Skip to comments.Massive black hole discovered in nearby galaxy (30 million light-years from Earth)
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 ...
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)
The NAACP would call this post racist.
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...
Don’t worry...Barry’ll plug the damn hole...
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?
... at least that is where it WAS, 30 million years ago!
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.
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.
“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?
I wouldn't want to be any closer than the one in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
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.
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.
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.
It’s a Black hole, not a Black Ho.
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.
Man are you in for a surprise.
There goes the neighborhood.
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.
You are the one who is in for a surprise.
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 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?
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.
>>About 6,000 years ago.
And yet there’s 420,000 years information in the Vostok Ice Cores.
Yahweh sure is a clever trickster.
Division by zero? You mean it's not just what exists when an object is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius.
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?
Uhuh. Does this model by any chance bolster your religiously constrained world-view that the Earth is only 6000 years old?
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...
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.
...GourmetDan is a stuttering pompous ASS?
[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?
LomanBill is a stuttering pompous ASS?
[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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
...must be explained away in order to prop up your mendacious religionist facade that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
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.
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.
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?
Not any more invisible than the air you breath or the internet.
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?
>>Do you likewise deny the potential energy in the wind
Do you likewise deny the KINETIC energy in the wind
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.