New Type of Quasar Found, Baffling Scientists

[Zelectric]

Greetings,

Long time viewer who has just joined the forum. Hope to learn more and to contribute.

Zelectric

http://www.space.com/23559-supermassive ... overy.html

Any thoughts on how this either bolsters or subtracts from EU theory? Thanks.

[viscount aero]

Greetings,

Long time viewer who has just joined the forum. Hope to learn more and to contribute.

Zelectric

http://www.space.com/23559-supermassive ... overy.html

Any thoughts on how this either bolsters or subtracts from EU theory? Thanks.

The article, as expected, is characteristically vague. Most pop-sci astronomy press releases must all be written by the same few interns who cannot interpret the original science paper that it is based upon (which is somewhat not their fault because most scientific papers are unreadable).

First off the artist's rendering doesn't show any quasar or its behavior. Also, the repelled "gases" (a term always used instead of "plasma") are not made clear as to how commonly seen or how rarely seen they are:

"The gas in the disk must eventually fall into the black hole to power the quasar, but what is often seen instead is gas blown away from the black hole by the heat and light of the quasar, heading toward us at velocities up to 20 percent of the speed of light," Hall said.

"If the gas is falling into the black hole, then we don't understand why it's so rare to see infalling gas," he added. "There's nothing else unusual about these quasars. If gas can be seen falling into them, why not in other quasars?"

If you can make sense of the above then please enlighten me How is it rare to see "infalling gas" if the gas is seen (assumed as a model) to be infalling? Also, where is the diagram and description of the mechanical process explaining how "the gas in the disk must eventually fall into the black hole to power the quasar"? Where is the "powering of the quasar" explained and shown? Does this mean that EVERY quasar has a black hole "powering it"? So a quasar is a binary system to a black hole?

But wait... they said the gas is being "blown away" from the black hole "by the heat and light of the quasar."

So where in the illustration is the quasar? And where is the visual description of this action? As it is now, the provided illustration is nearly useless and non-applicable to the text. For example, the caption under the illustration reads:

"One theory of a newly discovered type of black-hole quasar suggests gas flows into a central black hole. More frequent particle collisions close to the black hole make the gas hot in regions that are closer to the center (shown in blue and white). Regions further away are cooler (yellow and orange)."

But the article's text says that the newly discovered black hole type, with the quasar, shows "gas blown away from the black hole by the heat and light of the quasar, heading toward us at velocities up to 20 percent of the speed of light..."

So what are they actually saying? They cannot decide in the body text if the matter is being "blown away" or "infalling" and if either of those are "rare".

Moreover, how is it a "new theory" that "a newly discovered type of black-hole quasar suggests gas flows into a central black hole"? How is infalling gas into a black hole new? Isn't that the old original idea for a black hole?

Answer: they don't express what it is they are saying clearly because they don't know what they are seeing. The article is actually not informative. It is vague, contradictory, and written very poorly. They cannot decide if black holes consume or repel matter. And they cannot describe visually what the alleged quasar is actually doing.

[Sparky]

Zelectric, what viscount so elegantly expanded upon is, in one word, nonsense.

[Zelectric]

Thank you Viscount Aero and Sparky.

[justcurious]

This seems to be a recurring theme these days, also described in the article...

... "Super Bright Massive Black Holes"

Does that make sense?
More ad-hoc fairytales.
They are so lost......

You would think they heard of the Electric Universe by now

[viscount aero]

This seems to be a recurring theme these days, also described in the article...

... "Super Bright Massive Black Holes"

Does that make sense?
More ad-hoc fairytales.
They are so lost......

You would think they heard of the Electric Universe by now

They need a facelift for black holes. They must be recast them as shiny and new all over again (like how a company designs a new logo) in order to maintain the perpetual ad campaign for their A-list superstars, ie, black holes, Higgs bosons, M-theory, the big bang, et al.

They have fashioned black holes in such a way that they can literally invent whatever identity that is suitable for black holes and it will go unquestioned by the general population. The general population most often doesn't question the sciences because the sciences are inaccessible, only for "smarter people," is above everyone's head, cannot be understood by the common people. This way, black holes (and almost anything) can remain forever reinvented in perpetuity and never thrown away as a theory.