Super-Giant Black Hole Baffles Scientists - Page 2 - Dallas Cowboys Forum

Hoofbite · 12-01-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam I Am

I have a friend that recently got a job at UT's McDonald Observatory. That is where I heard about this from.

17 billion solar masses is unfathomably large. It takes light 8 minutes to reach the Earth from the Sun. That is 93 million miles traveled in 8 minutes.

Neptune is 30 times further from the Sun. (2,780,246,913 miles) It takes light from the Sun 4.12 hours to reach Neptune. Neptune's orbit is twice that. (60 times the distance from the Sun to the Earth, or well over 5 billion miles)

NGC-1277 is 11 times wider than Neptune's orbit. That comes to about 61,165,432,086 miles. (61.1 billion miles wide) The size of NGC-1277 dwarfs our entire solar system. It is 11 times larger!

Traveling at the speed of light, it would take you 4 days to cross the diameter of this black hole.

Edit: Here is an image talking about what I said.

[View Full Quote]

This picture is crazy.

**jobberone** · 12-01-2012

What's interesting is they didn't think super massive black holes could be that large a percentage of a galaxies size or mass. It throws a monkey wrench into how galaxies may have formed.

**trickblue** · 12-01-2012

The bottom line is that we know very little about what goes on outside of our own galaxy...

dexternjack · 12-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlindFaith

So how big did you think the universe was, if not infinite? Some big infinite brick wall at the edge?

Most scientists agree that the universe is ever expanding, so that would, in fact, mean that the universe is expanding into something. In short, a lot think the universe is finite at any point in time but will never stay finite, if that makes sense.

dexternjack · 12-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by joseephuss

The universe is estimated to be 15 billion years. That 220 million is almost 1.5% of that.

Those are two totally different measurements. The universe is almost 15 billion years old, but that has no relation in going a certain distance in light years/speed.

One is a measurement of how fast something is traveling, the other is just a measure of time.

Assuming the universe is expanding slower than the speed of light (186,000 miles per second), I was saying if a spaceship traveled at that speed for 220 million years in time, that it would eventually catch the 'edge' of the universe (if there is or isn't one).

Never-mind, too hard to express my thoughts, no way to explain what I am trying to say in words here

masomenos · 12-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by dexternjack

Most scientists agree that the universe is ever expanding, so that would, in fact, mean that the universe is expanding into something. In short, a lot think the universe is finite at any point in time but will never stay finite, if that makes sense.

I know it seems to make logical sense that the universe is expanding into something but it's not.

dexternjack · 12-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by masomenos

I know it seems to make logical sense that the universe is expanding into something but it's not.

Ok, can you prove that? This is all speculation, we can not prove these hypotheses. Our universe could be expanding into another universe, or it could be expanding into water or it could be expanding into a huge dirty T-shirt that says 'Cowboys Rule'. The point is..we have no idea what lies beyond our solar system, all our best researchers can do is give their best educated guess-a hypothesis.

Hoofbite · 12-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by masomenos

I know it seems to make logical sense that the universe is expanding into something but it's not.

Interesting and confusing thought. If only space weren't so damn confusing in the first place.

If there were something it was expanding into, that something would itself have mass unless it was an absolute spotless vacuum.........wouldn't it?

Any mass at all and it kind of makes the idea of accelerating expansion kind of confusing itself.

This is just kind of random thoughts.......I wouldn't even call myself a star-gazer. Really haven't ever really got into space much more than seeing this kind of stuff posted.

Anyway, if there is "something", it likely has mass. At least in my noob-universe it would only make sense to have mass.

If there's mass, no matter how small, wouldn't it sort of accumulate on the outer edge of the universe as it expands? Kind of like bugs on the windshield of a car? Sure, drive for a couple days on the highway and you have a lot of bugs but not much added weight. Drive for a few billion years and all those little buggy bits and pieces will add up and start adding weight.

If that's the case, how is the speed of expansion increasing? Billions of years of accumulated "something" should slow things down, right?

This definitely seems like a better conversation to have in Amsterdam.

Hoofbite · 12-02-2012

As for the black hole itself.

Now debunked.

They just zoomed in really far on this picture.

joseephuss · 12-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by dexternjack

Those are two totally different measurements. The universe is almost 15 billion years old, but that has no relation in going a certain distance in light years/speed.

One is a measurement of how fast something is traveling, the other is just a measure of time.

Assuming the universe is expanding slower than the speed of light (186,000 miles per second), I was saying if a spaceship traveled at that speed for 220 million years in time, that it would eventually catch the 'edge' of the universe (if there is or isn't one).

Never-mind, too hard to express my thoughts, no way to explain what I am trying to say in words here

The two things are intertwined.

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreduc..._Universe.html

From this article, "The image below is both the oldest and youngest picture ever taken. It is the oldest because it has taken the light nearly 14 billion years to reach us. And it is the youngest because it is a snapshot of our newborn universe, long before the first stars and galaxies formed. The bright patterns show clumps of simple matter that will eventually form stars and galaxies. This is as far as we can see into the universe. It is time, not space, which limits our view. Beyond a certain distance, light hasn't had time to reach us yet."

The age of the universe(time) is based on how long it has taken light to reach us(speed/distance). That not only tells us the age, but the size of the universe. They are related.

There are theories out there that claim the universe expansion exceeded the speed of light during the initial moments of the big bang.

Future · 12-02-2012

pssshh...Muse found it in like 2008

CowboyMcCoy · 12-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by joseephuss

The two things are intertwined.

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreduc..._Universe.html

From this article, "The image below is both the oldest and youngest picture ever taken. It is the oldest because it has taken the light nearly 14 billion years to reach us. And it is the youngest because it is a snapshot of our newborn universe, long before the first stars and galaxies formed. The bright patterns show clumps of simple matter that will eventually form stars and galaxies. This is as far as we can see into the universe. It is time, not space, which limits our view. Beyond a certain distance, light hasn't had time to reach us yet."

[View Full Quote]

This blows my mind.

Sam I Am · 12-02-2012

Something many people don't realize is that empty space is actually not empty at all. There is energy there. All mass is energy and all empty space in our universe has energy. It is that energy that creates the three perceived dimensions. (and possibly many more!)

Now you ask, what is the universe expanding into? It is expanding into literally nothing. Energy is spreading out into a dimensionless void. It's not a universe, it's not space, it is nothing. It's hard to visualize it since you perceive space as being empty when it actually isn't. You are perceiving it's three dimensions! Something the void does not have.

**ScipioCowboy** · 12-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam I Am

Something many people don't realize is that empty space is actually not empty at all. There is energy there. All mass is energy and all empty space in our universe has energy. It is that energy that creates the three perceived dimensions. (and possibly many more!)

Now you ask, what is the universe expanding into? It is expanding into literally nothing. Energy is spreading out into a dimensionless void. It's not a universe, it's not space, it is nothing. It's hard to visualize it since you perceive space as being empty when it actually isn't. You are perceiving it's three dimensions! Something the void does not have.

One way to visualize space in three dimensions is with tennis balls connected by springs. Imagine a tennis ball suspended in mid air. Now, take six springs and connect them to the tennis ball, spreading them equidistant across its surface. Connect a new tennis ball to the end of each spring, and connect new springs to all those tennis balls. Depending on how many springs and tennis balls you have, you might have a fairly large cube.

Now, shake your cube, and watching the tennis balls oscillate across the springs. Your cube of tennis balls and springs represents space, and their oscillating represents the vacuum energy that's always present within space.

dexternjack · 12-02-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by joseephuss

The two things are intertwined.

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreduc..._Universe.html

From this article, "The image below is both the oldest and youngest picture ever taken. It is the oldest because it has taken the light nearly 14 billion years to reach us. And it is the youngest because it is a snapshot of our newborn universe, long before the first stars and galaxies formed. The bright patterns show clumps of simple matter that will eventually form stars and galaxies. This is as far as we can see into the universe. It is time, not space, which limits our view. Beyond a certain distance, light hasn't had time to reach us yet."

[View Full Quote]

A cool article in that link. I understand what you are saying but I am having a hard time putting into words on how 220 million lt years is or isn't related to a 15 billion old universe.

Maybe, for example, I am 41 yrs old and I am driving from Houston to Dallas at 75mph. How are both of these related?

I do understand light and how long it takes to travel, or short rather.