|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Biggest supermassive blackholes found yet!
On 12/7/11 6:05 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 07/12/2011 1:14 AM, Sam Wormley wrote: On 12/7/11 12:05 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: On 06/12/2011 1:01 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: On 12/6/11 8:13 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: One was found to be 9.7 billion solar masses, while the other one was found to be a mind-blowing 21 billion solar masses! The previous record-holder was *only* 6.3 billion solar masses. I think there were some theories that suggested that they couldn't get past 10 billion solar masses, so I guess those theories are blown out of the water. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/sc...holes-yet.html There is no theory that puts a limit on black hole size, Yousuf. Sam, you should know by now that I don't say anything randomly! http://www.physorg.com/news140370694.html "Once considered rare and exotic objects, black holes are now known to exist throughout the universe, with the largest and most massive found at the centers of the largest galaxies. These "ultra-massive" black holes have been shown to have masses upwards of one billion times that of our own Sun. Now, Priyamvada Natarajan, an associate professor of astronomy and physics at Yale University and a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, has shown that even the biggest of these gravitational monsters can't keep growing forever. Instead, they appear to curb their own growth – once they accumulate about 10 billion times the mass of the Sun." Yousuf Khan My statement remains: There is no theory that puts a limit on black hole size. Your "statement" remains because you're a stubborn ass who can't admit that you're in way over your head intellectually. At the very least you have a reading comprehension problem. I just showed you the previous theory that stated point-blank that scientists once thought blackholes couldn't get much over 10 billion solar masses. Yousuf Khan It has been my observation that you tend to draw conclusions, Yousuf, that are not particularly supported by the observations. Sort of like many popular science writers who run with a story without really understanding the science. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Biggest supermassive blackholes found yet!
On 12/7/11 6:08 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 07/12/2011 1:15 AM, Sam Wormley wrote: On 12/7/11 12:08 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: Supermassive blackholes aren't formed from stellar blackhole mergers. They are born supermassive right from the start and collapsing stars weren't involved. Most likely they were already born as blackholes during the Big Bang. Yousuf Khan Is that so! You got a better idea? Heh-heh, sorry that was a rhetorical question, you have no original thoughts, right Sam? What is the scientific evidence, Yousuf? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Biggest supermassive blackholes found yet!
On 07/12/2011 8:51 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 6, 10:08 pm, Yousuf wrote: Supermassive blackholes aren't formed from stellar blackhole mergers. They are born supermassive right from the start and collapsing stars weren't involved. Most likely they were already born as blackholes during the Big Bang. Yousuf Khan Don't be so absolute about that. A big enough BH or cluster of BHs can consume a whole galaxy that'll likely merge or implode down into one monstrous BH. It's highly unlikely that any singular star created that enormous BH. No blackholes can consume a whole galaxy. The central blackholes, no matter how massive they are, are little fleas compared to their surrounding galaxy. For comparison, the Milky Way central blackhole is 4 million solar masses, but there are between 200 billion to 400 billion solar masses of stars in this galaxy. So the ratio works out to between 0.1 and 0.2% of the mass of the galaxy. If the central blackholes started out life as blackholes right after the Big Bang, they would've served as the anchor points or the nucleus for the surrounding galaxy to grow around later. Sure they would've likely kept growing after the Big Bang as quasars. But they were likely already supermassive from the start. If there's a surrounding galaxy (NGC 4889) associated with this 21e9 Ms BH, it has got to be worth at the very least another trillion stars, though perhaps ten trillion isn't improbable unless some of those stars or pocket clusters got eaten alive by that enormous BH. That should be about right, using a 0.2% ratio as mentioned above. Yousuf Khan |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Biggest supermassive blackholes found yet!
On Dec 7, 4:22*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 07/12/2011 8:51 AM,BradGuthwrote: On Dec 6, 10:08 pm, Yousuf *wrote: Supermassive blackholes aren't formed from stellar blackhole mergers. They are born supermassive right from the start and collapsing stars weren't involved. Most likely they were already born as blackholes during the Big Bang. * * * * *Yousuf Khan Don't be so absolute about that. *A big enough BH or cluster of BHs can consume a whole galaxy that'll likely merge or implode down into one monstrous BH. *It's highly unlikely that any singular star created that enormous BH. No blackholes can consume a whole galaxy. The central blackholes, no matter how massive they are, are little fleas compared to their surrounding galaxy. For comparison, the Milky Way central blackhole is 4 million solar masses, but there are between 200 billion to 400 billion solar masses of stars in this galaxy. So the ratio works out to between 0.1 and 0.2% of the mass of the galaxy. If the central blackholes started out life as blackholes right after the Big Bang, they would've served as the anchor points or the nucleus for the surrounding galaxy to grow around later. Sure they would've likely kept growing after the Big Bang as quasars. But they were likely already supermassive from the start. If there's a surrounding galaxy (NGC 4889) associated with this 21e9 Ms BH, it has got to be worth at the very least another trillion stars, though perhaps ten trillion isn't improbable unless some of those stars or pocket clusters got eaten alive by that enormous BH. That should be about right, using a 0.2% ratio as mentioned above. * * * * Yousuf Khan Really big stars can lose or blow-off a great deal of their mass before turning into a BH. Their mass reduction can be 16:1, although perhaps as little as a 10:1 reduction might also work. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Supermassive Black Holes Found In Small Galaxies | Yousuf Khan[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 16 | September 20th 11 08:59 PM |
How do supermassive blackholes stop star formation? | Yousuf Khan | Astronomy Misc | 7 | September 28th 06 10:20 PM |
How do supermassive blackholes stop star formation? | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 28th 06 09:03 AM |
How do supermassive blackholes stop star formation? | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 28th 06 09:00 AM |
How do supermassive blackholes stop star formation? | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 28th 06 08:54 AM |