Don’t ‘Supermassive’ Me: Black Holes Regulate Their Own Mass

black-hole
Crowded star field around GRS 1915 and its close-up (inset). Credits: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Harvard/J. Neilsen et al. Optical: Palomar DSS2.

Stellar-mass black holes, between 7 and 25 times the Sun’s mass, are  called  “micro-quasars” when they spawn powerful jets of particles and radiation, miniature versions of those seen in quasars. Stellar-mass black holes are on the small end of the scale opposite supermassive black holes, including those in quasars, which weigh millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun.

The micro-quasars’ jets may be part of a secret weapon for keeping their petite figures, according to new research.

NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory first spotted the interplay at a famous micro-quasar about 40,000 light years away in the constellation Aquila. This system, GRS 1915+105 (GRS 1915 for short), contains a black hole about 14 times the mass of the Sun that is feeding off material from a nearby companion star. As the material swirls toward the black hole, an accretion disk forms.

Two Harvard astronomers are revealing a newly discovered tug of war between the jets and hot winds from the material spiraling toward the black hole in what’s called an “accretion disk.” Both the jets and the hot wind eject matter from the stream that would otherwise help grow the black hole.

Chandra, with its spectrograph, has observed GRS 1915 eleven times since its launch in 1999. These studies reveal that the jet in GRS 1915 may be periodically choked off when a hot wind, seen in X-rays, is driven off the accretion disk around the black hole. The wind is believed to shut down the jet by depriving it of matter that would have otherwise fueled it. Conversely, once the wind dies down, the jet can re-emerge.

The accretion rate changes, but because of the interplay, the outflow rate remains constant.

“The black hole appears to be able to control how much matter it is or is not consuming at any given time,” said lead author Joseph Neilsen, a Harvard doctoral candidate. 

Self-regulation is a common topic when discussing supermassive black holes, but this is the first clear evidence for it in stellar-mass black holes.

Neilsen says it’s difficult to resist attributing a willfulness to the black hole’s behavior: “When you talk about regulation, it does imply some sort of self-control,” he said. ” We can see it’s happening, but it’s certainly not clear why. For now we just attribute it to some desire of the black hole.”

Although micro-quasars and quasars differ in mass by factors of millions, they should show a similarity in behavior when their very different physical scales are taken into account.

The timescale for changes in behavior of a black hole should vary in proportion to the mass. For example, an hour-long timescale for changes in GRS 1915 would correspond to about 10,000 years for a supermassive black hole that weighs a billion times the mass of the Sun.

“We cannot hope to explore at this level of detail in any single supermassive black hole system,” said co-author Julia Lee, a Harvard astronomer. “So, we can learn a tremendous amount about black holes by just studying stellar-mass black holes like this one.”

The new results appear in the March 26th issue of the journal Nature

ABOUT THE LEAD IMAGE: The optical and infrared image from the Digitized Sky Survey shows the crowded field around GRS 1915, located near the plane of our Galaxy. The inset shows a close-up of the Chandra image of GRS 1915, one of the brightest X-ray sources in the Milky Way galaxy. Credits: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Harvard/J. Neilsen et al. Optical: Palomar DSS2. A zooming video is available here.

Sources: NASA, the Nature study and an interview with Joseph Neilsen

123 Replies to “Don’t ‘Supermassive’ Me: Black Holes Regulate Their Own Mass”

  1. This reminds me of how spheres and epicycles were built into the Ptolemaic model in order to “save the appearances.”

    Eudoxus added 27 spheres and Callippus another 7 spheres.

    This is what is commonly referred to as ad hoc aka a falsified hypothesis.

  2. It is a simple fact that black holes dont exist, they never have and they never will, no matter how much ‘evidence’ anybody gives. All evidence towards the existence of black holes and newtonian gravity is occult superstitious dogma made up by creationists to further their agenda. Anyone who says otherwise is part of the global conspiracy to hide the truth from us non beleivers.

    I am right and all of you so called ‘scientists’ are completely wrong, along with your so called mainstream ‘physical evidence’. This is a simple fact.

  3. Oils wrote: “This is a simple fact.”

    I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean.

  4. Oillmastery- it is nice to have you back- it is just not the same without you interjecting your beliefs on this site-
    As far as creationists believing in Black Holes- from my experience, most of them have never heard of the subject and do not wish to even entertain the idea.
    In my mind Black holes are akin to evolution- A massive Star evolves into a black hole- I still want to know what is inside of it and what is on the other side.
    Question for the scientists out there- In theory does a Black hole adsorb/consume energy from all directions?

  5. Looks like it is time for OilIsMastery to put on the white jacket with the arms wrapped around himself…

  6. Oils, check out the paper, first at: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0903/0903.4173v1.pdf . The paper mentions GRS 1915+105 as a 14 solar mass black hole accreting matter from an 0.8 solar mass K3 IV star. At last a mechanism has been observed that may be scaled up and account for jet regulation in supermassive black holes (SMBHs). It has long been noted that SMBHs can regulate their rate of intake of matter and conversely the strength of their polar jets. This observation serves as a viable mechanism for regulation of a black hole’ intake.

  7. It doesn’t surprise me that smaller black holes have similar properties to supermassive ones, even though they can have some striking differences (density, tidal forces at the event horizon, etc etc). It’s kinda cool to be able to test some hypotheses with the “little boys” and gain some understanding about how these jets work, and so on.

    Science marches forward!

    Also, to the guy spoofing Oills, personally I don’t think that’s a cool thing to do. It’s one thing to debate him in public or private, but another to mislead the rest of the board. Yes, I think the guy is a tad bit loony, but let’s stick to legitimate forms of protest, please.

    That is all. =)

    PS I’m still waiting to see if Universe Today is going to implement a personal ignore list feature, but that’s doubtful since this web site does use accounts, so storing that data would be a challenge.

  8. Jon Hanford,

    “Even mainstream scientists admit that at singularities the ‘laws of physics’ break down. It would be more accurate to say that their own theories break down.” — David Pratt, natural philosopher, 2005

    “…the ‘Schwarzschild singularities’ do not exist in physical reality.” — Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1939

    “I am inclined to think that physicists will not be satisfied in the long run with this kind of indirect description of reality, even if an adaptation of the theory to the demand of general relativity can be achieved in a satisfactory way. Then they must surely be brought back to the attempt to realise the programme which may suitably be designated as Maxwellian: a description of physical reality in terms of fields which satisfy partial differential equations in a way that is free from singularities.” — Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1931

    http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html

  9. I know, don’t feed the trolls…

    Though you gotta admit that Oil is the queen of the quote mine. If I didn’t have a life, I’d actually go back and see if they’re recycled or does he spend most waking hours scouring the net building his own little database?

  10. The article says the constellation is “Aguila”, it should read “Aquila”.
    Additionally, Oilismastery is clearly lying by his omissions. By quoting that proven jackass out-and-out fraud known as David Pratt just shows how wacky and deluded Oilismastery has become.
    Sadly I think he has just become a victim of a fringe science electric universe cult whose leader has bamboozled and has lead astray as many as possible for his own deluded means.
    Those like Oils are not trolls but are victims of a cult of personality, explaining the clear hero worship and apotheosis of this well-proven Pratt fraudster.
    So desperate has Oils become, that he even relies on ancient religious philosophies for verification of “truth”, but whose air and contempt is to cover up his own real misgivings and intellectual inadequacies. Why else does he persist in this qualm expressed in this non-sensible irrelevant propaganda?
    He clearly knows the evidence that black holes exist, and doesn’t like the fact that his delusional faith in pseudo-science does not reflect tents based on the scientific method.
    Oils got one thing right though. “Some idiot is impersonating me.” The idiot doing the impersonating is, of course, just himself.
    The fool stands naked and exposed.

  11. OillsM is a ding-a-ling.
    –Me, 2009–

    All quotes are factual, especially if found on the Internet.

  12. Neilsen, presumably with tongue-in-cheek, attributing “free will” to the black hole, made me think of that famous Star Track quote: “It’s life… but not as we know it.”

    Very cool image, and a very entertaining article – thanks a lot!

  13. I followed the link supplied by OillsMastery only to find another ‘cult’ site by Stephen J Crothers, whom it appears has an axe to grind with (among others) : Sky & Telescope, the University of New South Wales (where he was expelled), Paul Davies, Roy Kerr, and the current scientific community at large. Couldn’t pass up this gem, though:” And so I now make no bones about how I view blokes who, like K. Thorne and Ned Wright, prance about with long pony tails and matching sandals, or wear earings and otherwise dress and behave like girls (most “male” physicsts nowadays). ” How is this site helpful in understanding the physics of hot accretions disks and polar jets (what this article is about)? It only expounds upon his “proof” that singularities don’t exist.

  14. OilisMastery,

    What is your argument to Crother’s reaction?

    How do you weight a thermometer with a black hole?

  15. OilisMastery,

    What is your argument to Crother’s reaction?

    How do you weigh a thermometer with a black hole?

  16. OilisMastery,

    What is your argument to being a persistent jackass?

    How do you weigh up BS with more BS?

  17. OilIsMastery has already said:

    “Just by observing that picture I can see light years full of electric plasma and magnetic fields but absolutely no gravity and no black hole.”

    “So why do the chemical elements we breathe, ozone, clouds, and the moon defy gravity?”
    “Argon and carbon dioxide are both heavier than nitrogen and oxygen but they defy gravity.
    Ozone is heavier than oxygen but it defies gravity.
    The moon has defied gravity since the times of Lucretius, Galileo, and Newton. The moon should fall to the Earth at 9.8 m/sec^2. Instead we observe it receding from the Earth at 3.8 cm/year, thus defying gravity.”

    “if thermal energy and angular momentum control the motions of heavenly bodies, why do we study gravity in astronomy?”

    “The scientific method requires observation and experiment. Since black holes cannot be observed or experimented upon, people who believe in black holes and invisible pink unicorns are blatantly engaging in theology or worse.”

    “According to me black holes and gravity do not exist.
    No one has ever observed matter sinking into a black hole.
    And yes I also deny gravitational lensing. Since photons are alleged to be massless particles it is impossible for the alleged force of gravity to act on them.”

    “Orbits are caused by electromagnetic force and not gravity. Gravity predicted that the stars orbiting Sagittarius A* would fall into the alleged black hole candidate by it’s overwhelming gravitational force and not orbit it regularly.”

    “How can Newton’s theory of gravity be more fundamental than Newton’s physics of gravitation? What’s the difference?
    Time and space are not physical material objects so any warping that occurs is only in your mathematical imagination.
    Gravity is alleged to act on mass. Since photons are alleged to have no mass, gravity cannot act on it.”

    “”Black holes” don’t exist so there is no chicken and the egg dilemma and the contradiction this observation imposes on “black hole” theory is therefore moot.”

    “If you think we have plenty of empirical evidence that Sagittarius A* is a black hole then you probably also think there is plenty of empirical evidence for invisible pink unicorns on Noah’s Ark.”

    “Gravitation is an electromagnetic phenomenon.” — Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

    “What’s the difference between saying there is a black hole at the center of the universe and saying God caused the Big Bang?”

    “According to gravity, stars are sucked into black holes. There is no reason why according to gravity stars should orbit black holes and not be sucked into them.”

    And yet, you wonder, at least according to you, that you were

    “…banned from Bad Astronomy because Phil Plait is afraid of words and afraid to debate.”

    Now I wonder why?
    (Empirical evidence says your just a misinformed jackass!)

  18. also, I wanted to add that until the 2 sides (BB and EU) can learn to get along and learn from each other, rather than ignore each other, WE as a human race will remain completely dependent…forever suckling on the teat that is our Gov’t. If we didn’t have a generator (Electrical invention, wink), and didn’t pay our triple-digit power bill, we would be completely incapacitated. Just like they want it. >:(

  19. 9.8 M/Sec squared: Refers to terminal velocity within Earth’s atmosphere. If there was no atmosphere, there wouldn’t be terminal velocity… so if the moons angular momentum didn’t offset Earth’s gravity, it would crash into Earth much faster.

    Ozone doesn’t defy gravity. Apparently, you need to do more research about what happens with oxygen molecules in a part of the atmosphere which isn’t as protected from the sun’s radiation.
    As far as the other gasses defying gravity… they don’t However, they are stirred up by wind, corriolis affect etc. It is simple science, man!

    Light / photons being gravitationally affected was proved by Einstein a long time ago. If you can’t understand things when they are proven, then it is highly probable you aren’t really alive.

    If the Electromagnetic force kept planets and everything else in an orbit, then nothing could transverse the universe itself. Much like your hands do not pass through each other when you clap.

    Newton’s theory of gravitation isn’t 100% perfect. Anybody with 30 days of high school physics knows this.

    Time and space are not physical…? Says who? How can you bring up time/space theory if you don’t believe in black holes? Neither have been seen.

    Black holes do not “suck”. Their gravity is so strong, that it reaches out much further, and is so powerful that if you get within this range, even light succumbs to it. If a black hole appeared where the sun is, with the sun’s mass, Earth would remain in its current orbit… since the mass which gravity comes from would be exactly the same. However, the black holes diameter would be much smaller than the Sun’s.

    Mr. Plait is an ignoramous of another sort, but at least he has some reasoning skills. Where as you apparently believe many things which cannot be proven, since you go against those things which can be proven. Moreover, you don’t comprehend some very simple physics, telling everyone you don’t have the skills to accomplish simple algebra.

  20. “9.8 M/Sec squared” is not the terminal velocity and also not a measure of velocity either. It’s the approximate acceleration one feels on and near the surface of the earth. It is dependent on the mass of the Earth and distance to the center of mass. The Moon feels a much smaller acceleration given it’s distance. If you drop a ball from a tall building, it will pick up a speed of 9.8 m/s every second (neglecting air resistance in this example).

    When not neglecting air resistance, terminal velocity is max speed an object can achieve in free fall through Earth’s atmosphere. And that’s dependent on the object’s surface area relative to it’s mass, amongst other factors.

    Corrections welcome.

    There is an awesome video of Apollo astronauts dropping a feather and hammer on the moon and watching them hit the lunar surface at the same time. I’m not sure if that was an actual feather tho. How would it fare under the glaring heat of the sun on the lunar surface?

  21. Mr Oblivious
    Your very silly response is more like one expected by a 14-years old kid, which just show you have a poor concept of physics and science at best – and it explains a lot is why you haven’t said anything but critique and complain bitterly about others.
    Worst telling others they don’t know what they are talking about then respond with this needless dribble has done you no favours.
    At least OilisMastery here might be delusional and misleading, but at least he says no more than his ignorance lets him. In this light you make Oils more like a visionary genius than some ignorant fool.
    I do suggest you do a bit more Goggling from now on, and leave the comments to those who at least have a clue with what they are on about. Next time just leave the rhetorical questions to the eloquence of those who know what they are doing. Mostly such kinds of questions rarely need to be answered at all.
    Aodhhan wass absolutely right. “Batman is a scientist. OillsMisery is not.”

  22. Black holes definitely exist, OillsMastery. Haven’t you noticed that there’s one in your head?

  23. Mr. Obvious,

    “Ozone doesn’t defy gravity.”

    Then how come you ‘re able to breathe oxygen? Why doesn’t the heavier ozone fall into your mouth before the oxygen?

    “they are stirred up by wind, corriolis affect etc. It is simple science, man!”

    What causes the wind? Certainly not gravity.

    “Light / photons being gravitationally affected was proved by Einstein a long time ago. If you can’t understand things when they are proven, then it is highly probable you aren’t really alive.”

    LOL.

    “If the Electromagnetic force kept planets and everything else in an orbit, then nothing could transverse the universe itself. Much like your hands do not pass through each other when you clap.”

    ?

    “Time and space are not physical…? Says who?”

    Hmmm. let’s see: Zeno, Leibniz, Maupertuis, Kant, Mach, me, anyone with a brain, I’m sure I’m forgetting someone.

    “Their gravity is so strong, that it reaches out much further, and is so powerful that if you get within this range”

    What range would that be?

    “even light succumbs to it.”

    LOL.

    “If a black hole appeared where the sun is, with the sun’s mass, Earth would remain in its current orbit… since the mass which gravity comes from would be exactly the same. However, the black holes diameter would be much smaller than the Sun’s.”

    Is there any possible way you could affect the Earth’s orbit?

  24. I see few of the commenters are actually responding to the story; I can understand why: So-called “black holes” on a self-regulating diet?

    The language used to describe this so-called “black hole” doesn’t pass the “laugh out loud” test.

    Oh, how the “black hole” concept has changed over time. First, it had so much gravitational pull that not even light could escape its so-called “event horizon”, then after jets of plasma were observed and measured emitting from their axis, that first description went down the “memory”, and a new description with an ad hoc, back-filled, description of a so-called “accretion disk” was added.

    Then when stars were detected close by the “black hole” special little perches were set up so they could sit right next to the big, bad, “black hole” without getting sucked in.

    Of course, since the “infinity concept” is invoked, therefore, no scientist (or anybody else for that matter) will ever see anything go into the “event horizon”, none of these speculations can ever be observed & measured.

    It’s called non falsibility.

    Now, somehow (we don’t know how) friction heating generates collimated jets of plasma in magnetic fields — although, we do know that synchrotron radiation is emitted from these collimated jets. Synchrotron radiation detected in tandem with magnetic fields is scientific evidence of electric currents. Maxwell’s equations dictate that magnetic fields are only generated by electric currents.

    Oh, almost forgot since so-called “black holes” have a gravitational singularity, aka infinite density, we cant tell anything about what goes “inside” the “event horizon and all physical laws are set aside.

    but, hey I’ll stop — it’s not fair shooting “fish in a barrel.”

  25. OilisMastery
    Your latest post here is one of the rare times (for once) I cannot fault any of your logic.
    Mr. Oblivious (again) has just let you off the hook this time, but there is little doubt you fall into the same patterns of your irreverent blithering balderdash. At least now you have another jackass partner is crime!

  26. Lawrence B Crowell states: “There is a limit to how fast the black hole can accumulate matter.”

    Where is the authority for that idea? There isn’t any, this whole story is an ad hoc carnival, This self-regulating diet talk is just shuck and jive for “back to the drawing board.”

    “Shhh! Don’t tell anyone, we’re making it up as we go along.”

  27. Salacious, Mr. Obvious is correct. Probably not explained as well as it could be, but all is right.

    Oxygen atoms act differently when exposed to certain parts of the EM spectrum. Which is why there isn’t a lot of O3 near the surface, but it exists miles above the earth where it is bombarded by UV radiation. Scientists are finding new ways to manipulate atoms using UV light all the time; curing/hardening certain materials in a very short time for instance.

    Wind is caused by differential pressure of the atmosphere, which is the result of the uneven heating of the Earth. The greater the pressure difference in a given area (i.e. isobars closely together), the faster the wind moves.

    Pressure and density can also be used to keep heavier gasses on top of lighter gasses. You are heavier than a book (or even a pile of books). Yet if you stood on them, you don’t pass through them.
    You are definately heavier than grains of sand… you might sink into the sand somewhat, but as long as it isn’t really loose, you don’t sink all the way up to your head in it.

  28. Aodhhan.
    Oblivious said; ‘9.8 M/Sec squared: Refers to terminal velocity within Earth’s atmosphere. If there was no atmosphere, there wouldn’t be terminal velocity… so if the moons angular momentum didn’t offset Earth’s gravity, it would crash into Earth much faster.”
    Please don’t tell me this is even slightly correct.

    Remember this is the ‘expert’ who thought planetary nebulae were ‘planet nebula’, and who thought he knew all about vortices! If he new anything about gases why would he make such messy explanations?

    (I understand where Oils own opinion is coming from, but he doesn’t yet quite realise the real connection between the ozone and the Earth’s magnetic field. So why destroy yet another of my little traps?)

  29. Too sad that Anaconda isn’t with us anymore. I’d like to know his reaction that this news from NASA, since NASA is one of the sources that are reliable, according to Anaconda…..

    About the topic itself:
    I guess there is a lot of work to do concerning jets. Hopefully I can participate in a few years in this research. Jets are so cool! 🙂

  30. I agree with Salacious, the infromation what Oblivious is giving is incorrect.

    1 Newton = 9.81 kg.m/s^2 has nothing to do with Eath’s atmosphere.

    It is the average value of the pulling of the gravity at sea-level on, Earth compared to the accelertion to have the same 1 Newton.

    Also this: “Black holes do not “suck”. Their gravity is so strong, that it reaches out much further”

    Is not correct.

    If does not matter if it is a black hole or not, gravity does not stop, it continues to the other end of the universe, it is the mass that defines the strength of the gravity field itself.

    A 1 solar mass black hole has exactly the same gravity well as a 1 solar mass star.
    The only difference it is that a black hole is far more compact so you can get closer to the center of that mass. So the gravity gradient (or how do you call this in English?) is much stronger the closer you get to the center of that black hole.

    Of course you can pack a much bigger mass star in a black hole that has an event horizon the size of the Sun!

  31. A gaussian surface around a one solar mass black hole with a radius equal to the radius of the sun will have the same gravitational potential and force as what exists at the solar surface.

    I am not sure how terminal velocities got into the picture, but that depends upon the drag on the body moving through the air. This can depend on a number of factor. Yet it is clear that the terminal velocity for a person hanging on a parachute is a lot slower than a falling rock.

    It is ironic that plasma cosmology nonsense so dominates things. There is a lot of plasma physics here, such as the transport properties of ionized gas in an accretion disk. There is a limit to how fast the black hole can accumulate matter. Think of trying to flush to much down the toilet. The gravity well is deep and has a huge Killing vector near the horizon, with magnitude K = 1/sqrt{1 – 2GM/c^2}, but even still further “up the pipe” too much matter falling in will get repelled back out. There is lots of magnetohydrodynamics (plasma) physics here, but not the plasma cosmology clown physics variety. 🙂

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  32. The accretion disk and jet plasma physics observed occurs outside the event horizon. The plasma material around a black hole of course generates a magnetic field if there exist currents or current separations. These are facilitated by the rotation of the black hole, which induces a frame dragging (Lense-Thirring effect) on the material. From there differential transport properties of nucle or ions vs that of electrons sets up magnetic fields in the surrounding material close to the event horizon at

    r = (G/c^2)(M + sqrt(M^2 – J^2))

    for J = angular momentum in natural units. So material within around R = 10GM/c^2 will by frame dragging be set into rotational motion around the black hole and differential transport properties sets up the magnetic field.

    The black hole is distinguished from a neutron star because material which falls on a neutron star “splashes,” while none is observed for black holes. There are a number of observational consequences for the occurence of black holes, which include some Doppler effects.

    These physical effects are of course hard to detect, for black holes are far away. Most of use would prefer they stay out there. However, I would not mind if in the near future a lone black hole were found to be wandering in the Oort cloud or Kuiper belt of the solar system. We might be able to send a semi-relativistic VASMIR propelled probe there to do some serious study.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  33. Some snake said: Where is the authority for that idea?

    My interest with black holes is a bit different from these particular astrophysical considerations. I have a paper in review right now on how extremal conditions for quantum black holes, or configuration variables of these in the vacuum, give the quantum tunnelling amplitude for a Anti-de Sitter cosmology from the vacuum.

    When it comes to this physics a lot of phenomenology comes to bear to understand it, such as modelling jets and accretion disks and so forth. A friend of mine did this in graduate school, but is now a programmer — the endpoint of many a physics career. However, this is a vast and very complex arena of study, which requires an enormous amount of work. People doing these have become very good at it, and in the last number of years have figured out how it is that black holes accrete material.

    Even without that complexity it is not hard to see that it is actually not easy to get something into a black hole. Consider a lone black hole in a vacuum — no accretion disk and so forth. Unless a mass is sent on a nearly perfectly radial trajectory towards the black hole it will simply end up in a highly elliptical orbit with a peristron precession. It will not enter the black hole. The same would hold it there is a whole swarm of such particles. However, if these particles frictionally collide with each other then energy is removed from this orbiting swarm and they will eventually approach and enter the black hole. If there is a whole lot of heat generated this will tend to expand the swarm or gas of particles and cause some of it to expand out away from the black hole, while a smaller percentage does fall in. There is a thermodynamics to this similar to refrigeration.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  34. Anaconda said:

    “Shhh! Don’t tell anyone, we’re making it up as we go along.”

    yeah we kinda figured you was, its kinda obvious you do…

  35. hmmm…quite disappointed to see my intial comment, submitted 3/26 @ 6:57 am STILL says “your comment is awaiting moderation”, yet my follow-up comment submitted @ 7:11 was posted immediately….i spent a ridiculous amount of time on that post, and i’ve eagerly anticipated checking the responses all day. It has been 19 hours now, there are numerous posts since that time and likely many, many readers as well. I understand it’s length is gregarious, but I am a space-nut that spends countless hours daily reading up on it–in many DIFFERENT fields of opinion. However, I have always remained a lurker–the type with 10 different tabs pulled up on 3 or 4 different browser windows to read (daily lol)–and while I always enjoy reading the comment sections, I rarely, if EVER, comment. I only do so as I deem necessary. And the slander put forth by users such as “Jon Hanford” and “Salacious B. Crumb” in this articles ‘comments’, to me, warranted what I’ve (tried) to say.

    As well, I am sick of OiM tainting the EU name, and thus turning an untold of amount of like-minded people off of it without any reason other than “Well, that guy is a douchebag, the rest of ’em and their theory must be equally so”. Please “moderate” my comment from 6:57 am however is necessary and allow it to be displayed.

    I personally do not care if anyone bothers to respond, I can only hope they’ll have the patience to read thru it all. If no one responds, but most read it all, then I’ll be more than satisfied. I for one can not stand idly by at watch this clown bait all these bright people, as well as watch these bright people slam and dismiss something I personally view as the most fascinating and revolutionary scientific endeavour to ever encounter my eyes/brain.

    It is also possible that the comment I speak of IS present and viewable, and if that is the case than I do apologize.

    Matthew Keel

  36. Matthew Keel said;,
    “And the slander put forth by users such as “Jon Hanford” and “Salacious B. Crumb” in this articles ‘comments’, to me, warranted what I’ve (tried) to say.”
    I really do resent your implication in saying this very much. No one here has ever contended that plasma physics or plasma is not important in the astrophysical phenomena. The truth of the matter is that both gravitational sources and plasma astrophysics plays role in what we observer, and the fools like Anaconda and Oilismastery in their distorted views do not help.
    The real problem is that plasma has a serious crisis in credibility, which started with the most discredited Birkeland in the late 19th Century, and has stayed with the same scientific discipline ever since. (I’ve read the book “The Northern Lights” by Lucy Jago (2001), that explain an awful lot of the attitude others have had.)
    Really plasma physicists continue the practice of not including information on the gravitational sources of the phenomena, which just leaves the impression that plasma astrophysics is mostly ignoring already established theory. No doubt the electromagnetic is very mathematically complex, but it is disingenuous relating it to how it fits into mainstream science.
    At least this perspective is slowly changing. I.e. The arvix article entitled “The Electromagnetic Dark Sector” by J. Beltrean & A. L. Maroto of March 26. (See Introduction)

    Clearly plasma astrophysics need someone what can formally popularise the subject instead of acting like some ideological crusade to crush current accepted theory (evidence as shown so many times in similar threads over the last months in Universe) Today) Obviously, this acceptance of electromagnetism’s role in the universe needs not but an OR but an AND/OR approach.

    In the end, no one here has slandered plasma , but have exposed the complete nonsense of these two fanatical individuals. We have two chooses. Either ignore them or confront them – I here choose the latter.
    Bottom line – it is hard to trust something or someone who doesn’t express common sense. Perhaps instead of just
    “I rarely, if EVER, comment.”, you should present your views and contract the obvious stupidity of others.

    (NOTE: The possible fault with the missing posts is the number of URL’s, which Universe Today tends to filter out. Best to keep these to a minimum.)

  37. Interesting series of comments:

    Mr. Crumb: “Who me?”

    The thing about Crumb is that “in the abstract” he’ll cognize plasma physics, but notice every particluar person or idea in this last comment was remarked on negatively.

    (Except for the author who preached ignoring the faults of the gravity “only” model, Crumb heaped praise on that gentleman.)

    Occasionally, you’ll get something positive out of Crumb, but mostly he’s a negative commenter — criticizing others is his forte.

    @ Lawrence B. Crowell:

    Crowell states: “The accretion disk and jet plasma physics observed occurs outside the event horizon. The plasma material around a black hole of course generates a magnetic field if there exist currents or current separations. These are facilitated by the rotation of the black hole, which induces a frame dragging (Lense-Thirring effect) on the material.”

    The deep-space observations & measurements are consistent with plasma physics as demonstrated in the laboratory.

    On the other hand, Crowell’s quoted discription is just made up stuff. The gravity “only’ model didn’t predict it and the actual observations & measurements don’t support it.

    Science observes x-rays and synchrotron radiation, and periodic fluxtuations, the details of which Crowell would have readers believe can be derived from the observations & measurements science is able to make at this time.

    But here’s the thing, science can generate tremendous amounts of themal energy in the labratory, but undirected thermal energy hasn’t been shown to produce electrical current. The jets science observes comes from a concentrated energy source that repels as well as attracks. Heat ionization into plasma wouldn’t generate the needed concentration.

    But hey at least Crowell knows he has to come to grips with plasma, now. In a prior post on so-called “neutron” stars he spent much time on denying ‘charge seperation’ in space. Apparently, somebody took him aside and said, “We can’t deny ‘charge seperation’ in space anymore, there’s just too much evidence to keep denying it exists.”

    So, this is Crowell’s explanation how plasma and electric curents are a secondary effect of gravity. It doesn’t make a lot of sense when you remember electromagnetism is 10^39 power stronger than gravity.

    Generally, energy goes downhill in strength and concentration, not uphill, but a ‘weaker’ energy source causing a stronger energy source is exactly what Crowell would have you believe happens.

    Crowell’s stuff is erudite hand waving with a veneer of mathematical “fog”. One thing I’ve learned over the course of this debate is that mathematics is no more accurate than the assumptions that go into the equations and to the extent that it is based on abstract assumptions rather than actual observations and measurements it is wrong.

    Let’s take Crowell’s equation for example:

    r = (G/c^2)(M + sqrt(M^2 – J^2))

    Not one of the terms are based on observations & measurement, but even if you allow that one or two terms are derived from observations and measurement — please show me which terms are actually based on observed & measured phenomenon — still if even one term is based on an abstract assumption, the whole equation is garbage.

    Crowell: “From there differential transport properties of nucle or ions vs that of electrons sets up magnetic fields in the surrounding material close to the event horizon at…”

    This description of a “mechanism” has never been observed & measured — it hasn’t — yet, it’s included in the equation as if the relationships have been established and verified by being gathered from multiple laboratory experiments and results.

    This is the problem with a pure mathematician like Crowell — I’d be willing to bet Crowell never saw the inside of an experimental laboratory during graduate school — they don’t have an appreciation for actual observation & measurement. Pure mathmeticians take “word” pictures and ascribe mathematical relationships to them as if the terms (phenomenon) had actually been subject to observation & measurement.

    It’s reification at its finest.

    The reason astrophysics graduates often end up as computer programmers is because they are “pure mathematicians” and “equations” are simply “code” as in computer programming code.

    And “code” can be completely arbitrary, as long as it’s internally consistent.

    But being internally consistent is not the same as conforming to reality.

    Being a pure mathematician doesn’t necessarily mean they understand the limit of abstract equations.

    This article and Crowell’s comments are ample evidence of the ad hoc nature of “modern” astronomy, today.

  38. Solacious
    You are right, I made a mistake in editing out a part about ‘accelleration’ which i never rewrote.

    I however, can admit when I am wrong. I’ve seen you be wrong quite a few times, and insist you are right.

    Still… I make a mistake in maybe 2% of postings…. not bad since English isn’t my first language. I’m betting it is your only.

  39. Olaf,

    I’m convinced Oils and Anaconda are separate individuals. Oils is just loony. He thinks zero-g means no gravity at all. He trolls but actually believes what he says. Anaconda is disillusion and thinks that he actually understand complex scientific concepts. He likes to hear himself talk in front of an imagined or real blog audiences. He has a psychological need to bash people over the head with PC/EU etc.

  40. @ Jon Hanford:

    Jon Hanford: “Does this mean Pi*r^2 (Pi r squared) is garbage…”

    No. But isn’t Pi based on some initial measurement? Also, Pi is a function of geometry. Geometry is a study of shapes and their relationship to one another. So-called “black holes” are more than just shape, they are function.

    But that is a good question — if you care to give an explanation, I’d be happy to read you critique, I have a feeling I’m missing some point or another. I would benefit by hearing your perspective.

    @ ND:

    You do a good job of laying that out. And I failed to fully articulate my statement. It is not just the “terms” but also the relationships of the terms, as well.

    Are the stated relationships (multipliers, powers, roots, divisors ect.) an accurate representation of what the observed & measured relationships are?

    ND: states: “M – mas of black hole, no? that should be measurable by observing something like a star orbiting around it, no?”

    Because so-called “black holes” are a gravitational singularity, known as “infinite density”, by definition one can’t know it’s mass.

    Measuring an unobserved assumed object is problematic.

  41. Mr.Obvious Says:
    March 27th, 2009 at 4:47 am
    “Solacious
    You are right, I made a mistake in editing out a part about ‘acceleration’ which i never rewrote.
    I however, can admit when I am wrong. I’ve seen you be wrong quite a few times, and insist you are right.
    Still… I make a mistake in maybe 2% of postings…. not bad since English isn’t my first language. I’m betting it is your only.”
    And this is from someone one who threatened to bury me, accuse everyone of using Google, then continues to insult me in ‘slap-in-the face apology!’ Then you claim only mistakes 2% of the time, but in the majority of your posts you say nothing but attack others.
    Vous êtes stupide. Tu es betes comme tes pieds, et Brûlez dans l’enfer!

  42. @ Anaconda: You say ” if even one term is based on an abstract assumption, the whole equation is garbage.” Does this mean Pi*r^2 (Pi r squared) is garbage because the exact value of Pi “is based on an abstract assumption” that it’s a non-repeating transcendental number?

  43. Ok let me give this a try

    r = (G/c^2)(M + sqrt(M^2 – J^2))

    G – gravitational constant, measured in lab.
    c – speedy of light, measured
    M – mas of black hole, no? that should be measurable by observing something like a star orbiting around it, no?
    J – angular momentum of an object in orbit around black, no?

    Corrections welcome.

  44. Very true Solacious. Your error rate would be higher if you had to rely on your memory instead of picking it off a web site.
    Since it is apparently perfect, then I suppose you are saying you have transcribed, transposed or otherwised plagerised information.

    I’ve made several mistakes here, and have owned up to them… as do most professionals. It always seems to be the posers who cannot realize this.

  45. Anaconda -“Oh, how the “black hole” concept has changed over time. First, it had so much gravitational pull that not even light could escape its so-called “event horizon”, then after jets of plasma were observed and measured emitting from their axis, that first description went down the “memory””

    Again full of flawed logic.

    A black hole is called black because when light gets past the event horizon it can never get back again.

    Plasmajets ejected from the black hole NEVER passed the event horizon, and is ONLY visible IF SOMETHING IS FALLING INTO a black hole!

  46. Aodhhan said:
    “Your error rate would be higher if you had to rely on your memory instead of picking it off a web site.
    Since it is apparently perfect, then I suppose you are saying you have transcribed, transposed or otherwised plagerised information.”
    What? I’ve never claimed nor stated anything of the sort. Oblivious is the one make the complaint about Goggling all the time when his own statement say either little or profess utter garbage. Worst most of his posts add little other than open insults. Again, when did I ever claimed they were perfect, eh?

  47. I agree with Salacious, plasma physics is part of astrophysics, but it is an add-on and pretty localized phenomenon to have any real effect compared to the working of gravity..

    In no way does plasma physics replace any current theories like some EU fanatics are trying to pretend.

    Actually EU can easily be tested, at home in your backyard. Just measure the pull of gravity, the 9.81 kg.m/s^2 should fluctuate in the time of day and year provided you measure it at a fixed location!

    EU clames that plasma and electricity causes gravity. Ok a bit more complicated, the magnetic alignment inside the atoms, blablabla…

    But Earth does not have a constant distance from the Sun, which means that the so called birkley currents will change in a year. Add the moon’s influence and it’s influence on the electrical and magnetic fields and you automatcially see that gravity will have to fluctuate if EU is true. And to make it worse, it would also change because of the rotation of Earth, so within 24h you should see changes in the gravity.

    Oh yes measuring gravity is easy, just drop a ball in a tube with a known distance and measure the time it need to hit the bottom. Make it vacuum too.

  48. There is another way to test of the EU theory is valid. But you need more specialized equipment in your backyard, like a big telescope and a laser system that can be shot to the moon and measured tile it takes to get it back.

    Measure the distace to the Moon, this can be easily done.

    Now look at any plasma ball, an notice how those currents and plasma flows. It is not constant and moves all the time. If EU is valid then the distance between the moon and Earth should fluctuate too. Even sattelites should be infuenced independend of the location above Earth.

    e.g. if a GPS sattelite drops a meter above New York because of some big gravity at that location, then next time it passes over that location it might even raise 2 meters because the currents and plasma has changed.

    If the sattelite keeps on dropping 1 meter exactly at that location the it proves that EU is wrong or that it has no measureable difference compared to old school gravity.

  49. I have to take the article to task for one item.

    “…For now we just attribute it to some desire of the black hole.”

    Ugh. A black hole can only gobble up so much gas, and only that which falls into the range of accretion disk formation. From time to time, it’s bound to be far enough away from an appreciable amount of matter that the infall rate drops below the incoming gas. No excess gas = no jets.

    Desire is a bad choice of words. I do wish scientists and the press would stop using anthropomorphic language like that.

    Am I correct in assuming that supermassive black holes only exist at the cores of galaxies.

    If so, perhaps we need to look at galaxy formation in the early universe?

  50. Anaconda,

    Anaconda: “Are the stated relationships (multipliers, powers, roots, divisors ect.) an accurate representation of what the observed & measured relationships are?”

    That’s the goal of any mathematical representation of phenomenon in nature.

    Regarding how well the formula in question fits observation, I’ll leave that to Lawrence B. Crowell 🙂

    Anaconda: “Because so-called “black holes” are a gravitational singularity, known as “infinite density”, by definition one can’t know it’s mass.”

    Black holes are supposed to have mass regardless of density and therefore their gravitational influence can be observed on other objects beyond the event horizon. Calculating the mass using an orbiting observable object for example does not involve the density of the object.

    If you replaced the earth with another object of the same mass with a diameter 3 times as big or half as long, the moon will experience the same gravitational influence, regardless of the density of the object.

    In the case of the black hole, beyond the event horizon objects will feel gravitational influence according to the mass of the black hole.

  51. Notice Crowell doesn’t deny that he is a “pure mathematician”, who has had little contact with the laboratory in his graduate school or professional career.

    Lawrence B. Crowell states: “Anaconda’s ojections amount to ideological persiflage.”

    Hardly, my pointing out Crowell’s isolation from empirical, laboraotory science is dead on target.

    Crowell stated: “In spite of Anaconda’s persistent claims about plasmas he has not demonstrated any basic understanding of the real physics.”

    I’ve hammered Crowell on plasma physics and the basics of ‘charge seperation’. On one post concerning “neutron” stars, Crowell was so in the dark on the basics of plasma physics, I had to spoon feed him and wipe his chin afterward as he sat in his glorified “high chair”.

    Or is that academic chair, I forget.

    Crowell must be learning about plasma physics and that good — better late than never.

    But Crowell had no clue about such things as ‘double layers’, plasmoids, or even Birkeland currents. Notice there is plenty of mathematical quantification and supporting scientific papers listed at the bottom of the link, which reflects the observed & measured electromagnetic process of ‘double layers’.

    A reader might say, “but Anaconda spent all his earier time trashing mathematics.”

    My response is simple: mathematics tied firmly to observation & measurement and reflecting the physical relationships that have been confirmed in the laboratory and then quantified is a good thing.

    As opposed to abstract mathematics with rejiggered equations after the fact to match the observations & measurements — that’s called 20/20 hindsight, back-fill.

    Finally, notice Crowell reverts to attacking ‘charge seperation’ in space (when under stress revert to what you do best), but think of it these plasma jets, of which Crowell conspiciously acknowledged, they are huge electromagnetic, ‘charge seperation’ phenomenon. Galaxy M-87 has a jet 5,000 light years long, full of synchrotron radiation (spiralling electrons in a magnetic field), evidence of electric currents; that’s ‘charge seperation’ by the way for people like Crowell.

    Besides, didn’t Crowell already acknowledge plasma and ‘charge seperation’ in one of his earlier posts?

    Crowell stated: “There is a lot of plasma physics here, such as the transport properties of ionized gas [read ‘charge seperated’ material] in an accretion disk.”

    But remember, nether Crowell, nor any other “modern” astronomer has a precise explanation for how an “accretion disk” generates collimated (highly focussed), near-relativistic, electromagnetic jets. At best, thermal, frictional energy would be non-focussed, and produce little “speed”.

    And Crowell tries to say, he’s the big expert on plasma physics — what a joke — Crowell doesn’t know jack diddly.

    Crowell already admitted as much in a prior post.

    So, while it’s good that Crowell has got the word on plasma and magnetic fields (which by Maxwell’s Equations means there are electric currents), he still has a way to go.

  52. To ND, those are the meanings of these symbols.

    In general Anaconda does not know what they (he/she)are talking about. Anaconda’s ojections amount to ideological persiflage. In spite of Anaconda’s persistent claims about plasmas he has not demonstrated any basic understanding of the real physics.

    Charge separation in plasma’s requires some energy input. Charge separation at large in the universe on the scale of galaxies is not apparent.

    As for Olaf’s comments above, atomic clocks placed at different radii do measure time differently. This can be seen with atomic clocks at different floor levels at NIST.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  53. I agree Lawrence, clocks closer to a big mass and thus higher force of gravity do move slower compared to those further away?

    This is another proof of that EU is false since their theory clame that there is no time difference with high speeds or big masses.

    But I doubt that you could do this in you backyard. 😉 You need pretty expensive equipment. 🙂

    I also agree: In order to have plasma you need an external source that actually puts enough energy in the gass to become plasma.

    Again proof that EU is not valid since it does not allow the existance of nuclear fusion as power source in the Sun. They clame it is a surface effect!

  54. How many times have I told Anaconda about GPS that wouldn’t work without GR (and SR). But that fact does not count, since I made the mistake to reject “all electrical currents” in space (what is, of course, wrong). And that he didn’t have a clue about quarks and anti-matter being real does not count, either.

    Btw Anaconda: How do you know that plasmas are scaleable? We see some of those here on earth, yes. The sun is most likely a plasma, too. But have we ever created a sun on earth, a little sun in the lab? I don’ t think so; and Spiderman2 is fiction not science.
    And that you discredit the “dark side of the physics” (namely theoretical physics) in the way you do, just shows that you have no idea how physical theories are developed. If you like, I will present you a short introduction in a later post. Just ask – and learn.

  55. Good to hear coherent on-topic comments again from Lawrence B. Crowell, Olaf & Dr. Flimmer. Good to see relevant dialog concerning the topic of the article by people who have some glimmer or insight of how science works.

  56. ‘”Neilsen says it’s difficult to resist attributing a willfulness to the black hole’s behavior: “When you talk about regulation, it does imply some sort of self-control,” he said. ” We can see it’s happening, but it’s certainly not clear why. For now we just attribute it to some desire of the black hole.” ”

    How could a black hole ever get full- it seems to me that that a gravity well would have an infinite appetite?

  57. Jon Hanford,
    Dear Sir,

    Now I am a ‘cult’ figure – that is news to me (but I have been called worse). And you have not addressed the scientific issues. How do you weigh a black hole with a thermometer?

    In addition, provide rigorous demonstrations in refutation of any of the arguments adduced here:

    http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/DPS-paper.pdf

    Calling me a cult figure or anything else you might like does not count as a scientific refutation.

    Anyone on this forum is welcome to forward me scientific demonstration of any alleged error I have committed in the aforementioned paper, mathematical or physical principle, for honest discussion.

    Stephen J. Crothers.
    PS. K. Thorne does sport a long pony-tail and sandles – that is a statement of fact. Check with Thorne to confirm if you don’t think my report is accurate.

  58. Anaconda. Your credibility is absolutely zero. We have already proven you are a fraud by misrepresenting the truth and you have even used bogus sites to justify you ridiculous stance. You don’t understand physics, you no little about mathematics, and still you profess some kind of superiority in plasma whatever.
    One thing I’ve noticed is you have dropped the “plasma cosmology” verbiage – which I think you have see the light in it incorrect use.
    Frankly your a jackass. You behave like a jackass, and everything you say says your a jackass.

    And Anaconda tries to say, he’s the big expert on plasma physics — what a joke — Anaconda doesn’t know jack diddly.

  59. Hey Anaconda. Why is your linked address is the name of the blogger has the reference http://deleted ? Are you too ashamed to expose who you really are or do you have something hid?
    Bogus site, bogus man, zero credibility!

    Also what’s your view if imaginary numbers? You know ‘i’?

  60. Judging by Crumb’s comments, here, and earier comments on other posts. Apparently, Crumb has sunk so low as to use other people’s handles.

    Crumb, even people who agree with you on many issues think of you as a “cockroach”, here, on this website.

    Are you a scientist, or a convicted murderer serving a life sentence with plenty of time on his hands, really, I want to know?

    Which prison are you serving your sentence in?

    Yes, Crumb, you are a little “bug” to be either ignored or stepped on; I enjoy hearing your hard-shelled body go “crunch” and apparently, so do other people.

    There’s a grim satisfaction one gets from grinding your heal on a cockroach like Crumb.

  61. Anaconda is right – black holes do not exist. None have ever been found and neither General Relativity nor Newton’s theory of gravitation predict them. See my previous post.

  62. Olaf,

    Concerning the source of stellar energy, the great Russian scientist N. A. Kozyrev has shown that (a) Bethe’s cyclic reactions where the main part is played by nitrogen and carbon nuclei, which capture protons and then produce helium nuclei, is very unlikely to account for stellar energies; (b) that Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence does not account for stellar energies; (c) that the Hertzsprung-Russell Main Sequence has no physical meaning – the evolution of a star along the Main Sequence is senseless; (d) the internal temperatures of stars are not sufficiently high to induce nuclear reactions there; (e) the laws of thermodynamics as we know them cannot account for stellar energies.

    Kozyrev was also the discoverer of lunar volcanism (1958), and the atmosphere of Mercury (1963), and was a major contributor to astrophysics generally, theoretical mechanics, astronomy, and related experiments. His thesis
    ‘Sources of Stellar Energy and the Theory of the Internal Constitution of Stars’ can be found here:

    http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-03-11.PDF

    Unfortunately, most astrophysical scientists are entirely ignorant of this penetrating analysis.

  63. Stephen J. Crothers said:

    “(c) that the Hertzsprung-Russell Main Sequence has no physical meaning – the evolution of a star along the Main Sequence is senseless;”
    Ha Ha Ha. The funniest thing I’ve ever read on this site. This is probably the dumbest thing for someone who professes black holes don’t exist!

    Stars evolve AWAY from the main sequence not along it.

    Every point you make is plainly and simply W R O N G !
    I mean even Kozyrev believed that there were cloud formations in the atmosphere near the white poles of Mars not ices.

    Anaconda’s a jackass, your a complete blithering idiot!

  64. You still didn’t answer the question
    Why is your linked address is the name of the blogger has the reference http://deleted ? Are you too ashamed to expose who you really are or do you have something hide?
    As I said… Bogus site, bogus man, zero credibility!
    And as Anaconda tries to say, he’s the big expert on plasma physics — what a joke — Anaconda doesn’t know jack diddly.
    … and your trying to tell us your an expert entomologist !!
    Games up, jackass…

  65. Anaconda said;
    “Crumb, even people who agree with you on many issues think of you as a “cockroach”, here, on this website.”
    If they think of me as a cockroach the of you more as a parasitic amoeba with half its DNA missing!
    Also please speak for yourself and not others.
    If I were a convicted murderer at the moment you’d surely be on top of my hit list, jackass!

  66. Anaconda, just for your information:

    An atom is charged seperated, too. The electrons and protons are not combined and yet we speak of an atom being neutral. What?

  67. The crux of some of these posts seems to revolve around the existence of Black Holes. The arguments seems akin to asking if there are craters on Pluto. Has anyone found craters on Pluto? No. Has anyone photographed or otherwise scientifically analyzed craters on Pluto? No. Has General Relativity or Newton’s theory of gravitation specifically predicted craters on Pluto? No. So there’s your proof, there are no craters on Pluto! So it goes with Black Holes. @Stephen J Crothers, thanks for the link to your paper on singularities, but why the following non sequitur: How do you weigh a black hole with a thermometer? OillsMastery asked the exact same nonsensical question (and also provided the link to your site!) Hmm…Oills=Crothers? Your last post glorifying Kozyrev certainly does nothing to further any of your suppositions (just check out his Wiki page, makes Anaconda look brilliant). I had the honor of hearing a lecture by Kip Thorne as an astronomy undergrad at Ohio State University in the early 80’s, so I’m familiar with his appearance (not so girly looking after all!) BTW, how’s that degree coming along?

  68. Wow, a lot of stuff is getting said here, lots of nonsense.

    When it comes to black holes and Newtonian gravitation, Laplace predicted Newtonian black holes in 1790 or so. The problem is that where the light barrier is or horizon is frame dependent. Wtih general relativity null geodesics and light rays are invariants, and so the horizon can’t be transformed away by a choice of frame.

    Please people, at least grasp the basic idea. If you heap enough mass together then at some critical amount of mass no interaction or quantum process can prevent the gravitational implosion of the material so that it folds spacetime into a region where light can’t escape. The basic idea, even in a Newtonian sense as found by Laplace, is not that hard to intuit.

    I wonder why it is that we live in an age where so many people are rejecting established science, whether that be creationism, moon-hoax ideas, global warming denialism, and here so called plasma cosmology. It is curious that as we push into an age of ever greater foundational knowledge that we also have a counter trend of ever greater stupidity. I guess it is one of those Buddhist dualisms or something.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  69. Anaconda,

    The following two paragraphs you wrote, don’t they say the same thing?

    “My response is simple: mathematics tied firmly to observation & measurement and reflecting the physical relationships that have been confirmed in the laboratory and then quantified is a good thing.

    As opposed to abstract mathematics with rejiggered equations after the fact to match the observations & measurements — that’s called 20/20 hindsight, back-fill.”

    They talk about coming up with mathematical models that describe observation. Yet you’re representing the same idea in different light in your two paragraphs. If your mathematical model is found to be off given new observation, you should modify the model. And if the new model gives good results when tested, then you should go with it. And since you’re not high on theoretical physics, I’m assuming in your first paragraph you’re talking about coming up with mathematical models to fit observation.

    As one measures with greater and greater precision, new observation can start to diverge from what well established models predict. Then you would need to modify those models. Makes sense no? You seem to be crying “not fair!” when this happens.

    Also, your lack of understanding of the scientific concepts you talk about is an established fact, by your own words. This is in complete contrast to your strong assertions that you have studied and understand them. This is what I find infuriating about your style of debate.

  70. @ Lawrence B. Crowell, I can recall that for a time (late 70s to early 80s) when Scientific American would publish a special letters section (in honor of April Fool’s Day) with excerpts of letters they received in the previous year from individuals who had discovered the Secret of the Universe, how to make a perpetual motion machine, why the Big Bang is a hoax, etc. Some letters were even submitted on postcards with hundreds of very, very tiny handwritten words! Today, in the age of the internet, these same self-styled geniuses create web sites expounding on their earth-shattering ‘discoveries’ that many other educated people before them somehow had missed. They now have a platform to publish the most outlandish ideas under the guise of ‘real science’ without having a clue of what they’re talking about! I see this as a real problem for mainstream science as those with little or no scientific knowledge can be easily swayed by the slick look and agenda of these decidedly ‘non-scientific’ websites.

  71. I have looked at Crother’s paper on the Schwarzschild radius. I am not sure about the history of this, for one can well enough read Schwarzschild’s original paper. Secondly, while an exponential function does not change sign if the domain is the reals, it can if the domain is the argand plane. Remember, in the old days there was the “ict” view of relativity.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  72. J. Hanford,

    The web is a mixed blessing. It is one thing to create a fancy looking website and present things as scientific in appearance. It is another to actually do the work or know what you are talking about. As we progress into virtual reality it might just be that we get totally lost there.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  73. ND said:
    “Anaconda, did you write the post date March 28th, 2009 at 7:48 pm?”

    I thought This is the same quote by OilIsMastery March 25th, 2009 at 3:25 pm. The last line re-quotes the name of Anaconda instead of Crowell. Perhaps Oils is now up to the same confusing tricks?
    (I think they are trying to target me because I’ve rattle their cage? Frustrating when they do this, isn’t it? (Just proves how desperate they are for attention! Attack me indirectly to reinforce their own credibility by trying to take me out of the equation, perhaps?)

  74. God I’m sick of Anaconda playing the victim card. He makes the bold assertions, you defend the normal line, then then the response is either your fault or your lack of knowledge. Furthermore, OilisMastery rocks the boat as quickly as possible (always in the first few posts), then disappears leaving Anaconda to have a less confrontation approach so he can assert his non-standard views. There are so many psychological ploys and gambits here it is hard to work out the real stuff from the fictional.
    This is all part of the tactics suggested in thunderbolts.info
    “In your communications, please be sure that, unless you have developed specific strategies with Thunderbolts management, you not identify yourself as a member of the Thunderbolts group, but as a curious or interested observer.”
    What is interesting is that all the dead link have now vanished, and you can now contact three people. (See http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm under “Contact Us”)
    What can you do though?

  75. I’ve been slowly accumulating information on these non-standard posters.
    It is very interesting reading the information on http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm
    This has a list of article on what these guys are professing (mostly).
    One article relating to this one is of July 02, 2008; “Supermassive Problems with Black Holes”, which mimics some of what Anaconda is saying but there as so many contradictions too.
    Some are of course totally outrageous I.e. “Technological Extra-Sensory Perception” I.e.

    “Plasma is a mixture of charged and neutral particles. This makes it an excellent conductor of electricity. Moving charged particles are electric currents, and electric currents generate magnetic forces. Those forces pinch the currents into filaments. The filaments carry electrical power around circuits that can encompass large volumes of space.”

    Another even crazier notion is in “Things That are Impossible”.
    <BLOCKQUOTE”Because the Big Bang theory postulates that all matter originated in the granddaddy of all black holes, to pull the matter out and to separate it into distributed bits would require more energy than exists in the universe. The universe as we observe it can’t really exist.
    “But,” the argument goes, “the theory doesn’t begin with the black hole. It begins with the observation that mass is already distributed, and it calculates back to the black hole. We don’t know what blew up the black hole; we only see the result.””
    Another is ““Neutron Star” Refutes Its Own Existence” (21 Jun 2006). Many of the same words ring out in Anaconda’s too.
    One that come to mind was;

    The question now is, will astronomers continue to invent more ad hoc exceptions to a theory already too complicated by exceptions, or will they pause sufficiently to wonder if a new perspective is possible on the burgeoning zoo of supernovae types and odd “neutron stars?”

    Stars behave as electrodes in a galactic glow discharge.

    Also note the list of names at the bottom of each article. (These names I have investigated – some of which are certainly our friends here.)
    There is enough here to keep a few people destroying their arguments one by one, but it is go fodder to use against them.
    Jon Hanford comments of March 29th, 2009 at 8:38 am, I agree with.
    Though the only thing I’m worried about is giving them even more ammunition to contradict the usual logical arguments. The problem is too many are being caught in their web of deception in the same way Intelligent Design is trying to be weaselled into schools. At least I still have more weapons in my arsenal.

  76. @ Salacious & Crowell, I too, worry about the explosions of pseudoscience being passed off as the real thing at some blogs or websites. I think the only way to confront this is with the truth, the truth as is commonly accepted among the scientific community. Scientists have a right to speak up to defend real science and not the musings of some misguided adherent to a clearly flawed philosophy. Clearly sites like BAUT and Cosmic Variance provide a voice of reason for those willing and able to accept the current state of science. But we need more sites like these to capture the imagination of the curious.

  77. @ Excalibur and Stephen J. Crothers:

    I took a quick look at equation (14)… but I failed to follow step (13), since dr^2 is replaced by dR^2, which clearly changes the solution and it is neither clear nor is it shown why this substitution is done.

    And btw: It is proven that the Schwarzschild solution (from which you get the black holes) is the only solution for spherical symmetry. So it is neither useless nor wrong.
    It is without any doubt the easiest solution of GR and it used many times to calculate “simple” things, like GPS, mercury’s orbit and you can use it to calculate g=9,81m/s^2.

  78. The critique of the Schwarzschild solution suffers from a problem. The equation 11 can be written for the null condition ds = 0, and then

    0 = e^{l}dt^2 – e^{b}dr^2, l = lambda, b = beta

    and for dr/dt = v then

    0 = [e^{l} – e^{b}v]dt^2,

    and the condition is satisfied for v —> 1 (speed of light c) and l and b approach – infinity or zero. Where the sign change comes is t – infinity and in complex variables there is a “skating” off to – infinity and a return from + infinity. This results in the introduction of a e^{i pi} into the square of these components, or a -1. This is the flipping of the sign, where in these coordinates the horizon corresponds to l and b off at – infinity.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  79. @Dr.Flimmer,
    Dear Sir,

    Equation (13) is merely another form of eq. (11) – only the notation is altered. This does not change the form of the solution at all. In the end Ric = 0 is satisfied, and spherical symmetry is not violated.

    What you call ‘Schwarzschild’s solution’ is not Schwarzschild’s solution. I have provided a link to Schwarzschild’s paper. There is no black hole by Schwarzschild’s solution.

    I once again request those who claim me in error to provide rigorous proof of any alleged error in my paper. For instance, prove that ‘Schwarzschild’s solution’ is Schwarzschild’s solution, or prove that my proof of Gaussian curvature is incorrect, or prove that matter can be present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter, or prove that the exp functions can change sign at the end when tit is fixed by hypothesis at the outset that they cannot change sign (they are functions of the real variable r), or prove that my discussion of spherically symmetric metric manifolds in the final section of my paper is incorrect, etc., if you claim any of these arguments incorrect.

    I will only respond to honest scientific discussion. Anyone here who intends to continue with their unscientific invective against me will receive no further response, and rightly so.

  80. Apart from the fact that little of the content of this thread has anything to do with directly discussing the topic concerned, I was particularly interested in this remark from Salacious B. Crumb:

    This is all part of the tactics suggested in thunderbolts.info
    “In your communications, please be sure that, unless you have developed specific strategies with Thunderbolts management, you not identify yourself as a member of the Thunderbolts group, but as a curious or interested observer.”

    Talk about misrepresent something out of context. Would you like someone who has nothing to do with the Universe Today site (bar reading it) to identify themselves as “Joe Boggs from Universe Today” if writing to other sites/institutions? No, of course you would not. Labelling this as some sort of “tactic” is both misleading and dishonest.

    To my knowledge, NONE of the commentators in this thread is part of the Thunderbolts management (though Stephen J. Crothers has contributed to the site as a guest contributor to the Thunderblogs) nor do any of them speak for or on behalf of the Thunderbolts team. To imply so is simply wrong, and a very weak attempt to discredit Thunderbolts.info.

    Now, how about returning to the proper topic?…

    Dave Smith,
    Managing Editor, Thunderblogs.

  81. Ah, at last the true source of the disinformation awakes from their slumber. (Must have really rattled them, folks) Isn’t it absolutely extraordinary that Mr. Smith here says “NONE of the commentators in this thread is part of the Thunderbolts management”, which directly implies he knows who the perpetrators of the pseudo-science are.
    Thanks, you just answered my actual question!
    So OK, they might may not be the management, but we NOW do know they are now certainly associated with your group!
    Yet this reply still doesn’t avoid the fact; “[I]In your communications, please be sure that, unless you have developed specific strategies with Thunderbolts management, you not identify yourself as a member of the Thunderbolts group.[/I]”
    What does this mean? Well it is actually a [B]tactic[/B]. Any seemingly secretive pseudo-cult organisation avoiding direct scrutiny, so they can spread whatever deceit they like, is certainly dishonest in nature. No wonder you again say in the reply here; “…nor do any of them speak for or on behalf of the Thunderbolts team”
    As for “Apart from the fact that little of the content of this thread has anything to do with directly discussing the topic concerned,”
    I strongly disagree.
    The deliberate insidious propaganda methods and disruption used within the “Universe Today” blog (from months mind you), is basically being highjacked by unscrupulous people who will do anything and say anything (misguide and misquote) to profess their disingenuous nonsense. To bad if you are just among those who are truly interested in mainstream science – there just new virgin victims of you underhand campaign – unknowing fodder to be just consumed. (Isn’t this exactly why you targeted a children’s encyclopaedia site “Kids.net,au” with collection with you plasma cosmology – polluting the minds of the next generation.)
    I thought “Universe Today” is about science and not to be used encouraging tactics used by cults and pseudo-religions.
    Sorry. The halcyon days of being able to hijacked mainstream EU and plasma are certainly to be numbered. All I say to you is; “[B]Bring it on ![/B]”

  82. Here is another interesting avoidance just shown by Mr. Smith.
    He is defending Thunderbolts.info to the hilt, and yet his attached website is “plasmaresources” If you sign under Thunderbolts.Info, then the site ‘plasmaresouces’ is irrelevant and looks like it is hiding something, doesn’t it? Therefore this just another unadulterated attempt at deception.
    Another general example of deceit is the fantastic claim on the Thunderbolts (Dunderbolts*) Site; “This feature has been active for several years now and has been the backbone of our internet presence. It is the primary reason that there are over 865,000 citations of Thunderbolts.info on the internet.” Ha Ha.
    What citations are they?
    Even a simple Google search reveals only 274,000 in a search.
    Why the difference, eh? So why all this deception if your so genuinely ‘honest’ eh?
    The truth is simple. Plain BS.

    * A new site soon to combat the absolute nonsense professed by these nitwits.

  83. @ Salacious B. Crumb:

    I certainly hope you don’t speak for Universe Today, as I won’t even gratify you with responses to what looks like a pathological outburst, except on one point.

    PlasmaResources is my own site, which on the top banner clearly states “In proud association with the Thunderbolts Project”.

    You seem to be looking for reds under the bed… happy hunting, I’ve got better things to do with my time.

    Cheers, Dave.

  84. Dave Smith said;
    “PlasmaResources is my own site, which on the top banner clearly states “In proud association with the Thunderbolts Project” ”
    OK. Why sign it “Dave Smith, Managing Editor, Thunderblogs.”? then? Who do you represent you or Thunderbolts ?
    Again it is pure deception – like Anaconda and Oils.
    Clearly you couldn’t even lie straight in bed id you tried!

  85. I’ve been slowly accumulating information on these non-standard posters.
    It is very interesting reading the information on http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm
    This has a list of article on what these guys are professing (mostly).
    One article relating to this one is of July 02, 2008; “Supermassive Problems with Black Holes”, which mimics some of what Anaconda is saying but there as so many contradictions too.
    Some are of course totally outrageous I.e. “Technological Extra-Sensory Perception” I.e.

    “Plasma is a mixture of charged and neutral particles. This makes it an excellent conductor of electricity. Moving charged particles are electric currents, and electric currents generate magnetic forces. Those forces pinch the currents into filaments. The filaments carry electrical power around circuits that can encompass large volumes of space.”

    Another even crazier notion is in “Things That are Impossible”.

    “Because the Big Bang theory postulates that all matter originated in the granddaddy of all black holes, to pull the matter out and to separate it into distributed bits would require more energy than exists in the universe. The universe as we observe it can’t really exist.
    “But,” the argument goes, “the theory doesn’t begin with the black hole. It begins with the observation that mass is already distributed, and it calculates back to the black hole. We don’t know what blew up the black hole; we only see the result.””

    Another is ““Neutron Star” Refutes Its Own Existence” (21 Jun 2006). Many of the same words ring out in Anaconda’s too.
    One that come to mind was;

    “The question now is, will astronomers continue to invent more ad hoc exceptions to a theory already too complicated by exceptions, or will they pause sufficiently to wonder if a new perspective is possible on the burgeoning zoo of supernovae types and odd “neutron stars?”

    Stars behave as electrodes in a galactic glow discharge.

    Also note the list of names at the bottom of each article. (These names I have investigated – some of which are certainly our friends here.)
    There is enough here to keep a few people destroying their arguments one by one, but it is go fodder to use against them.
    Jon Hanford comments of March 29th, 2009 at 8:38 am, I agree with.
    Though the only thing I’m worried about is giving them even more ammunition to contradict the usual logical arguments. The problem is too many are being caught in their web of deception in the same way Intelligent Design is trying to be weaselled into schools. At least I still have more weapons in my arsenal.
    The deception is quite clear, and this is still all part of the tactics suggested in thunderbolts.info

    “In your communications, please be sure that, unless you have developed specific strategies with Thunderbolts management, you not identify yourself as a member of the Thunderbolts group, but as a curious or interested observer.”

    Here the deception of the silly scheme is plain to see.
    Sorry, your the one that shows the pathological intent.
    I hope you get some suitable help to aid you in your unfounded delusions.

  86. @ Stephen J. Crothers

    What you call ‘Schwarzschild’s solution’ is not Schwarzschild’s solution.

    That’s probably true, but it does not change the fact that the solution, which everyone calls “Schwarzschild solution”, is the ONLY one that obeys spherical symmetry. And this little fact makes the solution so important.

    I want to give a short insight how I was introduced into Schwarzschild’s solution (I call it that way!) in a lecture (it follows closely the steps of Carroll’s book “Spacetime and geometry”, p.194-196; there you can find all the details I leave out, now).

    First of all, R_(m,n)=0 (with m=mu und n=nu) does not mean that there is NO matter anywhere. It just means that we are discussing a region in spacetime where we have no matter, but it could be somewhere else (obviously it has an effect; otherwise our spacetime would be flat).
    The metric we are looking for is supposed to be spherically symmetric. A good approach is:

    (ds)^2=-exp(2a(r))*(dt)^2+exp(2b(r))*(dr)^2+r^2*(dOmega)^2

    Where a(r) and b(r) are functions of the radial coordinate r (yes, I choose r to be the radial coordinate, since we are looking for a spherical solution). Omega contains the angular coordinates phi and theta. t is the time coordinate, of course.
    A lengthy calculation gives the Christoffel symbols and the Riemann and the Ricci tensor. Since the Ricci tensor vanishes, one finds that a(r)=-b(r). Finally we get:

    exp(2a)*(2r*(da/dr)+1)=1.

    This is equivalent to

    d/dr (r*exp(2a))=1.

    This in turn is easily solved by

    exp(2a)=1+c/r,

    where c is a constant. We can rewrite this and get a as a function of r:

    a=1/2*ln(1+c/r)=ln(sqrt(1+c/r)).

    Our metric finally reads:

    (ds)^2=-(1+c/r)*(dt)^2 + (1+c/r)^(-1)*(dr)^2+r^2*(dOmega)^2

    Now we have to find c. In the weak-field limit Einstein’s field equation has to reduce to the simple Newtonian equation. This leads to the tt component of the metric around a point mass:

    g_(tt)=-(1-2GM/r)

    In the case r>>c our metric should contain this result. Thus we can identify:

    c=-2GM=-R_s.

    This also tells us something about the function a: If r falls below 2GM the discriminant of the square root becomes negative and thus complex. This does not violate our use of the exponential function, since we didn’t explicitly consider it to be real.

    And once again: The importance of this solution is that it is the only solution being spherically symmetric! (Birkhoff’s theorem)

  87. A derivation of the Schwarzschild solution is a wikipedia affair. A look at Flimmer’s equation

    exp(2a)*(2r*(da/dr)+1)=1,

    this is basically what I argued for on Sunday. To get the 1 – 2m/r from this requires some work with the curvature tensor, which is illustrated in the wiki-p site.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deriving_the_Schwarzschild_solution

    is similar to what is presented in a number of texts on GR.

    As for Anaconda’s remarks, such as stars being electrodes and the like, this stuff is pure garbage.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  88. @DrFlimmer (and L. B. Crowell)

    You say: ‘That’s probably true, but it does not change the fact that the solution, which everyone calls “Schwarzschild solution”, is the ONLY one that obeys spherical symmetry. And this little fact makes the solution so important.’

    Schwarzschild’s actual solution is spherically symmetric, which is easily proven. If you disagree, then provide a proof that it is not spherically symmetric. Moreover, one can replace
    ‘r’ in the so-called “Schwarzschild solution” with any analytic function of ‘r’ without violating Ric = 0 and without violating spherical symmetry. If you disagree, prove that this is not so.

    In writing your generalised metric you have already specified the signature at (-,+,+,+) in accordance with Minkowski spacetime, for which you seek a generalisation. Furthermore, Minkowski spacetime cannot have a signautre of, say, (+,-,+,+). So it is inherent in your specification that the exponential functions your adduce cannot change sign. This is precisely the approach in all the usual derivations of the metric for Schwarzschild spacetime. Many authors simply use functions A(r) and B(r) in place of exponential functions, with concomitant fixation of the signature to that of Minkowski spacetime, so that neither A(r) nor B(r) can change sign by construction at the outset. This is a common theme in all such derivations. Your derivation adds nothing new to this. You cite Carroll as your source for the derivation you give. Here is what Carroll says in the online version of his book:

    “We can therefore put our metric in the form

    ds^2 = m(t, r)dt^2 + n(t, r)dr^2 + r^2dOmega^2 (7.12)

    “To this point the only difference between the two coordinates t and r is that we have chosen r to be the one which multiplies the metric for the two-sphere. This choice was motivated by what we know about the metric for flat Minkowski space, which can be written

    ds^2 = -dt^2 + dr^2 + r^2dOmega^2.

    We know that the spacetime under consideration is Lorentzian, so either m or n will have to be negative. Let us choose m, the coeffcient of dt^2, to be negative. …

    “The assumption is not completely unreasonable, since we know that Minkowski space is itself spherically symmetric, and will therefore be described by (7.12). With this choice we can trade in the functions m and n for new functions ? and ?, such that

    ds^2 = -exp[2?(t,r)]dt^2 + exp[2?(t,r)]dr^2 + r^2dOmega^2 . (7.13)

    “The first term in the metric (7.13) is therefore -exp[2f(r)] exp[2g(t)]dt^2. But we could always simply redefine our time coordinate by replacing
    dt ? exp[-g(t)]dt; in other words, we are free to choose t such that g(t) = 0, whence ?(t, r) = f(r). We therefore have

    ds2 = -e^[2?(r)]dt^2 + e^[?(r)]dr^2 + r^2dOmega^2 .”

    And so, as Carrol has specified, neither of the functions m nor n can change sign and so the corresponding exponential functions cannot change sign either, by construction.

    You apparently claim that ‘r’ in the so-called “Schwarzschild solution” is a radius. If so then you are mistaken. It is not of itself a distance whatsoever in the Schwarzschild manifold. If you disagree, then provide a proof that ‘r’ in the said metric is a radial distance.

    Mr. Crowell’s contribution adds nothing new either, and for that reason I have included him
    in this post.

  89. @ Stephen J. Crothers

    In writing your generalised metric you have already specified the signature at (-,+,+,+) in accordance with Minkowski spacetime, for which you seek a generalisation. Furthermore, Minkowski spacetime cannot have a signautre of, say, (+,-,+,+).

    Our generalization of Minkowski’s spacetime only requires that our solution is asymptotically flat and becomes “Minkowski-like” for r -> infinity. So for r -> infinity the signature should be like (-,+,+,+). But as far as I know it is not required that our solution has this signature everywhere.
    In fact (if I remember correctly), it is particular to black holes that the r coordinate becomes time-like inside the event horizon. That would mean that all our senses of causality are violated inside a black hole. This is another reason that nothing can escape a black hole, once it is inside the event horizon: Since the “distance” becomes time-like, there is no “where” you can go to. (But I am not sure about this)

  90. Wow … I didn’t realize OilIsMastery and Anaconda’s battle against science and reason had so many fronts.

    I literally happened upon this thread and was amazed … see my interaction with them here where they claim that subduction and convergent margins (and plate tectonics, in general) is a “myth”.

    You’ll see the exact same tactics in their style of “debate” … just change some words around.

    I’ve banned OIM because it’s a waste of my time to deal with him … of course, he wears it like a badge of honor as if he’s some kind of revolutionary fighting the establishment. Great stuff.

  91. The signature flip across r = 2m in the exponential variables reflects that the problem is extended into the complex plane. In the “days of yore” the time coordinate was written as “ict.” Often general relativists work in complex coordinates and spinor variables in order to elucidate these matters.

    Whether r is an actual radius is not terribly relevant. It is a coordinate variable, which for small gravity fields cooresponds to the radius in Newtonian gravity. Yet these variables ultimately reflect a choice of frame or chart. This does not change anything cooresponding to the validity of the Schwarzschild solution.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  92. To Flimmer: Yes the signature change is commonly referred to as how the radial direction inward becomes a future time direction, where they Weyl tensor diverges as r apporaches zero.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  93. @ DrFlimmer and L. B. Crowell

    Dear Sirs,

    The issues raised in my previous post have either not been properly addressed or have not been addressed. I therefore feel that these matters must first be settled before other issues are introduced.

    1.Do you each admit or not that the so-called “Schwarzschild solution” is not Schwarzschild’s solution? And if you do not admit this, then please explain why?
    2.Do you each admit or not that Schwarzschild’s actual solution is spherically symmetric and satisfies Ric = 0? If you do not agree then please explain why?
    3.DrFlimmer has refered to the quantity ‘r’ in the “Schwarzschild solution” as the “radial coordinate”. Mr. Crowell has now called it “a coordinate variable”, but also a radius, thus ,“Yes the signature change is commonly referred to as how the radial direction inward becomes a future time direction, where they Weyl tensor diverges as r apporaches zero.” But neither of you have clearly defined what you mean by this name. Please define what you mean by “radial coordinate” and “coordinate variable” and provide a rigorous demonstration of its geometrical identity in the “Schwarzschild solution”. Mr. Crowell also said, “Whether r is an actual radius is not terribly relevant.” But I maintain that little or no meaning can be attached to statements about a quantity that has not been identified. Identification of the geometric character of the said quantity ‘r’ is of great importance and relevance because its correct identification clarifies the geometry of the related manifold. As detailed in my Munich paper, the physicists have never correctly identified this ‘r’, having given it instead numerous names and different vague definitions. I therefore ask Mr. Crowell to also prove his assertion that the true identity of ‘r’ is of little relevance, by means of a geometric argument.
    4.DrFlimmer has cited S. Carroll. I have pointed out that Carroll, in the standard fashion, also assigns the signature (-,+,+,+) to the form of the sought for generalised metric from Minkowski spacetime, which has signature (-,+,+,+) according to Carroll’s method. Carroll’s introduction of exponential functions is for ease of subsequent calculation. The construction of the fixed signature (-,+,+,+) is not altered by this substitution. Minkowski spacetime cannot change signature. This is reflected in the construction of the signature of the sought for generalisation. Schwarzschild himself also fixed the signature of the sought for generalisation at (+,-,-,-), in accordance with the fixed signature of Minkowski spacetime (+,-,-,-) which he used (I refer you once again directly to his original paper). The definite construction of the signature in the sought for generalisation of Minkowski spacetime in order to concur with Minkowski spacetime is invariably applied in the derivation of Schwarzschild spacetime (I have provided many citations to this effect in my Munich paper). If the sought for generalisation of Minkowski spacetime can change signature to say (+,-,+,+) then it must correspond to a Minkowski spacetime signature of (+,-,+,+) so that one could start with the latter and derive the former. But this is impossible, because (+,-,+,+) is not the signature of Minkowski spacetime. Now despite the fixation of the signature of the sought for generalisation in which the spatial section is necessarily a positive definite quadratic form, the proponents of the black hole nonetheless allow the signature in the generalised metric to change, so that the spatial section is no longer a positive definite quadratic form, in violation of their initial construction, and in violation of the signature of Minkowski spacetime. This is a contradiction, and so the change of signature is necessarily invalid. Since you are both of the widespread persuasion that the signature of Schwarzschild spacetime can change, please provide a demonstration that Minkowski spacetime can change signature to (+,-,+,+), if the initial signature is taken as (-,+,+,+), or equivalently can change to (-,+,-,-) if the initial signature is taken as (+,-,-,-), in order to correspond to the same respective signatures in Schwarzschild spacetime.
    5.Mr. Crowell has twice implied that ict relates to a change of signature in the fashion described in 3) above. This is not correct. It is merely a notational artifice (dx_0 = ict) by which the Minkowski spacetime metric can be written in terms of the the summation convention with the Kronecker delta. It plays no role in change of signature in either Minkowski spacetime metrics or Schwarzschild spacetime metrics. If Mr. Crowell still thinks otherwise, let him please provide a demonstration of how setting dx_0 = ict provides a means by which the metrics for Schwarzschild spacetime can change signature so that the spatial section thereof is no longer a positive definite quadratic form, in violation of the construction detailed in 3) above as practiced invariably in the literature.

  94. @ DrFlimmer and L. B. Crowell

    Dear Sirs,

    A correction to point (5) in my previous post: x_0 = ict, not dx_0 = ict. Then dx_0 = ic dt and so [dx_0]^2 = -c^2 dt^2, of course.

  95. I have not read your paper in totality, and frankly since I think you are raising something I call a “non-problem” it is not high on my list of priorities.

    As for dx^0 = icdt, in the two dimensional case with dr, the flip in the signatures can be seen as a switch dx^0 = dt and dr = icdr’. For the corresponding exponentail functions this is a 1 —> e^{i pi} = i, and i —> 1, which involves an analytic extension on the complex plane.

    The problem from a credibility perspective is that the Schwarzschild solution has been extensively explored for over 90 years. No objections of the sort you are raising has surfaced in all that time. If possible I will try to get to your paper, but time is limited and you paper contains a lot of detail I’d have to pick through.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  96. Comment for L B Crowell. It is not correct that no objections have been raised over the past 90 years. Crothers has done his historical research and has it all detailed on his website. I realise that it would be shocking in the extreme if Crothers turned out to be right, but a growing number of first rate ‘pure’ mathematicians can find nothing wrong with Crothers’ mathematics and geometry. If Black Holes do exist, you will have to find some other theory than GR to account for it. Note that Crothers is not advancing his own theory, he has just scrutinized the mathematical and geometrical foundations of GR, with appalling consequences. But, he is just the messenger of the bad news. Suppose Crothers is correct? Have you really got your reading priorities right?

  97. I read, albeit it lightly, a few more pages into Crother’s paper. It will be some time before I can actually bend metal on it. My growing sense is that Crother’s analysis involves a “chart” that the tortoise coordinates are computed on. This is the dichotomy between the outer and inner perspectives on black hole dynamics. The outer observer of course never observes anything at r < 2M. So it is entirely possible that the math “epsilons & deltas” are fine with Crother’s paper, but that this implicitly assumes one aspect of observership with black holes.

    I will not make a judgment along these lines as yet, but my suspicion is that Crother’s paper involves one side of the black hole “coin” of observer duality.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  98. @ Lawrence B. Crowell

    There is no implicit assumption in my paper in the fashion you describe. Just as there is no such implicit assumption in Schwarzschild’s papers. Black holes are forbidden by Schwarzschild’s actual solution. There is no theory at all which rightly predicts black holes. My paper covers all of this. And the fundamental geometry is developed in detail in the final section of my paper. I reiterate yet again that “Schwarzschild’s solution” is not Schwarzschild’s solution. The former is inconsistent with the latter, and the latter is consistent with differential geometry. It is very odd that Schwarzschild’s paper is ignored, and, nonetheless, he is claimed to have predicted everything that “Schwarzschild’s solution” is alleged to predict. I have provided a link to Schwarzschild’s two papers on this subject. Unfortunately most who talk about “Schwarzschild’s solution” have not even read Schwarzschild’s papers. Even a cursory reading of his papers reveals that the black hole is fallacious, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Schwarzschild.

  99. The black hole of course came later with Oppenheimer and others. The term black hole was coined by Wheeler in the mid 1960s, which came after some analysis of this problem. I did read Karl’s paper back in the 1980s or about 20 years ago. He did just lay down a spherically symmetric solution to Einstein’s equations.

    As you paper is comparatively “dense” I have not had time yet to read it in detail. I suppose what comes to mind is how geodesic equations suffer no apparent change at the horizon r = 2M, and even the coordinate singularity can be removed by going to Kruskal coordinates. After all the physics is not really contained in the metric.

    Certainly the astrophysical data supports the existence of black holes. Also there is no apparent hard surface before r = 2M, which would show up as a “splash” from the impact of infalling material.

    If I can carve out some time I will try to read your paper in detail before Monday .

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  100. It’s gone awfully quiet in here … iet in here … iet in here …

    OK, so what does “undefined” mean? I tried to post the above comment, and that was the response. I filled in the appropriate info, so what’s going on?

  101. There is a limited duration to these postings. I have only got to reading Crother’s paper on a serious level last night, which will take some time to finish.

    L. C.

Comments are closed.