M87: 6.5 billion times larger than the sun, and it's real!

55 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cognostic's picture
M87: 6.5 billion times larger than the sun, and it's real!

The first real image of a Black Hole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l29wCKkQpMg

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

David Killens's picture
Not only is it massive, it

Not only is it massive, it generates so much energy it has a powerful influence on it's galaxy. Science has taken one more positive step in our understanding of the known universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrQZi02LKQY

arakish's picture
Wow. Someone else has taken

Wow. Someone else has taken an interest. Thought I was the only one watching all the live news feeds.

Here is the Hubble Telescope image showing the massive energy jet it throws out.

rmfr

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
David Killens's picture
Heck arakish, this stuff

Heck arakish, this stuff captivates me. I sat in on a stream by Dr Pamela Gay, and a healthy bunch of us watched the entire presentation. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/408957922

arakish's picture
Yeah, this stuff is still one

Yeah, this stuff is still one of me greatest passions. Hell, just been studying it (in free time) for over 45 years. Getting to be almost over 50 years. Damn, that is long to study anything.

rmfr

arakish's picture
Here is the very first image

Here is the very first image of a black hole that Hubble captured.

rmfr

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
arakish's picture
Here is the second image of a

Here is the second image of a black hole that Hubble captured.

rmfr

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
MarylinC's picture
That’s just one discovery.

That’s just one discovery.

The thing I always think about is that our universe is so huge, if you transmitted a message to the other side of it at the speed of light and waited for a reply, at the same speed it would take around 1,300,000,000 YEARS for us to get it. All that space is literally crammed full of undiscovered knowledge waiting for us to go and discover. I find that thought both mind boggling and also truly beautiful.

So much better than thinking I can find all my answers by sticking my nose into an old book from 2,000 years ago.

arakish's picture
@ MarylinC

@ MarylinC

Uhh... You missed. It would take about 13,800,000,000 years. Then another 13,800,000,000 years to receive a reply.

rmfr

David Killens's picture
Actually, no. The universe is

Actually, no. The universe is expanding so quickly that if a message was transmitted (at the speed of light) from one end of our known universe, it would never reach the other side.

MarylinC's picture
Yes that's true actually!

Yes that's true actually!

arakish's picture
Of course, you are correct

Of course, you are correct David. I forgot about the expansion factor and the latest discovery that the expansion is accelerating.

Thanks for the correction.

rmfr

Diotrephes's picture
arakish,

arakish,

"Uhh... You missed. It would take about 13,800,000,000 years. Then another 13,800,000,000 years to receive a reply."

That is an inaccurate statement. The radius of the observable universe is about 45.7 billion light years. The diameter is about 93 billion years. https://futurism.com/how-can-the-diameter-of-the-universe-the-age

So if someone on one end of the diameter sent a message to another person on the other end of the diameter it would take a minimum of 186 billion of our years before he received a reply (if things worked perfectly). That is almost 7 times longer than you calculated. Even Methuselah didn't live that long.

I think it's useful to visualize the observable universe as a sphere with each of the estimated 200 billion galaxies occupying 1 cubic foot of space. 200 cubic feet will give you a sphere of about 7 miles in diameter. Now imagine your galaxy on one end of the diameter trying to communicate with a galaxy on the other end 7 miles away. It would be like someone on a quarter grain of sand trying to talk to someone on another quarter grain of sand 7 miles away. (The scale might be off bt you shold get the idea). Space is damn huge.

arakish's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

And you are getting your information from a MEDIA website that practices sensationalism over actual scientific data.

No. The current observable universe is 13.799 ± 0.2 billion light years. The hypothetical total observable universe is 43.6 ± 1.8 billion light years. And the hypothetical total size of the universe is estimated at 93.4 ± 2.5 billion light years.

And remember, the other two sizes are HYPOTHETICAL.

The total hypothetical observable universe is defined as being within all possible scientifically detectable spectrums.

The total hypothetical size is defined as being at the point that the universe is expanding at rate faster than light and can never observed. Ever.

Do some better research. Do not rely on MEDIA outlets. Media are unscrupulous, uncaring, heartless, callous, ruthless, brutal, and merciless. The media does not give a shit about what it actually prints/televises/etc. All the media cares about is sucking in the gullible. Think Critically about it.

Remember, I am the one with a Baccalaureate in Astrophysics - Celestial Mechanics and Orbital Mechanics and has been studying this for almost over 50 years (over 45).

rmfr

EDIT: had to fix HTML entity; 2nd - inserted omitted word

NewSkeptic's picture
What's a few billion light

What's a few billion light years anyway?

All you need is a spore-drive and you can get there instantly, so it takes two instantlies to go there and back.

Really, don't any of you watch the new Star Trek show?

Talyyn's picture
I have not yet watched the

I have not yet watched the episode 12 of the new season.

Anyway, for the black hole, i was over excited for a few days before the release.

Tin-Man's picture
@NewSkeptic Re: "All you

@NewSkeptic Re: "All you need is a spore-drive and you can get there instantly,"

Of course, another option would be a type of drive based on the speed of thought. (See Robert A. Heinlein's "Time for the Stars." Cosmic distance travel made quick and easy... *grin*... Well, at the very least, cosmic distance communications...

Diotrephes's picture
arakish,

arakish,

“No. The current observable universe is 13.799 ± 0.2 billion light years.”

Sorry but I think you keep making the basic error of calculating age by distance. While it is possible to use the speed of light to calculate distance it is not an accurate metric to use for calculating the age of an object.

Look at this image that depicts the lights from cities around the world at night. The imagine itself is a fake because in reality half the world is in varying degrees of light while the other half is in varying degrees of darkness. https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/49259main_flat_earth_nightm.jpe

But we can use the image to illustrate a point or two. It is possible to use the speed of light to measure distances so we can calculate the distance between Santiago, Chile, and Tokyo, Japan by measuring the time it takes light to travel between them. We can do the same thing in outer space.

Now when we look out into outer space from our view point we can determine that it takes the light from the farthest galaxy 14 billion years to reach us (for ease of conversation). But that is only in one direction. When we look in the opposite direction we can also see objects 14 billion light years from us. But that does not mean that the objects are actually 14 billion years old. If it did then it would mean that they are 14 billion years old in relation to themselves (each other) although they are 28 billion light years from each other.

In the case of the world image we have a time difference between the lights but it only measures distance. It can’t measure age. We could turn on the master switch and light up the world (the universe) and all of the lights would be the same age. In reality stars come on line and die off all the time but we don’t know what the cycle is for galaxies.

So use the speed of light for measuring distances but do not try to use it for measuring age. It simply doesn’t work that way in the real world or in the real universe.

Nyarlathotep's picture
arakish - The current

arakish - The current observable universe is 13.799 ± 0.2 billion light years. The hypothetical total observable universe is 43.6 ± 1.8 billion light years. And the hypothetical total size of the universe is estimated at 93.4 ± 2.5 billion light years.

And remember, the other two sizes are HYPOTHETICAL.

Diotrephes - Sorry but I think you keep making the basic error of calculating age by distance.

It's pretty clear arakish was talking about distance, not age.

Diotrephes's picture
Nyarlathotep,

Nyarlathotep,

"It's pretty clear arakish was talking about distance, not age."

OK, so how OLD do you think the universe is and how did you arrive at that figure?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Diotrephes - OK, so how OLD

Diotrephes - OK, so how OLD do you think the universe is and how did you arrive at that figure?

The dimensions of the Hubble parameter (Ho) are 1/[T]. So the dimensions of the inverse of the Hubble parameter (1/Ho) is time. The Hubble parameter has units of kilometers/(seconds*megaparsec).

Ho^(-1) ≈ H^(-1) * (s̶e̶c̶o̶n̶d̶s * m̶e̶g̶a̶p̶a̶r̶s̶e̶cs)/k̶i̶l̶o̶m̶e̶t̶e̶r̶s * (10^6) * p̶a̶r̶s̶e̶c̶s/m̶e̶g̶a̶p̶a̶r̶s̶e̶cs * 3 * 10^13 * k̶i̶l̶o̶m̶e̶t̶e̶s/p̶a̶r̶s̶e̶c̶s * 1/(3 * 10^7) * years/s̶e̶c̶o̶n̶d̶s ≈ H^(-1) * 10^12 years.

The value of H varies somewhat on how it is measured, from about 67 to about 74, plug that in and you get ages of about 15 billion years, to about 13.5 billion years. So my answer is order of magnitude 10^10 years since the surface of last scattering.

Diotrephes's picture
Nyarlathotep,

Nyarlathotep,

Thanks for the explanation. I'm lousy at math. There is supposed to be objects that are around 12 billion years old in the neighborhood. http://annesastronomynews.com/photo-gallery-ii/galaxies-clusters/messier...

Nyarlathotep's picture
Diotrephes - There is

Diotrephes - There is supposed to be objects that are around 12 billion years old in the neighborhood.

The hydrogen molecules in the water of your body are probably older than that; I don't get your point.

Diotrephes's picture
Nyarlathotep,

Nyarlathotep,

"The hydrogen molecules in the water of your body are probably older than that; I don't get your point."

The Messier 15 globular cluster is one of the approximately 155 clusters that orbit our galaxy. It is about 35,000 light years from us and is supposed to be about 12 billion years old.

In your explanation didn't you use distance to calculate age? If you did then how can Messier 15 be about the same age as the universe? I said that I was lousy at math so anything harder than 1 plus 1 can be a challenge.

It seems that the establishment has a lot invested in the idea that the universe is about 14 billion years old but their measuring device is not appropriate for determining age, it is only good for determining distances.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Diotrephes - In your

Diotrephes - In your explanation didn't you use distance to calculate age?

Distance demands a minimum age because the speed of light is known and it is not infinite.

The force of gravity is a function of inverse distance squared, the expansion rate is not; or in English: the expansion rate for close objects is insignificant compared to gravity (and other forces). That is why objects in the local group are bound together. It is also why the hydrogen in your body is not expanding.

arakish's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

Since your data comes from an article written by a sensationalism rag, you are arguing against the Brick Wall of FACTS — Formulated Accurately Codified Truth in Science.

What part of "Baccalaureate in Astrophysics with Focus in Celestial Mechanics and Orbital Mechanics" do you not understand.

Because of this and the other Baccalaureate (you need two) I have exclusive, FREE access to all science journal papers as they are published for Peer-Review. I do not get to Peer Review them, but I do get to comment on them.

So keep believing those stories written by sensationalism rags. You might actually get a job as Editor at National Enquirer.

You knew exactly what I meant. You just hate being wrong all the time.

You can't handle the truth.

rmfr

Rohan M.'s picture
@MarylinC Yep. It's better to

@MarylinC Yep. It's better to actually try to find the actual answer to the mysteries in our universe instead of going "I don't know, so therefore Goddidit".

MarylinC's picture
@ arakish

@ arakish

I must be right, god told me. :)

Uh, perhaps not.

Tin-Man's picture
@Marylin Re: "I must be

@Marylin Re: "I must be right, god told me. :) Uh, perhaps not."

...*snortle*.... Glad I wasn't eating/drinking when I read that... lol... Yeah, you fit in pretty good around here... *grin*...

MarylinC's picture
Thanks Tin-Man.

Thanks Tin-Man.

Yeah I think it's a cool place you've got here.

arakish's picture
MarylinC: "@ arakish – I must

MarylinC: "@ arakish – I must be right, god told me. :) – Uh, perhaps not."

Definitely glad I obey the two by-laws of forum reading.

  • Thou shalt not be drinking or eating or holding a plate of food whilst thou art reading posts on these forums, for thou shalt never know when a post may cause great spewage and/or a great wreckage of debris.
  • Thou shalt don a catcher’s mask or football helmet with a face mask to prevent great injury due to repeated facepalms. Thou hast been warned.

As Tin-Man said, you'll fit nicely.

rmfr

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.