×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

153 comments

but but (3, Funny)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232200)

but they are still super massive right? If not that totally ruins most of my celestial bodies jokes.

Re:but but (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232280)

What I want to know is are they smaller because they've consumed less matter or are they just smaller?

its the belt tightening recession (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232302)

see even stars tighten three belts

Re:but but (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232314)

but they are still super massive right? If not that totally ruins most of my celestial bodies jokes.

Not all of them, only the "yo momma so fat" jokes. The Uranus jokes are still in effect.

Re:but but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232326)

Don't worry, yo mama is still super massive

Re:but but (1)

whitedsepdivine (1491991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232348)

It will only effect geeks that tell and receive insults, because they are the only ones that will be able to reference this.

So to all the people that don't read Slashdot : "Yo momma is so fat. If she gained another pound, she would collapse in on herself and become a black hole."

Re:but but (1, Funny)

kencurry (471519) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232700)

It will only effect geeks that tell and receive insults, because they are the only ones that will be able to reference this. So to all the people that don't read Slashdot : "Yo momma is so fat. If she gained another pound, she would collapse in on herself and become a black hole."

and then became uranus...

Re:but but (0)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232980)

and then became uranus...

Urectum is the name the planet Uranus was changed to in 2620 to avoid people making the "your anus" joke.

Re:but but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35233376)

Urectum? That (supermassive) black hole damn near killed 'em!

Re:but but (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232352)

but they are still super massive right? If not that totally ruins most of my celestial bodies jokes.

The downgrade to UltraClumpy should preserve your astronomical punch lines.

Re:but but (2)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232354)

but they are still super massive right? If not that totally ruins most of my celestial bodies jokes.

They like to call themselves "big boned".

Sheesh! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232304)

You mean, they're only hundreds of millions to a billion times the mass of the sun, not several billion times the mass of the sun? Sheesh! Talk about phoning it in! Wake me up when they're serious about being 'super massive'!

Re:Sheesh! (1)

grimJester (890090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35233294)

They are still millions to billions times the mass of the sun, dividing by 2-10 doesn't make that much difference.

Re:Sheesh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35233600)

They are still millions to billions times the mass of the sun, dividing by 2-10 doesn't make that much difference.

Really?

Re:Sheesh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35234798)

It's a man! No, it's a plane! No, it's the gp's joke going WOOOSH right past your head.

Math? (3, Insightful)

LocutusMIT (10726) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232312)

How can something be X-times less massive than something else? I can understand half as massive, or 1/10 as massive, but two to ten times less massive doesn't make any mathematical sense for a result that must be a positive number.

Re:Math? (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232378)

How can something be X-times less massive than something else? I can understand half as massive, or 1/10 as massive, but two to ten times less massive doesn't make any mathematical sense for a result that must be a positive number.

I agree. That pet peeve ranks right up there with "I could care less".

Like nails on a chalkboard.

Re:Math? (2)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232664)

I agree. That pet peeve ranks right up there with "I could care less".

Like nails on a chalkboard.

The phrase is "I couldn't care less". Indicating that I care so little for something that no matter what you tell me it's not going to make the subject any more insignificant. "I could care less" indicates that I care enough that my feelings on the matter could be swayed to become more apathetic than they currently are. Obviously there's a big difference, though I do hear an awful lot of people misstating it as you have posted.

Re:Math? (1)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232804)

*WOOSH*

Re:Math? (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232892)

*WOOSH*

Perhaps, but in all honesty I hear that phrase misquoted more often than used correctly.

Re:Math? (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 3 years ago | (#35235024)

*WOOSH*

Perhaps, but in all honesty I hear that phrase misquoted more often than used correctly.

There is no 'perhaps' involved in this at all. The person you replied to was citing it as his own pet peeve. You wasted your pedantry.

Re:Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35235186)

I could care less about my lost pedantry.

Re:Math? (1)

ILMTitan (1345975) | more than 3 years ago | (#35233094)

Or, "I could care less" means I care so little, I could care less about this than anything else I'm supposed to care about.

Re:Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35233496)

Or, "I could care less" means I care so little, I could care less about this than anything else I'm supposed to care about.

Right. If I couldn't care less, I would not have taken the time to write this inane comment. Wait, what does inane mean? Don't you people have anything better to do than make me wonder why you spend all this time commenting on shit that has nothing to do with the original post? Just kidding. Not really.

Re:Math? (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35234262)

Since the "whoosh" didn't explain it clearly enough: That's why GP called it a "pet peeve". Because it's a misuse of a common phrase.

- RG>

Re:Math? (0)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232728)

I don't like it either, but both "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" are valid.

"I could care less ... but I'd have to really work at it ..." - ie: I don't really care enough to get worked up about it.

"I couldn't care less ... even if I tried" - ie: I don't care at all.

And 10 times less massive is the same as saying "an order of magnitude less", which makes sense. Same as double-entry bookkeeping ...

Just look at "flammable" and "inflammable".

Re:Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35233786)

The difference is that it's ok to skip an "even if" statement, but it's not ok to skip a "but I'd have to" statement. People would have to say the whole "I could care less but I'd have to really work at it" to make it right, but they don't.

Re:Math? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35233244)

The expression "five times smaller" gets nearly 1M hits on Google, you have quite an uphill battle! In fact you might want to reconsider whether you're wrong instead of the world.

Another one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35233258)

My gas tank "needs full".

I would love to meet the person who first dropped "to be" from sentences containing the word "needs". I'm sure he's come a long way from pre-school (or maybe not).

Re:Math? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35233680)

You confuse the adverb “less” with the preposition “less”. The adverb “less” means “to smaller extent” or “in lower degree”. The sense of “subtraction” applies only to the preposition (“gross income less expenditure equals net income”).

This usage of “less” is symmetrical with that of “more”, except for the less/fewer distinction. Observe:

You have two dollars. I have two more dollars than you. I have two times more wealth than you. I have two times more dollars than you.
You have four dollars. I have two fewer dollars than you. I have two times less wealth than you. I have two times fewer dollars than you.

Re:Math? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35235424)

Me: Hello, I would like to order 10 bags of cement.
Hardware Store: yes sir, we will deliver those today.
Me: Wait, make that two times less bags.
Hardware Store: But Sir, there is no such thing as a negative bag of cement.

Re:Math? (3, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232382)

How can something be X-times less massive than something else? I can understand half as massive, or 1/10 as massive, but two to ten times less massive doesn't make any mathematical sense for a result that must be a positive number.

Don't worry, it's only you. Everybody else understood perfectly that they are now estimated to be between 10% and 50% of the former estimate. Or can you imagine any other reasonable interpretation for that?

Re:Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232434)

X - 2X = -X
X - 10X = -9X

Re:Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232522)

If you think this is a reasonable interpretation, there is a gap in your education.

Re:Math? (1)

atrain728 (1835698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232640)

It's only unreasonable given the context. Mathematics is a precise language and so too should be our semantics when describing mathematics. Ambiguity is added for journalistic flare, but it is in reality what is unreasonable, not the interpretation.

Re:Math? (3, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232998)

The 'ambiguity' is a standard phrasing that has been part of the language for more than 100 years. Language is not math, language is not 100% logical. This argument is equivelent to yelling at someone for saying that they're "as hungry as a horse" because they are incapable of eating as much as a typical horse. It's a stupid and pedantic argument that tries to apply strict logic and mathematical rules to a system (language) that does not follow them.

Re:Math? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35233894)

Actually, "as hungry as a horse" only implies that the intensity of the hunger is equal, not the capability to eat a given amount of food.

Re:Math? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35233768)

hahaha

i can guarantee that every single person in the world who isn't a total retard thought "ten times less" meant "a tenth" and didn't dick around being a dick

dick

Re:Math? (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#35234168)

Don't worry, it's only you.

No, it's not. It's a ridiculous way to express things like that, and it's actually misleading. To say that something is ten times less massive means that you consider the thing to which it's being compared to already be not very massive (compared to what?). That leaves a bunch of implications dangling open and unanswered. Saying it's "a tenth the size" is far more appropriate, and doesn't imply anything about the larger item to which you're comparing it. If you mean to say that the ten-times-larger thing isn't very big either, then be specific.

It's not that we don't get that the smaller thing is a tenth the size. It's that nobody can infer anything useful from the suggestion that the original is already small. Is it? When you say "A is ten times smaller than B," what you're really saying is "B is small, and A is even smaller." What is the meaning of B's smallness in this context? Why add extra, distracting words that convey nothing but which imply meaning at which you can only guess?

No, the GP isn't the only one who doesn't like this, and anyone with an interest in useful communication should feel the same way.

Re:Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35234594)

Maybe you're a social shut-in, but the rest of us understand what it means and it's part of common language now. Feel free to argue with your mirror in your mom's basement though.

Re:Math? (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35234364)

Everybody else understood perfectly that they are now estimated to be between 10% and 50% of the former estimate.

So 10x less massive = n - (1/10)n

2x less massive = n - (1/2)n

and by extension:

1/2x less massive = n - (1/(1/2))n
= n - 2n

If the terminology is used consistently, then that last step doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense how "ten times" translates to "one tenth", its inverse.

- RG>

Re:Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35234632)

So 10x less massive = n - (1/10)n

Wrong, n - (1/10)n == 90% of n

It seems you are as ignorant of math as you are an asshole about language.

Re:Math? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232424)

"2 * less" == (x * -1 * -1);
"10 * less" == (x * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1).

Is my guess.

Re:Math? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232706)

"2 * less" == (x * -1 * -1);
"10 * less" == (x * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1).

Is my guess.

huh? you might want to try that with a calculator.... ;)

Re:Math? (4, Insightful)

Xiph1980 (944189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232438)

two times less massive: 1/2 * m
ten times less massive: 1/10 * m

Really, if you want to make it in the world out there, you've gotta get off of your high pedestal, and accept that the scientific world is only a small percentage of the "regular folk" out there. Theoretically, you're right, but practically, noone cares about theory so you're screwed.

Re:Math? (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232708)

It's not even uncommon language in science, though maybe you'd be more precise when writing a paper. In this context, "times" is understood as colloquial shorthand for "by a factor of", and factors can be either multiplied or divided, depending on whether it's "greater" or "less" by that factor.

The translation from "two times less massive" to "less massive by a factor of two" is pretty straightforward and easily understood...

Re:Math? (3, Interesting)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35233034)

The translation from "two times less massive" to "less massive by a factor of two" is pretty straightforward and easily understood...

The real problem happens in the opposite direction. A star that's 200% as massive as the sun is smaller than one that's 150% more massive than the sun, but many people will give the wrong answer if asked.

Re:Math? (3, Informative)

Mr_Huber (160160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35233132)

It's also a difficulty with language. In physics, mass and weight are two separate concepts. We have comparison words for weight: heavier and lighter. But we do not necessarily have the same comparison words for mass. So we're stuck with the English default construct of more massive and less massive. Sure, we could use lighter in this context and hope everyone understands we really are discussing the concept of mass, not gravitational attractive force to the local big rock, but most physicists dislike that imprecision.

Re:Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35233346)

(previous mass estimate)*2 New mass estimate (previous mass estimate)*10

Re:Math? (1)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 3 years ago | (#35234710)

Really, if you want to make it in the world out there, you've gotta get off of your high pedestal, and accept that the scientific world is only a small percentage of the "regular folk" out there. Theoretically, you're right, but practically, noone cares about theory so you're screwed.

Scientific and mathematical language is precise for a reason, which is that both depend on long chains of rigorous reasoning, and ambiguity wastes the time of the reader at minimum. At worst, it renders the description unusable. This actually matters in science and math. For "regular folk" who just skim superficially from science as a form of entertainment, we could just as well make up something for all the difference it would make.

Your complaint reminds me of the defensive "You know what I meant!" the dumb kids in high school would exclaim when a teacher pointed out their grammatical and spelling errors which, like yours, numbered about a half-dozen every couple of sentences. Those were the same kids who would interrupt class every couple of days or so to ask if what was being taught mattered in the "real world". Unsurprisingly, it did, and it does. I used to see those guys later in life doing minimum wage yardwork until they were finally replaced by immigrant labor. I don't know what they do now. I don't really care.

The fruits of civilization, and indeed civilization itself, come from people like the OP who learn what they need to know and pay attention to the details. It's not pretension; it's competence. Remember that next time you ask one of them if they'd like fries with their order.

Re:Math? (1)

Xiph1980 (944189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35235108)

Hahahaha, you're funny!

Besides you not knowing anything about me, about my education or success, you assume that I am a burger flipper at White Castle or something. You presume that my spelling and grammatical errors are indicative of my intelligence. Well, believe what you want, but by the time your skills in Dutch, German, French and English are as good as mine, please, be free to comment on my grammatical errors. You see, not everyone comes from the land of fatties and diabetics and has English as their paternal language. I do believe that if I tried and cared enough to spend time on it, I could out-correct you on a random person's English prose. However this is a forum, neither a scientific paper nor a publisher's office.

You are utterly wrong in your assumption that those that make it out there, are the ones that pay heed to those details. The ones that actually are successful are not those that nitpick about details as mentioned above in a summary clearly not intended for the scientific public. There is absolutely nothing unique about being able to be accurate. There is however power in being able to perform this accuracy and being able to describe the processes and actions you have performed to your non-scientific managers and/or clients in such a way that they are actually able to comprehend why you took a month for a "simple calculation". A potential client cares not about the difference between a product being 200% as efficient or 200% more efficient. All he sees is that that product will be better. Learn this social aspect, and you'll be successful. Choose to remain in your scientific ignorance and you'll might be popular and successful with your peers, but the general public will find you utterly annoying for all the unasked for corrections.

Re:Math? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232588)

The pattern "x as massive" isn't the same as the pattern "x times less massive". You understand the first pattern. Now you need to learn the second pattern.

Re:Math? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232626)

Personally, I'm also bothered when I hear "5 times more". Is it 6 times as much or 5 times as much?

Re:Math? (4, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232660)

Welcome to the English language, you will notice that it is not actually a branch of Mathematics.

Re:Math? (1)

civex (1863950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35235188)

Isn't that aggravating? The holes are from 1/2 to 1/10 as massive. You _can't_ be 2 times less or 10 times less. Sheesh!

Just as I thought... (2, Funny)

listen (20464) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232372)

This shows that science is just a mass of arbitrary assertions.
This abject, craven, flip flopping about face allows me to justifiably substitute my own preferred notions into the debate as fact.
This effectively proves that global warming, vaccination, evolution, and all other liberal plots are bald faced lies.

Its an outrage! If scientists can revise their theories based on improved evidence, science is untrustworthy claptrap that must be excluded from debate.

Re:Just as I thought... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232442)

You are a bit too self-aware about it to not be joking; but it is a matter of continual puzzlement to me that so many people accord higher regard to an assertion made with certainty than to one made with explicit provision for updates in the face of new evidence.

It's just a really weird defect.

Re:Just as I thought... (4, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232562)

Certainty in a position gives people a stronger reason not to believe competing ideas. It's basic cognitive dissonance. Let's say I prepared for aliens to visit and destroy the world on a certain day [wikipedia.org]. When that doesn't happen, I can either admit I was wrong or I am uncertain about whether these aliens even exist, or I can confidently believe that the aliens spared us because of our faith. It's easier to confidently believe that AGW is a big hoax than to admit the possibility that we're causing the climate to change. It's easier to believe that evolution is not real if it causes me to question my faith in the existence of God. People will do all kinds of mental gymnastics rather than admit a truth they find emotionally disturbing. Even the lamest excuse will do. The latest is the old "the science isn't settled" when there's the least little bit of uncertainty.

Re:Just as I thought... (1)

faviann (1485273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232476)

I'd even push the thought further. Knowledge as a whole, is just a mass of arbitrary assertions. That means nothing I know can considered trustworthy! :'( At least Descartes' "Dubito ergo cogito ergo sum" allowed me to assert that I do exist. Unless...

How does this affect our long term plans? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232390)

We will colonize the Galaxy with our chemical rockets and frail bodies that give 10-20 years of useful life at best. How will this change our plans?

The real question is (5, Funny)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232408)

Will MUSE release a followup called "Not So Supermassive - Black Hole"

Re:The real question is (1)

atrain728 (1835698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232686)

That's sure to be a track on one of the next two Twilight movies' soundtracks.

Re:The real question is (2)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 3 years ago | (#35233960)

Unfortunately, with this new information, the subject of the song will actually suck less than the Twilight movies.

Glaciers refreezing in the dead of night? (1)

jdp (95845) | more than 3 years ago | (#35233970)

Will MUSE release a followup called "Not So Supermassive - Black Hole"

Or perhaps melting in the light of day? Food for thought!

Not so puny (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232444)

Despite being less dense than before, I'm pretty sure they'd still crush us all into a singularity-sized monodimensional pin dot.

Re:Not so puny (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232556)

I'm not so sure. My latest calculations show you could walk on the surface completeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

Re:Not so puny (2)

Kronon (1263422) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232680)

Treating these as classical black holes, they would only be less massive, not less dense. Classical black holes have diverging density due to collapse of a finite mass to a singularity. If you propose that black holes have internal structure then it's reasonable to suggest that differences in density could result.

Re:Not so puny (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#35234666)

Wouldn't the internal structure of a black hole vary with time - and not just trivially?

After all, it takes from now until the end of the universe for something to fall into the event horizon of a black hole, from our perspective.

Doesn't that mean that right now every black hole out there is just a neutron star with one extra electron an infinitesimal distance inside the event horizon radius? Sure, it will become a singularity - but from our perspective perhaps not before it evaporates.

Now, from the perspective of somebody falling into the black hole they'd just fall and fall and hit a singularity in the middle, or maybe they would find themselves evaporating into Hawking radiation right before they get there or something - only moments later by their measure.

Is there really anything that suggests that black holes even have to have a central structure? What if they just evaporate before they even change from the moment they form?

Phallic similarity? (1)

rockiams (12481) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232584)

I am sure there is a great joke here, but I am not witty enough to put it in words

-1 Offtopic, I know.

Anti-Phallic similarity? (1)

clonan (64380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35233076)

We are talking about black holes NOT black pillars...

Re:Anti-Phallic similarity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35234050)

Oh well, I know this is bit offtopic but im curious.

What happens when a supermassive black pillar collides with a supermassive black hole?

dark matter (2)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232694)

How would this relate to theories of dark matter? I don't know what formulas they use to determine this so would this lessen the necessity for dark matter or exacerbate the problem further (more dark matter than previously thought), if said formulas are accurate?

Re:dark matter (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232924)

Is this one of the Uranus jokes mentioned above?

2 and 10 (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232702)

2 and 10, That's not a very good re-guess. I mean it's kinda like when they say the universe is between 10 - 20 billion years old. You need to be a lot more certain, I would give them 9-10 times but 2 - 10 is just to wide a range. It would be like me saying I'm anywhere from 1 to 100 years old and being fine with that range.

When will we ever learn (1)

KnownIssues (1612961) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232716)

This should say, "Supermassive black holes are now thought to be between 2 and 10 times less massive than previously thought..." Scientists would do everyone a favor if they dropped the formula "we used to think, but now we know". Appearing to have certainty about the newest scientific model gives the impression they are little different from the religious believer.

I could have dismissed this as the reporting being at fault, but the abstract ends with "Knowing the rotational velocities, we can derive the central black-hole masses more accurately; they are two to ten times smaller than has been estimated previously."

Re:When will we ever learn (3, Insightful)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35234124)

Scientists would do everyone a favor if they dropped the formula "we used to think, but now we know".

Kinda hard to drop something that's never been used.

I could have dismissed this as the reporting being at fault, but the abstract ends with "Knowing the rotational velocities, we can derive the central black-hole masses more accurately; they are two to ten times smaller than has been estimated previously."

Emphasis added. Hope that helps with your parsing problem.

Science reporting (2)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232960)

Many around here complain that the quality of science reporting is really bad because reporters tend not to understand the science and tend to think that they have to simplify the results to what the common reader can understand. In the process the reporters use words that are interpreted differently by common people and scientists who understand the science, so communication break down.

Then we do the same. The interesting results from this paper is a relationship between the spectra of the active galatic nucleus(AGN), which we infer to be a so-called black hole, the motion of the the AGN, and the geometry of the AGN. Given the inferred rotational velocity, the mass of central black-hole can be derived. If all this is true, the mass would be at most an order of magnitude less than previously thought. An order of magnitude correction is significant. It gives us something to test to confirm the assertions of the author. OTHO, I do not see that, in the absence of further work, these results are to be taken at face value that there is an order of magnitude discrepancy in the mass of these AGN.

Things are looking up (4, Funny)

Mr_Huber (160160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35233088)

Well, it's nice to know that something in the Universe now sucks less.

Re:Things are looking up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35234090)

Maybe NAFTA can take up the slack?

this down sizing only applys to distant AGNs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35233836)

Black hole masses of those measured from nearby systems where Keplerian velocities are resolved will not shrink.

My favorite quote FTA: (2)

Sigmon (323109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35234098)

"Gas can potentially corrupt results"

Yes it can... especially on a first date.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...