It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supermassive Black Hole 12 Billion Times Size of the Sun

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai does energy have mass? Because if a black hole is converting mass into energy why would it retain the mass of everything it had consumed?




posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asynchrony
12 billion times the size of the sun? How do they know that the universe wasn't big banged into existence and instead fell out of that black hole like a wet seal on a waterslide?


Mass not size. Though neither are easily quantifiable. By their estimation, they are assuming the black hole has a weight, or mass equal to 12 billion suns.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
If our present understanding of redhsift is wrong then everything based on its calculation could be wrong.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

E=mc2

A common consideration is that the black hole increases with size due to the amount of mass they contain. But what it has to do with the ability of the black hole to process that matter into energy. The speed of light squared can be related to as a temporal value which by the way factors prominently in black hole theory.

In context how does time factor in. When as I has offered matter transitions from the energy state of say a particle to the energy state of the grand scale of the Universe?




edit on 25-2-2015 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
For those that might be confused on Size vs. Mass:

Let's say you have 2 marbles. One made of glass, the other made of lead. Both have a diameter of 1 centimeter. That is their "size".

However, the one made of lead will have more mass than the one made of glass. You can tell this by placing one in each hand. The lead one will be heavier than the glass one.

One way to tell the mass of a black hole is by it's gravitational influence on other things near it. For example, the massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. There are several stars orbiting it. By observing the orbits of those stars, gives astronomers enough information to get a pretty good calculation of the black hole's mass.

Our sun is about 880,000 miles in diameter. If this black hole were to have a "size" 12 billion times that, the answer would be:

10,560,000,000,000,000 miles in diameter. That is 1,796,338 light years.

That's halfway between our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy.

Sorry, but no.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Interesting find Kashai. Is it possible a large Galaxy Star cluster group went supernova simultaneously for some reason in like a fast domino effect causing such a large void point of observation or this super massive black hole? And if true could such a SMBH be redistributing the absorbed and cycled matter back into the observable Universe as Dark matter/energy. That then after further processes would be turned into matter, again 1 wonders...

NAMASTE*******



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Thank you for that very concise and user friendly explanation.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai I don't get your question, can you rephrase please 😊



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Fascinating point!! What if there was some kind of compression like wth millions of neutron stars?


edit on 25-2-2015 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

What I am saying is that we commonly consider that the mass of a black hole is reducible to the conclusion that it is holding something and so experiences growth.

But what if that is not the case?



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
For those that might be confused on Size vs. Mass:

Let's say you have 2 marbles. One made of glass, the other made of lead. Both have a diameter of 1 centimeter. That is their "size".

However, the one made of lead will have more mass than the one made of glass. You can tell this by placing one in each hand. The lead one will be heavier than the glass one.

One way to tell the mass of a black hole is by it's gravitational influence on other things near it. For example, the massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. There are several stars orbiting it. By observing the orbits of those stars, gives astronomers enough information to get a pretty good calculation of the black hole's mass.

Our sun is about 880,000 miles in diameter. If this black hole were to have a "size" 12 billion times that, the answer would be:

10,560,000,000,000,000 miles in diameter. That is 1,796,338 light years.

That's halfway between our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy.

Sorry, but no.


An even simpler way would be to compare an inflatable sex doll with a human being. Same size but i know which one...
erm...anywho



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

That sounds plausible Kashai as the speculated event would seem to involve multiple celestial bodies of some kind.

Factoring in the compression effects said to be associated with neutron stars, supernova remnant (SNR) from multiple neutron stars compressing from multiple galaxy cluster supernova or other unknown large energy disperse event 1 agrees could also be a cause of this void region



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Are you saying that when mass falls on/into a black hole that the state of its existence can still be expressed externally as mass regardless of it's condition on the inside?



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
The big bang was a singularity, it could have been the event of a massive black hole at one time exploding or something along those lines.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13



The formation of the first stars and first galaxies brought about several fundamental changes in the rapidly evolving universe. For one, these stars provided the universe with its first source of elements heavier than beryllium. While conditions early on in the big bang were not appropriate for the generation of the heavier elements, such elements could easily be generated at the cores of massive stars and then later expelled into the surrounding universe when these stars explode as supernovae. The second profound change brought about this first generation of stars was the introduction of high-energy photons into the universe. Previously, the last the universe had seen of such high-energy photons was during the first 400,000 years of the universe when the universe was still very hot and hydrogen still existed in an ionized state.


Source


Agreed and taking into consideration Star formation of the period the stars in any particular cluster could have all experience supernovas at relatively close time to each other.

Supporting your position.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Hmmm... This got me wondering, what if the whole observable universe is just on the edge of the event horizon of a black hole that is bigger than the universe itself and the redshift we see on the farthest objects is because they are about to go past this event horizon?

Kind of like this whole universe is just rotating on the accretion disk of an even bigger black hole like our sun revolves around the galaxy?



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: Kashai

Are you saying that when mass falls on/into a black hole that the state of its existence can still be expressed externally as mass regardless of it's condition on the inside?



Potentially and at the large scale structure of the Universe.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

White holes are the ol' quasars... of course. Or maybe they spit out the planets surreptitiously... a planet here, one there... so the outpouring is not as noticeable as the black holes hoovering up of mass?

But I do like Unity's theory... even if it's wrong.


It's not a theory if you can't even hang a hat on it LOL.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Hypothetically and for the sake of argument (lets try to keep this simple).....

The reason a proton or electron or neutrons exist is because of a fundamental property related to the next energy state (again the large scale structure of the Universe).

Suggesting that potentially the Universe at such scales is an atom.


Any thoughts?



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
What I do not understand is this object a part of a Galaxy and why is the data on the location so generalized?
Just read the wiki on quasars, they are unique objects. A quasar might be the size of our solar system and have an power output 100 times as much as all the billions of stars in the Milky Way combined. They're quite amazing.

The quasar probably no longer exists (though the black hole probably does), and the Earth didn't exist when the light we see from that quasar was emitted. See the problem with citing a distance? The remnants of the quasar might be something like 42 billion light years from Earth at the present moment based on the observable universe having a radius of 46 billion light years and the fact that the light we see was emitted when the universe was maybe 1 billion years old.


originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: Kashai I was thinking more in terms of general gravitational Influence. I guess some people think the event horizon is part of the size but its not really.
The event horizon is certainly relevant and is one measure of the "size" of the black hole, but you are correct in stating an observer falling into a black hole wouldn't experience anything special at the event horizon of a black hole of this mass.

The singularity in relativity is almost certainly wrong and we won't know the true form of what's inside the event horizon of a black hole until we have a viable theory of quantum gravity which we lack.


originally posted by: eriktheawful
Our sun is about 880,000 miles in diameter. If this black hole were to have a "size" 12 billion times that, the answer would be:

10,560,000,000,000,000 miles in diameter. That is 1,796,338 light years.

That's halfway between our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy.
Correct. Astronomers said the event horizon radius of a black hole with mass of 17 billion suns would be about 300 times the distance from the Earth to the sun (aka "AU"), so we can adjust that down a little for 12 billion solar masses.

www.universetoday.com...

Now, astronomers using the Hobby-Eberly Telescope at The University of Texas at Austin’s McDonald Observatory have identified what appears to be the most massive SMBH ever found, a 17 billion solar mass behemoth residing at the heart of galaxy NGC 1277...

It’s estimated that the size of this SMBH’s event horizon is eleven times the diameter of Neptune’s orbit — an incredible radius of over 300 AU.
So the event horizon radius of a 12 billion solar mass black hole might be something like 22,000 times as large as the sun's radius? That's not an exact calculation, but it's definitely nowhere near 12 billion times the radius as you said.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join