Centaurus A: A new look at an old friend

Feb 06, 2014
Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/U.Birmingham/M.Burke et al.

(Phys.org) —Just weeks after NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory began operations in 1999, the telescope pointed at Centaurus A (Cen A, for short). This galaxy, at a distance of about 12 million light-years from Earth, contains a gargantuan jet blasting away from a central supermassive black hole.

Since then, Chandra has returned its attention to this galaxy, each time gathering more data. And, like an old family photo that has been digitally restored, new processing techniques are providing astronomers with a new look at this old galactic friend.

This new image of Cen A contains data from observations, equivalent to over nine and a half days worth of time, taken between 1999 and 2012. In this image, the lowest-energy X-rays Chandra detects are in red, while the medium-energy X-rays are green, and the highest-energy ones are blue.

As in all of Chandra's images of Cen A, this one shows the spectacular jet of outflowing material—seen pointing from the middle to the upper left—that is generated by the giant black hole at the galaxy's center. This new high-energy snapshot of Cen A also highlights a dust lane that wraps around the waist of the galaxy. Astronomers think this feature is a remnant of a collision that Cen A experienced with a smaller galaxy millions of years ago.

The data housed in Chandra's extensive archive on Cen A provide a rich resource for a wide range of scientific investigations. For example, researchers published findings in 2013 on the point-like X-ray sources in Cen A. Most of these sources are systems where a compact object—either a black hole or a neutron star—is pulling gas from an orbiting companion star. These compact objects form by the collapse of massive stars, with resulting from heavier stars than .

The results suggested that nearly all of the compact objects had masses that fell into two categories: either less than twice that of the Sun, or more than five times as massive as the Sun. These two groups correspond to neutron stars and black holes.

This mass gap may tell us about the way massive stars explode. Scientists expect an upper limit on the most massive neutron stars, up to twice the mass of the Sun. What is puzzling is that the smallest black holes appear to weigh in at about five times the mass of the Sun. Stars are observed to have a continual range of masses, and so in terms of their progeny's weight we would expect black holes to carry on where neutron stars left off.

Although this mass gap between neutron stars and black holes has been seen in our galaxy, the Milky Way, this new Cen A result provides the first hints that the gap occurs in more distant galaxies. If it turns out to be ubiquitous, it may mean that a special, rapid type of stellar collapse is required in some supernova explosions.

Explore further: RX J1532.9+3021: Extreme power of black hole revealed

More information: The results described here were published in the 1 April 2013 issue of The Astrophysical Journal and are available online: dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/88 , preprint: arxiv.org/abs/1302.0851

Related Stories

RX J1532.9+3021: Extreme power of black hole revealed

Jan 23, 2014

(Phys.org) —Astronomers have used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and a suite of other telescopes to reveal one of the most powerful black holes known. The black hole has created enormous structures in ...

Image: The NGC 5194 spiral galaxy

Jan 28, 2014

The Whirlpool Galaxy, also known as M51 or NGC 5194, is one of the most spectacular examples of a spiral galaxy. With two spiral arms curling into one another in a billowing swirl, this galaxy hosts over ...

Death by black hole in small galaxy?

Jan 08, 2014

(Phys.org) —A bright, long-duration flare may be the first recorded event of a black hole destroying a star in a dwarf galaxy. The evidence comes from two independent studies using data from NASA's Chandra ...

Recommended for you

Quest for extraterrestrial life not over, experts say

19 hours ago

The discovery of an Earth-sized planet in the "habitable" zone of a distant star, though exciting, is still a long way from pointing to the existence of extraterrestrial life, experts said Friday. ...

Continents may be a key feature of Super-Earths

23 hours ago

Huge Earth-like planets that have both continents and oceans may be better at harboring extraterrestrial life than those that are water-only worlds. A new study gives hope for the possibility that many super-Earth ...

Exoplanets soon to gleam in the eye of NESSI

Apr 18, 2014

(Phys.org) —The New Mexico Exoplanet Spectroscopic Survey Instrument (NESSI) will soon get its first "taste" of exoplanets, helping astronomers decipher their chemical composition. Exoplanets are planets ...

User comments : 49

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

eachus
2 / 5 (1) Feb 06, 2014
Why the 2 to 5 solar mass gap? My hypothesis is that stars which form black holes don't drive the nearby gas away. In other words a neutron star from a supernova is pretty bright in the hours after the explosion. I could do a complex model for the system, but the most important part is that once ionized the gas in the system is a plasma, which effectively reflects all radiant energy.* If a black hole forms, the plasma will be pushed in the one direction that radiation is not coming from. A neutron star on the other hand will push the plasma away.

As a result a black hole can eat a healthy dinner after the supernova (and before the accretion disk forms). A neutron star will continue to lose mass.

* A plasma doesn't really reflect anything, it just absorbs and re-emits photons in a random direction (unless in a lasing cavity). If the plasma is thick enough, on average for every photon absorbed from some direction, a similar photon is emitted in the opposite direction.
yep
1 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2014
New look at an old friend? More like the the same look of puzzlement and then the addition of special reasons for this and that.
A new look would be realization of Bennett Pinch characteristics meaning no black holes just plasmoids.
http://adsabs.har....6...87B
yep
1 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2014
"Neutron stars violate laws of physics" might as well theorize about Santa Claus or believe in him to. Same as pulsars all bogus.
Its all about the Biot-Sarvat effect and those wonderful double layers.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2014
"Neutron stars violate laws of physics" might as well theorize about Santa Claus or believe in him to. Same as pulsars all bogus.
Its all about the Biot-Sarvat effect and those wonderful double layers.

@yep
would you mind please expounding? I am not sure I follow your train of thought...
How does the biot-savart law and double layers provide the above effect?
Do you have any references for support?

Thanks in advance
GSwift7
5 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2014
Why the 2 to 5 solar mass gap? My hypothesis is that stars which form black holes don't drive the nearby gas away


There are many such gaps in nature, usually due to things like surface tension, latent heat coefficient, etc. in our terrestrial environment.

In the case of these stellar remnants, it could be something like the Chandrasekhar limit, where atomic forces come into play at the time of collapse. It seems clear that the Chandrasekhar mechanism has something to do with the remnants under 2 solar mass. I would guess that from 2 to 5, there's enough energy in the collapse explosion to give the extra mass escape velocity, then above 5 stellar mass there's a force powerful enough to hold it all together. Or perhaps there's just no force powerful enough to prevent it from becoming so dense that gravity forms a singularity.

I doubt it is something that happens after the point of maximum collapse, rather at that exact moment there should be a 'trigger' point.
eachus
2 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2014
Or perhaps there's just no force powerful enough to prevent it from becoming so dense that gravity forms a singularity.

I doubt it is something that happens after the point of maximum collapse, rather at that exact moment there should be a 'trigger' point.


I guess I didn't make my thinking clear. At the point in time where the black hole does or doesn't form, and for a few minutes thereafter, you have a volume of hot dense plasma. If there is a black hole a lot of this plasma will fall in, if a neutron star it will be pushed outwards.

Note that at the time the black hole forms, the nearby plasma will have no significant momentum with respect to the black hole, just a very high effective pressure. The outer surface will blow off at relativistic velocities, then the next layer. On the inside either a black hole will swallowing huge amounts of mass, or the energy from the new neutron star will be pushing it away.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2014
New look at an old friend? More like the the same look of puzzlement and then the addition of special reasons for this and that.
A new look would be realization of Bennett Pinch characteristics meaning no black holes just plasmoids.
http://adsabs.har....6...87B

Such a suggestion would imply astrophysicists actually know plasma physics, it's more than clear this is not the case.
yyz
5 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2014
"A new look would be realization of Bennett Pinch characteristics meaning no black holes just plasmoids."

And empirical evidence of a Bennett Pinch in NGC 5128 can be found in what peer reviewed paper?

Anything in the 21st century?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2014
Such a suggestion would imply astrophysicists actually know plasma physics, it's more than clear this is not the case

@CD85
personal conjecture unsupported by facts
proof or links for support?

Plasma physics is part of astrophysics, where as astrophysics is NOT part of engineering.
Your speculative attempts are nothing but stupidity (especially as you were taught a hard lesson in other threads by a physicist)
your comments above are without merit or substance.
Please stick to real science.

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

http://engineerin...nts/eecs

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2014
"A new look would be realization of Bennett Pinch characteristics meaning no black holes just plasmoids."

http://prl.aps.or.../p1767_1
Here is the free version not behind a pay-wall;
http://www.plasma...lsen.pdf
and more from Bostick;
http://ieeexplore...=4316621

And empirical evidence of a Bennett Pinch in NGC 5128 can be found in what peer reviewed paper?

See above. If the mechanisms are valid is it really necessary to create a different model for every different galaxy? The "standard" model needs multiple explanations due to it's extensive deficiencies.

Anything in the 21st century?
Is Einstein still relevant in your mind? Why should this be any different? The physics of the '50's (if correct) are just as valid today.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2014
http://www.plasma...lsen.pdf
and more from Bostick;
http://ieeexplore...=4316621

@CD
first thing: these are links to KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT SITES
second thing: NEITHER LINK supports your argument. I will quote you again below
Such a suggestion would imply astrophysicists actually know plasma physics, it's more than clear this is not the case

and again-
show first: how the above links are related to the article above as the article does not discuss PSEUDOSCIENCES

then: if you can show a correlation between the article and the links, please show maths and proof that there is a possible connection as it is not obvious, nor are your links relevant

and again... if there is REAL SCIENCE supporting your hypothesis, then you SHOULD be able to find supporting links that do not reference a KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE or a SITE which allows PSEUDOSCIENCE PAPERS to be published

this is a SCIENCE site, not a PSEUDOSCIENCE site
wanna talk EU? get a blog and post on the EU site!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2014
So the Physical Review Letters are pseudoscience? IEEE? Rube! BTW, I wasn't replying to you, read the comment to realize. DA
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2014
Figure 8 in the following link;
http://electric-c...elds.pdf
shows an active stellar pinch. Much of the same morphology is present, hourglass pinch, the polar double layers, jets, etc...
Here is a better image of the stellar jets;
http://i.imgur.com/VXd3Sea.jpg

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2014
Cantdrive states:
Is Einstein still relevant in your mind?

yes, because Einstein developed a theory which was proven by FACTS. It still continues to be proven to this day.
Why should this be any different? The physics of the '50's (if correct) are just as valid today

this is TRUE... but you misunderstand: your key words are IF CORRECT
please note that the EU philosophy (it cannot even rate hypothesis as it is based upon known fallacies) is nothing more than a faith written by electrical engineers with no training or understanding of astrophysics, whereas cosmology studies are written by astrophysicists whith backgrounds that INCLUDE plasma physics, etc, etc
in fact, you forgot that I showed you directly from the author of another paper you made those claims about... and SHE gave you references!
IOW- there are some 50's physics that are used today, but NOT EU!
EU has been FIRMLY DEBUNKED.
no public debate with physicists = PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT FAITH
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2014
Cantdrive regurgitates
So the Physical Review Letters are pseudoscience?

them? no... but you didnt show relevance to the post/article
IEEE?

electrical engineers NOT ASTROPHYSICISTS
i would tentatively accept them, but i would also review how it applies with speculation
Rube! BTW, I wasn't replying to you, read the comment to realize

i dont care if you were talking to the pope.
you are posting KNOWN CRACKPOT SITES
and i NEVER read your crackpot site links
Figure 8 in the following link;
http://electric-c...elds.pdf

another CRACKPOT LINK
if you have VALID SCIENCE
SHOW IT
leave the crackpot stuff for the kindergarten class and church!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2014
Lying still stumpy? If I recall you mentioned you earned that nickname in the military, in the showers no doubt.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2014
Lying still stumpy?

@CD
personal conjecture not supported by evidence

no lies up there but the EU faith story that you share
If I recall you mentioned you earned that nickname in the military, in the showers no doubt.

nope... i know you have a thing for me but i am straight and married and not interested...

i got the nickname because i am 5'6" 220lbs with 9% body fat power-lifter and i could pick up the front end of my car and i used to jog around the fire station with the more annoying sergeants on my shoulders...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2014
'Transactions on Plasma Science'

http://www.ieeetps.org/

is a publication of the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society

http://ewh.ieee.o...pss.html

This is hardly crackpot or pseudo.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2014
electrical engineers NOT ASTROPHYSICISTS
i would tentatively accept them, but i would also review how it applies with speculation.

Only a basic understanding of the history of plasma sciences will reveal that much of the knowledge we have of REAL plasma physics is based on knowledge gleaned by engineers such as Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, and Buneman among others. Alfven described the difference between the theoretical plasma physics used by astrophysicists and the experimental electrical discharge in gases performed by these men in his Nobel speech. Astrophysics has made strides in understanding (often begrudgingly such as Birkelands auroral theory) , but as of yet there is still a disconnect in their approach. Read just about any astrophysical paper and you will not read anything significant in regards to real plasma phenomena such as double layers, electric currents, plasmoids , circuits, among others. When they do it is apparent their misunderstanding of the phenomena.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2014
Astrophysics has made strides in understanding (often begrudgingly such as Birkelands auroral theory) , but as of yet there is still a disconnect in their approach

@CD85
personal conjecture not supported by facts
either get the education yourself or at least become friends with astrophysicists!
Mr. Thompson tried to explain this to you but you ignored his data
Read just about any astrophysical paper and you will not read anything significant in regards to real plasma phenomena such as double layers, electric currents, plasmoids , circuits, among others

personal conjecture not supported by facts
again, Mr. Thompson pointed this out to you and gave you links to support his argument
but you IGNORE it

in fact... I ALSO pointed it out in another thread
the AUTHOR of the study ALSO pointed it out
you are simply DENYING FACTS
If you want, I can RE-POST the comments and links
but I am pretty sure you would just ignore them AGAIN
like you are doing now
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2014
a basic understanding of the history of plasma sciences will reveal that much of the knowledge we have of REAL plasma physics is based on knowledge gleaned by engineers such as Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, and Buneman among others

@CD85
yep. You are right. Not discounting them,
and then scientists took their information and gave us the physics that we have today...

but you seem to misunderstand

astrophysics INCLUDES plasma physics, as well as many other known phenomenon like gravitational lensing, etc etc
the EU IGNORES TOO MUCH of the other physics and attempts to state that EU and plasma physics answers all the questions, when in fact they do not
case in point: craters on the moon, asteroid formation, the grand canyon, magnetic reconnection, etc
EU does NOT explain these phenomenon accurately, if at all
whereas other theories DO (accurately! And we have observed/demonstrated their accuracy)
EU ignores Magnetic Reconnection but plasma physics does NOT
WTF is up with THAT?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2014
I find it interesting that old cant-think keeps putting his same previously debunked garbage on another thread in the hopes that no one will notice that it is the exact same previously debunked garbage! A lack of growth in a theory is suggestive that the theory is without merit, and there has been no growth in the EU pretending since the middle 90's, if then. As said on another article on pseudo-science
While the use of modern scientific language may make it sound more impressive, there is no corresponding increase in knowledge linked to effectiveness. The field has flat-lined. At this level of understanding, science produces growth, pseudoscience does not.
(Thanks CD) and another on denialism:

"I those denying the inconvenient truths attributed to science resort to personal abuse...misquoting of respectable scientists or distorting their views by quoting out of context, and repeating claims that have been systematically refuted."
Systematically refuted over and over!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2014
A lack of growth in a theory is suggestive that the theory is without merit, and there has been no growth in the EU pretending since the middle 90's, if then.

You choose willful ignorance rather than understanding the POV. As a matter of fact, the EUT put forth by the Thunderbolts team STARTED in the mid '90's, that's denialism through ignorance. Here is a list of successful predictions since 1995 by electrical theorists, predictions that were NOT MADE BY ANYONE ELSE!
http://www.thunde...ions.htm
30 or so? Hmmmm
and another.
http://electric-c...2012.pdf
If you want to include works previous to that by other electrical theorists the list gets much, much longer...

Mr Thompson just gave link after link to the same "scientists" who claim understanding plasma physics yet still largely ignore the pioneer work established by the gas discharge experimentalists.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2014
At the point in time where the black hole does or doesn't form, and for a few minutes thereafter, you have a volume of hot dense plasma. If there is a black hole a lot of this plasma will fall in, if a neutron star it will be pushed outwards.

Note that at the time the black hole forms, the nearby plasma will have no significant momentum with respect to the black hole, just a very high effective pressure.


I don't think it's that simple. Generally, a black hole doesn't form directly, instead a neutron star forms but the surface stops collapsing due to neutron degeneracy pressure. The shock wave from that throws material outwards which, if it stalled and fell back, would then initiate the collapse to a black hole if it exceeded the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit. However, the neutrinos produced by the SN can boost the expansion of the outgoing shell and prevent enough material falling back. Perhaps there is a limit to how much matter can be cleared out by that process.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2014
include works previous to that by other electrical theorists

@CD85
i would rather have a root canal sans anesthetic
especially considering that EU does not even qualify as a "hypothesis"
successful predictions

for a prediction to be successful, it must be scientific
that means math, models, etc
THEN it has to be OBSERVED
EU has YET to do any of this
case in point: grand canyon shaped by plasma discharge, moon craters hypothesis of action through discharges of plasma, asteroid formation/shaping through plasma discharge
Mr Thompson just gave link after link to the same "scientists"

he gave link after link to VALID science
supported by PEER REVIEWED studies
who claim understanding plasma physics yet still largely ignore the pioneer work established by the gas discharge experimentalists

personal conjecture not supported by facts
in fact I proved this wrong to you in the thread:
http://phys.org/n...ack.html

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2014
You choose willful ignorance rather than understanding the POV...
Mr Thompson just gave link after link to the same "scientists"...

@CD85
the fact of the matter is:
your EU has its foundation in electrical engineering
it is the EU who has proven WILLFUL IGNORANCE
actually, this is EU STUPIDITY
EU proponents willfully disregard known scientific facts
peer reviewed studies
they are known to (as you do) ignore the fact that astrophysicists are TRAINED in plasma physics, whereas electrical engineers are NOT TRAINED in astrophysics

now... maybe when it comes to certain things like:
fixing an x-box OR
building a motherboard
electrical engineers are the person to call...

BUT calling an electrical engineer for astrophysics is like calling a plumber to put out your house fire because plumbers know about water...
ya just wouldn't do that if ya had a brain!

astrophysicists know about astrophysics
yep
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
Please read the abstract http://adsabs.har....6...87B
Its all about scale. The Author in conclusion states while the speeds are to scale the densities are off by a factor of 10/15 so you kids need to get your heads around that fact were talking galactic scale dense focus plasma.

Which brings us to neutron stars and the ridiculous notion that pulsars validate them. Hello neutron decay!
What do astrophysicists know? The standard holy grail gravity model who is all powerful and all blasphemers who deny shall be punished.
"The Biot-Savart forces generated by the parallel currents are long-range attractive and short-range repulsive" Can you say Gap.
More on the train of thought with ion acceleration. Plasmoids not pulsars!
http://perso.ens-...3506.pdf

Soul of Amber The background of Electrical Science "Alfred Still This book is a profound look at history you need to read this because perspective is key to understanding.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2014
What do astrophysicists know? The standard holy grail gravity model who is all powerful and all blasphemers who deny shall be punished.

@yep
1st: Electric Universe is a philosophy based upon a fallacy
2nd: your links above only serve to reinforce my statements that astrophysicists take into consideration plasma physics as well as other known factors, whereas Elec. Engineers are not capable of pronouncing astrophysical theories as they are ignorant of a great many facets
3rd: I never read books about pseudoscience as it serves no purpose unless I am being asked to pick the book apart
lastly: your proclamations are mostly just personal conjecture, especially your blasphemers crap-o-la

leave faith to the priests
if ya are going to talk science here, talk REAL science
EU acolytes will not even publicly debate real physicists out of fear of public humiliation like they get on line with logic and science... so leave it for the blogs or 4chan. This is NOT the place for it
GSwift7
5 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
Biot-Savart forces generated by the parallel currents are long-range attractive and short-range repulsive" Can you say Gap


First, EM fields are neither attractive nor repulsive at any range. They are attractive if polarity is opposite, repulsive if polarity is the same, and exert no force at all on neutrally charged bodies. So, for a neutral plasma, which will naturally form a plasmoid, any given field on large scale will not influence the bulk motion of the plasmoid.

Second, you should probably be using Jefimenko's equations, in stead of Biot-Savart (that's if your suggestion had any merrit to start with, but it doesn't, since it doesn't match observation).

BTW, both Biot-Savart and Jefimenko are merely extensions of Maxwell's and Gauss' theories, applied to special cases where simplifications are possible. Neither one of them really would apply to the scenario of an exploding star, except MAYBE if you apply the aerodynamic version of Jefimenko's law for the turbulence.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2014
First, EM fields are neither attractive nor repulsive at any range. They are attractive if polarity is opposite, repulsive if polarity is the same, and exert no force at all on neutrally charged bodies. So, for a neutral plasma, which will naturally form a plasmoid, any given field on large scale will not influence the bulk motion of the plasmoid.

BZZZT, Wrong! Every bit of it. You need to move beyond pith ball electrostatics.

Second, you should probably be using Jefimenko's equations, in stead of Biot-Savart (that's if your suggestion had any merrit to start with, but it doesn't, since it doesn't match observation).

BZZZT, wrong again... Still missapplying the required physics. This is electric discharge in plasma.

Neither one of them really would apply to the scenario of an exploding star

Circular reasoning demanding that what we are seeing is an "exploding" star as you imagine it.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
BZZZT, Wrong! Every bit of it. You need to move beyond pith ball electrostatics


No, it isn't wrong, and it matches observations.

Still missapplying the required physics. This is electric discharge in plasma


Well, I was telling him that he was wrong, so I agree that it was wrong, but if he was right, he would have needed Jefimenko. Biot-Savart only works with single, isolated currents, so he can't use that.

Circular reasoning demanding that what we are seeing is an "exploding" star as you imagine it


lol, I don't even know where to start on that one. When you go that far off the deep end, it's just too whacko to try to reason with you. That's like if we were all looking out the window, talking about a tree, and you're claiming that we are all just imagining it's a tree. Trees look like lightning bolts, so plasma blah blah blah.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2014
lol, I don't even know where to start on that one. When you go that far off the deep end, it's just too whacko to try to reason with you. That's like if we were all looking out the window, talking about a tree, and you're claiming that we are all just imagining it's a tree. Trees look like lightning bolts, so plasma blah blah blah.

@GSwift7
cantdrive is still hurting for the public humiliation that he received in the comments when he attempted to promote his electric hallucinations and physicist Tim Thompson destroyed him with valid math, science and logic.
he will be flooding as much as possible now given that he is trying to bolster his pseudoscience faith

thanks for pointing out the above.
get CD to put some math out here...
engineering is not astrophysics, but he cant figure that out
IMP-9
5 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
Which brings us to neutron stars and the ridiculous notion that pulsars validate them. Hello neutron decay!


Do neutrons bound in nuclei decay in 15 minutes like a free neutron? No. Bound neutrons can be stable under conditions where it energetically favorable to stay a neutron and not a proton, like in an atom or a neutron star.

Plasmoids not pulsars!


So how does this model explain glitches, x-ray pulsars, perturbations in timing which can be explained by planets, double pulsars and their period decay, pulsar spin down, frequency dependence, the broadband spectrum of pulsars, their relation to supernovae, the beam profile of pulsars, the pulse profile...? It doesn't. It might one day but it doesn't now. This hypothesis of yours has a long way to go before it has the quantitative explanatory power of neutron stars.
yep
2 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2014
1st. Standard theory is based on a fallacy
2nd. Those links reinforce you are in denial to anything that contradicts your beliefs even when they are bona fide.
3rd. That book is about the history of science. You might learn something by reading it.
Real science? Or real Dogma? You have anointed yourself high priest of science and anyone who contradicts is a heretic.
Some of the problem is your theoretical math does not correlate with reality. Even a brilliant guy like GSwift7 can not wrap his head around plasma being non-Maxwellian.

yep
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2014
These are not my hypothesis they are gleaned from the great works of Alfven, Langmuir, Juergens, and the like.
Energetically favorable like an atom or a neutron star. Wow that's a stretch. Neutron stars violate the island of stability principle and require unproven gravitational forces not only in formation but in continued existence "singularities" Ironic things like these including black holes are accepted without question.
Everything associated with them across the spectrum from gamma, radio, x-ray, to high energy UV light can be explained by plasma discharge and galactic circuit models pioneered by the scientists above without resorting to black astrophysilcist magic.
Plasma experiments have been going on in the lab for a hundred years now maybe its time to question your faith in the standard model and apply some practical science instead of theoretical "conjecture". Maybe start by reading that abstract above from Harvard and chew on its implications. Then read some history.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
GSwift7 can not wrap his head around plasma being non-Maxwellian


That's a bit more complicated that a yes or no answer.

The laws of Maxwell and Gauss do still apply, but in an extremely complex manner, and in concert with several other types of interaction simultaneously. For example, in a given area of dense plasma, you have gravity, thermodynamics, magnetohydrodynamics, chemistry, momentum/inertia, perhaps even quantum interactions, and the list goes on.

So, for example, you might get turbulence in some area, leading to a vortex. If there's a net charge in the plasma inside that vortex, then you have charged particles moving in a circle, which is a circuit. That circuit will produce effects in accordance with Maxwell and Gauss, just like any other circuit. It would be impossible to calculate such a complex situation with today's human technology, but the effects are still there, in obeyance with the fundamental laws.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
continued:

We are not able to calculate or accurately model some aspects of plasma dynamics, especially on small scales, but the same thing is true of our own weather systems and ocean currents. However, we are able to approximate it, and accurately model some aspects of it. We mostly do this based on detailed observations. By observing how it behaves in real life, we can make predictions of bulk motions based on patterns we observe under given circumstances. Therefore we don't need to fully understand the underlying complexities in order to make accurate approximations of the bulk motions. You see this done every time you read a weather forcast. As long as you know the limits of the method, and don't expect it to produce fine details or long term predictions, it works well enough for some purposes.

We know the basics of what makes it work, but we lack the computer power and initial condition measurements to calculate it all. That's quite different from being clueless about it.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2014
Neutron stars violate the island of stability principle and require unproven gravitational forces not only in formation but in continued existence "singularities"


More wrong. Neutron stars don't violate that because they aren't nuclei they are not held together by the strong force. They don't require unproven forces, GR is well tested unlike what you are promoting. They don't depend on singularities at all, that's nonsense.

IMP-9
5 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2014
Everything associated with them across the spectrum from gamma, radio, x-ray, to high energy UV light can be explained by plasma discharge and galactic circuit models


All of those emissions can occur from thermal or synchrotron radiation. But that tells us nothing. What conditions are needed to explain precise spectral features? What conditions are needed to explain beaming and time profiles? You have no idea because you don't have model. You go on complete faith that your ideas can explain anything even though you've never even considered it. Proclaiming this comes from the likes of Langmuir and Alfven is nothing but an shallow appeal to authority.

You have no idea if your model can explain these observations, all you have is blind faith. Plasma experiments have been going on for some time, this does not validate your ideas. Standard theory has in fact applied real plasma physics to pulsars in what is a very interesting field.
stellar-demolitionist
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
yep wrote:

Neutron stars violate the island of stability principle and require unproven gravitational forces not only in formation but in continued existence "singularities"


To which IMP-9 replied

More wrong. Neutron stars don't violate that because they aren't nuclei they are not held together by the strong force. They don't require unproven forces, GR is well tested unlike what you are promoting. They don't depend on singularities at all, that's nonsense.



It's far worse than that. There isn't really an "island of stability principle". It's just a prediction based on the application of nuclear theory that isotopes with nearly closed shells beyond the currently detected ones will be more stable. Experiment hasn't quite reached the "island" but it is not far off.

The same nuclear theory is consistent with our knowledge of known isotopes and predicts (without question) the stability nuclear matter under pressure.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
Standard theory is based on a fallacy

@yep
standard theory is based upon empirical data and observation
EU philosophy is based upon fallacy
EU says that the grand canyon was formed by plasma discharge
there would be evidence if that were true
EU was written by electrical engineers with no background in astrophysics
astrophysical theories have a background that includes plasma physics and the physics that EU keeps saying that they ignore, as proven by the links above

given your inability to see this and your desire to prove a fallacy, I would suggest a trip to a mental health physician
you are in denial to anything that contradicts your beliefs

if there is empirical data supporting the claim I am open to it
when the data is already included in the hypothesis or theory, then it is moot to argue that the physicists are not including it, especially given the fact that EU does NOT explain other things that are present

EU is PSEUDOSCIENCE & NOT VALID for ASTROPHYSICS
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
That book is about the history of science

@yep
the book is
The background of Electrical Science

it si about history of Electrical science
so what
that information is available in many other formats and places
the history of science is not interesting to me
You have anointed yourself high priest of science and anyone who contradicts is a heretic

on the contrary
when you learn REAL science
then people who push a PSEUDOSCIENCE need to be educated
especially as they are promoting NON SCIENCE and can confuse the uneducated who visit the site

if EU is so powerful and valid, why does it hide in comment sections and on the web
why doesnt EU publicly debate astrophysicists or physicists?

Because they are wrong!

stellar-demolitionist
5 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2014
"yep" wrote:

These are not my hypothesis they are gleaned from the great works of Alfven, Langmuir, Juergens, and the like.


"One of these things is not like the other. Can you tell which one?"*

Alfven: Respectable plasma scientist and pioneer. Went a little astray pursuing topics outside his range (cosmology)

Langmuir: Respectable chemist and physicist. Coin term "Pathological Science" to describe "discoveries" that fool their finders and others (for a while).

Juergens, Ralph: Civil engineer, Velkovskian. Developed "electric sun" fantasy. No evidence of expert knowledge of even plasma physics.

I suggest an update to your credulity filter. Yours seems to be malfunctioning.

*Sesame Street, paraphrased
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2014
"yep" wrote:

These are not my hypothesis they are gleaned from the great works of Alfven, Langmuir, Juergens, and the like.


"One of these things is not like the other. Can you tell which one?"*

Alfven: Respectable plasma scientist and pioneer. Went a little astray pursuing topics outside his range (cosmology)

Langmuir: Respectable chemist and physicist. Coin term "Pathological Science" to describe "discoveries" that fool their finders and others (for a while).

Juergens, Ralph: Civil engineer, Velkovskian. Developed "electric sun" fantasy. No evidence of expert knowledge of even plasma physics.

I suggest an update to your credulity filter. Yours seems to be malfunctioning.

*Sesame Street, paraphrased

Although Juergens was a lowly engineer, he had a much better grasp on interplanetary plasma than even today's astrophysicists.
http://www.thunde...nics.pdf
aroc91
5 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2014

Although Juergens was a lowly engineer, he had a much better grasp on interplanetary plasma than even today's astrophysicists.
http://www.thunde...nics.pdf


Pointless verbaige? Check. Supporting mathematics? Nope. Nothing in that suggests he has any grasp on plasma physics.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2014
Although Juergens was a lowly engineer, he had a much better grasp on interplanetary plasma than even today's astrophysicists.

To quote that great philosopher of western thought, Guru Bugs Bunny: "What a Maroon". Juergens allegedly had a B.S. degree in civil engineering (roads, buildings, plumbing, that sort of thing). If ever he actually worked in the profession, I can't find mention of it. In any case, I have read his papers. The small amount of mathematics he employs is irrelevant and he never knew anything about plasma physics, which he consistently gets wrong. At least Scott's degree is in electrical engineering, although he likewise appears to be dismal at plasma physics. Bet on the astro guys; Juergens & Scott are dim bulbs at best.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2014
Mr Thompson just gave link after link to the same "scientists" who claim understanding plasma physics yet still largely ignore the pioneer work established by the gas discharge experimentalists.

Hah! I gave links to experiments run by the "scientists" in the Plasma Physics laboratories at Princeton & Caltech, where we all understand they have a hard time with "science". I made copious reference to text books and published papers from all over the plasma physics community, well known top "scientists" from the world's leading research centers. You ran out on the discussion because your claims got crushed under the weight of real science, as opposed to the fantasy version of "science" you are pushing, ideas that are so bad and so scientifically & intellectually bankrupt that they are not good enough to qualify as merely "wrong". Ideas that genuinely qualify as scientifically stupid.
yep
1 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2014
"...what is accepted as true by a particular generation may be classed as gross superstition by succeeding generations; it can never be absolute truth" Alfred M Still
barakn
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2014
Although Juergens was a lowly engineer, he had a much better grasp on interplanetary plasma than even today's astrophysicists.
http://www.thunde...nics.pdf

Still peddling the same old crap.

More news stories

Impact glass stores biodata for millions of years

(Phys.org) —Bits of plant life encapsulated in molten glass by asteroid and comet impacts millions of years ago give geologists information about climate and life forms on the ancient Earth. Scientists ...

The importance of plumes

The Hubble Space Telescope is famous for finding black holes. It can pick out thousands of galaxies in a patch of sky the size of a thumbprint. The most powerful space telescope ever built, the Hubble provided ...

Airbnb rental site raises $450 mn

Online lodging listings website Airbnb inked a $450 million funding deal with investors led by TPG, a source close to the matter said Friday.

Health care site flagged in Heartbleed review

People with accounts on the enrollment website for President Barack Obama's signature health care law are being told to change their passwords following an administration-wide review of the government's vulnerability to the ...