005-09-21 06:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, as a religious person myself, I'll answer your question.

Simply because saying "Its because of God," leads us to a dead end. If we attributed everything to God, then our scientific progress would be halted. In fact, you can see the results of this type of thinking in our own history. It's called the Dark Ages.

Science has to take an agnostic stance in order to work. We have to take an agnostic stance in human knowledge in order to progress. If we depend on daddy (God) to give us all the answers, then we will never grow up.
Re:Argghh by 3nd32 · 2005-09-21 06:22 · Score: 1

Well, as a fellow Christian, I don't believe that's what God wants us to do. Why would God create a universe with the appearance of age if he didn't want us figuring out how these processes work? We can acknowledge his sovereignty and still look into the processes behind the universe. I hope these scientists don't just shrug it off as "the way things are", but instead continue studying it and expand our knowledge of how the universe works.
Re:Argghh by hador_nyc · 2005-09-21 06:34 · Score: 1

Well said. I'm not a Christian, and not a particularly religious person at that. Still, the fact that we can question means to me that we should; even to prove the negative. We're not talking about child porn or something like. Figuring out how the Universe works and what makes it work, sounds like a good idea. Besides, what's the worst thing, you die and G-d laughs at you for wasting your time?

I'm more impressed with a G-d that can make an increadibly complex and old universe with tons of neat things for us to figure out and explore, than the alternative creation story I learned as a child.

Why not, right?

--
- Mike
Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
Re:Argghh by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 06:45 · Score: 0

This was hilarious, but the ppl taking it seriously are even funnier.
Re:Argghh by GmAz · 2005-09-21 06:55 · Score: 1

Ok, it happened again. I always do this. I say something without fully stating my thoughts. I agree with both of you. There is nothing wrong with manking finding out how the world/universe works. But its when people say that there is no way to explain how or why it happens. As if it doesn't fall into what science says, then its wrong. But we also must thing that there are also things that mankind isn't supposed to know and why that is, we don't know. I just wish that something like evolution, which I don't believe in, wouldn't be taught in school as fact, but as theory, which it is. And since America is full of all kinds of people, its hard to teach Creation in schools, but don't dismiss it and just put evolution or something else in there as 'the way it is'.

--
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
Re:Argghh by Jahndar · 2005-09-21 07:01 · Score: 0

It *is* taught, literally, as the THEORY of Evolution. If you've ever heard it called the Law of Evolution. I'd assume whoever said it didn't know what he was talking about. For the record, I do support it being taught in schools, just like all other scientific theories.
Re:Argghh by 3nd32 · 2005-09-21 07:17 · Score: 1

The textbooks are stating it as fact, or at least mine was two years ago.

I do NOT feel Creationism and Intelligent Design should be taught in school. While I am a Creationist, that belief is not a scientific viewpoint. I want secular evolution taught in schools, both its strengths and its weaknesses. This will encourage further investigation on the part of the students, and avoid presenting a theory as fact.
Re:Argghh by 2short · 2005-09-21 07:23 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You're "not a particularly religious person"? You apparently think there's a supreme being, maker and master of all creation, who for reasons we mortals cannot begin to fathom, gets really pissy if we write down a word that refers to him. But he thinks it's fine as long as you leave out one of the letters. Would I be going out on a limb in thinking you also beleive god has no problem with either roast beef sandwiches or cheese sandwiches, but that roast beef and cheese together is right out?

Sorry, it just kind of depresses me that I live in a society where "not particularly religous" can include people who not only beleive in god, but have such specific beleifs about him as to not only establish that that god is batshit crazy, but allow discussion of exactly what mental disorders this god might suffer from.
Re:Argghh by lgw · 2005-09-21 07:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

To amplify: Science doesn't really care whether or not the universe was created by God, as long as He followed rules when he did so. Science seeks to understand the rules and patterns within the universe sa as to predict what we can't see based on what we can. It seems to work pretty well, so it would seem that God's playing along here, right?

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Argghh by CaptainTux · 2005-09-21 07:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Simply because saying "Its because of God," leads us to a dead end
As a Christian, I can see both sides of the debate. I think we need to accept that things are the way they are "because it was God". I think that is what faith is. But I also believe that God, who created the laws of physics and quantum mechanics, would operate fully within those laws during his creation of the universe and things in it.
That said, I think that Christians can investigate the creation scientifically. We already know the WHO of the creation. But nothing is stopping us from finding out the HOW and WHY.

--
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
Re:Argghh by Jahndar · 2005-09-21 07:31 · Score: 0

"I want secular evolution taught in schools, both its strengths and its weaknesses. This will encourage further investigation on the part of the students, and avoid presenting a theory as fact."

Well, we can certainly agree on that sentiment. There is still much to be learned, and it is important to understand the shortcomings of all theories to know what the focus of future experimentation, exploration, etc should be. Just as students are taught that Newton's theories haven't been reconciled with those of Einstein.

Although, in evolutions case, I think any shortcomings would lie more in lack of understanding about the rules and methods that govern it, rather than whether it actually occurs - that part has pretty much been covered.
Re:Argghh by lgw · 2005-09-21 07:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Indeed! Investigation of a theory's weaknesses is precisely how science progresses, and we should encourage that! However, it should also be made clear that when a scientist says "theory" he means "something that we're certain of, to so many significant digits, for the currently available data" and not "guess".

It should also be taught that science is less interestd in "what really happened" and more in "how things act", and that regardless of where life really came from, life forms reliably and predictably act as if evolution was their origin - true or false, the theory is incredibly *useful* (at least, to biology, farming, and medicine) and should be taught.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Argghh by hador_nyc · 2005-09-21 07:40 · Score: 1

My motivations for not writing a word has nothing to do with fear of a lighning bolt, but something that I enjoy doing. My question to you is, why are you going off on a rant about it? Who cares? So what? What if my supreme being is a dead fly on my desk? Who cares? That was my point, although I was being kind to a person who seemed to care about religion. Not particularly religious applies to how one follows sald religion that they ascribe to. There's a difference between that and not believing in g-d at all. Let me ask you a question? Ever knock on wood? Ever have a good luck charm? It's the same thing and just as harmless and meaningless. Lighten up kid. Since when did i say, "You apparently think there's a supreme being, maker and master of all creation, who for reasons we mortals cannot begin to fathom"? That's a lot to assume from one single short post. Also, if it depresses you about that, then don't go to the mid-west. You might want to kill yourself.

--
- Mike
Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
Re:Argghh by 3nd32 · 2005-09-21 08:03 · Score: 1

I'm in agreement that evolution occurs. I also agree there needs to be a MUCH greater focus on the rules and methods governing evolution. Several of my classmates still think we "decided" to develop larger brains.

My primary rational issue (versus my theological issues, which are irrelevant to this discussion) with evolution is whether mutation and natural selection are sufficiently capable of creating new information to explain the diversity of life. To my knowledge, our insight into evolution to date has shown primarily loss of information (such as the four-winged fruit fly), or minor modifications to virii and bacteria that modify immune system identification, rather than increasing function. If anyone can point me toward a study showing otherwise, I'd appreciate it.
Re:Argghh by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 08:04 · Score: 0

But we also must thing that there are also things that mankind isn't supposed to know and why that is, we don't know.

Why do you say that? The trouble with that idea is that it leads nowhere. Which would you prefer: "I don't understand why people get sick. It must be God's will." or "I don't understand why people get sick. We should find out so that we can keep people from dying."

just wish that something like evolution, which I don't believe in, wouldn't be taught in school as fact, but as theory, which it is.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is that species change over time. We know this to be true because we've seen it happen. The theory of evolution (or theories, because there are several) is an explanation of how it happens.

Also, "theory" doesn't mean "guess".

its hard to teach Creation in schools, but don't dismiss it and just put evolution or something else in there as 'the way it is'.

Creation shouldn't be taught in a science class ever. Period. Why? Because it's not science.
Re:Argghh by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 08:22 · Score: 0

> Let me ask you a question? Ever knock on wood? Ever have a good luck charm? It's the same thing and just as harmless and meaningless.

Magical thinking (prayer, lucky charms, superstitions, fates, and that sort of stuff) isn't harmless when it goes so far as to lead to disappointment, delusions, and a lack of personal responsibility.
Re:Argghh by 2short · 2005-09-21 08:47 · Score: 1

Apparently both you and whoever modded me Flamebait took me more seriously than I intended. I apologize for not being clearer; I just found it slightly amusing that you say you are not particularly religious, but are sufficiently so so as to not write "God", which I associate with people who are pretty seriously religious. I also took "not particularly religous" to be much closer to "not religous" than you would apparently intend.
I don't generally knock on wood or have good luck charms, but I do have a small plastic astronaut figurine which I have intentionally convinced myself will drive me crazy if it is not kept surrounded by a circle of tiny blue stones. I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who does not expect me to take their religious beliefs any more seriously than I expect them to take my belief about the astronaut. And I expect them to find that belief utterly laughable (but I'd apreciate it if they did not move the stones).
Having been to the midwest, suicide would definitely be on the table if no other method of leaving were available.
Re:Argghh by 3nd32 · 2005-09-21 08:55 · Score: 1

Agreed, on all except that life forms reliably and predictably act as if evolution was their origin. While their behavior doesn't disindicate (it's CORRECT, even if it is a double negative *eyes the circling grammar nazis*)origin via evolution, it doesn't indicate their origin was evolution either. While they act as if they are currently undergoing evolution, and probably have been since they came into existence, current observations are incapable of indicating the force responsible for abiogenesis. I'm okay with it being taught in science classes, but not as a theory by your definition. Perhaps it should instead be taught as a belief widely held by scientists.
Re:Argghh by lgw · 2005-09-21 09:46 · Score: 1
High school biology pretty much fails to teach what scientists believe about evolution.
- Evolution: the statistical distribution of alleles in a population changes over time. This is a fact, constantly observed like "water runs downhill", and there's lots of chewey math and predictive goodness here. Extremely useful in biology and medicine.
- Common origin: this is the cladistic theory of taxonomy - all of the millions of known species can be orgainized well by assuming they had a tree of common ancestors. Very useful: regardless of whether the species *had* common ancestors, it's a fact that it's very useful to organize them that way. It's also a fact that man makes new species (for some definitions of that word) in the lab and in agriculture, and has for centuries, so the theory is useful far beyond taxonomy.
- Abiogenisis - this is the "belief widely held by scientists", but it's not important to any of the useful bits of evolution (though it might become useful to nanotechnology one day).
I know I didn't learn this in high school! Explain the facts properly and there's no need for "evolution is just a theory" stickers on textbooks. The facts speak for themselves.
--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Argghh by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 14:19 · Score: 0

As an atheist person myself, I'll let you know that the term "agnostic" is pointless. Atheistic is more historically accurate. It is not a denial as commonly mispercieved but simply a lack of faith in a god's existence. IMO, an agnostic is either someone who doesn't know what they believe (this is a LOT of people) or someone who doesn't know what an atheist is.
"Some claim that there is nothing distinctive in being an agnostic because even theists do not claim to know God exists, only to believe it; and atheists do not claim to know there is no God, only to not believe in one." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic [Which also mentions the invention of the term "agnostic" by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 - long after the battle lines on these debates were already drawn.]
Re:Argghh by bronney · 2005-09-21 14:59 · Score: 0

Being an atheist myself, I completely agree to parent. It's not blasphemy to do science while you're religious. Taking this pofession doesn't mean you're challenging God. You're merely using the capacity God gave you as human beings "to rule this earth". And you should be proud of that, that some of us are doing science.

Not doing anything and attribute everything to Mr. Man however, is wasting his gift for you mate. Use it.
Re:Argghh by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 16:07 · Score: 0

As a Christian, I can see both sides of the debate. I think we need to accept that things are the way they are "because it was God".

Yep.. thats why the USA has recently had a major disaster due to the weather, and another one on the way. God intended to send them as punishment for putting up with such a wacked out society.

Honestly, why is it that anything 'wonderful' is due to gods love for us, yet any negative thing is passed off as "god works in mysterious ways - it's all for the best".

Oblig. "2010: The Year We Make Contact" quote by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

"My God! It's full of stars!"

pfffffttt! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:55 · Score: 1, Funny

That's nothing, I have mysterious SORES around my black hole!

Re:pfffffttt! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 09:45 · Score: 0

But are they open sores?

Mysterious Stars... by turnstyle · 2005-09-21 05:56 · Score: 1

"Mysterious Stars Surround Andromeda's Black Hole"

My guess: R. Kelly

--
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda

Re:Mysterious Stars... by phxbadash · 2005-09-22 01:52 · Score: 1

That can't be right, the andromeda galaxy is much too old for him. he likes holes of the 13-year-old variety.

The paper by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 05:59 · Score: 1, Informative

You can read the abstract; if you have an institutional subscription to Astrophys.J., you can also view the full text.

Read the title wrong... by lbmouse · 2005-09-21 06:04 · Score: 1, Funny

At first glance, thought it said: Mysterious Porn Stars Surround Andy Dick's Black Hole

Is it Friday yet?

Re:Read the title wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 08:48 · Score: 0

I think today is Humpday

Nasa site had this as well by qray · 2005-09-21 06:14 · Score: 3, Informative

An artist's rendition on their picture of the day:

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_ feature_411.html
--
fu

Quick! Alert Richard C Hoagland! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 06:18 · Score: 0

Let's watch him try to argue that intelligent beings are sending us a message as he's determined a pattern in the ratio of the radius to the circumference of the orbits...

It's approaching PI... Must be aliens!

Neon Kit by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 06:24 · Score: 0

Actually, God just installed a neon kit to Andromeda. I hear he's working on a killer stereo next (gonna turn a couple of the larger solar systems into subs). If we start hearing this gawd aweful thumping eminating from Andromeda, we'll know he's done (BTW, I know that normally sound can't travel through space, but we are talking one seriously kickin stereo). He's still waiting to install the larger spinning disks on Andromeda's hub.

Re:Duck... by IceAgeComing · 2005-09-21 06:25 · Score: 2, Funny

the stars so rarely pass actually close to each other that they never meat

That's good. Seeing two meating stars is not for the faint of heart.

Alert Richard C Hoagland!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 06:26 · Score: 0

Just that!

Re:Duck... by 2short · 2005-09-21 06:28 · Score: 1

Just doing some quick and dirty estimations, the messing with orbits issue seems pretty unlikely. The earths orbit, for example, would only be disturbed by something pulling different amounts on the earth vs. the sun, because the earth was closer to it or further from it. It would have to be awfully close for the distance from the earth to the sun to be very significant. Even at 1 light year, we're talking something like 1 part in 100,000. You'd need something very massive, passing quite close, and very quickly. The quickly part is there, but the other two are a pretty tiny probability.
The galactic collision will no doubt wreck all sorts of re-arangement on the massive scale of galaxies. Any observers concerned only with the relatively minute scale of a single solar system will presumably not even notice.
Not, as noted, that there is much chance those observers will be human.

Re:Duck... by Fishstick · 2005-09-21 06:32 · Score: 1

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

Wiki says 2.9 million light years distant.

So yeah, what we are seeing is ~3 million years ago. The OP was obviously trying to be funny, but if Andromeda were to try to fling a star across intergalactic space towards us, it would take hundreds of millions of years unless there is some way to accelerate an object the size of a star close to the speed of light.

--

There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

Yet another gaping hole... by shrubya · 2005-09-21 06:37 · Score: 4, Funny

...in the so-called "Theory" of Gravity. (what, did you think I was going to say goatse?)

When will those fancy-pants university astrologers accept the truth of Intelligent Falling. It's in all the news, so it must be true.

Re:Yet another gaping hole... by zxnos · 2005-09-21 07:40 · Score: 1

umm, shouldnt that be 'Intelligent Pushing"?
'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

--
always mosh clockwise
Re:Yet another gaping hole... by fbjon · 2005-09-21 10:48 · Score: 1

No, it's 'Intelligent Shoving'.

--
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Re:Yet another gaping hole... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-22 14:51 · Score: 0

And thus are new religious sects born.

Burn the heretic!
Re:Yet another gaping hole... by spot35 · 2005-09-23 01:31 · Score: 1

God is trying to keep everyone down.

"KNOW THY PLACE, MORTAL!"

Re:Duck... by null+etc. · 2005-09-21 06:38 · Score: 1

As you probably know, this discovery actually happened a while ago in time (cause of the time it took the light to travel). So the star could be flinging itself at us AS WE SPEAK.

Actually, the discovery happened just recently - the actual event happened a long time ago.

But regardless, you're actually exhibiting a common logic falacy. Because the star is travelling at less than the speed of light, it's impossible for the star to "sneak up on us" by arriving here before it's lightwaves do.

In any event, my original post was just a joke.

Millions of crashed windows boxes by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 06:53 · Score: 0

orbiting the black hole.

What the astronomers are seeing is the lights of millions of blue screens of death!

Re:Millions of crashed windows boxes by Dark_Lord_Prime · 2005-09-21 07:57 · Score: 1

The mystery of which lies in the incomprehensible "error" information provided by said blue-screens.

--
Come hear me sing!

Where is John Chrichton when you need him? [NT] by Jahndar · 2005-09-21 06:54 · Score: 0, Offtopic

nt = new toy?

Ignore the evil search engine behind the curtain.. by Lactoso · 2005-09-21 07:01 · Score: 1

Consider the source. Yahoo gets a bunch of bad press for snitching on poor Chinese users, infesting users computer with spyware and a bunch of other evil-Yahoo stuff. SO what do they do? "Don't worry about us, look at these stars being eaten by a black hole!! OMG, we're all going to die!!!"

Re:Duck... by techno-vampire · 2005-09-21 07:05 · Score: 1

Having the Earth "pulled out of orbit" by a passing star isn't the only problem. Consider a close approach at right angles to the ecliptic. As the intruder passes, it will perturb the Earth's orbit toward it, making it more eliptical than it is now. Not, of course, enough to cause a collision, but possibly enough for climate change; hotter summers and cooler winters for the Northern hemisphere, where most people live. (Assuming it came while there are still people living here, of course.)

--
Good, inexpensive web hosting

A more news worthy title would have been... by MahariBalzitch · 2005-09-21 07:13 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Mysterious Stars Found Escaping From Anna Nicole Smith's Black Hole.

--
Kickass Cheap Web Hosting

TV Show by nremorse · 2005-09-21 07:23 · Score: 1

I also think it's mysterious that the star of Andromeda (Kevin Sorbo) signed on when SciFi brought it back. http://www.scifi.com/andromeda/

Eddies. by aquabat · 2005-09-21 07:24 · Score: 1

Eddies in the space-time continuum.

--
A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.

Re:Eddies. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 07:42 · Score: 0

Is he?
Re:Eddies. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 08:46 · Score: 0

"Hi, I'm your shipboard computer and I'd LOVE to solve that problem for you..."

Sorry, I watched that movie again last nigh
Re:Eddies. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 12:40 · Score: 0

So, are they his stars then?

Re:Duck... by schon · 2005-09-21 07:27 · Score: 3, Funny

Carne diem, dude. Carne diem.

Someone by skofarrell · 2005-09-21 07:36 · Score: 1

Needs to talk to V.I.N.CENT

Re:Duck... by khayman80 · 2005-09-21 07:38 · Score: 1

Actually, it might be worse than that. Every galaxy we've examined has a supermassive black hole in its center, including our own. Galaxies that are very young (e.g. very far away) seem to be radiating withering levels of radiation, a phenomenon known as a "quasar". The most popular theory at the moment is that quasars are simply supermassive black holes feeding on matter in the galaxy, and spitting some of the incoming matter out as gamma rays and x rays.

Our galaxy is "quiet" because the black hole has "pushed" the surrounding matter away from it so that it no longer has any significant incoming matter. A galactic collision would probably play hell with this balance, though, sending material into our very own supermassive black hole. When this happens, the levels of radiation could be so high that small perturbations in the earth's orbit will be the LEAST of humanity's concerns.

The good news is that at the very earliest, the Milky Way won't collide with another galaxy for several million more years, when Andromeda MAY hit us.

Eddies in the space-time continuum by Nino+the+Mind+Boggle · 2005-09-21 07:49 · Score: 1

"Ah," nodded Arthur, "is he. Is he." He pushed his hands into the pockets of his dressing gown and looked knowledgeably into the distance.
"What?" said Ford.
"Er, who," said Arthur, "is Eddy, then, exactly, then?"

--
------ "Darn floor. Big bite." (Koko the gorilla's best attempt at explaining the experience of an earthquake.)

how depressing by Goldsmith · 2005-09-21 07:59 · Score: 1

it's a sad, sad day when our best source for science news is Yahoo

I think Shrek was correct by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 08:21 · Score: 0

It is Bloodnut the Flatuent with the hunters running away from his stench...

Re:Duck... by Excen · 2005-09-21 08:24 · Score: 0

Sorry, I never seize anybody else's meat. That's the job of either you, your significant other or a trained professional.

--
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad

I read TA and have a theory and a question; by Progman3K · 2005-09-21 08:29 · Score: 2

Some black hole rotation could be caused by matter falling onto the event-horizon, imparting its kinetic energy onto the black hole, causing it to start turning.
I can imagine that as a method to start black-hole rotation, but what I can't figure out is why a black hole such as cygnus x1 ISN'T rotating.
Maybe cygnus x1 originally inherited its progenitor-star's rotation, but matter falling on the even-horizon since has braked the rotation? Doesn't seem likely...

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J

Re:I read TA and have a theory and a question; by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 11:13 · Score: 0

So you listen to Rush, since you are using a name for an object that has never been determined to be a black hole. Doesn't it make you feel smart to get your science information from a lame canadian rock group?
Re:I read TA and have a theory and a question; by Progman3K · 2005-09-21 16:00 · Score: 1

Read this article and you'll see what I wrote has nothing to do with a music group.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_mond ay_031124.html

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:I read TA and have a theory and a question; by stevelinton · 2005-09-22 11:00 · Score: 1

Why do you think Cyg X1 isn't rotating?
Re:I read TA and have a theory and a question; by Progman3K · 2005-09-22 18:46 · Score: 1

Because I read it in this article:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_mond ay_031124.html

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:I read TA and have a theory and a question; by stevelinton · 2005-09-22 23:23 · Score: 1

The article doesn't say it's no rotating. they say there is no (hot) matter close enough to it to allow them to measure its rotation.

They discovered.... by slashname3 · 2005-09-21 08:31 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Sounds like they discovered the ring around ur anus.

Re:Duck... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 08:32 · Score: 0

Milky Way won't collide with another galaxy for several million more years, when Andromeda MAY hit us.

Don't panic! That's billon, not million:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/ga laxy_collides_020507-1.html

Reassure your children:

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/featu res/F_When_Gallaxies_Collide.html

Don't show them messy pictures like this:

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/current/collide_hilit e.html

Re:Duck... by milimetric · 2005-09-21 08:35 · Score: 1

so was mine. Also, the star could actually be travelling at whatever speed it wants to travel at. It pop into my living room based on certain physics theories going around, and I don't even have a living room.

My bet by EnsilZah · 2005-09-21 08:40 · Score: 0, Redundant

It's a reality show.

Hold it right there, buster. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 09:09 · Score: 0

The Guide is definitive, and Reality is frequently inaccurate. I don't see how the universe fits into this, I mean, what's it know? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Re:Duck... by 2short · 2005-09-21 09:10 · Score: 1

Actually, currently the Earth is closest to the sun in Northern Hemisphere winter. For the effect you describe, it would have to get much more eliptical, and in the opposite direction. But that's nitpicking. I'll happily agree that actually pulling the earth out of orbit around the sun (which is just stupendously unlikely) wouldn't be necessary to cause a problem; any significant disturbance to the orbit would do it. I was just pointing out that to cause a significant disturbance in the earths orbit would require a combination of mass and closeness of aproach such that the odds very heavily favor passing all the way through the Andromeda galaxy without it happening.

Re:Duck... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 09:13 · Score: 0

"screw with the orbits" is putting it mildly. The gravitational forces of two colliding galaxies will pretty much rip the galaxies apart and throw a lot of stars on pretty wild orbits.

A friend of mine once wrote a simulation of it--http://members.wri.com/jeffb/visualization/gal axiesanim.shtml

MOD PARENT DOWN. 3rd link is George's pet goat by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 09:17 · Score: 0

Yes, indeed rather messy. Not completely offtopic though, as indeed it is a huge black hole...

Hmmm, in a way, cosmic flatulence? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 09:31 · Score: 0

A black hole heating its surroundings by its gaseous emanations, hihi...

Re:Oh, you mean like 'black hole'. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 09:36 · Score: 0

When I first read this, I imagined some sort of weird guy lowering his pants and then farting on his windows XP cluster so much that all the boxen bluescreened from so much hot air...

For those who haven't seen it yet by ArsenneLupin · 2005-09-21 09:41 · Score: 1

the magic roundabout

Potty mouthed astronomy by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 09:49 · Score: 0

So we have ur anus. We have the moon (obvious...). Then there are black holes. There is the sun, and most importantly the places where it doesn't shine.

What's the matter with those wacky astronomers?

Re:Duck... by khallow · 2005-09-21 11:30 · Score: 1

Don't show them messy pictures like this:

Roadkill on the supergalactic highway is just so ugly.

Re:Duck... by Savantissimo · 2005-09-21 12:37 · Score: 1

It will go nova, just not supernova. This will happen when the H is just about used up and will be the beginning of the Sun's shift to being a red giant.

(IIRC, IANAA, void where prohibited by physical law.)

--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry

Re:Duck... by Savantissimo · 2005-09-21 12:56 · Score: 1

Post in haste, repent at leisure - I checked Wkipedia and what I said is correct except technically it isn't called a nova, which is a word reserved for somthing which happens in white dwarfs in binary systems. But the Sun will use up the H in the core, and eventually expand into a red giant 1E3 - 1E4 times more luminous than now in a series of steps brought on by "He flashes" which might as well be novae as far as surviving them on Earth is concerned.

--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry

GNAA unavailable for comment by merc · 2005-09-21 13:01 · Score: 1

Okay, that was my first one ever.

(... maybe not even sure of the repurcussions of his actions at this stage)

--
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.

Re:The castle Argghh... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-21 14:45 · Score: 0

Reminds me of the Bumper Sticker:

We Tried Prayer In Schools:
It was called the Dark Ages.

Re:Duck... by Grayswan · 2005-09-21 16:03 · Score: 1

That is already going to happen in a mere 63 million years.

--
If you open your mind too wide, people will throw trash in it.

Re:Duck... by stonecypher · 2005-09-21 18:31 · Score: 1

Well, not that a remote star passing through our solar system is particularly likely either, but it's worth pointing out that a star passing within twice the radius of the Oort cloud would be enough to significantly alter our planet's orbit, to the point where our ecosphere would be annihilated, and if we were lucky maybe we could hide from new deadly weather under domes.

Granted, stripping two digits out of that mantissa makes it insignificantly less spectacularly unlikely.

--
StoneCypher is Full of BS

Re:Argghh (it's no longer talk like a pirate day) by node+3 · 2005-09-21 19:28 · Score: 1

That said, I think that Christians can investigate the creation scientifically. We already know the WHO of the creation. But nothing is stopping us from finding out the HOW and WHY.

If you allow yourself to engage in such unscientific thinking that lead to your "knowing" who, you're likely to find yourself having trouble being scientific about the how and why.

For example, you may attempt to impute the why of something to "god's plan".

Or it may lead you to believe c really isn't a constant, since god can change it if he wants, or that Quantum Mechanics is flawed because "god does not play dice".

I mean, just imagine a science book that says, "the Earth's rotation is the cause of the day, in which the sun appears to circle the Earth every 24 hours, except when god decides to stop the sun in the sky."

You just can't do it. God and science just can't directly mix, because wherever the answer has been "god", science has always come back with, "no, it's this natural cause".

Of course, you may not suffer from any such problems, but the mere act of believing god as a scientific fact (who) stacks the odds against you.

Let's drive over there http://tinyurl.com/bufzc by newpath4comVersion2 · 2005-09-21 19:50 · Score: 0

Driving your new Chevrolet Space Car: http://tinyurl.com/bufzc

What's turning them blue, dear Watson? by kettlechips · 2005-09-21 21:04 · Score: 1

All we really see is a group of stars closely circling a massive black hole emitting blue light.
Blue stars tend to be hotter and younger than red ones. They have a shorter life span being blue
we figure, since they are burning up fuel at a much higher rate than red stars do.
Hence the idea that they must be young.

However, it may be a plausible idea that these stars, being under such extreme circumstances,
within 1 lightyear of a 140 million solar mass black hole, emit blue light not because
of their high internal fuel consumption, but because of external influences.
Being bombarded by highly energetic particles, exposed to immense gravitational and/or magnetic
effects, speeds, etc..

The thought would be that the disc of stars around the black hole is actually more or less uniform where age is concerned, but that the ones closest to the black hole undergo some effects that make them turn blue.

Signs of ETI??? by Pablo+El+Vagabundo · 2005-09-21 22:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

If I was a type 3 player in this universe and wanted to make my presense known maybe I would place stars in unusual places.

Eventually other would figure it out and maybe there is a message to decode.

They should look for mathematical alighnments in the stars to see if they are unnatually positioned.

Would be pretty cool.
Pablo

Re:Duck... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-22 02:59 · Score: 0

Umm... everything is moving at a fraction of the speed of light.

Slashdot Mirror

Mysterious Stars Surround Andromeda's Black Hole

341 comments