Laley23;1739606 wrote:


And serious question...where did you think the term "light year" came from???

Bolded the important part. Don't think he did.

QuakerOats;1739604 wrote:Not so sure that is correct; a light year is a measure of distance, not time.

8,000 x 6 trillion miles = how far away this is.

Yes you are right a ly is a unit of distance not time. Light is the fastest thing known in the universe. However it is not infinitely fast. It travels 6 trillion miles in a year like you said.

If you were to turn on a flashlight next to that black hole 8,000 x 6 trillion miles (or 8,000 ly) and point it at earth, it would take the light from that flashlight 8,000 years to reach earth. So if you were looking thru a telescope, you wouldn't see the flashlight turn on until it's light reaches the telescope, 8,000 years later. You are essentially looking into the past. Another example to think about: If an alien on a planet 66 million light years away were to look thru a telescope at the earth, they wouldn't see humans. They would see dinosaurs. Light leaving the earth during the late cretaceous period would just be reaching them.

This all relates back to Einstein's theory of time and space. Common misconceptions are that motion is absolute and time is the only constant. Neither is true; motion and time are relative to the observer and the speed of light is the only constant.

The thing that makes black holes interesting is that from what we know (which is not a lot), is that their gravity is so massive that they can even manipulate light (ie. suck light in). So if this black hole is erupting light OUT, it definitely makes for interesting speculation.

namod65;1739628 wrote:The thing that makes black holes interesting is that from what we know (which is not a lot), is that their gravity is so massive that they can even manipulate light (ie. suck light in). So if this black hole is erupting light OUT, it definitely makes for interesting speculation.

If I understand the basic theory correctly, black holes have a radius within which the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light (the "event horizon"). Outside of this radius, matter that is pulled toward the black hole is still visible in the form of an accretion disk. The light isn't coming from within the "black" part of the black hole (otherwise the entire theory goes out the window), it comes from the surrounding disk of accumulated gas superheating and releasing massive amounts of energy as it spirals toward the event horizon.

Yes, that is what appears to be the case after reading some other articles. The OP link doesn't really explain much, it's just a short video. So no this isn't some "physics defying" scenario and it isn't even the first time it's been observed.

But still this topic sparks one of my biggest interests. Most people don't realize how small and insignificant our world is. I wish I was born maybe 100-200 years later than I was because we'll probably have the technology by then to really get a better idea of whats out there.

namod65;1739628 wrote: The thing that makes black holes interesting is that from what we know (which is not a lot), is that their gravity is so massive that they can even manipulate light (ie. suck light in). So if this black hole is erupting light OUT, it definitely makes for interesting speculation.

If it is emitting light, is it still 'black'?

Mulva;1739653 wrote:If I understand the basic theory correctly, black holes have a radius within which the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light (the "event horizon"). Outside of this radius, matter that is pulled toward the black hole is still visible in the form of an accretion disk. The light isn't coming from within the "black" part of the black hole (otherwise the entire theory goes out the window), it comes from the surrounding disk of accumulated gas superheating and releasing massive amounts of energy as it spirals toward the event horizon.

Thanks, that answered the first question that popped into my head when I read the original post, saved me from having read the link. Reporters frequently use the wrong terms or make the wrong conclusions when they're writing about a particular scientific discovery or NASA announcement.

QuakerOats;1739604 wrote:Not so sure that is correct; a light year is a measure of distance, not time.

8,000 x 6 trillion miles = how far away this is.

Come n Quaker...unless you are arguing that Dr. Lisle's Anisotropic Light Speed Theory is correct, you got this all wrong...


A ly is a measure of distance, but since they are talking about light emitting from the black hole, it most certainly would take 8000 years for us to see it. So, it would have happened 8000 years ago.

Again, unless one believes Dr. Lisle's Anisotropic Light Speed Theory.

Mulva;1739653 wrote:If I understand the basic theory correctly, black holes have a radius within which the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light (the "event horizon"). Outside of this radius, matter that is pulled toward the black hole is still visible in the form of an accretion disk. The light isn't coming from within the "black" part of the black hole (otherwise the entire theory goes out the window), it comes from the surrounding disk of accumulated gas superheating and releasing massive amounts of energy as it spirals toward the event horizon.

Very good explanation, and yes, physicists understand black holes very well from the event horizon out. Inside the event horizon is some very good theories, but no great understanding of what goes on.