NASA's TESS observes its first star-destroying black hole

[wiyosaya]

For objects up to 10 kpc away, the triangulation and mapping of stars is exactly how it's done:

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit1/distances.html

The use of stellar parallaxes sets out a template of distances with extremely low levels of uncertainty for an enormous quantity of stars (the European Space Agency Gaia mission is ultimately targeting around a billion objects). This gets analysed alongside the objects' spectroscopic data (which details the star's chemical composition) and observed luminosity. The three sets of data provides a catalogue of reference data - I.e. if one observes a particular star, record its spectra and luminosity, the data can be used to estimate its distance. The level of uncertainty in such measurements isn't in the order of a factor of a million but less than 5%. The data collected is verified and/or updated through additional checks, such as planetary transits of observed stars.

Distances to nearby galaxies can also be examined using this catalogue, because individual stars can be resolved using the likes of the HST in large spiral galaxies, such as M31. This information in turn is then used to verify distances to further galaxies, along with additional reference systems found in our galaxy, such as Cepheid variable stars and supernovae - these systems use the fact that the observed events (e.g. the period of variability in a Cepheid) directly relate to the observed luminosity and if one knows how bright something should be, measured against how bright it appears to be, then its distance can be estimated (but with a large value of uncertainty compared to that achieved through parallax measurements).

One might ask how can astrophysicists be certain that the galaxy observed in this news article isn't just a very small one (which would explain its observed luminosity) that's just moving away very fast (which would explain its observed spectral redshift). The answer lies in other data - for example, the width of the spectral lines observed in the light from a galaxy directly correlates to the size of a galaxy, so this will indicate if an observed galaxy is either small or far away. Many galactic cores, including this one, emit signals in other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum (radio, UV, X-ray, gamma) and signals at the high energy end of the scale, I.e. X-ray and gamma, lots of mass/gravity to generate and so indicate the scale of the mass of the galaxy (which in turn points to the size and luminosity).

All of this data goes together to form a picture of the scale of the distance and while individual values may suggest something closer or further away, the data set as a whole correlates to a scale of a few hundred million light years, rather than in the order of thousands or billions.

@neeyik A very refreshing post. Thank you for taking the time to edify!

 

[neeyik]

Thanks @wiyosaya. I don't mind providing information to help discussions on such topics and let's face it, much of the facts and figures in astrophysics seem to defy logic. For me, missions like Gaia are truly mind boggling - by the end of its operational life, it will have catalogued (in terms of position, velocity, parallax, and spectra) over a billion individual stars. That's a thousand times more than its predecessor, Hipparchus (which actually only measured 100k stars - the data was used to fine tune a separate catalogue). I'm ridiculously excited for the James Webb Telescope!

 

[scavengerspc]

Thanks @wiyosaya. I don't mind providing information to help discussions on such topics and let's face it, much of the facts and figures in astrophysics seem to defy logic. For me, missions like Gaia are truly mind boggling - by the end of its operational life, it will have catalogued (in terms of position, velocity, parallax, and spectra) over a billion individual stars. That's a thousand times more than its predecessor, Hipparchus (which actually only measured 100k stars - the data was used to fine tune a separate catalogue). I'm ridiculously excited for the James Webb Telescope!

It's nice to have expert opinions, such as yours.
It may not mean a thing to those that have chosen to ignore science-based information, but those interested and open to new and pertinent facts appreciate it greatly.

 

[neeyik]

I'm definitely not an expert - I did study astrophysics as part of my first degree, and worked as a junior curator in the astronomy department of a museum before that - but my interest, knowledge and understanding simply comes from being an educator for over 20 years.

 

[cliffordcooley]

For objects up to 10 kpc away, the triangulation and mapping of stars is exactly how it's done

I was wondering who would bring up parallel lines of triangulation. Even line of sight from both sides of our solar system to the nearest star is all but parallel. Calibration of that magnitude is impossible. But you go ahead and continue believing.

 

[neeyik]

Well, that's good to know it's impossible. We best tell the European Space Agency that their spacecraft isn't capable of resolving a parallax to within 7 micro arcseconds and tell the Airbus Group that they've made to build something that physically can't do what they made it to do. They might even give us cookies to say thank you.

 

[ShagnWagn]

Ok does APPROIMATELY 375 million years ago work for you?
1 lightyear = the distance light travels in 1 year.
If the star was APPROIMATELY 375 lightyears away then it happened APPROIMATELY
375 million years ago.

You did not read my post.
What's the point? Nobody was around to say it really was that long ago. This is the religion of uniformitarianism at work here. We also have absolutely no idea the universe has always been as it is now.
(fail on basic spelling too, and especially putting it in bold, lol)

So here is the observable evidence we have: They "measure" decay for maybe a couple minutes - to draw the assumption of the entire lifespan of the universe (if you believe in billions of years)? What do you wish to believe? That is comical to me. https://www.khanacademy.org/test-pr...nucleus/a/decay-graphs-and-half-lives-article

 

[wiyosaya]

Ok does APPROIMATELY 375 million years ago work for you?
1 lightyear = the distance light travels in 1 year.
If the star was APPROIMATELY 375 lightyears away then it happened APPROIMATELY
375 million years ago.

You did not read my post.
What's the point? Nobody was around to say it really was that long ago. This is the religion of uniformitarianism at work here. We also have absolutely no idea the universe has always been as it is now.
(fail on basic spelling too, and especially putting it in bold, lol)

So here is the observable evidence we have: They "measure" decay for maybe a couple minutes - to draw the assumption of the entire lifespan of the universe (if you believe in billions of years)? What do you wish to believe? That is comical to me. https://www.khanacademy.org/test-pr...nucleus/a/decay-graphs-and-half-lives-article

You cannot come up with anything better so you attack spelling and punctuation? Good luck with that.

What they do is measure the ratio of isotopes in the sample.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html - This is a bit more reliable than Khan Academy.

For objects up to 10 kpc away, the triangulation and mapping of stars is exactly how it's done

I was wondering who would bring up parallel lines of triangulation. Even line of sight from both sides of our solar system to the nearest star is all but parallel. Calibration of that magnitude is impossible. But you go ahead and continue believing.

Honestly, the both of you are able to verify everything that has been posted, however, as I see it, if you did, it would challenge your beliefs.

There is an episode of Nova called "Black Hole Apocalypse". You can probably watch it on the PBS web site, and if not there, its on Netflix. It does an excellent job of explaining how the distance to Cygnus X-1 was determined by triangulation - assuming your attention span is not diverted by the both of you yelling something along the lines of "this is crap" when you have only watched the first 10-seconds of the show.

With a demonstrated lack of understanding in the field, commenting on the impossibility of anything is far beyond the realm of expertise since there is no expertise at all behind your opinions.

 

[ShagnWagn]

You cannot come up with anything better so you attack spelling and punctuation? Good luck with that.

I'll post this first since you can't seem to get beyond the first couple sentences:

"So here is the observable evidence we have: They "measure" decay for maybe a couple minutes - to draw the assumption of the entire lifespan of the universe (if you believe in billions of years)? What do you wish to believe? That is comical to me. https://www.khanacademy.org/test-pr...nucleus/a/decay-graphs-and-half-lives-article "

Epic fail on reading anything but the first part of the my last post. Any semblance of intelligence from you has been overlooked. Good luck convincing anybody, especially when you can't do basic spelling and use someone else's mention of it as a crutch for the previously mentioned reason... lol /facepalm. If you would like to participate in conversation, you will need to be more convincing. Care to try again? If you realize you made a mistake and/or can't participate, there is no pride to hurt in just admitting it.

 

[wiyosaya]

You cannot come up with anything better so you attack spelling and punctuation? Good luck with that.

I'll post this first since you can't seem to get beyond the first couple sentences:

"So here is the observable evidence we have: They "measure" decay for maybe a couple minutes - to draw the assumption of the entire lifespan of the universe (if you believe in billions of years)? What do you wish to believe? That is comical to me. https://www.khanacademy.org/test-pr...nucleus/a/decay-graphs-and-half-lives-article "

Epic fail on reading anything but the first part of the my last post. Any semblance of intelligence from you has been overlooked. Good luck convincing anybody, especially when you can't do basic spelling and use someone else's mention of it as a crutch for the previously mentioned reason... lol /facepalm. If you would like to participate in conversation, you will need to be more convincing. Care to try again? If you realize you made a mistake and/or can't participate, there is no pride to hurt in just admitting it.

Honestly, you're just deflecting. You revealed your level of knowledge long ago by quoting Miles Mathis.

Feel free to remain ignorant.

 

[wiyosaya]

@ShagnWagn If you would like to know how long-lived radio isotope lifetimes are determined https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q8270.html

Seriously, did you even think to consider that the method you quoted from The Kahn Academy is not applied to every isotope?

 

[cliffordcooley]

Honestly, the both of you are able to verify everything that has been posted, however, as I see it, if you did, it would challenge your beliefs.

Nothing can be verified as long as we are stranded inside one solar system. Thinking we could would make me naive on the topic.

I'm not the one believing in a myth. When Myth Busters venture out into space and verify the findings, I will label them as fact. But not until. I'll choose a different topic to be naive in.

 

[scavengerspc]

You cannot come up with anything better so you attack spelling and punctuation? Good luck with that.

What they do is measure the ratio of isotopes in the sample.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html - This is a bit more reliable than Khan Academy.

Honestly, the both of you are able to verify everything that has been posted, however, as I see it, if you did, it would challenge your beliefs.

There is an episode of Nova called "Black Hole Apocalypse". You can probably watch it on the PBS web site, and if not there, its on Netflix. It does an excellent job of explaining how the distance to Cygnus X-1 was determined by triangulation - assuming your attention span is not diverted by the both of you yelling something along the lines of "this is crap" when you have only watched the first 10-seconds of the show.

With a demonstrated lack of understanding in the field, commenting on the impossibility of anything is far beyond the realm of expertise since there is no expertise at all behind your opinions.

I wasn't commenting on spelling. I bolded the word approximately because the post I quoted was a heavy whine on how can we be sure of the timeline of the light getting to us on Earth was 370 million years.

 

[JaredTheDragon]

Amazing that they "observed" it and yet can't show us, instead resorting to more low-budget CGI, fake math, fake physics, and fake science. There are no black holes and never have been; it's entirely a construct of Hilbert's math errors in 1916, where he divided by zero, returned an answer of "2", then assigned it to the variable "r" in Einstein's field equations claiming it was a radius in those equations, when it was not. He then labeled it the Schwarzchild Radius, despite Schwarzchild, Droste, and Einstein himself arguing against it and NOT messing up the equations themselves. But then Schwarzchild died, Hilbert published his nonsense, and then some other people made up black holes after all that based on Hilbert's error.

It's really simply. It's just fake science.

 

[scavengerspc]

Amazing that they "observed" it and yet can't show us, instead resorting to more low-budget CGI, fake math, fake physics, and fake science. There are no black holes and never have been; it's entirely a construct of Hilbert's math errors in 1916, where he divided by zero, returned an answer of "2", then assigned it to the variable "r" in Einstein's field equations claiming it was a radius in those equations, when it was not. He then labeled it the Schwarzchild Radius, despite Schwarzchild, Droste, and Einstein himself arguing against it and NOT messing up the equations themselves. But then Schwarzchild died, Hilbert published his nonsense, and then some other people made up black holes after all that based on Hilbert's error.

It's really simply. It's just fake science.

I have asked you before and I will ask you again.
Truthfully, are you drunk?