Preserved Topic: Doesn't the Black Hole at the center of our galaxy deserve a good name? (Page 1 of 1)

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast29feb_1m.htm

This is fairly old news. But when I heard it for the first time, my whole cosmic pespective shifted. I think this celestial object deserves a better name than Sagittarius A, though the shortened version isn't bad - SagA. I contacted scientists involved with the discovery and found that "renaming" the object was just a wierd, unheard of request. I think I was sluffed off. Does anyone else care?

A name I came up with: Anaia - something mildly derived from Aten and Gaia.

what about calling it "Fred" ?


isn't strange that only humans have to give names to things?..

Personaly I'd perfer Bob.

Or

"the Black Hole at the center of our galaxy"

Tbhatcoog <--

everybody needs a swamp bear

Hey, what's wrong with Sagittarius, thats my sign!

What about Eunice?

Why does it have to be a man you sexist pigs!?

(edit) Hey, uh, Soc... What other kind of species might give names to things? Would we know if they did? Maybe dolphins would call it eeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e e eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.(/edit)



[This message has been edited by kretsminky (edited 07-11-2001).]

nope.



?Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative? -- Oscar Wilde

Nope that's what a mermaid would call it

Laura, because she's a vicious, life-sucking bitch from which there is no escape.

(Laura is my SO.)

Well, I guess that's the sign of the times... No one gives a shit! It's "just another" black hole. Ho-hum. Scientists discover so much that it's all boring and pointless. Yeah, so they discovered neutrinos. Woop-de-do. Big deal. Hey, wow, IBM is making a peta-flop machine. Gee, it can beat me at chess EVEN FASTER!

You know what? Forget any human emotional ritual with the black hole. Name a fucking number, for all I care. It's meaningless. Just like everything else.

exactly.


?Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative? -- Oscar Wilde

But it really isn't that important. It is just one of countless millions of celestial bodies or landmarks in our world. It's really no more significant that than the rock of Gibraltar or the corner just down the street that gets you to your favorite restaurant. It only has the meaning we wish to give it. It's fine that it has profound meaning to you personally, Meta. But for what possible reason does everyone else have to share your personal enthusiasm for such a thing as this?

>Personaly I'd perfer Bob.
>Or
>"the Black Hole at the center of our galaxy"

I like "ACG 10", which is astronomer-lingo for
"A**hole at the Center of the Galaxy, Magnitude 10",

whereby "magnitude 10" means "very dim" -

The faintest objects visible to the human eye under ideal
conditions are approximately +6 to +6.5 (although +5.5 is a
more realistic number under most situations).
The brightest star, Sirius, has an apparent magnitude of -1.46.

I considered suggesting "Galactic Butthole", but I think DL already has that one taken...

does it really matter .. we are down here it us up there .. we have a shorter life then this earth does .. so let's just live it!

CEO

Nane a number??? I already have, 3's called albert

everybody needs a swamp bear

Hey, I resent that Meta. I really do care. I think bob is a great name. I chose it with care and thought.

I resent the idea that celestial phenomenon need to be named at all. I say we name them random numbers. Why? Doesn't fucking matter either way. It's not going to make the black hole any more "human" to give it a name that we can pronounce, nor is it going to bring it any closer to being actually studied (rather than stared at with awe and ignorance). But that's just my two cents, and they aren't named--either of them. Cent and cent. One penny and one penny. Inanimate objects require no name other than what they are.

Blackholeatthecenterofthegalaxy should be called just that--the blackholeatthecenterofthegalaxy.


s t e p h e n

So this particular black hole is a little different in that it's the center of our galaxy. Mabye it does deserve a better name. But who's to say what a better name is? Or the best name for the black hole in the middle of our galaxy? Or what a meaningful name is for a black hole? rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric

:sigh:

I would just as soon go back helping name a pet turtle than get in a discussion about opinions and subjectivity.

BOB

Hmm I doubt 'Blackhole the Dickface Turtle' stands much of a chance, but it gets my support

Blackhole the Dickface Turtle it is!

wang - galactic ASShole i've got dibs on, but galactic butthole is up for grabs if you want it



?Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative? -- Oscar Wilde

Woo hoo!

name this blackhole..and someones bound to sue ya for discrimination against blackholes not at the center of the galaxy

and we'll have a modern day shakespeare with lines that go 'are we not blackholes? if you come near us, do we not suck you in? if you try to understand us, will you not pull your hair out and be balder than an egg?'

unless you name the blackhole something significant to its characteristics and position within the universe, you're going to have to come up with names for all the *other* blackholes - and then ure going to have the same problems that we have with the science of the ancients - names that are too alike each other and confusing to scientists not fluent in Latin, Greek and other obscure languages

but then again thats just my opinion


Me. Loony. 'nuff said.

The name should be bob. Okay. Okay?

You know what?

Screw you guys, i'm going home.

Hell yes. A cartman reference!!!!!

Ok, Bob it is.

Bugimus: "It only has the meaning we wish to give it. It's fine that it has profound meaning to you personally, Meta. But for what possible reason does everyone else have to share your personal enthusiasm for such a thing as this?"

Never suggested this. I was asking if perhaps some individuals MIGHT share my enthusiasm. Why should anyone else care? Because of the Mythvoid. Humans have come this far due to a culture that includes embedded need for Myth. Today, as our high-tech low-touch generations grow up in this world of Science, their common answer to this need is Quake, et al.

Now, I love Quake. In fact, I recently played Quake in "The Cave" a fully 3-D, six-walled cube room at Virginia Tech. It was amazing and fun. However, it's like consuming the empty calories of the soul - it feels good and is mighty tasty, but it's without any long-term mythological substance. I mean, I can appreciate the monstrous and otherworldy concoctions of the Quake game designers, but it's no substitute for my own personal mythological truths which I seek out.

Many people will be satisfied embracing old mythological systems. Many people will be happy to play Quake and Diablo until they die. Just not me - I am interested in filling the mythvoid with cosmic phenomenon, mathematical beauty, technological wonders, neurological nuances, etc.

And I'm not truly concerned how many others out there *aren't* like me, but it would be nice to meet those who are.



[This message has been edited by Metahedron (edited 07-13-2001).]

that is, of course, perfectly understandable.

but (you knew there'd be a 'but'), you also need to be able to accept that the rest of the world isn't just a bunch of uncaring idiots simply because they hold different things dear.

lashing out at people certainly isn't going to make them see your point of view any more clearly.

just my 37.3¢

?Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative? -- Oscar Wilde

true.

Very good points.

So I'm interested to know why this gets your juices flowing, Meta. I mean I find it fascinating and I love the topic of this black hole but I just don't have the same reaction to it as you do.

Well, it is the neareast thing to the "center of the universe" that I can relate to. There is no "center of the universe" as we know it, but there is a distinct center of our galaxy, which is marked by an object that is observable.

For many eons, the sun has been the center of the human's universe and has held an accordingly high place in our mythology. I believe that this cross-cultural tradition of sun-worship is a significant archetype that most of us share. It is evident that the influence on modern society of many generations of heliocentric ideals is strong indeed. However, although I admire the sun greatly, because of it's humble placement among the billions of other stars in our galaxy, it has lost it's godlike stature, though I still recognize it's burning presence in my psyche.

This nagging mythvoid was re-awakened when I learned of a far more magnificent celestial body at the center of our galaxy. Now, before I started filling this mythvoid with SagA, I thought about the quandry:

"If the sun has lost it's lustre due to it's commonality among billions, would not SagA receive the same treatment due to it's equally humble placement among billions of galaxies?"

Assuming, of course, that most galaxies have black holes at their center.

So, the analogy goes, "Sun=Solar System as SagA=Milky Way"

From a cosmically objective perspective, neither truly is significant.

However, from a historic/mythological human societal perspective, I felt that it was indeed significant.

After thousands of years of heliocentric development, to the point of deeply embedded collective cultural, linquistic, etc. influences, it seems that the *reason* this occured is important (and I paraphrase): "The sun was the most powerful thing in the sky. " Not discounting ideas about the "Eath as Center", I stll understand the sky's most prevalent object (the sun) to ubiquitously hold high placement in the vast majority of mythological systems.

This is where "Star Trek" comes in. I am somewhat educated about the science of the cosmos, as are many humans today, so that I understand it to be utterly vast. However, I also understand the laws of physics and have a decent grasp of what orders of magnitude really mean. The point is that I can quite easily imagine the distance from here to Tokyo. I can also easily understand the distance to the moon. Even Pluto is comprehensible. However, the very limit of my capacity to think in terms of space distance stops when you go beyond my galaxy. Even though I understand there are huge clusters of galaxies, it seems quite improbably that our intelligent life will ever get beyond ol' Milky Way. Like in "Star Trek", this galaxy is our realm from now until the forseeable future. The Solar System, we shall master. We may even get to other stars. Certainly, we will map our own galaxy quite well. However, that's about as far as we may ever really get. Even with "Warp Drive."

So, as the sun was the mightiest object within human's mental and perceptual grasp for so long, now SagA will be for a long long time, I believe. There may be a greater object yet found, but because of SagA's placement, it seems unlikely that one equal in symbolic significance will be for quite some time.

... And in a few billion years, did you know that the Milky Way will collide with Andromeda? A chance to finally explore another galaxy!

I was waiting and waiting for this thread to load so that I could also suggest the name "Bob". Why? It just seemed natural to me, what better name for a super massive black hole? I'm glad that cooler heads have won out, "Bob" it is, no?

Your pal, -doc-

Well if it were up to me I would name it STUFF but I will settle for
Bob's Stuff


~Losing is natures way of saying..you suck~



[This message has been edited by Shiiizzzam (edited 07-15-2001).]

We've moved 'ere, cwor blimey.
http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000218.html