New Keck Telescope Observations of the G2 Cloud


October 14th a group of U.S. astronomers published the results of Keck Observatory imaging of the G2 cloud which they did last March:

(Thanks to Roman who shared this link)

This paper by Witzel, et al. describes several new things that were learned from these observations.  Note that the present posting has been updated to accommodate changes that Witzel et al. made to their paper since their original posting on October 9th.

1) The G2 cloud definitely contains a star.

2) This star has a luminosity of 30 solar luminosities which implies that it has a mass of about twice the Sun’s mass.

3) They rule out the possibility that the star is a binary star system.

4) They find that the photosphere of the star has a diameter of 2.6 AU (astronomical units, slightly larger than the size of the Earth’s orbit.  This is 100 times larger than the photosphere normally seen for a main sequence star of this luminosity, which they find puzzling.  But over a year ago, in May 2013, I had predicted that stars at perhaps would have such an inflated size; see below.

5) They more accurately define the pericenter distance for the G2 cloud, determining its distance of closest approach to be 215 ± 30 AU.  This is further out than the 144 AU previously estimated by Gillessen, et al.  Witzel, et al. also find that at this distance of closest approach a 2 solar mass star within the G2 cloud should have a tidal radius of 1.3 AU.  The 1 AU radius estimated for the G2 star’s photosphere is smaller than this tidal radius, which is consistent with the lack of evidence of tidal stripping.  Although, the possibility still remains that tidal stripping will be observed at the time the star reaches its periapse distance.  Whether it has already passed its orbital pericenter, though, is not known.

6) They conclude that the star will continue to follow its orbital path around the Galactic core and continue on out.

In a May 2013 posting, G2 Cloud Predicted to Approach Twice as Close to GC, it was predicted that a star nearing its closest approach to the Galactic core would have a substantially inflated photosphere due to a number of reasons: a) energy added to the star due to tidal interactions with the Galactic core, b) energy added to the star due to cosmic ray heating of its atmosphere by the Galactic core’s cosmic ray flux, and c) internal genic energy production which itself depends on the value of the ambient gravity potential field, this field becoming increasingly negative as the star approaches its pericenter.  At that time I estimated that a one solar mass star approaching within 130 AU of the Galactic core would have its luminosity boosted 37 fold to 37 solar luminosities.

With the current determination of Witzel, et al. that the star will instead come within 215 AU when at its closest approach to the core, this luminosity estimate must be revised downward.  Accordingly, a one solar mass star at a distance of 215 AU from the Galactic core will have a genic energy output reduced to only 60% of what was previously estimated and a cosmic ray heating input reduced to only 36% of what had been previously estimated.  As a result a one solar mass star is estimated to have a total luminosity of 18.5 solar luminosities, which is close to what Witzel, et al. report for the G2 cloud star.  Here we neglect the contribution to luminosity due to tidal heating effects which would be small by comparison.

Previously I had estimated that due to its over luminosity the photosphere of a one solar mass star at pericenter would expand 4 fold to 4 solar radii.  I was apparently being too conservative.  Because here we see that even with a more modest luminosity increase to 18.5 solar luminosities (half of the earlier estimate) that the star’s photospheric radius expands to 1 AU, 245 fold larger, about like that of a star going through its red giant phase.  For example, a one solar mass star going through its red giant phase of core helium burning will have a luminosity of around 40 times the Sun’s luminosity and a radius of about0.5 AU.

Consequently, my earlier posting quite accurately estimated the luminosity observed for the G2 cloud star (once the pericenter distance is corrected for), but it underestimated its photospheric diameter.  Indeed, my earlier suggestion that the star would attain a diameter of 4 solar radii, was actually just a very conservative guess based on observations of T Tauri stars that lie near our solar system.

So, in view of the above discussion, the G2 cloud appears to contain a star of about one solar mass which is about 30 fold over luminous due to its passage close to the Galactic core, this excess luminosity causing its photosphere to expand approximately 245 fold to a radius of 1.14 AU.  It is unlikely that a binary star is present, but the star’s association with a jovian sized planet cannot be ruled out.

One criticism I have of the report by Witzel, et al. is that they still use the term “black hole” to refer to the galactic core.   The black hole theory is dead now; see recent posting. Let’s put flowers on its grave. When referring to this supermassive celestial object, astronomers should now use the term I have been proposing for the past 30 years: “Mother star”, or supermassive galactic core.  Another criticism I have is that, in order to explain the over luminosity of the G2 cloud star, they theorize that this star is the result of the recent fusion of two binary stars.  Such binary fusion happens to be a highly improbable event.  So, which explanation do you want to believe, their a posteriori highly improbable explanation, or my a priori relatively accurate prediction?

It should be pointed out that the lack of activity from the galactic core indicates that the matter that has been stripped off from the G2 star has been exclusively dust and gas.  As I predicted earlier, such material will not fall into the core, but will be blown away by the core’s intense cosmic ray wind.  Galactic center astronomers have been routinely ignoring the fact that the core has an intense wind, which is why they have been surprised at the fact that they have seen no dust infall activity from the core.  Evidence that such an energetic wind exists is indicated by the strong Br gamma line emission from the G2 cloud’s outer envelope.  Astronomers, such as Gillessen, et al. (2012) attribute this emission to ionizing photons emitted by stars in the vicinity of G2, totally ignoring the fact that this ionizing radiation more likely comes from the Galactic core.  So it is not surprising that no dust infall activity has been observed from the Galactic core.  Recall the news conference held last January when Leo Meyer said he expected to see “fireworks” (

23 Responses to New Keck Telescope Observations of the G2 Cloud

  1. David says:

    Hello Dr. LaViolette,

    It seems the G2 cloud is back in the news, with some confirmation to belief that it contained a star within it.

    “The best observations so far of the dusty gas cloud G2 confirm that it made its closest approach to the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way in May 2014 and has survived the experience. The new result from ESO’s Very Large Telescope shows that the object appears not to have been significantly stretched and that it is very compact. It is most likely to be a young star with a massive core that is still accreting material. The black hole itself has not yet shown any increase in activity.”

    Apparently the G2 cloud was traveling away from us at 10 million KPH, and now is traveling towards us at 12 million KPH.

    “As well as providing very sharp images, the SINFONI instrument on the VLT also splits the light into its component infrared colours and hence allows the velocity of the cloud to be estimated [3]. Before closest approach, the cloud was found to be travelling away from the Earth at about ten million kilometres/hour and, after swinging around the black hole, it was measured to be approaching the Earth at about twelve million kilometres/hour.”

    A question if you will, is the G2 going to orbit the Galactic core as a comet would orbit our Sun?

    • Paul LaViolette says:


      • Kurt Sarrica says:

        Dear Dr. LaViolette,
        I know that Kepler’s laws of planetary motion prescribe that a celestial body will accelerate upon periastron, but as a follow-up to David’s question about the SINFONI instrument of the VLT images of the G2 cloud and the fact that the G2 cloud was traveling away from Earth at 10 million KPH before periastron and now is traveling towards us at 12 million KPH after periastron, I am wondering if the increased velocity of the G2 cloud could possibly be an indication that a brown dwarf companion or large planet orbiting the G2 cloud’s dust-shrouded primary star has been tidally stripped away into the Roche lobe of Sgr A* as is described in the following video?:

  2. Dr. LaViolette
    I have been following all your work for quite a while now and have your books, 3 of them, Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, Genesis of the Cosmos and finally Earth Under Fire.
    I would like your comment on this: ( see High-resolution images of the center of our Milky Way, with x marking the galaxy’s black hole. G1 and G2 are shown in blue and red, respectively.) Astronomers may be a step closer to solving the mystery of a strange object seen orbiting the massive black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy.

    Dubbed G2, the object was first spotted in 2011 and was thought initially to be a gas cloud on the verge of being ripped apart by the black hole, which is known as Sagittarius A*. But when the object stayed intact, some scientists suggested G2 was something else: a pair of binary stars.

    But now a team of scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany have sparked new debate, offering more evidence to support the gas cloud theory.

    For their research, the team used a computer model to compare the orbit of G2 to that of G1, another object observed near Sagittarius A* a decade ago.

    “We explored the connection between G1 and G2 and find an astonishing similarity in both orbits,” team member Dr. Stefan Gillessen said in a written statement.

    I do not pretend to ” innerstand” what I do not under – stand
    so I would like to know what this means, as I “understand” it , there are two stars as you predicted?. I posted this link to your fb page hoping you would comment there.

    Mai Zimbleman

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I addressed this in a previous posting about 3 – 4 months ago. They did not say it was a pair of stars. They said that it originally (many years ago) was a binary system in which the two stars fused into one. They made this assumption in order to come up with an explanation as to why G2 is currently so luminous. Binary systems are common, but a binary star fusion event is very rare. So they are really reaching to make this proposal. It is in the speculative category. My explanation was proposed over a year before this discovery was made. I had predicted that G2 would be over luminous because of genic energy production within the embedded star and because of the impact of the Galactic core’s cosmic ray wind on the star’s greatly expanded photospheric envelope, both effects of which would increase in magnitude as G2 neared the GC. Tidal effects also play a heating role, but they would be more minor. Now that G2 has rounded its perigee and is increasing its distance from the GC, we can expect the star to begin to decrease its luminosity. But this will happen gradually due to the star’s ability to store up this acquired excess energy and proceed back to its former equilibrium luminosity over a long period of time. It may be years before we see any decline.

    • Kurt Sarrica says:

      In “Earth Under Fire” Dr. LaViolette references the apocalyptic “Garabandal Visions” which took place in the early 1960’s.
      One of the “visionaries,” Conchita Gonzalez Keena has described how a “great miracle” and “warning” will be viewed by all of humanity, appearing in the sky. She describes the “warning” as being “like two stars colliding.” She has also said that the during the warning “time will stand still for everyone.” These seemingly disjointed descriptions could actually be connected if we consider the possibility that the “collision of two stars” may refer to the star within the G2 cloud colliding with Sgr A*.
      And the “time will stand still” prediction might be some sort of heretofore unknown cognitive effect induced on human brains in response to the intense gravity wave generated by the impact of the star within the G2 cloud with Sgr A*.
      All this is highly speculative I must admit, but since the EMP from the galactic core explosion may well knock out all global communications, there might not be an opportunity to discuss these matters online AFTER the “two stars collide.”
      Here is a video interview of Conchita describing her “visions”:

      • Kurt Sarrica says:

        I should add the fact that the most disturbing part of the Garabandal visionaries’ prophecy is what they call “The Chastisement,” which sounds a lot like the “solar conflagration” or “Dragon Mode Effect” scenarios which Dr. LaViolette’s galactic superwave is predicted to cause, as well as the infamous “Killshot” that remote viewer Maj. Ed Dames has been predicting for the past 20 years. It looks like all of the pieces to the puzzle are falling into place.

        • Mary says:

          Thank you Kurt. By “coincidence” I just viewed this yesterday, not knowing you had made this post. It has been upon me of late to find all I can regarding the 3 days of darkness. Padre Pio also wrote a letter on this in 1950. It can be read on a video on YouTube.

          • Kurt Sarrica says:

            Dear Mary,
            Yes, Dr. LaViolette also mentions Padre Pio’s prophecies in his review of the “Fatima Visions” in his book “Earth Under Fire.” You might also be interested to know that I recently reviewed a Project Camelot interview Dr. LaViolette gave in 2009. During the interview, Bill Ryan & Kerry Cassidy reveal the fact that a “black projects” whistleblower they call “Jake Simpson” told them that someone with access to “superluminal spacecraft” had observed “a wave approaching the Solar System which will arrive here by the year 2017.” Here is a link to Project Camelot video:


          • Paul LaViolette says:

            Based on the clues that the last witness of the Garabandal apparition has revealed to various people, I investigated when all of these things will come to pass and arrived at a date in spring of 2020 during easter holy week.

          • Kurt Sarrica says:

            Dear Dr. LaViolette,
            Assuming that the April 9, 2020 date were the correct date for the fulfillment of the Garabandal prophecies, could a celestial object consealed within the G2 gas cloud still be the trigger event for the galactic core explosion? The G2 cloud simulations I have seen show that the G2 will be well removed from Sgr A* by 2020. Was there a particular reason why you would favor the 2020 date over the April 13, 2017 date indicated in the following website?:

            Very interesting, trying to put all the puzzle pieces together.
            Yours truly,

          • Paul LaViolette says:

            I doubt that the G2 cloud/star would be involved in producing such an outburst if one did occur in 2020. But according to subquantum kinetics, galactic cores every moment generate intrinsically an enormous flux of energy, energy that is spontaneously created without needing any matter infall to supply that energy. Infalling objects can serve as triggers for core outbursts, but such outbursts could also occur as a result of activity intrinsic to the core. So we should remain wary of the possibility that this event could come “like a thief in the night.”
            As to why I chose 2020 as the most likely date for this coming miracle, I discuss this in the following new posting: Note this refers to a “miracle” that will be witnessed by all. It does not necessarily mean that a cataclysmic event will occur on this date. But that should not be ruled out.

  3. Bruce Katz says:

    Interesting, 25 outages showing at the moment:

  4. Kurt Sarrica says:

    Dear Dr. LaViolette,
    While I realize that you abhor the misnomer “black hole,”
    it may be a while before the mainstream embraces your
    “mother star” alternative term. Notwithstanding this, I thought that you and all the followers of your blogs would be very interested in this new PBS Newshour report about a project to observe the accretion of the G2 Gas Cloud into the galactic core. Very significantly the astronomers predict the “event” to take place this coming Spring. They hope to see something that “knocks their socks off.” Be careful what you wish for!

    Best wishes,

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I was under the impression that most astronomers had given up on Sgr A* producing fireworks since nothing has been seen up till now. Though, it is always possible that an undisposed body like a comet might loop around past pericenter and end up making it in. Dust and gas from G2, however, will be blown away and not produce any x-ray emission. This “event horizon telescope”, if anything, will further disprove the black hole theory, not elucidate it. It will provide higher resolution for imaging the black hole. What they will find is that emission is coming from a region smaller than the event horizon. I had predicted this several years before Hawking started back peddling and admitting that radiation could escape from a black hole. My prediction is that radiation from the Mother Star will be resolved and show its size to be around 22 solar diameters. Not a dark region, but a region very bright in X-rays.

  5. Bruce Katz says:

    Hi Paul,

    It appears that the SGRA is either down or out this past week while cosmic ray monitors are showing more outages again as well. Earthquakes and volcanoes continue amidst the strange and severe weather. Are there any new signals or observations on your end?

    Thanks once again,

  6. Aze says:

    Dr LaViolette, thank you for this report and your own detailed commentary. The predictions you have been able to make have broadly been confirmed – a feather for your scientific hat! In addition, the changing predictions and their wide divergence suggests the “supermassive black hole” theory is barely more than speculation. Good news all round. Plus of course, a superwave seems a little less likely now, that’s also good to know.

  7. So then Paul, the star does not enter the galactic black hole? this is something new for black holes?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Please do not use the word “black hole”. Every time I hear someone use the word to describe the galactic core, it is like being stuck with a needle. The black hole theory is dead now. Let’s put flowers on its grave. Please read my posting on its recent disproof. Use the term I have been using for the past 30 years: “Mother star”, or supermassive galactic core. As I reported in earlier postings, computer simulations indicate that the star will not fall in but will continue on its orbit and leave the vicinity of the core unharmed.

  8. David says:

    Thank you for the update Dr. LaViotte, you are truly a gentleman and a scholar. A rare gem these days LOL.

    I have but one question. how reliable is the report and the conclusions of the report, in light of the Mathematical proof, that the GC is not a black hole?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      The only fault of the report is that they use the word “black hole” which is now disproven even on the basis of standard theory. They should instead refer to it as the supermassive galactic core. It is a star, not a hole. It is because I have long recognized this object to be, not a black hole, but a star generating genic energy and emitting a cosmic ray wind that I was able to make calculations over a year ago that predicted the expanded size of the G2 star that they now observe near orbital pericenter. Regardless of whether this is a black hole (as previously thought) or a star-like galactic core, the results for the orbit of the G2 cloud will be the same because the gravity field of the core is the same in either case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.