NASA Satellite captures a black hole destroying a star

[Mark80]

I'll just never be able to understand how they can tell all that from so far away.  Temperature readings, UV light.  How can they tell its coming from there?   How can they see anything at all in that picture?  Baffles my mind.

[DC Tom]

20 minutes ago, Mark80 said:

I'll just never be able to understand how they can tell all that from so far away.  Temperature readings, UV light.  How can they tell its coming from there?   How can they see anything at all in that picture?  Baffles my mind.

 

Light curves, spectral analysis, doppler broadening.

 

Nowadays, one platform detects something interesting, and multiple platforms focus on it.  So you get simultaneous observations across a wide spectrum of radiation (radio waves to x-rays - visible light is arguably the least useful these days.) 

 

Then you start looking for emission and absorption lines in that spectrum - stellar hydrogen absorption lines are at 600, 480, and 435 nm, for example.  So you find those, and let's say they're shifted slightly lower - 599, 479, and 434, for the sake of discussion.  That means the wavelengths are blue-shifted, so the relative velocity of the object is towards you.  But say, instead, they're broad - instead of a sharp line at 435 nm, you've got a diffuse one spread out from 433 to 437 nm.  That indicates something is moving towards AND away from you..

 

Then look for other emission and absorption lines.  Say you have strong emission lines for helium and nitrogen, for example, along with the above broad hydrogen absorption lines.  That would indicate a stellar core exposed (or partially exposed) by the removal of the atmosphere of the star (which is moving fast, in all directions, as shown by the broadening.)  

 

Further observation shows you the evolving accretion disk (a significantly different spectrum from a star) and probably x-ray emissions from the black hole.  From there, do lots of math, and you can figure out the nature of the motion, and discern what's going on.  

 

Generally, that's how you do it.  The specifics in this case...I'd have to read the paper, and to be perfectly honest, I don't want to.  As cool as "star being ripped apart by a black hole" sounds, I always found that sort of observational analysis to be rather boring.

 

 

[Augie]

3 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Light curves, spectral analysis, doppler broadening.

 

Nowadays, one platform detects something interesting, and multiple platforms focus on it.  So you get simultaneous observations across a wide spectrum of radiation (radio waves to x-rays - visible light is arguably the least useful these days.) 

 

Then you start looking for emission and absorption lines in that spectrum - stellar hydrogen absorption lines are at 600, 480, and 435 nm, for example.  So you find those, and let's say they're shifted slightly lower - 599, 479, and 434, for the sake of discussion.  That means the wavelengths are blue-shifted, so the relative velocity of the object is towards you.  But say, instead, they're broad - instead of a sharp line at 435 nm, you've got a diffuse one spread out from 433 to 437 nm.  That indicates something is moving towards AND away from you..

 

Then look for other emission and absorption lines.  Say you have strong emission lines for helium and nitrogen, for example, along with the above broad hydrogen absorption lines.  That would indicate a stellar core exposed (or partially exposed) by the removal of the atmosphere of the star (which is moving fast, in all directions, as shown by the broadening.)  

 

Further observation shows you the evolving accretion disk (a significantly different spectrum from a star) and probably x-ray emissions from the black hole.  From there, do lots of math, and you can figure out the nature of the motion, and discern what's going on.  

 

Generally, that's how you do it.  The specifics in this case...I'd have to read the paper, and to be perfectly honest, I don't want to.  As cool as "star being ripped apart by a black hole" sounds, I always found that sort of observational analysis to be rather boring.

 

 

So....it was a bad day for the star? Got that! 

[billsfanmiami(oh)]

3 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Light curves, spectral analysis, doppler broadening.

 

Nowadays, one platform detects something interesting, and multiple platforms focus on it.  So you get simultaneous observations across a wide spectrum of radiation (radio waves to x-rays - visible light is arguably the least useful these days.) 

 

Then you start looking for emission and absorption lines in that spectrum - stellar hydrogen absorption lines are at 600, 480, and 435 nm, for example.  So you find those, and let's say they're shifted slightly lower - 599, 479, and 434, for the sake of discussion.  That means the wavelengths are blue-shifted, so the relative velocity of the object is towards you.  But say, instead, they're broad - instead of a sharp line at 435 nm, you've got a diffuse one spread out from 433 to 437 nm.  That indicates something is moving towards AND away from you..

 

Then look for other emission and absorption lines.  Say you have strong emission lines for helium and nitrogen, for example, along with the above broad hydrogen absorption lines.  That would indicate a stellar core exposed (or partially exposed) by the removal of the atmosphere of the star (which is moving fast, in all directions, as shown by the broadening.)  

 

Further observation shows you the evolving accretion disk (a significantly different spectrum from a star) and probably x-ray emissions from the black hole.  From there, do lots of math, and you can figure out the nature of the motion, and discern what's going on.  

 

Generally, that's how you do it.  The specifics in this case...I'd have to read the paper, and to be perfectly honest, I don't want to.  As cool as "star being ripped apart by a black hole" sounds, I always found that sort of observational analysis to be rather boring.

 

 

 

My cat’s breath smells like cat food

[Dante]

On 9/27/2019 at 7:19 AM, I am the egg man said:

Wasnt it in the Disney Studios were they shot all the phony moon landings ?

 

This video looks like CGI as well.

?

All bullcrap. Looks like the end of one of snoop doggs blunts.

[BuffaloBill]

On 9/30/2019 at 8:35 PM, DC Tom said:

 

Light curves, spectral analysis, doppler broadening.

 

Nowadays, one platform detects something interesting, and multiple platforms focus on it.  So you get simultaneous observations across a wide spectrum of radiation (radio waves to x-rays - visible light is arguably the least useful these days.) 

 

Then you start looking for emission and absorption lines in that spectrum - stellar hydrogen absorption lines are at 600, 480, and 435 nm, for example.  So you find those, and let's say they're shifted slightly lower - 599, 479, and 434, for the sake of discussion.  That means the wavelengths are blue-shifted, so the relative velocity of the object is towards you.  But say, instead, they're broad - instead of a sharp line at 435 nm, you've got a diffuse one spread out from 433 to 437 nm.  That indicates something is moving towards AND away from you..

 

Then look for other emission and absorption lines.  Say you have strong emission lines for helium and nitrogen, for example, along with the above broad hydrogen absorption lines.  That would indicate a stellar core exposed (or partially exposed) by the removal of the atmosphere of the star (which is moving fast, in all directions, as shown by the broadening.)  

 

Further observation shows you the evolving accretion disk (a significantly different spectrum from a star) and probably x-ray emissions from the black hole.  From there, do lots of math, and you can figure out the nature of the motion, and discern what's going on.  

 

Generally, that's how you do it.  The specifics in this case...I'd have to read the paper, and to be perfectly honest, I don't want to.  As cool as "star being ripped apart by a black hole" sounds, I always found that sort of observational analysis to be rather boring.

 

 

 

 

Am I allowed to say you are a total nerd?  Not sure if this it the antithetical to calling you an idiot but it will suffice.

[Jon in Pasadena]

On 9/28/2019 at 7:33 PM, DC Tom said:

It also helps that, in astronomy, "accuracy" is defined as "within a factor of 10 either way."  Which I always thought made the lab work easier...

 

According to my astronomer friends, it's actually a factor of 2 ...

 

 

.... in the exponent.

[DC Tom]

8 hours ago, BuffaloBill said:

 

 

Am I allowed to say you are a total nerd?  Not sure if this it the antithetical to calling you an idiot but it will suffice.

 

I went to college for this.  Spent six figures learning this, and the only use I get is explaining it to you jamokes, so you're all going to get my money's worth, and I am going to explain the ever-lovin' ***** out of it.

 

Nowadays, the interesting aspect is the "sensor fusion," for lack of a better word.  30 years ago, when SN1987a (a supernova) kicked off, it was first detected by neutrino observatories (who had no idea what they were seeing), then three hours later in visible light in Chile.  It took 24 hours for the next telescope (New Zealand) to be trained on it, and probably a week more for other instruments to be trained on it.  20 years later, an x-ray observatory caught a supernova in real-time, and other instruments were focused on it within an hour.  Today that would be minutes.  The speed of data collection and transmission is unimaginable compared to when I was in college.  

 

Side note: about half of all observed supernovae are discovered by amateur astronomers.  One of the coolest things about astronomy (I always thought, at least) is that it's one of the few sciences where amateurs routinely make meaningful contributions.  (That, and bird watching.  But astronomy's far cooler, because no amateur ornithologist ever observed an exploding ivory-billed woodpecker.)

[LeGOATski]

50 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 (That, and bird watching.  But astronomy's far cooler, because no amateur ornithologist ever observed an exploding ivory-billed woodpecker.)

Speak for yourself, bro

 

 

[Westside]

On 9/30/2019 at 8:35 PM, DC Tom said:

 

Light curves, spectral analysis, doppler broadening.

 

Nowadays, one platform detects something interesting, and multiple platforms focus on it.  So you get simultaneous observations across a wide spectrum of radiation (radio waves to x-rays - visible light is arguably the least useful these days.) 

 

Then you start looking for emission and absorption lines in that spectrum - stellar hydrogen absorption lines are at 600, 480, and 435 nm, for example.  So you find those, and let's say they're shifted slightly lower - 599, 479, and 434, for the sake of discussion.  That means the wavelengths are blue-shifted, so the relative velocity of the object is towards you.  But say, instead, they're broad - instead of a sharp line at 435 nm, you've got a diffuse one spread out from 433 to 437 nm.  That indicates something is moving towards AND away from you..

 

Then look for other emission and absorption lines.  Say you have strong emission lines for helium and nitrogen, for example, along with the above broad hydrogen absorption lines.  That would indicate a stellar core exposed (or partially exposed) by the removal of the atmosphere of the star (which is moving fast, in all directions, as shown by the broadening.)  

 

Further observation shows you the evolving accretion disk (a significantly different spectrum from a star) and probably x-ray emissions from the black hole.  From there, do lots of math, and you can figure out the nature of the motion, and discern what's going on.  

 

Generally, that's how you do it.  The specifics in this case...I'd have to read the paper, and to be perfectly honest, I don't want to.  As cool as "star being ripped apart by a black hole" sounds, I always found that sort of observational analysis to be rather boring.

 

 

Nerd

[US Egg]

Went to Museum of Natural History in NYC recently.

 

They had a presentation on the big bang theory narrated by Neil DeGrasse 'Mike' Tyson.

 

I knew it be BS when they didn't open with that song.

[row_33]

a co-worker's daughter did the Ivy league/Johns Hopkins route to her PhD in astronomy/astrophysics, don't recall her exact specialty

 

nobody that has a clue about this, whose life is dedicated to it, is on here talking about it.

 

 

[atlbillsfan1975]

On 9/30/2019 at 8:35 PM, DC Tom said:

 

Light curves, spectral analysis, doppler broadening.

 

Nowadays, one platform detects something interesting, and multiple platforms focus on it.  So you get simultaneous observations across a wide spectrum of radiation (radio waves to x-rays - visible light is arguably the least useful these days.) 

 

Then you start looking for emission and absorption lines in that spectrum - stellar hydrogen absorption lines are at 600, 480, and 435 nm, for example.  So you find those, and let's say they're shifted slightly lower - 599, 479, and 434, for the sake of discussion.  That means the wavelengths are blue-shifted, so the relative velocity of the object is towards you.  But say, instead, they're broad - instead of a sharp line at 435 nm, you've got a diffuse one spread out from 433 to 437 nm.  That indicates something is moving towards AND away from you..

 

Then look for other emission and absorption lines.  Say you have strong emission lines for helium and nitrogen, for example, along with the above broad hydrogen absorption lines.  That would indicate a stellar core exposed (or partially exposed) by the removal of the atmosphere of the star (which is moving fast, in all directions, as shown by the broadening.)  

 

Further observation shows you the evolving accretion disk (a significantly different spectrum from a star) and probably x-ray emissions from the black hole.  From there, do lots of math, and you can figure out the nature of the motion, and discern what's going on.  

 

Generally, that's how you do it.  The specifics in this case...I'd have to read the paper, and to be perfectly honest, I don't want to.  As cool as "star being ripped apart by a black hole" sounds, I always found that sort of observational analysis to be rather boring.

 

 

No wonder people annoy you.

[DC Tom]

39 minutes ago, row_33 said:

a co-worker's daughter did the Ivy league/Johns Hopkins route to her PhD in astronomy/astrophysics, don't recall her exact specialty

 

nobody that has a clue about this, whose life is dedicated to it, is on here talking about it.

 

 

 

No, I do.

 

Hell, I used to have to do some of this stuff with pencil and paper.  I still have nightmares about solving the stellar structure equations by hand.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

16 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

Speak for yourself, bro

 

 

 

OH SNAP 

 

[Foxx]

On 10/4/2019 at 8:31 AM, 4merper4mer said:

Wondering if you guys think planet 9 could actually be a primordial black hole.  The math seems to support it as a possibility.  Thoughts?

 

On 10/4/2019 at 8:24 PM, 4merper4mer said:

There is a lot of math involved for sure and a black hole can't ruled out. Foxx apparently doesn't understand that not all black holes are in the middle of galaxies.

Scientists Plan To Film A Feasting Black Hole At The Milky Way Galaxy’s Center

[4merper4mer]

17 minutes ago, Foxx said:

 

Scientists Plan To Film A Feasting Black Hole At The Milky Way Galaxy’s Center

Ok.  Those two things are unrelated.  By stating that not all black holes are in the middle of galaxies, one does not deny that there are indeed black holes in the middle of galaxies.  What is your point; in your own words?

 

My point is that there is a possibility that planet 9 is actually a black hole.

[Foxx]

23 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Ok.  Those two things are unrelated.  By stating that not all black holes are in the middle of galaxies, one does not deny that there are indeed black holes in the middle of galaxies.  What is your point; in your own words?

 

My point is that there is a possibility that planet 9 is actually a black hole.

i'm guessing that the anomalous pull we feel is what you are attributing to the black hole at the center of our 'verse, as being your 'planet 9' ?

[Marv's Neighbor]

Any traces of old mustard & ketchup?  May have been an interplanetary Pinto Ron?

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

i'm guessing that the anomalous pull we feel is what you are attributing to the black hole at the center of our 'verse, as being your 'planet 9' ?

I'm not sure if you're tailgating early or you just aren't up to speed.  I'll start from the beginning:

 

1. The center of galaxies are typically occupied by supermassive black holes.  I don't think there is any debate here.  This is totally and completely unrelated to the topic I mentioned.

 

2. There is currently a working theory about a distant planet within the bounds of our solar system.  It's existence would explain gravitational anomalies seen in the orbits of Pluto, Neptune, and your anus.  It has been dubbed planet 9.

 

3.  Math suggests the possibility that planet 9 may actually be a black hole, and not a planet.

 

The above three things are all facts but you obviously have an issue with one or more.  Which?  Why?