 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Posted on 03/10/2009 3:45:41 PM PDT by TaraP
Scientists have determined the mass of the largest things that could possibly exist in our universe. New results have placed an upper limit on the current size of black holes - and at fifty billion suns it's pretty damn big. That's a hundred thousand tredagrams, and you'll never get the chance to use that word in relation to anything else.
Black holes are regions of space where matter is so dense that regular physics just breaks down. You might think physical laws are immutable - you can't get out of gravitational attraction the same way you can get out of a speeding ticket - but beyond a certain level laws which determine how matter is regulated are simply overloaded and material is crushed down into something that's less an object and more a region of altered space.
While there's theoretically no upper limit on how big a black hole can be, there are hard limits on how big they could have become by now. The universe has only existed for a finite amount of time, and even the most voracious black hole can only suck in matter at a certain rate. The bigger the black hole, the bigger the gravitational field and the faster it can pull in matter - but that same huge gravitational gradient means that the same matter can release huge amounts of radiation as it falls, blasting other matter further away.
Based on this self-regulating maximum rate, scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Massachusetts, and the European Southern Observatory, Chile, have calculated an upper limit for these mega-mammoth masses. Fifty billion suns, that's 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 kg, otherwise known as "ridiculously stupidly big" and triple the size of the largest observed black hole, OJ 287.
There are potential problems with this calculation. Based as it is on the radiation outflow from a black hole, new discoveries could change this estimate - though only from "insanely massive" to "ridiculously ginormous."
There is a small amount of information on tumors, not ‘tons’ and no indication that they were “cancer,” so save us the Barbara Streisand.
Well maybe not 'tons', but tumors are by definition cancer. And before you say no that's not true, the only difference between benign and malignant is the rate of growth.
If the point you were trying to make is that cancer is a relatively recent major factor in mortality rates I will agree (primarily because antibiotics and immunizations have been so effective at stopping disease).
No, tumors are not in most cases (999 of 1000) cancer.
Most people’s bodies have numerous tumors and cysts that are totally benign.
Like I said, the only difference between benign and malignant is the growth rate. If you are going to die of old age before a cancer becomes a problem it is benign. If you double or triple estimated life expectancies, a lot of 'benign' tumors suddenly become malignant : )
I know that you know this stuff and you may even be technically correct depending on the definitions. I would call it accurate, but not true. How is that for a compromise?
In reality, its the capability to transfer growth factors to non-tumor cells ajacent to the tumor that is the difference. That is most of the reason for the irregular shape of malignant tumors.
That is your way of saying that you have no proof and are hopping that no one actually checks.
You ignore the actual cancers cells find in some Egyptian mummies.
How do you explain something existing before you claim it could?
I accept “is post?” questions from darwininsts. They confirm my own theory. “Young earth” is just as absurd as the unproven supernatural creative power of natural selection,and the individual should seriously consider his or her own standing in life, if origins should bother one.
The Darwinist cannot explain the changing of one reproductive system into another, his fossil evidence of the theory isn’t there, and he relies upon minor variations among fruit flies and peppered moths and Heike crabs and finch beaks and thousands of African skull fragments he glues together to present as a “Hominid,” as the editors of National Geographic pull puds at their desks in rapt admiration.
I am not a young earth creationist, but reject Darwinism as 19th century pop-culture balderdash, poppycock, junk science, and one of three venues that have focused the attention of the modern world to flailing punks on MTV and an Orwellian fraud like Barack Obama.
Go back to your room ‘til your mom gets home!
We don’t waste time arguing with children here.
In an expanding universe, celestial objects are continually moving further apart from one another as they move apart from their common origin. If all objects in the universe were falling down a giant black hole, by necessity, all objects in the universe would be moving closer together as they neared their common destination.
That theory is beginning to have a problem as it is based on Hubble's observation of Red Shift and his conclusion and explanation of what was causing it!
One of his students has been doing some work:
Seeing Red: Intrinsic redshifts, stable universe
Somewhat related thread :
That’s pretty much exactly what a black hole is. Except that the mass is just mass, it ceases to be matter but retains it’s mass.
God really did make man in his image.
For us, it’s a grill with fire.
For Him, something on a scale he enjoys.
Thanks Ernest_at_the_Beach.
Meet the Indian who took on Stephen Hawking
Rediff.com | August 03, 2004 10:06 IST | Rediff.com
Posted on 08/02/2004 10:16:56 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1183887/posts
|
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
I think you're wanted here.
See the post this is in reply to.
Ancient...
Just say it out loud. You'll get it.
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.