Why can't we see the center of the Milky Way?

I'm constantly puzzled by these pictures:
image source: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0501/milkyway_garlick.jpg
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap050104.html

Sources like NASA claim that is what our galaxy looks like.

If that's the case, then why can't we see that bright sun-looking center? Or, how do they even think they know it looks like that?
Or, can we see it but few can actually recognize it with everything else in the night sky?
upload.wikimedia.org...

Furthermore, if there's a black hole in its center then wouldn't that make it inevitable that we'll end up inside it?

Lastly, since it's a system that our system is part of and is affected by the centers gravity, why aren't we affected by macro system events in the way that micro things on earth are affected by the macro Sun system? Or is it?


[edit on 16-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Wow, thast some really good questions.

I usually just took them from their word that they had taken those photos....


curious about the big star in the centre but.

Because of gas and dust ----but if you posses infra red vision, you could penetrate just nicely through and see bright stars.

And -- there is also a problem of perspective. we are located at the center' edge of the galaxy...

And they say , that the center is made of stars cluster around black hole.

I don't know if it is a “black hole“ or not ( it is very popular those days - and there is idea , that all galaxies are swirling around black holes in their center ) - but ,a tremendous concentration of mass is there in center - swirling the huge disc around. The same way - planets are orbiting around massive star - Sun.

about galaxies


* the center of Milky Way ( Sagittarius Star Cloud ) // Hubble:


image source: http://owcc-r-06.owcc.net/science/russo/Pictures/fig360.jpg


source

We are on the outer reaches of our galaxy and are out of range of the majority of the radioactive and gravitational tidal forces caused by a Black Hole. We're talking about tens of thousands of light years here.

This diagram should illustrate what I mean.

image source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/InverseSquareLaw.png


On a side note, I've read some papers recently(i'll try to relocate them if arsed) that say that Black Holes may be essential for new star births in some strange way that I couldn't quite grasp at the time. Sort of like a Volcanoe erupting ushering in a new era of regrowth.

I beleive the term is called "parsecs" or "mega par secs", a much better unit of measure.

Its not a star, Think of it as a cluster of stars NGC 5139 but on a massive massive scale.

Good replies.



Hubble is amazing.

So how close are those stars to one another compared to the nearest star to our star? If they are more congested, could life and 'people' still inhabit any would-be planets, or is it safe to assume things would be too 'powerful' or unstable for such?

The reason we cant "conventionally" see the centre of our galaxy is simply because theres to much crap in the way.

erm...guess thats it. *shrug*

www.news.wisc.edu...

Well assuming they do know what they're talking about, it looks to me like it could also be propagating the stars instead. It's one or the other. If we're to assume it's gravity then why would it have to be a spiral?

Note the 2 arms coming off the center of it. Why aren't there steady streams (beamlike) of stars flowing in to justify the light bands and the 'pressure' we'd expect?

If the stars are close enough to affect each other, then why is everything expanding?



Since this is apparently the understanding of the 'environment', wouldn't this view also support my second dichotomy here? This is what drives the contradiction.

In this view it would seem that the center would be turning far slower than if it is pulling.

Perhaps there's some inconclusive evidence (proof) to the contrary, but I've never seen it and I don't understand how everything is moving apart if the different stars are within range of each others gravity and it's all acceleratng towards that center.

Understanding the difference is important, because for us to know which way to look for bigger intelligence this is the starting point, and which clusters of stars to analyze for accelerated change. When I say "bigger" intelligence, I'm talking about vastly matured artificial intelligence. Since humans are close to it, assuming it doesnt exist and we're just not yet aware, we would have to consider that the life support 'systems' which are older than ours.

Furthermore, assuming the NASA representation is correct, it begs the question of if that 'thing' is "God".



EDIT: I'm still not convinced that center exists. That Sagettarius image is the constelation that is outside of the center.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

image source: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0501/milkyway_garlick.jpg


If that representation is correct, and this "you are here" is too, then why wouldn't we see it?

www.news.wisc.edu...

image source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/InverseSquareLaw.png



Since we can see Sagittarius, that optics model is completely incorrect for this application.


[edit on 16-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

That's the constellation Sagittarius. It's the outer edge of one of the 'poles'. If we can see that, then why couldn't we see that mega-star like center?

If the center is in fact visible, as it should be if we can see Sagittarius, then why is it that every person doesn't know full well about it when so many far lesser stars are literally worshipped? Could this be the big, the real story behind this?? (the hidden real story is usually found right on the surface)


[edit on 16-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

*map


image source: http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/messier/Pics/More/mwc_map.jpg


galactic center

source



* M20

image source: http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/messier/Jpg/m20.jpg

source

*M6

image source: http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/messier/Jpg/m6.jpg

source


*M8


image source: http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/messier/Jpg/m8.jpg

source

::::: all in the centar of Milky way






[edit on 16-5-2007 by blue bird]

Exact center is beyond our scope - because of thick interstellar dust (( DUST : Rather interstellar dust grains are much smaller clumps, on the order of a fraction of a micron across, irregularly shaped, and composed of carbon and/or silicates. Dust is most evident by its absorption, causing large dark patches in regions of our Milky Way Galaxy and dark bands across other galaxies ))

source





image source: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/cobe_milkyw.gif




source

We se ( as I posted above) center dominated by as many as over 30 M (Messier Objects) Nebula like M8 ( Lagoon Nebula) and M20 ( Trifid nebula)....


[edit on 16-5-2007 by blue bird]

Eh, the parsec is just 3.262 light years, and it is generally used in earth-based astronomy. So it probably doesn't matter which you use.

You're trying to turn a 3-d object into a 2-d object. Some of those stars are closer to us in addition to being to the right or left (or other position) of other stars. It's like looking at people in a shopping mall. You could arrange 30 people in a mall hallway so that you couldn't see much of the display in a store window...but that doesn't mean they're all standing shoulder to shoulder.

So it's hard to answer your question other than to say "many light years away from each other" and that the points of light that look like stars but are really galaxies are thousands of light years away.




We can't say. It would depend on the star and a billion other things.

Dust and distance. You can theoretically see all of Los Angeles from the mountaintops, but the dust and haze and smog in the city hide a lot of it from us. The galaxy has a lot of dust, and star clusters like our galaxy are very dusty.


The real story is that there's dust there, and that a lot of people don't actually look at the sky. If there was no dust there, it would simply be a much brighter part of the Milky Way.

Remember that it's not a star. It's a heap of billions of stars that are thousands of light years away. What you'd see is kind of a patch of white light with stars extending through Saggitarius and fading out towards the edges. You wouldn't see one huge star.

Dust and distance. You can theoretically see all of Los Angeles from the mountaintops, but the dust and haze and smog in the city hide a lot of it from us. The galaxy has a lot of dust, and star clusters like our galaxy are very dusty.


The real story is that there's dust there, and that a lot of people don't actually look at the sky. If there was no dust there, it would simply be a much brighter part of the Milky Way.

Remember that it's not a star. It's a heap of billions of stars that are thousands of light years away. What you'd see is kind of a patch of white light with stars extending through Saggitarius and fading out towards the edges. You wouldn't see one huge star.

Thanks Byrd,
i was busy copying info from a resource that explains what you just said...
but i'll post anyways, just so my effort wasn't wasted.

source: www.nrao.edu...




so scientists built the VLA (very large array) radio telescope
to 'see' the galaxy center..



thru several years of trying to radio wave image the central object
a combination of BlackHole and SuperNova remnants and magnetic features...with a mass equaling upwards of 2.6 million of Earths' Sun
and approximately 1 light-year in size.
...there's a radio wave image of the dense cloud object with some light shining through here & there at the URL in this post


the 1 page link is a pretty good source for other links & other info,
like that the VLA has determined from a 10 day observation and extrapolation that the Earth's solar system will orbit the Galaxy Center in ~226 million years (with a 6% margin)

thanks


PS:
i found the link at a Google search; {Sagittarius A*, galactic center}
if you really want to see the image or read the info


[edit on 16-5-2007 by St Udio]

Because in the Center of the Milky Way

Is the Other side of a Black Hole, our galaxy was made by some black hole billions of miles away that sucked out of some old galaxy to make this new one.



[edit on 16-5-2007 by Royal76]

I must agree with Royal 76. Stephen Hawkins is now involved over the existence of "white" holes. These would be the exact opposites of black holes. These would spew out matter in the same manner that black holes suck in matter.

It is theorized that white holes are entra-universe, and might allow for the multi-verse idea to be more acceptable.