Page 12 of 12
Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:23 pm
by Chris Peterson
douglas wrote:BDanielMayfield wrote:How bright is this possible binary companion expected to be? Aren't there likely to be numerous lesser stars within the Trapezium that we simply can't see due to dust extinction?
Bruce, in the Heart of Orion APOD I posted a link that described Subr claiming the BH would be in the exact center point of the 4 Trapezium stars, so your binary component would be there.
Can you repost that link? There doesn't seem to be anything in the Šubr et al. paper that makes that claim.
Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 11:08 am
by BDanielMayfield
douglas wrote:BDanielMayfield wrote:douglas wrote:Don't forget the BH in Orion is theorized to be part
of a binary, itself. Neither can be observed
How bright is this possible binary companion expected to be? Aren't there likely to be numerous lesser stars within the Trapezium that we simply can't see due to dust extinction?
Bruce
Bruce, in the Heart of Orion APOD I posted a link that described Subr claiming the BH would be in the exact center point of the 4 Trapezium stars, so your binary component would be there. You would have
no dust extinction there.
His analysis speaks of his software's inability to correlate results with detected objects. This is why he should have included
"ultimately possible" in his descriptors. It's
only ultimate, and of the purest of theoretical.
I also posted a link or two of Chandra's imaging of the Trapezium. No stressed stars were found in it, emitting, in the center of the 4. Nothing at any wavelength is emitting as a point source in the middle of the Trapezium.
Subr needs his feet held to the fire, as do his peer review reviewers.
There is no dust extinction in the direction of the Trapezium? A critic of professional astronomers should know that the light from all stars are dimmed at least a little by the interstellar dust between the source and the receiver. The ONC region looks pretty dusty to me.
What does the word 'ultimately' mean to you, in the context that you are insisting that Subr et al should have used it in their paper? I've read a few astronomical papers, articles, etc., but I don't remember ever seeing the expression "ultimately possible".
Ultimately, the debate about the possible IMBH within the Trapezium will be resolved.
Bruce, the ultimate optimist.
Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion
Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:54 pm
by douglas
Chris Peterson wrote:douglas wrote:BDanielMayfield wrote:How bright is this possible binary companion expected to be? Aren't there likely to be numerous lesser stars within the Trapezium that we simply can't see due to dust extinction?
Bruce, in the Heart of Orion APOD I posted a link that described Subr claiming the BH would be in the exact center point of the 4 Trapezium stars, so your binary component would be there.
Can you repost that link? There doesn't seem to be anything in the Šubr et al. paper that makes that claim.
I believe it was in one of the subsidiary links where the author had dialogue with either Subr or another astrophysicist. An analysis of his methods, and where the simulation would dictate the object had to be?
Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion
Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:05 pm
by douglas
BDanielMayfield wrote:douglas wrote:BDanielMayfield wrote:
How bright is this possible binary companion expected to be? Aren't there likely to be numerous lesser stars within the Trapezium that we simply can't see due to dust extinction?
Bruce
Bruce, in the Heart of Orion APOD I posted a link that described Subr claiming the BH would be in the exact center point of the 4 Trapezium stars, so your binary component would be there. You would have
no dust extinction there.
His analysis speaks of his software's inability to correlate results with detected objects. This is why he should have included
"ultimately possible" in his descriptors. It's
only ultimate, and of the purest of theoretical.
I also posted a link or two of Chandra's imaging of the Trapezium. No stressed stars were found in it, emitting, in the center of the 4. Nothing at any wavelength is emitting as a point source in the middle of the Trapezium.
Subr needs his feet held to the fire, as do his peer review reviewers.
There is no dust extinction in the direction of the Trapezium? A critic of professional astronomers should know that the light from all stars are dimmed at least a little by the interstellar dust between the source and the receiver. The ONC region looks pretty dusty to me.
What does the word 'ultimately' mean to you, in the context that you are insisting that Subr et al should have used it in their paper? I've read a few astronomical papers, articles, etc., but I don't remember ever seeing the expression "ultimately possible".
Ultimately, the debate about the possible IMBH within the Trapezium will be resolved.
Bruce, the ultimate optimist.
Quaint. Subr uses a simulation, generates a need for a binary [?] system for the hole, and Bruce needs the companion "extinguished" by interstellar dust
C'mon boys & girls, we're being a bit silly defending his model's results, aren't we?
Definitely: "wink"
Geck: "forests" of observations rendering astronomical phenomena understandable .. to be replaced by defense of untenable terms, keys of the kingdom handed away to simulators, is it?
And most of all, don't describe that replacement as 'chivalric hijacking'?
"vendettas' of "novice" hijackers? First Subr 'was here', then he's not.
Resolve that nastiness, right?
Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion
Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:09 pm
by douglas
BDanielMayfield wrote:douglas wrote:BDanielMayfield wrote:
How bright is this possible binary companion expected to be? Aren't there likely to be numerous lesser stars within the Trapezium that we simply can't see due to dust extinction?
Bruce
Bruce, in the Heart of Orion APOD I posted a link that described Subr claiming the BH would be in the exact center point of the 4 Trapezium stars, so your binary component would be there. You would have
no dust extinction there.
His analysis speaks of his software's inability to correlate results with detected objects. This is why he should have included
"ultimately possible" in his descriptors. It's
only ultimate, and of the purest of theoretical.
I also posted a link or two of Chandra's imaging of the Trapezium. No stressed stars were found in it, emitting, in the center of the 4. Nothing at any wavelength is emitting as a point source in the middle of the Trapezium.
Subr needs his feet held to the fire, as do his peer review reviewers.
There is no dust extinction in the direction of the Trapezium? A critic of professional astronomers should know that the light from all stars are dimmed at least a little by the interstellar dust between the source and the receiver. The ONC region looks pretty dusty to me.
What does the word 'ultimately' mean to you, in the context that you are insisting that Subr et al should have used it in their paper? I've read a few astronomical papers, articles, etc., but I don't remember ever seeing the expression "ultimately possible".
Ultimately, the debate about the possible IMBH within the Trapezium will be resolved.
Bruce, the ultimate optimist.
Quoting Subr, himself:
" .. likely to be a member of a binary system with ≈ 70% probability. In such a case, it could be detected either due to short periods of enhanced accretion of stellar winds from the secondary star during pericentre passages, or through a measurement of the motion of the secondary whose velocity would exceed 10 kms−1 along the whole orbit."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.2114.pdf
