How stars get stolen

Darlene-Mandeville, LA. — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:19:42 GMT

Wow, Impressive

How stars get stolen

Wade Whitlock, Aberdeen, MD — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:31:37 GMT

A wonderful collection of photos! Thank you.

How stars get stolen

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:07:43 GMT

I would like to be able to see this a whole lot closer. That wouldn't happen unless I was in a starship. Oh, to have science fiction be real!

How stars get stolen

east, natrona heights, pa — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:16:43 GMT

It's wild that they mention distances like 130k light years being able to strip away a star cluster from smaller galaxies. Being a novice to all of the mechanics of space this sounds like it would fall under the conditions of a Hill Sphere as far as who wins ownership of these objects. Is that correct or is there a better explination for this?

How stars get stolen

Brian Keane, Oakland NJ — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:22:03 GMT

How does M87 steal the clusters without disrupting the smaller galaxies themselves?

How stars get stolen

Chris Reeve — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:57:12 GMT

Message to the astrophysicists and space journalists out there:

Can you guys PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take a closer look at what's being said by the Thunderbolts group? They've presented a compelling case for a *completely* different paradigm which does not require the invocation of particles (like dark matter) that have never before been directly observed. I've followed them for the past several years and they've responded to every single criticism thrown at them. Their theory is based significantly upon the work of Kristian Birkeland, who is renowned as the world's first laboratory space scientist. We can understand what we're seeing in space in plasma laboratories -- and that's exactly what Birkeland did.

Every day that goes by where we as a society are not taking a closer look at the less popular interpretations for astrophysical observations will be another day of assumption-laden speculation, confusing observations and a theory of everything that does not meet up the big and the small. Plasma-based cosmologies are the way of the future. Space is, after all, completely filled with charged particles. Charged particles respond far more to electromagnetism than gravity. The idea that gravity is the main character in this thing is an act of blind faith. Who amongst the astrophysical community has taken the time to actually listen to the alternative plasma-based paradigm? It's clear to me that we define our preferences largely on the basis of how we define our reading selection. If the best that the astrophysicists can do is to invoke never-before-witnessed particles, then surely the plasma-based theories deserve far more attention than they are getting ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info

How stars get stolen

kitty cat — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:42:48 GMT

new discoveries are being made all the time

How stars get stolen

Gino, Salem, Or. — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:59:29 GMT

What is the question here? There doesn't seem to be
anything to write about. How about this...?
The fact that we can still see M87 tells us that its central black hole is still small and likely growing.
Should M87 wink out in the near future might we assume
that its central black hole had achieved a mass equal
to that of the whole galaxy, and swallowed it.
Replies are invited!

How stars get stolen

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:43:22 GMT

I am always facinated by composite photos like M87 depicting X-Ray emission. The implication of the energies and power source that it represents are hard to fathom. I presume that charged particles are streaming out at near light speed and colliding with gas that follows some polarity axis from the central region thereby emitting x-rays and radio frequencies because xrays and radio emissions are just a form of EM radiation like visible light. That photograph indicates some axis.