Quote:
Originally Posted by William
I agree to no longer mention "B" in this thread.
|
Why won't you start a thread in the ATM section? You seem very interested in his work, and this isn't the first time you've brought Bell up...
Quote:
Originally Posted by William
Quasar Clustering
The paper I linked to stated that there were 4 times more than random clustering of quasars. How many merges were you thinking of? I remember people arguing, four or five years ago, that there was no clustering of quasars (i.e. quasars were randomly distributed), that any quasars observed in close proximity were due to gravitational lensing. I thought the finding of quasar binaries to be interesting, from the standpoint of close proximity of the quasars in question and how the quasars must be fed. Also I thought that typically during a merger one of the BH was ejected.
|
During galaxy mergers, none, one, both, or the merged pair of black holes may be ejected. In the latest simulations, the most likely scenario is that the pair will merge, receive a small kick but settle down in the center of the new, larger galaxy.
Do you have a citation for the "no clustering" claim?
Here's a paper by the Bachalls & Don Schneider from 1986, discussing the possibility that quasar pairs had been observed. I think you're just misunderstanding the research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by William
BH Intrinsic Magnetic Field
The MECO associated observations which are based on 25 years of quasar observations are interesting as the observed quasar structures require an intrinsic black hole magnetic field as the structures have been observationally located between the disc and BH. An accretion disc generated magnetic field cannot create a structure in that location. A BH generated magnetic field is required. Also interesting is the comment in the paper that very strong magnetic fields create electron positron pairs in the vacuum. I will provide a link to the MECO, paper. It is necessary for you read to read the MECO paper before you comment.
|
I've already looked at the MECO paper, but I don't have enough knowledge of GR to really comment on it: I've said this before. On the other hand, I do not yet believe the statement that the accretion disk cannot hold the magnetic field that they claim to have observed: accretion disk models have advanced significantly in the past few years, and I've seen some models that incorporate very powerful magnetic fields that are stable over long time periods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by William
High Redshift Dusty Quasars
I will provide a link to a paper that explains the theoretical problems which makes it difficult for "dust" to form, in general.
|
I'll wait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by William
Lack of Quasar Time Dilation with Redshift/Lack of Quasar Metallicity Evolution with Redshift
I will provide a link to Hawkins paper that notes a lack of time dilation for quasars. There is as others have noted observed time dilation for super nova. The lack of quasar time dilation and the lack quasar evolution of metallicity could be viewed as a paradox.
|
Did you even read my response above?
Quasar spectra are much more complicated than SN spectra!
Quote:
Originally Posted by William
Lineless QSO/Naked QSO
This is a link to Hawkins’ paper on naked AGN. PHL 1811 seems to be similar to the Naked AGN, in that it has an anomalous lack of emission lines (i.e. It is lineless.) PHL 1811 in addition to being lineless is anomalous as it “ is between 13 and 450 times fainter in X-rays than other quasars with the same UV luminosity.”
|
Again:
Did you read the summary of the 2nd Leighly paper? I will not discuss this with you again until you have. They provide a very plausible explanation for how an object like PHL 1811 could produce the observed spectral features. It is quite different from the Hawkins' AGN. And "naked" doesn't mean there is no galaxy.