Black hole with the mass of 17 billion suns discovered

This computer-simulated image shows a supermassive black hole at the core of a galaxy. The black region in the center represents the black hole's event horizon, where no light can escape the massive object's gravitational grip. The black hole's powerful gravity distorts space around it like a funhouse mirror. Light from background stars is stretched and smeared as the stars skim by the black hole. CREDIT Credits: NASA, ESA, and D. Coe, J. Anderson, and R. van der Marel (STScI)

This computer-simulated image shows a supermassive black hole at the core of a galaxy. The black region in the center represents the black hole’s event horizon, where no light can escape the massive object’s gravitational grip. The black hole’s powerful gravity distorts space around it like a funhouse mirror. Light from background stars is stretched and smeared as the stars skim by the black hole. Credits: NASA, ESA, and D. Coe, J. Anderson, and R. van der Marel (STScI)

From NASA Goddard:

Behemoth black hole found in an unlikely place

Astronomers have uncovered a near-record breaking supermassive black hole, weighing 17 billion suns, in an unlikely place: in the center of a galaxy in a sparsely populated area of the universe. The observations, made by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and the Gemini Telescope in Hawaii, may indicate that these monster objects may be more common than once thought.

Until now, the biggest supermassive black holes – those roughly 10 billion times the mass of our sun – have been found at the cores of very large galaxies in regions of the universe packed with other large galaxies. In fact, the current record holder tips the scale at 21 billion suns and resides in the crowded Coma galaxy cluster that consists of over 1,000 galaxies.

“The newly discovered supersized black hole resides in the center of a massive elliptical galaxy, NGC 1600, located in a cosmic backwater, a small grouping of 20 or so galaxies,” said lead discoverer Chung-Pei Ma, a University of California-Berkeley astronomer and head of the MASSIVE Survey, a study of the most massive galaxies and supermassive black holes in the local universe. While finding a gigantic black hole in a massive galaxy in a crowded area of the universe is to be expected – like running across a skyscraper in Manhattan – it seemed less likely they could be found in the universe’s small towns.

“There are quite a few galaxies the size of NGC 1600 that reside in average-size galaxy groups,” Ma said. “We estimate that these smaller groups are about 50 times more abundant than spectacular galaxy clusters like the Coma cluster. So the question now is, ‘Is this the tip of an iceberg?’ Maybe there are more monster black holes out there that don’t live in a skyscraper in Manhattan, but in a tall building somewhere in the Midwestern plains.”

The researchers also were surprised to discover that the black hole is 10 times more massive than they had predicted for a galaxy of this mass. Based on previous Hubble surveys of black holes, astronomers had developed a correlation between a black hole’s mass and the mass of its host galaxy’s central bulge of stars – the larger the galaxy bulge, the proportionally more massive the black hole. But for galaxy NGC 1600, the giant black hole’s mass far overshadows the mass of its relatively sparse bulge. “It appears that that relation does not work very well with extremely massive black holes; they are a larger fraction of the host galaxy’s mass,” Ma said.

Ma and her colleagues are reporting the discovery of the black hole, which is located about 200 million light years from Earth in the direction of the constellation Eridanus, in the April 6 issue of the journal Nature. Jens Thomas of the Max Planck-Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Garching, Germany is the paper’s lead author.

One idea to explain the black hole’s monster size is that it merged with another black hole long ago when galaxy interactions were more frequent. When two galaxies merge, their central black holes settle into the core of the new galaxy and orbit each other. Stars falling near the binary black hole, depending on their speed and trajectory, can actually rob momentum from the whirling pair and pick up enough velocity to escape from the galaxy’s core. This gravitational interaction causes the black holes to slowly move closer together, eventually merging to form an even larger black hole. The supermassive black hole then continues to grow by gobbling up gas funneled to the core by galaxy collisions. “To become this massive, the black hole would have had a very voracious phase during which it devoured lots of gas,” Ma said.

The frequent meals consumed by NGC 1600 may also be the reason why the galaxy resides in a small town, with few galactic neighbors. NGC 1600 is the most dominant galaxy in its galactic group, at least three times brighter than its neighbors. “Other groups like this rarely have such a large luminosity gap between the brightest and the second brightest galaxies,” Ma said.

Most of the galaxy’s gas was consumed long ago when the black hole blazed as a brilliant quasar from material streaming into it that was heated into a glowing plasma. “Now, the black hole is a sleeping giant,” Ma said. “The only way we found it was by measuring the velocities of stars near it, which are strongly influenced by the gravity of the black hole. The velocity measurements give us an estimate of the black hole’s mass.”

The velocity measurements were made by the Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph (GMOS) on the Gemini North 8-meter telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii. GMOS spectroscopically dissected the light from the galaxy’s center, revealing stars within 3,000 light-years of the core. Some of these stars are circling around the black hole and avoiding close encounters. However, stars moving on a straighter path away from the core suggest that they had ventured closer to the center and had been slung away, most likely by the twin black holes.

Archival Hubble images, taken by the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS), supports the idea of twin black holes pushing stars away. The NICMOS images revealed that the galaxy’s core was unusually faint, indicating a lack of stars close to the galactic center. A star-depleted core distinguishes massive galaxies from standard elliptical galaxies, which are much brighter in their centers. Ma and her colleagues estimated that the amount of stars tossed out of the central region equals 40 billion suns, comparable to ejecting the entire disk of our Milky Way galaxy.

###

For more information, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/hubble http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2016/12/

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

NASA still does space science? I would never guess 🙂

Muslim outreach.

You mean GISS!?

PaulH

Maybe that’s where the missing heat is.
/snark
Seriously, it’s a reminder of just how small we are in this grand universe.

David A

Well, certainly some of the missing matter if they are often one magnitude off in black hole mass estimates.

Bruce Cobb

What does Pa say about it?

Marcus

..You better ask Ma, she’s the real boss !

3¢worth

It sounds like Ma has found a different Kettle of fish.

george e. smith

That’s billion with a B.
g

Roger Bournival

Now we know where that missing Malaysian Airlines plane is…

JJM Gommers

Not in area of small towns, probably the rest was already eaten up.

commieBob

Indeed. Why would a black hole not clear out a large area of space.
I don’t recall hearing about the velocity of a black hole but everything in space moves at some velocity. Is it possible that it moved from somewhere else?

Tucci78

And of course the Puppeteer fleet of worlds – five planets arrayed in a Klemperer rosette – are fleeing therefrom at just under light speed using the reactionless, inertialess drive they’d purchased from the Outsiders.

Analitik

But they said this galactic core is imploding, not exploding.

Mark

THEY HAVE NOT DISCOVERED A BLACK HOLE, they discover effects they interpret as a black hole.
A world of difference.
Sorry for shouting

Gloateus Maximus

Mark,
What interpretation would you put on the stellar velocity measurements? Is there another plausible explanation?

Michael J. Dunn

It is a mark of arrogance (and maybe fear) to think we have all the answers. Sometimes, the most appropriate response to an observation is to admit we have no explanation. But there are those who are desperate to have an “explanation,” no matter what, no matter how dubious, no matter how speculative. These people are psychologically incapable of accepting that, on some point of life, they are ignorant.

Gloateus Maximus

Michael,
When physical observations confirm predictions, science is being practiced. When surprising results are found, that too is science.
I wouldn’t characterize Ma and her colleagues as desperate for an explanation.

So when they see a dozen or so stars in orbit around an invisible optical object that has a mass of over 4 million solar masses , in a space that’s not much bigger than the solar system, all in orbits they could trace out in a couple decades, what would you actually call it?

From the caption, “This computer-simulated image shows a super massive black hole”.
does that explain it?

” does that explain it?”
There’s been some good discover channel shows that discuss the hunt for the smbh at the center of the milky way, and how they came to the conclusion a very massive object there, that is not visible, as compared to the stars they can see orbiting said object.
Such a scene might look like the picture.

I think modern scientists could take some pointers from Newton who refused to try and explain something he did not know. He gave us the tools to predict gravity, but did not try to create a mechanism when he had no basis for one.

Rob Morrow

Newton was an alchemist who believed aether transmitted light particles. He probably believed in phlogiston too. Check your history, dude.
The theoretical basis for black holes is much more sound, based on a couple centuries of scientific inquiry yielding knowledge of the fundamental interactions. Perhaps you think there’s no basis for the strong and weak nuclear forces too…

Gloateus Maximus

He also believed the Earth was only about 6000 years old. Wrote a whole book on the topic of biblical chronology.

Alan Ranger

If we use Newton’s very own Laws, we would conclude (using micro6500’s example) that “a dozen or so stars in orbit around an invisible optical object that has a mass of over 4 million solar masses , in a space that’s not much bigger than the solar system, all in orbits they could trace out in a couple decades, what would you actually call it? [that invisible object]”. Whatever name you decide on, it’s an incredibly intense gravity source which fits the classical model of a …. black hole.

expat

Considering we (currently) can only account for 4% of the visible universe’s mass and energy I’d say we’ve a long way to go. Naming something black doesn’t really cut it does it? Personally I’d call it the fudge factor. Be more accurate. When future physicists finally do figure it out they’ll cal this period the Dark Ages.

Ten

The replies to your comment notwithstanding, as time passes we see more credence given to Newton’s theories than Einstein’s. I don’t expect that trajectory to change. Black holes are placeholders for a purported relativistic phenomenon that, for the last century or so, defied science’s ironclad insistence on testability, falsifiability, and uniformity, not to mention common sense, none of which “black holes” – or cultish relativism – are particularly faithful at. There are simpler, better explanations for a variety of phenomena, among them black holes, creation myths about spontaneous existence, red shift, and more. We used to remember that there are a profound differences between science and scientism.

JohnKnight

Rob,
“Newton was an alchemist who believed aether transmitted light particles.”
Whereas you believe . . ? What? What’s your solution?
“More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it…”
“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.”
~ Albert Einstein

Ten

“Newton was an alchemist who believed aether transmitted light particles”, against which official religious Science! of hundreds of years of further Scientific! experience believes that the non-entity of “spacetime” can be bent, warped, and possesses refractive properties as though it were transparent putty! And through which relativistic theory, also highly Scientific!, says “spooky” actions occur at vast distances virtually instantaneously. So which is it: Is the mad alchemist on to something speaking of aether, or are we daft ascribing it properties our own theories claim it cannot have?.

Rob Morrow

JohnKnight,
I’m no Einstein, but that quote seems to me little more than an equivocation saying “space is space” and not devoid of it’s own physical properties. I don’t disagree with that. Newton clearly was on to something, but relativity doesn’t require all space to be filled with an aetherial substance of varying density.

Rob Morrow

And John,
I certainly do not believe in alchemy. Do you?

JohnKnight

Rob,
You must be young . .
“I’m no Einstein, but that quote seems to me little more than an equivocation saying “space is space” and not devoid of it’s own physical properties.”
What does that mean; “space is space”? That’s not not scientific anything . . seriously . . read his words again;
“According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time …”
“Space” is not empty . .
‘”I certainly do not believe in alchemy. Do you?”
Sure . . you’ve heard of fission and fusion, right?

” “According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time …”
“Space” is not empty . .”
A two’fer!
There’s no evidence of an ether.
Light, is an electric and magnetic field that will charge a vacuum. The Michelson Morley Experiment, explains things.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html

JohnKnight

No insult intended, but I’m inclined to believe Mr.s Newton and Einstein, micro.

” No insult intended, but I’m inclined to believe Mr.s Newton and Einstein, micro.”
None taken, but Einstein proposed an aether, not an ether, and it seems to me Relativity iirc, did away with ether.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory

Ten

“There’s no evidence of an ether.” Then there’s no evidence of black holes and a half dozen other completely speculative or downright conjectured “scientific” phenomenon, all of which placehold – using varying wild, fanciful notions like imaginary matter and spooky actions – either. You can’t say there’s no evidence of something that only you or your cohort lay claim to when you haven’t sufficiently defined what that is. Given the wild notions that modern cosmology hinges on, by the same rules there certainly is an aether which lends properties to relativity. If magical space-time, which is a word-play construct, can connect disconnected bodies in instantaneous communications, or which can be “bent”, or which can delay information, then it certainly has both evidence and properties.

@ten
” spooky actions”
Particles are being entangled and spooky action at a distance is being experimented on at universities all over the world.
Your denial of its existence does not make it true (that it doesn’t exist).

Rob Morrow

John,
I do appreciate the ad hominem jab, but it’s you who needs to reread it. He makes no attempt to hide the equivocation:

“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense , therefore, there exists an ether.”

That’s not not scientific anything . .

That’s not not a terrible attempt a writing a sentence… And for the reason that I’ve now emboldened for you, the Einstein quote isn’t particularly scientific either.
Furthermore, you misunderstand what he is trying to say. He is saying our universe doesn’t work without the relativity of spacetime. He is not saying, as Newton did:

Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines?

Inquiry needs to start somewhere and Newton may have got the ball rolling, but since he was invoking the density of a mystery substance instead of the cosmic speed limit it appears that he was mistaken and guilty of the very sin that JeffinCalgary said he refused to do.

“Space” is not empty . .

I never said space is empty.

Sure . . you’ve heard of fission and fusion, right?

Perhaps I should have been more specific. Newton didn’t know about neutrons and had no other basis for believing that base metals could be turned into gold. Do you believe in other tenets of alchemy besides transmutation? Do you believe in the elixir of life, or that metals precipitating from solution are alive?
Getting back to the beginning of this thread, the main point is that Newton used placeholder names just as modern scientists do. “Aether” is a placeholder name, no more specific than saying “mystery fluid”.
I, for one, prefer to say there’s a “black hole” at the center of our galaxy instead of “a super-massive body of incredible density which we predicted might be there, but can’t name because we don’t know everything about it yet”.

Rob Morrow

John,
Your arguments consist almost entirely of logical fallacies. I count four of them. The first one is appeal to authority. As I’ve demonstrated, your authority figure is guilty of committing the fallacy of equivocation. Next you call me young as a pejorative. Finally, you erect the tiny strawman “space is not empty”. Admittedly, I could have said something like “space is spacetime” instead of “space is space”, as Einstein is clearly referring to the implications of relativity. Considering that relativity is the subject of your authority’s conjecture, I believe my meaning should have been obvious to you, if not perfectly articulated.
Cheers,
Rob Morrow the Younger

Ten

“Particles are being entangled and spooky action at a distance is being experimented on at universities all over the world. Your denial of its existence does not make it true (that it doesn’t exist).”
I didn’t deny it, Rather, I challenged relativist universe types to reconcile it in a lightspeed “spacetime” universe where space had no properties but yet bends light while constraining its speed.

JohnKnight

Rob,
I didn’t mean that “must be young” as an attack/slight . . It is simply that current/recent teaching is effectively crippling, as I see the matter, in terms of understanding the writings of earlier times, and I really have no way to undo in a comment or two the “damage” it seems to me has been done to many young people in this regard.
“He makes no attempt to hide the equivocation:”
Right, but that does not mean that anything which happens to pop into one’s mind at that moment, is the reason he “equivocated”. One can see a bit further on that he clearly and unequivocally indicates that he (like Mr. Newton) believed that some form of something pervasive (ether) makes it possible for light to propagate . . so any potential reason for the “equivocation” that may have popped into one’s head earlier, which does not conform to that clear indication, is pretty much irrelevant to the matter you initially “faulted” Mr. Newton about.
I believe you have been trained to not understand things that contradict your “reactive” mind . . kinda like third wave feminists/SJWs and such. You can see that question mark in this Newton quote for instance;
“Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines?”
… but don’t seem to recognize that the author is not declaring his beliefs . . He explains in the book that comes from that he is mearly putting forth questions that might lead to further understanding, questions that occurred to him . . but you have (apparently) been trained to react quickly, if it suits your momentary situation/argument. Trained not to understand therefor, if that reactive mind stuff is misleading/erroneous.
“John,
Your arguments consist almost entirely of logical fallacies.”
Or, you didn’t truly understand them . . right?

Rob Morrow

John,
You’ve more than doubled-down on your ad hominem attacks. You’ve acknowledged that the only evidence for aether you’ve presented is an equivocation, and In your desperation you seem to have forgotten what this conversation was about.

but don’t seem to recognize that the author is not declaring his beliefs . .

Whether or not he believed his conjectures were perfectly accurate is immaterial to anything I’ve said, and it was never my point. I did not fault Newton for using the language he used. I asserted that:

Newton clearly was on to something, but relativity doesn’t require all space to be filled with an aetherial substance of varying density.

This conversation was about whether or not it’s appropriate to use terms like “black hole” or “aether for theorized phenomena for which there is incomplete evidence. My belief is “yes” and I commend Newton for his use of the aether concept. Relativity has been confirmed in all sorts of ways. Aether, not so much. In fact there is substantial evidence against the presence and necessity of aether as described by Newton. You have presented no scientific evidence in favour.
And still you say, with zero refutation of the fallacies I illustrated for you:

Or, you didn’t truly understand them . . right?

Of course Einstein believes that the properties of spacetime are what makes light propagation possible. In your quote he doesn’t even describe the aether, except to say more or less that his concept of spacetime has something in common with the aether concept (space has properties of it’s own). When Einstein developed special relativity he showed that Maxwell’s equations are satisfied with no aether. My position all along has been that Newton was on to something, but it wasn’t as accurate a way of describing our universe as relativity. I have tremendous respect for Newton. He truly is one of the giants on whose shoulders Einstein stood.
If you think that young people are stupid because they can’t be bullied into believing fallacious conjecture, then ageism isn’t your true affliction as much as it is lack of self awareness in the quality of your arguments and perhaps a lack of intelligence in general. You have presented nothing of value in this conversation.
This will be my last comment on this thread. I would prefer not to drop to your level and turn this into a shouting match independent of logic.
Cheers,
Rob Morrow the Younger

JohnKnight

“John,
You’ve more than doubled-down on your ad hominem attacks”
You’ve more than bored the chit out of me, judge ; )

george e. smith

Does Newtonian gravity lead to black holes given enough accreted mass to get past all of the thermonuclear fusions, leaving gravity to keep on sucking ?
It’s not clear to me that you need relativity to get black holes; not that I’m saying relativity does not give a more detailed explanation ?
G

higley7

Yes, they interpret it to be a black hole. In fact, Einstein and Oppenheimer both said that black holes cannot form, no matter that you can take physical equations to extremes. Einstein said that before a mass got even to neutron star density, it’s incredible spin would tear it apart; Oppenheimer agreed. Now NASA says that they do not exist.
There are seven or eight models for black holes; that many because all of them have features that disagree with the known universe. Black hole aficionados ignore these critical problems and go hunting for snarks everywhere.
Now, quantum mechanics, which has been completely ignored by black hole advocates, has been found to have its say, in that quantum mechanics obviates black holes due to quantum effects. They would not be stable and come apart.
Ignoring quantum mechanics completely when talking about black holes is just like the way those who support the Big Bang model ignore the fact that redshirted light can be caused by receding objects AND by the gravitational field of objects, which yields quasars to be simply dense objects in local space and not receding objects at huge distances.
You cannot have gravity apply to black holes, claim you can detect them because gamma rays are redshifted to X-rays, and then ignore gravity-caused redshift when looking at other objects and assume they are receding. This is such a conditional, blinders kind of science, it amazing that it persists. It’s full of contradictions.

Hugs

In fact, Einstein and Oppenheimer both said that black holes cannot form, no matter that you can take physical equations to extremes.

That settles it, doesn’t it? I’ve been working 16 years alone and Einstien agrees with me?

Now NASA says that they do not exist.

On the contrary.

Now, quantum mechanics, which has been completely ignored by black hole advocates, has been found to have its say, in that quantum mechanics obviates black holes due to quantum effects. They would not be stable and come apart.

Completely ignored? You are talking about 1960’s.
It appears you have a model which predicts black holes are not stable. Congratulations! The next part would be finding conclusive evidence to show coming apart in a way predicted by the theory.

You cannot have gravity apply to black holes

That would be a shame, wouldn’t it? To apply gravity on a black hole?
It is most revealing how people start pushing their pet not-a-black-hole theories every time real paid astrophysicists find a very massive and very small object called a black hole.

george e. smith

Well as they say; ” Gravity sucks ! ”
It powers the sun/
So gravity can compress hydrogen atoms together until fusion takes place and heats the material to create a pressure that stops the expansion; well until all the hydrogen has been fused. And then the contraction continues again until an even greater density starts fusing the helium atoms. Well we all know generally the concept that causes unremitting contraction.
So now what is it that supplies the heating energy that stops the contraction to the neutron star or black hole state.
Seems to me that even Newtonian gravity would still compress matter in large enough assemblages to the black hole density.
I don’t understand how Einstein gravity and Newtonian gravity differ in detail, but I also don’t know why Newton’s gravity could not also create black holes.
As I said, I don’t understand it, but some of you black hole scoffers, could explain what it is that stops black holes just from gravity sucking.
G

Ten

“Gravity sucks powers the sun”. No it doesn’t; gravity was held to be a component. Modern solar physics also regards that stars are empty bodies, whose interiors are cooler than their coronas, for one of a number of findings that refute the only-gravity model. The hydrogen furnace model is part of the same obsolete paradigm that gave us all sorts of place-holding “explanations” for otherwise unexplainable phenomenon. It takes a century to replace these ideas, much as it’ll take a century for AGW to be replaced by a far more comprehensive science.

Richard G.

George,
Not a scoffer, just a skeptical old biologist who has been around long enough to have been burned a few times. This article reads like a bed time story. I don’t mean to disparage this crew of Astronomers, only the author.
Gemini North began scientific operations in 2000. Hmm. 15 years of operation and they can measure the rotational velocity of a galaxy with a snap shot. How many RPMM (revolutions per mega millenia) did they observe? With such precision. From a moving platform (earth)? 17,000,000,000,000 suns. My. A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it ads up to some real mass.** Not a hint of uncertainty or doubt? Just the need to publish Something to justify their existence perhaps?
(**Senator Everett Dirkson is quoted as saying ‘A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real MONEY!’)
Heck, I’m skeptical of satellite records that only go back 30-40 years, not to mention temperature records that only go back 200 years. Skeptical of the professed precision, Not the integrity of the observers.
I read these articles about black holes and gravity and dark matter, and I am impressed that these experts think they have the math skills and observational abilities to calculate these things. I admit that I sure don’t, so who am I to throw stones? But judging from the arguments that abound there seems to be plenty of room for skepticism, especially when such articles are leavened with words like ‘unexpected’ or ‘surprised’ or ‘back to the drawing board’. I have been reading about black holes since they were first invented to explain observing something inexplicable.
The author says “The newly discovered supersized black hole resides in the center of a massive elliptical galaxy…”. Yum, it sounds like it comes with large fries and a cola hovering hidden just beyond the event horizon. (Doubtful MickyD’s has made it that far yet.)
You conclude with: “could [you] explain what it is that stops black holes just from gravity sucking.”
I cannot explain, but I can pose questions I cannot answer: How does gravity overcome electromagnetic repulsive forces that are 10^34 times more powerful than gravity? That is a lot of zeros, George.
These articles give not a hint of a whisper of a mention of plasma that populates interplanetary/interstellar/intergalactic space with Electric and Magnetic fields. What is the nature/shape of the Magnetic fields that surely must accompany black holes? How does neutronium not self destruct long before it accretes into a neutron star?
I don’t dismiss black hole theory or modeling out of hand. Yet when I read of plasma physicist Anthony Peratt computer modeling plasma formations and Birkeland currents at Los Alamos and generating simulated spiral galaxy formation using Maxwell-Lorentz forces without the need for dark matter as a hedge for missing mass, likewise I don’t dismiss plasma cosmology out of hand.
I observe enough spirited disagreement about such things to reach my own conclusion: there is much that we do not know.
“It is not what you don’t know that gets you in trouble, it is what you do know that just ain’t so.”- Mark Twain
When I play the piano I like to have all the notes available to use.

MarkW

Given it’s mass, what else could it be?

Djozar

The article contends that usually super black holes are at the center of larger star clusters – maybe it WAS a larger star cluster before the black hole engulfed other entities.

Resourceguy

Yes, interesting thoughts

Joe Civis

I was thinking along similar lines… perhaps it just ate the neighbors already…
Cheers!
Joe

First thing that came to my mind, then I thought , how can it keep on existing when it doesn’t get more mass added? Or is there still matter available to it? The energy that it emits in the form of various other radiations would deplete it or am I way of the mark, as in confusing a black hole with a neutron star ? ( I am not in any way near this level of physics, just a interested reader but I wonder.)

” The energy that it emits in the form of various other radiations would deplete it or am I way of the mark, ”
No. Basically, QM postulates that vacuum is seething with virtual particles, Hawking postulated that these virtual particles, which normally annihilate each other (virtual particles are created out of borrowed energy as matter/ antimatter pairs), some of these pairs will form on both sides of the event horizon, half the pair is trapped, the other half is, wait for it, Hawking Radiation.

A black hole does not emit any energy, that’s why it’s called a black hole. Things go in but nothing ever comes out. Any radiation you see is emitted by stuff as it accelerates towards the event horizon. Also, because it has mass, you will see gravitic effects as radiation or mass passes nearby (lensing, spectral shifting, perturbations, etc).

Thanks, micro6500 and bregmata, micro, so according to Hawking there is radiation ( energy??) escaping but bregmata’s claim that the only thing we see actually happens on this side of the event horizon, so that still leaves me with the same question, simply put can black holes eventually “lose” mass and disappear? Or is that still an unanswered question. To me they need “fuel” but if the fuel is not within the gravity well of the black hole then it should not get bigger and if it loses “fuel due to Hawking radiation it should then get smaller and smaller and if it does get smaller it should then lose even more gravitational force and continue to get smaller and eventually disappear.

“Thanks, micro6500 and bregmata, micro, so according to Hawking there is radiation ( energy??) escaping but bregmata’s claim that the only thing we see actually happens on this side of the event horizon, so that still leaves me with the same question, simply put can black holes eventually “lose” mass and disappear? Or is that still an unanswered question.”
Hawking radiation happens on this side of the event horizon(the free half of the virtual pair), but the captured half of the virtualized particles add to the mass of the black hole.
micro black holes, are supposed to evaporate, but I don’t really remember how, it might be thermal.
So, I decided I could just use google, here’s a good explanation.
http://www.universetoday.com/119794/how-do-black-holes-evaporate/
“It comes down to perspective. From an outside observer watching the black hole’s event horizon, it appears as if there’s a glow of radiation coming from the black hole. If that was all that was happening, it would violate the law of thermodynamics, as energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Since the black hole is now emitting energy, it needs to have given up a little bit of its mass to provide it.
Let’s try another way to think about this. A black hole has a temperature. The more massive it is, the lower its temperature, although it’s still not zero.
From now and until far off into the future, the temperature of the largest black holes will be colder than the background temperature of the Universe itself. Light from the cosmic microwave background radiation will fall in, increasing its mass.
Now, fast forward to when the background temperature of the Universe drops below even the coolest black holes. Then they’ll slowly radiate heat away, which must come from the black hole converting its mass into energy.
The rate that this happens depends on the mass. For stellar mass black holes, it might take 10^67 years to evaporate completely. ”
Now, so my comment above , I keep seeing references that Hawking radiation actually decreases the mass, as the energy from creating the virtual pair has to come from somewhere, in QM, they can borrow the energy for their existence before returning it. While I haven’t seen this in any of the things I quickly read, the trapped particle, could pair with another trapped anti particle, and evaporate from inside the event horizon, that would reduce mass.
Micro black holes are suppose to be hot, which could be from the same source as the mass reduction inside the event horizon, free virtual particles on our side of the event horizon could also combine with a free anti particle, which since they are now virtualized are converted to heat.This is why they become hot, and if they are warmer than their environment, they emit more heat than they take in, and evaporate as heat.

Mark

No one has ever found a black hole, everyone talks as if they are physically real. They were created by abusing relativity. Even Einstein thought they were bunk

Rob Morrow

That depends on your definition of “found”. Unless you believe your eyes are deceiving you when you look at animations of orbital data of stars at the galactic centre, then there is most certainly a physically real object there consistent with what would be expected of a black hole.

Ten

By your definition “black hole” is indeed a placeholder: An untestable conjecture that as such has no reliable basis in the relativity it’s all but officially decreed to represent. That I can buy: “What else would we call it” is a good question because it honestly renders this a semantic problem and demotes it from the wholly “scientific” entity contemporary relativity cultism has projected upon it. There are manifestations of observed but unknown phenomena and then there are the claims of official science. They’re not the same thing.

Rob Morrow

Since one cannot theoretically see a black hole, except perhaps if you were inside the event horizon, how would you “find” one without first falling into one?

Gloateus Maximus

Mark,
Einstein predicted black holes in his general theory. You might be thinking of singularities, which did concern him, as so contrary to ordinary experience.
It took until 1971 before a black hole was actually “observed”, although the name dates to the ’60s.

willhaas

Maybe it is these massive black holes that are causing our climate to change. Maybe they are a result of global warming as everything else is. So maybe it is Man’s use of fossil fuels that is causing these black holes to form and if we stop using fossil fuels these massive black holes will go away. Maybe we should be allocating money to solving the black hole problem.

Mark

The only black hole we know exists is found here on earth, it’s called Renewable

Bill Powers

Mark i have heard of those black holes. they suck into themselves large amounts of taxpayer dollars.

Yes, and you don’t get anything out of them. Ever.

usurbrain

Have you forgotten the “Smart Grid?”

Nah, solar and wind is the smbh on earth. Hydro, geothermal, a *little* biomass are cost effective if you have the resource.

jsuther2013

In a sparsely populated area of the universe? Exactly what does that mean in proper scientific language?

phaedo

jsuther2013: “In a sparsely populated area of the universe? Exactly what does that mean in proper scientific language?”, it means the local population has had to flee because of sea level rise caused by CAGW, of course.

Resourceguy

How many solar masses in a black hole would it take to break space time field lines and create say a big bang? What is the energy requirement to break the field, not just stir it up?

TA

It’s just amazing what we are learning nowadays from our scientific endeavors. Lots of things I thought I would never see or know in my lifetime, are revealing themselves. Wonderful!

Christopher Paino

We’re not learning, we’re guessing. Educated guesses maybe, but still guesses. Aren’t all these space-calculations based on models? I mean, do they just accept whatever comes out of the computers running their space-models?

Gloateus Maximus

The stellar velocities are observed. The mass of the black hole is then computed based upon formulae repeatedly shown valid.

KiwiHeretic

Gloateus: “The stellar velocities are observed. The mass of the black hole is then computed based upon formulae repeatedly shown valid.”
Yes but it’s still conjecture. Pure and simple. I mean, they ‘may’ be right. But then again, they may not be. So it’s inappropriate to state categorically that “they’ve found a black hole” blah blah blah. “They ‘might’ have found a black hole…” or “They’ve found something that ‘leads them to believe it’s a black hole…” These claims would be more accurate.
Or is this another case of “the science is settled!” and “the time for debate is over!”? And anyone who’s skeptical is a black hole denier. Where have I heard that before?

seaice1

“Or is this another case of “the science is settled!” and “the time for debate is over!”?”
Yes, I believe it is. The scientific debate over the existence of black holes is pretty much over. There is still very much a debate about the detailed nature of black holes and the existence of singularities.

KiwiHeretic

seaice1: “Yes, I believe it is. The scientific debate over the existence of black holes is pretty much over. There is still very much a debate about the detailed nature of black holes and the existence of singularities.”
You obviously haven’t learned anything from the AGW debate! Science is never “settled”! The great American physicist Richard Feynman pointed that out when he said “If you though science is certain, well that is just an error on your part!” We spend so much time and effort drying to drum this very point into the thick heads of the globull warmists and climate alarmist twits and here you are saying exactly the same thing they do: “the science is settled” “the debate is over!”. Bollocks!

Good question
Resourceguy on April 11, 2016 at 1:04 pm
How many solar masses in a black hole would it take to break space time field lines and create say a big bang? What is the energy requirement to break the field, not just stir it up?
It would just take the whole universe to prepare for a next big bang.
Regards – Hans

Resourceguy

For a universe that is rapidly dispersing, there has to be a great anti-dispersant (concentrator) to do the opposite and set up conditions for my question above. Such opposite patterns are out there on a smaller scale with super novae in the dispersal mode and super massive black holes in the concentrator mode. We just need to scale it all up and model the gravity among other things.

Marcus

Solar Panels that use rain to produce power !!…IMHO, I think CAGW research is the biggest black hole in the universe !

Paul Westhaver

1) how big is it in….feet?
2) something that big might have a twin or was a twin at one space.. With its diet of stuff, one would think that it would be quite the gravity pulse generator.

Kevin Kilty

It ate the neighborhood.

Jpatrick

Yes, another feature of the black hole in NGC 1600 is that the discoverers characterize it as “dormant”, meaning that it doesn’t have a huge accretion disk and high energy jets of matter streaming out of at near light speed. So, how long ago was it active, and if so, what happened to all the matter that was expelled in its jets?

Gus

Why “unlikely place?” There is a supermassive black hole in the center of every large galaxy.

Gloateus Maximus

jsuther2013
April 11, 2016 at 1:04 pm
Gus
April 11, 2016 at 1:16 pm
Until now, the biggest supermassive black holes – those roughly 10 billion times the mass of our sun – have been found at the cores of very large galaxies in regions of the universe packed with other large galaxies. In fact, the current record holder tips the scale at 21 billion suns and resides in the crowded Coma galaxy cluster that consists of over 1,000 galaxies.
“The newly discovered supersized black hole resides in the center of a massive elliptical galaxy, NGC 1600, located in a cosmic backwater, a small grouping of 20 or so galaxies,” said Ma.

ThermEng

Makes you wonder about dark matter.

Mark

They say this unseen monster ate all the gas in the galaxy it is alleged to be found in, now that is one giant leap of faith here, this is not science.
Getting the images, getting data, that is science, but the nonsense this science gets turned into in theoretical astrophysics is laughable.
The mere idea of infinite space-time curvature is a mockery of science. Near infinite is just as illogical, Astrophysicists dont understand that mathematical infinite is infinite numerical increment, so in order for anything to be near infinite, “near infinite” must also be an ever changing number that is, “near infinite” is actually infinity as well.
Black holes are static, yet the universe is isn’t. Doesn’t add up.
Think about it, for each alleged black holes they have claimed to find, how much infinite space-time curvature is that?
And nothing can escape, even though the escape velocity is c. Light travels at c but cant escape. Odd.
The big bang and resulting singularity. First of all, lets be clear, all this stuff we see around you came from nothing, that’s the theory, just appeared from (something, we have no idea what was before) and pop universe, but just before that universe popped out, everything was in a singularity.
Also, at that density, if there were particles, they couldn’t move at all, the temp would be absolute 0, not “infinitely hot” as Hawking said.
So by the very theory, it’s pants. I am not dissing Einstein here, or relativity, I am calling out the loonies who have taken his work and made fantasies of it because many cant accept they wasted their careers
I am nt saying anything stupid like the whole field is bunk, no, but things like Dark Matter, a magical non radiation emitting magical invisible matter that defies the laws of physics? c’mon 😀 More junk science created with models, ahh yes models.
The whole concept of 2 black holes merging was a play with numerical methods, it was never a physical reality! They did the maths and went looking, a bit like doing climate modelling and then looking for evidence.. remember there used to be a MWP 🙂 in science sometimes there is revisionism, astrophysics and climate science.
When evidence stares them in the face, ala a big Hydrogen cloud sailing by an alleged super massive black hole at the centre of our own galaxy, it was “mysterious”. A few fewered guesses thrown out, like “binary system in the gas cloud”, because they quickly did the maths to see what sort of magical gravity they needed, had it been farther away naturally the equations would have produced a single system, essentially this excuse could be adapted to any circumstances, and NASA call it science.
This is what Planck meant about waiting for new generations for science to move on. This generation coming through has many dissenters, I read so much of it now, some crank but other good stuff, that’s the beauty of it, dogma is for the intellectually weak.
Ask yourself, how many respected institutions have spend real money on trying to break Relativity or mainly theories that stem from it?
Rant over 😀

BFL

Well let me supplement the rant with one about physics/physicists in general:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-man-behind-the-curtain/99999

Mark

And also for something to physically exist in this universe, in my opinion it must be an exchange of information, not one way, so if a black hole just sucks everything in, it is receiving information but not exchanging anything, so to the outside world it does not exist if it does not exchange information.
Dark Matter apparently doesn’t exchange information either and exists to us lol.
I read somewhere recently a NASA article about black holes burping 😀
So we have how many types now, micro to super massive, white ones, and ones that don’t consume gas or distort light.
FYI given stars with a lot of helium can exist questions the theory that gives birth to stars and black holes alike 😉

Marcus

[snip attack comment, unnecessary -mod]

David A

Mark says,
“The big bang and resulting singularity. First of all, lets be clear, all this stuff we see around you came from nothing, that’s the theory, just appeared from (something, we have no idea what was before) and pop universe, but just before that universe popped out, everything was in a singularity.”
========================
Well Mark, welcome to the cosmological argument. (research it) What is your answer, everything that is always was, with no cause? (steady state) If that is true, and equally or more so, well beyond any laws of physics, then why has not everything already happened that could happen?

Mark

I believe that is nitpicking. Einstein and hawking said “you cant create energy out of nothing”.
Now if we look at the history of the theory, according to Hannes Alfvein, the Belgian Priest slash mathematician, brilliant as he was , admitted he set out to prove St Augustine’s dictum of Creation out of nothing” so the theory has a basis in religion.
Einstein tended to agree with what I am saying re black holes.
Besides make an argument, you basically said “ugh yeh the internet” 😀
It doesn’t need to be belligerent mate, just waffling here, it’s not a bad thing

“What is your answer, everything that is always was, with no cause? (steady state) If that is true, and equally or more so, well beyond any laws of physics, then why has not everything already happened that could happen?” ~ David
Western Religion with its “creator god” claims that some being outside of space and time created the universe. The “big bang” boys also claim everything came from outside the present universe. The steady-state fellows bypass all that and say it has all been here all along. (but where did it originally come from?)
We do not know where everything came from and we should just own up to that. The Taoists are much better at the explanation of their Tao. They don’t know!
Then there is the mystical strains of those like Alan Watts who see a “god” that is dreaming all parts of a giant play. You are “god” dreaming a part, so am I, and so on. But where did the dreamer come from???
We get to the place where you pick your favorite creation myth and I’ll pick mine, but for god’s sake don’t try to claim yours is more “scientific” than mine. (or rational for that matter)

Gloateus Maximus

Mark S,
The Big Bang boys don’t claim that everything came from outside the universe. One school of thought does say that it’s possible that nothing preceded the Big Bang, but that’s probably a minority among current cosmologists.
As noted, others think that the universe ran “backwards” before the Big Bang, while others, often String theorists, posit a multiverse. There are other schools of thought, as well.
Science may never be able to peer beyond the Big Bang, but I suspect ways and means will be found to do so.

David A

Mark, Markstoval, and Gloteaus , please do not think I was being “nitpicking” or flippant, and certainly I was not claiming all the answers. Rather my message or argument if you will is the cosmological argument which presents the dilemma of duality.
All science is based on deductive logic and the arrow of time running in one direction, from past to resent, from cause to affect. Science is also limited to numbers, and infinity s not an option. Now I am not talking about the mathematical sign for infinity used in mathematics and utilitarian for many things such as feedback responses in certain system, but actual infinity, which is not thought of as a number. No number is closer to infinity, as it is, by definition, infinitely beyond any number. Science, to function however is limited by itself, it own internal cause and affect logic, to quantifying observations via numbers; The atom, like the earth is polar, positive and negative, to define “anything” the “everyTHING” must be “quantifiable” and exist in the chain of causation.
I was not intending to pick on anybody’s origin theory, be it “Big Bang, Steady State, Multiverse, etc… except to say THEY ALL suffer the same shortcoming; they are limited to the scientific method, self defined by the chain of time, or cause and affect; quantifying numbers, incapable of reaching finality. As Marconi said, “powerless to reach finality”. Science is the perfect tool for discovering the laws of an existing and function cosmos, but powerless to reach finality, or to put this in religious terms, powerless to detect ar define an infinite law framer, sole operator, or causeless cause, something infinite beyond the laws of cause and effect, unquantifiable.
Yet this infinite energy source, causeless cause, existing beyond the laws of cause and effect, appears to be the logically required answer. Certainly zero (all things come from nothing) does not appear to be the any answer. So to explain all THINGS quantifiable, something infinite and beyond the laws of cause and effect is required, as all things quantifiable require a prior cause, and this chain is then self defined, demanding not “ZERO” all things just are and have no number, but demanding infinity, not a number, but an infinite energy causeless cause, poetically phrased, “Colossal container, I of all things made” In short the existence of any quantifiable “anyTHING” demands an infinite first cause beyond the laws of science. Phrased differently, the existence of any numbers between one and infinity requires infinity, not zero.
Yes, Steady State demands that “everything” or all things finite and quantifiable (one to any number) come from nothing, they just are; affect, a rather large one, with no cause.
Mutltiverse only extends the cause effect problem, and so can never be a finale answer. It has other failings as well when one attempts to use it to explain everything as coming from nothing. We only have one observable, this universe. In this Universe all the fundamental forces appear to operate on laws formulated to allow structure and evolution. (Design) The everything from nothing view postulates that the other universes may have different random laws, which do not indicate an intelligent design of perfectly balanced fundamental forces allowing evolution, but may simply fall apart and never really form. However this is sheer speculation, and the one observable we do have indicates something quite different; so it appears, from our one observable universe, that if there are multiverses, then they may well all operate on the same or similarly perfectly balanced fundamental laws allowing structure, evolution, intelligence, consciousness, etc, to all develop.
Big Bang requires not nothing, but talking to Physicists, infinite energy. Not just the regressive ever shrinking of the singularity into progressively more dense energy, but actual infinite energy.
So Markstoval, while I am postulating that an infinite energy beyond the laws of cause and effect, by all observational evidence intelligent force, is more rational then an “everything comes from nothing, it always just is” process, I am however not engaging in debate about which human view of this infinite energy beyond the laws of cause and effect, causeless cause, is correct. In fact, according to both Christian and Hindu theologians, that Infinite energy First cause is not ever fully knowable. I am also asserting that science, while awesome, cannot not, due to its limitations of quantifiable numbers, ever have infinite solutions, yet those infinite answers do exist.

Jeff Mitchell

Aren’t there people trying to show that the universe, as we know it, is a giant simulation? In which case there is a cause. However, you have the next problem of determining where the simulators came from and how far nested in simulations we might be. And so on…
That we exist at all seems to be amazing.
I like guessing and speculating about all this stuff. Each guess or speculation gives us something to focus on and test. And we work from there. I think it is poor form to dis people because they declare their conclusions and take the risk that they might be wrong. If we just chill out a bit and take people stating things as fact and take their conclusions with a grain of salt, we have the flexibility to confirm or refine the thoughts or throw them out. It is when we are forced to agree to “settled science” on climate or other topics for the purposes of actual policy, when so much is unknown that scares me.
With regard to black holes, I’m puzzled. If an area of space is occupied by a mass large enough to keep light from escaping actually exists, then I think “black hole” is a good descriptor of it. The structure of what is inside the event horizon may be debatable, but regardless of what Einstein or Hawking have to say, it seems there are observations of things orbiting massive objects in that mass range. So you either have to debunk the observations or the calculations based on those observations to say the phenomenon doesn’t exist. So I think it is fine to label them as black holes for the time being. What the actual nature of what those objects are is still debatable. I think they exist, but we don’t really know much about them.

Neil

Mark,
I suggest you read “The 5 Ages of the Universe” (http://www.amazon.com/Five-Ages-Universe-Physics-Eternity/dp/0684865769/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460407898&sr=1-1&keywords=5+ages+of+the+universe) for an excellent introduction to the science of black holes, the big bang, inflation, space-time curvature etc.
To address a single point: ‘And nothing can escape, even though the escape velocity is c. Light travels at c but cant escape. Odd.”
c is a finite number. As the mass of something increases, the spacetime curvature increases. At a given point, the escape velocity of this curvature exceeds c, and light can not excape (hence why these monsters are called “black holes”. Nothing odd; just simple physics, in much the same manner that there is a maximum incline of a road that a car cannot drive along.

Mark

C is the constant speed of light is it not?
As for mass, you are talking relativist mass yes? Which is energy mass, not mass, rest mass and momentum. It doesn’t actually increase the actual mass of an object, momentum and rest mass energy I thought. Photons have no mass,
Besides, I already pointed out an observed flaw in your argument, what you say is the result of equations, not something ever seen.
If these geoces are indeed so, how does this explain why stars can orbit close on our own SHBM and the geoces have no influence on light. This is observation vs theory
Plus, the people who have been pushing this theory also say photons have no mass, some disagree of late, personally if you can have mass energy conversion then you can have energy mass conversion but hey ho, I am no mathematician, I live in the actual world 😛
So a massless particle cannot gain relativist mass according to theory if it has no rest mass?

benofhouston

Mark, black holes have no hair? That’s an old model. The fact is that we have no idea about what happens inside a black hole. You do have a valid argument that it is quite possibly not a singularity, but has a finite, albeit extremely high, density. It’s not really provable either way that I can tell. However, they do have a temperature (it’s not infinitely hot, I don’t know where you got that one). Quantum jitters do occur that allow photons near the horizon to jump across and out of the horizon, and the result is Hawking radiation. For most black holes, it’s a fraction of a degree above 0K since it’s a very slow process, but it’s not that complex once you think about it.
However, what they are doing is seeing evidence, coming up with theories, making predictions, and then looking for verifying or refuting evidence. This is how science is supposed to work. True, they should couch their theories in less certain language, but that’s entirely different than claiming the whole field of astrophysics is nonsensical.

Gloateus Maximus

Mark,
That physics doesn’t have all the answers and raises new questions as understanding improves is a good thing. Some might be arrogant or trough-feeding time-servers, but most IMO genuinely try to find things out.
No one can presently know what came before the Big Bang from our observation point. Two hypotheses are 1) that, as you stated, nothing existed before it, and 2) that everything that now exists existed before it. In the latter case, time ran “backwards” as the universe contracted, until it had gotten much, much smaller than an atom, then time reversed to run “forward”, as now, and the universe expanded. Or we could live in one universe among others in a multiverse.
There is physical evidence for and against these conjectures and others. In 50 years, there may be some convincing answers. Or not.
A lot of Dark Matter is ordinary, baryonic matter that just happens to be too dim to detect. It’s not all “magical”.

” Some might be arrogant or trough-feeding time-servers, but most IMO genuinely try to find things out.”
You might be right, you might not be. My observation is that most are just lab rats doing time.
I once was talking to a professor who was reputed to be a world expert on “the gravitational constant”. He has some experiment of his design up in space as we talked that day. He told me that there were very few real scientists who pushed science ahead. Most were just workers replicating and checking; or else gathering data. I think he mentioned 1 in a 1,000 were real scientists.
I don’t know if the guy was right, or even if he might have been having a little sport at my expense. But, for some reason, I believed him.

Gloateus Maximus

Mark,
Maybe he was thinking about the majority of academic “scientists” who work as teachers rather than researchers. I excluded them. Then there is the majority of scientists who work in industry rather than academia. They need to produce results, regardless of a search for “truth”, as in basic rather than applied science.
So your impression and mine really aren’t that far apart. I just happen to have a lot of colleagues, friends and acquaintances who are academics motivated, it seems to me, by a desire to discover reality.
Government scientists are a special case of institutionalized academics.

Edmonton Al

I like your “rant”. I am not enamored with the BBT either.

Language is a mental construct that allows us sentences like ‘have you too been on the sun? ‘
And mathematics is a human construct that lets us deal whith Infinities when in the real existing universe everything is ending.

That’s how any lie comes into the World.

Now we know why that area is “sparsely populated” This big guy ate them all….

Mark

Before I forget, there was also a long study of stars orbiting the alleged SMBH at the center of our own galaxy. When those stars passed in close orbit, there was no effect on light from the stars. This again was “strange” and “mysterious” 🙂
interestingly, NASA did say that “magnetic ropes” connect the sun to the earth during northern lights events. Magnetic ropes are not possible without a current to create them, and the claim should be then electric current passing between the sun and earth when there are northern lights. The magnetic field is a consequence of the current, magnetic fields don’t just head off on their merry way, they are gradients unless being shaped by current surely.
I wonder how much energy passes along these “ropes” and in which direction?

Mark @ 1:48 pm April 11, Didn’t NASA just send up 2 sats into the Van Allen belts to research just that? In a nut shell they are trying to find out why magnetic fields connect and disconnect from solar wind influences. AM I correct? It to me seems a really interesting and valuable effort to understand the way the Van Allan belts interact with our planet and from what I gather they are important in protecting life on earth.

Mark

Dr Mann dishonest, lying, dangerous..
Faked data, lied, put himself before his cause and played it as saving humanity
Wouldn’t listen to anyone, sold out his profession and his soul, truly the worst of humanity.
Of course I am talking about the Movie Interstellar.

Dems B. Dcvrs

“astronomers had developed a correlation between a black hole’s mass and the mass of its host galaxy’s central bulge of stars”
“It appears that that relation does not work very well with extremely massive black holes;”
And yet again, NASA is absolutely certain that Humans are cause of Global Warming, Climate Change, Global Climate Disruption ………………………
News Flash NASA: CO2’s relation does not work very well with claims of Man-made Global Warming either!

Gloateus Maximus

Not all of NASA. UAH is a shining counter example.

So this if from 200 millions years ago. I’m not worried.

Christopher Paino

Black hole with the mass of 17 billion suns discovered.
And…?

Dems B. Dcvrs

We need more funding to study effects of Black Holes on Climate Change.

Or maybe this object is actually just some dark matter, and not a black hole at all?

Gloateus Maximus

Black holes may be able to help astronomers detect otherwise invisible dark matter:
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2015/06/nasa-simulation-suggests-black-holes-may-make-ideal-dark-matter-labs

Ten

There’;s no such thing as dark matter. There’s just a force yet to be discovered. As with so-called black holes, dark matter is a linguistic signpost warning that we don’t know. How it became official religious Science! is anybody’s guess.

Mark

One only has to look at the images from hubble, the millions of stars all clustered together, and 0 light distortion.
Light does not bend in the vacuum of space because space time is not a fabric, it is imaginary.
For gravity to exist you need Newton, Einstein takes care of the Macro, job done, but the rest.. lol.
If there are not two bodies there is no gravity, there is no exchange of information, and no exchange of information means no physics, nothing.
With Space time curvature, only one body need exist to create a distortion. Yet in physics, if something does not exchange information with anything else it for all intents and purposes does not exist.

Gloateus Maximus

Mark,
Light has been observed bending. That’s a fact that confirmed Einstein’s hypothesis.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/light_deflection
Gravity isn’t created by two bodies. Jupiter distorts space-time and affects the orbits of all the planets and other bodies in the observable solar system.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/geometry_force

BFL

“Light has been observed bending. That’s a fact that confirmed Einstein’s hypothesis.”
All stars are surrounded by corona with density variation by distance. Never been able to find where the refraction index for observed distant starlight passing near a star and through the corona was corrected for during the “light bending” experiments. Can you point to any??

benofhouston

Seriously, BFL? That’s on the same order as questioning cellular theory or the existence of the electron.
And gravity flows at the speed of light. They managed to measure a gravitational wave earlier this year. Seriously. There is being skeptical and then there is being nonsensical.

Light is observed bending by refraction and diffraction as well – altering paths as it enters and leaves different media (or atmospheres) in agreement with ordinary optical physics.. Just the other day I was messing around with a diffraction grid making some colours when it occurred to me that the lunar eclipse didn’t behave correctly compared to the physics of gravitational light bendy theory and it got my wondering if gravitational lensing wasn’t in fact simply refraction or diffraction.. as you do.
Then I came across this:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refraction-not-gravity/
seems I’m not the only one to have this thought. Everything attributed to gravitational lensing (when it works) is correct for refraction (which always behaves it’s self just like a good physical property should). I know black holes and massy light help equations balance to suit theories, but when the theories fail to produce actual results then I do wonder if they’re sound. (attributing mass to light is also convenient for keeping ‘black holes’ hidden)
I also liked:
‘The search for dark matter is more than 80 years old. The presence of all the known, observable, detectable, normal matter cannot account for the gravitation “observed” according to General Relativity. Despite abject failure to find dark matter, General Relativity theorists are convinced it is out there.’

benofhouston writes “And gravity flows at the speed of light. They managed to measure a gravitational wave earlier this year”
Lots of stuff in the news and on the web about gravity waves.. most of it saying stuff like ‘scientists found..’ or ‘scientists detect’ or ‘observe’.. comments like ‘for the first time we have direct evidence’ or ‘direct
observations have been made’
very very few use the terms ‘indirect observations..’, mostly those are in the core articles. The guts of it is there were no direct observations – none of the gravity measurey thingies measured anything, nor was any device pointed at anything specific – there was only ‘ooh looky, the measurey thingy here wobbled!’ – the indirect observation was made by a pair of lasers at right angles which wiggled a bit, they were hoping for this to happen – it suggested something warped the planet for a short moment. Since they were looking for gravity waves, they concluded it must be gravity waves.
(now they want to build more of them so they can triangulate the source – that’s reasonable, also no surprise grasping-for-funding-wise) – though now I’ve written my screed and looked for similarly contrary opinions, it seems apparently there’s murmurs from within the LIGO mob that they can’t rule out the signal being a glitch.. but hey, the media got hold of it now so ‘popular’ science commentators will be hyperventilating into microphones about it for months to come..
back to LIGO
they concluded these were gravity waves – they already had a wobble happening (the low notes they are talking about in the press releases) and the high frequency rise apparently meant a kaboom somewhere in the universe.. and they concluded that the gravity waves were propogated at the speed of light. Thing is, it didn’t coincide with anything. If the light from a star/hole/whassit travels at Xm/s and gravity waves travel at Xm/s then they should reach here at the same time – but nothing happened out there that we saw.. Had it been coincided with some event then sure by all means, I’d be happy that the two must have been or at least could have been related – but there was only the signal – nothing else.
Not only that, the black holes that apparently emitted this gravitational wave thump is the ‘evidence’ they’ve been looking for that black holes/dark matter actually exists!
So a signal is detected originating from regions unknown and it both proves gravity waves exist and are propogated at the speed of light .. and it proves black holes exist (because only a black hole density increases could make gravity waves of this magnitude.. which are propagated at the speed of light)
if you have gravity waves proving black holes exist, then black holes can prove gravity moves in waves at the speed of light just as theorized.. yay! proof!
We still don’t know how gravity interacts, this ‘observation’ proves nothing. The gravity detector LIGO is also reasonably theorized (by physicist Eric Morganson- mentor to the LIGO team) to detect a shift in
gravity on earth as the earth and the moon change position, and this should exist as a period wave pattern – a sine wave of 1 period and also 1/2 period (no surprises) .. interestingly Morganson, who realized LIGO should detect this and who modeled the waveform still has not had any direct data from the LIGO team as to whether this period/half period gravity pattern had been detected.. he’s been waiting for quite some time for the data (1997).. But for LIGO to work, the lunar/earth gravity cycle has to be modeled into the LIGO data along with the sun/earth and other orbital periods to eliminate any background (local) gravity effects – which by rights should swamp any distant signals. Still no word on whether the earth/moon data has been found.
If they didn’t add this in then the rise in frequency all the physicists are currently whistling could be nothing at all beyond a periodic event or worse, nothing – only ongoing observations will tell…

Ten

If gravity flows at the speed of light, why does the earth orbit the instantaneous center of the sun and not where it was 8 minutes ago? Gravity does not flow at the speed of light, it surpasses it almost infinitely…except for those times we say it doesn’t in order to make our theories work.

‘ Never been able to find where the refraction index for observed distant starlight passing near a star.’
No index, but – every massive body bends the space time around itself.
Light always follows a strait line, near a massive body that line is a curve.

Ten

“…every massive body bends the space time around itself. Light always follows a strait line, near a massive body that line is a curve.” The latter does not at all confirm the former – bent light no more proves space-time than a pencil in a glass of water does. That’s refraction. Space-time gets thrown around a lot, notwithstanding that it’s a misnomer when and where relativistic space must be stripped of properties in order to refute aether. You can have one but not both. “Space-time” is as much a Hollywood fantasy as a scientific veracity. Light-bending stars have refractive properties not at all indicative of this relativistic light-bending space-time, the presumed void of zero aether. Nothing cannot have an effect on something.

BFL

Mark: an astronomer specializing in celestial mechanics shows that gravity speed is greater than 2×10^10 c. Of course the usual way to reconcile with Einstein’s perceptions is to start adding fudge factors much like they do in quantum mechanics.
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

BFL

And here are 2 more, with more explanations and showing (partially) what a consummate plagiarist Einstein also was:
http://ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/
http://milesmathis.com/merc.html

LdB

Karl April 11, 2016 at 8:30 pm
For all you information which you have obviously read about you have a massive blindspot. The Earth moon will indeed produce a cyclical gravitational wave, now guess what the frequency of that wave will be.
Now go look at the cutoff filters on LIGO and you should see the big problem here.
Both you and physicist Eric Morganson are going to be waiting until hell freezes over if you expect to see that gravitational wave it is well outside the lower cutoff frequency of LIGO …. end of story … now go read.

LdB – Eric Morganson was the mentor for the LIGO team.
Here’s his work on LIGO from the beginning “Developing an Earth -Tides Model for LIGO Interferometers”
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0029/T990181/000/T990181-00.pdf “The gravitational pull of the Sun and the Moon causes tidal strains on the LIGO interferometers which changes the distance between the mirrors and the largest background effect removed by LIGO’s servo mechanisms”
yus, it seems the servos eliminated the anticipated movement, but movement there was.. as to how much – well, the MENTOR of the program was still waiting for the data..

Mark

So while the mathematical constructs and oddly interpreted findings are interesting, much of it doesn’t stack up upon proper logical dissemination in plain English.

Robin Hewitt

Maybe it is not very big.Let us not overlook the possibility that we are unusually small.

Resourceguy

Good one!

Well it does take two black holes to break each other apart to form a galaxy or two, I thought NASA believed if you reversed back in time a galaxy would end up as a dust cloud and then condense into a galaxy? lol

H.R.

Black hole with the mass of 17 billion suns?
Not In My Back Yard!

Resourceguy

Sorry, black holes were banned in NY out of an abundance of caution for public health.

Why can’t they get the Governor to go down to the sea and command it to stop rising?

Rainer Bensch

Probably he would retend to have done so twice a day.

michael hart

When I type into Google “who wants to live in wyoming”, I only get three hits. Am I spelling it wrong?
[actually, I probably would live there, based on the people I met when I visited]

Gloateus Maximus

I got 14 million.

H.R.

“I got 14 million.”
You’re spelling it wrong, G.M. ;o)

Gloateus Maximus

I’ve always been a mediocre speller.

Mark

I blame spell checker GM 😀

michael hart

Interesting. I entered it again today, exactly as shown above, and got the same result.

John Galt III

2 more – Obama and wife – just miss the ass word

usurbrain

Talking about astronomically large numbers, here is the problem I have:
Given –
1. Human DNA consists of the 23 Chromosomes, the ~3.1 Billion Base Pairs which have ~56 million total variations. [The variations are not the same for each Chromosome though – Wikipedia has a decent guestimation though.] Although one of my degrees is in Applied Mathematics I would dare not even attempt to calculate the number of iterations, permutations and combinations of those variables.
2. If you were able to buy one lottery ticket every second, it would take you more than nine years to buy every combination. And that’s optimistic: That is based upon the fact that there are 6 choices of 49 numbers, that is over 14 million tickets. However, 14 million is based upon the fact that the number chosen can be in any order, thus you need considerably fewer choices than the theoretical maximum number of combinations to win. The actual number of combinations is expressed by this equation: 49! /(49-6)! This works out to a very large number, 10,068,347,520, over 10 Billion which is about 900 times larger than 14 million. That means it would take you 900 times that 9 years or 8,100 years to write out all of the combinations.
Problem: How many years would it take for first “life” of any “life” on earth that could lead or evolve into Homo sapiens and to evolve to the present life form called Humans? You must assume that the “life form” had a change, mutation, in one or more chromosome(s), that mutated life form lived, procreated, and the process continued. Thus, the gestation period and time to bare off-spring must be accounted for in this calculation. (Approximately 6 months (gestation) and six years (off-spring) for most monkeys.)
I will let you draw your own conclusions about the answer. Keep in mind, Earth is only 4.543+ Billion years old.

Gloateus Maximus

Usurbrain,
We have 23 pairs of chromosomes. That’s one pair less than the standard great ape genome, because two small chromosomes are fused in humans to make our Number Two.
Genetics doesn’t work the way you imagine. The whole genome isn’t reshuffled randomly at each and every base pair.
The genomes of various organisms differ in size, but much of every genome is stable, since mutations in certain critical areas are often lethal rather than neutral or beneficial. But OTOH, mutations arise from a variety of causes at each generation. Every human carries an average of about four of them.
It’s possible for a single point mutation, such as by a passing cosmic ray, to make a big difference in evolution, as for instance with the alteration of sugar-eating bacteria into nylon-eating microbes. A major source of genetic variation is duplication, often of the whole genome. That happened at least twice in human evolution. In plants, perhaps as many as 80% of species have evolved in a single generation through such polyploid events. Not all speciation occurs gradually over many generations via natural selection.
It appears that a single mutation caused the rapid increase in brain size in our ancestors about 2.7 million years ago. Millions of years before that, our ancestor’s upright walking probably was facilitated by that gross chromosomal fusion I mentioned.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_1.htm
As for the origin of life, which is a different process from evolution, although related, RNA self-assembles in various environments, such as liquid water pockets in ice, and when catalyzed by such ubiquitous organic chemicals as PAHs, out of constituent components common in meteorites, hence on asteroids and throughout the universe.
RNA has the further wonderful property of being both a catalyst for peptide assembly and a storehouse of genetic info, hence being capable of both metabolism and replication. The creation of polypeptides, ie proteins, would have been the next step. Cell membranes are made of two lipid layers which also self-assemble naturally. The next step would have been to DNA replacing RNA in the information storage role, although parasitic retroviruses still use RNA to direct the host cell to make its DNA. Hence, “retro”.

JohnKnight

“As for the origin of life, which is a different process from evolution …”
This is just a shell game to me, using the several meanings of the word ‘evolution’ to avoid facing the need for life to have “evolved” from non-life, because there’;s no credible way for that to have have occurred.
“RNA self-assembles in various environments…”
What are talking about? A tiny amount of an acid? You NEED productive CODE to get from non-life to life, not just some traces of (unstable) acid in ice . .
This is the real God of the Gaps in (imaginary) action, I say. The great God of bit by bit . .

Bruce Cobb

Black holes should not be dismissed lightly.

Bruce Cobb on April 11, 2016 at 4:02 pm
Black holes should not be dismissed lightly.
– smile –

Mark

Lol no one knows how old the earth is.
It’s just a guess. No body can seriously testify to the earth being 4.5 billion years old and the Universe 13 billion.
All theories atop each other, Relativity, inflation theory, big bang theory, Red Shift theory.
Again I dont have a problem with relativity, only the fantasy world created from the abuse of it.
To give an example of how out of touch with reality theoretical mathematicians can get, they divided mass by 0 to get infinite density. That is far down the rabbit hole, a dead end, a failed equation, and it was called a singularity.
Yes we have moved on, but you dont get to create the theory on hocus pocus and replace it with more plausible sounding maths logic later on.
All these studies are a shot to nothing, because no one can prove them wrong. Reminds me of another field.

Mark

*No one can AFFORD to try prove them wrong.

Gloateus Maximus

Mark,
The age of the earth is not a guess. It’s an observation. The best material for dating, ie measuring, the age of the earth comes from meteorites, ie asteroids. The results are consistent with the less plentiful material from earth itself and moon. These findings are confirmed by solar observations.

Mark

The age of the earth is an educated guess. End of story, it is not an observation, it is born of observations and their interpretations which stem from Relativity, the religiously conceived big bang theory, inflation theory and red shift.
Red Shift is observed, there is no observation that determines the earth’s age, unless we carbon dated some rock from the earth’s core.
You confuse interpreted results as direct observation of a metric

” there is no observation that determines the earth’s age, unless we carbon dated some rock from the earth’s core.”
No, they carbon dated meteorites, and found the age of the stuff left over from the formation of the solar system.

RD

I just laugh and walk away at this guy, Mark, Laugh and walk away.

RD

Gloateus, you’re a patient soul to try and educate this guy, which is clearly not possible. I enjoy your educated comments, thank!

RoHa

So that’s where my money has gone.

usurbrain

Why is it that regardless of which direction we look — all X, Y, Z axis directions — that the limit of our observations of the Universe is 13.8+ Billion years? How can that be possible? If we see 13.8 Billion light years in any and every direction we look that implies to me that we are in the exact center of the Observable Universe. However, since the Universe is 13.8+ Billion years old, that fact also implies that we are in the exact Physical center of the Universe! How can that be possible? How can the Earth be the center of the Universe? Why do we not have difficulty seeing the “edge”of the Universe in one direction and in essence determine that we have gotten to the end, i.e. “run out of galaxies, stars, etc,” only see the effects (or see more) of the “Big Bang,” etc. in another direction?
Is this another effect of the “Space Time Warp?” Or is this another indication that “Life” is all in our mind?

Mike the Morlock

The age of the universe is guesstimated by at least two factors.
One the rate of expansion aka the Hubble constant. Next how much matter exists in the universe.
I seem to remember that the age of the universe higher in the 1980s. Theories change, new information comes to light.
Also I was told the gravity bends the “space” that light travels through rather then bending the light itself.
michael

Mark

But if space time is the fabric, it is a medium between endpoints, if planets must ride this geoces, then so should light.
You cant have it both ways, Gravity to Newton is attractive force between two bodies. relativity says it is a geoces created by one mass, with Newton you need to bodies, with Einstein you need one.
Except there is no gravity when only one mass exists, purely because there is nothing else to detect any gravitational field.
To add, if there is only one mass, there is no physical interactions. It is one homogeneous lump of mass, sucha thing cannot exist it it does not exchange information with anything else, that is physics, information exchange. If nothing exchanges information with it’s surrounding world it does not exist to it’s surrounding world.
So Dark Matter does not exchange information, we cant see it and cant detect it. so for all phsycial intents and purposes it does not exist except in mathematical theory, and as I keep saying, these mathematicians keep making stuff up from maths and applying real physical properties to it. That does not make it real in physical terms, absolutely not.
But there is a big clue for people, when someone tries to explain this, they cant do so without switching to newton, which you cant do because Newton and Einstein disagree. Relativity does not and cannot understand force. So you cant use Newton to explain Einstein’s gravitational propagation and be rational at the same time.

” But if space time is the fabric, it is a medium between endpoints, if planets must ride this geoces, then so should light.”
And it does.
” Except there is no gravity when only one mass exists, purely because there is nothing else to detect any gravitational field.”
You plop a large mass in spacetime and it distorts space. Since there no way to have a single object in the universe, there are other objects to interact with.

Mark

Space is a human concept, it is a point, a set of coordinates.
This misconception is how a singularity was created, because a singularity was a point, no volume.
Then someone added physical properties (that were anathema to actual physics)
There is no 4th dimension as I heard space time called, because to travel, you’d need a fourth coordinate in a 4 dimensional space.
Wormholes are just as ludicrous, science fiction. Again follow the maths and it leads you down rabbit holes.
Now people might say we moved on since then, this was only 10 years ago!!

usurbrain on April 11, 2016 at 6:03 pm
Why is it that regardless of which direction we look — all X, Y, Z axis directions — that the limit of our observations of the Universe is 13.8+ Billion years?’
Because the universe expanded, inflated – like a blown up balloon.
It did 13.8 bill years – so that’s the distance in any direction.
And it did NOT expand 2 * 13.8 because speed of light is just 1 times – nothing can happen faster than with speed of light.

” It did 13.8 bill years – so that’s the distance in any direction.
And it did NOT expand 2 * 13.8 because speed of light is just 1 times – nothing can happen faster than with speed of light.”
This is not correct, inflation has expanded space in the time since the time that cmb was created. The visible universe is some 40-150 B lyr in diameter, and since the cmb has a red shift of ~1,100 and the farthest galaxies have a redshift of about 14, it is possible the whole universe if finite is some 700 times bigger.

usurbrain on April 11, 2016 at 6:03 pm
Why is it that regardless of which direction we look — all X, Y, Z axis directions — that the limit of our observations of the Universe is 13.8+ Billion years?’
Because the universe expanded, inflated – like a blown up balloon.
It did 13.8 bill years – so that’s the distance in any direction.

David A

? center everywhere circumference nowhere because it (whatever space is) expanded??

usurbrain

Then that implies the edge is 13,8 Billion light years away from any point in the Universe. Which in turn implies the Universe is infinite.

usurbrain

My point is: If the Earth were on one side of the Universe and the Universe has only existed 13,8 Billion years It would NOT be possible to see now what is 26 Billion light years away! However, Every description I have seen. read, documentary on TV shows material (e.g. the immediate after effects of the Big Bang. The heat of the big bang and the pattern of this “Big Bang heat, etc.) at a distance 13.8 Billion miles from the Earth and explain that it took 13,8 billion years to reach us. Thus the Earth must be in the center. HOW can the Earth be at the center of the Universe? Why is the Earth at the center of the Universe?

” HOW can the Earth be at the center of the Universe? ”
Because the entire universe inflated, and it inflated to a lot bigger than what we can see.
Imagine floating in space, and the space if full of fog, and you have a light that lights up that fog. The space you’re in is 100 light years across, and the only think you know is your not near an edge. Now imagine all of the fog burned off in an instance, while at the same time the space you’re in expands a few billion times.
A year after the fog dissappears, what you would see is the edge of the fog, one light year away in all direction times however much it expanded in that first year, 10 years later the edge of the fog would be 10 light years away, times expansion.
But everywhere you look the fog is the same distance away. And so on.
As long as your are not on the edge (if there’s even an edge at all), no matter where you started in the original volume, you would always look to be in the center.

charles nelson

But hey…they can detect the ‘gravity waves’ from the Big Bang!
Yea, right.

Gloateus Maximus

Charles,
No. Scientists have detected gravity waves from black holes much, much younger than the Big Bang.

Ten

SOME scientists SAY they’ve detected gravity waves. And as with reams of scientific findings in our times from CERN to relativity to dark red bang shifting matter holes to cometary physics, in a month or six they’ll be correcting themselves.,

charles nelson

I would have to agree with you there!

Mark

Some Black hole theory has black holes as eternal, which is diametrically opposed to a big bang universe.
Some big bang universe theory claims infinite universe, other theory says it is finite.
There is no one black hole theory, and no single big bang universe theory, there are several for both and they dont all fit together by their very theories.
How do you have an eternal black hole in a finite linear expanding universe.
Doesn’t add up sorry.

‘SOME scientists SAY they’ve detected gravity waves.’
At the CERN they detected the Higgs Boson, representing gravity. Every atomic particle holds one.
Till today nobody disproved them.

Ten

At the CERN they detected the Higgs Boson, representing gravity. Every atomic particle holds one. Till today nobody disproved them.”
Hadron detected what merely manifests as the HB, whatever that may be, however its mass then disproved both the multiverse and big bang universes which tends to punch quite a hole through the king gravity presumption. It’s as if God parked its mass right between the two “scientific” theories. Later the HC was converted into a big bang-disprover – about the time Hawking refuted big bangism for awhile, as I recall – having not exactly found the God Particle in the way practicioners of Magic Science had presumed. The HB could be said to “lend mass” to a universe of particles but that it “represents gravity” is wordplay. It’s just another place-holder for a Force in the pantheon of force phenomena that cannot be proved as “scientific” mechanisms because only their *manifestations* can be somewhat vaguely measured. Through a glass darkly. Apparently the rules change once you go quantum.

” Force in the pantheon of force phenomena that cannot be proved as “scientific” mechanisms because only their *manifestations* can be somewhat vaguely measured. ”
The manifestation of gravity is hardly vague.

Ten

“The manifestation of gravity is hardly vague.” Glad you could extract that and make it an issue when my meaning, I thought, was somewhat more illustrative: Gravity IS variable, and it is also a relatively very weak force. Depending on whose theory you prefer, it has the magical property of lightspeed AND nearly instantaneous interaction, and to top it off, nobody knows what it is. Why, it’s almost like it’s quantum, hence vague, at least by understanding…

Mark

That was the BICEP2 team, their claims have been retracted.
because they spent so much on the research, they really resisted admitting to be wrong, and even when proven wrong they said they “were not wrong they just over interpreted data” LOL
Now this milti million dollar experiment is claiming success, like there was ever going to be any other outcome.
Another perfect example of this cost vs result, the Quartz Gyroscopes they sent up on satellites, it cost a fortune, and was a failure, the Gyroscopes were subjected to forces unforeseen, and unquantified.
Did they admit failure? no, they adjusted their data for 5 years then claimed success. That is what happens when you spend million and years on a project, scientists just dont want to accept they were wrong and wasted millions of tax payer money.
All of this science is useless junk, we should be focusing our efforts on earth and advancing humanity.
NASA cant even build decent rockets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Richard Feynman said NASA over sold the Challenger shuttle knowing it was a piece of crap, to get more funding, and this maniac science cost the lives of several astronauts

n.n

Isn’t it a gray hole?
In any case, they have observed signals, which are mixed with liberal assumptions of uniformity and composition of “space”, in order to infer or interpret them as patterns to fit models.
Science is a frame-based philosophy which implicitly acknowledges that accuracy is inversely proportional to the product of time (or just space) and space offsets from an established reference.

Mark

Well it is not grew or black, because no light escapes it has no colour, simply put.

Sun Spot

All I’ve ever seen is a model of a black hole !!

JohnTyler

When you read stuff like this, it really makes it hard to believe that the universe was created by an “expansion” of sub-atomic particles that wiz in and out of existence, ( and no explanation provided as to where the particles originated).
If E = mc^2 and this one black hole has the mass of 17 billion suns, and now you consider the mass of all the other stars, planets, “dark matter,” dust, black holes, etc., etc., in the universe, which all added up have the mass of ???? billion billion billion suns, the magnitude of “E” required to generate this mass seems, well, too large to be created by an expansion of sub atomic particles that just randomly appear out of nowhere.
Now, I could believe that a super duper large black hole with a mass of say, a few trillion trillion trillion stars literally exploded (maybe it sucked in so much stuff it could not take any more and it just all went to hell) and that created the universe. At least in this scenario, you can imagine enough mass and energy to get things going.
Of course, the question that remains unanswered is “from where did this black hole come?”

David A

“Of course, the question that remains unanswered is “from where did this black hole come”
Indeed, rum this over… https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/11/black-hole-with-the-mass-of-17-billion-suns-discovered/comment-page-1/#comment-2188557

LdB

I do like commentary on such general science issues on WUWT it’s an eyeopener.
Thankfully what the layman public think and believe is about as meaningless as it gets, science is not a democracy and they don’t get a vote.
Black holes and Gravitational waves are now a fact to the science community and two more detectors will be online next year (Italy (VIRGO) & Japan (KAGRA)) and probably a few more in the years after (India, China??) as every country scrambles to get involved.
The GW observatories are currently being connected to around 72 traditional telescope so they can try and get both GW observation and traditional observation of the same events.
It would have been interesting to be around when Scientists built the first radio telescope and see how many layman accepted that they worked. It might be interesting to ask some of those involved in comments above do they believe radio telescopes work and how do they know?
It will be funny watching the comments from some of those above as there will be report after report in the years to come from these detectors which according to many above don’t work and/or black holes don’t exist. It will be interesting to see how long they hold out or if they hold the faith.

Gravity waves were fact in 2010 and 2012 until they proved not to be, this latest proof will stand or fall in time. I think however it’s a fine thing others are being built as triangulation will help a lot (or eliminate the method as viable.. time will tell)
Re your radio telescope example and laymen, It would also be interesting to review how many scientists at the time did not believe radio telescopes would work 😉
But I know what you mean about faith.. I took the mass of an electron on faith – until I performed a few experiments to determine it’s mass while at university studying physics..
I also took black holes on faith too as so many Great Thinkers appeared to believe in them. Then I developed a few doubts, then I came up with some alternate theories and found others, physicists, felt the same way. I’m still learning as I hope we all are. After all, how many thousands of years was (is) God a fact to the masses?

LdB

Karl April 12, 2016 at 12:36 am said
“yus, it seems the servos eliminated the anticipated movement, but movement there was.. as to how much – well, the MENTOR of the program was still waiting for the data..”
That is rather a crazy answer lets give it you in a formal sense that works for sound, electricity or any form of wave you like. We have a high pass filter to a monitoring circuit and you are asking us to tell you what the level of a really low frequency signal before the high pass filter is … HMMM OK.
So lets put your knowledge to the sword. What is the lowest harmonic of the Earth/Moon 28 day cycle that could get past the frequency filter of LIGO at around 1Hz. If the Earth/Moon system is a perfect sine wave like you described it won’t contain any harmonics. So lets make it a square wave the moon now jumps from one side of the earth to the other every 14 days to give us maximum harmonics …. so now calculate how far down the lowest harmonic that can pass the high pass filter.
The harmonics of a square wave is on entry on square wave in wikipedia if you need.
So now lets give you the real problem the detected signal changes frequency rapidly something your harmonic can’t do unless we make the moon jump backward and forward faster at an alternating rate. You see how stupid this gets.
The real answer is LIGO will never give that answer, because a group of smarter people than your so called MENTOR worked out how to remove the problem. You and the Mentor will be waiting until hell freezes over.
If you want to cut fast to an answer it was given in a paper in 2006 look at figure 3
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060014034.pdf
The moon gravitational wave as seen on Earth is shown in Red. The more interesting planetary gravity wave is Deimos which is shown in blue. It is far closer to being able to detected and there are moves to go after that signal.

LBD .. you do know what a mentor is right? the guy who supervises and oversees the program. The team – the LIGO team.. who work under his supervision..
He wrote in the article overseeing LIGO , concluding ” While Melchior’s model has been validated experimentally, there is currently no experimental data to check the model as applied to the LIGO sites at Hanford or Livingston. The Love numbers have an uncertainty of about ten percent. Since they are linear coefficients in the Earth tides model, there is an uncertainty of approximately ten percent in any calculations made with the model… Experimental data will be needed to firmly establish the validity of the model’s predictions for Earth tides at the LIGO sites”
he has some nice graphs showing the period too.. with constructive and destructive oscillations.
By all means, in your theoretical model whack in a high pass filter – but when there *should be* a low frequency signal and you can both calculate it .. and use it to calibrate the device against the signal – why ignore it? That’s like building a clock and deciding you have the period of a second bang on accurate, while totally ignoring the day night cycle and pretending it does not exist.
curious too how you decide on a 14 day period stating ‘the moon now jumps from one side of the earth to the other every 14 days’ .. this planet rotates .. placing the gravitational period wave at considerably less that I read you as suggesting (1 and 1/2 per day seems closer to right 😉

Mark

This is actually not true at all, black holes and gravitational waves are still theoretical, sorry.
Remember they “found” gravitational waves already with BICEP2, and it turned out to be bunk, they were not wrong apparently according to the BICEP2 team, they “overinterpreted data” apparently.
But your argument as well as NASA’s falls down on a simple fact, gravity cannot supply the energy to sustain itself, it needs mass. No mass no gravitational field according to Einstein.
Gravitational waves have no mass to create the geoces in space time.
I guess you have not learned from all the theories that have been proven wrong to date, including previous claims of discovering gravitational waves.
Let me point out something which should be obvious, the signal they detected, yes a signal, not black holes, but a signal interpreted through dogma, that signal is so much weaker than foreground gravity that they could not have possibly detected it, you cant detect a signal 1000 times weaker than the noise, unless you A have A Priori knowledge of that signal or you control that signal.
One might wonder how they have removed all the gravitational distortion between earth and the source?

” But your argument as well as NASA’s falls down on a simple fact, gravity cannot supply the energy to sustain itself, it needs mass. No mass no gravitational field according to Einstein.”
You’re wrong, gravity warps space, earth sits in a “slope” in spacetime from the Sun, the Sun sits in a slope of spacetime from the mass of the milky way, the milky way sits in a slope of spacetime with Andromeda and the rest of the local group, ligo detected ripple in spacetime from a pair of orbiting blackholes somewhere in the milky way, who’s ripples had a large disturbance when they collided.
What was detected was a signal, that matched a model of the signal that 2 such massive objects colliding might create.
Now, I do agree that 1 such signal in the noise is still a preliminary confirmation of the science.
Here’s the big difference though, they are not asking all of society to spend 100’s of trillions retooling our energy sources based on such a finding.

biff

The only black hole that exists is the funding one.

I have learned over the years to take all and every part of the standard models of physics and the universe with a pinch of salt.
My inner self rebels against a lot of it.

The national debt was found?