Gravity waves detected for the first time ever

"The Chandra data indicate that this accretion disk gets no closer to the event horizon than about 600 miles, a far cry from the 25 miles that some had expected."

This part of the article was rather informative. Don't you think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yep. Confirmed that Chandra saw an accretion disk around a black hole. Ready to start walking that claim back yet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The previous article stated that the spiral disk cloud was 60 light years...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I must have missed it in all the confusion.

 

Gee, there's little black holes, and there's big black holes.

Who knew?

 

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gr...e-first-time-ever.154848/page-35#post-3374761

 

The original theoretical predictions, which predicted them in the center of the galaxy, predicted that a suppermassive black hole would only be about the size of our solar system.

 

Why would white holes require anti-gravity?

 

Why do you have to be such a jerk?

 

Mass is mass, and mass tells space how to curve; lots of mass curves space over light years. It doesn't matter, far away, what size the mass is. See the shell theorem.

 

Because black holes require gravity.

 

Why do you?

I said long ago you were being silly, and now it's apparent why: you're defending a silly conjecture about white holes. I can't fix bias, but I can sure point it out so people can fix it themselves.

 

More mass would mean more curvature. The reason why they thought suppermassive black holes were at the center of galaxies to begin with was to explain their rotation. Then SMBH could explain dark matter. If SMBH are dark matter, then it would put limitations on their sizes, because that is how much gravitational pull it would require.

 

Then you are trying to say that black holes would have more mass than what would be required to keep the stars in the galaxy in orbit around the SMBH in the center, by assuming they can be larger in size.

 

Because, I find you irritating, and I feel like you are just doing your best to try to annoy me. I don't know if it is because you are just naturally that way or if you cannot help yourself.

That silly conjecture was based on a theory from Einstein, which was the greatest scientific genius of all time that was always right about everything... A black hole would then have to be able to connect to another point in space, which would make a white hole on the other end.

 

Errr, you've confused dark matter with black holes, to no good end for your understanding of either.

It's not the rotation of whole galaxies that SMBHs explain; it's the paths of stars close enough to the SMBH to have their orbits affected by it. Farther out, thousands and tens of thousands of light years away, it's just the mass of the galaxy, including the mass of the SMBH, that determines the orbits of the stars; and the mass of the galaxy includes the mass of the dark matter in and around it. Eventually because both of the inverse square law of gravity, and the overwhelming of even the mass of the SMBH by the far greater mass of stars, the motions of the stars farther out become dictated so much by the latter that the former no longer matters enough to be measurable by our instruments. The effects of dark matter are so faint that they only start to apply at the outside edges of a galaxy.

 

I don't even but you can't it's not really what do you even.

 

You find it irritating that someone knows more than you do and tries to explain it to you, and gets irritating back when you start it.

Gotcha.

Even geniuses are wrong sometimes, as rpenner said.

 

Look, Layman, I can't do you fairer than this: lay down the hatchet and I will.

I will tell you that I will never lie to you or make up some bullshit to deceive you and make you look stupid. I just point out the facts as I know them, and I do check; and even then I make mistakes, and I try to learn something from them.

But white holes are unphysical. And that's flat. It's why we don't see any.

 

I had read about the prediction of SMBH in the center of galaxies, which was made over 20 years ago. The reason this prediction was made was in an attempt to explain dark matter. Then they discovered that this was true, but I haven't heard anything about this verifying or discounting that prediction. I believe I read about it in Black Holes, White Holes, and Wormholes

That was how they discovered them, by calculating the orbits of stars in the center of the galaxy, but I am talking about another example. There were previous predictions based on the galaxy itself long before that discovery was made.