Gravity waves detected for the first time ever

I never said it wasn't a suppermassive black hole. You just assumed that, like you assume a lot of other things, like disk cloud meaning accretion disk.

I would say that it is a really old galaxy, and the stars may be more red shifted than we probably think they are from its apparent distance. All I am saying is that a jet from a suppermassive black hole is comparable to the arm of a galaxy. This galaxy has no arms. If it was a white hole at one time, it would have died out billions of years ago. It has had a long enough time for all the stars in the galaxy to become evenly dispersed. With that dense of a center, I admit, it could just be a suppermassive black hole feeding. Then if it was a white hole at one time, it would have died out billions of years ago, close to the time of the galaxies original formation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ahh--yes-yes-- the " third paragraph."--LIM-- again-- " because i actually read the whole thing-- from this, i have to say that you are not comprehending. "

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Now, it all knits together," Ford said. "We see a disk-like structure that appears to have spiral structure, and it's rotating. One side is approaching, and the other is receding."

WHAT ABOUT THAT EVEN REMOTELY SOUNDS LIKE AN ACCRETION DISK? An accretion disk is located on the edge of the event horizon!!! Please, tell me more about how incomprehensible you are...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Anyways, I think a galaxy with a white hole in the center of it could look more like pictures of young galaxies like this. In case anyone else was wondering besides these two...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows Messier 96, a spiral galaxy just over 35 million light-years away in the constellation of Leo (The Lion). It is of about the same mass and size as the Milky Way. It was first discovered by astronomer Pierre Méchain in 1781, and added to Charles Messier’s famous catalogue of astronomical objects just four days later.

The galaxy resembles a giant maelstrom of glowing gas, rippled with dark dust that swirls inwards towards the nucleus. Messier 96 is a very asymmetric galaxy; its dust and gas are unevenly spread throughout its weak spiral arms, and its core is not exactly at the galactic center. Its arms are also asymmetrical, thought to have been influenced by the gravitational pull of other galaxies within the same group as Messier 96.

This group, named the M96 Group, also includes the bright galaxies Messier 105 and Messier 95, as well as a number of smaller and fainter galaxies. It is the nearest group containing both bright spirals and a bright elliptical galaxy (Messier 105).

Image credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA and the LEGUS Team, Acknowledgement: R. Gendler
Text credit: European Space Agency

http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/hubble-peers-into-the-heart-of-a-galactic-maelstrom

 

again--understand the word " process. "

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(shrugs).

i am not sure since i am a tier one(as in levels of government, not public tier one sciences) government theoretical scientist/mathematician and all, and you are simply, only " link clicking", correct?

 

You just made me lose all faith in science.

 

By the way, it is called linking.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(shrugs)--sounds like a personal problem.

 

ahh-yes-yes-- because " link clicking" is completely different--

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(shakes head)--MY GOD-- is this pathetic, low level minded, nonsense, all?

 

Take a look at this picture and tell me what you think you see

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

LIM---

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(shakes head)-- carry on.

 

A closer look at the center of the Milky Way galaxy, with dense star clusters and dust clouds.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This image shows the star-studded center of the Milky Way towards the constellation of Sagittarius. The crowded center of our galaxy contains numerous complex and mysterious objects that are usually hidden at optical wavelengths by clouds of dust — but many are visible here in these infrared observations from Hubble.

However, the most famous cosmic object in this image still remains invisible: the monster at our galaxy’s heart called Sagittarius A*. Astronomers have observed stars spinning around this supermassive black hole (located right in the center of the image), and the black hole consuming clouds of dust as it affects its environment with its enormous gravitational pull.

Infrared observations can pierce through thick obscuring material to reveal information that is usually hidden to the optical observer. This is the best infrared image of this region ever taken with Hubble, and uses infrared archive data from Hubble’s Wide Field Camera 3, taken in September 2011.



Credit: NASA, ESA, and G. Brammer

http://www.nasa.gov/content/hubble-tracks-a-monster-in-the-milky-way

Please note, they have been able to take the dust clouds out of the picture. It is just a bunch of stars. All packed closely together. At what do you know, the center of the galaxy...

 

according to this post of yours, i want to say that you simply do not comprehend and that maybe exploring this: http://stars.chromeexperiments.com/ :would help-- just a thought though.

 

No.

The center of our galaxy contains lots of things, the most prominent being a SMBH.
The inner most portion of accretion disks, lies around 3 Schwarzchild radius from the BH's center, and consists of stellar debris and gas that rotates around the BH at speeds approaching "c".
In effect a BH is not an all purpose gluttonous vacuum machine, and matter that strays near the vicinity of a BH, is generally "stored" within the accretion disk, with matter gradually spiralling inwards to and beyond the EH to oblivion, increasing speeds as it does so.

We have no evidence or anything else of white holes and/or worm holes, and to suggest any central SMBH would be a WH is silly, since the definition of a WH is the time reversal of a BH, and a place where matter is dispensed not attracted.
BH's after the recent LIGO discovery are now seen as confirmed, and any BH would also presumably have spin, which btw creates a region we call the ergosphere, or a "frame dragging" effect around the EH.


There are many reputable sites discussing the mechanisms of BH's and I suggest you should familiarise yourself with them, just as you obviously have now familiarised yourself with the fact that a mile is longer then a kilometer.

 

While certainly a BH can pick up spin [we call them Kerr BH's] they will also create what we call "ring singularities" not open singularities, and whether that leads to any ERB white hole or wormhole is totally unknown.
Your helicopter fan blade analogy has me at a complete loss, but then again so did your claim that a kilometer was longer than a mile.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, obviously it appears this is all layman is doing. It is actually totally quite confusing!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ummm, that release was 22 years ago, from 1994 as anyone can see from the link. I would say that given the state of evidence at that time it's as solid a confirmation as was possible; since then we've photographed the centers of a bunch of galaxies, not just from Hubble in visible, but in infrared, and using Chandra and radio telescopes, and so the evidence for accretion disks around supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies is from multiple instruments, at multiple wavelengths, over multiple galaxies. I'm not going to replicate all the hundreds of different data sets that show this. Google it.

Your claim that black holes don't form accretion disks is solidly rejected.
Your claim that accretion disks don't form jets (even when the compact massive object that has formed the accretion disk is not a black hole) is solidly rejected.
You are now backpeddling on your claim that the centers of most galaxies do not contain black holes (you implied it when you ridiculed the third paragraph of the article you re-linked, the same one I linked).

Do you have any other claims you'd like to feed into the stump chipper?

 

When people make obviously mistaken untrue claims [like a kilometer is longer than a mile

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] and then totally gloss over the issue, failing to admit to any error and/or mistake, then what you say appears to be par for the course. Sad though.

 

http://stars.chromeexperiments.com/

 

yes--especially when 1K = .6M, correct? maybe the point six is not clear?