Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 11/03/2025 12:02:15 AM PST by nickcarraway
Astronomers recently spotted two unprecedented plasma jets blasting out of a supermassive black hole and into space beyond its galaxy. The two extremely powerful plasma jets are the largest ever seen, measuring 23 million light-years from end to end. This distance would cross approximately 140 Milky Ways arranged side by side.
Researchers who spotted this unprecedented phenomenon called the pair of plasma jets “Porphyrion” after a giant in Greek mythology.
The two jets originate from the top and bottom of the supermassive black hole and have the combined power of trillions of suns.
What exactly are black hole jets? Black hole jet streams are a phenomenon made up of charged ions, electrons, and other particles. These are accelerated nearly to the speed of light by the enormous magnetic fields that surround black holes.
Astronomers have been aware of these jets for more than a century, but until recently, they were thought to be rare and not so extensive.
Grecian Delight supports Greece The two massive jets in question were first spotted by Europe’s Low-Frequency Array telescope. They were detected during a sky study that uncovered more than ten thousand of these.
Some of the black hole jets that have been spotted during this study are so powerful they push further than the black hole’s galaxy itself and deep into the voids of space.
These jets might have played a role in shaping the universe Scientists who have been studying black hole jets are now confident they can extinguish the formation of a star and also eject large amounts of material and energy deep into space.
Experts have determined that the two massive black hole jets discovered show that small things and large things in the universe are “intimately connected.” This discovery is extremely significant because the black hole where the streams originate is producing a structure on a scale that is similar to cosmic filaments and voids.
The researchers who found Porphyrion then used the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope in India and the VM Keck Observatory in Hawaii to pinpoint the black hole jet’s location to a galaxy ten times more massive than the Milky Way and around 1.5 billion light-years from Earth.
These black hole jet streams are so old that they started to form once the universe was around 6.3 billion years old, which is less than half of its present age. Researchers also estimate it took the jets a billion years to grow to the length recently observed.
Following this discovery, researchers will turn their attention to the fact that these jets might have influenced the formation of galaxies by heating the medium in the filaments in space.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I would say that there is MUCH “Theoretically” involved in these calculations.
A few years ago I swing my humble 4-inch refractor toward the location in the sky of Voyager 2. I couldn't see that either. But it was a pretty nice feeling all the same, knowing that I was looking at the place where the most distant object made by man is speeding away from us into interstellar space.
Ditto on your complaint. I backtracked through several articles. The paper itself is paywalled. However, supplemental info on a graph gives approx celestial coordinates of:
declination 60.27 deg
RA 232.38 deg
I’ll convert that to a marker star and constellation later.
Good thing i don’t have to find it in my sextant while standing on a pitching deck.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07879-y/figures/5
Imagine figuring out how to harness that type of energy. It might be enough to support Al Gore’s carbon footprint.
Did they name the black hole after Kamelhole Harris?
Bet that makde some UFO’s sparkle
The Hubble theories are swiss cheese at this point.
New discoveries of massive “early” galaxies means we really need to rethink a lot of previous views on this topic.
The early universe appears a bit different than they expected but that was the point of building the JWST: to show what it actually looked like. But new explanations are emerging as a result. One thing that is not in jeopardy however, is still the fact that the universe is expanding, and at a particular rate; even if that rate is not as constant as we once thought either. There are anomalies in that which we knew about even before the JWST.
The problem is that the earlier Hubble theories were based on math and physics which appeared to make sense.
When they do not work in the real world that is not an “anomaly”.
That is a critical breakdown in the theory.
Refusal to face theory failures is exactly why major leaps forward in science require old scientists to die—the geezers never like to admit they made huge errors.
As you say, it was all just math on paper until we actually saw it. This may eventually overturn the idea that the universe began from a cosmic singularity, we don’t know yet. One interesting thing they have found however, is just at the extreme edge of what JWST is capable of seeing: little red dots—LRD’s. Red because they’re extremely red-shifted, therefore very old. They’re as bright as galaxies but they’re not galaxies. Progenitor supermassive black holes perhaps. In any case there was something there before anything was supposed to be. So our theories about the very early universe are in fact broken.
It may be that something as basic as the red shift theory is itself broken—though I admit I do not know how exactly.
That’s another subject but I’ll tell you it is very unlikely. There are several other evidences for cosmic expansion than just red shifting, and they’re all in agreement with one another.
The Wikipedia article on the subject seems to lean heavily on red shift as the sole observable basis for the claimed expansion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
The other “proofs” appear to be mathematical and not empirical.
In addition the claim that gravity has local effects but that does not stop expansion at large scales appears to be in conflict with Einstein conceptions of gravity (since of course curved space time is everywhere under the theory).
Imho modern physics is busy pounding square pegs into round holes. Claims of poorly defined (and not empirically verified) “dark matter” and “dark energy” look ripe for being overturned by future observations and theory.
(That said I do not claim to have a solution to these issues.)
One of the additional evidences for expansion is the delayed light curve of distant type 1a supernovae. Type 1a are standard candles—that is they are all about the same brightness and their brightness fades at about the same rate after the initial explosion. But the farther away we see them (their distances also indicated by Cepheid variables in the same galaxy), the slower their brightness fades. This is because Special Relativistic effects are occurring due to their receding away at speeds also indicated by their red shift.
Another one is the higher CMBR temperatures observed in distant intergalactic gas. As the universe expands, the CMBR cools, as predicted.
There are a few others, including observed evolution of galaxies with distance and the increasing abundance of quasars. All these point to expansion. If the red-shifting of distant galaxies are due to something else, it is not known what. The idea of “tired light” has no supporting evidence at all.
Pull my finger and find out.
Let us look at the temperature issue first.
https://observatoiredeparis.psl.eu/taking-the-temperature-of-the-universe.html
The article acknowledges that these temperature calculations are based on computer models.
If the models are wrong the temperatures are wrong.
This article suggests the “delayed light curve” analysis is ultimately dependent on the “red shift”—yet again.
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4434/13/3/55
What I have noticed with much of modern cosmology is that they tend to start with a conclusion (the expanding universe) and then tend to use computer models that support it and reject as “anomalous” those that reject it.
The ground is not as solid as it may appear.
The conclusion in this case is also supported by a preponderance of the evidence. But yes, there is always the danger of deer-in-headlights if you accept a certain thing long enough. Is it called confirmation bias?
In regards to dark matter and dark energy, by the way, I think most accept that they are just running theories for now. They’re just terms for observable things that we can’t explain yet. One of the leading proposals to explain dark matter is in fact that it doesn’t exist at all. It’s called MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics).
Good discussion.
My view is that we in one of the times in the history of science where we are getting close to major new discoveries—in the field of cosmology.
The “trick” imho is to accept data as data—and not be in any rush to create new theories to explain it.
There will be plenty of time for that.
Constellation Draco
closest bright star in Draco
iota Draco named ‘Edasich’
15h25m28.67s 58d52’32.0”
HD137827 8.31 mag
15h25m48.6s 59d53’07.6”
HD138265 5.90 mag
15h28m20.53s 60d34’51.6”
closest in HD catalog < magnitude 9
HD139438 8.52 mag
15h35m31.73s 60d10’22.1”
I’d post screen shots of sky maps but don’t know how to conveniently upload them. Suggest you enter the RA and declination values into the “find” “coord” function of Stellarium. It is free, exquisite, and at rev 25.3
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.