Ultra Massive Black Holes......

[Brian37]

Here is the link to that picture. In the first link. The rest are other stories CONFIRMING black holes.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/black-h...servatory/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46428010

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ligo...collisions

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq...cat=exotic

[Anomalocaris]

Check this one out Brian :

That is somewhat deceptive. Extended exposure created a incorrect visual impression of relative size of IC1101. Ic1101 actually consist of central portion where the density of stars resemble the main parts of ordinary galaxies like Milky Way. That part is perhaps only 3-4 times the size of the Milky Way. The rest of IC1101 is a very tenuous and faint halo of stars that extends out to 10 times the size of Milky Way.

To be sure ic1101 is still much more massive than the Milky Way. But the discrepancy in mass is not as large as difference in the image size of the two glalxies might imply.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Thanks for the awesome details Anomalocaris!

Still..... 'Vasaline' lens effect or not, that is still one fekkin' big collection of stars, right?

[Anomalocaris]

Here is the link to that picture. In the first link. The rest are other stories CONFIRMING black holes.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/black-h...servatory/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46428010

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ligo...collisions

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq...cat=exotic

The point is no observation available to us that is used to confirm a phenomenon as being a black hole can conclusively exclude the possibility that the same phenomenon is in reality just a black star. The two appear sufficiently similar that we currently have no way of telling them apart. The reason why we prefer the black hole explanation is the physics behind the black star explanation is less well understood.

[Brian37]

Check this one out Brian :

That is somewhat deceptive.  Extended exposure created a incorrect visual impression of relative size of IC1101.   Ic1101 actually consist of central portion where the density of stars resemble the main parts of ordinary galaxies like Milky Way.  That part is perhaps only 3-4 times the size of the Milky Way.   The rest of IC1101 is a very tenuous and faint halo of stars that extends out to 10 times the size of Milky Way.  

To be sure ic1101 is still much more massive than the Milky Way.  But the discrepancy in mass is not as large as difference in the image size of the two glalxies might imply.

Still.

This is minor as far a I am concerned.

It still points out that there are bigger bodies in the cosmos then what laypeople normally think of. It does not take away the fact that there are differences in star sizes, galaxy sizes or black holes. As you said, "still much more massive". 

When you say things like this, it allows theists to go, "SEE SEE SEE, my old bronze aged goat herder god is real."

---

Here is the link to that picture. In the first link. The rest are other stories CONFIRMING black holes.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/black-h...servatory/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46428010

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ligo...collisions

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq...cat=exotic

The point is no observation available to us that is used to confirm a phenomenon as being a black hole can conclusively exclude the possibility that the same phenomenon is in reality just a black star.   The two appear sufficiently similar that we currently have no way of telling them apart.    The reason why we prefer the black hole explanation is the physics behind the black star explanation is less well understood.

Even the black hole in the center of the Milky Way is called "Sagittarius A STAR".

And? The point is that black holes still exist, and what we are seeing in every case is immense gravity as to the point that not even light can escape.

The only debate now is what is beyond the event horizon.

[LastPoet]

The point is no observation available to us that is used to confirm a phenomenon as being a black hole can conclusively exclude the possibility that the same phenomenon is in reality just a black star.   The two appear sufficiently similar that we currently have no way of telling them apart.    The reason why we prefer the black hole explanation is the physics behind the black star explanation is less well understood.

Yabut, There is that whole thing about being blacks ain't it

Sorry, I will grab my coat.

[Anomalocaris]

That is somewhat deceptive.  Extended exposure created a incorrect visual impression of relative size of IC1101.   Ic1101 actually consist of central portion where the density of stars resemble the main parts of ordinary galaxies like Milky Way.  That part is perhaps only 3-4 times the size of the Milky Way.   The rest of IC1101 is a very tenuous and faint halo of stars that extends out to 10 times the size of Milky Way.  

To be sure ic1101 is still much more massive than the Milky Way.  But the discrepancy in mass is not as large as difference in the image size of the two glalxies might imply.

Still.

This is minor as far a I am concerned.

It still points out that there are bigger bodies in the cosmos then what laypeople normally think of. It does not take away the fact that there are differences in star sizes, galaxy sizes or black holes. As you said, "still much more massive". 

When you say things like this, it allows theists to go, "SEE SEE SEE, my old bronze aged goat herder god is real."

---

The point is no observation available to us that is used to confirm a phenomenon as being a black hole can conclusively exclude the possibility that the same phenomenon is in reality just a black star.   The two appear sufficiently similar that we currently have no way of telling them apart.    The reason why we prefer the black hole explanation is the physics behind the black star explanation is less well understood.

Even the black hole in the center of the Milky Way is called "Sagittarius A STAR".

And? The point is that black holes still exist, and what we are seeing in every case is immense gravity as to the point that not even light can escape.

The only debate now is what is beyond the event horizon.

No.  Sagittarius A* ‘s Star denoted the notation used to mark the object, not the nature of the object.    A black star’s star denotes the blackish object’s nature.  A black star is not a black hole into which things can fall but never come back out.   A black star has no event horizon.   Things falling onto a black star can in theory come back out. But that happens rarely enough that our power of observation is not precise enough to see it. So we can’t tell the difference through observation yet.

The debate between black hole and black star is not what happens inside the event horizon.  It is about whether there in fact is a event horizon.

[Brian37]

Still.

This is minor as far a I am concerned.

It still points out that there are bigger bodies in the cosmos then what laypeople normally think of. It does not take away the fact that there are differences in star sizes, galaxy sizes or black holes. As you said, "still much more massive". 

When you say things like this, it allows theists to go, "SEE SEE SEE, my old bronze aged goat herder god is real."

---

Even the black hole in the center of the Milky Way is called "Sagittarius A STAR".

And? The point is that black holes still exist, and what we are seeing in every case is immense gravity as to the point that not even light can escape.

The only debate now is what is beyond the event horizon.

No.  The debate is whether there is a event horizon, or indeed whether any event horizon actually exists.

None of what you are arguing would lead to a Sky Wizard regardless. I am not saying you are arguing one exists, I am merely making my objection to old mythology in my original post.

I'd only agree that science updates as new data comes in. I see nothing about the majority of scientists scrapping the term "black hole". They still use it.

Just like there is a battle between string theory and m-theory. But neither are looking back to have old bronze age gods as gap answers.


It still remains that there are massive forces in the universe that prove that humans are finite, and not the product of a magic factory boss.

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/E/Event+Horizon



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon

https://www.sciencealert.com/new-evidenc...ing-escape


https://mic.com/articles/178484/black-ho....5OwcUJaBS

[Anomalocaris]

While there is no doubt that nothing about our star or our galaxy is truly extraordinary, suggesting the universe might be created for us, it should also be kept in mind that neither our star nor our galaxy are truly average either.  

To be precisely both our sun and the Milky Way are much nearer to the massive end of their respective classes of objects.  

It is true the most massive stars is several hundred times more massive than the sun while the smallest stars are only 1/10 the mass of the sun.  But in terms of total number of stars the number of stars more massive than the sun is very small compared to number of stars that are less massive.  If we sort the Stars by mass, perhaps only 5-10% of the stars would be more massive than the sun, while 90% would be less massive.

Similarvr elationship applies for the Milky Way.  Yes, IC1101 May be several hundred times more massive than the Milky Way.  But amongst all the galaxies Milky Way likely resides in the top 1% of all glalxies in mass.  Less than 1 in every 100 glalxies would be more massive than the Milky Way.  At least 99 out of every 100 galaxies would be less massive than the Milky Way.


So compared to all stars in the Milky Way,, the sun is a relatively massive star. Compared to all galaxies in the visible universe, the Milky Way is a very massive galaxy.

[Brian37]

While there is no doubt that nothing about our star or our galaxy is truly extraordinary, suggesting the universe might be created for us, it should also be kept in mind that neither our star nor our galaxy are truly average either.  

To be precisely both our sun and the Milky Way are much nearer to the massive end of their respective classes of objects.  

It is true the most massive stars is several hundred times more massive than the sun while the smallest stars are only 1/10 the mass of the sun.  But in terms of total number of stars the number of stars more massive than the sun is very small compared to number of stars that are less massive.  If we sort the Stars by mass, perhaps only 5-10% of the stars would be more massive than the sun, while 90% would be less massive.

Similarvr elationship applies for the Milky Way.  Yes, IC1101 May be several hundred times more massive than the Milky Way.  But amongst all the galaxies Milky Way likely resides in the top 1% of all glalxies in mass.  Less than 1 in every 100 glalxies would be more massive than the Milky Way.  At least 99 out of every 100 galaxies would be less massive than the Milky Way.


So compared to all stars in the Milky Way,, the sun is a relatively massive star.   Compared to all galaxies in the visible universe,  the Milky Way is a very massive galaxy.

I am not disputing this post I am quoting you here on. 

1. The term "black hole" is still used, and has been observed and confirmed. The only argument now is the makeup of one.

2. The universe is massive, mostly EMPTY, but even with the material we do observe, does vary in size, from planets to stars, to black holes to galaxies. 

3. Most importantly, none of what we don't currently know, does NOT require a super cognition regardless.