Galactic center visualization delivers star power

Galactic center visualization delivers star power
Credit: NASA/CXC/Pontifical Catholic Univ. of Chile /C.Russell et al.

Want to take a trip to the center of the Milky Way? Check out a new immersive, ultra-high-definition visualization. This 360-movie offers an unparalleled opportunity to look around the center of the galaxy, from the vantage point of the central supermassive black hole, in any direction the user chooses.

By combining NASA Ames supercomputer simulations with data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, this visualization provides a new perspective of what is happening in and around the center of the Milky Way. It shows the effects of dozens of massive stellar giants with fierce winds blowing off their surfaces in the region a few light years away from the supermassive black hole known as Sagittarius A* (Sgr A* for short).

These winds provide a buffet of material for the supermassive black hole to potentially feed upon. As in a previous visualization, the viewer can observe dense clumps of material streaming toward Sgr A*. These clumps formed when winds from the massive stars near Sgr A* collide. Along with watching the motion of these clumps, viewers can watch as relatively low-density gas falls toward Sgr A*. In this new visualization, the blue and cyan colors represent X-ray emission from hot gas, with temperatures of tens of millions of degrees; red shows moderately dense regions of cooler gas, with temperatures of tens of thousands of degrees; and yellow shows of the cooler gas with the highest densities.

A collection of X-ray-emitting gas is seen to move slowly when it is far away from Sgr A*, and then pick up speed and whip around the viewer as it comes inwards. Sometimes clumps of gas will collide with gas ejected by other stars, resulting in a flash of X-rays when the gas is heated up, and then it quickly cools down. Farther away from the viewer, the movie also shows collisions of fast stellar winds producing X-rays. These collisions are thought to provide the dominant source of hot gas that is seen by Chandra.

When an outburst occurs from gas very near the black hole, the ejected gas collides with material flowing away from the in winds, pushing this material backwards and causing it to glow in X-rays. When the outburst dies down the winds return to normal and the X-rays fade.

The 360-degree video of the Galactic Center is ideally viewed through virtual reality (VR) goggles, such as Samsung Gear VR or Google Cardboard. The video can also be viewed on smartphones using the YouTube app. Moving the phone around reveals a different portion of the movie, mimicking the effect in the VR goggles. Finally, most browsers on a computer also allow 360-degree videos to be shown on YouTube. To look around, either click and drag the video, or click the direction pad in the corner.

Dr. Christopher Russell of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (Pontifical Catholic University) presented the new visualization at the 17th meeting of the High-Energy Astrophysics (HEAD) of the American Astronomical Society held in Monterey, Calif. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, manages the Chandra program for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, controls Chandra's science and flight operations.


Explore further

Scientists take viewers to the center of the Milky Way

Citation: Galactic center visualization delivers star power (2019, March 21) retrieved 18 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-03-galactic-center-visualization-star-power.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
410 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 21, 2019
In search of black holes and dark matter astrophysicists are relying on indirect observations. It would seem that the measurement of the event horizon of a black hole directly would be a direct evidence. However, by the nature of a horizon, any real measurement of the event horizon will be indirect. The Event Horizon Telescope will get picture of the silhouette of the Sgr A* which is due to optical effects of spacetime outside of the event horizon. The result will be determined by the simple quality of the resulting image that does not depend on the properties of the spacetime within the image. So, it will be also indirect and an existence of BH is a hypothesis.
https://www.acade...ilky_Way

Mar 21, 2019
Next step: integrate the infrared and radio data with this.

Mar 21, 2019
What are the odds we will have an active galactic nuclei (AGN) in the Milky Way (MW) in the next 20 years or so? Not impossible with this Chandra data, but probably low. Might not happen for thousands of years or more. Would love to "see" it.

Anybody know how many local grand spirals have AGNs "currently" being observed and at what intensity relative to galactic mass and similar gas density as MW?

Active in this case is very significant many AGNs in some local spirals are probably no longer active in their current state - i.e. on location.

Mar 21, 2019
Help me with this one Da Schneib. Does the infrared data detail more than stellar objects at the core?

The optical density looking at the core being 25 orders of magnitude greater than the opposite direction is pretty overwhelming regarding any observation at the core.

Mar 21, 2019
.....they couldn't get pics of a BH at SgrA* with the now defunct Event Horizon Radio Telescope, so now they're trying a new trick, pretending to be taking pics from a BH they never found, and Pop-Cosmology calls this SCIENCE.

Mar 21, 2019
.....they couldn't get pics of a BH at SgrA* with the now defunct Event Horizon Radio Telescope, so now they're trying a new trick, pretending to be taking pics from a BH they never found, and Pop-Cosmology calls this SCIENCE.


What the hell are you talking about? The EHT is not defunct, you lying fool. Go away. You are a waste of space.

Mar 21, 2019
@dfj, infrared and radio detail gas and dust that X-rays can't see.

As far as our galactic nucleus becoming an AGN, we don't see enough mass streaming toward it to do that.

Mar 21, 2019
.....they couldn't get pics of a BH at SgrA* with the now defunct Event Horizon Radio Telescope, so now they're trying a new trick, pretending to be taking pics from a BH they never found, and Pop-Cosmology calls this SCIENCE.

Bullshit. Evaluation of the data from the first run of the EHT is ongoing. You have been challenged to provide proof the EHT is "defunct" and trolled and deflected because you couldn't find any.

You're lying again, @Benni. I don't understand why you do it because you always get caught. It never works.

The definition of insanity: doing the same stupid thing over and over even though it never works.

Mar 21, 2019
Then we can always hope for some point sources undetected by the IR, like brown dwarfs etc. Anything of significant mass to cause some ejecta. The stellar density is pretty high there. Other smaller objects could be lurking in abundance for all we know. Would guess a brown dwarf to give a significant signal.

It is great to see the detail at the core. We are certainly set to see if anything were to "light up". Critical data to appreciating some or all the Seyfert galaxies, in general, I suspect.

Mar 21, 2019
I cannot say that I approve of how the writer of this article is using terms, such as "winds blowing off the massive stellar surfaces".

Later they mention ejecta but barely mention the effects of gravitational attraction from both the very close by BH & the AD.

Missing the point that star surface prominences & CME get the gases/plasma high enough off the primary to be pulled away by the gravity attraction from the Black Hole & closer, Accretion Disk local mass aggregate.

So, again, I will have to exhaust ny lazy old bones reading the background papers!

Ohh, Woe is me...

Mar 21, 2019
Am I correct in assuming that the IR data for point sources from the VLT and the Kecks would not pick up dwarfs of any kind at the core?

Clinging to hope that we can see a flare up soon. You never can be sure! Good karma here!!

Mar 21, 2019
Then we can always hope for some point sources undetected by the IR, like brown dwarfs etc. Anything of significant mass to cause some ejecta.
You're gonna need a lot of them. And we don't see any, and we'd see them if they were there. Not hard in IR.

Mar 21, 2019
Does the infrared data detail more than stellar objects at the core?
......right here it is, it's all you need:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

7th photoframe from top of page

"Ever increasing resolution in infrared images showed the black hole is not the energy source. The brightest source in the very high resolution near infrared image to the right is IRS 7, a red supergiant that puts out most of its energy in the near infrared. The other bright stars are also very young and massive. The blue-appearing ones in the center of the image are a unique clustering of very luminous, massive stars. Any black hole must be invisible. (image from Gemini Project). If the black hole dominated the energy of the Galactic Center, it would be the second brightest source in the infrared image"

Mar 21, 2019
Then we can always hope for some point sources undetected by the IR, like brown dwarfs etc. Anything of significant mass to cause some ejecta.


You're gonna need a lot of them. And we don't see any, and we'd see them if they were there. Not hard in IR.
........o but I just linked to lots of significant mass right in the core, have fun with the pics I linked to above. It tells you why the EHT has been shut down, no BH.

Mar 21, 2019
Wonder what lie @Benni is going to tell when the EHT images start to be posted?

It will no doubt be as precious as the claims the EHT is "defunct." it's delicious watching it wait for the data. Look up, @Benni, and watch the blade descending.

Mar 21, 2019
Wonder what lie @Benni is going to tell when the EHT images start to be posted?

It will no doubt be as precious as the claims the EHT is "defunct." it's delicious watching it wait for the data. Look up, @Benni, and watch the blade descending.


They're almost two years overdue from the promises they originally made as to when data would be available.

Last October a European team member made an unheralded announcement that the EHT needs to be doubled in size or the project cannot continue. The last data was taken in Dec '17, nothing since, and of course why bother when two rounds of data taken in 2017 all came back negative.

Mar 21, 2019
@Benni doesn't have the slightest idea how long it takes to analyze data. It's not instantaneous, @Benni. First thing you learn is you always gotta wait.

Trolls can't wait. They're stupid.

Mar 21, 2019
A Supermassive example of GIGO. Just think of all of the unnecessary CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere due to this sci-fi movie.

Mar 21, 2019
Then we can always hope for some point sources undetected by the IR, like brown dwarfs etc. Anything of significant mass to cause some ejecta.


You're gonna need a lot of them. And we don't see any, and we'd see them if they were there. Not hard in IR.
........o but I just linked to lots of significant mass right in the core, have fun with the pics I linked to above. It tells you why the EHT has been shut down, no BH.


It has not been shut down, you lying fool.

Mar 21, 2019

They're almost two years overdue from the promises they originally made as to when data would be available.

Last October a European team member made an unheralded announcement that the EHT needs to be doubled in size or the project cannot continue. The last data was taken in Dec '17, nothing since, and of course why bother when two rounds of data taken in 2017 all came back negative.


No, they are not late, you lying fool. It was always expected that the results would be early 2019. Stop lying, you moron. And who is saying the data is negative, you liar? Doesn't sound negative to me you lying troll;

Astronomers attempting to capture the first images of the black hole at the heart of the Milky Way have given early hints that the ambitious project has been successful.


https://www.thegu...ilky-way

Mar 21, 2019
A Supermassive example of GIGO. Just think of all of the unnecessary CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere due to this sci-fi movie.


Got anything intelligent and scientific to contribute? Thought not. Go back to your moronic EU fantasies of Earth orbiting Saturn.

Mar 21, 2019
To Da Schneib please -

Back to IR data:

So the story I'm putting together is that the most likely source of matter to kick-start an AGN is clouds of gas and dust near the core because they provide larger amount of mass to feed the BH and sustain a major AGN for any length of time. I suspect the rate of "feeding" it also increases the power of the AGN.

Could you detect significantly sheared stars? They should produce lots of concentrated gas and dust if from a giant star cranking out silicates, etc., near the BH? Assuming such events might even occur in anybodies lifetime....

Mar 21, 2019
One more question (for now). Is the highest res imaging required for point sources largely from the VLT via interferometry? I recall the Kecks link is down for lack of funding.

Mar 21, 2019
@dfj, my apologies, I accidentally downvoted you.

Don't forget the radio data, it's like radar but the signal comes from afar, it's not a reflected signal but one from what you're looking at, like looking at a star with a telescope.

The dust and gas doesn't fall into the galactic center by itself. In fact, even the gravity of the black hole isn't sufficient to pull it in until it gets very close. It has to be pushed.

Stars that have been sheared aren't stars any more. They're just more gas.

Mar 22, 2019
I haven't heard the Keck is down for lack of funding. Do you have a link?

Here's the schedule for today: https://www2.keck...dule.php

Mar 22, 2019
"......this visualization provides a new perspective of what is happening in and around the center of the Milky Way. It shows the effects of dozens of massive stellar giants with fierce winds blowing off their surfaces in the region a few light years away from the supermassive black hole known as Sagittarius A*.

These winds provide a buffet of material for the supermassive black hole to potentially feed upon. As in a previous visualization, the viewer can observe dense clumps of material streaming toward Sgr A*. These clumps formed when winds from the massive stars near Sgr A* collide."
.......but this is in fact is not what is seen in REAL PICS at: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm 7th photo frame from the top of the page.

Everything about this whole so called VISUALIZATION is totally contrived & is in fact the diametric opposite of the REAL infrared pics from CalTech.


Mar 22, 2019
Back to IR data:

So the story I'm putting together is that the most likely source of matter to kick-start an AGN is clouds of gas and dust near the core because they provide larger amount of mass to feed the BH and sustain a major AGN for any length of time. I suspect the rate of "feeding" it also increases the power of the AGN.


Again, all you need to do to get all your questions answered is to look at the REAL IR PICTURES at:
http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

I don't get with you, why would you consider someone's opinion more important than REAL PICTURES? All you're gonna get from Schneibo is Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble that will ALWAYS be in defiance of the facts of pictures Benni has been providing links. But, oh well, why let a few facts get in the way of a Pop-Cosmology fanstasy.


Mar 22, 2019
Again, all you need to do to get all your questions answered is to look at the REAL IR PICTURES at:
http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

I don't get with you, why would you consider someone's opinion more important than REAL PICTURES? All you're gonna get from Schneibo is Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble that will ALWAYS be in defiance of the facts of pictures Benni has been providing links. But, oh well, why let a few facts get in the way of a Pop-Cosmology fanstasy.



You really are clueless, aren't you? Why are you commenting here? It is obvious that you know precisely nothing about the relevant subjects. Explain the orbits of the stars around Sgr A* without a BH. Do not confirm your ignorance by suggesting a barycentre. Impossible. And then explain the gravitational redshift of one of those stars without a huge mass.
Get on with it, or stop posting your puerile, ignorant gibberish.

Mar 22, 2019
One more question (for now). Is the highest res imaging required for point sources largely from the VLT via interferometry?


The answer is NO........I've given you the highest resolution imaging of SgrA* that exists at:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

.......but you have this fantasy that some retired old computer programmer Schneibo is still pushing 19th Century black hole math concocted by the same bunch from that century that brought us Aether Theory. In the meantime REAL pictures from CalTech don't matter much to him , or you, because they defy Pop-Cosmology fantasy.

Mar 22, 2019
You really are clueless, aren't you?


So what is clueless about the CalTech IR pics at:

http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, especially the 7th photo frame fro the top of the page.

You spend 99% of your time here doing nothing but going on name calling rants, but for a change of pace how about you proving the CalTech IR pics are "clueless" rather than just going on another foul mouthed name calling rant which is your ONLY calling card around here.


Mar 22, 2019
You spend 99% of your time here doing nothing but going on name calling rants, but for a change of pace how about you proving the CalTech IR pics are "clueless" rather than just going on another foul mouthed name calling rant which is your ONLY calling card around here.


That picture has nothing to do with whether or not a black hole is there, you fool. It merely shows that it is relatively inactive, as has been explained to you multiple times. Answer the questions, you ignorant poser;

Explain the orbits of the stars around Sgr A* without a BH. Do not confirm your ignorance by suggesting a barycentre. Impossible. And then explain the gravitational redshift of one of those stars without a huge mass.
Get on with it, or stop posting your puerile, ignorant gibberish.

Mar 22, 2019
You spend 99% of your time here doing nothing but going on name calling rants, but for a change of pace how about you proving the CalTech IR pics are "clueless" rather than just going on another foul mouthed name calling rant which is your ONLY calling card around here.


That picture has nothing to do with whether or not a black hole is there
......one picture is worth an infinite quantity of the words of your name calling rants.

It merely shows that it is relatively inactive, as has been explained to you multiple times.
......but "explanations" that come from the likes of foul mouthed Anthropologists like you are worthless, most especially in the face of REAL IR pictures.

Don't like REAL pics do you? Yeah REAL pics don't buttress your BH fantasies so you just embark on another name calling rant to exemplify how smart an anthropologist must not be. Keep having fun wandering around in the weeds & tall grass picking bones with REAL science.


Mar 22, 2019

Don't like REAL pics do you? Yeah REAL pics don't buttress your BH fantasies so you just embark on another name calling rant to exemplify how smart an anthropologist must not be. Keep having fun wandering around in the weeds & tall grass picking bones with REAL science.



Answer the questions you clueless poser.

Mar 22, 2019
Castro, you know Benni's answer. They think it's a barycenter of all the galactic mass. It's a piss poor answer given the the whole host of directly and indirectly detected phenomena going on there. But that's their answer. They hate talking about it because I believe they know how piss poor of an answer it is, and it doesn't give their irrational and obsessive hatred for the concept of black holes or the institutions that hypothesizes them, a leg to stand on.

I don't believe there is any amount of evidence or reasoning that will convince them because their argument is based on emotions and paranoia, and not evidence or reasoning.

Mar 22, 2019
I don't believe there is any amount of evidence or reasoning that will convince them because their argument is based on emotions and paranoia, and not evidence or reasoning.
can I hear an Amen, yall?

oh wait...

[humour intended]

Mar 22, 2019
Da Schneib

When last I read about the Kecks on wiki, both scopes were working well. Their interferometer was down due to lack of funding. The current status appears unchanged in the latest posting:

The Interferometer allowed the light from both Keck telescopes to be combined into an 85-metre (279 ft) baseline, near infrared, optical interferometer. This long baseline gave the interferometer an effective angular resolution of 5 milliarcseconds (mas) at 2.2 µm, and 24 mas at 10 µm. ...................As of mid-2012 the Keck Interferometer has been discontinued for lack of funding. The instrument is currently in mothballed status and could be reactivated if funding permits.

https://en.wikipe...ervatory

Surely you must have been aware of this aspect.

Seems like one helluva shame to lose that resolution. I believe the VLT is providing the highest resolution of all such scope "capacities" as a result of this, but I am no expert.


Mar 22, 2019
I have only seen the data on Wiki and PBS shows. They show several of the stars orbiting the core, and I believe the VLT demonstrated the gravitational red shift from one of them (S2?), but required interferometry, if I remember this correctly. TV show (sorry!)

Can you actually resolve all "point" objects near Sgr A* as a point image? Or are you relying on faint, moving but perceptible background IR "signals" that could only come from smaller red dwarfs and substellar objects? A cluster of brown dwarfs, if they were there but not resolved as points, might appear like a small gas and dust cloud. Perhaps I am getting delusional from all this data, and lack of background on all this.....

Mar 22, 2019
oh bemmi, when you wail your woogoogahgah?
You go all out to fling yourself into the abyss of stupidity.

There is no energy coming out of the "center" singularity/BH/SO.

You keep repeating that garble without a shred of evidence that the researchers themselves used the term.

Everyone else agrees withe scientific observations that the spectrum of energies being observed are mostly produced by the accretion disk, & some from nearby masses of stars & gases & dust.
All those obedient to the remorseless pull of the Black Holes gravity.

Nothing escapes the inside of an Event Horizon but gravitational attraction.

Nothing...

No matter how much you & the other looneyticks bleat?

Gravity rules them all!
That is the evidence.

Mar 22, 2019
@Benni doesn't get that this isn't a picture of the black hole; it's a picture of what things look like from its location.

Then again it's not very bright.

Mar 22, 2019
@dfj, that's gonna take some research, and right now I'm watching the floods in the middle of the US. So with luck, you'll get something today, and without it maybe tomorrow.

Mar 22, 2019
Actually, @rr, the EM force and the color force can escape as well as gravity. Or at least that's the theory. Look up Reissner-Nordstrom black holes, for example.

Mar 22, 2019
Answer the questions you clueless poser.


Science required, so all we get is................................
https://www.kansa..._CAGK103

Mar 22, 2019
I just had a thought....
Isn't the entire galaxy the "accretion disk"?

Mar 22, 2019
you know Benni's answer.They think it's a barycenter of all the galactic mass.It's a piss poor answer given the the whole host of directly and indirectly detected phenomena going on there.
.....then supposing you be the one to explain why in the 7th photo frame from the top of the page at http://ircamera.a...nter.htm there is no such inferred description.

it doesn't give their irrational and obsessive hatred for the concept of black holes or the institutions that hypothesizes them, a leg to stand on.
....then explain why there is no pic of the supposedly most massive object in the galaxy there. What is "irrational" is to believe something so big can't be seen in the highest resolution pics that show nothing but EMPTY SPACE at SgrA*.

I don't believe there is any amount of evidence or reasoning that will convince them
....sure there is, OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, but you don't believe pictures prove anything.

Mar 22, 2019
.
...then explain why there is no pic of the supposedly most massive object in the galaxy there. What is "irrational" is to believe something so big can't be seen in the highest resolution pics that show nothing but EMPTY SPACE at SgrA*.


You aren't even a good liar, you fool. There is a radio source, lumphead. There is intermittent IR activity, lamebrain. There are the orbits of the stars, bonehead. There is gravitational redshift of one of those stars, thicko. Go away, and only come back when you've got the science to explain those observations, poser.


Mar 22, 2019
...then explain why there is no pic of the supposedly most massive object in the galaxy there. What is "irrational" is to believe something so big can't be seen in the highest resolution pics that show nothing but EMPTY SPACE at SgrA*.


There is a radio source. There is intermittent IR activity. There are the orbits of the stars, There is gravitational redshift of one of those stars
....and this is it? A telescope or radio antennae can be pointed in ANY DIRECTION of the Universe & find this stuff everywhere, nothing special about this stuff.

You really don't know the observational capabilities of the Gemini Telescope that was used at Keck to get the pics at:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm


Mar 22, 2019
There is a radio source. There is intermittent IR activity. There are the orbits of the stars, There is gravitational redshift of one of those stars ....and this is it? A telescope or radio antennae can be pointed in ANY DIRECTION of the Universe & find this stuff everywhere, nothing special about this stuff.

You really don't know the observational capabilities of the Gemini Telescope that was used at Keck to get the pics at:


I do know the capabilities, you fool. Why do you think they had to build a planet-sized telescope to see the EH? Bit dim, aren't you? And I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions. Get on with it. Orbits, redshift, IR and radio. What are you waiting for?

Mar 22, 2019
@Da Schneib,

As any object get really close to the BH at the core, they get increasing red-shifted by the intense curvature of space drawing them out - gravitational red-shifting.

How does a high-tech "real-time" observer compensate for this? Is the data stream manipulated in any way? In the IR, the stretching should become rather significant. There must be a limit where observational reliability is questionable the closer one gets to the BH, and yet still far from the EH.

Mar 22, 2019
As any object get really close to the BH at the core, they get increasing red-shifted by the intense curvature of space drawing them out - gravitational red-shifting.

How does a high-tech "real-time" observer compensate for this? Is the data stream manipulated in any way? In the IR, the stretching should become rather significant. There must be a limit where observational reliability is questionable the closer one gets to the BH, and yet still far from the EH.


......then go look for yourself at: http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, photo frame 7th from the top of the page. What's with you that you need schneibo, a foul mouthed name calling ranting neophyte to count for you?

In the photo frame I keep referring you to exists a pristine IR PICTURE with no hi-tech photo doctoring applied to it. The only thing Schneibo will link you to are simulations.


Mar 22, 2019
In the photo frame I keep referring you to exists a pristine IR PICTURE with no hi-tech photo doctoring applied to it. The only thing Schneibo will link you to are simulations.


Stop talking crap and answer the questions, you fool.


Mar 22, 2019
In the photo frame I keep referring you to exists a pristine IR PICTURE with no hi-tech photo doctoring applied to it. The only thing Schneibo will link you to are simulations.


Stop talking crap and answer the questions, you fool.
.......only a "fool" would believe a SIMULATION is preferable to a REAL PICTURE as EVIDENCE, you mister Anthropologist are the fool in disbelieving the 100% lack of EVIDENCE for a BH in photo-frame 7th from the top of the page at:
http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

Mar 22, 2019
In the photo frame I keep referring you to exists a pristine IR PICTURE with no hi-tech photo doctoring applied to it. The only thing Schneibo will link you to are simulations.


Stop talking crap and answer the questions, you fool.
.......only a "fool" would believe a SIMULATION is preferable to a REAL PICTURE as EVIDENCE, you mister Anthropologist are the fool in disbelieving the 100% lack of EVIDENCE for a BH in photo-frame 7th from the top of the page at:
http://ircamera.a...nter.htm


Idiot. Those are observed orbits of the stars around Sgr A*, you burke. Work out the mass using Kepler's third law. Want me to do it for you, you innumerate fool? And the gravitational redshift was also observed. Explain it, you scientifically illiterate poser.

Mar 22, 2019
@Benni.

Please drop that obviously untenable "barycentre" claim. I already explained to you that the motions of the core stars (especially those whose orbits go closest the gravitationally effective Black Feature) are NOT what would be IF they were merely orbiting their common barycentre.

Moreover, the WHOLE galaxy stellar and gas/plasma material would by now have become a FILLED_IN 'globular' shape, since, IF it WERE an EMPTY 'barycentre', there would be nothing at the centre to 'clear out' that core region.

Eg: take a look at GLOBULAR STAR-CLUSTERS, and see that they ARE globular precisely because there's NO central dominant gravitational feature to 'clear out' THEIR core regions.

Add that to the previous explanations I provided for you to date, and you can readily understand that your continuing 'barycentre gambit is getting pretty silly and not helping with your credibility at all.

So please, for your own sake, drop that gambit so as to progress to understanding. :)

Mar 22, 2019
@Benni.

Please drop that obviously untenable "barycentre" claim ......... whose orbits go closest the gravitationally effective Black Feature.
........Unreal, I'm bedazzled by your brilliance by which the light is so blinding that Benni cannot see through the halo of its' luminosity.

Mar 22, 2019
@Benni.
@Benni.

Please drop that obviously untenable "barycentre" claim ......... whose orbits go closest the gravitationally effective Black Feature.
........Unreal, I'm bedazzled by your brilliance by which the light is so blinding that Benni cannot see through the halo of its' luminosity.
Hehehe. Yes, isn't it? :)

But did you understand the point made for your benefit, @Benni? Or did the 'brilliance' blind you even more than your ego has to date? :)

ps: Seriously though, mate, you need to drop the silly gambits you've been repeating; it's no longer 'cute' and/or 'funny' and/or 'entertaining'. Ok? Good luck. :)

Mar 22, 2019
@Benni.

Please drop that obviously untenable "barycentre" claim ......... whose orbits go closest the gravitationally effective Black Feature.
........Unreal, I'm bedazzled by your brilliance by which the light is so blinding that Benni cannot see through the halo of its' luminosity.

LOL. Even Benni is calling BS on RC... :-)

Mar 22, 2019
@Whyde.
@Benni.

Please drop that obviously untenable "barycentre" claim ......... whose orbits go closest the gravitationally effective Black Feature.
........Unreal, I'm bedazzled by your brilliance by which the light is so blinding that Benni cannot see through the halo of its' luminosity.

LOL. Even Benni is calling BS on RC... :-)
Err, it was the other way round, mate. Read properly so as to avoid making silly comments that remind of Benni's own silly comments, @Whyde. LOL

Mar 22, 2019
As any object get really close to the BH at the core, they get increasing red-shifted by the intense curvature of space drawing them out - gravitational red-shifting.
Hmmm. This sounds like you're talking about spaghettification, not redshift. This is what happens to objects close to a small black hole or a neutron star, where the gravity gradients (also called tides) pull masses apart; with a black hole as big as the SMBH at the Galactic Center, the gradients aren't strong enough to do this outside the EH. Gravitational redshift is different; in this case, it's just the light that gets redshifted. And this doesn't distort the light paths; it only redshifts them and changes their spectra toward the red. Spectral lines are still there, they just aren't at the same frequency/wavelength as usual. Simple velocity can also do this; it's the same effect, though with a different cause.

You might not have made this mistake; but I couldn't guess from what you said.


Mar 22, 2019
How does a high-tech "real-time" observer compensate for this? Is the data stream manipulated in any way? In the IR, the stretching should become rather significant. There must be a limit where observational reliability is questionable the closer one gets to the BH, and yet still far from the EH.
No, we can detect spectra all the way down into deep radio. The mathematical relations of the spectral peaks are the same, no matter what frequency they're at, and unique to each chemical element. We can even detect them in the very highly redshifted radio spectra of the CMB. The redshift has to be extremely intense to reduce the power factor enough for us not to be able to distinguish them any more; and this doesn't happen until very much closer to the black hole than the stars we are observing around the Galactic Center.

And BTW, you apparently haven't confused spaghettification with redshift.

Mar 22, 2019
Sagittarius A*, our quiescent blackhole

< phys.org, It shows the effects of dozens of massive stellar giants with fierce winds blowing off their surfaces in the region a few light years away from the supermassive black hole known as Sagittarius A* >

If our star, our sun
collapsed
to a blackhole
3billion years ago
and pulled all the planets into its compass
there
would be an empty void to this solar blackhole heliosphere
an empty void for a light year radius
there would be no matter till the nearest star
which
by the way is not blowing its winds in our stars direction
the point is
Sagittarius A* billions of years ago
cleared its orbit
for 100s of light years radius
so
now
billions of years later
there are no stars
blowing winds of plasma
in Sagittarius A*s direction
because
Sagittarius A*, as we have found is extremely quiet and inactive

Mar 22, 2019
You did note some time ago "don't forget the radio waves." Off on that one now.

Yes, I have not suggested spaghettification with redshift, but merely imaging of objects being redshifted the closer they are to the BH. I need to re-read your posts to get a grip on them after a quick scan, but they appear to conform to logical deductions, a rather novel notion from many posts to be sure.

Radio waves are a new frontier. Thanks!

Mar 22, 2019
Does anyone have a good link, or might be able to explain how the gravity wave events and their data from LIGO can be mined for things like 1) masses of the black holes involved, 2) the loss of mass after mergers, and 3) direction and distance of the mergers?

This is major data mining that I have not checked out yet.

Mar 22, 2019
@Whyde. @Benni.

Please drop that obviously untenable "barycentre" claim ......... whose orbits go closest the gravitationally effective Black Feature.
........Unreal, I'm bedazzled by your brilliance by which the light is so blinding that Benni cannot see through the halo of its' luminosity.

LOL. Even Benni is calling BS on RC... :-)


Err, it was the other way round, mate. Read properly so as to avoid making silly comments that remind of Benni's own silly comments, @Whyde. LOL


Ok Unreal, BS on you.

And by the way, your Dark Star is the same as Schneibo's 19th Century TUGMath solution for BHs that was concocted by the bunch that brought us Aether Theory.

Mar 22, 2019
@Whyde. @Benni.

Please drop that obviously untenable "barycentre" claim .........

Actually, given the shape and rotation of the galaxy it would be more of a bary-axis...

Mar 23, 2019
@Benni.
@Benni, Please drop that obviously untenable "barycentre" claim..
@Unreal, I'm bedazzled by your brilliance by which the light is so blinding that Benni cannot see through the halo of its' luminosity/
Hehehe. Yes, isn't it? :) But did you understand the point made for your benefit, @Benni? Or did the 'brilliance' blind you even more than your ego has to date? :).....ps: Seriously though, mate, you need to drop the silly gambits you've been repeating; it's no longer 'cute' and/or funny and/or entertaining'.
LOL. Even Benni is calling BS on RC... :-)
Err, it was the other way round, mate. Read properly so as to avoid making silly comments that remind of Benni's own silly comments, @Whyde. LOL
Ok Unreal, BS on you. And by the way, your Dark Star is the same as Schneibo's 19th Century TUGMath solution for BHs that was concocted by the bunch that brought us Aether Theory.
No, @Benni, there's NO central 'point/ring singularity' etc. :)

Mar 23, 2019
@Whyde.
@Whyde.
@Benni.
Please drop that obviously untenable "barycentre" claim .........
Actually, given the shape and rotation of the galaxy it would be more of a bary-axis...
Careful, mate, the actual meaning of 'barycenter' GENERICALLY implies the common centre of gravitation IRRESPECTIVE of the shape/geometry of the distribution of the masses/bodies interacting gravitationally to maintain that shape/geometry for any appreciable period (in astronomical terms). For example, even a Spherical galaxy distribution of the same diameter as a Spiral galaxy would have a 'barycenter' at approximately the same respective 'centre region'. Of course the SUPERMASSIVE Gravitationally active 'Black Features' associated with the dynamics of such galaxy 'cores' ACTUALLY OCCUPY that central 'barycenter REGION, so galactic 'barycenter' regions ARE NOT EMPTY as claimed by @Bnni; which claim I trust he now realises is untenable. Cheers. :)

Mar 23, 2019
Previous post REFORMATTED as follows; thanks.

@Whyde.
@Benni.

Please drop that obviously untenable "barycentre" claim .........
Actually, given the shape and rotation of the galaxy it would be more of a bary-axis...
Careful, Whyde, you made an assumption that is not consistent with the actual meaning of 'barycenter'. IT is the common centre of gravitation IRRESPECTIVE of the shape/geometry of the distribution of the masses/bodies interacting gravitationally to maintain that shape/geometry for any appreciable period (in astronomical terms). For example, even a Spherical galaxy distribution of the same diameter as a Spiral galaxy would have a 'barycenter' at approximately the same respective 'centre region' (of course the BH's that co-evolve with such galaxies are actually there, so their 'barycenter would NOT BE 'empty' as @Benni claimed (and which claim I trust he now realises is untenable). Cheers. :)

Mar 23, 2019
@Whyde.
@Benni.
Please drop that obviously untenable "barycentre" claim .........
Actually, given the shape and rotation of the galaxy it would be more of a bary-axis...
Careful, mate, the actual meaning of 'barycenter' GENERICALLY implies the common centre of gravitation IRRESPECTIVE of the shape/geometry of the distribution of the masses/bodies interacting gravitationally to maintain that shape/geometry for any appreciable period (in astronomical terms).
...

Apparently, humour is not your strong suit...
It was a JOKE, RC...
The assumption that it was more than that was yours....

Mar 23, 2019
@Whyde.
@Whyde.
@Whyde.
@Benni.
Please drop that obviously untenable "barycentre" claim .........
Actually, given the shape and rotation of the galaxy it would be more of a bary-axis...
Careful, mate, the actual meaning of 'barycenter' GENERICALLY implies the common centre of gravitation IRRESPECTIVE of the shape/geometry of the distribution of the masses/bodies interacting gravitationally to maintain that shape/geometry for any appreciable period (in astronomical terms).
...

Apparently, humour is not your strong suit...
My apologies if I missed your humorous intent. Most of the time I read with science/logics in mind rather than humour. Which is why I read your comment seriously in that vein. It has often been suggested by many others here that it would help one's interlocutors/readers if one added something like " [sarcasm]....[/sarcasm]" OR just "....JOKE" etc as indication of intent. Cheers. :)

Mar 23, 2019
No, @Benni, there's NO central 'point/ring singularity' etc.
.......same as Schneibo's 19th Century TUGMath solution brought to us by the same bunch of Cosmologists from that century who brought us Aether Theory & thought the speed of light was a variable based based on the strength of the gravity field it was traveling in, and that's where the two of you get your Dark Star. Maybe schneibo can get in a word to help you buttress your 19th claptrap Cosmology.

Mar 23, 2019
@Benni.
there's NO central 'point/ring singularity' etc
same as Schneibo's 19th Century TUGMath solution brought to us by the same bunch of Cosmologists from that century who brought us Aether Theory & thought the speed of light was a variable based based on the strength of the gravity field
@Benni, pls recall I said (other thread):
I know what you're saying. And I would agree that a photon's speed going up/down Earth's gravity gradient is neither decreased nor increased; ie, only the frequency differences show up between emitters/detectors in the relevant experiments, no speed change is evident. But that's not the whole story, mate. There is a SUBTLE FACTOR ALSO to be taken into account in EXTREME gradients such as those around 'Black STAR' features. I cannot say much more at this time, since this further subtlety will be explained as part of my complete ToE. I will give you a hint though: Going 'up/down', ALL things lose/gain energy of one sort or another.

Mar 23, 2019
no speed change is evident. But that's not the whole story, mate. There is a SUBTLE FACTOR ALSO to be taken into account in EXTREME gradients such as those around 'Black STAR' features


Unreal, this is just pure unadulterated Schneibo/Unreal BS. There is no such thing as "SUBTLE FACTOR " when it comes to the speed of light, it's all OR NONE, E=mc² leaves no wiggle room & you/schneibo simply can't figure out why this is the case.

Mar 23, 2019
, E=mc² leaves no wiggle room & you/schneibo simply can't figure out why this is the case.

Please explain why.

Mar 24, 2019
E=mc² leaves no wiggle room
The formula is correct when dealing with EITHER

- rest mass and rest energy (often called invariant or minimum energy), OR
- relativistic mass and relativistic energy.

In order to make a connection between relativistic energy and rest mass, the system's total momentum needs to be taken into account, in the relativistic energy-momentum relation - see e.g. https://en.wikipe..._formula

These results have been incontrovertibly confirmed and used countless trillions of times since they were first formulated over a hundred years ago!

Benni, you're suffering from an extreme form of mental inflexibility which prevents you from understanding and encompassing concepts like these: concepts which form part of the very foundations of science.

That's your loss - science continues to progress unabated and unsullied by your childish and ill-informed ranting.


Mar 24, 2019
In order to make a connection between relativistic energy and rest mass, the system's total momentum needs to be taken into account, in the relativistic energy-momentum relation
.......then PROVE how this changes E=mc² when transposing the equation to solve for "c"? Here, I'll even do the transposing for you because you, like WhyGuy in all liklihood don't know how to do it:

c²=E/m
c=√E/m

So where's the wiggle room? Where in c=√E/m exists your claims for ACCELERATION (you do know what ACCELERATION is?) of an electro-magnetic wave/photon? Doesn't exist does it?

concepts like these: concepts which form part of the very foundations of science
...... so what you do is fall back to 19th Century Cosmology theory for your pathetic TUGMath calculations when it was assumed that the speed of light was dependent on the strength of the gravity field that "light particles" were traveling through, and neophytes like YOU label such fantasy as "science".


Mar 24, 2019
I'll say it again:
These results have been incontrovertibly confirmed and used countless trillions of times since they were first formulated over a hundred years ago!
It works; it's real; your fifth-grade math is embarrassing on a science site, and your phoney frothings at the mouth are ridiculous.

Which part of any of this do you not understand?

Mar 24, 2019
These results have been incontrovertibly confirmed and used countless trillions of times since they were first formulated over a hundred years ago! It works;it's real
.....what "results" are you talking about?

Here again are the results of E=mc² transposed: c=√E/m, this is the REAL RESULTS, but you won't tell us about YOUR RESULTS.........why are YOUR RESULTS so goddamned secretive that YOU, Unreal, Schneibo, etc, won't reveal them? Oh, don't we know already because Benni has been such a good job outing your 19th Century Pop-Cosmology by the same ones who brought us Aether Theory.

Which part of any of this do you not understand?
........19th Century TUGMath calculations & theory that YOU believe in. You, know that slop & swill crap that also brought us Tired Light, Aether, Light Particles, Dark Stars.

Hey, have you yet figured out why LIGHT is not subject to ACCELERATION? Until you get this figured out you will NEVER comprehend c=√E/m.

Mar 24, 2019


Hey, have you yet figured out why LIGHT is not subject to ACCELERATION? Until you get this figured out you will NEVER comprehend c=�šE/m.


Where is this written up, thicko? Because we are not interested in the rantings of a mental midget like you.

Mar 24, 2019

Hey, have you yet figured out why LIGHT is not subject to ACCELERATION? Until you get this figured out you will NEVER comprehend


Where is this written up,
......it's textbook knowledge in every physics book ever written, but how as an Anthropologist would you know that?

Mar 24, 2019

Hey, have you yet figured out why LIGHT is not subject to ACCELERATION? Until you get this figured out you will NEVER comprehend


Where is this written up,
......it's textbook knowledge in every physics book ever written, but how as an Anthropologist would you know that?


Wrong. Black holes are a fact. Gravitational lensing is a fact. Nobody is disputing that. If they are, then I want to see a paper explaining their reasoning. Get on with it, as your primary school level of understanding is impressing nobody.

Mar 24, 2019
you won't tell us about YOUR RESULTS
They're not my results, you cretin, they're observed countless times every day, every second of every day, in particle accelerators worldwide (here's a list of them: https://en.wikipe...hysics), and in cosmic ray air showers, to name but two. This is the real world of physics, as conducted by thousands of physicists worldwide, not the ludicrously inept "I know how to transpose formulas" ass-wipings of a failed grease-monkey tech.

You want to transpose formulas? - read this: https://en.wikipe...relation - there's even a nice color picture for you to feel right at home.

Then, pick up that mop, tip your hat respectfully at us grown-ups, and STFU.

Mar 24, 2019
I really like the interactive youtube interface for easy access to these simulations, but it is awkward to use. However, the supermassive black hole and the giant star ejecta is easily seen, so: nice!

Anybody know how many local grand spirals have AGNs "currently" being observed and at what intensity relative to galactic mass and similar gas density as MW?


Good question! And amazingly it ties all these other question together:

infrared images showed the black hole is not the energy source.

They think it's a barycenter of all the galactic mass.

Isn't the entire galaxy the "accretion disk"?

they get increasing red-shifted by the intense curvature of space

a "fool" would believe a SIMULATION is preferable to a REAL PICTURE as EVIDENCE


How active galactic nuclei works is a mystery, and Milky Way data - which is extracted by understanding the preferred simulations by the non-fooled astronomers - is essential.

- tbctd -

Mar 24, 2019
- ctd -

As DaSchneib notes the local gravity gradient is not large across the event horizon, so its redshift is not a problem and the intrinsic BH IR radiation is not huge - most IR is from gas and stars. The virial theorem explains why a barycenter or galactic disk is not a local explanation at the core - and why an accretion disk is that - since the background gravity is low.

The Milky Way is not and have likely never had much of an AGN, despite the core chimneys and Fermi bubbles we see. The integrated star formation rate has been an order of magnitude lower compared with Andromeda - ten times as many stars - despite Gaia seeing the dark matter (i.e. most mass) is roughly the same in both. Gaia also see the dark matter profile is cusped which means the case of core profile when AGN has been at work and heated the core dark matter - by throwing out the baryon matter and lowering the gravity potential well of the center - is not the case for MW.

- tbctd -

Mar 24, 2019
- ctd -

Finally there have been - arguable - papers claiming that the MW center has little of the instability seen in models. Such an instability - which promotes core star formation and so AGN behavior - would take long time to develop.

******

On another matter, it seems to me the discussion on relativity agree that photons in vacuum move at the universal speed limit. But its true that physics of inertial reference frames need to be treated with care already in special relativity. The best reference to the problems I know of is Okun:

https://web.archi...em_3.pdf .

[ More here, but technical text from transparencies and dated by not having LHC results on Higgs:

https://arxiv.org...1134.pdf ]

Mar 24, 2019
Thanks for your overview @torbjorn_b_g_larsson.

Your comment of "How active galactic nuclei works is a mystery" was all I needed to chase down more of this activity. From a "random event" point of view, it would seem that all gas rich spirals would have at some time gone through an AGN stage, just based on probability for some cloud of gas, or sheared giant star near their EH. The MW BH has been feeding for over 13 million years, or so.

I simply recalled that some local grand spirals have AGN and assumed they all would, but many are currently quiet. After reading data out of Cornell indicating the direct of our solar system in the Orion Arm, it seems there is all kinds of "stuff" moving randomly throughout any grand spiral. Given time, at least one of these "wayward" objects would light up the core and give off an AGN, even if only for a "brief" time. After all, it cannot be ruled out, and other AGNs look just like the MW otherwise. They might not simply turn on as often.

Mar 24, 2019
I really like the interactive youtube interface for easy access to these simulations, but it is awkward to use. However, the supermassive black hole and the giant star ejecta is easily seen, so: nice!


Like here in a REAL PICTURE: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

7th Photo frame from the top of the page, no simulation needed:

"Ever increasing resolution in infrared images showed the black hole is not the energy source. The brightest source in the very high resolution near infrared image to the right is IRS 7, a red supergiant that puts out most of its energy in the near infrared. The other bright stars are also very young and massive. The blue-appearing ones in the center of the image are a unique clustering of very luminous, massive stars. Any black hole must be invisible. (image from Gemini Project). If the black hole dominated the energy of the Galactic Center, it would be the second brightest source in the infrared image."

Mar 24, 2019
Like here in a REAL PICTURE: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm


Idiot is back to his primary school understanding of all things scientific! Lol. Explain the orbits of the stars around Sgr A*. Explain the gravitational redshift of one of those stars at pericentre. We are still waiting for you to get your head out of your arse and explain this.

Mar 24, 2019
This wiki cut (from "Galaxies"} certainly supports your claim for galaxies that support AGN:

"Seyfert galaxies are one of the two largest groups of active galaxies, along with quasars. They have quasar-like nuclei (very luminous, distant and bright sources of electromagnetic radiation) with very high surface brightnesses but unlike quasars, their host galaxies are clearly detectable. Seyfert galaxies account for about 10% of all galaxies. Seen in visible light, most Seyfert galaxies look like normal spiral galaxies, but when studied under other wavelengths, the luminosity of their cores is equivalent to the luminosity of whole galaxies the size of the Milky Way. "

Still It does not eliminate smaller galaxies, having less energetic AGNs and with lower frequencies of formation. Everything surely exists in MW sized galaxies to start and maintain an AGN. The most important element for that to happen is time. It does however put a serious damper on me seeing it in the near future....

Mar 24, 2019
Repeating a question no one answered. Maybe now :

Does anyone have a good link, or might be able to explain how the gravity wave mergers and their data from LIGO can be mined for things like 1) masses of the black holes involved, 2) the loss of mass after mergers, and 3) direction and distance of the mergers?

This is major data mining that I have not checked out yet.


Mar 24, 2019
I could not help but notice that many Messier spirals (6) have AGN. These are close by and have similarities to the MW. It also became curious that some of them are smaller then the MW. Someone previously noted that our MW is too small and/or two disperse to have previously formed an AGN. Maybe not.

M-51 is only 27 million lys distant, and is only half the size of the MW, yet its has an AGN.

Is the IR data actually estimating these local spiral AGN candidates based on the extent (or lack) of the "clearing" of the zone around the central black hole?

Still, M-51 is either has high matter density nears it core, or it only takes time for a "dense-enough" galaxy to light up from other sources. I suspect that both high and low density spirals are likely capable of forming AGN, with very different frequencies of activity.

Mar 24, 2019
I could not help but notice that many Messier spirals (6) have AGN. These are close by and have similarities to the MW. It also became curious that some of them are smaller then the MW. Someone previously noted that our MW is too small and/or two disperse to have previously formed an AGN. Maybe not.

M-51 is only 27 million lys distant, and is only half the size of the MW, yet its has an AGN.

Is the IR data actually estimating these local spiral AGN candidates based on the extent (or lack) of the "clearing" of the zone around the central black hole?

Still, M-51 is either has high matter density nears it core, or it only takes time for a "dense-enough" galaxy to light up from other sources. I suspect that both high and low density spirals are likely capable of forming AGN, with very different frequencies of activity.

Mar 24, 2019
I could not help but notice that many Messier spirals (6) have AGN. These are close by and have similarities to the MW. It also became curious that some of them are smaller then the MW. Someone previously noted that our MW is too small and/or two disperse to have previously formed an AGN. Maybe not.

M-51 is only 27 million lys distant, and is only half the size of the MW, yet its has an AGN.

Is the IR data actually estimating these local spiral AGN candidates based on the extent (or lack) of the "clearing" of the zone around the central black hole?

Still, M-51 is either has high matter density nears it core, or it only takes time for a "dense-enough" galaxy to light up from other sources. I suspect that both high and low density spirals are likely capable of forming AGN, with very different frequencies of activity.

Mar 24, 2019
@Benni, AGAIN, pls recall I said:
And I would agree that a photon's SPEED going up/down Earth's gravity gradient is NEITHER decreased NOR increased; ie, only the frequency differences show up between emitters/detectors in the relevant experiments, NO SPEED CHANGE.....I cannot say much more at this time, since this further subtlety will be explained as part of my complete ToE. I will give you a hint though: Going 'up/down', ALL things lose/gain energy of one sort or another.
In other words: a photon ESCAPING OR NOT ESCAPING from EVENT HORIZON of a GRAVITATIONALLY EXTREME 'Black Feature' is NOT DETERMINED by a PHOTON SPEED.

Get that?

And the SUBTLE QUANTUM PHYSICAL DYNAMICS 'factor' I spoke of active in that situation OVERRULES all that maths stuff; so NEITHER YOUR NOR OTHERS' 'calculations' are relevant in that EH-escape/not-escape scenario. Hence ANY previously derived maths/equations have NO BEARING on that EH-escape/not-escape question either way. Ok? :)

Mar 24, 2019
I could not help but notice that repetitive posts from me are appearing. Perhaps a space warp from the trolls.

Sorry folks, but I am not getting feedback from the central core data stream regarding my posts..

Any answers to my last string of questions should try to minimize their repetitiveness!! :o)

Mar 24, 2019
@dfjohnsonphd.

Depending on what is going on with your internet connection OR with physorg's internal system, 'hiccups' cause delays in submission process, and your window will 'freeze' for a few seconds after you pressed 'submit'. To avoid losing/repeating your post, you should, as a matter of habit, FIRST 'save' your post text on your own computer...and THEN 'submit'. That way, if the window 'freezes' and you don't know whether your 'submit' was successful, you can just 'refresh' that window and see if your post got through. If not, just copy-paste your post from the saved location to the physorg text box and submit anew. The repeat posts arise if one keeps pressing 'submit' at the initial submission attempt under the impression that the first/subsequent submit(s) 'didn't take'. Best habit to get into is: whenever you think the 'submit' is 'too slow' or 'didn't take' the first/subsequent times, just make sure you've saved the text and then refresh page. Good luck. :)

Mar 24, 2019
@dfjohnsonphd.

ps: May I enquire as to which field your PhD is in, mate? Cheers. :)

Mar 24, 2019
In other words: a photon ESCAPING OR NOT ESCAPING from EVENT HORIZON of a GRAVITATIONALLY EXTREME 'Black Feature' is NOT DETERMINED by a PHOTON SPEED.


Unless you have tucked away into your little bag of gadgets a perfectly mirrored box, EM Wave Photons will always escape the box YOU are trying to trap them into via gravity. Do you know of any bodies of mass that are perfect mirrors?

Don't get it do you?

Mar 24, 2019
@Benni.
In other words: a photon ESCAPING OR NOT ESCAPING from EVENT HORIZON of a GRAVITATIONALLY EXTREME 'Black Feature' is NOT DETERMINED by a PHOTON SPEED.


Unless you have tucked away into your little bag of gadgets a perfectly mirrored box, EM Wave Photons will always escape the box YOU are trying to trap them into via gravity. Do you know of any bodies of mass that are perfect mirrors?

Don't get it do you?
Mate, the QUANTUM physics aspect should have alerted you to the possibilities which occur in such extreme gravitational environment as EHs. Classical views/calculations are limited there, and Quantum processes override same. Take a break to consider the fuller implications of that; and of my earlier hint. Anyhow, that is all I am at liberty to say on the matter for now. If you still can't get it then you will have to wait for my complete reality-based-postulates ToE and relevant reality-based-axioms Maths to be published in toto. Cheers. :)

Mar 24, 2019
@, RealityCheck, Bichemistry is my primary expertise. Clearly not SMBHs and their Hood!
I hang out to get answers from certain posters who I trust to engage in. Great fun, mate!

Sadly, because of the trolls, the better posters don't come back. I then throw out some questions to try to lure them back. Poor rate of success. They are off to other things by now, usually.........

Mar 24, 2019
I could not help but notice that repetitive posts from me are appearing. Perhaps a space warp from the trolls.

Sorry folks, but I am not getting feedback from the central core data stream regarding my posts..

Any answers to my last string of questions should try to minimize their repetitiveness!! :o)

It's a delay I noticed on here also. "Specially when a thread has a lot of comments. I only hit the "submit" button once and wait a few seconds….

Mar 24, 2019
@Benni,
Anyhow, that is all I am at liberty to say on the matter for now. If you still can't get it then you will have to wait for my complete reality-based-postulates ToE and relevant reality-based-axioms Maths to be published in toto. Cheers. :)

Ahhh… that's the RC comment I was waiting for....
What's it been - a year since we heard about that being almost here? More?

Mar 24, 2019
@, RealityCheck, Bichemistry is my primary expertise. Clearly not SMBHs and their Hood!
I hang out to get answers from certain posters who I trust to engage in. Great fun, mate!

One of my daughters is a biochemist at CSL.

You don't happen to know (or know of) Eric Andrulis from Case Western, do ya...?

Mar 25, 2019
@Whyde.
@Benni,
Anyhow, that is all I am at liberty to say on the matter for now. If you still can't get it then you will have to wait for my complete reality-based-postulates ToE and relevant reality-based-axioms Maths to be published in toto. Cheers. :)

Ahhh… that's the RC comment I was waiting for....
What's it been - a year since we heard about that being almost here? More?
What's it been now, @Whyde, a CENTURY or more and the complete mainstream ToE is still stuck? Patience is a virtue when waiting for BIG things to 'mature' properly, mate; I will publish complete when I am satisfied no further questions will be necessary; in short: why bother publishing in-complete and then having to spend precious time and energy fielding questions because not all the answers were in the ToE? I am too old to spend my last energy/years explaining things when my complete ToE can do so without any further involvement from its author. No big bang needed! :)

Mar 25, 2019
Maybe you didn't hear we detected gravitational waves, the CMB, and the Higgs boson.

Just sayin'.

Mar 25, 2019
@dfjohnsonphd.
@, RealityCheck, Bichemistry is my primary expertise. Clearly not SMBHs and their Hood! I hang out to get answers from certain posters who I trust to engage in. Great fun, mate! Sadly, because of the trolls, the better posters don't come back. I then throw out some questions to try to lure them back. Poor rate of success. They are off to other things by now, usually.....
The problem was, 'trolls' came from ALL 'sides', not just the whackos. I have tried to encourage polite objective on-science/logics discourse in lieu of the old scourge of personal/political biased trolling/insulting which has destroyed many an otherwise great and interesting science discussion site in the past. Fortunately this one survives and seems to have much less of the trolling/nastiness than in days gone by here and elsewhere on the net.

Reminder: resist accepting anyone's words for anything; check things out for yourself as much as you can. Enjoy your discussions, mate! :)

Mar 25, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Maybe you didn't hear we detected gravitational waves, the CMB, and the Higgs boson.

Just sayin'.
Are you implying the mainstream ToE is now complete?

Mar 25, 2019
No, I'm stating exactly that you lied again when you said
What's it been now, @Whyde, a CENTURY or more and the complete mainstream ToE is still stuck?
I got a lot more things we've discovered in the last century to add to that, too, if you like. How about molecular biology? Quasars? The structure of matter and the difference between matter and energy?

Mar 25, 2019
@Da Schneib.
No, I'm stating exactly that you lied again when you said
What's it been now, @Whyde, a CENTURY or more and the complete mainstream ToE is still stuck?
I got a lot more things we've discovered in the last century to add to that, too, if you like. How about molecular biology? Quasars? The structure of matter and the difference between matter and energy?
Is it still stuck or not, after a century of collective efforts of millions of mainstream cosmologists/theorists/physicists etc, DS? There can be only two options: EITHER it IS still stuck OR it is now complete. You can't have it both ways, DS.

ps: Please try to resist the usual tactic of "crying liar', DS; it has not done much good for your credibility in the past, and is still not doing you any good. Try to remain polite and dispassionate, even in disagreement, like true objective fair-minded scientists and gentlemen/gentlewomen should. Ok?

Mar 25, 2019
Meanwhile, we don't even know there actually is a ToE. So you're lying again.

You can't have that both ways either.

Mar 25, 2019
@, RealityCheck, Bichemistry is my primary expertise. Clearly not SMBHs and their Hood!
I hang out to get answers from certain posters who I trust to engage in. Great fun, mate!

Sadly, because of the trolls, the better posters don't come back. I then throw out some questions to try to lure them back. Poor rate of success. They are off to other things by now, usually.........


You described your mindset wrong when in search for so-called "answers". You're not really in search for ANSWERS, you're looking for AGREEMENT with what you have already made up your mind, namely that black holes exist even though you've been given links to observational evidence that there is no BH at SgrA*, but you don't like the EVIDENCE & label anyone who purveys in presenting such evidence as a troll.

Mar 25, 2019
Mate, the QUANTUM physics aspect should have alerted you to the possibilities which occur in such extreme gravitational environment as EHs. Classical views/calculations are limited there, and Quantum processes override same. Take a break to consider the fuller implications of that; and of my earlier hint. Anyhow, that is all I am at liberty to say on the matter for now. If you still can't get it then you will have to wait for my complete reality-based-postulates ToE and relevant reality-based-axioms Maths to be published in toto.
.......this is Pop-Cosmology bullshit.

You & schneibo won't produce your BODY of Observational Evidence for all this extreme gravity environment, so you both wrap it up in a fictional pile of 19th Century math created by the same ones who brought us Aether Theory.

Hey, where's the Dark Star: http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, 7th photo frame from the top of the page.


Mar 25, 2019
Meanwhile, we don't even know there actually is a ToE. So you're lying again.
You can't have that both ways either.


Meanwhile, we actually know your's & RC's Dark Star does not exist at SgrA* because there is no OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for it at http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, 7th photo frame from the top of the page.

Mar 25, 2019
Meanwhile, we don't even know there actually is a ToE. So you're lying again.
You can't have that both ways either.


Meanwhile, we actually know your's & RC's Dark Star does not exist at SgrA* because there is no OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for it at http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, 7th photo frame from the top of the page.


Jeez, what an idiot. Have you graduated from grade school yet, little boy?
Explain the orbits of the stars around Sgr A*, you poser. Explain the gravitational redshift of one of those stars at pericentre, you oaf.
Go ask daddy and if he can possibly help you. You'll likely find him in a local pasture, awaiting shearing.

Mar 25, 2019
In other words: a photon ESCAPING OR NOT ESCAPING from EVENT HORIZON of a GRAVITATIONALLY EXTREME 'Black Feature' is NOT DETERMINED by a PHOTON SPEED.


Unless you have tucked away into your little bag of gadgets a perfectly mirrored box, EM Wave Photons will always escape the box YOU are trying to trap them into via gravity. Do you know of any bodies of mass that are perfect mirrors?

Don't get it do you?


Too thick for words. Go back to school, loony boy.

Mar 25, 2019
Meanwhile, we actually know your's & RC's Dark Star does not exist at SgrA* because there is no OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for it at http://ircamera.a...nter.htm 7th photo frame from the top of the page.


"Black holes don't exist!"

Links to a website whose key points are:
How the Galactic Center was hidden; *evidence for a black hole* AND for recent star formation; the circumnuclear ring.

Since it doesn't understand the difference between mass and volume, I'm not surprised it doesn't recognize the irony here.

Whatever they are paying you for your janitorial services is far too much.

Mar 26, 2019
...

Meanwhile, we actually know your's & RC's Dark Star does not exist at SgrA* because there is no OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for it at http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, 7th photo frame from the top of the page.

You're forgetting the evidence available as to WHY they call it a black hole...

Mar 26, 2019
Well at least we can agree that there is little agreement out there....

Someone did not answer my issue about interferometry and its requirement for resolution of dwarfs etc. near Sgr A*.

I see that (one of?) the Kecks was able to track S2 (aka SO-2) through its entire orbit. But I seem to recall the gravitational redshift seen last spring was from the VLT using interferometry. I got the impression that only one Keck could not make this observation.

Someone posted that it was "not hard" to "see" objects as small as brown dwarfs near the EH at the core. Does this, or not require, interferometry?

Also of interest, observations of S2's orbital dynamics around Sgr A* to measure the distance from the Earth to the galactic core found the distance to be 7.94 ± 0.42 kiloparsecs, in close agreement with prior determinations.

How would they measure that?


Mar 26, 2019
More of my pesky questions have gone unanswered. These on merging black holes. Either all don't know the answers or don't care to reply, but here goes again:

How do they know the distance, direction, sizes of the merging black holes and apparent mass lost from the LIGO data? I have spent a lot of time looking but find nothing to explain these determinations.

Mar 26, 2019
Someone posted that it was "not hard" to "see" objects as small as brown dwarfs near the EH at the core
......but you didn't think seriously enough about the comment to ask yourself: "If brown dwarfs are so easily seen near the EH, then why can't the BH itself be seen as a looming black blob expunging from view all the background stars that would clearly resolve the disc of the BH?"


Mar 26, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Meanwhile, we don't even know there actually is a ToE. So you're lying again.

You can't have that both ways either.
What the hell are you on, mate? You're the one who said I was "lying" when I pointed out the mainstream ToE is still stuck after a century of efforts by millions of cosmologists/physicists/theorists etc. But when I asked YOU where the completed ToE from mainstream is, you just started wanting it both ways and, as always, started insulting even more. Stop this mania you have for making silky faux pas and then insulting everyone to divert and try to save face. It hasn't worked for years now, DS; and it makes you look ever sillier every time you try that crap on against me, DS. Get your ego under control and stop this madness issuing from your deepest nasty recesses, DS. Stop it.

Mar 26, 2019
@Benni.
the QUANTUM physics aspect should have alerted you to the possibilities which occur in such extreme gravitational environment as EHs. Classical views/calculations are limited there, and Quantum processes override same.
this is Pop-Cosmology bullshit. You.....won't produce your BODY of Observational Evidence for all this extreme gravity environment, so you .... wrap it up in a fictional pile of 19th Century math created by the same ones who brought us Aether Theory.
It's just logical progression from low-gravity environment (such as around Earth-sized masses) to higher-gravity environment (such as around Jupiter) to even-higher-gravity environment ( such as around our sun/star) and then on to EXTREMELY COMPRESSED higher-density MASSIVE environments where the gravity-gradient is more DRASTIC than the gentle gradients around lesser-massed/lesser-dense examples I mentioned. The EXTREME cases involve surfaces much closer to their centers...and lots of mass. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more