The most down to earth and consistent source of astronomy news in the history of youtube. With a fun, yet truly journalistic sense, Anton, thank you. For the way you do you.
Extremeley fast? Yeah, it's impossibly fast if the galaxy is lit up from a source in it's center. I understand this has lit up in a few years. Any light would have to follow the laws of physics (c), therefore, the galaxy, if lit up by a sole source in it's center, must be minute. Perhaps even the tiniest galayxy in the Universe being only 2-4 lightyears r.
@@toreibjo We don't mean the whole galaxy reflects the light from the central source heh. We mean that the galaxy as a whole gets many many times brighter just because of the accretion disk spinning up
Could an alternative explanation be that either due to movement by the galaxy, or movement of the sun, that we are moving into the line of sight of the astrophysical jets? Rather like a lighthouse - the lighthouse’s luminosity doesn’t change, but the direction of it’s light does. Just a thought.
The galaxy and the sun are moving in the same plane as most of the galaxy due to angular momentum so probably unlikely. Even if so that’s good to know and if we can measure when we will be displaced from normal observations maybe we can plan to look at spots in the universe we normally couldn’t see
@@lettuceman2106 I was referring to the galaxy that appears to be developing the active galactic nucleus, not our own galaxy, so any movements are not likely to be connected in any way.
WHAT? I listened and heard all that you said, but could not come close to adequately explaining anything you said to another person to save my life ... if I had to. 😀
It does seem as if this event is occurring very quickly. Something with the mass of a black hole should need more time to ramp up activity so much in only five years. The theory of a massive star being torn asunder seems more likely to me. Let's see how long it lasts. Thank you, Anton!
In the early universe galaxies used to be giant Stars. With the extreme expansion of the universe it caused them to explode forming galaxies. Leaving behind blackholes that sank below the fabric of SpaceTime. Because of the expansion it could no longer hold the weight of the singularity in reallity. This was just a thought experiment.
Two Spinning magnetic cores would take a very long time to slow down in space and would only start slowing down when there magnetic cores start to weaken
What about plannet to plannet collision or star attached to each other and what is the fastest way not thinking something in space takes billions of years might be a Lotto ticket with infinite tickets
@@leerussell8499 I think black holes are made by two colliding stars as planets have too much solid mass to have the same effect on each other without flying apart but the magnetic core of a star is surrounded by gasses that explodes when they merge just leaving the cores pushing and pulling each other around to a speed that distorts the space around them because there is no way to slow it down, but that's just my theory 🧐
@@oldbag3043 Stellar black holes form when the core of a massive star stops producing energy and the mass of the stellar atmosphere crushes the core into oblivion - which then results in a hypernova or a gamma ray burst. Black holes can also form from colliding neutron stars, but those collisions are comparatively rare. What's more, neutron stars spin due to the angular momentum from its progenitor star, not because of magnetism. In fact, it's the spin that in part causes the magnetism.
@@leerussell8499 Planetary collisions result in dust clouds and asteroid fields . . . and sometimes larger planets or large moons, like our moon. Stellar collisions first result in contact binaries that eventually merge into larger stars.
How early do we think black holes would have started forming in the early universe? And would they form the same way they do now or is there some differences between how they formed between then and now?
Hi Anton. If these gigantic AGN's exist really far back in space and time, can we speculate on the stars or events that initially existed Farther Back in space and time, that eventually evolved into these AGN's? And if we could scientifically predict or observe the origin of (stars/events/galaxies) at their origin point, that evolved into AGN's, could that, in turn, give us the age of the universe, since we seem not to know, how old our universe really is? My thinking is, if these massive AGN's exist, so far back in space and time, that something much much older must have existed farther back, that would tell us what was really going on before or after the Big Bang. And how these AGN's were created, and by what?? And if there IS a WHAT, where did that WHAT come from, and how old was it, that it eventually evolved into an AGN. I know crazy brain thinking early in the morning !!!
Slowly becoming active? Excuse me? I'd say that it lights up so abruptly that there can hardly be explained by an event in its very center alone. What is the approximate diameter of that galaxy? Unless it's very, very tiny by galactic standards, >4ly diameter, all the (new) light can't come from the center of it, as it's all lit up simultaneously.
Think of a galaxy as a blender, wat happens when you take the lid off? Viola! A big jet of stuff comes shooting out all over, or mabey a hurricane as they look so similar? Hmmm,some one help me figure this,lol
so a black hole does not let visible light escape.... that must only be visible light if all the other types gamma. uv. beta and so on does escape other wise how could we measure emitions? ok I know I missing something but what or why? the rest of the waves still part of the spectrun so how come they can escape?
As the material around accretion disks becomes denser it heats up and lets off energy. As long as it's at a point before the matter crossed the event horizon, light still escapes.
@@johnduncan5117 thx you everyone for your explianations so cool.. so until its over the horizon it can still escape and gamma ray bursts are not from the black hole itself just extra energy that being repelled from the destruction of things.... if I getting it right in my head?
maybe it just eaten alot of stars that drifted a bit to close and ate them and then the results of that just reached us just recently and we got a good look at it.
It's fascinating to me to think that one of the most terrible, destructive forces in the universe could also be the engine that drives galaxy formation, and in a very distant way, sustains life (at least here).
But anything can only move with speed of light. Isnt this spread of emmisions only like 5 light years across bubble of 10 ly across ? If we watch it for 5 years ? And milky way is like 300 000 LY across, 10 LY would be like 0,0033 % of size of your galaxy.
Just curious Anton. It has been long known that space is not a perfect vacuum but recently is was postulated that energy is hidden in most of space and it is very difficult to get a "true vacuum". (Something l attemped to raise with a physacist on radio many years ago but he thought l was raising creationism. I wasn't. Hmm) If this is the case would not warping space to achieve faster than light make this warped space similar to molasses to travel through?
Just my layperson/hobbyist's take, but warp drives aren't really FTL, just like entangled particles aren't exchanging position/speed info superluminally. It's a form of cheating. Nothing states that space can't move faster than light, and in fact, our universe certainly did during its inception. The few "realistic" hypothesized warp drives I'm aware of either make use of a wormhole, or carrying the ship in a bubble/wave of displaced space. In either situation, the ship itself wouldn't truly be breaking the lightspeed barrier, space would be doing the heavy lifting. The ship wouldn't ever reach lightspeed, even if it effectively traversed a distance in less time than light would.
I still say we were sucked through a super massive black hole many many years ago and it’s sucked so much through it’s created our Universe. Each black hole is a different universe and depending which one we are in, why we don’t know anything or where or how we became or sorry how Earth came to be… just saying…
There are objects outside the visible universe that are so massive that they emit energy that has the character of expanding galaxies which born from centre to outside. The center of these objects is under extreme pressure at all times. Extremely fast energy pushes towards them. Remnants of galaxies that have expanded into space. Millions of billions of years of energy that moved through space and was dispersed into space. It collides with the extremely dense energy pushing away from these objects at extremely high speed and causes this extremely dense energy to explode / expand into less dense energy. The speed of the energy dispersed in space for millions of billions of years has accelerated for millions of billions of years and therefore collides with extremely dense energy at an extremely fast speed. The speed of this extremely fast energy begins to slow down and eventually stops in an area of extreme pressure. This extreme pressure compresses the energy that was once scattered in space for millions of billions of years into extremely dense energy. Pushing away from the center of an extremely dense and massive object starts once again when more millions of billions of years of space-dispersed energy pushes into the center of that object, which displaces the energy that was previously pushed into the center of that object away from the center of that object. In the infinite 3D universe, there is an eternal recycling going on, which does not need pulling forces at all to maintain. google: Savorinen Jukka Read How Universe Really Works ❤️ It is assumed that more and more space-dispersing energy is pushed inside the space-expanding quarks, so that all the expanding quarks that circulate the space-dispersed energy are exactly the same. Their density and volume in relation to each other can be changed when their speed is accelerated in particle accelerators. When moving in groups, they experience the change in a different way, according to which of them pushes forward and which of them pushes in the background of the first one or the first ones. That is, they encounter expanding energy pushing against them, which affects them differently according to the order in which they encounter the energy pushing against them. And it affects how they recycle this energy that is scattered in space. Naturally, energy also plays a big role, which accelerates their pace. That too changes the density and volume of quarks expanding in space. The speed of internal movement / time. Internal pressure. Well, when the expanding nuclei are collided, it’s no wonder that in the collisions, energy is dispersed/expanded into space in such a way that physicists interpret from this information that there are different quarks in the nuclei. And yes, the density and volume of quarks expanding during collisions are different. Even so much different that one of the quarks is so dense and small compared to the others that no information is obtained from it in collisions. I understand that some parties assume that protons and neutrons are made up of zillions of separate quarks. Well, here’s another time. Nowadays it is taught that protons and neutrons consist of three quarks that are different from each other. The three quarks form a kite, as it were. In my opinion, four would form a much more logical and stable entity. The pyramid. Tetrahedron. Ok, when the expanding quarks are at rest relative to us, they would already be much more congested regions of expanding energy with the same density and volume Of course, their density and volume live somewhat all the time. While the situation lives on all the time, they come to control each other’s density and volume while circulating with all other expanding quarks this space-dispersing energy of which they themselves are composed. So that it completely changes over time. When someone momentarily expands a little faster than others, its ability to absorb the space-dispersing energy pushing through itself into itself is worse due to the fact that its density is lower than that of expanding quarks with a smaller volume at that moment. Of course, more energy dispersing into space pushes through it, because it is bigger at that moment. The situation will recover as the recycling of energy dispersed into space continues. The ability to recycle energy that dissipates into space is faster because its internal movement / time is faster at that moment. It seems strange that no one before me has been able to consider that perhaps the so-called the atom is completely different from what physicists have assumed. Perhaps the volume of matter is also relative. Perhaps it is the case that time is not only relative. Maybe here we have the key to the theory of everything in physics🙂 Love ❤️ Google Savorinen Jukka 🙂
...so this one's 300m ly away from us (which got me thinking), and after a bit of googling and very crude calculator usage, the closest known AGN is about 14m ly away from us. Which is kinda shockingly close! In terms of both distance and consequentialy, time. There may have been a lot more of this going on in the *distant* past, but it certainly doesn't seem a thing of the ..past, astronomicaly speaking. Gotta go google some more about potency of sterilizing effects of such effects, I've seen plenty of people argue (here in Anton's videos' comments) it wouldn't actualy affect outer rims of galaxies by all that much objectively, but anyway - time to sleep, further astronomy buff contemplation to be had tommorrow =)
Well those compressed regions, something similar to our earths core, would be the black hole part density wise. Our earths crust would be the outer regions, and our atmosphere would be the holes accretion disk. But that inside part takes in matter NOT HEAT. They cant. Packed too tightly.
Heat is simply a measurement of vibrating molecules, and that vibration is caused by the energy being absorbed by those molecules. If a "firewall" exists at the event horizon, then all matter is converted to energy just as it falls into the black hole. So, matter isn't packed tightly at all. In fact, based on current theory, a black hole cannot be compared to a planet because a black hole is not stratified like a planet, and an accretion disk cannot be compared to an atmosphere because it is a disk and is formed by a different method.
@@mikeguilmette776 I see your point. My point was to simply give people a fleshed out visual, if something they can sort of touch. But in reality. The inside time has stopped. It’s a super compressed liquid state we cannot achieve without gravity’s power. No amount of energy on earth could compress 3-4 solar masses into an area the size of THE MOON. The outer region rips matter apart from velocity and temperature. The inner part where mass gets stuck, is frozen temperature wise, but in a compressed liquid state visually. We cannot escape or pierce them. There would be no wormhole because we cannot escape any side. Inside or out. In any direction. We cannot even escape the suns heliosphere never mind Sagittarius a star. If we somehow got away from the sun. We’d still be flying around the galaxy at that original velocity of 500,000 MPH.
@@mikeguilmette776 ya I was using a weird way of describing the density differences between something as compressed as a black hole vs something they can see/picture like the earth. I see what you meant too. They are definitely different. Absolutely. Many differences. 😎💯🙏
"observing in real-time..." I get what you mean, but there are a lot of assumptions that need to go along with that. Valid assumptions, probably, but there's no way we're observing activity that takes thousands or millions of years, and thousands or millions of years ago, "in real-time." Great video! Please keep 'em coming!
@@KnightspaceORG Yep. Even with that, the light's traveled path and time must be considered. A gravitational lensing distortion would make distant events appear faster or slower as some gravitational spacetime curvature passes between us and the observed event. I'm sure all these can be accounted for, but even those calculations would be based on indirect observation assumptions.
@@RiiDii Scientist know very well the relationship between light and distance, it's just useless to point it out in conversations, as it just bogs it down in technicalities. So, while you are correct, it's just a fact that majority of people already know.
That whole illumination of objects 100s of thousands of light years away via ancient supernova concept could really explain a lot of weird stuff we see
When nothing in astronomy is real time it looks like a dream from past life. Still scientists are engaged and attempt to hypothesize various theories to fit what they see now from the very very distant past.
You clearly don't know the difference between a hypothetical theory and a Scientific Theory. Scientists do not attempt to fit a Scientific Theory into their conclusions, a Scientific Theory IS the conclusion based on Scientific Laws, observation and testing. "hypothesize various theories" as you used the terms is incoherent, like saying they guess various guesses then imply their best guess is a fact without any further research, what they do is write a thesis and test it, they base their hypothesis on the Laws of Physics, Thermodynamics, Hubble's Law (Universal expansion) etc. if they don't fit, they don't try to force it, that's what peer reviews are for. Religions use hypothetical scenarios to fit what they know now, like assuming the ages of biblical characters concludes the Earth is less than 7,000 years old. Other guesses they get wrong yet try to force as facts are that the Earth is flat, humans can't go into space, gravity is a hoax and dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark during a flood that never happened.
Electrical plasma is not always in glow mode. That's how a lightning rod works. They work especially well in off grid areas to invisibly discharge the earth around them to prevent lightening strikes. You may have seen this demonstrated in high-school science class with the use of the popular vandegraff generator. They are not only meant to safely discharge the unavoidable lightning strike. When installed, they are constantly emitting a stream of invisible plasma even in fair-weather. A black hole is a hypothetical construct meant to describe an unseen force. It doesn't exist in the real world. There is no such thing as infinitely dense. And the math involves dividing by zero. As much as we would like to have an answer for "What's 1 divided by 0?" it's sadly impossible to have an answer. The reason, in short, is that whatever we may answer, we will then have to agree that that answer times 0 equals to 1, and that cannot be true, because anything times 0 is 0.
Black holes how many billions of years ago? Since a black hole are supposed to be created by a star blowing up and a star blowing up after just a few billion years?
The biggest stars take a lot less than that, just a few million years. The bigger the star, the shorter the life. However a supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy, is a lot bigger than stellar black hole and are formed by galaxies colliding and or merging, not just the death of a star.
and i apologize if this is outdated information but i once learned about primordial black holes which are very large and have been here practically forever
@@elijahloby5400 yes it's not outdated! Anton spoke about it recently (I think?!) Except.. if I'm not wrong only the smallest primordial black holes would still be there, cause they evaporate more slowly. Some people even suggest we might have a primordial black hole in our solar system. Of the mass of an asteroid or a planet. (Big like an apple maybe). And that would explain why we can see it's effects on other bodies, but can't find it. Who knows?! It's fascinating
It smells like there's an obvious conclusion that can be drawn here, but therein lies exponential nuance. What are the proposed causal sequence of events and phenomenon that can cause such "wide spread" star ignitions across a galaxy? Something is seriously not making sense here. Even by my own unique hypothesis of stable star ignition factors... This is wonky, and we're missing something in the data entirely here.
@@davidhoward4715 Beat me to it. Doesn't it seem like there's always at least one in the comments that thinks the universe doesn't conform to his/her personal "hypothesis." 🧐
There's no logic in whats biologic how systems work throws arkemes razor out the window . Could have there a completely different chemistry that replaced itself wirh the systems we know today
occam's razor... notice the correct spelling is not a law and just a general guidelines and one that gets misinterpreted as the simple answer is the correct answer.
@@MrGenie23432 correct. It's a streamlining rule for reducing mistakes. Every assumption adds more potential for error, so avoid making unnecessary assumptions.
Love this channel.. but, totally attempting to be constructive, Anton needs tow work on reducing the verbal crutch "basically." 14 times in this video. It adds nearly nothing. $.02
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
I prefer small inactive black holes. Not like the one living in my wallet, although its very small it's quite active.
At least you don't have an active one. Oh boy the headaches they create.
Mine gives off anti-money
Don't get married. Turns out, that activates the black hole in your wallet!
Damn mine too...biden created my black hole
My wallet black hole seems to be growing exponentially the older my 2 daughters get
The most down to earth and consistent source of astronomy news in the history of youtube. With a fun, yet truly journalistic sense, Anton, thank you. For the way you do you.
Will the last person to leave please switch the AGN off..
😂😂😂😂
I done that once - When the SHOP closed down - I turned out the lights for the LAST time.
I just did
Let us watch quasarization reality show.
I'm home already sorry see you on monday🎉
Once upoun a black hole far far away there was an Anton event, it was wonderful..
Its like a Boltzmann brain but with all of Anton Videos, even the ones of the future 😮
Hello, wonderful Anton. This is person.
Our version of time is a microscopic spec compared to how old these things are.
5 years is extremely fast in astronomical history though.
thats a blink of an eye
Nothing is faster than the first three minutes 😅
Aye. Puts some perspective on how hard the accretion disk is getting shredded by friction as it approaches the innermost orbits. o.o
Extremeley fast? Yeah, it's impossibly fast if the galaxy is lit up from a source in it's center. I understand this has lit up in a few years. Any light would have to follow the laws of physics (c), therefore, the galaxy, if lit up by a sole source in it's center, must be minute. Perhaps even the tiniest galayxy in the Universe being only 2-4 lightyears r.
@@toreibjo We don't mean the whole galaxy reflects the light from the central source heh. We mean that the galaxy as a whole gets many many times brighter just because of the accretion disk spinning up
Love this channel! It's one of the few I suggest to ppl when they are interested in space
Could an alternative explanation be that either due to movement by the galaxy, or movement of the sun, that we are moving into the line of sight of the astrophysical jets? Rather like a lighthouse - the lighthouse’s luminosity doesn’t change, but the direction of it’s light does. Just a thought.
The galaxy and the sun are moving in the same plane as most of the galaxy due to angular momentum so probably unlikely. Even if so that’s good to know and if we can measure when we will be displaced from normal observations maybe we can plan to look at spots in the universe we normally couldn’t see
U thought u ate 😂
@@georgehilario3544 Don’t gotta be mean bro just offered a well thought out perspective , and what did you bring to the table?
@Philw222 Great thought. It's how science started. By a thought. You have me thinking deep now. Nothing is impossible
@@lettuceman2106 I was referring to the galaxy that appears to be developing the active galactic nucleus, not our own galaxy, so any movements are not likely to be connected in any way.
Hanny's Voorwerp at 4:20 looks amazing. It also looks like a tree in the photographer's back yard.
4:20 duuuude, what if it's *BOTH* ...
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 🙃😁✌️
Great stuff, as usual, Anton! I wait for you everyday! You make me smile! 😊❤
How the hell does Anton produce this brilliant content every day? Does he have a production team?
As always great content and super nice narration! Thank you very much Anton, I hear you often in the evening to wind down.
Thanks for, and great job on the new subtitles.👍I imagine it's as simple as pasting in the script that you read. A gentleman and a scholar.
Very cool! Thanks Anton.
Am I the only one to think that Anton's videos and especially this one, feels more confortable when played at 1.25 the normal speed?
Discussing decades of research on events that takes millions of years to get to us is mind boggling 👍🏻🤩🌝😎🌞
the pic at 5:10 would make an Amazing poster or desktop backround.
“Henny’s voorwerp” must be named by someone from the Netherlands. It is translated to “Henny’s item” 😅
lol, "voorwerp" is just Dutch for "object".
We know this.
@@davidhoward4715 Not everyone's dutch.
@@TheDredConspiracy Let me reword it then. Not everyone knows the dutch language nor has the time to learn a whole ass new language.
@@davidhoward4715 you*
Anyone else love his smile at the end? 🥰
An entire star getting shredded by a black hole is a relatively common occurrence. Think about that.
I want a t-shirt with that grin right across the front of it! The true fans will know what's up!
WHAT? I listened and heard all that you said, but could not come close to adequately explaining anything you said to another person to save my life ... if I had to. 😀
We found a black hole becoming active ( or turning a light on )
But ain’t that like the chicken and the egg question? How can a black hole exist before a star if a black hole is a collapsed star?
It does seem as if this event is occurring very quickly. Something with the mass of a black hole should need more time to ramp up activity so much in only five years.
The theory of a massive star being torn asunder seems more likely to me. Let's see how long it lasts.
Thank you, Anton!
In the early universe galaxies used to be giant Stars. With the extreme expansion of the universe it caused them to explode forming galaxies. Leaving behind blackholes that sank below the fabric of SpaceTime. Because of the expansion it could no longer hold the weight of the singularity in reallity.
This was just a thought experiment.
What image is being shown @1:23? I have never seen this one before and it's beautiful!
Its not killng the galaxy its just using it elsewhere.
"Have you tried turning it off and on again?"
I will never believe anything extremely bizarre phenomena unless Anton says its cool
Dare you to wear Anton's "Hello, wonderful person" t-shirt to a biker bar.
I read about this! Fascinating!
Anton, enough vids on black holes
Two Spinning magnetic cores would take a very long time to slow down in space and would only start slowing down when there magnetic cores start to weaken
What about plannet to plannet collision or star attached to each other and what is the fastest way not thinking something in space takes billions of years might be a Lotto ticket with infinite tickets
@@leerussell8499 I think black holes are made by two colliding stars as planets have too much solid mass to have the same effect on each other without flying apart but the magnetic core of a star is surrounded by gasses that explodes when they merge just leaving the cores pushing and pulling each other around to a speed that distorts the space around them because there is no way to slow it down, but that's just my theory 🧐
@@oldbag3043 Stellar black holes form when the core of a massive star stops producing energy and the mass of the stellar atmosphere crushes the core into oblivion - which then results in a hypernova or a gamma ray burst.
Black holes can also form from colliding neutron stars, but those collisions are comparatively rare. What's more, neutron stars spin due to the angular momentum from its progenitor star, not because of magnetism. In fact, it's the spin that in part causes the magnetism.
@@leerussell8499 Planetary collisions result in dust clouds and asteroid fields . . . and sometimes larger planets or large moons, like our moon. Stellar collisions first result in contact binaries that eventually merge into larger stars.
SDSS: I'M WAKING UP!!! I FEEL IT IN MY BONES!!!
Cool. Thanks for sharing.
Massive high-speed jets erupting from black hole powered by gas...sounds a little too close to home!
How early do we think black holes would have started forming in the early universe? And would they form the same way they do now or is there some differences between how they formed between then and now?
Hi Anton. If these gigantic AGN's exist really far back in space and time, can we speculate on the stars or events that initially existed Farther Back in space and time, that eventually evolved into these AGN's? And if we could scientifically predict or observe the origin of (stars/events/galaxies) at their origin point, that evolved into AGN's, could that, in turn, give us the age of the universe, since we seem not to know, how old our universe really is?
My thinking is, if these massive AGN's exist, so far back in space and time, that something much much older must have existed farther back, that would tell us what was really going on before or after the Big Bang. And how these AGN's were created, and by what?? And if there IS a WHAT, where did that WHAT come from, and how old was it, that it eventually evolved into an AGN.
I know crazy brain thinking early in the morning !!!
Brilliant stuff!
Great, very interesting video,thanks 👍😊
Slowly becoming active? Excuse me? I'd say that it lights up so abruptly that there can hardly be explained by an event in its very center alone. What is the approximate diameter of that galaxy? Unless it's very, very tiny by galactic standards, >4ly diameter, all the (new) light can't come from the center of it, as it's all lit up simultaneously.
Think of a galaxy as a blender, wat happens when you take the lid off? Viola! A big jet of stuff comes shooting out all over, or mabey a hurricane as they look so similar? Hmmm,some one help me figure this,lol
so amazing what were finding these days 😁😁😁😁😁
I have been watching budgetary black holes come into existence for years reading up on legacy legislation passed in congress.
Thankfully those black holes evaporate very quickly due to inflation. Wait, did I just make a pun? ;-)
c'MON. You guys have been hacking into my cache of Black Holes for this whole time.
Things are always busy out there.
Betting that if time travel is possible, one day, trips to the galactic noon will be family adventures
so a black hole does not let visible light escape.... that must only be visible light if all the other types gamma. uv. beta and so on does escape other wise how could we measure emitions? ok I know I missing something but what or why? the rest of the waves still part of the spectrun so how come they can escape?
Black holes absorb all light. The emissions come from processes in its accretion disc, or very near the event horizon.
@@Deletirium aah ok thank you never even thought on that.... still getting my small puney brain around hawking radiation so this makes sense thank you
As the material around accretion disks becomes denser it heats up and lets off energy. As long as it's at a point before the matter crossed the event horizon, light still escapes.
Another interesting phenomena is Hawking radiation AT the event horizon itself.
@@johnduncan5117 thx you everyone for your explianations so cool.. so until its over the horizon it can still escape and gamma ray bursts are not from the black hole itself just extra energy that being repelled from the destruction of things.... if I getting it right in my head?
great show.
Brilliant... thank you... blessings... TLC x.
i wonder if there is hawking radiation (or something else) for dark matter droping into black holes?
maybe it just eaten alot of stars that drifted a bit to close and ate them and then the results of that just reached us just recently and we got a good look at it.
It's fascinating to me to think that one of the most terrible, destructive forces in the universe could also be the engine that drives galaxy formation, and in a very distant way, sustains life (at least here).
But anything can only move with speed of light.
Isnt this spread of emmisions only like 5 light years across bubble of 10 ly across ? If we watch it for 5 years ?
And milky way is like 300 000 LY across, 10 LY would be like 0,0033 % of size of your galaxy.
Simply amazing 🎉
Amazing
Awesome info, one step closer!!!
It would be neat if it was close enough to see what happens to other solar systems in the galaxy.
Climate change?
Such turn-on AGNs are observed before, this is not the first time
Your smile at the end made me have to hit the like button
Just curious Anton. It has been long known that space is not a perfect vacuum but recently is was postulated that energy is hidden in most of space and it is very difficult to get a "true vacuum". (Something l attemped to raise with a physacist on radio many years ago but he thought l was raising creationism. I wasn't. Hmm) If this is the case would not warping space to achieve faster than light make this warped space similar to molasses to travel through?
Just my layperson/hobbyist's take, but warp drives aren't really FTL, just like entangled particles aren't exchanging position/speed info superluminally. It's a form of cheating. Nothing states that space can't move faster than light, and in fact, our universe certainly did during its inception.
The few "realistic" hypothesized warp drives I'm aware of either make use of a wormhole, or carrying the ship in a bubble/wave of displaced space. In either situation, the ship itself wouldn't truly be breaking the lightspeed barrier, space would be doing the heavy lifting. The ship wouldn't ever reach lightspeed, even if it effectively traversed a distance in less time than light would.
Cool beans. Thx.
I still say we were sucked through a super massive black hole many many years ago and it’s sucked so much through it’s created our Universe. Each black hole is a different universe and depending which one we are in, why we don’t know anything or where or how we became or sorry how Earth came to be… just saying…
In real time.... as in Millions of years ago?
More like NOW in our frame of reference. Millions of years ago in ITS frame of reference
There are objects outside the visible universe that are so
massive that they emit energy that has the character of expanding galaxies which born from centre to outside.
The center of these objects is under extreme pressure at all times.
Extremely fast energy pushes towards them. Remnants of galaxies that
have expanded into space. Millions of billions of years of energy that
moved through space and was dispersed into space.
It collides with the extremely dense energy pushing away from these
objects at extremely high speed and causes this extremely
dense energy to explode / expand into less dense energy.
The speed of the energy dispersed in space for millions of billions of years
has accelerated for millions of billions of years and therefore collides with
extremely dense energy at an extremely fast speed.
The speed of this extremely fast energy begins to slow down and eventually
stops in an area of extreme pressure. This extreme pressure compresses the energy
that was once scattered in space for millions of billions of years into extremely dense energy.
Pushing away from the center of an extremely dense and massive object starts
once again when more millions of billions of years of space-dispersed energy
pushes into the center of that object, which displaces the energy that was previously pushed
into the center of that object away from the center of that object.
In the infinite 3D universe, there is an eternal recycling going on,
which does not need pulling forces at all to maintain.
google: Savorinen Jukka
Read How Universe Really Works ❤️
It is assumed that more and more space-dispersing energy is pushed inside the space-expanding quarks, so that all the expanding quarks that circulate the space-dispersed energy are exactly the same.
Their density and volume in relation to each other can be changed when their speed is accelerated in particle accelerators.
When moving in groups, they experience the change in a different way, according to which of them pushes forward and which of them pushes in the background of the first one or the first ones.
That is, they encounter expanding energy pushing against them, which affects them differently according to the order in which they encounter the energy pushing against them.
And it affects how they recycle this energy that is scattered in space.
Naturally, energy also plays a big role, which accelerates their pace.
That too changes the density and volume of quarks expanding in space. The speed of internal movement / time. Internal pressure.
Well, when the expanding nuclei are collided, it’s no wonder that in the collisions, energy is dispersed/expanded into space in such a way that physicists interpret from this information that there are different quarks in the nuclei.
And yes, the density and volume of quarks expanding during collisions are different.
Even so much different that one of the quarks is so dense and small compared to the others that no information is obtained from it in collisions.
I understand that some parties assume that protons and neutrons are made up of zillions of separate quarks. Well, here’s another time.
Nowadays it is taught that protons and neutrons consist of three quarks that are different from each other.
The three quarks form a kite, as it were. In my opinion, four would form a much more logical and stable entity. The pyramid. Tetrahedron.
Ok, when the expanding quarks are at rest relative to us, they would already be much more congested regions of expanding energy with the same density and volume
Of course, their density and volume live somewhat all the time.
While the situation lives on all the time, they come to control each other’s density and volume while circulating with all other expanding quarks this space-dispersing energy of which they themselves are composed. So that it completely changes over time.
When someone momentarily expands a little faster than others, its ability to absorb the space-dispersing energy pushing through itself into itself is worse due to the fact that its density is lower than that of expanding quarks with a smaller volume at that moment.
Of course, more energy dispersing into space pushes through it, because it is bigger at that moment. The situation will recover as the recycling of energy dispersed into space continues.
The ability to recycle energy that dissipates into space is faster because its internal movement / time is faster at that moment.
It seems strange that no one before me has been able to consider that perhaps the so-called the atom is completely different from what physicists have assumed.
Perhaps the volume of matter is also relative.
Perhaps it is the case that time is not only relative.
Maybe here we have the key to the theory of everything in physics🙂
Love
❤️
Google Savorinen Jukka 🙂
Activating Halo rings 👍
Aegean(AGN)
And Lazer and tazer and Azer..
...so this one's 300m ly away from us (which got me thinking), and after a bit of googling and very crude calculator usage, the closest known AGN is about 14m ly away from us. Which is kinda shockingly close! In terms of both distance and consequentialy, time. There may have been a lot more of this going on in the *distant* past, but it certainly doesn't seem a thing of the ..past, astronomicaly speaking. Gotta go google some more about potency of sterilizing effects of such effects, I've seen plenty of people argue (here in Anton's videos' comments) it wouldn't actualy affect outer rims of galaxies by all that much objectively, but anyway - time to sleep, further astronomy buff contemplation to be had tommorrow =)
NoIcE
AWESOME!
excellent
I was eating. What's an AGN?
He explains it at the 0:13 mark.
Neal Degras Tyson Says No and What NDT Says Goes
Well those compressed regions, something similar to our earths core, would be the black hole part density wise. Our earths crust would be the outer regions, and our atmosphere would be the holes accretion disk. But that inside part takes in matter NOT HEAT. They cant. Packed too tightly.
Heat is simply a measurement of vibrating molecules, and that vibration is caused by the energy being absorbed by those molecules. If a "firewall" exists at the event horizon, then all matter is converted to energy just as it falls into the black hole. So, matter isn't packed tightly at all. In fact, based on current theory, a black hole cannot be compared to a planet because a black hole is not stratified like a planet, and an accretion disk cannot be compared to an atmosphere because it is a disk and is formed by a different method.
@@mikeguilmette776 I see your point. My point was to simply give people a fleshed out visual, if something they can sort of touch. But in reality. The inside time has stopped. It’s a super compressed liquid state we cannot achieve without gravity’s power. No amount of energy on earth could compress 3-4 solar masses into an area the size of THE MOON. The outer region rips matter apart from velocity and temperature. The inner part where mass gets stuck, is frozen temperature wise, but in a compressed liquid state visually. We cannot escape or pierce them. There would be no wormhole because we cannot escape any side. Inside or out. In any direction. We cannot even escape the suns heliosphere never mind Sagittarius a star. If we somehow got away from the sun. We’d still be flying around the galaxy at that original velocity of 500,000 MPH.
@@JKDVIPER Ahh, okay . . . I see what you're getting at now.
@@mikeguilmette776 ya I was using a weird way of describing the density differences between something as compressed as a black hole vs something they can see/picture like the earth. I see what you meant too. They are definitely different. Absolutely. Many differences. 😎💯🙏
At least it’s happening fast than a light year
A light year is a measurement of distance, not time.
@@davidhoward4715 so it’s happening right now, not along time ago..awesome
"observing in real-time..."
I get what you mean, but there are a lot of assumptions that need to go along with that. Valid assumptions, probably, but there's no way we're observing activity that takes thousands or millions of years, and thousands or millions of years ago, "in real-time."
Great video! Please keep 'em coming!
When considering astrophysics, "real time" refers to light that just reached us, not the objects themselves
@@KnightspaceORG Yep. Even with that, the light's traveled path and time must be considered. A gravitational lensing distortion would make distant events appear faster or slower as some gravitational spacetime curvature passes between us and the observed event. I'm sure all these can be accounted for, but even those calculations would be based on indirect observation assumptions.
@@RiiDii Scientist know very well the relationship between light and distance, it's just useless to point it out in conversations, as it just bogs it down in technicalities.
So, while you are correct, it's just a fact that majority of people already know.
🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️
One word: ALIENS !!!
Nice illustration of Spiralling Birkeland Currents at 1.55. Looking more likely these really are the inbound energy that powers galaxies.
💥
That whole illumination of objects 100s of thousands of light years away via ancient supernova concept could really explain a lot of weird stuff we see
When nothing in astronomy is real time it looks like a dream from past life. Still scientists are engaged and attempt to hypothesize various theories to fit what they see now from the very very distant past.
You clearly don't know the difference between a hypothetical theory and a Scientific Theory. Scientists do not attempt to fit a Scientific Theory into their conclusions, a Scientific Theory IS the conclusion based on Scientific Laws, observation and testing. "hypothesize various theories" as you used the terms is incoherent, like saying they guess various guesses then imply their best guess is a fact without any further research, what they do is write a thesis and test it, they base their hypothesis on the Laws of Physics, Thermodynamics, Hubble's Law (Universal expansion) etc. if they don't fit, they don't try to force it, that's what peer reviews are for.
Religions use hypothetical scenarios to fit what they know now, like assuming the ages of biblical characters concludes the Earth is less than 7,000 years old. Other guesses they get wrong yet try to force as facts are that the Earth is flat, humans can't go into space, gravity is a hoax and dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark during a flood that never happened.
Maybe.
Probably.
Literally...again!! Liberally using Literally!!
Electrical plasma is not always in glow mode. That's how a lightning rod works. They work especially well in off grid areas to invisibly discharge the earth around them to prevent lightening strikes. You may have seen this demonstrated in high-school science class with the use of the popular vandegraff generator. They are not only meant to safely discharge the unavoidable lightning strike. When installed, they are constantly emitting a stream of invisible plasma even in fair-weather.
A black hole is a hypothetical construct meant to describe an unseen force. It doesn't exist in the real world. There is no such thing as infinitely dense. And the math involves dividing by zero. As much as we would like to have an answer for "What's 1 divided by 0?" it's sadly impossible to have an answer. The reason, in short, is that whatever we may answer, we will then have to agree that that answer times 0 equals to 1, and that cannot be true, because anything times 0 is 0.
*real time*....🤣🤣🤣
Black holes how many billions of years ago? Since a black hole are supposed to be created by a star blowing up and a star blowing up after just a few billion years?
The biggest stars take a lot less than that, just a few million years. The bigger the star, the shorter the life. However a supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy, is a lot bigger than stellar black hole and are formed by galaxies colliding and or merging, not just the death of a star.
and i apologize if this is outdated information but i once learned about primordial black holes which are very large and have been here practically forever
@@elijahloby5400 yes it's not outdated! Anton spoke about it recently (I think?!)
Except.. if I'm not wrong only the smallest primordial black holes would still be there, cause they evaporate more slowly. Some people even suggest we might have a primordial black hole in our solar system. Of the mass of an asteroid or a planet. (Big like an apple maybe). And that would explain why we can see it's effects on other bodies, but can't find it.
Who knows?! It's fascinating
Galactic current sheet. Coming to a star near you. Soon.
It smells like there's an obvious conclusion that can be drawn here, but therein lies exponential nuance.
What are the proposed causal sequence of events and phenomenon that can cause such "wide spread" star ignitions across a galaxy? Something is seriously not making sense here. Even by my own unique hypothesis of stable star ignition factors... This is wonky, and we're missing something in the data entirely here.
This is just word salad.
@@davidhoward4715 Beat me to it. Doesn't it seem like there's always at least one in the comments that thinks the universe doesn't conform to his/her personal "hypothesis." 🧐
*Are there any real images related to the specific galaxy in the title? It's hard to tell with all the b-roll of other crap.*
Go away. Stick to your Jesus magic.
There's no logic in whats biologic how systems work throws arkemes razor out the window . Could have there a completely different chemistry that replaced itself wirh the systems we know today
Was this english?
occam's razor... notice the correct spelling is not a law and just a general guidelines and one that gets misinterpreted as the simple answer is the correct answer.
@@MrGenie23432 correct. It's a streamlining rule for reducing mistakes. Every assumption adds more potential for error, so avoid making unnecessary assumptions.
Love this channel.. but, totally attempting to be constructive, Anton needs tow work on reducing the verbal crutch "basically." 14 times in this video. It adds nearly nothing. $.02
First!
My comment has no value to the reader.
And yet it elicited a response.
And yet it elicited a response.
Electric currents, not black holes. Black holes don't exist.
Uh... No.
Lol no, physically impossible. EM emissions would show entirely differently.
I like You and Your content - but this title is so wrong and so click baiting, that it is repelling
Go away. Stick to your Jesus magic.