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.

 

Monster black hole 12 billion times the mass of the sun discovered

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 05:44 AM
link   
I cant really get my head around the size of this thing. It looks like they have discovered the mother of all black holes.




An "impossibly large" black hole 12 billion times the mass of the Sun and that powered one of the brightest objects in the early universe has been discovered. An international team of astronomers spotted the giant black hole at the centre of a quasar that pumps out a million billion times the energy of our Sun.


www.ibtimes.co.uk...



It sits some I12.8 billion light years away and was formed 900 million years after the Big Bang. So we dont have to worry about it sucking in our solar system yet..

Purp..




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

This is cool, but I remember reading a post not too long ago about how the universe was eternal, and black holes didn't exist. So which is it?



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: purplemer

This is cool, but I remember reading a post not too long ago about how the universe was eternal, and black holes didn't exist. So which is it?


I wonder if black holes exist. Adleast with our present understanding anyways. They are detected by their ability to give out large amounts of energy. Not really what I would expect a black hole to do.

There is something there but what they really are is not in my opinion understood as such...

purp..



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   
It's so difficult to comprehend. Hopefully one day we will solve the riddle that is black holes



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: purplemer



I cant really get my head around the size of this thing


You're not the only one-I read the headline and I was taken aback.

The suspected black hole at the center of the milky way is about 4 million solar masses, and this one is 12 billion??? that is a monster. The fact that it was formed when the universe was in it's infancy might hold a clue to why it got so big.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

Oh the theories of black holes, well just use your imagination, suppose we are in one ? you know how the eye of a hurricane is quite serene, planes can fly in them etc, but to everyone outside of that it is quite ominous, yes I know hurricanes and black holes are apples and oranges but honestly if they were that size, how long would it take for all matter to be sucked into it ? and considering matter to space ratio, there is very little matter, for me I'll believe it when I see it.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

It comes with the territory of being a quasar. We think that quasars are byproducts of a young and highly active galaxy since all known quasars are millions if not billions of light years away.

Quasar - Properties


More than 200,000 quasars are known, most from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. All observed quasar spectra have redshifts between 0.056 and 7.085. Applying Hubble's law to these redshifts, it can be shown that they are between 600 million[12] and 28.85 billion light-years away (in terms of comoving distance). Because of the great distances to the farthest quasars and the finite velocity of light, we see them and their surrounding space as they existed in the very early universe.


Therefore, it is highly likely that quasar isn't active anymore. I must say though, quasars are one of the coolest things in the universe


Since quasars exhibit properties common to all active galaxies, the emission from quasars can be readily compared to those of smaller active galaxies powered by smaller supermassive black holes. To create a luminosity of 1040 watts (the typical brightness of a quasar), a super-massive black hole would have to consume the material equivalent of 10 stars per year. The brightest known quasars devour 1000 solar masses of material every year. The largest known is estimated to consume matter equivalent to 600 Earths per minute. Quasar luminosities can vary considerably over time, depending on their surroundings. Since it is difficult to fuel quasars for many billions of years, after a quasar finishes accreting the surrounding gas and dust, it becomes an ordinary galaxy.

Quasars also provide some clues as to the end of the Big Bang's reionization. The oldest known quasars (redshift ≥ 6) display a Gunn-Peterson trough and have absorption regions in front of them indicating that the intergalactic medium at that time was neutral gas. More recent quasars show no absorption region but rather their spectra contain a spiky area known as the Lyman-alpha forest; this indicates that the intergalactic medium has undergone reionization into plasma, and that neutral gas exists only in small clouds.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

black holes are just a fantasy, a dream in the mind(math) of relativity theorists.
How did they spotted it? did they saw it or is it just an assumption there has to be a giant black hole according to their theories?
Even then, it's ridiculous to assume this when they don't even know what a quasar really is and their interpretation of the red shift is wrong or incomplete.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: purplemer

black holes are just a fantasy, a dream in the mind(math) of relativity theorists.
How did they spotted it? did they saw it or is it just an assumption there has to be a giant black hole according to their theories?


Well they CAN detect black holes as per the OP. But even smaller black holes are detectable through accretion. Black Holes


Scientists can't directly observe black holes with telescopes that detect x-rays, light, or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. We can, however, infer the presence of black holes and study them by detecting their effect on other matter nearby. If a black hole passes through a cloud of interstellar matter, for example, it will draw matter inward in a process known as accretion. A similar process can occur if a normal star passes close to a black hole. In this case, the black hole can tear the star apart as it pulls it toward itself. As the attracted matter accelerates and heats up, it emits x-rays that radiate into space. Recent discoveries offer some tantalizing evidence that black holes have a dramatic influence on the neighborhoods around them - emitting powerful gamma ray bursts, devouring nearby stars, and spurring the growth of new stars in some areas while stalling it in others.



Even then, it's ridiculous to assume this when they don't even know what a quasar really is and their interpretation of the red shift is wrong or incomplete.


What is wrong with putting forth the best explanation possible with the given evidence? Why would we hold back on trying to explain something while waiting to get a complete picture? A complete picture may never come. Just because it may ultimately end up being completely wrong doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to explain it. We have this evidence and this is what it is saying. Therefore that is the explanation we give. When new evidence comes along and paints a different picture, we'll change what we are saying then.
edit on 26-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




When new evidence comes along and paints a different picture, we'll change what we are saying then.

That has to be the biggest joke in mainstream science



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

Why? Science updates all the time. What's so bad about discarding the things that have been shown to be incorrect?



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   
The picture below is meant to be a reminder of our place in our own solar system. I think it puts the article in the original post into a little perspective.




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Guess some people want to be right, all the time.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: purplemer

This is cool, but I remember reading a post not too long ago about how the universe was eternal, and black holes didn't exist. So which is it?

there is also the theory that our Universe is inside a Black Hole

Are we living in a Black Hole?



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

Wow... I wonder if we will ever know if Black Holes exist or not - maybe one day.. Interesting read though.. Thanks purp...



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Sounds to me like they just found one of God's ear holes.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: purplemer

This is cool, but I remember reading a post not too long ago about how the universe was eternal, and black holes didn't exist. So which is it?


I wonder if black holes exist. Adleast with our present understanding anyways. They are detected by their ability to give out large amounts of energy. Not really what I would expect a black hole to do.

There is something there but what they really are is not in my opinion understood as such...

purp..



Contrary to popular belief, black holes do give out radiation. The bigger the hole the "brighter" it is. Look it up. Stephen hawking discovered the phonemen as i recall.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014
Steven hawking just copied his mates theory and reversed it.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014




Contrary to popular belief, black holes do give out radiation. The bigger the hole the "brighter" it is. Look it up. Stephen hawking discovered the phonemen as i recall.


Do you know what is it giving out that makes it bright..?

purp.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   
I'm just damn curious to find out about how they go about estimating the weight of something they can barely see sooooo far away or for that matter, finding out about a planets geological makeup....kinda intriguing for me and I want one of those camera's, I bet the zoom would put the one on my iPhone to shame...then again, I bet NASA only releases iPhone 3 (with dirty lenses and set to monochrome) images of Luna to the public.



new topics

top topics



 
11

log in

join