Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #536492 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-30 09:25 -0600 |
| Last post | 2015-12-01 23:13 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 54 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 09:25 -0600
Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 09:49 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 11:57 -0600
Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 10:14 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-30 19:02 +0000
Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 14:39 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-30 23:08 +0000
Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 15:26 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-01 03:31 +0000
Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 06:58 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 07:08 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 08:11 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:17 -0600
Re: How massive can black holes get? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 08:21 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 18:20 -0500
Re: How massive can black holes get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-01 16:43 +0000
Re: How massive can black holes get? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 08:52 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 14:20 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 17:17 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 09:08 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 09:21 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-01 18:13 +0000
Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 13:47 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-01 22:07 +0000
Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 14:18 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 16:32 -0600
Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 14:49 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 16:58 -0600
Re: How massive can black holes get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 16:33 -0600
Re: How massive can black holes get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-01 23:38 +0000
Re: How massive can black holes get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:05 -0600
Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:01 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 09:58 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 12:06 -0600
Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 15:44 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 17:55 -0600
Re: How massive can black holes get? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 23:15 -0500
Re: How massive can black holes get? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:10 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 18:28 -0500
Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 14:18 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 16:49 -0600
Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 15:33 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 18:00 -0600
Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 16:14 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 18:21 -0600
Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 17:53 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 20:34 -0600
Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 11:24 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 13:40 -0600
Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 17:22 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-04 01:49 +0000
Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 14:54 -0800
Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 17:09 -0600
Re: How massive can black holes get? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 23:13 -0500
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 09:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0cfa28bb-ff39-4f7c-bc6e-f641c99443a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #536743 |
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 5:08:39 PM UTC, john wrote: > john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes: > > >Michael > >It's amazing how stupid you are! > > -Why do you say that? I ask how the hell -"NOTHING", "A volume with NO > -MATTER" (your words) can have a mass of 4.1 --million suns, and what could > -possibly have that enormous mass yet be so -small (about solar system > -sized). Asking questions in science is never -stupid. > > Well! > Since you put it THAT way.... > I'll repeat: > the Universe repeats its structure > at smaller and smaller sizes. > NO MATTER simply means none of OUR > sized matter. ALL the smaller-sized > layers are inside the Hole, and- since > you are so focussed on curved Spacetime- > they curve Spacetime right there far > more than our matter can survive. > Got it? Lol!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 18:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3knvj$42q$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #536743 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes: >>Michael >>It's amazing how stupid you are! >-Why do you say that? I ask how the hell -"NOTHING", "A volume with NO >-MATTER" (your words) can have a mass of 4.1 --million suns, and what could >-possibly have that enormous mass yet be so -small (about solar system >-sized). Asking questions in science is never -stupid. >Well! >Since you put it THAT way.... >I'll repeat: >the Universe repeats its structure >at smaller and smaller sizes. >NO MATTER simply means none of OUR >sized matter. ALL the smaller-sized >layers are inside the Hole, and- since >you are so focussed on curved Spacetime- >they curve Spacetime right there far >more than our matter can survive. >Got it? If it (SGR A*) warps spacetime, it's matter, or rather mass-energy. And we know "it" has a mass of 4.1 million suns. 4.1 million suns of our matter, assuming your foolishness of smaller-sized layers even exists, and of course there is no reason to make such an assumption. So there is 4.1 million suns worth of our matter there, since it has gravitational effects on several stars and keeps them in orbit around it. So, since you don't believe in black holes, tell me what "it" is. We know "it" has a mass of 4.1 million suns, yet "it" produces very little energy, and "it" is quite small, relatively speaking (solar system sized). What can "it" possibly be? And since you think everything must be made of something, what is "it" made of? Electrons/protons/neutrons? In the form of ordinary atoms? Remember, "it" must be "our" mass by definition, since we (definitely!) see its gravitational effects. 4.1 million suns of gravitational effects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 13:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6f51fe8a-14b0-48ce-8ebe-1314ff400b59@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #536774 |
Well, Michael, if "it" must be " our" matter, then the answer is still NOTHING, however whatever IS there curves space like crazy :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 22:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3l5nt$8sc$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #536808 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Well, Michael, if "it" must be " our" >matter, then the answer is still >NOTHING, however whatever IS >there curves space like crazy :) That doesn't make sense. For it to "curve space like crazy" it must be really really massive, as it takes mass to curve spacetime. So it can hardly be NOTHING, can it? If not a black hole, what do you think it really is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 14:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0dda5e66-7b3a-40e8-b598-02125d7c72ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #536812 |
I'm sorry. I have run out of words. I no longer have any words. I am speechless. Thank you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 16:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3l75d$5r4$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #536813 |
On 12/1/2015 4:18 PM, john wrote: > I'm sorry. I have run out of words. > I no longer have any words. > I am speechless. > Thank you. > John, I thought it was a fair question to you. There is something that makes stars orbit it with a strength equivalent to four million suns. But as strong as it is, it does not glow like 4 million suns and it is known to be very small because of the measured closest approach of those orbiting stars. You say it cannot be matter, without any explanation for why you think it can't be matter. Instead, you say it must be something else OTHER than matter, a new kind of stuff that is much much smaller than anything seen, though you haven't given any reason for thinking such a stuff exists. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 14:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3537abc5-ddae-42bc-954e-c9b30b7b98f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #536816 |
No, it's not the matter- it's the speed at which it is rotating.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 16:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3l8ng$8uv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #536822 |
On 12/1/2015 4:49 PM, john wrote: > No, it's not the matter- it's the speed > at which it is rotating. > And why do things orbit it? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 16:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3l76t$5r4$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #536813 |
On 12/1/2015 4:18 PM, john wrote: > I'm sorry. I have run out of words. > I no longer have any words. > I am speechless. > Thank you. > Did you notice that your speechlessness still allowed you to write three redundant sentences? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 23:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3lb2b$cag$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #536813 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >I'm sorry. I have run out of words. >I no longer have any words. >I am speechless. >Thank you. Why? What's wrong with my questions and comments? This is what we know about SGR A*. It affects other objects exactly as a mass of 4.1 million solar masses would. Specifically, it affects certain stars which orbit it closely, accelerating them to as much as 1% of c at the close approach of the orbit. However, it must be very small. Otherwise the stars orbiting it would collide with it. It is extremely dim. Nowhere near as bright as 4 million suns. What could it be? You say it cannot be matter. Why can't it be matter? You have to make up stuff that it must be, but without support, evidence or proof. If it's not matter, why do stars orbit it as if it was? Why does it behave just like a 4.1 million solar mass chunk of matter? You also write: > No, it's not the matter- it's the speed > at which it is rotating. AFAIK, we have no evidence that whatever it is rotates quickly, slowly or not at all, nor do we know its rotation axis' direction, if it has one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 10:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3kgh2$9ki$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #536601 |
On 11/30/2015 5:26 PM, john wrote: > NOTHING. > A volume with NO MATTER because > the spin is too extreme > Then why do stars orbit it? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 10:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <241c0b1e-072c-448a-804f-a6eacab13cb8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #536526 |
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:14:36 AM UTC-8, john wrote: > Black Hole bullshit. > Those are vortices in subspace. > Their acceleration is greater than > our matter can survive. It shreds > and is ejected. Nothing stays in > a "BH" WOW such bad far out thinking. I think you are thinking "white Holes" TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 09:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ab7ea426-5737-463c-a0ba-1ba24709767d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #536523 |
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:58:01 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 11/30/15 11:49 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > I know the mass density limite of a BH > > This article is about mass, not density, Herb. Do you confuse the > two concepts, mass and density? > > How massive can black holes get? > > http://phys.org/news/2015-08-massive-black-holes.html#nRlv > > > Terrifyingly, there's no limit to much material a black hole can > > consume, if it's given enough time. The most massive are ones found > > at the hearts of galaxies. These are the supermassive black holes, > > such as the 4.1 million mass nugget at the center of the Milky Way. > > Astronomers figured its mass by watching the movements of stars > > zipping around the center of the Milky Way, like comets going around > > the sun. > > > > There seems to be supermassive black holes at the heart of every > > galaxy we can find, and our Milky Way's black hole is actually puny > > in comparison. Interstellar depicted a black hole with 100 million > > times the mass of the sun. And we're just getting started. > > > > The giant elliptical galaxy M87 has a black hole with 6.2 billion > > times the mass of the sun. How can astronomers possibly know that? > > They've spotted a jet of material 4,300 light-years long, blasting > > out of the center of M87 at relativistic speeds, and only black holes > > that massive generate jets like that. > > > > Most recently, astronomers announced in the journal Nature that they > > have found a black hole with about 12 billion times the mass of the > > sun. The accretion disk here generates 429 trillion times more light > > than the sun, and it shines clear across the Universe. We see the > > light from this region from when the Universe was only 6% into its > > current age. > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. Sam No confusion on my part.Mass density goes with gravity.The denser a gas gets the more it weighs.Weight is a measure of gravity's force. Get the picture TreBert ps Sam read up on my Critical Mass Density Theory. It answers hard questions.It deals with black holes.and exploding massive stars,and the reason they end up dwarf stars,neutron stars etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 12:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8_6dnaIl3JkvfMDLnZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #536765 |
On 12/1/15 11:58 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> The denser a gas gets the more it weighs
## #
## #
#########################################
#########################################
## ######
## ##########
############
##############
#############
#############
##############
#############
##############
#############
##############
############# #
############# #
#########################################
#########################################
#
########
###############
##################
#####################
#### ####
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ###
## ##
#### ####
#####################
##################
###############
########
Basic physics: A fixed quantity of gas--count the atoms--has
has EXACTLY THE SAME MASS whether it highly compressed (greater
density) or not compressed (lower density).
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 15:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1ab917a5-7fec-4500-b833-6a90d1b68842@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #536769 |
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:06:46 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 12/1/15 11:58 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > The denser a gas gets the more it weighs > > > ## # > ## # > ######################################### > ######################################### > ## ###### > ## ########## > ############ > ############## > ############# > ############# > ############## > ############# > ############## > ############# > ############## > ############# # > ############# # > ######################################### > ######################################### > # > > ######## > ############### > ################## > ##################### > #### #### > ## ## > ## ## > ## ## > ## ### > ## ## > #### #### > ##################### > ################## > ############### > ######## > > > Basic physics: A fixed quantity of gas--count the atoms--has > has EXACTLY THE SAME MASS whether it highly compressed (greater > density) or not compressed (lower density). > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. Fill air tank to 2,000 lb per square inch and see how much more it weighs. TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 17:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <3dmdne_fTL70rsPLnZ2dnUU7-fOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #536848 |
On 12/1/15 5:44 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > Fill air tank to 2,000 lb per square inch and see how much more it weighs. You added gas, silly, of course the tank weighs more. You added mass, silly, of course the tank weighs more. Basic physics: *A fixed quantity* of gas--count the atoms--has has EXACTLY THE SAME MASS whether it highly compressed (greater density) or not compressed (lower density). -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 23:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Ifu7y.145064$TJ2.117366@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #536848 |
On 12/01/2015 06:44 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:06:46 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 12/1/15 11:58 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>>> The denser a gas gets the more it weighs
>>
>>
>> ## #
>> ## #
>> #########################################
>> #########################################
>> ## ######
>> ## ##########
>> ############
>> ##############
>> #############
>> #############
>> ##############
>> #############
>> ##############
>> #############
>> ##############
>> ############# #
>> ############# #
>> #########################################
>> #########################################
>> #
>>
>> ########
>> ###############
>> ##################
>> #####################
>> #### ####
>> ## ##
>> ## ##
>> ## ##
>> ## ###
>> ## ##
>> #### ####
>> #####################
>> ##################
>> ###############
>> ########
>>
>>
>> Basic physics: A fixed quantity of gas--count the atoms--has
>> has EXACTLY THE SAME MASS whether it highly compressed (greater
>> density) or not compressed (lower density).
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
>> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
>> community, and physics-related social issues.
> Fill air tank to 2,000 lb per square inch and see how much more it weighs. TreBert
>
Bert, a barmaid can understand you and Einstein explaining how gravity
and mass go together,but Sam can understand!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 10:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dfb8b5c3-1bff-4505-9886-1912b87ac5e9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #536765 |
how quoted text - Sam No confusion on my part.Mass density goes with gravity.The denser a gas gets the more it weighs.Weight is a measure of gravity's force. ------- No
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 18:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <r2q7y.126074$og6.27384@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #536771 |
On 12/01/2015 01:10 PM, HVAC wrote:
> how quoted text -
> Sam No confusion on my part.Mass density goes with gravity.The denser a gas gets the more it weighs.Weight is a measure of gravity's force.
> -------
>
> No
>
HVAC, no water in comets. No waves in gravity. It's a given.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 14:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <da347a74-54d6-4f62-9e84-2782703ab033@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #536492 |
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 7:25:50 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > How massive can black holes get? > > http://phys.org/news/2015-08-massive-black-holes.html#nRlv > > > > Terrifyingly, there's no limit to much material a black hole can > > consume, if it's given enough time. The most massive are ones found > > at the hearts of galaxies. These are the supermassive black holes, > > such as the 4.1 million mass nugget at the center of the Milky Way. > > Astronomers figured its mass by watching the movements of stars > > zipping around the center of the Milky Way, like comets going around > > the sun. > > > > There seems to be supermassive black holes at the heart of every > > galaxy we can find, and our Milky Way's black hole is actually puny > > in comparison. Interstellar depicted a black hole with 100 million > > times the mass of the sun. And we're just getting started. > > > > The giant elliptical galaxy M87 has a black hole with 6.2 billion > > times the mass of the sun. How can astronomers possibly know that? > > They've spotted a jet of material 4,300 light-years long, blasting > > out of the center of M87 at relativistic speeds, and only black holes > > that massive generate jets like that. > > > > Most recently, astronomers announced in the journal Nature that they > > have found a black hole with about 12 billion times the mass of the > > sun. The accretion disk here generates 429 trillion times more light > > than the sun, and it shines clear across the Universe. We see the > > light from this region from when the Universe was only 6% into its > > current age. > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. BH Goes with my "Critical Mass Density Theory".TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web