Unique chemical composition surrounding supermassive black hole

Oct 24, 2013
Figure 1. Spiral galaxy NGC 1097 observed with European Southern Observatory's Very large Telescope in optical wavelength (left) and the central 2100 light years observed with ALMA (right). The ALMA observations reveal intense emission from dust around the central black hole and in the circum-nuclear star burst ring. The star sign shows the location of the emission peak in near infrared, which reflects the star formation activity, whereas the central plus sign shows the location of the radio emission in the wavelength of 6 cm which comes from the active supermassive black hole. The emission peak position in the ALMA image agrees well with that of 6 cm emission. This ensures that ALMA detects the emission from the vicinity of the central black hole. Credit:ESO, ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO), T. Izumi

An international research team led by Takuma Izumi, a second-year master's student of science at the University of Tokyo, and Kotaro Kohno, a professor at the University of Tokyo, successfully captured a detailed image of high-density molecular gas around an active supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy called NGC 1097 at the highest sensitivity ever achieved. The observation result shows that there is a unique chemical composition characterized by enhancement of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) around the black hole, which would be caused by high temperature heating of the environment surrounding the black hole. It is expected that this new method focusing on the difference of emission frequencies from molecules uniquely found around black holes may open the way for "the search for a hidden black hole" which is overcast with dust particles and optically invisible.

With recent advancement in observational research, it has been revealed that many of galaxies contain a at their centers. However, the formation process of such massive is yet to be discovered by modern astronomy. A study result shows that the mass of a supermassive black hole is approximately proportional to that of the central part of the galaxy (galactic bulge). This means that the higher mass galaxy has a higher mass black hole. A galactic bulge is thought to evolve through numerous mergers and collisions with other galaxies which would bring a large amount of interstellar materials into a galactic center and further the evolution of a black hole. To investigate this "coevolution" of a galaxy and a black hole, it is necessary to study the mass of black holes in all ages as well as the kinematics of surrounding interstellar that flow into the black hole. However, the first thing we need to do is to confirm the existence of a black hole at the galactic center by observation.

A number of similar black hole exploration methods have also been proposed in optical/infrared spectra so far, but one crucial problem is that emissions at these wavelengths are absorbed by interstellar dust particles although the more active black holes contain more dust particles. This means conventional exploration methods have difficulty in finding a black hole during the most active stage of its evolution process.

The goal of the research group is to establish a new exploration method using as reference various molecular/atomic lines which can be observed at millimeter/submillimeter wavelengths. Millimeter/submillimeter waves are the most basic and most important wavelengths in observing interstellar molecules or more specifically cold high density gas, and thus suitable for the observation of the galactic center due to its very unique characteristic of being not susceptible to dust absorption. With the advancement of the study of interstellar chemical model in recent years, it is assumed that each of galactic phenomena (e.g. supermassive black hole, bursts of star formation, etc.) would have different impact on interstellar materials. The idea of the new method is to take these differences observed in interstellar materials as useful reference to identify the relevant galactic phenomenon.

Figure 2. Submillimeter spectra at the emission peak observed with ALMA. Emissions from hydrogen cyanide (HCN), formyl ion (HCO+), and carbon monoxide (CO) are clearly detected, although the emission from hydrogen sulfide (CS) was not detected. Credit: T. Izumi

For the development and verification of a new method, it would be better to select a nearby galaxy which can be spatially resolved and examined in detail compared to a distant galaxy whose properties are largely unknown. Therefore, the research group targeted molecular line emissions from hydrogen cyanide (HCN), formyl ion (HCO+), and hydrogen sulfide (CS) at millimeter/submillimeter wavelengths in the galaxy called NGC 1097 (about 50 million light years away) with the ALMA Telescope in the Atacama Desert in Chile. The observed molecular emission lines are suitable for the observation of high-density regions like a galactic center, and NGC 1097 is a galaxy that already proved to have an active supermassive black hole at its center by a preceding study.

In spite of a relatively short observation for about 2 hours in total, low-noise, high-quality data was obtained at a high resolution of 1.5 arcsec. Figure 1 and Figure 2 shows the observed galactic center with a radius of 2100 light years and the spectra obtained at the galactic center respectively.

Figure 3. Energy source diagram based on the molecular line emission ratio. Red points shows the active galaxies powered by supermassive black hole, blue points shows the starburst galaxies, and the green point represents a luminous infrared galaxy. Galaxies with active black hole are located in upper right in this diagram. Credit: T. Izumi

With spectral data taken in a wide frequency range, we can obtain intensity ratio of various molecular line emissions. This spectral data indicates the intensity of HCN is significantly higher than those of HCO+ and CS. The similar phenomenon has been reported by observational researches of the surrounding environment of supermassive black holes at lower frequencies (millimeter wavelengths). Compared to the millimeter emission line, submillimeter is thought to be more suited to the observation of high-temperature, high-density regions, i.e. the environment around black holes. Thus, the results of this observation, similar to those of preceding research, confirm the validity of this research method.

Figure 3 shows the intensity ratio of molecules observed in other galaxies. Although the data is limited only to a small number of target objects, Figure 3 shows the ratio of HCN/HCO+ and HCN/CS increases in galaxies that have a supermassive black hole in a more active state. This data can be used to identify what kind of phenomenon is taking place at the .

Figure 4. Artist's impression of the central part of NGC 1097. A powerful bipolar jet is emanated from the supermassive black hole. Surrounding molecular gas is heated by shock wave induced by the jet and large amounts of HCN molecules are generated in the warm gas. Credit: The University of Tokyo

The new identification method is based on molecular line emission at submillimeter wavelengths. Although the emission frequency of the more distant objects becomes lower due to the expansion of the universe, the ALMA Telescope is designed to receive millimeter waves in a frequency range lower than submillimeter waves observed this time, which means this identification method can be applied to objects even 10 billion light years away and will be a competent observation method in the ALMA Era when there will be a dramatic advancement in the research of distant galaxies.

Furthermore, we examined physiochemical properties of the observed molecular lines such as temperature, density, and chemical composition of the emission regions by detailed analyses. The analysis result shows these molecular lines are emitted from high-temperature (several hundred degrees), high-density (about ten thousand to one million hydrogen molecules per cubic centimeter) regions where HCN molecules are actively generated. This result is thought to reflect the effect of a supermassive black hole, since it would be impossible to maintain such high-temperature state over the region of several hundred light years in general star forming activities. The observation data of NGC 1097 strongly indicates possible impact of shock wave heating by the jet which is ejected from the black hole. Similar model of HCN molecule generation in large amounts under high-temperature environment has also been assumed by recent study of interstellar chemistry. This research demonstrated that direct comparison of theory and observation is becoming possible by the ALMA Telescope with revolutionary resolution and sensitivity.

This research revealed that the center of NGC 1097 contains highly-heated gas which would be related to the existence of a supermassive black hole, and the high-temperature gas induces the generation of HCN molecules. Focusing on this result, the research group developed a new exploration method of black holes by observations of molecular lines at submillimeter wavelengths. In the future, the research group will conduct verifications of this method by increasing the number of target objects and further detailed observations of high-density-gas with ALMA, aiming to explore the mysterious evolution process of black holes lying deep within the molecular clouds that cannot be reached by optical/infrared observations.

Explore further: Fat black holes grown up in cities: 'Observational' result using Virtual Observatory

More information: The research findings are presented in the article "Submillimeter ALMA Observation of the Dense Gas in the Low-Luminosity Type-1 Active Nucleus of NGC 1097" published in the Publication of the Astronomical Society of Japan, Vol. 65, of October 25, 2013.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

ALMA probes mysteries of jets from giant black holes

Oct 16, 2013

Two international teams of astronomers have used the power of the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array to focus on jets from the huge black holes at the centers of galaxies and observe how they affect ...

A link between black holes and new stars

Oct 23, 2013

Supermassive black holes (those with millions to billions of solar-masses) are thought to reside at the centers of most galaxies. These black holes must have undergone periods of intense accretion activity ...

Spiral Galaxy NGC 3627

Jul 15, 2013

(Phys.org) —The spiral galaxy NGC 3627 is located about 30 million light years from Earth. This composite image includes X-ray data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory (blue), infrared data from the Spitzer ...

Revealing a mini-supermassive black hole

Oct 24, 2012

One of the lowest mass supermassive black holes ever observed in the middle of a galaxy has been identified, thanks to NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and several other observatories. The host galaxy is ...

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 ...

User comments : 104

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
1 / 5 (16) Oct 25, 2013
'the mass of a supermassive black hole is approximately proportional to that of the central part of the galaxy (galactic bulge).'

So....the chicken or the egg? Obviously, the egg. Ask any logic-minded engineer. Yet, merger mania continues in the fanciful minds of modern astronomers.
Fleetfoot
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2013
emissions from hydrogen cyanide (HCN), formyl ion (HCO+), and carbon monoxide (CO) are clearly detected..
..I see, the increased concentration of ether (CH3-CH2-O-CH2-CH3) is still missing there...


Apparently Tuxford sucked it all up, there is no other logical explanation for his postings.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (15) Oct 27, 2013
Hey, don't listen to me...listen you your heros. They conclude the egg was first.

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

(Fleet, are you an NSA confident, steering fanciful science minds into intellectual dead ends such as the Huge Bang Fantasy, or just an unwitting supporter of the disinformation game? Just asking. ;)
Tuxford
1 / 5 (15) Oct 27, 2013
Well, it is nice to know that the fanciful astronomers are either listening to my requests, or verifying that my logic for the direction of future research is sound. In early 2011, I suggested the need to correlate black hole mass to the mass of the host galaxy. I suspected the two would be found to be correlated, lending support to LaViolette's inside-out growth model. So far, so good.

http://phys.org/n...ter.html
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (15) Oct 27, 2013
Are black holes necessary? Not at all!
http://www.plasma...sCLR.pdf

the mass of a supermassive black hole is approximately proportional to that of the central part of the galaxy (galactic bulge).

No, the mass of BH/galaxy is proportional to the number of unicorns present...
http://vixra.org/...47v2.pdf

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2013
I see the trolls have failed to notice the enormous advance made here. If ALMA can see molecules, and molecules in galaxies of the very young universe, we can get a better handle on chemical evolution.

This isn't about the existence of blackholes, the SMBH systems which of course these observations sees directly and the trolls doesn't even care to try to explain. This is about astrobiology potential.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 27, 2013
Re: "However, the first thing we need to do is to confirm the existence of a black hole at the galactic center by observation."

I suppose, but notice that we have exceptional and continuous observations of the movement of the stars near the center of our Milky Way over a number of years, and there is no observable lensing …
HannesAlfven
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 27, 2013
Re: "I see the trolls have failed to notice the enormous advance made here. If ALMA can see molecules, and molecules in galaxies of the very young universe, we can get a better handle on chemical evolution."

Great, but can I make a suggestion? People who disagree with ideologies in science are not "trolls". They simply prefer to speak about science on differing levels of context. We can talk about science in terms of its concepts, propositions, models and worldviews. These four levels of discourse represent increasing complexity in both the dialog and the mindset required to properly engage them. The worldview level of discourse is actually the most complex and difficult to pull off effectively. Some people will do better at it than others, but note that the "critical" element of critical thinking will typically dictate some discourse at the worldview level.

So, if everybody who speaks at the level of worldviews is a "troll" to you, then you have thrown out critical thinking.
HannesAlfven
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 27, 2013
This chart might help …

http://postimg.or...iu57ihd/

Notice that the highest order of thinking -- the self-transforming mindset -- is where a person submits themselves to the dialectic between ideologies. Less than 1% of the population ever achieves this.

Rather than being something which we should invite one another to ridicule, the self-transforming mindset is common amongst Fortune 500 CEO's and other highly successful people.

Also, notice that most websites today invite activity which centers around the socialized mindset. There remain two levels of discourse which websites generally fail to tinker with, and to be clear, these regions are where you will observe creative ideas come from.

So, I really don't think that people should even encourage the usage of any derogatory words to describe people who question worldviews in science. I do get that it can be annoying to have somebody speaking about worldviews when you want to think about models, but this can be fixed.
Fleetfoot
3 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2013
Hey, don't listen to me...listen you your heros. They conclude the egg was first.

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv


Somewhat as expected, DM could start coalescing much earlier than matter since it isn't subject to radiation pressure, but that is far from the whole story, have a look for more recent results.

(Fleet, are you an NSA confident, steering fanciful science minds into intellectual dead ends such as the Huge Bang Fantasy, or just an unwitting supporter of the disinformation game? Just asking. ;)


No, I'm simply sane enough to see the obvious and disregard clueless cranks.
Fleetfoot
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2013
Well, it is nice to know that the fanciful astronomers are either listening to my requests, or verifying that my logic for the direction of future research is sound. In early 2011, I suggested the need to correlate black hole mass to the mass of the host galaxy. I suspected the two would be found to be correlated, ..


An amazing prediction ... or it would have been if you hadn't just quoted this article from "Jan 06, 2009" where it was stated that the correlation had long been known:

http://phys.org/n...022.html
Fleetfoot
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2013
Re: "I see the trolls have failed to notice the enormous advance made here. If ALMA can see molecules, and molecules in galaxies of the very young universe, we can get a better handle on chemical evolution."

Great, but can I make a suggestion? People who disagree with ideologies in science are not "trolls". They simply prefer to speak about science on differing levels of context. We can talk about science in terms of its concepts, propositions, models and worldviews.


That is not science, it is philosophy. Trolls are people like yourself who ignore science and post only in the attempt to provoke disagreements.
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2013
Are black holes necessary? Not at all!
http://www.plasma...sCLR.pdf


Completely irrelevant. Try explaining the orbits of the core stars around Sgr A*:

http://www.astro....12.shtml
Q-Star
5 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2013
Well, it is nice to know that the fanciful astronomers are either listening to my requests, or verifying that my logic for the direction of future research is sound. In early 2011, I suggested the need to correlate black hole mass to the mass of the host galaxy. I suspected the two would be found to be correlated, ..


An amazing prediction ... or it would have been if you hadn't just quoted this article from "Jan 06, 2009" where it was stated that the correlation had long been known:

http://phys.org/n...022.html


We've been teaching the approximate 1000 to 1 mass ratio for,,, well, almost two decades now. Wow.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (16) Oct 27, 2013
I see the trolls have failed to notice the enormous advance made here. If ALMA can see molecules, and molecules in galaxies of the very young universe, we can get a better handle on chemical evolution.

This isn't about the existence of blackholes, the SMBH systems which of course these observations sees directly and the trolls doesn't even care to try to explain. This is about astrobiology potential.

You mean those chemicals which are formed by arc mode plasma discharge by the plasmoid at the core of the galaxy? You're right, it has nothing to do with black holes.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 27, 2013
Re: "That is not science, it is philosophy. Trolls are people like yourself who ignore science and post only in the attempt to provoke disagreements."

You're plainly conflating a worldview in science with science itself. Science is more than just the theory. It's a set of values and methodologies. "Thinking like a scientist" should never be confused with "thinking what a scientist thinks".

Philosophy is not some extraneous matter like a tumor which can just be removed from science. It is a guide for our thinking which helps us to actually identify the pseudoscience.

In the absence of any infrastructure to guide the discourse, discussions at the level of worldviews should generally be expected to be emotionally charged and confrontational because people look to the worldviews to justify their actions and beliefs. It's not the people who argue at the level of worldviews that are the problem. It's the system of communication's job to guide the discourse away from those troubles.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 27, 2013
You guys exist in a permanent state of confusion about scientific discourse: You keep on casting critical thinking as though it's anti- or pseudo-science. Actually, all changes to scientific theory come about because somebody decided to disagree with the scientific community. People who ostracize discussions at the level of worldviews in science are really quite problematic, because we can expect them to eventually make claims like, "It's the best explanation we have to date …"

The problem there is that when you suppose that there is only one worldview in science worth contemplating -- what some would call a "positivist" stance -- you've already thrown away most of the competing explanations. There is a philosophical problem called "unconceived alternatives" which traditionally motivates the scientific values of open-mindedness and disinterestedness.

You might want to consider that you're not exactly thinking like a scientist. You're instead thinking as a positivist would.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (16) Oct 27, 2013
Completely irrelevant. Try explaining the orbits of the core stars around Sgr A*:

Wal Thornhill describes it this way;
In Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe I argue for the origin of mass and gravity in the electrical nature of matter. Mass is not a measure of the quantity of matter. The 'universal constant of gravitation,' G, is neither universal nor constant since it includes the mathematical dimension of mass, which is an electromagnetic variable. In the powerful magnetic field of a plasmoid, charged particles are constrained to accelerate continuously in the complex pattern of the plasmoid. Like electrons and protons in particle accelerators on Earth, the apparent masses of those particles become enormous as they approach the speed of light. So to report that the object at the center of the galaxy has the mass of 4 million Suns is meaningless in terms of the amount of matter trapped there electromagnetically. The matter there is not constrained by gravity, nor is it there as a result of gravitational accretion. Maxwell's laws apply at the Galactic Center, not Newton's.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2013
'This chart might help …

http://postimg.or...iu57ihd/'

Quite interesting Hannes. Thanks. My first thought is that the more pliable the mind, able to shift from Stage 1 to Stage 5, and back, for example, is more likely to penetrate the barriers to innovative thinking. Re-enabling the silent intuitive mind, in tandem with the critical-thinking transforming mind, can more readily lead to creative realizations, in my estimation. It is when one minds' obtains dominance over the other, which leads to rigid thinking, as demonstrated so widely on this thread.
Fleetfoot
4.6 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2013
Completely irrelevant. Try explaining the orbits of the core stars around Sgr A*:

Wal Thornhill describes it this way; ....

The matter there is not constrained by gravity, nor is it there as a result of gravitational accretion. Maxwell's laws apply at the Galactic Center, not Newton's.


Then go ahead and solve Maxwell's equations and show they create Keplerian orbits.

The simple fact is that you have no alternative explanation.
Fleetfoot
4.6 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2013
You're plainly conflating a worldview in science with science itself. Science is more than just the theory. It's a set of values and methodologies.


You just did exactly that. Science is what follows unavoidably from observation, "values and methodologies" are a means to that end but should not be confused with the end product.

"Thinking like a scientist" should never be confused with "thinking what a scientist thinks".


Nor should either be confused with science.

Philosophy is not some extraneous matter like a tumor which can just be removed from science.


You must be careful to keep them separate.

It is a guide for our thinking ..


It can generate possibilities to be tested but that testing must leave the philosophy behind or the science is contaminated by "confirmation bias", and it can help communicate the results, but when people put protecting their philosophy ahead of science as the EU crowd do, then it becomes pseudo-science and religion.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (16) Oct 28, 2013
Re: "Science is what follows unavoidably from observation"

Unfortunately, in the real world, observations are not always so clear cut. Is it a gas or a plasma? A plasma instability or gaseous turbulence? A redshift born from critical ionization, or one due to Doppler shift? People generally look to their worldviews to make these inferences.

Re: "Philosophy is not some extraneous matter like a tumor which can just be removed from science … You must be careful to keep them separate."

You're pretty much exemplifying the problem I'm pointing out: Modern conventional theorists -- especially astrophysicists and cosmologists -- have decided to refuse to question the initial hypotheses (their worldview) which got them to this current point. And what they are telling us is that the philosophy that they used to get to this point can no longer help them to go any further. Philosophy now creates more problems than solutions for conventional physicists, and so they abandon it.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (15) Oct 28, 2013
Is it really logical to single out those of us still trying to adhere to philosophical principles in science as "trolls", "crackpots" or "cranks"? We feel uneasy about abandoning the philosophical guides which got us to this point just because the theories themselves now violate many fundamental philosophical principles. Everybody has a limit of some sort in this regard -- a line which they are averse to crossing -- and you might one day reach your own.

The natural response is to seek out effective critics who can point out mistakes which have been made in the line of logic that got us to this point. It seems to many people who go through this process, in light of modern observations, that we now know of inferences -- and reasons to believe them -- which have been neglected due to this rather extreme focus upon the worldview that the universe is a gravitational one.

Recall: Gravity is the weakest known force. It is hardly a crazy endeavor to question its rule over our cosmos.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (15) Oct 28, 2013
Re: "… but when people put protecting their philosophy ahead of science as the EU crowd do, then it becomes pseudo-science and religion."

Everybody has a worldview, and I have to imagine that pretty much everybody defends it. After all, you look to your worldview as justification for your actions and beliefs. As an example, a crank is somebody who spends so much time thinking about an idea they had that they exhibit difficulty admitting to themselves and others that all of that time was really wasted. Thus, it naturally follows that healthy discourse is crucial to developing critical and creative thinking about science. And it is the values inherent to thinking like a scientist and philosophy of science which keep this discourse from veering into pseudoscience.

It's not that philosophy and science necessarily compete with one another. It just might seem that way today, but the philosophical principle of "unconceived alternatives" suggests that it's a failure of imagination.
johnhew
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2013
Hannes: But if gravity really decreased enough to be the reason flying dinosaurs and dragonflies grew to huge proportion, would not all the air have long since escaped?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (15) Oct 28, 2013
Re: "would not all the air have long since escaped?"

The answer would depend upon what actually happened (the history), as well as the principles which make up this new model for gravity. We cannot answer the question without that context. The only way forward that I can see is to lay the groundwork for the creation of new models, based upon the most probable mistakes in conventional theory, using a knowledge mapping system designed for this specific purpose.

Note that the EU adds an extra element to the modeling process through its attempt to re-interpret mythological archetypes. Those speculations can act as a worldview which can guide the models -- or not. Rens van der Sluijs seems to be committed to a less radical treatment of the archetypes than David Talbott & Dwardu Cardona. There are likely numerous models that can be constructed, and I would guess that each one will involve enormous effort.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (15) Oct 28, 2013
What I think that people generally fail to appreciate is how directly tied the worldview is to the propositions and models. The only way to really see that is to deeply explore the implications of two separate worldviews. Once somebody has been exposed to that, however, they become more cautious about proposing thought experiments in some attempt to undermine a competing idea.

There really is a very blatant hypocrisy that goes on every single day amongst the most popular EU critics: They ask their audience -- who is still trying to learn what the EU actually says -- to reason with them, "But if …, would not … ?" And the idea is that a simple reason to object the entire paradigm can be discovered.

The truth is that paradigms are traditionally modeled in an ad hoc fashion; when a problem is identified, the model is typically tweaked. The precedent for this has already been set by conventional cosmologists. We need not invent a separate standard for competing paradigms.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2013
Focusing on this result, the research group developed a new exploration method of black holes by observations of molecular lines at submillimeter wavelengths


You guys do realize that this was basically just a test run; kicking the tires on ALMA to see what she can do, and getting ready for a real observation of this type, which will come some time later. They just gathered enough data to test their method, and make sure the frequency bands would be correct.

With a longer exposure on the follow-up observations, they should even be able to get doppler shift on the gasses and map some of the bulk material flow near the core. That should be REALLY interesting.

I also agree with Torbjorn, the chemistry aspect of this type of observation is unprescedented. ALMA hasn't even begun to take advantage of its full potential yet. It is so powerful that we really have to invent new tools just so that we can understand what it can see. It's like a blind man seeing for the first time.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Oct 29, 2013
I'm wondering: if one could get a profile of relative occurence of HCN (an the other chemicals produced) along the direction of emitted jets - could one then not reconstruct a profile of past activity of a black hole?

...and taking this idea further: If such a profile were to indicate some periodic fluctuation, could one not predict e.g. when to expect an event that might give us a gravity wave event for LIGO to detect?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2013
Re: "Science is what follows unavoidably from observation"

Unfortunately, in the real world, observations are not always so clear cut. Is it a gas or a plasma?


Scientists use spectroscopy to find out which, the cranks merely assume their "worldview" as you call it.

A redshift born from critical ionization, or one due to Doppler shift?


Ionisation effects are frequency dependent, cosmological redshift is not.

People generally look to their worldviews to make these inferences.


You may, scientists look at the observations.

You're pretty much exemplifying the problem I'm pointing out: Modern conventional theorists -- especially astrophysicists and cosmologists -- have decided to refuse to question the initial hypotheses (their worldview) which got them to this current point.


That's because those hypotheses are based on observations which continue to be repeated and give the same results.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 29, 2013
Re: "Scientists use spectroscopy to find out which"

But, plasmas can exist in a "dark" mode which emit no light whatsoever. This has turned out to be one of the most serious oversights in the confusion of the plasma and gaseous domains: The tendency to favor the notion of dark MATTER, without due diligence to rule out the possibility of dark mode PLASMA.

Re: "Ionisation effects are frequency dependent, cosmological redshift is not."

CIV's do indeed appear at particular frequencies, but redshifts are presumably additive, right? Either way, you might try talking to Gerrit Verschuur about this. His all-sky survey at the 21-cm wavelength which identified CIV's that were associated with filamentary knots in HI hydrogen was a very *tedious* project that he is adamant required human decision-making. A computer algorithm is apt to miss this stuff.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2013
Is it really logical to single out those of us still trying to adhere to philosophical principles in science as "trolls", "crackpots" or "cranks"?


Of course not, in fact I've been an occasional member of a philosophical group for some time and have spent quite a bit of time studying the philosophical implications of GR.

I agree with your own definition: "a crank is somebody who spends so much time thinking about an idea they had that they exhibit difficulty admitting to themselves and others that all of that time was really wasted" but would add ".. even when that idea has been falsified."

I think of "crackpots" as those who hold views which are not even self-consistent or blatantly violate basic physical laws (such as EU).

A troll is a different matter of course, they are often right on the ball but only post controversial views in order to get an emotional reaction. Their aim is to start a flame war, preferably between others, and just walk away.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 29, 2013
Re: "I think of "crackpots" as those who hold views which are not even self-consistent or blatantly violate basic physical laws (such as EU)."

But, all you're doing here is confusing the plasma and gas domains, and assuming that the gas domain is the dominant one, as is taught in universities.

However, the MHD models are highly idealized, and rigged to reflect this presumption. This was the point of the 1970 Nobel lecture by Hannes Alfven. And Alfven's point was completely ignored.

What you interpret as intellectual failure is in fact your own refusal to learn the debate over MHD. That debate was launched by the originator of MHD himself. The EU simply uses that as a clue to launch a more detailed investigation, and then further extends the notion that cosmic plasmas are most likely far more similar to laboratory plasmas than conventional astrophysicists and cosmologists currently accept. The cosmic EU models follow very closely to our observations of laboratory plasmas.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 29, 2013
Re: "That's because those hypotheses are based on observations which continue to be repeated and give the same results."

This is so vague and simplistic, btw, as to be completely inadequate as a description of modern-day astrophysics and cosmology. One need only scan the headlines of physorg to observe that surprises occur routinely.

Furthermore, a person cannot identify whether or not an observation actually matches an alternative worldview or paradigm w/o investing effort into learning that alternative paradigm. The unfortunate fact is that the most vocal critics of the EU tend to also be those who have put the least amount of effort into learning it. These people tend to stand out because they are the same people who cannot actually list the paradigm's successes. They will tend to demand that others show them successful predictions (try Googling it ...).

And this begs us to be skeptical … After all, all paradigms will have at least some successes. And the EU is no different.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2013
Re: "I think of "crackpots" as those who hold views which are not even self-consistent or blatantly violate basic physical laws (such as EU)."

But, all you're doing here is confusing the plasma and gas domains, ..


Not at all, I'm not even considering that aspect. What I am referring to is the model that has stars powered by currents and the currents driven by the stars with energy being given off as light etc. but no energy input to the system. It's the ultimate perpetual motion machine.

.. and assuming that the gas domain is the dominant one, as is taught in universities.


It's not an assumption. You can look at many of the reports even in this site and see that spectroscopy can easily distinguish between ionised and neutral species. You are letting your "worldview" cause you to disregard real world observations.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 29, 2013
"A scientific breakthrough is often made when a new quality dimension or domain is introduced to a theory. Take, for example, the distinction between temperature and heat, which is central for thermodynamics, but which has no correspondence in human perception. Equally important is Newton's distinction between weight and mass. This is the very first definition introduced in the Principia -- without it his celestial mechanics would not have been possible." (Conceptual Spaces, page 83)

We have evolved to perceive things which lend us a survival advantage. The critical thinker will notice that -- unlike gravity -- dark-mode electricity & magnetism are not perceived -- likely because they tend not to affect our survival in the short term. The impact they have upon our evolution is encoded in much more subtle ways -- like when a seed germinates. Then, this dark mode E&M VERY MUCH matters, as has been replicated in numerous laboratories across the world.

See http://www.urzeit...english/
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 29, 2013
Re: "Not at all, I'm not even considering that aspect. What I am referring to is the model that has stars powered by currents and the currents driven by the stars with energy being given off as light etc. but no energy input to the system."

But, unfortunately, this is not the model being discussed. And this suggests to me that if you are at all concerned about the accuracy of what you're saying, that you might want to double-check that you actually understand the model. You know, I've spoken to many, many people online who repeat the same mistake of thinking that they understand what the EU says after they've read a few Tom Bridgman webpages. Have you read The Electric Sky or Thornhill's Electric Universe? Either one would get you back on track, and they are short reads ...

Re: "You can look at many of the reports even in this site and see that spectroscopy can easily distinguish between ionised and neutral species."

But a gas can behave as a plasma w/ <1% ionization … !
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2013
What I am referring to is the model that has stars powered by currents and the currents driven by the stars with energy being given off as light etc. but no energy input to the system.


But, unfortunately, this is not the model being discussed.


That is the model I was referring to regardless of what you may imagine.

Have you read The Electric Sky or Thornhill's Electric Universe? Either one would get you back on track, and they are short reads ...


Not those but I spent quite some time reading this book some years ago, the author asked me to review an early copy and most of what I have seen since has been repetition of this:

http://www.the-el...ook.html

You can look at many of the reports even in this site and see that spectroscopy can easily distinguish between ionised and neutral species.


But a gas can behave as a plasma w/ <1% ionization … !


Some old meaningless mantra, your "worldview" bias is showing again.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2013
Not at all, I'm not even considering that aspect. What I am referring to is the model that has stars powered by currents and the currents driven by the stars with energy being given off as light etc. but no energy input to the system.


But, unfortunately, this is not the model being discussed. .. Have you read .. Thornhill's Electric Universe?


I just had a look at his web site and in particular the page on stars. This is what he says:

http://www.holosc...c-stars/

"The late Ralph Juergens, an engineer from Flagstaff, Arizona, in the 1970′s took the next mental leap to suggest that the electrical input doesn't stop there and that stars are not thermonuclear engines! .. The galactic currents that create the stars persist to power them."

That appears to be exactly what I described, and the rest of the page is equally "crank" nonsense or worse.
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2013
" I've spoken to many, many people online who repeat the same mistake of thinking that they understand what the EU says after they've read a few Tom Bridgman webpages. Have you read The Electric Sky or Thornhill's Electric Universe?"

Why oh why do I have to *buy* some book (or DVD) by an electrical engineer to explain this to me? Can not Thornhill or Scott publish their work in a relevant peer reviewed journal? Anyone can write anything in a book or a blog(or in a Peratt-reviewed IEEE journal), doesn't really mean shit. You wanna lay out testable hypothesis, there's a well known way to do that.....publish.

As far as Tom Bridgman (who holds a PhD in astronomy)is concerned, I feel his blog retorts to EU/PC books & DVDs serve a useful and valuable counterpoint to the nonsense propagated by plasma "enthusiasts".

And HA, why the blatant hypocrisy? You advocate for keeping an open mind in astrophysics but completely ignore the thousands of "alternatives" (like AWT) to mainstream theory.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
Bridgman is a complete stooge, along with a few in these threads who are blinded by they're love for the magic required by GR and the BB.
Mr_Science
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
Hey, guys, could we maybe, just maybe, talk science instead of anti-scientific, mind numbing, logic failures? It's obvious to anyone that has spent more than five minutes looking into the electric universe, plasma universe, AWT, or any of the others still retaining a fully functional brain these theories are in complete mockery of any legitimate scientific method.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
Re: "You wanna lay out testable hypothesis, there's a well known way to do that.....publish."

You're putting your failure to comprehend the sheer size of peer review on this subject on display. The only thing which actually stands in the way of your hard drive being filled with such papers are the paywalls which charge for them. After all, Transactions on Plasma Science has been publishing on cosmic plasmas since even before the days of Alfven. We are talking about more than HALF OF A CENTURY here of peer review, upon which Thornhill's work rests.

It's not that these papers do not exist. The real problem here is that people who read the Astrophysical Journal are generally prejudiced against reading IEEE. And that is in spite of the fact that IEEE's success is based upon decades of creating products which their users demand actually work. Compare that with the Astrophysical Journal's publications -- which can make whatever non-falsifiable fantastical claims they wish.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
Re: "As far as Tom Bridgman (who holds a PhD in astronomy)is concerned, I feel his blog retorts to EU/PC books & DVDs serve a useful and valuable counterpoint to the nonsense propagated by plasma "enthusiasts"."

Bridgman's sole purpose is to deconstruct the EU within the minds of his readers. That only leads to one place, and that is -- to be clear -- regardless of any future observations or experimentation. The real problem is the large number of people who ONLY read Bridgman -- without actually accessing the source material where the theory is actually explained. Those people simply avoid the sources that help them to understand why people might believe the paradigm.

Critical thinking demands that we do both: Learn the theory, as well as learn its potential faults. Focusing upon the critique w/o even running those arguments by the theorists or advocates is not a scientific norm. It's the behavior of somebody who is unable to question their own preferred worldview.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
Re: "It's obvious to anyone that has spent more than five minutes looking into the electric universe, plasma universe, AWT, or any of the others still retaining a fully functional brain these theories are in complete mockery of any legitimate scientific method."

Have you considered that it takes a lot more than five minutes to understand a scientific paradigm?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
Re: "What I am referring to is the model that has stars powered by currents and the currents driven by the stars with energy being given off as light etc. BUT NO ENERGY INPUT TO THE SYSTEM."

… then …

Re: "… That appears to be exactly what I described …"

In your rush to judgment, you seem to have missed that laboratory glow discharges involve an electron drift current which feeds the discharge. This is observed in the laboratory, so it is also inferred as part of Don Scott's model.

I don't quite know how to break it to you, but what you are arguing against is the observed behavior of the Crook's Tube, for the heresy which the EU is perpetually chastised for is simply translating those observations & adjusting the geometry from a cylinder to a sphere. Yes, gravity must also be added in. But, the idea hardly deserves the misrepresentation and cries of scientific illegitimacy which we see repeated ad nauseum.

But, of course, this isn't the explanation you'd get from Bridgman ...
Mr_Science
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2013
Have you considered that it takes a lot more than five minutes to understand a scientific paradigm?

I agree. However, within five minutes reading logical fallacies, conspiracy theories, gross misrepresentations of the current theories, and total contempt for science in general it is very clear it is not a valid theory.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
Re: "However, within five minutes reading logical fallacies, conspiracy theories, gross misrepresentations of the current theories, and total contempt for science in general it is very clear it is not a valid theory."

Can you please explain the conspiracy? I don't actually seeing anybody saying anything like that. What I see is a university system which manufactures the very consensus it then points to, by simply throwing away those students who refuse to confine their comments to the technical problems they are assigned.

This has been covered at great length by Jeff Schmidt in Disciplined Minds. We need not invent evil comic book villains to justify the dichotomy in values which results from the professionalization of the sciences. The values associated with a professional -- which is more properly aligned with what the universities teach -- very plainly undermine the values associated with thinking like a scientist.

I think you'd actually be shocked to learn the latter ...
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
Re: "… and total contempt for science in general ..."

You're defining science as that which scientists think.

After all, scientific values include open-mindedness, curiosity (!), critical mindedness (scientists are expected to be "consistently critical of knowledge"), organized skepticism ("never take results on trust"), universalism ("information presented should be assessed independent of the character of the scientist who presents it"), rationality ("having faith in reason and depending on empirical tests rather than on tradition when substantiating hypotheses"). Pravin Singh's paper "Science Education and Scientific Attitudes" summarizes them concisely, and then asks:

"Is it not possible that these scientific attitudes have been popularized and then reified as a set of ideal attitudes but in reality is not often found in actual scientific practices?"

Schmidt's book demonstrates -- using specific examples -- that these values are not actually taught in our universities today.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2013
Can you please explain the conspiracy? I don't actually seeing anybody saying anything like that.


Here, let me help ya with that,,,

What I see is a university system which manufactures the very consensus it then points to, by simply throwing away those students who refuse to confine their comments to the technical problems they are assigned.


See, ya answered your own question, in the same paragraph in which ya asked it.

I think you'd actually be shocked to learn the latter ...


Are ya shocked at your answer?
Mr_Science
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2013
Can you please explain the conspiracy…

And then you go on to say..
What I see is a university system which manufactures the very consensus it then points to, by simply throwing away those students who refuse to confine their comments to the technical problems they are assigned.

Thanks, I didn't want to have to look it up. I refuse to go to that bunch of sites again. I felt like I was getting my brain bashed against a rock with all the stupidity.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
From page 134 of Disciplined Minds …

"At the end of the week the entire physics faculty gathers in a closed meeting to decide the fate of the students. Strange as it may seem, in most physics departments a student's score on the test is only one factor in the faculty's decision as to whether or not that student has passed the test. Students are not usually told their scores: this gives faculty members the option of deciding that a student has failed the test even if that student has outscored someone they are going to pass. In arriving at their personal opinions on whether to pass or fail a student, individual faculty members consider anything and everything carried away from informal discussions with the student and with others around the department.

A faculty member who talks informally with a student in the hallway or at the weekly after-colloquium reception inevitably comes away with a feeling about whether or not that student 'thinks like a physicist.' …"
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
"… The student's political outlook can easily make a difference in the faculty member's assessment. For example, in the usual informal discussion of an issue in the news, the student who rails against technical incompetence and confines his thoughts to the search for technical solutions within the given political framework builds a much more credible image as a professional physicist than does the student who emphasizes the need to alter the political framework as part of the solution. Indeed, the latter approach falls outside the work assignments given to professional physicists in industry and academe and so represents thinking unlike a physicist's."

---

Why am I the wacko for citing a critique which 700 researchers signed their names to, and which Noam Chomsky stood with?

This was the largest freedom of expression case in the history of the American physics discipline. The American Institute of Physics, btw, settled the case.
Mr_Science
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2013
You're defining science as that which scientists think.

No, I'm talking about the entire lack of scientific evidence, complete disregard for scientific process, complete lack of understanding any real scientific theory, and a complete disrespect of any scientist's character except for your authorities on a failed and unscientific ideology. You are much better off calling it a religion then science.

Just because you are starting to get on my nerves with all the word games you seem to enjoy and your continuous copy and pasting of meaningless drivel. Taking up lots of room on the comments section for no appear reason nor with any justification. I will be reporting every post I see from you that is not on topic, has a point, and does not contain real science. At some point someone with the power will get tired of it and band either you or me.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2013
Re: "What I am referring to is the model that has stars powered by currents and the currents driven by the stars with energy being given off as light etc. BUT NO ENERGY INPUT TO THE SYSTEM."

… then …

Re: "… That appears to be exactly what I described …"

In your rush to judgment, you seem to have missed that laboratory glow discharges involve an electron drift current which feeds the discharge. This is observed in the laboratory, so it is also inferred as part of Don Scott's model.

I don't quite know how to break it to you, but what you are arguing against is the observed behavior of the Crook's Tube, ..


What is observed is that the tube only glows when you connect an external power supply:

https://en.wikipe...gram.svg

Remove the high voltage supply in that diagram and the plasma effects cease, exactly as I said above.

If you were right, you could start up the plasma, replace the supply by a load and get free electricity forever.
Mr_Science
1 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2013
Sorry Q-Star I didn't see your post until I had already hit the submit. I didn't mean to duplicate your post.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 30, 2013
Honestly, you guys should be ashamed that this is news for you. And, yes, we should all feel contempt for the failure to adhere to clear & fair standards which permit the emergence of new worldviews in science. There is no honor whatsoever to grad students spending four or more years of their lives, at enormous expense, only to be thrown away like a piece of garbage because they disagreed with the ideology inherent in these programs. It's actually completely disgusting, and the fact that it goes on to this day w/o any awareness of those grad students still going into those programs is sinful.

There is a very fundamental problem here which you guys are totally refusing to engage: Do we train scientists to work in large hierarchical organizations? Or, do we train them to be maverick critical thinkers? There are very, very different sets of values associated with the two options.

It's not all that complicated. I know you can get it.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
Re: "I will be reporting every post I see from you that is not on topic, has a point, and does not contain real science. At some point someone with the power will get tired of it and band either you or me."

You mean like this? …

From http://www.julesn...6489.htm

"MR: When you first thought of writing this book, you were in graduate school, right?

JS: Yes, that's right. I got interested [in the] topic when I was going to professional training myself, getting a PhD in physics at the University of California, Irvine. It seemed like the best of my fellow graduate students were either dropping out or being kicked out. And by 'best,' those were the most concerned about other people and seemed less self-centered, less narrowly-focused, most friendly people...they seemed to be handicapped in the competition. They seemed to be at a disadvantage not only because their attention was divided, but because their concerns about big picture issues …"
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
"… like justice and the social role of the profession and so on, caused them to stop and think and question, whereas their unquestioning gung-ho classmates just plowed right through with nothing to hold them back. As I mentioned, there's about a 50% drop-out rate for students entering University programs in all fields; and what I found was that this weeding out is not politically neutral. To put it bluntly, the programs favor ass-kissers."

--

I mean, technically speaking, physorg doesn't actually run any articles on the problems inherent to our graduate physics programs. So, one has to figure that this would be off-topic for every single physorg article, even though it speaks directly to the broader meaning of consensus itself.

After all, if all that is happening is that the universities are just weeding out those who disagree with conventional theory, then isn't this what we would more properly call a "filter"?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2013
Sorry Q-Star I didn't see your post until I had already hit the submit. I didn't mean to duplicate your post.


No sorry required. It serves the fact that the hypocrisy it patently obvious to everyone.

It also obvious that he has nothing to contribute to a science discussion, his intent is and always has been to disrupt, spite and troll. He's failed in science because he had his feelings hurt because some held that science (and genus) is a tad bit more than rambling free thinking and must be disciplined and orderly.

For someone who decries and laments the lack of critical thinking, he sure does post a lot of stuff from other people. My "worldview" is shaped by the work of many hundreds or thousands of people,,,,,,, his "worldview" by the same disgruntled dozen. I doubt he's ever written an original sentence. Have ya noticed that everything he posts is someone else's word?
Mr_Science
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2013
Have ya noticed that everything he posts is someone else's word?

Either someone else's word or trying to twist the meaning of a well stated post into something it's not even close to representing.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
Jeff Schmidt was an editor for Physics Today for 19 years before his firing. Physics Today is considered the American Institute of Physics' "flagship product", and Jeff was at the time of his firing considered to be one of (and possibly) the best editor they had.

The AIP's behavior in the case was to attempt to keep Jeff's critique hidden from the public, and the reason that they paid Jeff a half-million dollars and even offered his job back to him was quite plainly to preclude the larger public conversation about the meaning of consensus in science.

Today, people online tend to complain more about the "cranks" and "crackpots" they can see rather than the dogma which permeates our largest institutions out of the public's view. And AIP can congratulate itself on the role it played in tilting these conversations.

But, the failure to address the questions raised in the book will preclude meaningful science education reform and any reasonable chances of unification in physics.
yyz
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2013
Hannes, I would think you would be rather honored to have several posts by Tom Bridgman devoted to some of your spurious claims:

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/08/more-rote-evasions-excuses-from.html

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/08/electric-universe-making-electric-fields.html

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/08/relativity-denial-1919-solar-eclipse.html

You know, a professional reply to a few of your numerous postings (in honor of your many years of trolling various internet fora).
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
And keep in mind that Jeff is simply one of many voices. It was only about a month ago that a graduate student repeated many of the same critiques in Disciplined Minds in a letter announcing their resignation just before receiving their Phd. What is striking about the letter is the apparent lack of any awareness of Jeff Schmidt's claims …

See "An Aspiring Scientist's Frustration with Modern-Day Academia" at http://crypto.jun...gnation/

From there …

"I am writing to state that, after four years of hard but enjoyable PhD work at this school, I am planning to quit my thesis in January, just a few months shy of completion …

the essential motivation stems from my personal conclusion that I've lost faith in today's academia as being something that brings a positive benefit to the world/societies we live in. Rather, I'm starting to think of it as a big money vacuum …"
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
"… that takes in grants and spits out nebulous results, fueled by people whose main concerns are not to advance knowledge and to effect positive change, though they may talk of such things, but to build their CVs and to propel/maintain their careers …

The good, healthy mentality would naturally be to work on research that we believe is important. Unfortunately, most such research is challenging and difficult to publish, and the current publish-or-perish system makes it difficult to put bread on the table while working on problems that require at least ten years of labor before you can report even the most preliminary results. Worse yet, the results may not be understood, which, in some cases, is tantamount to them being rejected by the academic community …

I cannot help but get the impression that the majority of us are avoiding the real issues and pursuing minor, easy problems that we know can be solved and published …"
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
"… . The result is a gigantic literature full of marginal/repetitive contributions …

Unfortunately, not only does this lead to quantity over quality, but many researchers, having grown dependent on the bandwagon, then need to find ways to keep it alive even when the field begins to stagnate. The results are usually disastrous. Either the researchers begin to think up of creative but completely absurd extensions of their methods to applications for which they are not appropriate, or they attempt to suppress other researchers who propose more original alternatives (usually, they do both). This, in turn, discourages new researchers from pursuing original alternatives and encourages them to join the bandwagon, which, though founded on a good idea, has now stagnated and is maintained by nothing but the pure will of the community that has become dependent on it. It becomes a giant, money-wasting mess …"

---

How many different people have to say the same thing before it starts to sink in?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2013
Jeff Schmidt was an,,,,,,,,, blah, blah, blah,,,,,,,the failure to address,,,, blah, blah, blah,,,,,will preclude,,,,,,, blah, blah, blah,,,, education reform,,,, blah, blah, blah,,,,, physics.


Can ya detect the underlying conspiracy?

So ya have a worldview fashioned from 12 people,,,, no original thoughts of your own,,,,, but have a problem with people who have a worldview fashioned on the work of hundreds or thousands people?

Hmmm, 12 malcontents? Or Thousands of successful achievers? It's a difficult decision,,,, I'll pick the thousands, and ya can clip and paste volumes of pages from the same 12 malcontents.

Tell us the truth, ya are mad because ya didn't have what it takes to do science,, right?

By the By: Where is your parrot? Usually the two of ya can't act out alone.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
How about Fred Hoyle from the Cosmology Quest documentary? Is he involved in the conspiracy too? ...

"I've always said that the cause of the trouble is the American graduate school ... You see, when we had graduated first degree, we were independent. We could thumb our noses at the professor. And in fact the best way to get ahead was to do something that all the people didn't agree with ... But, in the graduate school, you all have to learn what the professors are teaching you. And then, those people go out and get jobs and they go to their own graduate school ... You get a few places like CalTech or like Harvard, and they set the fashion for [all the rest] …"

And what about Peter Woit? From Piling Conjecture Upon Conjecture - John Horgan and Peter Woit on string theory delusions - YouTube ... 12:27 - 13:33 …

"Our fundamental problem with unification is that a certain number of ideas have been tried out which all have well-known problems -- and string theory is now one of them …"
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
"… But there's a lot of things that haven't been tried … If you start to get to know the subject, you realize the number of people working on the subject … It's a fairly limited community. It's a few thousand people … And … most of them are kind of following the lead of a fairly small number of people. The number of actual different ideas that people are trying out is actually quite small … There's a much larger array of ideas out there which nobody has taken the time to look into because the way the field works … These things are very difficult. You would have to go spend several years of your life doing this, and if no one else is interested in what you're doing (and most likely, whenever you're trying out new ideas, it's not going to work anyways). The way the field is structured, it's kind of very very hard to do that kind of work, because it's likely to damage your career. If you're trying to do it when you're young, you're gonna very well end up not having a job"
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2013
How about Fred Hoyle from the Cosmology Quest documentary?


How about Fred Hoyle, a brilliant man, but unfortunately couldn't accept that fact that his some of his work proved to beyond any possible reality. He became embittered and by that lost most of the esteem which his real accomplishments deserved.

"I've always said that the cause of the trouble is the American graduate school ... You see, when we had graduated first degree, we were independent. We could thumb our noses at the professor. And in fact the best way to get ahead was to do something that all the people didn't agree with


Still letting others do your critical thinking? If ya had the slightest idea of the environment at Cambridge, ya would realize that is the most ridiculous assertion. It only shows the degree of bitterness that Hoyle was consumed by in his later years. He was bitter that America was building the preeminent instruments, making the big discoveries, & Cambridge was being supplanted.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
Hannes, I would think you would be rather honored to have several posts by Tom Bridgman devoted to some of your spurious claims:

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/08/more-rote-evasions-excuses-from.html

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/08/electric-universe-making-electric-fields.html

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/08/relativity-denial-1919-solar-eclipse.html

You know, a professional reply to a few of your numerous postings (in honor of your many years of trolling various internet fora).

Bridgeman believes heartily in those plasma "models we know to be wrong" and shouts it with glee from the rooftops.

As he states confidently;
"Because it is difficult to form electric fields over large scales for long durations in nature! In nature, we largely encounter matter in the neutral state. There, the strongest and longest lasting electric fields exist at atomic scales, between atomic nuclei and their bound electrons."

Oops, forgot to mention the Earth's electric field, rather large in scale and duration in contrast to the moron's statement.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
Re: "He was bitter that America was building the preeminent instruments, making the big discoveries, & Cambridge was being supplanted."

… for the Cosmology Quest documentary?

Have you seen the documentary? You might want to check the context for the clip ...
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2013
Re: "He was bitter that America was building the preeminent instruments, making the big discoveries, & Cambridge was being supplanted."

… for the Cosmology Quest documentary?


No, for the entire last thirty years of his life. But when he says:

"I've always said that the cause of the trouble is the American graduate school ... You see, when we had graduated first degree, we were independent. We could thumb our noses at the professor. And in fact the best way to get ahead was to do something that all the people didn't agree with


,,,, he is saying something that is completely false. Hyperbole as a result of his bitterness? Perhaps. But anyone who knows anything at all about the professor - student dynamics at Cambridge, knows that is a lie or a delusion.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (14) Oct 31, 2013
Re: "He was bitter that America was building the preeminent instruments, making the big discoveries, & Cambridge was being supplanted."

… for the Cosmology Quest documentary?


No, for the entire last thirty years of his life. But when he says:

"I've always said that the cause of the trouble is the American graduate school ... You see, when we had graduated first degree, we were independent. We could thumb our noses at the professor. And in fact the best way to get ahead was to do something that all the people didn't agree with


,,,, he is saying something that is completely false. Hyperbole as a result of his bitterness? Perhaps. But anyone who knows anything at all about the professor - student dynamics at Cambridge, knows that is a lie or a delusion.


Let's see, Hoyle or Q? Q or Hoyle? The man who should have shared a Nobel, or Q? Anonymous inter-web troll Q-Star or Sir Fred Hoyle. Yeah, I think I'll tend to listen to Sir Fred Hoyle's opinion.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 31, 2013
Re: "he is saying something that is completely false"

Q-Star, you need to take a close look at this chart that I'm trying to get you to look at …

http://postimg.or...iu57ihd/

If you look at each of the quotes that I've posted, you will notice that there is a common theme: They all support the claim that the current university system is fundamentally training students to fit into a society. Schmidt goes a step further by clarifying that this is a hierarchical, top-down society, but it's the same thing.

Observe from the chart that there are two levels of thinking above the socialized mindset: the self-authoring and the self-transforming mindsets. Notice that in order to even consider a competing paradigm in physics today, a person generally has to break away from the crowd, and sustain their belief in spite of repeated ridicule and criticism. That would place that person at least within the self-authoring category.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 31, 2013
But, to be clear -- and we are all in the same boat here -- the ideal of "thinking like a scientist" is most aligned with that top mental state -- the self-transforming mindset. But, we have a big, big problem here, because there is an interview called the subject-object interview which can be used to identify peoples' mind states, and it turns out that less than 1% of the population is capable of switching between ideologies w/o allegiance to any of them. Achieving the self-transforming mindset doesn't even mean that we will definitively answer the big questions in physics; it is simply a pre-requisite which must collectively occur if unification in physics is to ever occur. That's because the community must be capable of letting go of the old ideas which held them back sufficient to embrace new ones which are better. We're not even talking here about technical arguments; we are talking about peoples' abilities to change at a very fundamental level.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 31, 2013
And although it would be absolutely wrong to say that there is no value in the socialized mindset to critical and creative thinking, it should be transparent that those two activities are most fundamentally served by those two upper levels of thinking.

Notice that even our websites encourage the socialized mindset. The ambiguity of star-based and thumbs-up/thumbs-down rating systems encourage the same mob rule popularized by the Romans. Does a thumbs down suggest a disagreement in truth? Or is it rating divergence in worldviews? Nobody actually knows, and I suspect that it means something slightly different for every single click.

The critiques which are being lodged here are really quite specific. Schmidt devotes a whole chapter to how homework is used in the graduate programs to convert students into disciplined thinkers who can fit into a hierarchical organization.

When your response is to *personally* attack everybody who disagrees with you, this places you on the chart.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2013
Re: "he is saying something that is completely false"

Q-Star, you need to take a close look at this chart that I'm trying to get you to look at …



Ya need to critically assess this ridiculous statement,,,,,,

You see, when we had graduated first degree, we were independent. We could thumb our noses at the professor. And in fact the best way to get ahead was to do something that all the people didn't agree with


That is not true at Cambridge now, was less true at Cambridge when Hoyle taught there, and even less true when Hoyle was a student there. It is a false characterization of the student-professor dynamics at Cambridge, so it makes any input Hoyle offers on the topic suspect. If ya knew anything about Cambridge in general, and their physics departments in particular ya would know that in was a silly thing (among many) for Hoyle to say.
Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2013
When your response is to *personally* attack everybody who disagrees with you, this places you on the chart.


Oh no,,,,, woe is my life,,,, I've been placed on HannesAlfven's chart,,,,, oh doom, doom, doom,,,,,,,, what shall I do?

Ya are a funny guy. And how do ya know I don't like being on charts? Charts have a purpose. I bet ya might even want to be on a chart or two.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 31, 2013
Now, the biggest predicament of all is how to fix this problem. After all, the reason that ideology is embedded into our university system is because getting everybody onto the same page creates a more efficient organization. But, that efficiency comes at a dire cost: The professional typically runs into great problems when it's time to innovate, or -- in the case of scientific theories -- when their options for tweaking their ad hoc theories have run out.

We are very possibly reaching this critical moment in the physics discipline. It increasingly seems possible that we will not observe dark matter. The real question here is what the physics community is doing in preparation for the *possibility* that a dramatic re-write might be necessary to theory? We already know what the community would *like* to be true, but we are possibly reaching a point where none of those possibilities can be made to work.

Q: Is there a plan? Or, will the theory simply get more absurd?
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2013
Now, the biggest predicament of all is how to fix this problem.


Fixing the problem of nutters, crackpots, cranks and trolls? Beats me how ya might fix that,,, maybe ya should pose your question on a site that deals with psychiatry or psychology. Or perhaps a new-agey spritual touchy-feely type of site. Seeking out someone here to take such a silly question is in itself a silly thing to do.

Q: Is there a plan? Or, will the theory simply get more absurd?


I suspect as ya cobble together more disparate worldviews and wildly sophist gobbledygook it's absurdity will continue to grow.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2013
Re: "Ya need to critically assess this ridiculous statement … That is not true at Cambridge now, was less true at Cambridge when Hoyle taught there, and even less true when Hoyle was a student there."

Q, where is Cambridge?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2013
Let's review the quote again …

"I've always said that the cause of the trouble is the AMERICAN graduate school …"
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2013
Let's review the quote again …

"I've always said that the cause of the trouble is the AMERICAN graduate school …"


Yes let's review the quote again:

"I've always said that the cause of the trouble is the American graduate school ...


Why should that have any meaning when he goes on to say something as silly and false as,,,

You see, when we had graduated first degree, we were independent. We could thumb our noses at the professor. And in fact the best way to get ahead was to do something that all the people didn't agree with


Q, where is Cambridge?


It is the place where Hoyle was educated, and then taught at, which means he should have been well aware of how utterly ridiculous it was to say,,,

You see, when we had graduated first degree, we were independent. We could thumb our noses at the professor. And in fact the best way to get ahead was to do something that all the people didn't agree with


no fate
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2013
In your rush to judgment, you seem to have missed that laboratory glow discharges involve an electron drift current which feeds the discharge. This is observed in the laboratory, so it is also inferred as part of Don Scott's model.

I don't quite know how to break it to you, but what you are arguing against is the observed behavior of the Crook's Tube, ..


What is observed is that the tube only glows when you connect an external power supply:

https://en.wikipe...gram.svg

Remove the high voltage supply in that diagram and the plasma effects cease, exactly as I said above.

If you were right...


Once again, after being shown that plasma needs help, the thread degrades into a philosphy mosh pit courtesy of HA. No scientific reply once the logical fallacy is exposed.

Forget your beef with everything and buck up, address the science. It is the only way for you to display a shred of credibility.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2013

I don't quite know how to break it to you, but what you are arguing against is the observed behavior of the Crook's Tube, ..


What is observed is that the tube only glows when you connect an external power supply:

Remove the high voltage supply in that diagram and the plasma effects cease, exactly as I said above.

If you were right...


Once again, after being shown that plasma needs help, the thread degrades into a philosphy mosh pit courtesy of HA. No scientific reply once the logical fallacy is exposed.

Forget your beef with everything and buck up, address the science. It is the only way for you to display a shred of credibility.

The links have been posted repeatedly, you choose to ignore them.
http://www.plasma...ers.html

Read very slowly, you will not find any of the magic the standard theory requires. No magical pre-existing "flux fields", and no magical ferromagnetic "gases". Just electricity, as required by Maxwell's equations.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2013
What is observed is that the tube only glows when you connect an external power supply:

Remove the high voltage supply in that diagram and the plasma effects cease, exactly as I said above.


Once again, after being shown that plasma needs help, the thread degrades into a philosphy mosh pit courtesy of HA. No scientific reply once the logical fallacy is exposed.

Forget your beef with everything and buck up, address the science. It is the only way for you to display a shred of credibility.


The links have been posted repeatedly, you choose to ignore them.
http://www.plasma...ers.html

Then if you have read the papers, you should be able to answer the question, where does the power come from? There is no equivalent to the "high voltage power supply" that drives the Crookes Tube in the lab and "Hannes" can only try to deflect the topic by posting thousands of words of irrelevant nonsense even though he brought it up.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2013
Then if you have read the papers, you should be able to answer the question, where does the power come from?

Good question. Where's the DM? For that matter, you're missing 96% of your Universe, where is it? Come on, answer the questions!
What you are asking is a metaphysical question, along the lines of the BB creation story. Fact is, in every direction we look we observe a filamentary and cellular universe.
http://www.univer...niverse/
http://en.wikiped...filament

Oddly, these are the very characteristics of electrified plasma, and no magical/unobservable forces or matter is required to explain the filamentary/cellular structure.

It should also be known electric currents are difficult to observed, but unlike DM we find them when we look...
http://phys.org/n...ace.html
no fate
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2013
"Oddly, these are the very characteristics of electrified plasma, and no magical/unobservable forces or matter is required to explain the filamentary/cellular structure."

Below is the definition of Electrified plasma from YOUR source: it is panel #4 - Read how it occurs.

http://www.plasma...erse.com

Oddly enough each panel on that link references the presence of a field required for said structure to form. Also, I have read alot of the papers from your first link. Every reference to laboratory plasma also referenced an applied field required for the experiment.

Not a very artful dodge of Fleetfoots question either.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2013
Then if you have read the papers, you should be able to answer the question, where does the power come from?

Good question.


It is, isn't it, and it is one that neither you nor "Hannes" nor Thornhill can answer. That's what makes your "EU" a crackpot concept from start to finish.

Where's the DM?


Hannes could only try to change the subject too, thanks for admitting you have no scientific response.

What you are asking is a metaphysical question, ...


ROFL, it appears you don't even know what the word means! I am asking you how you will conserve energy over a galaxy, that's basic physics. You have no answer, EU is nothing more than failed pseudo-science.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (12) Nov 01, 2013
It is, isn't it, and it is one that neither you nor "Hannes" nor Thornhill can answer. That's what makes your "EU" a crackpot concept from start to finish.

The power comes from the birkeland currents that pervade the universe (that's why it's filamentary), those currents that create an electromotive force by curling about themselves as described in the linked papers. Galaxies, stars, and planets all find themselves situated along these BC's, these connections are ubiquitous in nature, everywhere we look and at whatever scale, we see them.
http://astronomy....ilaments
Here is a paper that describes a particular type of BC's near the galactic center, it also highlights the ignorance of what they are looking at, plasma processes and not ideal ionized gases.
http://cds.cern.c...8008.pdf
Being it's a steady state theory, postulating on what "started it all" is in fact a metaphysical question.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2013
It is, isn't it, and it is one that neither you nor "Hannes" nor Thornhill can answer. That's what makes your "EU" a crackpot concept from start to finish.

The power comes from the birkeland currents ...


It seems that sadly, you don't still haven't learned enough to understand the question. Currents transport energy, they do not produce it. Think of the grid system as an analogy, the stars are like the light bulbs in your house, the currents (if they existed) would be like those in the wires of the power grid, and some unknown mechanism might generate them like a power station, but what is the source of the energy? In a coal or gas-fired power station, it is the chemical energy stored in the fuel. In a nuclear power station, it is the conversion of mass to energy by fission. If you deny stars are powered by thermonuclear fusion (see Thornhill's site), then what replaces that? As I said last time this was discussed, the EU problem is "batteries not included".
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2013
Being it's a steady state theory, postulating on what "started it all" is in fact a metaphysical question.


Again, you don't even understand the question. I am not asking "Who built the power station?", I just want to know what fuel is being burnt to keep the lights on if it isn't nuclear fusion.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (12) Nov 01, 2013
It seems that sadly, you still haven't learned enough to understand the answer. It's been given repeatedly. Here it is again, it's in the 5th paragraph;
"Any imbalance in the constitutive properties of plasma can set in motion...The charged particle flows are currents that create weak magnetic fields... the motion of any plasma across weak magnetic fields produces and amplifies the electromotive forces, which can be transported over large distances via BC's... "
http://www.thunde...ion2.pdf

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2013
As I said last time this was discussed, the EU problem is "batteries not included".


As I said, you're missing 96% of your universe. Please do tell where it is located.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2013
As I said last time this was discussed, the EU problem is "batteries not included".


As I said, you're missing 96% of your universe. Please do tell where it is located.


Here's an example, the location of the dark matter is shown in blue:

http://apod.nasa....824.html
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2013
"The charged particle flows are currents that create weak magnetic fields... the motion of any plasma across weak magnetic fields produces and amplifies the electromotive forces,"


You're getting closer. Now think about a simple power station again. A heat source boils water and the steam spins a turbine. That is coupled to a generator where coils spin in a magnetic field and that generates the current, but that current then resists the motion.

Remove the heat source and the steam is no longer produced. Remove the steam, the generator stops spinning and the current vanishes. You still have no source of energy to create the movement of your plasma conductors (which are equivalent to the coils in the generator).

which can be transported over large distances via BC's... "


At least you've learned that part, currents can transport energy but they don't create it.

http://www.todayi...ge56.htm
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2013
You're getting closer.

I'm there. I'm not sure whether you're getting closer or not. You may need to read further, or a second time. You are still trying to imagine this from gas laws and fail to treat as plasma. Your ridiculous notion of perpetual motion is evidence. For example, if the above mentioned events occur, double layers will be formed, more currents will form, particles will be accelerated and the plasma will further develop more filament, sheets, cells, and fields. This will in turn amplify the effects even further, a feedback system. If a pair of parallel BC's get near each other it increases the kinetic energy of the particles in each current. There are innumerable variations as well, like field aligned electric fields and complexities caused by the self-fields created. Then there are the pinches, Peratt instabilities, and exploding DL's which all cause more inhomogeneous conditions which enables even further "power generation".
Zephir_fan
Nov 02, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2013
And Fate, no magical fields were induced or assumed in the making of the processes. First inhomogeny, then electricity, then magnetic fields, continue...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2013
And Fleet, your DM is only inferred, especially in your included image.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2013
Q, er I mean zephir fan, everything stated is based upon experimental facts. Therein lies the problem GRists and BBers have with it, it's too "real". It doesn't jive with their fanciful "thought experiments".
Zephir_fan
Nov 02, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Nov 04, 2013
You're getting closer.

I'm there.


Apparently not.

You are still trying to imagine this from gas laws and fail to treat as plasma.


No, I am treating it as a conductor, specifically like the wire of the coils in a generator.

Your ridiculous notion of perpetual motion is evidence.


It is an accurate analogy for what you have presented so far and here:

For example, if the above mentioned events occur, double layers will be formed, more currents will form, particles will be accelerated


All of which absorb energy.

and the plasma will further develop more filament, sheets, cells, and fields. Then there are the pinches, Peratt instabilities, and exploding DL's which all cause more inhomogeneous conditions


All of which absorb or merely transform energy.

which enables even further "power generation".


None of those processes produces any energy whatsoever, you really need to take some sort of beginners introduction to electrical theory.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2013
Last I checked electromotive force was measured in volts.

the motion of any plasma across weak magnetic fields produces and amplifies the electromotive forces


Fleetfoot
not rated yet Nov 05, 2013
Last I checked electromotive force was measured in volts.

the motion of any plasma across weak magnetic fields produces and amplifies the electromotive forces


Were you trying to make a point?

Moving a coil through a field creates a current, and the field acting on that current creates a force which resists the motion. To keep it moving, you need a source of power, just like fuel that heats the steam that spins the generator in the power station.

So far you have listed the cogs and levers you might use for your perpetual motion machine, but nothing more.