Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Plazma Inferno!, Jan 12, 2016.
When you make stuff up about what I said the conversation is over.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
:shrug: Deal with it? I don't need to deal with it. Facts are facts, and scientific theories are our best estimations to reality. That's all I need to deal with.
Ignorance, arrogance and stupidity is sometimes best ignored.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And could you be kind enough to show where Schneibs claimed that?
Seriously? It was like the first thing that started this whole argument like 40 pages back when he showed me a picture of a black hole, who's dust cloud was 60 light years across that he says is an accretion disk.
Take a wild guess about what happens when I tell you about published scientific theories... You say I am wrong about all of it, in its whole entirety and in every detail.
Einstien actually got everything wrong about quantum mechanics, except for the Schrodinger paradox, which he used to attempt to disprove it. It turned out that it became accepted as a scientific truth, even though it was used to try to disprove quantum theory.
No, I'm saying you have many important recognised facts about BH's, SMBH's, Accretion disks, DM, and galaxies wrong, and that seems to have warped and confused your whole outlook on the subject......
Oh, and sorry, I must have missed the part about you telling me about published scientific theories? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thank you...Your confusion then: Any accretion disk or dust cloud measured across, is not the size of any particular SMBH, which you claimed Schneibs said.
sheesh! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The accretion disk is not going to be 60 light years across years either.
This just in: "This source is a compact object, and approximately one Astronomical Unit (1 AU is about 93 million miles) in size, which is much smaller than our solar system (Neptune is 2.8 billion miles from the Sun)."
I guess the SMBH at the center of the galaxy doesn't account for all the dark matter in the Milky Way after all.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Accretion disk or dust cloud? Your claim sounded confusing as the rest of your posts. A shame Schneibs now seems to have you on ignore due to your apparent making of things up.
More confusion: The size of any SMBH does not just depend on the amount of DM in that galaxy.
And also, what do you mean by "just in"
Once again, you appear to be skirting the issue at hand and by passing your original silly claims.
I certainly cannot find anywhere else, any "just in"notification/revision of any size estimate to the SMBH at the center of our galaxy, and your link I am unable to find a date.
From examining the Keplerian orbit of S2, they determined the mass of Sagittarius A* to be 2.6 ± 0.2 millionsolar masses, confined in a volume with a radius no more than 17 light-hours (120 AU). Later observations of the star S14 showed the mass of the object to be about 4.1 million solar masses within a volume with radius no larger than 6.25 light-hours (45 AU) or about 6.7 billion kilometres
Again, The size of the MW's SMBH, does not give any estimate of the DM within the galaxy. Most of the DM in a galaxy surrounds the outer portions in a halo type arrangement and extends well beyond the normal galactic bounds.
NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory has discovered part of an intergalactic web of hot gas and dark matter that contains most of the material in the universe. The hot gas, which appears to lie like a fog in channels carved by rivers of gravity, has been hidden from view since the time galaxies formed.
“The Chandra observations, together with ultraviolet observations, are a major advance in our understanding of how the universe evolved over the last 10 billion years,” said Fabrizio Nicastro of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) in Cambridge, Mass. and head of one of the teams of scientists involved in the discovery.
Four independent teams of scientists, whose results appear as separate papers in The Astrophysical Journal, used Chandra to detect intergalactic gas with temperatures ranging from 300,000 to 5 million degrees Celsius. This gas forms part of a gigantic system of hot gas and dark matter that defines the cosmic landscape. The gaseous component alone contains more material than all the stars in the universe.
“We had strong suspicions from the Big Bang theory and observations of the early universe that this gas exists in the present era, but like a stealth aircraft it had eluded our detection,” said Claude Canizares of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who along with Taotao Fang, led of one of the teams.
The hot gas detected by Chandra can be used to trace the presence of the more massive dark matter component. The discovery of the hot gas may eventually enable astronomers to map of the distribution of dark matter in the universe and perhaps understand its origin.
Ultraviolet telescopes had detected cooler components of the hot gas system, but because of its high temperatures most of it is detectable only with an extremely sensitive X-ray telescope. The various groups used two techniques to probe the intergalactic gas. One method uses the absorbing effects of the gas on X-rays from distant galaxies.
On their way to Earth, the X-rays from a distant quasar dim as they pass through a cloud of the intergalactic gas. By measuring the amount of dimming due to oxygen and other elements in the cloud, astronomers were able to estimate the temperature, density and mass of the absorbing gas.
Observations of the quasars PKS 2155-304 by the MIT and Harvard-Smithsonian groups, and H1821+643 by an Ohio State group, revealed various parts of the hot gas system. One of these appears to be a filament in which the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are embedded, whereas other detected portions are at distances of a few billion light years from Earth.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Stills from Rivers of Gravity Animation
These results confirm earlier work by Joel Bregman and Jimmy Irwin of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who flipped the normal procedure, and used the fact that the hot gas is itself a source of X-rays. By observing the absorption of X-rays from the hot gas by a foreground galaxy, they were able to deduce presence of hot gas behind the galaxy.
“Normally the doctor studies the X-ray shadow produced by your bones to learn about your bones,” said Bregman. “In essence, we used the shadow to learn about the X-ray machine.”
During the first few billion years of the universe, about 20 percent of the matter came together under the influence of gravity to form groups and clusters of galaxies. Theories predict that most of the remaining normal matter and dark matter formed an immense filamentary web connecting the groups and clusters of galaxies, predicted to be so hot that it would be invisible to optical, infrared, and radio telescopes.
“Computer simulations have been telling us for several years that most of the ‘missing’ gas in the universe should be in hot filaments,“ said Smita Mathur, leader of the Ohio State team. “Most of those filaments are too faint to see, but it looks like we are finally finding their shadows.”
NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., manages the Chandra program, and TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, Calif., is the prime contractor. The Smithsonian's Chandra X-ray Center controls science and flight operations from Cambridge, Mass.
tell me Layman, what are you claiming? Because really, you have done a great job in confusing not only myself, but obviously others.
What are you claiming.....let's cut to the chase...no bullshit, no denials of who said what and when, just tell me what are you claiming?
You have to qualify this.
When we say that Voyager is going beyond the solar system, we are certainly not talking about this span. Are we ?
The Oort cloud is classed as part and parcel of the solar system.
Let me add that not much is known about the Oort cloud, other than it is theorised as the left over debris after the formation of the Solar system around 4.5 billion years ago and probably extends to more of a quarter of the way to the Alpha Centauri system.
Passing stars can knock some of these icy long period comets out of their orbit to the inner solar system.
I wrote that we don't have a picture of a black hole or its accretion disk. He then told me I was wrong about that, and he showed me a picture of a galaxy which they discovered a SMBH must be in. Then it was not a picture of a black hole, and he was saying that the center of that galaxy was a SMBH. But, it was only the picture of a galactic core. The article then said that the galactic core was 60 light years across, which he claims is a black hole and accretion disk. The article only said it was a spiral dust cloud.
His reference was not what he said it was, so I had no reason to agree with him about it. I only mentioned it, because someone else linked an article saying that Sir Roger Penrose claimed gravitational waves where the best evidence we have of a black hole. He is one of the leading mathematicians that works with this kind of thing... If a real picture exist with a black hole, then he doesn't even know about it, or the ones on the net have been rejected by the scientific community. For some reason, he had serious issues with this claim.
I believe we have observed accretion disks.
SMBH's reside at most galactic cores.
An accretion disk can also consist also of a spiralling dust cloud.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Image taken by Hubble space telescope of what may be gas accreting onto a black hole in elliptical galaxy NGC 4261
Hubble directly observes the disc around a black hole
A shame that now he appears to have you on ignore due to your rather emotional posts.
No one claimed we have a real picture of a BH: By the very definition of the name, that is impossible: Irrespective though even before the discovery of gravitational waves, BH's were reasonably certain to exist since there was no other means of describing the effects of spacetime and matter/energy that we see orbiting these beasts. Also the strong evidence of the "Dying Pulse Train" inferred the GR type BH we are familiar with.
Also I don't believe Roger Penrose said that gravitational waves were the best evidence of BH's per se: Gravitational waves are of different signals and maybe White Dwarf/Neutron star collision, WD/WD collision, NS/NS collision or even possibly other events.
The signal or "chirp" aLIGO and the other detector received were absolutely synonymous with that from a BH/BH collision.
That is why BH's are now as good as confirmed even without any impossible direct picture of a BH.
Perhaps you need to go back and see the couple of dozen scientific papers that have been linked to discussing these BH and GW confirmations.
The LIGO and Virgo teams soon went to work extracting every bit of information possible. At the most fundamental level, the signal gave them an existence proof: the fact that the objects came so close to each other before merging meant that they had to be black holes, because ordinary stars would need to be much bigger. “It is, I think, the clearest indication that black holes are really there,” says Penrose.
This is the thirteenth paragraph of the article. You should really be careful about the accuracy of claims made by the internet though. Anybody, with little scientific knowledge, can make a web page giving scientific news. Then the lack of evidence of black holes is something that I have read about before, outside of the internet. Penrose is the main mathematician that collaborates with theoretical physicist to do the math on this kind of work. He was probably interviewed, because he was the mathematician working with the experiment itself. It wouldn't surprise me.
This is recent news, dated in 2016.
But again Penrose did not infer that gravitational waves per se were indications of BH's. Gravitational waves can be from any number of astronomical events as I have informed you.
These particular gravitational waves certainly did indicate BH's again for the reasons I have mentioned.
Again, I raised this point because gravitational waves in themselves are not indication of BH's for the reasons stated, and Penrose did not say that.
Oh, and by the way your link is one I have already linked to earlier on in this thread.
No wonder Schneibs was frustrated with your rather confusing circular arguments.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
you should change your handle from layamn to lame-man.
Separate names with a comma.