Be Nice (... but not TOO nice, exactly as you're doing.) He's not a troll, he's even worse: one with a limited mind, limited by Hollywood, local culture, or even nature. Maybe he'll grow out of it one day, but don't get your hopes up.
Impressive! So the person asking and wonder and trying to go further and understanding. And clearly and explicitly saying since the very first moment that I only want to discuss about actually validatable, physics, maths ideas, please, no abstract, generic talking. THAT is the guy who is influenced by Hollywood?! The one who has actually read the theory and critically analyse it and truly understand what he is talking about!! Wow! Impressive! You should be tremendously proud of your understanding, summarising and knowing-people-and-expectations capabilities. I am just a poor soul with actual scientific/maths/physics background trying to convince a bunch of pop-culture fanatics that their certainties might not be as absolute as they think. Hollywood has certainly destroyed my life! LOL. You are VERY funny.
How many times do you want? Pick a globular cluster at random. Measure the visible stars. Put them on a distribution curve. You know what you get? A very smooth curve that suddenly has a hard limit at 150 solar masses beyond which nothing is seen.
Candidates, which might understood as complex enough situations where the errors of the default theory are much more noticeable. As I understand from other comments, it is impossible for a star to grow too big for very good, thermodynamic reasons. So, you can't see nothing because nothing like that exists. Why do you think that such big stars are required in certain places? Because a theory tell you so. But how many of these situations show that bright circle surrounding a black sphere? Perhaps not so many.
Sorry to get sciencey on you, but... Prove it.
I have already done that (take a look at my only submission here). Exactly the same that I have participated in many other discussions like this one and I know the result. In fact, this whole process has been a relevant part of pretty relevant learning experience about myself, others, the world and many other things. I am very happy with what I got. I have zero interest in prove anything to anyone anymore, because that tends to provoke very unappealing results (fanaticism, mainly among theoretically bright people, is a tremendously sad spectacle).
Anyway, this wasn't my intention where. I only want to understand what was going on here. I did. You are welcome to read my conclusions. I will write them in a while as an answer to my first post. I don't think that I will reply to many comments, because I have already spent a ton of time here and, as explain, I know where all this will be heading (nowhere of interest to me).
What I tried to understand was whether this was the only galaxy you have found with that "peculiarity" (being shown every time you look there, I guess) or if you have found more galaxies. I guess that the answer is clear from your and other posts: this is the only one (perhaps a couple of further dubious ones somewhere else?) and that's why it was taken as a beforehand requirement for this "discovery".
The intention of the statement which you are quoting is clarifying that, with all the due respect, I prefer to not continue talking to you. You have proven to have the kind of knowledge and expectations attitude, completely incompatible with mine, which would drive this discussion nowhere (you would not improve my knowledge, I would not improve yours and this would just be a tremendous waste of time and effort). You are free to understand/agree with my position or not. Honestly, I don't care. I will write a summary of all the ideas I got during this discussion in a while as a reply to my first post, you can take a look at it and even comment something, but I will probably not reply to you. As said, my intention isn't being impolite, just practical and realistic (have been in this situation with similar people before and I know the result). Bye.
This guy is the best troll I've seen around here for a loooong while...
I am a troll for asking questions to understand better what is theoretically meant to be properly understood (science, you know?) in a place precisely meant to do things of this sort? And being clearly identified when doing so (BTW, who are you? Mr AC, Mrs AC, Dr AC?). Arbitrarily calling someone else troll seems the new resource of people-unable-and-unwilling-to-understanding-attacking-anyone-thinking-differently to bash others without relying on the bad-PR torches and forks. I see. Thanks for the information, random individual with an unknown background and interest in all this.
Which means we can throw away your theory about it being a massive star, even when we ignore the giant pile of physics explaining why there can't be a star.
It wasn't a theory, just a random thought while trying to understand what was all this about. Now I do. And I continue seeing other alternatives (various stars in the middle, too complex for our models configuration of planets, massive obstacles in the huge stretch between us and that galaxy, etc.), but I have spent a lot of time here today and am not feeling like continue the discussion.
Every time we have looked. While that isn't 100% definitive, that certain leads to "more likely than not" explanations.
To that galaxy? I meant in general. Have we found other galaxies with similar no-light-in-between issues?
Regarding the rest of your answer. Well... I have wasted way too much time today here and honestly I don't think that any of us will win with this discussion to continue. I have the answers I wanted and I have no interest in getting involved into a never-ending discussion. Bye.
Stars are not anywhere close to being billiard balls. That is the primary fail of your analogy. It has to be relevant to be useful.
My analogy wasn't about comparing billiard balls to stars, but transmitting the huge difficulty associated with drawing a complex trajectory: trying to see what is happening really far away with lots of possible events and obstacles in between.
My point since the start was trying to understand what was the transition point. How the black hole could be found and measured. Why we see lots of stars and, suddenly, a black hole. All that without hiding (much) that I am not precisely a supporter of the underlying theory. After quite a few posts, I finally got a reasonably good picture of what was going on here and this is the context for the statement which you are quoting. Why bringing the black hole idea into picture at all when you are basically looking at what is happening very far away and under particularly chaotic conditions. That light-less part might explained in many different ways!
Or even go ahead and consider it a black hole, but understand the weakness of your position: this is everything but conclusive. Nothing on the lines of what people are saying about proving the existence of black holes (and whole theories and assumptions)! The reality is that you are proposing a possible explanation about a highly unusual situation, but it is almost a blind shot, a somehow-educated guess in the best scenario.
I'm sorry, you don't want to change the fact that youre ignorant?
You have certainly serious understanding problems. I will try to minimise my not-too-clear references, jokes and sarcasm when dealing with you (BTW, I have written right now a clarification about one of my previous replies which you might need to read). I said that I am ignorant about the black holes, because I want to be ignorant, because I consider that a nonsense. The basic theory might have a pass, but I find all the popular-culture ideas built on top of it (probably, all your knowledge about the matter) irrelevant and tremendously unappealing. Ignorance is lack of knowledge. And I do recognise my lack of knowledge on that specific issue (and in many other ones) and my zero interest in correcting it. Actually, I think that a knowledge eminently based on so irrelevant issues might be easily considered as absolute ignorance, as far as knowing about what is irrelevant is pretty much the same than knowing nothing. Hopefully, I have been clear enough. If you need more help, just ask me.
Lemme guess, you fall somewhere on the spectrum.
No. At least, not medically, not belonging to the subgroup of unlucky people who have been victims of non-ideal environments (pfff), not even having a similar personality to what might be common in your more aggressive country/culture. But if you and people like you are the other option (not understanding anything properly, randomly feeling attacked/attacking, expecting everyone to behave as he does, etc.), I would prefer to be with them than with you. Either way, I find pretty funny that you are associating ignorance (and wanting to remain ignorant) to these people, when they usually want to learn more. I guess that you are applying some prejudice you read in a t-shirt or something like that. You, people, are so funny.
Maybe he started with Reddit or "social media", or he's a muslim ("Monsignor Archange Gabriel") hence it's ultimately about feelings and sounding smart and clever. If you disagree you're a racist transphobe!
LOL. I get now what the other guy was saying! I was joking by implying that he was like a religious person (as opposed to scientific) because of his settled-science/nothing-to-discuss attitude. Note that, although I am pretty comfortable writing in English, it isn't my first language and most of my knowledge is about work/technical stuff. So, there might be some pretty common expressions which I don't know well. In this case, I was trying to write the English equivalent of the Spanish expression "sí padre", to sarcastically indicate that he was behaving like a priest (understood as opposed to a scientist). "Yes, pater"? Nah, too confusing. "Yes, Monsignor" (in Spanish, "yes, monseñor") sounded better to me and assumed that it meant pretty much the same. I have had some problems in the past here with (poor understanding of) my jokes or sarcasm and that's why I always add an ending LOL to let anyone know that it is a joke. Apparently, this proceeding isn't still as clear as I thought.
Regarding all your Reddit, smart, muslim, racist, transphobe references, I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about or where have you got anything of that from any of my posts. On the other hand, I now understand better why suddenly all my posts in this subthread were down-modded. I thought that it was because of openly discussing/asking about certain issues in a thread like this one, but perhaps it has been because certain "person" have got in down-modding rampage after not having understood a joke, or not liking me to not want to participate in his abstract concerns. Anyway, same o’ same o’, tremendously pathetic and not the kind of things which I want to tolerate, or the kind of community where I feel comfortable contributing. I like Slashdot in general and always read it, but situations like this make me to not want to post much here.
Galaxies can also bend light so we can see things that we can't see.... Objects behind galaxies from our vantage. Get it?
I am afraid that you are the one not getting it. Let's see if with this example you can. Imagine a billiard table with 10 balls and expecting to come up with a way to touch all the balls and entering in certain hole (or whatever the name is). Now imagine the same billiard table with 1000 balls and expecting to come with a way to touch all the balls and make 10 different balls to enter into certain holes. Now, imagine the same billiard table with 1 million balls, etc. Do you get the idea now? We are talking about a tremendously complex scenario, much more complex than what I firstly thought. If you want to fully understand my point, read some of the many other posts which I have written in this sub-thread, most of them down-moded, probably by people as interested in properly understanding as you are.
Most of (all?) my posts here down-modded as over-rated, in some cases twice. Even the first one, where I am just asking questions?! Typical situation when posting in these threads (e.g., relativity, climate change, Musk/Tesla/SpaceX, etc.) and not sharing the views of main line of thought, together with pretty aggressive attitudes (not many of those this time! Really lucky!). Fanaticism in all its splendor! Days like this remind me why I don't post in Slashdot much.
BTW, Slashdot, there is something wrong with you or my account: I haven't been getting mod points in a quite long time (despite usually getting them pretty regularly) and I don't get warnings when logged-in users reply to me anymore?!
So, black holes are basically as stars?! OK. Honestly, not much into that sub-world, just some things I heart that perhaps are completely wrong. The only reason why I started posting in this thread was mostly understanding better how the data collection process worked and my ideas are crystal clear now. Additionally, I have spent way too much time here today, I am getting tons of downvotes (for no reason, as it is usually the case when participating in these threads) and I am not even getting any warnings when logged-in users reply to me (?!). Long story short: I will cut it here, but thanks for the post (not exactly what I was looking for, but very happy to see some politeness in a thread like this one).
Messier 87 (M87) is a behemoth elliptical galaxy that sits some 53 million light-years from Earth. This giant holds trillions of stars and helps anchor the roughly 2,000 galaxies — including the Milky Way — that make up our local cosmic city, dubbed the Virgo Cluster.
dense disk of matter – called an accretion disk – whirls around the black hole at up to 2 million miles per hour (3.5 million km/h). The material within the accretion disk grinds together as it circles, with the innermost regions spinning faster than those farther out. This differential rotation causes the magnetic fields to get coiled up, ejecting the material falling into the black hole at nearly the speed of light.
Whhhhaaaaat? I thought that the 53M light-years away issue was the biggest deal here, but it is certainly not. We are talking about a galaxy with trillions of stars!! And with really weird things going on!! And they are seriously expecting to accurately understand what is happening over there?! From here?! By looking at the light we (don't) get? Why can we see a circle of light and nothing in between with that scenario? For many possible reasons, happening in that galaxy or in any of the thousands of galaxies through which the light has to pass before reaching us! It could even be used to prove that heaven and hell exist (joking, but pretty descriptive)!
In reality there are millions of observations done on every scale of the universe and all these observations are related to each other.
You can't simply invent a theory that explains one observation but invalidates other observations.
The classical mechanics theories are pretty solid for Earth, at the macroscopic level. It seems pretty sensible to guess that they are also somehow applicable to different scopes. The tricky part is adequately transforming these ideas to different conditions. The accuracy isn't great, but roughly speaking the main ideas should more or less hold pretty much everywhere. I am not criticising classical mechanics. I am criticising (well... that wasn't my intention, but you made me start so here I am) a theory whose sole purpose is accounting for the required correction factors at certain level, because I am sure that it can't be accurate.
This is pure science.
Multiple predictions made by multiple theories that look at things from a different perspective come together into a single observation.
That expectation, again. Why? Why do you expect something complex to be simple? This is very difficult, or even impossible, and usually error-prone. Simple answers to complex problems are usually incorrect (and/or dishonest).
This is one of the puzzle pieces. We see gigantic sources of gravity in very small volumes, but no star at the center. In fact, no light at all from the center.
This is what we observe.
Every time? How many occurrences are we talking about? Tens? Hundreds?
But then your theory will ALSO need to explain why GPS needs time correction
Sorry to burst your bubble, but what explains that isn't the theory of relativity, but the limitations of the classical gravity/mechanics. Einstein was right on something: it is certainly a matter of frame of reference (or scope or size or scenario). The classic formulae were meant to be used on small scopes/Earth, by logically being simplifications which, as such, were erroneous. The higher the distance, mass, size, the higher the error and the less reliable the formula, that's why correction factor are required in GPS. But the ones indicated by experience are the most reliable ones, not the ones delivered by a specific theory. Actually, correction factors are pretty common in most of engineering applications. All our theories are faulty. Another example is the atomic (and below) level: a different scope where the classical approaches provoke too many errors. But again that fact (about which nobody with a bit of knowledge should doubt nowadays) doesn't make a given theory valid and the only way to perform said correction.
If you do not provide an alternative explanation that covers everything we have observed then you have no right complaining.
Why and why not? In fact, I think that this is the main problem here: wanting to come up with something which can explain everything when some people should have accepted very long time ago that this is tremendously difficult, virtually impossible, and in any case very inefficient. Why do you think that this is a take it or leave all kind of scenario? Where have theories become our masters that we can't complain or say anything bad about any part of them?
But think of it this way. If this 'old theory' was so bad, then why would we still use it?
You keep asking me questions whose answers you don't want to hear, but if you want it, here you have it. Why? Because we really don't use it. Exactly the same that we don't use Newton's formulae for anything relevant. These are just starting points which, when required, are corrected via factors like in the GPS example you are proposing. The applicability of the relativity theory is even much lower, ironically, the main reason why it has survived for so long. Like the black hole idea. How can you oppose to a theory which isn't applicable to most of the situations and, in the few ones where it is really applicable, there is no way to perform a proper validation? The theory of relativity is basically classic mechanics with a correction factor which only becomes relevant for very big values (way bigger than what is required for most of what we do). And when the correction factor really kicks in (only in theoretical setups, because as said engineering is based on empirical correction factors) nobody can really tell whether it is right or not.
What reason IS there to formulate a different theory?
Because it is wrong.
What things in the universe have you seen that contradict this 'old theory'?
Its own mathematical derivation and even its justification according to the remaining physics (everything but what built after it/applying similar ideas).
I think you should actually understand black hole formation. You appear pretty ignorant of the science
You are right this time (congratulations!). I am tremendously ignorant about all the assumptions associated with that black-hole thing (science, you call it? I don't think that this is the best name). But I don't want to change that. The only reason why I have participated in this thread was to get a better understanding about how the collection/measuring process was working. As explained in my first post, I have zero interest in all the theoretical, philosophical, etc. issues.
I think that you missed some bits in my last post and I don't agree with some of these ideas, but again thanks for being so informative. I wanted to know how this whole process worked and my ideas are much clearer now. They were doing what I pretty much was thinking: interpreting not-descriptive enough information to meet their main goal. I had some doubts about how the black hole peculiarities were being measured, but thanks to you it is crystal clear now: nothing is being measured, they have simply interpreted that if the light doesn't come is because it is a black hole (not because the myriad of other possible reasons).
That's what the observations tell us. We have a disk whose upper side moves away from us. Thus it is not very bright. The lower side moves in our direction, and inbetween we have a space which doesn't emit any light at all.
There might be many explanations for that. Perhaps it isn't just one body, but various, what would explain somehow exceptional orbits which aren't properly accounted by our Solar-System-based models. You might have 5 planets orbiting around 1 star and 10 around other one, and, from here, you might be thinking that there is only one star with 15 planets. Or there might be various stars in the center. Or there might be something between that galaxy and us which is avoiding the light to come back naturally, it might be a huge planet, lots of asteroids, etc.
We aren't even 100% sure about what is going on in our own galaxy and you are seriously expecting a high accuracy from a tremendously far away one? All what you have are assumptions, reasonably educated guesses and calculations which might not even be applicable there. As said in other comment, you can interpret whatever, but not undoubtedly conclude. Under these conditions, the understanding is everything but certain.
All science is provisional, but some science is less provisional.
Less provisional? That is funny. No. All of it is equally provisional.
Every test we've flung at general relativity over the last century has confirmed it
That is even funnier, but I will better not explain the joke.
Your problem is ignorance of how science works, coupled with pedantry, so that somehow you imagine you can usefully critique theories which you clearly know absolutely nothing about. You're arrogant and ignorant,
You are so knowledgeable, modest, reasonable and, probably, handsome (I am into women, but if you are a man, I wouldn't have any problem to become gay, just for you) that all what I want is you to like me. LOL. Seriously, now. You should take a look at some of the other posts in this sub-thread like, for example, the ones from Sique (actually knowledgeable, actually answering/sharing information, rather than randomly provoking chaos and wanting to force certain type of conversation with someone not wanting to have it) to understand what is welcome/relevant and why you are not.
but obviously not stupid,
A compliment! Thanks! I know that it was difficult, but it is over now. You can rest. Perhaps you should insult me a bit more to get your energy back. LOL.
Wow! Thanks. Honestly, I wasn't expecting to get so reasonable and informational answers here (not meaning Slashdot, but threads of this type).
I certainly have problems with black holes, relativity theory, etc., but logically I completely accept extreme scenarios much more when dealing with something as uncontrollable as stars. I understand that there are many teams of astronomists which have been searching for unusual phenomena for years and that this one was clearly exceptional. I also assume that we are talking about very knowledgeable people, committed to their works but also probably honest and really wanting to understand better. Additionally, the media (+ paying, interested parties) are surely focusing much more on not-necessarily-relevant aspects. But even despite all that and your perfectly reasonable explanations, I still see a relevant leap of faith here.
I can accept that you have found a highly unusual scenario. Even one that, according to most of our knowledge, can't be fully explained. The problem I see is when you try to make that case fit into a given set of expectations, which are clearly not meant for that job. By definition, a highly unusual scenario doesn't fit within anything or, at least, within the standard something. Calling it an exception is fine. Even using a special nomenclature ("black hole" rather than "exception") seems perfect too. But you aren't doing that. You are taking that extreme scenario as a proof that the extreme scenario of certain theory is true?! Something like saying 100/10e-5000 equals 10e1000/10e-5000 because your calculator outputs NaN in both cases. Taking the fact of being in the pure limit (of understanding, measuring, calculating, etc.) as the descriptive feature of two events seems, in the best scenario, wishful thinking.
Does the center of that galaxy contains an incredibly exceptional body which has nothing to do with a star as we know it? As per your explanations, this does seem a pretty reasonable assumption. Is certain theory assumed correct, being systematically applied for astronomical considerations and also here? OK too (not really, but not feeling like discussing this now:)). Does this theory refer to an extreme situation, which some people like and some others don't, but which is purely theoretical? Yes. Could the current extremely exceptional scenario represent what the theory predicted? Everything is possible! Is it sensible, honest, scientific to say that that very far away extreme event, impossible to see, difficult to understand, measure, etc. represents an undoubted confirmation of the theoretical extreme scenario? No. And this is my problem here. Actually, I could say that I am 100% sure that that event doesn't validate the theory, but that statement would require to extend this discussion even longer what I don't want. And doing that isn't even required to understand my point here: we are talking about two hugely misunderstood situations which, by definition, can't undoubtedly state anything, other than doubts, assumptions, hopes. Never conclusions.
Show me a video of a huge hole in the middle of the space sucking everything, and I would accept that black holes (as proposed) exist. Or show me any other proof of planets, celestial bodies being regularly suck into some coordinates, and I would also believe it. Even just tremendously irregular orbits heading to the same direction (Planet A being in (0,0) (0,100) (0,10000), etc year after year). Show me an actual proof of something which is even remotely close to what some people say about black holes and I am willing to accept (despite being certain about certain issues) that what seems an almost-random idea delivered 100 years ago might be surprisingly accurate.
You don't get it do you. You asked a question, which is all and well, but when people with actual knowledge (backed by empirical evidence) do their best to explain you just balk. But this last post of yours explains it all. At least now we all understand.
What are you taking about? Seriously, it was soooo easy to have read my expectations in the first post, accepted that we (you and me, no problem with the other posters) are on completely different pages and move on. But NO, you have to create this chaotic sub-thread. People like you is the reason why I try to avoid posting to articles like this one. Today, it was an exception and well... I am reasonably happy with what I got. Bye.
Because there's no room to fit such a big star in such a small orbit.
Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that the theory is wrong or, at least, not applicable there. We are talking about tremendously complex phenomena and about assumptions which can't be validated. It even seems much more logical assuming a different type of matter by applying the rules of the ones we know: even brighter than what we are used to, but why bright-less? Why not super dense matter, rather than matter-less something? The people drawing that picture seem very sure about the black center and bright edges, why?
so massive that gravity becomes the dominant force is fairly easy to grasp. And once that happens, there's nothing that can stop it from collapsing.
I don't see it as intuitively clear, at least my relying on my eminently practical attitude and by focusing on reality/experience. I see it as elucubration with lots of weak points completely incompatible with all what I have always seen in nature. An idea resulting from certain unrealistic extrapolation which doesn't account for many issues. Like, for example, thinking that the Earth might be flat without considering that this would be incompatible with many things like, for example, having seas. I intuitively think about all this and other issues and the idea seems impossible, exactly the same than what you are describing.
As far as I understand, the black hole idea is associated with some kind of in-wards process where everything gets suck in, right? Let's assume that the gravity could provoke the object to collapse (not intuitive to me though), in that case, why would keep it sucking anything? It would have disappeared, the force provoking that situation would have disappeared. What is provoking the attraction of everything around it (= nothing already), then? It seems that the only way to expect that to occur is to assume that there is some kind of surrounding material (space time) where you have made a hole which is right now attracting everything? But who/what is exerting the force? This idea seems tremendously counter-intuitive to me. Even if I accepted that space-time surrounding something why would a hole in it provoke attraction? Is there anything behind? Because the collapsed object has already disappeared. Anyway... no, I don't find it intuitive at all. I find intuitive what I have seen my whole life and, eventually, minor variations of it. Something completely different and requiring a set of assumptions which my experience/knowledge tell me that are impossible isn't intuitive to me.
the scientific method is posing a claim and through experiments seeking evidence that supports that claim.
I agree.
Settled science means just that. That a claim has been showed to be true by a multitude of experiments.
I don't agree. Settled science is pretty much the opposite to the scientific method. As explained, it is just a practical approach to be efficient in the tremendously complex modern world. Nothing else. Any theory or assumption or experiment can only be truly considered scientific in case of being always ready to be proven right/wrong and, eventually, corrected or even eliminated. Any scientific-minded person should always be ready to discuss, understand, change his opinion; or, at least, accept his lack of knowledge/interest and don't bother those who want to do so.
Whatever. It doesn't matter. The universe is huge and we know very little about it. I guess that everyone can agree on this. My question is why starting assuming black holes (something against all what we have ever seen, experienced) from certain point onwards?
The picture referred in in this article, for example. Why the designer decided that the center has to be black (or lightless) rather than tremendously bright? When we have only seen bright objects and, as shown in the picture linked from other of your comments, all what we can see coming from there is light? Why bring black holes in the equation at all? As per all your explanations so far, it seems that all what they found is a galaxy which has probably a very big and bright start in the middle. What does it prove other than the immensity of university and how irrelevant we really are?
Slashdot Mirror
Be Nice (... but not TOO nice, exactly as you're doing.) He's not a troll, he's even worse: one with a limited mind, limited by Hollywood, local culture, or even nature. Maybe he'll grow out of it one day, but don't get your hopes up.
Impressive! So the person asking and wonder and trying to go further and understanding. And clearly and explicitly saying since the very first moment that I only want to discuss about actually validatable, physics, maths ideas, please, no abstract, generic talking. THAT is the guy who is influenced by Hollywood?! The one who has actually read the theory and critically analyse it and truly understand what he is talking about!! Wow! Impressive! You should be tremendously proud of your understanding, summarising and knowing-people-and-expectations capabilities. I am just a poor soul with actual scientific/maths/physics background trying to convince a bunch of pop-culture fanatics that their certainties might not be as absolute as they think. Hollywood has certainly destroyed my life! LOL. You are VERY funny.
How many times do you want? Pick a globular cluster at random. Measure the visible stars. Put them on a distribution curve. You know what you get? A very smooth curve that suddenly has a hard limit at 150 solar masses beyond which nothing is seen.
Candidates, which might understood as complex enough situations where the errors of the default theory are much more noticeable. As I understand from other comments, it is impossible for a star to grow too big for very good, thermodynamic reasons. So, you can't see nothing because nothing like that exists. Why do you think that such big stars are required in certain places? Because a theory tell you so. But how many of these situations show that bright circle surrounding a black sphere? Perhaps not so many.
Sorry to get sciencey on you, but ... Prove it.
I have already done that (take a look at my only submission here). Exactly the same that I have participated in many other discussions like this one and I know the result. In fact, this whole process has been a relevant part of pretty relevant learning experience about myself, others, the world and many other things. I am very happy with what I got. I have zero interest in prove anything to anyone anymore, because that tends to provoke very unappealing results (fanaticism, mainly among theoretically bright people, is a tremendously sad spectacle).
Anyway, this wasn't my intention where. I only want to understand what was going on here. I did. You are welcome to read my conclusions. I will write them in a while as an answer to my first post. I don't think that I will reply to many comments, because I have already spent a ton of time here and, as explain, I know where all this will be heading (nowhere of interest to me).
What I tried to understand was whether this was the only galaxy you have found with that "peculiarity" (being shown every time you look there, I guess) or if you have found more galaxies. I guess that the answer is clear from your and other posts: this is the only one (perhaps a couple of further dubious ones somewhere else?) and that's why it was taken as a beforehand requirement for this "discovery".
The intention of the statement which you are quoting is clarifying that, with all the due respect, I prefer to not continue talking to you. You have proven to have the kind of knowledge and expectations attitude, completely incompatible with mine, which would drive this discussion nowhere (you would not improve my knowledge, I would not improve yours and this would just be a tremendous waste of time and effort). You are free to understand/agree with my position or not. Honestly, I don't care. I will write a summary of all the ideas I got during this discussion in a while as a reply to my first post, you can take a look at it and even comment something, but I will probably not reply to you. As said, my intention isn't being impolite, just practical and realistic (have been in this situation with similar people before and I know the result). Bye.
This guy is the best troll I've seen around here for a loooong while...
I am a troll for asking questions to understand better what is theoretically meant to be properly understood (science, you know?) in a place precisely meant to do things of this sort? And being clearly identified when doing so (BTW, who are you? Mr AC, Mrs AC, Dr AC?). Arbitrarily calling someone else troll seems the new resource of people-unable-and-unwilling-to-understanding-attacking-anyone-thinking-differently to bash others without relying on the bad-PR torches and forks. I see. Thanks for the information, random individual with an unknown background and interest in all this.
Which means we can throw away your theory about it being a massive star, even when we ignore the giant pile of physics explaining why there can't be a star.
It wasn't a theory, just a random thought while trying to understand what was all this about. Now I do. And I continue seeing other alternatives (various stars in the middle, too complex for our models configuration of planets, massive obstacles in the huge stretch between us and that galaxy, etc.), but I have spent a lot of time here today and am not feeling like continue the discussion.
Every time we have looked. While that isn't 100% definitive, that certain leads to "more likely than not" explanations.
To that galaxy? I meant in general. Have we found other galaxies with similar no-light-in-between issues? Regarding the rest of your answer. Well... I have wasted way too much time today here and honestly I don't think that any of us will win with this discussion to continue. I have the answers I wanted and I have no interest in getting involved into a never-ending discussion. Bye.
Stars are not anywhere close to being billiard balls. That is the primary fail of your analogy. It has to be relevant to be useful.
My analogy wasn't about comparing billiard balls to stars, but transmitting the huge difficulty associated with drawing a complex trajectory: trying to see what is happening really far away with lots of possible events and obstacles in between.
My point since the start was trying to understand what was the transition point. How the black hole could be found and measured. Why we see lots of stars and, suddenly, a black hole. All that without hiding (much) that I am not precisely a supporter of the underlying theory. After quite a few posts, I finally got a reasonably good picture of what was going on here and this is the context for the statement which you are quoting. Why bringing the black hole idea into picture at all when you are basically looking at what is happening very far away and under particularly chaotic conditions. That light-less part might explained in many different ways!
Or even go ahead and consider it a black hole, but understand the weakness of your position: this is everything but conclusive. Nothing on the lines of what people are saying about proving the existence of black holes (and whole theories and assumptions)! The reality is that you are proposing a possible explanation about a highly unusual situation, but it is almost a blind shot, a somehow-educated guess in the best scenario.
I'm sorry, you don't want to change the fact that youre ignorant?
You have certainly serious understanding problems. I will try to minimise my not-too-clear references, jokes and sarcasm when dealing with you (BTW, I have written right now a clarification about one of my previous replies which you might need to read). I said that I am ignorant about the black holes, because I want to be ignorant, because I consider that a nonsense. The basic theory might have a pass, but I find all the popular-culture ideas built on top of it (probably, all your knowledge about the matter) irrelevant and tremendously unappealing. Ignorance is lack of knowledge. And I do recognise my lack of knowledge on that specific issue (and in many other ones) and my zero interest in correcting it. Actually, I think that a knowledge eminently based on so irrelevant issues might be easily considered as absolute ignorance, as far as knowing about what is irrelevant is pretty much the same than knowing nothing. Hopefully, I have been clear enough. If you need more help, just ask me.
Lemme guess, you fall somewhere on the spectrum.
No. At least, not medically, not belonging to the subgroup of unlucky people who have been victims of non-ideal environments (pfff), not even having a similar personality to what might be common in your more aggressive country/culture. But if you and people like you are the other option (not understanding anything properly, randomly feeling attacked/attacking, expecting everyone to behave as he does, etc.), I would prefer to be with them than with you. Either way, I find pretty funny that you are associating ignorance (and wanting to remain ignorant) to these people, when they usually want to learn more. I guess that you are applying some prejudice you read in a t-shirt or something like that. You, people, are so funny.
Maybe he started with Reddit or "social media", or he's a muslim ("Monsignor Archange Gabriel") hence it's ultimately about feelings and sounding smart and clever. If you disagree you're a racist transphobe!
LOL. I get now what the other guy was saying! I was joking by implying that he was like a religious person (as opposed to scientific) because of his settled-science/nothing-to-discuss attitude. Note that, although I am pretty comfortable writing in English, it isn't my first language and most of my knowledge is about work/technical stuff. So, there might be some pretty common expressions which I don't know well. In this case, I was trying to write the English equivalent of the Spanish expression "sí padre", to sarcastically indicate that he was behaving like a priest (understood as opposed to a scientist). "Yes, pater"? Nah, too confusing. "Yes, Monsignor" (in Spanish, "yes, monseñor") sounded better to me and assumed that it meant pretty much the same. I have had some problems in the past here with (poor understanding of) my jokes or sarcasm and that's why I always add an ending LOL to let anyone know that it is a joke. Apparently, this proceeding isn't still as clear as I thought.
Regarding all your Reddit, smart, muslim, racist, transphobe references, I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about or where have you got anything of that from any of my posts. On the other hand, I now understand better why suddenly all my posts in this subthread were down-modded. I thought that it was because of openly discussing/asking about certain issues in a thread like this one, but perhaps it has been because certain "person" have got in down-modding rampage after not having understood a joke, or not liking me to not want to participate in his abstract concerns. Anyway, same o’ same o’, tremendously pathetic and not the kind of things which I want to tolerate, or the kind of community where I feel comfortable contributing. I like Slashdot in general and always read it, but situations like this make me to not want to post much here.
Galaxies can also bend light so we can see things that we can't see.... Objects behind galaxies from our vantage. Get it?
I am afraid that you are the one not getting it. Let's see if with this example you can. Imagine a billiard table with 10 balls and expecting to come up with a way to touch all the balls and entering in certain hole (or whatever the name is). Now imagine the same billiard table with 1000 balls and expecting to come with a way to touch all the balls and make 10 different balls to enter into certain holes. Now, imagine the same billiard table with 1 million balls, etc. Do you get the idea now? We are talking about a tremendously complex scenario, much more complex than what I firstly thought. If you want to fully understand my point, read some of the many other posts which I have written in this sub-thread, most of them down-moded, probably by people as interested in properly understanding as you are.
Most of (all?) my posts here down-modded as over-rated, in some cases twice. Even the first one, where I am just asking questions?! Typical situation when posting in these threads (e.g., relativity, climate change, Musk/Tesla/SpaceX, etc.) and not sharing the views of main line of thought, together with pretty aggressive attitudes (not many of those this time! Really lucky!). Fanaticism in all its splendor! Days like this remind me why I don't post in Slashdot much.
BTW, Slashdot, there is something wrong with you or my account: I haven't been getting mod points in a quite long time (despite usually getting them pretty regularly) and I don't get warnings when logged-in users reply to me anymore?!
So, black holes are basically as stars?! OK. Honestly, not much into that sub-world, just some things I heart that perhaps are completely wrong. The only reason why I started posting in this thread was mostly understanding better how the data collection process worked and my ideas are crystal clear now. Additionally, I have spent way too much time here today, I am getting tons of downvotes (for no reason, as it is usually the case when participating in these threads) and I am not even getting any warnings when logged-in users reply to me (?!). Long story short: I will cut it here, but thanks for the post (not exactly what I was looking for, but very happy to see some politeness in a thread like this one).
Messier 87 (M87) is a behemoth elliptical galaxy that sits some 53 million light-years from Earth. This giant holds trillions of stars and helps anchor the roughly 2,000 galaxies — including the Milky Way — that make up our local cosmic city, dubbed the Virgo Cluster.
dense disk of matter – called an accretion disk – whirls around the black hole at up to 2 million miles per hour (3.5 million km/h). The material within the accretion disk grinds together as it circles, with the innermost regions spinning faster than those farther out. This differential rotation causes the magnetic fields to get coiled up, ejecting the material falling into the black hole at nearly the speed of light.
Whhhhaaaaat? I thought that the 53M light-years away issue was the biggest deal here, but it is certainly not. We are talking about a galaxy with trillions of stars!! And with really weird things going on!! And they are seriously expecting to accurately understand what is happening over there?! From here?! By looking at the light we (don't) get? Why can we see a circle of light and nothing in between with that scenario? For many possible reasons, happening in that galaxy or in any of the thousands of galaxies through which the light has to pass before reaching us! It could even be used to prove that heaven and hell exist (joking, but pretty descriptive)!
In reality there are millions of observations done on every scale of the universe and all these observations are related to each other. You can't simply invent a theory that explains one observation but invalidates other observations.
The classical mechanics theories are pretty solid for Earth, at the macroscopic level. It seems pretty sensible to guess that they are also somehow applicable to different scopes. The tricky part is adequately transforming these ideas to different conditions. The accuracy isn't great, but roughly speaking the main ideas should more or less hold pretty much everywhere. I am not criticising classical mechanics. I am criticising (well... that wasn't my intention, but you made me start so here I am) a theory whose sole purpose is accounting for the required correction factors at certain level, because I am sure that it can't be accurate.
This is pure science. Multiple predictions made by multiple theories that look at things from a different perspective come together into a single observation.
That expectation, again. Why? Why do you expect something complex to be simple? This is very difficult, or even impossible, and usually error-prone. Simple answers to complex problems are usually incorrect (and/or dishonest).
This is one of the puzzle pieces. We see gigantic sources of gravity in very small volumes, but no star at the center. In fact, no light at all from the center. This is what we observe.
Every time? How many occurrences are we talking about? Tens? Hundreds?
But then your theory will ALSO need to explain why GPS needs time correction
Sorry to burst your bubble, but what explains that isn't the theory of relativity, but the limitations of the classical gravity/mechanics. Einstein was right on something: it is certainly a matter of frame of reference (or scope or size or scenario). The classic formulae were meant to be used on small scopes/Earth, by logically being simplifications which, as such, were erroneous. The higher the distance, mass, size, the higher the error and the less reliable the formula, that's why correction factor are required in GPS. But the ones indicated by experience are the most reliable ones, not the ones delivered by a specific theory. Actually, correction factors are pretty common in most of engineering applications. All our theories are faulty. Another example is the atomic (and below) level: a different scope where the classical approaches provoke too many errors. But again that fact (about which nobody with a bit of knowledge should doubt nowadays) doesn't make a given theory valid and the only way to perform said correction.
If you do not provide an alternative explanation that covers everything we have observed then you have no right complaining.
Why and why not? In fact, I think that this is the main problem here: wanting to come up with something which can explain everything when some people should have accepted very long time ago that this is tremendously difficult, virtually impossible, and in any case very inefficient. Why do you think that this is a take it or leave all kind of scenario? Where have theories become our masters that we can't complain or say anything bad about any part of them?
But think of it this way. If this 'old theory' was so bad, then why would we still use it?
You keep asking me questions whose answers you don't want to hear, but if you want it, here you have it. Why? Because we really don't use it. Exactly the same that we don't use Newton's formulae for anything relevant. These are just starting points which, when required, are corrected via factors like in the GPS example you are proposing. The applicability of the relativity theory is even much lower, ironically, the main reason why it has survived for so long. Like the black hole idea. How can you oppose to a theory which isn't applicable to most of the situations and, in the few ones where it is really applicable, there is no way to perform a proper validation? The theory of relativity is basically classic mechanics with a correction factor which only becomes relevant for very big values (way bigger than what is required for most of what we do). And when the correction factor really kicks in (only in theoretical setups, because as said engineering is based on empirical correction factors) nobody can really tell whether it is right or not.
What reason IS there to formulate a different theory?
Because it is wrong.
What things in the universe have you seen that contradict this 'old theory'?
Its own mathematical derivation and even its justification according to the remaining physics (everything but what built after it/applying similar ideas).
I think you should actually understand black hole formation. You appear pretty ignorant of the science
You are right this time (congratulations!). I am tremendously ignorant about all the assumptions associated with that black-hole thing (science, you call it? I don't think that this is the best name). But I don't want to change that. The only reason why I have participated in this thread was to get a better understanding about how the collection/measuring process was working. As explained in my first post, I have zero interest in all the theoretical, philosophical, etc. issues.
I think that you missed some bits in my last post and I don't agree with some of these ideas, but again thanks for being so informative. I wanted to know how this whole process worked and my ideas are much clearer now. They were doing what I pretty much was thinking: interpreting not-descriptive enough information to meet their main goal. I had some doubts about how the black hole peculiarities were being measured, but thanks to you it is crystal clear now: nothing is being measured, they have simply interpreted that if the light doesn't come is because it is a black hole (not because the myriad of other possible reasons).
That's what the observations tell us. We have a disk whose upper side moves away from us. Thus it is not very bright. The lower side moves in our direction, and inbetween we have a space which doesn't emit any light at all.
There might be many explanations for that. Perhaps it isn't just one body, but various, what would explain somehow exceptional orbits which aren't properly accounted by our Solar-System-based models. You might have 5 planets orbiting around 1 star and 10 around other one, and, from here, you might be thinking that there is only one star with 15 planets. Or there might be various stars in the center. Or there might be something between that galaxy and us which is avoiding the light to come back naturally, it might be a huge planet, lots of asteroids, etc.
We aren't even 100% sure about what is going on in our own galaxy and you are seriously expecting a high accuracy from a tremendously far away one? All what you have are assumptions, reasonably educated guesses and calculations which might not even be applicable there. As said in other comment, you can interpret whatever, but not undoubtedly conclude. Under these conditions, the understanding is everything but certain.
All science is provisional, but some science is less provisional.
Less provisional? That is funny. No. All of it is equally provisional.
Every test we've flung at general relativity over the last century has confirmed it
That is even funnier, but I will better not explain the joke.
Your problem is ignorance of how science works, coupled with pedantry, so that somehow you imagine you can usefully critique theories which you clearly know absolutely nothing about. You're arrogant and ignorant,
You are so knowledgeable, modest, reasonable and, probably, handsome (I am into women, but if you are a man, I wouldn't have any problem to become gay, just for you) that all what I want is you to like me. LOL. Seriously, now. You should take a look at some of the other posts in this sub-thread like, for example, the ones from Sique (actually knowledgeable, actually answering/sharing information, rather than randomly provoking chaos and wanting to force certain type of conversation with someone not wanting to have it) to understand what is welcome/relevant and why you are not.
but obviously not stupid,
A compliment! Thanks! I know that it was difficult, but it is over now. You can rest. Perhaps you should insult me a bit more to get your energy back. LOL.
Wow! Thanks. Honestly, I wasn't expecting to get so reasonable and informational answers here (not meaning Slashdot, but threads of this type).
:)). Does this theory refer to an extreme situation, which some people like and some others don't, but which is purely theoretical? Yes. Could the current extremely exceptional scenario represent what the theory predicted? Everything is possible! Is it sensible, honest, scientific to say that that very far away extreme event, impossible to see, difficult to understand, measure, etc. represents an undoubted confirmation of the theoretical extreme scenario? No. And this is my problem here. Actually, I could say that I am 100% sure that that event doesn't validate the theory, but that statement would require to extend this discussion even longer what I don't want. And doing that isn't even required to understand my point here: we are talking about two hugely misunderstood situations which, by definition, can't undoubtedly state anything, other than doubts, assumptions, hopes. Never conclusions.
I certainly have problems with black holes, relativity theory, etc., but logically I completely accept extreme scenarios much more when dealing with something as uncontrollable as stars. I understand that there are many teams of astronomists which have been searching for unusual phenomena for years and that this one was clearly exceptional. I also assume that we are talking about very knowledgeable people, committed to their works but also probably honest and really wanting to understand better. Additionally, the media (+ paying, interested parties) are surely focusing much more on not-necessarily-relevant aspects. But even despite all that and your perfectly reasonable explanations, I still see a relevant leap of faith here.
I can accept that you have found a highly unusual scenario. Even one that, according to most of our knowledge, can't be fully explained. The problem I see is when you try to make that case fit into a given set of expectations, which are clearly not meant for that job. By definition, a highly unusual scenario doesn't fit within anything or, at least, within the standard something. Calling it an exception is fine. Even using a special nomenclature ("black hole" rather than "exception") seems perfect too. But you aren't doing that. You are taking that extreme scenario as a proof that the extreme scenario of certain theory is true?! Something like saying 100/10e-5000 equals 10e1000/10e-5000 because your calculator outputs NaN in both cases. Taking the fact of being in the pure limit (of understanding, measuring, calculating, etc.) as the descriptive feature of two events seems, in the best scenario, wishful thinking.
Does the center of that galaxy contains an incredibly exceptional body which has nothing to do with a star as we know it? As per your explanations, this does seem a pretty reasonable assumption. Is certain theory assumed correct, being systematically applied for astronomical considerations and also here? OK too (not really, but not feeling like discussing this now
Show me a video of a huge hole in the middle of the space sucking everything, and I would accept that black holes (as proposed) exist. Or show me any other proof of planets, celestial bodies being regularly suck into some coordinates, and I would also believe it. Even just tremendously irregular orbits heading to the same direction (Planet A being in (0,0) (0,100) (0,10000), etc year after year). Show me an actual proof of something which is even remotely close to what some people say about black holes and I am willing to accept (despite being certain about certain issues) that what seems an almost-random idea delivered 100 years ago might be surprisingly accurate.
You don't get it do you. You asked a question, which is all and well, but when people with actual knowledge (backed by empirical evidence) do their best to explain you just balk. But this last post of yours explains it all. At least now we all understand.
What are you taking about? Seriously, it was soooo easy to have read my expectations in the first post, accepted that we (you and me, no problem with the other posters) are on completely different pages and move on. But NO, you have to create this chaotic sub-thread. People like you is the reason why I try to avoid posting to articles like this one. Today, it was an exception and well... I am reasonably happy with what I got. Bye.
Because there's no room to fit such a big star in such a small orbit.
Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that the theory is wrong or, at least, not applicable there. We are talking about tremendously complex phenomena and about assumptions which can't be validated. It even seems much more logical assuming a different type of matter by applying the rules of the ones we know: even brighter than what we are used to, but why bright-less? Why not super dense matter, rather than matter-less something? The people drawing that picture seem very sure about the black center and bright edges, why?
so massive that gravity becomes the dominant force is fairly easy to grasp. And once that happens, there's nothing that can stop it from collapsing.
I don't see it as intuitively clear, at least my relying on my eminently practical attitude and by focusing on reality/experience. I see it as elucubration with lots of weak points completely incompatible with all what I have always seen in nature. An idea resulting from certain unrealistic extrapolation which doesn't account for many issues. Like, for example, thinking that the Earth might be flat without considering that this would be incompatible with many things like, for example, having seas. I intuitively think about all this and other issues and the idea seems impossible, exactly the same than what you are describing.
As far as I understand, the black hole idea is associated with some kind of in-wards process where everything gets suck in, right? Let's assume that the gravity could provoke the object to collapse (not intuitive to me though), in that case, why would keep it sucking anything? It would have disappeared, the force provoking that situation would have disappeared. What is provoking the attraction of everything around it (= nothing already), then? It seems that the only way to expect that to occur is to assume that there is some kind of surrounding material (space time) where you have made a hole which is right now attracting everything? But who/what is exerting the force? This idea seems tremendously counter-intuitive to me. Even if I accepted that space-time surrounding something why would a hole in it provoke attraction? Is there anything behind? Because the collapsed object has already disappeared. Anyway... no, I don't find it intuitive at all. I find intuitive what I have seen my whole life and, eventually, minor variations of it. Something completely different and requiring a set of assumptions which my experience/knowledge tell me that are impossible isn't intuitive to me.
the scientific method is posing a claim and through experiments seeking evidence that supports that claim.
I agree.
Settled science means just that. That a claim has been showed to be true by a multitude of experiments.
I don't agree. Settled science is pretty much the opposite to the scientific method. As explained, it is just a practical approach to be efficient in the tremendously complex modern world. Nothing else. Any theory or assumption or experiment can only be truly considered scientific in case of being always ready to be proven right/wrong and, eventually, corrected or even eliminated. Any scientific-minded person should always be ready to discuss, understand, change his opinion; or, at least, accept his lack of knowledge/interest and don't bother those who want to do so.
Whatever. It doesn't matter. The universe is huge and we know very little about it. I guess that everyone can agree on this. My question is why starting assuming black holes (something against all what we have ever seen, experienced) from certain point onwards?
The picture referred in in this article, for example. Why the designer decided that the center has to be black (or lightless) rather than tremendously bright? When we have only seen bright objects and, as shown in the picture linked from other of your comments, all what we can see coming from there is light? Why bring black holes in the equation at all? As per all your explanations so far, it seems that all what they found is a galaxy which has probably a very big and bright start in the middle. What does it prove other than the immensity of university and how irrelevant we really are?