i didn't say it had a chance

i said that IF it did

and in front of those illusions where they were not sure if it was real or illusion

I hadn't heard that theory? Rotation has an antigravity effect, so the faster it spins, the less gravity it exerts. It is interesting to consider, i mean movement is relative right? however changing your speed causes gravitational changes.

A sun contracting will certainly increase it's rotation, so a black hole would probably rotate very fast relative to the original suns rotation.



yea, it dousn't have enough mass.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html





Black holes are the evolutionary endpoints of stars at least 10 to 15 times as massive as the Sun. If a star that massive or larger undergoes a supernova explosion, it may leave behind a fairly massive burned out stellar remnant. With no outward forces to oppose gravitational forces, the remnant will collapse in on itself. The star eventually collapses to the point of zero volume and infinite density, creating what is known as a " singularity ". As the density increases, the path of light rays emitted from the star are bent and eventually wrapped irrevocably around the star. Any emitted photons are trapped into an orbit by the intense gravitational field; they will never leave it. Because no light escapes after the star reaches this infinite density, it is called a black hole.


But contrary to popular myth, a black hole is not a cosmic vacuum cleaner. If our Sun was suddenly replaced with a black hole of the same mass, the earth's orbit around the Sun would be unchanged. (Of course the Earth's temperature would change, and there would be no solar wind or solar magnetic storms affecting us.) To be "sucked" into a black hole, one has to cross inside the Schwarzschild radius. At this radius, the escape speed is equal to the speed of light, and once light passes through, even it cannot escape.



http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/active_galaxies.html




Most large galaxies have ~1011 Mo of stars, ~109-10 Mo of interstellar gas, and ~1012 Mo of dark matter. But at least 5% of galaxies, though it may be all of them, also have something else lurking inside...a monster in the middle!
These monsters aren't any of the typical typical horror film terrors, though they might appear in one of your favorite science fiction movies. In reality they are supermassive black holes that spew forth tremendous amounts of energy from jets on their tops and bottoms. How can these incredible objects be explained?

Long ago when galaxies were young, the stars in their cores were very closely packed. Star collisions and mergers occurred, giving rise to a single massive black hole (MBH) with perhaps 106 to 109 Mo. Gas from the galaxy's interstellar medium, from a cannibalized galaxy, or from a star that strays too close, falls onto the MBH. As in X-ray binary star systems, an accretion disk forms, emitting huge amounts of light across the electromagnetic spectrum (infrared to gamma-rays). The MBH plus accretion disk produces the phenomena seen in active galactic nuclei (AGN). Below you see optical and radio images of the active galaxy NGC 4261. The central object, accretion disk, and lobes are all visible.


The different types of AGN are variations on this theme. Many galaxies today (including our Galactic center??) may have a quiet MBH which happens not to have recently accreted gas. Seyfert galaxies have accretion onto a moderate-mass MBH, while the more luminous quasi-stellar objects (i.e. quasars) have accretion onto a high-mass MBH.

In ~10% of the AGN, the MBH + accretion disk somehow produce narrow beams of energetic particles and magnetic fields, and eject them outward in opposite directions away from the disk. These are the radio jets, which emerge at nearly the speed of light. Radio galaxies, quasars, and blazars are AGN with strong jets, which can travel outward into large regions of intergalactic space. Many of the apparent differences between types of AGN are due to our having different orientations with respect to the disk. With Blazars and Quasars, we are looking down the jet. For Seyferts, we are viewing the jet broadside.

Considerable uncertainties remain. Exactly how are jets produced and accelerated? Where do the clouds producing the broad emission lines come from? Can we empirically confirm that a MBH is actually present?

i didn't include the math in the above

interesting read, thx.

I would venture that the answer to the bigest mass in the universe would be found in the answer to the smallest mass in the universe... the atom!

true

rule number 1 always have emergency pressure suits in all air locks

ok i know this thread is dead but

i have one last question

what is the last thing you are supposed to do

but is the first thing you do

breathe in for the first time when your bourne, breathe out for the last time when you die!

nope mysticmind


your not supposed to panic but most people do at first

'nope' in the sense that my answer was not the answer you were thinking of. But if you read your question carefully, my reply would be more appropriate.... since the first thing you do is no doubt to breathe when your bourne! and most definately the last thing you do is to take your last breath before you die, both these things superceed your answer by a long way!

If you had wanted your answer to actually be the right answer then you should have structured your question much better and said somthing like "what is the first thing you do in an ermergency situation but is the last thing you do?". Wording is important!

reread the question i didn't ask what the first and last thing was your do is

i asked what is the last thing you are supposed to do, but is the first thing you do.

the last thing you are supposed to do when in trouble is panic when you panic you stop thinking and that could make a bad situation worse.

but the first thing most people do is panic



where as everyone who lives has to breathe and everyone who dies has to stop breathing

hmmm well of course you know what you meant to say because you said it!
now if you actually want other people to understand what you mean, then i repeat - wording is important.

ok you win

There are three causes of missinterpritation of a question

1) question not precise enough.
2) reader makes a mistake.
3) reader twists the question to suit his purpose... to prevent this, see point 1

I always wondered what happened to this thread...

waiting for the next subject

good news bad news


they will be nameing high schools after you

I cannot believe this thread now has 619 posts. If you think for a second I am going to go all the way back and read where I last made a comment... to here...
your out of your ever lovin mind!

This thread has more posts in it than the H.C.H. Empire thread.

yep and most of it is all about nothing

speak for yourself! lol

if according to that web page the planet is 70% water and all life on the planet is 70% water

does that mean that if and when we find life on another planet that is only 25% water will that life only be 25% water

and if so does that mean they need to drink more water or less water

The properties of water and it's relationship with oxygen make it uniquely suitable to allow living things to exist.

If there are lifeforms which use somthing different in the place of water and or oxygen, then it would have to be an unknown substance. Since no natural elements or compounds we know of have the same properties as water.



i'm sure there would already be creatures on Earth with only 25% water. That being their natural state of course would not make them thirsty.

nasa has discovered that mars does have an ocean

it is just all frozen at the south pole

there is enough ice in the south pole to cover the whole planet with 36 feet of water

Nasa knows more about Mars than they tell you... our Moon too as far as that goes. You see, it all comes down to basic things like religious dogma and our society being unable to grasp something that would quite literally shake the foundations of organized religion to it's foundations. Do I believe there's alien life out there, hell yes. Do I believe that there are ancient 'alien' structures on Mars and our Moon (and who knows what other planets in our solar system), hell yes again. I don't really buy into the alien abduction theories and feel that quite a few people who give their 'story' are actually quite insane (or just looking for attention... I still think the two are one in the same in certain instances, but that's for another topic). I believe it's more for 'disinformation' than anything else really. I mean, how could anyone take the topic of alien life seriously when talking to some whack job who says they've visited the planet Venus seventy times...
The bottom line... in as much as I believe we all have a right to know 'everything', there unfortunately are just too many things that we can't be 'allowed' to know because we just couldn't handle the information.