Black hole is soaring between galaxies, leaving stars in its wake

Post content hidden for low score. Show…

henryhbk

Ars Scholae Palatinae
777
assuming this kind of thing has happened more than a few times in the past why don’t we see many intergalactic stars in sort of tendrils going out into the void? Presumably some of them would retain their rotational momentum from being the the galaxy. But damn a flinging super massive black hole going on a random path seems like the plot of the last season of Star Trek discovery
with the planet harvesting black-hole’ish device that the aliens are using for mining.
 
Upvote
6 (7 / -1)
Umm ... absolutely not, actually. Cleaning a precision optical surface is an extremely fraught process; one that is quite likely to make the problem worse rather than better. You're much better off maintaining your gear (proper use of lens caps, etc) in such a way that the "schmutz" never makes it to the surface in the first place.
My gear is a point-and-shoot that I routinely put on the end of a long stick and dunk into local creeks and ponds.
 
Upvote
77 (77 / 0)

Mechjaz

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,193
Subscriptor++
Umm ... absolutely not, actually. Cleaning a precision optical surface is an extremely fraught process; one that is quite likely to make the problem worse rather than better. You're much better off maintaining your gear (proper use of lens caps, etc) in such a way that the "schmutz" never makes it to the surface in the first place.
"You" being a familiar, casual term for "most people, statistically," I think the statement is just fine. The context is clearly not "average people but in a clean suit, clean room yet somehow with a dirty scratchy rag." It's "if you had a mucky spot on the camera at hand, you'd likely wipe it off."

Your statement also implies that photos cannot or at least should not ever be taken in adverse conditions such as dust, rain, humidity, high winds, near messes or potential messes. Using your lens cap so much that your lens never gets dirty means you're never taking a photo or otherwise imaging anything.
 
Upvote
111 (111 / 0)
Umm ... absolutely not, actually. Cleaning a precision optical surface is an extremely fraught process; one that is quite likely to make the problem worse rather than better. You're much better off maintaining your gear (proper use of lens caps, etc) in such a way that the "schmutz" never makes it to the surface in the first place.
No? Optical glass and coatings do need periodic cleaning. It's not fraught at all, it's quite routine, as the glass and coatings are very hard. Unless you use them in a clean room, your lenses will inevitably be exposed to moisture, dust, etc. and need cleaning.
 
Upvote
100 (100 / 0)

SlyWalker

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
123
Subscriptor++
assuming this kind of thing has happened more than a few times in the past why don’t we see many intergalactic stars in sort of tendrils going out into the void? Presumably some of them would retain their rotational momentum from being the the galaxy. But damn a flinging super massive black hole going on a random path seems like the plot of the last season of Star Trek discovery
with the planet harvesting black-hole’ish device that the aliens are using for mining.
The reason I believe (Not An Astronomer) we don't see more tendrils may be due to the intergalactic gas turbulence.

Imagine a bullet being shot in a smoke chamber, filmed in slow motion. We see the shock wave, and the vortices in the bullet's wake. In the intergalactic medium, those denser regions would collapse to form stars, but their overall movement would be random. The gas wasn't gravitationally bound before, and the stars wouldn't either.

With time, they'd drift and become stragglers; at best, globular clusters could remain together and be visible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote
23 (23 / 0)

fenncruz

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,117
Subscriptor++
No? Optical glass and coatings do need periodic cleaning. It's not fraught at all, it's quite routine, as the glass and coatings are very hard. Unless you use them in a clean room, your lenses will inevitably be exposed to moisture, dust, etc. and need cleaning.
I mean you can even shoot large telescopes and they still function.
 
Upvote
41 (41 / 0)

phred14

Ars Praetorian
549
Subscriptor
Umm ... absolutely not, actually. Cleaning a precision optical surface is an extremely fraught process; one that is quite likely to make the problem worse rather than better. You're much better off maintaining your gear (proper use of lens caps, etc) in such a way that the "schmutz" never makes it to the surface in the first place.
Once a sat next to an older couple on a plane, and the guy was complaining about such shmutz in his photos. Then he showed me his SLR (not D, this was decades ago) and how he'd gone in with a lens paper and cleaned the front-surface mirror there. At that point forget shmutz, you could see that he'd damaged the silvering.
 
Upvote
23 (24 / -1)

Shavano

Ars Legatus Legionis
51,706
Subscriptor
Sci-fi plot: a civilization emerges, they figure out that their star is trailing a black hole, then they figure out that theif black hole is heading for a really big black hole, the clock is ticking…..
Could be interesting, as, they try to calculate whether a merger will take place, how much energy will be (has been) released, and in what form.

Things are bad enough in galactic cores where the average distance between stars is only in the hundreds of AU's, only 10's of times the distance between planets. And each star on its own orbit, so stars passing through your solar system from time to time, scattering or exchanging planetary bodies.
 
Upvote
16 (16 / 0)
[...] Using your lens cap so much that your lens never gets dirty means you're never taking a photo or otherwise imaging anything.
Used to be possibly even more embarrassing back in the old days – one could happily shoot a full roll of film through a Leica and not realise they had the lens cap on ;-)
 
Upvote
39 (40 / -1)

balthazarr

Ars Praefectus
4,077
Subscriptor++
Umm ... absolutely not, actually. Cleaning a precision optical surface is an extremely fraught process; one that is quite likely to make the problem worse rather than better. You're much better off maintaining your gear (proper use of lens caps, etc) in such a way that the "schmutz" never makes it to the surface in the first place.
Aren't there tonnes of dust and other space debris falling on earth every day? Surely some of that must get onto Hubble? How do they keep it clean and clear?
 
Upvote
22 (22 / 0)
Could be interesting, as, they try to calculate whether a merger will take place, how much energy will be (has been) released, and in what form.

Things are bad enough in galactic cores where the average distance between stars is only in the hundreds of AU's, only 10's of times the distance between planets. And each star on its own orbit, so stars passing through your solar system from time to time, scattering or exchanging planetary bodies.
Egan's Incandescence novel is about a civilisation developing in a splintered world's remnant, caught by and orbiting around a travelling black hole or a neutron star. And the merger they have to somehow survive is actually there, though "only" their "sun" breaking and gobbling up another star, all in the galactic core. Does that check most of the marks?
 
Upvote
18 (18 / 0)

darkpraxis

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
118
Aren't there tonnes of dust and other space debris falling on earth every day? Surely some of that must get onto Hubble? How do they keep it clean and clear?
As opposed to JWST’s exposed mirrors, Hubble’s mirrors are deep inside its metal cylinder body and I’m sure those in charge of its orientation are very careful to never point the cylinder’s opening in the direction it is traveling.
 
Upvote
26 (26 / 0)