Gravity waves detected for the first time ever

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Plazma Inferno!, Jan 12, 2016.

  1. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    A certain amount of mass would only make a certain amount of curvature. Black holes cannot create fast orbits of stars for one mass and then be any size they want at the same time.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schneibster Registered Member

    Messages:
    390
    A lot longer than that, but go on...

    Nope. Absolutely not. The reason the prediction of supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies was made was to explain quasars. Dark matter explains something completely different: the rotation curves of galaxies, and that isn't even how it was discovered; it was actually originally proposed to explain the orbits of galaxies in galaxy clusters. By Fritz Zwicky. In like 1935 or something.

    Having never read that book I have no comment.

    I still say you're confusing SMBHs at the centers of galaxies with dark matter.

    And SMBHs not only explained quasars, they also explained those stellar orbits you're talking about, but the final, real confirmation was the Hubble shots of the accretion disk around the SMBH at the center of M87. At that point they explained three completely different things, and at that point SMBHs at the centers of galaxies became mainstream science. You'll find practically no astrophysicists these days who disagree (there are always some outliers, that makes good science, it should always be checked).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Yet as all contributors to this thread have noted, it is your confusion, and dancing around mistakes you have asserted, that has degenerated this thread that was a discussion on gravitational waves.

    No, he was demonstrably wrong about a few things, one in particular, re the static universe.
    But guess what? When Hubble's observational evidence showed the Universe was dynamic, he called it his greatest blunder.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schneibster Registered Member

    Messages:
    390
    This doesn't appear to have any connection to reality, or even to theory.

    I don't know what "create fast orbits of stars for one mass and then be any size they want" means. It sounds unphysical to me.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    No, SMBH's at galactic centers was known before that.
    When Zwicky and later Vera Rubin found some anomalies in the rotational curves of galaxies, DM was proposed to explain such anomalies.
    Since then of course, DM which originally was a fudge factor, has been shown to be probably valid according to evidence since.....
    http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/S/Supermassive Black Hole

    For many years, astronomers had only indirect evidence for supermassive black holes, the most compelling of which was the existence of quasars in remote active galaxies. Observations of the energy output and variability timescales of quasars revealed that they radiate over a trillion times as much energy as our Sun from a region about the size of the Solar System. The only mechanism capable of producing such enormous amounts of energy is the conversion of gravitational energy into light by a massive black hole.
     
  10. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    You guys just sound confused about what I said. All I am saying here is that if a suppermassive black hole the size of our solar system can account for all the dark matter in the galaxy, then the average suppermassive black hole would then have to be smaller than that. Not bigger.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Didn't notice you got in those explanations before I did Schneibs.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You gotta be quick around here!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    No, just black hole jets were used to explain quasars. They called them quasars because they didn't know what they were. But, quasars are just black holes with jets.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    It's the DM that accounts for galactic rotational curves.
    SMBH's would account for the size of galaxies as far as I know, including DM.
    Please check out my previous link re DM and the Bullet cluster.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    No Scheibs is correct...and a QUASAR is actually an AGN [Active Galactic Nuclei] not just purely SMBH's.
    They are galaxies with SMBH's at their core, in what could be classed as a feeding frenzy resulting in the prodigious amounts of energy we see across the many millions/billions of L/years of space.
     
  15. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    Then I don't agree with you two about anything concerning black holes.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    And they called them QUASARS because of all that energy being omitted.
    Quasi Stellar Radio Source:
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    That's your problem.
    Why not do some research then yourself?
    Here's another....
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
     
  18. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    I am not confused about it. You are confused about what I said about it. It has been a theoretical possibilities that SMBHs could account for the amount of dark matter in the galaxy. IIf, and that is a big if, it was the only thing responsible for dark matter, then that is how large it would be.
    Yes, latter to be more commonly known as just black holes.
     
  19. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    We shouldn't even be talking about quasars anymore... They discovered they were black holes a long time ago... They probably had pictures of them.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    No, AGN [Active Galactic Nuclei]
     
  21. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    It doesn't even have to be a suppermassive one. Just a black hole, with a jet.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    As I previously said, a very distant galaxy, that has a SMBH at its core in a feeding frenzy, as one would expect at millions or billions of L/years away, hence billions of years ago, getting back to near just post BB.
     
  23. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    It means I am raising the BS flag on you, and you are just covering up what you said about spiral dust cloud by saying that black holes can be 60 light years across, which is ridiculous. That galaxy would be sucked into oblivion if that black hole was that big.
     

Share This Page