Mysterious "Blobs" Are Windows Into Galaxy Formation
Written by Anne Minard
Credit: Left panel: X-ray (NASA/CXC/Durham Univ./D.Alexander et al.); Optical (NASA/ESA/STScI/IoA/S.Chapman et al.); Lyman-alpha Optical (NAOJ/Subaru/Tohoku Univ./T.Hayashino et al.); Infrared (NASA/JPL-Caltech/Durham Univ./J.Geach et al.); Right, Illustration: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss
Astronomers say they've discovered the "coming of age" of galaxies and black holes, thanks to new data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes. The new discovery helps resolve the true nature of gigantic blobs of gas observed around very young galaxies, and sheds light on the formation of galaxies and black holes.
The findings, led by Jim Geach of Durham University in the UK, will appear in the July 10 issue of The Astrophysical Journal.
About a decade ago, astronomers discovered immense reservoirs of hydrogen gas — which they named "blobs" – while conducting surveys of young distant galaxies. The blobs are glowing brightly in optical light, but the source of immense energy required to power this glow and the nature of these objects were unclear.
Based on the new data and theoretical arguments, Geach and his colleagues show that heating of gas by growing supermassive black holes and bursts of star formation, rather than cooling of gas, most likely powers the blobs. The implication is that blobs represent a stage when the galaxies and black holes are just starting to switch off their rapid growth because of these heating processes. This is a crucial stage of the evolution of galaxies and black holes – known as "feedback" – and one that astronomers have long been trying to understand.
"We're seeing signs that the galaxies and black holes inside these blobs are coming of age and are now pushing back on the infalling gas to prevent further growth," said coauthor Bret Lehmer, also of Durham. "Massive galaxies must go through a stage like this or they would form too many stars and so end up ridiculously large by the present day."
Chandra and a collection of other telescopes including Spitzer have observed 29 blobs in one large field in the sky dubbed "SSA22." These blobs, which are several hundred thousand light years across, are seen when the Universe is only about two billion years old, or roughly 15 percent of its current age.
In five of these blobs, the Chandra data revealed the telltale signature of growing supermassive black holes – a point-like source with luminous X-ray emission. These giant black holes are thought to reside at the centers of most galaxies today, including our own. Another three of the blobs in this field show possible evidence for such black holes. Based on further observations, including Spitzer data, the research team was able to determine that several of these galaxies are also dominated by remarkable levels of star formation.
The radiation and powerful outflows from these black holes and bursts of star formation are, according to calculations, powerful enough to light up the hydrogen gas in the blobs they inhabit. In the cases where the signatures of these black holes were not detected, the blobs are generally fainter. The authors show that black holes bright enough to power these blobs would be too dim to be detected given the length of the Chandra observations.
Besides explaining the power source of the blobs, these results help explain their future. Under the heating scenario, the gas in the blobs will not cool down to form stars but will add to the hot gas found between galaxies. SSA22 itself could evolve into a massive galaxy cluster.
"In the beginning the blobs would have fed their galaxies, but what we see now are more like leftovers," said Geach. "This means we'll have to look even further back in time to catch galaxies and black holes in the act of forming from blobs."
Sources/more information: the Chandra sites at Harvard and NASA.
Filed under: Astronomy, Black Holes, galaxies
Related stories on Universe Today
Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don't advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We'll delete any comments that break these policies. Click here for more details.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
I move for a motion to formally name that galaxy after Michael Bay
June 24th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
The image on the right, at the beginning of the article, appears to depict a dense plasma focus, as documented by Winston Bostick and Victorio Nardi.
http://focusfusion.org/assets/plasmoid.jpg
This article could be also be analogous to a previous article, regarding magnetic fields and hourglass contours of a HMC during star formation.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
It takes a huge power source to move that much matter this way. Black holes are probably the only real candidate.
June 24th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
solrey:
Care to explain who pays for that huge electricity bill that so-called 'plasmoid' runs up?
June 24th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
So-called "black holes" are a figment of the imagination propagated by a priori mathematical speculation, on the other hand, plasmoids are an experimentally verified scientific fact.
If I have to go with one or the other, either mathematical theorizing (speculation) or experimentally verified electrical phenomenon, what do I go with?
Ask yourself that question?
June 24th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
@ Ivan3Man:
We've had this discussion before: What caused the so-called "big bang"?
And the answer was, "I don't know."
Yes, there are some things that are beyond speculation.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:25 am
2The Chandra Deep Protocluster Survey: Ly-alpha Blobs are powered by heating, not cooling" is the title of the paper; here is a link to the preprint abstract, in arXiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0452
I think the abstract is worth copying:
June 25th, 2009 at 1:26 am
Of course the typo gremlins are at work …
The title is "The Chandra Deep Protocluster Survey: Ly-alpha Blobs are powered by heating, not cooling"
June 25th, 2009 at 1:33 am
@solrey: you're back from your vacation?
If so, I look forward to the comments you promised us, back on the "previous article, regarding magnetic fields and hourglass contours of a HMC during star formation"
Also, the link you provide is just a JPG file; no " document[ation] by Winston Bostick and Victorio Nardi" in sight … did you forget something?
Finally, "[t]he image on the right, at the beginning of the article" is no image … it's an artist's illustration (as it clearly says in the caption)!
June 25th, 2009 at 2:00 am
@Anaconda: well, I guess this is one reason why it is extremely unlikely that you'll ever even write a scientific paper, much less get one published.
By your logic, the 'forbidden' oxygen ion atomic transititions that give rise to the observed [OIII] 500.7 nm lines are "are a figment of the imagination propagated by a priori mathematical speculation", because they have never been observed in any experiment in any laboratory; ditto all stars (no one has "experimentally verified" any stars); etc, etc, etc.
Your gross ignorance of the nature of science has been exposed in many comments across many UT stories (and elsewhere), and you have been afforded every opportunity to *discuss* your idiosyncratic views and to *learn* what science is and what scientists do (yes, even your heros Birkeland and Alfvén!).
Instead of being thankful for these opportunities, you have insulted the very people trying to help you, refused to engage in a discussion, and ignored just about everything anyone has said … including material on your fave topic, electromagnetism.
In other words, you have provided much evidence, in the form of your comments, that is consistent with the hypothesis that you are merely a troll.
@other readers: while "plasmoids "may indeed be an "experimentally verified electrical phenomenon", that fact does NOT *automatically* mean they are likely components of explanations of the astronomical observations reported in this UT story.
To see how silly such an explanation is, replace "29 blobs in one large field in the sky dubbed "SSA22"" with "29 asteroids in large field in the sky, centred on {RA, Dec}", and ask yourself whether "plasmoids" would be a likely explanation for those observations (of asteroids), simply because plasmoids are an "experimentally verified electrical phenomenon"?
Anaconda also illustrates, once again, use of the logical fallacy called 'false dichotomy' ("If I have to go with one or the other") … there may be many possible explanations (not just two), and none of the possible explanations may be any good (they may all, in one way or another, be quite inconsistent with the astronomical data).
In science, at least in astrophysics, a proposed explanation can (and should) be assessed by criteria that include how well it matches the totality of the observations; in this case, the 'plasmoid' explanation doesn't even get to the starting gate … the explanation simply does not exist.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:20 am
That's IVAN3MAN; here's Anaconda's response:
Now a mere moment's critical thinking should reveal just how silly this comment of Anaconda's is, and how flawed his logic is … (although it is, apparently, consistent with his severely limited and constrained view of the nature of science).
You see, the mechanism that produces the currents, charge separation, and/or voltages necessary for such stupendous 'plasmoids' as would be necessary to account for the observed electromagnetic output needs to be a central part of any explanation that is built around 'plasmoids', so an inability to address this is a serious weakness of any such explanation (or would be, if the explanation were ever to be developed to the point where it could even be called science).
Ditto what powers these plasmoids over time, as Lawrence B. Crowell has pointed out.
On the other hand, what caused the big bang is quite irrelevant wrt an explanation of these astronomical observations; at the outside all one needs is that the universe evolved from a much hotter and denser state (for which there is an abundance of evidence).
Now Anaconda knows all this very well; a few moments with Google will quickly turn up lots of examples of previous 'discussions' on this.
So why is he bringing it up yet again?
Well, there is one hypothesis which can consistently explain such seemingly irrational behaviour; namely, that Anaconda is a shill for an avowedly anti-scientific cult.
Another hypothesis that explains his comments is that he is part of the marketing team for this cult.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:02 am
Anaconda:
From Star Trek: The Next Generation — " Where Silence Has Lease":
Lt. Cmdr. Data:
Cmdr. William T. Riker:
Lt. Cmdr. Data:
Capt. Picard:
Lt. Cmdr. Data:
[My emphasis.]
June 25th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Both a neat explanation and a promising lead for the future – what is not to like here?
While I don't particularly like that context-less dialog of Star Trek, and Anaconda/solrey behavior is completely consistent with trolls, it is also a fine demonstration of anti-science religious dogmas which in no sense or way differs from other creationists. Where religious ideas stops, scientific method starts.
[Btw, not to feed the trolls but since it's an interesting area: you may all know this of course, that there may no longer be any need for a cause for a big bang. This paper finds that standard cosmology universes are zero energy. As they point out, this means both that a universe can emerge from another zero energy system and that a distinct cause is problematic to say the least. No "plasmoids" or angels permitted.
A zero energy system has interesting consequences. Formally it is eternal by time-energy "complementarity" AFAIU, whether it is actually existent or empty ("nothing"). But "nothing" seems to be outside of the known class (distribution, if you ask string theory) of physical universes [hits my head - ouch - yes, still there], so I would think this multiverse that is suggested by the result always existed.
And in a neat parallel, when and if Planck can nail inflation as a theory tested to sufficient certainty, it seems to me most parsimonious to take the initial condition of this universe simply as the local end of inflation.
"It is the vanishing energy that makes the world go around, the world go around, the world go around …"]
June 25th, 2009 at 6:19 am
Some odds and ends:
It struck me that the "zero energy" universe is a clear demonstration of the "no turtles" of atheism and the "turtles all the way down" of the religious, like our "plasmoids makes plasmoids" friends here. A third system is permitted, but then opens up an unsubstantiated (and unparsimonious) infinite causal chain.
Likewise, it strikes me, seeing that there are crackpots on this thread, that this makes universes a demonstration of a crackpot "perpetual motion machine of the third kind": no energy lost. (But of course no more than an object traveling in free space does.)
And when I said "empty" I didn't mean an empty universe but an empty set (of physical laws or whatever).
June 25th, 2009 at 6:37 am
The one interesting thing I am noting, is that the Interpretation of what a Black Hole (does) seems to be changing. From a lymans perspective when I first read about Black holes I interpreted them as massive evil monsters that were the final end of all matter. But it seems that these Black Hole's dont just suck (pardon the pun) What they do is power galaxies. They foster star formation. They are the catalyst for energy and creation.
Perhaps as we learn more, we might choose to change the name for this phenomena at some stage. Black hole hardly describes their (function) in light of all our recent observations.
Just my perspective.
Damian K
June 25th, 2009 at 7:24 am
@ damian
It is, indeed, true that our knowledge about black holes evolves and the more we find out the more interesting and fascinating these objects become. It will be an absolutly fantastic moment when science will make the first direct observation of an event horizon (it could be possible to "see" the event horizon of Sgr A* in the next few years).
. Second, astronomers are very "traditional" people, as it seems. They refuse, mostly, to change their systems to SI and prefer using cgs, the Hertzsprung-Russel-diagramm is still having the silly convention that the temperature is drawn "inversely" (higher temperatures to the left and lower to the right…..), and there are many more examples. The name black hole will last forever, I fear 
But renaming these objects would be difficult. First, they still are what they are: "big suckers"
@ Anaconda.
Science is protected by the laws of quantum mechanics. How is classical electrodynamics protected from explaining where it comes from?
June 25th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Just to add to DrFlimmer's comment:
"Imaging an Event Horizon: submm-VLBI of a Super Massive Black Hole" is the title of a very recent (21 June!) preprint on arXiv (link takes you to the abstract):
http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3899
The full abstract is worth copying here:
The next decade or so should be very interesting!
June 25th, 2009 at 8:49 am
"The next decade or so should be very interesting! "
I can't wait that long!
June 25th, 2009 at 9:58 am
@ND: if it's imaging an event horizon, I'm not sure there will be any results much sooner than when results from the kinds of instruments described in the preprint start being published.
However, if it's indirect observations concerning black holes, there may well be interesting results sooner.
For example:
+ blobs of matter spiralling into a black hole (BH) have quite distinctive signatures, as seen by distant observers (i.e. us, either with ground-based facilities or space-based ones); some such events have already been reported, and over the next few years more are likely
+ in high-mass X-ray binaries (HMXB), like Cyg X-1, one star is thought to be a stellar-mass BH; on-going observations of these systems will test various models of accretion disk formation, roles of various physical mechanisms in them, etc, and also constrain the spins and charges of the BHs (the spin and charge, in addition to the mass, are the only properties of a BH that can be derived by an external observer)
+ the gravitational wave radiation signature of a BH may be unambiguously detected at any time, by LIGO or similar observatories; most likely this will be some kind of inspiral (neutron star double binary, or neutron star-BH binary are frontrunners).
It is also possible, though IMHO quite unlikely, that the LHC will see the footprints of a mini-black hole.
Would you be interested in some more examples?
June 25th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I'm ok with the LHC not seeing mini BHs
Even if they should be evaporating quickly.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Ah, what a dust up, from such a short little comment.
damian is quite right, so-called "black holes" have undergone such change as to be hardly recognizable from when they were first dreamed up…oops…I mean a priori mathematically theorized in a divide by zero process.
Let's face it, "black holes" were theorized without ANY observation & measurement to back them up…then "modern" astronomy set off in order to find what had been thought of at some desk or was it an easy chair with some guy with a pipe and smoking jacket.
What we have seen is ad hoc layering onto the "black hole" concept because it's the only "heavy lifter" astronomy has at its disposal to explain all these new observations. And, of course, the language to describe them is wholly unscientific. But the a priori mathematical theorizing isn't much better.
Yes, "modern" astronomy pushed all their chips onto the table, thinking they had four aces…backed themselves into a corner and now their faces turn purple when the fallacies are pointed out.
Don't understand it — must be a "black hole".
The contorsions are getting ridiculous.
Nereid, did you play for the Minnisota Vikings' Purple People Eaters?
'Cause your face is looking pretty purple to me…
June 25th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Hmm, that's funny, I was *certain* you'd said you weren't a scientist, Anaconda … and, further, that you have but the vaguest of understanding of even Newtonian physics, essentially no understanding of classical electromagnetism, and so on …
(bold added)
Given your own, clearly stated, ignorance of just about all aspects of the topic under discussion, where does your apparent certainty come from, Anaconda, wrt what's science, and what's not?
June 25th, 2009 at 11:55 am
One can tell when Anaconda is frustrated from debates in previous threads when he rails with zero scientific content and appears to have gone back to his happy place where empty rhetoric is considered science.
Anaconda: "Nereid, did you play for the Minnisota Vikings' Purple People Eaters?
'Cause your face is looking pretty purple to me"
And you were accusing Nereid of acting like a schoolgirl the other week?
So far all you've done is troll to get a rise out of people. It's a dishonorable practice even if you do get a reaction.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Ah, Anaconda. I still wish an answer for my detailed analysis I conducted with your statement about the paper at the "magnetic field dominate star birth" thread. It's strange that you didn't request the paper to read and examine it for yourself. As I said, it is really an easy paper, with only two minor equations in it. So, send me an email, read it, and answer to my comment! You can comment only, of course, if you don't want the paper. But comment you should, at least. Just to say something here and there and when it gets to heavy to bugger off, is not the way to end a discussion.
Or other claims about you are true….
June 25th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Ah – so laughable. The moment I saw the picture for this article, I knew this would blow up into another anti-science EU fiasco. The moment a picture comes on UT that consists of luminous nebulous matter, it's plasmoids this and pinched-fields that.
What I find funniest is this little gem from Anaconda: "Let's face it, "black holes" were theorized without ANY observation & measurement to back them up…then "modern" astronomy set off in order to find what had been thought of at some desk or was it an easy chair with some guy with a pipe and smoking jacket."
It is one of the crowning achievements of modern physics and astronomy that theory could predict such an esoteric object so definitely without the capability at the time of making the observations to confirm the predicted phenomena, and yet for the next century have pretty much all observations confirm the predicted characteristics of black holes and confirm the physical reality of these marvelous objects that began as a mathematical and logical construct. With all the eloquence of a drunk eating his own vomit, Anaconda makes this point yet stumbles through it completely oblivious.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
People need to read Wald's book on the theromodynamics of spacetime and black holes U-Chicago. In there the mechanicsms for powering these enormous processes is well laid out. Anaconda, Solrey and the "oil-guy" demonstrate no understanding of even the most elementary physics here. They clearly have little idea what they are really talking about, appear to know little plasma physics and are in no real position to think they have some grand new theory which over turns general relativity.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:42 am
@ Lawrence B. Crowell,
I have noticed that Anaconda has, so far, used the term "priori" — a favourite term also used by his brother-in-arms, OilIsMastery — three times on this thread, in reference to established mathematics, and has done so on numerous other occasions here at Universe Today already!
According to Wikipedia, a crank is a person who contradicts rigorously proven mathematical theorems, such as the impossibility of squaring the circle by ruler and compass, or who deny extremely well established physical theories, such as the special theory of relativity or a round Earth ( e.g., Flat Earth Society cranks). More engineer-minded cranks (e.g., EU/PC proponents) may claim to have invented a magic compression algorithm or a perpetual motion / free energy machine, which then begs the question: why haven't the industrial energy hungry Chinese got their hands on it?!
June 26th, 2009 at 3:38 am
Anaconda EU behaviour here is clearly signs of obsession. You have only to read the article in the "Watts Up With That?" blog discussing the causes of the crash in the article "Air France Flight 447 : A detailed meteorological analysis" earlier this month. He amazingly concludes on the 3rd June, 2009 at 12:32:04 that the cause was;
As to why Anaconda has already says, and believes why he has the 'right' to speak as he does, he says in the same thread (when people responds;
Refer http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/03/air-france-flight-447-a-detailed-meteorological-analysis/
Hence If 'black holes" have no 'evidence' (according to his limited understanding) means they don't exist. As he believes all phenomena is primarily EU, then any gravitational evidence for the existence of black holes is also wrong. No believing in black holes is wrong centralised in him saying; "I mean a priori mathematically theorized in a divide by zero process." However, the evidence for black holes is not based on mathematics but on the gravitational field surrounding it.
Even a very elementary student in astronomy knows that the definition of black hole is where the gravitational field strength, in terms of escape velocity, is greater than light. Logically, if you know the mass of the Earth an the escape velocity, then there must be limitation where the escape velocity exceeds 300,000 km per second. Basic maths shows a black hole must be about 2.2 Solar Masses – with dividing by zero. If such an object is in orbit around another star, then by simple Newtonian laws, it can be proven the mass of system via the observed orbital motion. Such a compact object must therefore be a black hole. (If a child knows this, why not Anaconda?)
IMO, he clearly feels he is some kind of victim by a hoax, and wantonly pretends that his own little worldview is absolute true. Truth in his view must be based on evidence and knowledge that only HE KNOWS, and anything outside this is either conspiracy or wrong. Limitations like a background in even basics of physics, astrophysics or mathematics matter little, and according to his logic, means (as said above) he thinks his opinions are on an equal footing.
This is not the work of a troll but of someone with a diagnosable psychotic behaviour of pathological delusions.
Shame. It is a real pity that he just can't see it.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Typo. I said;
"Basic maths shows a black hole must be about 2.2 Solar Masses – with dividing by zero."
"Basic maths shows a black hole must be about 2.2 Solar Masses – withOUT dividing by zero."
Apologies.
(Wishing there was a text-editor here!)
June 26th, 2009 at 5:25 am
I've come across some info which reflects Anaconda's adherence to his views and apparent desperation to be right. He is following the ThunderBolts group edict of the presumed failures of science.
In a recent ThunderBolts internet article; "Dissecting Bad Models (Part 1) – Astrophysical "Magnetic Slinkies" " by Michael Gmirkin of 22 May 2009, surmises the EU proponent view, that;
It concludes;
See http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/mgmirkin08/090522_mgm.htm
Amazingly this is alleged not by astrophysicists but a bunch of electric engineers! (Even, according to prime honcho Wallace Thornhill, that their venerated hocus pocus master of voodoo, Hannes Alfvén, "was first and foremost a practical electrical engineer."!)
Yet if these quotes are fundamentally true, then the real question, of say black holes, must be "astrophysical assumptions."
OK Anaconda, WHAT ARE ALL THESES ASTROPHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS for BLACK HOLES*, for example.
*A short list might be easily appropriate.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:24 am
I don't know if the comments on the Magnetic Fields Dominate Star Formation article are closed or what. So I'll just post this here.
All of you arguing with, while hurling insults along the way, Anaconda over permanent magnets (lodestone, ivan3man) and magnetic fields ought to feel pretty foolish after reading the following link. The link happens to come from a course that Nereid recommended, I believe. University of Texas Austin, Richard Fitzpatrick:
LOL
Origin of Permanent Magnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node77.html
Some of the more vocal critics constantly accuse folks like myself and Anaconda of not understanding even basic physics, but the sad fact is that it's they who do not get it in the course of their zealous skepticism.
Zealotry to the point of basically stalking some of us on other forums and using our comments there as ammunition to "shoot the messenger" here.
If you've got that much time on your hands, try studying some physics instead. You might learn something.
BTW, I was one of only two people who requested the Girart paper that drflimmer offered.
I read the paper and saw what I expected to see in the data and I'll comment on that later. For now I've gotta take off to do some work out of town today.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
@ solrey:
Well, and that's exactly what I expected. If you have taken a look in the table of contents you would have noticed that this is a course about electrodynamics. But I have to be more precisely:
It is about classical electrodynamics. This means that it does NOT include quantum mechanics.
One can clearly see this in your quote:
Well, this is the classical explanation (probably based on Bohr's model which is not entirely classical, but that's another story) of an atom! From a quantum mechanical point of view this is non-sense! Electrons do neither circulate in an atom nor do they have orbits!
Even from a classical point of view it is easy to see that such an atom cannot exist: An electron circulating around a nucleus would conduct an accelerated motion – because a curved trajectory is an accelerated motion. And even classical electrodynamics will tell you that an accelerated charged particle will radiate! Always! So an electron in an orbit around a nucleus will radiate and thus lose energy. This results in a decreasing orbit until the electron crashes into the nucleus. You cannot have stable atoms in this picture. This is the reason why Bohr required that the electron just doesn't radiate on the special orbits he found.
This is physical non-sense, as we know today. An electron is only "somewhere" in an atom with a probability to be most likely in a position that coincidentally is the "semi-classical" orbit Bohr calculated. But it can also be somewhere else with a precise probability. These probabilities can be calculated and lead to the model of atomic orbitals – which are just another description of the electron's wavefunction (squared).
To sum this up:
The explanation you quoted is a classical one, which is not entirely correct as I have tried to explain here.
The right explanation requires quantum mechanics which describes the magnetism of atoms with the intrinsic magnetic moment of the electrons (which are a quantum mechanical effect with no classical counter-part; just like the spin (which is btw a (special) relativistic effect!!)).
June 26th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Magnetization can be seen as a consequence of the atomic structure. The electron does not have a classical-like orbit, but there are angular momentum quantum numbers associated with electron states. For transition metals the f-levels have large L = sqrtt{l(l+1)}hbar values that confer ferromagnetic properties.
The use of black holes is very simple to understand on a qualitative basis. For a black hole with a high angular momentum up to 30% of the mass-energy of the black hole can be transferred to the exterior world by black hole thermodynamics. For a multi-million solar mass black hole that is a lot of energy!!! With some of these AGNs there are nearly whole galaxy equivlent amounts of mass being spwered out at 1000's of km/sec. The conversion of the mass-energy associated with angular momentum in a large BH is the ONLY possible mechanism which can do this.
Read Robert Wald's book on black hole thermodynamics and quantum field theory. In it you will see how that 30% of mass-energy of a BH in its rotation can be spent to the outer world by absorbing an even greater amount of mass energy with lower angular momentum. Accretion disks, spinning black holes, thermodynamics and supendous astrophysical processes all work out pretty well.
Plasmas are not a source of energy. I find it astonishing these PU guys seem to think that a plasma ball can deliver up to a million solar mass-energy to these dynamics. It is a preposterous suggestion.
Lawrence B. Crowell
June 26th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
DrFlimmer,
You suggested that I not refrain from participating so here I go again.
What does give rise to classical physics and it's observed (Newtonian, et al) phenomenon? If it is a manifestation, from whence did it manifest? You know what I'm suggesting. The Quantum world cannot be "totally" isolated in Schrodinger's box. The illusive connection between the two seems to be, at least in part, the quest to find the "holy grail" or TOE.
IOW, should we disregard classical physics and those who embrace it as the foundation for their science, just because we have a "not so complete" grasp of the science of the quantum world.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
@ solrey,
RE: Origin of Permanent Magnetism
Tell me, solrey, when you were a little boy and you asked mommy the question, "Where do babies come from?", did she give you just a simplistic answer or did she jump on daddy and 'go the whole hog' by giving you a full demonstration on the living-room sofa?
Well, it's the same with complex technical matters being taught to elementary school-children. According to Wikipedia, it is known as lie-to-children:
More to follow…
June 26th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Also from Wikipedia:
June 26th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
solrey:
I have already! Furthermore, I suggest that you do likewise:
Spin — Quantum Mechanics.
Then you might know what DrFlimmer is talking about!
June 26th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
@ solrey,
Also, here's another link that may enlighten you:
Magnetic Moment.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
@ solrey,
Oh, I almost forgot, here's another link on Electron Spin with some juicy mathematics!
Not for you, Anaconda — the "priori" mathematics will give you a nasty headache!
June 26th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
ivan3man,
You are one the most offensive, rude schmucks I have ever encountered. Mommy and Daddy died just before my first birthday.
June 26th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Actually, that pretty much does it. So much for guidelines when abrasive twits like ivan3man are allowed to run amock.
Color me gone.
Peacelovehappiness ya'll.
June 26th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
@ Anaconda,
RE: The Dr. Eugene Parker paper on the "Magnetic Fields Dominate Young Stars of all Sizes?" thread.
It has become obvious to most of us here that you seem to have a problem with English language comprehension. Just like creationists who have misunderstood Charles Darwin's statement of the evolution of the eye by natural selection, you, Anaconda, have misunderstood Dr. Eugene Parker's statement:
What he is referring to here as the "popular notion" is the syllogistic reasoning that most people fall into because of preconceived ideas and/or misguided prejudices:
* Major premise: All women with red hair are bad-tempered bitches.
* Minor premise: Jane, over there, has red hair.
* Conclusion: Therefore, Jane is a bad-tempered bitch!
Q: True or False? A: False; because empirical evidence shows that there are also some bad-tempered blondes and brunettes, but some red-heads are good natured.
* Major premise: All electric currents generate magnetic fields.
* Minor premise: That object, over there, has a magnetic field.
* Conclusion: Therefore, it must have an electric current!
Q: True or False? A: False; because empirical evidence shows there are two sources of magnetic fields — DEAL WITH IT!
Dr. Eugene Parker continues:
Now, Anaconda, do you understand the term "passive"? Well, I'll explain: a river of water flowing from high ground (e.g., mountain) seeking the lowest level (e.g., ocean) is a passive current flow under the influence of gravity — DEAL WITH IT! However, water that is pumped up-hill from low ground to high ground is an active current flow.
So it is with electricity: an active electric current is one that is 'pumped' by a power source, e.g., dynamo, battery, photovoltaic cell, thermal updrafts (static electricity); whereas a passive electric current is one that involves ionized gas with a net 0 charge flowing outward in one common direction due to electromagnetic radiation pressure, e.g., the Solar Wind.
In conclusion, Dr. Eugene Parker states:
Which basically means that there is net 0 charge flow!
June 26th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
@ solrey,
My apologies, I did not know your personal circumstances.
June 26th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
@ Ivan3Man:
Your problem is with Fitzpatrick — he taught the course — and made the statement.
Nereid linked the course.
But you are so obsessed with the "personal", that you are willing to make a stupid ass of yourself.
So Fitzpatrick is lying to all his students because…well…they are such children that he must lie to them?
Get off the "personal" and on the science, that's what this website is about.
I don't like getting "personal", but I will when it is called for.
Ivan3Man, you are an arrogant college or maybe high school student.
Hopefully you aren't a grad student because that would reflect badly on whatever institution would have you.
Dr. Eugene Parker is offering a hypothesis, he's entitled to, but one without much physical experimental support.
Let's be very clear about this — Ivan3Man is calling University of Texas Austin, professor Richard Fitzpatrick a liar.
And intentionally lying to his students.
Ivan3Man, you are a foolish person.
It's clear you have no respect for science or the scientific method.
Grow up, and be a man and not a schmuck.
You think you are being cute — and sometimes you offer funny material — but sometimes you are so arrogant or is it stupid that you don't realize what you are doing.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
And I'll add this: Salacious B. Crumb fall into the same camp as Ivan3Man.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
@ Lawrence B. Crowell:
The theoretical basis of so-called "black holes" rest on dividing by zero, a no no, that's how you get the "infinity" part of the definition.
So, not only is infinity non-quantifiable by definition, but the way astronomy gets to "infinity" would get the "nuns to slap you fingers with a ruler".
It does not surprise me that creative mathematicians can put together a string of equations that justify just about anything — string theory is a prime example of that.
No observations & measurements — NONE — but they are "convinced" it means something.
That's called self-deception, or is it self-justification.
That is why empiricism is so important.
Man can convince himself of anything.
Astronomy has taken a terrible turn — people like Ivan3Man are a symptom of a very sick science, if it can be called that.
Mathematics is like any language, it can be used to "give life" to made-up things.
Some people have questioned my use of a priori.
What if means is this: deciding on something ahead of time and then creating a mathematical equation to justify it when it hasn't been observed.
The proper use of mathematics is after an object has been observed & measured and then applying analysis and quantification after the observation & measurement.
When used properly mathematics truly is the language of Nature, but when used as a basis to predict something that has never been observed & measured and instead is used as a justification for labelling objects that may or may not be anything like what was predicted it is liable to error.
Because when mathematics is used in "ahead of time" prognosis it is subject to error because Man is subject to error.
Mathematics is no more infallible than the men who use it.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:03 am
We've been over your ignorance of math before Anaconda, esp wrt 'infinity'.
You didn't get it before, and I doubt that you'll get it now, but I must say that I am looking forward to Lawrence B. Crowell's response …
I started to develop an analogy, to do with bio-chemistry, pharmaceuticals, and health, but I don't think there's any point (except, perhaps, for some other readers) … if you won't take the time and effort to actually understand even the basics of the math that ALL modern physics (which includes classical physics) is built on, then there's no chance that you'll ever learn any astronomy (beyond that which uses only one's unaided vision … yes Anaconda, even optics makes extensive use of 'infinity'!).
But I must say I got a chuckle out of reading this:
Let's take something really, really simple, like the inverse square law for (point) charges.
You know, the one that says that the force between two charges is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, and the product of the charges?
As you are a big fan of "empiricism", what would you say the relationship between this law and empiricism is?
Specifically, to what extent is it necessary to use math to a) state the law, and b) show that it is consistent with observational and experimental results?
@other readers: you can see where this is going, right? Once you establish the necessity of math, any math, within "empiricism", there is no way to exclude any other math (at least, not using the simple logic that Anaconda can, barely, follow). Further, it's pretty straight-forward to show this … so the only logical escape route open to Anaconda is to try to argue that "empiricism" MUST, by definition, be devoid of math!
(Well, OK, there is another logically consistent conclusion … that Anaconda realises that his nonsense about 'infinity' is just that, nonsense, and drops it like a hot potato; somehow I doubt that will happen any time soon).
June 27th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Oh this is priceless!
Did you really, truly, write this Anaconda?!?
(bold added)
Giant plasmoids with no observed source of energy?
Vast currents in plasmas with no observed separation of charges?
No remote observations of currents in space??
(No doubt regular readers will be able to add lots more examples … )
June 27th, 2009 at 3:10 am
Anaconda:
Well, look who's talking!
No, you misunderstand — again! The lie-to-children article states: "Because life and its aspects can be extremely difficult to understand without experience, to present a full level of complexity to a student or child all at once can be overwhelming. Hence, elementary explanations tend to be simple, concise, or simply 'wrong' — but in a way that attempts to make the lesson more understandable."
Again, look who's talking!
No, just battle-hardened in the University of Life.
I don't trust any institution that will have me as a member.
Hmm… the pot calling the kettle black.
Just where, exactly, did I allegedly say those words?
Again, the pot calling the kettle black.
For the third time already, look who's talking!
Speak for yourself, then you might learn something.
Err… I offer funny (and sometimes stupid) material intentionally, but you do it unintentionally while trying to be serious!
June 27th, 2009 at 3:22 am
Really. The rationality of someone saying;
"A number of astrophysical assumptions and deductions have gone unchallenged for far too long. Rational, skeptical scientists must occasionally take an introspective look at their own discipline and excise any persistent errors…."
or
"If astrophysicists are willing to introspectively assess their own discipline and excise some erroneous assumptions and deductions, greater understanding of the cosmos than has heretofore been gained may yet be at hand.""
See http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/mgmirkin08/090522_mgm.htm
Anyone who thinks or believes this is quite delusional, and should be ignored.
As Lawrence B. Crowell said;
Therefore, so is the wild premise that;
"Electrical engineers are more qualified or knowledgeable than astrophysicists."
I, and almost everyone else, doesn't quite believe it.
June 27th, 2009 at 4:28 am
Infinities in black holes: From an astrophysical perspective these are of course not observed. The time dilation of events observed near the event horizon is
T = t/sqrt{1 – 2GM/rc^2},
for t a time interval on a clock near a black hole with its radius r > 2GM/c^2, and T the time interval you observe. Some reflection should reveal that you never see the object or its clock actually reach the horizon. So the distant observer can't observe any physics in the interior. The outside world is protected from the infinity inside. This is a primary requirement of physics, and it matter rather little if the divergence is contained in some aspect which is unobservable.
With quantum black holes, black holes with a comparative few Planck units of mass energy m_p = sqrt(G/hbar c} quantum physics dominates. So while the inner singulairty has quantum probabilities for field propagators to the exterior the quantum wave principle renormalize out the infinity.
The last part is of course is a matter of research and is not settled. Yet for the sake of analogy it is similar to the hydrogen atom disaster of the early 20th century. Rutherford demonstrated how the atom was composed of a nucleus and electrons. By classical electrodynamics and Brehmsstralung radiation process the electron should emit radiation and spiral endlessly into the 1/r electric potential of the nucleus. This would result in an infinite pulse of radiation. The Bohr quantization demonstrated a lower energy bound due to wave mechanics (the S-wave in the atom) which prevented this.
So please folks, drop the problem of the singularity in black holes. This is not a problem with the existence of large astrophysical black holes. It does of course raise deep questions about the foundations of physics, quantum gravity and cosmology. Yet this is not a fatal problem for the existence of the black hole as a solution of the Einstein field equations.
Lawrence B. Crowell
June 27th, 2009 at 5:01 am
@ Lowrence B. Crowell
Well, do you imagine how many times I tried to explain to Anaconda that quantum mechanics will prevent us from a singularity?
But since he just rejects quantum mechanics and its indeed weird effects (just like he rejects any math that goes beyond the + -sign), he just ignores my comments! He will also ignore your comment (which will definitly not understand from the very beginning).
This is so sad!
@ Anaconda:
The lectures contain no lie to students! They just do not contain quantum mechanics! And this is the normal way in taking courses in physics. You start with classical mechanics (Newton, Lagrange, Hamilton), go on with classical electrodynamics (Coulomb, Ampere, Maxwell, and all its (classical) applications) and finally reaches the realms of quantum mechanics and its applications (also statistical physics, depending on who is the lecturer
).
This is called didactics: You just cannot teach students quantum mechanics from the beginning. They neither have the proper knowledge in physics nor in mathematics to understand it! It is just that simple!
Or did you learn to write before you were able to speak?
June 27th, 2009 at 5:41 am
@ wjwbudro
The realm of quantum mechanics is the very small world and the world that includes only few particles. Then you can describe the particles and its interactions in a very fundamental way (although gravity must be excluded so far).
The "classical" world is the world with HUGH numbers of particles (remember, there are 10^23 particles per ccm!!!I). So you have statistical effects to consider. And those normally "kill" any quantum mechanical effects.
An example: You can apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to a signle particle. But to a hugh bunch of particles it doesn't matter where exactly this or that particle is, it is just the "bunch" that counts (thermodynamics work this way, e.g.).
I think this should explain it a little bit why quantum mechanics normally do not count in the macroscopic world.
On the other hand I performed a quite simple experiment during my studies that showed quantized state in a wire (quantized states of the conductivity to be precise). Amazing!
June 27th, 2009 at 9:44 am
DrFlimmer,
"it is just the "bunch" that counts (thermodynamics work this way, e.g.)."
But what influence/force gets this "uncertain" rowdy "bunch" in lock step to manifest into the classical macro certainty?
"On the other hand I performed a quite simple experiment during my studies that showed quantized state in a wire (quantized states of the conductivity to be precise). Amazing!"
Discrete quantum movement? What influence/force was controlling the dynamics of the overall "bunches" in your experiment?
I hope I am making some sense here. Forgive, if not.
June 27th, 2009 at 11:27 am
@ Nereid:
Nereid wrote: "We've been over your ignorance of math before Anaconda, esp wrt 'infinity'."
No, you've put yourself in the ridiculous position of attempting to explain how "infinity" doesn't really mean "infinity".
Your arguments end up looking like a pretzel.
Obviously, Nereid doesn't read too closely: Crowell wrote: "The use of black holes is very simple to understand on a qualitative basis."
Now, I'm sure Crowell didn't mean it that way — I suspect it is a freudian slip, but maybe not.
In reality so-called "black holes" are only a qualitative description. You can't turn around and stack rigorous quantification on top of something that doesn't have rigorous quantification to support it to begin with, it's analogous to applying rigorous quantification to, "how many angels fit on the head of a pin?"
Crowell wrote: "For a black hole with a high angular momentum up to 30% of the mass-energy of the black hole can be transferred to the exterior world by black hole thermodynamics."
By definition, you don't know what happens inside of a "black hole", so how can you "transfer" something that you don't know anything about outside the "black hole"? Let alone state 30% is transferred out.
Again, this is an example of ad hoc layering.
Supposedly, nothing escapes the so-called "event horizon" that's how "black holes" started, now "experts" are telling us 30% of something they admit they can know nothing about is transferred outside the "black hole". Go figure.
Why do the "experts" junk their own prior theoretical understanding?
Because they have to, as it is evident that Active Galactic Nucleus eject copious amounts of energy.
The real answer, however, is that the "black hole" construct has failed.
Those that have established their reputation and standing by expostulating on it are damned if they give it up.
Crowell wrote: "The conversion of the mass-energy associated with angular momentum in a large BH is the ONLY possible mechanism which can do this."
My goodness!
The electromagnetic forces of a plasmoid can do that and Science actually has hard gained empirical knowledge and quantificational experience with plasmoids in the laboratory.
"Robert Wald's book on black hole thermodynamics and quantum field theory", is good exposition on the "processes" involved in how many angles can fit on the head of a pin."
A plasmoid is an energy focus phenomena. The same way a Z-pinch is an energy focus phenomena. A rough analogy is a magnifying glass that focusses light energy. The plasmoid doesn't create the energy, neither does the magnefying glass, it focusses it, concentrates it, stores it, and at some critical state (hard to calculate because of electromagnetism's experimentally demonstrated instabilities and non-linear characteristics, disperses the energy.
Actually, it's the "black hole" concept, which is the "preposterous suggestion"!
@ DrFlimmer:
You get in trouble when you suggest Quantum Machanics can do "something" not supported in the laboratory or nature.
By the way, QM is about probabilities, not cetrainties. And Fitzpatrick is talking about electromagnetism — you are just reading into it what you want.
I understand you have to keep babling about "black holes" and "no electric currents" beyond the solar system because any admission of heresy will lead to getting banned from the "priesthood"…oops…I meant "modern" astronomy post-graduate school. Such is the close-mindedness of "modern" astronomy that if you don't tow the party-line you won't get admitted to the school.
Sad.
Nereid, "infinities" are used primarily in descriptions of motion as in calculus, and mostly serves as a mathematical place-holder, not a justification in itself. That's where "modern" astronomy used a weakness of mathematics by taking inconsistent definitions and using them in inconsistent ways to "make-up" theoretical bodies that have no observational independence from the original faulty theoretical justification.
Nereid wrote: "As you are a big fan of "empiricism", what would you say the relationship between this law ["the force between two charges is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them"] and empiricism is?"
Repeated observation & measurement in controlled laboratory settings with various testing procedures has verified the quantification of that physical relationship as laid out in the equation.
Nereid wrote: "Giant plasmoids with no observed source of energy?"
First, electromagnetism and the physical relationships that control it and have been mathematically quantified (as much as is possible, owing to the instabilities and non-linear behaviour inherent in electrodynamics and demonstrated in the laboratory by repeated testing) are SCALE INDEPENDENT; second, as stated above plasmoids and other electromagnetic phenomenon are focusses of energy, they neither create it or destroy it. A fundamental requirement of the second law of thermodynamics.
Nereid wrote: "Vast currents in plasmas with no observed separation of charges?"
Yes, it's called "quasi-neutrality", maybe you've heard of the concept?
Nereid wrote: "No remote observations of currents in space??"
False.
The solar system has been confirmed by NASA to have many examples of electric currents in space and what happens in the solar system (the known) is likely to happen beyond the solar system (the unknown), this is a basic axiom of empiricism, with the corollary that the physical relationships (Science calls these physical laws) of the Universe are constant, even Einstein subscribed to that dictum.
Also, as the link of Richard Fitzpatrick THAT YOU PROVIDED and said I should study maintains magnetic fields in first causation are generated by electric currents (only as a secondary derivative do magnetic fields cause electric current.
Ah, but since it later turns out that Fitzpatrick disagrees with your "jihad" against electric currents in space — well…never mind!
Your own source, Nereid, you look incredibly stupid to be disavowing your own linked source or hypocritical or both.
@ Ivan3Man:
Say what you want — it's just spin. It's too late, the damage has already been done to your already shaky credibility.
Fitzpatrick is teaching college students the about plasma science and electrodynamics. Your implications are clear enough for anybody with a ounce of objectivity.
Enough said, your antics speak for themselves. Your pants are down and your knickers are in a knot
@ Salacious B. Crumb:
Crumb wrote: "Really. The rationality of someone saying;
"A number of astrophysical assumptions and deductions have gone unchallenged for far too long. Rational, skeptical scientists must occasionally take an introspective look at their own discipline and excise any persistent errors…."
or
"If astrophysicists are willing to introspectively assess their own discipline and excise some erroneous assumptions and deductions, greater understanding of the cosmos than has heretofore been gained may yet be at hand.""
See http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/mgmirkin08/090522_mgm.htm
Anyone who thinks or believes this is quite delusional, and should be ignored."
Oh, really, Science is about constantly reasessing what it knows and understands about Nauture and having the courage and objectivity to admit when it is wrong.
Apparently, you think it is delusional to do so.
I stand on my statement and actually appreciate your bringing it to the attention of the readers because by calling that "delusional", it just spells out how clearly off-base you really are.
In other words you make my case, as does Ivan3Man, and Nereid.
You guys are really giving Astronomy a bad name.
But keep digging, all of you guys because by continued dialogue of this vein it is becoming quite clear to everybody just how bent you guys are on defending the dogma of "modern" astronomy no matter how stupid or ridiculous you come across.
Defending the indefensible is the mark of a true denialist.
You guys fit the bill to a tee.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Anaconda,
About the infinite mass thing. Does EU/PC say that infinite mass is an argument against black holes or did you come up with that one? A quick search did not find anything on the EU/PC side. I'd like to know. thanks.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Correction, the statement that Salacious B. Crumb quoted, above, and called delusional was from an article written by Michael Mgirkin, but I whole heartedly agree with the statement and couldn't have stated it any better.
My goodness!
What Salacious B. Crumb calls "delusional" is how scientfic unstanding progesses.
If Science wasn't willing to reassess then Man would still believe the Sun rotates around the Earth and the ptolomaic, mathematical desription of the planets would still be the dogma that must be defended and all other understanding suppressed.
Actually, another reason I'm glad Crumb linked the article is the objective observations & measurements raised.
Nereid wrote: "No remote observations of currents in space??"
Consider the article written by Michael Mgirkin.
What we have is a magnetic field [an undifferentiated continuum of magnetic strength] with the conceptual aids of magnetic field lines (like latitude "lines") showing the magnetic field surrounding the plasma, I believe the reported findings describe it as a magnetic "slinky" surrounding the plasma — it is an easy inference that the plasma is flowing, i.e., electric current, thus generating the magnetic field.
To the readers, both professional and amateur: Think of what Crumb calls delusional…
Think of how Nereid links a college course outline and then slinks away from it when it goes against her "jihad"…
Think about Ivan3Man and his denounciation and then later spin…
Think about Crowell's, " angels on the head of a pin" explanation…
Think of DrFlimmer's (paraphrase): "No, Quantum mechanics says something totally different.
These are all expressions of a dogma in crisis that has been confronted by established physical relationships (physical laws) and contradicting observation & measurement.
Is this what you want to pay for with your tax dollars or private contributions to higher learning?
Is this the kind of stuff you are proud to put your support to?
It's time to start asking those kind of questions because "modern" astronomy won't progress in knowledge with these kinds of attitudes.
And isn't it about increasing Man's understanding of Naure, no dogmatically defending one school of thought that is increasingly out of touch with realtiy?
June 27th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
@ ND:
That's a corollary of Crother's argument and Bill Gaede's argument and a synthesis of various arguments against the reality of the so-called "black hole" construct.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Hang on. Are Crother's and Gaede explicitely saying infiinite mass? It still sounds like you made this up given that you're saying corollory.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
DrFlimmer,
Is the model used in the U Texas site still a legit model to use given how Boh'r model is used. When I first read it I was scratching my head. I had totally forgotten about the electron-spiral-of-doom issue with the Rutherford model and that Bohr's model was also superseded.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
So, you have now accepted that you can't do (classical) electromagnetism without 'infinity' eh Anaconda?
Way to go!
(bold added)
I assume that you are now thoroughly familiar with the widespread use of 'infinity' in the mathematical quantification of "electromagnetism and the physical relationships that control it"; if not, perhaps you could go re-read Fitzpatrick (or Alfvén, or Birkeland, or Maxwell, or …).
You're joking, right?
I mean, repeated laboratory testing has demonstrated that these relationships are most certainly NOT "scale independent"!
For starters, they don't apply on microscopic scales (charge is quantised, for starters), and they have not been tested on any scale, in labs, above a few metres, perhaps a few hundreds of metres … no "laboratory testing" has been done on scales of tens of thousands of km, much less tens of thousands of parsecs …
So, to use your term, the ASSUMPTION of scale independence, for scales of interest to astronomers, is 'a priori' (I think I have it right …).
The phrase 'hoist on one's own petard' comes to mind.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
@ ND:
I didn't fully appreciate the full import of your question. The "infinite mass" argument is a corollary of QMD's definition of an electron, which, as provided by Nereid many posts back, is that an electron is a particle/mass that has zero dimension and no volume. I compared it to the definition of a "black hole", which is similar: A point/mass singularity with infinite density and infinitely small volume.
So, if an electron has mass at rest, but zero dimensions and no volume then you THEORETICALLY could have infinite mass.
It is an illustration of the absurdity of the QED definition of an electron because, of course, an electron doesn't have "infinite mass".
And due to the similarity of definitions between QED electron and a "black hole" you can THEORETICALLY have infinite mass "black holes". Of course, that is absurd as well and exposes the theoretical feet of clay both definitions possess.
But nice attempt to distract from the instant arguments.
Yes, I provided the synthesis.
Too bad, all you have to offer is distraction.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
@ Nereid:
Totally like you to ignore or distract from the point: Infinity can't be quantified by definition and the use of it "papers over" a lack of knowledge. it is not a quantification in itself.
The problem is that 'infinity" is a fundamental aspect of the "black hole" defnition.
Nereid, why do you slink away from a statement in the Fitzpatrick link you provided?
Don't have the intellectual honesty to own up to your slinking away?
Nereid, I shake my head.
Give up your 'jihad" and you won't expose so many problems with "modern" astronomy.
Your failure to own up to the Fitzpatrick's statement has you looking quite uncomfortable.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
@ ND
Well, it is a classical description which has to depend on currents, since it is unreasonable to think that a solid could have changing electric fields
. The picture is not that bad, since it can make some quantitative descriptions about what's going on and why some things are magnetic.
But I think it fails to explain magnetic or Weiss domains, which are easily explained by the alignement of the electron spin. The spin also easily explains while there are magnetic and unmagnetic materials. Due to Pauli's exclusion principle the spin of the two electrons in "one" state have to be oriented inversely (up and down). So if there is an even number of electrons in an atom shell then all spins cancel and there is no magnetic moment left and thus the material is unmagnetic. If there is an odd number of electrons in the shell then one spin has no counter-part and there is an "overall"-spin that is not zero and there is a non-zero magnetic moment. Since there are probably many similar atoms in a solid, the magnetic moments add up to form a macroscopic magnetic field.
So, for a simple classical explanation of magnetic materials the model holds (just like Newtonian mechanics hold in every-day-life). But the correct explanation depends on the spin and not currents!
@ wjwbudro
To your first question:
Well, I'm sorry. I cannot give you a "fundamentally correct" answer on this. There are also some philosophical points of view to include here.
Taking the Copenhagen interpretation it is the "observation" that destroys the effects.
You might have heard that a quantum object can have several states at the same time (Schrödinger's cat being dead and alive at the same time). Only the observation (experiment) will tell in which state the system currently is. And by stating "Oh, it's in this state" you are excluding the other possible states and by that you are destroying the other possibilities and thus you destroyed the quantum effects.
Well, this is likely not entirely correct. It seems to be sure that there is a point that devides the macro-world from the micro-world. Where exactly this point is, is hard to tell. But we should be happy that there is such a point
. Otherwise we could be here in front of the computer or at the north pole and we could do nothing about it 
.
To your second question:
) we made the wires to vibrate. If the vibrations were high enough the wires lost contact for a while and the current ceased to flow. Exactly that was the critical moment. During the break up of the wires there is a small moment in which there are so called "nano-wires" through which the current can flow (a good analogy is the cheese on a pizza). These nano-wires are descrete and only special amounts of currents can flow through them – so the overall current that flows in the critical moment depends on the number of nano-wires being present. If you are lucky you can observe (on the oscillograph) how one nano-wire after the next looses contact and the current decreases with discrete amounts.
The experimental set-up was that we had two little wires. Both were fixed on one side and the loose sides were brought in contact. While the contact was closed a current was flowing which was measured and displayed on an oscillograph.
By knocking on the table (yes, indeed!
And this is a quantum effect that can be seen with a macroscopic and quite simple experiment.
Hopefully this made any sense at all to you
.
@ Anaconda
What exactly do you want to tell me, I wonder? To which statement of mine are you referring?
Quantum mechanics are the most fundamental thing we know of and anything that is in its realm is controlled by it, like magnetism (of ferrum, e.g.). Quantum mechanics is probably the "newest" of fundamental physical theories – but it is at least the best checked ever. It is even better checked in experiments than electrodynamics. So any experiment in the world will back up QM and if you want to you could explain every experiment in the world with QM (except gravity, because science lacks a theory of quantum gravity!). Even electrodynamics are finally controlled by QM and QED (which you doubt, of course) and even Alfven, Perrat and how all your heros are named cannot dispute this fact and they won't! Just ask them (probably you will have some difficulties in asking Alfven, of course….).
Btw: Anaconda, you should not start to dispute with me about quantum mechanics. Although I am most likely not the smartest guy here; since all your arguments concerning this topic are based on your ignorance of scientific and experimental facts, it is really an easy task to debate with you.
So, what do you want from me?
June 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
How come you're the only one who is making the infinite mass argument. Have you discovered something no one else including EU/PC have noticed?
infinite density != infinite mass
This is not the first time you've pushed a personal interpretation as a legit argument.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
@ Anaconda
So this is the point:
LOOOOL!!!!! You make my day!
Because one devides by zero it doesn't matter what stands in the numerator! So, the numerator could be infinite!
The very important thing: IT MUST NOT! And most likely it does not! An electron has a specific mass that is known for centuries: m_e=9,1*10^-(31)kg. That is far from being infinite, don't you think?
And another word about black holes:
Stop fooling yourself! Nobody says that things are coming out of black holes (say, out of the event horizon). Things that get blown away are blown away in front of the black hole at a point where it is still doable to escape! They are not coming OUT of a black hole, but rather FROM the black hole, which could contain a minor but important difference!
June 27th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
@ Nereid:
Nereid presented my [Anaconda's] statement: "and demonstrated in the laboratory by repeated testing) are SCALE INDEPENDENT"
Nereid responded: "You're joking, right? I mean, repeated laboratory testing has demonstrated that these relationships are most certainly NOT 'scale independent'!"
Nereid, there you go again. Yes, electromagnetism has been shown to be scale independent to at least 14 orders of magnitude in the laboratory and the only reason it hasn't been confirmed on larger scales is the size of the laboratory. (see plasma scaling link below)
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma_scaling
Consider the documentation of peer-reviewed papers at the bottom of the screen page of the link and note the two academic text books.
And since I've offered documentation of my authority, do you have any peer-reviewed authority that contradicts that?
If not, you've stuck you foot in your mouth again.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
DrFlimmer,
Thanks for the explanation. I've been rereading material that I had forgotten and knew from years ago. Embarrassing to admit.
Anaconda,
I think you should read this page:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment
June 27th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
The following talks about the magnetism due to electrons and there appears to be a contribution from classical 'orbital' motion of the electrons, but the electron spin appears to be dominant contributor to magnetism.
books.google.com/books?id=xZ_QelBmkxYC&pg=PA151
June 27th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Thanks DrFlimmer,
As you may have guessed, I have a "bunch" more questions however, you've given me just enough to square my already existing "uncertainty". lol
I'm starring at my dinner now; pepperoni and cheese, and can't quite see those nano wires. Were they manifested (I like that word) between the break in the 2 wires (copper or special alloy)? I don't know the sensitivity of your scope but, could the current simply jump via the surrounding medium, ergo weaker, between the break? Or was this done in a vacuum?
No need to answer as I know your busy. Just airing my thoughts. Till the next topic, thanks for trying to help a silly old fart.
June 27th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
@ wjwbudro
The pizza analogy is about the cheese"filaments" (I may call them that
) that become thinner and thinner until they finally snap. Maybe this is more comprehensible 
.
We had different materials: copper, silver and gold
. IIRC gold worked the best, since the wires were the less oxidized.
Well, a current takes always the easiest path
. And since the currents and voltages were really low (mA and mV regime) I think it was unlikely that they made a jump via air; yes, the experiment was conducted on a simple table in normal air 
.
I hope this clearifies a little more.
Well, it's beyond midnight local time
. And it is always a pleasure to answer questions (if possible, of course).
June 27th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
DrFlimmer,
Answering questions after midnight AND drunk. Now that could be entertaining to read
June 27th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
With "possible" I didn't mean lack of physical ability
But you are right, answering physical question drunk should really be entertaining!
I'm just sorry that I cannot present such a pleasure, since my body forces me to keep dry. Even a small amout of beer will return immediately. This is terrible, as you might imagine!
So, someone of you must try
June 27th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
@ ND:
As is often the case, you miss the point: Infinity is non-quantifiable. Yet, it is a principle term used to justify the theoretical existence of "black holes".
As I [Anaconda] wrote above: "And due to the similarity of definitions between QED electron and a "black hole" you can THEORETICALLY have infinite mass "black holes". Of course, that is absurd as well and exposes the theoretical feet of clay both definitions possess."
Learn how to read, ND, "Of course, that [infinite mass] is absurd as well and exposes the theoretical feet of clay both definitions possess."
@ DrFlimmer:
DrFlimmer wrote: "But the correct explanation depends on the spin and not currents!"
Tell that to electrons flowing through a wire generating a magnetic field.
DrFlimmer wrote: "You might have heard that a quantum object can have several states at the same time (Schrödinger's cat being dead and alive at the same time)."
Yes, this the same line of thought that caused some to believe in parallel Universes.
DrFlimmer, it's the dividing by zero that generates the "infinity".
DrFlimmer wrote: "That is far from being infinite, don't you think."
DrFlimmer, you have ND's problem, read what I wrote: "It is an illustration of the absurdity of the QED definition of an electron because, of course, an electron doesn't have "infinite mass".
DrFlimmer wrote: "Nobody says that things are coming out of black holes (say, out of the event horizon)."
Oh really, read carefully what the "expert" Crowell wrote: "For a black hole with a high angular momentum up to 30% of the mass-energy of the black hole can be transferred to the exterior world by black hole thermodynamics."
What does "transferred to the exterior world" mean to you, DrFlimmer?
I'll tell you what the logical construction of the sentence stands for: From the interior world of a "black hole" 30% of the mass/energy can be transferred to the exterior world.
When one writes of "transfer" to the "exterior world" one is implying it comes from an interior world.
In other words, across the so-called "event horizon.
What other internal world would there be juxaposed to "transfer to the exterior world", besides across the "event horizon"?
When one talks of different "worlds" (interior/exterior), one is talking about a significant discontinuity and the significant discontinuity in so-called "black hole" architecture is the "event horizon".
DrFlimmer, what you have seen is a "black hole" expert attempt to sutblely move the goal posts, much like in George Orwell's Animal Farm, when the pigs change the rallying cry from "four legs better" to "four legs good, two legs better".
And why does the "expert" do that?
As I stated, above, to account for the observations of energy being ejected from many Active Galactic Nucleus and more specifically because the tremendous amounts of energy emitted can't be accounted for by frictional hypothesis that had previously been put out by "black hole" experts, especially, because, now, with increased observation & measurement, it's clear that not enough "stuff" is being "sucked down" the black hole to generate the type of energy and mass levels being currently observed & measured, so they have to come up with an energy source somewhere else, and that "somewhere else" is from the interior, across the "event horizon" to the "external world".
Notice the new observations & measurements are showing that hardly anything or nothing at all is getting sucked down the "black hole" and stars orbit close by the "black hole" and even form close in situ by the "black hole" when early theororizing stated, stars CAN"T form next to a "black hole" supposedly because of gravitational tides and shear.
The supposed "accretion disk" as opposed to a "swirling vortex", a one way ticket into oblivion is turning out, as seen by observation & measurement, into a "rather stable region of space."
DrFlimmer, stop drinking the Kool-Aid and unthinkingly bowing your head in empty acceptance…that is if you really want to understand the reality…and not just "ape" the dogma so you can "survive the admittance process" into graduate school.
I hope you're better than that, but you wouldn't be the first to "ape" their way to acceptance, and you won't be the last.
"Aping" is not how Science advances.
June 27th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Anaconda says: 'DrFlimmer wrote: "But the correct explanation depends on the spin and not currents!"
Tell that to electrons flowing through a wire generating a magnetic field."
Are you deliberately mixing things up? He's talking about magnetism due to electron spin and not an electric current through a wire. There are two sources of magnetism electron spin and electric current and he was talking about what gives magnets their magnetism due to electron spin.
I don't think there is any height limit on the absurdity that our conversations can reach! My goodness! I'm just laughing right now.
As for infinite mass the issue is that there is nothing that says black holes will have infinite mass to begin with, and you're saying that it does. That's the issue.
Here are two examples where you're the one missing the point.
I think we need to set up a discussion board that discusses the EU/PC take on the daily postings here on UT.
June 27th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Jesus Christ, Anaconda! Don't do what you are accusing others of! And don't quote out of context!
As you might have noticed I was referring to magnetic materials recently, like ferrum and such things and NOT to magnetism due to electric currents in your wall…
Yes, an infinite DENSITY but not an infinite mass! Density is mass over volume. If the density is infinite you have three possible way to achieve it: mass being infinite, volume being zero or both. The latter is rather seldom. Mostly it's the volume being zero and this does NOT imply an infinite mass!
Yes, I think I know how this is done. But even if I try to explain it, you would just reject it (and being far from understanding it, of course…), since it contains such things as frame-dragging and all that general relativistic non-sense, right?
Btw: AGN are quite small without any doubt, yet are radiating more light away than the entire galaxy. The most efficient process to convert matter to light is – guess, guess – accretion! Nothing is more effective than that! It is reasonable to think that such a process is going on in an AGN.
And still Anaconda, you failed to explain, how you can have an invisible plasmoid in the center of the Milky Way! The center is dark in almost any form of electromagnetic radiation. Just a little bit of radio that in spite of high angular resolution remains a point source! And is able to keep stars on Keplarian orbits…..
Where is that plasmoid that should be visible at least in the infrared OR in x-rays (depending on its energy state) since it is a plasma and therfore should have a temperature which MUST result in blackbody radiation! But there is NONE!
Where is your plasmoid in the center of the Milky Way, Anaconda?
June 27th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
@ ND:
ND wrote: "Are you deliberately mixing things up? He's talking about magnetism due to electron spin and not an electric current through a wire. There are two sources of magnetism electron spin and electric current and he was talking about what gives magnets their magnetism due to electron spin."
No.
There is only one way: Vector electron movement. Accepting for the sake of argument that "spin" is a correct explantion (and there are two other explanations by the way), and remember it's a hypothesis, it still is "electron movement" in an orderred fashion. Besides, let's not lose track of the big picture here, we're talking about MACRO magnetic fields in space. And QED is principly focussed on the MICRO world of the atom.
DrFlimmer wrote: "Don't do what you are accusing others of! And don't quote out of context!"
Okay, I'll stand corrected and note you were strictly talking about the micro world of the atom. See below:
Unless, you are DrFlimmer are attempting to suggest electron "magnetic moments" ALL line up in space plasma, a highly unlikely event with no experimental verification whatsoever, that leaves MACRO electric current flowing to generate the magnetic fields observed in space as in Michael Mgirkin's article where a "magnetic slinky" is observed & measured.
Again, what we are talking about is the emf (electromotive force) the attactive force between electrons and ions, which has been stated many times is 10^39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. That's why electromagnetism is the more dynamic force than gravity and it repels as well as attracts.
DrFlimmer presents my [Anaconda's] statement: "it's the dividing by zero that generates the "infinity".
And DrFlimmer responds: "Yes, an infinite DENSITY but not an infinite mass!"
Apparently you fail to see the problem: Infinite density is no more quantified than "infinite mass". "Infinite density" is a qualitative description posing as a quantitative description.
DrFlimmer wrote: "Yes, I think I know how this is done."
I doubt it. Nobody knows how this is done because it's made-up double-talk. There certainly several different hypothesis HOW it MIGHT HAPPEN, but certainly nothing concrete.
DrFlimmer wrote: "Btw: AGN are quite small without any doubt, yet are radiating more light away than the entire galaxy. The most efficient process to convert matter to light is – guess, guess – accretion! Nothing is more effective than that! It is reasonable to think that such a process is going on in an AGN.
"AGN are quite small without any doubt, yet are radiating more light away than the entire galaxy."
DrFlimmer, where is your authority for this assertion. Time to link a paper or article of some kind, or I'm inclined to think it's just some "chatter" from your professors to prevent you and others from questioning their dogma they want to pass on!
DrFlimmer, you got that? Put up or shut up.
Authority talks, BS walks.
"The most efficient process to convert matter to light is – guess, guess – accretion!"
Again, any authority for the, above, statement?
It's not even quantified, you're flying without a parchute and you just jumped out of the airplane.
"It is reasonable to think that such a process is going on in an AGN."
What authority do you have to back that up?
DrFlimmer wrote: "The center is dark in almost any form of electromagnetic radiation."
First, you've argued this several times, but NEVER offered any supporting authority. What authority do you have for that proposition or is it more of that "professor chatter" to keep the inmates calm and docile?
And, second, a plasmoid often is in the form of a torus or donut so viewed from a certain angle there could be a drop in radiation, but I'm more inclined to the first option — show me the paper or article because that's not what I've read, but hey, I'm willing to be corrected by documentation, but with due apologies, not on your say so (one, who called NASA a liar when I pointed out NASA confirmed the presence of electric currents in the near-space around the Earth).
Yes, my argument was sound then and NASA confirmed it because I linked to NASA press releases, but you still wouldn't accept that.
Surely, you aren't expecting me to take it on your naked say so?
DrFlimmer wrote: "And is able to keep stars on Keplarian orbits….." that's in addition to "dark" matter that nobody has detected, so in reality "black holes" don't get the job done on their own to keep stars in orbit (or should I say, "keep spiral arms in place").
In an electrical system the emf (electromotive force has more than enough attractive force to get the job done — no "dark" matter required'
DrFlimmer wrote: "Where is that plasmoid that should be visible at least in the infrared OR in x-rays (depending on its energy state) since it is a plasma and therfore should have a temperature which MUST result in blackbody radiation! But there is NONE!"
Where is your authority for your unsupported statements, DrFlimmer?
DrFlimmer wrote: "Where is your plasmoid in the center of the Milky Way, Anaconda?"
Right where it should be
June 27th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
@ DrFlimmer:
DrFlimmer wrote: "Nobody says that things are coming out of black holes (say, out of the event horizon)."
NOBODY says that, you sure about that?
“the Uncertainty Principle, allows particles to travel faster than light, for a small distance. This enables particles and radiation, to get out through the event horizon, and escape from the black hole. Thus, it is possible for things to get out of a black hole.” — Stephen W. Hawking, mathematician
Yes, that Stephen Hawking!
But first he says the exact opposite:
“the star would shrink below the critical radius at which the gravitational field becomes so strong nothing can escape” — stephen Hawking, mathematician
You see mathematicians feel quite comfortable saying contradictory and inconsistent things.
Why?
Because mathematicans do it all the time!
So what is it? Does nothing escape or does something escape?
Can't make up your mind?
That okay because neither can the professional mathematicians.
So-called "black holes" are make-believe fairy land stuff.
June 27th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Attention everybody, the above rhetoric by Anaconda is the reason why one gets to the point of frustration with his obstinacy that I have to resort to using sharp sarcasm, and, yes, sometimes it hits a person's raw nerve — c'est la guerre!
June 27th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Anaconda,
Electron spin is well established science. It is not a hypotheses. It has been established by experiments.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_quantum_number#Detection_of_spin
"When lines of the hydrogen spectrum are examined at very high resolution, they are found to be closely-spaced doublets. This splitting is called fine structure, and was one of the first experimental evidences for electron spin. The direct observation of the electron's intrinsic angular momentum was achieved in the Stern-Gerlach experiment."
See also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern-Gerlach_experiment
I think we need to clear up some definitions here. When you say "electron movement" that you say includes electron spin, do you mean "electric current"? When you use the term "electric current" do you mean any movement that a charged particle such as an electron makes? If so, I think your definition of electric current is broader than what people are using.
From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment
"Fundamentally, contributions to any system's magnetic moment may come from sources of two kinds: (1) motion of electric charges, such as electric currents and (2) the intrinsic magnetism of elementary particles, such as the electron."
Also, what other two explanations were you refering to?
If I've made errors in what I wrote, I'd appreaciate any corrections by those who understand the topic much better than I do.
June 27th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Anaconda, the following was brought up in another thread when discussing AGN
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/
Where is your evidence of a plasmoid in the center of our galaxy?
June 27th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Anaconda:
[Emphasis mine]
Anaconda, you demonstrate with that statement that you have absolutely no bloody idea what the term "electromagnetism" means.
Electromagnetic waves — radio, IR, light, UV, X-rays, and gamma-rays — do not attract nor repel each other; only electric charges — protons, electrons, anti-protons, and positrons — attract or repel each other. Furthermore, when two opposite charges come together, their charges cancel out and you get a neutral atom or, if a proton and an electron fuse together, a neutron, and, yes, there is evidence for neutron stars — DEAL WITH IT!
June 27th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
In addition to my statement above, gravity, unlike electric charges, is accumulative because it does not cancel out, and when sufficient mass has accumulated, it will overcome the escape velocity of electromagnetic waves, e.g., light, which then results in a black hole — DEAL WITH IT!
June 27th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Anaconda:
O RLY?! So, according to our resident 'expert', Anaconda, "spin" is just "a hypothesis", which, if he were to be believed, high-density hard disk drives are also just "a hypothesis" as well.
So, then, Anaconda, will you care to explain how the latest HDDs, which have a storage capacity of 2 TB (terabytes), are not possible?
June 27th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
In case does Anaconda doesn't realize it, my question above is meant to be sarcastic.
Here is an explanation of how spintronics applications enable the possibility of HDDs.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:41 am
I came across a pithy expression the other day: "lather, wash, rinse, repeat".
Perhaps a neat summary of the exchanges of words involving Anaconda and others ('communication' or 'discussion' it is not)?
(bold added)
I quoted this before, in another UT story comment thread; it's from Wallace Arthur, “Creatures of Accident” (2006) pp226.
If you, dear reader, are in any doubt that Arthur's words are an apt summary of Anaconda's comments, I invite you to do your own research. For now I will provide only one example (two related extracts/comments; bold added in all cases):
(June 27th, 2009 at 11:27 am)
(June 27th, 2009 at 12:10 pm)
Now in some earlier comments, on a quite different UT story, Anaconda himself was at pains to make a crystal clear distinction between (direct) observation and inference, and his venomous, vitriolic words directed at astronomers for confusing the two are there for all to read.
As the above two extracts clearly show, Anaconda is a hyprocite … not only is there an "appalling lack of integrity ", "deliberate misuse of quotations and details from the work of scientists"; not only has "all honor and honesty had been cast to the four winds", but Anaconda uses his own criteria inconsistently.
Now if you've been merely skimming the material here, let me make it a bit clearer.
In astronomy, there is no way to make direct observations of 'electric currents in space', a point which is acknowledged, and stated, in the sources Anaconda himself has provided.
However, if you equip a spaceprobe with suitable instruments – or, better, several identical spaceprobes – and send them into space to report "in situ" measurements, you can analyse the measurements and conclude that your probes (may) have observed an electric current in space (whether this is a 'direct' observation or an indirect one is a bit fuzzy). But this type of observation is not remote observation! (astronomy is, by definition, remote observing)
You can, in many cases, observe magnetic fields in space, remotely; however, to conclude from those observations that there are also electric currents in (the same) space, you must make inferences; specifically, you must have a *quantitative* model.
If you read Alfvén (which Anaconda clearly has not), you'll see that he was fully aware of this, and made the distinctions I've just outlined quite clear.
Further, Alfvén was also pretty clear in his views on the limitations of astronomy … when applied to Anaconda's views, an interesting conclusion follows; namely, that Anaconda's whole approach to science is fundamentally flawed!
In a later comment I'll dig a bit deeper into "empiricism", and how Anaconda makes a horrible mess of that too.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:14 am
You are a funny guy, Anaconda.
It is unbelievable that you are denying quantum mechanics. Just like your rejection of anti-matter and quarks, remember?
Spin is not a theoretical construct. It is real. Nothing more and nothing less. But I would be eager to see what the other two explanations are! Would you enlighten me, please?
I would be able to back up my "claims" in probably a few hours, with an extended search of papers and reviews. The problem is: I don't have that time, now. So I leave you with this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disc
arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0306/0306208v1.pdf
astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/
astro.virginia.edu/VITA/papers/nraf2/index.html
Although you don't accept my word: A short explanation why one can conclude that AGN are small.
Some sorts of AGN have been observed to be highly variable on the orders of hours or days. So in this time the information "source on" or "source off" has to be brought to every part of the source. How fast can this information be delivered?
The maximum rate would be with the speed of light.
So, for a variability of hours or days the source can only be a few light-hours or light-days across, otherwise the information "on"/"off" wouldn't reach the whole source in the observed time. This would mean that the source is bigger, which would result in a longer variability.
What we have here is an estimate of the maximum size of the source!
It is only a few light-days across, but it is able to outshine entre galaxies.
And I would say that a light-day is indeed small compared to galactic scales, is it not?
Btw: the link of ND is really interesting and contains quite a lot "authorities".
June 28th, 2009 at 3:18 am
ah, one more thing
I'm sorry, I don't see it. Your authority, please?
June 28th, 2009 at 3:33 am
(continued)
The universe, as understood by contemporary physics, works exactly as if it is ruled by just two laws; namely the standard model of particle physics (SM), and the general theory of relativity (GR).
There is a crucial caveat to "works exactly"; namely, within the limitations of the current collective body of all relevant (good, independently verified, etc) observations and experimental results.
And this is the heart of science: the ultimate test is the observed behaviour of the universe.
About "laws".
They are expressed in a mathematical form; while the particulars may be varied – there is often more than one way of saying 'the same thing' in maths – the centrality of maths to the laws remains … there are no laws without math; specifically, the SM and GR are quintessentially mathematical.
A key part of the SM is quantum electrodynamics (QED). This is the most accurately and precisely tested part of science, period. What does this mean? Among other things, that if you want to describe how the universe behaves, you MUST use QED.
About 'spherical cows'.
The SM and GR are not very practical, in the sense that developing models of some part, or behaviour, of the universe, starting from the SM and GR, is horrendously difficult. So, what to do if you're interested in modelling a coronal mass ejection say, or a binary pulsar? You assume all cows are spherical; that is, you make a simplifying assumption (or three).
The good news is that QED 'reduces to' Maxwell's equations, 'in the appropriate limit', and that GR 'reduces to' Newton's law of universal gravitation, 'in the appropriate limit'. Further, the expected difference between observed behaviour (of some part of the universe) assuming it is ruled by Maxwell's equations (say) rather than QED can be estimated … and if that difference turns out to be far, far, far smaller than what our best measuring tools could 'see', then using Maxwell's equations is practical. However, as a physicist, you must never forget that you are, knowingly, using an approximating assumption (Anaconda, and solrey and mgmirkin, are clearly very confused on this point).
One last thing, for now, observables.
If you explore the two laws, the SM and GR, you find many interesting things. One is that there should be, in the universe, something which we give the name 'black holes'. At the heart of these objects is a 'singularity'. Now you, for whatever personal reasons, may not like these singularities; however, you cannot, pace Anaconda, use the existence of these as a reason to reject GR!
And the reason why you can't do that is right at the heart of physics … these singularities are not obsevable, even in principle. You see, a critical corollary of the critical caveat at the top of my comment is that, ultimately, only observables can be used to test laws. (As an aside, this is one reason why Anaconda's repeated harping on 'electric currents in space' is, at best, bad astrophysics … while he may insist that there are giant electric currents in AGNs, they cannot be directly observed unless we could send a spaceprobe there).
(to be continued)
June 28th, 2009 at 4:25 am
I don't understand why the issue of a black hole with an infinite mass keeps coming up! The singularity does not have infinite mass. It is a region where the Weyl curvature diverges, and this happens within the black hole itself. I call this a region because contrary to intuition it is not really a point.
There is no information which leave the BH with BH thermodynamics. The details of the interior are not relevant. A rotating gravitating body will drag points of space around with it. Of course the closer the region is the more of this dragging takes place. This is called frame dragging or the Lense-Thirring effect. For a rotating black hole there is then a region outside the event horizon where the frame dragging can't be resisted. This region is called the ergosphere. It is a region where the local light cone direction is oriented so that to avoid frame dragging one would have to locally travel faster than light. Again this is not interior to the BH, but close to the horizon.
Material in this region may split so that a portion of it falls further into the black hole and the other part absorbs some of the angular momentum and energy of rotation. This portion may escape the BH region completely with more mass-energy gained than what was lost from the portion which fell all the way in. In this way a rotating BH can act as a thermodynamic heat engine which confersenergy to the outside environment. The rotation of the BH is reduced some and it also gains mass. The BH in acting as a heat engine is approaching its end state of a Schwarzschild BH with no rotation and with a greater mass. This indicates the entropy gained. The event horizon acts to conceal information and is then a measure of entropy gained.
It would require considerably more work to illustrate this in detail. In particular it would necessitate working with the Kerr metric, which is not a trivial matter to do. Yet this process of BH thermodynamics was worked out in the early 1970s and is a canonical aspect of general relativity.
I write this more for the edification of others than for Anaconda and other wogs into this plasma universe nonsense. These people keep raising up the same erroneous objections. While they are false and can be shot down it is like shooting ducks in a carvival shooting gallery: You can shoot them down but the dang things keep popping back up. This behavior is commonly seen with creationist types as well.
Lawrence B. Crowell
June 28th, 2009 at 7:04 am
OK, I said only one example of Anaconda's "appalling lack of integrity " and "deliberate misuse of quotations and details from the work of scientists", but this one (below) provides a good intro to my last (of three) comments on the topic of empiricism.
(bold added)
I'll ignore Anaconda's blatant misquoting (in this case by leaving out a key part of what I wrote he changes my meaning rather drastically; have you no shame Anaconda?).
I'll also ignore the obvious, er, holes, in the sources he cites (e.g. his material dates from 1934 to 1997, so is thus blind to the tremendous advances in computer-based simulations and plasma physics, especially astrophysics, since 1997; Anaconda's earlier references – on electric currents in space – suffer from similar blindness).
Let's start by noting a key difference between Anaconda's first mention of "SCALE INDEPENDENT" (June 27th, 2009 at 11:27 am) and his second (quoted above); the first again:
Note that in the first use, there are no caveats, no limits, no boundaries … independent of scale, whether the scale is 10^-999 m, 10 m, or 10^999 m.
Now Anaconda knows full well that this is nonsense; for example, for all his gross ignorance, he knows that charge is quantised (to take just one example), so there is a scale below which this scale invariance of plasma behaviours fails. So, in typical Anaconda fashion, he repeats his initial, ridiculous, claim with a critical rider … and pretends that it was there all along (appalling lack of integrity). But let's pass over this for now.
More curious is the other end, large scale.
Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that his 14 orders of magnitude is accurate, and (again, for the sake of argument) take the lower bound to be ~0.01 micron. His upper bound is then ~1,000 km. That's a pretty darn big lab! OK, let's be generous and grant him this too.
A scale of ~1,000 km is utterly insignificant when it comes to astronomy (unless it's within the solar system), so how does Anaconda go from the limits of empirical, lab-based testing to the universe that astronomers study? I'll leave this question for a moment.
In his *first* comment, Anaconda acknowledges a limitation of the *theory* concerning "electromagnetism and the physical relationships that control it", but it isn't until his *second* comment that he limits the empirical side of his claim ("the only reason it hasn't been confirmed on larger scales is the size of the laboratory"). This gives us a clue to how he manages, logically, to go from what's actually observed, empirically, in lab-based experiments to the universe …
… and here, in his own words, Anaconda starkly demonstrates the inconsistency of his "empiricism" … based on his faith in the math (!), Anaconda declares that lab-based results can be extrapolated to an arbitrarily large scale, end of story, no testing needed!
Now of course physicists are more than happy to use the universe as their laboratory, to test theories, hypotheses, etc … they can even use the universe as a laboratory to test the scale invariance of certain behaviours of plasmas. In doing these universe-is-my-lab tests, a great many cows will have to be assumed to be spherical, and where it is already well-known that some cows are not spherical and that assuming them to be spherical will result in the tests going haywire, this will have to be carefully addressed.
In other words, the models used in the universe-is-my-lab tests have to be realistic.
A simple example: (ordinary) stars. These things have scales of ~100,000 to ~100 million km. As a generalisation, they are all plasmas (and each all-plasma to boot); equally, as a generalisation, they are all spherical (though they are not cows!). Now, from the invariance of plasma scaling relationships, would you predict that all stars would be spherical? No, you would not!
So what went wrong with this universe-is-my-lab test of plasma physics? Well, one of the cows assumed to be spherical in the plasma labs of Alfvén and Peratt (and others) was the one that the mass of the plasmas was insufficient for the self-gravity of the plasmas to have an observable effect. Now in those labs, this cow was and still is most certainly spherical (i.e. self-gravity is, indeed, quite unimportant); however, for plasmas with masses of >~10^27 kg, this cow is a very long way from being spherical (i.e. self-gravity is extremely important).
To conclude, as with 'electromagnetism', in Anaconda's world 'empirical' and 'empiricism' have highly idiosyncratic meanings … so, once again, there is very little discussion going on here …
June 28th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Anaconda,
Given the evidence presented in this thread I will say this: Anconda, you are a liar!
June 28th, 2009 at 8:07 am
A short note on the efficiency of accretion. The following paper mentions the number "6%".
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ…451..498M
(the pdf is available for free)
This means that accretion is able to convert 6% of the rest-mass of a particle into radiation. There are other models that speak of up to 40%. But even 6% is really much, if we compare it with the next best method to convert rest-mass to radiation. That is fusion:
fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-856264-0.pdf
I want you to take a look at table 1.1 on page 11. The numbers in the column labeled "Q" is the energy that is released in the fusion process. We can see that the highest amount of energy is released through fusion of deuterium (D) and tritium (T) into an alpha-particle (a helium-nucleus) and a neutron (N) (first row). The Q-value is 17.59 MeV.
The rest-mass-energy of deuterium and tritium are 1874 MeV and 2812 MeV, respectivly (just add the mass-energies of one proton and one or two neutrons). So the total mass-energy of the "fusion-members" is the sum of both, of course:
(1874+2812)MeV=4686 MeV.
What we want is the efficiency of the process, that is:
(released energy) / (rest-mass-energy).
17.59 MeV / 4686 MeV = 0.00375 = 0.375 %
So the efficiency of fusion is at best 0.375%. That is much less than the 6% of accretion.
And fusion is, again, the best process next to accretion.
June 28th, 2009 at 8:21 am
I don't exactly know what is meant by scale invariant. QED rescales with energy, or transverse momenta. The fine structure constant alpha = e^2/hbar-c has a logarithmic dependence with t-momanta from renormalization theory. The renormalization group (RG) flow for QED is comparatively simple. The idea is that given a cut-off in the process that the gauge theory scales in certain ways, which leads to the theory of running parameters — RG flows.
This clearly is not scale invariance, but an invariance "modulo" the RG flow. RG flows at higher energy involves conformal group systems, such as Zamalodchikov c-theorem, which connects with conformal relativity and cosmology.
At an energy less than 10^{-16} E_planck things become difficult to understand. RG flows are no longer conformal, and further the occurrence of mass makes the scaling systems very difficult to solve in generality.
When it comes to plasmas being invariant with length scales, this appears unlikely. For a system with N particles the degree of complexity of that system might scale approximately as log(N). I am thinking of N as the number of regions of the phase space which can be occupied.
Lawrence B. Crowell
June 28th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Anaconda is like that annoying neighbourhood urchin who throws mud at newly laundered white sheets on the clothesline and then buggers off.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Lawrence B. Crowell,
I brought up the issue of the infinite mass since I felt it was not resolved and the discussion had gone wildly off topic anyway.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:02 am
@Lawrence B. Crowell: you need to click on the link in A's comment, then read, say, Alfvén's document … there are certain relationships concerning properties of (classical) plasmas which are invariant over several orders of magnitude (these are also covered in the Fitzgerald graduate course materials, IIRC).
This Wikipedia gives a brief summary (usual caveats about all Wikipedia articles apply); there's nothing especially insightful in these scaling relationships, IMHO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_scaling
June 28th, 2009 at 9:13 am
@ Ivan3Man:
You are already called professor Richard Fitzpatrick of the University of Texas by implication a liar that treats his students like children, he lies to them because they only have the understadning of children.
Apparently, none of your fellow "modern" astronomers could be bothered to take you aside and correct you.
Sorry, DrFlimmer, but to the extent QM contradicts electrodynamics as some justification that Professor Fitzpatrick was misleading his students, I don't buy it. QM can compliment electrodynamics, but when it starts contradicting it I got to draw the line.
No, not one could take Ivan3Man aside and acorrect him — bankrupt behavior from a bankrupt crew.
"In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit)." — Professor Richard Fitzpatrick University of Texas at Austin
The, above, passage is from the professor's course on plasma electrodynamics.
Ivan3Man, I've laid out the electromotive force, the force of attraction between ions and electrons numerous times, but you ignore it everytime as you did, above. Electric current is part of electromagnetism — deal with it.
You are s shmuck — solrey was spot on.
Nereid, what about this link you provided by professor Richard Fitzpatrick.
Are you going to provide a link and then let Ivan3Man smear and lie about Professor Richard Fitzpatrick?
Is that the state of your intellectual integrity — I guess you are an ethically challenged shrew.
Nereid, where is your owning up to making false statements about electrical phenomenon not being scale independent?
As I provided authority that established that electrical phenomenon is scale independent…but for Nereid, down the memory hole it goes.
Nereid, the two examples are different. THEMIS has done in situ direct observation & measurement of 'space currents' which NASA has reported on.
The "magnetic slinky" that Mgirkin wrote an article about and which you quoted a passage from IS BEYOND the solar system so there is no way to do in situ observation & measurment.
Comparing apples and oranges and pretending they are both apples.
I that the way you work these days Nereid?
You slink away from a link to a professor's on line course and when your fellow compatriots imply Fitzpatrick is lying as he would to children because his students are too immature to understand any different you ignore it.
Nereid, do you have any respect for Professor Richard Fitzpatrick?
Nereid, what is your real name and qualifications so I can send this discussion to Professor Fitzpatrick to show him how a twisted women bent on attacking science she disagrees with will provide a link to Professor Fitzpatrick's course, but then when Professor Fitzpatrick states something in the course that getts unfairly attacked, you won't say a word.
What is your real name Nereid and what are your qualifications.
You need to be exposed to the academic world.
Nereid wrote: "astronomy is, by definition, remote observing".
THEMIS is not remote observing, but is in situ observation & measurement.
Care to take back your baseless attacks.
Or are you simply a hack that never takes anything back, no matter what you say or how false it is.
It sure seems that way.
…The static…the flack…must be over the target.
DrFlimmer, I see you are going down the wrong path.
DrFlimmer presents my [Anaconda's] comment: "Authority talks, BS walks."
And then instead of just providing a link to a paper wants to talk about Quantum Mechanics.
Why? We've already seen one bogus definition for the electron. (Correction, it is point-particle.)
Okay, DrFlimmer did provide a citation I could link to:
And here is a majority of the abstract:
"The flow originates from a torus initially centered at 100 gravitational (Schwarzschild) radii. Accretion is driven by turbulent stresses generated self-consistently by the magnetorotational instability. The resulting flow has three well-defined dynamical components: a hot, thick, rotationally-dominated Keplerian disk; a surrounding magnetized corona with vigorous circulation and outflow; and a magnetically-confined jet along the centrifugal funnel wall. Inside of 10 gravitational radii, the disk becomes very hot, more toroidal, and highly intermittent. These results contrast sharply with quasi-spherical, self-similar viscous models. There are no significant dynamical differences between simulations that include resistive heating and those that do not."
Here is the link:
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/VITA/papers/nraf2/index.html
Let's break this down shall we:
"The flow originates from a torus initially centered at 100 gravitational (Schwarzschild) radii."
Torus structures are closely associated with plasmoids. A torus is not associated with a "black hole"
"magnetorotational instability."
Again, this is more closely associated with plasmoids than so-called "black holes"
"a hot, thick, rotationally-dominated Keplerian disk"
Actually, it is more likely an expulsion disk, rather than an "accretion disk" where material gets sucked into the "black hole". An expulsion disk is where material is being emitted from the plasmoid.
"a surrounding magnetized corona with vigorous circulation and outflow;"
Again, this is associated more closely with electrical and plasmoid structures than with so-called "black holes".
The corona is magnetized because of electric currents and it has a "vigorous circulation and outflow"
What is the "circulation", but plasma flowing and thus establishing itself as an electrical current that in turn generates a magnetic field. And yes, the "outflow" is also consistent with a plasmoid.
"and a magnetically-confined jet along the centrifugal funnel wall."
Again, this is more consistent with a plasmoid than a "black hole".
A magnetically-confined jet is simply high energy electric current confined in a Langmuir sheath (double layer) and magnetic field as generated by the electric current. The high current density causes a strong magnetic field that compresses the electric current.
"Inside of 10 gravitational radii, the disk becomes very hot, more toroidal, and highly intermittent."
Again, "toroidal" structure is part and parcel of the structure of an electrical plasmoid and not so much a "black hole".
HERE IS THE MONEY QUOTE:
"These results contrast sharply with quasi-spherical, self-similar viscous models."
What does this mean?
It means what was actually observe & measured was completely different with what was expected based on models.
In other words, astronomers were surprised by what they observed because it was consistent with the electrical structure of a plasmoid and NOT what has been theorized as the structure of a so-called "black hole".
What is one to draw from this abstract when the structures are entirely consistent with what Science knows about electrical plasmoids, but the "results contrast sharply with…[black hole]…models.
Actually, there are two MONEY QUOTES:
"There are no significant dynamical differences between simulations that include resistive heating and those that do not."
What does this mean?
Remember, above where I indicated the "expert " Crowell was moving the goal posts writing of a "30% of the mass-energy of the black hole can be transferred to the exterior world" which necessarily means there is an interior "world" inside the "event horizon" because there wasn't enough energy generated by "friction physics" in the so-called "accretion disk" to supply the energy observed ejected from the AGN, while a plasmoid does generate the energy.
Well…there are no differences between "resistive heating" models and models that have no "resistive heating", which means "resistive heating" is not a significant contributor of energy emitted by the so-called "black hole".
SO MUCH FOR THE ACCRETION DISK CAUSING THE FRICTION ENERGY.
That is why "expert" Crowell is interested in subtley moving the goal posts because the "friction in the accretion disk" hypothesis is a failure, so they need to come up with something else. and the only other place is within the so-called "event horizon".
Oh, by the way DrFlimmer you didn't provide authority for your statement: "The most efficient process to convert matter to light is – guess, guess – accretion!"
Empty talk meant to BS his way through.
DrFlimmer is an empty suit.
But I'm glad of two things: One, I required DrFlimmer to cite an authority because it showed he either didn't know what he was talking about or he was being dishonest in his statements because it is clear from the above abstract that the AGN is NOT:
DrFlimmer wrote: "Btw: AGN are quite small without any doubt, yet are radiating more light away than the entire galaxy."
Complete hot air from her flimmer.
Sure sounds like the abstract you cited doesn't agree with your assertion that AGN are quite small…now does it?
Sometimes, you simply come off as very Naive, DrFlimmer.
The second reason i'm glad DrFlimmer cited the abstract is because it is SO CONSISTENT WITH THE STRUCTURE OF A PLASMOID!!!
Thanks, DrFlimmer!
Let's face it you got caught telling a whopper or you are simply babbling from ignorance reinforced by your astronomy professors.
You really need to do bettter than that.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Anaconda,
Your thoughts on electron spin please. Do you still think it's just a hypothesis?
June 28th, 2009 at 10:01 am
This is the sort of "physics" one might get in a sci-fi film.
Seriously, if you are going to counter a particular theory in physics it is a good idea to know that theory. The problem with this business is that you can write little funnies about this, but this indicates you lack the initiative to understand things. General relativity is not a trivial subject to study, and writing a short post on the physics of black holes is going to be cursory. The energy involved with black holes is going to be a combination of gravitational potential heating of material and the BH thermodynamics with a rotating black hole. The energy of rotation is transferred to the outside world and the black hole grows, which means entropy increases. I can only advise that people look this up in GR texts or maybe on the web (wikipedia probably has a section) to seek further knowledge. I don't have the time to write a 5000 word essay on black hole thermodynamics.
A rotating black hole is capable of transferring up to 30% of its mass energy to the outside world in the form of rotational energy. This is a whole lot of mass-energy, which for a multi-million solar mass BH means it can power these enormous systems. These systems are magnetohydrodynamic (MHD), but the MHD system requires a driving source of energy. Plasma physics is not a source of energy, and anyone who thinks so clearly does not know what they are talking about.
Lawrence B. Crowell
June 28th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Nereid2 Says: there's nothing especially insightful in these scaling relationships, IMHO:
Agreed, this is an argument over nothing. I am not sure what point this was supposed to make.
Anaconda's post just above is not something to be analysed by a physicist, but by a psychiatrist.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Anaconda said @ Salacious B. Crumb:
Crumb wrote: "Really. The rationality of someone saying;
"A number of astrophysical assumptions and deductions have gone unchallenged for far too long. Rational, skeptical scientists must occasionally take an introspective look at their own discipline and excise any persistent errors…."
or
"If astrophysicists are willing to introspectively assess their own discipline and excise some erroneous assumptions and deductions, greater understanding of the cosmos than has heretofore been gained may yet be at hand.""
See http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/mgmirkin08/090522_mgm.htm
Anyone who thinks or believes this is quite delusional, and should be ignored."
Oh, really, Science is about constantly reasessing what it knows and understands about Nauture and having the courage and objectivity to admit when it is wrong.
Apparently, you think it is delusional to do so.
I stand on my statement and actually appreciate your bringing it to the attention of the readers because by calling that "delusional", it just spells out how clearly off-base you really are."
Must of touched a sensitive spot to get such an outburst from Anaconda here. As William Shakespeare has said; “Me thinks he doth protest too much.”
delusion – an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument
now let's see…
"A number of astrophysical assumptions and deductions have gone unchallenged for far too long. "
"If astrophysicists are willing to introspectively assess their own discipline and excise some erroneous assumptions and deductions,"
Both these statements are only opinion being unproved to the extent on the primary EU tenet that "astrophysics is in crisis." This is wrong.
What is worst is the accusation is being made not from astrophysicists, but from a bunch of renegade electrical engineers hell-bend on "basking in the sunlight." Their modus operandi has been to drum up support by indoctrinating others who don't know any better.
As the working group of the 'inner circle' of the insidious Thunderbolts, the plan is to announce the dishonest "failure of astrophysics", then seek a wedge by finding presumed flaws in theory then expound the error to show that if it is wrong, then many other astrophysical theory is wrong.
The quite baseless multi-prong attack is fundamentally also driven as a means of learning arguments from those who speak out against EU. I.e. Planning to find flaws in the arguments of others then use it against them. (This is one of Anaconda principle role here, by the way.)
The basis of the denial is planned on;
- Black holes do not exist
- Neutron Stars do not exist
- Stellar evolution theory is wrong
- Fusion is not the power source of the Sun by electromagnetic phenomena
- Gravitation mostly an electromagnetic phenomena (Hence general relativity is wrong, in principle.)
- All active sources in the universe are caused by electromagnetic phenomena
- The fundamental principle source of energy in the universe is plasma and is manifest in electromagnetism and EM phenomena.
- Quantum mechanics is an illusion, whose phenomena is irrelevant to micro or macroscopic phenomena.
- Unusual phenomena in Earth's atmosphere are due to magnetic phenomena I.e. As in the recent crash of the Air France.
The presumed highlighted weakness in astrophysics (that caused the rise of ThunderBolts and the recent spate of EU dissidents) is the theories revolving around dark energy or dark matter, seen by these EU proponents as heresy – whose faith is driven by the "appearance" of electric effects in astronomical phenomena.
(So all these points are not based on any scientific basis, but according to them on just an assumption that astrophysics have not paid "enough respect" to plasma and electromagnetism phenomena.)
In the end, the behaviour is like a fanatical religious cult, whose 'global' adherence is to a set plan slowly continues on. At present, the primary aim is to discredit astronomy and astrophysics as much as possible.
So yes, Anaconda, your behaviour and those of EU proponents IS actually "delusional." It is NOT science at all, just pre-organised voodoo to bolster faith in EU by a hidden agenda. Sorry, the games almost over.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Notice how Anaconda evaded my question about HDDs. Hence his pseudonym — he's a slippery snake.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Anaconda said;
How of base am I now, eh?
The delusion is really in your mixed-up head, NOT in the science!
June 28th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Anaconda said;
So according to him, this is the mechanism of how plasmoids form. This is the insane explanation of the nature and cause of black holes that he has been trying to hide from us. Who knew the field strength was as massive as this, eh?
Furthermore, he says;
Now, how absolutely nuts is this?
(And blow me down, the earlier quoted (by me) had Mr, Mirken moderated this!)
Reference: "And Now a Black Hole is apparently "Spewing Water Vapour" (Is water really a plasma?) https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1712&start=15&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=a144533496e901575b66348a247dd4cc
June 28th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Why did I know that something like this would happen?
So, Anaconda. Is it true that you think that electrodynamics is more fundamental than quantum mechanics?
If you say "no", then you are right!
If you say "yes", then you are denying 100 years of physical research, experiments and all the relating stuff! Period!
Btw: Ever heard of approximations in physics? Ever heard of the way to learn things (in general)? Did you start to write words before you even knew one letter?
Do you know how big 100 gravitational radii are? And what a gravitational radius is? Did you compare it to something to be able to say that it is not big?
Where is your authority concerning the plasmoid in the galactic center? (and I mean the very center, the region of SgrA* and probably a few light-years around)
Ever thought about that it could be possible that models used to many approximations and that nature is more complex, so that the model could be qualitively right, but quantitativly wrong?
Did you back up anything you said about plasmoids?
Do you know what you are actually talking about?
Have you ask Prof Fitzpatrick what he thinks about his own statement?
Did you understand what Ivan3man was actually saying with "lying-to-children"?
Did the paper you cited so eagerly say anything about plasmoids or did it just use the word accretion disk?
What about the other links a posted?
What about ND's link?
How is it possible that people who never attended one course in a university know so much more and so much better than anyone on this planet?
June 28th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Err, sorry for a few mistakes in my previous post:
That should read "small" at the end!
And in the Einstein-quote "infinity" is of course just "infinite"…
June 28th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
@ ND:
ND wrote: "Your thoughts on electron spin please. Do you still think it's just a hypothesis?"
Show me the experiment where we SEE an electron "spin"?
The two other possibilities are:
The electrons orbit their respective nucleus in synchronisity with all the other electrons with their respective nucleus, which results in an orderred array of synchronized orbits of electrons throughout the lattice of the ferreous iron or lodestone.
The other possibility:
The electrons in the valence orbits flow in an orderred movement around the lodestone lattice.
All three explanations would allow for the cutting up of the lodestone (magnetized iron) and still retain the magnetic field.
But the truth is nobody really knows exactly what happens at the atomic level.
Agreeably, the electrons could "spin" as QED would have it, but nobody knows for sure — therefore it is a hypothesis.
The relevant point to this discussion is that ALL THREE POSSIBILITIES describe electron MOVEMENT.
Get used to it.
And getting back to the big picture, we are talking about MACRO magnetic fields in space, and as stated before unless by some miracle all the "magnetic 'moments'" line up, what we are left with is electric current that generates the magnetic fields just as professor Richard Fitzpatrick of the University of Texas at Austin stated in his outline.
Come on guys and gal, are you interested in learning or just being pseudo-sceptics.
Is this how sick "modern" astronomy has become that all they can do is dogmatically defend their beliefs?
It would seem so.
June 28th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
um, Anaconda, I linked to the wiki page that talks about the experiment on electron spin. This is established science. You're playing the old game of asking for evidence on a established, cornerstone of science to cover up your own ignorance.
Here! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern-Gerlach_experiment
If that's not enough, here's some authority. Since you consider IEEE more knoweledgable in fields outside of EE I would like to bring your attention to the following book published by Wiley-IEEE:
books.google.com/books?id=ixAe4qIGEmwC&pg=PA103
As for your Macro/Micro statements, I'm calling red herring. The magnetic moments due to electron spin can generate a macroscopic magnetic field.
June 28th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Anaconda said;
Oh dear. Feeling a bit exposed are we? Trying to get an emotional response to hide your deceptions, eh?
If you believe this crap you are only reinforcing the EU delusion.
You simply don't know what you are talking about!
June 28th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
So, the "expert" Crowell admits it, as Crowell wrote: "The energy of rotation is transferred to the outside world and the black hole grows, which means entropy increases."
So energy supposedly "is transferred to the outside world".
Yes, there you have it DrFlimmer, the "expert" is owning up to the idea that energy comes out of the "event horizon" to explain the energy supposedly emitted by a "black hole".
Yes, the "expert" wants it both ways: No, nothing escapes the "event horizon", but…wait a minute…yes, energy does escape the event horizon.
But let's not have me putting word in the "expert's" mouth: Crowell, does energy come out of the 'event horizon"?
After all you, refer to the "outside world" and speak of "transfer" to the "exterior world", what do you mean?
I'm all ears.
June 28th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Crumb,
You already stated it was delusional to try and have progress in science by questioning theory.
Did you really mean that?
June 28th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Anaconda said;
"Crumb,
You already stated it was delusional to try and have progress in science by questioning theory.
Did you really mean that?"
How stupid are you? Clearly you can't read and probably failed comprehension as well.
Just in case you have problems with lots of words, I said;
"A number of astrophysical assumptions and deductions have gone unchallenged for far too long. "
"If astrophysicists are willing to introspectively assess their own discipline and excise some erroneous assumptions and deductions,"
Both these statements are only opinion being unproved to the extent on the primary EU tenet that "astrophysics is in crisis." This is wrong.
The delusion, is there is "astrophysics is in crisis."
THERE IS NO CRISIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 28th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Food fight!
"Stop you idiots, you're shooting at each other." — anonymous objective observer
It's called a "circular firing squad"
June 28th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Crumb,
As Shakespear said in one of his plays: "I doth think thou protest too much."
June 28th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
You know what. The closer you get to the truth the more fanatical someone becomes.
Care to explain why 99.5% of astrophysicists just don't believe your EU crap?
Ever though why the few who believe in this nonsense most professing EU are engineers?
You have nowhere else to hide anymore Anaconda.
The fool here stands naked and exposed!!
It's actually you Anaconda.
Remember the definition of a delusion;
delusion – an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument.
This is you and your EU mates, Anaconda. DELUSIONAL
June 28th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote: "This is the sort of "physics" one might get in a sci-fi film."
You're right…"black holes" are straight out of a sci-fi movie…a "B" sci-fi movie with 3-D glasses offered at the ticket booth
June 28th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Hey Anconda, your electrons are spining.
June 28th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Crumb wrote: "Care to explain why 99.5% of astrophysicists just don't believe your EU crap?"
Because of "group think" and seemingly an individual can't advance in the "modern" astronomy community unless you tow the line, heck, it's hard to even get in a graduate school if you don't "swear in advance" that you subscribe to all the "holy grails" of Astronomy.
Only in the last few years (a very short time in terms of diffusion of knowledge) in situ observation & measurement within the solar system conducted by NASA has confirmed electric currents are present; and beyond the solar system, observations & measurements are increasingly better explained by an electromagnetic explanation than fictional "black holes" and such.
The institutional resistence to change by those that are already established by their adherence to the "gravity" only model has retarded those that would be willing to consider new scientific evidence, but want to advance within the "community".
Also, the struggle to receive "grants" for academic study and "telescope time" are controlled by those that have a vested interest in the status quo.
Write the "magic words" in the paper you desired publsihed, and you stand a good chance to get published — the goal of most academics — while different analysis & interpretation that challenges the accepted "group think" consensus will likely lead to non-acceptance of the paper and non-publishment — the agonizing "death" of any academic.
But there are couragous acceptions as your 95% figure would suggest.
Dr. Anthony Peratt is one: His educational & professional vitae:
Anthony L. Peratt (S’60–M’63–SM’85–F’99) Ph.D: EE, 1971, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. MSEE, USC, 1967; UCLA, 1963-1964, BSEE, California State Polytechnic University. Staff Member, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1972-1979); Guest Physicist, Max Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik, Garching, Germany (1975–1977); Guest Scientist, Alfvén Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (1985); Los Alamos National Laboratory (1981–), Applied Theoretical Physics Division, Physics Division, Associate Laboratory Directorate for Experimental Programs; Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy (1995–1999) where he served a term as Acting Director, National Security, in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Directorate.
Dr. Peratt’s research interests have included numerical and experimental contributions to high-energy density plasmas and intense particle beams; explosively-driven pulsed power generators; lasers; intense-power-microwave sources; particles; high energy density phenomena, Z-pinches, and inertially driven fusion target designs.
He has served as session organizer for space plasmas, IEEE International Conf. on Plasma Science 1987–1989; Guest Editor Transactions on Plasma Science, special issues on Space Plasmas 1986, 89, 90, 92, 2000, 2003; Organizer, IEEE International Workshops on Space Plasmas, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2003; Associate Editor Transactions on Plasma Science 1989—; Elected member of IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Science Society (NPSS) Executive Committee (ExCom), 1987–1989; 1995– 1997; GENERAL CHAIRMAN, IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1994. IEEE NPSS ExCom Vice Chairman 1997; Elected to the IEEE NPSS Administrative Committee, 1997, named an IEEE Fellow, 1999.
He holds memberships in the American Physical Society, American Astronomical Society, Eta Kappa Nu and has earned the United States Department of Energy Distinguished Performance Award, 1987, 1999; IEEE Distinguished Lecturer Award, 1993; Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, University of Oslo Physics Department, and Norsk Hydro Kristian Birkeland Lecturer, 1995. Dr. Peratt is Author, Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer-Verlag (1992); Editor, Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1995); Editor, Advanced Topics in Space and Astrophysical Plasmas, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1997).
And Dr. Anthony Peratt's Los Alamos National Laboratory website:
http://plasma.lanl.gov/
Notice at the bottom of the screen page of the link:
L O S A L A M O S N A T I O N A L L A B O R A T O R Y
Operated by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy
The Unites States government recognizes Plasma Universe
June 28th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I smell desperation from Anaconda.
plasma.lanl.gov says nothing about PU. It's has general information about plasma in space. There is one link at the bottom titled "The Universe" and that appears to be broken. I assume that used to link to Peratt's personal PU pages hosted on the public.lanl.gov, which appears to be where those working at lanl can post their own stuff. This cannot be construed as endorsement of PU.
"The Unites States government recognizes Plasma Universe
"
And the US government funds astronomical research that test GR, and black holes. What's your point again?
June 28th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
ND Said:
"I smell desperation from Anaconda."
The last list of astrophysicists in the world was about 18,000.
As for EU proponents, all I see is a sinking ship with a handful of desperate crackpots.
As for ;
From a non-academic in the field, Anaconda, your sure know how to spread the garbage so thin. If you believe that you probably also believe the Earth's flat!
Really. How stupid do you take us all for?
(This post will go down in the annals of stupidity by Anaconda for sure. Actually, you know what, your beginning to sound like Oils!)
June 28th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Anaconda your thoughts on electron spin please.
June 28th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
You know what? I've had enough of the dishonesty and ignorance. Given his responses, I believe that Anaconda has been reading up on magnetism, but you can't do that without reading that electron spin is an established phenomenon. I've had enough of his dishonesty. I have better things to waste my time on.
I, a sentient being, born by and part of this universe have no demands on the rules by which it should operate. The universe is what it is and we are in perpetual ignorance of it. The amazing discoveries and revelations from the smallest to the universe itself will continue and I shall be thrilled by them!
Bye!
June 28th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
@ Anaconda : As Shakespear [sic] said in one of his plays: "I doth think thou protest too much."
It is said by Gertrude in the play Hamlet.
By using the term angular momentum transferred to the outside world I am not implying there are causal connections from the horizon or the interior to the outside. I am referring to the gravitational field near the BH, which includes the ergosphere.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:24 am
I seem to have missed the comment, or comments, where you gave links to papers, published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals (or at least references to such papers), that present such an explanation (or explanations) …
(bold added)
Anaconda, would you be kind enough to provide some references to such papers please?
Be sure to include only those published in the last ten years, and do not include any on the part of your statement I skipped … I'm interested only in the second part (the part I quoted).
I should say, by way of background, that I am unaware of any such papers. Also, the only astrophysical objects I know of for which models involving black holes (BHs) are key are AGNs, the nuclei of other, normal, galaxies (i.e. not including dwarf irregulars), and high-mass x-ray binaries. Some models of (some) Type II supernovae and some GRBs also include BHs, but as a generalisation I don't think the role of any BHs is critical, in the sense that certain well-established observational aspects cannot be accounted for without the BHs (I could be wrong about some GRB models).
Finally, what did you mean by "and such"?
June 29th, 2009 at 2:26 am
There's been a lot written these past few days and I have just had a chance to check up on one sub-thread, the "professor Richard Fitzpatrick of the University of Texas" references.
They began with solrey, on June 26th, 2009 at 11:24 am, with a link and a quote.
Then Anaconda latched onto these and ran away with them (June 28th, 2009 at 9:13 am, excerpts):
(bold added; there are more comments by Anaconda, in a similar vein)
Now, what is this material, by Fitzpatrick, that solrey provides a link to?
Well, it's the lecture notes of a course entitled "Electromagnetism and Optics", and it is subtitled "An introductory course".
Who is it aimed at?
The introduction says this:
No mention of quantum mechanics (QM), nor of the math one needs to understand QM.
Anaconda references a lecture course, by the same Fitzpatrick, that I mentioned in an earlier comment, on a different UT story. What is that course?
Here it is again:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/lectures/index.html
It is entitled "Introduction to Plasma Physics".
And who is it aimed at? The subtitle makes that clear: "A graduate course".
So, Anaconda (and possibly solrey) have conflated two different courses by Fitzgerald, one aimed at students with a very limited grasp of physics (such as Anaconda), and one aimed at those who already have a university degree in physics (that would exclude Anaconda, and solrey too).
Is this, then, yet another example of Anaconda's "appalling lack of integrity" and "deliberate misuse of quotations and details from the work of scientists"?
In this case, I think not.
Rather, it is a consequence of his appalling ignorance, his immense arrogance, and his extremely strong belief in his ability to grasp the essentials of physics (QM and electromagnetism at least) despite his self-confessed ignorance.
Here's Anaconda again:
Here's a suggestion for you, Anaconda: why not email the good professor yourself, with a summary of your comments (and mine, if you wish), and a link to this UT story. Then invite him to read it and comment directly here, or to you.
(next: a few words about Peratt and astrophysics)
June 29th, 2009 at 3:02 am
I forgot to say this …
That's from the good professor's introductory course.
Almost immediately after solrey quoted this, DrFlimmer pointed out that this simplistic view of the atom (per classical electrodynamics) leads to the extreme inconsistency of the (observed) long-term stability of atoms vs the (expected) almost instantaneous decay of those same atoms. This true crisis in physics is ~a century old … and was resolved when the details of quantum mechanics were worked out (in the 1920s).
And professor Fitzpatrick is certainly well aware of this.
What's curious, then (or not), is Anaconda's response to this … even if he hadn't worked out, for himself, that "negatively charged electrons in orbit around positively charged nuclei" would lead to the collapse of these orbits exceedingly quickly indeed (i.e. by applying critical thinking skills plus his knowledge of classical electrodynamics), surely reading DrFlimmer's comments should have made him stop and think?
The record is clear, and objective … Anaconda reverted to form, and continued to display "appalling lack of integrity" and "deliberate misuse of quotations and details from the work of scientists" (or, in this case, a university professor).
June 29th, 2009 at 6:04 am
AFAIK, Peratt has published papers in astrophysics on only two distinct hypotheses; namely, on galaxies and pinches, and on filaments and the CMB.
The former is based on two 1986 papers which reported the only original research (in all subsequent papers on this topic, Peratt merely recycles the work presented in the to 1986 ones), and is what I will comment on here. You will find links to these two papers in several of the links which Anaconda has helpfully provided, both in this thread and in other UT threads (AFAIK, Peratt is the only PC/EU/PU hero with published papers on galaxies; at least, the only one cultists are prepared to cite).
The two papers, and later ones based on them, taken at face value make some quite remarkable claims, particularly wrt addressing a wide range of questions in astrophysics; small wonder then that they are among the most heavily cited by EU cultists.
Indeed, in light of the (apparent) extraordinary explanatory power of the model Peratt proposes, it is rather a surprise to learn that the journal which published them is not Science, nor Nature, nor ApJ, nor MNRAS, nor any leading scientific or astrophysics journal, but an IEEE one!
But then, when you examine these papers with your critical thinking cap on, and with the vast body of astronomical observations of galaxies to hand, it becomes clear why.
What Peratt did is just what Anaconda suggests … he built a model based on the observed behaviours of plasmas, took values of key parameters from the astronomical literature, applied the plasma scaling relationships, turned the handle, and out came:
+ spiral shapes
+ a 'rotation curve' that looks like that of spiral galaxies
+ 'double lobed' sources
+ proportions of 'spiral shape' vs 'elliptical' vs 'irregular' that more or less match those of real galaxies with the same label
+ synchrotron radiation
… and quite a lot more too.
So why hasn't the astronomical community embraced Peratt as a genius? Why haven't his papers been cited thousands of times, by hundreds of astrophysicists (instead of mere handfuls of times, mostly by Peratt himself)?
The answer, simply put, is that Peratt's model fails Anaconda's 'empiricism' test, and fails it quite spectactularly.
Here are *some* of the gross mismatches between his model and astronomical observations and widely accepted conclusions:
- plenty of stars and plasma between the 'spiral arms' (real galaxies have lots, in Peratt's model there is none)
- spiral galaxies have a single, approximately spherical bulge (Peratt's model requires a 'double peaked' bulge)
- there are lots of stars, in all types of galaxies, whose ages are wildly inconsistent with what Peratt's model predicts (in his model star formation comes *after* structure formation, and *from* the plasma which comprises proto-galaxies)
- spiral galaxy rotation curves are the same for the neutral gas component of such galaxies and the stars and the ionised ISM component (and perhaps for the dust component too); this is impossible in Peratt's model.
It is important to understand just how devastating the failure of Peratt's model is, for the ideas Anaconda (and solrey and mgmirkin) has been so enthusiastically promoting, so I'll go over one part in a bit more detail.
'Magnetic field -> electric currents'. We've all read Anaconda repeat this ad nauseum, right? Well, Peratt did what Anaconda has not done, cannot do (his understanding of the relevant math and physics is insufficient), and refuses to do (apparently, i.e. go learn plasma physics) … he asked 'what electric currents could explain the observed magnetic fields of [certain] galaxies?', and proceeded to develop a model based on this (z-pinches, or Bennett pinches, IIRC).
Now here comes the beauty of the plasma scaling relationships … once you fix the value of the magnetic fields, you have no freedom left in your model! So if it fails Anaconda's empirical test, it fails for good.
Well, perhaps not … Peratt could have made his model more realistic – by allowing some of his test particles to interact gravitationally as well as electromagnetically for example – but in the >20 years since his initial work he apparently did not even try.
One last curious, or sad, thing: Anaconda, solrey, and mgmirkin are surely very well aware of the spectacular failure of this Peratt model (they have actively participated in lots of internet discussion fora in which the model has been extensively discussed); however, AFAIK they all still actively promote it as a viable model! Anaconda we may, perhaps, excuse (his ignorance is so profound and his command of elementary logic so weak), but not solrey or mgmirkin … their open promotion of this failed model is as blatant a demonstration of an appalling lack of integrity and deliberate misuse of the details from the work of scientists as one could imagine.
June 29th, 2009 at 6:33 am
Anaconda holds experiments dear as nothing else. Especially experiments that can be done on our good mother earth. There is nothing to it, indeed, this is exactly what science recommends.
But: He accepts only expirments that support his point of view. It was amazing how he rejected anti-matter and quarks in January and was denying every single particle experiment of all times (at least he accepted their existence, finally). But the same thing goes on about quantum mechanics. QM has been tested extensively beyond any doubts – and it is true! It works. It is really fundamental.
But since it is against his dear electrodynamics, it must be non-sense.
Rejecting spin – and so one of the basics of quantum mechanics – is just stupid.
The problem is, Anaconda. Rejecting fundamental things of nature (and physics) and the thousands of experiments that have been conducted to check them, is (as said many times) ignorant. And it really makes you look like a fool. Your credebility is flying out the window. Any of your comments cannot be taken seriously.
But I shall talk about other things:
When I went to my university to start my studies 4 years ago, I just matriculated and there I was. No vow and nothing. That's how it workes in Germany, probably there is a different procedure in America, but I doubt it. Probably, Anaconda, you should try the same.
And, Anaconda, where is your source about the plasmoid in the galactic center at the exact position of Sgr A* ? And where are the sources for YOUR interpretation of the paper I cited? And btw: You also promised a paper about the sun. Same question: Where is it?
To help your memory:
So?
June 29th, 2009 at 10:32 am
@ ND:
ND asks: "Anaconda your thoughts on electron spin please."
Asked and answered, above.
But since you ask again, I'll address what was purported to be an experiment validating the concept of "spin".
(Mind you I'm not saying "spin" doesn't happen, just that the empirical evidence is not as assured as some have assumed.)
" We have succeeded in obtaining spectra from free radical molecules from which the g factor of a spin entity may be inferred."
Yes, "inferred" is the operative word .
"Electronic spin detection in molecules using scanning-tunneling- microscopy-assisted electron-spin resonance"
DrFlimmer asks (and ye shall receive) for a paper on "electron drift". Well, here it is:
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews56.html
"Changes in field strength along the field line first focus the backstreaming halo electrons emerging from the compression region and then mirror them, producing the mirrored halo population (dark red) and, in steady state, a depletion in halo electrons centered on and symmetric about the direction perpendicular to the magnetic field."
Focus on: "…the backstreaming halo electrons emerging from the compression region…"
And, "The 90° PA depletions produce the appearance of counterstreaming electron beams…"
"counterstreaming"
Yes, ask and I'll do my best to make sure you receive
June 29th, 2009 at 11:31 am
(bold added)
That's Anaconda.
That's DrFlimmer.
Anaconda again.
I must not have had enough coffee today Anaconda … the link does not take you to "a published peer reviewed paper", nor is there anything on the webpage the link takes you to which points to, or mentions, any such paper.
Where is the "published peer reviewed paper"?
June 29th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Well…how to summarize:
First to tactics: Most average folks don't want to wade through a long comment stream, especially if there are a lot of extrenuous (off-topic) ideas expressed and the thread degenerates into bickering and name calling.
So, those oppsed to considering alternative theories tend to make many comments and expand the subject matter and quickly devolve into name calling.
Shoot the messenger anyway you can (I'm easy to shoot as I'm a less than perfect messenger), and hope people don't go researching on their own.
That's "blockers" comments come down to and why they will lose in the end — their goal is to dissuade folks from researching on their own — but once people do research on their own — the "blockers" have no power at all, none.
People can come to their own conclusions based on the scientific evidence they find and find reliable.
My goal is simply to offer an alternative hypothesis.
Yes, my knowledge is less than perfect — isn't everybody's?
So, I'm learning all the time and open to new ideas.
It would seem the "blockers" are in the uncomfortable position Crumb advocated: There are no alternative ideas to the Standard Model and to question it because of conflicting scientific evidence is delusional.
This goes against all tenents of Science.
In essence, what Nereid, Crumb, ND, Crowell, and too a lesser extent DrFlimmer (there may be a flicker of hope in DrFlimmer's case), want is that no questions to be asked about the "man behind the curtain", i.e. , contradicting evidence and evidence that supports an alternative explanation.
Notice, DrFlimmer chided me for my alternative analysis & interpretation of the AGN paper, but he didn't attempt to refute my analysis either.
By the way, alternative analysis & interpretation of data and descriptions, which derive alternative explanations is an honored part of the scientific method.
(Yes, I'll fess-up and admit that I've been guilty of all the above myself, but mostly as a reaction to the "blockers" and the perceived necessity of answering the assertions and not lying down when the name calling starts — also to inject some humor from time to time.)
Also, admittedly, because so-called "black holes" are so constantly and incessently invoked in "modern" astronomy to explain various observations, any criticism of "black holes" tends to end in an all-out food fight (see above).
But notice the circular firing squad quality of the "blockers" arguments.
Nereid takes great exception to Peratt's galaxy simulation, and notes it's far from perfect (Bostwick's laboratory experiments with plasmoids also generated galaxy like electromagnetic structures at a micro-level).
But she fails to note a couple of things: Gravity only models don't even come close to approximating a galaxy, so which simulation comes closer to the real thing observed is the test — not if a model is "perfect" in all respects, as DrFlimmer points out, above, in his comment and I quote below:
"Ever thought about that it could be possible that models used to many approximations and that nature is more complex, so that the model could be qualitively right, but quantitativly wrong?"
Apparently, Nereid doesn't agree with DrFlimmer's assertion. I do agree with DrFlimmer's assertion, but in the specific instance, he is referring to (the description of the AGN I linked to), there is simply a more compelling analysis & interpretation along the lines of electromagnetism and plasmoids).
As stated above, Peratt's simulation simply doesn't have an alternative gravity "only" model that is near as compelling.
A quick note to Crowell: If "everything is Quantum (as DrFlimmer maintains) then there must be a gravity particle that would escape the "black hole" because if not then gravity itself could not escape the "event horizon" (there are all kinds of absurd contradictions when one studies "black holes" objectively).
So, readers go out on your own, do your own research, conduct your own quest, if you will, and have an open-mind and apply reasonable scepticism.
Above all have fun
June 29th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Nereid, I suggest there is a published peer-reviewed paper that reflects the findings and if there is not.
Do you have reason to dispute the findings?
June 29th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Anaconda:
A well know example of quantum mechanical property of 'spin' is the Magnetic Resonance Imaging scanner used in hospitals.
Hmm… pretty impressive for something that "is [just] a hypothesis", isn't it, Anaconda?
Furthermore, you still ignore the fact that HDDs make use of the property of electron 'spin'.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Anaconda,
since you urge me to comment on the "paper" I linked to earlier, I will comment. But please be patient with me. I will definitly not have the time this evening, since I must get up quite early tomorrow morning and there is a long day waiting. If I have time tomorrow evening is not quite sure. So it could be wednesday or thursday – depending on the length of my conclusions. I promise I will work as fast as I can, but, as I said, it could take a bit of time. So, stay tuned!
June 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Here's a small piece of Anaconda's last (but one) comment that gets right to the heart of what the discussion we should be having is…
Leave aside the obvious questions and the obvious counters, how does Anaconda know there is no such alternative?
From lengthy experience, we can make a reasonable guess what would happen if we were to press Anaconda to explain, and back up, his assertion (some combo of bluster, lies, outrageous misunderstandings, quotes taken out of context, material from press releases, … with a few nuggets of gold sprinkled around … oh, and plain ol' avoidance, or disappear on a whim).
But what I'm really interested in, and have been from day one, is how does Anaconda form these opinions? what is the process by which Anaconda becomes convinced of the certainty (or otherwise) of some aspect of physics, astrophysics, or astronomy?
This truly is fascinating, for many reasons.
We already know, for example, that Anaconda cannot understand even material from Physics 101 courses, much less a paper by Wald say, or Crothers, on General Relativity.
We already have his own statements on the over-riding primacy of observations.
Yet there's also an apparent, utterly firm, conviction about ideas from EU cultists.
and
May we then have the discussion I wanted, from day one?
What is "scientific evidence"? What criteria can be applied to determine the extent to which something is such, or is not? And so on.
What is an "alternative hypothesis"? What makes it "alternative"? How to decide if it's an "hypothesis"? And so on.
And when it comes to astronomy (i.e. remote observing, no "in situ" at all), what approaches and ideas can be said to be "an honored part of the scientific method" and what not? How to decide if any "alternative hypothesis" follows such methods anyway? What is the role of logic in such methods? And so on.
As I said way back near when I started writing comments here, unless and until there is mutual agreement on at least the key terms used, there will be no discussion.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
@IVAN3MAN: I am, as you can see, very interested in how Anaconda comes to be so certain (that, for example, "the electrons could "spin" as QED would have it, but nobody knows for sure — therefore it is a hypothesis", which is in stark contrast to so many of his comments about "electromagnetism"). I mean, given his own statements on his ignorance of the very topic he is so boldly commenting on (statements which find ample confirmatory evidence in other comments of his), how can he possibly know what other people know (or don't know, or only know somewhat, or …)?
A simple analogy: I know next to nothing about birds, and if I saw (and maybe photographed) an interesting one on my walk through the local woods, I might say I think it's a robin. If I were sufficiently curious I might ask a local birdwatcher about it, and might be told that it is not a robin, but a blue wren. Perhaps, if curious, I might ask why, and … to cut a long story short, I very much doubt that I'd say "nobody knows for sure — therefore it is a hypothesis"! And unless and until I'd undertaken sufficient study to understand the basics of species classification for birds (etc, etc, etc), I wouldn't dismiss the tens of thousands of person-years of work of the hundreds (or more) of ornithologists so lightly as Anaconda does^.
So what is it that makes Anaconda think that he's got some deep, deep insight into the way the universe works? An insight that is so powerful it does not require even enough math to grasp classical electrodynamics, much less quantum theory? And an insight that tens of thousands of those who have taken the effort to understand the theory apparently lack?
^and especially not when it concerns something as extensively tested, in the lab, as QED!
June 29th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Nereid2:
As you and Hon. Salacious B. Crumb have already speculated above, these "Electric Universe" proponents are nothing but cultists. They are not interested in real science; it is a fanatical religion, like Scientology, and here is the latest video from the Thunder[bollocks].info group which confirms that fact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyhKl-XywtY (WARNING: Before viewing, put aside any beverages, otherwise you will choke with laughter!)
Note that, in the second half of that video, the term "bull" is often mentioned in reference to some mythical creature. Well, the term "bull" is half right, but it's missing the obvious second syllable!
Furthermore, Anaconda has been an active member of the Thunder[bollocks].info group since last April, and also MGmirkin is an administrator/moderator over there.
Finally, everyone, if your brain has gone numb after watching that video, then I apologize for inflicting it on you.
June 29th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
@ DrFlimmer:
I appreciate your desire to answer and know you are busy with the rest of your life away from commenting here. A young man must have plenty of things to do, which are potentially much more interesting
Acknowledgments: Yes, Nereid, I conflated the two Fitzpatrick links, my error, I stand corrected. But they shouldn't stand in contradiction with each other, even so, should they?
Ivan3Man, it seems there are enough experiments that "spin" can be called a theory, I'll stand corrected. But when we get to the atomic level there are no direct observations, there are only inferences, as the passage I quoted, above, used the word "inferred" to sum up the experiment, so isn't there is reason to express at least a modicum of doubt? In Science all theories are 'provisional' until a better theory comes along derived from a hypothesis that eventually tests out enough to be called a theory and then in turn offers a better more compelling explanation of what the reality is.
Nereid wrote: "So what is it that makes Anaconda think that he's got some deep, deep insight into the way the universe works? An insight that is so powerful it does not require even enough math to grasp classical electrodynamics, much less quantum theory? And an insight that tens of thousands of those who have taken the effort to understand the theory apparently lack?"
First, I came into this with no preconceived notions of what "must be", I simply followed the scientific evidence to where it leads.
Second, while you love lambasting me, first principles are more important than strings of equations on end:
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality" — Nikola Tesla
Nereid presents my (Anaconda's) statement: "As stated above, Peratt's simulation simply doesn't have an alternative gravity "only" model that is near as compelling."
And Nereid responds: "Leave aside the obvious questions and the obvious counters, how does Anaconda know there is no such alternative?"
If there was a compelling gravity "only" model of galaxy formation, I'm sure Nereid would link it, or at least an abstract.
I'm all ears.
Nereid wrote: "And when it comes to astronomy (i.e. remote observing, no "in situ" at all)…"
Nereid, what do you call the NASA in situ observations & measurements?
Is that not Astronomy?
Nereid wrote: "From lengthy experience, we can make a reasonable guess what would happen if we were to press Anaconda to explain, and back up, his assertion (some combo of bluster, lies, outrageous misunderstandings, quotes taken out of context, material from press releases, … with a few nuggets of gold sprinkled around … oh, and plain ol' avoidance, or disappear on a whim)."
So does Dr. Anthony Peratt similarly engage in such things?
See Peratt's website:
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html
Do ALL supporters of electromagnetism in space, as "cultists", engage in such things?
Do all people who disagree with "modern" astronomy's interpretations count as "cultists" who engage in the same tactics as you ascribe to me?
You see, Nereid has been on her "jihad" long before I poked me head in this discussion, and her rapid approach has been the same, no matter who she deals with, so this really isn't about me, at all (I'm just the current messenger to shoot), rather, it's about her defending the status quo at all costs.
(in other parlance, it's called "bird dogging".)
Nereid wrote: "Yet there's also an apparent, utterly firm, conviction about ideas from EU cultists."
(Yes, anybody and everybody who subscribes to Electric Universe, propably all Plasma Cosmology, too, are "cultists" in Nereid's mind.)
Then Nereid presents my (Anaconda's) statement: "People can come to their own conclusions based on the scientific evidence they find and find reliable."
With the implied suggestion that anybody and everybody who does research on their own and comes to a conclusion opposing the status quo in "modern" astronomy are "cultists".
And further, anybody and everybody who does research on their own is not to be trusted and the only "fountain" of knowledge regarding the Cosmos is to come from the status quo.
(Sounds like a priesthood that bans the bible so only they can interpret it. The people, they can't be trusted with it, you know.)
This is another veiled attempt to dissuade people from doing research on their own and an implied threat that if they do and come to an opposing view to the status quo, they will in turn be treated as "cultists" by the "modern" astronomy community.
If this is the view that most "modern" astonomers in the "community" have and I believe it is, then one can well understand why nobody dare state anything that can be construed as "heresy" in the community for fear of ex-communication (expulsion).
And Crumb stated my views on why 95% of astronomers tow the party-line was ridiculous — oh, really?
Nereid, sometimes you make your purpose crystal clear…thank you
June 29th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Anaconda:
Direct Observation of Electron Spin Density on TDAE Cations in the Ferromagnetic State of Solid TDAE-C60. [PDF]
More to follow…
June 29th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Direct Observation of Spin Gaps in Electron Spin Resonance. [PDF]
Even more to follow…
June 29th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
D'oh! You will have to copy and paste this link because it won't submit for some bloody reason…
Direct Observation of the Electron Spin Relaxation Induced by Nuclei in Quantum Dots:
tulips.tsukuba.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2241/98200/1/PRL_94-11.pdf
June 30th, 2009 at 1:59 am
I have too little time today, and will likely have none tomorrow, so a comment that addresses Anaconda's recent (long) ones will have to wait a while.
In the meantime, some quick words …
That's Anaconda's first comment (well, it was actually what he wrote in another UT story thread, copied faithfully by DrFlimmer).
That's my response
And that's how Anaconda replied.
Anaconda's initial comment is quite unambiguous (there is a published peer reviewed paper), as is his 'content' comment (no published peer reviewed paper); the promise and the delivery are mismatched (what was promised was not delivered).
So did Anaconda simply mis-remember (he thought he'd seen a published peer reviewed paper, but in fact, when he went to find it, realised it wasn't, perhaps)?
Or did he deliberately lie (perhaps this sort of 'tease' or 'come on' is highly recommended, in the 'How to Market EU Ideas' marketing handbook)?
Or perhaps Anaconda does not have the ability to tell whether a document is a "published peer reviewed paper" or not?
Based on the objective evidence (i.e. what Anaconda has written, both here and elsewhere), it seems that many regulars here have reached the conclusion that Anaconda truly lacks integrity when it comes to having discussions of astronomy, physics, etc. And the 'bait and switch' example (if that's what it is) is certainly consistent with such a conclusion.
That's Anaconda again, in a comment posted after the others I have quoted from (above).
So I'm curious to hear from you Anaconda … would you care to say a few words about this rather strange way of presenting "the scientific evidence"?
(In a later comment I will say a few words about his question, Do you have reason to dispute the findings?)
June 30th, 2009 at 2:27 am
Anaconda, you the biggest con artist in your bizarre quest for self validation of something you have little knowledge about and worst are happy to deceive or distort whatever so you can enforce you agenda.
It is exactly like your tirades throughout this storyline – spitting the dummy because no one will listen to you seriously, then acting the victim of some injustice when you torn to pieces for you repeated ridiculous diatribe.
In the end you know very little about science or the scientific method nor how it works, nor do you know how to logically argue, and you don't how to reach any valid conclusion based on evidence.
You statements in your recent post here verify that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
If astrophysicists were actually deceiving others;
Who is enforcing it?
What is their motive here? Eh?
Are they just doing it to block off electric universe dingbats like you?
You sir are just an out-and-out fraud.
You remind me of a quote from the writings of the old Greek philosopher, Empedocles, which sums up your self-made delusions brilliantly;
June 30th, 2009 at 4:19 am
"Evolution is just a theory".
I'm sure we have all read these words, and know about their use by creationists.
To take a later comment by Anaconda first; from an earlier one:
(bold added)
and from one in between:
(bold added)
Once again, it seems we have but two interpretations; namely, that Anaconda is coldly, and cynically, engaging in an anti-science campaign (very much as creationists do, wrt the phrase at the top of my comment), or he is stupendously ignorant about contemporary physics (and astrophysics and cosmology and …).
So let me address the concern to Anaconda directly; Anaconda, do you see that your conflating of the most accurately and precisely tested (not to mention empirically based) theory in science, period – QED – with, say, the EU idea that the Sun is powered by some giant interstellar Birkeland currents (or, perhaps, a z-pinch or a Bennett-pinch) hands train-loads of ammunition to those who call you a shill for an anti-science cult?
And irrespective of whether you see this implication or not, just how different do you see QED is, from the many "alternative hypothes[e]s" you have put forward in comments on UT stories?
June 30th, 2009 at 4:54 am
Thanks for this.
There have been at least three attempts to put this "they shouldn't stand in contradiction with each other" – and other examples, and meta-examples – in context.
One was by DrFlimmer, which, IIRC, you actually copied (as well as acknowledging) Anaconda.
One was by IVAN3MAN, and caused solrey to absquatulate; this was couched in somewhat blunt terms ('lies we tell to children', or some such IIRC), and you seem to have responded to the bluntness and ignored the content Anaconda (again, IIRC).
One was by me, and was built around 'spherical cows'. This you never even commented on Anaconda (again, IIRC).
The most important thing to note about Fitzpatrick's lecture notes is that their primary purpose has to do with education, with teaching … so it is within the framework of pedagogy that we must first assess that material.
Now I doubt that you have ever taught physics Anaconda, whether to a general audience or to graduate students (if you have, please say so), and may not have ever even taken a physics course given by a university professor (again, if you have please say so). On what basis, then, would you feel confident commenting on Fitzpatrick's lecture notes, as lecture notes?
Re the more general question of the inconsistencies in the physics presented in those two sets of notes: for (most of) those who have at least an undergraduate degree in science, with a major in physics, there would be no inconsistency (the context would be immediately clear, and such people would have a sufficiently complete grasp of the nature of physics to realise there is no inconsistency). Ditto, for those who have an equivalent level of formal training in HPS (the history and philosophy of science).
For those without such backgrounds, I think the simplest way to explain the apparent inconsistency is as I have already done: point out that QED is more fundamental than classical electrodynamics, that QED 'reduces to' classical electrodynamics in the macroscopic limit, and that an inaccurate analogy is sometimes used in teaching.
For those students who enquire further – for example, asking why classical electrodynamics is wrong when applied to the micro world – a single, simple example should be given (as DrFlimmer, and I, did: atoms cannot be stable under classical electrodynamics, yet they obviously are), followed by suggestions on where the topic can be further explored on one's own, and with advice on what is likely to be easy/difficult/confusing/nigh on impossible to follow (without further, formal, learning).
I hope that clarifies things for you.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:56 am
@ Anaconda
Anaconda wrote;
However, if this is true, then why is it necessary to actually say, as you have elsewhere;
"When one comes across a debate in progress on internet comment boards, don't hesitate to jump in and help out. Numbers matter, sadly, where perception counts, such as internet comment boards, it helps to have as high a number as possible willing to put their oar in the water and pull with all the rest on your side, and it's never too late in a discussion to "put a shoulder" into the debate."
Sounds like someone with an very genuine hidden agenda to me. Aren't you suppose to speak for yourself, eh?
Also your goal is clearly not at all offer any " alternative hypothesis" at all, except aims to coerce others to your distorted endlessly repeating EU diatribe and cause.
Even one of your "cultist" mates, blatantly states to you about the deceptions commonly used by the EU lot (made worst by direct deception of their real 'qualifications';
So the argument here is not to learn at all, is it? It is about debating others just to 'persuade' other to your lots personal / EU agenda, isn't it.. So much for the application of the scientific method oe even the facts – it is just an hidden attempt at indoctrination and nothing to do with science at all!
Yet, worst, you also say yourself, that will now condemning you forever;
"I can't agree with the asertion that debate is a worthless exercise… Debate is not easy, and if botched can hurt your case, but it's a necessary tool in the arsenal of persuasion."
So the statement in this thread here that; "My goal is simply to offer an alternative hypothesis." is an out-and-out lie.
In fact your real principle goal, like most of the Thunderbolt dolts, is really recruitment via 'persuasion.' (So much for letting them "come to their own conclusion."
Now what is the real point in debating you, especially when you admit you aren't really debating the topic but instead trying to advance some hidden crazy agenda?
Your credibility here, is very fast approaching zero.
As I said, You sir, are just an out-and-out fraud!
My "Sorry, the games almost over.", as you can see, wasn't made in jest.
Have a nice one, wouldn't you….
Ref. "What degrees does Wal Thornhill have ?"
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1785&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
June 30th, 2009 at 6:30 am
ANaconda wrote 29th June 2009 (Desperately searching for support no doubt from the flogging he is receiving in this particular story-line.)
Finally. it is absolutely true you do believe this as highlighted in bold! Thanks, very useful ammunition for possible future debates with EU proponents (proponents – that sounds familiar doesn't it? That's right, it's a term I frequently use, I think? Like sounding like his critics methinks!)
As to;
"Peace offering" – now that's really funny. How does the crazy EU postulate that black holes don't exist, and the centre of the galaxy is some even crazier big plasmoid manufactured by some entire galaxy. "Modern" astronomy, as you put it, would be laughing their backsides off!
If arguments like the utter bizarreness you have debated here, makes proof positive that you really are quite delusional!
So LMAO !!
Ref. "Ballistic Cosmic Rays"
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2018
June 30th, 2009 at 7:06 am
I read right past something Anaconda wrote, but its meaning didn't sink in until now.
Follow along with me, dear readers, this is truly one of the most amazing things I have read for a long time (oh all right, if you're too impatient … Anaconda can read minds so well that he knows what the minds will think in the future! And his future-mind-reading ability is so powerful that it is the most reliable scientific evidence he knows of!!)
We begin with Anaconda, on June 29th, 2009 at 12:03 pm (in all cases below, bold is added unless otherwise noted)
(Aside: I have no idea who "Bostwick" is; I checked all the papers by Peratt that I could find, and no one of that name cites any of Peratt's papers, and Peratt does not cite anyone of that name; of course, as usual, I could have missed something).
Note:
* Nereid apparently fails to note, so 'absence of evidence' is the only scientific evidence there is (concerning what Nereid knows, or doesn't know, about this sub-topic)
* Anaconda knows "gravity only models don't even come close to approximating a galaxy"
* Similarly, Anaconda knows that I don't agree with DrFlimmer because I said nothing
Then comes Nereid, at June 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pm:
(there is a short comment by Anaconda at June 29th, 2009 at 12:06 pm; it has nothing to do with this sub-topic)
Then, and this is the money comment, at June 29th, 2009 at 3:09 pm here's what Anaconda wrote:
(I made one other comment between 12:53 pm and 3:09 pm; that comment also has nothing to do with this sub-topic)
(Another aside: note how Anaconda changes the topic from "galaxies" to "galaxy formation")
So, Anaconda knew, no later than June 29th, 2009 at 12:03 pm (i.e. before he'd even posted his comment), that I do not know of any "alternative gravity "only" model that is near as compelling [as Peratt's]".
And how did Anaconda know this, when I had not even read his comment?
Because he knew that I would respond as I did, and he knew what I knew and don't knew wrt models of galaxies and their formation, and he knew what I would know (and don't know) several hours later!!
Now Anaconda could have said that he'd come to his own conclusions concerning models of galaxies and their formation based on the *scientific evidence* he'd found (in published papers, say) and found none of the "gravity "only" model[s]" reliable (or, perhaps, found no such models at all) … but he didn't.
Is there any other logical conclusion than this: Anaconda can read minds so well that he knows what people will think in the future! And his future-mind-reading ability is so powerful that it is the most reliable scientific evidence he knows of!!
June 30th, 2009 at 7:25 am
@Hon. Salacious B. Crumb: I guess there's no possibility there are two different people, using the same handle 'Anaconda', is there? Perhaps Anaconda, our Anaconda, could comment?
In any case, I think you've found solid, incontrovertable evidence that Anaconda is indeed nothing more than a member of the EU marketing team (barring, perhaps, the possibility that there are two Anacondas), and that he fits Arthur's description to a t:
Nonetheless, let's give (our) Anaconda a chance to explain himself … perhaps there is a perfectly innocent explanation.
And I think it only fair to point out that if Anaconda does not address what you have found, Hon. Salacious B. Crumb, he will have damaged his credibility, and whatever reputation he had for integrity, honesty, and honour, beyond repair.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:28 am
I omitted the 'Arthur' source: Wallace Arthur, “Creatures of Accident” (2006) pp226-227
June 30th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Nereid2 said;
Sorry, there is no possibility I'm wrong, especially looking at the time frames of the post and the general syntax of the text itself. They are exactly the same person, which for Anaconda case, ThunderBolts has already stated and confirmed in the discussions there. (He has also been operating under different avatar names on various occasion – not necessarily a crime but clearly deceptive when looking at his aims.)
I have to admit, the whole pretence displayed is very difficult to understand – especially the attempt to replace many general aspects of well established and very solid astronomy and astrophysics. Basically in the passionate fervour of sell EU to the masses, they haven't really done even their basic homework.
In the end, as anyone involves in the sciences knows, is that trust and honesty is very important in any scientific discussion or debate. Once it has been broken, whatever after is said leaves a lingering doubt that is always there and cannot be erased. Adherence to scientific discipline of not forging or falsely doctoring data or one's general research is a primary concern to the integrity of all the sciences – in fact it is rule numero uno. All scientists have it drummed into them from the first science lesson they encounter – integrity is far more crucial than brilliance or insight. Deliberate deception is equivalent to destroying your scientific career. Whilst inexperience might be a convenient excuse, this kind of multiple deception wears very thin. From this recent outrageous encounter by Anaconda within this present story-line's thread, shows clearly the lack of knowledge about the basic tenets of science by him.
In the very end, it will finally prove to be his undoing. Nobody trusts him anymore, and no one really even wants to listen.
Pity he can't see it – as it is his loss.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:43 am
@ Nereid:
I looked at the presentation I linked to and assumed there was a paper it was based on, which wrote up the findings beyond the link I presented.
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews56.html
Now, if there wasn't, then my bad, but notice the question I asked Nereid:
"Do you have reason to dispute the findings?"
Apparently, Nereid doesn't dispute the findings, since in regards to the ACTUAL SUBSTANCE of the link, she remains silent.
Crumb, anybody who reads your stuff knows what you are in these debates:
A self-appointed hatchet man.
It seems self-evident through the course of these debates that I present an alternative hypothesis…and try to be persuasive in the process…
That is a normal course in presenting an alternative hypothesis.
Of course, since Crumb is a self-appointed hatchet man, and determined to ply his trade, he runs with a non-agument and takes it to the extreme.
All this really does is demonstrate what Crumb is:
A HATCHET MAN.
Nereid, I did review the Fitzpatrick link you provided and note it is dated on how substorms are created:
"During the development of so-called geomagnetic storms, charged particles are injected into the Van Allen belts from the outer magnetosphere, giving rise to a sharp increase in the ring current, and a corresponding decrease in the Earth's equatorial magnetic field. These particles eventually precipitate out of the magnetosphere into the upper atmosphere at high latitudes, giving rise to intense auroral activity, serious interference in electromagnetic communications, and, in extreme cases, disruption of electric power grids."
"These particles eventually precipitate out of the magnetosphere into the upper atmosphere at high latitudes…"
Per the NASA THEMIS satellite in situ probes we now know that the charged particles don't simply "precipitate out", but rather substorms result from "magnetic tornadoes" as NASA calls them (more properly called Birkeland currents) that release electrical energy from the magneto tail which with high amperages.
The descriptive word "precipitate" does not present an accurate picture of the process as NASA has observed & measured it.
But a general comment is due:
If I had to learn all the equations cold — I would defend them to the death as well, simply because I would very likely say, "Are you kidding me, I took all that time and energy to learn all those equations and now you're trying to tell me they are wrong, no stinking way."
I understand why mathematicians are loathe to "give up their equations".
But you know what?
That possibility is exactly what is required if Science is to advance. It takes iron discpline and a commitment to the Scientific Method, but…that's the way it is.
Nereid complains about my comments that there aren't any COMPELLING gravity "only" models of galaxy formation.
This is simply a distraction from the fact that even of the time of her last comment above, Nereid STILL HASN'T PROVIDED A LINK TO A PAPER OR ABSTRACT.
Still waiting…take your time, Nereid…wouldn't want you to get all flustered and get you knickers in a knot
Crumb presents my (Anaconda's) statement from a Thunderbolts forum thread:
"Yes, electromagnetic forces are many times stronger than gravity or mechanical forces…"
And Crumb crows in response: "Finally. it is absolutely true you do believe this as highlighted in bold! Thanks, very useful ammunition for possible future debates with EU proponents (proponents – that sounds familiar doesn't it?"
Crumb, you are a stupid loser.
I was being generous, actually the emf (electromotive force) is 10^39 stronger than gravity, that's 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity for idiots like you.
But keep going…you're digging a mighty deep hole there…one day you'll get to China…
June 30th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Excuse my query concerning the object in question in the original story (SSA 22), but the image presented of this object is a composite of x-ray, broadband optical, infrared, and the narrow Lyman-alpha line emission (shifted to the objects' redshift of z=3.09) [please refer to the Chandra press release]. Other peer-reviewed, published work on this object in the GOODS Chandra Deep Field-South region refer to this object as "radio quiet" (cf. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0410/0410311v1.pdf ). My question is precisely how EU accounts for the EM emission from this "purported plasmoid" and why it differs so much morphologically in different wavelengths? Specifically, why the difference in x-ray, broadband optical, infrared, and radio emissions compared to the line emission of the Lyman series of hydrogen emission (Lyman alpha)? Shouldn't this plasmoid radiate with a pure blackbody spectrum? Btw, I've read all the comments on this thread and followed all the links presented. Thanks to all 'gravity only' responders and to Anaconda and solrey for their unique(!) take on astrophysics
June 30th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Oops, forgot to ask for ANY links to peer-reviewed, published papers specifically referring to SSA 22 with an EU interpretation in ANY accredited scientific journal (IEEE, JAMA, The Lancet, Journal of Pyschopharmacology, etc.).
June 30th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Dumb de dumb de dumb…
I love the smell of outright desperate panic here…
Is this really the best you can do here?
Sorry. You have been totally caught out, and this time your whole agenda has been really blatantly exposed?
There are no distractions this time, mate! From your very own words (you now avoided so frantically and desperately) has simply buried you – probably for good.
There is no room for any interpretation here, you degrees of freedom have just evaporated!!.
In the end, I may or may not be a "stupid loser", but I am at least certainly not a deceiving fraud who has been caught with his preverbal pants down, eh? (Who now listening, anyway!)
As to the "hachet" man comments – well we know where the hatchet now resides now. You know where the ol' scone
Note: As for the "Yes, electromagnetic forces are many times stronger than gravity or mechanical forces…", you were certainly referring to macro phenomena, not the micro, as you were referring specifically to the whole universe,. (Yet another further deception.)
June 30th, 2009 at 11:07 am
As Nereid: has formally said;
June 30th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Hummm…..
I wonder if Anaconda will be thrown off the Thunderbolts site for bring the 'brand name' into disrepute???
Nah! Most of the dolts there probably can't read anyway!
June 30th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Oh dear, what an limp wristed insult, Mr. Anaconda! (giggle) Hatchet man – love that American slang you know. As to the Gridiron, with the tackler being aggressive and presumably unfairly, somehow, it doesn't really apply in this case,
Really, you have a serious case to answer for Anaconda, so it would be a probably good idea to drop the delusions for a change., So please do enlighten us, and answer the question!.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Anaconda said
This is a complete bald faced lie, Anaconda.
You have not denied your ThunderBolts words as quoted, so therefore you are absolutely culpable guilty as changed.
Simply, the evidence clearly shows instead you have an alternative hidden agenda. You dishonest and shown deceptions clearly know no ends.
Now go away you silly little man!
June 30th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Crumb:
Keep digging, and order me some chop suie when you get to China…
Crumb wrote: "you were certainly referring to macro phenomena, not the micro, as you were referring specifically to the whole universe…"
Yes, I was referring to the macro, the electromotive force, the attractive force between electons and ions is not limited to the micro or atomic level.
I'd call you a stupid monkey, but that would be an insult to monkeys everywhere…
June 30th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Anaconda,
How silly are you.
"Yes, I was referring to the macro, the electromotive force, the attractive force between electons and ions is not limited to the micro or atomic level."
What absolute rot. That is just clutching a straws in desperation of getting caught out for out-and-out deception. How many times have others here (and elsewhere) proven this was wrong, but you just refuse to listen, don't you.
Clearly the best way to cover a lie is to put another it is path.
Also you are still totally avoiding the question (as usual), and it is very very clear why..
So Answer it.
Your entire whole credibility is on the line here.
As I said;
"Sorry. You have been totally caught out, and this time your whole agenda has been really blatantly exposed?"
Yet, just in case you missed it, here it is again…
*************************
Hon. Salacious B. Crumb Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:56 am
@ Anaconda
Anaconda wrote;
"People can come to their own conclusions based on the scientific evidence they find and find reliable.
My goal is simply to offer an alternative hypothesis."
However, if this is true, then why is it necessary to actually say, as you have elsewhere;
"When one comes across a debate in progress on internet comment boards, don't hesitate to jump in and help out. Numbers matter, sadly, where perception counts, such as internet comment boards, it helps to have as high a number as possible willing to put their oar in the water and pull with all the rest on your side, and it's never too late in a discussion to "put a shoulder" into the debate."
Sounds like someone with an very genuine hidden agenda to me. Aren't you suppose to speak for yourself, eh?
Also your goal is clearly not at all offer any " alternative hypothesis" at all, except aims to coerce others to your distorted endlessly repeating EU diatribe and cause.
Even one of your "cultist" mates, blatantly states to you about the deceptions commonly used by the EU lot (made worst by direct deception of their real 'qualifications';
"I find that if I put forth that I am a layman and that I have heard both arguments but I find that I find the EU argument more compelling, most times I receive a little bit more courtesy. I imagine it's because they harbor some hope that they might win me over to their point of view…"
So the argument here is not to learn at all, is it? It is about debating others just to 'persuade' other to your lots personal / EU agenda, isn't it.. So much for the application of the scientific method oe even the facts – it is just an hidden attempt at indoctrination and nothing to do with science at all!
Yet, worst, you also say yourself, that will now condemning you forever;
"I can't agree with the asertion that debate is a worthless exercise… Debate is not easy, and if botched can hurt your case, but it's a necessary tool in the arsenal of persuasion."
So the statement in this thread here that; "My goal is simply to offer an alternative hypothesis." is an out-and-out lie.
In fact your real principle goal, like most of the Thunderbolt dolts, is really recruitment via 'persuasion.' (So much for letting them "come to their own conclusion."
Now what is the real point in debating you, especially when you admit you aren't really debating the topic but instead trying to advance some hidden crazy agenda?
Your credibility here, is very fast approaching zero.
As I said, You sir, are just an out-and-out fraud!
My "Sorry, the games almost over.", as you can see, wasn't made in jest.
Have a nice one, wouldn't you….
Ref. "What degrees does Wal Thornhill have ?"
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1785&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
June 30th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/VITA/papers/nraf2/index.html
Before I start a few notes:
I will begin with your assertions, Anaconda, concerning the abstract. It is, btw, not really clever to base conclusions solely on the abstract of a paper. An abstract is supposed to give a VERY brief overview about the content of the paper and therefore is probably working somehow like an advertisement. It is much better to discuss the paper. Even the “conclusion” section in the end is better than the abstract alone. But the real important things are in between. This is what matters!
I will try to discuss the paper a little deeper than it has been done by Anaconda. But this will be done in later posts. How deep I will really go that has yet to be determined. Since it is about simulations, and I am not quite an expert in numerical things, I will probably stick to the examples given and the results. But we will see.
As I said I will focus on Anaconda’s comments, now.
With pleasure!
"The flow originates from a torus initially centered at 100 gravitational (Schwarzschild) radii."
Torus structures are closely associated with plasmoids. A torus is not associated with a "black hole"
And you know this exactly how? I’ve seen a torus in a little experiment last Friday. There was a drum filled with smoke. Someone hit the drumhead and from the other side emerged a torus of smoke that flew stably through the room (only in one direction, of course). Really amazing! And there was neither a plasmoid nor a black hole involved.
I just want to say: Do you have sources to back up your claim (and not only that plasmoids produce a torus, but also that black holes do not!).
It is associated with the hot (plasma) disk and not the black hole itself. The plasma induces magnetic fields that can cause instabilities. And since the disk rotates, you’ll get the name.
Again: You exactly know this how? There is nothing in the abstract that could actually confirm your idea. Btw: Scientists have taken spectra of galactic nuclei and found that these spectra are consistent with a Keplerian disk meaning the closer to the center you are the faster you go. Probably I find some time to search for sources later.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Dammit, something went completely wrong with the "blockquote"s. Hopefully it is still "readable"…
July 1st, 2009 at 12:26 am
DrFlimmer:
You mean like this, DrFlimmer?
July 1st, 2009 at 1:25 am
@ Ivan3man:
Exactly
But only in a very small version 
Impressive, nonetheless!
July 1st, 2009 at 2:39 am
DrFlimmer:
You mean like this, DrFlimmer?
July 1st, 2009 at 4:02 am
Ivan3man, you are my hero
July 1st, 2009 at 4:33 am
DrFlimmer (I presume?):
Indeed, DrFlimmer, and here is a good illustration of that fact:
Vortex of water going down plughole — underwater view.
So, Anaconda, there you have an example of a 'circulation' that is entirely due to gravitational force — no 'plasmoids' involved!
July 1st, 2009 at 4:45 am
Here's another example:
Water swirling down plughole — elevated view
Again, entirely due to gravitational force — no 'plasmoids' involved!
July 1st, 2009 at 4:51 am
@ DrFlimmer,
Hey, anything I can do help, don't be afraid to ask — I've got a lot of stuff bookmarked on my browser!
July 1st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
As promised I will conduct an analysis of the paper itself. I say now that it will be only a brief discussion of the key aspects of the paper. Since everybody has the link to the paper, everyone can read it for oneself and draw one’s own conclusions (and present them here).
My first quote is from the third chapter which deals with the results of the simulation in a quantitative manner and presents the evolution of the disk and the corresponding processes over time. The quote deals with the model the authors derived from the simulation, how the structure should look like (there is also a figure that illustrates their result in a qualitative way, one should take a look at it: astro.virginia.edu/VITA/papers/nraf2/section3.html ).
A few explanations on this quote:
The marginally stable orbit is the orbit at a distance of three Schwarzschild radii from the black hole. It is characterized as the last orbit where you can still surround the black hole. Falling further inward results in certain doom. The problem with this orbit is that it is unstable and a little step will result in probably catastrophic outcomes (just like a ball on a mountain top: It will probably remain there unless it gets a little kick and will fall down until it reaches another “stable place” to remain; e.g. a valley).
It is also interesting that the jet is an unambiguous property of the accretion process. Whenever there is accretion somewhere going on it should also produce a jet. The conclusion in the other direction, i.e. “a jet is a sign for accretion”, is probably not supported and one should wait for further evidence.
I will now go to chapter 4. In section 4.1 the authors present a summary of their model and conduct an analysis about the physical integrity. I present two paragraphs which are worth to be quoted:
Especially the last but one sentence caught my attention. They state that the jet is support from the outside and not from the inside which is in complete contradiction to Anaconda’s Z-pinch.
It is, of course, not correct, as I think, to draw the conclusion that the jet is supported that way forever. Jets tend to be fairly long (compared to galactic scales!) and I don’t think that a small disk is able to support such a long thing so far out. But this is my interpretation and not what one can draw from the paper.
I think there is no further comment needed.
I just want to note that I don’t see any form of a plasmoid in this simulation, neither is it mentioned. The simulation starts with a torus at a distance of about 100 Schwarzschild radii and then they watch how it evolves under the influence of the gravitation of the black hole.
It is also worth mentioning that less than 3% of the original material really is sucked in (compare chapter 3). If Anaconda wonders if this is consistent with the “initial black hole model”: Yes, it is, since you always must consider angular momentum. And it is hard to get rid of it.
Chapter 5 (“Conclusion”: astro.virginia.edu/VITA/papers/nraf2/section5.html ) is worth reading. It gives a good summary about what I have already quoted and stated and also a few further notes. If someone does not want to read the whole paper, one should at least read the conclusions.
Well. I don’t think that there is much need for further comments. If they are required, just say it. My own summary about it is the following:
The paper supports my view that I expressed in my comment concerning Anaconda’s statements about the abstract. It shows that magnetic instabilities in the plasma disk are the primary “sink” for angular momentum. Together with the link Ivan3man posted before (the one with the spectrum) it seems to give some good descriptions about galactic centers (and probably other scenarios).
Anaconda. If you will comment on this is up to you, but I would appreciate it. At least a short note that you actually read my comments would be most welcome. Then I would know that my work was not totally in vain. Thanks a lot.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
@ DrFlimmer,
My apologies if the deliberate attack on Anaconda, but I could no longer tolerate the gross deceptions here. I have no problems with individuals expressing their views, but it is intolerable when someone is deliberating coercing views of others.
The rise of anti-science is becoming a real problem in general science education, portraying discoveries and how science works, to the general public. I don't envy the writer's task in presenting articles for general consumption in Universe Today..
The really sad thing, even if Anaconda does comes back, no one will listen to him or trust him. We should expect honest and integrity in any forum, especially on complicated and specialised topics, where debates and the exchange of information is not being used for alliterative motives.
Anaconda actually wrote;
"People can come to their own conclusions based on the scientific evidence they find and find reliable.
My goal is simply to offer an alternative hypothesis."
Anaconda has been totally caught out, and his whole agenda has been really blatantly exposed as fraudulent. His aim is to fool others in making EU is on par with astrophysics theory today, and to gain recruits for some unfounded and unrealistic cause.
So even with your wonderful contributions, Dr Flimmer, you have made on Anaconda's wrong assertions simply proving they are in the majority either absolutely wrong or totally disingenuous. I too have learnt much from your words, especially in combating the fraudulent agenda of such individuals like Anaconda and ThunderBolt Info dolts.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:23 pm
DrFlimmer:
DrFlimmer, as long as the silent third party readers here learn something from your work, then it is never in vain.
As for Anaconda, he has got his head so far up his ass that he cannot see the visible electromagnetic spectrum of day!
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:21 am
Looks like the sly Mongoose finally got the Anaconda….
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:00 am
The following post made by Anaconda on dunderbolts forums makes me cringe…
————————————————
Anaconda wrote:
Dave,
I've debated Bridgman, and certainly he will lie his ass off, or if he's that ignorant, there's no helping him. But I made him pay the price Bridgman took his blog to "moderation" and then couldn't admit he didn't like the comments coming his way, instead he offered a lame excuse that he was "busy" and he knew his blog would draw a lot of comments and he wanted to be able to answer them.
No, he was getting his butt kicked and he couldn't take it any more.
Now, I was hard on him, yes, but considering his posts and comments, I thought he needed a complete "education"
Not everybody feels comfortable pointing out hard truths that are unpleasant for the other.
I understand that.
But "pigs" need to be put in their place.
I aim to do that
—————————————————-
Found on second page in the thread starting at https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1785&p=23042#p23042
In case his post gets doctored, i have a screenshot of it aswell that i will bring up if needed.
This is no longer about free speach, Anaconda is out to "put the pigs in their place"…
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I"m back now, but only for a few hours, then I'll be offline again, for several days this time.
The disingenuousness of Anaconda is pretty shocking:
(bold added)
That's Anaconda here … what Anaconda wrote at a different website has already been copied (and anyone can check the full context, to verify for themselves that there's no misquoting).
It seems that since the stark contrast between Anaconda's two sets of statements of intent (or perhaps, purpose) have been made clear(all his own words), Anaconda has not commented on this stark contrast, nor tried to explain away the appalling dishonesty, lack of integrity, and the blatantly open declaration of a willingness to deliberately misuse of quotations and details from the work of scientists.
And until he does, I for one have no desire say anything more about him or what he has written here.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:06 am
Looks like Anaconda has buggered off again!
July 5th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
DrFlimmer,
You do a good job in your analysis.
But your original point was that there was (paraphrase) "no way it could be a plasmoid".
That statement wasn't supported.
Is it a plasmoid?
No, it was a simulation, but still plasmoids simply can't be ruled out.
I'll acknowledge it was a simulation — that does make a difference.
Ruling something out at this point before the investigation is near complete doesn't seem prudent.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:14 am
You know what is good about the "black hole" model of galactic centers? It has some sense of "universality". It can explain both active and non-active galactic center (like the Milky Way as an example of the latter).
I still don't see the plasmoid in the center of the Milky Way – and with center I mean the very center, the location of Sgr A* which is known quite precisely. There is nothing in this specific location that actually looks like a plasmoid. There is no continuum radiation (as I would expect from a ball of plasma), it fits perfectly for the Keplerian orbits of the closer stars (like "S2").
The point is: If a black hole explains the galactic center of the MW so well, it is reasonable to think that other galaxies host a BH, too. And AGN are perfectly described by an accreting BH, as the simulation has shown!
So just with an argument of simplification and genrealisation ("the easiest is mostly the right explanation") I can support my view.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Testing…1…2…3…
July 6th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Anaconda:
Err… that would be the case if only you can plausibly explain the power source for that alleged 'plasmoid'.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
If you are serious about having an honest, science-based discussion Anaconda, why not take up my suggestion that we spend some time trying to find common ground on fundamental terms?
Yep, that's what you wrote.
However, as is abundantly clear, you have a different view of what "ruled out" means than (almost) everyone else who has commented on this UT story …
… and even if (when?) we could agree on what this key term means, we would still need to agree on "can" …