Brightest Galaxy in the Universe Found

The engine behind the galaxy's brilliance may be a supermassive black hole, researchers said. Such behemoths lurk at the heart of most, if not all, galaxies; material spiraling down into the black holes' maws heats up tremendously, emitting huge amounts of light in visible, ultraviolet and X-ray wavelengths.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Can you see what Hubble has it's eye on.?

Hubble Video Shows Shock Collision inside Black Hole Jet

When you’re blasting though space at more than 98 percent of the speed of light, you may need driver’s insurance. Astronomers have discovered for the first time a rear-end collision between two high-speed knots of ejected matter. This discovery was made while piecing together a time-lapse movie of a plasma jet blasted from a supermassive black hole inside a galaxy located 260 million light-years from earth.

The finding offers new insights into the behavior of “light saber-like” jets that are so energized that they appear to zoom out of black hole at speeds several times the speed of light. This “superluminal” motion is an optical illusion due to their being pointed very close to our line of sight and very fast speeds.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/hubble-video-shows-shock-collision-inside-black-hole-jet

https://youtu.be/nf7W-WfKxLM

Black Hole Hunters

Aiming to make the first portrait of the hungry monster at the center of our galaxy, astronomers built ‘a telescope as big as the world.’

PICO DE ORIZABA NATIONAL PARK, Mexico — Sheperd Doeleman’s project to take the first-ever picture of a black hole wasn’t going well.

For one thing, his telescope kept filling with snow.

For two weeks at the end of March, Volcan Sierra Negra, an extinct 15,000-foot volcano also known as Tliltepetl that looms over the landscape in southern Mexico, was the nerve center for the largest telescope ever conceived, a network of antennas that reaches from Spain to Hawaii to Chile.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/science/black-hole-event-horizon-telescope.html

What Einstein really said is "God is subtle but not malicious", not "Nature" as the NYT has put it.
Tullio

---

Black Hole Hunters

Aiming to make the first portrait of the hungry monster at the center of our galaxy, astronomers built ‘a telescope as big as the world.’

PICO DE ORIZABA NATIONAL PARK, Mexico — Sheperd Doeleman’s project to take the first-ever picture of a black hole wasn’t going well.

For one thing, his telescope kept filling with snow.

For two weeks at the end of March, Volcan Sierra Negra, an extinct 15,000-foot volcano also known as Tliltepetl that looms over the landscape in southern Mexico, was the nerve center for the largest telescope ever conceived, a network of antennas that reaches from Spain to Hawaii to Chile.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/science/black-hole-event-horizon-telescope.html

OK...so that is the biggest & the most sofisticated we've got!

Now, we start sending them to Space...puting them on Lagrange points of the Moon 1st...& after that, to Earths Lagrange points...
Imagine an images from a radio telescope almost 2AU wide? ;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

There is a NOAA satellite at Lagrange point 1, the Deep Space Climate Observatory. It was put in orbit by a SpaceX launcher, the Falcon9, and has started its mission. But launching a radiotelescope is a far more difficult task and is beyond the capability of all existing launchers.
Tullio

---

There is a NOAA satellite at Lagrange point 1, the Deep Space Climate Observatory. It was put in orbit by a SpaceX launcher, the Falcon9, and has started its mission. But launching a radiotelescope is a far more difficult task and is beyond the capability of all existing launchers.
Tullio

“It always seems impossible until it’s done.” – Nelson Mandela

Also a nice thing with Moon is that it has revolution = rotation.

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Yes the moon is Tidally Locked

You know what seems to be an anomaly:

If the Moon rotates then shouldn't we be able to see it's Dark Side ?

Some people also believe that the phases of the moon are caused by the Earth partially of completely occluding the Sun from shining on it's surface.

Yes the moon is Tidally Locked

You know what seems to be an anomaly:

If the Moon rotates then shouldn't we be able to see it's Dark Side ?

Some people also believe that the phases of the moon are caused by the Earth partially of completely occluding the Sun from shining on it's surface.

Your first sentence answers your question William ;)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Black holes may make ideal dark matter labs


Source:
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Summary:
A new computer simulation shows that dark matter particles colliding in the extreme gravity of a black hole can produce strong, potentially observable gamma-ray light. Detecting this emission would provide astronomers with a new tool for understanding both black holes and the nature of dark matter, an elusive substance accounting for most of the mass of the universe that neither reflects, absorbs nor emits light.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150623161109.htm

Is it not the fact that neither electromagnetism nor the weak nuclear force or the theories behind our understanding of these forces completely are explaining such objects as black holes?

The physical laws behind these two forces are not that difficult to understand and explain. In comparison, our knowledge about theromodynamics and viscosity are based on laws which are quite difficult to comprehend.

Same goes with the notion of time. Some scientists are not even willing to speculate about time. Still, we know that it is there and that is passing by all the time.

To my current understanding, certain laws of physics can be explained by means of the discovery of new elementary particles. Such particles may often be measured when first discovered in order to be able to know its physical characteristics and properties.

For now we do not happen to know about any elementary particle being responsible for gravity, but the theoretical "graviton" is being implied as the reason behind gravity and not a "field force" as such.

So, in order to better be able to explain black holes, you may seek an understanding in the particles of microcosmos instead, because those elementary particles are supposed to be the building blocks of the universe.

Such objects like black holes are sought to be explained by means of our current knowledge about mathematics and physics. In all of this, we assume the singularity as being the major reason behind their existence.

Why not compare with our sun instead?

Its radiation as a result of nuclear fusion in its core has created life here on earth. Life is the result of evolution over time and also adaptation to different conditions like ace ages.

Are black holes the opposite of dark clouds of matter which are supposed to be the building blocks of material for the birth of stars? Both types of objects are definitely supposed to be black, but they are in fact representing two completely different things.

Apparently the amount of matter or mass being represented by a specific object is behind the destiny of certain objects. Stars like our sun end up being white dwarfs when nearing the end of their lives.

Therefore, stars like Rigel and most likely Betelgeuse as well are supposed to be ending their lives in magnificent supernova explosions and during their corresponding death cycle following after this event, either are becoming neutron stars or black holes.

Gravitons are spin 2 bosons, that is force carriers, not particles. Particles are spin 1/2 fermions, such as protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos.
Tullio

---

Tullio, please bear with me if you mind.

I happen to run Seti@home both because I am having a quite good computer at my disposal.

Also, although I do not happen to be a very good mathematician or physicist, I happen to have a bit of knowledge when it comes to astronomy.

I also do read the threads and keep a tab about things that are happening.

This particular thread was not started by myself.

Please go to livescience.com or science.com for a more comprehensive coverage of general scientific subjects.

Astronomy and UFO research is not necessarily about the same thing either.

The second may at times be subject to bias and controvery and the like. The first is supposed to be one of the general sciences of man, because we have always been looking at the sky, wondering what is going around.

I happen to be having an interest in UFO research myself, because I got a video catch "good enough" for my own explanation.

Otherwise, I would probably not have been so easy to persuade.

Our knowledge about black holes comes from both observations of these objects as well as theoretical models based on sometimes hypothetical suggestions.

Both theory as well as observations are supposed to confirm the existence of black holes in space. It is always a delightful experience being able to observe the night sky visually through a telescope, but unfortunately this has become impossible now because of several factors.

Whether or not there is any gravitons, we still have to explain why the singularity is present in the core of black holes and probably is the main reason for them existing at all.

Definitely black holes are about physics, but it is also about our conception as well. It has nothing to do with the possible divine, nor religion, for that matter.

thing is usually very simple...in a way:
- neutron star collapses in a bunch of neutrons!
- black hole collapses in a more dense state of matter...but we don't know which state is it!
so as it collapses into a such a dense object, than even a light can't escape from...we call them as we see them: Black holes!
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

I have a degree in Theoretical physics and know something about fermions and bosos. Bosons are quantized by commutators, fermions by anticommutators.
Since my degree is 50 years old, I have taken an online course on the Higgs field, of which the Higgs boson is the force carrier, by the University of Edinburgh just to learn something new.
The gravitational field, of which the graviton should be the force carrier, has never been quantized so far. The quantum loop gravity theory is the latest attempt.
Tullio

---

Perhaps I was a little mean right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyULTU9smVQ

Please enjoy the show.

No problem. I am having a cooperation with CERN on three BOINC projects, LHC@home, vLHC@home, ATLAS@home plus something else of which I cannot speak now. I just try to learn something every day.
Tullio

---

Thanks Chris. I only post when I have something to say about which I am sure.
Tullio

---

May I try to unite all three of us in way of sorts.

Most people are supposed to know that chemistry is based on our knowledge about both organic as well as unorganic compounds.

Every compound found in nature, either composed of different elements, or quite rarely, being purified into one single compound or element, are based on molecules.

Molecules, if they happen to be organic and possibly based on animal tissue are composed of everything from proteins, genes, and both DNA and RNA.

In plants and particularly trees, such molecules are mainly based on chemical pulp / cellulose. The element making up the hemoglobin of our blood is Iron.

In plants this is rather the element Magnesium.

What a coincidence.

No exciting stuff in all in this if you happen to be a physicist, particularly nuclear physicist.

From which angle / point of view or perspective should the subject of black holes or even UFO's for that matter better be explained?

This thread is in fact about Black Holes, but at least we should know what we are doing here.

From an astronomer's point of view, or rather chemist, physicist, or possibly something else instead?

Definitely Tullio has a very good knowledge when it comes to physics. Are you able to give an explanation for the subject of UFO's, tullio?

Because I happen to be an astronomer, should I perhaps try give an explanation for why I do not think Black Holes is not about chemistry at all, but rather is a process related to fundamental laws of nature?

Is it all about particles and their possible mutual interaction by means of physical laws, or should something even more be taken into consideration?

Why not perhaps return back to Isaac Newton's three laws of gravity? The third of these laws is a quite complex one and probably explains most laws of motion in an approximate correct way.

Why is it the fact that the correct position of the planet Mercury was found to be some 43 seconds of arc away from its predicted position during a 1919 solar eclipse? I may possibly mix up events here and may have to get back at it, but still you should be able to understand the point.

A chemist is not supposed to be concerned about neither black holes, nor UFO's. Still this subject field is supposed to be a very important research and scientific study field.

Definitely many observations of UFO's may be related to something completely else, but stories happen to be around about how these things are working, especially when possibly being inhabited by someone.

So, finishing off getting back to the original subject of this thread, there may be some people around finding the subject of both gravity as well as time somewhat boring and most likely well known.

We are trying to explain Black Holes from our current understanding of the laws of nature as we happen to know them. One way of doing this is by means of mathematics, the other way of doing this is by means of physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Edit: Looked up this Wikipedia article right now.

Needs a read-through since these contents are continually changing as well as improving.

Because I happen to be an astronomer, should I perhaps try give an explanation for why I do not think Black Holes is not about chemistry at all, but rather is a process related to fundamental laws of nature?

The electrons have to be bounded to a nucleus making up an atom to make chemistry happen.
Matter in a black hole doesn't have any atoms any longer as electrons are seperated from the nucleus, plasma or perhaps degenerate matter.

Why not perhaps return back to Isaac Newton's three laws of gravity? The third of these laws is a quite complex one and probably explains most laws of motion in an approximate correct way.

There are three Newton's laws of motion and one Newton's law of gravity.
Newton's third law
If one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal and opposite: FA = −FB

Why is it the fact that the correct position of the planet Mercury was found to be some 43 seconds of arc away from its predicted position during a 1919 solar eclipse? I may possibly mix up events here and may have to get back at it, but still you should be able to understand the point.

Gravity curves the space time fabric which makes the photons turn sligthy when near the Sun.
https://briankoberlein.com/2013/08/31/span-of-a-heartbeat/