Jay-qu Posted November 27, 2006 Report Share Posted November 27, 2006 X-ray vision has brought astronomers closer than ever to completely characterizing a black hole, a place where strange things happen. Astronomers measured the spinning speed of three black holes, finding that one rotates at a breakneck 950 times per second, nearing its theoretical rotation limit of 1,150 spins a second. The black hole lies within the constellation Aquila (the Eagle) about 35,000 light-years from Earth. The finding represents an important step toward understanding these invisible objects. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061120_mm_blackhole_spin.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted November 27, 2006 Report Share Posted November 27, 2006 There is something I don't quite understand. The blackhole is spinning about 1000 revs/sec. At the same time, the center of the black hole is hightly time dilated due to gravity. Does than mean the center is spinning, i.e, normalized for our reference, 1rev/sec, to throw out a number. Also since we see x-rays, does than mean that light can escape from a blackhole, i.e, x-ray light? Does this also mean, because of distance contraction, gamma rays inside the blackhole expand to x-ray and then escape? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted November 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 Im not sure.. that is one of the things I didnt like about the article, it didnt give enough scienctific info and how they came to the conclusions.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 The reality of the fact is what we observe to be blackholes can only be the surface of this supposed structure. The surface is doing everything that a black hole is not suppose to do, like give off light or energy. If a duck quacks is it a duck. This structure is not quacking like a blackhole or else the theory of blackholes is incorrect. Much of the extreme physics theory popped out of math before it was observed. Now they want their cake and eat it at the same time. Maybe finite blackholes are a little more tame than the mathematically infinite gravity blackhole, that is envisioned in the imagination of physicists. I love extremes too, but maybe the envisioned blackhole is the exception instead of the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.