Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nokton All I ask of you is this, go into Google Stuart, type in, The Nuker team,
then you will understand my source, why I responded to sunil as
I did, and why I respect the findings of the Nuker team.
Nokton. |
Google did not turn up too much, but I did find the Nuker Team's home page. On it, they have a review article on what they're doing. I've read the article, and no where in it do they imply that a black hole came first and a galaxy formed later. All they seem interested in doing is finding supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies, and correlating the derived mass with the derived mass of the galaxy.
This implies a co-evolution since they find that there is a "standard" relationship between black hole mass and galaxy bulge (not disk) mass, but again, this in no way necessitates a black hole first (which again is impossible, you have to have stars first unless you go with Hawking's idea that black holes were formed along with the Big Bang) and then forming the galaxy. They point to some authors that claim what you do, but say that it is not known, is the subject of debate, and cannot presently be proven. Perhpas you're looking at, "[black holes] may be a necessary ingredient in our understanding of galaxy formation." But, "formation" does not mean initial accretion, rather by "formation" here they mean how the galaxy evolved to get to its present state. This is another example of where language used by astronomers doesn't always mean the same thing as it does to non-astronomers, which is also part of the reason behind that poll question that you dislike.
Can you specifically point to a paper or site that supports what you were saying? The source that I refer to here is at
http://chandra.as.utexas.edu/~kormen...perspective.ps .