Yes, jets from active galaxies can precess but usually with some help (galaxy mergers & central BH mergers are some sources of energy for precession to occur.

Since M87 is a HUGH elliptical, mergers have been quite likely. Could be a reason…

I guess I don't understand the source of the precession in this case and also in the case of pulsars. Doesn't there have to be a nearby gravitational object to cause the black hole to precess, similar to the moon causing the earth's 26,000 year precession period? Or can a black hole/pulsar self-precess for some reason?

Either way, this is certainly not some simple Birkeland current we're talking about here, nor some standard dipole magnetic field that falls off as the inverse cube of the distance. These are some seriously complicated structures, these M87 jets. Much more complex than I expected them to be.

@solrey "There are a number of papers by EU/PC scientists concerning M87"

Let the record reflect that when pushed, Solrey couldn't provide a single EU/PC paper dealing with M87.

Why do you think so?

Germans love long words, don't they?

Also, if I read right the apparent velocity of HST-1 is 6.14c or six times the speed of light. Did I read that correctly?

I didn't check it, but if they say 6.14c, they are most likely referring to superluminol speed. This is a relativistic effect that something seems to be faster than the speed of light. But if you do the math, you'll find that the thing is still flying slower than c.

Thanks for the URL. As usual these papers are pretty tough going to read through and understand them. They always have techniques and procedures that go way over my head.

I take it that the major results are on page 7 where they break down the results by jet component. Let's see the jet goes from 13.9 degrees off our line of sight at HST-1, to 21.3 degrees for D-East, down to 6.2 degrees for A. Of course, the brightest jet region A has the smallest line of sight making the relativistic beaming factor the highest. So the relative brightnesses seem to have little to do with intrinsic brightness, just as I suspected.

What causes the deflection angle from our LOS to vary so much? That jet is definitely not going straight. It is wiggling around like mad.

Also, if I read right the apparent velocity of HST-1 is 6.14c or six times the speed of light. Did I read that correctly? But the gamma for HST-1 is 7.21 indicating a speed of 0.99c. So I'm not getting what the difference is between these two speeds.

I'm also not understanding how the highest magnetic field of 871 microgauss can occur at region C-1 which is the 2nd farthest from the center. So these results don't make a whole lot of sense to me.

http://aa.springer.de/papers/7317003/2300637.pdf

This one was done by the HST in the early 1990’s. They show a very complicated polarization structure within the jets. Go to Fig. 4a and 4b on page 641. They show little lines marking the magnetic field direction in the various jet components.

For the core (left-most bright glob in Fig. 4a) the magnetic field appears to be circularly aligned. The next bright glob going rightward in the jet (I forget the letter label) has the magnetic field line aligned with the jet direction, just as a Birkeland field-aligned current would have it. The next 3 little blobs also have the magnetic field following the jet direction.

But look at blob A (the brightest one). What the heck happened? Now the magnetic field is aligned perpendicular to the jet direction. Something must have happened to disrupt the magnetic field here. It is definitely no simple Birkeland current anymore. The magnetic field becomes parallel to jet direction in the next blob, but then shifts to perpendicular or even circular in the last blob.

So there are major shifts in the direction of the magnetic field throughout the jet.

http://images.nrao.edu/589

It has 100 times the resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope. I image shows that the jet collimation begins within 100 Schwarzchild radii from the black hole or ~30 light-days (one sixth the distance labeled 200 light-days). More and more evidence mounts of structure closer and closer towards the center, something the Peratt model never predicted. One more nail in the coffin of EU pseudoscience.

@solrey:

(early “black hole” theory had no jets or “accretion disks” these were added after the jets were observed).

Yes, and early electromagnetic “theory” had no plasma in mind. They were added after it was observed….

Electromagnetic theory, as applied to the cosmos, always had plasma in mind, it’s intimately related.

Either you misunderstood me or you wanted to misunderstand me.
I was talking about electromagnetic theory in general. Maxwell came up with his equations that describe everything you need about electromagnetism in the early 1870s, decades before plasma was "discovered".

@OIM

According to Wikipedia 2 + 2 = 5.

Believe it or not, I think you can construct a mathematical structure in which this is true. But you have to proove it. Mathemtics is strictly true and prooven. It means that mathematics (as strange as it sometimes is) is the only thing in the universe, we can be sure of, that is definitly correct.

@ Ivan3man

#

chugh SoH lolo’laHghachlIjyInyImejmechughughobeobejIHjDIchDaqDwamwam SbIngIrurrvetlhtyIHySoHSooH’oH.

Damn it! It did not up-load properly — it looks more like German than Klingon.

You mean, like
"Donauschifffahrtskapitänsmützenschrankschlüssel" ?
Such things are possible in German (and I could have make it much longer ) – I think it's an advantage….(you English speaking guys always need an "of the" in between; I won't even try to translate the word from above…)

"It never ceases to amaze me, how many individuals here read a paper and read into it with ignorance."

Total hypocrite. You always say absolutely nothing and then when other people do, you just think its OK to condemn them or worst berate them if they think differently for you and your inferiority complex of your own blithering ignorance. (In fact you fall on the old standard of "you must of Goggled it.)
It is clear to me (and probably other here) you have completely no idea on how scientific information is obtained nor how "science works."
I mean, how totally stupid are you to even suggest "It is a fact: 80% of papers are theory, in which 95% are proven incorrect "within a few years"
What bull ! Published papers mostly are based on actual established or new observations, and the reduction via the scientific method, to draw conclusions. There are very few instances where the "paper being wrong", it is just new observations (or theories), which confirm or deny the conclusions.
Frankly OilisMastery is a genius compared to your own stupidity.
I suggest you keep you mouth shut, before putting you foot in it yet again.

Secondly, if you are going to use this work, then at least be able to take one main part and disect it, as if you were proving a mathematical equation. Just because you simply believe a paper you read doesn't mean anything if you don't fully understand it, nor does it mean it is true.

Third… evidence is not proof. This is taught to elementary students. Amazingly, people forget it by the time they turn 14.

There are different ways to create a magnetic field. Not all of them involve electricity. If you understand why a magnet is a magnet, then you wouldn't spout out that a magnet requires electricity. The Earth isn't plugged in, and it has a magnetic field. Nothing electrical is lining up electrons in the core. Mars has a really odd magnetic field in its southern hemisphere… definitely not caused by electricity.

Don't mind Oills. He hasn't been the same since he lost the recipe for ice.

It never ceases to amaze me, how many individuals here read a paper and read into it with ignorance. Applying what they believe to be common sense, or create a probability based on what they believe it should be based on their life experience. Fortunately, real science doesn't work this way.

Bring out the proof… so it can be disected. Don't spout out about someones paper. Layout the main idea, and line up the proof used by it. Show us you truly understand what is being said.

black hole — luSpet
accretion disk — N/A
cyclotron radiation — [cyclotron] tlhuD
event horizon — wanl' ghangwI'
today is a good day for spaghettification — Heghlu'meH QaQ jaj vaD [spaghettification]

black hole
accretion disk
cyclotron radiation
event horizon
today is a good day for spagitification

Thanks for that link! Like you said, it's well worth the read — from a reliable source!

chugh SoH lo'laHghach lIj yIn, mej! chugh ghobe', jIH DIchDaq wam SoH bIng rur vetlh yIH SoH 'oH.

“… shut up! Don’t be silly. Go away.”

A real Klingon would not utter anything this weak. At the very least “If you value your life, leave! Else I will hunt you down like the tribble you are.” would have been a start.

You're right, but I was showing human restraint. However, what you stated would be translated into Klingon as:
chugh SoH lolo'laHghachlIjyInyImejmechughughobeobejIHjDIchDaqDwamwam SbIngIrurrvetlhtyIHySoHSooH'oH.

A real Klingon would not utter anything this weak. At the very least "If you value your life, leave! Else I will hunt you down like the tribble you are." would have been a start

Just leave him to wallow in his pit of ignorance.