Remember that brightest supernova ever seen? It wasn't one Last year, astronomers spotted what looked like a massive supernova, 200 times brighter than any seen before. Use of the Hubble and Swift orbital telescopes as well as observatories here on Earth to make a close analysis of the event, dubbed ASASSN-15lh, indicates that the flash in the sky might not have been a supernova at …
@Winkypop
-back when I were at school, many astronomy books still said that what we now know are other galaxies were 'starry nebulae' which were thought to reside within our own galaxy! (This despite the grand efforts of Henretta Leavitt and Edwin Hubble a few decades previously). And some regarded Pluto as a 'new' planet, usurping Neptune as the furthermost planet in the solar system. How times change, eh?
And as the photon storms gather in the swirling clouds around us, preparing to tear apart the last of the red hot, hot suns, I hope you’ll all settle back and enjoy with me what I am sure we will all find an immensely exciting and terminal experience.
novae and supernovae are the sputterings of a star collapsing due to a lack of thermo-nuclear pressure from the core balancing the force of gravity created by that core. i.e. a nearly spent atomic bomb blows up.
This event was what happens when the gravity that holds a star together is overcome by an external gravitational force and the core, no longer contained by a shell of matter falling inwards, with all that thermo-nuclear pressure bursts out,. i.e. a fully fuelled atomic bomb goes off.
Wow. Incredible.
A supernova is triggered when something causes a sudden core collapse, driving the density/pressure/temperature ultra high and allowing a large fraction of the star's mass to fuse in seconds. Exposing a stellar core via tidal action ought to remove the pressure and stop fusion. Only the current heat store would be available to generate light.
I'd guess that first burst was pretty small, and the second one where the star gets compressed onto the accretion disc is where the real action takes place.
The hole's disc must enable considerable fusion when it's eating a star whole. And if it does, there is no thick outer shell of plasma to block and absorb the initial radiation burst, as with a supernova. No wonder it's so brilliant.
Unless... the space time distortion is so intense that the compression on the star and subsequently the core is so intense as to cause a supernova.
But as the compression would be uneven due to the intensity of the distortion the blast would be more directional than normal and combined with a potentially smaller star than usual (i.e. less matter around the core) so appear brighter as the blast as more direction to it and less energy is absorbed due to the smaller star.
It all depends on how you're defining the black hole - are you referring to the quantum singularity at the middle where the volume is effectively nothing but the mass is ridiculously high, or are you referring to the volume of space contained within the event horizon? IIRC, the average density of a black hole with a volume of the known universe, would roughly be the average density of the known universe.
It is likely that there is no volume of space inside an event horizon in same way as there is no volume of wood in a woodworm-hole.
> the average density of a black hole with a volume of the known universe, would roughly be the average density of the known universe
Yes. This is because the event horizon increase linearly with mass as opposed to with 1/r³ (something to do with the holographic database that defines the universe, but no-one has an idea what). Inside would look God knows how though, if at all.
Black Holes are sleight of hand objects. They are merely theoretically reduced to a singularity in the middle where all the mass congregates, but in actuality (because time slows down dramatically the further down the gravity well you descend, and so a second in the deep interior would correspond to billions of years out here on Earth's insignificant gravity wrinkle) no black hole would have had time to reach a singularity state - the matter would still be infalling (from the BH's perspective).
Also, according to loop quantum gravity, the singularity can't form as it can't squeeze space down below the planck length - there's a limit to how much stuff can be squeezed into a finite space.
Also, the mascara snake, fast and bulbous.
Apparently, the Hubble telescope was conceived back in the late 1940's. Eventually launched in the 1980's, the total cost was US$ 1.3 billion. (I think that also includes the cost of the optics to correct the mirror polishing mistake.)
The cost of the 2016 US Presidential Election was US$ 6.8 billion.
I'll leave it to the individual readers to make up their own minds as to which was of more value.
I'll leave it to the individual readers to make up their own minds as to which was of more value.
The election is easier to understand if you think of the upcoming Trump "Administration" as a super-massive black hole and the United States as the once-shining star it's going to rip apart.
The once-shining US star was last seen just before the Nixon administration, dude! Or maybe even earlier.
The Deep State sure is out to make this election a post-electoral win for The Only Acceptable Candidate. I wouldn't rule out a "security incident" by some concerned, progressive but slightly aspie citizen armed with a Dragunova sourced directly (according to what the WaPo would print) from the USSRRussia. Who then gets a heart attack when apprehended. Madame Clinton president? It's more likely than you think.
You know that's how it works.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
