Black hole jets might be molded by magnetism

Dec 04, 2012 by Jason Major, Universe Today
Visible-light Hubble image of the jet emitted by the 3-billion-solar-mass black hole at the heart of galaxy M87 (Feb. 1998) Credit: NASA/ESA and John Biretta. Credit: STScI/JHU

Even though black holes—by their definition and very nature—are the ultimate hoarders of the Universe, gathering and gobbling up matter and energy to the extent that not even light can escape their gravitational grip, they also often exhibit the odd behavior of flinging vast amounts of material away from them as well, in the form of jets that erupt hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of light-years out into space. These jets contain superheated plasma that didn't make it past the black hole's event horizon, but rather got "spun up" by its powerful gravity and intense rotation and ended up getting shot outwards as if from an enormous cosmic cannon.

The exact mechanisms of how this all works aren't precisely known as are notoriously tricky to observe, and one of the more perplexing aspects of the jetting behavior is why they always seem to be aligned with the rotational axis of the actively feeding black hole, as well as perpendicular to the accompanying accretion disk. Now, new research using advanced 3D computer models is supporting the idea that it's the black holes' ramped-up combined with plasma's magnetism that's responsible for shaping the jets.

Black hole jets might be molded by magnetism
Snapshot of a simulated black hole system. (McKinney et al.) Credit: The Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC)

In a recent paper published in the journal Science, assistant professor at the University of Maryland Jonathan McKinney, Kavli Institute director Roger Blandford and Princeton University's Alexander Tchekhovskoy report their findings made using of the complex physics found in the vicinity of a feeding supermassive black hole. These GRMHD—which stands for General Relativistic —computer sims follow the interactions of literally millions of particles under the influence of and the physics of relativistic magnetized plasmas… basically, the really super-hot stuff that's found within a black hole's accretion disk.

What McKinney et al. found in their simulations was that no matter how they initially oriented the black hole's jets, they always eventually ended up aligned with the of the black hole itself—exactly what's been found in real-world observations. The team found that this is caused by the magnetic field lines generated by the plasma getting twisted by the intense rotation of the black hole, thus gathering the plasma into narrow, focused jets aiming away from its spin axes—often at both poles.

At farther distances the influence of the black hole's spin weakens and thus the jets may then begin to break apart or deviate from their initial paths—again, what has been seen in many observations.

This "magneto-spin alignment" mechanism, as the team calls it, appears to be most prevalent with active supermassive black holes whose is more thick than thin—the result of having either a very high or very low rate of in-falling matter. This is the case with the giant elliptical galaxy M87, seen above, which exhibits a brilliant jet created by a 3-billion-solar-mass black hole at its center, as well as the much less massive 4-million-solar-mass SMBH at the center of our own galaxy, Sgr A*.

Using these findings, future predictions can be better made concerning the behavior of accelerated matter falling into the heart of our galaxy.

Read more on the Kavli Institute's news release here.

Explore further: Evidence for supernovas near Earth

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The Milky Way's supermassive black hole

Aug 08, 2011

Supermassive black holes - objects with masses of millions or even billions of suns - are found at the nuclei of galaxies. Our Milky Way galaxy, for example, has a massive black hole at its core, albeit one ...

Black hole jets

Jan 16, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Black holes are irresistible sinks for matter and energy. They are so dense that not even light can escape from their gravitational clutches. Massive black holes (equal to millions or even ...

The power of spin

Jan 28, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Supermasssive black holes - objects with masses of millions or billions of suns - are found at the nuclei of dramatic galaxies like quasars where they are responsible for some of the most ...

Ghostly gamma-ray beams blast from Milky Way's center

May 29, 2012

(Phys.org) -- As galaxies go, our Milky Way is pretty quiet. Active galaxies have cores that glow brightly, powered by supermassive black holes swallowing material, and often spit twin jets in opposite directions. ...

Black holes spinning faster than ever before

May 23, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Two UK astronomers have found that the giant black holes in the centre of galaxies are on average spinning faster than at any time in the history of the Universe. Dr Alejo Martinez-Sansigre ...

Recommended for you

Evidence for supernovas near Earth

10 minutes ago

Once every 50 years, more or less, a massive star explodes somewhere in the Milky Way. The resulting blast is terrifyingly powerful, pumping out more energy in a split second than the sun emits in a million ...

What lit up the universe?

7 hours ago

New research from UCL shows we will soon uncover the origin of the ultraviolet light that bathes the cosmos, helping scientists understand how galaxies were built.

Eta Carinae: Our Neighboring Superstars

15 hours ago

(Phys.org) —The Eta Carinae star system does not lack for superlatives. Not only does it contain one of the biggest and brightest stars in our galaxy, weighing at least 90 times the mass of the Sun, it ...

Best view yet of merging galaxies in distant universe

19 hours ago

Using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array, and other telescopes, an international team of astronomers has obtained the best view yet of a collision that took place between two galaxies when the ...

Image: Hubble stirs up galactic soup

Aug 25, 2014

(Phys.org) —This new NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows a whole host of colorful and differently shaped galaxies; some bright and nearby, some fuzzy, and some so far from us they appear as small ...

Spectacular supernova's mysteries revealed

Aug 22, 2014

(Phys.org) —New research by a team of UK and European-based astronomers is helping to solve the mystery of what caused a spectacular supernova in a galaxy 11 million light years away, seen earlier this ...

User comments : 112

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (18) Dec 04, 2012
The exact mechanisms of how this all works aren't precisely known as black holes are notoriously tricky to observe, and one of the more perplexing aspects of the jetting behavior is why they always seem to be aligned with the rotational axis of the actively feeding black hole, as well as perpendicular to the accompanying accretion disk.


While "standard theorists" continue to be perplex by nearly everything they observe and study, those who understand plasma cosmology don't suffer from the same ignorance and obliviousness. Anthony Peratt's 'Particle-in-cell' simulation models the entire galaxy (not just the fictional black hole) and PREDICTS the jets when a certain threshold of energy flow is met.

One of the true metrics of any theory is it's predictive ability, much can be deduced from the FACT that nearly every observation performed by standard theorists is "perplexing", "surprising", and "unexpected".

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2012
EU/PC is a religion: While the _theorists_ aren't perplexed as seen by the successful models, not yet tested by observation is all, the pattern searchers throw up "galaxy ... simulation" _but mot black hole jets_. It doesn't matter for them that they can't predict what is seen!

And of course galaxies are now predicted by null hypotheses of known mechanisms in standard cosmology. No untestable pattern search. Is an ink dot a black hole? For an EU/PC religious, it would be as good as what they look at.
VendicarD
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2012
I thought that they were molded by the hand of God.
StarGazer2011
1 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2012
Can anyone explain how the spin of an object can effect matter not in contact with it?
What im getting at is that the 'event horizon' is just a distance from the centre of the BH, theres nothing actually physically there. Whatever is at the centre of the BH is not in physical contact with anything at or near the EH.
So how does its spin effect the motion of matter at a distance?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2012
Can anyone explain how the spin of an object can effect matter not in contact with it?


In the same way that gravity affects objects not in contact with a mass. The rotation of the objects causes "frame dragging" of the spacetime around the mass which in turn affects anything in the proximity.

http://en.wikiped...dragging
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2012
Can anyone explain how the spin of an object can effect matter not in contact with it?


In the same way that gravity affects objects not in contact with a mass. The rotation of the objects causes "frame dragging" of the spacetime around the mass which in turn affects anything in the proximity.


Theoretically, frame dragging allows the energy/particles to accelerate beyond the speed of light while inside the ergosphere in relation to normal space. At the axis points of a BH the angular momentum is nil and the power of the magnetic field generated by this BH (being scalable)would be 3 billion times that of our sun, except all of the energy is bound by the gravitational (frame dragging) effect of the BH except at the only points it can escape...the axis points. (See Blandford-Znajek process, combined with Penrose mechanism, I believe both are at play simultaneously here).
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 05, 2012
In regard to frame dragging:

I wonder if that effect counts as 'work'?

If so, then it should slow down the rotation over time.

Here's another question: Is space-time elastic? It seems to be, because if you remove a mass from an area, the 'gravity' goes with it, and space-time smoothes back out. So, does space-time attempt to un-frame drag? If the frame dragging is elastic and the frame dragging is 'work' then it should actually spin the black hole back the other way when space-time untwists.
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2012
Spacetime is expandable and compressable. I don't know if I would use the word elastic because elasticity implies a counter force where as spacetime appears to react to gravity only. Personally, the way I percieve a gravity well generated by a planet or a star isn't the same as a BH. IMO, regardless of whether a BH is accreting matter, it is continuously "swallowing" spacetime...the well is theoretically bottomless. This theory could explain DE as well. (although not in a thousand characters)

Frame dragging is the subtle gravitational effect of a stellar body of low mass.... comparitively,SMBH's aren't subtle.
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2012
Spacetime is expandable and compressable. I don't know if I would use the word elastic because elasticity implies a counter force where as spacetime appears to react to gravity only.


Yeah, that's along the lines I was thinking. However, I'm not sure about the counter force. If you have a given bit of spacetime and you move a massive object through it, you distort that bit of spacetime in proportion to the mass. As the mass departs, the spacetime returns to its previous state without requiring any "anti-mass" to make it return to it's former state. You don't see 'furrows' or 'craters' in spacetime left behind by massive objects.

I guess what I'm asking, is this: Frame dragging allows an object to appear to move faster from an outside perspective than it is locally moving. If you remove the mass that caused the frame dragging, does the object suffer a temporary reverse frame drag as spacetime corrects itself back to 'normal', causing apparent speed to reduce?
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2012
Well GS, if it works the way I believe it does, the massive object moving through space isn't the same as it being gravitationally bound to spacetime. When you enter the vicinity of a mass capable of generating measurable frame dragging (FD), the FD is specific to THAT mass, only the gravity of another mass entering the gravitational field could change the FD effect.

So yes, if you remove the mass, to an observer outside the effect, the object would appear to "stall"...then ponder aloud, "where the eff did that planet go?"
Q-Star
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2012
Well GS, if it works the way I believe it does, the massive object moving through space isn't the same as it being gravitationally bound to spacetime. When you enter the vicinity of a mass capable of generating measurable frame dragging (FD)


Interesting thing you're writing. I'm visualizing the "gravitation-is-acceleration" equivalence? Right? I'll re-read your posts again to make sure I'm not overlooking some nuance.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2012
why they always seem to be aligned with the rotational axis of the actively feeding black hole
Well, not always (1, 2) - many black holes do behave like giant pulsars and their axis of rotation is not parallel with axis of jets...
VendicarD
3 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2012
To the universe "outside" a black hole, nothing manages to fall inside. The infalling matter just slows down and never reaches the black hole's surface.

So there is never any disconnect between the infalling matter and the rest of the universe.

"Can anyone explain how the spin of an object can effect matter not in contact with it?" - StarGazer

Magnetic fields of course are a fiction, and arise from the presumption that charge fields remain unchanged and uniform under relative motion or acceleration.

This is not the case, of course, but presuming it is, requires the creation of a new force called "magintism" in order to compensate for the relativistic effects of charge asymmetry due to reltive motion and acceleration.

Since charge exists at the surface of a BH, and that charge never vanishes into the BH as observed by the universe, magnetic fields are to be expected.
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 06, 2012
Well GS, if it works the way I believe it does, the massive object moving through space isn't the same as it being gravitationally bound to spacetime. When you enter the vicinity of a mass capable of generating measurable frame dragging (FD)


Interesting thing you're writing. I'm visualizing the "gravitation-is-acceleration" equivalence? Right? I'll re-read your posts again to make sure I'm not overlooking some nuance.


Would you believe there is actually a website where you can calculate planetary mass and gravitational acceleration (actually almost anything as the complex formulas are already inputted)

http://easycalcul...tion.php

Sorry, off topic, and yes , I don't know if you've ever heard of "the man, the elevator and the rocket" (a brilliant interpretaion for the lay person), but gravity-acceleration equivalence would be the aspect of GR applicable to this scenario. (again IMO)
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2012
Can anyone explain how the spin of an object can effect matter not in contact with it?


It is an effect demonstrated experimentally by the Gravity Probe B space mission. The effect is very small, almost undetectable, unless you have enormous mass.

Here's a wiki page about it:

http://en.wikiped...dragging

Basically, the spin causes the relativistic effects to have a directional component in the direction of spin. One effect of this is that light traveling through the area in the direction of spin will seem to move faster than light moving in the opposite direction, from an outside observer. The effect gets stronger the closer you get to the center of the spinning mass. This causes any three dimensional object in the area to have its inside edge pulled forward and its outside edge pulled backwards, which induces spin and sheer forces that tear things apart.

In the above example the forces are very extreme.
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2012
Continued:

If you could somehow stand on a magical platform orbiting a supermassive black hole at nearly the speed of light, with your feet pointed towards the SMBH, and your head pointed away, you would encounter some really interresting things. Space at your feet would effectively be circling the BH faster than the space at your head. This would very quickly cause your feet to go all the way around and back again, stretching you out into a spighetti string of subatomic particles, as even your atoms would be stretched apart. You would be turned into a ring around the BH. Of course, there would also be a lot of energy released as your atoms come apart, so you would be kinda like an old fashioned fission bomb too.

If the SMBH wasn't spinning, you would still get stretched into spighetti if you got too close, but you would be stretched into a straight line pointing towards the center, rather than a spiral disc around the equator.
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2012
One more thing:

If the Universe itself was spinning, even a little bit, the effects should be observable. Therefore we 'know' that the Universe isn't spinning. A LOT of fundamental things about the laws of physics would behave differently if the Universe was spinning (according to General Relativity theory).

Oh, and BTW, in the above example, where you get stretched into a spiral that wraps around the black hole many many times, from your point of view, it would appear to be a straight line towards the center. It only looks like a spiral from an outside point of view. Now that's freaky.
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2012
" Now that's freaky."

The fundamental forces are freaky. SMBH's make them, as Rick James would say...superfreaky.

"It is an effect demonstrated experimentally by the Gravity Probe B space mission. The effect is very small, almost undetectable, unless you have enormous mass."

And four near perfect spheres suspended in a helium plasma superconducter to act as gyros to detect/document the effect. Pure engineering genius.


Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2012
Would you believe there is actually a website where you can calculate planetary mass and gravitational acceleration (actually almost anything as the complex formulas are already inputted)

http://easycalcul...tion.php


For two bodies not moving at relativistic velocities.

It's in every freshman physics course. Calculating gravitational acceleration: a = F/m and F = G(m1m2/r^2).

a = acceleration
F = Force due to gravitational acceleration.

m1= mass of first body
m2= mass of second body
r^2 distance between m1 & m2 squared.
G = Newton's gravitational constant. (6.67 x 10^-11)

Einstein's field equations will give the exact same result with objects moving at less than relativist velocities. But they are very difficult math, only useful at extreme magnitudes.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (10) Dec 06, 2012
One of the true metrics of any theory is it's predictive ability, much can be deduced from the FACT that nearly every observation performed by standard theorists is "perplexing", "surprising", and "unexpected".


THAT is what we live for, the more "perplexing", the more "surprising", and the more "unexpected" the better.

But Mr. cantdrive, let me ask you if you would care to test one of my predictions,,,

Foundation: It is observed that cantdrive has an obsessive reaction to any mention by the astrophysical community of hot gases that doesn't have the word "plasma" in it.

Experiment proposed: Subject cantdrive to the word "metals" as used by the astrophysical community. Record reaction.

Prediction: cantdrive will read a kindergarten level explanation of the Periodic Table, and litter this forum with hundreds of pages describing how astrophysicists know nothing of chemistry.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2012
I posed a question on a different thread and have yet to see an answer, maybe you'd like to show why the plasma ceases to behave as the laws of physics dictate, that astrophysicists insist must happen.

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?


Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 06, 2012
Where is the disconnect?


Without knowing the connect, I can't say for sure, I'd look first into your understanding of general physics.

They know it's plasma, while at the same time there is continued surprise and wonderment when plasma behavior is observed.


If there was no surprise or wonderment there would no reason to continue to observe.

Where are the discussions of self organizing birkeland currents that have been repeatedly produced in labs.


Maybe they are busy discussing astronomy stuff?????

Where are the discussions of the other well understood plasma behaviors, such as double layers, plasma sheaths, cells and pinches?


This is an astronomy page????

Why do yo have this flawed belief that charges "cancel out" when that is not what happens in labs?


Because on large enough scales positives equal negatives, you know, that pesky "conservation" thingy????

As I asked, where's the disconnect?


You don't know
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2012
BTW, those "metals" you mentioned are also plasma, we know this due to the fact that Maxwell's AND Boltzmann's equations must be employed to describe their behavior. According to Anthony Peratt, metals are a plasma as well;
"These are examples of "strongly interacting plasmas" where the Coulomb interaction energy (distance between particles) is larger than the thermal energy (temperature). This leads to a small (often less than one) number of particles in a Debye sphere. This changes the physics of the beast, but it is still called a plasma. For example, instead of small angle collisions dominating transport that can be modeled with a Fokker-Planck equation, one must use the full Boltzman equation description. For example, a metal is in many respects a plasma, yet conventional definitions breakdown."

http://plasmauniv...tml#what
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2012
Einstein's field equations will give the exact same result with objects moving at less than relativist velocities. But they are very difficult math, only useful at extreme magnitudes.


Your telling me! Visualization through an understanding of the forces/concepts involved is easier for me than the math when talking about how stuff works. Not to mention this fascination started off as benign curiosity....we know how it worked out for the cat.

I don't know if I should thank you or curse you for stressing the importance of the math as it applies (kidding). I was reading an abstract from Martin Houde et al titled "probing the magnetic field with molecular ion spectra" in bed last week, and my girlfriend asked me where I found the Tesseract and where we were off to...gotta love her. Then she eyed up one of the equations and asked me "if you understand THAT, why don't you make more money?". I told her I didn't at the time, but the verbal explanation was easy, the math is work
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 06, 2012
BTW, those "metals" you mentioned are also plasma,


Naaaa, I was thinking of the way all us ignorant astrophysicists call anything heavier than hydrogen or helium a "metal".
Q-Star
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2012
I don't know if I should thank you or curse you for stressing the importance of the math as it applies (kidding).


I would hope you thank me. Mathematics are usually only difficult when a person enters them at the "wrong" level of understanding. It is an area that requires learning a series of concepts and rules, and must be learned in a specific order to really understand it. The little formula I posted below is something anyone, even a middle school kid could preform on a $5.00 calculator. But KNOWING the physics of it, & to apply it to situations not presented with those exact elements, you need to know HOW the elements are related, not just the "right" position in the formula to put numbers.

Elementary algebra.
Intermediate algebra.
Geometry.
Trigonometry & Precalc.
Adv algebra
Beginning Calculus.

Stick to that order, & work simple and then more complex examples, over and over. You will be surprised how easy it is. You can't learn one without knowing the one before.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Dec 06, 2012
Nice tap dancing around answering simple questions.

Astronomy stuff???

You mean that which describes fantasy land, or the plasma that NASA agrees accounts for 99.99% of the Universe? Once again, why does all this plasma not behave like plasma? Answer the question instead of dodging it.

Because on large enough scales positives equal negatives, you know, that pesky "conservation" thingy????

Straw man, plasma is scalable, what we observe in the laboratory can be extrapolated to cosmic scales, and nowhere in experiments on plasma do charges "cancel out". They interact in highly complex systems of self modifying filamentary and cellular structures while producing double layers, sheaths, and pinches.
It is you who is choosing the unscientific approach by simply claiming to be talking about "astronomy stuff" while ignoring the obvious.
Thanks again for pointing out so clearly that Alfven was correct in his assessment of the ignorance of astrophysicists about basic science.
Q-Star
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2012
Thanks again for pointing out so clearly that Alfven was correct in his assessment of the ignorance of astrophysicists about basic science.


Glad I could help with that.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 06, 2012
Once again, why does all this plasma not behave like plasma? Answer the question instead of dodging it.


The question is nonsensical. I would think a thing acts like what it is.

Straw man, plasma is scalable,


At least you didn't call me Plasma Man.

They interact in highly complex systems of self modifying filamentary and cellular structures while producing double layers, sheaths, and pinches.


Why don't you write that up and submit it to the journals. I'm working on other things.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Dec 06, 2012
The question is nonsensical. I would think a thing acts like what it is.

Still dancing. The only thing nonsensical is a professional who is charged with studying something remains willfully ignorant of 99.99% of that which he observes. If I'm wrong, point me in the direction of any astrophysical paper that includes one mention of a double layer, plasma sheath, or pinch. It matters little whether matter is H, He, or Fe, if it is plasma , it will behave according to the laws which dictate the behavior of plasma.

Why don't you write that up and submit it to the journals. I'm working on other things.


Much of it's been written up and known, for "nearly a half century" now. As you said;
"Plasma is usually only difficult when a person enters them at the "wrong" level of understanding. It is an area that requires learning a series of concepts and rules, and must be learned in a specific order to really understand it."

http://public.lan...cesI.pdf
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2012
Still dancing. The only thing nonsensical is a professional who is charged with studying something remains willfully ignorant of 99.99% of that which he observes. If I'm wrong, point me in the direction of any astrophysical paper that includes one mention of a double layer, plasma sheath, or pinch. It matters little whether matter is H, He, or Fe, if it is plasma , it will behave according to the laws which dictate the behavior of plasma.


If you don't like the papers being written, and what they cover, write your own. If you can't write your own, you'll have to take what you can get. Maybe you should try calling the request line.

Much of it's been written up and known, for "nearly a half century" now.


What? Make up your mind. If this so, there should plenty of stuff for you to read that you'll enjoy more than this site. It seems like a wide open field just waiting for you to exploit it. Get out and DO some science. Write some papers.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2012
I can see it so clearly, old-timey Vaudeville hat, cane in hand...

Tap tap tappity tappity tap tap....
barakn
5 / 5 (5) Dec 06, 2012
[ If I'm wrong, point me in the direction of any astrophysical paper that includes one mention of a double layer, plasma sheath, or pinch.
Borisov, N.; Mall, U. "The structure of the double layer behind the Moon" (2002) Journal of Plasma Physics, vol. 67, Issue 04, p.277-299

Severnyi, A. B., "On the Appearance of Cosmics Rays in the Pinch Effect in Solar Flares" (1959) Soviet Astronomy, Vol. 3, p.887

It's so sad that someone lied to you and said these don't exist in mainstream astronomy, but it's even sadder that you are propagating this lie.
kochevnik
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2012
@cantdrive85 "the fictional black hole"
If the physorg posters were all on a starship together, you would be the guy who was "accidentally" snuffed in the depressurization chamber.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2012
So your rebuttal is an article written, not by an astrophysicist, in the 'Journal of Plasma Physics' and a reference to a Soviet journal, spot on.

"I have no trouble publishing in Soviet astrophysical journals, but my work is unacceptable to the American astrophysical journals."
[Referring to the trouble he had with the peer reviewers of Anglo-American astrophysical journals because his ideas often conflicted with the generally accepted or "standard" theories.]
— Hannes Alfvén
barakn
5 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2012
J. W. Freeman and M. Ibrahim. Lunar electric fields, surface potential and associated plasma sheaths. Moon, 14:103–114, September 1975.

J. S. Halekas, R. P. Lin, and D. L. Mitchell. Inferring the scale height of the lunar nightside double layer. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(21):210000–1, November 2003.

J. S. Halekas, S. D. Bale, D. L. Mitchell, and R. P. Lin. Electrons and magnetic fields in the lunar plasma wake. Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110:7222–+, July 2005.

Ha, ha. There are hundreds of articles. Are these authors and journals Western enough for you?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2012
I see you've become a T. Bridgeman disciple, being all the papers were found here; http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2010/04/electric-universe-lunar-electric-fields.html
Funny how a guy who is "dealing with creationism in science" accepts the creation story of the Big Bang without question.
There are a number of rebuttals to this cranks POV on EUT, not to mention Hannes destroyed his skewed POV in a previous thread.

http://electric-c...utTB.pdf

http://www.sjcrot...gman.pdf

http://www.sjcrot...man.html

BTW, you proved me wrong about the papers being written, now I will be astounded when they actually start applying that knowledge. When they finally listen to Alfven and realize "magnetic reconnection" and "frozen-in field lines" are pseudo-science, we'll really be getting somewhere.

barakn
5 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2012
Ah, you fanatics. I'm not sure how providing a list of papers makes me a disciple, but I'm sure you know a lot more about being a disciple than I do.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2012
IMO the black holes may exist in the sense, they form very dense neutrino/axion/graviton stars with event horizon around it. Whether they're formed a pin-point singularity is questionable, because the general relativity is schematic in this matter and it doesn't account to quantum phenomena. For me it seems logical, when particles collapse, then they're dissolved mutually into form of dense mixture, which is still behaving like large giant particle at its surface. We cannot see inside of atom nuclei in similar way, like inside of black holes, in this sense the black holes are dense conglomerate of tiny black holes with their walls partially dissolved. A physical surface of such artifact may still exist there. At the case, when it protrudes the event horizon, it has a tendency to evaporate into radiation and such a black hole is shinning like the quasar (white hole). When most of matter evaporates, then we get a cold dense star hidden beneath event horizon, which is created around it.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2012
Even the mainstream physicists have very poor understanding, how the black holes should look like. Some are saying, they can have a physical surface and retain some information, some others are saying, they do not. Some are saying they have inner structure, some others are saying, they haven't. Some physicists are saying, they're surrounded with firewall, some other are saying, their surface appears like fuzzball, some others believe in black hole complementarity. I can find at least three-five peer-reviewed publications for every alternative (and hundreds others at ArXiv) - so if someone believes here, the physicists have better understanding of black hole concept than every layman, he's simply lying. Currently no universally accepted model of black holes exists - we only have legacy models derived with using of general relativity, which are taught at schools and which don't fit observations very well, as we already know.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2012
BTW the similar conceptual confusion exists regarding pre-BigBang models of Universe, which is not accidental at all, because the event horizon of black holes is driven with similar geometrical principles, like the particle horizon of observable Universe. You can imagine there, what you want and this is a paradise for mathematicians, who lack public feedback and who can generate publications about it freely.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2012
"What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it." Richard Feynman
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2012
"magnetic reconnection" and "frozen-in field lines" are pseudo-science - accurate statement (depending on the intended meaning for magnetic reconnection anyways)

CD85- One thing that you have to consider, is that although plasma effects are scalable, the other factors are not. You can't model the plasma around a SMBH the same way you model a star, you can't model the earths EM field and then just scale it up to show the sun's, or saturn's or jupiters. I read to page 7 of Scott's rebuttal to Bridgeman, it appears they are both very knowledgeable in their fields and alot less of each others.

For human's to build an accurate working model of the universe, it will require everything that the best, brightest and in some cases the stubbornly persistent have been right about since the modern age began, if competing theories each have particular aspects correct, neither can be totally right. But not totally wrong either.
rubberman
2.7 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2012
"Currently no universally accepted model of black holes exists"- very true Val.

I am more concerned with how BH's effect the space around them their internal stucture. It is a region no human can grasp because until we can detect something exiting an event horizon, I don't even believe Hawking on that one.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2012
..It is a region no human can grasp because until we can detect something exiting an event horizon..
I do believe it's imaginable even without math. In AWT the universe appears like visibility zone at the water surface, when being observed with its own waves. Every surface ripple gets scattered into underwater after certain distance, which brings the notion of the red shift, dark energy and initial singularity. The same applies for black holes: you may imagine it like more dense areas or funnels at the water surface, so that the light gets scattered there from outside. So we have at least two perspectives here: From outside it will appear like the surface of black bubble, which is essentially the relativistic view. But providing the observer is sufficiently resistant against huge gradients of gravity and EM fields he can visit the interior of black hole and he would experience it rather like common extension of our Universe.
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2012
Richard Feynman


Would have flunked you out of any class he ever taught. You are unteachable.
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2012
Water waves blah, blah, blah and plasma blah, blah and blah.

Water waves ARE NOT fields, and plasma IS a very hot gas.

Cutting edge I know, but if you really try, you can see it.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2012
On the duality of these two observational perspectives the so-called complementarity of black holes is based. I do believe, this approach is correct, as it's consistent with dense aether model too. You can find another illustrative explanation of it here. This brings the practical example of multiverse concept: the interior of black holes may appear like quite normal Universe for hypothetical very tiny and dense people, who could live inside of it. But because we cannot shrink ourself into such a compact dense state, we could never verify such a perspective personally. But we could use the more resistant spaceprobes to analyze it at least indirectly.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2012
You can't model the plasma around a SMBH the same way you model a star

This is true, just as you can't put a value on the gold in the pot at the end of the rainbow. There is a certain truth to your statement, diffuse astrophysical plasmas do not behave in the exact same ways as quark-gluon plasmas, however the processe are largely driven by EM forces.

you can't model the earths EM field and then just scale it up to show the sun's, or saturn's or jupiters


Why? The Sun is a charged body immersed within the charged interstellar plasma medium. Saturn, Jupiter, Earth and the rest of the planets are charged bodies within the Sun's dynamic plasma environment. In EUT, the charge differentiation will determine the size and strength of the EM field (atmospheres are part of the system), the larger the differentiation the larger and more complex the system will be. Ultimately, the existence of the EM field is to isolate the charged body from the larger electrical environment.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2012
and plasma IS a very hot gas

And ice IS a very cold liquid.
And gas IS a very dispersed solid.
And liquid IS a very runny solid and slimy gas.
I guess that whole "states of matter" is as variable as gravity (MOND, BH's, and such).

This plasma physicist disagrees with your assessment.

"Plasma is overwhelmingly the dominant constituent of the universe as a whole. Yet most people are ignorant of plasmas. In daily life on the surface of planet Earth, perhaps the plasma to which people are most commonly exposed is the one that produces the cool efficient glow from fluorescent lights. Neither solid, nor liquid, nor gas, a plasma most closely resembles the latter, but unlike gases whose components are electrically neutral, plasma is composed of the building blocks of all matter: electrically charged particles at high energy."
http://plasmauniv...tml#what

Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 07, 2012
This plasma physicist disagrees with your assessment.


No, he disagrees with IUA, MIT, IOP, Cal Tech, OED (the 22 volume big boy), just about everyone except the wing-nuts at the "Plasma Universe". I just happen to they carry much more substance than your ravings.

Every reference book, Oxford, Cambridge, Cal Tech, MIT, UC Berkley, Stanford, Princeton, etc, etc, etc,,,,,, they all have it wrong, but of course there is a conspiracy among them to keep cantdrive from "correcting" their mistake. They HAVE TO BE the ones who are wrong. It can't be cantdrive, right?

By the By: I had the ultimate privilege of being taught by Richard Feynman, he would have flunked you out of freshman physics. (And then present YOU to the classes which followed as an example of a person not cut out for a science education.)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2012
and plasma IS a very hot gas


Correct.

And ice IS a very cold liquid.


Wrong, it has fixed shape but fixed volume so is classed as "solid".

And gas IS a very dispersed solid.


Wrong, gas does not have a fixed volume or shape.

And liquid IS a very runny solid and slimy gas.


Wrong, it has a fixed volume but variable shape.

I guess ...


Instead of guessing, read a textbook, this stuff is primary school level.

This plasma physicist disagrees with your assessment.

"Neither solid, nor liquid, nor gas, a plasma most closely resembles the latter, ..


Correct.

but unlike gases whose components are electrically neutral, plasma is composed of the building blocks of all matter: electrically charged particles at high energy."


Misleading, it is ionised but overall remains neutral because it contains equal numbers of oppositely charged ions and electrons.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2012
And so, the ignorance continues.....
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2012
From Lawrence Livermore Labs plasma resources page;

Plasma- Known as the "Fourth State of Matter", a plasma is a substance in which many of the atoms or molecules are effectively ionized, allowing charges to flow freely. Since some 99% of the known universe is in the plasma state and has been since the Big Bang, plasmas might be considered the First State of Matter. Plasmas have unique physics compared to solids, liquids, and gases; although plasmas are often treated as extremely hot gases, this is often incorrect. Examples of plasmas include the sun, fluorescent light bulbs and other gas-discharge tubes, very hot flames, much of interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactice space, the earth's ionosphere, parts of the atmosphere around lightning discharges, laser-produced plasmas and plasmas produced for magnetic confinement fusion. Types of plasmas include - Astrophysical, Collisionless, Cylindrical, Electrostatically Neutral, Inhomogeneous, Intergalactic, Interstellar, (con't)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2012
(con't)
Magnetized, Nonneutral, Nonthermal, Partially Ionized, Relativistic, Solid State, Strongly Coupled, Thermal, Unmagnetized, Vlasov and more.

Strangely, LLNL says "Plasmas have unique physics compared to solids, liquids, and gases; although plasmas are often treated as extremely hot gases, this is often incorrect."

That flies in the face of your claims, I guess those wackos over at LLNL and Los Alamos are a bunch of PC loons.

http://plasmadict...e=detail
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2012
Misleading, it is ionised but overall remains neutral because it contains equal numbers of oppositely charged ions and electrons.


Incorrect

According to LLNL, plasmas can be Inhomogeneous, nonneutral, partially ionized, and more...
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2012
Misleading, it is ionised but overall remains neutral because it contains equal numbers of oppositely charged ions and electrons.


Incorrect

According to LLNL, plasmas can be Inhomogeneous,


Correct, but plasma of mixed materials and/or variable density is still neutral even over regions smaller than the inhomogeneities.

nonneutral,


Plasma is a conductor so you can apply an electric charge to a piece of metal, think of the sphere on top of a Van de Graff generator, but you then need a power source to maintain that relative to the region of opposite polarity.

partially ionized,


That's just a mixture of neutral gas and neutral plasma, in fact most plasmas will be in this state with dynamic equilibrium between the two.

There's nothing new in what you said, nor does it contradict what I said.

The fact remains, you don't even know the difference between solid, liquid and gas, never mind plasma. The saying is "Learn to walk before you try to run."
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2012
And so, the ignorance continues.....


Yes indeedy-roo, it surely does.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2012
The term used by plasma physicists for most astrophysical plasmas is quasi-neutral, that being said, in a cloud of "neutral" plasma the charges don't "cancel out", they self-organize into complex cellular structures with filaments and double layers. By just claiming "it's neutral" completely ignores the complex behavior of the "neutral" plasma. Herein lies the problem with astrophysicists, they apply gas laws to the "hot gas", and completely ignore (due to the ignorance so clearly pointed out by Q and fleet) mapping the electric currents and electric fields that are associated with the magnetic fields. You may as well be trying to describe the results of a flood without acknowledging the water which caused it and leads to incomplete understanding of the phenomenon, hence astrophysicists will continue to be "perplexed" and "surprised" by nearly every observation. There are four states of matter and plasma is the natural state of matter, an indisputable fact.
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2012
cantdrive,

Please deign to answer a short and easy question for me. Where were you educated? What school? When? And what level did you successfully complete there?

Ooops, one more if you will,,,, Where is this body of truth you keep referring to taught?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2012
Once again, you're forgetting the other 99.99%. It's only in the crustal regions of rocky planets where we find solids, liquids, and gases.

What has all that "education" done for you, you don't know the difference between the various states of matter. I'm gonna make a leap here, I propose Feynman was as oblivious to the facts as you are, just another crank metaphysicist.
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2012
What has all that "education" done for you,


Provided me with an endless life of wondrous and exciting appreciation for the universe I inhabit. (And provided me with shelter and sustenance to boot.)

I'm gonna make a leap here, I propose Feynman was as oblivious to the facts as you are, just another crank metaphysicist.


Well thanks for putting your world view in proper perspective. I would surely hate to be accused of misrepresenting the worth of your thoughts.
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2012
cantdrive,

Please deign to answer a short and easy question for me. Where were you educated? What school? When? And what level did you successfully complete there?

Ooops, one more if you will,,,, Where is this body of truth you keep referring to taught?


I think you responded to the wrong post, could I repeat the questions.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2012
Where's the disconnect?

As soon as mine is answered.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2012
Hi Q-Star.
cantdrive,

Please deign to answer a short and easy question for me. Where were you educated? What school? When? And what level did you successfully complete there?

Ooops, one more if you will,,,, Where is this body of truth you keep referring to taught?


Mate, this is getting painfully silly on your part. CD85 just pointed out that plasma state is a totally unique state of energy-matter which is far removed from the usual low-temp states of gas/liquid/solid. He has just pointed out that plasmas are multiply varied in overall behaviours and self-organisation which no other states can match (such as Z-pinch, Alfven Waves and so on which depend only on the plasma state and not on the usual forces involved in gas/solid/liquid states).

It is clear why plasmas are so different. But all you come back with is inane questions about 'the messenger' instead of acknowledging what CD 85 just pointed out to you.

Do better as scientist and STFU with personal disparagements. ok?
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2012
It is clear why plasmas are so different. But all you come back with is inane questions about 'the messenger' instead of acknowledging what CD 85 just pointed out to you.

I know there different aspects to the behavior of plasmas. No one has disputed that. This very article even discusses it. But the "messenger" thinks that because the astrophysical community won't cater to his twisted view that no other forces in the universe exist, they are ignorant. The messenger's only message is that Plasma Cosmology is THE only theory. It's not even A theory.

Do better as scientist and STFU with personal disparagements. ok?

Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 08, 2012
It is clear why plasmas are so different. But all you come back with is inane questions about 'the messenger' instead of acknowledging what CD 85 just pointed out to you.


I know there different aspects to the behavior of plasmas. No one has disputed that. This very article even discusses it. But the "messenger" thinks that because the astrophysical community won't cater to his twisted view that no other forces in the universe exist, they are ignorant. The messenger's only message is that Plasma Cosmology is THE only theory. It's not even A theory.

Do better as scientist and STFU with personal disparagements. ok?


In a word? NO. It's not okay, ok? I'm not a friend to odd-science, pseudo-science or theo-science. Plasma Cosmology is not a science. It's not a theory as defined by science. Neither the Electric Universe. They are not science, they are cults.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2012
I know there different aspects to the behavior of plasmas. No one has disputed that. This very article even discusses it. But the "messenger" thinks that because the astrophysical community won't cater to his twisted view that no other forces in the universe exist, they are ignorant. The messenger's only message is that Plasma Cosmology is THE only theory. It's not even A theory.


It should be obvious that all 'force' have domains of maximal-minimal effectiveness; and that forces in the plasma domain have overwhelming applicability quite separate from all other forces. Hence, once gravity and normal low-temp e-m etc forces have had their say, the plasma forces/behaviour takes over from there, as observed every day in the lab and astronomically. Bear that in mind before making strawmen to attack while ignoring domain of maximal/minimal effectiveness of the respective forces involved in lab/astronomical phenomena under study.

Good luck and good thinking, everyone!
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2012
Where's the disconnect?

As soon as mine is answered.


I did answer that question, I think I said "I can't tell you until I know where the connect was." And "I think a thing acts like what it is" (rather than acts like something it isn't.)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2012
The term used by plasma physicists for most astrophysical plasmas is quasi-neutral, that being said, in a cloud of "neutral" plasma the charges don't "cancel out", they self-organize into complex cellular structures with filaments and double layers. By just claiming "it's neutral" completely ignores the complex behavior of the "neutral" plasma.


I was just responding to your post which only gave such examples.

There are four states of matter and plasma is the natural state of matter, an indisputable fact.


Nope, the natural state is solid, liquid or gas depending on the temperature. Plasma needs an energy source to maintain the ionisation of the atoms, without that it slowly recombines.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Dec 08, 2012
Above;
one of the more perplexing aspects of the jetting behavior is why they always seem to be aligned with the rotational axis...
no matter how they initially oriented the black hole's jets, they always eventually ended up aligned with the rotational axis of the black hole itself—exactly what's been found in real-world observations.

Why is this perplexing? This is how plasma reacts to the EM forces even without a black hole.
DISCONNECT
Now, new research using advanced 3D computer models is supporting the idea that it's the black holes' ramped-up rotation rate combined with plasma's magnetism that's responsible for shaping the jets.

If one was familiar with the self organizing properties of plasma and particle beams, it is easy to see the error in this "hypothesis".
http://public.lan...eams.pdf
DISCONNECT
Where is the discussion of the electric currents/fields that must be present along with these magnetic fields?
DISCONNECT
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2012
Nope, the natural state is solid, liquid or gas depending on the temperature. Plasma needs an energy source to maintain the ionisation of the atoms, without that it slowly recombines.


Really? In excess of 99.99% of the Universe is currently plasma, but the natural state is actually the <.01%? Huh!?!? That may be the "natural" state for matter in our little slice of life, but for the other 99.99% of the Universe, plasma is the way to go.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2012
Now Fleet, if you want to return to the Pre-Copernican, Ptolemaic model of an Earth centered Universe, then yes you are correct, plasma is not the natural state of matter.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2012
"Plasma Cosmology is not a science." Qstar


The silly PC loons over at the IEEE accept PC as a legitimate science, and have done so for quite some time now. Here is a paper by Alfven published 1986 in 'IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science', and they still do so to this day. If it weren't for the brilliant minds of the men of the IEEE designing and building the wonderful space craft they have, astrophysicists would be even more useless than they already are. It's those who are threatened by the real scientists taking their jobs that don't see PC as a real science, and how would they now with their metaphysicist minds.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2012
Nope, the natural state is solid, liquid or gas depending on the temperature. Plasma needs an energy source to maintain the ionisation of the atoms, without that it slowly recombines.


Really? In excess of 99.99% of the Universe is currently plasma, but the natural state is actually the <.01%? Huh!?!?


The natural state of any material depends on the temperature. You don't seem to understand the difference between the states of matter and the relative abundance of those states. As I said before, the phrase you need is "learn to walk before you run".
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2012
Now Fleet, if you want to return to the Pre-Copernican, Ptolemaic model of an Earth centered Universe, then yes you are correct, plasma is not the natural state of matter.


No thanks, I'll leave the role of "cult acolyte" to you, you have that behaviour nailed.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 09, 2012
Newton's laws, even though they work so well, are the work of a moron. Obviously it is plasma that makes them work.

Boyle's laws? More moronic work, plasma makes them work.

Boltzman, Stefan? Thermodynamics? The laws of thermodynamics are misnamed, everyone should realize, it's plasma.

Planck, Einstein, Bohr? Morons all, they didn't write of plasma, ergo, morons.

Heisenburg, Schrodinger, Pauli, Fermi,,, they must of been morons,, their work all failed within a few years.

Lemaitre, Friedman, Gamow, Landau, Hubble, Guth, Wheeler, Peebles, Feynman, et al.? Yep all morons. Their work has proved absolutely useless in predicting anything.

But there are at least TWO brilliant scientists, Alvenn, and Peratt, (and the electricians over in the IEEE, what would science be without engineers to lead the way?)

Thermodynamics? Dead field, only plasma.

QED? Dead field, only plasma.

Gravity?, no such thing, only plasma.

Chemistry?, no way, only plasma.

ETC,

There is no God but plasma.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2012
"It should be obvious that all 'force' have domains of maximal-minimal effectiveness; and that forces in the plasma domain have overwhelming applicability quite separate from all other forces. Hence, once gravity and normal low-temp e-m etc forces have had their say, the plasma forces/behaviour takes over from there, as observed every day in the lab and astronomically. Bear that in mind before making strawmen to attack while ignoring domain of maximal/minimal effectiveness of the respective forces involved in lab/astronomical phenomena under study." Reality Check


Again with the strawman.

"its (GR) exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..." Nikola Tesla New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8

Hubble warned the metaphysicists about misusing red-shift, a warning that goes unheeded to this day. Hubble's protege Arp has shown numerous examples that red-shift is not only a Doppler effect, but as usual, difficult facts are ignored.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2012
"The natural state of any material depends on the temperature. You don't seem to understand the difference between the states of matter and the relative abundance of those states" Fleethoof


I guess NASA scientists are lying when they claim 99.9% of the Universe is plasma.

"99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma," says Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. "Very little material in space is made of rock like the Earth."

http://science.na...sep99_1/

Now, please explain how I (more appropriately, you) don't understand the abundance of the states of matter in the Universe.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2012
Nope, the natural state is solid, liquid or gas depending on the temperature. Plasma needs an energy source to maintain the ionisation of the atoms, without that it slowly recombines.


Really? In excess of 99.99% of the Universe is currently plasma, but the natural state is actually the <.01%? Huh!?!?


The natural state of any material depends on the temperature. You don't seem to understand the difference between the states of matter and the relative abundance of those states


I guess NASA scientists are lying when they claim 99.9% of the Universe is plasma.

Now, please explain how I (more appropriately, you) don't understand the abundance of the states of matter in the Universe.


You just demonstrated it again. Consider two different questions:

a) What is the normal state for cold matter?

b) Which state of matter is the most abundant?

Can you answer both or only the second?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2012
a) What is the normal state for cold matter?
b) Which state of matter is the most abundant?
Can you answer both or only the second?

Well, you have to qualify the question. Where? How cold? What special conditions does your reasoning require? In space, even the "cold" matter is plasma. Plasma has been observed from above 10^9 degrees kelvin to absolute zero. On that scale, a million kelvin is "cool". That being said, since 99.9% of the Universe is in a plasma state, the answer to what is normal(1) is going to be the same answer to what is most abundant.

(1) Normal- conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

By that definition, solid, liquid, and gas (<.01%) are extraordinarily abnormal. Once again, we need to determine whether we want to be Ptolemaic, or if we want to acknowledge that the Earth is NOT flat, NOR at the center of the Universe.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 09, 2012
Hubble warned the metaphysicists about misusing red-shift, a warning that goes unheeded to this day. Hubble's protege Arp has shown numerous examples that red-shift is not only a Doppler effect, but as usual, difficult facts are ignored.


That's what happens when you paraphrase a quote that refers to something far removed from the subject at hand. You get it wrong.

You don't even know the work of Hubble, much less understand it. Hubble was an observational astronomer. He describes phenomena. He was not a theorist, and never claimed to be. He was not an astrophysicist, and never claimed to be.

He acknowledged the fact that he did not know physics well enough to explain redshift, and he gave that task to those who did.

And Arp was not his "protege". You really should check before you pass on that "super" & "special" knowledge that only the electricians possess and have passed on to you in dribs and drabs.
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2012
"I guess NASA scientists are lying when they claim 99.9% of the Universe is plasma."

Frankly, I'm curious why you believe any claims by "NASA scientists"?

These are the same scientists that are studying volcanism on Io, the organic composition of (non-electric) comets, gravitational lensing in galaxy clusters, dark energy, dark matter, inflationary cosmology, fusion-based physics of stellar interiors, neutron star astrophysics and many other areas of contemporary astronomy that you outright reject.

Why again do you accept the pronouncements of NASA scientists wrt plasma in the universe and reject all else? I mean, if they've flubbed the most basic tenets of the field, over and over again (as you frequently remind us), why do you trust their opinion about anything?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 09, 2012
There is no God but plasma.
'We don't need no stinking plasma.' Andrea Rossi
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2012
These are the same scientists that are studying volcanism on Io, the organic composition of (non-electric) comets, gravitational lensing in galaxy clusters, dark energy, dark matter, inflationary cosmology, fusion-based physics of stellar interiors, neutron star astrophysics and many other areas of contemporary astronomy that you outright reject.


Much of what you mention has nothing to do with the "basic tenets" of astronomy, those are the basic tenets of GR and BB astrophysics. Astronomy is the observation, astrophysics is the "theory of how". NASA is pretty good at observing, it's the theory of how where they fall off track.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 09, 2012
'The Observational Approach to Cosmology', Edwin Hubble

Possible Interpretations of Red-Shifts
When first observed the red-shifts were immediately attributed to radial motion away from the observer,
to recession of the nebulae. This interpretation still remains the only permissible explanation that is
known. It is true that other ways are known by which red-shifts might be produced, but in each case they
would be accompanied by other phenomena which would be conspicuous and, actually, are not found.
We may state with some confidence that red-shifts are the familiar velocity-shifts, or else they represent
some unrecognized principle of nature. We cannot assume that our knowledge of physical principles is
yet complete; nevertheless, we should not replace a known, familiar principle by an ad hoc explanation
unless we are forced to that step by actual observations. (con't)
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2012
Much of what you mention has nothing to do with the "basic tenets" of astronomy, those are the basic tenets of GR and BB astrophysics. Astronomy is the observation, astrophysics is the "theory of how". NASA is pretty good at observing, it's the theory of how where they fall off track.


Have you bumped your head as a child? Really hard? This reads like something that the "water waves model anything and everything" guy might have written. It is nonsensical from start to finish.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 09, 2012
(con't)
Most of the theoretical investigators adopt this point of view, and accept without question the interpretation of red-shifts as velocity-shifts. They are fully justified in their position until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming (see Halton Arp). But these lectures will present a remarkable situation. The familiar
interpretation of red-shifts seems to imply a strange and dubious universe, very young and very small. On the other hand, the plausible and, in a sense, familiar conception of a universe extending indefinitely in space and time, a universe vastly greater than the observable region, seems to imply that red-shifts are not primarily velocity-shifts.
(con't)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2012
(con't)
In view of this possible conflict, whether of facts or theories or speculations, the observer is inclined to keep an open mind and to adopt parallel working hypotheses for the interpretation of his explorations. He may assume, first, that red-shifts are velocity-shifts, or, secondly, that red-shifts result from some unknown principle that does not involve actual motion, and always, of course, he will search for some empirical, critical test for distinguishing between the two assumptions, between motion and no motion.

http://www.halton...articles

Here is how red-shift is affected by the other 99.99%
http://www.plasma...hift.htm

Out of context? Seems pretty clear to me.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2012
"You don't even know the work of Hubble, much less understand it. Hubble was an observational astronomer. He describes phenomena. He was not a theorist, and never claimed to be. He was not an astrophysicist, and never claimed to be." Q


"Have you bumped your head as a child? Really hard? This reads like something that the "water waves model anything and everything" guy might have written. It is nonsensical from start to finish." Q

I think reason has disconnected again.
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2012
If you are finished, then I thank you. You have proven my point. (And the point that if you think Hubble thought red-shift something different than the standard models say it is, you need to work on your comprehension skills.)
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2012
I think reason has disconnected again.


I think you are half right, I don't think it was ever connected to begin with.

NASA are poor astrophysicists,,,, but they know plasma. This is your reasoning?

Even though I can't understand what Hubble wrote, he's still on my side. Does that about sum up the reasoning you are using?

University educations are a fraud. Except for the one or two guys who I like to misquote or quote out context. Reasoned that out with solid logic, did you?

The laws of thermodynamics don't figure in to any important assessment of the universe, it's plasma that matters.

The laws of electromagnetism are not important to theories of reality, plasma is all that matters.

Quantum electrodynamics means nothing because we know it is all explained by plasma.

General relativity is a fools avenue, it's never predicted anything, it's worthless because it is not founded on plasma.

It it's explained by anything but plasma, it's not real.

Sounds reasonable to me.
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2012
"Astronomy is the observation, astrophysics is the "theory of how". NASA is pretty good at observing....."

But Dr Dennis Gallagher works in NASA's Space Plasma Physics division at the Marshall Space Flight Center: http://spacephysi...rDL.html

So space plasma physics is not related in any way to astrophysics? Does Dr Gallagher believe the sun is powered by electricity, craters and river valleys are formed by plasma discharge, comets and volcanoes on Io are electrical phenomenon and redshifts are non-cosmological in origin? Do you know of any published work by Dr Gallagher supporting EU cosmology?

If not, why do you quote him here?

(You know Arp, your 'go to' guy for non-cosmological redshifts, doesn't believe in EU/PC either. Why is that?)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2012
a) What is the normal state for cold matter?
b) Which state of matter is the most abundant?
Can you answer both or only the second?

Well, you have to qualify the question. Where? How cold? What special conditions does your reasoning require? In space, even the "cold" matter is plasma.


Since this is beyond you, let me assist. When the universe was 100k years old, it was filled with hot material, it was all plasma. As it expanded it cooled and with no other influence, the plasma naturally combined to produce neutral gas. That was the condition of ALL matter for tens of millions of years until the first stars ignited. Their UV radiation ionised the gas converting it back to plasma. Without that ionising radiation, there would have been no plasma. The plasma in those stars similarly only existed because of fusion heating.

Plasma has been observed ... to absolute zero.


Please provide a reference to the paper which demonstrates your claim.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2012
"Astronomy is the observation, astrophysics is the "theory of how". NASA is pretty good at observing....."

But Dr Dennis Gallagher works in NASA's Space Plasma Physics division at the Marshall Space Flight Center: http://spacephysi...rDL.html

So space plasma physics is not related in any way to astrophysics? Does Dr Gallagher believe the sun is powered by electricity, craters and river valleys are formed by plasma discharge, comets and volcanoes on Io are electrical phenomenon and redshifts are non-cosmological in origin? Do you know of any published work by Dr Gallagher supporting EU cosmology?

If not, why do you quote him here?

(You know Arp, your 'go to' guy for non-cosmological redshifts, doesn't believe in EU/PC either. Why is that?)

It's not a matter of who "believes" what, even Feynman may have at some point in his career gotten something right. I'm at a loss to find anything, but it's possible.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2012
Fleet,
That's your interpretation the theory, of which there is ZERO evidence, let alone proof. From a previous post of mine from this thread quoting Lawrence Livermore Nat. Labs plasma resources page;
"Since some 99% of the known universe is in the plasma state AND HAS BEEN SINCE the Big Bang, plasmas might be considered the First State of Matter."

http://plasmadict...e=detail

Please provide a reference to the paper which demonstrates your claim.


Here you go.
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 09, 2012
It's not a matter of who "believes" what, even Feynman may have at some point in his career gotten something right. I'm at a loss to find anything, but it's possible.


Then why do so often quote all these ignorant fools as somehow making your point. If you aren't misquoting, you are quoting out of context. And quite often you use quotes that makes the other person's case.

I can see why you so disdain the educated fools of science, they've done nothing except confuse you. (And that must THEIR fault, it could not possibly be your fault.)

By the By: The expression above is one of your more amusing so far.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2012
If you are finished, then I thank you. You have proven my point. (And the point that if you think Hubble thought red-shift something different than the standard models say it is, you need to work on your comprehension skills.)


Only if you ignore Arp's findings and the facts related light traveling through plasma.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 09, 2012
http://phys.org/news/2012-02-electrons-concert-simple-probe-motion.html


You should have read my comment about misquoting, and quoting out of context the "proofs" of your greater knowledge before posting that link for Fleet.

Did you miss this?:

"Plasmas are found inside the sun, gas-giant planets like Jupiter, the aurora borealis, and those compact fluorescent lights we see everywhere. These plasmas are all hot with the sun's plasma reaching a temperature of 10^7 Kelvin."

Or maybe this?:

"Ultracold plasmas are isolated in a vacuum and relatively simple to create. Yet they are small and fragile, lasting only hundreds of microseconds."

Right, what good is an education, it's not even necessary to be able to read. You are a really odd duck.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 09, 2012
Only if you ignore Arp's findings and the facts related light traveling through plasma.


Arp is a great astronomer. And a great educator. See, I'm a Cal-Tech alumni. I was actually a student in one of the last courses taught by Richard Feynman,,, I know,,,, he's an idiot. But Arp taught what Feynman taught. I know this, I saw it with my own two eyes.

I attended many lectures given by Arp, he's a great lecturer. He has that quality ALL great educators have,,,, he freely prepares the audience when he gets ready to present a more "outside the mainstream" idea. He tells them just how weak the evidence and observations are with an unusual idea. He taught his students ALL the things which you rail and rant as false. And he taught them as the way to proceed.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2012
Finally, something we can agree on. Even I can acknowledge to be cum laude of both Harvard's undergrad and CIT's PhD programs one must be brilliant.
This statement from his biography page;
"Because of Arp's observations, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the Big Bang theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - has to be fundamentally reexamined.!"
He also has a bit of contempt for NASA and other "prominent professionals"
http://www.halton...ebuttals

And I never called Feynman an idiot, useless yes, an idiot no. As Tesla said, and I paraphrase; "he's brilliant but he is a metaphysicist, not a scientist..."
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2012
And I never called Feynman an idiot, useless yes, an idiot no. As Tesla said, and I paraphrase; "he's brilliant but he is a metaphysicist, not a scientist..."


You didn't? But you said:

"It's not a matter of who "believes" what, even Feynman may have at some point in his career gotten something right. I'm at a loss to find anything, but it's possible."

By the By: you really need a basic reading comprehension tutor. Reexamine doesn't mean "proof that isn't right". It doesn't mean "that is probably wrong". It means "put it to the test". It's been put to the test, & passed with flying colors.

How did we, in a paltry hundred years, learn to fly through the air, build fission reactors, build fusion bombs, put men on the moon, land robots on other worlds, create a device that tells you your location at any point on Earth, build computers, super computers, cell phone systems, radio, television, all these things,

Without the benefit of physicists who don't appreciate plasma?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2012
It means "put it to the test". It's been put to the test, & passed with flying colors.

Finding contradictions in the red-shift of Quasars (and others) IS A TEST OF THE THEORY, and it FAILED MISERABLY, as Arp has repeatedly pointed out. You and others just refuse to acknowledge the evidence. If you can't see there is a difference between "reexamine" and "fundamentally reexamine" it is you with a problem with comprehension. The way astrophysicists choose to protect their beliefs from failure is to alter data to support their view, as Arp pointed out. To bad for them there are superior minds that can easily deconstruct such avarice.
http://www.halton...ebuttals

rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2012
"Ultimately, the existence of the EM field is to isolate the charged body from the larger electrical environment."CD85

The gem of the thread. Except the field doesn't exist to to that, it happens as a result of the field, and it is not an electrical environment, it is an EM dominated environment where lots of other pretty relevant stuff also exerts influence.

Your observation describes the relationship between the heliosphere and the ISM. Can you explain why?
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2012
The way astrophysicists choose to protect their beliefs from failure is to alter data to support their view, as Arp pointed out. To bad for them there are superior minds that can easily deconstruct such avarice.


You really don't have a clue, do you? I can tell for certain, that there would be nothing that would please me more than to find the exceptional phenomena that would overturn the field of astrophysics as we know it. I don't want to protect anything, I want to be the "GREAT MIND" that people will write and talk about in 100 years.

I know literally hundreds of astrophysicists and observational astronomers and educators in these fields. They would give anything to be one to be written and talked in 100 years.

There are those few, who want it so bad, they pin their dreams and desires on fringe science, weird science and pseudo-science. They will do anything and say anything that will keep them in the spotlight.

That's not rocket science, that's the human condition.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2012
Science and technology are not the same, although one may use scientific knowledge to enhance technology.
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world."
ISAAC ASIMOV

Most of the examples listed are largely due to electrical engineers, not theoretical scientists. And if you think fission and fusion were developed "Without the benefit of physicists who don't appreciate plasma?" then you truly are an ignorant soul. Plasma Physicist Anthony Peratt, who I quote and refer to often is a;
Ph.D Life Fellow, IEEE
Acting Director, National Security, Nuclear
Nonproliferation Directorate, USDOE, 1998.
Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Associate Direcotorate for Experiments and
Simulations, 1999-2003

The Dept of Energy disagrees with your assessment completely.
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2012
And if you think fission and fusion were developed "Without the benefit of physicists who don't appreciate plasma?" then you truly are an ignorant soul.


You are clueless, I'm the one who is always telling you that the mainstream physicists incorporate their knowledge of plasma, you are the one who says they know nothing.

I'm the one who is always telling you that plasma IS in the astrophysics textbooks, YOU keep saying that we are ignorant of plasma.

You don't even know enough about plasma to engage a reasonably well educated person on the subject. And you show that you understand NOTHING of astrophysics.

Before you rail against something, it would helpful to spend just a bit of time and effort to learning something about it. Same for the thing you rail on behalf of.

You've expressed your opinion of formal education. You come across as a person who uses any excuse why it is only a waste of time. It's so much easier to say "it's not worth knowing" than it is to learn.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2012
Q, a better understanding of how "the establishment" treats "great minds" such as Arp, 'The Modern Day Galileo', will do you good.
http://www.youtub...y6PJR5lE

Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2012
Science and technology are not the same, although one may use scientific knowledge to enhance technology.


Science precedes technology, always has, always will. If you knew anything about either, you would know that.

Example,,,,, Maxwell/Faraday then Edison. Then Marconi et al.

Planck/Bohr/Heisenberg/Fermi,,,,, than the reactor builders.

Newton/Boyle/et al,,,,, then Goddard/Von Braun..

Pauli/Feynman/Dirac et al,,,, then computers, nanotech, etc,,

Einstein et al,,,,, then GPS

Engineering always follows science. Where do you think they get their ideas from? The God of Plasma?

You may have the last word, you have become so ridiculous that you are no longer entertaining.

Q-Star
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2012
Q, a better understanding of how "the establishment" treats "great minds" such as Arp, 'The Modern Day Galileo', will do you good.


I am part of "the establishment". I am fully aware of how we treat "great minds". We award them prizes. We buy their books. We name principles and laws after them. We teach them to our students. We remember them long after they are dead and gone to dust.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2012
I'm the one who is always telling you that the mainstream physicists incorporate their knowledge of plasma,


You're right, they do, but their knowledge is rudimentary at best. If it weren't they wouldn't be "perplexed" at the orientation of the jets and numerous other "surprising" observations.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2012
Fleet,
That's your interpretation the theory, of which there is ZERO evidence, let alone proof.


No, it's the standard model, not mine, and accepted both because the evidence for it is overwhelming and there is no credible alternative.

From a previous post of mine from this thread quoting Lawrence Livermore Nat. Labs plasma resources page;
"Since some 99% of the known universe is in the plasma state AND HAS BEEN SINCE the Big Bang, plasmas might be considered the First State of Matter."

http://plasmadict...e=detail


Oops, they got that wrong. Look up "Cosmological dark ages", the evidence is the Gunn-Peterson trough.