NASA uncover millions of black holes!

Article

Images from the telescope have revealed millions of dusty black hole candidates across the universe and about 1,000 even dustier objects thought to be among the brightest galaxies ever found. These powerful galaxies, which burn brightly with infrared light, are nicknamed hot DOGs.

(Visit the link for full news article)

Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

Black holes are the most fascinating and perplexing "thing" in our universe, imho - listen to how they discuss them, as if they are alive...

The latest findings are helping astronomers better understand how galaxies and the behemoth black holes at their centers grow and evolve together. For example, the giant black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, called Sagittarius A*, has 4 million times the mass of our sun and has gone through periodic feeding frenzies where material falls towards the black hole, heats up and irradiates its surroundings. Bigger central black holes, up to a billion times the mass of our sun, may even shut down star formation in galaxies.

In one study, astronomers used WISE to identify about 2.5 million actively feeding supermassive black holes across the full sky, stretching back to distances more than 10 billion light-years away. About two-thirds of these objects never had been detected before because dust blocks their visible light. WISE easily sees these monsters because their powerful, accreting black holes warm the dust, causing it to glow in infrared light.

Or it could be nothing.

One photograph taken with one instrument is supposed to be the basis for fact? El oh freakin el

"Oh no, there is a black hole somewhere in our solar system but we havent detected it and it's going to swallow up/align/explode all of the planets etc etc"

The FACT is that this isn't the case. There is no Nibiru. NASA aren't holding info back. There is no Black Hole conspiracy.

Wake up and smell the banking crisis.

reply to post by redtic


Yeah it does.

The Information it holds (if true) makes me think it's got a "mind" of it's own. lol

It says they are just candidates....

If they want to confirm each of them(lol impossible) they should just look at planets near by, if there is any, then it isn't a black hole.

genuine question....


If some of these black holes are up to 10 billion light years away, then we are seeing them as they were 10 billion years ago.

Given the universe is thought to be about 14 billion years old, would that

a) actually mean these things were an awful lot closer back then (given expansion)
b) they must have initially been born from stars only 4 billion years old, or, something else?

is 4 billion years even enough for the cooling of the big bang, gas accretion into a nebula, birth of a star, death of a star?

I would love to understand the mechanics of this better!

and here I thought this thread was going to be about their budget

... 0.02

reply to post by siliconpsychosis


If 14 Billion years is too little, then we have the Age of the Universe according to Hindu Cosmology... 311.04 trillion years.

Age of The Universe


I always thought 14 Billion years is too little. But i need more evidence.

reply to post by luciddream


No, when they are discussing "candidates" they are talking about the galaxies that were also discovered along with the black holes.

Originally posted by Autocrat14
The FACT is that this isn't the case. There is no Nibiru. NASA aren't holding info back. There is no Black Hole conspiracy.

Wake up and smell the banking crisis.

No disrespect, but did you even look at the article? This isn't a conspiracy, nor is this a thread about Nibiru. Please read the article and understand the info that is in this thread, don't just assume that I meant there are black holes in our solar system. Also, this thread has nothing to do with the banking crisis, so please keep your replies relevant to the original topic.

Originally posted by Autocrat14
"Oh no, there is a black hole somewhere in our solar system but we havent detected it and it's going to swallow up/align/explode all of the planets etc etc"

The FACT is that this isn't the case. There is no Nibiru. NASA aren't holding info back. There is no Black Hole conspiracy.

Wake up and smell the banking crisis.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Methinks a certain someone didn't actually read the thread before posting. Well done there

Sort of paints a picture of the cosmos as a swiss cheese............
Makes "space" seem comparatively solid next to these millions of holes......
Like a huge sheet of rubber expanding like a balloon with all these holes scattered over its surface.

Originally posted by DaTroof
Or it could be nothing.

One photograph taken with one instrument is supposed to be the basis for fact? El oh freakin el

so, you didn't even read the OP link which says:

the telescope captured millions of images of the sky

one photograph? El oh freakin el, I suppose, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Originally posted by siliconpsychosis
genuine question....

If some of these black holes are up to 10 billion light years away, then we are seeing them as they were 10 billion years ago.

Given the universe is thought to be about 14 billion years old, would that

a) actually mean these things were an awful lot closer back then (given expansion)
b) they must have initially been born from stars only 4 billion years old, or, something else?

is 4 billion years even enough for the cooling of the big bang, gas accretion into a nebula, birth of a star, death of a star?

I would love to understand the mechanics of this better!

I suggest giving up, as it will only make your brain hurt. But if you insist on torturing yourself:

a)The Earth has only existed for 5 billion years, so you can't even talk about the distance to Earth 10 billion years ago, because Earth didn't exist. But if it did, and the imaginary 10 billion year old Earth, and the other object are both moving, but even more importantly, there is metric expansion of space between them, so the present distance of an object with a "lookback time" of 10 billion years, would be something like 33 billion light years, if it still existed, which it probably dosn't.

That's a mathematically incorrect simple estimate, arrived at by dividing 10 billion years by the 13.77 billion years estimated age of the universe, and multiplying that fraction by 46 billion light years, the estimated distance to the edge of the universe. To calculate more accurately you'd also need to account for accelerating expansion which that simple math doesn't do.

b)yes the age of an object seen with 10 billion years of lookback time was less than 4 billion years old...that part is easy:
13.77-10 is the maximum age in billions of years, so 3.77 or it could be even younger of course.

c)see Ancient Galaxy May Be Most Distant Ever Seen

This new image of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF) 2012 campaign reveals a previously unseen population of seven faraway galaxies, which are observed as they appeared in a period 350 million to 600 million years after the big bang.

so entire galaxies were already formed that quickly after the big bang, and large stars have very short lives...much shorter than the life of our sun. if those objects still existed (They might not, and probably don't), they would be over 40 billion light years away.

reply to post by kiwisoop


The thing is that the black hole is very strange and we don't know that much about it, this article proves it.

'The latest findings are helping astronomers better understand how galaxies and the behemoth black holes at their centers grow and evolve together. For example, the giant black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, called Sagittarius A*, has 4 million times the mass of our sun and has gone through periodic feeding frenzies where material falls towards the black hole, heats up and irradiates its surroundings. Bigger central black holes, up to a billion times the mass of our sun, may even shut down star formation in galaxies.'

That is all anybody ever says about Sagittarius A growing and evolving. I would like more data to show that our black hole had different masses and a chart to explain if it is true.

It spins extremely fast and goes into this amazing black hole, and in the black hole is a force and mass, but we cannot see it - that is the strange thing.

People say black holes are strange objects, but I disagree: I think black holes are simply black stars. There is no event horizon, no infinitely dense point, just very dense mass that does not even photons to escape.

Originally posted by masterp
People say black holes are strange objects, but I disagree: I think black holes are simply black stars. There is no event horizon, no infinitely dense point, just very dense mass that does not even photons to escape.

What you say is impossible. If photons can't escape close to the object, and they can escape further from the object (They escape from our sun for example), then there must be a transition point where photons go from escaping to not escaping. By definition, that's the event horizon. Saying that photons can't escape and there's no event horizon is a contradiction.

Regarding the infinitely dense point, that's just a mathematical construct. Usually when physicists get terms like infinity in their equation, it's a sign that something is wrong with the equation or model. (I heard Michio Kaku say that and it's true). It seems unlikely we will ever know how to get information out of a black hole to observe what is really inside the event horizon, though advances in theoretical models may come up with new math that doesn't result in infinite density.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
c)see Ancient Galaxy May Be Most Distant Ever Seen

This new image of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF) 2012 campaign reveals a previously unseen population of seven faraway galaxies, which are observed as they appeared in a period 350 million to 600 million years after the big bang.

so entire galaxies were already formed that quickly after the big bang, and large stars have very short lives...much shorter than the life of our sun. if those objects still existed (They might not, and probably don't), they would be over 40 billion light years away.

Wow, that is the most clearest pic I have seen of the deep field, but I still can't see the galaxies outlined, they must have a magnification of that pic.

I have recently had a religious person not want to talk with me anymore because they know that I do not deny science even though I have faith. Some people with faith would want to deny the big bang, they wouldn't want to think it started, but they want to think it just is as always will be.

But in this age within the last 10 years science and technology have literally proven that 14 billion years ago the universe was dense and extremely hot without stars or galaxies. Then black holes and galaxies started forming at the same time, like you can't have one without the other.

It doesn't make more sense than anything, but if I were to go by intuition I would say that black holes are something more than we think.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by masterp
People say black holes are strange objects, but I disagree: I think black holes are simply black stars. There is no event horizon, no infinitely dense point, just very dense mass that does not even photons to escape.

What you say is impossible. If photons can't escape close to the object, and they can escape further from the object (They escape from our sun for example), then there must be a transition point where photons go from escaping to not escaping. By definition, that's the event horizon. Saying that photons can't escape and there's no event horizon is a contradiction.

Regarding the infinitely dense point, that's just a mathematical construct. Usually when physicists get terms like infinity in their equation, it's a sign that something is wrong with the equation or model. (I heard Michio Kaku say that and it's true). It seems unlikely we will ever know how to get information out of a black hole to observe what is really inside the event horizon, though advances in theoretical models may come up with new math that doesn't result in infinite density.

But why scientists insist on the infinitely dense point? it makes no sense.