Earth just got 2,000 light-years closer to Milky Way's supermassive black hole

This all may change as our instrumentation gets better but for now this is a good as it gets. 2000 light years is quite a jump IMO unless you live in a Star Wars universe.

By pinpointing the location and velocity of around 99 specific points in our galaxy, VERA has concluded that the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A, at the center of our galaxy, is actually 25,800 light-years from Earth -- almost 2,000 light-years closer than what we previously believed.

In addition, the new model calculates Earth is moving faster than we believed. Older models clocked Earth's speed at 220 kilometers (136 miles) per second, orbiting around the galaxy's centre. VERA's new model has us moving at 227 kilometers (141 miles) per second.

www.cnet.com...

Let's say the center of the galaxy. There's no black holes.

a reply to: 727Sky

Saw this, and the article said scientists have a more accurate scientific model now. Lol... i was waiting for the DOOOO0oooo0oom Pron. But no I found this to be very cool.

😊👍

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
Let's say the center of the galaxy. There's no black holes.

Hmmm, that's a head scratcher. I found articles saying astronomers have found galaxies with no black holes. How ever they've found dead supermassive stars with very dense gravity. The milky way may have more black holes then previously thought. Maybe younger galaxies will eventually start collecting massive dead stars to the center of those galaxies thus breaking forming into a black hole.🤔😊


www.sciencemag.org...

The concept of a black hole—an object so massive that its gravity prevents light from escaping—emerged in pieces over the course of decades. Albert Einstein published his theory of gravity, the general theory of relativity, in 1915. It states that gravity arises when mass and energy warp the fabric of space and time

a reply to: Bigburgh

Well, it's a basket of bad science. Stars dont collapse into black holes 🙂
Every time they feed us with popular garbage, invalidity of Kirchoff's law and validity of laws of thermodynamics have to be mentioned

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

Thanks very much, just waking up and making coffee and I'll watch this. Yeah I was wondering about exploding/collapsing stars and star dust (gold). If gold comes from exploded stars, where did the gold on earth come from?

I don't recall this but it's early and back to school for me comes to mind.

Gold is a chemical element with the symbol Au (from Latin: aurum) and atomic number 79, making it one of the higher atomic number elements that occur naturally. In a pure form, it is a bright, slightly reddish yellow, dense, soft, malleable, and ductile metal. Chemically

~Wiki

Then this is what I remembered.

Gold is thought to have been produced in supernova nucleosynthesis, and from the collision of neutron stars,[48] and to have been present in the dust from which the Solar System formed.[49]

Traditionally, gold in the universe is thought to have formed by the r-process (rapid neutron capture) in supernova nucleosynthesis,[50] but more recently it has been suggested that gold and other elements heavier than iron may also be produced in quantity by the r-process in the collision of neutron stars.[51] In both cases, satellite spectrometers at first only indirectly detected the resulting gold...

~Wiki

In addition, the new model calculates Earth is moving faster than we believed. Older models clocked Earth's speed at 220 kilometers (136 miles) per second, orbiting around the galaxy's center. VERA's new model has us moving at 227 kilometers (141 miles) per second.

When I hear speeds like this it is fascinating to think about, we are literally hurling through space with an increasing number of things to bump into and be effected by. Makes you want to hold your hands up like you are on a rollercoaster.

www.msn.com... ntists-say/ar-BB1bjUcl



Some 700 million years ago – relatively recent, by the standards of the universe – the Milky Way suffered a crash that has left a long-lasting mark on its shape, scientists say. The discovery changes our understanding of the evolution of our galaxy and its history, they claim.

For a long time, our Milky Way has been viewed as relatively static, or has fallen into an equilibrium. Instead, it is undergoing savage contortions because of a collision with a smaller galaxy known as the Large Magellanic Cloud, or LMC.

The effects of that cosmic crash are still visible today, the researchers say, in the way they upset the fabric of the galaxy itself.

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

“We were surprised to see another oddball galaxy that defies current theories,” said Kevin Cooke, postdoctoral researcher at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas, and lead author of this study. “If this tandem growth continues both the black hole and the stars surrounding it would triple in mass before the galaxy reaches the end of its life.”

As one of the brightest and most distant objects in the universe, quasars, or “quasi-stellar radio sources,” are notoriously difficult to observe because they often outshine everything around them. They form when an especially active black hole consumes huge amounts of material from its surrounding galaxy, creating strong gravitational forces. As more and more material spins faster and faster toward the center of the black hole, the material heats up and glows brightly. A quasar produces so much energy that it often outshines everything around it, blinding attempts to observe its host galaxy. Current theories predict that this energy heats up or expels the cold gas needed to create stars, stopping star birth and driving a lethal blow to a galaxy’s growth. But SOFIA reveals there is a relatively short period when the galaxy’s star birth can continue while the black hole’s feast goes on powering the quasar’s powerful forces.

www.nasa.gov...

a reply to: 727Sky

The fact that we are blazing through space at over 500,000 miles per hour is astonishing. Its things like this that made me join ats. Thank you for the info S+F

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

Hawking radiation takes care of the thermodynamic issues as it is considered blackbody radiation.

There are two Kirchhoff's laws and one deals with the conservation of charge and the other with energy.

Treating black holes as blackbodies radiating away their mass through Hawking radiation solves your concerns.

originally posted by: Themaskedbeast
a reply to: 727Sky

The fact that we are blazing through space at over 500,000 miles per hour is astonishing. Its things like this that made me join ats. Thank you for the info S+F

It could be 10 times that and we would not know!
if All the galaxy we can see are moving in the same direction at 5,000,000 mph
we could not see it! as we have nothing to compare it with.

or if you fly around the earth in the same direction it spins,
how fast are you going?
you compare your speed to the ground.

if you run fast IN a train how fast are you running?
from the out side you Are runing faster than the train!
but if you jumpt off and tride to run? ouch!

originally posted by: 727Sky
This all may change as our instrumentation gets better but for now this is a good as it gets. 2000 light years is quite a jump IMO unless you live in a Star Wars universe.

It's a misleading title, and description to say the Earth "jumped", the Earth didn't "jump 2000 light years", from your source:

No, it's simply the result of a more accurate model of the Milky Way based on new data.

Getting new data is a common occurrence in science; we get newer, better data, and we revise our old estimates accordingly. It shouldn't surprise anybody that as technology continues to advance our data gets more accurate all the time and we are often updating out estimates as a result.

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
a reply to: Bigburgh

Well, it's a basket of bad science. Stars dont collapse into black holes 🙂

Some don't. Our sun will never collapse into a black hole, it's not massive enough. A higher mass is required for that to happen and perhaps other criteria also.

Every time they feed us with popular garbage, invalidity of Kirchoff's law and validity of laws of thermodynamics have to be mentioned

This is ATS, so I guess as good a place as any to say don't believe the tens of thousands of PhD astrophysicists on the left who have done millions of hours of research, they are all dumb blind, and incompetent, but instead believe the guy in the right who has no PhD is astrophysics and doesn't even understand basic concepts taught to freshman in astrophysics 101.

Robaitaille's beliefs really do align significantly with flat earthers, maybe not about the Earth being flat, but he talks about a gas filling the available space, and doesn't seem to understand the effect of gravity, which is what prevents Earth's atmosphere from leaving the planet and going out into the surrounding vacuum. This is an amazing level of ignorance and I'm surprised he has any followers, maybe some of them are flat earthers who think a glass dome must be holding in Earth's atmosphere.

This video explains many ways in which Robitaille's beliefs parallel those of flat earth believers, many are quite ridiculous and obviously wrong. The other interesting observation is that when Robitaille and other presenters at electric universe conferences present their anti-mainstream topics, it doesn't seem to bother attendees that the presentations are in some cases mutually exclusive, and don't agree with each other. Apparently the only thing that counts is getting a presenter like Robitaille who says the mainstream guys on the left are all wrong, it doesn't matter if his theory disagrees with the other electric universe presenters.

originally posted by: Bigburgh
a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

Thanks very much, just waking up and making coffee and I'll watch this.

You might be better off listing to real astrophysicists, if you want to know something about astrophysics, like the following video by Professor Dave, rather than a man like Robitaille who is very ignorant of astrophysics.

Pierre-Marie Robitaille Is Clueless (Sky Scholar Debunked)

This video explains some things taught in Freshman university astrophysics 101 courses that Robitaille doesn't understand, but worse than that even some concepts taught in high school Robitaille doesn't understand, and worse than that, some concepts taught in middle school he doesn't understand. As one of the video comments quotes from the video:

Jeff Lund, 3 weeks ago
"an onion of stupidity, that gets dumber with every layer you peel away". Best description ever.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well, if you blindly follow popular science for kids like professor Dave who isnt even a scientist but a communicator (as he said) then you shouldnt miss Dr. Robitaille's epic reaction:



Or maybe you took the first POS that youtube has spit out on you?
He's a real scientist. The reasoning is easy to follow and hard to ignore.
The fact that there are thousands of useless eaters and yesmen means nothing. Science and institutions were always full of people like this. Cosmology is not science. It's similar to the global warming scam. It's politics and free money, lobbies. And it's a cult. Dark matter, dark energy, black holes,... how can you not see it?

a reply to: 727Sky

Interesting. Now, if the world is spinning faster than we thought could this account for the fact that some people think time is speeding up?

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well, if you blindly follow popular science for kids like professor Dave...

I don't blindly follow anyone, I am an independent critical thinker. But Dave's slide shows it's many, many astrophysicists with PhD's in astrophysics versus Pierre who has no such astrophysics PhD. You're not disputing that, you apparently confirm that with your comments like "Cosmology is not science."

Yes I watched that, he again is wrong in his rebuttal, exactly as he was in the clips Dave showed. I don't need Dave to explain this, go to time 19:31 in that video, where Pierre talks about the "Ideal gas law". He starts out right by saying that the ideal gas law doesn't include gravity. In small systems analyzed in labs, gravitational effects may exist, but they are so small they can be ignored without introducing any great errors.

But here's where he goes off the rails around 20 minutes, where he says "gravity is not part of kinetic theory". He was right that it's not part of the "ideal gas law", but the ideal gas law is a limited case which makes limited assumptions that are not applicable to things like evaluating the pressure gradient of the gas of Earth's atmosphere; you MUST include gravity in that analysis. You can't say "gravity is not part of kinetic theory" like Pierre does and expect to come up with an explanation of why earth has a gaseous atmosphere.

Here's a "Kinetic Molecular Theory" page which explains the ideal gas law first, confirming Pierre is right it doesn't include gravity. But further down on the page, there is a section on "Distribution of gas molecules in a gravitational field", which as the title implies, DOES include gravity, and this DOES explain why earth's atmosphere and the sun don't need to be made of liquids to avoid being sucked out into the vacuum of space.

Kinetic Molecular Theory

Distribution of gas molecules in a gravitational field

Everyone knows that the air pressure decreases with altitude. This effect is easily understood qualitatively through the kinetic molecular theory. Random thermal motion tends to move gas molecules in all directions equally. In the presence of a gravitational field, however, motions in a downward direction are slightly favored.

So there's a "Kinetic Molecular Theory" explanation, showing that gravity effects are considered in more advanced kinetic molecular theory, even if the over-simplified "ideal gas law" doesn't consider gravity. Few things in real life are as ideal as the assumptions made for "ideal laws", and gravity is one of those things that will render the ideal gas law an inadequate model if you look at large enough systems.

... how can you not see it?

How can you not see what I just said about Pierre's dumb argument that gravity should be ignored in kinetic analysis because he says "gravity is not part of kinetic theory"? If you ignore gravity as he suggests, then using his "ideal gas law" analysis means earth's atmosphere would get sucked out into the vacuum of space. How can you and Pierre not see that gravity is the reason that doesn't happen? You can't ignore gravity, but that's what Pierre does when he says "gravity is not part of kinetic theory". I provided you with a source showing that it is. Try to explain why earth's atmosphere doesn't get sucked into the vacuum of space without considering gravity. You can't explain it without gravity, unless you believe in the glass dome holding in the atmosphere or one of those wacky flat earth theories.

originally posted by: djz3ro
a reply to: 727Sky

Interesting. Now, if the world is spinning faster than we thought could this account for the fact that some people think time is speeding up?

The earth is spinning more slowly. When dinosaurs reigned hundreds of millions of years ago, days were only 23 hours long, and hundreds of millions of years in the future, days will be 25 hours long.

Human lives are so short on those scales that we never notice the slowing down (except for scientists using precise instruments to measure microseconds of differences).

The "time speeding up" would be a psychological perception. If you want to slow down your psychological perception of time, watch a pot and wait for it to boil.

a watched pot never boils

—used to mean that time passes very slowly when one is waiting for something to happen if that is the only thing one is thinking about

How far away were we when they started measuring? 1999.99999999 Light years away?

Anton is pretty good.

Arrrggg Earth is DOOMED i tell you !!!
In about 5 billion years ( dont wait up )
A black hole is just a star that has condensed ( COMPACTED )so much even Light is NOt fast enough to escape its gravity . THUS emits NO light THUS is BLACK .

More instrist is the fact the galaxy is moving at 500,000 MPH and if time dilation is a thing ( the closer you get to the speed of light times slows down THEN WE ARE ALREADY slowed down .
at zero speed Humans would only live 25 years !

See we are already In time dilation thus already SLOWED down in TIME .

That is why it takes forever at the check out lane !!!

It is also why I cant DRIVE 55 ( its Just dilatated to much 120 MPH yea baby .

The faster you go MPH the slower you go In time humm that implies a brake even point .
a point In speed and time match the prefect speed live to be 392 !

a reply to: 727Sky

At least your math isn't as bad as mine. I was thinking Pluto would be hitting anytime if we were 25.8K light years away, but then I realized that being 3.24 billion miles away from Pluto, they were still just 0.000628 light years away.

I think we'll be fine for millions or billions of years with one light year being around 6 trillion miles away, and we have 25,800 to go. That is, unless, we start moving dramatically faster than 141 miles per second, say, faster than the speed of light.