(PhysOrg.com) -- Weighing 6.6 billion solar masses, the black hole at the center of galaxy M87 is the most massive black hole for which a precise mass has been measured. Using the Frederick C. Gillett Gemini Telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, a team of astronomers calculated the black hole’s mass, which is vastly larger than the black hole in the center of the Milky Way, which is about 4 million solar masses.

Astronomer Karl Gebhardt of the University of Texas, Austin, presented the results of the team’s research on Wednesday, January 12, at the 217th meeting of the American Astronomical Society. He said that the black hole’s event horizon, which is 20 billion km across, is four times larger than Neptune’s orbit and three times larger than Pluto’s orbit. In other words, the black hole “could swallow our solar system whole.”

Previously, astronomers had estimated the black hole’s mass at about 3 billion solar masses, so their results were somewhat surprising. In order to calculate the black hole’s mass, the astronomers measured how fast surrounding stars orbit the black hole. They found that, on average, the stars orbit at speeds of nearly 500 km/s (for comparison, the sun orbits the black hole at the center of the Milky Way at about 220 km/s). From these observations, the astronomers could come up with what they say is the most accurate estimate for the mass of a supermassive black hole.

The astronomers think that the M87 black hole grew to its massive size by merging with several other black holes. M87 is the largest, most massive galaxy in the nearby universe, and is thought to have been formed by the merging of 100 or so smaller galaxies.

Although the black hole is located about 50 million light-years away, it’s considered our neighbor from a cosmological perspective. Due to the black hole’s large size and relative proximity, the astronomers think that it could be the first black hole that they could actually "see." So far, no one has ever found any direct observational evidence for black holes. Their existence is inferred from indirect evidence, particularly how they affect their surroundings.

The M87 black hole may not retain its title for long, since astronomers plan to continue looking for and calculating the sizes of many more black holes. One planned project involves connecting telescopes from around the world to observe the universe at wavelengths shorter than 1 millimeter. This set-up might enable the scientists to detect a silhouette of the M87 black hole’s event horizon. It might also enable them to calculate the size of another black hole with a roughly estimated mass of 18 billion solar masses, which is located in a galaxy about 3.5 billion light-years away.

**Explore further:**
Computer Finds Massive Black Hole in Nearby Galaxy

**More information:**
via: Cosmic Log and Science Now

## Quantum_Conundrum

Solar Mass: 1.9 E30 kg.

times 6.6 billion:

1.254 E40 kg.

F = mA

F/m = A (see below*)

A = GM/R^2.

A = 300000000m/s^2. (event horizon)

M = 1.254E40 kg

G = 6.67E-11.

* Big M and little m are not the same thing. They are the respective variables from newton's law.

Multiply both sides by R^2 and divide by A to get R^2 alone.

R^2 = GM/A

R^2 = 2.78806e21 meters squared.

R = sqrt(2.78806e21)

R = 52802083292.2 meters

R = 52,802,083 km.

Which is a far cry from 20 billion kilometers.

## eachus

## lexington

## Quantum_Conundrum

Funny. I now learn that Einstein agrees with me on yet another point. Which is to say, true black holes cannot exist in nature, because that would violate relativity.

At any rate, the numbers they give above are absurdly wrong regardless of which formula you use. Try it for yourself.

They made this crap off out of whole cloth.

## electrodynamic

## lexington

Being Einstein doesn't mean that he's right about everything he says. Modern physicists understand relativity far better than Einstein ever did. Just like biologists have moved beyond Darwin, psychologists beyond Freud, quantum physicists beyond Planck.

## Quantum_Conundrum

If you use the formula from wikipedia and actually plug in the values manually, you'll get 18.5 billion kilometers, which is still at nearly a 10% error on the part of the article's author. Additionally, the formula doesn't make any sense anyway, because it doesn't handle the inverse square law at all, and is treating the propagation of gravity linearly, which doesn't agree with any real world observations at all.

## Quantum_Conundrum

As you can see, if you do the formula for your own damn self instead of believing everything you read, their numbers don't make any sense at all, and neither do the numbers generated by the schwarzchild radius formula on wikipedia, nor for damn sure not the formula for schwarszchild radius on page 104 of "black holes and baby universes".

Again, if the thing had a schwarzschild radius of 18.5 billion kilometers, it would have an average density of only 2.145kg/m^3, which is roughly the density of air on earth.

The fact that nobody ever checks this crap is completely ridiculous.

## frajo

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/blkhol.html .

It yields 19.48 billion kilometers.

I don't think the difference to 20 billion kilometers is of any importance in this context.

## Quantum_Conundrum

Ok, now calculate the density you get from that. It's less than air in our atmosphere.

It's bullshit.

If that formula were true, there wouldn't even be neutron stars, because all neutron stars would be black holes.

Earth has a density of 5500kg/m^3.

This alleged black hole has a density of just 2.1kg/m^3....

Do you see how ABSURD that is?

Can anyone on this retarded web site do anything for themself, instead of parroting what someone else tells them to think?

## omatumr

Jan 14, 2011## Quantum_Conundrum

THIS is numbers that are much more closely in agreement with the density of a critical mass neutron star.

## soulman

Funniest thing I heard all day. Thanks QC!

## Moebius

## soulman

How do you know?

How do you know?

I somewhat agree with the gist of your comments and think that quantum effects may become significant as the singularity point is reached, so that there may not be any mathematical singularity as such. But the point is, I don't know this for a fact. So what makes you certain enough to speak in such absolutes?

## RealScience

It is not the acceleration at event horizon that is equal to the speed of light - the units don't even match because C is NOT per second SQUARED.

It is the ESCAPE VELOCITY which is C at the event horizon.

And yes the escape velocity drops linearly with distance - at 2x distance force is 4x less but drops only half as fast with still further distance.

And yes, the density of the event horizon can be very, very low: twice the mass is twice the radius or 8x the volume so 1/4 the density.

No, this is not the difference between Newton and Einstein. Calculate the ESCAPE VELOCITY. Intergrate the force to get the escape eneregy - from a radius it is that radius times the acceleration at the radius. Then use E = 1/2 * M * V^2, set V = 3x10^8 M/Sec and solve. That's pure Newtonian and still gives roughly 20 billion km. And as for 20 billion being off by 10%, that's what is called a round number.

## Quantum_Conundrum

Defintion of escape velocity, in part:

The problem is a black hole is not defined merely by escape velocity.

Escape velocity is misunderstood, because you can, for example, escape the earth and never achieve escape velocity, by burning thrusters just strong enough and long enough to rise against gravity, for example.

A black hole is defined as being something from which, "Nothing, not even light can escape".

But if you define the swarzschild radius as being the point from which escape velocity is c, then it would still be possible to escape the black hole just by using a sufficiently rocket.

continued.

## Quantum_Conundrum

## Moebius

If I'm wrong tell me how big a point is and how much volume it contains? It's a coordinate, not a physical object. If it existed it would be infinitely small.

Ever since we came up with the concept of infinity it has not had any use I know of (and calculus doesn't count) and everything we ever thought to be infinite has turned out to be finite. It doesn't even have any use in math (and calculus doesn't count). It has only caused trouble since the concept was invented (that includes religion). Infinity only exists in our mind. Nothing can be infinite (and ONLY nothing can be infinite).

## RealScience

The acceleration may indeed be very low at that point and a rocket still couldn't escape. Firing that rocket takes energy, and gravity pulls on that energy, too. The Schwartzchild radius is also the distance at which even if the rocket were to convert all of its mass to energy with 100% efficiency it still couldn't escape.

18B km is 1.8E13 meters, so the acceleration would be 6.67E-11 * 1.25E40 / 3.24E26 or about 2500 meters/S^2, not about 2500 KM/S^2. That's 250 Gs rather than 250,000 Gs.

A rocket capable of >250 Gs could START to fight its way out from right next to the event hosizon of a 1.25E40 kg black hole, but even with 100% efficient matter/antimatter engines it would run out of fuel before it got all the way out (or exactly as it got out if it were 100% fuel).

## RealScience

Escape velocity = Initial Speed (as you said), THEN COAST. On one level I applaud your attempts to do the math, but please keep track of the units - if they are wrong, your answer is nonsense.

Try at least reading wikipedia before saying that something is misunderstood.

## Quantum_Conundrum

If a neutron has no charge, and it has an atomic mass of 1, then this is the most dense ordinary matter in existence.

Since neutrons are presumably spherical, "stacking" neutrons which are gravitationally bound (i.e. "neutron star",) should always result in structures that are less dense than any one neutron. After all, there is empty space in the stack for any neutrons that are tangent to one another.

Therefore, I figure that if black holes do exist, it would be far easier to make a black hole by accelerating a neutron to an absurd speed, than to make a black hole through gravitational collapse of a pre-existing star or neutron star.

After all, in relativity, mass is variable with respect to velocity, so if you have the neutron moving at like 0.9999999...9c, then it should become a black hole at some point...

Put enough nines behind there and we should end up with a single neutron which has a mass of like a gram or so. Black hole?

## Skeptic_Heretic

No, they made it out of math.

And the answer is, regardless of whether you use Newton's or Einstein's forumlae (correctly), 0 or infinity.

F=mA has nothing to do with this...

Learn some physics.

## lexington

That doesn't make any sense at all.

## soulman

Of course not. And I pretty much agreed with you before. The only issue I had was your absolute certainty, which you still claim (at 99%).

Again, I didn't say that you were wrong and, in fact, added a 'reasonable' guess as to why a mathematical singularity MAY not exist. But bottom line, I don't know and you don't know.

Whoa, that's a whole new kettle of fish! Tell me why Calculus doesn't count? It's only one of the most useful mathematical formulations ever devised and you want to forget about it?

(more...)

## Quantum_Conundrum

I know that.

No duh guy. Get a life.

Try reading what I wrote first before making an idiotic response.

The fact is the numbers given by the schwartzchild radius formula do not match what anyone actually says about black holes:

infinite density,

"nothing can ever escape"

etc.

We have a 1/2 scale rail gun that can achieve far more than that amount of instantaneous acceleration right now.

## soulman

Except for the things we don't know are finite or infinite.

That must be a joke.

The universe may well be infinite (beyond the light horizon). Recent CMB measurements suggest that the universe is flat topologically, which is consistent with an infinite universe. But again, we don't know for sure, so we shouldn't be speaking in absolutes.

## Quantum_Conundrum

If we are talking about gravity then we are talking about force and acceleration.

Learn some physics, dumbass.

Soulman:

Nobody uses calculus in the "real world". Sorry. It's just true.

they don't use it in engineering, they damn sure don't use it in process or manufacturing.

NASA uses it, but weather people do not, except for the integrated kinetic energy index, other than that, I've even been told directly by professional meteorologists that they never use it.

It's not particularly useful in most applications because there are easier, more straightforward ways to measure things and predict things that are "close enough" for all real world applications.

I don't need to know the area under the curve X^2 or X^3, because the ideal surface is a sphere anyway, but in the real world we do everything in rectangles, cones, and cylinders, which is like 3rd grade math.

## RealScience

A nucleon is about 1.7E-15 meters, so at 1.6E-27 m/kg it would need a mass of 1.1E12 kg. E=MC^2 says 9E16 J/kg, so that is 1E29 Joules. A Joule is just over 6E18 ev, so that is just over 6E47 electon volts.

Not only is that almost 1E35 times higher than the energy of the LHC, but it is also roughly two dozen orders of magnitude higher even than the highest energy cosmic rays.

So I don't think accelerating a neutron sufficiently would be easier than waiting for a large star to collapse.

But it was still a reasonable question.

## RealScience

And for 'infinite density', people are refering to a singularity at the heart of a black hole.

That is NOT the same as the average density within the black hole's event horizon (which clearly is not infinite, because with a finite size its mass would have to be infinite if it had an infinite density).

## RealScience

(Note to hard-nosed physicists: I use the term 'supposedly' because to discuss in which reference frames a singularity exists and in which it doesn't would not fit in 1000 characters).

## Skeptic_Heretic

State your framework and your figures, and let's do a proper comparison.

## RealScience

The neutron is 1.1E-15 meters rather than 1.75E-15, so it would require 4E47 ev rather than 6E47 ev packed into a sphere the size of a neutron to make a neutron-sized black hole.

## Quantum_Conundrum

Using radius 1.7E-15, and assuming mass 1kg, I got a gravitational acceleration of 2.3E19m/s^2.

Alternatively, to have gravitational acceleration equal to 300,000,000m/s^2 with radius 1.7E-15 takes only 1.3E-11kg, or 1.3E-8grams.

Which I have calculated to be 7.829E15 times the rest mass of a neutron.

## soulman

'Real' is such a subjective term. I often wonder whether you live in the real world.

## lomed

## DamienS

You figure wrong, as usual.

You know nothing of SR/GR. Relativistic mass isn't inertia, nor does it represent the gravitation of a body. It simply isn't mass - it's the total energy of the particle. You can't just turn a mass into a black hole by accelerating it to high speeds. If it isn't a black hole in its rest frame, it ain't gonna be a black hole in any other frame!

## ennui27

I am neither a physicist nor an economist .... but do not economists and (those nasty) bond traders use calculus to work out and predict market trends. (Obviously they blew it lately.) As well - their's may not be the 'real world' - but some thoeritical construct.

## RealScience

Quantum - what the heck would 300,000,000 m/sec^2 have to do with anything???

m/sec^2 is an acceleration, not a speed.

The speed (velocity) of light is 300,000,000 meters per second, NOT per second SQUARED.

If the escape VELOCITY is the speed of light, why would you arbitrarily decide to use acceleration instead of velocity?

Simply because you like the answer better?

## RealScience

270 meters per second is a velocity.

It is nonsense to substitute an acceleration of 270 meters per second squared in some velocity equation (e.g., 'escape velocity', or 'cruising speed') because velocity and acceleration are not the same thing.

The plane at that time was cruising at constant speed (acceleration = 0 m/s^2), and even to get to that speed it sure as heck didn't accelerate at 27 Gs.

Do you see the difference?

(I point this out because you actually take the time to try the math, which is a good start.)

## Skeptic_Heretic

## gvgoebel

You got that. If it were possible to do so, then if you considered the particle at rest and the rest of the Universe in motion, that would turn the rest of the Universe into a black hole.

I wonder if KyuCee is an HIV denialist, too: "Stop taking the ARVs -- they're what's making you sick, not HIV. You'll be okay. Trust me."

## Moebius

I don't want to forget about it, I am just saying it isn't really using infinity or proves infinity exists. Before someone said that calculus proves infinity exists. Because it doesn't really use infinity, it uses everything between 2 limits for example. Everything between 6 and 8 is 2, not an infinite number. Yes there are an infinite number of points in between (maybe) but you can't use one imaginary thing to prove another.

Calculus is amazing and as far as I am concerned Newton is the smartest person who ever lived for inventing it and I think that it is a greater leap of understanding than what Einstein did.

## Wulfgar

## DamienS

Agree about Newton being the greatest scientist (if flawed). But there is some controversy about who invented calculus - Newton or Leibniz? I think it's fair to say that they both invented it independently, but it is Leibniz's notation or formalism which is the more powerful and which is used today.

## RealScience

So yes, any photons escaping the black hole would show the jumbled picture if we could see those photons, but we can't see them so we wouldn't see a 'glowing orb'.

(If there were a sufficiently small black hole the Hawking radiation would be visible, but that's another matter.)

## Moebius

True, but given Newton's full body of work and Calculus, there is no comparison.

## omatumr

Neutron repulsion energizes neutron stars and prevents the formation of black holes.

E.g., “the source of the pulsar's power may be hidden deep within its surface” [1] See also [2,3].

1. "Mysterious pulsar with hidden powers discovered," reported in ScienceDaily, 15 October 2010.

2. "A low-magnetic-field soft gamma repeater," Science, vol. 330, November 2010, pp. 944-946.

3. "Gamma-ray flares from the Crab Nebula," Science, (ScienceXPress) Published online 6 January 2011

With kind regards,

Oliver K. Manuel

Former NASA Principal

Investigator for Apollo

## Pyle

RS's explanation leaves out an important aspect, I think. The objects falling into the black hole would "wink" out. As the event horizon is approached, rapidly from a distant observer's frame, the object would dim exponentially and the image would blend with everything else that had fallen into the black hole, including the original star.

The forever falling is very theoretical and not observable in any meaningful way.

## Bog_Mire

## Digi

## Moebius

## Moebius

I hope you are wrong. I assume you are talking about wandering black holes. They are so small, if they exist, that for that to happen it would have to be so close that it would be one of the last things we ever see. The huge ones at the center of galaxies are big but they are surrounded by so much junk they won't be seen like that. And big is relative, they aren't all that big physically, they are big in effects.

## RealScience

For an object small compared to the event horizon, the main dimming would be the red-shifting of the photons, so the object would rapidly fade redder and then dark. For even a stellar-mass black hole, ‘winking out’ would be a good description. For a sufficiently massive black hole, ‘red-shift out’ would be more fitting.

Near the event horizon only those photons heading nearly straight out could reach a distant observer, so the area from which photons are observable also shrinks near the event horizon. The larger the falling object relative to the event horizon, the more this contributes to the ‘winking’ by diminishing the number of photons as well as red-shifting them.

All this is for an observer many Rs (r-subscript-s) away - observers travelling with the in-falling object will see things very differently.

## omatumr

Nuclear rest mass data revealed neutron repulsion in every nucleus with two or more neutrons about a decade ago [ "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy," Journal of Fusion Energy, vol. 19, March 2000, pp. 93-98].

That is “the source of the pulsar's power . . . hidden deep within its surface” ["Mysterious pulsar with hidden powers discovered," reported in ScienceDaily, 15 October 2010].

With kind regards,

Oliver K. Manuel

Former NASA Principal

Investigator for Apollo

## frajo

In physics, however, we don't have a definition of "infinity". The term "singularity" is a mere colloquial term without rigid definition in physics.

The confusion arises out of the use of mathematical models to describe physical observations.

Specifically, when we speak of the singularity of a BH, this is to be understood as the admission that we don't know what happens "inside" once there is no more known force to resist gravity.

## frajo

## frajo

"Schwarz", by the way, is the German word for black.

## davesmith_au

Now THAT's the funniest thing I've read all year, o so many levels. ROFLMAO!

## lengould100

## RealScience

You are correct - I mistakenly added a 't' to his name.

## nevermark

Thank you for the single most face-palm ridiculous statement I have ever read on Physorg.

Have you never met an engineer in your whole life? Mechanical, electrical, power, civil, structural, optical and chemical engineers use calculus all day long. I am a computer engineer and I use calculus every day. So do economists and financial modelers. Biology has become an information science and virtually everything is modeled and designed using calculus now. Virtually every product created in any volume you have ever used, from transistor chemistry in your MP3 player to the process for homogenizing the milk you drink, was modeled and designed with calculus.

## nevermark

A constructive suggestion indeed! But I cannot imagine it helping in this case. If QC was competent enough to consistently add value to these discussions, those verbose comments would be getting shorter, fewer and improving in quality.

I don't know if the missing piece in QC's puzzle is confusion about intellectual honesty, or a lack of cognitive confidence (perhaps for good reason) undermining the the normal urge to learn from other's with more expertise. But whatever the difficulty, QC hasn't demonstrated any ability to rise above it.

## Moebius

Really. You use infinity in equations? Which ones? I was under the impression that when infinity turns up, something is wrong. Please enlighten me, I'll try to suppress the pain.

## nuge

Quantum Conundrum is probably just a troll, I don't think anyone could really be THAT wrong about SO MANY THINGS and still think that they are smarter than everyone. I certainly hope not.

## Skeptic_Heretic

## Decimatus

It would have been nice if he had at least acknowledged that average density does not equal actual density. The event horizon does not equate to a physical barrier, but a gravitational barrier.

Not saying singularities exist, but eve a 6.6 billion solar mass neutron/quark star is obviously going to have an event horizon that is much bigger than the actual star itself.

## RealScience

But I would rather spend ten comments on a possible troll than to give up on an educatable person.

And it seems that Quantum must have finally realized that he was wrong, as he has been mighty quiet on this thread after the third or fourth time it was explained. Quantum at least TRIES the math, so perhaps he can learn the math.

Furthermore many people scan an active thread, and many of them will learn at least one thing from the dialog. And in checking my answers I learned that the neutron is considerably smaller than a proton, whereas I had thought of them as about the same size.

I also don't reflexively rate every QC post a 1 the way some people do - if I rate any post I give it the rating it deserves, independent of who made it. QC usually gets a 1, but even QC occasionally makes a good comment.

## Decimatus

First, the outside observer is going to witness the unfortunate victim dissapear into the BH. Not slow down and stop due to some ridiculous time dilation.

## Decimatus

Now in most cases, due to the obliteration of matter and subsequent accretion disk, this center of gravity will be uniformly distributed around the equator of the blackhole, depending on it's spin.

This keeps the BH's average center of gravity as defined from the measurements at the equator, but creates noticeable differences at higher lattitudes.

This could actually explain why there are so many spiral galaxies however. If most of the new mass is situated in a ring formation around the original singualrity, then it's mass distribution could be a significant factor in planar galaxy formation.

## Bog_Mire

Maybe he shall reincarnate as a new puppet? Seems to be the go with other fully fledged cranks.

## Decimatus

Do spiral galaxies simply have blackholes that have uniform mass rings? Would modified or damage spin and mass ring relationships explain why giant elipticals keep their shape so long?

I still don't buy the observer/victim time dilation business, but it does bring up some interesting avenues for thought.

## gvgoebel

NoNoNoNoNo ... If I'm sitting in a space station in orbit a good distance around a black hole and I send a robot in a probe to take a one-way trip down, it's only the robot's clock that's affected. My clock keeps the same time as ever and the probe simply coasts through the event horizon and disappears. It's the robot's clock that runs slower as it gets closer to the event horizon.

## gvgoebel

NoNoNo ... if I'm in a space station and drop a probe into a black hole, it just falls in and disappears. If there's a clock on board the probe, it slows down -- meaning the trip seems even shorter on the probe -- but my clock doesn't.

## Decimatus

To a distant observer, clocks near a black hole appear to tick more slowly than those further away from the black hole. Due to this effect, known as gravitational time dilation, an object falling into a black hole appears to slow down as it approaches the event horizon, taking an infinite time to reach it.

So according to accepted theory, the outside observer is supposed to witness the victim slow down and stop due to time dilation.

So theoretically, no matter in the known age of universe has fallen into a singularity. To the known universe, all matter dilates as it gets closer and closer, never actually entering it.

To the person falling in, they don't notice any time dilation other than the outside observer speeding up. And fatal gravity of course.

## Decimatus

As a result of this, if time dilation is true, then there should be detectable variations in a black hole's center of gravity. The event horizon my look spherical, but the gravity on the equator of the event horizon should be significantly different from the gravity at latitudes 45 and 90.

Assuming it is a blackhole that has had a normal life cycle and hasn't been slammed by other giant black holes. But then the same time dilation should hold for both of them as well, and center of gravity differences would be even more obvious.

## 71STARS

## soulman

Clearly, you haven't thought about it. Either that or you know nothing about celestial mechanics, probably both.

Yes, but that comes after education.

## Decimatus

When you see many massive suns orbiting the core of the galaxy at 500+ km/s you kind of need something in there that is keeping them tied down.

What keeps these blackholes from eating the galaxies is 2 fold:

1. Time. Give it another 20-100 billion years and logically the blackholes win.

2. Energy. When one sun falls into a blackhole it is shredded apart, with the resulting radiation blasting all other debris in the area pushing it away. Blackholes feed, but they are mostly drinking through a straw, albeit relatively nonstop for billions of years.

3. It is only a matter of time before one of our giant telescopes can zero in on a solar system sized event horizon. We will probably first detect suns dissapearing behind it in the haze of radiation long before we see the blackness though.

## Ethelred

Oliver, density doesn't enter into it. Smack a few of your silly versions of neutron core suns together and you WILL get a black hole. Throw enough mass down the gravity well and eventually gravity will be too strong for light to escape. THAT is what makes it a BLACK HOLE.

What you are claiming is that SINGULARITIES cannot exist because of your idea of neutron repulsion will stop that from occurring. Black Holes do not require a singularity to exist. Frankly your idea of neutron repulsion makes predictions about atoms that simply go against the evidence. However even if it wasn't nonsense you still haven't shown this fantasy force to be stronger than the Strong Force. It would have to be stronger than the Strong Force for it stop a singularity from forming.

Mistaking a singularity for a Black Hole is another indication that you are a Crank.

Ethelred

## frajo

But I'll try:

Mathematics comprises a bit more than equations.

Set theory, for instance. Number theory, for instance. Even Linear Algebra For Beginners doesn't protect you against infinite vector spaces. Statistics - no go without the Central Limit Theorem.

## antialias

The wikipedia formula is for a static, non-rotating black hole. the radius for a rotating black hole (which is basically every single one out there) is slightly larger. The number in the article seems roughly correct to me.

## neinstein

## Digi

Well, at three times the size of Pluto's orbit I would say it's pretty big and as the article points out: 'Due to the black hole's large size and relative proximity, the astronomers think that it could be the first black hole that they could actually "see."' So I am hopeful, I know there will be a lot of material in the way but a window may open which allows us to glimpse it.

## antialias

## Parmanello

## Tissa_Perera

And I disagree that black holes are discovered(or proved) any where like everybody believe, they are just inferred to exist so far.

I have concluded that gravity force itself has a maximum natural limit, the ‘g’ force boundary, that would prevent BH formation in nature. I can account for the galactic center behavior by means of of an extra space dimension without speculating a SMBH.

Read my web for how AGN is made of.

## Skeptic_Heretic

Any questions?

## Modernmystic

Is it in the same direction as the "great attractor"? Anyone know?

## omatumr

Neutron repulsion causes:

a.) Massive neutron stars to fission.

b.) Smaller ones, like the one in the Sun, to decay by neutron emission.

E.g., “the source of the pulsar's power may be hidden deep within its surface” [1] See also [2,3].

1. "Mysterious pulsar with hidden powers discovered," reported in ScienceDaily, 15 October 2010.

2. "A low-magnetic-field soft gamma repeater," Science, vol. 330, November 2010, pp. 944-946.

3. "Gamma-ray flares from the Crab Nebula," Science, (ScienceXPress) Published online 6 January 2011

With kind regards,

Oliver K. Manuel

Former NASA Principal

Investigator for Apollo

## Skeptic_Heretic

## Wulfgar

## Pyle

## nuge

## Caliban

You've yet to explain away a few things that would arise naturally as a consequence of your cosmology.

Just a few:

1. Where are the Supermassive Stars that are allowed to exist in order to produce your theorized neutron stars of unrestricted(and therefore infinite or nearly so)mass?

2. With regards to these neutron stars of unrestricted mass- do they not continually evaporate due to particulate emission/radiation? Or can one exist in a "steady" or growing' state, dependent upon its position relative to a source of matter which can be trapped into its gravity well.

3. Why are your neutron stars of unrestricted mass not observable anywhere? Is this neutron emission somehow converted to visible light, thereby confusing everyone into thinking that the neutron star is actually just an ordinary, visible light emitting star?

contd

## Caliban

4. If it is non-visble light, it should still manifest as some form of occultation of sources of visible light behind it, relative to the viewer, much as a black hole would appear, if viewed from some position above the event horizon, except for the difference of the neutron star having some, one supposes, more-or-less spherical shape or volume in space, and therefore being much easier of observation. Why do we not, then, observe them pretty much everywhere we look?

## Caliban

An example of your comments here:

Can anyone help out here---my understanding has always been that a black hole -of any mass- doesn't consist of a volume bounded(ie, a physical presence) in 3D space, but consists solely of a circle or disc of a particular radius in two dimensions only(the event horizon, or "opening" into the black hole), and that this was the main reason for the inability to directly "observe" a black hole.

Am I correct, or do black holes occupy some roughly spherical volume in regular 3D space?

## jsa09

This is where things get to be a lot of fun. travelling at less than the speed of light yet capable of crossing the universe at speeds that appear to be far in excess of the speed of light.

## jsa09

extrapolating on time dilation effects it is therefore theoretically possible to fly from here to the edge of the galaxy in a day (given sufficient acceleration). Then turn around and fly back again.

The problem will be when you arrive back at Earth and land and try to look up the address of where you lived before you started.

Of course after a trip like that you may not even be able to find Earth because unless you use sophisticated navigation equipment you will probably go to wrong location.

## Decimatus

I have never heard that explanation before. It wouldn't make sense. Gravitational objects have spherical gravity wells. Light trying to escape in any direction on a 3d grid is thwarted. The event horizon would have to be spherical.

If the event horizon wasn't spherical, then potentially you could skim over the top of it and be inches from the singularity without falling into the horizon. That isn't the case, for light or matter.

## RealScience

The area of the event horizon is also important because it is proportional to the entropy of the black hole.

## Decimatus

Personally though, singualrities are bunk. Mathematical illusions. In reality, I am sure there is a quark star or possibly even a neutron star in there. Either way, still surrounded by an event horizon once they reach the required density.

The reason we have not seen one yet is because they are too small, and either covered in a blinding light, shrouded in dust, or just plain lonely in the dead of space.

I imagine the James Webb would at least be able to see a sillouette of a star dissapearing behind the a super giant blackhole.

But whatever is inside, it won't matter until we can figure out a way to bypass the event horizon which is the end of the line.

## omatumr

First

1. They are at centers of galaxies, including the Milky Way, and are frequently mislabeled as black holes.

2. Normal stars like the Sun shine because neutrons are being emitted from the central neutron star. Following neutron-emission, the neutrons become hydrogen by neutron-decay.

3. They are. See answer #1.

4. We do. They are in the cores of ordinary stars. We see the veneer of waste products from the neutron star glowing brightly in the photosphere. That is 91% H and 9% He in the Sun's photosphere.

## Caliban

h ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1347359/Biggest-black-hole-M87-big-swallow-ENTIRE-solar-system.html

Decimatus,

Thanks for the additional explaination, but I remained unconvinced.

Can anyone provide a definitive explanation/link?

## Decimatus

I think what you may get confused with is that black hole geometry is represented in 2D. Its simply easier that way. In most articles talking about it, they even say "2D Representation".

And RealScience is also correct, a spinning black hole has a different geometry(wider and flatter) than a stationary black hole which you can find info on in most articles discussing them. How different the geometry is, depends on the speed of the spin. The creation of blackholes can be so violent that their spin can often be measuring in fractions of C.

## Caliban

Alright- I'll have to dig into it- my conceptualisation needs amendment, apparently. Which I will have to be satisfied with, since, sadly, I don't have a few tens or hundreds of billions of years to wait for one to grow large enough to be unmistakably visible.

## Caliban

For clarity's sake, i tried to use the quote function to pose a few questions, but, for whatever reason, the comment has failed to load twice, so here goes:

Are all Active Galactic Centers neutron stars, then -or are some of them actually black holes?

how do we tell the difference?

Are all stars these same supernova-remnant neutron stars? Do they all slowly decay/radiate away to nothing? Are there any strictly, textbook neutron stars? If so, how do they form? Could they form absent the supernova condition?

If it posssible for two G-type stars, for example, to form by different processes(ie simple accretion and via supernova/neutron star vector), then how do we distinguish between the two?

How are heavy elements formed?

## Pyle

What are the primary differences between a Black Hole and the Neutron stars you theorize exist in their place? I have visited many of the links you post, but haven't stumbled across this in any of them that I recall.

Caliban: You linked to that?

From article "At a distance of about 50 million light years it is relatively close to Earth"

Same article "by far the largest and most distant galaxy some 50million light years away."

Funny.

## Caliban

That was just one of the reasons why I indicated that the article left much to be desired.

I linked to it for the actual image, since the physorg article can only boast an "artist's conception".

## omatumr

2. Next, I am busy with a new paper that summarizes about 50 years of research.

3. Conclusions: Earth is connected gravitationally, magnetically and electrically to a neutron star - obscured from view by waste products in the photosphere. Neutron repulsion in the solar core is like the hot filament in an incandescent light bulb. There subatomic particles evolved and released the waste products that glow in the photosphere like a frosted light bulb. The waste products move on out to engulf Earth and the other Life evolved above, as Earth orbited in the heliosphere.

Analogy: Astronomers have been fascinated with the veil of waste products that hides the Sun, as an excited groom might become enamored with the veil that hides his bride.

There are no balls of hydrogen in the cosmos. Neutron stars emit neutrons that decay to hydrogen atoms. These glow in the photosphere and then continue on out in space to encompass the planets.

## Caliban

I'll ignore the dodge implicit in your response.

Be you sure, though, to post a link to your article here on physorg just as soon as it is available.

I remain doubtful of your assertions regarding stellar formation, but will reserve judgement until you've had the chance to fully explicate your theory. Ultimately, there may at least be some validity in your concepts.

Meanwhile, it is entirely unfair of you to post here with regards to your theory, and not be prepared to answer questions and provide citations, especially since your claims are at such wide variance with the standard model. As has been said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary(or, at least, rigorously sufficient) proof.

## Decimatus

I don't see how you can say BlackHoles don't exist though. I am pretty sure a 6 billion solar mass neutron star is still a black hole. No singularity, but the light isn't getting out, so hence "Black Hole".

## Decimatus

I see a lot of theories as to how and why black holes and whatnot exist, but not a lot of thought into the logical mechanical makeup of the entity itself.

Mathmeticians take the easy route with a singularity because that is where their math leads. Obviously that isn't possible, so where does that leave us? If we have neutron stars, I don't see why it couldn't also compress down into further sub-atomic levels.

On another note, Oliver it sounds like you are pushing pretty hard for your Neutron Repulsion theory to take hold. What is your /jobposition? Have any major sources publicized your ideas or theories? What types of experiments could be made to prove your theories?

## frajo

More images of M87 on blackholes.stardate.org/directory/factsheet.php?p=M87

## Caliban

That's right. A composite of various wavelengths of the thing itself, though, as opposed to a representation from an artist's imagination.

## Ethelred

Ethelred

## Wulfgar

Sorry if I'm being thick-headed. How is it possible from the point of view of someone on the craft to travel sub-light speed while travelling tens of thousands of light years(across a galaxy) in a single day? The minimum travel time, as experienced on the craft, should be more than the time it takes light to travel the same distance, no? Also, if you are travelling at such ridiculous speed that you cross a galaxy in a day, how can an outsider see this other than as you slowing to a crawl as you approach light speed? If the outside observer of the craft experiences a longer and longer duration of time for the craft to cross the galaxy(beyond the light yr distance), the closer the craft gets to C, then the craft must seem to be going slower and slower to the stationary observer, no?

## Pyle

C is C is C.

If you are traveling near an observer's C you appear to be going very fast. One year of your travel per the observer's frame is one year. From your frame, at the near C speed, you may only have registered a few seconds time elapsed, depending on how close to the observer's C you are going.

Relativity... what a head scratcher.

## jsa09

yep it is odd. But traveling across the galaxy in a day and still keeping below light speed is possible.

What you would observe out the window is that all the stars in their orbit of the galaxy would be moving quite fast as well.

So navigation would get tricky.

## nuge

## jsa09

The galaxy would get smaller as you accelerated.

## jsa09

As stuff falls into the black hole it would accelerate to almost light speeds. Therefore it would see you moving faster too and you would see it moving fast.

Stuff falling into the black hole should also get bigger as it gets faster.

for the objects themselves time slows but they would not observe that they would observe everything else moving faster. Orbits would be faster and therefore effects of gravity would appear to be stronger. Stars would burn out quicker therefore radiation decay speeds up in the rest of the visible universe.

## nuge

## nevermark

But only the direction you are accelerating. And you would look flattened in that direction to everyone else.

## jsa09

High gravity yes but dont forget we are falling and therefore accelerating as well relative to everything else regardless of the cause.

## Wulfgar

## omatumr

See: "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun"

Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131

arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

I do not respond to Ethylred

## nuge

Try Giancoli's Physics for Scientists and Engineers. It has a good overview of the theory. Any decent modern textbook would though, really.

For a bit of inspiration, I recommend "Tau Zero" by Paol Anderson. It is a great book.

## lomed

## Ethelred

Those iron stacks should have backed you up if you were right. They didn't. Ignoring me won't change that.

Ethelred

## nuge

## Skeptic_Heretic

Yes but high speeds result in greater rest mass, meaning higher gravity.