get past the line "A group called Transception Incorporated, self-described as an Austin, Texas-based psychic R&D operation" without stopping and laughing uproariously then simply stop reading?
I kept reading for the lulz.
The only people who ought to be complaining about this story is the ones who dislexed "psychic" into "phyiscs".
Well I personally think its funny that most likely to this very day the US government is working under a 'war of the worlds' rule that says if little green men parked on the White house lawn to get some pics with the Obama cutout they'd be going "aliens? what aliens? didn't see a thing, nope' because they are afraid we poor little peasants would snap and go apeshit.
Worse, they'd be *illegal* aliens, and there'd be no end of the shit Obama had to hear from the Republican candidates.
"A fuzzball would be indistinguishable from a black hole, since it's a hypothesis about what's what inside the event horizon."
Uhm no. They are saying black holes might have *no event horizon* (not be a black hole in the current definition) but instead be some other exotic object (such as a "fuzzball"). If there is no event horizon then there's no hypothesis about what's what inside the event horizon.
Yes, that's what they were *saying*. I was pointing out that their example of 'fuzzball' *is* a black hole, and *does* have an event horizion, and thus, like the other things, doesn't belong in their list of alternatives if no event horizon is found.
This "shill" crap that has been flying around lately has to stop. It's restricting a variety of viewpoints from participating on the site and creating an echo chamber.
No it doesn't. You can post anything you want here (except Scientology secrets).
And if you expect moderation to serve as an "invisible hand" that optimizes post ratings, you must be new around here.
But you're welcome to tell us why you're so sensitive about this that you have to spam your complaint on every story. You wouldn't happen to be an astroturfer yourself, would you?
We expect that Sagittarius A* is a black hole, and the definition of black hole basically means that it has an event horizon. If, contrary to everyone's expectations, it turns out not to have an event horizon, the most likely interpretation may not actually be that GR is wrong. It may actually mean that there is something wrong with relativistic particle physics. It's possible that the process of formation that we think leads to a black hole actually stops short of forming a black hole, and instead forms some other exotic object. There are various speculations about these things: gravastars, fuzzballs, quark stars, boson stars, q-balls...
IANAPhysicist, but AIUI:
A fuzzball would be indistinguishable from a black hole, since it's a hypothesis about what's what inside the event horizon.
A gravastar may also be indistinguishable (from outside), but I'm less sure about this.
The others, I think, would still form black holes if they had the amount of mass inside the amount of volume required by the observations.
Correct me if I'm wrong; I love learning about this stuff.
Well at least "angular resolution comparable to the event horizon". Comparable to the diameter of the black hole I guess which is the event horizon. If this is one pixel then I don't know what you can get from that.
You might get a pretty good view of the large-scale structure of the presumed infalling matter.
Slashdot Mirror
get past the line "A group called Transception Incorporated, self-described as an Austin, Texas-based psychic R&D operation" without stopping and laughing uproariously then simply stop reading?
I kept reading for the lulz.
The only people who ought to be complaining about this story is the ones who dislexed "psychic" into "phyiscs".
I actually used to have a five-digit user number before I fucked up my password recall and had to get something six times larger.
A thirty-digit user number?
It's your own damn fault for loading the video after reading the summary. ... or did you not read the summary? That will teach you.
Now I don't feel so bad about never reading TFA.
Or since it's about a purported cover-up: http://xkcd.com/542/.
Clearly, NASA preemptively leaked the story to a group that no one would believe.
"Incredible claim made by group with no credibility."
Okay then.
Except that it ought to be on politics.slasdot.org... or maybe tech-marketing-claims.slashdot.org
If this means Congress will divert a trillion dollars of military spending for NASA to check the claims out, I really wouldn't be crying too hard.
Sorry, they need that teradollar for the down payment on the next war they're trying to drum up.
Remote Viewing though ... cough ... If I could do that I'd be looking for gold or diamonds, not space junk on the Moon.
I suspect the market price for aliens space junk is far higher than for mere gold or diamonds.
A new low for "science.slashdot.org". Psychics. Slashdot: ads, bogus "science," psychics, and corporate shilling for fan-boys.
And endless whingeing from A/Cs.
Well I personally think its funny that most likely to this very day the US government is working under a 'war of the worlds' rule that says if little green men parked on the White house lawn to get some pics with the Obama cutout they'd be going "aliens? what aliens? didn't see a thing, nope' because they are afraid we poor little peasants would snap and go apeshit.
Worse, they'd be *illegal* aliens, and there'd be no end of the shit Obama had to hear from the Republican candidates.
note when a General says something that might be funny ITS NOT A JOKE (unless you see one of his staffers laugh first)
"You can't fight in here -- This is the War Room!"
"A fuzzball would be indistinguishable from a black hole, since it's a hypothesis about what's what inside the event horizon."
Uhm no. They are saying black holes might have *no event horizon* (not be a black hole in the current definition) but instead be some other exotic object (such as a "fuzzball"). If there is no event horizon then there's no hypothesis about what's what inside the event horizon.
Yes, that's what they were *saying*. I was pointing out that their example of 'fuzzball' *is* a black hole, and *does* have an event horizion, and thus, like the other things, doesn't belong in their list of alternatives if no event horizon is found.
Uhm, hear that whooshing sound? It's not a flying car passing by.
They were probably planted by the show's producers, to drive up ratings.
This "shill" crap that has been flying around lately has to stop. It's restricting a variety of viewpoints from participating on the site and creating an echo chamber.
No it doesn't. You can post anything you want here (except Scientology secrets).
And if you expect moderation to serve as an "invisible hand" that optimizes post ratings, you must be new around here.
But you're welcome to tell us why you're so sensitive about this that you have to spam your complaint on every story. You wouldn't happen to be an astroturfer yourself, would you?
It turns out there is no black hole at the centre of the Milky Way?
Lots of astronomers' heads will get scratched, and you will hear a chorus of "That's funny." (Possible citing Asimov in a footnote.)
We expect that Sagittarius A* is a black hole, and the definition of black hole basically means that it has an event horizon. If, contrary to everyone's expectations, it turns out not to have an event horizon, the most likely interpretation may not actually be that GR is wrong. It may actually mean that there is something wrong with relativistic particle physics. It's possible that the process of formation that we think leads to a black hole actually stops short of forming a black hole, and instead forms some other exotic object. There are various speculations about these things: gravastars, fuzzballs, quark stars, boson stars, q-balls...
IANAPhysicist, but AIUI:
A fuzzball would be indistinguishable from a black hole, since it's a hypothesis about what's what inside the event horizon.
A gravastar may also be indistinguishable (from outside), but I'm less sure about this.
The others, I think, would still form black holes if they had the amount of mass inside the amount of volume required by the observations.
Correct me if I'm wrong; I love learning about this stuff.
Well at least "angular resolution comparable to the event horizon". Comparable to the diameter of the black hole I guess which is the event horizon. If this is one pixel then I don't know what you can get from that .
You might get a pretty good view of the large-scale structure of the presumed infalling matter.
but should be large enough to check if Einstein got his equations right.
The ongoing thingy with CERN's maybe-FTL neutrinos may answer that before the three or four years envisioned for this.
There's just about not anything a machine won't do for money.
I love the cookie I'm getting both for this and the DHS X-Ray article:
Hacker's Law: The belief that enhanced understanding will necessarily stir a nation to action is one of mankind's oldest illusions.
It's the sound of elections nearing...
Really? I thought maybe they read yesterday's Slashdot posts and acquired a clue.
[Warning: be wary of that whooshing sound you may be hearing right now.]
More and more big sites are getting in on the game.
Slashdot?
We should have a one-day travel strike, where nobody travels except on essential tasks. Repeat regularly until results are obtained.
When the TSA starts costing businesses money, our bought-and-paid-for Congress will rein them in.
(Heh, you probably thought a B&PFC wasn't good for anything.)
Looks like you missed the "and aren't allowed to take the device apart" part.
This is more like the Mechanical Turk than a waterwheel.
Finally a methode that will work! Damn shame the world will end this December.
Maybe there's a connection? What if he turns on one of his machines, can't shut it off, and it sucks all the free energy out of the universe?