The very fact that the Large Magellanic Cloud produced such a superfast star suggests the presence of a black hole there, which has never been observed before.
New data brought by astronomers from the Carnegie Institution show that one of the stars that is currently on a flight path out of the Milky Way originates from the Large Magellanic Cloud, our neighboring galaxy. Ten superfast stars similar to it have been discovered in the past, but the origin of this star remains a mystery.
Called HE 0437-5439, it is 9 times larger than the Sun, and flies at a speed of 2.6 million kilometers per hour. The origin of the star has been a mystery until now because of its young age: it is 35 million years old, but it would have taken 100 million years for it to reach its current location if it originated from the center of the Milky Way.
This means the star came from somewhere else, or formed from the merger of two low-mass stars in the Milky Way.
Astronomers Alexata Bonanos and Mercadas López-Morales from the Carnegie Institution and their colleagues Jan Hunter and Robert Ryans from Queen's University in Belfast took measurements of the star's components - this is the first time such a thing has been done on a superfast star - and determined that its metal-poor composition points towards the Large Magellanic Cloud as its former home.
According to Bonanos, "We ruled out the possibility that the star came from the Milky Way. The concentration of heavy elements in the stars of the Large Magellanic Cloud is about half that of our Sun. Like evidence from a crime scene, the fingerprint points to the Large Magellanic Cloud as the source."
Superfast stars gain their energy boost from interacting with a black hole. The stars were once part of a binary system, and as soon as one star is captured by the black hole, the other is suddenly released, and quickly launched away from the galaxy.
The very fact that the Large Magellanic Cloud created such a superfast star hints at the presence of a black hole there, which has never been observed before.
40 תגובות
It is impossible for a star to be ejected from any galaxy and this is doubly true for the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy because galaxies have a huge gravitational force that does not allow such an ejection. How can a star be ejected even if its speed is higher than a galaxy that holds billions of stars in its gravity.
ל
"Wrong terms of physical definition range"? Either you don't understand or you're probably making yourself up, well, well, I agree with you that there's no point in continuing the exhaustion,
Good night.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I'm not saying that you didn't try to bring "support" in the style of hanging on to high standards that you claimed support your position even though they don't or by inventing all kinds of wrong terms of a physical definition range or by making wrong claims about what is written in the article.
All of this, of course, is not an endorsement but a desperate attempt to avoid criticism.
Since we've reached the exhaustion stage, I'm abandoning the debate (at least until someone adds something meaningful to it).
I can again say that you did not bring any support and you will again say that you did, so we will really just leave it to the caller to judge for himself.
How can it be determined that I do not provide support for my words when during the entire debate here I have explained the reasons several times.
If you skip my comments (your right) then please don't comment either.
And those who still want to understand the reasons for my skepticism, should read my comments.
But for those who want to avoid reading them, it's easy, if you notice that my name always appears at the beginning of my response as well as at the end, so it's really easy to notice my response and skip it.
Good night
Sabdramish Yehuda
Yehuda:
Who exactly defamed you?
I just argued with you and maybe even taught you something (if yes or not - it's up to you. I proved that things you said were not true. If you internalized it - you learned, if you ignored it then you didn't).
Doubt is a constant state in science and there is no need to talk about it if you don't bring new insight - something that increases or decreases the doubt).
Your words don't do that, so people complain that writing them, reading them, and skipping them are a waste of time.
More. As I mentioned, your words are not an expression of doubt but an assertion of the opposite (like an assertion of the non-existence of black holes). You do not provide any support for these things and all the findings of all the experiments done on the subject do not agree with you. This further raises doubts about your true motives in the whole debate because unsubstantiated claims are just noise and what reason does a human being have to make noise?
Hell, you can't question the conclusions of an article, without being defamed? My doubts are written only for those who want to read them, all others are asked to skip them.
Snooze.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, you are a snooze who climbed too high a tree here.
Yehuda Sabdarmish,
You wrote above (quote):
"In short, in order to agree with what is written in the article, we must have more accurate data on the state of the star and the location of the Milky Way and the Large Magellanic Cloud, today and 35 million years ago."
There are precise data on the state of the star, its chemical composition, speed, mass and direction in space.
There are data regarding the location and composition of the Milky Way Galaxy and the Magellanic Cloud today. And there is speculation regarding their location 35 million years ago.
Of course, it is impossible to firmly establish that the star was ejected from the Large Magellanic Cloud 35 million years ago following the swallowing of its twin star in a black hole located in the center of the Magellanic Cloud! But yes, you can speculate and say that this is the most logical possibility imaginable.
It doesn't make sense that it was ejected from the center of the Milky Way galaxy otherwise it would have taken 100 million years to reach its current location.
It doesn't make sense that he just popped up in the middle of nowhere and started flying at such a speed.
Yes, there is logic in the belief that it was ejected from the Magellanic Cloud, which is in our neighborhood and is probably at a reasonable distance from that star.
The chemical composition of the star is also similar to that found in the stars of the Large Magellanic Cloud, which supports the hypothesis that it was indeed ejected from there.
From this the researchers drew their conclusion.
To Judah:
In your definition of the definition range of physical functions, you eliminated science.
Since there are also an infinite number of points on the Earth, it is clear that in some (most) of them nothing has been measured.
All you need to add to this nonsense is that the test is only true for the moment it was performed to make it so that even the exact point at which you have already performed an experiment (if you even manage to return exactly to it) the law you deduced from it is invalid.
You didn't understand my words about Professor Milgrom and MOND.
I said, and I quote: "He simply proposed other formulas for the force of gravity that may be an alternative to the dark mass in everything related to the rate of movement of the stars in the galaxies." If you are not clear, then this is a description of MOND and it really says here that the gravity formula is an alternative to the dark force (and when using the alternative, there is no need, as we know, for the alternative to be for it) in everything that involves the rate of movement of the stars in the galaxies (which, of course, according to your definition, are outside the definition of MOND) ).
Why did I talk about the rate of movement of the stars? Simply because, unlike relativity, MOND does not predict the observed gravitational contraction which is also explained (in some cases) by dark matter as I have explained.
Therefore, as I explained but I have to explain again, we continue to develop MOND and try to cast a broader theory that also goes well with the conclusions of relativity. In the meantime, as I have already said, they did not succeed in this and as they got closer to the goal, they had to base the theory on more and more arbitrary assumptions, each of which is more speculative than dark matter.
But, since these are all things I have already said, nothing will prevent you from coming back and giving this response the irrelevant response you have already given above.
Regarding the discussion between you and Peter, it is difficult for me to say why it is still ongoing. It started because of a wrong claim you made about what was said in the article itself and should have stopped as soon as I pointed out this mistake to you.
The definition range of physical functions is the range in which they have been tested by experiments and measurements. It is not a mathematical concept but a physical reality. If we have not measured the behavior of bodies beyond the range we cannot know for sure if the physical function is valid there.
Black holes are beyond the range of measurements. No one has considered very dense stars and checked if they behave according to Newton or attribution as above also in the vicinity of a singular point, no one really knows according to which laws and formulas the bodies will act there.
And in addition, Professor Milgrom's MOND theory does not need the dark mass.
And Peter - I didn't ask for the data, but I claimed that there is not enough data to definitively state that the star was formed in the Large Magellanic Cloud and more, with the help of a black hole, a black hole.
Young scientists?, you didn't mean me, I'm over 60 years old
Have a good night everyone
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Company,
Please put things in proportion, maintain proper language and take things lightly. We are not in the market or on the street and there is no need for violent behavior.
and Judah,
Regarding the calculations:
See, it is not that simple to calculate these calculations using only the knowledge of the relative position of the Large Magellanic Cloud, the Milky Way Galaxy and that launched star.
You yourself came to the conclusion that it is necessary to know where they were even 35 million years ago. So until a year ago they thought that the Magellanic Clouds revolved around the Milky Way Galaxy, but now they discovered that the Magellanic Clouds are actually not our satellites and now we have to calculate a different way of moving them in space. Hence it is impossible to be sure exactly what happened 35 million years ago.
What's more, this system is not a closed box and everything is affected by other parameters and objects in the sky, so it's a slightly more complicated equation that takes into account more objects (but maybe they can be neglected in a rough calculation or approximation).
I also gave you information regarding the composition of the objects because different galaxies tend to be made of similar chemical composition! Hence, the investigation of the chemical composition and condition of the star makes it possible to compare it to the other stars in the nearby galaxies and perhaps to find out in this way where it makes the most sense for it to have started its journey. And that's after we found out that we don't have enough data to calculate where the constellations were 35 million years ago, so we turned to the chemical composition to help crack the riddle.
Humanity cannot look at the world objectively because we are part of the system itself. This makes it difficult for us to reach a perfect world picture of the universe or even of the environment close to us. We look from the inside out and have no way to look down on the entire universe. We do not know for sure whether the conclusions we reached are correct or not. We gather the little information that is available to us using relatively limited tools to the mighty universe.
If you really want to calculate the calculations, then maybe instead of demanding that they "bring" the data to you, you will search and investigate on your own.
In any case, good luck! It's always cute to see scientists - curious and energetic young people. This innocence and curiosity is a good basis to start exploring the world.
Regarding the hypothesis of the acceleration of the star through the page.
It seems to me that a body the size of a star cannot be accelerated by pushing as is possible with bodies of our size.
I think the surface area to volume ratio is so small that it will break up long before it gets accelerated.
I'm guessing that a star that is close to a supernova will look like a comet that is affected by the solar wind.
Chicken legs are, it turns out, dilapidated and not dilapidated as I mistakenly wrote
Yehuda:
You should know that the definition range of functions is a mathematical and not a physical concept. In general, the term "definition" is a logical term and we do not define nature but only try to understand and describe it.
Black holes are not outside the definition range of the functions of relativity except for the singular point inside them.
All the phenomena we are talking about in the context of black holes are within the definition range of these mathematical functions.
Professor Milgrom does not disbelieve in the existence of black holes or even in the existence of dark mass. He merely proposed other formulas for gravity that may be an alternative to the dark mass in all that involves the rate of movement of stars in galaxies.
He and others are working on versions of his theory that might be compatible with the relativistic reality that has already been proven in experiments (such as a gravitational field that does not arise from MOND at all!) but so far they have only arrived at partial theories (which require many additional assumptions and therefore rest on much shakier chicken legs than dark matter).
You should know what people say before you try to depend on them (instead of scientific arguments) to support your position.
I forgot to ask about the Kinneret, does anyone know its height?
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For all those who believe in the existence of the dark mass, energy of the void, black holes, singular points, wormholes, and other creatures.
A. I am not alone in my opposition to all the above creatures! There are many scientists whose opinion I share. (Have you heard of Prof. Milgrom and the MOND theory?)
B. It is easy to prove that besides the dark mass and the MOND theory, there are seven other possibilities to explain the problem of inequality in spiral galaxies, which will also explain the gravitational dusting.
B. The problem with the black parents and singular points is the use of Newton's and Einstein's formulas to obtain them, but these formulas are not defined in the environment of physical beings as above, therefore any use of them must be done with a limited guarantee.
I understand that the things I have just said touch the soul of all my responders. But if they don't get to the bottom of my (simple) opinion, let them go and ask someone older than me if anything I said in my current response is inaccurate.
This is a certificate of poverty according to them.
And in addition, whoever thinks he is retarded (I didn't say that) then he should go study and improve himself.
People don't know what the definition range of physical formulas is, but, find it appropriate to underestimate my knowledge.
Really, those who don't want to don't read my comments, I live well if it is and I didn't find it necessary to change them!
may we have a nice week
And thanks to the freedom fighters.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To the cool commenter:
The list of scientists I mentioned is (a partial list of course) of the scientists who support black guys.
I want to remind you that this is the topic that Yehuda repeats and reminds us that he does not believe in in this article as well - not dark matter.
But this list also refers to your words. When you talked about the physicists (all of them) and said that everything they do beyond mathematics and simple logic is the bane of unanswered and uncreative scientists, you only brought up dark matter as an example.
I don't know why you claim that scientists think dark matter is not gravitationally lensed.
Read about dark matter on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter ) for example the following quote:
The observed phenomena consistent with dark matter observations include the rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
Or this section:
Another important tool for future dark matter observations is gravitational lensing. Lensing relies on the effects of general relativity to predict masses without relying on dynamics, and so is a completely independent means of measuring the dark matter. Strong lensing, the observed distortion of background galaxies into arcs when the light passes through a gravitational lens, has been observed around a few distant clusters including Abell 1689 (pictured right). By measuring the distortion geometry, the mass of the cluster causing the phenomena can be obtained. In the dozens of cases where this has been done, the mass-to-light ratios obtained correspond to the dynamical dark matter measurements of clusters.
Perhaps more convincing, a technique has been developed over the last 10 years called weak lensing which looks at microscale distortions of galaxies observed in vast galaxy surveys due to foreground objects through statistical analyses. By examining the shear deformation of the adjacent background galaxies, astrophysicists can characterize the mean distribution of dark matter by statistical means and have found mass-to-light ratios that correspond to dark matter densities predicted by other large-scale structure measurements. The correspondence of the two gravitational lens techniques to other dark matter measurements has convinced almost all astrophysicists that dark matter actually exists as a major component of the universe's composition.
You can see that even on the subject of the dark mass - you and Yehuda are precisely the ones who ignore the evidence.
By the way - the methods used to infer the existence of the dark mass have already been used by us in the past and led to the discovery of stars that had not been observed before, so here too it is not a question of hartabona.
Have you heard anyone here claim that one should be impervious to sensational and groundbreaking discoveries?
I do not!
Are Yehuda's words sensational and groundbreaking revelations?
They are not even revelations. They are just non-expert opinions.
Why should they interest anyone?
Do you care that my foot is itching right now?
The very scientific pursuit is founded on doubt and it is agreed upon that everything is questionable. We don't add it to every word just because it is so self-evident. Yehuda's words are not casting doubt but an assertion of incorrectness - that is, an actual physical claim that does not amount to casting doubt. He does not provide evidence and support for his claim at all and ignores all the support for the counter claim. This is not dealing with science but with baseless beliefs and it is no wonder that readers resent it. It simply wastes their time because at no point in life (except for arguments with Yehuda) will they need to know what Yehuda thinks about black holes.
Opinions should only matter if they teach us something - some consideration that we may have ignored, some new method for drawing conclusions, a fact that we ignored, etc. As soon as they are just unfounded opinions there is no interest in them, especially when they express opposition to claims that actually have evidence to support them.
It is interesting to see you claim that physics is simple logic and only mathematics in the same response where you express your dissatisfaction with quantum theory.
Why not apply some simple math and logic to solve the problem?
You say that you will defend to the death the right of Yehuda to express his opinions when no one has attacked this right of his. They just asked him to stop wasting our time. He has already expressed his uninteresting opinion dozens of times and it is assumed that even a retarded audience like us has already picked it up and understood what is and what is not behind it.
To Judah:
My answer to your words is included in my answer to cool.
Hello everyone
I don't understand why my response to the article should immediately trigger an analysis of my personality and the degree of knowledge invested in the response.
I will refer to some of the responses.
To Peter - the data you bring is partly unnecessary, it really doesn't matter how many kg the star weighs or how far it is from us in km. What is important is that the Magellanic Cloud is about one hundred and sixty thousand light years away from our Sun, which is 30 thousand light years away from the center of our galaxy. Our galaxy is about one hundred thousand light years in diameter. My question is where in all this combination is the agile star found and is it necessary that it was created in the big cloud. The scientists may have calculated everything but I want to be impressed by their calculations for myself. Therefore the doubt.
And to all those who send me to study, do you really have to be a doctor of physics at least to express an opinion on the science website? I don't think so.
And regarding knowledge of physics and mathematics, I graduated with a graduate degree in industrial management with honors, and we also studied mathematics and physics, so I have some knowledge.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Michael:
In my opinion, you exaggerated the number of people you marked as supporting the dark mass theory that does not affect the light shift. Among other things, you mentioned Einstein who surely would have agreed with me that there cannot be a mass that does not distort the space-time dimension and does not cause gravitational distortion (a wording error in a previous message I wrote "displacement of light").
I am certainly not saying that the university, the doctors and the students are stupid or unintelligent (in fact my grandfather is a doctor of physics who received his doctorate at the Technion and previously taught at the Negev University).
I'm just saying that when there are sensational and groundbreaking discoveries, you shouldn't be fixated and opaque and know that things like dark matter devoid of gravity or the theory of the duality of a particle and a wave are just things made up by the human mind (both of which don't make any sense), and that the real solution is hidden somewhere, so there is still to look for it and not to sit on the laurels of sewn patches of theories, and always remember that everything is just a hypothesis, even the directly proven theories and in particular theories that are theoretically or observationally-interruptedly proven.
For the avoidance of doubt, in my opinion, every person who enters the university leaves it much smarter, more creative and more intelligent than they were before you.
I also did not understand which part of the theory of black holes he doubts, his right is to doubt and I would also be happy if he said why he doubts black holes..
His opinion should be of interest to someone just as your opinion and my opinion should be of interest to someone, if they don't start to be interested in opinions we will reach a dead end.
Anyone who has done a physics degree knows that all the first courses, except for those dealing with Newtonian and relativistic physics, are mathematical courses, and only after many mathematical courses (all that annoying infinity, and the linear algebra that really went around) comes modern physics.
That's why I stand by my opinion that physics is "simple logic (we'll settle for sophisticated) + mathematics"
Quantum mechanics as I know it (full disclosure - I only know the basics of the basics) is a mechanics that adapts itself to experiments, in a way that is too obvious if you can say. In my opinion, because of its illogicality and because it "works" only with quantum particles and also contradicts the limitation of the speed of light, there is something wrong with it and requires that the whole theory be rewritten. It sounds a bit pretentious to say such a thing about a whole theory, but it cannot be that there will be one theory for small sizes and another theory for normal sizes, it contradicts simple logic.
"Therefore, if you want to study physics without the help of the university, you must also study mathematics (with or without the help of the university). Yehuda did not do that either."
I do not know and am not responsible for what Yehuda learned or did not learn, and yet, even if I do not agree with his words, I will defend to the death his right to voice them.
Michael, you can of course ask him questions and contradict him as you have been doing until now, that would be the most useful and most awaited thing than arguing about speech rights.
To the cool commenter:
Don't you think you are exaggerating?
Among the scientists who lack answers and lack creativity, you of course include Einstein, Feynman, Yuval Neman, Weinberg, Hawking, Cope Thorne, Witten, Chanderskar, Penrose, Landau, Kerr, Schwarzschild and many Others - they are all really brilliant and creative people.
You even go so far as to call these people "idiots".
That's really not cool.
Do you think that the entrance exams for higher education filter the people so that only uncreative people are accepted?
If this is the case - how do you explain the fact that all successful technology start-up companies are founded by university graduates?
I personally got really rich from my creativity in the field of science and technology and see it's a miracle - I also studied at the university.
Yehuda allows himself to disagree with the words of the scientists without understanding them.
I don't know how much I know about the theory of relativity, but from Yehuda's statements it is clear that he does not know it at all.
About black holes he always says that he disagrees with their reality but never gave a single reason for his opinion.
Why should his opinion matter to anyone?
I have no doubt that it is possible to study physics independently and without the help of a university, and I also have no doubt that Yehuda did not do this.
Advanced physics is not "simple logic + mathematics" and in fact anyone who knows anything about quantum theory knows that simple logic is really hard to accept and that its mathematics is far beyond Yehuda's mathematical education. The same is true in relation to the theory of relativity.
Therefore, if you want to study physics without the help of the university, you must also study mathematics (with or without the help of the university). Yehuda did not do that either.
Yehuda,
If you got the impression from my words that you should keep quiet, then of course that was not my intention.
The quote given above is more than acceptable.
There have always been disagreements between scientists and there always will be, and that's a good thing. And this is the case to which the quote is attributed. But your case is slightly different. I'm not saying you're wrong at all. I say that your words (to the depth they go into) are much less legitimate than if you had a formal education on the subject even without a specialization. And this, again, regardless of how correct they are, and how knowledgeable you are on the subject.
It's not just that the academy was created for her: a figure like you will come through its doors, give you relevant knowledge that was used thousands of years back in a few years, and in fact give you the option to further advance the knowledge and even change it!
But first of all you have to ascend, ascend and reach that place from where you can look at all the knowledge that you have agreed to be correct and that which is not, and offer to change or add as you see fit.
So accept my encouragement on the matter and keep suggesting ideas,
Good night.
Whoever allows himself to say "I disagree" when he does not understand a thing and a half about the subject in question, is both ignorant and arrogant.
Come on, let a human being talk.
Yehuda may not have received a formal education, but he read a lot of material about physics, and all in all, physics is simple logic + mathematics, everything beyond that is just the rubbish of scientists who have no answers and lack creativity (come on, dark matter that does not affect the shift of light, some idiots You can already believe it!! Soon we will return to the site on which the radio waves are carried)
Yehuda is a smart, educated, creative, innovative person (no less than anyone here) and his every hesitation or doubt deserves a response, even if the answer is clear and if it doesn't exist.
Point, Yehuda knows the theory of special and general relativity many times more than you, and if you were a little less determined you would be silent and listen, read and draw conclusions. Yehuda can write right things just as he can write wrong things, but it is all his opinion to decide what is wrong and what is right and the only thing you can do is either confirm and justify his claims or refute and correct his claims so that he will understand and understand what a discussion culture is that leads to the education of all its participants.
Charles, who are you to speak as a Golani warrior? Without insulting all the English, you have the name of a transsexual and you have no right to speak about Judah. End of verse and it would be good if you go to hell..
Eyal, I agree with you in your words, but not all people have the time to study formally, Yehuda is engaged in a daily job that I don't know if it requires knowledge of physics, so they probably won't allow him to go study formally. But from my general acquaintance with him, the man knows what he is talking about and he read and studied a lot of material before he started talking. All in all, the material on the Internet is available and only curiosity and interest separates watching TV from learning physics on your own.
What's new, what's really new? The quote was not directly spoken by Voltaire and I disagree with your words, but I will defend to the death your right to voice them.
To Judah:
I was a bit pressed for time, so my previous response is a bit laconic.
I hope that upon re-reading you saw that the article does not speak at all about a star still in the Magellanic Cloud and in fact it took what you called "detectives" to discover that it originated there. It is currently in the process of leaving the Milky Way.
I think that if you take as a given that the professional astrophysicists know how to do simple math and settle for the assumption that they only get confused in the complicated things, it will not be irresponsible on your part and you will also be able to read the text with a more open mind and see what is really written in it. The impression you get from your comments is that you are so eager to attack the professionals that you don't even bother to read the article carefully.
I would like to expand on another point that I alluded to in my previous response.
You have to remember that this whole discussion started with your claim that you don't believe in the existence of black holes.
I hope it is clear to you that even if the whole story about the superstar turned out to be wrong it would not justify your claim that there are no black holes.
When people protested your words, they talked about this issue and all the division regarding the star of the article was actually meant to be evasion.
Yehuda:
Although you are trying to prove your claim that there are no black holes by making a claim that you did not make before but this claim is also wrong.
It is not written at all that the star is in the Magellanic Cloud
Yehuda,
You wrote- "In order to agree with what is written in the article, we must get more accurate data on the state of the star and the location of the Milky Way and the Large Magellanic Cloud, today and 35 million years ago."
Since I really want you to agree with what is written in the article, I decided to answer your request and give accurate data.
Hope this helps you decide whether you agree or not.
The data we have today are:
The Large Magellanic Cloud is located 50 kiloparsec from the Milky Way galaxy and has a diameter of 10 kiloparsec.
Persec = 3.2616 light years
A light year = 9.45 billion kilometers
(billion = million millions)
The Magellanic Clouds (Large and Small) were once considered satellites of the Milky Way galaxy, but a study done in 2007 proved that they are separate from the galaxy and constitute 2 separate galaxies by themselves, it is important to take this into account. What's more, about 200 million years ago, the Magellanic Clouds came close to our galaxy and were affected by its gravity.
In the Large Magellanic Cloud there are young, blue globular clusters and both clouds are wrapped in a mantle of cold hydrogen gas. It is difficult to determine for sure what the age of the Magellanic Clouds is because there are 3 billion and 13 billion year old stars there.
The rest of the data is in the article - as mentioned, the ejected star flew at a speed of 2.6 million km per hour, was 35 million years old, had a mass 9 times that of our sun, that is, about 1.988E30 kg.
The data were taken using normal observations, radio observations, parallax measurements, statistical parallax, the Doppler effect (ie red/blue shift), star color measurements and spectroscopy studies.
Good luck with your calculations!!
why new
The idea you brought up also has a problem with it because the star as it originally appeared in Universe Today is still in the large cloud, although this could be an optical error.
In short, in order to agree with what is written in the article, we must have more accurate data on the condition of the star and the location of the Milky Way and the Large Magellanic Cloud, today and 35 million years ago.
And regarding the quote you brought, as you can see the world has not changed much since then.
All the best, and thank you for the encouragement during my "difficult" hours.
Have a good weekend, and how fun it is that the sun is visible again.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Eavesdropping attributed to the philosopher Voltaire
"I agree with your words, but I will defend to the death your right to voice them"
To Judah
Everything I say is just a guess
1. The Large Magellanic Cloud was once an orderly galaxy with a black hole in the center until it was captured by the gravity of our galaxy
disintegrated and became a satellite.
2. A pair of stars in a binary system reached a distance from a black hole so that one of the twins reached a position between the black hole and the twin
For equal but opposite forces of attraction.
As a result, he continued to move in a straight line and managed to escape from the Magellanic cloud.
3. It does not seem to me that the escape of the star is the result of a super nova, since traces (eg heavy metals or other substances) would be found in the spectrum of the star.
Everything I wrote is a hypothesis, any criticism will be accepted with understanding.
The speed of the star is about 720 km per second, which is 0.24 percent of the speed of light, so if the star was formed 35 million years ago, it has since traveled a distance of over 84,000 light years.
Since the diameter of the Large Magellanic Cloud is only about 30,000 light years, it is difficult to understand how the star could not be found outside the cloud with a speed like his.
What to do if my attitude when I read an article is more skeptical than many others and not ready to accept everything that is fed to me. So I understand that there are those who take my skepticism personally but that is their problem, not mine. All I'm saying is that the things written in the article are not so unambiguous.
But of course people can have different opinions than mine, I have no problem with that.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Dear Yehuda,
I have to agree with the opinion of the writers that I came across some time ago regarding you regarding "go out and learn" and now it seems more logical to me than ever. I do support your approach and like it: question without fear even what is closed and sealed.
Nothing is XNUMX% certain. Indeed everything is theories and in the end everything that happens around us, we know thanks to our brain. But that's for another interesting discussion.
For that matter, your approach is worthy of appreciation in the scientific community in general and among physicists in particular... as long as you have a basis. If you are a physicist, bless you.
But what happens is that you offer ideas without a supporting basis. These rest in the air. When someone wants to disprove a theory, he has to prove that there is a contradiction in it, and to do that he obviously needs to understand its general idea, the claims made for its correctness, and it is certainly desirable to get to know it a little more deeply.
So maybe you don't really pretend to disprove this or that theory, but just suggest people look at things in a different way. My feeling is that you want them to look at things in a different way, with an emphasis on the word.
So you have a lot of ideas, you have a good motto as I mentioned at the beginning, and all that's left is to go study formally and only then get credit for your words.
A pleasant weekend.
I'm not interested in Judah's theories either
But I don't understand what's bothering him.
Whenever we come across I respond from his responses
I usually skip to the next one
And I recommend to my friends who are not interested
Do so.
giving:
Perhaps you can explain to me what work you are talking about and what is sacred about it?
How exactly does a person have to work to say that he does not believe in something without providing any reasoning and without even trying to deal with the reasoning of those who said the same "something"?
What makes such a statement sacred?
Would a statement like "I don't believe that you are not a Jew" also be classified by you as a sacrilege?
To all the "experts" stop confusing your brain, he (Yehuda S) has the right and duty to question and doubt every article because it is only a theory and not a fact, and if he doesn't understand the material then maybe one of the "M and Mahim" will give his own advice
The guy is doing holy work, it's not right for empty people like you to raise your nose so high
Because of people like you we are a divided society and not united, stop dividing and start dividing!!!
Everyone have a good week!!!
Yehuda, in my name and in the name of thousands of disgruntled readers, know that if the site was like a company of Golani, a person like you would have long ago understood the deep meaning of the concept of kinetic energy when the company's colleagues would have kicked him while he was lying in a blanket. Yehuda, please stop bragging about itzala no go and spare the readers your empty musings.
Thanks Peter..
I'm glad the article was of interest to you
Shabbat Shalom to all
Yehuda, to be honest it's not that interesting why you agree and why you don't.
Filled if you knew general relativity and denied the existence of a black hole. Or understands the processes in the development of stars and only then talks about "the page of a supernova explosion that throws stars at high speeds..."
It takes a lot of humility (starting with saying I don't understand) and skepticism (maybe I'm wrong) to be a real scientist.
Two conclusions are written at the end of the article
A: The source of the star is in the Large Magellanic Cloud
B: The source of motion is a black hole
Comments
We are actually trying to analyze a phenomenon that happened 35 million years before our time and it is nice to see how the composition of the materials and the speed of the star and the time of its formation lead to it being formed in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Really noteworthy detective work. I agree to that.
As you know, I disagree about the reality of black holes and therefore I would like to know from all the experts participating in the comments, if a heavy star and not a black hole, could have caused the high speed of our "fast" star.
Could the reality of a black hole be in a disordered galaxy like the Large Magellanic Cloud? It is clear that the reality of a black hole as mentioned above should affect its immediate environment and it is amazing that it has not been noticed until today in our neighbor, the Big Cloud.
What do you think about the possibility of a binary system in which one of its stars became a super nova and as a result of the explosion page, the star, the subject of the article, is thrown at great speed? It seems to me that this is also a possibility, and perhaps even more realistic, because super nova phenomena are quite common in a binary star system, probably more than the appearance of a hole Black next to any star.
An interesting article in his research and assuming that the speed in question is not a mistake, you should check if there are no other speed options.
Have a good weekend
Besides, did you hear that the Sea of Galilee rose by seven centimeters?
A small step on the way to the three missing meters to the lake!
Sabdarmish Yehuda