Article: "The presence of these newly discovered protostars (the formative stage between a dense cloud of gas and a young, shining star) suggests that the conditions necessary to birth low-mass stars may exist even in one of the most turbulent regions of our galaxy and possibly in similar locales throughout the universe."
This is apparently the only answer available when you refuse to question entities which you admit that you cannot even directly observe.
ALMA discovers infant stars surprisingly near galaxy's supermassive black hole November 28, 2017, 6:09 pm 1 SlartiBartfast
The ACCRETION DISC of the Milky Way BH would be 99 million km (61.5 million miles) in diameter. These proto-stars are barely the size of our Sun & they have pics of them barely 3 light years from the BH. Our Sun is 1,390,000 km or 865,000 miles in diameter.
If they can take visible pics of these proto-stars so close to the supposed BH, why can they not take pics of the ACCRETION DISC, or it's turbulent effects at least, that is many times larger in size than all these proto-stars only about the size of our Sun.?????
The ACCRETION DISC of the Milky Way BH would be 99 million km (61.5 million miles) in diameter. These proto-stars are barely the size of our Sun & they have pics of them barely 3 light years from the BH. Our Sun is 1,390,000 km or 865,000 miles in diameter.
If they can take visible pics of these proto-stars so close to the supposed BH, why can they not take pics of the ACCRETION DISC, or it's turbulent effects at least, that is many times larger in size than all these proto-stars only about the size of our Sun.?????
Uh oh, a number seems to have fallen right out of your ass. You might want to have a doctor look at that!.......this is the best you can do is to become a foul mouthed slob?
Uh oh, a number seems to have fallen right out of your ass. You might want to have a doctor look at that!.......this is the best you can do is to become a foul mouthed slob?
Uh oh, a number seems to have fallen right out of your ass. You might want to have a doctor look at that!
......this is the best you can do is to become a foul mouthed slob?
Just go on and stuff the number right back up in there. I promise it'll make you feel better!..........just love you neophytes who've never seen a Differential Equation you could solve.
Uh oh, a number seems to have fallen right out of your ass. You might want to have a doctor look at that!......this is the best you can do is to become a foul mouthed slob?
Just go on and stuff the number right back up in there. I promise it'll make you feel better!..........just love you neophytes who've never seen a Differential Equation you could solve.
Uh oh, a number seems to have fallen right out of your ass. You might want to have a doctor look at that!
......this is the best you can do is to become a foul mouthed slob?
Just go on and stuff the number right back up in there. I promise it'll make you feel better!..........
just love you neophytes who've never seen a Differential Equation you could solve.
Here's a perfect example of the KdV equation in action: https://youtu.be/...Ii0?t=15
If the moment at which a contradiction is observed is not a good time to question the approach and the original hypothesis, when do you propose WOULD be a good time?
Benni is thinking.
About what?
The next words of that stupid Ben Astley song he linked to?
The standard model faerie tales about all things dark and unseen are falling apart before their disbelieving eyes. It won't stop them from believing their nonsensical mumbo jumbo though because that's not how acolytes behave. They will continue to believe it's all about gravity despite the observations and any iota of common sense. They are the flat earthers of the 21st century.
But, CD...
Even YOU have to admit that it's a matter of scale that determines at which time different forces are in play ...
Benni is thinking.
About what?
http://www.nature.com/news/why-galactic-black-hole-fireworks-were-a-flop-1.15591. A dust cloud (see blobs) recently approach Sagittarius A (the Milky Way's central black hole), Simulations predicted it wld b chewed up w/ fireworks, but it was unaffected. Why?
Accretion disk is supposed to result just from interaction of infalling matter with black hole. If the black hole would suck interstellar gas, then some glowing accretion disk would create itself. Why there is no accretion disk, after then?
An important clue in all of this is that plasmas -- for some unknown reason -- exhibit a remarkable scaling capability. The fact is that we see similar structures across orders of magnitude. This is an enormously important observation because it will eventually be realized as cosmology's escape hatch.
The logic goes as follows:
If plasmas both dominate and scale, then what we are really looking at here is a sort of fractal. Once a person recognizes this, all of our biases about scale can no longer be ignored. How exactly does a creature within a fractal recognize the "true dominant" force? Well, it would very much depend upon WHERE in the fractal you are, no?
Accretion disk is supposed to result just from interaction of infalling matter with black hole. If the black hole would suck interstellar gas, then some glowing accretion disk would create itself. Why there is no accretion disk, after then?
It's actually quite small; first, the black hole isn't that big, second the accretion rate is pretty small. It may not be big enough to form an accretion disk in the first place, which would be why the black hole at the center of the Milky Way isn't an active galactic nucleus.
Sorry, @Lenni, I don't know what V= 4/3 ÄŽď�� R³ means.
Meanwhile it seems that you're not willing to wait for the data reduction needed to let the EHT data be seen, not to mention totally unskooled in what accretion rate does to any potential accretion disk. You're a #physicscrank, so none of this is a surprise.
Do better, @Lenni.
V= 4/3 Ď� R³, used to extrapolate the radius when the volume of a sphere changes. Let's see if resident asstro-physicists can figure out why it will be impossible to see an ACCRETION DISC of a BH 4 million times the mass of our SUN. Hint resident asstro-physicists, you don't increase diameter 4 million times, or the radius, but you won't miss seeing the AD created by an object this size.
V= 4/3 ÄŽď�� R³, used to extrapolate the radius when the volume of a sphere changes. Let's see if resident asstro-physicists can figure out why it will be impossible to see an ACCRETION DISC of a BH 4 million times the mass of our SUN. Hint resident asstro-physicists, you don't increase diameter 4 million times, or the radius, but you won't miss seeing the AD created by an object this size.
Why are you attempting to establish a BH radii as 4m times larger than our sun's? It's the MASS that is 4m times more, not the radius. You use the Schwarzchild solution for that radius.
That they DON'T see an accretion disk for that much mass, is the head scratcher...
You're sounding like an amateur ass-tronomer...
V= 4/3 ÄŽď�� R³, used to extrapolate the radius when the volume of a sphere changes. Let's see if resident asstro-physicists can figure out why it will be impossible to see an ACCRETION DISC of a BH 4 million times the mass of our SUN. Hint resident asstro-physicists, you don't increase diameter 4 million times, or the radius, but you won't miss seeing the AD created by an object this size.
Why are you attempting to establish a BH radii as 4m times larger than our sun's? It's the MASS that is 4m times more, not the radius. You use the Schwarzchild solution for that radius.
That they DON'T see an accretion disk for that much mass, is the head scratcher...
You're sounding like an amateur ass-tronomer...
Here. Let me help you with that;
https://en.wikipe...d_radius
For a non-spinning non-charged (i.e. Schwarzchild, as opposed to Reisser-Nordstrom (charged), Kerr (spinning), or Kerr-Newman (spinning and charged)) black hole, the Schwarzchild radius is about
r(s) = 2GM/c²
For a mass of 3.6 x 10⁶ M☉, which is about 7.1604e+36 kg, with G being 6.674×10⁻¹¹ m³⋅kg⁻¹⋅s⁻², and c² being 89875517873681764 m²⋅s⁻², this gives a radius of 10633783510 m or about 10 million kilometers. This is a bit more than 1/15 the orbit of Earth. And that's for 3.6 million times the mass of the Sun.
I will leave calculations of the angular size of an object that is 1/15 the size of Earth's orbit at some 30,000 light years' distance for anyone who cares to do them.
It's a bit like bragging that you designed a three transistor amplifier.no offence meant but it's more like bragging about being able to put a new chain on your bicycle
None of them worth bragging about here..
...and everything you just put up is all slop & swill math because you first need to prove such stellar bodies exist by observation, and none exists There is absolutely zero evidence for the existence a non-spinning non-charged (i.e. Schwarzchild, as opposed to Reisser-Nordstrom (charged), Kerr (spinning), everything is all about INFERRING properties of infinite gravity that can't exist on a FINITE body.
I used to paint the princess; I used to paint the frogs-Don Henley, "Drivin' With Your Eyes Closed"
Now I paint moustaches on dangerous dogs
Small question for you Benni:
Why are you so proud of having solved differential equations?
Sure, it's high school stuff, but so what?
It's a bit like bragging that you designed a three transistor amplifier.
@Whyde, it's like what you do when you get to the edge of the canvas. If you stop painting, everyone goes "wow, cool." If you keep on painting, they all go "wow, insane."
I used to paint the princess; I used to paint the frogs
Now I paint moustaches on dangerous dogs
Don Henley, "Drivin' With Your Eyes Closed"
Come on Benni!Small question for you Benni:
Why are you so proud of having solved differential equations?
Sure, it's high school stuff, but so what?
It's a bit like bragging that you designed a three transistor amplifier.
Thought you'd have answered this by now.
Tuxford
Nov 28, 2017As I have been saying for years, stars are largely born from the core itself, being ejected therefrom in periodic eruptions of relatively dense material. Moreover, the region nearest the supermassive core naturally accelerates the production of new matter within stars, helping them grow more rapidly in this region.
Another point favoring LaViolette's Continuous Creation model, and another strike against the merger maniacs fantasy. How many strikes is it so far, 50 or more? I lost count.