Bekijk Volledige Versie : Mens creert leven en kloont mens
Binnenkort zal de eerste gekloonde mens geboren worden en zal ook voor het eerst een kunstmatig bacterie gemaakt worden in een laboratorium.
Weer een overwinning van de mens en de wetenschap !!!!!
:lole: :lole: :lole: :lole: :lole: :lole:
:haha:
Geplaatst door Mark
Binnenkort zal de eerste gekloonde mens geboren worden en zal ook voor het eerst een kunstmatig bacterie gemaakt worden in een laboratorium.
Weer een overwinning van de mens en de wetenschap !!!!!
:lole: :lole: :lole: :lole: :lole: :lole:
:haha:
Overwinning op wat?
En als die bacterie nu opeens heel erg gevaarlijk voor de mensheid blijkt te zijn en we allemaal binnen een maand dood zijn. Ben je dan nog zo trots? Of dood?
En klonen is geen kunst aan.
Een overwinning op ziektes en genetische afwijkingen Tomas!
Dat bacterie gaat worden gebruikt om medicijnen te vinden tegen ongeneeselijke ziektes.
En het zal de wereld niet vernietigen, aangezien het buiten speciale lab condities onmiddelijk zal sterven.
:fpetaf:
Geplaatst door Mark
Een overwinning op ziektes en genetische afwijkingen: Tomas!
Dank je.
Dat bacterie gaat worden gebruikt om medicijnen te vinden tegen ongeneeselijke ziektes.
Oh. Ik dacht dat het om een eerste experiment ging en dat ze daarom een hele simpele bacterie namen als. Weinig genen enzo.
En het zal de wereld niet vernietigen, aangezien het buiten speciale lab condities onmiddelijk zal sterven.
Ja, ik weet dat het een kinderfilm was, maar toch Jurasicpark geeft wel een klein beetje aan wat dat betekent.
Een simpele bacterie kan achteraf ook klinken als: Kut, door zijn eenvoud is het onvernietigbaar en vermenigvuldigd het zichzelf als een bezetene!!
Geplaatst door Tomas
Dank je.
Oh. Ik dacht dat het om een eerste experiment ging en dat ze daarom een hele simpele bacterie namen als. Weinig genen enzo.
Ja, ik weet dat het een kinderfilm was, maar toch Jurasicpark geeft wel een klein beetje aan wat dat betekent.
Een simpele bacterie kan achteraf ook klinken als: Kut, door zijn eenvoud is het onvernietigbaar en vermenigvuldigd het zichzelf als een bezetene!!
We moeten hoe dan ook het risico nemen! Live life on the edge Tomas ;)
Net als bij die eerste waterstofbom, toen wisten ze ook niet zeker of ze de hele atmosfeer zouden vernietigen :haha: :haha: En dat was me een mooie knal :duim:
Zo en met die gedachte ga ik lekker slapen, truste!
Geplaatst door Mark
We moeten hoe dan ook het risico nemen! Live life on the edge Tomas ;)
Net als bij die eerste waterstofbom, toen wisten ze ook niet zeker of ze de hele atmosfeer zouden vernietigen :haha: :haha: En dat was me een mooie knal :duim:
Zo en met die gedachte ga ik lekker slapen, truste!
Trustu.
En droom van veel gevaarlijke experimenten, zoals b.v. het stationeren van een zwartgat in het centrum van de aarde.
Ik geloof oprecht dat "zwarte gaten" een potentiële energie bron zijn trouwens. Veel stabieler dan olie en gratisch.
Zwarte gaten? Daar heb je inmiddels al een (weliswaar slechte) film van: The Void (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0289605)
en niet te vergeten de sf-serie: Odyssey 5.
Mark: Een overwinning op ziektes en genetische afwijkingen Tomas!
Dat bacterie gaat worden gebruikt om medicijnen te vinden tegen ongeneeselijke ziektes.
En het zal de wereld niet vernietigen, aangezien het buiten speciale lab condities onmiddelijk zal sterven.
Lol overwinning op ziektes. Overwinning op ziekte is dat je ZIEK WORDT en je lichaam in opstand komt tegen de ziekte. Een medicijntje, en dan ook nog uit gemanipuleerde bron tjsa. Wat een overwinning... NOT.
ma·ni·pu·´la·tie (de ~ (v.))
1 het toepassen van kunstgrepen, meestal om iem. te bedriegen
2 het ongemerkt beďnvloeden
Als genetische manupulatie echt zulke nobele doelen diende hadden ze het niet zo moeten noemen.
Geplaatst door barfly
Ik geloof oprecht dat "zwarte gaten" een potentiële energie bron zijn trouwens. Veel stabieler dan olie en gratisch.
AAAAAAARGGGGGGGGGGGG
Stel je laat een electrischgeladen micro zwartgat uit z'n magnetisch fluxveld flikkeren. Wat gebeurt er dan?
Nouja liever dood door een zwart gat dan een pijnlijke dood door weet ik wat, gezwelletjes?
Geplaatst door Tomas
AAAAAAARGGGGGGGGGGGG
Stel je laat een electrischgeladen micro zwartgat uit z'n magnetisch fluxveld flikkeren. Wat gebeurt er dan?
Niets, want een zwart gat is eenvoudig op te sluiten in een anti-gravitatie veld! En ander loos ik de warp-coile :p
Geplaatst door barfly
Niets, want een zwart gat is eenvoudig op te sluiten in een anti-gravitatie veld! En ander loos ik de warp-coile :p
Who needs zwartegaten, if you can have anti-gravitatie-velden?!
Geplaatst door Tomas
Who needs zwartegaten, if you can have anti-gravitatie-velden?!
Ehm geen idee :)
Geplaatst door barfly
Ehm geen idee :)
Laat dit een les voor je zijn geweest.
Klonen is geen kunst aan idd. Monoculturen zijn zo'n fantantische uitvinding daar lusten de honden geen brood van. :rolleyes:
“ARTIFICIAL BACTERIA”—
HAVE SCIENTISTS CREATED LIFE?
by
Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
Not once have scientists ever observed it happening—but almost all of them hold fast to the concept that nonliving material gave rise to living material. If their cherished evolutionary theory is correct, then spontaneous generation must have occurred at some point in the distant past. George Wald, Nobel Laureate of Harvard University, once stated: “Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation” (see Bowen, 1979, pp. 287-306, emp. added). As such, our classrooms and textbooks still contain the false idea that scientists have created life.
The most famous example is the 1953 experiment carried out by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey. Using a system of glass flasks, Miller and Urey attempted to simulate “early atmospheric conditions.” They passed an electrical spark through a mixture of water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. However, their experiment was carried out in the absence of oxygen (something evolutionists now admit does not reflect the early Earth’s atmosphere), because they knew that oxygen quickly would oxidize any amino acids that were formed. At the bottom of the apparatus was a trap to capture any molecules produced by the reaction. This trap prevented the newly formed chemicals from being destroyed by the next electrical discharge. On the first attempt, after a week of electrical discharges in the reaction chamber the sides of the chamber turned black and the liquid mixture turned a cloudy red. The predominant product was a sticky, black substance made up of countless carbon atoms strung together in what was essentially tar (a common nuisance in organic reactions). Miller was able to produce a mixture containing two simple amino acids—the building blocks of proteins. Yet the highly praised Miller-Urey experiment did not produce any of the fundamental building blocks of life itself. It produced 85% tar, 13% carbolic acid, 1.05% glycine, 0.85% alanine, and trace amounts of other chemicals.
One article on this subject in the respected Encyclopaedia Britannica affirmed that modern findings “pose grave difficulties” for spontaneous generation theories once supported by the Miller-Urey experiment. The article went on to state: “…due to a rapid and efficient photochemical consumption of CH4 and NH3, a methane-ammonia atmosphere would have a maximum lifetime of about 1,000,000 years. This finding is of interest because it has been suggested that life originated from mixtures of organic compounds synthesized by non-biological reactions starting from methane and ammonia. Recognition of the short atmospheric lifetimes of these materials poses grave difficulties for such a theory” (see Encyclopaedia Britannica). Many scientists now believe that the Earth’s early atmosphere would have made the synthesis of organic molecules virtually impossible under conditions simulated in the Miller-Urey experiment. For example, NASA has reported that a “reducing atmosphere” never has existed, although the experiment assume one (Levine, 1983). Scientists also now realize that the ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is destructive to any developing life. Regarding the products of the Miller-Urey experiment, evolutionist Robert Shapiro stated: “Let us sum up. The experiment performed by Miller yielded tar as its most abundant product. There are about fifty small organic compounds that are called ‘building blocks.’ Only two of these fifty occurred among the preferential Miller-Urey products” (1986, p. 105).
However, more recent discoveries once again have evolutionists clamoring that life has been “created.” In the June 16, 2000 issue of Science, Gerard Wong and colleagues reported a mechanism by which chemicals can spontaneously self-assemble themselves into ribbon-like tubules that resemble bacterial cell walls (288: 2035). This discovery has led some to suggest that “artificial bacteria” were created—when, in fact, they were not! The researchers simply mixed actin with special liposomes to make actin-membrane capsules, which is a gargantuan step from “creating life.” Actin is a protein that provides the structural framework for cells. The actin molecule does not possess DNA, it does not actively metabolize, and it does not reproduce. It is therefore a far cry from being “living.” Spontaneous organization does not equal spontaneous generation. So while this composite membrane is indeed similar to the plasma membrane that surrounds most cells—due to the fact that it can organize itself into three different layers, including a middle lipid layer—it has none of the qualities scientists use to identify life.
In a similar study, Jeffrey Hartgerink and colleagues reported that they had made self-assembling synthetic bone (2001). Using pH-induced self-assembly, these scientists have been able to form a composite that may one day be able to replace diseased bone tissue. These synthetic molecules assemble into fibers that “coax” minerals into growing on top of them—bringing us closer to better prosthetic devices. News services were quick to describe this discovery as “man-made bone.” However, even if scientists were able to manufacture bone tissue, that in and of itself is not “life.” A bone lying on a stainless steel table is of little use in the quest to form living material from nonliving material. Artificial bone is not able to reproduce itself, and without a blood supply it quickly dies. A close inspection of the report reveals that the bonds within this fibrous matrix can be reversed (by reducing the disulfides back into thiols). Does this sound like any living tissue with which you are familiar? The fact is, life always comes from life—a fact that nails the lid shut on the coffin in which evolutionary theory rests.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2002/dc-02-06.htm
Life is Induced Only by the Creator Himself. Life is beyond knowledge of the Human Being en will always be so although the unbelievers sometimes try to twist the truth. They will never ever be able to create life from dead-material.
De Rode Roos
02-12-02, 00:30
Geplaatst door Wizdom
Life is Induced Only by the Creator Himself. Life is beyond knowledge of the Human Being en will always be so although the unbelievers sometimes try to twist the truth. They will never ever be able to create life from dead-material.
Een computer? Een robot? Tekenfilmfiguren?
Wat is jouw definitie van leven?
http://www.vandale.nl
U hebt gezocht op: leven
RESULTAAT (maximaal 20 woorden)
´le·ven1 (het ~)
1 complex van eigenschappen en functies van een organisme, dat er voor zorgt dat dat organisme blijft voortbestaan
2 iemands bestaan van zijn geboorte tot zijn dood => levensduur
3 levenswijze
4 geheel van verschijnselen en werkzaamheden in een bepaalde kring
5 drukte, rumoer
6 het bestaan van prostituee
7 het vlezige, gevoelige deel van het dierlijk of plantaardig lichaam
´le·ven2
I {onov.ww.}
1 (van organische wezens) zich in de toestand bevinden waarin de verschillende functies en eigenschappen die te zamen het leven vormen aanwezig zijn => nog in het land der levenden zijn
2 (van zaken en voorstellingen) bestaan, niet verloren gegaan zijn
3 (met 'van') zich in leven houden, zich voeden met
4 zijn leven op een bepaalde manier inrichten, doorbrengen
5 zich bewegen, in beweging zijn
II {ov.ww.}
1 zo'n leven leiden als wordt aangegeven
Leuk die hotmail meespiek hack die ik ontdekt heb, zat even rond te snuffelen en zag dat iemand een mailtje met volgende website aan het sturen was, toevallig wel erg toepasselijk :D
http://biological.ws/
Is dat wat je bedoelde Rode Roos?
Dat is meer de illusie van leven nietwaar?
Geplaatst door mrz
Als genetische manupulatie echt zulke nobele doelen diende hadden ze het niet zo moeten noemen.
Genetische modificatie ;)
Ja dat is de gemanipuleerde naam...
Why it's a real revolution in biology and genetics
by Irwin D. Bross, PhD
The human genome projects have produced a revolution in human genetics with their first major finding: There are about 30,000 human genes. While at first this did not seem world-shaking, it gradually made three points clear:
1. Gene scientists have played God but done a terrible job of it. They were dead wrong about the evolutionary strategy for the creation of living organisms-- including human beings. Their elitism and anthropomorphism have saddled biology with a whole series of false doctrines that students will have to unlearn. For instance, it has long been thought that each gene contained the instructions for one protein, and therefore the genome search would turn up more than 100,000 human genes (with 100,000 corresponding proteins). Now we have to admit that the low number of human genes and their lack of uniqueness has opened up new possibilities. A single gene might be used by a cell to make several proteins, perhaps by modifying the protein after it's made. The dogmatism of gene scientists has prevented serious study (or even serious consideration) of the how human proteins are manufactured.
2. It is now clear that those "scientists" who got media coverage for several years by claiming that once the human genome map was finished, biotechnology could prevent or cure all of the human diseases were (a) totally stupid or (b) were deliberately raising false hopes in the American public as a ploy for grantsmanship. Only now is it possible for Stanley Fields, a geneticist at the University of Washington to say this: ''Deciphering how even [10 million] nucleotides [DNA building blocks] results in a yeast cell - let alone how [3 billion] nucleotides results in Tiger Woods or Britney Spears - only begins with studying the genes and proteins individually. Understanding how all of these proteins collaborate to carry out cellular processes is the real enterprise at hand.'' This is not what those who worship at the altars of biotechnology have been saying (e.g., We will be turning out wonder drugs for all human diseases tomorrow).
3. What medical progress can be made during the several decades of basic research that will be required to replace the false theories by valid ones? The false prophets urge rushing into the "rude empiric" human experiments promoted by biotechnology. The 30,000 genes suggest that we should be doing clinical studies of diseases like human leukemia to develop deep mathematical models, validated by the clinical data, that could bridge the current gap between basic protein chemistry and the events recorded in computerized medical records. As a start, a mathematical model which explains the cyclic patterns in the blood of patients with this disease was created by Leslie Blumenson and me three decades ago. When we understand the processes in leukemia, we will have a much better chance of curing it.
In sum, the first major finding of human genome projects has already destroyed false theories that have blocked genuine scientific research in medicine and biology. Good riddance. If science returns to the real world for its inspiration, we can get rid of the hype and exaggerated claims "in the Name of Science". This kind of quackery has denied the American public-and especially patients with chronic disease-the benefits of genuine scientific medical research.
Dr Irwin D Bross is the president of
Biomedical Metatechnology, Inc.
109 Maynard Drive
Amherst NY 14226
http://www.linkny.com/~civitas/page311.html[/url]
http://www.health.org.nz/cancer.html
CANCER
Readers should question the credentials of the publishers of ARSL who claim that the prevention and cure of cancer is to be found through vivisection. An increasing amount of medical evidence and an overwhelming number of doctors and scientists are saying that vivisection causes cancer. That the prevention of cancer means abolishing the products of vivisection.
Knowledge of cancer causation by chemicals originates from clinical observations, in 1775, of chimney sweeps. According to the World Health Organisation at least 80%-90% of cancer deaths are due to environmental poisons, including industrial chemicals, factory emissions, nuclear power-plants, automobile exhaust, gas-powered engines, incinerators, plastics, diet, as well as to reproductive behaviour, and various elements of lifestyle and culture. Carcinogenic material is now in the air we breathe, in the food we eat, the water we drink, the medicines we take, including X-rays, the list is endless. It is said that with effort at least 50%-60% of carcinogens could be eliminated from our environment.
Environmental tragedies of every conceivable nature are now commonplace and occurring at a level never before in history. Radio N.Z. News, January 26 1991, announced that on the ninth day of the war in the Middle East the deliberate spilling of oil into the sea as a military measure would cause pollution exceeding five times that of the Exxon Valdez disaster, as did the U.S.S.R. rocket fuel spill which killed over 100,000 seals and millions of cod, flatfish and starfish in the White Sea. Does ARSL seriously expect us to believe that by cutting up animals the cancers let loose in these disasters can be prevented? Almost on a daily basis toxic chemical spills are reported widely in the media. At time of writing this article on January 3 1992 the N.Z. Herald headline article reads: "After-Effects of Chemical Spill Rip Town Apart". Such reports are now so numerous one flicks the page without giving it a second thought.
"Unfortunately, we shall only learn the effect of thousands of chemical preparations on our health some time in the future, for they only emerge slowly in the course of time by accumulation."
(Dr John Higginson, Director of the Intl Office for Cancer Research, Corriere Della Sera, Milan, October 22 1974.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It has been estimated that as much as ninety percent of all human cancers are influenced by environmental hazards. The way to stop useless and unnecessary animal experimentation is simply to make it unprofitable; eliminate the funding by the government agencies, or eliminate the agencies... money talks. If the flow of the taxpayer dollars that supports the foolish and cruel and dangerous practices of official science is cut off, these practices will stop."
(Dr Irwin D. Bross, President of Biomedical Meta-Technology, Inc., U.S.A.)
Geplaatst door Mark
Binnenkort zal de eerste gekloonde mens geboren worden
Kan ik vast een bestelling plaatsen?
Graag 6 stuks Robbie Williams, volgroeid, per expres naar mijn adres.
Bij voorbaat dank.
Geplaatst door mrz
Ja dat is de gemanipuleerde naam...
http://www.linkny.com/~civitas/page311.html[/url]
Hehe. Doe ff normaal, wil je. :D
Sorry dat ik er een grapje van maak, maar die meneer Bross zegt af en toe toch wel interessante dingen.
Of Mice and Men
Cancer research scientist Irwin D.J. Bross, Ph.D., director of biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in New York, attributes the public's lack of knowledge about cancer to misleading animal studies: "Not a single new drug for the treatment of human cancer was first picked up by an animal model system...the results of animal model systems for drugs or other modalities have done nothing but confuse and mislead the cancer researchers who have tried to extrapolate from mice to man. Moreover, when they have been used to guide clinical research they have sent investigators on one long and costly wild goose chase after another. Thus, scientifically speaking, the animal studies are a fraud. Privately, they [vivisectors] will concede that animal models don't work, but they shrug this off because nothing works."(7)
http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fsae10.html
public should have their say
Irwin D. Bross
President
Biomedical Metatechnology Inc.
109 Maynard Drive Amherst
NY 14226 USA
[email protected]
In the Nature debate on "free" web publication policies, one of the parties with a big stake in the matter is rarely heard from: the informed general public who are not scientists or other professionals. Although I have been a health scientist for more than half a century, I think that I can speak for this group in the debate since nowadays most of my contacts are with persons who think of themselves as "concerned citizens" or "grass roots health activists".
Since many of the scientists who read Nature seem to be unreconstructed elitists, they might question whether the voice of the public should even be heard in what they regard as a private discussion between interested parties. They may wonder: why should the general public be involved in scientific matters that don't concern them?
My answer to this question is: the interests of the public may be ignored but the public certainly has a stake in whatever decisions are eventually made on free access to scientific information. First, as taxpayers or corporate customers, they have already paid directly or indirectly for most of the content that is under discussion so that they are entitled to it. Second, they are often voluntary or involuntary participants in what are supposed to be scientific or clinical experiments. As such, they have often been the victims of bad science or have been exploited by professionals who are looking after their own self-interests and couldn't care less about the public interest. The public has the right to know about scientific issues.
Scientific societies and their journals naturally act in their own self-interests (or in the interests of in-groups that control the organizations. This is normal human behaviour; modern science - as a human enterprise - cannot be condemned for acting in this fashion. However scientists can (and, I believe, should) be condemned for (1) unjustifiable claims that they speak "in the name of science", (2) the pretence that they are speaking for the public or the public health, and (3) unwarranted claims that they have special rights or ownership of scientific information or knowledge.
Publication of scientific information on internet makes it part of the traditional information stream of modern science and, as such, in the public domain. Words can be copyrighted and the use of specific text restricted. However, it is contrary to the traditions of modern empirical science and very much against the public interest to put restrictions on any information that is in the public domain.
If scientists or their masters want to keep their work secret, they can do so. If they get Public Relations benefits however, they have to put it in the public domain. They have free choice - they can have one or the other but they cannot have both.
Since secret material is not the subject of the current "debate", this means that all of the discussion about protecting the self-interests of the participants in the debate is largely irrelevant. For the kind of content under discussion, the public interest is overriding.
Speaking on behalf of the informed general public, the first principle for judging alternative proposals in this debate is: does this proposal enhance the opportunity of the general public to get new scientific information in a timely and accurate manner? Does it provide this information in a language which is comprehensible to persons who are not native speakers of scientific or technical languages?
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/webdebdata/webdebate.taf?format=single&KEY=45
En minder interessante:
Suicide bombers today's version of old weapo
Dear Editor:
The concept of separation between church and state, basic in the American constitution, generally is recognized in all the technologically advanced countries on the planet as essential to a democracy. However, this concept does not appear in the Koran or in any Islamic religion.
In particular, the concept of freedom of religion is rejected or even disallowed in Arabic countries ruled by fundamentalist Islamic clerics. Thus, there is no separation of church and state or freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia, a nation run by fundamentalist Wahhabi clerics.
Politically correct, well-meaning, good-hearted people who "see no evil" in fundamentalist Islamic religions either are ignorant of the historical facts or are ideologically insulated from the real world. Assassins are not new; suicide bombers are merely the modern version of this ancient weapon. For centuries, fundamentalist Islamic religions preaching jihads against infidels used assassins as their primary weapon against their enemies (including their Islamic enemies).
Are Americans and other citizens of non-Arabic countries willing to live under a constant threat of suicide bombers, as do Israeli civilians? Do they always want to be afraid of becoming victims of suicide bombers as they go about their everyday business or pleasure? If not, they must realize that freedom of religion has limits and that Islamic religions encouraging the murder of "infidels" go far beyond those limits. Modern technology in the hands of fanatics is too dangerous to tolerate. The continued existence into the 21st Century of such fanatics must be ended.
Irwin D. Bross, Ph.D., President
Biomedical]Metatechnology, Inc.
109 Maynard Drive
Amherst, NY 14226
http://www.tnonline.com/archives/news/2002/04.18/letters.html
Over zwarte gaten gesproken waarom ons eigenlijk nog zorgen maken, de messias komt er al aan:
Black to Swallow Planet Earth
A monstrous black hole was discovered six thousand light years far from the Earth
Is there an absolute evil deed in the world? Is there the absolute evil, like the absolute zero of temperature, the symbol of death and stillness, when there is not even a small vestige of any movement? The absolute and perfect evil is the black hole. Any kind of disaster pales in comparison with a black hole. A black hole devours everything in its path in a blink of an eye.
The horrid black hole called GRO J1655-40 is approaching planet Earth with great strides. It might swallow our Sun, like a huge crocodile. This black hole was discovered by the American space telescope Hubble. This telescope has already made a lot of discoveries, which has allowed mankind to push the boundaries of the knowledge of the Universe further. However, the Hubble’s latest discovery is something that is not pleasant to know, and bad piece of news makes its messenger bad as well. People will definitely hate that damned American Hubble and its discoveries.
It might seem ridiculous to say that the Sun, which has a radius of 700 thousand kilometers, can be squeezed to the size of a soccer ball. Yet, this is exactly what happens to a star that turns into a black hole. Its gravity is monstrous, and it cannot be subdued by the fastest physical body, not even by a ray of light. A black hole is a place from which nothing returns, ever.
A black hole is absolutely invisible. It is totally insatiable. Scientists’ calculations show that a black hole weighing one billion tons (the weight of a mountain) would have the radius of 10(-13). This is the size of a neutron or of a proton. Describing the things that happen as you fall into a black hole is very similar to a horror movie.
This invincible black hole is moving towards the Earth from the constellation of Scorpio. At the present moment, this space monster is six thousand light years far from the planet. It is moving towards the Earth at a rate of 400 thousand kilometers an hour. Scientist Vadim Pimenov said that it is the first of all discovered black holes moving towards out Galaxy very fast. “This is an impressive discovery, because its speed confirms its connection with a Supernova explosion. Scientists from the Institute of Astrophysics in Germany have recently discovered the largest of all black holes next to the solar system. Therefore, there are many black holes objects in the Universe.
This is good news, is it not? It’s like learning that there is a blood-thirsty killer living next door to you. This news gets even worse, because every black hole is invisible. It is not easy to find a black hole in space. Scientists have compared the pictures that the Hubble telescope took with other data. This allowed them to calculate the speed and the trajectory of a black hole’s movement in the Galaxy.
The hole is called GRO J1655-40. It gradually devours a star next to it, absorbing gas from it and becoming bigger and bigger. This process creates a reaction jet, like in a blowpipe. A reaction jet moves away from a black hole at a speed comparable to the speed of light. Astrophysicists call this effect a microquasar – a diminished model of a black hole that live in the nucleus of most active galaxies, known as quasars. This is the second microquasar in the Milky Way.
If a black holes gets close to a star, it destroys it without any vestige of pity or mercy. Is there any way to avoid this? There are some ideas, but hopes are rather vague for the time being. However, a black hole opens up very interesting possibilities for distant journeys in space. If there is an object called a black hole, where everything disappears, there should be an object called a white hole, in which nothing can fall. In other words, the idea goes that, if you jump into a black hole in one place, you will fall out of a white hole in another spot. Is it insane? Not according to Einstein's relativity theory. Needless to mention, such theories are only theories. The path from a black hole to a white hole might be shut down on account of slight perturbation. Yet, there might be such a path, although it would be more risky than jumping off a building.
Jumping from a high altitude was equal to suicide until the invention of a parachute. Diving in the depth of the ocean was impossible until the invention of the aqualung. Will humanity manage to fall into a black hole and jump out of it in another Galaxy?