darkangel199

A space telescope scheduled for launch in 2007 will be sensitive enough to detect theoretical miniature black holes lurking within our solar system, scientists say. By doing so, it could test an exotic five-dimensional theory of gravity that competes with Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. That is, of course, if the tiny black holes actually exist. Braneworld black holes are not the only bizarre things out there. Vote for the strangest. The idea, recently detailed online in the journal Physical Review D, is being proposed by Charles Keeton, a physicist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, and Arlie Petters of Duke University in North Carolina. Branes The Randall-Sundrum braneworld model, named after the scientists who created it, states that the visible universe is a membrane embedded within a larger universe, like a strand of seaweed floating in the ocean. Unlike the universe described by General Relativity—which has three dimensions of space and one of time—the braneworld universe contains an extra fourth dimension of space for a total of five dimensions. If the braneworld theory is true, it would "upset the applecart," Petters said. "It would confirm that there is a fourth dimension to space, which would create a philosophical shift in our understanding of the natural world." The braneworld theory predicts the existence of tiny black holes seeded throughout the universe, remnants of the Big Bang. Thousands of them should exist in our solar system. General Relativity, in contrast, predicts that such primordial black holes evaporated long ago. The researchers predict that braneworld black holes are about the size of an atomic nucleus but have masses similar to that of a tiny asteroid. Gamma ray ripples Petters and Keeton say their theory is testable. The mini-black holes should warp the fabric of space-time differently from other types of black holes—thos of stellar-mass and the supermassive variety—due to their close association with the fifth dimension. Light, specifically gamma-rays, should be distorted differently when they whiz past braneworld black holes compared to conventional black holes. "Our calculations show that braneworld black holes will give you a certain ripple in the gamma rays that would be different from general relativity," Petters told SPACE.com. The researchers think that the Gamma-ray Large Space Telescope (GLAST) scheduled for launch in 2007 should be sensitive enough to detect the gamma ray distortions. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060626_mystery_monday.html What other implications could this have in general? If this is proven to be true then, as the article suggests, does this mean General Relativity is wrong? i am more curious to know would this truly shake up Physics like never before?

This is my newspaper's story on the planet thing: "A story written in the Kansas City Star, By Faye Flam. Looks like Pluto stays in the club, but Ceres, Charon, and Xena join, and so may 200 more. To all the elementary -school kids who wrote impassioned letters begging astronomers to keep Pluto on the list of planets: Be careful what you wish for. To preserve Pluto's status, a select panel of seven astronomers, historians and others have agreed to stretch the definition of planet so far that, some say, about 200 objects may eventually be allowed in-many with only letters and numbers as names. An asteroid called Ceres, once considered a planet, was readmitted as was Charon, once classified as the moon of Pluto. An entire new class of planet was named- the plutons- and it includes both Pluto and Charon. The key point: Plutons are planets, too. The panel, organized by the International Astronomical Union, has so far upped the list to 12, but it concedes that will grow fast as additional bodies are offically sanctioned and astronomers discover still more. The resolution, announced Tuesday, now goes before the organization for a vote next week among more than 2000 astronomers gathered in Prague. If approved, the new official list will read: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon and UB313 ("Xena"). One factor in the what is a planet dispute might have to do with the fact that Pluto is the only planet discovered by an American: Clyde Tombaugh, a Kansan. The problem with keeping the usual nine planets stemmed from a discrepancy between how astronomers envisioned the solar system and how schoolteachers presented it. Icy Pluto had always been much smaller than the other planets- a pebble among basketballs, yet beloved underdog. By the 1990s, scientists were finding that Pluto had a family of its own, a swarm of similarly small, icy bodies in a region called the Kuiper Belt. Keeping Pluto a planet in the textbooks didn't seem like too much of a problem until last summer, when Caltech astronomer Michael Brown and colleagues announced that they had found another Kuiper Belt object three times Pluto's size. At that point, it seemed arbitrary to keep Pluto as a planet without letting this new one in. It was enough of a problem that the International Astronomical Union put it above naming Brown's new planet/object. So far, it goes by UB313, but astronomy buffs nicknamed it "Xena". To Brown, the new classification looks unnecessarily complicated. "I'm excited about the possibility of adding the thing i've discovered as a new planet", he said. And yet, he said science might have been better served by reclassifying Pluto as a non-planet. The new official definition of a planet would include all bodies big enough for gravity to shape them into an approximate sphere. Just how big depends on what they are made of. The largest asteroid Ceres, is spherical enough to get admitted to the pantheon. But objects made of ice can be much smaller and still qualify, because it takes less force to round them out. Just a couple of hundred miles around will do, said Brown. That means that many very small objects beyond Pluto will qualify as planets. Under the new rules, planets must orbit a star. moons of planets don't qualify, with the new exception of Charon, which is so close to the same size as Pluto that they are really sister bodies rotating around each other and the sun, said Owen Gingerich, historian of astronomy at Harvard, who headed the committee. Brown said he is suprised at the arbitrariness of the new list of planets. "We know in the solar system there are at least 53 objects that are round, objects in the Kuiper Belt- that for reasons i can't fathom they decided not ot mention in their press release." One, for example, called Sedna, was discovered in 2002. "The committee will look into those," Gingerich said. The panel recognizes that there are more than 12 objects that fit its definition- but these are considered sure-fire planets. The rest, he said "Have to get their accreditation." Brown said that as an astronomer, he finds this all a bit bureaucratic- "a strange process," counter to the way science is supposed to work. "They're scared to demote Pluto." he said. Most of the planets were too obvious for any kind of official discovery. Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn were known to ancient civilizations, Gingerich said. It's not clear why there is so much pressure to keep Pluto a planet or whether the push is coming more from elementary-schoolteachers or grown-ups. "I think it's a total projection," Said Derrick Pitts, chief astronomer at the Franklin Institute. Children, in general, accept change better than grown-ups. "I'm convinced this love affair is because in 1930 Pluto the dog was first sketched," said Neil Tyson, chief astronomet for the Hayden Planetarium in New York." _______________________________________________________________________________________________ How can a planet be an underdog? A lot of people call Pluto a underdog planet lol. a underdog of what? It seems this whole Pluton crap is nothing more than a bunch of scared astronomers trying to keep the masses happy. How can grown-ups be upset that Pluto might be removed? the New york observatory got thousands of letters from protesters saying its not right to remove Pluto lol. Hell my teaher friend said he was told by the princpal of the school he works at that if he values his career he should stop telling the kids Pluto is not a real planet. The principal said parents would cal lto the school because their kids would go home crying that Pluto is not a real planet. He said his wife, a college professor at UMKC ( a local college in Kansas City ) had her life threatened by people who are pissed that Pluto might be removed so she stopped saying it. crazy huh? And even crazier, some people think that since Pluto was discovered by an American, the rest of thew world wants to remove it out of spite lol. Even though the guy who started it works in New York.

Yeah they were animal hybrids, and the government was after them again. but that's one show, usually people are scared of anythign that can be considered superior to them. So they call it unnatural or ungodly or evil or freak etc. Its the nature of people, we assume that any being smarter and stronger than us will want to dominate us, much like humans do with the rest of the world. And of course being human we always assume a being with intelligence of at least our level will act like we do (i've made them istake on these forums with stories and "what ifs ive posted lol) so naturally, people think a being that's smarter and stronger will try to dominate us or exterminate us, which leads back to why people hate and fear the word genetic engineering, it conjours up images of supermen or other creatures taking over in a lot of people's mind.

its a superiority thing. People are afraid that somewhere some "mad scientist" will create "superhumans" who are smarter and stronger, and since human nature seems to lean towards aggressive and predatory the superior "humans" will probably take over. You can look at movies, books, videogames, etc to see that people are just scared of being "replaced" or not being at the top of the food chain.

whenever i hear this question i always see 2001: A space Oddesy in my mind lol. or i think of apes sitting around and one swings a stick and it stuck in a rock, then they pick it up and bam, their destructive potential just increased 5 times, which lead to other using bigger sticks and rocks and other actually throwing rock, etc lol.

I think over time, as the children of this generation grow up, creationism will fall to the wayside. Ameirca has always been a very religious country, and certain parts are extremely hardcore about it, but i think the graph shows more and more people are basically thinking about it a lot more than blindly following their pastor or taking their 5th grade science teacher's word for it. Science is just not as glamorous as it once was during the space race and the whole 60's sci fi explosion. But the fact the the discussion has been raised and people are thinking will lead most to the same view as the catholic church has, that Creationism is not real. And considering in Kansas the board of Ed was just basically handed their walking papers for this very creationism subject i would say things are getting better in America. I think people in America like to keep their spiritual worship from their hard science, which more and more are doing. I'm christian, but i don't believe in creationism. i dont take the bible litteraly, i take it as a book of moral lessons for people to try to live by. A rock that's carbon dated at a billion years cannot be proven false cause the bible claims the earth was made 6,000 years ago.

i posted the site, but i see it didnt come up. i know nothing about biology i just thought it was interesting to post. Perhaps i should have said Devolution? is that even a real word?

Geneticists are becoming so proficient that they can not only show evolution in action – they can show it in reverse. The experimental success could suggest a new approach for gene therapy, the researchers say, though any applications are a long way off. Many of the genes in humans and animals are descendants of ancient genes that have duplicated, mutated and changed their function. Petr Tvrdik and Mario Capecchi, at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, US, have now managed to demonstrate this by recreating an ancient gene from two of its modern descendants. Half a billion years ago, our ancestor’s genome quadrupled. With four copies of each gene suddenly competing for existence, genes had to find a function or be purged from the genome. The quadrupling meant that 13 Hox genes, which control the development of body shape, became 52. The ones that did not mutate to do something useful were eventually lost, so today mammals have 39 Hox genes. Tvrdik and Capecchi focused on two Hox genes, originally identical duplicates, that have evolved to perform different functions – a process of division of labour called subfunctionalisation. Hoxa1 controls brain stem development in the early embryo, and Hoxb1, working a bit later in development, directs nerve growth in an area of the brain that controls facial expression. The two genes make the same protein, but in different places in the brain, and at different times. In other words, it is the regulatory sequence that differs, not the protein-coding sequence. Dice and splice To reconstruct the original Hox1 gene from which the two evolved, Tvrdik and Capecchi attached part of Hoxb1 – the regulatory sequence, which turns the gene on later in development – to the Hoxa1 gene. That way, one gene was able to do the job of two. Mice with the new Hox1 gene, but bred to lack their Hoxa1 and Hoxb1 genes, developed normally. “We constructed a gene that is fairly similar to the ancestral Hox1 gene present in the vertebrate lineage half a billion years ago, before it became duplicated,” says Tvrdik. The gene was inserted into a mouse embryonic stem cell, and then implanted into mouse surrogate mothers to produce mice which carry the new gene in their genome. The modified mice breed normally, and produce offspring with the new Hox1 gene. More hurdles “This is very elegant paper that reports what is effectively reverse evolution – reversal of the subfunctionalisation process that can occur following a gene duplication event,” says David Miller, a geneticist at James Cook University, Townsville, Australia. The work suggests that duplicate genes have evolved to remain more similar than thought, which has implications for gene therapy if a broken gene could be replaced by another, Tvrdik says. “Recruiting a gene to another function may prove to be more accessible, in specific instances,” he adds. But Tvrdik emphasises that there are many hurdles to overcome before this could happen – not least that it is not legal to alter human embryos, as the researchers did with mice in this study. Journal reference: Developmental Cell (DOI: 10.1016/j.devcel.2006.06.016) newscientist.com

thought this was interesting: A project aiming to create an easier way to measure cosmic distances has instead turned up surprising evidence that our large and ancient universe might be even bigger and older than previously thought. If accurate, the finding would be difficult to mesh with current thinking about how the universe evolved, one scientist said. A research team led by Alceste Bonanos at the Carnegie Institution of Washington has found that the Triangulum Galaxy, also known as M33, is about 15 percent farther away from our own Milky Way than previously calculated. The finding, which will be detailed in an upcoming issue of Astrophysical Journal, suggests that the Hubble constant, a number that measures the expansion rate and age of the universe, is actually 15 percent smaller than other studies have found. Currently, most astronomers agree that the value of the Hubble constant is about 71 kilometers per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is 3.2 million light-years). If this value were smaller by 15 percent, then the universe would be older and bigger by this amount as well. Scientists now estimate the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old (a figure that has seemed firm since 2003, based on measurements of radiation leftover from the Big Bang) and about 156 billion light-years wide. The new finding implies that the universe is instead about 15.8 billion years old and about 180 billion light-years wide. A new way to measure distance The researchers reached their surprising conclusion after using a new method they invented to calculate intergalactic distances, one that they say is more precise and requires fewer steps than standard techniques. "We wanted an independent measure of distance—a single step that will one day help with measuring dark energy and other things," said study team member Krzysztof Stanek from Ohio State University. The new method took 10 years to develop and relied on optical and infrared measurements gathered from telescopes all around the world. The researchers looked at a binary star system in M33 where the stars eclipsed each other every five days. Unlike single stars, the masses of paired stars can be precisely calculated based on their movements. With knowledge of the stars' masses, the researchers could calculate their true luminosities, or how bright they would appear if they were nearby. The difference between the true luminosity and the observed luminosity gives the distance between the stars and Earth. The team's results suggested that the stars were about 3 million light-years from Earth—or about half-a-million light-years farther than would be expected using the commonly accepted Hubble constant value. 'Not impossible' Lawrence Krauss, a professor of astronomy and chair of the Department of Physics at Case Western Reserve who was not involved in the study, said the idea of a significantly reduced Hubble constant would be hard to accommodate. "Things fit right now very well for a Hubble constant of a low 70s," Krauss said in a telephone interview. "It corresponds very well with the age of globular clusters as we've determined them and the age of the universe. It would be hard, although not impossible, to change things by 15 percent." Stanek said his team plan to follow up their finding with distance measurements for either another binary star system in M33 or to look for a binary system in another galaxy, perhaps Andromeda. "It's extremely important to have independent measurements of the Hubble constant," Stanek told SPACE.com. "That's what we're working towards." http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060807_mm_huble_revise.html

There is a reasonable threshold where you weigh how much an action is going to punish the millions of innocents and the collective population vs. the chances it may hurt the opposing group (hezbollah in this case). Its safe to safe Israel has far, far exceeded this threshold in this situation. All the infrastructure damage is guaranteed to make Lebanon and its citizenry suffer for many years to come, while it is unknown whether it will have any substantial effects on the fighting capability of hezbollah. The thing is, Israel always seems willing to take these types of actions which exceed this threshold, with utter and complete disregard to the consequences. This is a good article written by an Israeli newspaper. Basically he is saying Israel has done more damage than any "terror" group could ever do and has set its own self back by more than two decades. ' "Unprecedented achievements' By Nehemia Shtrasler Even the Six Day War was dwarfed this week by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's impressive spin. Olmert spoke of a war with "impressive achievements that are unparalleled, perhaps even unprecedented," adding: "We can say with certainty that the face of the Middle East has already been changed." And in order to enhance the achievements even further, government spokesmen upgraded Hezbollah from a small terror organization to an elite army, the spearhead of the Iranian army, which has come to destroy us. And if we are facing destruction, all means are permissible. "They will never again be able to threaten this nation with missiles," Olmert continued. And the next day, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah replied with another 210 missiles on the north - the largest number since the start of the war. Experts say that he has another 9,000 of them. Olmert is disturbed by the criticism of the failure to achieve the war's goals, and he is trying by words alone to turn this reality into achievements, both for the government and for himself. But the sad truth is that our situation today is worse than it was at the start of the war, and time is not on our side. Advertisement Three days after the start of the war, after a series of heavy bombardments of Hezbollah, Israel's standing in the world was at its height (even in some Arab countries). At that point, we could have stopped, embraced the excellent agreement proposed by the G-8 and turned to negotiations. Today, it is impossible to obtain the agreement proposed then. Today, it is difficult to obtain any agreement at all. The situation in general is worrisome. Although Israel hurt Hezbollah and killed hundreds of its members, it has not succeeded in causing the organization to collapse. That is the strength of a guerrilla organization that enjoys sweeping support from the population. Nasrallah will always declare that he won. He can always claim that with 2,000 fighters, he succeeded in confronting the huge Israeli army honorably, and even caused it casualties. He can always claim that he caused us tremendous damage by bombing the north of the country with rockets and even paralyzing Haifa. Nasrallah's status has been strengthened, both in Lebanon and throughout the Arab world, and there is a chance that his strength will increase following the next elections in Lebanon. That is not "restoring deterrence." It is a serious blow at Israel's deterrent capability. In terms of our status in the world, Israel has suffered a disaster. Anyone who has seen the pictures of dead children being removed from the ruins, which are being shown on foreign television networks, can understand the growing demonstrations against Israel, both in Arab countries and in the West. Hatred of Israel and of Jews in general is on the rise, and European leaders are pressing for an immediate cessation of the war, even before any agreement is signed. Even the United States is losing patience. The portion of the Arab world that sided with Israel at the start of the war - Saudi Arabia, for example - has now aligned itself with Hezbollah. The president of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, yesterday called on all Arab countries to embark on a war against Israel, and there are even volunteers waiting in line. It turns out that even with the most sophisticated planes, Israel will never succeed in killing enough terrorists to reduce their overall number. Even Israel's socioeconomic situation has declined. The economy was in the midst of fast growth, and the 2007 budget included far-reaching social-welfare plans. Now, however, there is a drastic change in the order of priorities: more for the army and less for society. And all this is in addition to dozens of dead on our side, both civilians and soldiers, and hundreds of dead in Lebanon. In the corridors of power, people this week began blaming the Israel Defense Forces and the chief of staff for the outcome of the battles. But the army must not become a scapegoat. The strategy and the goals were approved by Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and the responsibility is entirely theirs. They said that Hezbollah would be disarmed of its rockets, the Lebanese Army would replace it on the northern border, and the two kidnapped soldiers would be returned without compensation. None of that has been achieved. Now, Olmert is talking about an entirely new goal: seizing a security zone six to eight kilometers wide until the arrival of a multinational force of "at least 10,000 soldiers," which will replace the IDF and disarm Hezbollah. That is how we have suddenly gone from surgical air force strikes, without a single soldier entering the area, to the security zone from which we withdrew six years ago because of the large number of dead and wounded caused by that very same Hezbollah. It is amazing that suddenly, we are relying on the soldiers of France or Poland to protect us. Judging by past experience, they will not sacrifice their lives for us, but will turn a blind eye to what is happening. And if no significant multinational force arrives, the IDF will be forced to remain in the security zone for a long time - and that is the familiar Lebanese swamp, which is once again pulling us in. And when we are sitting in the middle of the swamp, Hezbollah will once again arm itself and attack our stationary army, whose only goal will be to protect itself. Thus in one fell swoop, we will go back 24 years, to the first Lebanon War. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746308.htm So, as you can see they are not going to continue but now they have basically called out Iran and by proxy Syria and most other Arab nations. THey are the ones wanting a massive regional war here, their own political officials say so in so many words. and of course the U.S. will follow in lock step like a sheep dog following its master. They know even if they bomb or attack Iran first or any other country, if that country attacks back the U.S. will jump in. they are using the U.S. to accomplish their own goals and the governmento f this countryi s too blinded by politics to care or notice, much like its populace.

Having just returned from vacation i see i have a lot of threads to post non anti-muslim posts in but i wanted to address Bettina's ridiculous neigbhor analogy. fine they kill the kid. So the neighbor says "screw this i am gonna get them now" so they dig up the driveway and sidewalks dig up the yard, burn the barn down and then burn down the entire house, not realizing that the family that lives their had nothing to do with the war, its just some scummy guy they rented their basement out to. But its too late because as they burned down the house the killed the original occupants who had nothing to do with it as well. What do you think would happen to this neighbor who was just getting revenge for his dead child? would all the neighbors say "oh, he was acting in self defense, even though he torched the house and destroyed the land not to mention kill everyone in the house, it was just self defense. and if Lebannon actually had Nukes do you think Israel would simply invade so easily? no because then Israel could actually suffer major damage from any retaliation from the actual government whose country is being destroyed. Do you people honestly think that merely carpet bombing the southern half of a country will end the conflict? and when does it go from merely Self defense to terror? the people of Lebanon live in constant fear of being bombed just like the Israelis do, they do't know where a bomb will drop either. Yet when Israel does it its called Self defense right? when Israel uses their advanced laser guided bombs and kills kids its fine to call it an accident right? but when the other side merely uses a much more crude way of doing the exact same thing its called terrorism? To use Bettina's analogy once more if i throw rocks at Bettina's car she has a right to burn my entire house to the ground? if i hit her kid and leave him unconscious then the moral equivelence is she shooting my entire family and burning my house down? The problem is some people are automatically against any country in them iddle east that isnt Israel and will deny any reasoning that maybe they are just as much at fault as the other groups. Afterall Israel still has over 900 palestinians and Lebanese in prison, but its fine to call them prisoners and not kidnap victims? why is it different when one side does it? They are both fighting the same war, the only difference is Israel has American made bombs and jets and helicopters and The other groups have Iranian and Chinese made rockets...

Hey, all you people that live in Britain. Have you been to Old Sarum? I am using it in my novel and i need to know if it has any security at night. Also does Stonehenge have any security at night? i have seen both through google earth and tried ot do internet research but it does not mention security anyway. Can a person just drive up to these places in the middle of the night? And also, do British people still say stuff like bloke? Thanks in advance.

Well, i suppose I am also biased to this situation, i have family that lives in Palestine and Lebanon, i have been their many times and i can tell you i understand why they hate Israel and America for that matter. Could you imagine everynight jumping up out of bed because of Sonic booms going off overhead, the Israelis purposely do it all the time. And people know that the jets, the missles, the bullets the tanks, the gunships, the helicopters are American made. Then they say to the people elect a government democratically and they do just for Israel to say "oh, you cant choose them, choose someone else." Many people i know also view it as this, a large, extremely powerful country does whatever it wants because its backed by an even larger, more powerful country that tells it it can. The only thing the people of those small countries have are terrorists, they dont have american made f-16s and Apache helicopters, they dont have Abrams tanks and cruise missles. All they have are the people you al lrefer to as terrorist. That's the problem, in Palestine and places like Lebanaon the "terrorist" are the only ones giving the people food and taking care of the people, its not the U.N., its not the governments of the countries, its these organizations doing it. You call them terrorists, i call them rebels fighting for the right of the people of those countries. It's unfortunate that civilians die, but its war, and it seems as long as Israel says sorry, we didnt mean to bomb that school" its alright with people? And even after israel pulled out of Lebanon they continued exchanging fire on the border all the time, so how they can pull this, like they are the poor innocent country. and how can Americans protect Israel so when they deliberately attacked one of your ships before, http://www.ussliberty.org/ not to mention the numerous times they steal secrets from America all the time. http://www.counterpunch.org/husseini08302004.html http://www.aci.net/kalliste/pollard_em.htm I understand that people that live in the "empire" will refer to the rebels as terrorist, because to them that's all they see and that's what they are told day in and day out, but try living in Palestine for a year, as a normal person going on your daily business and see if you don't change your views.

so, no way to maybe do some tests and experiements on her and figure out how her body did it? then apply it to normal humans? like stop aging period?

Black holes in the early universe may have circumvented a law of physics to grow rapidly to colossal size. The finding could solve a longstanding puzzle over why such massive objects appeared so soon after the universe began. The new analysis, by Marta Volonteri and Martin Rees, both at the University of Cambridge, UK, ties up all the important factors involved in the growth of a black hole and concludes rapid growth is possible. This might be because the black hole "swallows" the radiation generated as the hole gobbles up the matter around it, preventing a destructive explosion. The puzzle first arose after astronomers spotted what appear to be monster black holes, with the mass of a billion Suns, near the edge of the visible universe. The black holes themselves are invisible, but matter falling into them is heated by friction and emits very powerful X-rays. These extreme emissions define the distant system as a quasar. Because of the time it takes for the X-rays to travel from these extremely distant objects to Earth, astronomers see the quasars the way they were less than a billion years after the big bang. All consuming Until now, astronomers could not explain how the objects gathered such enormous amounts of matter in such a relatively brief time. One suggestion was that black holes in the early universe somehow overcame a law called the "Eddington limit", which normally restricts the growth of objects that are collecting matter. The limit arises because if a black hole eats too quickly, the disc of matter feeding it radiates so much energy that it blows itself apart, leaving little for the object to absorb, so halting growth. Some astronomers have suggested that early black holes managed to get around this law by swallowing the radiation in its vicinity before it had a chance to blow apart the disc of matter. In the dense inner part of the disc, the X-rays might have a hard time travelling outward because of its frequent collisions with matter. If so, it could get pulled into the black hole along with the descending matter. Eats, shoots out and leaves But it was not clear whether even these "outlaw" black holes would grow fast enough, given other constraints that exist. For example, black holes can occasionally get kicked out of matter-rich clouds into intergalactic space, where there is nothing to eat. However, the analysis by Volonteri and Rees shows the growth can be fast enough. "This growth is quite a challenge," says Stuart Shapiro, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in the US. But the new study shows "the challenge can be met under special, but plausible, circumstances", he told New Scientist. Those circumstances include an assumption that the rate at which black holes get kicked out of host galaxies is relatively low. Eventually, the black holes would go back to eating at less than the Eddington limit due to a lack of supply, says Rees: "Most holes in present-day galaxies are inconspicuous because they are starved of fuel." http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9530-earliest-black-holes-bent-the-laws-of-physics.html So, can some physics guy explain to me if i am reading this right, does this mean that its POSSIBLE to bend the rigid laws of Physics afterall? And if the laws of Physics can be bent, then isnt it perhaps possible for us to find ways around the universal speed limit in the universe? maybe not break it but bend it perhaps?

I found this news story while browsing youtube from a local newstation about a 12 year old stuck in a 9 month old's body. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0rbr3Z_NpU&eurl imagine if you could have some kind of geneticist do that to you in your mid to late twenties? this could truly be the fountain of youth? and it seems she cant die, everytime the doctors think she is close to death she miracously heals herself, the doctors say she is the only known case in the WORLD with this condition. maybe the government or some big company should ask the parents to borrow her and perfom some safe tests on her to figure it out?

heh, i saw this on "The Twlight Zone" their time frame was about a week and the earth was completely frozen, but the sun came back, according to the Twlight Zone, our solar system passed through a nebula of "dark matter" which blotted out the sun as we passed through it. lol i suppose its a good enough theory for the tv show considering no one really knows what the hell it is, some scientist guy cant say it couldnt happen...right...? maybe?...possibly?

the sun gets 10% hotter every one billion years. yes, in a billion years the earth will probably be too hot for us humans or whatever replaces us, but we might not even make it that long, the yellowstone super volcanoe is set to blow any moment according to the USGS, as is Mount ST Helens and they also expect Krakatoa to go again as well. Not to mention the warming oceans will unfreeze all the trapped methane in the ocean anyway, burning us alive. some links on the Methane hydrate" http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/3_Methane.htm http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3375415 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3775181.stm

Why do you all think people want aliens to find us? i for one hope not considering how advanced they'd be just ot get here. Hell i bet they have passed our "backwater" planet full of "morons" as they might see it a million times, or worse, they are so advanced they see us as ants, and best case scenario they do what they do and ignore us. LOL when you look at an ant hill you usually probably keep walking by, i dont think you take the time to learn its language and offer it our advanced technology, if you're feeling honery you will "abduct" a few just for fun lol, or worst case scenario, you wil lfeel angry and decide to step on them or destroy the ant hill. Why wouldn't highly advanced aliens view us in the same view? maybe its a blessing they have not bothered with us yet and just decided to ignore our little type 0 civilization, especially conisdering they'd be at least type 2 civilization. So my feeling is, E.T. never phone here lol.

thanks alot, i get it now. that rubber sheet was a good explanation.

Alright, you guys know much more about this than me, which is obvious. i asked a friend of mine, "how could the universe expand faster than light at one point of its creation if lighti s supposedly the fastest thing in the universe and nothing can expand faster than it? i asked him this and he told me maybe the speed of light was not always what it was. So, after a few hours of trying to sort through the crazy stuff (the articles on ftl by crazy people) i stumble upon this. But you guys are stil lsaying its not possible, so my question to you is, then how did the universe do it? How did it do something that is supposedly impossible? because there have been recent studies that the CNO cycle is actually two times slower than we thought, which would make the universe much older than we thought. So, if the CMB is spread uniformily across the universe, then that means this heat energy was somehow faster than light? so how can that be if light has been the same speed its been and cannot change and nothing supposedly can go faster?

A Dr. Murphy at cambridge has found evidence that the fine structure constant, might actually have varied billions of years ago. meaning one of the fundemental constants in physics, actually isnt so constant. The speed of light also depends on "alpha", and if one varies then the other does as well ,which means that einstein was wrong. now of course their are people who are also looking into this because physicists just can't accept their entire theory of general relavitivity is flawed, but i think Dr Murphy is right. i dont want ot go into the matho fi t all so i will offer two links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure_constant#Is_the_fine_structure_constant_really_constant.3F http://www.physorg.com/news3665.html So, there you go, boys and girls, there is a fundemental flaw in physics, the sacred "speed of light" is not so sacred afterall. even it changes...