Astronomers explain mystery of magnetically powered jets produced by supermassive black holes

black hole
This computer-simulated image shows a supermassive black hole at the core of a galaxy. The black region in the center represents the black hole's event horizon, where no light can escape the massive object's gravitational grip. The black hole's powerful gravity distorts space around it like a funhouse mirror. Light from background stars is stretched and smeared as the stars skim by the black hole. Credit: NASA, ESA, and D. Coe, J. Anderson, and R. van der Marel (STScI)

A simulation of the powerful jets generated by supermassive black holes at the centers of the largest galaxies explains why some burst forth as bright beacons visible across the universe, while others fall apart and never pierce the halo of the galaxy.

About 10 percent of all galaxies with active nuclei - all presumed to have supermassive within the central bulge - are observed to have of gas spurting in opposite directions from the core. The hot ionized gas is propelled by the twisting magnetic fields of the rotating black hole, which can be as large as several billion suns.

A 40-year-old puzzle was why some jets are hefty and punch out of the galaxy into intergalactic space, while others are narrow and often fizzle out before reaching the edge of the galaxy. The answer could shed light on how galaxies and their central black holes evolve, since aborted jets are thought to roil the galaxy and slow star formation, while also slowing the infall of gas that has been feeding the voracious black hole. The model could also help astronomers understand other types of jets, such as those produced by individual stars, which we see as gamma-ray bursts or pulsars.

"Whereas it was rather easy to reproduce the stable jets in simulations, it turned out to be an extreme challenge to explain what causes the jets to fall apart," said University of California, Berkeley theoretical astrophysicist Alexander Tchekhovskoy, a NASA Einstein postdoctoral fellow, who led the project. "To explain why some jets are unstable, researchers had to resort to explanations such as red giant stars in the jets' path loading the jets with too much gas and making them heavy and unstable so that the jets fall apart."

By taking into account the magnetic fields that generate these jets, Tchekhovskoy and colleague Omer Bromberg, a former Lyman Spitzer Jr. postdoctoral fellow at Princeton University, discovered that magnetic instabilities in the jet determine their fate. If the jet is not powerful enough to penetrate the surrounding gas, the jet becomes narrow or collimated, a shape prone to kinking and breaking. When this happens, the hot ionized gas funneled through the spews into the galaxy, inflating a hot bubble of gas that generally heats up the galaxy.

New simulations of the magnetically powered jets produced by rotating supermassive black holes in the cores of galaxies show how, with enough power, the corkscrewing magnetic fields (white squiggles) can force their way through surrounding gas and drill out of the galaxy, channeling hot gas into the interstellar medium. Credit: Simulations by Alexander Tchekhovskoy, UC Berkeley, and Omer Bromberg, Hebrew University.

Powerful jets, however, are broader and able to punch through the surrounding gas into the intergalactic medium. The determining factors are the power of the jet and how quickly the gas density drops off with distance, typically dependent on the mass and radius of the galaxy core.

The simulation, which agrees well with observations, explains what has become known as the Fanaroff-Riley morphological dichotomy of jets, first pointed out by Bernie Fanaroff of South Africa and Julia Riley of the U.K. in 1974.

"We have shown that a jet can fall apart without any external perturbation, just because of the physics of the jet," Tchekhovskoy said. He and Bromberg, who is currently at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel, will publish their simulations on June 17 in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, a publication of Oxford University Press.

The in the bulging center of these massive galaxies is like a pitted olive spinning around an axle through the hole, Tchekhovskoy said. If you thread a strand of spaghetti through the hole, representing a magnetic field, then the spinning olive will coil the spaghetti like a spring. The spinning, coiled magnetic fields act like a flexible drill trying to penetrate the surrounding gas.

The simulation, based solely on magnetic field interactions with ionized gas particles, shows that if the jet is not powerful enough to punch a hole through the surrounding gas, the magnetic drill bends and, due to the magnetic kink instability, breaks. An example of this type of jet can be seen in the galaxy M87, one of the closest such jets to Earth at a distance of about 50 million light-years, and has a central black hole equal to about 6 billion suns.

Weaker jets stall inside the galaxy as the magnetic corkscrews fall apart because of kink instability. As a result, the hot ionized gas, or plasma, channeled by the magnetic field is dumped into an expanding bubble that heats up the entire galaxy. These stalled jets may be part of the black hole feedback mechanism that periodically halts the inflow of gas that feeds the black hole. Credit: Simulations by Alexander Tchekhovskoy, UC Berkeley, and Omer Bromberg, Hebrew University.

"If I were to jump on top of a jet and fly with it, I would see the jet start to wiggle around because of a kink instability in the magnetic field," Tchekhovskoy said."If this wiggling grows faster than it takes the gas to reach the tip, then the jet will fall apart. If the instability grows slower than it takes for gas to go from the base to the tip of the jet, then the jet will stay stable."

The jet in the galaxy Cygnus A, located about 600 million light-years from Earth, is an example of powerful jets punching through into intergalactic space.

Tchekhovskoy argues that the unstable jets contribute to what is called black hole feedback, that is, a reaction from the material around the black hole that tends to slow its intake of gas and thus its growth. Unstable jets deposit a lot of energy within the galaxy that heats up the and prevents it from falling into the black hole. Jets and other processes effectively keep the sizes of supermassive black holes below about 10 billion solar masses, though UC Berkeley astronomers recently found black holes with masses near 21 billion solar masses.

Presumably these jets start and stop, lasting perhaps 10-100 million years, as suggested by images of some galaxies showing more than one jet, one of them old and tattered. Evidently, black holes go through binging cycles, interrupted in part by the occasional unstable jet that essentialy takes away their food.

The simulations were run on the Savio computer at UC Berkeley, Darter at the National Institute for Computational Sciences at the University of Tennesee, Knoxville, and Stampede, Maverick and Ranch computers at the Texas Advanced Computing Center at the University of Texas at Austin. The entire simulation took about 500 hours on 2,000 computer cores, the equivalent of 1 million hours on a standard laptop.

The researchers are improving their simulation to incorporate the smaller effects of gravity, buoyancy and the thermal pressure of the interstellar and intergalactic media.


Explore further

How black hole jets punch out of their galaxies

More information: Alexander Tchekhovskoy et al, Three-dimensional relativistic MHD simulations of active galactic nuclei jets: magnetic kink instability and Fanaroff–Riley dichotomy, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw064
Citation: Astronomers explain mystery of magnetically powered jets produced by supermassive black holes (2016, June 17) retrieved 18 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-06-black-hole-jets-galaxies_1.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.
1210 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 17, 2016
Black holes *and* magnetic fields? Get the popcorn out.

Before the cranks get to it, let me just point out the clause: "magnetic field interactions with ionized gas particles." Ie, Astrophysicists are studying these in terms of plasmas. Even though it's referred to as a gas, 'ionized gas particles' are, in fact, a plasma. Astrophysicists do know about and understand plasmas and plasma physics. They include them in models. They do know differential equations. They are, in fact, pretty smart people.

Jun 17, 2016
Black holes with magnetic strength to match their gravity were found back in '14 as per:
http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

However, in my personal theory of scaled universe, with C a constant, we could, with these AGN Jets be seeing light trying to escape, however, the universe is still too 'opaque' to these jets so they form gas clumps which will form (when the plasma cools and re-ionizes) new galaxies. But in the outer cosmos we could be looking at the equivalent of seconds or minutes after 'the Big Bang' on That Scale, so that we can actually study quantum sciences from the underside, looking at the Ultra Large and (by comparison) Ultra Slow fractal iterations that we can see by looking outwards into the greater cosmos to answer questions about the smallest scales we can detect at their (again, by comparison) ultra small and ultra fast speed it is hard to see exactly what goes on, but the fractal iteration is in the sky.

Jun 17, 2016
One of the things I enjoy pointing out is the apparent same length of these jets before they are disrupted, is all seems to end up at similar distances from the galaxy that produced them. It almost seems quantized, either they are strong enough to punch out of their own galactic gas, or not, but Even those that penetrate beyond their own gas get slowed and cooled by the intergalactic medium, which appears to still be too dense for these 'energy packets' that could, at a vastly different scale, be the equivalent of photons, which are unable to freely move beyond a certain distance from their source. Much like conditions expected to exist in the early phases of the BB.

I know a lot will think it a crank idea, but others have seen similar and better correlations than I, and I think that by combining the studies of macro-cosmic and quantum-micro they will both go a lot farther than the individual sciences would separately. Again, they are matched fractal iterations.

Jun 17, 2016
Well done, Shav. Tindog nearly beat you to it. I think your points are well taken.

Jun 17, 2016
What are the constituent particles of the material in these jets? My guess is that it is matter collected at the EH that has been centrifugally separated by the spin action of Total BH structure, to start...

Jun 17, 2016
CCM do not have internal magnetic fields running electrons in a field lines thru the mass, they have external magnetic fields that are orbiting electrons around the mass held by gravity ,like a magnetic vessel around the mass any charged particle ejections have to penetrate that , the more electrons orbiting the mass by gravity the stronger the field

Jun 17, 2016
@shavera
Black holes *and* magnetic fields? Get the popcorn out.
Yep, this is definitely a bug zapper and a 12 pack.

@Whyde
What are the constituent particles of the material in these jets? My guess is that it is matter collected at the EH that has been centrifugally separated by the spin action of Total BH structure, to start...
Mostly protons AFAIK. Hydrogen, pretty much, IOW. Not too surprising since most of the non-dark matter in the universe is hydrogen. Might be some electron moieties in there I suppose.

Jun 17, 2016
the apparent same length of these jets before they are disrupted, is all seems to end up at similar distances from the galaxy that produced them. It almost seems quantized, either they are strong enough to punch out of their own galactic gas, or not, but Even those that penetrate beyond their own gas get slowed and cooled by the intergalactic medium, which appears to still be too dense for these 'energy packets'
Fair evidence for the homogeneity and isotropy of the IGM.

A better post than your usual.

Jun 17, 2016
@Whyde
What are the constituent particles of the material in these jets? My guess is that it is matter collected at the EH that has been centrifugally separated by the spin action of Total BH structure, to start...
Mostly protons AFAIK. Hydrogen, pretty much, IOW. Not too surprising since most of the non-dark matter in the universe is hydrogen. Might be some electron moieties in there I suppose.

Might it also suggest that the BH gravity field is strong enough to break the bond tween electron, neutron and proton? Might there be discrete neutrons in the jets (even if only for a short while)?
Do the opposing jets show the same ionic polarization?
This opens so many questions for me...

Jun 17, 2016
@Whyde, half of free neutrons last like 900 seconds. Nothing stabilizes them but quark and gluon exchange with a proton, and it only works for at least half of each or less. These jets are thousands of years long. That's not tough math. You own that.

Since the IGM is mostly ionized hydrogen (that's why space is clear!) if the jets were charged they'd interact with it. They don't. It's not. You own that too, you just didn't think of it.

;)

Jun 18, 2016
@Whyde, half of free neutrons last like 900 seconds. Nothing stabilizes them but quark and gluon exchange with a proton, and it only works for at least half of each or less. These jets are thousands of years long.

Understood on Neutron life cycle. Was just wondering it any had been measured (if it's even possible) within that time frame (essentially the surface of the EH)
Since the IGM is mostly ionized hydrogen (that's why space is clear!) if the jets were charged they'd interact with it. They don't. It's not. You own that too, you just didn't think of it. ;)

If I own it, how come I can't find the keys? All this "not thinking" makes my head spin...:-)
I thought space was clear because there are so few ions out there... (like 1 per square KM or something)
And I'm assuming you mean ions as net negatively charged, right?


yep
Jun 18, 2016
Black holes *and* magnetic fields? Get the popcorn out.

Before the cranks get to it, let me just point out the clause: "magnetic field interactions with ionized gas particles." Ie, Astrophysicists are studying these in terms of plasmas. Even though it's referred to as a gas, 'ionized gas particles' are, in fact, a plasma. Astrophysicists do know about and understand plasmas and plasma physics. They include them in models. They do know differential equations. They are, in fact, pretty smart people.


Bostick is rolling in his grave because all those smart people like you consensus stooges believe in black magic instead of his laboratory proven plasmoids which took the mystery out of the equation in the 1970's,
That's it from me go back to stroking yourselves.

Jun 18, 2016
The spinning, coiled magnetic fields act like a flexible drill trying to penetrate the surrounding gas.


sexy....

Jun 18, 2016
Before the cranks get to it, let me just point out the clause: "magnetic field interactions with ionized gas particles." Ie, Astrophysicists are studying these in terms of plasmas. Even though it's referred to as a gas, 'ionized gas particles' are, in fact, a plasma. Astrophysicists do know about and understand plasmas and plasma physics.

Sadly no, just more pie in the sky beliefs from the acolytes. For proof one need not look any further than the title of the article to determine shavers claim is bullocks,
"Three-dimensional relativistic MHD simulations of active galactic nuclei jets:"
You see, if they did know plasma physics they know that such model are useless in describing the complex physics of these jets. They may also then be aware that these jets are a predictable outcome of the evolution of plasma galaxies, as shown by experiment and simulation decades ago by real plasma physicists.

Jun 18, 2016
Black holes *and* magnetic fields? Get the popcorn out.

Before the cranks get to it...........


......and you think the "cranks" are those who challenge your unfounded assertions that within General Relativity that Einstein predicted the existence of Black Holes. Yet, not a single one of you Pop-Sci geniuses will Copy & Paste the section of GR in which this assertion is found.

Schneibo's response to my challenge for producing the evidence is that we must read between the lines to find the "infinite gravity well" which is the defining concept of BHs, a body from which photons cannot reach Escape Velocity because infinite gravity reduces the wavelength of a photon to zero energy. No math for such a bloated concept of GR, certainly not found in GR & denied by Einstein when Schwarzschild presented the concept to Einstein.........I guess Einstein was a "crank".

Jun 18, 2016
Sadly no, just more pie in the sky beliefs from the acolytes ...
Is it just me, or does the tip of that corkscrewed polar field line whipping to and fro look rife with magnetic reconnection? Pretty good simulations, huh cantdrive?

Jun 18, 2016
Don Scott at https://youtu.be/...A?t=1622

"We also have observed double radio sources -- either side of galaxies -- and that event was predicted by Hannes Alfven, the founding father of modern electrical cosmology, and is still, to this day, unexplained by standard cosmology."

"Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets" by Anthony Peratt

"The existence of double radio galaxies presents a major challenge to cosmological theories ... Cygnus A, the brightest radio source in the constellation Cygnus, has proved to be the 'prototype' of double radio galaxies, and models of double radio galaxies are usually based on the characteristics of this source ... regardless of whatever ingredients are postulated as necessary in models used to 'explain' their existence, what is observed from any radio source is synchrotron radiation, which requires only the presence of relativistic electrons in a magnetic field."

Jun 18, 2016
For proof one need not look any further than ...
@cd85
@Yup
@h_a
@benji et al.
not even going to address the facts that yall are making an argument from a religious belief that has the same credibility as xtian creationist (ie. none)
... just read this:

http://casualentr...t-9.html

and no, i don't think you will get it, nor do i think you will understand it
especially not h_a who's prior abject failures with the "reptilian" brain posts demonstrate he obviously didn't get the point of the articles and information he presented

LOL

Jun 18, 2016
The simple fact is that the black hole jets emit synchrotron radiation. Synchrotron is necessarily produced by electrons spiraling within a magnetic field.

That fact alone is enough to call the black hole jets electric currents. It does not matter that there are also neutrals involved; the electric force will dominate the behavior.

Once a person understands what synchrotron is, and that it is present in these jets, then the very notion of the black hole becomes unnecessary -- since we know that the current will extend far beyond the part that emits radiation. We know this because we all consume such current every day in our own homes; it does not glow when it conducts.

The very fact that we see energy transference suggests that the black hole is simply an unnecessary faddish idea which takes advantage of the astrophysicists' own culture of ignorance within the public on the subject of cosmic plasmas.

Jun 18, 2016
Once a person understands what synchrotron is, and that it is present in these jets, then the very notion of the black hole becomes unnecessary
@ha
1- if it were that easy, why haven't you written the study, gotten it past peer review, insured your validation through non-supported parties and presented it all for your Nobel?
you would be the latest hero of the eu movement
[sarc/hyperbole]

2- again... just read this:
http://casualentr...t-9.html

given your inability to comprehend the graphic or the previous "fast/slow" modes of thought using the reptilian brain, perhaps this will help you
Agenticity is explained in video 9 if you want to go directly to it, but the rest of the video's will help you comprehend why you believe in eu rather than actual provable physics
https://www.youtu...6EF60BB0

Jun 18, 2016
not even going to address the facts that yall are making an argument from a religious belief that has the same credibility as xtian creationist (ie. none)


Stumpo, Einsteins's Special & General Relativity do not appear in the Bible, Koran, Torah, Vedas, etc. On the flip side of that, neither does the concept of "infinite gravity wells" inside of a stellar mass appear in SR or GR.

You, see the problem you have is "science identification", you're incapable of studying & comprehending the contents of SR & GR. Because the contents of such scientific material is so foreign to you, you're simply susceptible to the hype that the Trekkie Pop-Sci Culture loves to wallow in.

It's real easy for me to figure out why the Pop-sci Culture you partake can't get your comprehension of SR & GR right in the first, it's the same reason my Nuclear/Electrical Engineering profession does not hire Astro-physicists to design nuclear reactors, they don't know nuclear physics either.

Jun 18, 2016
Hi Benni, how is the mental disorder festering? Still rampant? Are you writing from within an institution? Great that they give you folks internet access!
- Pissypants1

Confirmation bias again niggling at your bones, Pissypants? I see that you have joined the ranks of Theghostofotto/CapnFrumpy with your ranting and casting aspersions.
You should learn to sit back and read ALL incoming information without feeling the need to invoke your pedestrian and predetermined religiosity onto a fellow contributor only because your school-marming instincts continue to prod you into foaming and spewing your usual mindless stupidity. Your brain is apparently encased in the frozen insect-filled amber that has disabled your ability to consider all possibilities until every bit of information re astrophysics has been received. You may have a sad case of Asperger's syndrome, but without the high intellectual ability.
Do you rock back and forth much?

Jun 18, 2016
Schneibo's response to my challenge for producing the evidence is that we must read between the lines to find the "infinite gravity well" which is the defining concept of BHs, a body from which photons cannot reach Escape Velocity because infinite gravity reduces the wavelength of a photon to zero energy. No math for such a bloated concept of GR, certainly not found in GR & denied by Einstein when Schwarzschild presented the concept to Einstein.........I guess Einstein was a "crank".

Where do you keep pulling this "infinite gravity" crap from?
Why can't it be that the BH simply absorbs a photon without a re-emission?

Jun 18, 2016
...do not appear in the Bible, Koran, Torah, Vedas, etc.
@F*cking illiterate benji
didn't say it was in there

i do, however, state that the eu is not a scientific discipline as it fails, just like you do, to follow the scientific method, which makes it a religion (as in a set of codified rules surrounding a belief that has no evidence)
You, see the problem you have is
you see, the problem you have is:
1- you're illiterate
2- you can't actually validate any of your claims with evidence
3- you're incompetent and you think everyone else is too

so, It's real easy for me to figure out why you can't actually do basic math , check simple phrases or validate claims while making some of the most egregious errors in reading, comprehension and, of course, your blatantly unsupported conjectures (AKA- lies)

thanks for demonstrating it regularly
feel free to reply, because you have no content, just more false claims

Jun 19, 2016
@Benni
@han_alf
After delving considerably, I still fail to find any evidence of religiosity or any sort of "religious belief" within the Electric Universe model which has been cited by either of you.
I think that CapnFrumpy is so unable to define her hatred of religion sufficiently due to it being "off-topic" otherwise, that her copious amounts of hatred of religion leads her to equate her hatred of religion with the EU model, somehow being unable to tell them apart now.
For such an inability to separate religion from Electric Universe model, particularly when there is no indication whatsoever that EU could possibly be misconstrued as a religious belief or doctrine, is a clear indication that CapnFrumpy suffers from an "obsessive-compulsive disorder" that drives her to repeatedly obsess over religious matters although such religious matters don't exist within the confines of EU Theory.
For her to conflate EU with religion so often indicates a mental disorder.

Jun 19, 2016
CapnFrumpy suffers from an "obsessive-compulsive disorder" that drives her to repeatedly obsess over religious matters


Right on the money.......this guy/girl knows more Bible verses than anybody I've ever seen posting religious hate content in responses he's made to posts of other's who make no allusions to religion. Along with Schneibo & a few others who believe an "infinite god" does not exist in the Universe, yet they believe in the "infinite gravity well" of BH theory, they simply trade one "infinity" for another.

I once read one of Stumpo's posts containing such a string of Bible verses that it was obvious he/she knew way more about the contents of that book than he/she did about anything in Special or General Relativity. Just bring up the topics of SR or GR to clowns like Stumpo & they go absolutely berserk, and they do so because the contents of such calculus based material is forever beyond their comprehension & they know it, so they never reference it.

Jun 19, 2016
@Benni

No math for such a bloated concept of GR, certainly not found in GR & denied by Einstein when Schwarzschild presented the concept to Einstein


Please use your proven, deep understanding of differential equations and GR to correct this wiki article. I'd hate to think a whole generation of physicists might be taught an incorrect solution to Einstein's field equations. If you could just tell me where he went wrong I'll know to avoid that section when studying for my Wikipedia Degree. I know they're only partial differential equations but maybe you'd be so charitable as to use your partial expertise for the betterment of us all? Thanks in advance, Benni.
https://en.wikipe...solution

Jun 19, 2016
Speaking of magnetically driven galactic center black hole jets -
Happy Father's day to all you Dad's in here.
(Even you, Benni...:-)

Jun 19, 2016
Speaking of magnetically driven galactic center black hole jets -
Happy Father's day to all you Dad's in here.
(Even you, Benni...:-)

Guess that makes us al Mother-f*****r's...

Jun 19, 2016
the "infinite gravity well" of BH theory
No, sorry, I don't "believe in" things that don't exist.

There is no infinite gravity well, because the speed of light isn't infinite either.

Jebus didn't understand PDEs. And neither do you.

Jun 19, 2016

No, sorry, I don't "believe in" things that don't exist.

There is no infinite gravity well, because the speed of light isn't infinite either.

So then you admit to your ignorance.

http://www.physic...ies.html

"In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate."

LOL!

Jun 19, 2016
So then you admit to your ignorance.
No, I "admit" infinite ≠ finite.

And I "admit" you are duhhh ummm for not knowing the difference between them.

It appears EU acolytes are no more numerate than AGW deniers. It remains to be determined if you understand fire.

Jun 19, 2016
Atoms are not taking a canoe ride to a waterfall, not any atom or photon can make the journey thru the most violent storm in the cosmos intact , zero atoms and zero photons , besides being the most violent environment its the absolute hottest, any atom approaching this environment will have zero chance of keeping their orbiting electrons,they will be stripped from the nucleus and be suspended orbiting the mass by gravity, those neutrons and protons will be beaten apart in the high velocity kinetic collisions in that orbiting particle plasma storm around th CCM , so those particle ejections off the mass has to be positrons or electrons constructions

Jun 19, 2016
The people who are fooling themselves,are the ones who see this mechanically as a walk in the park or a canoe ride for atoms in a peaceful environment to a singularity, when in reality its the super category cosmic hurricane ever constructed

Jun 19, 2016
The people who are fooling themselves,are the ones who see this mechanically as a walk in the park or a canoe ride for atoms in a peaceful environment to a singularity, when in reality its the super category cosmic hurricane ever constructed

Like the hurricane, it is rather uneventful in the center. The Surface to EH is where all the fun is...:-)

Jun 19, 2016
And in those ejections of plasma of neutrons and positrons alot of those particles are turned back into quantum particles spread out in space, and the purpose and cause of those ejections is heat control of the mass by an over abundance of neutrons and protons being beaten apart overloading the magnetic electron field vessel thats orbiting that mass

Jun 19, 2016
A BH description written by a Luke Martin(uncredentialed or affiliated) on one of his own websites, Who, it appears, has recently retired from an exciting career in - web development...
Good cite source...

Jun 19, 2016
Worth mentioning here that most programmers don't have any calculus and denigrate those who do.

Jun 19, 2016
@Benni

No math for such a bloated concept of GR, certainly not found in GR & denied by Einstein when Schwarzschild presented the concept to Einstein


Please use your proven, deep understanding of differential equations and GR to correct this wiki article. I'd hate to think a whole generation of physicists might be taught an incorrect solution to Einstein's field equations. If you could just tell me where he went wrong I'll know to avoid that section when studying for my Wikipedia Degree. I know they're only partial differential equations but maybe you'd be so charitable as to use your partial expertise for the betterment of us all?


Thanks in advance, Benni.


Oh, well, you're just so welcome. All you need to do is Copy & Paste the sections of GR that I claim is missing, and VOILA, you've proven me wrong. You do know how to Copy & Paste don't you?

Jun 19, 2016
When you look at the theoretical imaginations of the physics world descriptions of atoms falling into an over an alleged event horizon, its laughable to even conceive that an intact atom or photon could even make that journey, thru that cosmic storm orbiting the mass , put your heads under the pillow the black monster is here

Jun 19, 2016
All you need to do is Copy & Paste the sections of GR that I claim is missing
Your lack of understanding of the difference between equations and solutions is not evidence of the lack of equations or solutions.

I don't expect you to understand this; you have already demonstrated you do not. But for everyone else it is obvious.

Jun 19, 2016
My last comment is in dedication of Copernicus for his laugh at the physics world telling him it only takes one day for the sun to orbit the earth

Jun 19, 2016
GR is a theoretical theory, and every point claimed as evidence has not eliminated all mechanical possibility to claim reality and where its crown,

Jun 19, 2016
Please use your proven, deep understanding of differential equations and GR to correct this wiki article.


You see, what you pseudo-Wikigeniuses don't get is that I don't care what Wiki authors have to say about anything. They just parrot what somebody else said about what Einstein supposedly wrote in his Special & General Relativity, and they do it without ever taking the time to look up the veracity of the claims within GR itself to verify for themselves that Einstein actually made such statements or calculations.

Hey, you're buddy Shneibo has already gone so far as to admit we need to read between the lines to locate the claim in GR that Einstein predicted the existence of BHs. Maybe you can you can be the next Wiki-genius, you just head right over to a site that has GR posted on a word for word & calculation for calculation basis, do a Copy & Paste & post you're BH evidence directly from a GR Site. You up to that?

Jun 19, 2016
You see, what you pseudo-Wikigeniuses don't get is that I don't care what Wiki authors have to say about anything.
No DEs. No evidence.

More psychotic ideation.

you're buddy Shneibo has already gone so far as to admit we need to read between the lines to locate the claim in GR that Einstein predicted the existence of BHs
Solutions are not "read[ing] between the lines." You're lying again, Lenni.

Jun 19, 2016
GR is a theory based on single point creation from nothing, you have no over model to compare we don't need a multiple point creation model, because we know this is the only hydrogen atom construction in all of space , thats a mathematical fact, is that what you are saying we haven't seen any so there you go, you can't see a magnetic field either, any information thats learned is put inside that single point theory ,not to the side outside of that theory, space is expanding because of our measurement of matter distances and the single point theory confirms that ,its impossible for matter to have been in several locations and expanded out to account for that measurement in distances of known matter making space not expand but matter expanding in space ,thats all been ruled out by mathematicians ha

Jun 19, 2016
Solutions are not "read[ing] between the lines." You're lying again, Lenni


......ohhhhh, but you think that's how BH theory is discoverable in GR. So, you're the next Wiki-Genius, then you be the one to Copy & Paste the lead-in section of GR by which you claim Einstein predicted the existence of BHs.

At least give this Nuclear/Electrical Engineer a taste of what he missed during 6 years of engineering school and my years since while running a very sophisticated testing lab. You up to it Schneibo? Go for it, but no Wiki crap, just quotations directly from Einstein's thesis proving he predicted the existence of infinite gravity wells called BHs.

Jun 19, 2016
Still psychologically disordered then Benni?
Pretending you know physics and hoping to get away with it?
What does your shrink say ?


And this is the best you have to offer as proof that Einstein predicted the existence of BHs in General Relativity? Ok Wiki-Pseudogenius, what section of GR is this found?

Jun 19, 2016
@Benni
Just disprove https://en.wikipe...solution Benni.
Wait, you lack the skills, game over.
You are fake Benni. Get in touch with reality and you may improve you psyche.
Fake.


I get my science directly from the theses of Special & General Relativity. I don't need links to Wiki sites because I already know what's in GR & SR, you don't, which is why Wiki sites are your favorite go-to places because you can't do the math & follow the science as Einstein directly laid it forth with no help from WikiPedia. Poor Einstein, how did he ever accomplish anything before WikiPedia came along? Now don't try to convince us that Einstein got it from you.


Jun 19, 2016
but you think that's how BH theory is discoverable in GR
I think that a solution is a great way to discover the implications of any equation, yes.

I find it amusing that there is anyone who doesn't.

Tell me, do you think there's no way to discover the acceleration of gravity using a solution of Newton's Second Law of Motion? I mean, since you're always bragging about your ability to solve DEs.

Jun 19, 2016
but you think that's how BH theory is discoverable in GR


I think that a solution is a great way to discover the implications of any equation, yes.
......well how poignant a thought. So let's give it a test, equations are solutions. Copy & Paste from Einstein's GR the equations for the calculation(s) of the Infinite Gravity Well to create BHs.

I find it amusing that there is anyone who doesn't
......then quit talking about it & actually do it. Copy & Paste Einstein's GR math that you claim will prove he predicted the existence of BHs.

do you think there's no way to discover the acceleration of gravity using a solution of Newton's Second Law of Motion? I mean, since you're always bragging about your ability to solve DEs.
......knock it off trying to sidetrack my challenge to you to Copy & Paste the section of GR in which you claim Einstein predicted the existence of BHs...........you first.


Jun 19, 2016
Hi all. :)

An FYI for those not quite clear on the original prediction of black holes concepts/features.

The Dark Star concept was initially derived from Newtonian gravity mathematics by a certain John Mitchell in 1780s, more than a century before Einstein's GR came along. That initial Dark Star derivation dealt with the lightspeed+ escape velocity at the surface of a suitable massive star that prevent e-m radiation from leaving the star. HOWEVER, the Einsteinian GR gravity maths led to the CENTRAL SINGULARITY 'prediction' where the GR maths 'breaks down'.

Hence;

- the 'Black Surface' aspect (ie such as the Photon Detectability 'Event Horizon' at or above surface of gravitational body) concept was from NEWTONIAN maths concepts long before Einstein.

- the 'Central Singularity' aspect was what Einstein's GR maths 'predicted' when followed to r=0. That was the thing which Einstein maths was 'first to predict'; the 'dark event horizon' aspect was only 'refined' in GR.

:)

Jun 19, 2016
So let's give it a test, equations are solutions
This is you making stuff up again.

Copy & Paste Einstein's GR math that you claim will prove he predicted the existence of BHs
Sigh. Einstein didn't do it. He just came up with the equations. Schwartzchild came up with the general solution that holds for all bodies, including black holes.

Here's a nice description of it from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipe...d_metric

knock it off trying to sidetrack my challenge to you
It's not a sidetrack. Notice the part about the acceleration of gravity in there?

Duhhh ummmb.

Jun 19, 2016
Duhhh ummmb
......i'll say, Wiki-Pseudoscience links.

I keep telling you that I want to see all this discussion coming from the pages of General relativity, but there you go again....back to Wiki-Pseudoscience, knock it off & go to a site dedicated to the text of General relativity, then do your Copy & Paste.

What really is with your recalcitrance that you will not Copy & Paste the section of GR in which you claim Einstein did "infinite gravity well calculations" to predict the existence of BHs?


Jun 19, 2016
I keep telling you that I want to see all this discussion coming from the pages of General relativity
And you keep ignoring that GRT as proposed by Einstein is equations, not solutions. Engineers find solutions; good physicists find equations that engineers use; great physicists find laws of nature that define whole classes of equations that good physicists use to find specific equations for specific situations, that engineers later use to find solutions.

Would you criticize Newton's Second Law because it doesn't specifically describe the arc of the balled-up piece of paper you just threw across the room at the trashcan?

Dude, F=ma, do your own math if you're so good.

Are you really this stupid?

Jun 19, 2016
I can now definitively state that Lenni knows little or nothing about either partial or ordinary differential equations, and has no physics background at all.

It doesn't understand that solutions to GRT (specifically to the EFE) are equations, and that the role of the EFE is simply to generate those equations so that gravity can be predicted not only in obvious situations but in unusual ones.

Lenni, stop posing.

Jun 19, 2016
the EFE is simply to generate those equations so that gravity can be predicted not only in obvious situations but in unusual ones.


......"but in unusual ones". How do you know this? Is there an Einstein Field Equation for something you're holding back on?

How telling it is that you absolutely cannot Copy & Paste an EFE (?) from the text of GR by which you can calculate Infinite Gravity Wells, the defining concept of BHs.

Schneibo, you're just another novice windbag showing up here with your versions of Funny Farm Science fantasies, it's no wonder you & Stumpo are such bosom buddies. Wouldn't "stumpy" be a sign-on handle a normal person would think twice about using?


Jun 19, 2016
Worth mentioning at this point for lurkerz that the equations the Einstein Field Equations (EFE) generate are PDEs. A solution of the EFE is a set of PDEs that can themselves be solved to describe a specific physical situation. The tensors give the specifications for matrices that represent systems of PDEs, that is, multiple simultaneous partial differential equations, which give specific numeric solutions in specific situations. Most physicists take the EFE to be what most of the rest of us call General Relativity Theory (GRT).

You can look at GRT (the EFE) as a meta-equation, if you like. This is why it is so difficult to understand.

When you look at SRT (Special Relativity Theory), it is important to understand that it is a specific solution (a specific matrix, denoting a specific set of partial differential equations) to the EFE, and that specific solution is when the gravity field is exactly zero.

Jun 19, 2016
The EFE is rather complex, Lenni, and uses symbols that are not readily available in this format; you need LaTex to show them. I will therefore direct you to Wikipedia which has the full form of the EFE in LaTex so everyone can see all its terms. https://en.wikipe...quations

As a simple exercise, Lenni, please demonstrate your knowledge of relativity and DEs by deriving the PDEs that describe gravity at Earth's surface from the EFE.

I will note that this is a first-year exercise in a relativity physics curriculum.

Jun 19, 2016
Further worth mentioning that early in the 20th century physicists figured out that they needed a type of equation whose solutions were other equations, and they invented them; Einstein is a genius precisely because he was one of the first to notice and use this. His legacy goes far beyond the actual physics he found; he invented New Math that physicists have used ever since in various forms. He deserves a place with Newton, Euclid, and Gauss for divining not merely quotidian new physics, but entire new systems of physics. I admire him extravagantly.

Jun 19, 2016
You said you could do DEs, Lenni. Now it's time to prove it or be proven a liar.

I predict a storm of insults or complete silence. I don't think you know your sxxt, Lenni. I think you're a poser.

Jun 19, 2016
......well how poignant a thought. So let's give it a test, equations are solutions. Copy & Paste from Einstein's GR the equations for the calculation(s) of the Infinite Gravity Well to create BHs.

Since there isn't an Infinite gravity well creating BH's, there isn't a calculation for it...
Pretty lame logic, there...

Jun 19, 2016
Lenni is googling to see if it can find the set of PDEs that describe the solution of the EFE for Earth's surface and present that as if it derived it itself.

We're all laughing at it.

Yes, Lenni, you been sandbagged.

Jun 19, 2016
......well how poignant a thought. So let's give it a test, equations are solutions. Copy & Paste from Einstein's GR the equations for the calculation(s) of the Infinite Gravity Well to create BHs.

Since there isn't an Infinite gravity well creating BH's, there isn't a calculation for it...
Pretty lame logic, there...
Worse yet, @Whyde, Lenni doesn't get that GRT is an equation that generates other equations, not direct numeric solutions. Not only isn't there an infinite gravity well, solutions to the EFE are not direct solutions, but sets of simultaneous equations. Every one of the tensors in the EFE (that is, in GRT) is a matrix that represents a set of simultaneous partial differential equations, and a solution to it is a specific set of those PDEs, not a numerical solution. You must first solve the EFE, then solve the systems of PDEs that result, in order to actually get the numbers.

Jun 19, 2016
A black hole is therefore not even a solution to the EFE, but a solution to the system of PDEs that the EFE generates as one of its solutions.

Asking "where are the black holes in GRT" is like asking "where is the little whirlpool by this rock in the Navier-Stokes equations" or "where is the theory of relativity in this electroencephalogram" or "where is the orbit of Earth in Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation." It's out of context and as a result totally meaningless. I tried to point this out with my example of the crumpled ball of paper and the wastebasket and Newton's 2LOM.

Jun 19, 2016
To get all the way down to the nitty gritty, the Swarzchild solution is a solution of the EFE that generates a system of simultaneous partial differential equations (PDEs) that describe the gravity of all solid bodies, and a black hole is a specific solution to those PDEs that describes the gravity of a body whose value of the acceleration of gravity is greater than the speed of light at its surface. So a black hole is a single solution (of many) to a single solution (of many) of the EFE.

Asking where the black holes are in GRT is like asking where the "five minutes" is in a program that shows a screen that a data entry operator takes five minutes to fill out on average when talking to someone on the phone. Stupid.

Jun 19, 2016
Speaking of magnetically driven galactic center black hole jets -
Happy Father's day to all you Dad's in here.
(Even you, Benni...:-)


Speaking of magnetically driven galactic center black hole jets -
Happy Father's day to all you Dad's in here.
(Even you, Benni...:-)
- WhydG
Hey, how about ME? I'm a daddy also.

Jun 19, 2016
I'm a daddy also.
That's unfortunate.

On edit, I gotta ask, is it a sockpuppet?

Jun 20, 2016
To get all the way down to the nitty gritty, the Swarzchild solution is a solution of the EFE that generates a system of simultaneous partial differential equations (PDEs) that describe the gravity of all solid bodies, and a black hole is a specific solution to those PDEs that describes the gravity of a body whose value of the acceleration of gravity is greater than the speed of light at its surface. So a black hole is a single solution (of many) to a single solution (of many) of the EFE.

Asking where the black holes are in GRT is like asking where the "five minutes" is in a program that shows a screen that a data entry operator takes five minutes to fill out on average when talking to someone on the phone. Stupid.
- da schnoz
So, you seem to be saying that BHs are only one of MANY solutions to come out of the series of equations, and that the theory of BHs may all be "fairy wings" that have no true basis in reality? Meaning it's merely one of many possibilities.

Jun 20, 2016
I'm a daddy also.
That's unfortunate.

On edit, I gotta ask, is it a sockpuppet?
- da schmuck
Nothing unfortunate about being a daddy to my beautiful daughters. Perhaps you are childless, and you have your sock puppets to take the place of human children, and in case your girlfriend, CapnStumpRump isn't available for you to converse with..and give you praise.
To each their own, I always say.

Jun 20, 2016
Speaking of magnetically driven galactic center black hole jets -
Happy Father's day to all you Dad's in here.
(Even you, Benni...:-)


Speaking of magnetically driven galactic center black hole jets -
Happy Father's day to all you Dad's in here.
(Even you, Benni...:-)
- WhydG
Hey, how about ME? I'm a daddy also.

I included ALL in my salute. Singled out Benni, cuz I think he needed it for some reason...

Jun 20, 2016
So, you seem to be saying that BHs are only one of MANY solutions to come out of the series of equations, and that the theory of BHs may all be "fairy wings" that have no true basis in reality?
No, I'm saying it's one solution to one system of equations, ALL of which have a true basis in reality.

In case you weren't paying attention, in the last ten years multiple major predictions of GRT in the strong limit have turned out to be correct. Frame dragging, geodetic precession, and now gravity waves.

Every time we test GRT it comes out right. And we are talking about three completely different sets of PDEs here.

What do you say about a set of equations that produces systems of partial differential equations all of which turn out to be right?

This is pretty much like your continuing AGW denial. Now you are a GRT denier too.

Jun 20, 2016
Speaking of magnetically driven galactic center black hole jets -
Happy Father's day to all you Dad's in here.
(Even you, Benni...:-)


Speaking of magnetically driven galactic center black hole jets -
Happy Father's day to all you Dad's in here.
(Even you, Benni...:-)
- WhydG
Hey, how about ME? I'm a daddy also.

I included ALL in my salute. Singled out Benni, cuz I think he needed it for some reason...

WhydG
Well, that was mighty nice of you. And the same back at you, if appropriate.

Jun 20, 2016
So, you seem to be saying that BHs are only one of MANY solutions to come out of the series of equations, and that the theory of BHs may all be "fairy wings" that have no true basis in reality?
No, I'm saying it's one solution to one system of equations, ALL of which have a true basis in reality.


You left out the part where I said the BHs were only a possibility. So one possible solution for each series of equations. There are no absolutes in such a system and there is room for errors.
I understand your great enthusiasm, but most of the results are from computer models, not the actual visuals of a BH that would be unequivocal evidence that the equations were fruitful. Even advanced T-scopes can't reveal enough of a singularity to claim it as a BH and nothing other than a BH.

Every time we test GRT it comes out right. And we are talking about three completely different sets of PDEs here.


It could be just a matter of sheer good luck.

Jun 20, 2016
You left out the part where I said the BHs were only a possibility.
Yep.

See LIGO.

It could be just a matter of sheer good luck.
Not any more.

See LIGO.

This is pretty much you denying those little specks of light in the telescope are stars.

Jun 20, 2016


This is pretty much like your continuing AGW denial. Now you are a GRT denier too.


The more I learn about astrophysics, the more I feel compelled to question the veracity of the methods used by that particular scientific community. As I am still weighing all possibilities, I feel the need to be cautious, deliberate and watchful that I don't embrace a theory that may potentially be proved wrong, fully or partially. I have my own theories wrt the actual state of the Universe, but I need to examine all possibilities and results if I am to make a valid argument for my "musings", as FSC once called it.
I hope to use the computer at work as it is far superior to anything else I could access. But that will happen in due time, once I am able to collate enough evidence and present my ideas to my superiors at my job.
As I've said before, it's summertime and it gets warm normally. As to GRT, I will wait until much more data is compiled before making my decision.

Jun 20, 2016
You left out the part where I said the BHs were only a possibility.
Yep.

See LIGO.

It could be just a matter of sheer good luck.
Not any more.

See LIGO.

This is pretty much you denying those little specks of light in the telescope are stars.


I would prefer to wait for LISA.

Jun 20, 2016
By the time LISA is up LIGO and others will have dozens. And you'll still be denying because jebus didn't say relativity in the babble.

Jun 20, 2016
As a simple exercise, Lenni, please demonstrate your knowledge of relativity and DEs by deriving the PDEs that describe gravity at Earth's surface from the EFE


Partial DEs you make reference to are no less than akin to your Black Hole Math claiming that infinite gravity wells can exist inside a finite stellar mass, no solutions.

I'm still awaiting your post leading us to the section of General Relativity that you claim predicts the existence of BHs, you promised to do that but keep posting links to Wiki sites. If you would actually study the contents of SR & GR you will notice there are no references to pages of Wiki, but how would you know that, you've never studied it.

Jun 20, 2016
LOL, didn't think so.

Bye Lenni.

Jun 20, 2016
Asking where the black holes are in GRT is like asking where the "five minutes" is in a program that shows a screen that a data entry operator takes five minutes to fill out on average when talking to someone on the phone. Stupid.


Yeah, and the "Stupid" are the ones like you who imagine they have uncanny ability to read in between the lines & imagine Partial DEs are the route to conjuring up your Black Hole Math.

Tell me, what is the last solution to a Partial DE in GR that you calculated a solution for? Put it up, I'd like to see how Infinite Gravity math fits inside a finite stellar mass, Einstein doesn't have an EFE for that, but now you're coming off with a pile of psycho-babble claiming you know how to do it.......so do it, let's see your PDE.

Jun 20, 2016
Speaking of magnetically driven galactic center black hole jets -
Happy Father's day to all you Dad's in here.
(Even you, Benni...:-)


Speaking of magnetically driven galactic center black hole jets -
Happy Father's day to all you Dad's in here.
(Even you, Benni...:-)
- WhydG
Hey, how about ME? I'm a daddy also.

I included ALL in my salute. Singled out Benni, cuz I think he needed it for some reason...

WhydG
Well, that was mighty nice of you. And the same back at you, if appropriate.

'Tis.
3 daughters and a son. 3 grandkids.

Jun 20, 2016
Then there is the whole "simulation astronomy" aspect to the article itself...so sad to see where this field has ended up. As an FYI, if you have a plasma chamber, a magnetic sphere and some time, you can confirm without a doubt whether it can produce a particle jet or not.

You forgot to include a really big part of the Universe's experiment - a really massive body...

Jun 20, 2016
When you have a magnetic field vessel. And you over fill it with positive dominant particle charges they will ride the interior of that negatively charged field walls of the magnetic sphere in orbit, you over pressure positive charged particle mass in the vessel it will try to enlarge the negatively charged sphere farther from the mass's gravity,it will open at the poles above and below that magnetic sphere and eject the over charge mass it build excessive heat in field vessel on those particles in kinetic collisions.

Jun 20, 2016
Its highly charged particle plasma being discharged inside of a negatively charged magnetic tube vessel stretching out at the poles from the negatively charged electron magnetic vessel of trapped free electrons orbiting the CCM containing that particle plasma orbiting the mass an overload of plasma in the vessel can not be mechanically contained from the massive amount of heat generated from the mechanics of plasma particles in the operating system at play

Jun 20, 2016
Worth noting at this point that the magnetic field comes from the accretion disk, not the black hole.

A black hole has no hair.

Lots of people forget that.

Jun 20, 2016
Astronomers and mathematicians are not mechanicalist or electrical field theorists the have limited mechanical vision in conceptions of reality

Jun 21, 2016
AWESOME
Thanks to DaSchneib for continuing to point out the blatant inability of certain poser trolls who like to claim authority while never being able to demonstrate proficiency in even the basics

.

equations are solutions.
Uhm... sorry benji
you failed that one!
guess that 6 years in basic math wasn't enough

but not only that, they also failed to teach you how to do basic research, to boot!
what kind of degree do you have? surely not a STEM degree!

for instance:
In mathematics, an equation is a statement of an equality containing one or more variables. Solving the equation consists of determining which values of the variables make the equality true
Mathematics Dictionary, Glenn James et Robert C. James (éd.), Van Nostrand, 1968, 3 ed.
see also: http://encycloped...equation

so no, equations are *not* solutions

.

@full of bs
What if ....still...No.
this is no different than the god of the gaps argument

Jun 21, 2016

not possible


Remember here boys, Bullschott the Pscience Bot drops the gem that it's impossible for a magnetic field to come from an accretion disk. What are some of your other articles of faith?
http://www.atnf.c...aper.pdf

No one said stars are immune to magnetic fields. That is you misrepresenting the fact magnetics don't govern galactic stellar orbits. It's as foolish as Benni's GR BH straw man.

I am a fool so I may be mistaken but most of what you are shoveling is trash.

Jun 21, 2016
Unidirectional flow of plasma doesn't generate a magnetic field
Errr,

1. All flows of charged particles are currents, plasma is made of charged particles, and all currents generate magnetic fields.
2. The magnetic field is always at right angles to the current flow. Thus, it sticks up out of the disk.
3. It's not unidirectional in any case; it's a disk, which means every particle in it is in orbit.

This is pretty simple stuff, here.

Jun 21, 2016
There is no accretion disk ,thats a theory of black holes, there is a super hot particle plasma hurricane orbiting the CCM from gravity of the mass, all of the plasma is high energy charged particles that are manufactured by an inflows of neutrons and protons being beaten apart in high velocity kinetic collisions, of orbing particle plasma storm around the CCM , those neutrons and protons approaching the orbiting plasma storm have already lost their orbiting electrons,where they use to classified atoms in the 150 million degree environment being manufactured by that orbiting plasma field by taking apart neutrons and protons in high velocity kinetic collisions releasing energy to sustain this temperatures

Jun 21, 2016
Here's an experiment put a generator in a frozen environment its charge output flow will be 100 percent put that generator in a 500 degree environment and its charge outflow will fall , super conductivity is great in super frozen environments but in super hot environments electrons can not keep their magnetic bond orbiting those atoms ,they need to stay in an environment where electron exchange can maintain their structural stability

Jun 21, 2016
Then there is the whole "simulation astronomy" aspect to the article itself...so sad to see where this field has ended up. As an FYI, if you have a plasma chamber, a magnetic sphere and some time, you can confirm without a doubt whether it can produce a particle jet or not.

You forgot to include a really big part of the Universe's experiment - a really massive body...


In an experiment where magnetic fields are generating an effect its about the field strength and configuration. In other words, does a spinning magnetic sphere cause a particle jet when placed in plasma environment? Now back to our experimental results....No.

What if we increase the strength of the magnets......still...No.

What if you increase - mass... ?

Jun 21, 2016
Well I'm an actual electrician, whose has made electrons, do this that and the other in controlled circuits for mechanical work, so to say I know nothing is the only bullshot here, where's your proof of accretion disks, or that an atom can maintain its structural stability inside a super hot environment, hotter than any stars core, or let alone a high velocity highly charged plasma environment, atoms have structural limits and they are not mechanically capable of going in that environment and keeping their structural stability, your selling insanity here, in mechanical magnetic physics

Jun 21, 2016
You would be doing your thinking and math by candlelight if it wasn't for people like me and my brothers

Jun 21, 2016
But I can see why your so angry your black hole god is on its deathbed , and your head has memorized mechanical bullshit at school and a nobody in your eyes is tearing apart your religion in logic ,reason, and mechanical works of charged particles and magnetics, when you thought you at the top of the mountain receiving the fiery laws of creation, ha

Jun 21, 2016
The sapiens are angry

Jun 21, 2016
Yes, it is, so why don't you google up how a current generates a magnetic field
I've forgotten more than you will ever know about magnetic fields and currents. As is obvious from nothing more than your statement that a unidirectional electric current doesn't generate a magnetic field.

Jun 21, 2016
I also have a background when I was young in the mechanics of the T-11 gas turbine engines

Jun 21, 2016
Apparently you forgot it all,
An electric current is a flow of electric charge. In electric circuits this charge is often carried by moving electrons in a wire. It can also be carried by ions in an electrolyte, or by both ions and electrons such as in a plasma. ... [Electric currents] create magnetic fields, which are used in motors, inductors and generators.
Source: https://en.wikipe..._current or any good textbook on EE.

and don't read very well either.
Unidirectional flow of plasma doesn't generate a magnetic field
Apparently you don't have a very good memory for what you said.

Jun 21, 2016
Orbiting charged particle plasma has a directional flow in 3D space it can be classified as an induction environment by its electric charges and motion

Jun 21, 2016
Guys! :)

How many times do you all have to be reminded: It's NOT as clean cut 'one or other'; not as 'neatly separable' as everyone is arguing from. I have already/often pointed out that in reality it's all connected phenomena observably 'transient' only; as one 'stage/phase' or another in a CONTINUUM HYBRID SET of processes which produce the WHOLE phenomena across spatial/temporal scales and concentrations/strengths/flows etc.

Eg, 'black hole' feature initially starts out as plasmoid concentration which grows and grows by entraining more and more mass until scale of energy-mass content enhances GRAVITATIONAL effect to grow even BIGGER/FASTER because it STABILIZE its COHESION and let it grow into STELLAR scales (by CONTAINING otherwise SELF-DESTRUCTIVE CORE INSTABILITIES which affect all lesser plasma/plasmoid features/flows).

It's HYBRID process/feature over time/scale; NOT simple yes/no construct of 'separate' forces.

PS: And it's 'the' E-M 'field'; not E 'or' M. Ok? :)

Jun 21, 2016
Phys 1@ your mom made you some tater tots come out of the basement

Jun 21, 2016
Hi Phys1. :) Spare your sermons for sundays.
FYI, mate: I am ATHEIST since age NINE; so "sundays" is not significant. This is the sort of 'trollish' kneejerking which reflects badly on you; which makes your claim to being a 'objective scientist' a mockery; and so gives 'ammunition' to your detractors with which to 'justify' their equally 'trollish' kneejerking against you. Don't you ever stop to think you are bringing 'mainstream' into disrepute by behaving even worse than your detractors. I say 'worse', because you claim and believe yourself to be 'defending' mainstream, but are unwittingly doing the very opposite (by acting like a troll not interested in the real scientific method/discourse) instead of being objective and actually reading without being 'in denial' of what I am pointing out for EVERYONE's benefit, not just yours. Read and understand me or give your detractors ammunition by being a 'cheap shot' trollish jerk like in your above post. Good luck, all! :)

Jun 21, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. Hooyeei, how you are Cher? Well I can see how you are just as charming as you always are, and in the bad grumpy mood too. I am fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

If you look over on the other article where you were being ignored, the one about the waves you don't like much,,, I leave for you the message about your idea about how to turn off the karma voting thing. You must not know anymore about it than I do, because I did like you said I should do and it still votes anyway. Maybe my computer just don't like the way you treat the humans and scientists.


Jun 21, 2016
Correcting Format:

Hi Phys1. :)
Spare your sermons for sundays
FYI, mate: I am ATHEIST since age NINE; so "sundays" not significant. This is the sort of 'trollish' kneejerking which reflects badly on you; makes your claim to being a 'objective scientist' a mockery; and so gives 'ammunition' to your detractors with which to 'justify' their equally 'trollish' kneejerking against you. Don't you ever stop to think you are bringing 'mainstream' into disrepute by behaving even worse than your detractors. I say 'worse', because you claim/believe yourself to be 'defending' mainstream, but are unwittingly doing the very opposite (by acting like a troll not interested in the real scientific method/discourse) instead of being objective/actually reading without being 'in denial' of what I am pointing out for EVERYONE's benefit, not just yours. Read and understand me or give your detractors ammunition by being a 'cheap shot' trollish jerk like in your above post. Good luck, all! :)

Jun 21, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira (my Lab Rat No 14). :)
@ Really-Skippy. Hooyeei, how you are Cher? Well I can see how you are just as charming as you always are, and in the bad grumpy mood too. I am fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

If you look over on the other article where you were being ignored, the one about the waves you don't like much,,, I leave for you the message about your idea about how to turn off the karma voting thing. You must not know anymore about it than I do, because I did like you said I should do and it still votes anyway. Maybe my computer just don't like the way you treat the humans and scientists.
You 'forgot' I advised you to consult a local 'techie' to do it for you since you are obviously still dumber than that bot-voting program that has the better of you. If you are 'fiends' with the Captain Stumpy 'gang' (which includes 'Sapos Joint' owner), why don't you ask your friend to get Sapo to advise you (he is a Systems Manager). Good luck Lab Rat No 14! :)

Jun 21, 2016
Well you don't have to be so prickly about it. Non, I am just going to leave like it is, because I would be down voting your karma points anyway and this way won't none of them slip by.

I did figure out a way to turn it off, but it wouldn't work for your stuffs,,,, just some other couyons I had it set for.

Anyhoo, try not to disrupt the humans and scientists while they are doing their diligence. You don't really have anything to say that anybody wants to hear. At least, so far in all the years I've known you there wasn't anybody I can think of that acted like they did want to hear it. Maybe that is why the membership at the Earthman's Play House fell off too.

Jun 21, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
Atheist or not, you are giving sermons. Stop it or wait until Sunday morning.
Again with your fixation on 'style' instead of substance, mate. When will you 'twig' that a real objective discourser must be willing to fairly consider relevant information in whatever 'style' it comes. That you still prefer to take cheap shots, instead of considering what has been pointed out for all concerned, continues to tell of your self-created unsuitability for objective hard science discourse/profession. Either get objective or leave the discourse/science to those who can do what it takes to be objective and understand fairly without personal ego/agendas 'baggage' derailing/coloring your comprehension/participation. Give up the ego and try objective discourse, mate. you'll find it liberating and most conducive to correct understanding of the science/discourse. Good luck, Phys1. :)

Jun 21, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. I am guessing that one is where the ignore thing gets turned on. Now all you got is me. Unless Otto-Skippy or Captain-Skippy are around. Don't go bellyaching about it either because that is what happens to you when you disrespect the humans and scientists.

DO BETTER DILIGENCE Matey: )"( [[[.

Jun 21, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira (my 'special' Lab Rat No 14). :)
Well you don't have to be so prickly about it. Non, I am just going to leave like it is, because I would be down voting your karma points anyway and this way won't none of them slip by.

I did figure out a way to turn it off, but it wouldn't work for your stuffs,,,, just some other couyons I had it set for.

Anyhoo, try not to disrupt the humans and scientists while they are doing their diligence. You don't really have anything to say that anybody wants to hear. At least, so far in all the years I've known you there wasn't anybody I can think of that acted like they did want to hear it. Maybe that is why the membership at the Earthman's Play House fell off too.
Who's "prickly"? :) Just going on what has already transpired which demonstrates your abject idiocy that surpasses even that of the bot-voting program which you can't break your shackles from.

So again: consult local techie or CapS' 'friend" as suggested. :)

Jun 21, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. Okayeei, apology accepted, so I am going to just put you on level one probationary ignore. For now. That means I won't turn on the "Do Not Show Me This Couyon's Stuff Anymore" button, I am just going to ignore what you write and leave you to find somebody else to fool around with, if you can. The karma voting, well you already know I got that taken care of.

So then Cher, YOU ARE OFFICIALLY ON LEVEL ONE PROBATIONARY IGNORE from Ira-Skippy,,, starting,, right NOW.

Jun 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 21, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira (my 'special' Lab Rat No 14). :)
@ Really-Skippy. I am guessing that one is where the ignore thing gets turned on. Now all you got is me. Unless Otto-Skippy or Captain-Skippy are around. Don't go bellyaching about it either because that is what happens to you when you disrespect the humans and scientists.

DO BETTER DILIGENCE Matey: )"( [[[.
You are a very 'special' lab rat, No 14, you'll always be my best and most 'productive' experimental subject. And whether Lab Rat No 13 and No 12 are 'taken out of their respective cages' to 'run the maze' while you, 'special Lab Rat No 14, are 'returned to your cage' after an unusually 'productive' spell at the 'PO Internet Experiment Wheel', is what these Internet Experiments are designed to study and observe over the long term. Who knows what the book about it all will reveal about the Lab Rat 'subjects' concerned.

PS: Get your local techie or CapS' 'friend' to help you unshackle your idiot-self from that bot. :)

Jun 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 21, 2016
Thanks for your 'squeaky' apology there, my 'special' Lab Rat No 14 (aka Uncle Ira). It will be noted in the Experiments Log Book against your No. :) Now, back to the latest 'idiot maze run' by Lab Rat No 14.
@ Really-Skippy. Okayeei, apology accepted, so I am going to just put you on level one probationary ignore. For now. That means I won't turn on the "Do Not Show Me This Couyon's Stuff Anymore" button, I am just going to ignore what you write and leave you to find somebody else to fool around with, if you can. The karma voting, well you already know I got that taken care of. So then Cher, YOU ARE OFFICIALLY ON LEVEL ONE PROBATIONARY IGNORE from Ira-Skippy,,, starting,, right NOW.
Hmmm, signs of 'idiocy maze fatigue' observed; will change parameters to see if it's the 'maze' or Lab Rat No 14's next phase in the 'evolutionary trajectory' of its 'idiocy quotient'. Oh well, at least its 'bot-appendage' is still calling the shots for its 'behavior' as usual. :)

Jun 21, 2016
Apologies for the quality of my earlier post. Physorg must have truncated it and I went straight to bed afterwards. I had 3 links in that post- two bout magnetic fields in accretion discs and one about magnets doing work.

The jist of it was that CERN using superconducting magnets to do work was not the same as a magnetic field formed from a current of charged particles.
https://van.physi...id=17176

Here's the omitted Nature link about BH magnetic fields.
http://www.nature...499.html

Jun 21, 2016
Hi KaFaraqGatri. :)

You're in denial, Internet Experiment Lab Rat No 15. :)

The record speaks for itself, and it does not support your own delusional Lab Rat's version of the facts to date.

Anyway, have you any on-science contribution to make of your own instead of trolling your own silliness like that for all to see?

I have countered enough trollish silliness in this thread for one day, so how about following Enthusiastic Fool's example and post on-science and on-topic, heh?

Good luck and Good thinking, KFG, all. :)

Jun 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 21, 2016
Interesting experiment for any lurkerz out there who wonder who knows what they're talking about:

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

I just posted how you check whether electric currents make magnetism over there. It's first grade level; at least that's when I first saw it. Do feel free to check for yourselves.

Jun 21, 2016
but you left out the differential motion required by the opposing charges to create a field perpendicular to the flow


http://hyperphysi...loo.html

Gee, lookit that, the field goes through the center of the circle.

And the current goes around the wire.

Do you just make this stuff up, or do you actually believe it? That's the only real question here.

Jun 21, 2016
Hi bschott, Da Schneib, everyone. :)

Have been observing your discussion and just saw this from Da Schneib:
...the field goes through the center of the circle.
In the context of the accretion disc and its magnetic field in similar 'torus' configuration as with a circle of wire with current running within it, I'd like to pose this for your consideration/discussion if you are so inclined.

In such magnetic field torus associated with such accretion disc of Black Hole feature, would the Magnetic (component) of the whole E-M field (going INSIDE or 'middle' of 'loop' of accretion disc) penetrate all the way into the Black Hole feature itself (and Hence BELOW the Event Horizon)? If you think 'yes', then explain your Physics reasoning for same. If you think 'no', then explain your Physics reasoning for that. I look forward to seeing much interesting physics discussion in coming days on that one. Unless of course no-one is game to tackle that question? Cheers either way. :)

Jun 21, 2016
would the Magnetic (component) of the whole E-M field (going INSIDE or 'middle' of 'loop' of accretion disc) penetrate all the way into the Black Hole feature itself (and Hence BELOW the Event Horizon)? If you think 'yes', then explain your Physics reasoning for same.
The electric field is not energy and therefore is not affected by gravity like energy is; it's not blocked by the EH. It's stress. It's affected; but it's not blocked. That's why the no-hair theorem excludes electric charge.

https://en.wikipe...y_tensor

The stress–energy tensor (sometimes stress–energy–momentum tensor or energy–momentum tensor) is a tensor quantity in physics that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime, generalizing the stress tensor of Newtonian physics. It is an attribute of matter, radiation, and non-gravitational force fields.

Jun 21, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Thanks for your prompt response to the posed question/scenario. You covered the Electric component aspect of the E-M field, but you didn't address the Magnetic component of that field which goes through the inside of that BH accretion disc 'circle' (in similar manner to the example of circular wire loop with magnetic component field going through the center of wire loop). That was what prompted me to pose that question/scenario about how far that 'inner' Magnetic component and Electric component would 'go' into the bBH feature itself (or whether it would be 'cut off' in some way by BH event horizon conditions/physics etc. Can you therefore elaborate to cover the whole field ie, both E and M components)? Thanks again for your polite and relevant contribution on my question/scenario 'poser' so far. I'll not make any further response until all posters have provided their complete comments/reasonings for yes/no case as appropriate. Cheers all. :)

Jun 21, 2016
Sigh.

@RC, there is no separate electric and magnetic field. There is a single unified field. It's called the electromagnetic field. This was discovered by Maxwell in 1862. We've been using his equations ever since. Nobody but a complete batsh*t insane crank argues with Maxwell's equations.

The magnetic field is the correction for the finite propagation speed of the electric field. Without the E field, there's nothing to correct for. This is duh.

Without motion of the charge, there is no detectable propagation delay. Anywhere there is a moving charge, there is a magnetic field.

If the E field can get in and out of a black hole, so can the B field; it has to be able to, otherwise the E field couldn't.

You just don't understand any electronics. Never mind physics.

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib.
Sigh. @RC, there is no separate electric and magnetic field. There is a single unified field. It's called the electromagnetic field. ...
Too late, mate, I already pointed that out to everyone in the PS to my post, 5 HOURS AGO, addressed "Guys!", as follows...
Guys! :)
...

PS: And it's 'the' E-M 'field'; not E 'or' M. Ok? :)
So you are NOT telling ME anything which I didn't know long before you. :)

Anyhow, it was the magnetic effects COMPONENT I was asking you to consider in the case (like when it 'goes through' the 'center' of that 'circle' you exampled), but in the context of the BH being in that central position etc, as posed.

Now:
If the E field can get in and out of a black hole, so can the B field; it has to be able to, otherwise the E field couldn't.
That's the sort of thing I was sfter from you/others. Discussing the E AND M field/effects in that scenario, and justify your respective views; as you have done just now. Thanks, mate! :)

Jun 22, 2016
Ummmm, apparently you don't get that it's just as correct to treat it as two separate fields as it is to treat it as one. Which you use depends on the situation. You get the same results either way.

That's because you don't understand Maxwell's equations. Never mind the rest of physics.

Jun 22, 2016
Without motion of the charge, there is no detectable propagation delay. Anywhere there is a moving charge, there is a magnetic field.

I'm confused... So charge xfer occurs without motion?
If the E field can get in and out of a black hole, so can the B field; it has to be able to, otherwise the E field couldn't.

I always thought electric current was electron exchange between atoms. Since Electrons have mass (9.10938356 × 10-31 kilograms), they shouldn't be able to escape the BH...

Jun 22, 2016
Without motion of the charge, there is no detectable propagation delay. Anywhere there is a moving charge, there is a magnetic field.

I'm confused... So charge xfer occurs without motion?
Where did you get that from?

Let's start from the beginning.

The electrons on the outsides of atoms (and particularly in conductors) are loosely bound, so they can be stripped off either by a magnetic field or by a chemical reaction. This is the way we mostly encounter electric current; it's a flow of these electrons. The reason is they're very light and it's very easy to move them around. So we tend to think of an electric current as an electron current. But that's not the only kind of current there is; there can be ion currents, which are what remains of an atom after some of its electrons have been stripped, and although they don't move through conductors very well, they can move through space just fine.
[contd]

Jun 22, 2016
[contd]
In fact, ions in solution, like sodium and chlorine ions in salt water, can move too, along with the solution. And that too is an electric current.

Now, all of this is separate from the electric field. The field is the thing that the charges on the electrons and ions and so forth create; just like mass creates gravity, charge creates the electric field.

"Charge transfer" just means transfer of electrons or ions; remember, a proton is just an ionized hydrogen atom. It means the same thing as "current" or "flow." You could say "charge current" or "charge flow" and it would mean the same thing as "charge transfer." Normally we just say "current" and everyone knows what we mean.

Now, a still charge has this field around it; it's called the "electric field." That's what a charge *is*: the thingie that makes an electric field. Particles have it; electrons and protons, mostly, but there are other charged particles too.
[contd]

Jun 22, 2016
[contd]
Because we start out by talking about still charges, it doesn't matter what its properties are in motion, and we think of this as instantaneous action at a distance. Even though the electric field only propagates at the speed of light, we can't tell because the charge isn't moving, and mathematically it doesn't matter. The charge is still at the same place, so we can't measure a difference.

BUT.

Once the charge starts moving, THEN AND ONLY THEN do we notice that other charged particles respond not to where the charge is *now*, but where it *was* one propagation time ago. But remember, we used math that assumes its propagation speed is infinite; instantaneous action at a distance, remember? So we have to apply a correction to the action of our instantaneous electric force, and that correction is called "magnetism."

This is what Maxwell's equations tell us.

Does that help?
[contd]

Jun 22, 2016
[contd]
If the E field can get in and out of a black hole, so can the B field; it has to be able to, otherwise the E field couldn't.
I always thought electric current was electron exchange between atoms.
It is, but that's not the electric field (the E field, our instantaneous version of the action of an electric charge). You can't confuse the electric field with an electric current.

The B field, to complete the picture, is the magnetic field, that is, the correction of our supposedly instantaneous E field's action for the true state of affairs, which has propagation delay.

Put both of them together, E and B, and you have the real EM field, which is what all the talk is about.

Since Electrons have mass (9.10938356 × 10-31 kilograms), they shouldn't be able to escape the BH...
Sure, but that doesn't say that the E field can't. They're different. Don't confuse the EM field with charge, or with electrons either.

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Ummmm, apparently you don't get that it's just as correct to treat it as two separate fields as it is to treat it as one. Which you use depends on the situation. You get the same results either way.

That's because you don't understand Maxwell's equations. Never mind the rest of physics
Not at all, mate. You're 'overthinking it'. I asked how your previously 'wire loop' exampled 'magnetic field goes through the middle' would be treated/perceived etc if there was a Black Hole and its Event Horizon in that 'middle' region'. That's all. How you/others came at the observation/explanation was left up to you/others (bearing in mind what I earlier mentioned that the e-m filed is ONE COMPOSITE field having discernibly different effects components/vectots labeled 'magnetic' and "electric' depending on, as you agree, the scenario/dynamics in question; which in the case of my posed scenario involves magnetid effect components and a BH at center etc). Proceed. :)

Jun 22, 2016
So if we're talking about a still charge, the EM field reduces to just the E field; we can pretend there's no magnetic field and that the E field acts instantaneously and everything will come out right. The propagation delay and the B field are still there, but they're effectively zero. We can't measure them.

But as soon as there is movement, then our EM field gets complicated by propagation delay, and we see that our E field must be supplemented by the B field in order for our calculations (i.e., as @Proto correctly pointed out, simulations) to come out correct.

And that is why I say, there is no magnetic field without an associated electric field, and that only charges in motion show the magnetic field.

Jun 22, 2016
You're 'overthinking it'.
No, not particularly. Maxwell's equations define the action of the electromagnetic (EM) field, they say what they say, and what they say is not what you say. What's to overthink? You're just plain wrong, you just plain don't understand Maxwell's equations, and you just plain don't understand EM as a result.

If you're gonna insist on saying idiotic things at the beginnings of every single one of your posts, that's all I'm gonna read and that's all I'm gonna respond to. I don't bother with the rest, it's a waste of time.

Jun 22, 2016
@Da Schneib. I was about to log out when I noticed this you posted at the same time as my last.
So if we're talking about a still charge, the EM field reduces to just the E field; we can pretend there's no magnetic field and that the E field acts instantaneously and everything will come out right. The propagation delay and the B field are still there, but they're effectively zero. We can't measure them.
...
And that is why I say, there is no magnetic field without an associated electric field, and that only charges in motion show the magnetic field.
Most reasonable observers agree with your last sentence. But don't forget quantum spin producing magnetic field component for an 'isolated' Electron. That quantum 'current' inherent to Electron is more configurational than motional 'current' of 'impulse' vector inherent to electron 'matter-energy-loop' directional tendency; something which my ToE explains but which QM/Relativity doesn't (that was specially for Whyde. :))

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
You're 'overthinking it'.
No, not particularly. Maxwell's equations define the action of the electromagnetic (EM) field, they say what they say, and what they say is not what you say. What's to overthink? You're just plain wrong, you just plain don't understand Maxwell's equations, and you just plain don't understand EM as a result.

If you're gonna insist on saying idiotic things at the beginnings of every single one of your posts, that's all I'm gonna read and that's all I'm gonna respond to. I don't bother with the rest, it's a waste of time
As many times before, it's what you think I said that you are 'responding' to; not what I actually said all along and in context. I have not said anything against Maxwell. I even told YOU that the e-m field was a composite field, not independently separable/existing. So it's obvious that you have gone off on a tangent of your own strawmanning, again. You really have to see to that tendency of yours, mate.

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Phys1.:)
@RC
Atheist or not, you are giving sermons. Stop it or wait until Sunday morning.
Again with your fixation on 'style' instead of substance,

Your initial post was about style not substance. So?
Your style is that of a priest. Stop it or wait until Sunday.
Not so,mate. MY first post was an FYI to squabbling posters; re the history of the 'predictions' of dark star, event surfaces/horizons, black hole/singularity etc. And my second post was to squabbling guys, reminding them that the phenomena was a hybrid one involving both plasma and gravity at various stages as described. And also a PS reminding everyone that there is THE E-M field, not separate fields (rather a composite effects field).

It was you who made it an issue; attacking 'style' instead of considering substance. And the posts show you kept on making it an issue of you being pre-occupied with style and being easily distracted from noting the substance provided. :)

Jun 22, 2016
@DaS

I'm afraid I just don't understand your concept of the electric field escaping or passing through the BH. If the quanta of electromagnetic radiation is photons and they can't escape how can the quantized E-field traverse across the event horizon?

This is the first time I've heard about charge as a characteristic of BH. I though we just had spin and mass. I'm with Whyde G; there must be some misapprehension somewhere.

Jun 22, 2016
I'm afraid I just don't understand your concept of the electric field escaping or passing through the BH. If the quanta of electromagnetic radiation is photons and they can't escape how can the quantized E-field traverse across the event horizon?
The field isn't the photons either. A field is a distortion of the vacuum which biases it to express virtual particles of a particular type. In the case of a gravity field, the virtual particles are gravitons; in the case of an EM field, photons. EM has no more trouble crossing the EH than gravity does.

The color and weak fields can also cross the EH; this is the reason for the existence of Hawking radiation. But they are so short range that their effects disappear in the limit of distance, whereas EM and gravity are only constrained by the inverse square law and so remain in that limit.

[contd]

Jun 22, 2016
[contd]
This is the first time I've heard about charge as a characteristic of BH. I though we just had spin and mass. I'm with Whyde G; there must be some misapprehension somewhere.
There are four types of black holes:
1. Schwarzchild: no spin, no charge
2. Kerr: spin, no charge
3. Reissner-Nordstrom: charge, no spin
4. Kerr-Newman: both spin and charge

You will find all four listed in a table in this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipe...n_metric

It is on the Kerr-Newman metric, the metric of the fourth kind of black hole.

Jun 22, 2016
But don't forget quantum spin producing magnetic field component for an 'isolated' Electron
I didn't. It vanishes in the limit of distance. This is the self-interaction of the field, which disappears due to renormalization. You know, like what Feynman, Tomonaga, and Schwinger won the Nobel Prize for.

That quantum 'current' inherent to Electron is more configurational than motional 'current' of 'impulse' vector inherent to electron 'matter-energy-loop' directional tendency
Have some dressing and croutons with that word salad.

something which my ToE explains but which QM/Relativity doesn't
You mean, other than those guys I just mentioned who won a Nobel Prize for it. That was in, wait for it, 1965. Over 50 years ago now.

You invented the question mark too, right?

Jun 22, 2016
To be clear, are you saying the Reissner-Nordstrom and Kerr-Newman BHs have a charge/bias that is detectable/measureable outside the event horizon? If so it sounds like an unphysical quirk of GR. Thinking EM doesn't propagate outward through the EH I assume the "charge" would be to an observer "within" the singularity.

I figure even if the singularity has an electric charge there's no geodesics that will permit the expression of that charge to the outside world. I am admittedly way beyond my depth here. I appreciate your patience.

Jun 22, 2016
Since Electrons have mass (9.10938356 × 10-31 kilograms), they shouldn't be able to escape the BH...
Sure, but that doesn't say that the E field can't. They're different. Don't confuse the EM field with charge, or with electrons either.


Okay, thanks. That helped. Appreciate the effort, DS.
However, that leads to a new question - what constitutes the E field? Just Energy?
SOMEthing must be there to carry it between between "particles"...?

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
quantum spin producing magnetic field component for an 'isolated' Electron
It vanishes in the limit of distance. This is the self-interaction of the field, which disappears due to renormalization. You know, like what Feynman, Tomonaga, and Schwinger won the Nobel Prize for
"Renormalization" is an abstract MATHS technique, NOT a PHYSICAL attribute/process. Learn the difference.
That quantum 'current' inherent to Electron is more configurational than motional 'current' of 'impulse' vector inherent to electron 'matter-energy-loop' directional tendency
Have some dressing and croutons with that word salad.
Ignorance is no excuse for kneejerking.
something which my ToE explains but which QM/Relativity doesn't
You mean, other than those guys I just mentioned who won a Nobel Prize for it. That was in,...
It was for abstract MATHS theory; not for explaining REALITY nature/mechanism of 'quantum spin'. Learn right, mate. :)

Jun 22, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are? I am mad with you and that is why I take you off the LEVEL ONE PROBATIONARY IGNORE.

What you do to my computer? I knew you were a sneak and couyon, but I did not think you would do something as low as mess with my computer like you always accuse other peoples of doing.

Knock it off Skippy.

Back on the LEVEL ONE PROBATIONARY IGNORE you go and leave my computer alone.

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib (and Whyde if you're reading). :)
There are four types of black holes:
1. Schwarzchild: no spin, no charge
2. Kerr: spin, no charge
3. Reissner-Nordstrom: charge, no spin
4. Kerr-Newman: both spin and charge

...a table in this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipe...n_metric

It is on the Kerr-Newman metric, the metric of the fourth kind of black hole.
Mate, you DO realize all these NO HAIR etc theorems are just THAT? They are MATHEMATICALLY BASED interpretations of theory implications; based on mathematical conjectures as to whether or not charge, e-m effects etc etc extend between outside space to inside space below the event horizon. Until we KNOW exactly what happens to a collapsing stellar body's Charge-Magnetism EFFECTS INFORMATION when a Black Hole is formed, then we cannot assume what you are assuming is 'correct' so uncritically.

So Da Schneib, everyone: please resist casually treating conjectures as 'fact'. :)

Jun 22, 2016
That quantum 'current' inherent to Electron is more configurational than motional 'current'
You invented the question mark too, right?

You're wrong on this one, DS. I invented the "?". RC invented (and uses quite extensively) the
"/"...

Jun 22, 2016
To be clear, are you saying the Reissner-Nordstrom and Kerr-Newman BHs have a charge/bias that is detectable/measureable outside the event horizon?
They should; none has ever been observed, but according to the equations, an event horizon should pose no barrier to either the EM field or the gravity field, because they are fields. On the other hand, neither gravity radiation (i.e. gravity waves) nor EM radiation (i.e. light) should be able to make it past the event horizon. A field is one thing; radiation is another.

If so it sounds like an unphysical quirk of GR. Thinking EM doesn't propagate outward through the EH I assume the "charge" would be to an observer "within" the singularity.
EM ***radiation*** does not propagate outward; but an EM ***field*** doesn't propagate. It's just there, around a charge. You must not confuse charge with EM radiation; they are two different things.
[contd]

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
How you are? I am mad with you and that is why I take you off the LEVEL ONE PROBATIONARY IGNORE.

What you do to my computer? I knew you were a sneak and couyon, but I did not think you would do something as low as mess with my computer like you always accuse other peoples of doing.

Knock it off Skippy.

Back on the LEVEL ONE PROBATIONARY IGNORE you go and leave my computer alone.
Hahaha. Funny. :) Yes, I noticed you gave me a '2' instead of a '1' the other day. I was wondering what was happening with your computer after you tried to unshackle yourself from that bot in your computer setup selection preferences.

Now I see you gave me '5'! What IS happening there!

Anyhow, since I have no interest or inclination of having my own 'customized system' computer setup 'contaminated' by making internet forays like those that 'certain' of your own 'friends' have admitted/boasted to doing (hopefully now only 'in the past').
Good luck getting 'clean'. :)

Jun 22, 2016
[contd]
I figure even if the singularity has an electric charge there's no geodesics that will permit the expression of that charge to the outside world.
Why not? The mass (i.e. gravity "charge") inside the EH expresses its gravity to the outside world; otherwise black holes wouldn't have any gravity. It's the same with electric charge.

I am admittedly way beyond my depth here. I appreciate your patience.
You bet. It's good for me to explain stuff like this; helps me understand it better myself. Honest questions deserve honest answers.

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
That quantum 'current' inherent to Electron is more configurational than motional 'current'

You invented the question mark too, right?

You're wrong on this one, DS. I invented the "?". RC invented (and uses quite extensively) the
"/"...
Hahaha. Really funny. :)

You and Ira are on fire today. :) And much better/non-insulting humor than past less innocent efforts at "funs".

Good one, mate. Thanks for the quiet chuckles, mateys! :)

PS: I trust you have read/understood my responses above to Da Schneib; which should be of relevance to your own questions/understandings re the relevant discussion points. Cheers. :)

Jun 22, 2016
Don't confuse the EM field with charge, or with electrons either.
Okay, thanks. That helped. Appreciate the effort, DS.
:)

However, that leads to a new question - what constitutes the E field? Just Energy?
SOMEthing must be there to carry it between between "particles"...?
That is a really great question, and the answer is, nobody knows for sure. Because the gravity field is known to be due to warping of the geometry of spacetime, a bunch of really bright physicists came up with string physics, based originally on Kaluza-Klein theory, which postulates an extra dimension whose geometry is warped by the EM field in the same way as spacetime is warped by gravity, but no one has been able to come up with any way to test it so far.

What is a field? Really, no one knows beyond saying it's warped dimensions. We don't really know what that means, but we can measure fields, so we know they're there. The best definitions we have are functional, not substantive.

Jun 22, 2016
That quantum 'current' inherent to Electron is more configurational than motional 'current'
You invented the question mark too, right?

You're wrong on this one, DS. I invented the "?". RC invented (and uses quite extensively) the
"/"...
Actually I think RC invented the Ə.

Jun 22, 2016
As many times before, it's what you think I said that you are 'responding' to
I quoted what you said.

You're making stuff up again.

Jun 22, 2016
"Renormalization" is an abstract MATHS technique, NOT a PHYSICAL attribute/process.
It's obvious you don't understand renormalization either. Renormalization is a mathematical description of a real physical phenomenon; you described the physical phenomenon yourself.

What does renormalization describe? Exactly what you said: if an electron has a spin angular momentum, representing a moving charge, how can there not be a detectable magnetic field around it? The answer is, because the magnetic field self-cancels in the limit of distance. Showing this was why Feynman, Tomonaga, and Schwinger won a Nobel Prize. Duh.

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
As many times before, it's what you think I said that you are 'responding' to
I quoted what you said.

You're making stuff up again.
Just quoting some words and ignoring the wider context of the discussion is a tactic for constructing strawmen. It is not conducive to contextual discourse/understanding between interlocutors and in the casual reader. You have a proven history of such tactics, so it's no use denying it now. Just try to drop all your past 'tactics' when not being as 'correct' as you thought you were being.

That's all, mate. You DO do good work when you eschew such tactics.

Try to eschew such tactics ALL the time, instead of selectively depending on your interlocutor/how you think you are fairing in the discussion.

I said some time ago that you DO HAVE the makings of a really OUTSTANDING SCIENTIST and THINKER...but ONLY IF you rigorously eschew such 'bad habits' which compromise your objectivity/understanding. Cheers. :)

Jun 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 22, 2016
you DO realize all these NO HAIR etc theorems are just THAT?
Yep.

A theorem is subject to proof, unlike a theory.

You know about as much about math as you know about physics: not much at all. Thanks for demonstrating it so everyone can see what an idiot you are.

Jun 22, 2016
Just quoting some words and ignoring the wider context of the discussion
They looked like they were in context to the rest of us.

I think the part I really enjoy is how you have nothing left but this rhetorical bullsh*t. It demonstrates to anyone watching exactly what you are.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is all you have and you demonstrate it in the first sentence of every post you make.

If you want a response other than to make fun of you for these idiotic opening statements that demonstrate you're a fraud, it's up to you to eliminate them. As long as you keep making them I'll keep using them against you.

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
"Renormalization" is an abstract MATHS technique, NOT a PHYSICAL attribute/process.
IWhat does renormalization describe? ...: if an electron has a spin angular momentum, representing a moving charge, how can there not be a detectable magnetic field around it? The answer is, because the magnetic field self-cancels in the limit of distance. Showing this was why Feynman, Tomonaga, and Schwinger won a Nobel Prize. Duh.
No mate, that is not correct. Renormalization is a maths technique invented to 'make the maths work' (as Einstein invented a 'cosmological constant' to 'make his maths work').

As to quantum property of electron angular momentum, it too was maths attribution/concept, without mechanism/process of 'entity' itself explained.

Unlike QM/Relativity/String-Theory etc, my ToE started theorizing process from REALITY starting point and eventually explains the ACTUAL mechanisms, processes etc which all the MATHS 'treats' ONLY abstractly. :)

Jun 22, 2016
Renormalization is a maths technique invented to 'make the maths work'
That's not what Feynman, Tomonaga, and Schwinger got a Nobel Prize for.

You're making stuff up again.

Here we have an individual who thinks that if I have one apple and you have one apple and I give you my apple you have fifteen apples. Doesn't "trust" math. It's idiotic.

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
you DO realize all these NO HAIR etc theorems are just THAT?
Yep.

A theorem is subject to proof, unlike a theory.

You know about as much about math as you know about physics: not much at all. Thanks for demonstrating it so everyone can see what an idiot you are.
So, I pointed out that those BH 'Hair' conjectures are just that, conjectural mathematical concepts/assumptions, not actual 'physical facts'. And you agreed. But now introduce an IRRELEVANT 'argument' about 'proof' requirements which I just TOLD you have NOT YET MET.

Hence my caution. You effectively admit I was correct, but you could not resist the 'strawman/irrelevance tactic' expanding the context to requirements re proofs for physical/maths conjectures/hypotheses...something which we ALL know already long since, so you are not telling us anything 'new' to the discussion.

Your quickness to insult is also a long observed 'bad habit' default when you are floundering. Drop it. :)

Jun 22, 2016
those BH 'Hair' conjectures
The no-hair theorem is a theorem, not a conjecture, not a hypothesis, not a theory.

Thanks for demonstrating yet again that you know nothing about mathematics, nothing about physics, nothing about black holes, and nothing about relativity.

Really, this is dynamiting fish in a barrel. It's getting boring.

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Just quoting some words and ignoring the wider context of the discussion
They looked like they were in context to the rest of us.

I think the part I really enjoy is how you have nothing left but this rhetorical bullsh*t. It demonstrates to anyone watching exactly what you are.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is all you have and you demonstrate it in the first sentence of every post you make.

If you want a response other than to make fun of you for these idiotic opening statements that demonstrate you're a fraud, it's up to you to eliminate them. As long as you keep making them I'll keep using them against you.
Another 'bad habit': boasting and mischaracterizing and claiming 'victory' etc etc when you feel like it. This has NOT served you well MANY times before. Remember? You have had to eat your 'accusations' etc eventually, many times before; why do you fool yourself into believing everyone has forgotten that? Stop it. :)

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
those BH 'Hair' conjectures
The no-hair theorem is a theorem, not a conjecture, not a hypothesis, not a theory.

Thanks for demonstrating yet again that you know nothing about mathematics, nothing about physics, nothing about black holes, and nothing about relativity.

Really, this is dynamiting fish in a barrel. It's getting boring.
Why obsess on semantical gymnastics instead of the thrust of the contextual point? All assumptions and ideas about what something is/does/involves are conjectures and hypotheses until tested against the reality and confirmed/dispelled. Making nitpicking semantical distinctions between mathematical and physical conjectures is lame and misses/obscures the point altogether while descending into a semantical merry-go-round which YOU want but is NOT what the discussion requires. Strawmen are no substitute for genuine good-faith engagement on the point/essentials.

Understand what is said without 'overlaying' etc. :)

Jun 22, 2016
Why obsess on semantical gymnastics
It's not semantic gymnastics to note that a theorem is not a conjecture, not a hypothesis, and not a theory, and it's also not semantic gymnastics to note that theorems are math and conjectures, hypotheses, and theories are physics.

As I said you know nothing of any of this. Your own demonstration of your complete lack of understanding of any of these subjects multiplies the more you try to respond. Especially when you try to play semantical rhetorical solipsistic philosophical navel-gazing games in the first sentence of your every post.

Jun 22, 2016
Really, @RC, if you want to have any credibility ever it's time to give up schoolyard tactics.

Jun 22, 2016
By the time LISA is up LIGO and others will have dozens. And you'll still be denying because jebus didn't say relativity in the babble.
- da schnoopoopadoop

Well, we'll just have to wait for that to happen also, won't we. So far, I only notice that 2 possible GW brief noises have shown themselves - interspersed with --- nothing-zero-nada-non

I don't know about "relativity" being in the Bible - but science IS in the Bible, nevertheless. You just have to know HOW to read and understand it. BUT, like the gelicals, you never learned how, and yet think that you KNOW all about it. Very sad.

Jun 22, 2016
The no-hair theorem is a theorem, not a conjecture, not a hypothesis, not a theory.
Actually, the mathematicians are quite exacting, and it's "conjecture" in strict mathematical terms (no-hair theorem). Hawking, et al. gave a partial resolution of the conjecture for the Schwarzschild solution (gravity, no charge, no spin), and it uses non-degenerate event horizons which is technically an additional hypothetical. It's definitely an exciting topic these days – a lot will be learned from analyzing the ringdown of BH-BH mergers detected by aLIGO (and other observatories).

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
That quantum 'current' inherent to Electron is more configurational than motional 'current'

You invented the question mark too, right?

You're wrong on this one, DS. I invented the "?". RC invented (and uses quite extensively) the
"/"...
Hahaha. Really funny. :)

You and Ira are on fire today. :) And much better/non-insulting humor than past less innocent efforts at "funs".

Good one, mate. Thanks for the quiet chuckles, mateys! :)

PS: I trust you have read/understood my responses above to Da Schneib; which should be of relevance to your own questions/understandings re the relevant discussion points. Cheers. :)
Only partly. I'm just an artist...

Jun 22, 2016
What is a field? Really, no one knows beyond saying it's warped dimensions. We don't really know what that means, but we can measure fields, so we know they're there. The best definitions we have are functional, not substantive.

Hmmm.... I have a theory....:-)

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Why obsess on semantical gymnastics
It's not semantic gymnastics to note that a theorem is not a conjecture, not a hypothesis, and not a theory, and it's also not semantic gymnastics to note that theorems are math and conjectures, hypotheses, and theories are physics.

As I said you know nothing of any of this. Your own demonstration of your complete lack of understanding of any of these subjects multiplies the more you try to respond. Especially when you try to play semantical rhetorical solipsistic philosophical navel-gazing games in the first sentence of your every post.
It is if you are doing it where it is NOT what is being discussed. It would be appropriate in a discussion dedicated to them. But this is about the conjectures/theorems etc of mathematical/physical objects which have YET to be confirmed one way or the other re 'Hair'. That you still did not get that tacitly treating such 'Hair' assumptions as 'facts' is misleading. :)

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Really, @RC, if you want to have any credibility ever it's time to give up schoolyard tactics.
And there's your 'tactics' again, in blatant denial of all you have been told which you did not know or understand even as you were mouthing off boasting and accusing etc. Drop the tactics, mate. It's demeaning to the whole concept of science discussions which are supposed to be objective and fair. You do good work when being objective and fair; do it more often, and drop this tactics approach when you are floundering. Better to keep your council than show you are boasting/accusing based on your own ignorance/misunderstandings/misconstruings etc. Maybe you should do more reading/research/thinking, and less default linking, boasting and accusing hey? You know you have come a cropper all too often doing that; so take a break and see to those bad habits. Good luck, mate. :)

Jun 23, 2016
What is a field? Really, no one knows
Hmmm.... I have a theory....:-)
Better than @RC's "Strawberry Field Theory of Everything"?

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Proto. :)
What is a field? Really, no one knows
Hmmm.... I have a theory....:-)
Better than @RC's "Strawberry Field Theory of Everything"?
Hey! It's Blackberry flavor, mate! Stop misrepresenting it like that!

PS: Hehehe. Thanks for the friendly chuckles, guys. :)

Jun 23, 2016
What is a field? Really, no one knows
Hmmm.... I have a theory....:-)
Better than @RC's "Strawberry Field Theory of Everything"?

Good one. You mean the one that is taking "Forever" to complete...:-)
(edit) "Blackberry flavored Theory of Everything Forever" just doesn't have the same nuance...

Jun 23, 2016
Hehehe. I got the "forever" bit, mate. But Reality is like that, you must take it as it comes. The Beatles may have created their own psychedelic mushroom strawberry flavored field 'reality', but it's not much use when you want something more substantial to get your mind's eye's 'teeth' into.

PS: What flavors were Newton's and Einstein's theories, I wonder. And how long did they work on theirs? It must have likewise seemed 'forever' to any impatient contemporaries of theirs. That's what longterm works are all about I suppose. No rushing it. Cheers and thanks again for the pleasant friendly diversion, guys. :)

Jun 23, 2016
O_S
I only notice that 2 possible GW brief noises have shown themselves - interspersed with --- nothing-zero-nada-non


They had two briefs with two events at a high enough sigma to call it a discovery and a third event that was notable but at a lower sigma. This was just their first run through of the data matching it to their black hole models. They still will comb through the data looking for neutron-star binaries and other events. It's a bit premature to say it so matter-of-factly as if the two high sigma events were just chance happenings that conveniently matched a model. I believe they are only running at 40% sensitivity too but I can't find a reference for that.

Jun 23, 2016
if an electron has a spin angular momentum, representing a moving charge, how can
Actually an electron is a magnetic dipole and carries a magnetic field.
https://en.wikipe...g-factor
I learned something new today! Thanks, @Phys1.

Jun 23, 2016
Think of a capacitors they are made with two plates with an insulator between them , they can capture and hold electrons between those plates ,its not a flowing charge in that state but a still charge with a north pole and south pole

Jun 23, 2016
[WE know a lot more than that because WE didn't go to school to learn about it. WE learned through practical application and observation.

BS,
The problem with that statement is;
School learning is based on prior practical observation and application.
So.... Where's the communication error?

Jun 23, 2016
Physco 1 your last statement psychological analyses,sounded More like a confession of a self appointed defender of 200 years of knowledge out 13.7 billion years, of a psychopathic ideologue , who hates any ideas outside of his own constructed reality in 3 D space time ,

Jun 23, 2016
Lame excuse: "no time". You do have time to push nonsense here, so get cracking with a battery, a multimeter and some copper wire. You could check much of EM theory yourself.
Absolutely.

What amazes me is that anyone capable of posting on the 'Net didn't see (and for that matter, perform) these experiments in grade school. Are we dealing with an 11-year-old here who wasn't paying attention when they were done in front of its face, or a "home 'schooled'" ignoramus, rather than a psychotic?

Jun 23, 2016
He could build his own radio receiver. That should put him on firm ground.
It would have to follow the instructions, rather than burn them as it suggested on the electric wind thread. And then (assuming the simplest possible crystal receiver) it would have to consult the relevant textbooks to understand how and why the receiver works. I'm not sure it would have the wherewithal to comprehend how the magic crystal works without textbooks... most likely it would make up another spurious "EU" explanation for how the magic radio stuff gets into the crystal.


Jun 23, 2016
I'm not sure it would have the wherewithal to comprehend how
It makes up for no wherewithal with plenty of neitherherenorthereatal.

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
That you [Da Schneib] still did not get that tacitly treating such 'Hair' assumptions as 'facts' is misleading. :)

He is explaining to you [RC] that "No Hair" is not an assumption nor a fact, but is conjectured to be a consequence of GR.
Please read the discussion more slowly and deliberately instead of 'skimming and kneejerking' to wrong impression about who is saying what to whom first. :)

It was me [RC] who reminded ALL, and especially him [Da Schneib], that BH "hair' theorem was CONJECTURE yet-to-be-physically proven; and so shouldn't be spoken of as 'fact' like he [Da Schneib] was doing; because it is misleading people into thinking what they 'know' about the "NO HAIR" theroem is 'fact' when it's NOT. :)

Then he [Da Schneib] immediately applied diversion/evasion 'tacticss', going off on an irrelevant 'semantics tangent' which he got wrong as well. I explained all that, but he wouldn't listen (Proto had to correct him in the end). :)


Jun 23, 2016
@RC, maybe you should stick to the subject. Your posturing adds nothing to the technical conversation, and my method for dealing with it ensures I will not read most of anything you post. I stop as soon as you pose. Try not posing. <- Pro Tip™

@Proto did just fine. Just sayin'.

Oh, and sorry, @Proto, for confusing you with @Phys1! My bad.


Jun 23, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
I learned something new today! Thanks, @Phys1
It'd good to know you CAN learn, mate. But try to learn at every opportunity instead of selecting/rejecting a 'lesson' based on who is 'speaking' to you. Take, Consider, Test 'new' knowledge when/where you first encounter it, irrespective of source/person 'reputation' which may bias you, create reading confirmation bias; which leads to these 'tactics' of yours which become necessary when you realize you may be wrong and so are your insults, accusations; because you may know less than me/others whom you call liars etc when it is apparent you haven't yet got 'up to speed' with all that me/others may ALREADY and LONG have known.

Egs: Protoplasmix, Phys1 had to correct/update your knowledge regarding Conjecture and Electron Quantum Spin/Magnetics. Also recall our past mutual exchanges where I/Others corrected/updated you in things you didn't know but accused me/others of "making stuff up" etc.

Cheers,mate. :)

Jun 23, 2016
It'd good to know you CAN learn, mate.
It appears I'm far better at it than you.

Just sayin'.

Reminder: https://www.ligo....solation

And while we're on the subject of learning, that's part of what I'm here for.

What are you here for? It appears the answer is, "to pose."

Jun 23, 2016
HI Da Schneib. :)
It'd good to know you CAN learn, mate.
It appears I'm far better at it than you.

Just sayin'.

Reminder: https://www.ligo....solation

Mate, you didn't read the rest. It demonstrated/proved where you use tactics which PREVENT you from actually learning. You don't even learn from your many mistakes, which have required me, Protoplasmix and PHys1, to get 'through' your kneejerking in-denial way of 'selective learning' which you employ with the assistance of default tactics of bombastic accusations, insults and eventually belated admission of your error.

How you can NOW claim to be 'better' at leaning than me (who has had to correct you all too often now) is beyond all (including beyond Protoplasmix and Phys1, who also just corrected you and proved ME/OTHERS CORRECT).

But do you admit to those errors? No. A sure symptom of a NON scientist and a NON_OBJECTIVE thinker/discourser. Please see to that asap. :)

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Hi Da Schneib. :)
I learned something new today! Thanks, @Phys1
It'd good to know you CAN learn, mate.

Can you ?
In other words, don't patronise.



It was me [RC] who reminded ALL, and especially him [Da Schneib], that BH "hair' theorem was CONJECTURE yet-to-be-physically proven;

Ok , my bad.


No sweat. Apology accepted, as between friends and fellow scientists; and no hard feelings this end, mate. :)

Jun 23, 2016
Mate, you didn't read the rest.
Correct. That's how I deal with your posing.

Jun 23, 2016
@ Proto-Skippy and DaSchneib-Skippy and Phys1-Skippy. I am sorry I took the easy road out and put Really-Skippy on LEVEL ONE PROBATIONARY IGNORE. He was just getting too stupid for me to have any funs with anymore.

Anyhoo. I learn a lot when the three of you are talking with each other like the humans and scientists you seem to be and really wish the Really-Skippy would quit being so disrespectful to the humans and scientists. And quit trying to keep you guys from having a reasonable discussion that is not driven by mental conditions like the guys from the Earthman Play House has.

Jun 23, 2016
Don't confuse me with a professional scientist, @Ira! I appreciate the compliment but I'm just an amateur who's paid attention.

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Mate, you didn't read the rest.
Correct. That's how I deal with your posing
Seriously, mate, how can anyone claim to be a 'scientist', or carry on an objective and fair scientific discussion, or claim to be able to 'learn' with an attitude and modus operandi like that? You remind of another PO poster who claims to follow the evidence yet doesn't read it when it IS posted for all to follow, including him. Have you any idea how totally disrespectful to the scientific method that behavior really IS when all is said and done opinions wise? If that is how the 'modern scientist' and the 'modern scientific method' is going, then no wonder the self-deluding in-denial 'yes-men-echo-chamber' flaws long insidiously 'built-into' the literature and culture in cosmology etc fields. Please, Da Schneib, I KNOW you have the great potential; but ONLY if you self-correct that ego-tipping unscientific attitude and modus operandi asap....before it's to ingrained. :)

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
@ Proto-Skippy and DaSchneib-Skippy and Phys1-Skippy. I am sorry I took the easy road out and put Really-Skippy on LEVEL ONE PROBATIONARY IGNORE. He was just getting too stupid for me to have any funs with anymore.

Anyhoo. I learn a lot when the three of you are talking with each other like the humans and scientists you seem to be and really wish the Really-Skippy would quit being so disrespectful to the humans and scientists. And quit trying to keep you guys from having a reasonable discussion that is not driven by mental conditions like the guys from the Earthman Play House has.
Mate, you missed where it was Da Schneib who was wrong; and I (and others, including Phys1, Proto agreed with ME).

So maybe you should listen to ALL participants, not just those whom you 'prefer' just because you are an idiot who doesn't comprehend the discussion and can't tell the difference between who is right and who is wrong in the matter. Wise up, idiot: quick! :)

Jun 23, 2016
The model of your accretion disk that has intact atoms,that are free from other atoms orbiting in hypervelocity's into a hyper velocity singularity, there is only one other object in the universe that has intact atoms rotating at hyper velocity,a neutron stars surface has a layer of iron atoms that make up its crust, imprinted from a star core explosion on that dense neutron mass, they are not free atoms, the only reason they maintain there structural stability on that dense surface is electron exchange of an electron magnetic field that surface bound off those iron atoms ,instead of a gravity held electron field in just orbit around the mass , it probably has both of those constructed fields , so tell us the mechanics of how these atoms stay intact in an accretion disk , I'm all for learning that knowledge

Jun 23, 2016
This just about the accretion disk, not atoms expanding in space about a structure and its atom density you and others believe in.

Jun 23, 2016
Seriously, mate, how can anyone claim to be a 'scientist'
I don't.

You're making stuff up again, @RC.

Jun 23, 2016
Don't confuse me with a professional scientist, @Ira! I appreciate the compliment but I'm just an amateur who's paid attention.
@DaSchneib
point being: you are able to break down stuff and explain it better than a lot of folks... that is a gift

keep it up

PS - you do know that rc-moron will always have to have the last word in, right? it's a pathological thing... you will never, ever get the last word in unless you kill the interwebz or the thread terminates unexpectedly, which will simply make her bring it up elsewhere

just sayin'

LMFAO

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Don't confuse me with a professional scientist, @Ira! I appreciate the compliment but I'm just an amateur who's paid attention
So you're NOT scientist? And don't apply scientific method to learning and discourse? And, as you admitted earlier, don't read 'inconvenient facts' in response to your errors and bombastic accusations from ignorance and unscientific attitude? YET you now claim to have "paid attention"?!

Well if that don't beat all. Even Uncle Ira idiot isn't so daft as that!

Mate, Da Schneib, seriously, please see to that nasty self-delusional Dunning-Kruger syndrome which your latest (and many previous) debacles has demonstrated is going strong in you; since you inevitably make boasting and accusing tactical claims to 'knowledge and attention' which is belied by your record of unfounded attacks and errors which eventually come home to roost, to your further chagrin and in-denial embarrassments. Please STOP IT...BE scientific INSTEAD. :)

Jun 23, 2016
So you're NOT scientist?
Nope, I are not scientist.

Nor, unlike you, am I a poser.

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Seriously, mate, how can anyone claim to be a 'scientist'
I don't.

You're making stuff up again, @RC.
Anyone scrupulously applying the Scientific Method at ALL stages of Objective Enquiry and Discourse and Comprehension is ipso facto a scientist; whether professional, specialist, or general or amateur or independent from any group/institution or officialdom etc etc.

THAT is why the Scientific Method was Invented; so ANYONE prepared to scrupulously follow that method IS in fact and practice and spirit an objective scientist.

It's when people do NOT follow Sc Method scrupulously (for eg: by not looking/reading all the evidence provided; by denying their errors when being politely corrected of their ignorance etc), that NON science and Dunning-Kruger Syndrome in the 'sciences' raises its ugly head (hence Bicep2 fiasco etc).

Mate, drop that non-scietific attitude, MO; start BEING a scientist. BE simply SCRUPULOUSLY OBJECTIVE & IMPARTIAL. :)

Jun 23, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
So you're NOT scientist?
Nope, I are not scientist.

Nor, unlike you, am I a poser.
Let's see who is "the poser" here so far:

- You have been corrected by me and Phys1 and Proto above. You have admitted to being wrong many times before in previous encounters where I was correct all along and you incorrect. I do not default to you 'tactics' because I don't have to because I am not 'posing' but am BEING CORRECT for YOUR benefit....bjt you don't read and so make non-sequitur accusations and pretend to have been 'paying attention' when it's OBVIOUS to ME, Phys1, Proto and EVERYONE ELSE HERE that you patently do NOT pay attention...and so we see this Dunning-Kruger Syndrome series of responses from you in-denial' that you are NOT fully informed before you make boasting and insulting posts against those who KNOW MORE THAN YOU while you are still trying to get up to speed.

Yeah, sure, mate, we all 'believe' you when you say "I am not a poser". :)

Jun 23, 2016

Hi Captain Stumpy. :)
Don't confuse me with a professional scientist, @Ira! I appreciate the compliment but I'm just an amateur who's paid attention.
@DaSchneib
point being: you are able to break down stuff and explain it better than a lot of folks... that is a gift

keep it up

PS - you do know that rc-moron will always have to have the last word in, right? it's a pathological thing... you will never, ever get the last word in unless you kill the interwebz or the thread terminates unexpectedly, which will simply make her bring it up elsewhere

just sayin'

LMFAO
Is that who 'learned' Da Schneib to NOT READ before opening big mouth making erroneous claims and unfounded insults?

Have you PATENTED Captain Stumpy's METHOD for "following the evidence" by NOT READING it?

Your TRADEMARK is already 'out':

"TL : DR (Too Long : Didn't Read)"!

If you did NOT LICENCE or legally exempt Da Schneib from Infringement of YOUR 'patented' METHOD, maybe you can SUE him? :)

Jun 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.