Super Massive Blackholes, rebuked?

[Ragabash]

Has this theory been rebuked as that is what one of my (school) friends claims; by some analysis, but we never discussed this in more depth, and now I would have to wait till fall to see him again and discuss about it.

So please do let me know if you know anything about recent studies regarding the theory.

[Syron]

No, quite the opposite. The more astronomers look the more evidence for them there is.

Take Sag A* at the center of our own galaxy;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A%2A

And a movie of it on the nasa website;

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070114.html


And a really cool news story......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7148671.stm

etc

As you can see, all pretty recent stuff.

Lets put it this way, some of my lecturers are the astronomers who study these objects and they seem pretty convinced these objects are supermassive black holes. There is nothing else conceivable to explain the phenomenon.

[Ragabash]

Thanks alot.

I will read them later when I can concentrate them with the fullest. The last article seems especially interesting. Did I say thanks before.

[vizi]

I am wondering where he heard that it was rebuked? I haven't heard much in the way against the idea. But I haven't been keeping up...

[Ragabash]

From a school friend of mine. And since I have not myself either heard anything against the theory, decided to ask should someone here have heard such studies.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Rebuked? What does this terminology mean in connection with a hypothesis?

[Ragabash]

It's a theory, not hypothesis. You need to have a hypothesis in case to form a scientific theory however. And by rebuked I meant possible scientific evidence against the theory.