inherit
2420
0
Dec 19, 2016 14:17:05 GMT
1
mdavis
2
December 2016
mdavis
|
Post by mdavis on Dec 17, 2016 17:40:23 GMT
Yes. When a black hole is 'eating' and has an accretion disc, they become some of the brightest objects in the universe. This is because of a few factors, such as speed and temperature heating the objects caught within. Now I suppose if it was 'eating' very little it could show up dark like that just because there are too few atoms to produce the light(after all when eating nothing a black hole has no accretion disc whatsoever and is so dark as to be invisible unless it blocks the light of something), but considering how the rest of the Helius Cluster is depicted and even the accretion disc we see that wouldn't be the case since there is loads of gas and dust in it for it to feed on and generate a bright accretion disc. Other than that, I doubt it is a black hole for other reasons. For starters we would not be going to that planet if it was that close due to things like radiation, the planet seems too close to the object to still be in one piece, there is a star in the edge of that shot which seems to be even closer and yet also not effected, and with that and the further out shots that object is far too big to be a regular black hole and Andromeda only has one supermassive black hole and that's in its center. It's tough to judge just how close we really are, realistically. Between stellar parallax and potential gravitational lensing, I'm not sure I'd try to use the stars in the image to give the dark object in question (DOIQ?) a relative position. If this thing is sitting at the heart of the cluster, though, that gives us some idea, at least in regard to something. About the radiation concerns, I'm not sure that they'd be as big an issue as you think. Particularly if this were a relatively "inactive" black hole. I just attempted some quick research, and came up with a few references, all with similar answers. One was from Phil Plait, in which he explained that replacing our sun with a black hole of equal mass wouldn't be dangerous at all, beyond the fact that we'd freeze. If this were a black hole that weren't particularly active, it likely wouldn't pose a great radiation hazard to the surrounding star systems. None of this proves that this is or isn't a black hole. I'm just gathering data. I've been curious about this thing for weeks, to the point that I'd nearly started a thread about it. I have wondered whether it could be significant to the plot, or if it's simply an astronomical anchor? In the future it'd be a good idea to avoid using Phil Plait as a primary source...especially when it comes to black holes. He was so wrong on these things that Dr. Kip Thorne had to send him a layperson's book he wrote so that he could understand why he was wrong (it had to do with frame dragging). |
|
inherit
ღ Voice of Reason
169
0
17,686
Element Zero
7,434
August 2016
elementzero
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by Element Zero on Dec 17, 2016 18:07:20 GMT
It's tough to judge just how close we really are, realistically. Between stellar parallax and potential gravitational lensing, I'm not sure I'd try to use the stars in the image to give the dark object in question (DOIQ?) a relative position. If this thing is sitting at the heart of the cluster, though, that gives us some idea, at least in regard to something. About the radiation concerns, I'm not sure that they'd be as big an issue as you think. Particularly if this were a relatively "inactive" black hole. I just attempted some quick research, and came up with a few references, all with similar answers. One was from Phil Plait, in which he explained that replacing our sun with a black hole of equal mass wouldn't be dangerous at all, beyond the fact that we'd freeze. If this were a black hole that weren't particularly active, it likely wouldn't pose a great radiation hazard to the surrounding star systems. None of this proves that this is or isn't a black hole. I'm just gathering data. I've been curious about this thing for weeks, to the point that I'd nearly started a thread about it. I have wondered whether it could be significant to the plot, or if it's simply an astronomical anchor? In the future it'd be a good idea to avoid using Phil Plait as a primary source...especially when it comes to black holes. He was so wrong on these things that Dr. Kip Thorne had to send him a layperson's book he wrote so that he could understand why he was wrong (it had to do with frame dragging). Good to know! The first article I read seemed written by a layperson, to be honest. I triple-checked it, though, and it seemed to be okay. Those science for laypersons articles always make me nervous. I don't pretend to be an astrophysicist. At the same time, though, a certain level of sophistication is required to explain and grasp these concepts. Dumbing it down too much guarantees much is lost. If one can't keep up with a reasonably complex concept, then maybe astronomy, physics and mathematics simply aren't one's cup of tea? I'll take Plait's input with a huge grain of salt, in the future. Thanks for the heads up! That's actually why I name-drop a source, in many cases-- in case someone is aware of deficiencies or updated info. |
|
inherit
2420
0
Dec 19, 2016 14:17:05 GMT
1
mdavis
2
December 2016
mdavis
|
Post by mdavis on Dec 19, 2016 13:59:07 GMT
In the future it'd be a good idea to avoid using Phil Plait as a primary source...especially when it comes to black holes. He was so wrong on these things that Dr. Kip Thorne had to send him a layperson's book he wrote so that he could understand why he was wrong (it had to do with frame dragging). Good to know! The first article I read seemed written by a layperson, to be honest. I triple-checked it, though, and it seemed to be okay. Those science for laypersons articles always make me nervous. I don't pretend to be an astrophysicist. At the same time, though, a certain level of sophistication is required to explain and grasp these concepts. Dumbing it down too much guarantees much is lost. If one can't keep up with a reasonably complex concept, then maybe astronomy, physics and mathematics simply aren't one's cup of tea? I'll take Plait's input with a huge grain of salt, in the future. Thanks for the heads up! That's actually why I name-drop a source, in many cases-- in case someone is aware of deficiencies or updated info. I just ignore him. Sorry, my point wasn't to insult a layperson's interpretation - in my experience it is the people who can't reduce the complex to the simple that don't truly know the material (stack exchange is generally an excellent example of doing this correctly) - it was mainly intended to, as you said, make people aware of deficiencies regarding Plait, which is especially necessary in his case. |
|
