The universe doesn't have a center (at least its impossible to prove) but a light ''beam'' of 13 billion years was received by the Hubble, i came from a quasar and i was calculated that the black hole hiding there should be at least 100.000 light years long(like the milky way). So, some people think that it is pretty near of the ''big bang'' site because that light was like the same age of the universe, even if the ''big bang'' its a theory.
There is a history to the "afters" of a Big Bang even if they were in the few seconds---or even the micronanoseconds. All applies and is important. Our divisions are sacrosanct. When you put a spot on an electron, and it takes two spins to come back to it's staring point, Houston, we have a problem.
Physicists drive to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. But the answer is the Black Hole. Y'all super close.
They've observed the black cloud around which no light escapes that surrounds a black hole.
They've observed the bending of light around the black hole, which caused two identical looking universes side by side.
They've observed the galaxies rotating around them.
Two types of evidence of the existence of black holes could be said to be the theoretical and the observational. The existence of black holes was first proposed in the theoretical realm, becoming more mathematically founded as solutions to Einstein's field equations appeared consequent to the publication of the general theory of relativity. Observational proof came later. Despite the difficulty of direct observation of black holes several effects consistent with their existence appeared. These included verification of gravitational lensing, emissions from x-ray binaries, the behavior of stellar orbits near non-visible highly massive gravitational sources, and so forth.
This theory is surmised, and most likely correct, because the star, S2, orbits around the spot where this supermassive black hole would be in such a way, that the calculated size and mass of the object being orbited around places it in the black hole category. These calculations are basically done using the Keplerian elliptical orbit model.
The most compelling evidence is the period of the orbit of the star known to be nearest to the galactic center, and the distance of its orbit at closest approach. Since calculations indicate the mass of the object it orbits is over four million solar masses, and its orbit at closest approach is about seventeen light hours without colliding (thus the radius of the object it orbits is no larger than this, and perhaps as small as six light hours), there is no known object described other than a black hole which would fit the observations.
we know it because if we look at our galaxy we see an immense mass of planets and matter orbiting on an axe, the only rational explanation for it is the presence of a massive corp with an infinate mass which creates enough force of gravity to keep together all this matter. the only phenomenum which we know of with this capacities is a black hole. another proff of its presence is the intense radiational activity.
There is probably NOT a black hole at the center of the universe. We can't even know where the "center of the universe" IS.
However, there may be a black hole at the center of our galaxy, and recent discoveries have caused astronomers to think that many or perhaps most galaxies may have black holes in their centers. Part of the reason is because the galaxies seem to be spinning too quickly, and in order for them to stay together, there needs to be way more mass than we can see.
The black holes themselves are invisible; they are observed indirectly, via their gravitational effects. Some of these observable effects include:* Matter falling into the black hole emits strong radiation before it reaches the event horizon.
* Stars orbit the black hole. Observing such stars makes it possible to calculate the mass of the black hole.
* Gravitational lensing - by observing objects behind the black hole.
Black holes can be "spotted" by their effect on nearby stars and gas. They may case wobbles in the orbit of stars as they approach black holes. If a star gets too close to a black hole, then the black hole attracts gaseous matter away from the star. The gravitational pull of the black hole is so great that the accelerating gases heat up to very high temperatures. This results in very powerful rays which can be detected from satellites.
Black holes dont appear on HR diagrams because HR diagrams are used to classify stars not find black holes Black holes emit no visible light (are not luminous enough) and therefore do not appear in the HR diagram.
That is a really good question, but no one actually knows. Though we do know that one day that Black holes will die because it will become smaller and smaller and then ping, it died. However the black holes that were create from the beginning of the Universe are still exist, so it will takes billions and billions and billions and billions of years from black hole to die.
The most dense thing known is dark matter but it has not been proven to exist but it is said to be in black hole and the reason a black hole sucks you in is because it is very dense an object with that density has a very strong gravitational pull
the sun,an artificial satellite,an asteroid,black holes,white holes,worm holes
Black holes.
There is a lot of evidence that they do, indeed, exist.
Yes.
Whoever said this seems to think that there is not enough direct evidence for black holes. However, I understand there is enough evidence to believe that black holes actually exist - including the observation of many, many objects that can only be black holes.
There is no evidence that white holes exist.
An intermediate-mass black hole is one that has a mass somewhere between 100 and a million solar masses, i.e., larger than the stellar black holes, but smaller than the supermassive black holes. It seems likely that such holes should exist, but the observational evidence is not yet very firm.An intermediate black hole is one whose mass is somewhere between that of a stellar black hole (a few times the mass of the Sun), and that of a supermassive, or galactic, black hole (millions or billions of times the mass of the Sun).
I am not sure it is a problem. The evidence for black holes is quite strong.I am not sure it is a problem. The evidence for black holes is quite strong.I am not sure it is a problem. The evidence for black holes is quite strong.I am not sure it is a problem. The evidence for black holes is quite strong.
The evidence on black holes is actually quite convincing; I suggest you read the Wikipedia article for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence
The effect of the existence of black holes is supported by observational evidence. There have as yet been no observations that would support the existence of the other items on this list.
There is enough evidence for black holes - I don't see any problem there.
It isn't known whether micro black holes - usually called primordial black holes - exist at all. If they do exist, they can be at any random location of space.
yes. some black holes are predicted to be the size of an electron.
Yes. Quite a bit, actually. Stars at the center of the galaxy are in orbit around an invisible object about 4 million times more massive than the sun. Base on our current under sting, this object could only be a supermassive black hole. We have evidence of similar evidence of even larger black holes at the centers of other galaxies and much smaller black holes scattered through our own.