Massive black hole discovered in nearby galaxy (30 million light-years from Earth)

Yaho ^ | 1/10/11 | AFP

[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.

[Defiant]

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.

[Halgr]

Man are you in for a surprise.

[Slings and Arrows]

There goes the neighborhood.

[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.

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.

[GourmetDan]

You are the one who is in for a surprise.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[GourmetDan]

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?

[aruanan]

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.

[GourmetDan]

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.

[LomanBill]

>>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.

[LomanBill]

[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?

 

[GourmetDan]

"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...

[GourmetDan]

"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.

[LomanBill]

>>Looks like...

...GourmetDan is a stuttering pompous ASS?

[LomanBill]

[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?

[GourmetDan]

>>Looks like...

LomanBill is a stuttering pompous ASS?

[LomanBill]

[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?

[LomanBill]

[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?