Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dragon Star Current thinking goes as this:
Quasar's are driven by SMBH's, and too keep their typical luminosity, they must consume at least 10 solar masses of material every year, and can consume as much as 1000 solar masses per year. A quasar would not continue to feed at that rate of 10 billion years, which explains why there are no nearby quasars. In this idea, after a quasar finishes eating up gas and dust, it becomes an ordinary galaxy.
Now, one characteristic of quasars is that they show evidence of elements heavier than helium. This means that galaxies underwent a HUGE phase of star formation creating population III stars between the time of the Big Bang and the first observable quasars. If no evidence for these stars is found and no alternatives are found for creating the heavier elements, this may seriously hurt the current views of the universe. |
Hi Dragon, thankyou your reply. please explain to me, I ask because
I seek to understand. Does not the BH create the Quasar, the light and
energy produced by gas being accelerated by the massive gravity pull
producing the radiation? And in so doing, does not the 'wind' drive the
rest of the gas cloud away. Dragon, there has been proved a co-relation
between the mass of a SMBH and the speed of the stars orbiting it.
In every galaxy if falls to 0.5%
Dragon, no nearby quasars....We look through our telescopes at the very
distant past, perhaps this is about interpretation. Andromeda has a core
that glows, not with the same brightness as a quasar, but, perhaps the
dying shell of one we see.
Dragon, the stars containing heavier elements are found towards the
outer rim of the galaxy.
Nokton.
