Black Hole Alignment Mystery

A lot of the large-scale structure data comes from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

The site is here: http://www.sdss.org

Hell, we don't even know the star date on this survey. Somebody call Bill Shatner.

I think you forgot to finish that sentence. Here, let me help... "Somebody call Bill Shatner, the best Starship captain ever - hands down - no comparison - EVER." Oh yeh, am I right, and I right, come on now, let me hear it.

I still need to understqnd how this is accomplished. I cannot find things that dont start by assuming you already know how this azimuthal measurements and circumferential measurements (in 3D no less) is accomplished(even the above clip you posted above). Im not gonna go one step further in trying to decipher anything else on this till I learn that. Im still stuck on Cepheid stars, red shifts, (degrees of red shifts) and parallax . Theres GOTTA be something Im missing in my attempts at understnding this better.
All the above meurements are ok "for govt work" but not for close tolerances as very small percentages of arc.





SHATNER???

JEEZUS H CHRISTE!!


Piccard -He made it so.

See if this link helps:
http://www.nature.com/news/spin-rate-of-black-holes-pinned-down-1.13512

From what I've read they are using Angular Momentum measurements to contribute to the measurements they use to determine alignment.

Some photo's offer visual evidence of alignment is two dimensions. See below:


Black Hole Jets also exhibit relativistic doppler shift, so I think that is also included in the calculations, although I can't find the specifics anywhere.

degrees of doppler shift allow you to measure distances an to establish more of a 3D configuration. You solve for Lamda and plot it against assumed (uncorrected) distances (corrected distances would be a comparison to a corrected concordia style diagram)
Id think that some closer segments of arc are needed > I could be all wet but I dont think so.

Ill read the link , thanks. This has turned into a real poser for me and my low level of understanding .

HA!, they are using direct accretion rates (spectral lines for specific elements whose spectra are delivered from the galaxy being studied). This allows an iterative understning of distance.

Ive become really fascinted by how the concepts of an actual distance values (and the diameters of radial masses of these bodies) can be calculated.

Yes. I actually think they are using several types of measurements to narrow this down. But the primary reference is to Angular Momentum (I assume of the visible matter around the hole).

It's very interesting. And I haven't even talked about Frame Dragging yet

Steven Hawking says it's simple. His latest blather is that they are just doorways to another dimension.
That's not even original, but when he says it, people pay attention.

I have about the same confidence in his pronouncements as I do that monkeys will fly outta my butt.

maybe its the use of the word "Alignment"> In this case it means not quite the same as we use in energy "wave" propogation (like earthquake epicenters and hypocenters) are "Aligned" with some cardinal direction of the spherical geometry that is the earth.

These jets are a fairly compact stream of particles which are being expelled from the poles of a rotating black hole along a line which extends from the axis of rotation.

What they are saying is that a suspiciously large number of these particle streams are aligned [with each other] even across galactic distances. Secondarily to that, the alignment also happens to be parallel to the line of the cosmic thread.

I'm not sure why you keep getting tangled up on "alignment". It seems pretty straight forward to me. Am I misunderstanding you in some way, or missing something?

I use the term "Alignment" as a precise term. I later figured the term had (in this case) only to do with "side by side" occurences of these "jets" on the "threads".
Computer tech and cosmology come up with more "glommed" terms that have precise meanings in other disciplines.

An alignment in geophysics has a meaning which requires some measurable degree of parallelism in at least two planes of the axis which describes the feature. Otherwise its a FOCUS or a DIVERGENCE. In P-chemistry alignment is a property of a crystal.

Precise nd concise . Ill be ok with that.

Ok. I think I see where we got out of alignment

Black holes are 'fiction'.
Same as gravity et al.

Do you understand 'a priori' and 'a posteriori'?
Fact and fiction.

Allow me to analogise/ize - One is based on Factual measurement supported by math - The other is based on math supported by 'fckall'. Like Higgs, Dark matter, black holes, gravity, etc.