NASA Announces Televised Chandra News Conference - "exceptional object in our cosmic neighborhood"

Originally posted by northwoods
Pretty young blackhole since object SN 1979C was supernova in 1979.

Yes -- but like I said, it is "Young" as viewed from Earth. We saw it form in 1979, but in reality it formed 50 million years ago.

But, if a scientist wanted to talk about observing this form over time, then it is sufficient to say it "appears" to have formed 31 years ago rather than saying it formed 50 million years ago.

io9.com...

could this be what there talking about?

Its pretty close in universe terms, its the corner shop really.

Just wait for the doomsayers to come online to say that the earth will get swallowed or that CERN created this black hole.

Pretty cool realy...shame its not a wormhole tho.....

Originally posted by sephto
io9.com...

could this be what there talking about?

No -- they are talking about this one:

www.physlink.com...

although this article way written before they discovered the black hole associated with this supernova.

This was born in the same year as me.

So i guess that me and nasa could of been observing a black hole at the same time in 1979

No -- they are talking about this one:

feel like Startreck and intro astronomy covered this already

Originally posted by mars1
I am so excited what is it tell me.

IamCorrect "NASA Finds Youngest Nearby Black Hole"

WHAT!!!! what do you mean another black hole.

Iamcorrect look here.

Evidence for the youngest known black hole in our cosmic neighborhood has been found using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes. The age and proximity of this object could provide astronomers with a unique opportunity to watch a black hole develop during its infancy.

But but they said EXCEPTIONAL OBJECT.
NASA why do you do this to me you know i am paranoid i need spaceships invasion some kind of space doom Black Hole Haa Haa

Star for you IamCorrect

Thanks

And a star for you, for articulating what I - and probably most people - feel. I would express myself thusly:

"Hey! Face eating aliens!!! Sh*t or get off the pot already. There are 500,000 hard-charging, alien killing Marines just itching to make you ET bastids phone home and beg mommy to come save you. OOH RAH!"

Im just glad this news conference that i just clicked OFF was

exceptionally BORING!

(despite finding a new black hole).

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People








They are also debating that it could be a wind nebula and not a black hole.
One is like a rectum compared to the other as flatulence.

While being able to observe and study the "possible" birth of a "probable" black hole, maybe or it could be solar wind?; is cool and all. I don't really understand why this warranted a press conference. Seems to me the discovery of those gamma ray bubbles at the galactic center would've been more press conference worthy than this.
Just out of curiosity, maybe someone else could answer for me as I'm not really certain, but aren't black holes just theoretical and not provable outside of equations or did I miss the discovery of that?

Originally posted by drphilxr
Im just glad this news conference that i just clicked OFF was

exceptionally BORING!

(despite finding a new black hole).

Told people that already. Their conferences making me always upset. Nothing really cool in it.

It's over -- now back to the noisy cosmonaut spacewalker.

reply to post by dethduck


I think so, and thats why it warranted a press conference. Because if it turns into a black hole, it confirms their theories and they can definitely label other things in the cosmos black holes.

reply to post by Oxize


makes u wonder what the government is payng for huh.....

Originally posted by dethduck
While being able to observe and study the "possible" birth of a "probable" black hole, maybe or it could be solar wind?; is cool and all. I don't really understand why this warranted a press conference. Seems to me the discovery of those gamma ray bubbles at the galactic center would've been more press conference worthy than this.
Just out of curiosity, maybe someone else could answer for me as I'm not really certain, but aren't black holes just theoretical and not provable outside of equations or did I miss the discovery of that?

Never A Straight Answer (NASA)
Maybe they've changed to a different story, instead of the original plan (involving a brown dwarf?)
We can't handle the truth.

Originally posted by Oxize

Originally posted by drphilxr
Im just glad this news conference that i just clicked OFF was

exceptionally BORING!

(despite finding a new black hole).

Told people that already. Their conferences making me always upset. Nothing really cool in it.

It may not have been exciting to many of us, but it's very exciting news to people who study -- or simply care about -- black holes. It's probably some of the most exciting news concerning the study of black holes in a long time. This is perhaps an "infant" black hole -- only 31 years old (as seen from Earth).

Originally posted by sephto
reply to post by Oxize

 

makes u wonder what the government is payng for huh.....

Scientific discoveries, such as this one.

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
reply to post by dethduck

 

I think so, and thats why it warranted a press conference. Because if it turns into a black hole, it confirms their theories and they can definitely label other things in the cosmos black holes.

Ah, thanks, that makes much more sense.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I guess i just expected a NEW discovery not a reinforcement for a theory... you know.

Originally posted by sephto
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

I guess i just expected a NEW discovery not a reinforcement for a theory... you know.

The fact that this is an infant black hole that can be observed/tracked by astronomers is a pretty new discovery. There are no other black holes that are known to be only 30 years old (as they appear from earth).

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Yes -- but like I said, it is "Young" as viewed from Earth. We saw it form in 1979, but in reality it formed 50 million years ago.

But, if a scientist wanted to talk about observing this form over time, then it is sufficient to say it "appears" to have formed 31 years ago rather than saying it formed 50 million years ago.

Yes, it is formal to say that it is formed during last 30 years. This was supernova in 2005 and still VLBI observation studies in 2008 so this is much younger than 30 year old blackhole. If shell-determinations of earlier studies are still correct we can say that SN 1979C lifespan in form of blackhole is much less than 30 year.