Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Massive black hole discovered in nearby galaxy (30 million light-years from Earth)
Yaho ^ | 1/10/11 | AFP

Posted on 01/10/2011 5:57:35 PM PST by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US astronomers have discovered a huge black hole, a million times the mass of the sun, in a nearby galaxy -- a finding that could help better understand the origins of the universe.

The announcement Monday by the American Astronomical Society said the surprise discovery in a so-called "dwarf" galaxy offers evidence that black holes -- regions of space where not even light can escape -- formed before the buildup of galaxies.

"This galaxy gives us important clues about a very early phase of galaxy evolution that has not been observed before," said Amy Reines, a researcher at the University of Virginia who presented the findings to the AAS annual meeting.

The galaxy, called Henize 2-10, is 30 million light-years from Earth, has been studied for years, and is forming stars very rapidly. It resembles what scientists think were some of the first galaxies to form in the early universe.

Reines along with Gregory Sivakoff and Kelsey Johnson of the University of Virginia and the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), and Crystal Brogan of the NRAO, observed Henize 2-10 with the National Science Foundation?s Very Large Array radio telescope and with the Hubble Space Telescope.

They found a region near the center of the galaxy that strongly emits radio waves with characteristics of those emitted by super-fast "jets" of material spewed outward from areas close to a black hole.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Astronomy; Chit/Chat; Science
KEYWORDS: blackhole; discovered; galaxy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

This undated NASA image shows the dwarf galaxy Henize 2-10, seen in visible light by the Hubble Space Telescope. The central, light pink region shows an area of radio emission, seen with the Very Large Array. The area indicates the presence of a supermassive black hole drawing in material from its surroundings. (AFP/NASA)


1 posted on 01/10/2011 5:57:40 PM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

National Radio Astronomy Observatory

More images

2 posted on 01/10/2011 6:02:25 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard .. Obama: Epic Fail or Bust!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

The NAACP would call this post racist.


3 posted on 01/10/2011 6:14:37 PM PST by Dallas59 (President Robert Gibbs 2009-2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Fascinating stuff. This entire black hole business is difficult to get you mind around...something so dense that it creates gravity that even light cannot escape from.

I was reading somewhere recently that several astronomers have evidence of certain black holes devouring whole planets by the beam of energy it creates and spews out millions of light years. The distances involved...


4 posted on 01/10/2011 6:20:59 PM PST by Bean Counter (Stout Hearts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Don’t worry...Barry’ll plug the damn hole...


5 posted on 01/10/2011 6:25:46 PM PST by razbinn (I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,and to the republic for which it ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

If it takes light 30 million years to travel from there to earth, and light travels 186,000 miles per SECOND, that is unimaginable distance! When did God create earth again?


6 posted on 01/10/2011 6:26:18 PM PST by Bridge_toofar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

... at least that is where it WAS, 30 million years ago!


7 posted on 01/10/2011 6:30:21 PM PST by Mr. Jazzy (God bless the United States of America and protect her from the enemies of freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bean Counter
"Fascinating stuff. This entire black hole business is difficult to get you mind around...something so dense that it creates gravity that even light cannot escape from."

Black holes are division by zero in a mathematical, gravitational model. Nothing more. Don't make the common mistake of assuming that the model defines reality, which is what is happening wrt 'black holes'.

The universe is filled with plasma (charged particles) which generate magnetic fields when they move in an electric current. The effects interpreted as being caused by a 'black hole' are the result of a 'gravity-only' model of the universe being imposed on common electrical effects observed on a galactic scale.

Properly recognizing the effects as electrical rather than gravitational in nature means that 'black holes' are just as invisible as 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' and will always remain so.

8 posted on 01/10/2011 6:34:19 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bridge_toofar
that is unimaginable distance! When did God create earth again?

If the distance is unimaginable, so much more is The Creator of it. The depths of AWESOME ALMIGHTY GOD will never be understood until we are in His Presence.
9 posted on 01/10/2011 6:37:02 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bridge_toofar
"If it takes light 30 million years to travel from there to earth, and light travels 186,000 miles per SECOND, that is unimaginable distance!"

Obviously you have to assume that c has never been anything other than 186,000 miles per SECOND over time frames that are also assumed. GR only requires that c be uniform throughout the universe at any particular time, not that c is unchanged over time.

"When did God create earth again?"

About 6,000 years ago.

10 posted on 01/10/2011 6:39:40 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

“US astronomers have discovered a huge black hole, a million times the mass of the sun, IN A NEARBY GALAXY — a finding that could help better understand the origins of the universe.”

I understand the closer something is the easier it may be to study it, but, how far do we want to go being happy about closeness when it comes to these things?


11 posted on 01/10/2011 6:39:55 PM PST by John W (Natural-born US citizen since 1955)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Naw... that black hole was just obama’s deficit... a reflection.

LLS

12 posted on 01/10/2011 6:42:29 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Obviously you have to assume that c has never been anything other than 186,000 miles per SECOND over time frames that are also assumed. GR only requires that c be uniform throughout the universe at any particular time, not that c is unchanged over time.

Also assumes 1. that "light" from "a star" is something distinctly different from the star, a "product" of a star, rather than being an intrinsic part of the phenomenon itself and 2. that the moment of creation was when light first started to traverse space outward from each star necessitating a wait of minutes to billions of years before reaching other parts of space.
13 posted on 01/10/2011 6:55:54 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: John W
" how far do we want to go being happy about closeness when it comes to these things?"

I wouldn't want to be any closer than the one in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.

14 posted on 01/10/2011 7:11:17 PM PST by Deaf Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

The argument of ‘creation with the appearance of age’ is fallacious and tacit agreement that the ‘age’ is empirical and not assumed. ‘Long ages’ are not empirical and are assumed, therefore no argument of ‘creation with the appearance of age’ is necessary.

Using that argument gives the impression that creationists must engage in logical fallacy as argument against empirical evidence when the assumption of ‘long ages’ is fallacious in itself.


15 posted on 01/10/2011 7:29:50 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Deaf Smith
Meh.

Mass is mass, regardless of density, so I'd worry less about V4641 Sagittarii than one of our nearer stellar neighbors shuffling off their mortal coil in the energetic way some are given to doing so.

16 posted on 01/10/2011 7:42:39 PM PST by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bridge_toofar

I don’t think terms like “nearby” should apply to other galaxies. Nothing is nearby, even if it is the next galaxy over.


17 posted on 01/10/2011 7:56:24 PM PST by Defiant (There is no line on the march towards marxism that Democrats won't cross. Democrat=CPUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
The argument of ‘creation with the appearance of age’ is fallacious and tacit agreement that the ‘age’ is empirical and not assumed. ‘Long ages’ are not empirical and are assumed, therefore no argument of ‘creation with the appearance of age’ is necessary.

Using that argument gives the impression that creationists must engage in logical fallacy as argument against empirical evidence when the assumption of ‘long ages’ is fallacious in itself.


Unfortunately, all you've done is to assert something without actually demonstrating anything. The creation of anything results in an appearance that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. And you've missed the point of what constitutes a star. The appearance of age is as inescapable an appearance of an instantaneously-created, functioning universe as is the appearance of descent with modification of a biosphere sharing DNA that exhibits varying degrees of similarity. If, for example, there were forms of life on earth with absolutely different means of life function (say carbon-based versus silicon-based) and inheritance (DNA versus something else) that we knew for a fact were created at the same time by the same creator, they could still be interpreted as having completely separate origins and ancestry by anyone who did not have the specific knowledge of their origins.
18 posted on 01/10/2011 8:31:12 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
I don’t think terms like “nearby” should apply to other galaxies. Nothing is nearby, even if it is the next galaxy over.

I know what you mean, but the energies involved in some of these relativistic jets, and their highly directional structure, makes the concept of "far away" a little less comforting, even when we're talking in terms of other galaxies.

There have been some high-energy events noted by satellites, some very far from earth, that are awesome in the power levels they imply. Instruments overwhelmed to the point of inducing temporary shut-down for self protection, from events hundreds of thousands of light-years away. These events are "gamma ray bursts," thought to be from collapsing stars, but a beam eminating from a supermassive black hole would be much worse.

If one of these jets should turn our way, even from thousands of light-years away, there could be real effects for life on earth. Not likely, of course. But not impossible.

19 posted on 01/10/2011 8:55:33 PM PST by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

It’s a Black hole, not a Black Ho.


20 posted on 01/10/2011 8:58:21 PM PST by MaxMax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Yes, for gamma ray bursts, relative proximity is important. And I understand why we use terms such as “nearby”, but it’s funny to hear when near is thousands of light years away.


21 posted on 01/10/2011 10:31:57 PM PST by Defiant (There is no line on the march towards marxism that Democrats won't cross. Democrat=CPUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Man are you in for a surprise.


22 posted on 01/10/2011 10:34:53 PM PST by Halgr (Once a Marine, always a Marine - Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

There goes the neighborhood.


23 posted on 01/10/2011 11:11:01 PM PST by Slings and Arrows (You can't have IngSoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Your argument of creating light in-transit went way beyond any ‘appearance of age’ that may exist in creating ex nihilo. The only reason you invoke in-transit light is because you accept a ‘constant c’ and ‘red-shift as distance’, both of which are assumptions made by philosophical naturalists.

Once you accept the assumption of the opponents of creation and start trying to adapt to their version of reality; you have lost the argument. That’s the point you refuse to acknowledge.


24 posted on 01/11/2011 6:20:55 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Halgr

You are the one who is in for a surprise.


25 posted on 01/11/2011 6:22:28 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Your argument of creating light in-transit went way beyond any ‘appearance of age’ that may exist in creating ex nihilo. The only reason you invoke in-transit light is because you accept a ‘constant c’ and ‘red-shift as distance’, both of which are assumptions made by philosophical naturalists.

No, it's not the only reason. In fact, it isn't any reason. I've never had any thought of a constant c and I certainly don't think that red-shift is only indicative of distance (you should have said "recessional velocity"). You're reading things into what I said in a completely unwarranted fashion.
26 posted on 01/11/2011 9:22:13 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

If you haven’t had any thought of a constant c and don’t think that red-shift is indicative of recessional velocoty, then you have no reason to argue that light was created ‘in-transit’. A non-constant c and red-shift <> recessional velocity means there is no need to invoke light created ‘in transit’.

If you have really given this so little thought to this point, perhaps you should start. It’s certainly warranted.


27 posted on 01/11/2011 12:51:37 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
If you haven’t had any thought of a constant c and don’t think that red-shift is indicative of recessional velocoty, then you have no reason to argue that light was created ‘in-transit’. A non-constant c and red-shift <> recessional velocity means there is no need to invoke light created ‘in transit’.

If you have really given this so little thought to this point, perhaps you should start. It’s certainly warranted.


You're still trying to rescue your misreading. You have in two different instances attributed to me things I never said and drawn really poor conclusions about what I have and have not thought about. I didn't say that red shift was not indicative of recessional velocity. It is not solely indicative of recessional velocity. And I see you still haven't caught on to the point I made about stars.
28 posted on 01/11/2011 2:37:53 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

You yourself admitted that you had given the issue little thought. I simply point out that a non-constant c and red-shift not solely indicative of recessional velocity means that you have no reason to invoke ‘in-transit light’. I see you still haven’t caught on to the point I’m trying to make.

Just how redundant do you require the discussion to be before you stop avoiding the point?


29 posted on 01/11/2011 2:56:21 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
You yourself admitted that you had given the issue little thought.

I said that I had not been thinking of a constant speed of light when I was talking about the nature of a star--that is, a star is not a thing that produces stuff; all that (its radiation of all sorts, its ejecta, its composition, all of it) is as intrinsically a part of the star as anything else. Whether or not the speed of light has been constant across time is irrelevant in that context. You seemed to think that I needed to posit the creation of a fully functioning universe as a way of answering one criticism or another. I don't. I pointed out that no matter how it came about, even if we had been there to witness it, its appearance would, without that firsthand knowledge to the contrary, be open to different interpretations and that such a state of affairs is unavoidable.

Just how redundant do you require the discussion to be before you stop avoiding the point?

A perfect case of projection.
30 posted on 01/11/2011 3:59:49 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

You continue to make the same mistake. It is unnecessary to invoke the ‘in-transit’ created ‘nature of a star’ (that is, a star is not a thing that produces stuff; all that. its radiation of all sorts, its ejecta, its composition, all of it) if c is not constant and if red-shift is not solely indicative of recessional velocity. Whether c is constant and whether red-shift is solely indicative of recessional velocity is totally relevant to the context because without those two assumptions the context that the argument attempts to address is unnecessary. You seem to think that I thought you needed to posit a universe that was fully functioning to address the issue. You also seem to think that positing arguments that address assumptions that do not even exist is necessary for some unexpressed reason.

Perfect case of projection.


31 posted on 01/11/2011 4:19:52 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

>>About 6,000 years ago.

And yet there’s 420,000 years information in the Vostok Ice Cores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Yahweh sure is a clever trickster.


32 posted on 01/16/2011 8:58:08 PM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan; Bean Counter
[Black holes are division by zero in a mathematical, gravitational model.]
Division by zero?  You mean it's not just what exists when an object is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius.
[common electrical effects observed on a galactic scale.]
And yet multi-kilowatt transmitting radio towers here on earth are not blurry; and neither are the electro magnets used to move cars around the local junk yard.
 
I.e. - no lensing effect.
 
Why is that?
[Properly recognizing the effects]
Uhuh.  Does this model by any chance bolster your religiously constrained world-view that the Earth is only 6000 years old?
 

33 posted on 01/16/2011 9:38:15 PM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
"And yet there’s 420,000 years information in the Vostok Ice Cores. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core"

Looks like someone needs to learn the difference between fact and inference.

"Yahweh sure is a clever trickster."

That Bill sure is a credulous fellow...

34 posted on 01/17/2011 6:14:37 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
"Division by zero? You mean it's not just what exists when an object is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius."

Looks like Bill hasn't learned that the model seeks to describe reality. It doesn't define reality.

Uhuh. Does this model by any chance bolster your religiously constrained world-view that the Earth is only 6000 years old?"

The model demonstrates the tunnel-vision so common in 'science' that clings to a model that defines 96% of the matter and energy needed to make that model 'work' as invisible.

35 posted on 01/17/2011 6:19:20 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

>>Looks like...

...GourmetDan is a stuttering pompous ASS?


36 posted on 01/17/2011 6:35:45 AM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

[common electrical effects observed on a galactic scale.]

And yet multi-kilowatt transmitting radio towers here on earth are not blurry; and neither are the electro magnets used to move cars around the local junk yard.

I.e. - no lensing effect.

Why is that?


37 posted on 01/17/2011 6:37:01 AM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill

>>Looks like...

LomanBill is a stuttering pompous ASS?


38 posted on 01/17/2011 9:38:00 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

[common electrical effects observed on a galactic scale.]

And yet multi-kilowatt transmitting radio towers here on earth are not blurry; and neither are the electromagnets used to move cars around the local junk yard.

I.e. - no lensing effect.

Why is that?


39 posted on 01/17/2011 9:40:57 AM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
[The model demonstrates the tunnel-vision so common in 'science' that clings to a model]
 
You mean like the associated QM models that work just fine for producing the technology required to store your religionisms on the FR's disk drives, transmit them over the internet, and into the receiver of a wireless broadband modem... so phototons can stream into my eyes from the screen on my laptop... here on the ice where I'm fishing through a hole... and laughing at you out loud?
 
Those kinds of clingy "science" models?
 

 

40 posted on 01/17/2011 9:52:51 AM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
"And yet multi-kilowatt transmitting radio towers here on earth are not blurry; and neither are the electro magnets used to move cars around the local junk yard. I.e. - no lensing effect. Why is that?"

Dear Bill. What you observe when you look out into the cosmos are electromagnetic waves. Whether they are generated by gravitational or electrical effects has no effect on whether they appear blurry or not.

Gravitational 'lensing' was concocted to rescue the standard theory from the excess number of high red-shift quasars that are observed around lower red-shift galaxies. It is assumed that the high red-shift quasars must be 'lensed' from behind.

Therefore, the 'phenonenon' of 'lensing' derives from observations that do not fit the theory, nothing more.

But look. We are right back to the point where you need to learn that the model does not define reality. How about that. Apparently, it just permeates your thinking.

41 posted on 01/17/2011 9:57:31 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
You mean like the associated QM models that work just fine for producing the technology required to store your religionisms on the FR's disk drives, transmit them over the internet, and into the receiver of a wireless broadband modem... so phototons can stream into my eyes from the screen on my laptop... here on the ice where I'm fishing through a hole... and laughing at you out loud? Those kinds of clingy "science" models?"

Why no Mr. Bill. As I clearly said. The standard cosmological model where 96% of matter and energy are invisible by definition so that the model can 'work'. Maybe those 'phototons' [sic] didn't reach your eyes?

42 posted on 01/17/2011 10:17:09 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
>>The standard cosmological model
The incomplete model, of which QM models are an intricate part;  QM Models, the accuracy and usefulness of which, are self-evidently demonstrated on the very technology you're using to disseminate your religionist drivel.
>>Gravitational 'lensing' was concocted to rescue
No, gravitational lensing is OBSERVABLE.  It conflicts with neither GR or SR, and it is an observable and predicatable effect in both.
 
Meanwhile, here in the Reality Universe - evidence to support your cosmological model is simply... not.
 
Instead, what what we see on this Real (old) Planet are multi-kilowatt transmitting radio towers and electro magnets - that are not blurry and do not bend light.  While gravity clearly does.
>>It is assumed that the high red-shift...
...must be explained away in order to prop up your mendacious religionist facade that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

43 posted on 01/17/2011 10:50:37 AM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
"The incomplete model, of which QM models are an intricate part; QM Models, the accuracy and usefulness of which, are self-evidently demonstrated on the very technology you're using to disseminate your religionist drivel."

OK, have it your way. The incomplete model which requires 96% invisible matter and energy to 'work'. Were science not dominated by philosophical naturalists, the incomplete model would have been reconized as being falsified long ago.

"No, gravitational lensing is OBSERVABLE. It conflicts with neither GR or SR, and it is an observable and predicatable effect in both."

Let's look at Einstein's Cross. Scroll down.

"In the mid-1980's, astronomers discoveed these four quasars, with redshifts about z = 1.7, buried deep in the heart of a galaxy with a low redshift of z = .04. (The central spot in this image is not the whole galaxy but only the brightest part of the galaxy's nucleus.) When first discovered, the high redshift quasar in the nucleus of a low redshift galaxy caused a panic. To save the redshift/distance conviction, gravitational lensing had to be invoked despite Fred Hoyle's calculation that the probability of such a lensing event was less than two chances in a million!"

"A change in brightness of the quasars was observed over a period of three years. Arp's explanation is that the galaxy has ejected four quasars, which are growing brighter with age as they move farther from the nucleus. The lensing explanation is that the bending of the light varies when individual stars pass in front of the quasar. If the lensing explanation were correct, the quasars should brighten briefly and then fade as the star moves out of alignment."

"Meanwhile, here in the Reality Universe - evidence to support your cosmological model is simply... not."

Only true if you see no plasmas or magnetic fields as you look into the cosmos.

"...must be explained away in order to prop up your mendacious religionist facade that the Earth is only 6000 years old."

Actually, it is the mendacious, disingenuos facade of the philosophical naturalists that must be propped up against all evidence. Instead, what what we see on this Real (old) Planet are multi-kilowatt transmitting radio towers and electro magnets - that are not blurry and do not bend light. While gravity clearly does.

44 posted on 01/17/2011 5:13:30 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
1. Gravitational lensing is not limited to phenomina related to Quasars.
 
2. I don't have any problem with a universe where 96% of the energy is in a state where localization is insufficient to manifest the strong forces required to form matter - but is still sufficient in some areas to manifest the weak gravitational forces... that are observable as gravitational lensing in "empty" space.
 
 
 

45 posted on 01/17/2011 8:50:38 PM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
"1. Gravitational lensing is not limited to phenomina related to Quasars."

Einstein's Cross was an easy example of the falsification of gravitational lensing, not a claim that all gravitational lensing is related to quasars. If you can't support gravitational lensing for Einstein's Cross, how are you going to support it for supposed 'examples' where the 'lensing' object is totally invisible? I notice that you answer none of the objections to Einstein's Cross being a lensed quasar. Do you acknowledge that Einstein's Cross is not a gravitationally-lensed quasar?

"2. I don't have any problem with a universe where 96% of the energy is in a state where localization is insufficient to manifest the strong forces required to form matter - but is still sufficient in some areas to manifest the weak gravitational forces... that are observable as gravitational lensing in "empty" space."

Of course you don't have a problem with a universe where 96% of the matter and energy are invisible by definition. That is a perfect example of the tunnel-vision so common in 'science' that I spoke of earlier. This doesn't even qualify as science, this is a philosophical belief that is exactly what you erroneously accuse me of engaging in. Your tendency to project your own shortcomings onto others is becoming obvious.

And, you misrepresent the issue. 96% of the energy and matter are claimed to be 'dark', meaning that they are invisible to detection, by definition. Dark Matter was hypothesized to account for discrepancies between measurements of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and measurements based on the mass of the visible "luminous" matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and dust of the interstellar and intergalactic medium." IOW, it was made up out of whole cloth because the observations didn't fit the model. Your comment about 'localization being insufficient to manifest the strong forces required to form matter' is just BS intended to make the pink unicorn appear more substantial.

And I notice that Einstein's Cross is one of the examples in the Wikipedia link included in your search results. If you can't even defend that one, why do you include it in your list of references? Just throwing a bunch of crap against the wall in an effort to get 'something' to stick, apparently.

46 posted on 01/18/2011 1:56:19 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Go crawl back under your 6000 year old dogmatic rock. I’m done wasting time on you.


47 posted on 01/18/2011 7:41:54 PM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
"Go crawl back under your 6000 year old dogmatic rock. I’m done wasting time on you."

Translation: You have no rebuttals and are forced to resort to grade-school name calling.

And, if you are 'done wasting time on me', why do you post to me again almost an hour later on another thread?

48 posted on 01/19/2011 5:59:16 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
[96% of the energy and matter are claimed to be 'dark', meaning that they are invisible to detection]
Not any more invisible than the air you breath or the internet.
[Your comment about 'localization being insufficient to manifest the strong forces required to form matter' is just BS]
No, it's an application of Occam's Razor and a expressive recognition of the relationship between mass and energy.
 
Got E=mc^2?
 
Do you likewise deny the potential energy in the wind - because it's "invisible"... to you?  

49 posted on 01/19/2011 7:32:09 AM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill

>>Do you likewise deny the potential energy in the wind

Do you likewise deny the KINETIC energy in the wind


50 posted on 01/19/2011 8:01:37 AM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson