Stellar Black Hole in Our Galaxy Is So Massive It Shouldn't Exist

Nov 26, 2019
31
8
55
There is technically a Black Hole within every galaxy, it's only when the correct conditions are met that the hole is created, but the hole should not be the focal point. There is something much bigger happening to the galaxy that nobody has released or viewed yet but so simple! The black hole is the end but also the beginning.... All will make sense very soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldLions
Dec 1, 2019
5
3
35
A gigantic black hole 15,000 light-years from our planet is twice as massive as what researchers thought was possible in our own galaxy.

Stellar Black Hole in Our Galaxy Is So Massive It Shouldn't Exist : Read more
It is baffling to read a title like this ... so massive it shouldn't exist. Based on what criteria? Humans are just scratching the surface of what is out there. We are limited in our understanding and massive data available there. Unless those who made this discovery or the writer are the creator of what is in existence, then they can theorised what should and shouldn't be...
 
Dec 1, 2019
4
2
10
Our galaxy has merged with other galaxies in the past so it shouldn't be a surprise to have a second, larger than anticipated large black hole in our galaxy and there could be others.
 
Feb 19, 2020
1
0
10
Apr 18, 2020
1
0
10
Apr 17, 2020
21
2
35
This notwithstanding
"Editor's Note: The findings of this study have been called into question because of a potential error in the analysis of starlight from the companion star. That error would mean the black hole is about the size of our sun, rather than 70 times the mass of our sun."

Who are we to say that something (if it is) really there should not be there. Just because it doesn't agree with our puny (and in this case, apparently wrong) ideas? More likely we are wrong - as apparently turns out to be the case - not the Universe
More anthropomorphic self aggrandisement!
 
Dec 8, 2019
10
0
30
In my opinion, per the alternative perspective provided by the 'The Evolutioning of Creation: Volume 2', what is missing is an understanding of matter as a whole. To my way of thinking, 'whole matter' is conglomeration of ordinary matter and dark matter. So scientists have to stop thinking of dark matter as being distinguishable from ordinary matter. Wherein the creation of matter as a whole induces a complementary displacement, or warping in the dark energy medium of the space-time fabric, its promulgation is interdependent on its insistence and persistence. For within this warping, there is yet another perturbation in the whole matter created; an almost indistinguishable dual relationship of newly created positive density matter in an envelopment of negative density matter. This complementary displacement insulates the newly created positive density matter in an envelopment of negative density matter. This envelope of negative density matter, known as dark matter, then infiltrates the spaces in matter, providing it with the ability to interact, bond, and evolve. Indeed it would require much more dark matter to fill the spaces among ordinary matter down to its smallest constituent parts.

Rather consider that dark matter is what engenders the force of gravity for ordinary matter to bond, then the accretion and accumulation of ordinary matter is just the resultant consequence of this force. In which case it can be interpreted, that dark matter is responsible for density of ordinary matter in a whole matter perspective. Such is it that gravitational lensing is representative of this relationship as well. Where one assumes the relative density of ordinary matter as an influence in the gravitational distortion of the spacetime fabric, it is really the dark matter envelopment of the ordinary matter that is in play here. The visibility and complexion of ordinary matter is just a result of this whole matter interaction.

Still if we are to agree with the expectation of dark matter to meet the expectation of its contribution in the scheme of the total mass-energy density in the universe, then one must consider that there is an excess of dark matter outside of the whole matter conglomeration. So for dark matter to meet the expectation of its contribution in the scheme of the total mass-energy density in the universe. So where the universe's total energy is broken down to as 68% dark energy, 27% mass-energy via dark matter, and 5% mass-energy via ordinary matter, the percentage of energy distribution suggests a differing evolutionary purpose for dark matter. As suggested of these hypothetical particles, dark matter is theorized to account for the missing gravitational energy required to keep galaxies from flying apart. If dark matter is to truly account for 85% of the missing matter required to account for the missing gravitational energy, then dark matter must pervade every space between ordinary matter. Like the hypothetical graviton, dark matter density mirrors that of ordinary matter density; in effect, negative mass density and positive mass density. And even though ordinary matter (positive mass density) reveals its coherency in particle form upon detection, dark matter (negative mass density) does not.

In which case it would then follow that dark matter can be accumulated, separate of ordinary matter. It would therefore also follow that the gravitational force is more representative of negative density mass than positive density mass. Therefore it would not be a great leap of imagination to view the notion of black holes as made up only of dark matter. Example: Upon this hypothesis then, one can expect that there is a require transition to separate ordinary matter from its complementary dark matter. It starts first with the disintegration of matter, as a whole, as it interacts with the event horizon of the black hole. As the positive density mass is 'squeezed' upon its own gravitational acceleration toward the black hole, liken to the spaghettification effect, its matter changes to allow for its disintegration via transmutation and the massive release of photons due to alpha decay and beta decay. This is the effect wherein positive density mass is collected within the event horizon, into a plasma, increasing its photon density. This 'squeezing' effect is like extracting out the dark matter from the whole matter, allowing for the ordinary matter to be reduced to its smallest constituent components. The dark matter is then absorbed into the black hole, and the remnants of ordinary matter are discarded and radiated out at high velocity back into the cosmos; to start, once again, to reintegrated into the universe via bonding and evolving.
 
Dec 8, 2019
10
0
30
Sensationalized headline misleads the average lay person that this new black hole discovery somehow purports a century of scientific foundation. It could not be further from the truth. The truth is that whatever we imagine as the limits of our knowledge, only limits our ability to accept the next fantastic discovery. While the detected gravitational signals have been analyzed as the effects of a gigantic merger of two black holes, there may be other explanations yet to be revealed.

The problem with the expectation that black holes must be a certain size has its foundation in the expectation of it being a positive density mass [ordinary matter] gravitational singularity, in accordance with the Schwartzchild radius calculations. However if we apply the understanding of a black hole as being a negative density mass [dark matter] gravitational well, the size is of no consequence because dark matter is expected to be more energy dense than ordinary matter.

Indeed while there continue to be discoveries, or evidence thereof, of extraordinarily large black holes or considered larger than normal galaxies as seen from billions of years ago, or even unto what we have concluded as our limit as proposed of the expected Big Bang, scientist do not still have a definitive perspective of what that means for cosmogony. The Big Bang is more representative of our theory for an inflationary universe, than it is for how our universe began; its reverse engineering.

That is not to say the existing presentation of collective theories is not safely ensconced in the scientific method. We just shouldn't limit ourselves when opening up new paths of thought. While we let the math guide us, we should still be open to greater possibilities within the unobservable universe.
 
Oct 13, 2020
1
0
10

bearnard1616

BANNED
Nov 18, 2020
85
27
80
I guess it might be more galaxies. Our universe has a lot of stuff we didn't figure out yet and we won`t do that in the nearest future. A good example is black holes. We only know their existence and some stuff about them, but in most cases, it`s still a mystery for us. The same thing we can say about the existence of other galaxies.
 
Jul 27, 2020
308
47
230
Did anyone happen to note the disclaimer at the top of this article, which questions the accuracy of these observations?

It would be hard to miss if you read the article :

"Editor's Note: The findings of this study have been called into question because of a potential error in the analysis of starlight from the companion star. That error would mean the black hole is about the size of our sun, rather than 70 times the mass of our sun."

end quote.

All of this story is not as it appears. Here is a corrected version posted by LiveScience shortly after the original article was posted:


Errors in science have a way of hanging around unless enough people point them out. Sorry to have given the bad news. But there is other good news on large black holes, which likely are correct! See below for more details.

Gravitational Wave Astronomy has detected the merger of intermediate size black holes "that shouldn't be there" either, but they are, with no errors in observations (so far as we know!).

For more interesting aspects of the origin of Black Holes, see:


and

 
Last edited:
Jul 27, 2020
308
47
230
Errors in science have a way of hanging around unless enough people point them out.
This is one of the biggest problems in science. Poorly conducted experiments which are published with errors or defects because peer review is not perfect. There is lot of data in the scientific literature that is flat out wrong, and many people in the sciences still adhere to it because they read it somewhere, which made them believe it. Retractions to stories like that in Nature about this erroneously reported black hole don't catch up to a lot of people. This is a particularly bad in science - being wrong is the most horrible fate!

So this is not fake science, it is poor editorial reviewing. But it is also inevitable when dealing with cutting-edge science, where the author might be the only one with enough knowledge to review it! One can only imagine how many people were competent enough to "peer review" the works of a young Albert Einstein back in the early 1900s........
 
Jan 3, 2021
1
0
10
In my opinion, per the alternative perspective provided by the 'The Evolutioning of Creation: Volume 2', what is missing is an understanding of matter as a whole. To my way of thinking, 'whole matter' is conglomeration of ordinary matter and dark matter. So scientists have to stop thinking of dark matter as being distinguishable from ordinary matter. Wherein the creation of matter as a whole induces a complementary displacement, or warping in the dark energy medium of the space-time fabric, its promulgation is interdependent on its insistence and persistence. For within this warping, there is yet another perturbation in the whole matter created; an almost indistinguishable dual relationship of newly created positive density matter in an envelopment of negative density matter. This complementary displacement insulates the newly created positive density matter in an envelopment of negative density matter. This envelope of negative density matter, known as dark matter, then infiltrates the spaces in matter, providing it with the ability to interact, bond, and evolve. Indeed it would require much more dark matter to fill the spaces among ordinary matter down to its smallest constituent parts.

Rather consider that dark matter is what engenders the force of gravity for ordinary matter to bond, then the accretion and accumulation of ordinary matter is just the resultant consequence of this force. In which case it can be interpreted, that dark matter is responsible for density of ordinary matter in a whole matter perspective. Such is it that gravitational lensing is representative of this relationship as well. Where one assumes the relative density of ordinary matter as an influence in the gravitational distortion of the spacetime fabric, it is really the dark matter envelopment of the ordinary matter that is in play here. The visibility and complexion of ordinary matter is just a result of this whole matter interaction.

Still if we are to agree with the expectation of dark matter to meet the expectation of its contribution in the scheme of the total mass-energy density in the universe, then one must consider that there is an excess of dark matter outside of the whole matter conglomeration. So for dark matter to meet the expectation of its contribution in the scheme of the total mass-energy density in the universe. So where the universe's total energy is broken down to as 68% dark energy, 27% mass-energy via dark matter, and 5% mass-energy via ordinary matter, the percentage of energy distribution suggests a differing evolutionary purpose for dark matter. As suggested of these hypothetical particles, dark matter is theorized to account for the missing gravitational energy required to keep galaxies from flying apart. If dark matter is to truly account for 85% of the missing matter required to account for the missing gravitational energy, then dark matter must pervade every space between ordinary matter. Like the hypothetical graviton, dark matter density mirrors that of ordinary matter density; in effect, negative mass density and positive mass density. And even though ordinary matter (positive mass density) reveals its coherency in particle form upon detection, dark matter (negative mass density) does not. You might be also interested in https://homework-writer.com service.

In which case it would then follow that dark matter can be accumulated, separate of ordinary matter. It would therefore also follow that the gravitational force is more representative of negative density mass than positive density mass. Therefore it would not be a great leap of imagination to view the notion of black holes as made up only of dark matter. Example: Upon this hypothesis then, one can expect that there is a require transition to separate ordinary matter from its complementary dark matter. It starts first with the disintegration of matter, as a whole, as it interacts with the event horizon of the black hole. As the positive density mass is 'squeezed' upon its own gravitational acceleration toward the black hole, liken to the spaghettification effect, its matter changes to allow for its disintegration via transmutation and the massive release of photons due to alpha decay and beta decay. This is the effect wherein positive density mass is collected within the event horizon, into a plasma, increasing its photon density. This 'squeezing' effect is like extracting out the dark matter from the whole matter, allowing for the ordinary matter to be reduced to its smallest constituent components. The dark matter is then absorbed into the black hole, and the remnants of ordinary matter are discarded and radiated out at high velocity back into the cosmos; to start, once again, to reintegrated into the universe via bonding and evolving.
So a Stellar Black Hole has been observed that is 3 1/2 times more massive then previously thought possible. Now, are there more stellar black holes out there then previously thought possible as well? Just asking because there is this stuff that appears to be missing from the universe that scientists have labelled Dark Matter because we don't seem to be able to observe it outside of its gravitational effects on objects we can observe. We also have a hard time observing black holes outside of their gravitational effects on objects we can observe. Not saying this explains Dark Matter, but we may need to form new theories about how much Dark Matter exists now that we know we were significantly off on our upper limit estimates for the mass of Stellar Black holes. If there are many more Stellar Black holes with far greater mass then previously thought possible, there is consequently less missing mass left to find that could be Dark Matter.
 
Jan 27, 2020
140
58
680
Most galaxies host a supermassive black hole at their centre. Around this is a region of space where gas settles into an orbiting disc. The gas can lose energy and fall inwards, feeding the black hole. But these discs are known to be unstable and prone to crumbling into stars.

Extremely massive black holes can cause fluctuational instabilities in their accretion disks that make the gas and dust collapse into forming stars, which are better at evading the black hole’s gravity. As researchers report online this month in the Monthly Notices Letters of the Royal Astronomical Society, a black hole as large as 50 billion suns will likely cause its entire accretion disc to clump into stars, given an adequate time, and so the SMBH have nothing more to feed on, halting its growth. There is some hope for these cosmic behemoths: They can still grow by swallowing up other supermassive black holes or entire stellar masses.

Theoretically, a black hole could grow so big that it swallows up the stable part of the disc and destroys it. However, most people thought that black holes would not actually achieve that. “It didn’t occur to us to worry about it, because the mass required was so large,” says Andrew King of the University of Leicester, UK.

But there were observational hints that such a limit should exist. In 2008, an independent group led by Priya Natarajan of Yale University and Ezequiel Treister of the University of Concepcion in Chile considered how much black holes feasted in the early universe and the free gas available for them to swallow in recent times.
Given how much black holes have eaten since the dawn of the universe, they argued, the greediest ones could have to a size approaching 50 billon times that of our sun.

It was the discovery of mega black holes within the last few years that prompted King to return to the subject. The heaviest black holes we’ve now seen to possess a mass as much as 40 billion times that of our sun , which led King to calculate how big a black hole would have to be for its outer edge to keep a disc from forming. He also came up with a figure of 50 billion solar masses, firming up the previous findings.

Without a disc, the black hole would stop growing, making this the upper limit. The only way it could grow larger would be if a star fell straight in or another black hole merged with it. But neither process would fatten it up as efficiently as a it having a gas disc. “Unless you merge with another monster, you’ll make almost no difference to the black hole mass,” King says.

Although Natarajan came up with a similar limit, she thinks King’s approach might be a bit of an oversimplification. King’s calculations focus on the gas disc’s stability, but Natarajan argues that you can’t ignore the amount of gas around the black hole, either.

As hot gas spirals into a black hole, it blasts the rest of the disc with X-rays that serve to clear out the environment – meaning a black hole that feeds too quickly can choke on its meal so much that it clears the table by ejecting the gas. The amount of gas available helps to determine when this will happen.

“You have to take into account the central galactic environment in which the black hole is embedded,” Natarajan says. “It’s not enough to look only at gravitational stability.”

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28647-black-holes-have-a-size-limit-of-50-billion-suns/#ixzz6iXLBjZ9G

See: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.08502.pdf

Hartmann352
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts