Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Space Science

Supermassive Black Holes Not So Big After All 153

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the puck-will-be-disappointed dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Supermassive black holes are between 2 and 10 times less massive than previously thought, according to new calculations published by German astrophysicists (abstract)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Supermassive Black Holes Not So Big After All

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Math? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 17, 2011 @11:50AM (#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? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Mr_Huber (160160) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:26PM (#35233132) Homepage

    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.

After Goliath's defeat, giants ceased to command respect. - Freeman Dyson