Super-massive black hole inflates giant bubble

Super-massive black hole inflates giant bubble
This false colour image shows the galaxy M87. Optical light is shown in white/blue (SDSS), the radio emission in yellow/orange (LOFAR). At the centre, the radio emission has a very high surface brightness, showing where the jet powered by the supermassive black hole is located. Credits: Francesco de Gasperin, on behalf of the LOFAR collaboration

Like symbiotic species, a galaxy and its central black hole lead intimately connected lives. The details of this relationship still pose many puzzles for astronomers. Some black holes actively accrete matter. Part of this material does not fall into the black hole but is ejected in a narrow stream of particles, traveling at nearly the speed of light. When the stream slows down, it creates a tenuous bubble that can engulf the entire galaxy. Invisible to optical telescopes, the bubble is very prominent at low radio frequencies. The new International LOFAR Telescope - designed and built by ASTRON in an international collaboration - is ideally suited to detect this low frequency emission.

Astronomers have produced one of the best images ever of such a bubble, using LOFAR to detect frequencies from 20 to 160 MHz. "The result is of great importance", says Francesco de Gasperin, lead author of the study that will be published in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics. "It shows the enormous potential of LOFAR, and provides compelling evidence of the close ties between black hole, host galaxy, and their surroundings."

Super-massive black hole inflates giant bubble
The LOFAR antenna array near Unterweilenbach is operated by the MPA. It is one of the 6 stations in Germany and 40 stations in the Netherlands that are combined to study the largely unexplored frequency range between 10 and 240 MHz. Image: Rainer Hassfurter/MPA

The image was made during the test-phase of LOFAR, and targeted the giant elliptical galaxy Messier 87, at the centre of a galaxy cluster in the constellation of Virgo. This galaxy is 2000 times more massive than our Milky Way and hosts in its centre one of the most massive discovered so far, with a mass six billion times that of our Sun. Every few minutes this black hole swallows an amount of matter similar to that of the whole Earth, converting part of it into radiation and a larger part into powerful jets of ultra-fast particles, which are responsible for the observed radio emission.

"This is the first time such high-quality images are possible at these low frequencies", says professor Heino Falcke, from Radboud University, Nijmegen, and MPIfR Bonn, chairman of the board of the ILT and co-author of the study. "This was a challenging observation - we did not expect to get such fantastic results so early in the commissioning phase of LOFAR."

To determine the age of the bubble, the authors added radio observations at different frequencies from the Very Large Array in New Mexico (USA), and the Effelsberg 100-meter radio telescope near Bonn (Germany). The team found that this bubble is surprisingly young, just about 40 million years, which is a mere instant on cosmic time scales. The low frequency observation does not reveal any relic emission outside the well-confined bubble boundaries, this means that the bubble is not just a relic of an activity that happened long ago but is constantly refilled with fresh particles ejected by the central black hole.

"What is particularly fascinating", says Andrea Merloni from the Max-Planck Institute of Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, who supervised de Gasperin's doctoral work, "is that the results also provide clues on the violent matter-to-energy conversion that occurs very close to the black hole. In this case the black hole is particularly efficient in accelerating the jet, and much less effective in producing visible emission."


Explore further

Black Hole Blows Bubble Between The Stars

Provided by Max Planck Society
Citation: Super-massive black hole inflates giant bubble (2012, October 29) retrieved 16 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2012-10-super-massive-black-hole-inflates-giant.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 29, 2012
Within the lexicon adopted by astrophysicists, a "well-confined" sphere is a "bubble" (it's a technical term ...). However, plasma physicists need not invent terms to explain such observations, as laboratory plasmas are known to protect their charge with double layers. So, while the astrophysicist must start from scratch to explain what lends the bubble its well-confined envelope, our work with laboratory plasmas already suggests a natural answer to this. The real issue here is that the gas-and-gravity dominated view of our universe was concocted long before we sent probes into space, at which time plasma's prevalence was realized. There is a phenomenon which is known to plague conventional science as "multiple representations in multiple agents". It's when you have multiple human or artificial agents who have dissimilar representations about an object, person, interaction or situation. When specialists refuse to engage and connect these dissimilar representations, science loses.

Oct 29, 2012
Plasma cosmology is a load of old guff.

Oct 29, 2012
Papers on plasma cosmology are reviewed by IEEE -- the world's largest scientific institution, and the research institution most known for the creation of semiconductors and the computer which you are using to post your comment. Astrophysicists have largely decided to ignore the findings of the IEEE group, to their own detriment. But, this is not a new phenomenon. It dates at least back to 1970, when Hannes Alfven delivered his Nobel acceptance speech advising the astrophysicists that their application of his MHD models was destined to be a dead-end. Alfven repeatedly advised the astrophysicists to question their own application of MHD, as the astrophysicists were modeling cosmic plasmas as if they were actually gases -- unable to hold an electric field. They continue to make the same assumption to this day, and yet anybody can look up plasma's VI curve, and if the curve is carefully drawn, see that V never hits zero. Hence, V/I never hits zero, hence there is some tiny R.

Oct 29, 2012
Also, in truth, it should hardly be controversial that a universe where 99.999% of what we see with our telescopes is matter in the plasma state, might actually be a plasma-dominated universe. We can see rather clearly that the gravity-based universe has an energy-deficit problem. This is precisely what one would expect in the event that a plasma-dominated universe was being modeled as if it was instead dominated by gases and gravity. That's because cosmic plasmas should exhibit charge differentials over cosmic distances. Plasmas are, by definition, conductive, since conductivity is a function of charge mobility. Conventional astrophysicists and cosmologists go to great lengths to assume their way to the extraordinarily unsupported conclusion that charge cancels in space. That's in spite of the observation of double layers in the laboratory. What we see in the lab is that plasmas naturally protect their charge with double layers, which is why the bubbles we see are well-defined.

Oct 29, 2012
It's really pretty extraordinary to watch conventional thinkers wonder why students are turned off by science today. The physics PhD program increasingly tells students what to believe instead of giving them the tools to think critically, and develop their own opinions on controversial subjects like cosmology and astrophysics. The physics PhD program has become authoritarian, and any theory -- even those which can point to empirical lines of argumentation -- which disagrees with their own preferred assumptions and speculations, are cast as anti-science. This is a dangerous path for establishment science to pursue, for what will inevitably happen is that new programs which facilitate a critical, multi-frame analysis (Big Bang vs plasma-cosmology) will develop online, instead of within the university systems. The refusal to permit authentic lines of investigation will ultimately create competitors to the existing system of higher education.

Oct 29, 2012
*waits for a2g to rip hannes a new one.....

Oct 29, 2012
Gad! These (electric universe) buffoons were around during the days of 1200 baud modems and bulletin board systems.

Oct 29, 2012
Young bubbles? Massive winds blowing from the core? Periodic eruptions? How much evidence does it take? Why did they omit this recent inconvenient puffy-core reference?

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

Or maybe this could help with the confusion? Cores lead galactic growth?

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

People need to think in order to understand. There is no way around it. Lazy brains will remain confused.


Oct 29, 2012
Re: "In order to prove the EUT you would have to be able to not only make an electric sun, you would have to be able to run it without any external power input."

That's a top-down approach to cosmology if I ever saw one. Clearly, your assumptions with regards to the cosmic plasma models ENTIRELY define your conclusions.

Question: What maintains the observed electric potentials over time?

Short Answer

Cosmic plasmas can be observed to repeat a natural self-sustaining repetitive loop connecting electrical potential energy to electrical current, magnetic fields and charge separation (the creation of plasma from gas). Although each individual step of the process can be observed and confirmed within the laboratory, electrical theorists do not claim to understand where the power comes from, nor if there was ever a beginning to the process.

Those questions are better left in the hands of theologists and philosophers.

Oct 29, 2012
[cont'd]

Long Answer

The following set of mechanisms have all been verified by experiment and observation:

1. A voltage drop (difference) across a conducting path (in plasma) produces a current (by virtue of Ohm's Law).

2. Electric currents are streams of moving charge. Currents in plasma tend to twist (Birkeland Currents). These filaments and Birkeland Current structures are observed to exist on all known scales of the cosmos. Any electric plasma needs some electric current to exist.

3. Currents produce magnetic fields (Maxwell, Oersted, et.al.).

4. Relative motion between plasma (moving ionized gas) and magnetic fields produces electrical currents. It is these currents that have the power to couple together different constituencies of plasma cells in the universe (Faraday, Maxwell, Lorentz). Go back to step 2.

Oct 29, 2012
[cont'd]

5. Relative motion between moving charges (a plasma cell) and neutral gas clouds produces charge separation, which in turn leads to voltage (Hannes Alfvén). Go back to step 1.

This is Nature's electrical do-loop which operates on inhomogeneous cells of cosmic plasma. These five steps are essentially operators which can have an effect upon the fundamental characteristics of plasmas: its temperature, magnetization, degree of ionization, chemical constituency, and relative motion.

Step 5 is known as Critical Ionization Velocity (CIV) or the Alfven Velocity.

Given that Nature's electromagnetic operations as a whole form an iterative loop, there's no reason to believe that the process isn't inherently self-sustaining. And any questions regarding how it all started (with respect to both time and electrical power) are no different from asking whether the chicken or egg came first, or what happened before the Big Bang.

Oct 29, 2012
Of course, I don't expect that the explanation will put a stop to the insults.

Oct 29, 2012
Re: "You write over and over about how that your theory can be proven in the lab and then scaled up to the galactic scale. Can you really do this? No"

Arguments that plasmas can't possibly scale over enormous scales are circular arguments. The simple fact is that we see morphologies that are cosmic in scale which can be reproduced in the laboratory. That includes filamentation, "bubbles", galactic morphologies (even with gravity taken into account) and Faraday motor structures.

One of the bedrock principles of science is that we can use our laboratory experiences to understand the cosmos. So, to assume that plasmas cannot possibly scale -- in spite of the morphological observations that they might nevertheless -- is not a scientific approach. When it is then proposed that instead, we should invent new dark forms of matter and force to effectively act as fudge factors in order to save appearances for the gravity-based model, it's not clear that this is somehow a better approach.

Oct 29, 2012
Lazy brains will remain confused.



That's so true.

Oct 29, 2012
Re: "Even the great primitive graffiti affectionado, Anythony Peratt has never actually done ONE plasma experiment. NOT ONE. He ran computer sims in the freakin 80s and would not share his code with anyone to verify it."

It's not clear to me what you base this upon, but it's important to note for others that Peratt worked as an advisor to the Department of Energy on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. So, for a plasma physicist -- or anybody -- to assume that they have full access to Peratt's work is probably especially presumptuous, problematic and probably even a bit misleading to those who had not carefully understood Peratt's bio.

This detail also casts an important light upon the problem with the debate over plasmas: Plasma physics is also the science of nuclear explosions. So, we should all expect quite naturally that a lot of confusion would pertain to discussions about them.

Oct 29, 2012
A2G,

You drove me to register to this site, something I have refrained from doing for so long. You remind me of a little cool kid teachers pet with a gold star on your chest. What is up with the incessant barrage of name calling? You are constantly name calling, it is obnoxious. It is hard for me to not despise your opinions based solely on that fact. Get some composure, Mr. I work with plasmas in vacuums. You make vast assumptions about the EU 'crowd', and get pissed when EU people question the Standard models gaping holes. Burden of proof?!

Big Bang, Neutron stars, black holes, dark bullshit, and a fusion driven sun..all lack proof(understatement). Complex number dancing and magic tricks. The air is thin up on that pedestal, it is slurring your mental processes.

Oct 29, 2012
Hi again, A2G. I am again forced to log in and remind you to keep objective and cool. Especially since, in all fairness to HannesAlfven et al, even you must see the evidence where electro-magnetic circuits/fields overcome gravity around black holes and neutron stars? Magnetic and Electric field/flow patterns create accelerator system at the poles which separate much of the accretion disc material and 'funnel' it away at near-lightspeed velocity jets of material/energy. These jets/flows of charges/energy extend to intergalactic distances and create/power 'deep-space' content/features/processes which would otherwise be low-key and invisible. Be cool. Just concentrate on publishing what you have done, and then discuss the topic in that new light of what you present.

Good luck and good/cool thinking all!

Oct 29, 2012
Emotional responses to scientific arguments suggest that A2G is a subject of his worldview. Unlike A2G, I am open to seeing arguments which might discount my preferred framework. But, I think A2G unknowingly demonstrates a couple of very serious problems that are unfortunately common amongst advocates of conventional theory ...

(1) Ill-structured, "wicked" problems are commonly confused by students and engineers with well-structured problems. The notion that we can simply apply algorithmic approaches to problem-solving in cosmology and astrophysics precludes a more thoughtful approach, and invites the widespread treatment of assumptions and representations as facts -- when in fact ALL SIDES OF THE DEBATE must rely heavily upon analogy to make their cases.

(2) Critical thinking includes a process of questioning assumptions. But, A2G's approach clearly denies the value of questioning the validity of the cosmic plasma models. Upon what basis? Where does this confidence originate?

Oct 29, 2012
Re: "But I will never attack brilliant scientists the way you do."

Questioning assumptions should not be viewed as an attack. It's called critical thinking. And neither should anybody feel obligated to defer to authority when each side can point to authorities to make their case.

In the realm of "wicked", ill-defined problems -- such as cosmology and astrophysical inferences -- the controversies and questions can matter more than the claimed answers. The real disconnect here on how to model cosmic plasmas derives from a blatant failure to educate astrophysics students on the truthful story of Hannes Alfven's work. As they say, the "victors" write the history books. This is especially true for longstanding scientific controversies. For the "other side," see the context for Alfven which is generally left out of the astrophysical textbooks, and tell me that this stuff doesn't matter ...

http://scientific...e_09.pdf

Oct 29, 2012
@A2G: The problem is much deeper than you are imagining. Immunity to change is a fundamental problem in culture for the very reason that people oftentimes mistake adaptive change for mere technical change challenges. A technical change challenge is one which requires more data to settle, and which we can address by simply using the problem-solving skills we've already learned.

By contrast, an adaptive change challenge is one which demands a dramatic reconstruction of the way in which we approach problems. It cannot be solved by simply introducing more data; we have to actually change the way that we think about the problem.

Kegan and Lahey have had much success applying this model to Fortune 500 companies in the case of corporate mergers, where two teams must come together to create one product. I view the failures of the conventional theories to be adaptive change challenges, for if they weren't, they would have already been solved, given the resources thrown at them.

Oct 29, 2012
If I'm right about this -- and I'm confident that I am -- the current approach to cosmology and astrophysics is already doomed to fail. It cannot be saved, for its very success is a product of its refusal to consider competing paradigms. 50% of PhD students are weeded out, and this process is NOT politically neutral (See Jeff Schmidt's book, Disciplined Minds). This is the behavior of an authoritarian institution. These problems will eventually be resolved, but not by this current society of scientists or theoreticians. The university system is completely broken when it comes to cosmology and astrophysics, and future generations will look back on this era as very dark times, because the large bulk of this work is highly speculative and unfounded. The universities have also COMPLETELY failed to apply 3 decades of findings within cognitive science and physics education research to the ways in which they teach!

The only way forward, in my view, is to simply start over.

Oct 29, 2012
Re: "But he made a fundamental mistake when he made attacks against the mainstream as he did. How did that work out for him?"

You're simply not getting it. The story is far from over, right? Conventional theorists can't even identify 95% of the universe's apparent matter, using their existing approach. Future theorists will at some point realize that this is not working, and a consensus will eventually emerge that it's time to revisit the old plasma-based paradigm which was basically prematurely thrown away.

In fact, it's possible to actually start this process today by simply creating an online space for theory-making. By creating an environment where students are trained in multiframe scientific analysis, it's possible to authentically teach critical thinking in science. It doesn't matter if either paradigm turns out to be untrue; the value of multi-frame analysis supercedes the legitimacy of either worldview.

You cannot teach critical thinking with one worldview.

Oct 29, 2012
The failure to identify 95% of the universe's matter would, at least superficially, appear to vindicate Alfven's warnings to the astrophysical community as prophetic. The writing here is on the wall, but to get to the proper context for what is happening, you have to widen the breadth of your information sources. You could, for instance, decide to watch the YouTube videos by Peter Woit, where he offers very similar criticisms of particle physics.

For instance, at 32 minutes into http://www.youtub...jZCS9YVY

"[P]art of the problem of particle physics is the bandwagon … see what all of these smart people are working on, and I should do the same as them."

The mistake you're making here is in deciding to become a member of this society. These are not the winners. "Winning" in science can be exceptionally provisional. The only true question is who will the future declare the victor? The current story is incomplete and irrelevant to that very different story.

Oct 29, 2012
The truth is that while you are working the system, you are also supporting it. Sometimes people need to be told that they are wrong. In the case of adaptive change challenges, there is no simple data-driven connecting bridge which gets you from mainstream theory to the EU. Many people have claimed that it's so, but if you read carefully what Wal Thornhill is arguing, he's complaining about the philosophy and approach to science just as much as the inferential step.

I can tell you with confidence that students are not being trained to consider competing paradigms in science. So, the actual long-term solution is to disregard the society which that failed approach has created, and to recreate a new theory-making system based upon concept maps which supports complex, multiframe argumentation. The notion that two people can come together on a comments board and hash out an enormously complicated problem is actually nonsensical. We need a new system for discourse and theory-making.

Oct 29, 2012
To claim that monolithic science is somehow impervious to competing ideas is to ignore the failure of our university system to incorporate the past 30 years of education-relevant research. We have the same university system which we had 30 years ago. A person could easily be misled into thinking that there have been no discoveries relevant to how we teach. However, the only thing which protects monolithic science is the belief by society that the American university system represents the best way to learn science. That belief is actually unsupported by the research of people like Joseph Novak, Eric Mazur and Edward Deci. There is a far superior way to teach science to students than what we are seeing right now. Destroying monolithic science can, in theory, be as simple as creating a superior way to educate science students.

You place too much faith in the establishment of science, and you do a disservice to the future by trying to convince me to be like you.

Oct 29, 2012
Re: "Einstein would agree as well. So how is what Peter Woit said being received by the mainstream? Learn from that."

And yet, the truth is that when Einstein died, he left Worlds in Collision open on his desk. Einstein and Velikovsky were actually extremely engaged in discussion. The superficial view of Einstein is a caricature, held up by people who profess belief in Einstein's ideas, but then refuse to adopt his approach to science (which, to be clear, was to doubt himself all the way to his grave).

Re: "So how is what Peter Woit said being received by the mainstream? Learn from that."

The goal of my life is not to fit into a society. It's easy enough to create your own society today on the Internet. But, the process of identifying all of the educational mistakes being made by our university systems is a lengthy one. It's actually a far more fulfilling goal than trying to fit into a society which I already know is doomed to eventually fail.

Oct 30, 2012
This is Nature's electrical do-loop ..


Or to give it the more usual name, a "perpetual motion machine".

Given that Nature's electromagnetic operations as a whole form an iterative loop, there's no reason to believe that the process isn't inherently self-sustaining.


You haven't heard of "conservation of energy" then?

And any questions regarding how it all started ...


Strawman argument, the real question you have to address to avoid being seen as a clueless crank is what keeps it going while it is constantly converting energy into radiation.

Of course you may just want to blacken the reputation of Hannes Alfven but using his name to post clueless nonsense in a web forum is never going to achieve that.

Oct 30, 2012
Re: "Or to give it the more usual name, a "perpetual motion machine"."

Did cosmology last week suddenly stop being metaphysical while I wasn't noticing?

Oct 30, 2012
Re: "But...you're here, in an online society, telling everyone what is wrong (just like the rest of us). If everyone said that you were right, would you want to fit into that society?"

There's something that's happening which few people have clued into just yet. This should not be an Earth-shattering announcement, but the tendency towards certain mistakes in scientific consensus can be sourced back, in large part, to the ways in which we educate students. The way to redesign science education is to immerse yourself in those mistakes while simultaneously exposing yourself to all of the skills which are necessary to build the site. What you will naturally observe, if you are reading the right sources, is that there already exists terminology for all of these problematic areas ... unconceived alternatives, wicked problems, multiple representations in multiple agents, autonomy-supported learning, immunity to change, etc. What is happening to the cosmic plasma models is not new.

Oct 30, 2012
"We're very bad at it in many ways, but much of the history of the web can be seen as coming up with new ways of learning how to deal with difference constructively." (16:35 - 16:45, David Weinberger, author of Too Big To Know, in a YouTube clip on Unsettling Knowledge)

There might possibly come a time for consensus in cosmology and astrophysics, but today, we should be happy if we achieve convergence. When you devalue uncertainty, before the time has properly come to do so, you simply ask the same bad questions over and over. Uncertainty is actually a tool which guides us to good questions. So, where you see a society of people behaving as though they want to eliminate uncertainty, they have divorced the real world. In economic terms, it's called a "bubble", and it will eventually burst.

The society of science should be established to service the actual problem. The way to do that is to synthesize together that which is known about creativity, learning and critical thinking.

Oct 30, 2012
The problem with these chat and forum spaces is that it's very difficult to have a complex discussion. There are no visual tools for simplifying the discourse; there are no systems in place which are designed to reduce the cognitive load involved with comparing and contrasting worldviews; there is no way to holistically size up a paradigm; there is no formalized mechanism for elaborating hypotheses into theories; there is not even any distinction within the articles between inference, hypothesis, claim, observation or experimental result; worst of all, there is no "memory" of these longstanding debates in science.

This cosmic plasma debate is not even the only debate which the EU is tracking right now. There is another, extremely similar situation happening in biology with Gerald Pollack's work: The biologists insist on problem-solving as if the cytoplasm is an aqueous solution even though it's widely recognized that it's actually a gel.

Oct 30, 2012
If you fail to build a hammer, then don't be surprised when you cannot drive a nail. The quality of our scientific discourse will naturally follow from the tools we design to support it. The archives of published papers and the textbooks have their own unique problems as well. The textbooks are overly-focused upon problem-solving. It's pretty funny, but Eric Mazur at Harvard gives his students concept-based tests, which you would think would be much easier to solve. He has found that he has many students who can ace the problem sets, but then still completely fail the force concept inventory tests. The implications for critical thinking in science are profound: If students are just memorizing problem sets in science, then when do we teach them methodologies for actually solving the persistent, wicked problems which have eluded our current scientists?

Oct 30, 2012
Re: "The real Hannes Alfven screwed up not in his beliefs, but how he handled presenting them. This drove people away from listening to him, and it shut them down, even if Hannes was right."

I don't blame Alfven. I think the system we use to train scientists is ready to be disrupted. And actually, if you spend some time listening, there is an entire education reform community who is trying to say the same exact thing.

What is the cost of assimilating into this abhorrent system? Who can even calculate the number of geniuses who have been turned away by our PhD programs simply because they were divergent thinkers, or because they had too much dignity to kiss ass? I'm not here to convince you, A2G, that you should abandon what works for you. I'm here to fix science education.

I'm glad that Alfven did what he did. If he hadn't, then I would have never learned just how bad our system of science education has become.

Oct 30, 2012
A2G,
At least you acknowledge that science is about politics and people and not about finding real knowledge. You demand people like Alfven change their ways of speaking frankly and submit to their "superiors". What in reality you should be demanding is that the politics of the scientific process should be removed to accommodate the search for knowledge. It is the fallibility of individuals that prevents this, and this is the frustration of many supporters of alternative approaches experience.
"I have no trouble publishing in Soviet astrophysical journals, but my work is unacceptable to the American astrophysical journals." Hannes Alfven
[Referring to the trouble he had with the peer reviewers of Anglo-American astrophysical journals because his ideas often conflicted with the generally accepted or "standard" theories.]


Oct 30, 2012
if he saw merit in their research. But to get to him, you have to go through his daughter.

...or you can just go to a country and where going to university is basically free. There's plenty of opportunities for foreign students in other countries to attend universities which are on a par with the best the US has to offer.

Yes, in the US you probably have to get lucky and be born to rich parents. But the world is larger than the US. If you have a great idea and want to test it out then go where that is possible. Look at the CVs of many scientists. You will notice that they're jumping all over the globe in terms of where they studied or where they teach/work.

Oct 30, 2012
Re: "Think about this Hannes and others. I have an analogy for you ... The EUT approach is to try and convince the lay people they are correct and work from the bottom up. But I am sorry, it just doesn't work this way."

So, what you're saying is that I should ignore all of the dramatic changes that are happening in the world -- such as Kickstarter -- and just accept that the world is authoritarian.

Re:"Still won't get you anywhere until there is some breakthrough or discovery that makes your case undeniable."

You're still not getting it. This problem which we ALL face in science -- that of solving wicked problems -- is going to plague us ALL until we fix it. This is not about the EU or playing politics in science. There is a natural immunity to change which occurs cognitively, far deeper and subconscious than the evaluation of evidence and inferences. This is the subject of Kegan and Lahey's book, Immunity to Change.

Oct 30, 2012
And your previous comments about Hawking are quite true;
"During Alfvén's visit he gave a lecture at the University of Chicago, which was attended by [Enrico] Fermi. As Alfvén described his work, Fermi nodded his head and said, 'Of course.' The next day the entire world of physics said. 'Oh, of course.'"
— Alex Dessler speaking in regards to Alfven.

It's also quite clear that this same attitude is pervasive to ALL the sciences, AGW is a prime example of this type of group think coercion.

Oct 30, 2012
Re:"But he wouldn't listen to me. So now instead of being on the inside, he is on the outside."

Something else you're not quite realizing is that many of these people who have been shafted, or are in the process of being shafted, will gladly switch to another system of education if it is created. The actual mistake which has been made is not a failure to submit ourselves to authoritarianism, but rather a failure to disrupt it.

Science has been able to get quite far by adopting the principles of Taylorism. But, part of the purpose of specialization is to protect the hierarchy. There is a human cost to this. AND, importantly, this approach will NEVER complete the process, because authentic learning is impeded by rewards such as the Nobel Prize (see Edward Deci's book Why We Do What We Do); by testing (same source); by misconceptions (see Joseph Novak's work); by authoritarianism (again, Deci); and by a failure to accept that sociology & psychology are important (Kegan and Lahey).

Oct 30, 2012
A2G, did you know that universities aren't even required to report numbers on the success rates of their graduate students? Studies performed by independent investigators have found that these programs are actually getting longer all of the time. So, in addition to the rising cost of tuition, the chances of a PhD student completing their program is really quite small. And of those that finish, if they can't find a job in academia, then they oftentimes start near the bottom of the corporate ladder.

The university system is a ticking time bomb. It manages to evade the news for the simple reason that there are more pressing crises out there. If there was ever an industry that was primed for disruption, this is it. The reason it's taking so long is that Silicon Valley insiders are not exactly notorious for doing a lot of research before they launch a startup. Unraveling this mess which has been created takes a lot of time, patience and a willingness to be insulted along the way.

Oct 30, 2012
Re: "But AGW deals with IR absorbtion and and how this adds energy to a system that wasn't there before, and the effects this energy has. Pre-existing drivers and forcings aside, AGW is a measured effect."

Three words: Electric Joule Heating

It's not being measured. We don't even have the gear up in the sky to put numbers to this. It's ignored in the models. The simplest illustration of this was when Mr Wizard cooked a hot dog by plugging it into the wall socket. It works!

The AGW movement has a real nasty past. If you go back and look at all of the landers which we put onto Venus back in the 70's, they ALL reported back that the heat of Venus was originating from its surface -- not the clouds. But, the decision was made to "normalize" this data so that thermal equilibrium could be claimed. The real problem is that they don't know what it means when they see that a planet is not in thermal equilibrium. The EU does.

Oct 30, 2012
Re: "So how does the interior of the Sun just below the surface get so cold? IF you put a solid steel ball for a few years in a oven that is 1000 k. What will the temperature of the inside of the ball be?"

Thermal differences are associated with double layers. This problem is much easier to solve in an electrodynamic universe where you have electric fields being fed by electric currents. Plasma scaling does not just occur spatially; it also occurs temporally. So, while it may seem to us that our system is extremely stable, that's simply because we are extremely small compared to the universe.

But, the ancients were adamant that what Zeus holds in his hand is the "thunderbolt" -- even though, technically speaking, those forms are Peratt instabilities -- and we will see the power surge again one day. This is the problem with refusing to question the gravity-dominant universe; we are lulled into complacency, and tend to assume that the warming is not a sign of a power surge.

Oct 30, 2012
A rational culture would listen long enough to realize the risk that they are taking with uniformitarianism. This could possibly turn out to be like sheep being herded off the cliff. In a catastrophist universe with a rational culture, there would be a much larger desire to colonize space. To be honest, there isn't a whole lot of logic to sticking to uniformitarianism as a means of funding the space sciences. After all, when you convince the interstellar medium cannot support power surges, you take away the very reason why we should be colonizing space.

Oct 30, 2012
A2G, I don't know what rock you've been under, but there is no "proof" in cosmology. Cosmology is not like the other disciplines. Einstein changed it forever, when he popularized the "thought experiment."

If you want to learn about the Electric Sun hypothesis, then check out Don Scott's materials. He has much of what you're looking for at

http://electric-c...xOLD.htm

All I can say, however, is that you really need to stop trying so hard to fight it, and make sure to learn it first. Then, once you learn it, feel free to fight it! In fact, I think that Don and Wal would actually appreciate some informed criticism. The problem is that nobody does this.

Oct 30, 2012
Re: "Your whole premise relies on a "belief" that there is some intergalactic currents out there that power everything."

Um, not quite. Papers which you might want to check out ...

Galactic Neutral Hydrogen Emission Profile Structure

High Galactic Latitude Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Structure and Associated (WMAP) High Frequency Continuum Emission

Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Filaments at High Galactic Latitudes and the Bennett Pinch

First sentence of that one reads, after the abstract, ...

"Neutral hydrogen (HI) surveys at high galactic latitudes show that the interstellar gas is filamentary."

Soooooo ... What is it about gases that cause them to form filaments? We can speculate shockwaves -- as astrophysicists must, in order to conform to their framework -- but if you look at these Verschuur papers, you'll notice he's talking about critical ionization velocities associated with "knots" in these filaments.

Oct 30, 2012
But, keep in mind that, within the electrodynamic view, the heliosphere is basically a plasma sphere -- and the heliopause is the virtual cathode. At this point, much of the interstellar charged particles become an electron drift. As that drift gets closer to the anode, the volume of space it is confined to decreases. Charge density goes up. Eventually, the plasma will switch from dark to glow to arc.

Oct 30, 2012
Re: "and I have seen all you have to say"

Oh yeah, how long did that take you?

Oct 30, 2012

I don't care if Einstein himself came up with the EU concepts. It is not about who it came from, it is what is claims.

Really?
The Professor and Gilligan's Island!
The spuriocity continues!

Oct 30, 2012
I was teaching you what you are doing to the top scientists.


Do you really think these people just go into this insulting and deriding merely for the sake of doing so?
Or possibly their attitude is a result of the push back and treatment for suggesting a POV. Alfven experienced nearly a lifetime of rejection by the "system", it was this experience that caused him to develop his attitude toward the process. Halton Arp was considered a brilliant astronomer, that was until he proffered observations to contradicted the accepted theory, from that point he was forced out of his position and his findings have since been derided. Tesla is another example of a brilliant scientist largely ignored and funding retracted due to the threat his research had to his benefactors profit stream. The stories go on and on about scientists who are ignored and ostracized not because of their attitude to the process and scientists involved, but due to their research findings.

Oct 30, 2012
Re: "Or to give it the more usual name, a "perpetual motion machine"."

Did cosmology last week suddenly stop being metaphysical while I wasn't noticing?


Well, it wouldn't be surprising that you missed it last week since you died in 1995 but actually it stopped being metaphysical when Hubble measured the redshift of galaxies in the late 1920's so being incorporeal is no excuse.

Oct 31, 2012
A2G,

You do know there is more than one model for the electric sun? EU is not a unified concept with one god formula. Your ego is ridiculous, talking about your kids making fun of beginner surfers. How dare they, stupid stupid idiots, putting surfboards on top of their cars like REAL surfers?!

Lay off the coffee, and stop trying to play the teacher, and just share observations civilly. You seem to take your personal beliefs way too hard to heart, if someone's opposing viewpoints are such a threat to your identity.

Nov 01, 2012
Fool. It would be convenient for you to think there was one wacko posting against you. Get a clue. If there was any way I could prove to you I am not Hannes, I would gladly subject to it just to shut your mouth. You are pretentious, and childish. My name is Genteelwolf, and it is the only login I use. I use it on multiple websites. Do not make false accusations to sidestep my simple point that you made a ridiculously arrogant claim about one test proving the sun is not powered by electricity via an outside source. I am excited for Hannes to read this, cause he or she will /giggle.

Nov 02, 2012
Then back to hard science. There is a problem with the Sun. Whether electric or the standard model. We all know the Sun measures hotter in the corona-sphere than on the surface. Then the Sun spots are even cooler. So the data actually indicates that the Sun gets cooler the further in you go.


The mechanism behind the pulsation of classic Cepheid variables is the Eddington light valve which relies on ionisation of Helium, from memory around 40,000K and of course the rate of neutrino production is a good test of the temperature of the core of our Sun and the fusion model in general, both of which say it is hotter inside. The hard evidence does not agree with your hypothesis.

Nov 02, 2012
Fleetfoot,

Hard evidence? Bologna. But thanks for pulling numbers from memory, thats some hard shiat.

Nov 03, 2012
EUT believes in perpetual motion. I say, let them. I'm looking at 'Introduction to Electrodynamics', third edition,by david J griffiths. All arguments in this book are sound, and derived from mathematics and empherically tested relations (Such as Coulomb's Law). On page 346, i read "Suppose we have some charge and current configuration which produces fields. suppose that in a infinitesimal time step dt, the charge moves. Then some easy maths follows, and we get Poynting's theorem, and we have something representing the rate at which energy is carried out of a bound volume. This is the electrodynamical synonym to friction.

In terms of energy then, we know that, as with mechanics, electrodynamics does not allow for perpetual motion. That's my second year physics book.

Also, holoscience says that special relativity is nonsense. (came from an experiment). And general relativity is even worse. Welcome, GPS systems. You do not work. Please stop getting people to their destination.

Nov 03, 2012
Question: What maintains the observed electric potentials over time?

Short Answer

Cosmic plasmas can be observed to repeat a natural self-sustaining repetitive loop connecting electrical potential energy to electrical current, magnetic fields and charge separation (the creation of plasma from gas). Although each individual step of the process can be observed and confirmed within the laboratory, electrical theorists do not claim to understand where the power comes from, nor if there was ever a beginning to the process.


The above reads like advocacy for the long sought after "perpetual motion machine".

Nov 03, 2012
The only way forward, in my view, is to simply start over.


OK, we start over: What is step #1? I am a scientist/engineer, so don't be faint in using all the technical language you like, just make it comprehensible & don't wander outside the realm of Conservation of Energy.

Nov 03, 2012
With a lifespan of up to 10^36 years, could the proton be considered the "perpetual motion machine"? Ultimately what this comes down to is particles, this is quoted from A. Peratt's website;
"The separation of electrons and ions (in plasma) produce electric fields and the motion of electrons and ions produce both electric and magnetic fields. The electric fields then tend to accelerate plasmas to very high energies while the magnetic fields tend to guide the electrons."
He goes on to explain that in non-homogeneous space plasma (i.e., electrons and ions), electric currents are expected.
Given the distinct possibility that the Universe is both infinite in size and age, could the Universe itself be a perpetual motion machine where nothing is neither created nor destroyed but just continuously recycled through different states of energy.
"The universe is an unending transformation in flux whose previous states we are not privileged to know." David Bohm

Nov 04, 2012
With a lifespan of up to 10^36 years, could the proton be considered the "perpetual motion machine"?


No, the essence of a "machine" is that it can do work and "perpetual motion machine" means a device which can provide more energy out than you put in, also known as an "over-unity device" in reference to its efficiency. A proton does not do that.

Given the distinct possibility that the Universe is both infinite in size and age, could the Universe itself be a perpetual motion machine where nothing is neither created nor destroyed but just continuously recycled through different states of energy.


No, the EU cranks have no mechanism to recycle the stellar photons back into the system.

Nov 04, 2012
Given the distinct possibility that the Universe is both infinite in size and age...


And this is where you give it all away, the instant you mentioned that "infinite" word. Within all the laws of Conservation of Energy infinity is totally imperceptable, you can never achieve the smallest fraction of entropy in an infinite environment.

could the Universe itself be a perpetual motion machine where nothing is neither created nor destroyed but just continuously recycled through different states of energy.
"The universe is an unending transformation in flux whose previous states we are not privileged to know." David Bohm


Only if you believe in a flat universe which Einstein ruled out in his General Theory of Relativity, but how many know that he did so. The Universe is a closed sphere, if it were not Conservation of Energy equations would not work, the fact that they do work is proof the universe is not "flat" & thus not "infinite" & therefore the EU can not exist.

Nov 04, 2012
Only if you believe in a flat universe which Einstein ruled out in his General Theory of Relativity, but how many know that he did so. The Universe is a closed sphere, if it were not Conservation of Energy equations would not work, the fact that they do work is proof the universe is not "flat" & thus not "infinite" & therefore the EU can not exist.


GR can describe a universe with positive, zero or negative curvature. Positive curvature gives the closed sphere (finite volume), zero is flat and both zero and positive curvature are infinite. The latest data says the mean density is within 0.5% of the critical value that gives a flat universe:

http://map.gsfc.n...ape.html

Any early deviation from the critical value would have been exagerated by expansion so it seems likely that the universe is exactly flat, hence infinite.

That is not conclusive obviously, but a flat, infinite universe is not ruled out.

Nov 04, 2012
Any early deviation from the critical value would have been exagerated by expansion so it seems likely that the universe is exactly flat, hence infinite.


The deviation you're looking for is dwarfed by the universe that can't be seen, which is why only 0.5% deviation is what we do see.

That is not conclusive obviously, but a flat, infinite universe is not ruled out.


And you still do not understand Conservation of Energy or you would not be making a foolhardy attempt at debunking Einstein's plainly written statements that the universe is a closed sphere. In fact you do not even understand what it is Einstein understood about Conservation Of Energy that requires the universe to be a closed sphere, and this is because you have never fathomed the concept of "entropy". In an infinite universe there will never be enough entropy to light up a match, much less a star. You have a lot of homework to do......then I can move you forward to Lesson 2.

Nov 05, 2012
get a room

Nov 05, 2012
Any early deviation from the critical value would have been exagerated by expansion so it seems likely that the universe is exactly flat, hence infinite.


The deviation you're looking for is dwarfed by the universe that can't be seen, which is why only 0.5% deviation is what we do see.


The figure includes the effects of dark components. A figure often noted is that to be so close to critical now, it must have been within one part in 10^60 when the universe was one second old.

http://www.lifesc...osmo.htm

.. you would not be making a foolhardy attempt at debunking Einstein's plainly written statements that the universe is a closed sphere.


Einstein said "God doesn't play dice with the world." but he was wrong, appeal to authority doesn't work. Using his equations (which do work) it can be either finite or infinite. If you think you're smarter than the WMAP team (and every other cosmologist), tell them they've got it wrong.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more