Slashdot Mirror


Deep in the Core

meehawl writes "A video of what is currently thought to be the closest star to the supermassive black hole at the centre of our galaxy. The star orbits the black hole in a highly elliptical orbit with a period of 15 years or so, but at its closest approach it swings within 17 light hours of the black hole (around three times the distance between the Sun and Pluto). In the video, you can see the star ricochet past its closest approach to the black hole. This slingshot effect enabled astronomers to further pinpoint the mass of the black hole, which is confidently estimated at 2 million suns or so. The mass observation, coupled with the size constraints observed, indicates the object at the centre of the galaxy is definitely composed of some exotically dense form of matter."

209 comments

  1. UPDATE by dirtsurfer · · Score: 5, Funny

    this slashdot effect enabled astronomers to further pinpoint the mass of the black hole, which is confidently estimated to be somewhere in the server room

  2. Circling the drain by Luigi30 · · Score: 5, Funny

    So our galaxy is like spit bubbles circling the great cosmic drain?

    --
    503 Sig Unavailable

    The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
    1. Re:Circling the drain by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      So our galaxy is like spit bubbles circling the great cosmic drain?

      I don't think I want to hear about your college years

    2. Re:Circling the drain by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

      Yep. Spirals seem to be an extremely popular form of matter for very large and very small things. Some galaxies are spirals but so is DNA.

      Maybe it reflects the underlying structure of the universe, or maybe it's just that things spin when gravity or mass become even slightly imbalanced, or maybe there's another reason.

      Perhaps someone forgot to put a shim under the front corner of the universe's washing machine.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    3. Re:Circling the drain by MaestroSartori · · Score: 1

      DNA is a (double) helix, which is different to a spiral. Spirals converge, helices(?) don't.

      At least, I think that's the difference. I'm sure someone can correct me!

  3. The video... by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    really is pretty awesome. I had no idea that this "slingshot effect" was so 'graphic'...wrong word, okay, 'extreme'. Quite amazing.

    1. Re:The video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put this in the same category as the phoney photoshop "scientific pictures of the year" story from a day or two ago. The mpeg is 100% rendered and fake. Are they afraid we won't like the 'real' images?

    2. Re:The video... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      For the sake of your post, at least, I hope the web admin doesn't maliciously point the link to goatse.

    3. Re:The video... by Basehart · · Score: 1

      This really blows my mind. Seeing the center of our Galaxy like this, the point we're all spinning around.

      Did anyone figure out where the center of the Universe is yet?

    4. Re:The video... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      More like "spooky". How can something not seen have such a slingshot effect on an orbiting star.

      Like a said...spooky

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:The video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you stare really hard at that point in space, you can FEEL it sucking the light rays out of your eyes before they can reach your retina!!

    6. Re:The video... by Ariane+6 · · Score: 1

      While it's true that this does represent a black hole at the center of the Galaxy, we aren't orbiting it in the same way that the Earth orbits the Sun. While the sun represents the vast majority of mass in the Solar System, this two million solar mass black hole positively pales in comparison to the two hundred billion solar masses that represent the galaxy's distributed mass.

    7. Re:The video... by Alamais · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is no center of the Universe!

      "But if it's expanding, it must be expanding _from_ somewhere, right?"

      No, not in any observable way.

      The best analogy I've got for this is to think about the surface of a balloon. This surface is a curved, 2-dimensional space--if you were a 2-D inhabitant on the surface, you would not know about its curavture. If you had tiny markers on the balloon, as it inflated they would become more distant from each other. There is no 'center' to your 2-D world, the space between the markers is itself expanding, because your 2-D surface is being expanded into the extra 3rd dimension.

      Similarly, there is no center to our 3-D world. It is, in a sense, expanding into a 4th dimension, and the space between galaxies is increasing as a result. This is somewhat of a misnomer ('4th dimension'), but it gets the point across.

      The only reason galaxies, planets, etc. (all matter) don't expand along with this is the effect of the elemental forces. Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong Nuclear force all pull stuff together at certain scales, thus clumping matter together depite the expansion of space.

      And yes, IAAAP (I Am An AstroPhysicist)...or at least an astrophysicist in training.

    8. Re:The video... by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      That should read, the currently prevailing theory says there's no center of the universe. For a scientist in training you sure do speak in absolutes. Perhaps when your training is finished you'll learn the concept of a THEORY.

      You can also get some indication of direction of travel through the cosmic microwave background. Astrophysics is not the same as cosmology.

    9. Re:The video... by mbrother · · Score: 3, Informative

      Examples of the real images are readily available (from near-infrared speckle imaging). It would be a herky, jerky, incomplete mess to the general public, however, to make a video of the actual data, hence the rendered movie. You can see, in the zoom in, the data points of actual observations used to determine the orbit of the key star. Scientists aren't trying to hide a thing. They're just trying to present their results in the clearest, most comprehensible way. Give them some credit for that. Scientists hide very little, as a general rule. We usually have to beg people to listen. Slashdot is a nice exception.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    10. Re:The video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? If we were living on a baloon, we could observe what the other side of the baloon was doing. Even if we could get a very poor guess at the relative location of the other certian points on the baloon, we could get a very poor guess at what the center of the baloon is. NO? I mean, we don't have a pair of interstellar calipers we can haul out, and there's accounting for all sorts of speed of light delay and hoo-ha, it's non-trivial and all, but it's got to be far from impossible. If we know roughly the location of the points, we can further get a pretty good guess at how fast the universe is expanding, I'd say... Coupled with neat clues like red/blue shift and whatnot, it simply cannot be impossible, even to measure the universe in your 4D (or 5D, 6D... ND) world. If that's a valuable piece of information, however, is another point.

    11. Re:The video... by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      Would it really matter? Both pages contain a super massive hole of some type.

    12. Re:The video... by Alamais · · Score: 2

      I tend to speak with such brevity when I assume I'm speaking to one familiar with the scientific method. Chill. Or if you prefer: The Flying Spaghetti Monster told me it was so. May you too be touched by his noodly appendage.

      As for the CMB thing...what does direction of travel have to do with it? Even though the CMB is anisotropic, and might yield some vague relative sense of movement direction, that doesn't mean it would give any indication of an absolute center, since (theoretically) it was emitted by the recombination of omni-present plasma, and is cooled uniformly by Hubble expansion.

      Did you mean something other than what I infer?

    13. Re:The video... by Alamais · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In order for the balloon analogy to be correct, you must take into account that the inhabitants are entirely 2-D. They can only look around on x & y axes. The 'up-down' (or 'centerward-anticenterward') z axis has no meaning to them, just as a fourth axis is mentally and visually inconceivable for us. (Draw x, y, and z axes. Now draw an axis perpendicular to all three...yeah.) They have no ability to look 'through' the balloon, just as we have no ability to look into our '4th axis'.

      On the balloon, the 'universe' is an observationally 'flat', 2-D plane...for us, the universe is a 'flat', 3-D space. At long enough measuring distances, you might detect some hints of curvature, such as the angles in a triangle adding to less than 180 degrees. This would indicate the degree of curvature, but again would have no directional significance.

      We actually think we know rather well how fast the universe is expanding. It's called the Hubble Constant, and is generally accepted to be 'around' 2/3 * 100km s^-1/Mpc. In other words, objects 1 Megaparsec apart will be moving away from each other at about 66km/s.

      Measuring is one thing. Finding a center is another. If you imagine that the universe is actually smaller than the distance light has traveled since its first emission, then when we look out in any direction, we may actually be seeing ourselves (far, far away). How do you place a center of the universe when you can look out and see the back of your own head? Especially when everything is constantly moving.

      I'm starting to meander now...time for my hour of sleep before classes. X_x

    14. Re:The video... by Itchy+Rich · · Score: 1

      I tend to speak with such brevity when I assume I'm speaking to one familiar with the scientific method.

      For me (a fully trained physicist), a fundamental of scientific method is that you don't start believing things without knowing why you think they're true (or useful).

      So we shouldn't automatically trust the hypothesis you put forward until you tell us what evidence supports it.

      You should have no trouble telling us what this is based on since you will have learnt about the basis of this model before believing it yourself.

  4. Which way is it turning by panth0r · · Score: 0

    Is it revolving around the black hole counter-clockwise like in america or clockwise like in australia?... wait, guess it depends on how you look at it... but seriously, since it is revolving around the black hole, does that mean it is slowly being sucked in?

    --
    I like suggestions, but I don't like contributing towards them.
    1. Re:Which way is it turning by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 2, Informative

      but seriously, since it is revolving around the black hole, does that mean it is slowly being sucked in?

      Revolving is kind of a 2 dimensional way to look at it. Instead it is orbiting, which is actually a perpetual fall. So the short answer is..."yes, it is not being sucked in". Really, I would have no idea how to do the math (as most of the variable are too...variable). But basically, for every object that can be orbited you can figure out a minimum sustainable orbit versus one that is catastrophic.

    2. Re:Which way is it turning by hawkeyeMI · · Score: 4, Informative

      Black holes don't have special sucking power... it's just normal gravity. Just as a planet can orbit a star, or a star can orbit another star, a star can orbit a black hole. It will behave exactly as if it were orbiting a planet of an equal mass, as long as it's going fast enough to maintain orbit.

      The caveat is that if one gets too close to the black hole, within what is termed the 'event horizon', then there is no turning back. Not even light escapes (generally speaking -- Stephen Hawking would be a more appropriate speaker on the subject.) This star does not appear to be doing that since it's still orbiting, and we can see it.

      --
      Error 404 - Sig Not Found
    3. Re:Which way is it turning by bromoseltzer · · Score: 2, Informative

      It would be a stable orbit, except this is a pretty unusual situation. It's in a pretty dense neighborhood, so the star may interact with other stars or other matter. Such collisions will often take energy out of the orbit. Also, as seen with orbiting pulsars, the star loses some energy due to gravitational radiation. There could be magnetic fields that put a brake on things over long periods of time. If the star gets too close, tidal distortion becomes significant.

      There are plenty of forces that could cause the star to spiral in. The calculations are left to the reader. I am sure people will be watching for changes in the orbit.

      --
      Fiat Lux.
    4. Re:Which way is it turning by ronocdh · · Score: 2, Informative

      But basically, for every object that can be orbited you can figure out a minimum sustainable orbit versus one that is catastrophic.

      Definitely, good post. I believe you refer to escape velocity, which is represented by the equation: escape velocity = sqrt(2GM/r) where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the the object which the potentially escaping object orbits, and r is the distance between the center of mass in the body being orbited and the point at which escape velocity is calculated (at different points in the orbit, the necessary velocity would fluctuate). Orbits in which the object's velocity is less than escape velocity are said to be bound, and those in which it exceedes it are said to be unbound. At that point, the path of the escaping body is no longer elliptical, but rather hyperbolic.

      More information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

    5. Re:Which way is it turning by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

      Just as a planet can orbit a star, or a star can orbit another star, a star can orbit a black hole. It will behave exactly as if it were orbiting a planet of an equal mass, as long as it's going fast enough to maintain orbit.

      If the star is too close to the black hole, relativistic effects will mess with the orbit. In praticular, there are regions around black holes with no stable orbits, where a body's trajectory builds up oscillations and it is either flung out or dropped in.

      According to MTW, the smallest stable circular orbit around a nonrotating black hole has three times the radius of the black hole. For rotating black holes, this is decreased for orbits in the same direction as rotation, and increased for retrograde orbits.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    6. Re:Which way is it turning by hawkeyeMI · · Score: 1

      Wow, cool. I did not know that. What's MTW?

      --
      Error 404 - Sig Not Found
  5. Brilliant! by mboverload · · Score: 5, Funny

    meehawl: Lets link to a mpg video file on the front page of Slashdot! Nothing could go wrong! Zonk: Brilliant!

    1. Re:Brilliant! by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's only 500kb. With all the bloat these days, maybe webpages are approaching that size, easily, if you count the size of the images.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    2. Re:Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent down

    3. Re:Brilliant! by ravenspear · · Score: 1

      Well, nasa.gov is usually a pretty stable site.

      As I recall they recently upgraded it to support a very large influx of traffic during the shuttle launch a few months ago.

    4. Re:Brilliant! by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      It's not a great idea to link to those in a slashdot article either.

    5. Re:Brilliant! by thrillseeker · · Score: 0, Troll
      mod parent down

      mod parent up

    6. Re:Brilliant! by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      mod parent down

      mod parent up


      mod parent a little to the left.

      (Don't you wish you could do that now and then?)

    7. Re:Brilliant! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Exactly.
      Last time i looked at http://derstandard.at/ it hat over 500kb. Now the question is why they call themselves the standard? The standard in what? In new forms of bloating perversity? ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    8. Re:Brilliant! by T'hain+Esh+Kelch · · Score: 0

      It's only 500kb. With all the bloat these days, maybe webpages are approaching that size, easily, if you count the size of the images.

      And, It's NASA! They've been to the moon, sure they can host a small videoclip, right?

    9. Re:Brilliant! by aminorex · · Score: 1

      But this has nothing to do with NASA. The video is hosted by the ESO.
      The observations were made using ESO facilities, by ESO researchers.

      Insert snide comment about the folly of American arrogance here.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    10. Re:Brilliant! by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. I was joking.

      Besides, "left" isn't necessarily "Troll."

  6. Press release from 2002... by mdobossy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this a 3 year old article?? Or did we just pass too close to a black hole, bending time or something???

    1. Re:Press release from 2002... by kryten_nl · · Score: 2, Funny

      We did, it bend time by three years and 8 days (inluding a leap year)
      http://science.slashdot.org/science/02/10/16/20462 00.shtml?tid=99

      --
      For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
  7. From the video.. by nrgy · · Score: 2, Funny

    it looks to me that the dot just changed his mind on which direction he wanted to go. That or maybe he didnt like one of the other dots in that direction.

  8. Dave . . . by Seumas · · Score: 5, Funny

    the object at the centre of the galaxy is definitely composed of some exotically dense form of matter.

    Oh my god . . . It's full of politicians and pundits . . . !

    1. Re:Dave . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the object at the centre of the galaxy is definitely composed of some exotically dense form of matter.

      Oh my god . . . It's full of politicians and pundits . . . !


      BLASPHEMY ! It's the Flying Spaghetti Monster, THAT is some exotically dense form of matter.
    2. Re:Dave . . . by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      It's full of politicians and pundits . . . !

      So *that's* what we do with 'em. Thanks for the pointer!

  9. Who was it that said... by FlyByPC · · Score: 4, Funny

    Black holes are where God divided by zero?

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
    1. Re:Who was it that said... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      So is Bose Einstein condensate, well not really.

      It wouldn't be supprising if something similar to Bose Einstein condensate was happending in black holes, I'm not sure what the current (or even not so current) thinking on black holes is. I always think of them a '1/singular' but just like the t-shirt says (1 + 1 = 3 for large values of 1) some values of 1 are bigger than others.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    2. Re:Who was it that said... by Raseri · · Score: 1

      It was Stephen Wright that said that. Truly one of the greatest physicists ever...eh? Oh, never mind.

      --
      Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
    3. Re:Who was it that said... by Slashdiddly · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, Beowulf Clusters imagine *you*!

      In some weird way this is (a part of) the plot of Greg Egan's Diaspora. I'm not kidding either.

    4. Re:Who was it that said... by e.loser · · Score: 1

      Terry Pratchett, I believe. I forget which book, though.

    5. Re:Who was it that said... by mikael · · Score: 2, Funny

      On a higher plane of existance, it's where the ANSI/IEEE Standard 754-1985 stipulated that all data values be represented by +/-Infinity.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    6. Re:Who was it that said... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Black holes are where God mods you down so far that nobody can read your posts even if they wanted to.

    7. Re:Who was it that said... by Daath · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that link, I'd forgotten a lot of those Stephen Wright quotes - Man that guy is pure genius :)

      --
      Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
  10. This Counts by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This certainly counts as positive evidence of a black hole or its moral equivalent. Note that the details date from 2002. Before 2002, we had a lot of conjecture. Now we have proof. Everybody who was skeptical before 2002 (or who hadn't heard about this yet) was right to be skeptical. Given this, there seems no room left for skepticism about supermassive whatsits.

    As they note, there remains now the mystery of how they got so much mass to concentrate in one place. Stars don't forget all about conventional orbital dynamics just because they've spotted a black hole somewhere not too far off.

    1. Re:This Counts by Punchinello · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is it possible that the massive intersection of gravitational fields generated by all of the stars in our galaxy circling a common center point create a virtual black hole at the center. Maybe there is no real black hole there at all. Furthermore, the energy emissions detected from the center of our galaxy could be the result of the energy released from the massive high speed collissions of the energy emitted from all the stars. It is such a huge amount of energy released because the collision is at a perfect center point.

      I have such great ideas. I should have taken fisiks in skool.

      --

      Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=

    2. Re:This Counts by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      I love all those colour-enhanced, poster-like galaxy views that are provided by NASA et al, but they are produced to make things look pretty.

      The visually explored areas don't really look as dramatic as the photos that are presented on television - those would be too boring.

      Please insert some aliens next time.

    3. Re:This Counts by Ariane+6 · · Score: 1, Informative

      No.

    4. Re:This Counts by njh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It doesn't show that there is a singularity though; only that there is a lot of mass in that region. It could equally be a new super dense form of matter that we don't yet understand. Their claim that if it were a super dense form of matter then it must turn into a black hole sounds like wishful thinking to me.

      For you astrophysics geeks out there, how does a black hole actually form from a super dense lump of mass? Chandra's limit is all very nice, but I've never heard a compelling explanation as to how matter would be helped across this point? Does the blackhole form in the very middle and expand outwards, or does the whole star just disappear? If it forms in the middle, why don't protons turn into blackholes from the middle out? Does time dilation prevent the singularity from ever forming? What about the photon pressure from the 4K background preventing further accretion (which would become a seeringly hot light near the singularity)?

    5. Re:This Counts by Floody · · Score: 1

      It could equally be a new super dense form of matter that we don't yet understand. Their claim that if it were a super dense form of matter then it must turn into a black hole sounds like wishful thinking to me.

      Yeah, maybe it's some super dense form of matter. Something even more dense than "neutronium" (or whatever the hell you call the stuff of neutron stars). And maybe they can't see anything because there's so much of this new type of matter tightly packed together that the escape velocity above the "surface" exceeds the speed of light? Hey .. wait a second, I think you might be on to something here!

    6. Re:This Counts by njh · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they can't see anything because all light coming off it is so redshifted it can't be distinguished from the background. Or maybe the surface is just painted matt black. You make a leap from dense matter to singularity which I was questioning.

    7. Re:This Counts by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      The gravity from the stars pulling matter outwards would counteract this effect.

    8. Re:This Counts by aminorex · · Score: 1

      If you read the paper, the orbital elements do not constrain the object to being more dense than neutrons. Sorry, there's no proof here.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    9. Re:This Counts by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they can't see anything because all light coming off it is so redshifted it can't be distinguished from the background.

      Interestingly, this behavior would be consistent with that of a black hole. If you are a distant observer watching a luminous body that collapses to a black hole, you will continue to receive radiation from it, but it will be increasingly redshifted and its luminosity will suffer an exponential decay with relatively short half-life. You will also get black body radiation, but the temperature of a black hole this size is far to low to stand out from the background.

      You make a leap from dense matter to singularity which I was questioning.

      You don't need a singularity to have a black hole. You just need an event horizon. The reason people claim that the object is a black hole is that you don't need to assume the existence of exotic, unobserved-to-date forms of matter to explain the phenomena, while most alternatives do. Naturally, if you are arguing that no one has definitively established the existence of an event horizon in the center of the galaxy, most people will agree with you. However, I'd say most astrophysicists think a black hole gives the most likely explanation for the observed phenomena.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    10. Re:This Counts by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

      Chandra's limit is all very nice, but I've never heard a compelling explanation as to how matter would be helped across this point?

      The Chandrasekhar limit is nothing more than an upper bound on the mass of a stable white dwarf. It doesn't really have much to do with the formation of an event horizon, except in the historical sense.

      If you assume the electrons in a white dwarf form a degenerate gas, then in the nonrelativistic limit, the fermionic pressure can form a stable equilibrium with gravitational attraction (a decrease in radius causes the energy levels to rise). Above a certain mass, the highest energy levels are at a substantial fraction of electron rest mass, and relativistic effects cause the equilibrium to vanish. Chandrasekhar proposed that the star above the threshold mass would then collapse to a black hole, but that's because the neutron hadn't been discovered yet, and he didn't know that there could be another stable configuration. The same relativistic problem doesn't happen with the degenerate neutron gas in a neutron star, since neutrons have so much more mass than electrons.

      Does the blackhole form in the very middle and expand outwards, or does the whole star just disappear?

      If you have a collapsing sphere of uniform density, then the event horizon will form at the surface. This comes from eyeballing the dimensional analysis of Schwartzchild's solution.

      why don't protons turn into blackholes from the middle out?

      Protons are way too fat to bacome black holes. Something with the mass of a proton would have to be confined to a region much smaller than the Planck length to undergo this sort of gravitational collapse. Also, a black hole with such a small mass would immediately evaporate due to Hawking radiation.

      Does time dilation prevent the singularity from ever forming?

      I think a more interesting question is whether an event horizon can form in finite time in a distant observer's frame, and no one has ever given me a straight answer.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    11. Re:This Counts by njh · · Score: 1

      >> Does time dilation prevent the singularity from ever forming?

      > I think a more interesting question is whether an event horizon can form in finite time in a distant observer's frame, and no one has ever given me a straight answer.

      Yes, I think that this is one of my big puzzles. Thanks for stating it far more clearly than I could (and thanks for your answers, it's so much nicer to hear thought than the usual self-assured drivel). I did general relativity years ago and it's all gone vague on me (I probably never really understood it :), I did indeed mean Schwartzchild radius, rather than Chandrasekhar limit. The problems I had with black holes are:

      1) how do you confine mass enough in finite time. (Consider dropping bricks into a star till it turns into a blackhole, the last brick may never make it!)

      2) the background radiation forms a brilliantly heated horizon that will act to reduce incoming mass more.

      There were 6 more reasons that other smarter people have pointed out when I've talked about this in the past, but I can't remember them now.

  11. Watch a little more closely ... by SuperDuG · · Score: 4, Interesting
    While I agree this is a pretty impressive sight to see ... even the video shows this isn't exactly as it appears. That "ricochet" that plops it halfway around it's course so quickly, is actually almost an entire earth year. There is still quite a bit of speculation on whether or not Black Holes even exist.

    While the idea of black holes, dark matter, etc seems intringing, it is still a lot of theory. It is nice to see that people haven't given up, but that's not to say that this article is just as much speculation as the next.

    With that said, wouldn't it be nice to focus all of humanities efforts on answering the questions we don't yet know the answers for ... instead of killing each other? I know that we already have the answer, but 42 only answers the ultimate question, we can't even answer the simple things like "do black holes exist?"

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
    1. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by xtal · · Score: 1


      With that said, wouldn't it be nice to focus all of humanities efforts on answering the questions we don't yet know the answers for ... instead of killing each other?


      Killing each other comes much more naturally, and a large percentage of our technological advances revolve around finding ways to kill each other more efficiently.

      --
      ..don't panic
    2. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by dnixon112 · · Score: 1

      How is the video not exactly as it appears? The timeline is displayed in the top corner. The summary even points out it takes 15 years to orbit the black hole. There's no need to 'debunk' that it's not doing the orbit in real time, it already tells you that. Regardless of whether there's still speculation about the existence of black holes, the video is in fact, exactly as it appears.

    3. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by potpie · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apparently you haven't studied these things. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, it takes light from even the nearest star years to reach us, the Earth's mass is only a fraction of Jupiter's, Jupiter's mass is only a fraction of the sun's, the sun's mass is only a fraction of some other stars that exist, and on and on. So the general idea is that a lot of the things in the universe are a lot bigger than you and me and our tiny planet. So if a star (and just think how much mass is in a star compared to you) orbits something in 15 years, you don't think it's just a bit interesting that it covers about half of its entire orbit in one fifteenth of the total time?

      --
      Esoteric reference.
    4. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by potpie · · Score: 1

      Not only is the video just as it appears, it's also funny that speculation is even brought up here. This video provides evidence AGAINST that very speculation. The facts are all there (no matter how many people may try to ignore Newton's and Kepler's laws); this star is orbiting something extremely massive that we cannot see. That, to me, is the very definition of a "black hole."

      --
      Esoteric reference.
    5. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Ironsides · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Killing each other comes much more naturally, and a large percentage of our technological advances revolve around finding ways to kill each other more efficiently.

      While true, there is also a lot devoted to keeping soldiers alive. Penicillin didn't come into widespread use until after a method was devised to mass produce it. It wasn't until during WWII that efficient mass production was developed. Then you have various spin off technologies that have come from it. My hiking boots have shoe laces with teflon in them to make them stronger. A lot of medical monitoring technology has come from NASA and the DoD. I wouldn't be surprised if Medical Filters used in embergency rooms are based off of gas masks. Lightweight wheelchairs came about from needing a lighter wheel chair to get the first astronauts off the space ships (when they could barely walk). How many alloys came about from the need of stronger armor and braces? Think about how useful radar is to us today. The microwave was invented/discovered by a military radar technician who realized his choclate bar melted when he walked past the radar array. Oh the list goes on and on on both sides of the equation.

      While some of this may have been discovered sooner or later during peacefull reasearch, it wouldn't have been discovered as soon.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    6. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Anti_Climax · · Score: 2, Informative

      Knowing, not speculating, that this star is orbiting to within 17 light hours of a given point and and that the whole path is an elipse which is about 10 light days across on it's long axis, that star is reaching orbital speeds approaching .01c on the return swing. So it's definitely orbiting something *very* massive, and we obviously don't "see" something there.

      Pretty strong evidence, if not conclusive confirmation, of the existance of a black hole there. If anyone wants to debate the existance of black holes, they're going to need to come up with some pretty interesting theories to explain that kind of movement.

      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
    7. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Astro+Dr+Dave · · Score: 2, Informative

      How is the video not as it appears? You didn't expect the video to be in real time, did you? Among non-crackpots, there is no longer much debate about whether or not black holes exist. The alternatives have either been ruled out observationally, or have serious problems on theoretical grounds. Disclaimer: IAAA.

    8. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 1
      Apparently you haven't studied these things. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, [various true statements] ...

      Sorry, the "13.7 billions years" figure still counts as speculation, supermassive black holes or no supermassive black holes. We can see galaxies that are supposed to be over 12 billion years old made of stars that have to be 4 billion years old. "At least 10 billion years" is defensible without calling up spirits from the vasty deep.

    9. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Haydn+Fenton · · Score: 1

      It's not a timeline, it's the distance; like the scales they put on maps.
      A 'light day' is the distance a proton (travelling at light speed, obviously) travels in one day. Given that light travels at 670 million [670,616,629] miles per hour, that would be 16 billion [16,094,799,096] miles.

    10. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny
      The universe is 13.7 billion years old, it takes light from even the nearest star years to reach us, the Earth's mass is only a fraction of Jupiter's, Jupiter's mass is only a fraction of the sun's, the sun's mass is only a fraction of some other stars that exist...

      ... so remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
      How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
      And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
      'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

    11. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Informative

      it takes light from even the nearest star years to reach us

      Umm, 8 minutes, actually.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    12. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Malor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, but also keep in mind that there are things that might have been even better that we still haven't discovered for lack of funding. Research, particularly basic (non goal-oriented) research, pays enormous dividends. Even if it's defense-based, the ROI is so enormous that the discoveries routinely affect everyone. Yes, we get many knock-off products from defense research, but that does not mean that this is the best possible way to allocate research dollars.

      If the real goal is the advancement of knowledge and the human condition, then researching how to build things rather than destroy them would probably be a better solution. We'll still get the side effects (hey, this new roofing material is superb for boot soles!), but the original intended effects will be more broadly beneficial.

    13. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Bloater · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > > Killing each other comes much more naturally, and a large percentage of our technological advances revolve around finding ways to kill each other more efficiently.

      > While true, there is also a lot devoted to keeping soldiers alive.

      But only because dead soldiers can't kill people.

    14. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by dnixon112 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually I was talking about the time it takes the star to complete its orbit. Which is written in the top left corner going from 1992 to 2005+. Maybe timeline is not the best word, but the point is the video is not in real time, and that fact is made clear thanks to those time numbers.

    15. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by wanerious · · Score: 1

      What? I don't understand your objection. Are you talking about those galaxies that we see as they were 12 billion years ago, or close galaxies 12 billion years old? And what do 4 billion year old stars have to do with it? As an astrophysicist, I'd like to be an apologetic for the standard cosmological model, but I don't understand your problem with it.

    16. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      rubbish. the notion that we need wars to develope technologies is utter crap. there is absolutly NO reason money spent on research into military needs wouldn't have the exact same out comes if it was spent in peace time for peaceful needs. the ONLY reason you see these parallels is war is the only time governments open their deep deep pockets and spend big on research. you don't need war for that, just an insightful government.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    17. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Your statement is witty, insightful, and more importantly, correct. It's only logical that an hour later your comment remains unmoderated.

      Know that your effort was not in vain: you made at least one /. reader smile today, friend.

    18. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by wkitchen · · Score: 5, Interesting
      So if a star (and just think how much mass is in a star compared to you) orbits something in 15 years, you don't think it's just a bit interesting that it covers about half of its entire orbit in one fifteenth of the total time?
      Good point. Also consider that Pluto orbits the sun once every 248 years. This star's nearest approach to the object is about 3 times the distance from pluto to the sun, and since it has an extremely eliptical orbit, it spends most of its time much further away than even that. For it to orbit in 15 years, and to cover the near half of that orbit in only about 1 year, means that the thing it's orbiting is incredibly massive. Even if it isn't a black hole, and even if the fundamental ideas about black holes turned out to be very wrong, you can still bet that, whatever it is, it is something that is similarly strange and interesting.
    19. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      With that said, wouldn't it be nice to focus all of humanities efforts on answering the questions we don't yet know the answers for ... instead of killing each other?

      Each other? It only takes one party, if you know what I mean. If you hadn't noticed, most of the killing going on is person-to-person murder. The killing to which we (the US and allies, as nations) are currently responding (lethally, as needed) is killing done by organizations that are organized around thuggo-/theo-cratic movements that don't think there are any unanswered questions, and that the very act of looking into such things is the heresy of infidels. When someone is really convinced on that subject, and is actually proud to blow you and your kids up in a restaurant, bus, or office tower - well, then yes, there starts to be an "each other" aspect to it. But to suggest that it's just some multi-dimensional hobby, which those of us disposed to hunting black holes could just stop if we felt like it... well, that's just not the csae.

      You and I both want to spend more money hunting black holes, or learning how life evolves - but some cultures would rather neither they, nor we didn't, and are actually willing to kill people who consider those to be valid (and their-flavor-deity-insulting) pursuits. That's not a world view you can reason with, and when their more militant members go on a 70-virgin-fueled jaunt to rid the world of folks that don't see it their way, a certain amount of defensive violence starts to come into play. Happily, the military is one of the biggest investors in science and technology, so there's that, anyway.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    20. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 1
      Are you talking about those galaxies that we see as they were 12 billion years ago...

      I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. We see galaxies whose redshift suggests (according to the standard interpretation) that they're 12 billion light years away, and thus formed in the first billion years after presumed recombination, made of stars that had to be 4 billion years old at the time. I.e., 12+4 > 13.7.

      As an astrophysicist, I'd like to be an apologetic for the standard cosmological model ...

      That's to your credit. Most astrophysicists would prefer to pretend that, e.g., quantized redshift as referenced to the CMB rest-frame in low-redshift galaxies, or to angularly-nearby low-redshift galaxies in the case of high-redshift galaxies and quasars, don't exist. Most would prefer to pretend that high-redshift quasars (e.g. z=2.11) physically in front of low-redshift opaque galaxies (e.g. NGC 7319, z=0.0225) don't exist.

      Most seem to prefer to pretend that MHD conditions apply to the dynamics of interplanetary and interstellar plasmas, so they can pretend it's all just "hot gas". I have a private e-mail from a well-known astrophysicist asserting, without apparent embarrassment, "Plasmas behave as ideal gases on scales much larger than the Larmor radius of motion around the magnetic field." He admits most graduate students in astrophysics, still, never attend a laboratory class on plasma dynamics, and just work artificial problem sets using the MHD approximation.

    21. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by GotenXiao · · Score: 1

      Slight mistake; the nearest star's light takes 8 minutes or so to get to us, since the nearest star is Sol. The one that Earth's orbiting, you know? Big yellow ball of fusion in the sky?

      --
      Goten Xiao
    22. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by emagery · · Score: 1

      C'mon people... hasn't anyone taken basic highschool or (gasp) college level physics... orbital mechanics such as that 'slingshot' are damn common and very well understood... it's covered in Keplerian Phyhsics... see http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm, section 1.10 (starting just above the marker)... the hidden 'body' is at the extreme 'southern' aspect of that elliptical orbit... meaning that the majority of its orbit is swining away from the 'black hole' ... in the short period of time i is swinging around the black hole, it appears to do so very fast. This is BASIC PHYSICS. I'm explaining it badly, but its no mystery... that slingshot effect is perfectly natural.

    23. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by mbrother · · Score: 1

      No, stellar age estimates are in line with universe age measurements these days. I don't believe we have any cases like the one you suggest. There was recently a paper discussed here on slashot (Mobasher et al. 2005, xxx.lanl.gov) about a very massive young galaxy at z=6.5. The best fit model for its energy distribution was consistent with the age of the universe at z=6.5, although the mass was large and a may pose a puzzle for current theories of galaxy formation.

      The 13.7 Gyr age of the universe is properly regarded as a measurement.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    24. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure... peaceful research led to the USPTO for example...

    25. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by JambisJubilee · · Score: 4, Informative
      you don't think it's just a bit interesting that it covers about half of its entire orbit in one fifteenth of the total time?

      No, actually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler#Kepler.27s_law s
      Kepler's elliptical orbit law: The planets orbit the sun in elliptical orbits with the sun at one focus.
      Kepler's equal-area law: The line connecting a planet to the sun sweeps out equal areas in equal amounts of time.
      Kepler's law of periods: The time required for a planet to orbit the sun, called its period, is proportional to the long axis of the ellipse raised to the 3/2 power. The constant of proportionality is the same for all the planets.

    26. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by qazsedcft · · Score: 1

      The killing to which we (the US and allies, as nations) are currently responding (lethally, as needed) is killing done by organizations that are organized around thuggo-/theo-cratic movements...[snip]

      It doesn't matter. There is no justification for killing another person, no matter much you hate them or they hate you.

    27. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by mbrother · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most of the things you bring up have been discredited at some level. Some of Halton Arp's "associated" systems in particular have been quite strongly discredited. It's not a matter of wanting one thing or another, it's just that the evidence you cite isn't very compelling to most of us. And when it's a small handfull of folks crying about something, they die off and we don't worry about it anymore. If they really have something, they can make their case in a compelling way and people will listen. Arp, in particular, did some very good work in the distant past, but not so recently.

      Some people can't give up their ideas, and some people like to be contrary. That's just not good enough.

      If you take this stuff too seriously, you're being sucked in by a bunch of crap. My primary area of research these days is in quasar-host galaxy relationships, and I've got hundreds of examples of quasars with stars at exactly the same redshift. A lot of the things you cite just look stupid to most of us these days.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    28. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      Thought experiment then:
      The US president has his finger on the big red button that will launch all the US' arsenal at appropriate targets. Interestingly enough I have a gun to his head and I know if I pull the trigger it will kill him, but stop him from pressing the button.
      Now under the assumption that no-one else will push the button, should I pull the trigger on my gun to stop him?

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    29. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by qazsedcft · · Score: 1

      If you put a gun to his head you've just proven that you've got no arguments. If you were smart you would convince him with words instead.

    30. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      Only if you have the time and someone who is receptive to logical debate.
      You can't always change someone's point of view, try convincing the current pope that condoms would actually help the African communities, or the whole Kansas school board that the FSM is as valid a theory as creatonism; and even though someone knows something is false they'll still go ahead and do the wrong thing anyway, see the whole Iraq issue.

      All I'm trying to say is that sometimes you have to go against one set of your ideals to protect another. Yes this is shit, but this is life, so we try to make it as un-shit as possible.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    31. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 1
      Some of Halton Arp's "associated" systems in particular have been quite strongly discredited.

      Some? It would take more than isolated examples to weaken his statistical case. Have the selected cases been shown to be somehow representative of the rest?

      If they really have something, they can make their case in a compelling way and people will listen.

      Astronomers appear to listen until they establish that the evidence seems to contradict Big Bang cant. The process seems to involve rejecting evidence not accompanied by an acceptable theory to incorporate it into a mainstream model: without a theory, the evidence doesn't count. This is, of course, entirely counter to scrupulous scientific practice.

      In Tifft's case, everyone breathed a sigh of relief when high redshifts didn't seem quantized the same way, but that didn't make the quantized low redshifts go away, however much everyone wished otherwise. The journal editors who apologized for publishing his papers are a disgrace to the whole field.

      ...[or] they die off and we don't worry about it anymore

      Astonishing. Evidence doesn't go away just because the person reporting it does. It's every scientist's job to keep anomalous evidence on the table, because that's where all fundamental progress comes from.

      I've got hundreds of examples of quasars with stars at exactly the same redshift.

      What significance do you attach to that? Arp identifies (trails of) such stars himself.

    32. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      There is still quite a bit of speculation on whether or not Black Holes even exist.

      Two of those links point to the same article that doesn't actually say black holes don't exist, but has one guy who thinks there's different explanations about extremely compact objects. He even says he accepts that galaxies have objects general relativity would say are black holes at the center. The other only talks about how Einstein (who died 50 years ago) didn't believe black holes existed. I don't know how much speculation there still is about black holes, but those two articles have very little evidence for speculation within physics.

      The thing neither of the articles mention however is what aspects of general relativity Einstein or this other guy don't think are true. From what I understand most physicists who study general relativity believe that the non-light escaping aspect of a black hole does exist. What's at issue is whether a black hole collapses to a point. This presents a real problem because quantum mechanics, which deals with the very small, and general relativity, which deals with massive gravitation are incompatible with each other. Normally this is fine since gravitational effects are ignored at the quantum level, and quantum effects are ignored at the macroscopic level of massive bodies. Black holes produce both of these effects at the same time/place, so we don't really know what happens.

      Various theories have come out to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, but I don't know if any are complete or produce any testable predictions. String theory is an example of a unified theory that is both incomplete, and one that hasn't produced any testable predictions (not already predicted by current theory that is).

      --
      AccountKiller
    33. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Trinn · · Score: 1

      its not the slingshot effect that makes this so interesting as much as the fact that to have orbital velocities this high, the anchor object must be extremely massive indeed, well into the range of "wtf could that possibly be?"

    34. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Haydn+Fenton · · Score: 1

      Ah, my bad.

    35. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there really isn't a lot of speculation about whether black holes exist. Within the astrophysical community the consensus on the existence of black holes is nearly universal. More specifically, gravastars do not provide a viable alternative. They rely on a very specific equation of state of condensed matter which has not been shown to exist, or even be plausible. Black holes, on the other hand, exist for generic equations of state, as long as there is enough gravity. Worse, the local horizons of gravastars violate causality. Check out the blogs of Jacques Distler and Lubos Motl on this matter, for instance. The former described it as the most bizarre talk he's ever seen given at Harvard, as the model Chapline presented was so absurdly unrealistic.

    36. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter. There is no justification for killing another person, no matter much you hate them or they hate you.

      It has nothing to do with whether or how much I "hate" them. It has everything to do with whether they are willing, able, motivated, and unswayable from their plans to kill me, or you, or my family, or anyone else for that matter.

      Rather than bothering with hypotheticals, let's just take a regularly recurring actual example. Let's say that a guy living in Iraq is sick and tired of left-over Baathists and out-of-town Syrians/Jordanians/Saudis armed with Iranian- and Korean-made weapons trying their level best (by capriciously killing Iraqis) to prevent democracy from taking root in his country and the region. Let's say that he's aware of a house on the outskirts of Baghdad in and out which he's seen insurgents moving the night before. So, he tells a local member of the Iraqi armed forces what he knows. That guy moves the info up the chain of command, and local US intel finds out about it. So one of the Predator drones that's humming along quietly above that zone turns its imaging hardware on the house in question, and sure enough, there's a crew of armed guys loading mortars and a launcher into the bed of a pickup truck.

      The predator follows them as they make their way a mile or two to a schoolyard where they set up the mortar and prepare to launch rounds a thousand yards or so to the east, right into a market where people are setting up to buy and sell produce.

      So... what would you do? You've got mere moments before the people in question use an innaccurate weapon to indiscriminately kill people who are buying groceries just because they hope that doing so will instill a sense of terror in a population that has elections coming up. The clock's ticking... they're loading a mortar round into the tube, right now. Were you planning on getting on the phone and sending the local hight school Conflict Mediation Specialist to the schoolyard to discuss the insurgent's feelings, and see if maybe there are some after school basketball games or something would calm their urge to kill anyone who think democracy is a worthy pursuit?

      The local Al Queda franchise operator, Al Zarqawi, has repeatedly indicated to his local team that "democracy is evil and un-Islamic" and that anyone who supports it should be killed. And of course, he's killed many, many people - including crowds of children gathering around police and soldiers to say hello, police cadets lining up to learn how to secure their towns, and so on. To say nothing of mortaring marketplaces, which brings us back to the ticking clock, and your little philosophical problem.

      Your problem is that if you do nothing, innocent people are about to die, without question, and very shortly. Possibly dozens of them. Because you say there is never any justification for killing the three guys with the mortar rig, you are condemning mothers, kids, and vegetable merchants to being shredded where they stand. Or, you can use the incredibly precise technology at your disposal, and use the Predator's onboard tools to remove those three guys and their weapons from the face of the planet. Right now, before they kill people in the marketplace.

      So, your philosophy would result in the deaths of dozens (and of course, if such attacks go completely unchecked, a never ending stream of more such), whereas my philosophy would result in three dead insurgents, and a marketplace full of people that will be able to go about their lives, including the act of voting for their own representatives - the very thing that the insurgents want to stop. I find your willingness to stand idly by and be a spectator to the death of innocents to be morally repugnant.

      By the way - if I had the ability to stop, with a bullet, a career terrorist from blowing up a restaurant where you and your friends and family were sitting down over a meal, would you consider it more noble and appropriate for you and your family to die (alon

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    37. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by aminorex · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but since the star S2 is so much heavier than tiny Pluto (not even a planet maybe, but just an asteroid), therefore S2 falls much faster than Pluto. You can reproduce this effect easily at home. Drop a quarter from one hand at the same time that you drop a tissue from the other. Now imagine how much faster a star would fall! And of course, this proves that there is a hole at the center of the gravity, since you can't fall unless there's a hole to fall into.

      QED

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    38. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by qazsedcft · · Score: 1

      I've taken the liberty to take just this passage from your very long post as it sums it up pretty well.

      Pacificism in the face of that demonstrated lunacy is (beyond being cowardly) nothing more than encouraging more of the same.

      I don't feel like having a long argument about this because I don't feel it will make much of a difference anyway. However, I don't understand why you think pacifism is cowardly. Pope John Paul II once said that if we use hate to fight communists then they will come back, only under a different name. Hate entails hate. Only peace can get you out of that vicious cycle. The communists eventually lost, and he was right.

      You should really read some of the late pope's teachings. It makes some very interesting reading.

    39. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with you.

      The only reason that all of these inventions came from war-time is because the USA has a war mindset. If the government really wanted to help people in wheelchairs, it would have funded money for wheelchair research. I fit cared about its people, it would have mass-produced drugs before the war, etc, etc

      I love this quote:

      While some of this may have been discovered sooner or later during peacefull reasearch, it wouldn't have been discovered as soon.


      How do you know that?

      I mean, when we're talking about the US Gov't, I believe you for sure, but if society had a mindset of improving itself instead of destroying other societies, we may have had these inventions right along the same timeline - only it would have been cheaper because you wouldn't have been blowing 90% (my estimate) of it up.

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    40. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      So, you don't think it's interesting because there have been 3 sentences written? Or because someone made laws about it?

      This is what bothers me about the nature of attention in most people. If there is a name for something, or some loose definition, then people just shrug the "something" off as "this or that" without truely thinking about it, or comprehending the significance of said "thing."

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    41. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by paulpas · · Score: 0

      Perhaps time is speeding up from our point of view to make it appear as if the orbital velocity increases. Perhaps gravity affects objects differently than we suspect. Perhaps I am full of crap.

      --
      -PMP-
    42. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by zod1025 · · Score: 1
      Hate entails hate. Only peace can get you out of that vicious cycle.

      How does one invoke peace? Peace is the desired condition, the goal... you could even try to say that it is the norm. When you have life-and-death conflict, for whatever reason, neither side can resolve it by simply "being peaceful" unless they wish to lose.

      I am against killing, as I think are most people - but there are times when your hand is forced. It is a tragedy, but sometimes a necessity.

      Only a successful war can break the vicious cycle of hate. Failed wars will unfortunately be repeated.

      --

      -ZOD-
    43. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by paulpas · · Score: 0

      If they rot they can.

      --
      -PMP-
    44. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      However, I don't understand why you think pacifism is cowardly

      Context, please. While you may not want to take the time on a Monday morning to respond at length to my comment, you chose one phrase, out of context, to confuse matters. What you didn't do is respond to the general topic, which is that sometimes you either have to take foreceful (even lethal) action, or allow those that are willing to do so to kill you and the people you love. That's no thought experiment. We are facing that exact scenario, right now. Someone who wants to die while trying to kill you is going to succeed unless you stop him, physically, before he does so.

      You cited the Pope. Why do you suppose that the Pope has armed guards, trained to kill? Do you really think that his guards, facing the choice of killing an assailant, or allowing that assailant to kill himself and the Pope, would allow the Pope to die? More to the point, would the Pope want, say, a group of visiting children to die, just so that a suicide bomber can kill them and himself, rather than just the terrorist dying through defensive action on the part of his guard unit?

      You say that hate fuels more hate. But you seem to be missing the point. Someone who hates you, and wants to kill you because of who you are and what you believe and how you live your life (say, letting your wife ride in the front seat of your car, trying to prevent the Taliban from killing women who want to hold a job or teach their daughters how to read)... I don't have to hate that person (though, pity is more like it) in order to see the importance of preventing that person from killing my family. He hates you for being Catholic. You don't have to hate him for you to be just as dead if he wants to kill you. You can't educate children, show the merits of a peaceful life, bring prosperity to the Middle East's average citizens or anything else that encourages peace when you, your family, and your peaceful culture are dead. Self defense is not hate. If I have to shoot a rabid animal that's attacking a child, is that an act of hate? No, it's an act of love and protection. Someone who is as far gone, intellectually and spiritually, as those who would stroll onto a train to slaughter innocent strangers in a bloody suicide is a problem to be dealt with, just like a rabid dog. No hate, just a desire to live without that person's ability and willingness to indiscriminately kill hanging like a cloud over more peaceful pursuits. "Hate breeds hate" is a papal platitude that has no bearing on the actions you must take, in the immediate, to deal with a grave threat. Peaceful is the goal, but being dead is a little too peaceful for me and my family, and for those that have to live side by side with the extremist loons we're talking about, here.

      Pope John Paul II once said that if we use hate to fight communists then they will come back, only under a different name.

      Right. So, happily, we didn't use hate. We used a strong military deterrence, making it very clear that any action on their part to push that brutal regime any farther out into the world would be met with overwhelming force. They got that message long enough for their regime to cumble from within. Our willingness to defend ourselves was adequate to the job. But the only reason that's true is that your average communist foot soldier wasn't in the mood to kill himself in order to take out a group of civilians walking the street. That's the difference here, and you know that. The cowardice to which I refer is intellectual cowardice. For you to refuse to admit that some forms of self defense must inevitably be lethal presents for you a philosophical problem that you're not willing to confront. So, rather than face that, you're willing to let innocent people die. That unwillingness to stand up and defend peaceful civilization, with lethal force if needed and as the medeival theocrats we're fighting essentially compel us to do

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    45. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by mbrother · · Score: 1

      I say "some" of Arp's systems because I don't know if every single stupid thing he ever pointed at and said "look at this" has been discredited. The examples he himself thought were the best clear ones have all fallen to closer scrutiny. If you don't get the point, and you don't seem to, let me use this analogy. Say I'm trying to show bigfoot exists, and every single case of hair/DNA/blood I put forward turns out to be from bears, moose, or llamas. Sure, bigfoot could still be out there, but should everyone pay attention and take it as seriously?

      There isn't a whole lot of compelling evidence that there's any problem to me, and I've studied it quite a bit, attended talks by the Burbidges, and read some of Arp's journal papers. You might try to be open minded to accept that the resistance to new ideas isn't coming from the community, it's coming from a handful of people hanging on to their own old ideas from 30-40 years ago. THEY are the ones not being open-minded.

      And you've missed the point about my own work. My stars are all at the same high-redshift as the quasar. That's not what Burbidge, Arp, etc., would expect at all. I'm getting some new data at Keck next week and if I see a mysterious redshift gradient running from 0.3 to 0, I'll be the first to convert.

      It is good to have some contrary voices in science, sure, and when they can't convince people after decades that they're on to something, it's good for science that they die off. Ernst Mach was great in his time, but never could accept atoms or relativity. Einstein had issues with quantum mechanics. Scientists have issues with new ideas, so it's good that there's a generational turnover and that issues that are settled are put to bed so that new frontiers can be explored.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    46. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by wanerious · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. We see galaxies whose redshift suggests (according to the standard interpretation) that they're 12 billion light years away, and thus formed in the first billion years after presumed recombination, made of stars that had to be 4 billion years old at the time. I.e., 12+4 > 13.7.

      Why do the stars have to be 4 billion years old at the time? Sorry, this isn't at all obvious to me.

      That's to your credit. Most astrophysicists would prefer to pretend that, e.g., quantized redshift as referenced to the CMB rest-frame in low-redshift galaxies, or to angularly-nearby low-redshift galaxies in the case of high-redshift galaxies and quasars, don't exist. Most would prefer to pretend that high-redshift quasars (e.g. z=2.11) physically in front of low-redshift opaque galaxies (e.g. NGC 7319, z=0.0225) don't exist.

      Well, I know a lot of astrophysicists, and pretending doesn't really have anything to do with it. Your examples are not particularly bothersome because, as is pointed out by another, there are other explanations for these anomalies. Additionally, there is enormous and compelling evidence that our interpretations of redshift and lookback time are robust.

      I also never took a "plasma" class, only those standard classes in EM, Thermo, Stat Mech. What is the claim of the engineers? Where are we ignorant?

    47. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by aminorex · · Score: 1


      You have a fairly idiosyncratic definition of a black hole, then.
      I think the term is generally taken to refer to a density singularity,
      where the escape velocity of a mass exceeds the speed of light, creating
      and event horizon beyond which no signal can escape. That's a much
      stronger claim than "something heavy that you can't see", like my
      obese cousin Albert in Idaho.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    48. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Whereas, among arrogant fools the use of dismissive ad hominem is held in the highest regard, eh?

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    49. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by emagery · · Score: 1

      well yes, the velocity is tied very closely to the masses of both the orbiter and orbitee, so yeah, millions of sun-masses would do that for ya =)

    50. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by wkitchen · · Score: 1

      I think you missed my point. As Trinn said, the interesting thing here is not the slingshot effect, but that an orbit that large with such a short period requires an extraordinarily large mass. Vastly more than the much smaller yet much longer period Pluto/Sun orbit, even considering that this star itself contributes much more mass to the orbital system than does Pluto. I'm well aware that all orbits are eliptical and obey Kepler's equal area in equal time law. With only a little thought, it's fairly intiutive that an orbit will speed up as the objects draw near, and slow down as they separate, even without reference to Kepler. I'm no scientist, but I'm not quite the ignoramus you seem to have assumed me to be.

    51. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by qazsedcft · · Score: 1

      Look, by posting enormous messages like this you just force me to take quotes out of context. I don't care for taking your entire post apart. I'll just comment on one thing.

      We used a strong military deterrence, making it very clear that any action on their part to push that brutal regime any farther out into the world would be met with overwhelming force. They got that message long enough for their regime to cumble from within.

      [sigh!] Typical US-centric thinking. I happen to live in the country that the pope came from. When I used his words I was refering to the "crumble from within" part, not the "military deterrence" part. People over here had shovels and forks, while the other guys had machine guns and tanks. Violence would have only caused a bloody massacre. Never did the the pope encourage any kind of violence to overthrow the regime. He only taught people to have hope and stand together instead, and not fear the regime because the regime's power was based on fear. He drove them mad because his words were more powerful than their tanks. Eventually, history proved him right. The regime was not defeated through violence, but through peaceful resistance and unity.

    52. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      [sigh!] Typical US-centric thinking.

      *sigh* indeed.

      He drove them mad because his words were more powerful than their tanks. Eventually, history proved him right.

      What do you suppose kept the Soviets out of Western Germany? Or Sweden? Or Finland? Or from Stalin-izing more Poles? Deterrence. NATO (certainly mostly US military contribution, but you do a big disservice to the rest of western Europe, Canada, and everyone that was involved) is what gave the rest of the world breathing room in the face of Soviet expansionism. My wife watched Soviet tanks invading Czech land from her bedroom window in Vienna, so don't pretend like I don't have some perspective, here. The pope didn't have to encourage any armed posture on the part of the oppressed people of eastern Europe because that part of the equation was already taken care of. NATO was doing the heavy lifting in that department, and left the camera-friendly protests and strikes to the Solidarity people they were seeking to free.

      You can't honestly think that only Solidarity and similar movements exhausted the Soviet's murderous military apparatus or prevented them from rolling over more of Europe before their attempts at matching western military sophistication effectively bankrupted and demoralized the very forces they'd normally have used to suppress demonstrations in shipyards.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    53. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 1
      ... there are other explanations for these anomalies [e.g. high-redshift quasars (e.g. z=2.11) physically in front of low-redshift opaque galaxies (e.g. NGC 7319, z=0.0225); quasars arranged along radial lines centered at our position] ...

      Yes? Please go on.

      I also never took a "plasma" class, only those standard classes in EM, Thermo, Stat Mech. What is the claim of the engineers? Where are we ignorant?

      That link again... Also this, evidence in hand that interstellar current flow, in the mode Alfven predicted, is really occurring. When evaluating models for (e.g.) Eta Carinae, you have two problems: (1) how can you get all that stuff to happen using just gravitation, fusion, and shock waves, and (2) how can you get all that plasma (not just "hot gas") that suffuses the whole system to have no effect at all? When you're only talking to other astrophysicists who also know nothing of plasma dynamics, you get to skip (2), but it makes astrophysical speculations look pretty comical from out here.

      Plasma has interesting dynamics because its positive charge carriers are 2000x heavier than the negative carriers. Furthermore, they're often mixed in with neutral matter (commonly at 10^-4) that gets entrained. Motion in real plasmas is subject to dozens of nonlinear instabilities. All this makes maintaining electrical neutrality complicated, and not infrequently impossible. The mathematics is intractable, so it's often necessary to fall back on laboratory phenomenology and numerical particle-in-cell simulations.

      Nobody promised the real universe would be easy to model. Pretending leads you down a rabbit hole. Your astrophyics colleagues will happily follow you there, but that's not science.

    54. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1
      Somebody better tell this Kepler person that Congress makes the laws. Clearly this is scientific activism at its worst!

      We should go back to having the Sun go around the Earth, like the Founders intended.

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    55. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was interesting when it was first discovered, and people moved on. What's so bad about that? Do you still find it interesting that the derivative of an equation can be used to determine if a given point is a maximum, or a minimum? How about finding it fascinating that the result of a number squared is the same as the area of a square with sides of the length of that same number?

      People move on to other things, and each new thing in turn becomes fascinating.

      It's part of human nature. I'll bet that you wished you'd thought more about that before spewing that bile, eh?

    56. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      > While true, there is also a lot devoted to keeping soldiers alive.

      But only because dead soldiers can't kill people.


      Well, more accurately, it's because when more of the other guy's soldiers die than yours, you win. Also, in modern democracies, people tend to frown on having their soldiers come home in body bags (look at all the hubbub about Americans killed in Iraq in the last two and a half years, when the number hasn't even approached the number killed in the first hour of Gettysburg or D-Day yet).

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    57. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      That's the whole point. I don't enjoy the lack of attention - the quickly moving on once something has been "defined." I argue that things can still be fascinating, even after they've been around for a few days. You shouldn't be so quick to define things and toss them aside to feed that "more more more!" quality about yourself, you may just miss the most fascinating parts.

      Besides, you didn't say "I don't find this fascinating because I have studied this many times" - or "this is old news, I've been dealing with this for a long time," you simply quoted 3 lines and said that nothing was fascinating becasuse of them.

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    58. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually our part of space is devoid of star life. You are referring to the Sun. I believe he meant closest star excluding our Sun ( few people call it our star!!)

      Light from the closest star to Earth bar the sun comes from Proxima Centauri -about 4.3 light years away - hence light takes 4.3 years to get here from there - along long way.

      The video shows the centre of our galaxy. There at a distance of only 1 light year across there are many many stars ...

    59. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by wanerious · · Score: 1

      The links are a little opaque (joke) to me. What are the distinctions between the standard astrophysical models and the models including "correct" plasma dynamics? Are you certain that those doing the modeling are truly ignorant of plasma dynamics? Could it be that these effects have been considered and rejected for some reason, e.g. that the regime in question was far too low in density? I worked with astrophysicists doing numerical 3D hydro models of supernova explosions; believe me, they were very well versed in their field, and they would absolutely kill for a competitive edge over colleagues if they thought for a minute they were missing something obvious. I'm not too familiar with Eta Carinae models, though I have a passing familiarity with the object itself --- not my field. What "stuff" happens? And what does all this have to do with cosmology?

    60. Re:Watch a little more closely ... by pasamio · · Score: 1

      I'm meta moderating this as it came up as flamebait and went "err wtf". As with my siblings post, you made me laugh because it is funny and true, and a fact that escapes some people. They didn't qualify their statement, so nice call, Keep up the good work.

      --
      I always wondered where this setting was...
  12. Wee bit bigger than that by ottffssent · · Score: 4, Informative

    The http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0210426:linkedarticl e says the "enclosed point mass" (read: black hole) has a mass of 3.7 million solar masses, +- 1.5M solar masses. Not 2M solar masses, as the article summary indicates. For most people, myself included, this is a meaningless distinction, but in the interest of scientific accuracy, I thought I'd mention it.

    1. Re:Wee bit bigger than that by Astro+Dr+Dave · · Score: 1

      There are much more precise mass estimates than that... here is a good one, from: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bi bcode=2005ApJ...620..744G&db_key=AST&data_type=HTM L&format=&high=421632d27a04011 M_BH = (3.7 +/- 0.2) × 10^6 (Ro/8kpc)^3 M* Where Ro is the distance to the galactic center, and M* is the mass of the sun.

    2. Re:Wee bit bigger than that by MMHere · · Score: 1

      yes. 3.7 +/ 1.5 results in a range of 2.2...5.2M. so if they were interested in presenting one figure, rounded to the nearest integer, they should have said:

      "at least 2M..."

  13. DARPA by vlad_petric · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You'd be surprised how much scientific research is sponsored by DARPA (in the States, of course). While it's likely that this particular piece of research was not, in general DARPA funds a lot more than NSF. In other words, "killing each other", to a certain extent, drives scientific research. "killing each other" gave us the IP stack of protocols, for instance ...

    --

    The Raven

    1. Re:DARPA by sirsnork · · Score: 1

      Actually ARPA gave us the IP stack, and that was only sortof since the guys at Xerox PARC steered everyone in the right direction in the first place. Also from what I've read, once the "D" got added, funding was much more directed at the "Defense" region of research

      --

      Normal people worry me!
    2. Re:DARPA by Tuross · · Score: 1

      "killing each other" gave us the IP stack of protocols, for instance

      And here I was thinking that was SMB/CIFS. Wait, no, I'm getting cause/effect all muddled up.

      --
      Matt
      1. Read Slashdot
      2. ???
      3. Profit
    3. Re:DARPA by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      "killing each other", to a certain extent, drives scientific research. "killing each other" gave us the IP stack of protocols, for instance ...

      So, who do we nuke to make Windows secure?

    4. Re:DARPA by PakProtector · · Score: 1
      "killing each other", to a certain extent, drives scientific research. "killing each other" gave us the IP stack of protocols, for instance ...
      So, who do we nuke to make Windows secure?

      Redmond.

      Duh.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    5. Re:DARPA by saider · · Score: 1


      ARPA has always been Defense related. They just drop and add the 'D' as the political climate changes. Remember, the internet was developed as a way to create a communications network that could withstand the massive damage of a nuclear exchange and still deliver information among government organizations. Universities and corporate research teams (like PARC) did the work and were paid with grants from the Defense department. So while PARC and UC Berkeley may have had the brains for the work, the money came from the gub'ment.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    6. Re:DARPA by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 1

      So, who do we nuke to make Windows secure?

      Everyone. Not having any attackers is very secure.

  14. Real Mass by meehawl · · Score: 4, Funny

    A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking real masses.

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Real Mass by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 0

      A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking real masses.

      Nice :)

  15. Longest Dupe by meehawl · · Score: 0

    I hereby claim longest dupe period yet! I reserve the right to submit this article 5 years hence.

    I guess the /. search function really is a stinker. I should just use Google for this sort of thing. Blame APOD, it was their photo today!

    --

    Da Blog
  16. Video? by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2, Informative

    Anybody else get a plain black screen for the video?
    Running Media Player Classic, I get diddly squat in the way of moving dots.

    Of course, I suppose I could just be looking at the black hole itself......

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    1. Re:Video? by slashname3 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anybody else get a plain black screen for the video?

      Dude! It's a black hole you are looking at. That is the neat thing about being an astronomer studying black holes, you can look at a black screen and make stuff up. It is really cool, you can even get paid for doing this stuff!

  17. Wierd.....Re:Video? by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

    Load it in Windows Media Player and it works fine.

    First time I've ever had MPC fail on me. Bizarre.

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  18. Tin foil hat by SkyFire360 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "killing each other" gave us the IP stack of protocols

    It's true, it's true! They say that the war in Iraq is supposed to give us something called IPv6!

    1. Re:Tin foil hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dang! I got mod points; you're already up to +5 Funny. Funniest post this year!

    2. Re:Tin foil hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean Iraq -> IRaq -> IPaq -> IPAq -> IPVq -> IPvq -> IPv9 -> IPv6 ?

  19. Density quantified in understandable terms by drvelocity · · Score: 0, Redundant
    The mass observation, coupled with the size constraints observed, indicates the object at the centre of the galaxy is definitely composed of some exotically dense form of matter.

    Exotically dense.. so we're talking what.. George-w-bush-head caliber numbers? If so it's a wonder helicopters can still carry him around with the mass of 2 million suns on his shoulders.
  20. Translation by patricksevenlee · · Score: 1

    Translation: we now know how big the galactic toilet is. Bawooooosh.

  21. Credit by meehawl · · Score: 1
    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Credit by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 1

      I got the reference, that's why I posted :)

  22. I would NOT be surprised by 246o1 · · Score: 0

    Of course, you look at it very differently from how I do. You say "killing people supports research" (implying that war is good or some shit), whereas I say "killing people co-opts our best researchers," implying that we have better things to do. Likewise, if we weren't directing all our resources towards killing each other, we could have more for pure research into things like dry-land agriculture or basic physics.

    --
    Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
  23. You can see pictures at goatse by asscroft · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    haha, goatse. it will never die.

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
    1. Re:You can see pictures at goatse by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 1

      Neither will this article, if the Slashtard editors keep duping it.

      http://science.slashdot.org/science/02/10/16/20462 00.shtml?tid=99

  24. As large as 2 million suns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but how many volkswagen beetles is that?

  25. IrfanView by weighn · · Score: 1

    running Win32? Get the free viewer and the plugins - http://www.irfanview.com/ - this is not a paid endorsement

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    1. Re:IrfanView by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      I've got Irfanview. Works fine in that, too, but MPC is my default player for mpeg, so that's what I found out didn't work.

      BS Player works, too. It's just MPC that doesn't.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  26. How much are 17 light-hours? by nherm · · Score: 3, Interesting
    nherm@localhost:~$ units
    2084 units, 71 prefixes, 32 nonlinear units

    You have: 17 light-hours
    You want: au
    * 122.64411
    / 0.0081536729
    nherm@localhost:~$

    The Voyager I is currently at a distance of 95 AU. 122 AU could be the distance from the sun to the heliopause.

    1. Re:How much are 17 light-hours? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Informative
      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:How much are 17 light-hours? by Supurcell · · Score: 1

      I am an American, can you put that into miles for me?

    3. Re:How much are 17 light-hours? by Moocowsia · · Score: 1

      Thats Au, the distance from the earth to the sun. Why do you need miles?

      --
      Moo!
    4. Re:How much are 17 light-hours? by pookemon · · Score: 1
      --
      dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    5. Re:How much are 17 light-hours? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry.. but for some reason, I burst out laughing.

      Instead of seeing

      I am an American, can you put that into miles for me?

      I saw

      I am a lazy bastard, can you put that into miles for me?

      The parent probably thought that AU was a SI unit though.. but still, you can Google the conversion in a few seconds. So that statement above is probably right. :)

    6. Re:How much are 17 light-hours? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, an AU is about 92-93 million miles, which is the average distance between the earth and the sun. It's just a sane way to measure solar system distances. Note, the distance between the earth and the sun varies.

  27. Getting sucked in? by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 4, Informative
    does that mean it is slowly being sucked in

    According to the original paper from 2002, the star is nowhere near close enough to be "tidally disrupted", so it's just orbiting. (What it says is that even at closest approach, it's still 70x too far way.)

    With all those stars whipping around, though, it wouldn't be hard to get the occasional star either entirely ejected, or potted right in. More usually, an orbit would be changed so that it approaches closely enough on each orbit to have a bit of mass (say, a trillion tons) stripped off, and gets used up over the course of a few thousand years. Of course at some point we wouldn't be able to see it any more, so there could be a bunch of those happening right now.

    Probably most of the mass moving near it is non-radiating low-density plasma whose motion is controlled less by gravitation than by unimaginably intense electromagnetic fields. We see stars, but there's lots else going on in there we can't see.

    1. Re:Getting sucked in? by Biogenesis · · Score: 1

      General relativity does however state that the star is losing KE to gravity waves, this effect is so small that it would probably take many billions of years for the orbit to decay close enough for the star to be destroyed but it's still a noteworthy effect. Such orbital decay is predicted to be responsible for neutron binary collisions though, the best candidates we have for actually *detecting* gravity waves directly with LIGO et. al.

    2. Re:Getting sucked in? by Urusai · · Score: 1

      Importantly, a change in direction entails a loss of energy that is radiated away as gravity waves, which explains why all orbiting bodies are in a death spiral. Oh wait, that doesn't happen...so much for physics. It must be Intelligent Design. Thank you Jesus for this our confusing universe.

  28. mpg link...hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not gonna click on that mpg link unless someone verifies it's not a goatse vid.

  29. Look Beyond The Box by Morrog · · Score: 1

    Anyone else see that star that goes right through the area of the blackhole without even a flinch? I was under the impression black holes like to eat stars for breakfast/lunch/second lunch/dinner. Or maybe they're friends?

    1. Re:Look Beyond The Box by potpie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What are you talking about? This is a 3D space, not a 2D plane. That star's just crossing in front of it.

      --
      Esoteric reference.
    2. Re:Look Beyond The Box by mikael · · Score: 1

      This video is an animation reconstruction from a series of photographs, not a time-lapse movie.
      The stars are represented by a Gaussian brightness distribution, because they cannot be completely resolved. These may not match the star in exact size, and at this scale in the movie, 1 pixel is going to be at least 1 million miles.

      This movie repeats the same orbit three times. At the third replay, when the camera zooms in, you can see that the star comes very close, but not exactly to, the theoretical centre of the black hole. Instead it speeds up, moves away and slows down again, which is standard Kepler motion.

      This is a landmark that astronomers have finally managed to see this far into the centre of the galaxy.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:Look Beyond The Box by Use+Psychology · · Score: 1


      it's a common misconception that black holes just suck up anything that wanders by, but remember that it's still just a large bit of mass and things can orbit it without too much ill-effect. the problem comes when the star (or whatever) gets so close that the gravity can start to destroy the star (e.g. by tearing off gas), and when you og over the event horizon, there's no coming back.

  30. It's really.. by dstrek · · Score: 1

    just a dyson sphere are the centre of the universe.

    1. Re:It's really.. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      That's what all dark matter is.. Mind.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:It's really.. by pintpusher · · Score: 1

      And since it doesn't lose suction, the dyson will continue pulling in the random detritus of our galaxy until its all cleaned up. Isn't that nice?

      --
      man, I feel like mold.
  31. 3 year old news, 3 year old video by Darth+Cow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Take a look at the original press release, dated 16 October 2002.

    The article was published in Nature at the same time, and the video isn't new either.

    Remind me why this is going up on Slashdot today?

    1. Re:3 year old news, 3 year old video by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the original press release, dated 16 October 2002.

      The article was published in Nature at the same time, and the video isn't new either.

      Remind me why this is going up on Slashdot today?


      This is one of the rare cases when the dupe took 3 year to show up instead of 3 hours. There is some suspicion that this story passed very close to a black hole and suffered time dilation effects and it finally popped out today. You can almost see it in the video, that small grey spot that makes a close pass at the black hole.......

  32. Humm Humm by Inf0phreak · · Score: 2, Funny

    *Begins humming to himself* Deep in the Core, the galactic core, a black hole spins toniiiiight

    --
    ________
    Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
  33. milky away... by kahrytan · · Score: 1

    Ask yourself a question.
              What type of Galaxy is the Milky Way Galaxy?
    The answer is, it is a spiral galaxy.

      Though there is many theories on the origin of a spiral galaxy. This video only further supports the theory on the formations of a spiral galaxy. Of course, if Sol is being pulled towards the super massive black hole, time would be actually be slowing down for us.

    Do keep in mind, this video still does not show you a black hole but suggests stars is being effected by one.

    --
    \
    1. Re:milky away... by corngrower · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, there is some recent debate as to whether or not the milky way galaxie is a spiral galaxie. Some astronomers think it has a different shape, something like a bar if i recall correctly.

    2. Re:milky away... by mbrother · · Score: 1

      Still a spiral, but very likely a barred spiral.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    3. Re:milky away... by spot35 · · Score: 1

      mmmmmm, milky way bars.

    4. Re:milky away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there is some recent debate as to whether or not the word "galaxy" is spelled galaxie. Some astronomers think it is a nickname, some think it's a noun if i recall correctly.

  34. Puppeteers were unavailable for comment by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    Calls to the General Products Corporation have not been returned.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Puppeteers were unavailable for comment by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      Beware neutron stars. Even GP hulls can not protect against gravitational effects.

    2. Re:Puppeteers were unavailable for comment by pintpusher · · Score: 1

      First attempt failed at: General Products Corporation

      Second attempt SCORE: Pierson's Puppeteer Technology

      --
      man, I feel like mold.
    3. Re:Puppeteers were unavailable for comment by argent · · Score: 1

      Luckily, this means we probably don't need to worry about the core explosion... the wave front from that would have passed us billions of years ago. The Long Shot must have gone back in time or something.

  35. Look Beyond 2D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    subject says it all

  36. Plus by Daath · · Score: 1

    Very true! Plus the video link is only one connection, whereas browsing the web page would be four at least (the standard), or in several peoples case, many more (firefox, http pipelining, use about:config, search for pipelining, enable and increase ;) )

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
  37. What abou S2's Planets? by waraji · · Score: 1

    I wonder if S2 has any planets still and how the gravity of the Black Hole would affect them? Is it possible they have been stripped long ago when the star fell into the Black Hole's gravity?

  38. 3 Year versus 3 Minute Dupe by meehawl · · Score: 1

    Your comment is a dupe of one posted 3 minutes earlier.

    --

    Da Blog
  39. And the most amazing thing... by constantnormal · · Score: 1

    Is that unlike most astronomical images, which show events that have occurred in the distant past, this one shows events from the future!

    The datestamp in the upper left corner of the frame shows frames moving from 1992 to 2006.9 !!

    Cosmic Daylight Savings Time?

  40. Best article summary ever by prurientknave · · Score: 1

    My god this article summary should be held up as the shining example of summaries.

    Now let's hope it doesn't get duped in the next few hours.

    1. Re:Best article summary ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It obviously took three years to create this summary. It ought to be good.

  41. I wonder if a black hole would.... by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

    Radiate heat or is heat unable to escape just like light?

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    1. Re:I wonder if a black hole would.... by Use+Psychology · · Score: 2, Informative


      heat == infrared photon, which like optical photons,cannot escape a black hole. however, heat can be generated from the accretion disc of matter being pulled into the hole. e.g. gas being ripped off a nearby star and orbiting the hole.

  42. Isn't this story 3 years old? by KFury · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It looks like all the observations, measurements, analyses and even the 'press embargo' are over three years old. Are there any updates?

  43. 113 AU close enough to detect the frame dragging? by mark_osmd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    17 light hours is roughly 113 AUs, if the star passes that close to the black hole, I wonder if the line of the node of the orbit will precess forward enough to measure due to the frame dragging from the spin of the black hole. That would also help prove it's a black hole. The spin of the black hole should be pretty fast since if formed by capturing matter in orbit. The Einstein "Gravity Probe B" tried to measure the same affect in earth orbit but it's so tiny in the Earth's case, a 2 Million Ms black hole would have a big frame drag effect. I guess it comes down to whether the star gets close enough and long enough to get dragged much. http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Mark

  44. perenigricon by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
    From TFA: 'Astronomers refer to the extreme orbital points as perenigricon (closest to the Black Hole) and aponigricon (farthest away).'

    These guys better not try that in Washington.

    1. Re:perenigricon by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we should think of them rather as colored holes, and
      employ perichromicon and apochromicon?

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  45. Distance by Jupix · · Score: 1

    at its closest approach it swings within 17 light hours of the black hole (around three times the distance between the Sun and Pluto).

    As this is said to be the closest star, let's have a little more fun with the distance, just to make it clear how far away from each other these things really are.

    Moon is 384 400 kilometers away from Earth
    The star is 18 347 298 416 kilometers away from the black hole (47700 times the distance!)

    Distance from Earth to Mars ~ 50 000 000 kilometers
    The star from the black hole, 18 347 298 416 km, about 370 times the distance!

    From Earth to Sun, it's 149 597 870 kilometers
    That's still about 120 times the distance from the star to the black hole!

    Mercury, the closest planet to our Sun, is 57 910 000 kilometers away from it
    The closest star to a black whole is 316 times as far away.

  46. Black hole by Teun · · Score: 1

    The only thing that matters is the fact it is BLACK.
    In other words, light cannot escape.
    And that's a function of the mass of the object irrespective how it formed.
    Or what it is made of.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:Black hole by njh · · Score: 1

      What evidence is there that light cannot escape? How do you know it isn't just a very dim, dense star?

  47. Faster than light? by Gizmoguy · · Score: 0

    If a black hole can create a gravitational force so powerful it can suck in light, doesn't that mean that when the light is being sucked in it is travelling faster than light towards the black hole?

    --
    -- There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, And those who don't.
    1. Re:Faster than light? by Decaff · · Score: 2, Informative

      If a black hole can create a gravitational force so powerful it can suck in light, doesn't that mean that when the light is being sucked in it is travelling faster than light towards the black hole?

      No, as light doesn't speed up and slow down in empty space. Instead, it changes frequency. Light travelling towards a black hole (or any other gravitating object) gets blue-shifted.

  48. 2006 by rooftop · · Score: 0

    is this video sent to us from the future? the counter goes to 2006.9

  49. Hmm... by MassD · · Score: 1

    Seeing those stars orbit an invisible point in space is neat... But want I want to see is one of those stars "vanish" when its orbit takes it to a point where the BH is between it and us. Granted, that it dissappeared would not, in and of itself, prove that the black hole is a black hole... it would only mean that the object absorbed all the radiation. What would prove things is the strange data that would be arive as the light from the star would pass near the event horizon on its way here... we would see some screwy stuff.

  50. Also from same page! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On high-resolution images, it is possible to discern thousands of individual stars within the central, one light-year wide region (this corresponds to about one-quarter of the distance to "Proxima Centauri", the star nearest to the solar system).

    In other words, if there's a bright interesting maybe highly populated interesting region in our galaxy, Earth is not at it!!

    Radiation? Evolution can counter it..