Overclock.net banner

[NASA] Gravitational Wave Kicks Monster Black Hole Out of Galactic Core

8K views 105 replies 39 participants last post by  DNMock 
#1 ·
Quote:
Astronomers have uncovered a supermassive black hole that has been propelled out of the center of a distant galaxy by what could be the awesome power of gravitational waves.

Though there have been several other suspected, similarly booted black holes elsewhere, none has been confirmed so far. Astronomers think this object, detected by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, is a very strong case. Weighing more than 1 billion suns, the rogue black hole is the most massive black hole ever detected to have been kicked out of its central home.
Source
 
#2 ·
It took the energy of what? No, if the object is as massive as they claim it isn't the thing that moved.

See, the problem is that 'black holes' become stuck in space-time and cannot move forward. You've heard the old wormhole theory on them. Still not proven wrong simply because while it's a theory, everything else that's been put forward has been speculation - postulates that cannot even be supported with real mathematics.

The article itself says it is speculation by using the word "candidates" and goes on to use the term "weighing" which is about as unscientific as the phrase "like, verb dude" in that the alleged object is the source of its local gravity and would weigh nothing.

They're even claiming that this object is a 'super-massive black hole' that was created when two 'super-massive black holes' hit each other.... Which doesn't jive because basic gravitic mathematics predicts they will annihilate each other as their gravitational gradients negate each other's integrity.

"100 million supernovas exploding simultaneously" isn't an amount of energy that is applicable since that is measured in photons and is a completely negligible force to a 'black hole'.

Keep in mind that the Hubble Space Telescope doesn't detect anything but photons and anything this "distant" in space-time would have to be brought forward by a computer algorithm.

Then we get into the theory of "recoil from gravity waves"... which contradicts the theory that 'black holes' can actually form.

Article goes on to list the LIGO observatory "observations" last year of 'Gravitational Waves' that they claim came from two 'stellar mass black holes' colliding - which is a neat trick because those cannot exist according to the black hole theory and LIGO has yet to prove that the data was not temporal waves caused by a momentary propagating change in the Weak Force Constant - something we now know varies (and undermines about 70% of astrophysics).

It is far far more likely that an object of this supposed mass had its gravitational effect imbalanced and it PULLED itself out of the alleged galaxy by spaghettification force alone - sort of a tidal gravitational drive mechanic.

Or the two objects could literally be a hundred million light years apart and have nothing to do with each other except that they happened to line up when we pointed some telescopes at them. 3C 186 is literally 8 billion light years away https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/photo10-145.html and we literally have no way to provide a parallax measurement of distance at that range - the exoticy of the objects means we also cannot use red-shift information to compare them.

Makes beautiful sci-fi reading tho, eh?

Article is click-bait - a press-release, NOT science.
 
#3 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by prjindigo View Post

See, the problem is that 'black holes' become stuck in space-time and cannot move forward.
ummm....except they do....

they rotate, they orbit, they roam, etc. just like any other celestial body where do you get your information on these things?

and just to cover some else of what you said, gravitational recoil has to do with the merger of binary or more black holes not the actual black hole formation of the individual and is an edge case in binary black hole systems with rotations that contradict each other.
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by prjindigo View Post

THEY are the mass that does not move in their system. You didn't read all of what I wrote.
i did, and nothing you say supports the argument of stationary black holes, you combine alot of stuff that has to do with black holes and threw in edge cases as the norm in formation of super massives to generate a post full of mashed up technical jargon that doesnt prove any of your point and sounds more like you took every word you could involving black holes and tried to put it into a cohesive sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prjindigo View Post

It is far far more likely that an object of this supposed mass had its gravitational effect imbalanced and it PULLED itself out of the alleged galaxy by spaghettification force alone - sort of a tidal gravitational drive mechanic.
i mean what? did you really write this and think "yes this makes sense" , do you know what spaghettification or tidal forces are? or even that the force exerted by a mass to another is F = G(mass1*mass2)/D squared and drops off substantially at distance which this sentence alone doesn't make any sense based on that.
 
#6 ·
If Blackholes are stationary and Supermassive Black holes form the center of our Galaxy then if the Andromeda galaxy is spinning our way (potentially colliding with our Milky Way galaxy in Billions of years or more) then evidently Andromeda is moving with it's Super massive Black hole at its heart. Ergo Super Massive Black holes are not stationary.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: kyrie74
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by prjindigo View Post

Article is click-bait - a press-release, NOT science.
I think it is a nice article. It is released by Nasa and instead of the dozen of crappy "scientific" article I read posted here, this one is actually a good one, i.e. enough content for the mass to understand but just enough for those who like to dig a bit more on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prjindigo View Post

"100 million supernovas exploding simultaneously" isn't an amount of energy that is applicable since that is measured in photons and is a completely negligible force to a 'black hole'.

Keep in mind that the Hubble Space Telescope doesn't detect anything but photons and anything this "distant" in space-time would have to be brought forward by a computer algorithm.
Have you ever heard of the energy mass equivalence? Photon is energy (E=hv). Mass is energy (mass and momentum). If the average supernovae release a known amount of energy, you can approximate something as energetic as black holes colliding with something like supernovae explosion. It's totally fine. Every energy measure is arbitrary. Nothing prevent you to use your own as long as it makes sense. In this case it does because it's just a large public report and using SI unit is quite meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prjindigo View Post

Article goes on to list the LIGO observatory "observations" last year of 'Gravitational Waves' that they claim came from two 'stellar mass black holes' colliding - which is a neat trick because those cannot exist according to the black hole theory and LIGO has yet to prove that the data was not temporal waves caused by a momentary propagating change in the Weak Force Constant - something we now know varies (and undermines about 70% of astrophysics).
I wanted to go through your post but everything is wrong. I don't have the time or will to figure out where the hell you pulled out that crap. LIGO is a Michelson interferometer. It detects a phase shift of the light and is very precise. The results were reviewed and the gravitational wave detection is something that was awaited a long time ago.

TL;DR I never read so much crap in a single post. I don't know where to start.
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just a nickname View Post

TL;DR I never read so much crap in a single post. I don't know where to start.
No kidding. And I say this as a guy who all of four days ago went to a talk given by one of the LIGO researchers, where they did explain that it was, in fact, gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity.

I have no idea where he came up with that post. It certainly wasn't established science.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghoxt View Post

While I agree the phenomena that we are seeing that occured 8 billion years ago is interesting, I'm not so arrogant to postulate that we "Humans" have any idea what is actually ongoing outside out small range of Light, Atmospheric Pressure and Symptoms of Gravity that are local to us.
See no science, hear no science, eh?

You do realize that the only reason you're able to communicate this narrow-minded viewpoint is through significant effort into realms of physics that are just as far from our everyday experience to be just as "arrogant" to assert? That the semiconductor physics allowing us to make the computer you typed this post on, the fiber-optic physics allowing you to send it to me over the internet, and the emission and modulation physics in the display I'm reading it on have just as little to do with what you think we as humans are entitled to know?
 
#12 ·
These types of numbers are just terrifying to even picture, nothing like astrophysics to make you feel really insignificant. Note how everything moved around it. I'm in a cold sweat.

A black hole with 1 billion solar masses would pull Earth with a force equal to the Sun from half a light year away. It does the same thing to Uranus from a distance of 9.6 light years. It would have enough influence to disturb those orbits from much further away.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

See no science, hear no science, eh?

You do realize that the only reason you're able to communicate this narrow-minded viewpoint is through significant effort into realms of physics that are just as far from our everyday experience to be just as "arrogant" to assert? That the semiconductor physics allowing us to make the computer you typed this post on, the fiber-optic physics allowing you to send it to me over the internet, and the emission and modulation physics in the display I'm reading it on have just as little to do with what you think we as humans are entitled to know?
You mis-categorize my statement and go further into asking unrelated questions. I have no problem with existing technologies created within our realm of existence. I believe NASA has thrown out some hypothesis in this regard, and that's all. No need to claim anything is fact, is all I'm saying. We see these sensational news articles all the time and have for for decades.

That said, your "Narrow Minded" arrow in my direction was not waranted as I did not attack anyone in my post. Certain short reciprocal english words came to mind in your direction of course. Two to be specific. If you note in my post I said "I'm not so arrogant" I choose to only describe me so if that bothers you that's not my problem.
 
#16 ·
actually, blackholes not physically moving can be proven if space folding can be proven.

rather than blackholes moving themselves, space around it is whats moving, causing it's spatial coordinates to shift.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by prjindigo View Post

It took the energy of what? No, if the object is as massive as they claim it isn't the thing that moved.

See, the problem is that 'black holes' become stuck in space-time and cannot move forward. You've heard the old wormhole theory on them. Still not proven wrong simply because while it's a theory, everything else that's been put forward has been speculation - postulates that cannot even be supported with real mathematics.

The article itself says it is speculation by using the word "candidates" and goes on to use the term "weighing" which is about as unscientific as the phrase "like, verb dude" in that the alleged object is the source of its local gravity and would weigh nothing.

They're even claiming that this object is a 'super-massive black hole' that was created when two 'super-massive black holes' hit each other.... Which doesn't jive because basic gravitic mathematics predicts they will annihilate each other as their gravitational gradients negate each other's integrity.

"100 million supernovas exploding simultaneously" isn't an amount of energy that is applicable since that is measured in photons and is a completely negligible force to a 'black hole'.

Keep in mind that the Hubble Space Telescope doesn't detect anything but photons and anything this "distant" in space-time would have to be brought forward by a computer algorithm.

Then we get into the theory of "recoil from gravity waves"... which contradicts the theory that 'black holes' can actually form.

Article goes on to list the LIGO observatory "observations" last year of 'Gravitational Waves' that they claim came from two 'stellar mass black holes' colliding - which is a neat trick because those cannot exist according to the black hole theory and LIGO has yet to prove that the data was not temporal waves caused by a momentary propagating change in the Weak Force Constant - something we now know varies (and undermines about 70% of astrophysics).

It is far far more likely that an object of this supposed mass had its gravitational effect imbalanced and it PULLED itself out of the alleged galaxy by spaghettification force alone - sort of a tidal gravitational drive mechanic.

Or the two objects could literally be a hundred million light years apart and have nothing to do with each other except that they happened to line up when we pointed some telescopes at them. 3C 186 is literally 8 billion light years away https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/photo10-145.html and we literally have no way to provide a parallax measurement of distance at that range - the exoticy of the objects means we also cannot use red-shift information to compare them.

Makes beautiful sci-fi reading tho, eh?

Article is click-bait - a press-release, NOT science.
I was about to write something along these lines but you so thoroughly did so I feel I only have to wholeheartedly support your post.

Too many speculative articles are being heralded as hard truth these days it's hurting mass perception of how much we actually understand about the universe.

The parallax effect as well reminds me of Halton Arp talking about intrinsic red shift. Interesting watch for anyone interested in this field https://youtu.be/EckBfKPAGNM
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Echoa View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahigan View Post

Andromeda is moving with it's Super massive Black hole at its heart.
Andromeda just wants to feel whole again...her last galactic merger left her feeling empty inside...we're here Andromeda, the milky way will love you and fill that hole in your heart.
After the last Mass Effect, i think we should lay off Andromedas for a while...
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by GANDALFtheGREY View Post

I was about to write something along these lines but you so thoroughly did so I feel I only have to wholeheartedly support your post.

Too many speculative articles are being heralded as hard truth these days it's hurting mass perception of how much we actually understand about the universe.

The parallax effect as well reminds me of Halton Arp talking about intrinsic red shift. Interesting watch for anyone interested in this field https://youtu.be/EckBfKPAGNM
Er...what?

No.

There are good reasons for these assertions. Just because a few fringe nihilists think that we can't possibly know anything does not mean we can't make predictions, have those predictions confirmed, and be confident in the reasoning we used to generate those predictions.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top