Gravity waves detected for the first time ever

When they called them quasars, they couldn't even tell a star from a galaxy, because their telescopes were so bad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The jest are theorised to be caused by a rotating charged BH, interacting with the accretion disk, to twist the matter approaching the EH, around via the magnetic field lines, and then up and away at the BH polar regions.
Yes it probably could be a normal stellar BH with jets, but that's not the crux of the debate as I see it.
With QUASARS of course, the SMBH is entirely valid.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What has that to do with the price of fish?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You should. It was the best one I ever read on the subject, and you might learn something. Then you can tell the book that it is wrong about everything, instead of me.

 

No, they're accretion disks with jets. Black holes don't have jets.

 

Are you hallucinating?

 

You're confusing black holes with dark matter again.

 

That's real mature.

 

Great, so you don't know what dark matter is either? Surprise, surprise...

 

You apparently have confused the SMBHs at the centers of galaxies with the theory that dark matter could be black holes in the halo. The halo is outside the visible edges of galaxies, not at the center.

 

Yep. It's true, too. There are accretion disks without black holes. There are even accretion disks with jets without black holes.

Black holes don't have jets.

 

Dark matter is a theoretical unknown of an unaccounted for source of gravity. We didn't use to know for sure if black holes existed in the center of galaxies, so it made it a likely candidate for dark matter. If it was the only candidate, then the black hole in the center of the galaxy is the size of our solar system. If it is not the only source of dark matter, then it would be smaller.

 

http://www.space.com/18668-biggest-black-hole-discovery.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_massive_black_holes

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/black-holes/

Considering our solar system is around 4 L/years across from one side to the other, and some SMBH's are thousands of times more massive then our own miserly 3 million solar mass SMBH, then Schneibs is probably correct.
Although I havn't done the maths.

http://www.universetoday.com/104486/how-big-is-our-solar-system/

So maybe you need to eat that BS flag you fly in the name of others.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Mind blown. Wow. So trivial, and yet so amazing. Accretion disk without black holes. Now, that is a new one.

 

Rubbish!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The giant black hole is about 11 times as wide as the orbit of Neptune around our sun, researchers said. - See more at: http://www.space.com/18668-biggest-black-hole-discovery.html#sthash.OllRt2lI.dpuf

 

Still not even close to 60 light years.

 

Again Schneibs is correct.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk

An accretion disk is a structure (often a circumstellar disk) formed by diffused material in orbital motion around a massive central body. The central body is typically a star. Gravity causes material in the disk to spiral inward towards the central body. Gravitational and frictional forces compress and raise the temperature of the material causing the emission ofelectromagnetic radiation. The frequency range of that radiation depends on the central object's mass. Accretion disks of young stars and protostars radiate in the infrared; those aroundneutron stars and black holes in the X-ray part of the spectrum. The study of oscillation modes in accretion disks is referred to as diskoseismology.[1][2]

 

Deal with it.

 

Not at all. Although your confusion and twisting of facts, along with dancing around your errors without admitting them, is shameful.