Monster black hole wakes up after 26 years

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Monster black hole wakes up after 26 years

25 June 2015 Over the past week, ESA's Integral satellite has been observing an exceptional outburst of high-energy light produced by a black hole that is devouring material from its stellar companion.

X-rays and gamma rays point to some of the most extreme phenomena in the Universe, such as stellar explosions, powerful outbursts and black holes feasting on their surroundings.

In contrast to the peaceful view of the night sky we see with our eyes, the high-energy sky is a dynamic light show, from flickering sources that change their brightness dramatically in a few minutes to others that vary on timescales spanning years or even decades.

Read more...

[Paradoxxal]

As a NASA official, I have to calm this down just in the case you're going to freak out.

Yes, it did wake up, and no, it's not coming near close to us before it dissovles.

Don't start with "non-dissolving" blackholes, because they all dissolve. And frankly, quite quickly before they can fully eat Earth.

However, with the latest theories and such, it has brought us to begin researching the fact that blackholes might not exist. We haven't finished it, but we found a lot of things wrong with the entire blackhole theory.

I flew out to D.C a few weeks ago for a meeting with the team, and the host brought up the topic in which he said, "On to blackholes.." and then explained how he had found a lot of things wrong with the blackhole theory. Plotholes we missed, and that blackholes seem to defy all logic we exposed to the public.

For example, we say that light is infinte, and that it will go on forever. Now, we say blackholes can trap light, meaning that it isn't everywhere, it's a state of matter that can be enveloped into something, and that it can be taken out of one area. This goes against everything Hawking, Einstein, and Newton explains about light. We know they weren't wrong, because they always had evidence to back it up. Quick fact, Einstein didn't believe blackholes COULD exist. We usually don't release studies like this because the church of damn scientology is going to fuss about it, and whine like little kids. However, we came up with a few reasons why blackholes seem to defy logic. We had a friend over at a university find out reasons why black hole might exist, heres an article.

Black holes have long captured the public imagination and been the subject of popular culture, from Star Trek to Hollywood. They are the ultimate unknown – the blackest and most dense objects in the universe that do not even let light escape. And as if they weren't bizarre enough to begin with, now add this to the mix: they don't exist.

By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.

"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."

For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it.

The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.

In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe's black holes.

But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.

The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed, offers exact numerical solutions to this problem and was done in collaboration with Harald Peiffer, an expert on numerical relativity at the University of Toronto. An earlier paper, by Mersini-Houghton, originally submitted to ArXiv in June, was published in the journal Physics Letters B, and offers approximate solutions to the problem.

Experimental evidence may one day provide physical proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the universe. But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive.

Many physicists and astronomers believe that our universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang. However, if singularities do not exist, then physicists have to rethink their ideas of the Big Bang and whether it ever happened.

"Physicists have been trying to merge these two theories – Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum mechanics – for decades, but this scenario brings these two theories together, into harmony," said Mersini-Houghton. "And that's a big deal."

Now, think about this. It honestly brings out a lot of points.

We call light infinate, and we say nothing can escape from the universe. If light is everywhere, how is it possible for it to be trapped into one place? Light doesn't regenerate, and it won't just be freezing in one spot.

Also, how do we take pictures of black holes? We say that we can be 2.4 million miles away, and still be pulled in by gravity. They also say that we wouldn't be able to see it because it is black. Why does it look pink, and orange, and purple in the pictures we take? There are a lot of plot holes in black holes.

Maybe it's just all one big plot hole.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

As a NASA official, I have to calm this down just in the case you're going to freak out.

With all due respect who exactly do you feel you need to calm down? Until you posted no one had freaked out, in fact no one had replied at all.

Your post is rather like the person in a crowded but calm place that suddenly starts shouting, "don't panic". If there is one way to start making people think there IS something to worry about is to make posts like yours.