Gravity waves detected for the first time ever

Maybe if you read the article.

Sigh.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Dude, every pixel of light in this galaxy would be a star that the Hubble couldn't get a clear image of. There would be no reason why that trend wouldn't continue to the center where it is brightest. (at the center of gravity)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Err, you might want to follow the links and go get the high-res version.

And you might want to read the text.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, I you cannot even interpret the text correctly after even retyping it, or did you just copy and paste it?

 

That is correct. It says Gas Disk not accretion disk. You just confirmed my point.

 

i suggest comprehending the difference from star clusters and an accretion disk-- but that is just me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(shakes head)

 

Sorry, not interested in bob & weave logic chopping.

 

no--simply understand the word " process. "

 

An objects spin can counteract the force of gravity (which is describe as spacetime curvature). A black hole picks up a lot of spin, and theoretically, if it had enough spin it could create an open singularity (white hole or wormhole). It is like a fan that has floppy blades, like on a helicopter. The blades spin, and then the blades flatten out. It is caused by the objects own inertia. (God forbid I use the word centrifugal force at this point.)

 

No, I am serious about this. You don't know the difference between an accretion disk and a nebula or the scale of objects in the cosmos. You are just going to end up making a fool out of yourself pretending to know about cosmology. You really put on how much you know very strongly when we first started chatting about this. Now, I know you are incapable of interpreting a photo of a galaxy. This is really basic stuff here...

 

I see no point in this if you won't read the evidence.

 

i want to say that it is you that does not comprehend.(how typical--

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

shakes head)

 

You should try reading it yourself.
"Ford and Harms used HST's Faint Object Spectrograph to measure the speeds of orbiting gas on either side of the disk from regions located about 60 light-years from the black hole at the center."

Holy cow batman. The measured parts of a disk, 60 light years away from a black hole, to detect it indirectly, which would be too far away for it to be the accretion disk.

 

Gotta love this part of the article, "If it isn't a black hole, then I don't know what it is," says Dr. Holland Ford of the Space Telescope Science Institute and The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.

This part is also really lovely, "A massive black hole is actually the conservative explanation for what we see in M87. If it's not a black hole, it must be something even harder to understand with our present theories of astrophysics," adds fellow investigator Dr. Richard Harms of the Applied Research Corp. in Landover, Maryland.

Did you like reading those parts as much as I did?

 

^^^ it appears that one must comprehend what they read.

am i the only one wondering what this lawyer has any significance to anything? otherwise please confirm this " Dr. Richard Harms "

 

Read it. Not quote it out of context.

Unless you start actually paying attention this conversation is over.

 

ahh-- is this the quote-mining that you got this from?:
" http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1994/94-082.txt "
because i actually read the whole thing-- from this, i have to say that you are not comprehending.

 

I think what bothers me most, krash661, is someone who thinks that we stopped doing science in 1994. We are talking about 22-year-old data here, and they were sure then it was a supermassive black hole. It's 22 years on and they've confirmed that initial observation multiple times. I'm just showing the point at which they had enough data to be sure.

Having lived through that 22 years I have to say that I can't even imagine a mentality that doesn't think anybody ever looked at M87 again since then. It's ludicrous.

 

LIM-- yes-yes..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(shrugs)
LIM-- welcome to the narcissistic ignoramus fad.

 

No, I got it from the original site that he told me to read. Obviously, you didn't read it either. This is not the first time I have had someone accuse me of that, and they were completely oblivious to what it actually said.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1994/23/text/

Start at the third paragraph.