Ray line 12 says this.......

"This gives the illusion of a second nucleus."

"Double nucleus"??

What would this mean anyway? Two supermassive black holes closely orbiting each other?

"When the stars are at the farthest point in their orbit they move slower, like cars on a crowded freeway," NASA says in its image advisory. "This gives the illusion of a second nucleus."

How can this be possible? All of these stars do not orbit in exactly the same ellipse. They would all have different secondary foci. This statement makes no sense.

The best part: "like cars on a crowded freeway". Bwa-ha-ha-hah. As if they move slower "at the frathest point in their orbit" because it's so crowded. Riiiight. Nothing at all to do with Keplerian orbital mechanics.

Any reason that we have not sent a probe out to this galaxy?

I mean how else are we going to see our OWN GALAXY?

Think of all the other things learned on its way!

About the Black Hole and stars forming at the center of every galaxy, If a black hole brings everthing to it because of its massive gavity, how can they be the foundation for forming a galaxy. The older stars are at the outer edge of the galaxy?

To form a star gases mix up and a reaction is made and you have fusion. Some stars get planets and some don't. You think some stars get lucky and have extra material to for planets after ignition. Some extra gases and others metals and such.

Stars with out planets maybe burned up this extra stuff, or never had it ( a clean star ) or is yet to release it?

With the explosion from a star igniting you would get a outward force and throwing matter , but as the stars gravity masses and has effect would slow matter and start the proses of a solar system.

Well my point is what if this is how a galaxy formed in much the same way, after the star burns out it would creat a supermassive black hole, it would tie in to the big bang and that would be the theory much the same way. And what we call a universe could be one of many on a bigger scale and we are just so far away that light has not reached us yet.

If our universe is a so called 14 billiion ish years old whats to say that a universe that is 10 billion and 20 billion light years apart from us. They would see our universe what 6 billion years before we would see thiers.

If both were 10 years old and 20 years apart then it would be 10 more years before they found eachother!

"MikeyMike

"Double nucleus"??

What would this mean anyway? Two supermassive black holes closely orbiting each other?

"When the stars are at the farthest point in their orbit they move slower, like cars on a crowded freeway," NASA says in its image advisory. "This gives the illusion of a second nucleus."

How can this be possible? All of these stars do not orbit in exactly the same ellipse. They would all have different secondary foci. This statement makes no sense.

The best part: "like cars on a crowded freeway". Bwa-ha-ha-hah. As if they move slower "at the frathest point in their orbit" because it's so crowded. Riiiight. Nothing at all to do with Keplerian orbital mechanics."

Think like a rubber band and as it reaches its end it slows down, then speeds back up. like a bunji jumper I think.

Brian, rubber bands don't think. How could I possibly think like one? ;)

Perhaps you should look up Kepler and his explanation of planetary orbits. He figured out very accurately why a body orbiting in an ellipse moves faster when it is closer to the gravitational focus and slower as it transits the remaining portions, being slowest at the point farthest from the source of gravitation, which is closest to the secondary focus, which in the article is alluded to as an illusionary "second nucleus". Mathematically, what happens is that an imaginary line (or rubber band if you will) between the orbiting body and the gravitational focus sweeps out equal areas in equal amounts of time. Since the line is shortest near the primary focus, the movement must be fastest and since the line is longest at the apogee, or farthest point, the movement is slowest.

Or maybe he had it wrong and the planets just swing around on invisible rubber bands, I don't know.

"Any reason that we have not sent a probe out to this galaxy?"

Oh, maybe because the Sun will become a red giant before it could get anywhere close? (On the other hand, Andromeda is coming this way. Be very very patient...)

"I mean how else are we going to see our OWN GALAXY?"

You really don't understand the scale of things, do you? The best we have today would take something like 100,000 years to reach the nearest star, and that's just 4.5 light years...and you want to send a probe to a location 2.2 million light years away?

Even at (okay, very, very close to) the speed of light, over two million years to get to the Andromeda Galaxy. And a significant part of that, to just get far enough outside this galaxy to see its true shape.

(Disregarding what red shifting of light would do to the view, or slowing down at the far end. Of course, if we could send an object close enough to c, time would move very slowly for it...perhaps only a few tens of years would pass by the probe's clocks, and we have a chance of making a probe that could function that long. But we'd still see it take 2 megayears to travel, and that long for any information to come back by radio, if there was any hope of detecting even a multi-megawatt signal from that distance. Are you that patient? But it doesn't matter. Today, the only material we can push anywhere near c, are subatomic particles, in particle accelerators. And that, with considerable effort...)

What you are seeing is nothing like what they are telling us we are seeing. One a black hole is an impossibitity, The maximum mass that can accumulate on one singular body is somewhere between the Sun's mass and two solar masses. A star may have a physical dimension equaling ten times that of our Sun, but it will still contain the aprroximate same mass. Beteguese and our Sun is an example. Beteguese's radial distance extends out side the mass of Mars in our system, but its total mass is comparable to our Sun. Their is a theoretical reason for this and it involves mass and motion. Motion is defined by distance of movement divided by the time of that movement. Mass creates the phenomena of time and time must be measured dependent on the mass component at the point of measurement. What this means is that in a mass such as our Sun, time at its core is evolving much longer in durative momentum than the mass on its surface. While we observe the Sun to be in motion at one rate at its surface its core is in motion at a rate defined by the time of the core system. The core of the Sun may be in motion at only a few miles per hour. No mass ever observed is without some motion, that is because absent any motion mass ceases to exist being reclaimed as photons by the mass of the universe. A black hole cannot exist because all of its mass would be in a state of none motion. Science goes so far as to admit that an object mass falling onto a black hole by virtue of its mass creating an almost infinitely long time phenomena would take nearly forever to reach the surface of the black hole from any distance. Nova exploding stars are mass buildups where the core has reached in its entirety a state of none motion and the entire core explodes as photon radiation. In these incidences the core has reached a dimension of possibly three or four Earth dimensioned tremendously dense masses. All of the surrounding Hydrogen gas is blown away and only a less dense smaller object is left. It exhibits the traits we call as a neutron star.

Agreed. The info I was told was "true" about black holes 20 years ago @ Eberly (PSU) is now considered "wrong" and what is now "known" is "true". When science gets over the math and views black holes as just stars a lot of the mystery and outlandish ideas (Hawking Radiation anyone) will fall by the wayside. Let's not forget that the best science of different ages said the world was flat, that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and who can forget Sagan's guesses about the outer solar system based on the best science before Voyagers made it there?

Derek-1859241: Why is Hawking Radiation "outlandish" while the flat earth you mention was fact at the time? Seems someone needs to open their mind a little more.

To have a two body system with Lagrange points you first have to have the star (as well as the black hole). The question is, how does a star even form so close to a black hole?

Gravitationally yes black holes function like any other body.

They're different from stars only in that they have so much gravity that anything that passes too close will be sucked in -- even light. That makes the hole themselves, and a radius out to their event horizon, completely invisible to us.

However, Hawking Radiation, however exotic and weird, has been observed and measured. That's pretty cool stuff right there.

I guess I see what you mean. What we are presently observing as the far edge is actually how it was 120,000 years earlier than what is visible as the near edge.

Of course, seeing how the entire galaxy is 2.5 million light years away, the distance from one edge to the other isn't really that huge in comparison. :)

And the point goes to MSpielman for the win!