There is no dust extinction in the direction of the Trapezium? A critic of professional astronomers should know that the light from all stars are dimmed at least a little by the interstellar dust between the source and the receiver.
How bright is this possible binary companion expected to be? Aren't there likely to be numerous lesser stars within the Trapezium that we simply can't see due to dust extinction?
Bruce, in the Heart of Orion APOD I posted a link that described Subr claiming the BH would be in the exact center point of the 4 Trapezium stars, so your binary component would be there. You would have no dust extinction there
His analysis speaks of his software's inability to correlate results with detected objects. This is why he should have included "ultimately possible"
in his descriptors. It's only ultimate
, and of the purest of theoretical.
I also posted a link or two of Chandra's imaging of the Trapezium. No stressed stars were found in it, emitting, in the center of the 4. Nothing at any wavelength is emitting as a point source in the middle of the Trapezium.
Subr needs his feet held to the fire, as do his peer review reviewers.
The ONC region looks pretty dusty to me.
What does the word 'ultimately' mean to you, in the context that you are insisting that Subr et al should have used it in their paper? I've read a few astronomical papers, articles, etc., but I don't remember ever seeing the expression "ultimately possible".
Ultimately, the debate about the possible IMBH within the Trapezium will be resolved.
Bruce, the ultimate optimist.
Quaint. Subr uses a simulation, generates a need for a binary [?] system for the hole, and Bruce needs the companion "extinguished" by interstellar dust
C'mon boys & girls, we're being a bit silly defending his model's results, aren't we?
Geck: "forests" of observations rendering astronomical phenomena understandable .. to be replaced by defense of untenable terms, keys of the kingdom handed away to simulators, is it?
And most of all, don't describe that replacement as 'chivalric hijacking'?
"vendettas' of "novice" hijackers? First Subr 'was here', then he's not. Resolve
that nastiness, right?