|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:09 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Steven Hawkings AstronomyGirl Steven Hawkings AstronomyGirl Steven Hawkings true, does not mean the wonder the galaxy at the present time we know little of were they are other than the center of the galaxies. True that is it possible that a black hole could end up coming near us in it's orbit around the center of the galaxy, but then we don't' see any big stars that could form one, or any evidence of a black hole anywhere near us, let alone moving towards us to really have to worry about that happening. No we don't since we are two thirds the way out and most mass is in the center, and most stars larger than us is most likely near the center. O on the other side, or out of our spectrum view. Though this is just another thing to solve or should I say on going. mhm. Right now there are more pressing things to look out for, like asteroids or comets that may hit us. It's more likely of something like that comming along. And that's ignoring all the human caused things. What's worring about black holes and asteroids when we might someday blow ourselves off the face of the earth in some nuclear war. rolleyes I think over population is the threat at hand, to many people means massive die offs. I hate what the government for treating near Earth objects as jokes, though I expect that from lazy congressmen.
agreed. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:16 pm
|
|
|
|
AstronomyGirl Steven Hawkings AstronomyGirl Steven Hawkings AstronomyGirl Steven Hawkings true, does not mean the wonder the galaxy at the present time we know little of were they are other than the center of the galaxies. True that is it possible that a black hole could end up coming near us in it's orbit around the center of the galaxy, but then we don't' see any big stars that could form one, or any evidence of a black hole anywhere near us, let alone moving towards us to really have to worry about that happening. No we don't since we are two thirds the way out and most mass is in the center, and most stars larger than us is most likely near the center. O on the other side, or out of our spectrum view. Though this is just another thing to solve or should I say on going. mhm. Right now there are more pressing things to look out for, like asteroids or comets that may hit us. It's more likely of something like that comming along. And that's ignoring all the human caused things. What's worring about black holes and asteroids when we might someday blow ourselves off the face of the earth in some nuclear war. rolleyes I think over population is the threat at hand, to many people means massive die offs. I hate what the government for treating near Earth objects as jokes, though I expect that from lazy congressmen. agreed. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:08 pm
|
|
|
|
Steven Hawkings AstronomyGirl Steven Hawkings AstronomyGirl Steven Hawkings No we don't since we are two thirds the way out and most mass is in the center, and most stars larger than us is most likely near the center. O on the other side, or out of our spectrum view. Though this is just another thing to solve or should I say on going. mhm. Right now there are more pressing things to look out for, like asteroids or comets that may hit us. It's more likely of something like that comming along. And that's ignoring all the human caused things. What's worring about black holes and asteroids when we might someday blow ourselves off the face of the earth in some nuclear war. rolleyes I think over population is the threat at hand, to many people means massive die offs. I hate what the government for treating near Earth objects as jokes, though I expect that from lazy congressmen. agreed. I love it how the senator from Wisconsin back in 1993 called SETI a giggle factor and helped cut all funds for it, and slashed NASA by five billion and its still shirking.
oh, dont' get me started on NASA shinking. razz I'm so angry that they cut so many of these missions to other planets in our colar system to send people to the moon and someday mars. Arg. stare ok true that sending people to the moon and mars woudl be good for us and help us move ahead in science, but then we could learn SOOO Much more with all these other missions that were cancelled or delayed. arg... like I said don't get me started. blaugh |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:54 pm
|
|
|
|
AstronomyGirl Steven Hawkings AstronomyGirl Steven Hawkings AstronomyGirl Steven Hawkings No we don't since we are two thirds the way out and most mass is in the center, and most stars larger than us is most likely near the center. O on the other side, or out of our spectrum view. Though this is just another thing to solve or should I say on going. mhm. Right now there are more pressing things to look out for, like asteroids or comets that may hit us. It's more likely of something like that comming along. And that's ignoring all the human caused things. What's worring about black holes and asteroids when we might someday blow ourselves off the face of the earth in some nuclear war. rolleyes I think over population is the threat at hand, to many people means massive die offs. I hate what the government for treating near Earth objects as jokes, though I expect that from lazy congressmen. agreed. I love it how the senator from Wisconsin back in 1993 called SETI a giggle factor and helped cut all funds for it, and slashed NASA by five billion and its still shirking. oh, dont' get me started on NASA shinking. razz I'm so angry that they cut so many of these missions to other planets in our colar system to send people to the moon and someday mars. Arg. stare ok true that sending people to the moon and mars woudl be good for us and help us move ahead in science, but then we could learn SOOO Much more with all these other missions that were cancelled or delayed. arg... like I said don't get me started. blaugh |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:21 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:22 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:30 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:11 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: The upshot of all this talk is that space can be curved by massive bodies. Objects such as stars can bend light around themselves because they are so massive, space is bent around them. Light bends because it needs to travel through space in order to get anywhere.
http://alexmeske.com/Essays/flatearth.htm
"I'm getting close"...
Quote: Absorption Lines However, not all the light that stars give off reaches us. Some is absorbed by the gas in the star's atmosphere.
http://cas.sdss.org/dr5/en/proj/basic/spectraltypes/lines.asp
"Not was I was aiming for, but"... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:14 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:04 am
|
|
|
|
Red 5 Quote: The upshot of all this talk is that space can be curved by massive bodies. Objects such as stars can bend light around themselves because they are so massive, space is bent around them. Light bends because it needs to travel through space in order to get anywhere. "I'm getting close"... Quote: Absorption Lines However, not all the light that stars give off reaches us. Some is absorbed by the gas in the star's atmosphere. "Not was I was aiming for, but"...
uhh... yea, the first is gravitational lensing. that's nothing to do with stars being black holes.
The second is absorption and emittion lines. That happens with so many stars... that's nothing to do with what you're saying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:06 am
|
|
|
|
Red 5 Quote: We propose that supermassive stars may form in quasar accretion disks, and we discuss possible observational consequences. The structure and stability of very massive stars are reviewed. Because of high accretion rates, quasar disks are massive, and the fringes of their optically luminous parts are prone to fragmentation. Starting from a few hundred solar masses "Stars of such size can exist"... http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/386360&erFrom=-2776304056500097732Guest
uhhh.... right... need to read that more but that doesn't prove your point.
until you find me an article that says that massive stars can be black holes, that's done by a cretable astronomer then I don't believe you.
I'm in 3rd year astrophysics at university. If this was possible I would have learned about it in the stellar astrophysics course I am currently taking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:12 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:02 pm
|
|
|
|
AstronomyGirl Red 5 Quote: We propose that supermassive stars may form in quasar accretion disks, and we discuss possible observational consequences. The structure and stability of very massive stars are reviewed. Because of high accretion rates, quasar disks are massive, and the fringes of their optically luminous parts are prone to fragmentation. Starting from a few hundred solar masses "Stars of such size can exist"... http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/386360&erFrom=-2776304056500097732Guest uhhh.... right... need to read that more but that doesn't prove your point. until you find me an article that says that massive stars can be black holes, that's done by a cretable astronomer then I don't believe you. I'm in 3rd year astrophysics at university. If this was possible I would have learned about it in the stellar astrophysics course I am currently taking.
"Oh well, sorry then. I don't want to say your Classes are wrong"... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
