Slashdot Mirror


Astronomers Find Largest Known Extraterrestrial Water Reserve

gerddie writes "Two teams of astronomers have discovered the largest and farthest reservoir of water ever detected in the universe. The water, equivalent to 140 trillion times all the water in the world's ocean, surrounds a huge, feeding black hole, called a quasar, more than 12 billion light-years away. One team, lead by Matt Bradford, made their observations starting in 2008, using an instrument called 'Z-Spec' at the California Institute of Technology's Submillimeter Observatory, a 33-foot (10-meter) telescope near the summit of Mauna Kea in Hawaii. Follow-up observations were made with the Combined Array for Research in Millimeter-Wave Astronomy (CARMA), an array of radio dishes in the Inyo Mountains of Southern California. The second group led, by Dariusz Lisused, used the Plateau de Bure Interferometer in the French Alps to find water. In 2010, this team serendipitously detected water in APM 8279+5255, observing one spectral signature. Bradford's team was able to get more information about the water, including its enormous mass, because they detected several spectral signatures of the water."

183 comments

  1. The water will be gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    12 billion light years away means 12 billion years ago. That water will be scattered asunder by now.

    1. Re:The water will be gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      12 billion light years away means 12 billion years ago. That water will be scattered asunder by now.

      Very good, you almost understand relativity. Hint: the word "now" in your statement has no meaning.

    2. Re:The water will be gone by Mandelbrot-5 · · Score: 2

      He may be correct, so long as he was using the correct place to measure time. "Now" is dependent on your frame of reference, if the frame of reference is earth then "now" there is a metric fuck-ton of water around that super massive black hole, if the frame of reference is there then there may be "now," a lot less. Who know's what "now" via an earth based frame of reference +12 billion years will hold.

      --
      Math is like sex. People who get it are popular in class, people who don't are not.
    3. Re:The water will be gone by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Hint: the word "now" in your statement has no meaning.

      Sure it does.

      If I'm reading this then:

      a) I exist
      b) The event happened in my recent past.

      That narrows it down to within a couple of dozen years from my point of view. That makes perfect sense to me.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:The water will be gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a) I exist

      Prove that with 100% accuracy.

    5. Re:The water will be gone by Sicily1918 · · Score: 1

      Sure it does.

      If I'm reading this then:

      a) I exist b) The event happened in my recent past.

      That narrows it down to within a couple of dozen years from my point of view. That makes perfect sense to me.

      So you don't understand cosmological terminology, then. "Now" means that whatever we see currently, regardless of how long ago it happened (i.e., regardless of distance), is occurring now.

    6. Re:The water will be gone by Sulphur · · Score: 4, Funny

      12 billion light years away means 12 billion years ago. That water will be scattered asunder by now.

      The water will be gathered by the black hole, which is still there. The black hole may contain the rest of the ingredients for Kool Aid.

    7. Re:The water will be gone by Xaositecte · · Score: 2

      How can you prove something exists?

      Lookin'.

      Obligatory

    8. Re:The water will be gone by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      a) I exist

      Prove that with 100% accuracy.

      I kick a chair.

    9. Re:The water will be gone by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

      *smash space-time continuum wall* Oouuhh Yeeaahh!

    10. Re:The water will be gone by melikamp · · Score: 2

      Actually, he almost understands epistemology: the word "exist" in his statement has no meaning. I like Wittgenstein's treatment of this usage: what would the opposing thesis be like? If someone told you "I don't exist", would you ask them for a proof or presume that you are being joked (philosophized) at? And if you had good reasons to believe that the person was dead serious, would you not doubt his sanity or at least his grasp of language?

    11. Re:The water will be gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your assuming that the quasar's frame of reference is more valid than our own. Prove that, and you've got a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

    12. Re:The water will be gone by Daft_dutch · · Score: 1

      12 billion light years away means 12 billion years ago. That water will be scattered asunder by now.

      The water will be gathered by the black hole, which is still there. The black hole may contain the rest of the ingredients for Kool Aid.

      I am not sure all the atoms can stay the water element if it disappears in the blackhole. a blackhole is not a wastebin

  2. Not Useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK astronomers. Let's find some water in space that is actually useful to us. Maybe in our own solar system.

    1. Re:Not Useful by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That's easy. The third planet from Sol has huge oceans of the stuff, and rivers of it that don't contain much salt at all.

    2. Re:Not Useful by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately a rather stupid sentient race located in Solspace rendered a good chunk of their rivers too polluted to use.

    3. Re:Not Useful by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      Looks like the stupid race (who has somehow managed to survive and even understand the universe) will have to make do on Earth.

      None but a fool would put all their eggs in one basket.... and do you really want Mr. T after you?

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    4. Re:Not Useful by Thiez · · Score: 1

      I'm not an egg. If the whole basket breaks, who will be around to miss them? Nobody! Which makes the 'eggs-in-basket' analogy rather inaccurate.

    5. Re:Not Useful by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet)

      Ceres has a great deal of water on it, some say possibly more
      fresh water than the earth has.

      "200 million cubic kilometres of water, which is more than the amount of fresh water on the Earth."

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  3. that's a lot of water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    we need to make a canal to bring it to earth

    1. Re:that's a lot of water by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      How many Chevrons does it take to open a wormhole that far?

    2. Re:that's a lot of water by jmd_akbar · · Score: 1

      42

      --
      Nothing here... So... SHOOO!!!
    3. Re:that's a lot of water by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      At least 8. I thought they explained the eighth chevron was kind of a galaxy selector, and the 9th defined a target that was constantly on the move.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  4. So, now if aliens show up looking for water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can just point them to the giant water reserve in the sky. I'm sure they'll leave us alone.

  5. Feeding? by derGoldstein · · Score: 5, Funny

    "surrounds a huge, feeding black hole"

    In this particular case, I think it's a drinking black hole.
    PA-DUM-PUM!

    --
    Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    1. Re:Feeding? by BSAtHome · · Score: 1

      I strongly suggest that they search for certain hydro-carbon compounds. "Drinking" black hole may have to be revised into "Drunk" black hole.

    2. Re:Feeding? by sribe · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...may have to be revised into "Drunk" black hole.

      Nah, I bet that black hole can hold its liquor ;-)

    3. Re:Feeding? by tverbeek · · Score: 2

      With added benefit of not having to pee.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    4. Re:Feeding? by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      I met this "drinking black hole" on Wednesday....

      --
      This is blinging
    5. Re:Feeding? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      black holes do take a long massive pee, they evaporate by Hawking radiation.

    6. Re:Feeding? by dissy · · Score: 1

      With added benefit of not having to pee.

      Well there are two enormous jets of material that are light years long coming out of both sides of a quasar. http://www.google.com/search?q=quasar&tbm=isch

      One might say it is leaking from both ends so to speak...

    7. Re:Feeding? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I had a girlfriend who liked to hold her liquor... BY THE EARS! Sorry, I meant licker.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    8. Re:Feeding? by naoursla · · Score: 1

      Boy, when that black hole gets drunk he is a real asshole.

  6. Bottled by Time Machine by retroworks · · Score: 1

    "Quasar Springs, all natural reverse-spring water. Our time reversal process uses the natural opposite of springs to bring crisp taste to your table, fresh from not being inside a black hole yet, and at under 99 quadrillion bitcoins per serving."

    Discoveries which are economically exploitable (like the discovery of North America) tend to generate more interest. Also and also to be ruined. We'd find some way to spill something into the ocean nebula.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Bottled by Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'd find some way to spill something into the ocean nebula.

      I say we develop the technology to send a probe capable of dropping to the water and merging a base-model bipodal DNA structure with other form of DNA contained in the environment. That'd be a neat experiment.

    2. Re:Bottled by Time Machine by nomadic · · Score: 2

      "under 99 quadrillion bitcoins per serving" Or, in US currency, $4.35.

    3. Re:Bottled by Time Machine by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

      The marketing, is strong in this one.

      But yes, just tell DP^n^n^n^BP thay can drill there, Brace for Cthulhu's rage for messing with his private pool.

    4. Re:Bottled by Time Machine by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      $4.35? So the BC is up again?

  7. What is Earth? by Vecanti · · Score: 0

    For "Prior Art" Alex.

    Damn you Trebeck!

    1. Re:What is Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha! True. It's kinda interesting to find other water out there though. To bad we can't find a way to simply "remove the salt" and "transport" the massive amount of water we have infinitesimally closer in cosmic terms to water the deserts and get to people to drink that need it.

    2. Re:What is Earth? by jojoba_oil · · Score: 1

      If we irrigate all of Earth's deserts, the whole Earth is going to heat up. When the sand stops reflecting the Sun's rays back out into space, and the plants absorb the heat instead, it's going to get pretty hot. Add a bunch of water into the mix and it might get a bit more humid too... Not to mention that sea level might be a bit higher, cramping everyone closer together.

      I don't know about you, but I don't want to live on that Earth. I'd rather we not bring that alien water to our planet; instead, use our own resources more effectively.

      Then again, the added water could result in more clouds to reflect the Sun's rays, or the extra heat could kill off plants and return areas to desert... I never paid enough attention when reading about passive planetary temperature regulation systems.

    3. Re:What is Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed for even a single line of this BS story. I mean, other than a really really bad SyFy movie you watched.

    4. Re:What is Earth? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Since you're posting AC you're probably not interested in releaving you're ignorance by actually reading a reply let alone the citation, but here goes anyway.The GP is speculating about the climatic effects from changes in albedo that a large infux of water would produce.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:What is Earth? by balbord · · Score: 1

      You're infux are broked.

      --
      "If I have been able to see so far, It is because I went out and bought a damn binoculars" - Ze da Esquina
  8. Don't know anything about astronomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so, let me get this straight

    1 light year is like 9,460,730,472,580.8 km
    12 billion light years will be 9,460,730,472,580.8 * 12 billion = can't imagine how big this is ..........km away

    By now, this black hole might not exist ??? and all the water is gone ?

    1. Re:Don't know anything about astronomy by jonr · · Score: 1

      Yes.

    2. Re:Don't know anything about astronomy by Thiez · · Score: 1

      The black hole will still be there.

    3. Re:Don't know anything about astronomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By now, this black hole might not exist ??? and all the water is gone ?

      Define "now". Seems you got trapped by the idea of simultaneity, which does not exist in spacetime.

    4. Re:Don't know anything about astronomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where? Where we observe it to be is where it was 12 billion years ago. Do you mean it will still exist? Probably. Will it still be where we observe it? Nope. Objects in our universe don't stand still.

    5. Re:Don't know anything about astronomy by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      "Now" = the time it would be 12 billion light-years from here if we could relocate objects without pushing them around through the intervening space. There are other frameworks conceivable for looking at the universe besides spacetime. :)

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    6. Re:Don't know anything about astronomy by symbolset · · Score: 2

      There is no there there. If it was 12 billion lightyears away 12 billion years ago, light from here leaving now will never fall there. It's outside of our light cone. The space between here and there is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light. This quasar no longer exists as anything but a now-mythical story told in photons.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    7. Re:Don't know anything about astronomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have been watching too much Star Trek. Conceivable != correct.

    8. Re:Don't know anything about astronomy by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Inconceivable != what you think it means

      FTFY

    9. Re:Don't know anything about astronomy by dido · · Score: 2

      The black hole is one of those monstrous supermassive black holes at the center of active galaxies. The only known way such a black hole would disappear would be by means of Hawking radiation, however, since the black hole is so big and hence so cold (about 6.46e-17 K), it would today actually be absorbing more radiation from the cosmic microwave background (at 2.7 K) than it would be emitting from Hawking radiation, meaning that it would actually be getting bigger (slowly though) even if it were in empty space with no matter nearby getting sucked into its gravity well, as it would be absorbing the energy from the photons of the microwave background. Such a black hole would only begin evaporating once the background temperature had dropped to below its temperature (assuming the universe's eventual heat death), and as such will probably be around for about 1e100 years or more. Considering that the universe has only been around for about 1.3e10 years, that is a LONG way to go! The black hole's still somewhere out there, certainly. Can't say the same about the water though.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    10. Re:Don't know anything about astronomy by balbord · · Score: 1

      You Piigs!

      hahahahahhaha i kill myself.

      --
      "If I have been able to see so far, It is because I went out and bought a damn binoculars" - Ze da Esquina
  9. Giant Space Ocean? by ChinggisK · · Score: 5, Funny

    So basically, there's a freakin' huge ocean floating around (well, falling into a black hole) out in the middle of space? I submit that space is awesome.

    1. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by mmcuh · · Score: 2

      Or at least there was, a couple of billion years after the big bang.

    2. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "300 trillion times less dense than Earth's atmosphere,"

    3. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      It's not really "in the middle of space". Off to one side a bit, actually.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    4. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by zwei2stein · · Score: 1

      Now, imagine life evolved there...

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
    5. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by jfengel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not so much an "ocean"; the water is in the form of vapor, not liquid. It doesn't even look like a cloud, which is condensed water droplets. The density is most likely lower than the best vacuum we've ever pulled on earth. It's a lot of water, but a LOT of space.

    6. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by bledri · · Score: 2

      It's not really "in the middle of space". Off to one side a bit, actually.

      Actually, I think that every point in the universe could be considered the center (aka the middle of space.)

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    7. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir Isaac Newton wants his Cosmological Principle back.

    8. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whooooosh.

    9. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... The black hole is a giant drain?
      We're living all that time in a space basin?

      I think there's material for some spin-off Guide.

    10. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      That's what they say about us. :)

    11. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      So basically, there's a freakin' huge ocean floating around (well, falling into a black hole) out in the middle of space?

      Ka- WOOSH!

    12. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Now, imagine life evolved there...

      ...And due to the time dilation effects of intense gravity wells, we can simply travel to the black-hole, extract their quantum holographic imprint that still exists at the event horizon, and study them (in roughly one more Universe worth of time, providing it takes us about one billion years to create Light-Speed travel.)

    13. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beware: where you find space water you are sure to find space pirates.

    14. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think that every point in the universe could be considered the center (aka the middle of space.)

      heh reading that would make for an interesting afternoon for someone on LSD

    15. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by avihappy · · Score: 1

      Now, imagine life evolved there...

      ...And due to the time dilation effects of intense gravity wells, we can simply travel to the black-hole, extract their quantum holographic imprint that still exists at the event horizon, and study them (in roughly one more Universe worth of time, providing it takes us about one billion years to create Light-Speed travel.)

      Even light speed travel probably wouldn't help get you there. It is already moving away from us at more than twice the speed of light (moving at 275922km/s) due to universe expansion.

    16. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by tommy2tone · · Score: 1

      Not so much an "ocean"; the water is in the form of vapor, not liquid. It doesn't even look like a cloud, which is condensed water droplets. The density is most likely lower than the best vacuum we've ever pulled on earth. It's a lot of water, but a LOT of space.

      So it's not really a large source of water, but rather a large gathering of water...?

    17. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      It can't be moving away from us at more than twice the speed of light. Even if we were moving at just ander the speed of light in one direction and it is moving at just under the speed of light in the opposite direction, thats still just under twice the speed of light.

    18. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by rhook · · Score: 1

      Don't objects slow down as they approach light speed?

    19. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by avihappy · · Score: 2

      It can't be moving away from us at more than twice the speed of light. Even if we were moving at just ander the speed of light in one direction and it is moving at just under the speed of light in the opposite direction, thats still just under twice the speed of light.

      IANAPhysicist, but the object itself is not moving FTL with respect to the space around it, but the space itself is expanding. Here is some reading the corroborates this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Universal_expansion http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575 "While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no such theoretical constraint when space itself is expanding. It is thus possible for two very distant objects to be moving away from each other at a speed greater than the speed of light (meaning that one cannot be observed from the other). The size of the observable universe could thus be smaller than the entire universe."

    20. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      It is thus possible for two very distant objects to be moving away from each other at a speed greater than the speed of light (meaning that one cannot be observed from the other).

      So if it's moving away from us at 2x the speed of light, how did we see it?

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    21. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by jheath314 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the very interesting link. It is indeed true that you can exceed the speed of light from the perspective of a distant observer... the only restriction is you cannot exceed the speed of light within your local space-time reference frame.

      I like to think of space-time not as a sheet that gets warped, but as a dynamic, flowing thing, like a river. Space-time flows towards objects with mass, and free-falling objects are stationary with reference to the flowing space-time river. Standing on the surface of a planet means the space-time rushes past you towards the planet's center, so the act of standing still on the surface means you're moving relative to the flow of your local space-time. (Hence the act of standing in a gravity well versus flying in a ship at relativistic speeds are equivalent... both involve motion relative to the flow of space-time). The event horizon of a black hole is simply the place where the speed of the inflowing space-time equals the speed of light, and inside the black hole the space-time flow exceeds it.

      The interesting question is what happens to the influx of space-time at the bottom of the gravity well, or at the singularity of a black hole? It obviously doesn't "pool up" like a physical substance (it's probably more akin to the flux of a magnetic field, "flowing" in the same sense), but it's got to be originating from somewhere.). I like to think there is probably a conservation of space-time, and that for all the space-time that disappears into a gravity well, the same amount gets added back into the overall space-time fabric, driving the expansion of the universe. It would be an interesting interpretation of dark energy.

      --
      Procrastination Man strikes again!
    22. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the series totally fell apart after it's 12 billionth season, but it just keeps limping along after it brought about the shark and them jumped over it. Looks like it's just going to keep on going and going till it's a lifeless husk of a show dying a slow death, sorta like The Simpsons.

    23. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      The light left it long ago, when it was much closer.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    24. Re:Giant Space Ocean? by balbord · · Score: 1

      Had that same discussion the other day. Some guy was blagging about that redshift in the direction of the center of the universe was proof of expansion of the galaxy.

      Luckily there was gin and tonic in the vicinities so I was able to keep up appearances.

      --
      "If I have been able to see so far, It is because I went out and bought a damn binoculars" - Ze da Esquina
  10. Sweet! by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

    I think we should focus on sources closer to home, though.

  11. 12bn years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what happened to it by now :/

    1. Re:12bn years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what happened to it by now :/

      Is that our "now", or the "now" of the extraterrestrial mermaids?

  12. At last by petes_PoV · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone's found the universe's plug-hole. The only question is: does the water go down it clockwise or anticlockwise?

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:At last by bourdux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He he, it all depends if you're observing it from the front or from the back.

    2. Re:At last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah, the simpsons reference. what if it's frozen?

    3. Re:At last by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      No.

      Next question?

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    4. Re:At last by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      Define "down"

    5. Re:At last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, toward or in a lower place or position. In this case toward a prominent source of gravity.

    6. Re:At last by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Whoooosh.

    7. Re:At last by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 1

      Clockwise if you're American, anticlockwise if not.

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    8. Re:At last by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 1

      Some of you probably won't get that - Americans call it "counterclockwise".

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    9. Re:At last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rest of us call it "prograde" and "retrograde".

    10. Re:At last by HybridST · · Score: 1

      clockwise and widdershins...

      --
      Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
  13. "Water IS LIFE" (as we know it @ least)... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The boys @ NASA are on "the right track" imo, hunting what we're made of largely (as is all life as we know it currently on this sphere/planet @ least).

    Sorry for the "Dune-ish" subject-line, but... it IS, how it is, as far as we know on this planet, & probably others too (for lifeforms like ours).

    APK

    P.S.=> Hopefully, between THIS type of work @ NASA, & IonDrive (& the more efficient pumped laser drives I read of also afterwards) + the work @ SETI @ home (I spent a LOT OF years on "Team Microsoft" for that much)?

    We've got a pretty good indicator of where our "cousin lifeforms" may be out there...

    I state that, because I don't think that SETI wasn't a waste of time, & will possibly be used as a "prognostication/prediction" device as a sort/form of "stellar 'pre-cartography'" to indicate possible places to explore, first... based on signals detected in various regions of the universe, IN COMBINATION with where the water is!

    Hate to say this, but I have to, in closing:

    Hopefully though, they're NOTHING LIKE US (or rather, the bogus side of us that is), & can teach us a thing or two about how to co-exist with others like ourselves, in peaceful cooperation, instead of wars & such! I think the "real answers" for us, as humanity, won't come from us here, or they would have by now!

    (Yes - Even though we KNOW that philosophy, as well as hard sciences used by the REAL problem solvers in our society that SHOULD BE RUNNING THINGS but are not sadly, already could or can... (I.E.-> Technicians & Scientists, vs. glad hander wealthy power seeking "climbers"))

    Yes - we could do the same, w/out "exterior help" - but the current ''system" doesn't allow for it.... again, sadly!

    ... apk

    1. Re:"Water IS LIFE" (as we know it @ least)... apk by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      & can teach us a thing or two about how to co-exist with others like ourselves, in peaceful cooperation, instead of wars & such

      Why would a creature nothing at all like us have the faintest idea, let alone interest in, how to teach us about ourselves? It's like me trying to teach my dog to be a dog. It doesn't work. I can train her. I can correct her. I can reward her. But she will always be what she was born to be, and she will always have the urge to strain at the leash to play with other dogs she sees on the street.

      It seems to me that you're looking for the magical beard in the sky here - the wise old man that will make everything better for you. If I may be so bold, why don't you grow up, stop worrying about everyone else, and make your own life better. Stop being an asshole, treat people with respect, and think about what you do. If everyone did this instead of just being selfish and not giving a shit, then the world would be a better place. However it's not, and I don't give a shit, and when you die can I have your stuff?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:"Water IS LIFE" (as we know it @ least)... apk by DryGrian · · Score: 1

      I wonder how large the black hole's HOSTS file is...

      --
      For optimal comment enjoyment, take red pill now.
  14. Giant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Figure's that someone from California would find it

  15. Which one? by bsharp8256 · · Score: 0

    The water, equivalent to 140 trillion times all the water in the world's ocean, surrounds a huge, feeding black hole....

    Which ocean?

    1. Re:Which one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're all connected, dipshit.

    2. Re:Which one? by tverbeek · · Score: 2

      There is only one ocean on Earth. The existence of several large landmasses isolating parts of that ocean from each other make it convenient to refer to the various part of the ocean by different names (Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, etc), but it's all one intermingling body of water.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    3. Re:Which one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which ocean?

      All of them! Sure, the correct English usage is "all the water in the world's oceans", but even without that extra 's', I think it's pretty obvious what the OP meant. Also, despite the names *we humans* have given to the oceans, there is actually only one, planet-spanning ocean. Look at a globe (or Google Earth) next time.

  16. Video of the explanation of "now" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should explain to everyone what "now" is but not what "is" is:Explanation of "Now"

    1. Re:Video of the explanation of "now" by jampola · · Score: 1

      You guys are totally destroying my stoned mind right about now!

  17. So what? by gtirloni · · Score: 0

    Please don't get me wrong but a reserve 12 billions of years away means it doesn't exist for all practical purposes. This is fine, I don't think this kind of research is supposed to be 'practical' but it raises the question: what's the benefit for us here on Earth? Is the byproduct of the technology that was developed to discover this something we'll use in our daily lives? If so, how? I'm humbly asking this question because I fail to see the benefits of both the discover and the science. Can someone with more knowledge about it light the room?

    --
    none
    1. Re:So what? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We eat food because we're animals. We seek knowledge because we're humans.

    2. Re:So what? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Because the more we know about everything, the easier it is to make things that do benefit us. It's impossible to say how this benefits us now but knowing more about how our universe works is always useful. Trying to put a dollar value on knowledge means we'll move more slowly than if we just try and understand it all and let genuises take the bits they need to make things better for all of us.

    3. Re:So what? by gtirloni · · Score: 0

      And we post useless replies on Slashdot because we're trolls? I'm interested in knowing non-obvious details about what this kind of research means to us. That there is a water reserve that we can use because ours is ending would be an obvious detail.

      --
      none
    4. Re:So what? by MattSausage · · Score: 1

      I would +1 you if I could you beautiful bastard. That is exactly the point.

    5. Re:So what? by gtirloni · · Score: 1

      I understand all of this and it's pretty clear to me (hence the "don't get me wrong" part). As I replied before, it's fine if people don't really know the non-obvious details about the implications of this kind of research (I don't). It's sufficient to say that. The Slashdot crowd always include lots of people pretty knowledgeable about astronomy and that's the point of my question. Even if these scientists are not looking to solve near-term problems, has their research benefited the average Joe in any way? I have a feeling it did, I just don't know how and would like to draw from the wider audience here. (ps. Can't wait for someone to call me a Luddite already).

      --
      none
    6. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can someone with more knowledge about it light the room?

      It tells us something about how the first stars evolved. That puts constraints on the physical models we use for stellar evolution and also of... well, physics. We can't create universes (yet), so the only way to know what happened during the Big Bang is to study what happened shortly thereafter, and to make sure that our theories of physics make predictions that are in accordance with our observations of the early universe. We now have some new observations of the early universe, which we can use to refine our theories.

      The universe is 13.7 Gy old. The quazar is 12 Gly away. In 1.7 Gy, we now know that enough of the earliest stars had formed out of the universe's primordial hydrogen/helium, gone through their lives, and blown themselves up as supernovae (I've forgotten my freshman astronomy - can any astronomers confirm/deny that a star not massive enough to become a supernova, but massive to burn carbon into oxygen, can puff off their shells and create planetary nebulae, within a 1.5Gy lifespan?) or (with the preceding caveat in mind) release their oxygen into the mix.

      We also know roughly how warm it is around that quasar, which tells us something about the rate at which matter is falling into its accretion disk. That tells us more things about the state of the early universe, and how black holes work, etc.

      Is the byproduct of the technology that was developed to discover this something we'll use in our daily lives?

      Newton and his silly prisms and figuring out how total internal reflection worked. Some dipshit at Dow Corning dripping molten glass through a funnel and wondering what to do with the really tiny strands of glass stuck to the top of the funnel when the glass ran out. You might be able to use the bendy glass structure and total internal reflection to create one of silly disco-era things, but that's about all it's good for.

      Copper wire the only practical communications medium, and tungsten wire is the only practical light source. Lasers? PFFT, just a bunch of silly academicians playing with solid state physics. Way to expensive to stick one into a silly disco-ball lamp, and who'd want a bunch of random dots over every wall in your bedroom?

      I'm sorry if you don't want to know what's over the next hill. Some of us think the universe is pretty neat. Others of us think that building cool gadgets is fun, and that the more we know about how the universe works today, the cooler gadgets our descendants will be able to build tomorrow.

    7. Re:So what? by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      His answer was meaningful; you just don't understand it. It's "curiosity": wanting to know things regardless of whether they'll be immediately useful. It's a sign of intelligence, and you probably exhibit it in other areas (though perhaps not, some people just lack curiosity altogether). You don't seem particularly "interested in knowing" what the use of this is (as you assert); you're pretty sure you already know the answer, and you're challenging someone else to "admit" that it doesn't qualify as something you consider worth knowing about. You're perfectly welcome to not be curious about astronomy, or particle physics, or 16th century French literature, or pre-Colombian cultures of North America, or birdsongs of the Mesozoic. But to say that there is no benefit to this knowledge to those who are thirsty with curiosity for it... seems to miss the point that other people have needs and wants and questions of their own, and they don't have to justify them to you.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    8. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. We seek knowledge because it gives us an advantage in predicting the future. Which gives us an advantage in natural selection. Which is because we're life, and resources are limited.

      So you could say, knowledge is the basis of survival of all life. It's just that we're particularly good at it. (Or do you think a fly has no memory? Yes it has. It just doesn't have it for very long, or very much of it. (Which is the same thing for neural nets.) :P)

    9. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bro, this is fucking awesome! What other reason does one need?

    10. Re:So what? by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      We seek knowledge so we can FIND OR MAKE MORE FOOD so we can MAKE MORE PEOPLE. I want them to find the CHON floating around in the OORT cloud.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    11. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we have to have knowledge before we can use it. If people like you ruled the scientific community then we wouldn't even have discovered or explored electricity.

      What I'm saying is that something doesn't have to be immediately useful for it to eventually be useful. Just chill out and wait.

    12. Re:So what? by Suffering+Bastard · · Score: 1

      We eat food because we're animals. We seek knowledge because we're humans.

      And does anyone else here share the stupendous wonder at life evolving with such a profound desire to know itself and its environment's outer reaches? So profound, in fact, that even in the midst of our darkest hours we still look to the stars for knowledge and the discovery of unimaginable beauty.

      We are stardust evolving into self knowledge as we marvel at our own nature. There's little else that is quite as miraculous.

      --
      "Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
      - Deep Thought
    13. Re:So what? by gtirloni · · Score: 1

      You're wrong and there is no need to lecture me. I'm curious and that's why I asked if anyone knew the practical implications of this kind of research. Feel free to engage in your pseudo-intellectual rant somewhere else.

      --
      none
    14. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if it were on the Moon it wouldn't exist for all practical purposes. Any technology and energy source capable of getting back significant quantities of water from the Moon would be better used right here on Earth.

    15. Re:So what? by gtirloni · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the first decent answer to this. I never said I don't want to know what's over the next hill. I do think the universe is pretty neat and that we should try to understand things better. I just asked if any of that kind of research created any other practical benefits. Much like the F1 racing teams research all kind of extreme engineering things to put a few cars in running in circles for no particular reason than entertainment... their research obviously translates into things we use daily. That's just it.. that's what I was trying to ask but there are too many pseudo-geniuses around here.

      --
      none
    16. Re:So what? by gtirloni · · Score: 1

      I said I understood that it was not supposed to be practical research or immediately useful. Please read it again. "people like you"... thanks for assuming a lot.

      --
      none
    17. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a sign of intelligence

      That depends on how you define "intelligence" (as well as who you ask).

    18. Re:So what? by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      For a 'normal' answer, maybe try:
      We can better see the proportion of water in the universe, and therefore indirectly deduce other stuff, perhaps say, a more accurate origin of the universe (which in turn will help us unify physics and where the universe is heading, which in turn will give us better technology for other things, which in turn will make us use said technology to stimulate our 5 senses, which in turn will make us happier, and that's where we reach the end of the line, as happiness *really is* the ultimate goal).

      Also, thanks to this, perhaps we will now know where to look, or how to look more easily for water somewhat closer to us (where in the future, we may have a chance of reaching).

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    19. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, but if would be on the moon, we could go there and wouldn't have to bring our own water. Quite important if we plan to settle there.

    20. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious and that's why I asked if anyone knew the practical implications of this kind of research.

      I suspect you're just a troll, but in case you really are curious, the answer to your question is "irrelevant." We don't do research because we're looking to find something useful, we do research because we want to increase what we know. When something we discover turns out to be useful, that's just a bonus. It's a nice bonus, but it's not the goal.

      When you imply that we should make practical uses the goal of science, it tends to piss off scientists. With good reason, I might add: Even if you think that satisfying curiosity is a useless endeavor, people are not in a position to determine what is and isn't useful before the research is done. Lots of number theory was just mathematicians being curious until cryptography became an important field, giving a practical use to mathematical discoveries hundreds of years after they were made.

    21. Re:So what? by dissy · · Score: 1

      what's the benefit for us here on Earth?

      Without such knowledge, we would still think the sun goes around the earth, there are only 5 planets which also orbit the earth, the moon is a god, the sun is a god, and there are no real stars just tiny white dots painted on the teeny shell wrapped around our solar system, which is also the entire universe, and which is only 6000 years old.

      Such knowledge moved us from the center of a very tiny universe, out to a fairly unimportant rock orbiting a fairly standard star, about half way out from the center of a galaxy, which is just one of many such galaxies, all doing the gravity dance inside a universe of which is so large and old that we can not even see it all.

      Some humans do not think 'knowing things' is much of a benefit, however it is by 'knowing things' that all of our technology comes from. Without that technology, you would be unable to post a message on a vast computer network spanning our planet, with a post asking why making said post is important.

    22. Re:So what? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Fortunately Ceres has abundant water, and a much gentler gravity well than the Moon. We're probably better off settling there first - though the commute will be a pain. Ceres is also conveniently close to the iron-rich asteroids we'll be building things out of.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    23. Re:So what? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I think it was Sagan who said "We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself". Shows you can have awe and profound thought without a Big-Sky-Daddy in sight.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    24. Re:So what? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Convenient for rather large values of convenient. Though I do agree, I wanna take my asteroid mining ship out and make my fortune.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  18. Fish in Space!!! by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

    I think these astronomers have been playing Darius a bit too much.

    --
    Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
  19. Re:Power Upon Power by tverbeek · · Score: 1

    Well, it won't be water by that point, just a bunch of smushed-together quarks of various flavors.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  20. I think I've seen this before... by Shoten · · Score: 1

    "The water, equivalent to 140 trillion times all the water in the world's ocean, surrounds a huge, feeding black hole"

    Sounds like the business model of the movie "Waterworld," if you ask me...

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:I think I've seen this before... by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the business model of the movie "Waterworld," if you ask me

      I will take 40% profit pretty much any day.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    2. Re:I think I've seen this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replace the water by "assets", and you've got Goldman Sachs.
      Including the fact that it's all actually vapor. ;)

      Replace the water by lard, and we have your mom. :P

  21. My life's actually FINE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good change also starts w/ an individual, & radiates, hopefully. Ever heard of "pay-it-forward"? Apparently not, & perhaps YOU ought to TRY it, instead of attempting to project your own problems/weaknesses onto myself then!

    See - In MY experience, many times in fact...? Yes, IT WORKS, especially with animals (since you brought them up).

    I say that, because of a simple concept:

    The little things in life, especially these in life even, matter... because imo @ least?? There's NOTHING bigger! And, change, GOOD CHANGE, starts with YOU!

    Recently, I've even "proven" it to myself & others recently with a TOTALLY "feral" cat!

    Done this before in the past too with a HUGE 7 toed cat (I called him 7 toes in fact) that hung around my land for 10 yrs. & died on my chest in 1994, & lived his entire LIFE outdoors (often in subzero freezing winters too, only came inside 2x when it hit like 20 below Zero Fahrenheit in fact)...

    He died, Thanksgiving day, 1994, in fact as he slept on me... made me HUGELY sad, he was a "good man" that cat...

    In fact - Once, after I did not see him for 2-3 yrs. in fact because I moved for work & travelled all around this nation to do so to save for a home of my own?

    Well - I came back around here with my then girlfriend, & he came MEOWING & tearing down the driveway to me in fact - Funniest part?

    She had cats for decades & said:

    "I've never seen a cat do that!"

    I told her:

    "He's my buddy, and has been for a decade - he'll probably be around LONG after you're gone... " Which she got PISSED AT, but it turned up truth oddly enough!

    (At that time it was a decade I knew him, it started off by feeding him, he wouldn't even let me watch him for 6 months, then it was I could watch he eat, & eventually, serious "pals" & I often told him "Women come & go, but you will always be my pal!" & animals 'sense' love & kindness, as well as decent people... Here was the strangest part of all - He wouldn't let ANYONE but my immediate family touch him even (bit tenants we had in fact, lol))

    That's an example, especially since you brought up animals...

    I did so again, here in fact, recently.

    E.G. #2 -> My tenants got a cat, and myself one also from the same litter!

    Theirs was totally "wild" & ferocious (& I mean that, you even got NEAR it & it went into "attack" mode, ears down, crouched, & look @ you like it wanted to KILL you - everytime too).

    I figured:

    "Ok - this poor little bastard's been beaten & mistreated, & only is reacting the ONLY way it knows how to", via defense by offense (almost) - I know what that's like, & being alone ONLY COMPOUNDS IT!

    So, I start feeding it, & talking in "kind tones" to it. Within a month? It's now as nice as my kitten is (both, oddly, are sisters from the same litter no less)... but, it won't go near the tenants (whom I have had my share of hassles with I won't go into).

    I mean, now, for example? Well - She comes up to me every 5:30-6 a.m. as I water my garden & plays + extends herself for petting (and I give her some food, & milk too).

    Good nature IS inherent imo... it really is, unless the studied creature was mistreated first...

    Then, they only react the only way they think that keeps them safe by nature with tools God gave them is all.

    People aren't much different... usually.

    "It's like me trying to teach my dog to be a dog. It doesn't work. I can train her. I can correct her. I can reward her. But she will always be what she was born to be, and she will always have the urge to strain at the leash to play with other dogs she sees on the street." - by Dunbal (464142) * on Saturday July 23, @12:13PM (#36857206)

    I've often said this online:

    "Dogs are BETTER PEOPLE than people"

    They've shown me so more than once (they will give their lives for you out of love... how many folks will do

    1. Re:My life's actually FINE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If your life were "FINE" you wouldn't be spending it posting this kind of incoherent, rambling drivel on Slashdot.

    2. Re:My life's actually FINE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You shouldn't talk since you're posting here also. Projecting much?

  22. Which way does it turn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well OK, that is a really big bath tub and someone pulled the plug, but which way does it turn?

    1. Re:Which way does it turn? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I doubt we could answer that one way or another (as we can't resolve the object well enough at those distances) but first, we need to determine which direction is up, and which is down. We have people even on Earth who don't agree on that one.
      http://flourish.org/upsidedownmap/

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  23. What should I be doing then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think posting things I know work "for the good", & sheerly out of my own free time given, is the right thing to do is all. Funniest part, I have found, is that "what goes around USUALLY comes around"... when I put out wares decades ago I enjoyed as well as my family & friends I wrote? I got a decent amount of notoriety for it... all out of a love of doing something decent on my end, & those who saw my work in family/friends SUGGESTED I ought to put them out for others!

    One even ended up as commercial product code... paid decently, & I was happy about it (helped on the resume too even to this very day in fact).

    Still... on things I write, & I generally don't "wax philosophical" as I have here (as I usually stick to facts on the topic of the computer sciences 99% of the time usually here on this site @ least)?

    Well - I invite debate on them in fact, as I have no issue with that in fact!

    (Mainly, because it MAY point out things I overlook & can strengthen my own "pov" with in fact)...

    However, in the end of such debates? Well, I rarely get valid points in debates vs. documented facts I use for example... usually ad hominem attacks or sly comments like your own now, are the results from those "debating me" (or, trying to).

    APK

    P.S.=>

    "If your life were "FINE" you wouldn't be spending it posting this kind of incoherent, rambling drivel on Slashdot." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23, @01:01PM (#36857530)

    Says "the anonymous troll"... and you have the gall/nerve to tell ME how to live my life? Speak for yourself... your thinly veiled easily seen thru "attack" on myself only illustrates this for me, with your own words quoted above.

    I feel sorry for your type online, I truly do. Your fav. color MUST BE "Transparent"..., because your reply surely is.

    Not a damn thing I posted is "drivel"... I even cited things from my life in the past & recently on the subject noted (animals by Dunbal the poster I replied to in fact), that are, FACT!

    ... apk

  24. I ain't drunk, I'm just drinkin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Albert Collins, is that you!?

    1. Re:I ain't drunk, I'm just drinkin... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      John Collins, is that you!?

      FTFY

  25. Maybe means finding life now more likely? by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    I have always hoped we would eventually discover proof of life elsewhere in the universe. Maybe this means it is a bit more likely?

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
    1. Re:Maybe means finding life now more likely? by LordofEntropy · · Score: 1

      Doesn't mean it's any more likely. Water is known to be quite abundant in the universe. While finding a whole shitload circling around a black hole is pretty cool, it would be more significant to find a shitload of water on a planet in the so called "Goldilocks Zone" around certain types of stars—for at least the type of life that we know of.

      --
      Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
    2. Re:Maybe means finding life now more likely? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe and Oxygen comes in a third after Helium, so lack of water is never really the issue. For life at we know it to exist, it seems that the presence of water combined with favourable conditions on long scales is the key ingredient - the Earth has been a suitable environment for around 4 billion+ years, but multicellular life has only been around for a billion, which shows that in our case at least the "ramp-up" to more complex life takes quite a long time. Even the arrival of eukaryotes took so long that the mutation itself must have been staggeringly unlikely to happen statistically.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  26. Speed of light by DomHawken · · Score: 1

    Does that mean there was water there 12 billion light-years ago, the light from which we are viewing now, therefore it might still be there but we can't tell for sure?

    1. Re:Speed of light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll let you know when I get back...

  27. Battle Los Angeles by snerdy · · Score: 1

    Someone should go nail this article to the foreheads of everyone involved in creating the movie Battle Los Angeles (in which aliens invade earth in order to steal all of our precious, precious water).

  28. and if the waters gets sucked in?? by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 2

    galactic enema?

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:and if the waters gets sucked in?? by Urkki · · Score: 2

      galactic enema?

      Nah, more like pressure fusion steam cleaning. If it's crowded, the matter falling in to the black hole reaches billion of degrees, molecules breaking up, electrons ripped from atoms, nuclei fusing into new elements, before being ripped apart again by tidal forces (something like 10% of the matter is converted to energy per E=mc^2, when falling into a black hole in an accretion disk).

      And if it's not crowded enough for it to get hot, then the lone water molecules will get ripped apart by tidal forces anyway, so it's not water that goes in.

  29. 33ft = 10m? by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

    I can't say I'm any sort of metric master, but I'm quite certain 33ft is 11m.

    1. Re:33ft = 10m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10.0584m, actually. So given 10 and 11, 10 has my vote.

    2. Re:33ft = 10m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      33 ft = 10058 mm = 10.058m

    3. Re:33ft = 10m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Just wow. Is this the low that Slashdot has sunk to?
       
      Hey fucktard. If you're not sure why not Google it and stop looking like an ass?

    4. Re:33ft = 10m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      33 feet = 10.0584 meters = 11 yards

    5. Re:33ft = 10m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be yards.

      1 yard = 3 feet
      1 meter = ~3.3 feet.

    6. Re:33ft = 10m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:33ft = 10m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you just go back to the video games forums? That's clearly where you belong.

    8. Re:33ft = 10m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong. 10 m is 32.8 ft or round up to 33ft.

      Have you heard of this site called Google. Type in "Convert 10 m to feet" and see what happens. It really helps you seem smart on the InterTubesWeb.

    9. Re:33ft = 10m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=33+feet+to+meters

    10. Re:33ft = 10m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A meter is longer than a yard.

      33 ft = 11 yd = 10.0584 m

    11. Re:33ft = 10m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, 33ft is just slightly over 10 m, as a meter is longer than a yard.

    12. Re:33ft = 10m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      no because a meter is 3.3 feet, thus 10 x 3.3 is 33.

    13. Re:33ft = 10m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're certainly wrong - 33ft is just over 10m. 33ft is 11 yards though.

    14. Re:33ft = 10m? by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      1m = 3.28 feet.

      33 ft = slightly over 10 meters.

      Maybe you are confusing meters and yards?

  30. It Figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It all goes down the drain..

  31. Funny typo in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dariusz's name is Lis (fox in Polish), not Lisused. second group used

    http://www.submm.caltech.edu/~dcl/

  32. Reservoir? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like a "reservoir" would be a containment *preventing* the water from rinsing out of the universe.

    And, let me press this point, if this all happened 12,000,000,000 years ago, I bet the "reserves" are "low".

  33. Okaaaaayyyy... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

    The water, equivalent to 140 trillion times all the water in the world's ocean, surrounds a huge, feeding black hole, called a quasar, more than 12 billion light-years away.

    So a feeding black hole is called a quasar... thanks for the *great* summary!

  34. long time ago ... by georgesdev · · Score: 1

    12 billion light-years away

    Then it means there was water there 12 billion years ago. Is there any left?

  35. Probably not as simple as that... by avihappy · · Score: 2

    12 billion light years away means 12 billion years ago. That water will be scattered asunder by now.

    I wonder if a cosmologist could check the validity of that statement because it seems to neglect universe expansion. Looking online at APM 08279+5255, its redshift is 3.911. Plugging that into wolframalpha indicates the the lookback time is 12bn years, but that the "actual" distance at this time is nearly 23.7bn lightyears. Redshift: http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/bibobj?2008A%26A...479..703G&APM+08279%2B5255 Wolfram: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=redshift+z%3D3.911&a=FSelect_**LookbackTimeFromRedshift--

  36. Feeding black hole? Are there any other types? by whatme · · Score: 1

    Flash, from the department for redundancy department, it's a Feeding Black Hole :)

  37. BZZZZT by fireylord · · Score: 1

    Aaaaaand you would be quite wrong.
    1mtr = 3.281ft

  38. Laughter is Life (as we know it) by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    "Hopefully though, they're NOTHING LIKE US (or rather, the bogus side of us that is), & can teach us a thing or two about how to co-exist with others like ourselves, in peaceful cooperation, instead of wars & such! I think the "real answers" for us, as humanity, won't come from us here, or they would have by now!"

    Considering much of industrialized US-centered humanity has been busy wiping out extra-terrestrial ocean-based alien intelligences like octopods and whales, and terrestrial ones like trumpeting elephants, and Islamic-banking-interest-free Muslims, I have to wonder if we in the USA could learn any lesson from any "alien"?

    One answer is to laugh. :-) See my essay on intrinsic/mutual security: http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
    "There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all."

    Villages full of laughing children is a fundamanetal truth of humanity that we ignore at our own peril... It's too bad we use compulsory schooling and/or napalm to destroy them so often.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  39. Reservoir? by Urkki · · Score: 1

    Doesn't "reservoir" imply it's reachable, usable as a water reserve? This water was rotating a black hole 12 billion years ago, and was probably all sucked up by the hole or the water molecules ripped apart in the quasar jets by 11.999 billion years ago. I don't think "reservoir" is quite a right word here.

  40. Re:Feeding black hole? Are there any other types? by Maritz · · Score: 2

    I think it's just to distinguish between a black hole that has an apparent accretion disk and one that doesn't. Obviously a supermassive black hole, something that has an event horizon with a diameter similar to that of the Solar system, is always going to be hoovering up something. But a galaxy with an active black hole is different to the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way for example which is largely quiet at present (Sagittarius A*).

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  41. Come again by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The light left it long ago, when it was much closer.

    Let us say it started out a foot away from me. Since it "started" in the big bang which is what started to expansion, from the first moment it is supposedly moving away from me at 2x the speed of light.

    Now how, even one foot away, will that light reach me if the light it pushes "out" is also receding from me at the speed of light?

    Perhaps this is some aspects of the physics of light I do not understand, but I don't see how something can reach when when moving away at any velocity.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Come again by symbolset · · Score: 1

      I'm not really good at this sort of math, but I'll take a swing at it. I'm going to have to take some liberties. Let's start with your foot distance. Objects located within a foot of each other are closely coupled reference frames. If you could hold them static with each other for 12 billion years the distance might grow to three or four feet, but they can still strongly interact. Since they are so close to each other, the time light takes to travel between is measureable but the expansion of the universe over so small a distance and span of time isn't measureable. Objects more distant from each other are more loosely coupled and at intergalactic ranges and travel durations we can see the expansion as red shift as the space containing the photons expands. At some great distance from each other objects become irrelevant to each other - neither can evermore influence the other in any way as even light can't bridge the distance. According to general relativity the universe can expand faster than the speed of light, and as near as we can tell it actually does.

      This object and the early Population II star that would provide the mass for our sun weren't really 12 billion lightyears apart when the light left the distant object - more like 7. Concerning these two objects, they're fairly static in terms of proper motion (inasmuch as such a thing means anything over distances so vast). They're not moving relative to each other at anything near the speed of light. Unfortunately, the space between them is expanding - the distance between them is so vast that they exist in different reference frames and the distance between is increasing as a function of time even though they're not really moving because the universe itself is expanding. Our beam of light is born, and in its rapid departure quickly becomes its own near-timeless reference frame, moving at the speed of light.

      Our intrepid beam of light, trekking across this vast expanse finds its destination receding as it draws near, and its departure point receding ever faster as the gap grows. Over the duration of travel the distance between origin and destination is greatly increased. After four billion years of travel, approaching a third of its journey the target sun undergoes a pair-instability supernova as the accumulated fusion of elements within it shifts from exothermic (below iron) to endothermic (iron and above), the star implodes and then with a sudden burst of fusion creating a blast that extinquishes the star and spreads vast quantities of material through our region of space in a nebula what will be the cradle of Sol. At this point its departure point is already 5 billion lightyears behind, and receding also.

      Another two billion years or so finds the target renewed as collapsing hydrogen, iron and gas ignites our sun. The photons' starting point is now over 8 billion lightyears behind, and falling further every day. One of these days the expansion of the space between becomes so great that the point of no return is reached and the expansion of the space between the photons and the origin becomes greater than the speed of light. This will happen within about 1.5 billion years after the midpoint of the duration of the journey (if it happened sooner than the midpoint, the light would never arrive at all).

      After another two billion years or so the planets have formed and swept their orbits, their surfaces cooled. The comets still fall now and then on the Earth, but the for the most part the planetary bombardment is over. Earth's surface has cooled below the boiling point of water and in an iron-rich ocean the first lifeforms find their spark. The ray, having not felt the passage of time through its 8 billion year journey travels on. As it closes the distance to the target, the expansion of space between becomes less and less - but the expansion between it and its origin becomes more and more. Its wavelength has expanded a good bit during the journey as even the space containing the photon's waveform has expanded. The or

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:Come again by symbolset · · Score: 1
      In case you're wondering, yes - this means that the term "light year" has some constant distance that is fixed, plus some variable component that is less than 1 millionth of it that is variable depending on the rate of the expansion of the universe at the specified moment (which as far as we can tell is a complex function currently positive but eventually of indeterminate sign). In the common parlance we use the fixed part and ignore the variable part for engineering locally. But the variable part gains meaning under the laws of compound interest over distances of 1M lightyears or so. At some point in spans of over 4B lightyears the interest becomes more important than the principal. Even the expansion of the universe demands a Lissajous curve.

      As we look at these distant sources of light we have to be mindful that they are far and alien. The laws of physics may have been different then and there. Light definitely had a different speed, though not much different. The numbers we take now for constants are more likely variable functions that matter little at the moment but over the course of 12 billion years mean a lot as T is a minor factor in the equation that adds up eventually.

      But over a foot these issues matter not enough to measure by a great deal. Not a planck length per attosecond. Not even close.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  42. SURFS UP! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    140 trillion times all the water in the world's ocean + huge "tidal" forces from a huge, feeding black hole = KOWABUNGA DUDE!

    Somehow there is a Disney movie in here somewhere.

    "Space Surfers of APM 8279+5255"... OK its only a working title...