Sio is that what they now think Quasars are??

AFAIK that quasars are due to actively accreting, super-massive black holes has been the dominant theory since the 1980s—if not earlier (pace Halton Arp). More recently, astronomers have come to believe that a central SMBH is typical of spiral galaxies, but the older ones have already swallowed most of the material within their reach. I hadn’t heard of the “pulsing“ variety of quasar before, but I suppose that behaviour is what makes the researchers think its BH is a binary.

---

Some serious news here.

NASA's Chandra Suggests Black Holes Gorging at Excessive Rates

A group of unusual giant black holes may be consuming excessive amounts of matter, according to a new study using NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory. This finding may help astronomers understand how the largest black holes were able to grow so rapidly in the early Universe.

Astronomers have known for some time that supermassive black holes − with masses ranging from millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun and residing at the centers of galaxies − can gobble up huge quantities of gas and dust that have fallen into their gravitational pull. As the matter falls towards these black holes, it glows with such brilliance that they can be seen billions of light years away. Astronomers call these extremely ravenous black holes “quasars.”

This new result suggests that some quasars are even more adept at devouring material than scientists previously knew.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/1-opnav3_barycen_noano-1041.gif?itok=au5cFoYI

---

Some serious news here.

NASA's Chandra Suggests Black Holes Gorging at Excessive Rates

A group of unusual giant black holes may be consuming excessive amounts of matter, according to a new study using NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory. This finding may help astronomers understand how the largest black holes were able to grow so rapidly in the early Universe.

Astronomers have known for some time that supermassive black holes − with masses ranging from millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun and residing at the centers of galaxies − can gobble up huge quantities of gas and dust that have fallen into their gravitational pull. As the matter falls towards these black holes, it glows with such brilliance that they can be seen billions of light years away. Astronomers call these extremely ravenous black holes “quasars.”

This new result suggests that some quasars are even more adept at devouring material than scientists previously knew.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/1-opnav3_barycen_noano-1041.gif?itok=au5cFoYI

Thank you for the update Lynn. :)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Should tell I came into this thread from the first post.

Should we accept that our existence is part of space and that black holes really do exist?

Or are ordinary people shaking their heads when perhaps being told about things which may be "above their head", meaning beyond comprehension.

Please do not ask a paleontologist this time. Rather ask an astronomer this question instead.

If I was making the claim that black holes really do exist in space, I would probably receive a positive response from more people than the opposite.

If we happen to believe in the existence of our own solar system as well as ourselves, we are at least able to know that black holes are not being found here.

Again we are left with the observing capabilities of modern equipment, some space based, others earth based, as well as the creative mind and thinking of both mathematicians as well as astronomers. My best assumption is that the specific properties of such objects are best being explained by theoretical physicists and mathematicians.

Their exact purpose as well as relation against other objects which are known to be existing, from stars and cluster of stars through whole galaxies, better are left for the astronomers to explain.

I do not happen to be a professional astronomer myself and I am not a physics or mathematics expert, but at least black holes are the end product of objects being of a certain mass. Because black holes represent huge amounts of matter in a very compressed space of volume, certain other peculiarities are being associated with the presence of such objects, including the possible bending of space and time.

Science is not supposed to be fiction, but depending on your entrance point you may at times confuse one thing for another.

To me as having at least some knowledge about astronomy I am getting more by looking at a picture taken by the Hubble Space Telescope than just knowing that Hg is the abbreviation for the Periodic Element Mercury (atomic number 80, next after Gold).

If you happen to believe in the existence of time, you may perhaps regard it as being a dimension. In the exact point of space where the singularity is present (at least relative to its surroundings), both space and time ceases to exist and the physical conditions or properties end up being not explainable, even by means of the laws of special or general relativity.

Because black holes represent huge amounts of matter in a very compressed space of volume, certain other peculiarities are being associated with the presence of such objects, including the possible bending of space and time.

Black holes doesnt have mass or matter.
Only gravity. A LOT of gravity.

For a mathematician is a singularity nothing.
Not even spatial dimensions.
Is there something that's nothing?
Tricky question :)

Janneseti, gravity is a property of mass. Energy is a property of radiation coming from an object having mass.

Because mass is present in a small volume of space, gravity is also present as a result of this.

Gravity is a force. In fact it is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, still like time can not be readily explained in the same way as electromagnetism or the weak or strong force.

It has been postulated or predicted the existence of the graviton, a particle responsible for the presence of gravity. Until now, there has been no such particle ever found.

Rather we should speak of gravity definining a field in space. Gravity is attracting both mass and energy towards a point in space where such gravity is strongest. Because a million ton of lead probably do not attract any more or any easier than a million ton of feather, gravity is still supposed to be present when mass is being present, by means of the elementary particles which constitutes it.

Edit: A slight sidenote. I have the EDIT button for the message visible until it becomes to late to edit it. The "." following the message number is too close to the left edge of the button.

Is it possible to have this button moved slightly to the right if the ending "." should still be kept?

Thanks!

Janneseti, gravity is a property of mass. Energy is a property of radiation coming from an object having mass.

Because mass is present in a small volume of space, gravity is also present as a result of this.

Gravity is a force. In fact it is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, still like time can not be readily explained in the same way as electromagnetism or the weak or strong force.

It has been postulated or predicted the existence of the graviton, a particle responsible for the presence of gravity. Until now, there has been no such particle ever found.

Rather we should speak of gravity definining a field in space. Gravity is attracting both mass and energy towards a point in space where such gravity is strongest. Because a million ton of lead probably do not attract any more or any easier than a million ton of feather, gravity is still supposed to be present when mass is being present, by means of the elementary particles which constitutes it.

You are completely right.
But the physic laws breaks in a black hole.
And elementary particles needs space.
A singularity has no space...
Therefore no mass. Only gravity.

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
For very small distances the force are going to infinity.

Always the concept or notion of time.

I know that many scientists are finding it hard to make a definition of time.

Gravity is the main or dominant force of nature. It affects everything.

We happen to know that the position of Mercury in its orbit around the sun differs about 43 arc seconds from what we assume to be its correct position in space.

Any corrections or better explanations of course welcome here. I will have to look up this for a more precise meaning or better explanation.

Also when observing a total solar eclipse in 1919, the faint stars that became visible in the background had their positions slightly shifted or altered from what they would otherwise be. This as a result of gravity and predicted already in 1905.

Just an example that observations are supposed to be proving theories.

You do not age much faster by living on the surface of the earth than spending most of your life in a spaceship orbiting the earth. If you are close to the singularity of a black hole, you may still be able to watch your clock tick away, still you are probably not getting much older, even over a considerable amount of "time".

That is more or less the whole that goes with such things called black holes. They crush matter into nothing and what would otherwise become energy is forever lost into an unknown state of matter. As long as there is not proof of neither particles or waves in order to explain gravity, both this force as well as the notion of time is probably still left to be completely understood by scientists.

You do not age much faster by living on the surface of the earth than spending most of your life in a spaceship orbiting the earth. If you are close to the singularity of a black hole, you may still be able to watch your clock tick away, still you are probably not getting much older, even over a considerable amount of "time".

That is more or less the whole that goes with such things called black holes. They crush matter into nothing and what would otherwise become energy is forever lost into an unknown state of matter. As long as there is not proof of neither particles or waves in order to explain gravity, both this force as well as the notion of time is probably still left to be completely understood by scientists.

There are lots of ideas of what time is.
First the concept "Time Arrow" that it has only one direction.
Then that time is quantified meaning that time comes in distinct packages.
Sounds odd but thats what scientist Think.
What they mean I Think is that in VERY short period nothing could happen.
I'm talking of Planck time length.

Then "energy is forever lost into an unknown state of matter".
That could not happen.
Energy cannot be lost or created.
There is also a theory about the information and what happens to that.
Some scientist says the information stays on the Surface on the horizon event.
Leonard Suskind calls it "the holograpic approach".

Because black holes represent huge amounts of matter in a very compressed space of volume, certain other peculiarities are being associated with the presence of such objects, including the possible bending of space and time.

Black holes doesnt have mass or matter.
Only gravity. A LOT of gravity.

For a mathematician is a singularity nothing.
Not even spatial dimensions.
Is there something that's nothing?
Tricky question :)

1st bold, wrong...see definition of Black hole!

2nd bold, wring...Black holes have a definite Event horizon - therefore it has a size...especially when we talk about small & big Black holes...so, they have size - but we can only speculate about their true size!
If there is something that you can't see -. doesn't mean it doesn't exists! ;)

---

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

Black holes doesnt have mass or matter.
Only gravity. A LOT of gravity.

For a mathematician is a singularity nothing.
Not even spatial dimensions.
Is there something that's nothing?
Tricky question :)

1st bold, wrong...see definition of Black hole!

2nd bold, wring...Black holes have a definite Event horizon - therefore it has a size...especially when we talk about small & big Black holes...so, they have size - but we can only speculate about their true size!
If there is something that you can't see -. doesn't mean it doesn't exists! ;)

1st bold, I Have Heard two stories. One that Black Holes does have matter, one that say that it's a misconception.
And there is a limit how much you can compress matter.
However the hole is big.

2nd bold, I'm talking math and definition of singularity that have the dimension Zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(mathematics)

Black holes doesnt have mass or matter.
Only gravity. A LOT of gravity.

For a mathematician is a singularity nothing.
Not even spatial dimensions.
Is there something that's nothing?
Tricky question :)

1st bold, wrong...see definition of Black hole!

2nd bold, wring...Black holes have a definite Event horizon - therefore it has a size...especially when we talk about small & big Black holes...so, they have size - but we can only speculate about their true size!
If there is something that you can't see -. doesn't mean it doesn't exists! ;)

1st bold, I Have Heard two stories. One that Black Holes does have matter, one that say that it's a misconception.
And there is a limit how much you can compress matter.
However the hole is big.

2nd bold, I'm talking math and definition of singularity that have the dimension Zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(mathematics)

1., of course...all compression have limits!
for neutron stars it's neutrons...
for Black holes it's something else...far more in Quantum physics...
if you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there! ;)

2., those mathematics just say what happens when dimension gets close to Zero...it doesn't mean that the distances/sizes actually get to size Zero!
the difference between those is HUGE! ;)

---

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

Black holes doesnt have mass or matter.
Only gravity. A LOT of gravity.

For a mathematician is a singularity nothing.
Not even spatial dimensions.
Is there something that's nothing?
Tricky question :)

1st bold, wrong...see definition of Black hole!

2nd bold, wring...Black holes have a definite Event horizon - therefore it has a size...especially when we talk about small & big Black holes...so, they have size - but we can only speculate about their true size!
If there is something that you can't see -. doesn't mean it doesn't exists! ;)

1st bold, I Have Heard two stories. One that Black Holes does have matter, one that say that it's a misconception.
And there is a limit how much you can compress matter.
However the hole is big.

2nd bold, I'm talking math and definition of singularity that have the dimension Zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(mathematics)

1., of course...all compression have limits!
for neutron stars it's neutrons...
for Black holes it's something else...far more in Quantum physics...
if you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there! ;)

2., those mathematics just say what happens when dimension gets close to Zero...it doesn't mean that the distances/sizes actually get to size Zero!
the difference between those is HUGE! ;)

1. We can't see single atoms or electrons either but we know they are there:)
But we can see photons.
2. Have you forgot your classes in math?
Zero dimension exists as much as 2D and 3D and perhaphs up to 11D.
But what is? Nothing?
1D is a line of infinite 0D points. Even a short line.

Update:

Magnetar Near Supermassive Black Hole Delivers Surprises



In 2013, astronomers announced they had discovered a magnetar exceptionally close to the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way using a suite of space-borne telescopes including NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory.

Magnetars are dense, collapsed stars (called “neutron stars”) that possess enormously powerful magnetic fields. At a distance that could be as small as 0.3 light years (or about 2 trillion miles) from the 4-million-solar mass black hole in the center of our Milky Way galaxy, the magnetar is by far the closest neutron star to a supermassive black hole ever discovered and is likely in its gravitational grip.

Since its discovery two years ago when it gave off a burst of X-rays, astronomers have been actively monitoring the magnetar, dubbed SGR 1745-2900, with Chandra and the European Space Agency’s XMM-Newton. The main image of the graphic shows the region around the Milky Way’s black hole in X-rays from Chandra (red, green, and blue are the low, medium, and high-energy X-rays respectively). The inset contains Chandra’s close-up look at the area right around the black hole, showing a combined image obtained between 2005 and 2008 (left) when the magnetar was not detected, during a quiescent period, and an observation in 2013 (right) when it was caught as a bright point source during the X-ray outburst that led to its discovery.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/magnetar-near-supermassive-black-hole-delivers-surprises.html

@janneseti
0 is just lack of something...there is no darkness, just lack of light!
remember the physics... ;)

@Lynn
magnetar...WoW, they found it! it was just an idea...how nice! ;)

---

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

Daddio has done extensive research on this topic. I think he and Johnnie Guiness are going to publish a two-volume set on Modern astro-physics and cosmology.

Nice comic William! Let's see what they find at CERN indeed. :)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Beams are up at CERN. Wait and see.
Tullio

---

Believe it or not, the word is for real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar

If it has not been mentioned already. I have not read the thread yet.

Believe it or not, the word is for real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar

If it has not been mentioned already. I have not read the thread yet.

Thanks bluestar, interesting read.