A multi-wavelength view of radio galaxy Hercules A

Nov 29, 2012 by Rob Gutro
Spectacular jets powered by the gravitational energy of a super massive black hole in the core of the elliptical galaxy Hercules A illustrate the combined imaging power of two of astronomy's cutting-edge tools, the Hubble Space Telescope's Wide Field Camera 3, and the recently upgraded Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico. Credit: NASA, ESA, S. Baum and C. O'Dea (RIT), R. Perley and W. Cotton (NRAO/AUI/NSF), and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

(Phys.org)—Spectacular jets powered by the gravitational energy of a super massive black hole in the core of the elliptical galaxy Hercules A illustrate the combined imaging power of two of astronomy's cutting-edge tools, the Hubble Space Telescope's Wide Field Camera 3, and the recently upgraded Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope in New Mexico.

Some two billion light-years away, the yellowish elliptical galaxy in the center of the image appears quite ordinary as seen by Hubble in of light. The galaxy is roughly 1,000 times more massive than the Milky Way and harbors a 2.5-billion-solar-mass central black hole that is 1,000 times more massive than the black hole in the Milky Way. But the innocuous-looking galaxy, also known as 3C 348, has long been known as the brightest radio-emitting object in the constellation Hercules. Emitting nearly a billion times more power in than our Sun, the galaxy is one of the brightest extragalactic radio sources in the entire sky.

The VLA radio data reveal enormous, optically invisible jets that, at one-and-a-half million light-years wide, dwarf the visible galaxy from which they emerge. The jets are very-high-energy plasma beams, subatomic particles and magnetic fields shot at nearly the speed of light from the vicinity of the black hole. The outer portions of both jets show unusual ring-like structures suggesting a history of multiple outbursts from the super at the center of the galaxy.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Spectacular jets powered by the gravitational energy of a supermassive black hole in the core of the elliptical galaxy Hercules A illustrate the combined imaging power of two of astronomy's cutting-edge tools, the Hubble Space Telescope's Wide Field Camera 3, and the recently upgraded Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico. Credit: NASA, ESA, S. Baum and C. O'Dea (RIT), R. Perley and W. Cotton (NRAO/AUI/NSF), and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

The innermost parts of the jets are not visible because of the extreme velocity of the material, which causes relativistic effects that beam the light away from us. Far from the galaxy, the jets become unstable and break up into the rings and wisps.

The entire radio source is surrounded by a very hot, X-ray-emitting cloud of gas, not seen in this optical-radio composite.

Hubble's view of the field also shows a companion elliptical galaxy very close to the center of the optical-radio source, which may be merging with the central galaxy. Several other elliptical and spiral galaxies that are visible in the Hubble data may be members of a cluster of galaxies.Hercules A is by far the brightest and most massive galaxy in the cluster.

Explore further: Thermonuclear X-ray bursts on neutron stars set speed record

Related Stories

Hubble traps galactic fireflies

Nov 18, 2012

(Phys.org)—Luminous galaxies glow like fireflies on a dark night in this image snapped by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope. The upper central galaxy in this image is a gigantic elliptical galaxy designated ...

Black Hole Pumps Iron

Sep 14, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- This composite image of the Hydra A galaxy cluster shows 10-million- degree gas observed by Chandra in blue and jets of radio emission observed by the Very Large Array in pink. Optical data ...

An Intriguing, Glowing Galaxy

May 14, 2009

A supermassive black hole may be responsible for the glowing appearance of galaxy 3C 305, located about 600 million light years away in the constellation Draco. Composite data from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory ...

Chandra Sheds Light on Galaxy Collision

Mar 29, 2007

Astronomers think that there are enormous black holes at the centers of most, if not all, galaxies. These black holes, which can be millions or even billions of times more massive than the Sun, can greatly ...

NGC 4696: A cosmic question mark

Aug 12, 2010

This picture, taken by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys, is not just a beautiful snapshot of NGC 4696, the largest galaxy in the Centaurus Cluster (galaxy cluster Abell 3526). It is also an illustration ...

Hubble zooms in on double nucleus in Andromeda galaxy

Jan 11, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new Hubble Space Telescope image centers on the 100-million-solar-mass black hole at the hub of the neighboring spiral galaxy M31, or the Andromeda galaxy, the only galaxy outside the Milky ...

Recommended for you

How can we find tiny particles in exoplanet atmospheres?

Aug 29, 2014

It may seem like magic, but astronomers have worked out a scheme that will allow them to detect and measure particles ten times smaller than the width of a human hair, even at many light-years distance.  ...

Spitzer telescope witnesses asteroid smashup

Aug 28, 2014

(Phys.org) —NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has spotted an eruption of dust around a young star, possibly the result of a smashup between large asteroids. This type of collision can eventually lead to the ...

Witnessing the early growth of a giant

Aug 27, 2014

Astronomers have uncovered for the first time the earliest stages of a massive galaxy forming in the young Universe. The discovery was made possible through combining observations from the NASA/ESA Hubble ...

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

yyz
4.7 / 5 (14) Nov 29, 2012
Before any of the usual suspects arrive to declare that mainstream science has it all wrong and proffer alternatives they claim are superior interpretations, I wonder if *anyone* will refer to work published in a scientific journal(not a blog, book or YT video) that describes how their particular theory(SubQuantum Kinetics, Electric Universe, etc) accounts for what is observed in Her A, specifically?

If not, I wonder why? Mounds of data collected over the years is freely available to anyone with an internet connection. This data isn't a state secret or anything. NASA's Extragalctic Database(NED) has over 200 published papers on Her A: http://ned.ipac.c...of=table

What's stopping EU theorists or LaViolette from using this treasure trove of data make a case for their alternative "theories" wrt Her A?

Lack of a viable theory, maybe?
Tuxford
1 / 5 (15) Nov 30, 2012
Periodic ejections is a central prediction of LaViolette's superwave model. But perhaps there are more pressing issues on the table, than trying to convince the unconvinceable.

In fact, there is potential case for such an event from our own galactic core occurring perhaps as soon as next spring. According to LaViolette, if the orbiting G2 gas cloud happens to contain a hidden super-Jupiter, it could be super-heated to the point of break up, and accrete onto the supermassive core star, triggering the cosmic ray ejection. Such an event may affect our sun, and thus our weather. If it were a large event, perhaps radiation could become an issue.

It is hard to predict, as LaViolette admits. He explores an old CIA trick, remote viewing, in order to help predict the unpredictable. As Cheney might say if the is a 1% chance for weapons of mass destruction...

http://starburstf...g/?p=267

I for one, hope that such a Jupiter would not have survived previous orbits.
Iconoclast24601
3 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2012
Alternative theories such as LaViolette's are a dime a dozen.

Q: What do you get when you cross alternative science with a modicum of consistency with observed reality?
A: Mainstream science.

Mainstream science get things wrong at times. But that's the whole point, for one of the fundamental concepts of science is the ability to recognise inconsistencies and adjust hypotheses accordingly. Medically, the difference between someone with a delusion and someone who's merely wrong is that the former will not progress beyond their current fixed viewpoint no matter how much contrary evidence is presented.
Shinichi D_
4.3 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2012
According to LaViolette, if the orbiting G2 gas cloud happens to contain a hidden super-Jupiter, it could be super-heated to the point of break up, and accrete onto the supermassive core star, triggering the cosmic ray ejection.


What? Isn't the 'core star' a particle fountain, from which the entire galaxy is growing? In this case the gas cloud is not going to fall into the 'core star' , on the contrary it's just got ejected from it. :) At least know your own fantasy.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2012
X-ray-emitting cloud of gas


"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory." Hannes Alfven

The stewards of ignorance continue with their 19th century metaphysical beliefs. Calling plasma a gas is the same as calling liquid a solid, I guess as far as astrophysicists are concerned calling the oceans of Earth a solid is completely acceptable.
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2012
X-ray-emitting cloud of gas


"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory." Hannes Alfven


Please try to come up with some new material. When a person says the exact same thing over and over, it makes people think (know) that the person really has very little to say.
rubberman
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2012
core star....supermassive hot jupiter....effecting our weather....gotcha.

Anybody wonder why dark energy hasn't effected this 3 million light year wide structure in extra galactic space where DE pervades and drives the expanding universe?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2012
If you can't figure out the fundamentals, why should anyone expect to not be "surprised" and "perplexed" by nearly everything we observe? If you really are a scientist you to should be appalled at the blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Please try and reflect reality, not beliefs. When an astrophysicist says the exact INCORRECT thing over and over, it makes people think that the person doesn't have a clue as to what they are trying to study.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2012
Anybody wonder why dark energy hasn't effected this 3 million light year wide structure in extra galactic space where DE pervades and drives the expanding universe?


Dark energy is a greater enigma than dark matter,, nobody knows "what" it is, very few people will even commit to what it "probably" is. The people who know their science are much less certain than those who don't know their science. So when you hear someone say they KNOW,,

But to try to answer your legitimate question. I'll speculate,,,, The observational data seems to point to "something" that does not operate on matter. It "appears" to operate only on the "space" between matter. That's why they say it's not the galaxies which are moving away from each other, it's the space between the galaxies that is expanding.

3 million light years is a miniscule distance when you consider things on the cosmological scale. Our closest neighbor galaxies are less 1 million light years. Gravity would beat DE this close.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2012
The magnetic field spiraling of both jets is quite apparent. But it could be a consequence of the black hole own rotation. Also, one of jets is brighter, which could be a consequence of Doppler shift, but a CP symmetry violation of central black hole too.
Alternative theories such as LaViolette's are a dime a dozen.
IMO periodical bursts is quite common feature of many black holes. I even suspect, they could be triggered from INTERIOR of black holes itself and they don't require any hidden stars or planets around it. Recently some axion based theory has been proposed for such a bursts. IMO the behaviour of black holes doesn't differ way too much from another puffing giant stars, they just exhibit exaggerated gravitational brightening at their poles, which manifest itself with polar jets.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2012
The magnetic field spiraling of both jets is quite apparent. But it could be a consequence of the black hole own rotation.


That has been known for years.

IMO periodical bursts is quite common feature of many black holes.


That's also been known for years.

I even suspect, they could be triggered from INTERIOR of black holes itself and they don't require any hidden stars or planets around it.


Uut Ooh,,,, and you were doing so well. The simplest solution is usually right. Something in the INTERIOR ya say? What do you know about black holes? Anyhooo, it is caused by the gravitational potential energy being converted into kinetic & thermal energy in the ACCRETION DISK.

Your turn,,,, (This is where you can post several pages of "How I Am Going To Establish A New Paradigm In Teaching Physics To The Ignorant Using Only Intuition")

barakn
5 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2012
X-ray-emitting cloud of gas
Calling plasma a gas is the same as calling liquid a solid, I guess as far as astrophysicists are concerned calling the oceans of Earth a solid is completely acceptable.
Astronomers have their own vernacular. For example, all elements with Z>2 are called metals - including Neon. When they refer to a hot gas, they know it is likely partially ionized, i.e. plasma. The role of ionization in stellar spectra (and thus stellar classification) was worked out 91 years ago (Saha ionization equation). Astronomers are very aware of the relation of ionization to temperature and pressure and have worked out very accurate methods of measuring it via spectra. To babble incessantly about hot gas is to reveal that you are too fucking lazy to learn the lingo of the science you are vainly trying to overturn.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2012
IMO periodical bursts is quite common feature of many black holes. That's also been known for years
It's LaViolette's prediction, but he's considered a crackpot. So nope, I don't think, it's accepted generally.
it is caused by the gravitational potential energy being converted into kinetic & thermal energy in the ACCRETION DISK
This is easy to say, but many black holes at the galactic centers have no accretion disks (including those at the center of Milky Way). IMO they gain energy for it from their own gravitational collapse.
yyz
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 01, 2012
"...many black holes at the galactic centers have no accretion disks (including those at the center of Milky Way)"

These sources say otherwise:

http://arxiv.org/.../0307157

http://www.astrop...ion.html

In fact, multiwavelength observations of the accretion disk/accretion flow in Sgr A* were used to infer that it was in fact a SMBH:

http://iopscience...ext.html

Do you know of any actual observations of SMBHs in galaxies that do not show any evidence for accretion?

Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 01, 2012
This is easy to say, but many black holes at the galactic centers have no accretion disks (including those at the center of Milky Way). IMO they gain energy for it from their own gravitational collapse.


Gleaned that from your intuition did ya? Aristotle would be quite envious. (That's not a complement, Aristotle used his intuition to determine that lighter objects fell more slowly than the heaver objects. That the earth must be stationary. And all that is was made of just five fundamental elements.)

Who needs the scientific method, a tedious education, and expensive apparatus when all that is necessary is a little (very little) intuition, some unreasonable reasoning, an unrestrained imagination and some misapplied jargon?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2012
So far we didn't observe any disk or jets of Sgr A* (if you don't believe me, just link a picture). The observation of stars around SgrA doesn't indicate any presence of accretion disk too - just an empty space.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2012
Aristotle used his intuition to determine that lighter objects fell more slowly than the heaver objects
Aristotle strictly used his experience based on real-life observations instead - in the same way, like the proponents of epicycle model in Galileo era and like the mainstream science by now. In real life the lightweight objects REALLY fell slower than the heavier ones with no exception. The mainstream science is relying on straightforward Aristotelian method more than you may think.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2012
So far we didn't observe any disk or jets of Sgr A* SgrA doesn't indicate any presence of accretion disk too - just an empty space.


What? That is just patently false.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2012
Aristotle strictly used his experience based on real-life observations instead - in the same way, like the proponents of epicycle model in Galileo era and like the mainstream science by now. In real life the lightweight objects REALLY fell slower than the heavier ones with no exception. The mainstream science is relying on straightforward Aristotelian method more than you may think.


Wrong. Aristotle had absolutely no way to tell "in real life" that a ten pound rock fell slower than a hundred pound boulder. He would have needed an atomic stop watch.

Aristotle thought experiments were not productive because he thought that much of what is SEEN is false and should be discounted because it didn't match his "intuition". Such as seeing that a ten pound rock fell at the same rate as a hundred pound boulder. He noticed what Galileo noticed but determined it did not make "sense".

rubberman
3 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2012
About your speculation Q, well done!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2012
Aristotle had absolutely no way to tell "in real life" that a ten pound rock fell slower than a hundred pound boulder. He would have needed an atomic stop watch.
At the moment, when you can never find in real life any example of situation, when the more heavy body would fall slower than the lightweight one and under the situation, when the difference depends on the difference in the density, then you needn't to compare the ten pound rock with hundred pound boulder. Even the Aristotle theory would lead into conclusion, such a difference will be well bellow experimental limit. From the same reason the relativists don't measure the time dilatation in raising lift, because they can imagine, the vibrations caused with it would ruin every experiment of the required sensitivity. Some things has simply no meaning to verify experimentally - until you're not a cheater, who just seeks for safe life from tax payers money.
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2012
Aristotle thought experiments were not productive because he thought that much of what is SEEN is false
This is complete nonsense. Aristotle just based his philosophy on the observations instead of void abstract speculations. Aristotle was empiricist with compare to Platon and others - so he didn't bothered with speculations what could happen outside of Earth atmosphere in the vacuum - which was solely abstract concept in his time, inaccessible to experimental falsification. He worked in similar way, like the Popper science, which refuses everything, which is not accessible to experimental verification. The mainstream physics with its abstract unfalsifiable stringy theories is way more distant from Popper's philosophy, than Mr. Aristotle ever was.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 01, 2012
At the moment, when you can never find in real life any example of situation, when the more heavy body would fall slower than the lightweight one and under the situation, when the difference depends on the difference in the density, then you needn't to compare the ten pound rock with hundred pound boulder. Even the Aristotle theory would lead into conclusion, such a difference will be well bellow experimental limit. From the same reason the relativists don't measure the time dilatation in raising lift, because they can imagine, the vibrations caused with it would ruin every experiment of the required sensitivity. Some things has simply no meaning to verify experimentally - until you're not a cheater, who just seeks for safe life from tax payers money.


Wow. Your insight leaves me speechless. Your reasoning is beyond dispute. You should publish your deep and wise ponderings.

(Or seek treatment for your delusions of grandiosity.)
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (10) Dec 01, 2012
like the Popper science, which refuses everything, which is not accessible to experimental verification.


I have no idea who this Popper is. But I think I agree with him. If it is not accessible to experimental verification it is not SCIENCE. Call it what ever you want, but without experimental verification, it is metaphysics at best, possibly quasi-science, more often pseudo-science.

You mistake philosophy as being science. Psst, it isn't. And hasn't been for centuries.
yyz
5 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2012
"So far we didn't observe any disk or jets of Sgr A* (if you don't believe me, just link a picture)"

Accretion disk(Fig 2): http://arxiv.org/...90v2.pdf

Jets(Fig 2): http://arxiv.org/...52v1.pdf

We observe radiation across most of the EM spectrum emitted by Sgr A*, the result of matter accreting onto the SMBH. Are you claiming Sgr A* is NOT accreting matter? Can you back that up with observational evidence?

Look, I've given links to published work that refutes your claim that Sgr A* has no accretion disk. Do you know of any published observations (of any known SMBH in a galaxy, Sgr A* included) that back up your claims?
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 01, 2012
Barakn,
Clearly the "too fucking stupid" applies to those who supposedly acknowledge that it is all plasma ( and in their too cool for school "lingo", call it hot gas) and don't apply the obvious plasma phenomenon to our observations. If it's plasma, as you insist you already know it to be, then it will display plasma behavior, correct? Where is the disconnect? They know it's plasma, while at the same time there is continued surprise and wonderment when plasma behavior is observed. Where are the discussions of the electric fields that MUST be present with a moving magnetic field? Where are the discussions of self organizing birkeland currents that have been repeatedly produced in labs. Where are the discussions of the other well understood plasma behaviors, such as double layers, plasma sheaths, cells and pinches? Why do yo have this flawed belief that charges "cancel out" when that is not what happens in labs? As I asked, where's the disconnect?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2012
I have no idea who this Popper is. But I think I agree with him. If it is not accessible to experimental verification it is not SCIENCE.
This is just the philosophy of scientific method. It's arbitrary rule introduced with people, not with some authority.
Your insight leaves me speechless. Your reasoning is beyond dispute. You should publish your deep and wise ponderings.
I just made it public. If you have no counterarguments, then I'm ready with it.

Look, Aristotle did nothing than just blind adherence on experiments with his approach. In vacuum you could indeed find a violation of Aristotle's law of free fall ("the heavier bodies fall faster than the lightweight ones") - but vacuum was something, which wasn't accessible for Aristotle. So from scientific perspective his reasoning was perfectly correct. For Aristotle the vacuum was as metaphysical, as the human spirit for modern scientists. If it cannot be experimentally tested, it simply doesn't exist - end of story.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2012
We observe radiation across most of the EM spectrum emitted by Sgr A*, the result of matter accreting onto the SMBH. Are you claiming Sgr A* is NOT accreting matter?
This is just the point: we observed a broad gamma rays lobes above and bellow galactic plane - but no gamma ray jets escaping from Sgr A directly.
Are you claiming Sgr A* is NOT accreting matter?
It does it occasionally - recently some cloud has been swallowed, but no accretion disk was observed during this. You as a scientists shouldn't replace your expectations with experimental facts: the neighourhood of Sgr A is rather different from accretion disks, as we know them at the case of more active black holes.
Accretion disk(Fig 2)
Sorry, this picture is just a computer graphics: a colorfull graph with some points. I know, what the scientists are all expecting to see there - but did they observe it already? This is just the point, in which strictly scientific approach differs from religious expectations.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 01, 2012
Look, Aristotle did nothing than just blind adherence on experiments with his approach. In vacuum you could indeed find a violation of Aristotle's law of free fall ("the heavier bodies fall faster than the lightweight ones") - but vacuum was something, which wasn't accessible for Aristotle. So from scientific perspective his reasoning was perfectly correct. For Aristotle the vacuum was as metaphysical, as the human spirit for modern scientists. If it cannot be experimentally tested, it simply doesn't exist - end of story.


You again have it backwards.

He SAW to objects of different masses fall at the same rate,,, all through his life. But he thought that didn't make sense. The more massive object should fall faster is what HE thought,

What tools did Galileo have that Aristotle didn't have? Galileo used his heart beat as a timing device. He conducted experiments, and described what he saw. Aristotle described what he "thought" he "should" see. Wrong on both counts.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 01, 2012
Sorry, this picture is just a computer graphics: a colorfull graph with some points. I know, what the scientists are all expecting to see there - but did they observe it already? This is just the point, in which strictly scientific approach differs from religious expectations.


His graph represents measurements made across various spectra. The one you offered as "proof" was only white dots moving around the core to SIMULATE the trajectories of the orbiting stars. His was based on data,,,, your's, well it was graphic created to convey a simple idea to young school children.

ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2012
He SAW to objects of different masses fall at the same rate, all through his life
Well, so he did an OBSERVATIONS. But this is just a speculation of yours: this is not what we can observe in real life. In real life the feather really falls slower than then hammer. You need to visit a Moon to prove the opposite.

What Aristotle had though about all of it isn't falsifiable and it belongs into philosophy and speculations. I can just conclude, that what he regularly SAW corresponds exactly what he regularly WROTE about it: "The heavier bodies tend to fall faster". Everything else is just a speculation. My conclusion therefore is, that Mr. Aristotle did follow exactly the scientific method, based on observations, instead of speculations.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2012
Your insight leaves me speechless. Your reasoning is beyond dispute. You should publish your deep and wise ponderings.


I just made it public. If you have no counterarguments, then I'm ready with it.


Oh well, then post me a link where I can buy it. I'm really dying to find out who you found to release it. It it's all you say it is, I may even nominate you for the Nobel.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2012
What Galileo actually did was, he started to speculate with compare to Aristotle. He just separated the force of friction from acceleration force - which is approach, which never works in real life completely. He made the whole free fall abstract stuff in this way. Because in real life the feather falls always slower than the hammer. In language of modern physics, he did nothing else than the separation of relativistic influence from quantum gravity phenomena. He actually started with abstract reductionism, on which modern science is based.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2012
What Aristotle had though about all of it isn't falsifiable and it belongs into philosophy and speculations. I can just conclude, that what he regularly SAW corresponds exactly what he regularly WROTE about it: "The heavier bodies tend to fall faster". Everything else is just a speculation.


Before you start all this Aristotle foolishness,,, you should actually read Aristotle to see for yourself what he had to say.

In The Metaphysics he says that even though everyone sees the different objects fall together, that this can not be true. The heavier object has more substance,,, if it is ten times more substantial, it will fall ten times faster. He spoke of rocks and boulders, not feathers and hammers. He stated clearly what he saw, they fall the same, but that it was wrong.

Read Aristotle. Never mind, reading hasn't served you well up to this point.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2012
Oh well, then post me a link where I can buy it
You can read it and download it right from this thread for free. But if you still want to pay for it, you can just send the 99 CZK to the FIO account number 230 004 7598 / 2010 with variable symbol 11386 and constant symbol 0308. Don't afraid - it will work reliably for me.
he says that even though everyone sees the different objects fall together
This is a nonsense, because everyone sees the hammer fall faster than the feather. This is a direct conclusion of experimental observations.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 01, 2012
What Galileo actually did was, he started to speculate with compare to Aristotle. He just separated the force of friction from acceleration force - which is approach, which never works in real life completely. He made the whole free fall abstract stuff in this way. Because in real life the feather falls always slower than the hammer.


Galileo didn't work with feathers and hammers any more than Aristotle. He used balls and marbles of various weights and dimensions.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 01, 2012
This is a nonsense, because everyone sees the hammer fall faster than the feather. This is a direct conclusion of experimental observations.


Aristotle was not writing about feathers or hammers. He spoke of rocks and boulders. In his own words he admitted they "seem" to fall together, but the one ten times more substantial, actually falls ten times faster. That's why he put in The Metaphysics rather in The Physics.

You obviously haven't read Aristotle, so you really should give this one up.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2012
You can read it and download it right from this thread for free. But if you still want to pay for it, you can just send the 99 CZK to the FIO account number 230 004 7598 / 2010 with variable symbol 11386 and constant symbol 0308.


I would rather deal directly with the publisher. Maybe I should qualify that,,, if it is actually a publisher of the written word.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2012
OK, enough of Aristotle, Galileo and their balls - we are OT here with it. I just pointed to the fact, the Aristotle did straightforward empirical approach based on his observations. He didn't too much observations, but the findings of Galileo were based on abstract reasoning, not the real life observations. He separated the friction force effects from acceleration forces - which is something which never happens in real life spontaneously.
if it is actually a publisher of the written word
I'm publisher of my ideas alone - why to pay someone else, who doesn't participate on AWT? It's more advantageous even for you as a customer, as it will save your precious money.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 01, 2012
I just pointed to the fact, the Aristotle did straightforward empirical approach based on his observations.


And I just pointed out that Aristotle said in his writings that his observations were in error, he said that though it LOOKED like the rock and the boulder fell together, the boulder actually falls ten times faster. Pointing out that you haven't a clue as what Aristotle might have written or done.

He didn't too much observations, but the findings of Galileo were based on abstract reasoning, not the real life observations. He separated the friction force effects from acceleration forces - which is something which never happens in real life spontaneously.


Galileo? Abstract reasoning? Must be talking about two different Galileis, the one I am talking about is the father of modern experimental science.

You remind me of the disheveled ragged fellow that hangs about the Student Center with the tattered sign: "I Have The Truth - You Minions Of The Illuminati
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2012
I do consider Galileo more abstract physicist, than for example Ptolemy or Aristotle. By Ptolemy the planets are moving along epicycles on the sky, so that his model was a direct consequence of astronomical observations in the same way, like the free fall model of Aristotle ("heavier objects fall faster") is more straightforward interpretation of real life observations. The modern science, physics in particular is very abstract, as its based on subtle minute phenomena of quantum mechanics and general relativity, which cannot be observed in real life nearly at all. Not to say about abstractness of modern theoretical physics. It's not surprising, the string theory is as abstract, fuzzy and unreliable theory, like the philosophy of medieval philosophers separated from reality. It leads into landscape of many solutions in the same way, like the medieval interpretations of Bible.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2012
I'm publisher of my ideas alone -


I'm shocked at that. Shocked I say.

why to pay someone else, who doesn't participate on AWT?


If it's worthwhile, they'll pay YOU.

It's more advantageous even for you as a customer, as it will save your precious money.


The preciousness of my money pales when considered against your deep wisdom. Please try to publish, I WILL be glad to part with my precious money.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2012
The preciousness of my money pales when considered against your deep wisdom.
OK, I published (= made public) thousands of posts over the whole web. You're free and welcomed to pay it all. Did you write down that account number? Right...
Q-Star
3 / 5 (10) Dec 01, 2012
Off topic question, if you guys will permit me.

In the Czech Republic, do they access to psychiatric treatments? Modern medications?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2012
Yep, but would you want to serve as an electric semiconductor for some doctor playing sadists..? Me not. Anyway, I don't understand the reason for printing all of it at paper. The ideas itself are important - not their publishing method or even physical substrate. The people who are pretending the opposite aren't potential readers of my ideas at all.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 01, 2012
Yep, but would you want to serve as an electric semiconductor for some doctor playing sadists..?


You've overplayed your hand. Now we know. Though your syntax and style keep slipping back and forth,, the stupid is always steady.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2012
Where is the disconnect? They know it's plasma, while at the same time there is continued surprise and wonderment when plasma behavior is observed. Where are the discussions of the electric fields that MUST be present with a moving magnetic field? Where are the discussions of self organizing birkeland currents that have been repeatedly produced in labs. Where are the discussions of the other well understood plasma behaviors, such as double layers, plasma sheaths, cells and pinches? Why do yo have this flawed belief that charges "cancel out" when that is not what happens in labs? As I asked, where's the disconnect?

It's not as if I expect an answer, as with difficult facts difficult questions are similarly ignored.

"Newton was unaware of plasma. Today his disciples spend years in training learning when and how to shut their eyes to it." Mel Acheson
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2012
I have no idea who this Popper is.

Interesting. Where did you grow up?
But I think I agree with him. If it is not accessible to experimental verification it is not SCIENCE. Call it what ever you want, but without experimental verification, it is metaphysics at best, ...

Sir Karl Popper could have taught you one or two facts about the difference in scientific certainty between empirical "verification" and empirical falsification. What you call "empirical verification" doesn't offer the same amount of certainty as empirical falsification and thus should be called "empirical confirmation" instead.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2012
I have no idea who this Popper is. Interesting. Where did you grow up?
Such an ignorants are usually most categorical in judging, what the science is and what isn't.
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2012
Sir Karl Popper could have taught you one or two facts about the difference in scientific certainty between empirical "verification" and empirical falsification. What you call "empirical verification" doesn't offer the same amount of certainty as empirical falsification and thus should be called "empirical confirmation" instead.


Naa, not really. But he might be able to help you know the difference between "empirical" and "experimental".

Oops, I looked him up. Disregard the above. It seems he was not a scientist after all. A philosopher,,,, science has come a long way since it was dominated by "philosophers",,, though the philosophers haven't progressed much,,,, they still tend to talk around in circles for the most part.

Most (not all) philosophers belong to the same mindset as theologians, astrologers and spirit mediums,,, they think and talk but don't do much that is practical.
rubberman
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2012
Most (not all) philosophers belong to the same mindset as theologians, astrologers and spirit mediums,,,


I see dark matter........