Slashdot Mirror


A Naked Black Hole Is Screaming Through the Universe (gizmodo.com)

New submitter PongoX11 writes: Millions of years ago, B3 1715+425 was just an ordinary supermassive black hole. It had a comfortable life, of devouring stars and belching deadly x-rays, at the center of its distant galaxy. Now, starless and alone, it's screaming through space at 2,000 kilometers per second -- and it may never stop. BC 1715+425's troubles began when its galaxy bumped up against another. This isn't all that unusual: in fact, astronomers believe that the largest galaxies in our universe formed during ancient mergers. Normally, when two galaxies collide, the supermassive black holes at their centers start to orbit one another, moving closer and closer together in an inescapable gravitational attraction. Eventually, those black holes can fuse, releasing a burst of energy as gravitational waves and completing the cosmic joining. Most of the time, this process seems to work out for all parties involved, judging from the fact that nearly all supermassive black holes reside at the center of galaxies, and nearly all galactic centers contain a supermassive black hole. But every now and then, something goes wrong and cosmic wreckage ensues. B3 1715+425, speeding away from the core of a bloated galactic merger 2 billion light years from Earth, is living proof of this. The working theory is that millions of years ago, B3 1715+425's galaxy passed through a much larger galaxy (one that had formed during many previous mergers) and got shredded to bits, a bit like a paper airplane flying into a hurricane. The leftovers include a faint galactic remnant, just 3,000 light years across, and the supermassive black hole itself, nearly naked and hemorrhaging ionized gas as it tears through the void. "We were looking for orbiting pairs of supermassive black holes, with one offset from the center of a galaxy, as telltale evidence of a previous galaxy merger," said James Condon, the astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory who led the study. "Instead, we found this black hole fleeing from the larger galaxy and leaving a trail of debris behind it."

99 comments

  1. Fatties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why is it the heavier they are the more they like running around naked?

    1. Re:Fatties by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      If the black hole was wearing pants, then this would be really interesting.

    2. Re:Fatties by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      And how come you can hear them screaming if they're in space?

      --
      No sig today...
  2. Black holes orbiting each other? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 0

    Normally, when two galaxies collide, the supermassive black holes at their centers start to orbit one another, moving closer and closer together in an inescapable gravitational attraction.

    I don't see how this can be true. If our galaxy collided with another, both black holes would plough on, on their own trajectories. Even if they came close enough to interact, they would be well above each other's escape velocity and so would continue while the gas clouds in their galaxies formed a new galaxy.

    1. Re:Black holes orbiting each other? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Informative

      How do you know that? Their relative velocity would depend on how fast the galaxies were moving together, and the escape velocities would depend on how close they passed by one another.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Black holes orbiting each other? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      By definition, objects a long distance from each other are outside each other's escape velocity. Earth and Mars, for example would never go into orbit around each other without the influence of a larger object like Jupiter or the sun. This is the starting condition for the two black holes.

    3. Re:Black holes orbiting each other? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed if two black holes started very far away from each other and never passed so close to each other that newtonian approximation breaks down _and_ in empty space this would be true. However they are not in empty space but pass thru both galaxies flinging stars to very energetic orbits as they go. This is called dynamical friction and is usually enough to bind the two black holes.

    4. Re:Black holes orbiting each other? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "By definition, objects a long distance from each other are outside each other's escape velocity"

      Excellent. So we don't need to worry about the Death Asteroid.

    5. Re:Black holes orbiting each other? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      what does escape speed (direction of the velocity vector is irrelevant for the "escape" condition to apply, unless the direction would result in a collision) matter to a "death asteroid"? It can still hit us moving over escape speed....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Black holes orbiting each other? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      It's still quite interesting that the black hole got accelerated to such a speed, and only reason I can see for it is that it had a near miss with another much heavier black hole.

      Imagine the bang when it finally hits something heavier than itself.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    7. Re:Black holes orbiting each other? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      It depends on their relative speed if they would get into orbit of each other - low relative speed and no other significant mass nearby disturbing the balance and you would get them to act as a pair of dancers rotating around each other - even if it's going to be slow it would happen.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    8. Re:Black holes orbiting each other? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 5, Funny

      we found this black hole fleeing from the larger galaxy and leaving a trail of debris behind it.

      Sounds like a standard relationship breakup to me...

    9. Re: Black holes orbiting each other? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's the same situation with asteroids and ice comets colliding. A head on collision would be an instant joining. A head-on near miss and they just carry on in slightly modified orbits. If the collision happens because rhe one behind is moving faster than the one in front then the relative speed is the difference in velocities. That allows everything to happen slowly.

    10. Re:Black holes orbiting each other? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Galaxies typically form in gravitationally-bound clusters. and the super-massive black holes form at the centre of the galaxies; i.e. they co-move with the galaxies. If two galaxies from the same cluster merge, the holes at their cores do not have relative escape-velocity and end up gravitationally bound.

      The interesting point in the current story is that the black hole has picked up much more velocity and escaped. I.e. it is exceptional.

    11. Re:Black holes orbiting each other? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then we can't do much about it, barring Star Trek-levels of fictional fantasy technology.

    12. Re:Black holes orbiting each other? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      They're not outside the escape velocity of the sum of the two entire galaxies. So they'll both stay in some orbit within the combined galaxy.

      As they do, they keep encountering smaller star systems, which often get flung off in random directions. The net effect of these random encounters is to slow down both black holes relative to the center of mass of the combined galaxy, similar to friction. As they slow down, they sink towards the center. Eventually, they fall into orbit around each other and continued "friction" causes them to get closer until they merge.

    13. Re:Black holes orbiting each other? by quenda · · Score: 2

      For a planet like earth, the orbital velocity is much greater than the escape velocity, even at the surface.
      But galaxies are different. The speed of the milky way relative to the CMB is about the same as its escape velocity from here.
      So it is very easy for two galaxies to collide at less than their escape velocity. The time-scale is tens of millions of years, at least.

    14. Re: Black holes orbiting each other? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Star

    15. Re:Black holes orbiting each other? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's still quite interesting that the black hole got accelerated to such a speed

      May be it stole something?

    16. Re: Black holes orbiting each other? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It did. Gravitational inertia from another large object or slingshot effect. As this happens more and more, speed increases.

  3. Would this produce... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would this produce any gravity waves that we can detect?

    1. Re:Would this produce... by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Would this produce any gravity waves that we can detect?

      No this would not be possible with 2016 technology already built and running. It would produce extremely faint waves each time the black holes moved by each other. Likely this happened because this hole was significantly less massive than the other black hole and got a lucky slingshot style flyby when they came near much like spacecraft use today to increase thier speed.

      Gravitational waves are so difficult to detect it is only in the final interaction where they are orbiting eachother many times a second very close together and pump more energy into a burst of gravity waves than the continuous luminous output of whole galaxies that we can detect today.

    2. Re:Would this produce... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pump more energy into a burst of gravity waves than the continuous luminous output of whole galaxies that we can detect today

      About 26,000x more energy than the entire observable Universe.

  4. Never stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > it's screaming through space at 2,000 kilometers per second -- and it may never stop.

    Wow. It must be hitting hard its gas pedal.

    Bad, bad science journalism. Bad.

    1. Re:Never stop? by Incadenza · · Score: 4, Funny

      Screaming through the universe?

      In space no one can hear you scream.

    2. Re:Never stop? by mrbester · · Score: 1

      The black hole isn't screaming, it's the victims.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    3. Re:Never stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK. Also the Black Hole is not really naked. Most celestial objects do not wear clothes, so nakedness does not really mean anything literal here.

      Maybe a more correct title would be:

      A Metaphorically Naked Black Hole Is Metaphorically Screaming Through the Universe.

    4. Re:Never stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9tal_hurlant

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Métal_hurlant

    5. Re:Never stop? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      In astronomy, you can see things scream instead.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Never stop? by olsmeister · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When I first saw the headline, I thought they were talking about a Naked Singularity. Now that would have been interesting.

    7. Re:Never stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To shreds you say?

    8. Re:Never stop? by j-beda · · Score: 1

      When I first saw the headline, I thought they were talking about a Naked Singularity. Now that would have been interesting.

      That's what I thought too.

    9. Re:Never stop? by ancientt · · Score: 2

      Me too. I was intensely excited for several seconds.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    10. Re:Never stop? by ancientt · · Score: 1

      Hahahahahahahaa! Nice one.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    11. Re:Never stop? by west · · Score: 1

      Agreed, this seemed deliberately click-baity to me (and it worked!)

      I've never heard the term naked black hole before.

    12. Re: Never stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name of your sex tape !

    13. Re: Never stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would have added more pizazz to the article if they wrote that is was cumming gravity waves all over the sheets of the universe.

    14. Re:Never stop? by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can tell a black hole what to do. I really doubt it'll listen.

      Even worse: you don't want to draw it's attention; it might want to come over and talk to you.


      Don't anthropomorphize objects -- they HATE that.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    15. Re:Never stop? by Falos · · Score: 1

      Great mental image though, coupled with "naked black hole"

    16. Re:Never stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >In space no one can hear you scream.

      Do try to keep up...

    17. Re:Never stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. I thought it was going to be an article about a truly novel discovery. Instead it's just describing one of the outliers you always get when things are distributed on a Gaussian curve. Most times black holes merge, but stats being what they are...

    18. Re:Never stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, then I read, and left disappointed.

  5. Ah yes, inescapable gravitation... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    Normally, when two galaxies collide, the supermassive black holes at their centers start to orbit one another, moving closer and closer together in an inescapable gravitational attraction.

    That's how I met my girlfriend.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Ah yes, inescapable gravitation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how marriage occurs. Two normal sized bodies meet, one starts accumulating mass, and the other thinks "it's just a phase, be back to normal soon" until it's too late and he's trapped in the gravitational field, doomed to raise small orbiting bodies and tell lies about not being able to see her event horizon in that.

  6. Re:You Fail It?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could have said it better myself.

  7. Averting my eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Whatever information escapes from the naked screaming black hole, is Too Much Information.

  8. millions of years ago? by rossdee · · Score: 2

    The collision must have happened more than 2 billion years ago, or we wouldn't know about it yet.

    Speaking of galactic collisions, theres a new eBook out from Ian Douglas called Altered Starscape
    (Ian Douglas is the author of the Star Carrier series and also writes under his real name of William H Keith)
    This new series is called "Andromeda Dark" so its probably not much of a spoiler to tell you that the other galaxy involved is M31

    Highly recommended for fans of Space Fleet / Galactic Empire science fiction

  9. Dumb headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I would have thought "A Naked Black Hole Is STREAKING Through the Universe" would have been the obvious headline.

      On the other hand I grew up in the 60's-70's...

    1. Re:Dumb headline by j-beda · · Score: 1

      I would have thought "A Naked Black Hole Is STREAKING Through the Universe" would have been the obvious headline.

        On the other hand I grew up in the 60's-70's...

      Oh, that would have been good!

    2. Re:Dumb headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I did. I's standin' overe there by the tomaters, and here he come, running through the pole beans, through the fruits and vegetables, nekkid as a jay bird. And I hollered over t' Ethel, I said, "Don't look, Ethel!" But it's too late, she'd already been incensed.

  10. Re:You Fail It?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think tether five, that half another can't for it? I sure'd hate to shan't when ain't have none to weather tree fault illumination. Shivers!

  11. Naked Singularities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You insensitive clods! When you go naked, go all naked, black holes, and defy the physics as we know it!

  12. Annoying title, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The title of this post is annoying. As is usually the case these days, of course.

    But in this case it's particularly annoying since it "hints" at this being at least related to a naked singularity. Something which would be very interesting indeed.

    And "screaming"? At 2000 km/s? No.

    Bad Slashdot.

    1. Re:Annoying title, as usual by A+Pressbutton · · Score: 1

      Pls mod parent up.

    2. Re:Annoying title, as usual by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Almost 1/100th of the speed of light, which is quite fast. Fast enough to get relativistic effects.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:Annoying title, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh huh uh huh
      he said naked

    4. Re:Annoying title, as usual by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      I agree with APressButton below - for once this is an AC comment worth recognition.

      The headline annoyed the fuck out of me when I saw it in Google Science News. So I looked it up on Arxiv (costing Giz ... whoever they were ... some eyeball-seconds).

      Link to original paper. Link to PDF.

      Abstract.

      During a systematic search for supermassive black holes (SMBHs) not in galactic nuclei, we identified the compact symmetric radio source B3 1715+425 with an emission-line galaxy offset ~8.5 kpc from the nucleus of the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) in the redshift z=0.1754 cluster ZwCl 8193. B3 1715+425 is too bright (brightness temperature â¼3Ã--10^10 K at observing frequency 7.6 GHz) and too luminous (1.4 GHz luminosity â¼10^25 W/Hz) to be powered by anything but a SMBH, but its host galaxy is much smaller (â¼0.9 kpc Ã-- 0.6 kpc full width between half-maximum points) and optically fainter (R-band absolute magnitude â¼â'18.2) than any other radio galaxy. Its high radial velocity â¼1860 km/s relative to the BCG, continuous ionized wake extending back to the BCG nucleus, and surrounding debris indicate that the radio galaxy was tidally shredded passing through the BCG core, leaving a nearly naked supermassive black hole fleeing from the BCG with space velocity >2000 km/s. The radio galaxy has mass

      So, yes, a really interesting discovery. Not as pumped up as the headline writers (though even the paper-writers fell to the temptation of "A NEARLY NAKED SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLE."

      The discussion upthread between several participants about how this black hole could be escaping from the collision, in a gravitationally bound system. Utterly astonishingly, the paper's authors considered this point too (page 7 of the paper) :

      [Brightest Cluster Galaxies] BCGs can have nuclear escape velocities up to 3000 km s^â'1, so the fleeing radio galaxy may still be gravitationally bound to the BCG and/or the cluster ZwCl 8193. [...] The high [SuperMassive Black hole] SMBH velocity relative to the BCG is consistent with (1) gravitational recoil following the merger of two spinning SMBHs or slingshot ejection of one SMBH from a triple system in the BCG or (2) the velocity of a galaxy that fell into the gravitational potential well in the center of the massive cluster ZwCl 8193.
      [With reasons, the authors reject case (1)]
      This leaves case (2), a formerly normal galaxy that fell into ZwCl 8193, was tidally stripped as it passed near the BCG nucleus, and is now rapidly moving away from the BCG. Only the SMBH and the small central portion of that galaxy denser than the BCG core remain intact,

      Someone else asked where to point his telescope. The answer is (J2000 coords) RA 17d 17' 19.20" Dec +42d 26' 59.0" (check Simbad for Zwicky Cluster 8193)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  13. Naked Black Hole? by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 1

    s/Screaming/Streaking/

    A Naked Black Hole Is Streaking Through the Universe

    There, that's better.

  14. Serious question here. by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

    This thing is not completely 'naked', it can still be detected via this gas cloud that surrounds it and if something like this object (not necessarily supermassive) was headed our way, it would presumably be detectable long before it arrived. A completely naked black hole would be essentially undetectable until it was pretty close to our solar system... or wouldn't it. Anyway, this got me thinking about how likely it is that a black hole hurtling through space would be completely 'naked' i.e. completely invisible?

    1. Re: Serious question here. by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      It could be detected when it occludes or distorts the light of objects behind it.

  15. How can this story in no way be about Al Sharpton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I know, I'm on priceline booking a one-way ticket to hell right now...

  16. Isn't this just a regular black hole? by Shane_Optima · · Score: 4, Informative

    Um, a naked black hole is actually a very specific thing (a singularity without an event horizon) that may or may not even exist in nature. Just skimming the article, this sounds like an ordinary black hole to me.

    Just a regular, hairless yet non-naked black hole. That's what it sounds like.

    1. Re:Isn't this just a regular black hole? by ghoul · · Score: 4, Funny

      lets just say a scantily clad blackhole

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    2. Re:Isn't this just a regular black hole? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      That is due to improperly sufficient wiping.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Isn't this just a regular black hole? by thrich81 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I thought the same thing at first reading of the title but the wording involved has a subtle distinction. A "naked singularity" is a term which has been defined by physicists for a while and is, as you stated, a singularity in space-time which does not have an event horizon around it, or would be if such a thing can exist, which is currently undecided. The presence of an event horizon is what makes a black hole (things go in, nothing comes out [minus Hawking radiation, I know]). The term "naked black hole" seems to be a term just made up by the author of the linked article or somewhere back in the reporting chain and has no formal definition, as far as I know, but is highly misleading. I would say that whoever made up that term "naked black hole" is not very familiar with the field of gravitation or they would have avoided this confusing construction. Speaking of confusing, the last time I posted something involving General Relativity, I screwed it up; hopefully this time is better.

    4. Re:Isn't this just a regular black hole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets call it a dressed Brazilian black hole

  17. Fa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get so sick of these Allen Ginsberg wannabes.

  18. Naked Black Hole streaming through the Universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As they say in Bayonne, New Jersey, "Who gives a shit?"

  19. It's not even moving. by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    It's a bum rap. THe rest of the universe is moving. It's staying still.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  20. Suspicious timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So close to the US election in which Sudden Meteor of Death is a candidate?? Hmmmmmm

    1. Re:Suspicious timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sudden Meteor of Death has my vote. Better than Trump or Hillary.

  21. Don't look, Ethel! by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

    ...but it was too late.

  22. Streaking away by neoRUR · · Score: 1

    Just hope it's streaking away from us and not towards us...

  23. Re: This is why we need a Mars backup plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'd need to be a bit further away than that.

  24. Great! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Where do I point my telescope?

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  25. It will hit us. We are doomed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the most horrible time of the year.
    With the nights getting longer,
    The evil is stronger,
    And there's much to fear.
    It's the most horrible time of the year.

    It's the unhappiest season of all.
    When your knuckles are whitening
    From visions so frightening
    You must not recall.
    It's the unhappiest season of all.

    Great Cthulhu is calling
    And sanity's falling
    And cultists are roaming the land.
    With the darkness descending
    Our destiny's bending
    To forces we can't understand.

    It's the most horrible time of the year.
    There'll be ritual killing
    And omens fulfilling
    As Old Ones appear!
    It's the most horrible time of the year.

    clicky

  26. Absolute speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How am I supposed to take seriously any article about astronomy that says "screaming through space at 2,000 kilometers per second." Relative to what? Am I missing something here?

  27. Can someone explain this to me? by wwalker · · Score: 1

    So, the name black hole comes from the fact that this object is so massive, nothing can escape its gravitational pull, even light. So, how is it "belching deadly x-rays" or even "hemorrhaging ionized gas"?! Would something escaping it render this object not a black hole any more?

    1. Re:Can someone explain this to me? by cjameshuff · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's just a really, really terribly written article.
      There is a theoretical object called a "naked singularity", a black hole without an event horizon, which stuff actually would be able to escape from. This isn't one of those. The author's calling it "naked" because it doesn't have any of the usual stuff around it...except it's not even that. It's the remnants of the core of a galaxy: a few thousand stars, some gas, and a black hole. The x-rays come from surrounding debris falling into it, not the black hole itself. The black hole isn't hemorrhaging anything, the gas is just debris that the core wasn't able to hold onto after the collision that stripped most of the rest of its stars and gas away. It doesn't even mean anything to say "it may never stop"...stop relative to what?

      It's just sensationalized gibberish.

    2. Re:Can someone explain this to me? by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      I"it may never stop"...stop relative to what?

      And don't forget, "2,000 kilometers per second" ... relative to what?

      --
      Nope, no sig
  28. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Holy Coran forbids naked singularity in public.

  29. Oh, it's just killing me by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Must...resist...Trump...joke

  30. A Naked Black Hole? by sehlat · · Score: 1

    The Playboy web site will have to start an astronomy section.

  31. But but but... by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    In space, no one can hear you scream.

  32. Re:Headed our way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >It's headed our way and I blame Hillary.

    Bunk.

    It's turtles all the way down.

  33. How do we stop it from hitting Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would be bigger problem than the typical asteroid impact.
    It's hard to push a black hole (even a little.) Whatever you push with just gets sucked in.

  34. Re:You Fail It?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh I do fail it. I fail it so much. You are so right . . . so right.

  35. Shouldn't that be "Streaking Through the Universe" by kimgkimg · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't that be "Streaking Through the Universe"?

  36. Please? by Shemmie · · Score: 1

    The working theory is that (it) got shredded to bits, a bit like a paper airplane flying into a hurricane. The leftovers include... the supermassive black hole itself

    Please can we call it Goatse?

  37. This is NOT a naked black hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the record, whoever posted this didn't bother to check their terminology.

    "Naked", in the context of a black hole, means the singularity is unmasked by an event horizon. It is generally considered impossible, and some of the reasons why were among Hawking's better known works, among the other usual suspects. The mass of these concepts is known as the cosmic censorship hypothesis.

    This article is not about a naked black hole. It's just a black hole.

  38. thanks new submitter PongoX11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks, new submitter PongoX11! I appreciate the interesting find.

  39. WISDOM- universe and Origins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sub: WISDOM- universe and Origins.
    Psychology of Black-holes mislead spirit of Science advancement
    Chaos, anarchy and confusion- simulated Universe - trap minds with Ego and no Vision.
    gravity is like Frog's well . one cannot throw away the space baby in a well -backyard grave nor in Galactic Centre-simulated blackhole.
    www [dot]lulu [dot]com-spotlight-jnani108