Order of H'Pak

Nasa is holding a press conference about an 'exceptional object' found in space 'near' us. 12:30pm EST

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

If theories are correct about this new object they've been observing but are just getting pictures/data back about, we may be seeing for the first time the creation of a black hole... evidence points to it steadily sucking up mass near it to grow.

(but it takes millions of years to double in size)

NASA is excited that they have found (for the first time) the exact birthdate of a black hole - the 'birth date' of a black hole - it's a very young black hole - IF it's a black hole.

This woman on the NASA press conference is waxing excitedly about how important it is to watch the black hole grow as it accretes mass - guess she didn't get the memo about it taking millions of years to grow - and that they've been watching it for 31 years and that's too short a time to observe any changes.

I missed the conference, how close is it?

Omicron Wrote:I missed the conference, how close is it?

To say it's "far away" is an understatement to say the least. It's in a small nearby galaxy some 50 million light years away. This is right next door in terms of the known cosmos, but mighty far away.

Light travels roughly 186,000 miles per second. That's roughly 7 1/2 times around the Earth in one second.

At that speed it takes roughly 480 seconds for the light from the Sun to reach us (8 Light Minutes).

The Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft (launched in the 1970's) are still moving out of our solar system at very high speed and the furthest one away from us (Voyager 1), which has been traveling at almost 40,000 miles per hour for years is still only 16.09 Light Hours away. So 186,000 miles per second, times 60 seconds per minute, times 60 seconds per hour, times 16.09 hours gets you to Voyager 1. It's pretty far away compared to driving across town.

The nearest star is about 4.3 Light Years away. That's our next door neighbor. If Voyager 1 was pointed straight at it (which it isn't), it would take it roughly 17,600 years to get there.

The Milky Way Galaxy (our galaxy) is roughly 100,000 Light Years across. At the center of most galaxies there appear to be super-massive black holes. We're some 24,500 Light Years from it.

The black hole VR is talking about is in M100, a nearby (ahem) galaxy which is 50 Million Light Years away. That's 2000 times further away than the center of our galaxy.


The supernova resulting from the collapse of a large star in M100 was observed on Earth in 1979 (about 30 years ago). NASA has been studying the remnant since then and has been observing steady X-ray emissions. Thus the excitement, because this it the first time we've been able to observe a black hole since its birth.

You have to realize that the sheer scale of these things is what makes it exciting. The light from that one star (out of hundreds of billions) was observed on Earth as a supernova (they give off a LOT of energy) even though it was 50,000,000 Light Years away. The actual explosion took place 50,000,000 years ago and the light from it took that long to reach us (think about that for a minute). In the 30 years since 1979 (a large chunk of a lifetime for you and me), we were able to see the result of the supernova as a black hole which will exist for who knows how long, but we caught it being born. Even though it's 50,000,000 years old way over there in M100 -- to us the event just happened and we can study it.

That's what they're all excited about.

it is a weird concept when you stop to think about it that astronomists are really light historians (as opposed to historians-lite).

Thanks for the reply, it was an interesting read.


Yeah, those numbers are pretty amazing! Have either of you heard of the concept of a white hole? The name, I believe, was meant to convey that it is the opposite of a black hole. Well I read a book which proposed a hypothesis that when God created the universe, that at the center was a white hole. Theology wise, they used the passage which said "He stretched forth the heavens" to support this.

Well I don't recall it all that well, but the idea is that the event horizon of a black hole bends light, and causes time distortion. Well they supposed a white hole would cause similar distortions. And by nature a white hole would lose, I guess you would say mass, as time went on, because it was forcing matter away from its center. So, while a black hole's event horizon would be steadily increasing outward from the center, a white hole's would be decreasing towards the center. And if the earth was near the center of the known expanding universe, which the book said that there was evidence to suggest, then the earth would be inside the event horizon for a long time. Well, the book suggested this would cause the rest of the universe to age while the earth experienced only a short time. Which would explain how star light has traveled from those incredibly far out stars, in the estimated 10,000 or less years since the creation week. I don't really know a lot about this idea, but it is interesting.


edit: whoops, I messed a part up.
edit # 2: whoops, I messed up some more

Baak Wrote:You have to realize that the sheer scale of these things is what makes it exciting.

I know! I had a wightblast that big once, and I tell ya -- never was I so excited!

Omicron Wrote:Thanks for the reply, it was an interesting read.


Yeah, those numbers are pretty amazing! Have either of you heard of the concept of a white hole? The name, I believe, was meant to convey that it is the opposite of a black hole. Well I read a book which proposed a hypothesis that when God created the universe, that at the center was a white hole. Theology wise, they used the passage which said "He stretched forth the heavens" to support this.

i've heard of this - it's the so called "white hole cosmology" by russel humphries, which, to be quite frank, is a bunch of pseudoscientific nonsense that's been invented to prop up a relatively modern literalistic form of interpretation of the bible (called young earth creationism, or typically just creationism for short).

young earth creationism has its roots in the 19th century seventh day adventist church leader ellen white, who was brain damaged from an injury and suffered hallucinations, which were seen as visions and prophecies. one of her disciples (for lack of a better word) put it into writing, which was taken on by one henry morris, the founder of modern young earth creationism, which is ultimately a reactionary movement against the theory of biological evolution.

the YECs have trouble with pretty much all modern science because cosmology demonstrates an old universe, geology and radiochronology (which comes out of fundamental physics) independently demonstrate an old earth, and evolution, the keystone of biology, is just that well supported by observation and evidence.

but all that doesn't stop various YECs from inventing implausible scenarios and dressing them up in sciency language to make it sound plausible to those who don't have a more than fair grasp of science in general - case in point: white hole cosmology.

Well I don't recall it all that well, but the idea is that the event horizon of a black hole bends light, and causes time distortion. Well they supposed a white hole would cause similar distortions.

a white hole can simply be considered as a black hole running backwards in time. so far as we know, there is no evidence that such a thing can exist, let alone does exist.

And by nature a white hole would lose, I guess you would say mass, as time went on, because it was forcing matter away from its center. So, while a black hole's event horizon would be steadily increasing outward from the center, a white hole's would be decreasing towards the center.

simplistic, but more or less ok summary.

And if the earth was near the center of the known expanding universe, which the book said that there was evidence to suggest, then the earth would be inside the event horizon for a long time.

if the earth were in a gravitational well deep enough to condense 13.7 thousand million years into 6 or even 10 thousand years, it would have been rendered completely sterile by all the blue-shifted gamma radiation falling onto it. even the longest radio waves would be blue-shifted to deadly high energy levels.

Well, the book suggested this would cause the rest of the universe to age while the earth experienced only a short time.

as is the case with pretty much anything from YEC sources, and in the example here, when you actually examine their claims according to well established physics and put in the numbers, the numbers tell us the earth should be sterile, if it would still exist at all.

Which would explain how star light has traveled from those incredibly far out stars, in the estimated 10,000 or less years since the creation week. I don't really know a lot about this idea, but it is interesting.

it's interesting, but, speaking as a mathematician with a physics background, it would be nothing but a curiosity if there weren't people out there selling it to people who don't have the investment in science education to defend themselves from pseudoscience.

in my debates with YECs over the years, they have shied away from quantitative analysis because either they don't know much themselves and are repeating what they've heard from other sources or they know that quantitative analysis will reveal the paucity of their claims (which is why professional YECs do not publish as YECs in reputable, peer-reviewed science journals - they would be shredded in an instant). the result is that the YECs are forced to backpedal away from the claims they started with or invent ad hoc solutions that ultimately lead to "goddidit" type miracles that are unsupported by the bible.

and if that's where their explanation ends, when all their attempts to make it sound scientific have been shown to be invalid, why invoke the name or sound of science in the first place*? it's ultimately a purely religious belief.

[/end rant]

sorry about the rant, but creationists get my goat, and the harm they do to science education and literacy is a big step backwards for any place where they have a major political voice. i don't like to see people deceived by them.

* i can tell you why, but that's another page's rant, at least, and i wasn't even planning to write as much as i did.

I would agree to beware of the pseudo-science trap. But also beware of the science-solves-everything trap. In fact, watch out for traps just about everywhere, especially when you don't think you're anywhere near one.

Religions have evolved from the human mind, so they will always have limitations in that regard. They tend to fall into tribal structures and always have to have structures and hierarchies because of it. The human mind is constantly trying to put everything in a compartment to explain it so it knows it is safe. It does not like anything unknown.

Science keeps finding new things all the time. It keeps expanding our knowledge of our surroundings, which of course is completely limited by our senses and ability to communicate. We will never know everything because our perspective will always be a very small one, but the more we know the better imo, because expanding through knowledge -- and experience (probably more important) -- is how we grow.

I see a spiritual side of existence I cannot easily explain (and I wouldn't even try), but it does not fit into any box of religion, philosophy, or science that I have found to date. It probably never will.


So my best suggestion, Omi, is to always stay open minded with everything.

Baak Wrote:I would agree to beware of the pseudo-science trap. But also beware of the science-solves-everything trap. In fact, watch out for traps just about everywhere, especially when you don't think you're anywhere near one.

always good advice.

Religions have evolved from the human mind, so they will always have limitations in that regard. They tend to fall into tribal structures and always have to have structures and hierarchies because of it. The human mind is constantly trying to put everything in a compartment to explain it so it knows it is safe. It does not like anything unknown.

it often takes a lot of guts for a person, especially one in an authority position, or one of high respect/esteem, to say "i don't know" about something - there's always the fear that one will then be seen as weak and lose authority. worse still, though, is digging in one's heels and saying you do know, only to be proven absolutely wrong at a later point. then you will lose respect.

Science keeps finding new things all the time. It keeps expanding our knowledge of our surroundings, which of course is completely limited by our senses and ability to communicate.

if our senses was where science stopped, we'd still be figuring out if things were poisonous by sticking our tongues on them (or someone else's, if you can convince them to ). but we have machines that can bring phenomena outside our senses to a regime where we can perceive them objectively. the fact that they work is testament to the (provisional) correctness of the theories underlying their mechanics.

i agree about communication. we couldn't have developed quantum mechanics without a way to communicate and interpret such physics in a sensible way (i.e. with sufficiently sophisticated mathematics). even classical physics required advances in mathematics that had stumped newton's (and liebniz's) predecessors, and relativity made people start to use tensors in earnest.

We will never know everything because our perspective will always be a very small one, but the more we know the better imo, because expanding through knowledge -- and experience (probably more important) -- is how we grow.

humility is absolutely foundational to the progress of science. sure, we can be proud of what we've collectively accomplished, but just over a century ago, physicists thought they were about to run out of questions. then came einstein, planck and others with the revolutions of relativity and quantum physics.

I see a spiritual side of existence I cannot easily explain (and I wouldn't even try), but it does not fit into any box of religion, philosophy, or science that I have found to date. It probably never will.

i'm right with you on that. i think science is the best way to discover everything that's possible to discover about the physical world, but it is absolutely restricted to the physical, the falsifiable and the objective. it's foolish to deny it where it is well established, without consistent and consilient replacement hypotheses that work better than their predecessors, but it's only ever a facet of the bigger picture of our experience.

So my best suggestion, Omi, is to always stay open minded with everything.

(just not so open minded that your brain falls out! )