Talk:Quasar/Archive for 2005

Reverting supermassive black hole theory

I reverted this edit by User:Distantbody, which was later reverted by User:Andromachi, but Andromachi's edit was, itself, reverted by User:Raul654, presumably because Adromachi is a banned user/vandal (confused yet?). However, I removed the supermassive black hole explanation as an uncited theory: Distantbody's edit summary suggests some sort of sensationalism without citation of a source. --Deathphoenix 16:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - you beat me to it. I agree with your reasons. - Avenue 01:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

While making a good edit, Distantbody also inserted the theory again. I did some further research and have yet to see the theory mentioned. Quasars and supermassive black holes have been mentioned somewhat (most notably here), but I have yet to see an actual peer-reviewed publication where a group of scientists discuss this theory. Since Wikipedia is not a source of original research, this theory needs to be given a full peer-reviewed document before it can be mentioned here. --Deathphoenix 15:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Google for "active galaxy" and "active galactic nuclei" instead of "quasar" for mechanism papers. See also active galaxy. The edit that was reverted looked redundant, as opposed to factually incorrect - the article already discusses supermassive black holes under "Quasar emission generation". This mechanism is the only plausible one found to date that explains why quasars can vary so quickly (indicating a size of light-hours or smaller), while still producing so much energy. --Christopher Thomas 19:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. --Deathphoenix 20:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for arguments against gravitational redshift

I have moved the following request by User:70.32.171.199 out of the body of the article.

[OK this is a comment from an anonymous reader. This last sentence makes a lot of sense -- why isn't the redshift due to light escaping a deep gravitational well? -- then the author doesn't go on to pursue this point but instead switches to additional reasons why people don't like the traditional view of what quasars are. Someone please flesh out why in the 60's the idea of the redshift on quasars as being from light escaping a gravitation gradient was rejected. Thanks!]

For context, it came after these sentences:

One great topic of debate during the 1960s was whether quasars were nearby objects or distant objects as implied by their redshift. It was suggested, for example, that the redshift of quasars was not due to the Doppler effect but rather to light escaping a deep gravitational well.

I have also attempted to address their request. -- Avenue 13:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Actualy "frame dragging" is prooved by gravity probe B, Frame dragging ocurse when a massive object rotates, (even around earth) altough the earth doesn't have that much gravity force compared to a rotating blackhole. This might well be just someting close to blackhole the light escapes but redshifted by frame dragging, not that kind of a bad idea