Supermassive black holes are outgrowing their galaxies

February 15, 2018, Chandra X-ray Center
Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Penn. State/G. Yang et al & NASA/CXC/ICE/M. Mezcua et al.; Optical: NASA/STScI; Illustration: NASA/CXC/A. Jubett

The growth of the biggest black holes in the Universe is outrunning the rate of formation of stars in the galaxies they inhabit, according to two new studies using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes and described in our latest press release.

In this graphic an image from the Chandra Deep Field-South is shown. The Chandra image (blue) is the deepest ever obtained in X-rays. It has been combined with an optical and infrared image from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), colored red, green, and blue. Each Chandra source is produced by hot gas falling towards a in the center of the , as depicted in the artist's illustration.

One team of researchers, led by Guang Yang at Penn State, calculated the ratio between a supermassive black hole's growth rate and the growth rate of stars in its host galaxy and found it is much higher for more massive . For galaxies containing about 100 billion solar masses worth of stars, the ratio is about ten times higher than it is for galaxies containing about 10 billion solar masses worth of stars.

Using large amounts of data from Chandra, HST and other observatories, Yang and his colleagues studied the of black holes in galaxies at distances of 4.3 to 12.2 billion light years from Earth. The X-ray data included the Chandra Deep Field-South and North surveys and the COSMOS-Legacy surveys.

Another group of scientists, led by Mar Mezcua of the Institute of Space Sciences in Spain, independently studied 72 galaxies located at the center of galaxy clusters at distances ranging up to about 3.5 billion light years from Earth and compared their properties in X-ray and radio waves. Their work indicates that the black hole masses were about ten times larger than masses estimated by another method using the assumption that the and galaxies grew in tandem.

The Mezcua study used X-ray data from Chandra and radio data from the Australia Telescope Compact Array, the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) and Very Long Baseline Array. One object in their sample is the large galaxy in the center of the Hercules galaxy cluster. The image shown above includes Chandra data (purple), VLA data (blue) and HST optical data (appearing white).

Two papers describing these results have been accepted in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS). The work by Mezcua et al. was published in the February 2018 issue MNRAS (available online: arxiv.org/abs/1710.10268 ). The paper by Yang et al. will appear in its April 2018 issue (available online: arxiv.org/abs/1710.09399 ).

Explore further: Astronomers pursue renegade supermassive black hole

Related Stories

Astronomers pursue renegade supermassive black hole

May 11, 2017

Supermassive holes are generally stationary objects, sitting at the centers of most galaxies. However, using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes, astronomers recently hunted down what could be ...

Oxymoronic black hole RGG 118 provides clues to growth

August 12, 2015

Astronomers using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the 6.5-meter Clay Telescope in Chile have identified the smallest supermassive black hole ever detected in the center of a galaxy, as described in our latest press release. ...

Spiral Galaxy NGC 3627

July 15, 2013

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

Deepest X-ray image ever reveals black hole treasure trove

January 5, 2017

An unparalleled image from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory is giving an international team of astronomers the best look yet at the growth of black holes over billions of years beginning soon after the Big Bang. This is the ...

Recommended for you

Fish-inspired material changes color using nanocolumns

March 20, 2019

Inspired by the flashing colors of the neon tetra fish, researchers have developed a technique for changing the color of a material by manipulating the orientation of nanostructured columns in the material.

136 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
1 / 5 (12) Feb 15, 2018
The growth of the biggest black holes in the Universe is outrunning the rate of formation of stars in the galaxies they inhabit...the ratio between a supermassive black hole's growth rate and the growth rate of stars in its host galaxy and found it is much higher for more massive galaxies.

Direct evidence for LaViolette's Continuous Creation model, where galaxies grow largely from within their supermassive core stars at an accelerating rate as the cores grow larger. But will this observation shake the minds of the committed merger maniac? I doubt it.

I have informed this model since my first post, knowing that eventually the observational evidence would eventually stack up. But merger maniacs are a dense, rather stupid bunch. And they have considerable egos to protect.

See my comments thereunder and give me some stars, either way! LOL!

https://phys.org/...ars.html
Tuxford
1 / 5 (9) Feb 15, 2018
The growth of the biggest black holes in the Universe is outrunning the rate of formation of stars in the galaxies they inhabit...the ratio between a supermassive black hole's growth rate and the growth rate of stars in its host galaxy and found it is much higher for more massive galaxies.

Direct evidence for LaViolette's Continuous Creation model, where galaxies grow largely from within their supermassive core stars at an accelerating rate as the cores grow larger. But will this observation shake the minds of the committed merger maniac? I doubt it.

I have informed this model since my first post, knowing that eventually the observational evidence would eventually stack up. But merger maniacs are a dense, rather stupid bunch. And they have considerable egos to protect.

See my early comments thereunder and give me some stars, either way! LOL!

https://phys.org/...ars.html

rrwillsj
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2018
Tuxford, after parsing through your comments, please correct me if I misunderstood.

You are contending that the phenomena called Black Holes, within the central mass of galaxies. Are not consuming existent stellar mass and gasses? But actually are internally producing matter? What ever internally can mean for a BH. Then expelling it out into our observable Universe as new stars?
691Boat
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2018
Tuxford, after parsing through your comments, please correct me if I misunderstood.

You are contending that the phenomena called Black Holes, within the central mass of galaxies. Are not consuming existent stellar mass and gasses? But actually are internally producing matter? What ever internally can mean for a BH. Then expelling it out into our observable Universe as new stars?


And that big galaxies pop out little galaxies. It's a neat little theory. If you believe in constant creation of matter from nothing, that is.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 16, 2018
And that big galaxies pop out little galaxies. It's a neat little theory. If you believe in constant creation of matter from nothing, that is.
........or to believe a stellar body of CONSTANT MASS can have INFINITE GRAVITY at it's surface.

Guys like you simply will not let go of 19th Century cosmology whereby you think you can apply the Laws of Physics of Kinetic Energy & apply Escape Velocity Equations to an electro-magnetic wave. Maybe you'd like to find this in Special or General Relativity?

Don't let the math overwhelm you, because if you try to pull the Schwarzschild Black Hole Math card, you need to know Einstein has an answer for that bungled RADII Metric you're tempted to default to.

691Boat
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2018
Benni, who besides yourself claims infinite gravity?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2018
Benni, who besides yourself claims infinite gravity?


Your favorite source for Copy & Paste: WikiPedia

Singularity
Main article: Gravitational Singularity

At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity) becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation. In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution. The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.

https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

At least Wiki has graduated from 19th Century Cosmology class, you're still in it.

691Boat
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 16, 2018
@Benni:
I see. You are confused by the difference between a singularity and a black hole. You throw out terms like surface and radii, which do apply to black holes, since they do have radii and subsequently a "surface", also know as the event horizon. A singularity theoretically has no radius, no surface.
And for what it's worth, you are by far the most common Wiki copy/paster I have seen here.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2018
@Benni:
I see. You are confused by the difference between a singularity and a black hole. You throw out terms like surface and radii, which do apply to black holes, since they do have radii and subsequently a "surface", also know as the event horizon. A singularity theoretically has no radius, no surface.
And for what it's worth, you are by far the most common Wiki copy/paster I have seen here.


Booty.......you need to get better studied up on the structure of your favorite stellar mass.

Benni, who besides yourself claims infinite gravity?
.......I claim no such feature for a BH, it's the Cosmologists for which you have so much adoration who claim a BH has all these features of infinite gravity. What's with you that you can't follow their INFINITE GRAVITY Funny Farm science? Well, you're not alone, so neither can this Nuclear/Electrical Engineer.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2018
And that big galaxies pop out little galaxies. It's a neat little theory.

Which is supported by observation.

https://www.halto...clusters

If you believe in constant creation of matter from nothing, that is.

That is a strawman, the plasmoid at the core of the galaxy is part of the much larger galactic circuit. There is more than enough energy/matter flowing in to the plasmoid along the galactic arms to transmute the matter in question.

jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (15) Feb 16, 2018
Which is supported by observation.


No, it was falsified by observation. Which is why it hasn't been taken seriously for a long time. If ever.

.......the plasmoid at the core of the galaxy is part of the much larger galactic circuit.


What 'plasmoid'? What 'circuit'? Evidence, please. What is the mass of this 'plasmoid'? What is its radius? How do the orbital parameters of the stars at the galactic centre match up with a 'plasmoid'? Etc, etc.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2018
the resulting mass of black holes is relatively low: for example the total mass of Milky Way is about 700 billion Suns
........enough do you think to create an infinite gravity field ?

Tell us, how much mass would you deem suitable to create the infinite gravitational features ascribed to BHs? Of course always keeping in mind that Einstein's Field Equations require that gravity ONLY exists as a MASS DEPENDENT field.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2018
No, it was falsified by observation. Which is why it hasn't been taken seriously for a long time. If ever.


Oh, well, if you want to go by that criteria, so then have the existence of Black Holes been falsified by OBSERVATION, there are no pics of any.

You'd think with as big & massive as these galactic BHs are supposed to be at centers of galaxies, that they'd be easy to take pics of, but I guess somehow these hugely massive things, so much bigger than our Sun, can magically escape observation, right? Oh, yeah, right, BHs escape observation because the accretion discs, that are 5 times the diameter of the BH, obscure observation of the BH disc, right? And such being the case we should be able to observe the accretion disc over the BH & take pics of that, right? Odd though, no pics even of accretions discs, a physical body which by calculation would be a stellar body larger than our solar system.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2018
Tuxford, after parsing through your comments, please correct me if I misunderstood.

You are contending that the phenomena called Black Holes, within the central mass of galaxies. Are not consuming existent stellar mass and gasses? But actually are internally producing matter? What ever internally can mean for a BH. Then expelling it out into our observable Universe as new stars?

Yes, new matter! Give it up. Most can't think differently, but if you must...

Start with nothing you see is a solid object, at the sub quantum level. It is all energy. It only appears solid at the macroscopic level. Empty space is simply full of the diffusive quantum sub-elementals, each far too small for observation. It is extremely dense, like deep in the ocean. It only that there is no propagating transmutation reaction going on, which is matter. So when a new reaction begins, we see a new particle of matter. The conditions are most ripe for a new reaction within stars.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 16, 2018
By the way, it is time for the various cranks and woo merchants to put their money where their mouths are. The Event Horizon Telescope team are in possession of the data that may give us our first look at a black hole. They have even done simulations of what they might see:

https://www.forbe...b943a16c

So, what do the aforementioned cranks think will be seen, based on what they believe BHs to be? It would be very bad news for them, hot on the heels of the detection of GWs and neutron stars, if the observations yet again match theory. Maybe they're due a break! Predictions?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2018
By the way, it is time for the various cranks and woo merchants


So, what do the aforementioned cranks think


So, Jonesy, you want to keep up the name calling rants. When you run out of FACTS, it's time to "crank" up the rants.

You need to take some serious math courses or you'll never comprehend anything that goes on in the world of physical science. Might I suggest you go back & restudy those Differential Equations you told us you took in that high school algebra course back in the 70's.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2018
No, it was falsified by observation. Which is why it hasn't been taken seriously for a long time. If ever.

Nope, none of Arp's work has legitimately been falsified, only marginalized and ignored.
What 'plasmoid'?

The one that creates those jets, obce a certain threshold is met.
What 'circuit'?

The galactic circuit, which explains those jets (electric currents).
Evidence, please.

http://iopscience...L15/meta
Electric currents cannot be without a circuit.
There is plenty more, but you don't care real science.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2018
http://www.i-sis....Grid.php

Didn't get included.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Feb 16, 2018
^^^^^Lol. Nobody takes Arp seriously, other than woo types, as larger surveys showed him to be wrong:
http://adsabs.har...33...41T

And where is this plasmoid? How does it explain the orbits of the stars at the galactic centre? And which galactic circuit? These jets, and their currents, are caused by the black hole, as modeled decades ago by one of the co-authors of the paper you linked:
https://www.resea...0000.pdf (1976)

As I posted earlier though, here is the EUs chance to get in a prediction, based on their beliefs, of what the EHT will see when the data is analysed. If there is no BH, then things will look a lot different, yes?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2018
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Cosmic_Web_or_Cosmic_Electricity_Grid.php

Didn't get included.


For good reason. Not exactly a robust source:

http://www.dcscie...society/
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2018
If there is no BH, then things will look a lot different, yes?
......so then tell us where to go to find a picture of all these BHs.

The calculated size of a BH that supposedly exists at the center of the Milky Way would extend beyond the orbit of Venus, add to that an accretion disc 5 times that size & you'd be talking about a stellar object so massive that from Earth it could be seen with the naked eye. So why can't you find a link that at least gives us a pic of the accretion disc of that BH that supposedly lies at the heart of Cosmology fantasyland?

cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2018
Nobody takes Arp seriously

You're right, because he challenges your religion and has shown without a shadow of the doubt that BB cosmology and the standard theory redshift nonsense is utter bollocks. That's why he was kicked out of Palomar. That's how your type protects their welfare checks from the government, ostracize the smart ones and all that's left are moron acolytes such as yourself.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2018
As I posted earlier though, here is the EUs chance to get in a prediction, based on their beliefs, of what the EHT will see when the data is analysed. If there is no BH, then things will look a lot different, yes?

You can be sure that the black hole acolytes will make it look just as they want it to look, that's the advantage of this program is that the data will be "analyzed" and framed in such a way to support their pseudoscientific claptrap. If it were any different the raw data would be freely available to all instead of being "filtered" and redacted at MIT.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2018
BH Enthusiasts speculate that the BH at center of our Galaxy
contains a 3 million solar mass black hole.

A 3 million solar mass black hole has a radius of 3 million
X 3 = 9 million km, or about 13 times the size of our Sun.

The same BH Enthusiasts claim the ACCRETION DISC is 5 times the size of the BH, thus making the so-called accretion disc 5 x 9 = 45 million km, this being about 0.62 miles/kilometer = 27.9 million miles.

So, the ACCRETION DISC that encircles the BH at the center of the Milky Way has a radii of 45 million km/27.9 million miles, or to make the point even more poignant, the MW BH is 90 million km/56 million miles in diameter.

So, here we have it, an object at the very center of our galaxy that is the biggest object in the galaxy & we can't even see it's dusty semi-luminescent accretion disc. Maybe it's just too big to be seen?

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2018
@benii -
So, here we have it, an object at the very center of our galaxy that is the biggest object in the galaxy & we can't even see it's dusty semi-luminescent accretion disc
if we can see tens of thousands of stars from Earth, why have we never seen them pictured during the day?
Kron
1 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2018
The orbitals of the stars at the galactic nuclei is quite easily explained without advent of a super massive black hole. The galaxy spirals so centrally drag is present which in effect has a squeeze through mechanic (think updraft of heat in hurricane, or tornado vortex). A star making a close approach slingshots, such as an object that a hurricane approaches or a tornado throws away. Gravity has a focal point for all objects, the vortex simultaneously doubles as the centre of mass focal point, so all stars are drawn toward the point - yet the point acts to slingshot them away. Should a stars trajectory some how directly hit the central point itself, it would be like a tornado directly focusing on a point (think a house being sucked up, shredded to pieces thrown into the air in a plume of material). So about those Fermi Bubbles.

I in no way am opposing black hole theories here. Im only providing an alternative explanation to a particular phenomenon.
RNP
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2018
@Benni
So, here we have it, an object at the very center of our galaxy that is the biggest object in the galaxy & we can't even see it's dusty semi-luminescent accretion disc.


The distance to the center of the galaxy of ~25,000 light years (8 kpc) is more than 2.5 BILLION times the 90 million km you estimate for the size of accretion disk. As such, it would subtend less than 100 micro-arcseconds and would therefore be completely un-resolvable by even the highest resolution telescopes (with the exception of the the VLA-like interferometers that are just now trying to image the region). This coupled with the enormous amounts of extinction towards the centre due to dust in the disc make it necessary to use technology only now becoming available to get "images" of the BH and its environs.

shadybail
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2018
"So, here we have it, an object at the very center of our galaxy that is the biggest object in the galaxy & we can't even see it's dusty semi-luminescent accretion disc. Maybe it's just too big to be seen?"

Maybe it's the same situation as Planet X? Scientists say it's there but where's the picture? Scientists know it's there because of its' gravitation effect on the other planets, right? Is the data about BH the same? I'm getting confused maybe...are BHs even real?

"merger maniac". What is this? A woman blindly trying to merger into traffic on an LA freeway? Or is it galaxies or stars crashing together to form BHs?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2018
The distance to the center of the galaxy of ~25,000 light years (8 kpc) is more than 2.5 BILLION times the 90 million km you estimate for the size of accretion disk.


You don't already know Hubble Telescope can image & take pics of individual stars at the center of the galaxy only the size of the SUN? In terms of cosmological distance, 25k ly is a mere stone's throw, and you don't know Hubble easily images such stars?

In fact we don't even need Hubble, we've got even less powerful telescopes that image fast moving stars near the very center of the galaxy right exactly where the BH Accretion disc is supposed to be, so you'd think some hint of the accretion disc would show up in those images, right? But they don't, so take a long yawn Rguy & think this through before you're tempted to come up with the next nonsensical excuse that a BH AD can't be imaged. Hey I gots an idea Rguy, maybe you can Copy & Paste a population control differential equation explaining it.

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2018
So, we aren't seeing any predictions from the cranks and woo merchants? Funny that, eh? Not very sure of themselves, are they, for all the scientifically illiterate hot air they spout? They have a saying for that in my part of the world - "All mouth and no trousers."
RNP
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2018
@Benni
You don't already know Hubble Telescope can image & take pics of individual stars at the center of the galaxy only the size of the SUN?


Hubble has a resolution of 0.05 arcsec. At a distance of 25,000 light years that corresponds to 60 BILLION kilometres. So Hubble may be able to detect individual stars at that distance, but it can NOT resolve them.

Also, I again remind you that extinction makes the Galactic Centre invisible in visible light. That is why it was originally located (approximately) by radio measurements, and then more accurately in starlight at 2 microns. Even at this wavelength the dusty disk and torus absorb nearly all radiation from the inner accretion disk, making the motions of stars orbiting the BH a better indicator of its position than the radiation for the BH system itself..

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2018
@RNP
Hubble has a resolution of 0.05 arcsec. At a distance of 25,000 light years that corresponds to 60 BILLION kilometres. So Hubble may be able to detect individual stars at that distance, but it can NOT resolve them
I appreciate your clear data points, but you're talking to benji - the one person who has so epically failed in basic math that he thinks a galactic year coincides with Milankovitch cycles (or Chandler wobble, he wasn't clear on that)
the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way
https://phys.org/...als.html

that takes an epic amount of math fail to even consider, especially with the aforementioned being part of an astronomy club, as he states in that thread

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2018
Maybe this paper will explain things for those with little to no grasp of astrophysics:

https://arxiv.org...1841.pdf

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2018
Nobody takes Arp seriously

You're right, because he challenges your religion and has shown without a shadow of the doubt that BB cosmology and the standard theory redshift nonsense is utter bollocks. That's why he was kicked out of Palomar. That's how your type protects their welfare checks from the government, ostracize the smart ones and all that's left are moron acolytes such as yourself.


Wrong. As I linked. Some people decided to take his hypothesis seriously enough to investigate it. They found zero. Putting forward such an hypothesis at the time Arp did is fine. No shame. However, holding onto it in the face of massive evidence against it is a sign of crackpottery. The only people who take this nonsense seriously are EU advocates. That should tell you everything you need to know. Saturn, anyone? Velikovsky, perhaps? Electric stars? Yep, madness.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2018
Actually, I made a mistake above; creationists are also very keen on Arp's fantasies!
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2018
You can be sure that the black hole acolytes will make it look just as they want it to look, that's the advantage of this program is that the data will be "analyzed" and framed in such a way to support their pseudoscientific claptrap. If it were any different the raw data would be freely available to all instead of being "filtered" and redacted at MIT.


Yep, it's all a huge conspiracy to confound scientifically illiterate cranks! That's why people study for years to go into science. Of course, these claims always come from people who don't actually do science.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2018
I again remind you that extinction makes the Galactic Centre invisible in visible light
........oh so you wished...........here mister freelance journalist, go look at the galactic center in infrared that cuts right through almost all that dust: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

And what you see are individual stars packed so closely together that millions of them could fall into the space between the Sun & Alpha Centauri. But somehow that IR Camera could not resolve the largest object in the galaxy that would have appeared as the most outstanding feature right dead in the middle of these vistas of stars. A feature so big it would have DWARFED in size all those stars appearing even within a few light hours of the exact center, & I might add these are stars many of which are not much larger than our Sun.........but no EXTINCTION feature caused by an object with millions of times the mass of our Sun., odd huh?

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2018
RNP:
Also, I again remind you that extinction makes the Galactic Centre invisible in ***visible*** light.


D-K Benni:
here mister freelance journalist, go look at the galactic center in ***infrared***


Oh dear. Not good on this infrared/ visible light thing, are we? Yet again.

From the paper I linked previously, in the hope that people might actually learn something:

https://arxiv.org...1841.pdf

Particularly unique is how accurately the mass of Sgr A* has been determined. Since optical radiation from the Galactic Center is completely absorbed, the only observing bands where Sgr A* is clearly detected are radio (including sub-mm waves), the near-and mid- infrared (NIR/MIR), and X-rays.


'Twas obviously a vain hope!
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2018
Particularly unique is how accurately the mass of Sgr A* has been determined. Since optical radiation from the Galactic Center is completely absorbed, the only observing bands where Sgr A* is clearly detected are radio (including sub-mm waves), the near-and mid- infrared (NIR/MIR), and X-rays.


Since optical radiation from the Galactic Center is completely absorbed
.......not anymore, get out of the 20th & into the 21st century. Your'e as bad as BH Enthusiasts here who continually fall back to 19th century Cosmology after Einstein proved in the 20th century that gravity has zero effect on the velocity of an electro-magnetic wave (photon).
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2018
^^^^^Christ, what an idiot! Absorbed by dust and frigging gas, you loon! Nothing to do with gravity! Lern to scienz. See what I mean, ladies and gentlemen? No amount of differential equations can make up for rank ignorance and stupidity!
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2018


^^^^^Christ, what an idiot! Absorbed by dust and frigging gas, you loon! Nothing to do with gravity! Lern to scienz. See what I mean, ladies and gentlemen? No amount of differential equations can make up for rank ignorance and stupidity!


"^^^^^Christ, what an idiot!"........you need to be more circumspect telling us what you believe in, it could make you look like an "idiot" no matter whether you can or cannot remember if you took those differential equations in high school algebra class.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2018
^^^^^So no explanation for why the loon can't tell the difference between visible and IR light, and no explanation of his complete ignorance of what is causing our inability to see visible light from the galactic centre. Just more Dunning-Kruger inspired avoidance, by prattling on about DEs! How predictable. Your ignorance of astrophysics knows no bounds. Stick to something you know about. Whatever that might be.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2018
@jonesdave and @cantdrive85.

I would be very much interested in, and would appreciate greatly, a CALM and ON-SCIENCE DISCUSSION between you two; of these mainstream science developments (see links below) increasingly EXPLICITLY including the Electric currents in the study and 'interpretations' of astrophysical plasma phenomena/observations; eg, as reported in Phys.Org article/link...

https://phys.org/...rgy.html

...and in an earlier MAINSTREAM Astrophysical Journal Letter link:

http://iopscience...41/1/L15

A calm discussion of the RELEVANT FACTS outlined therein should help clear up many of the early, ill informed feuds/misunderstandings between you two. Thanks.

ps: BOTH 'sides' have been working from INCOMPLETE/RESTRICTED 'perspectives; as I have often pointed out: in LARGE astrophysical MASS/PLASMA phenomena, Gravity 'anchors' and 'feedsback' with Plasma/Electric-current CIRCUITS. ok? :)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2018
RC, what are you talking about? That is the same paper that cantthink linked, and I commented upon. It (the jet and associated current) is caused by the BH. No argument. It has nothing to do with the EU/PC fantasy of electric currents not only powering galactic rotation, but connecting galaxies on Mpc and Gpc scales, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. This was a result of some stuff done by Anthony Peratt decades ago, that died on its arse, due to his hypothesis not matching observation, i.e. COBE, WMAP & Plank.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2018
^^^^^Christ, what an idiot! Absorbed by dust and frigging gas, you loon! Nothing to do with gravity! Lern to scienz. See what I mean, ladies and gentlemen? No amount of differential equations can make up for rank ignorance and stupidity!


You have no idea how much fun it is getting you so flipped out. You, know, at your age you shouldn't still be living out of your mommy's basement. Here you are 60,70 something, your mother needs a break.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2018
^^^^^Christ, what an idiot! Absorbed by dust and frigging gas, you loon! Nothing to do with gravity! Lern to scienz. See what I mean, ladies and gentlemen? No amount of differential equations can make up for rank ignorance and stupidity!


You have no idea how much fun it is getting you so flipped out. You, know, at your age you shouldn't still be living out of your mommy's basement. Here you are 60,70 something, your mother needs a break.


You have no idea how stupid you are, are how much entertainment you give with your rank stupidity and ignorance. If you must know, I'm 55. Old enough to have studied and understood a lot of things that are obviously waaaaay beyond you. dummy.
Now, just for clarity, jackass, what is visible light? What is IR light? Why can't we see visible light from the centre of the galaxy? This is very basic stuff, so let's hear it. No obfuscation, no gish gallops, no avoiding the question with irrelevant detours into DEs Answer......?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2018
The idiot Benji 's rationale for knowing jack **** about science:
RNP tells him that we can't see visible light from the galactic centre. The idiot replies with a link to infrared observations. He further claims that we can see visible light because it isn't affected by gravity????!!!!!! I point out that he's an idiot for not understanding the difference between IR and visible, and that gravity has nothing to do with why we can't see visible light from the galactic centre.

After a while to think about it, the D-K infected loon claims it was all to 'flip' me out! What a dick, particularly as it was RNP that he was replying to when he made his schoolboy errors.
Give it up Benji, you are seriously thick.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2018
The idiot Benji 's rationale for knowing jack **** about science:
RNP tells him that we can't see visible light from the galactic centre. The idiot replies with a link to infrared observations. He further claims that we can see visible light because it isn't affected by gravity????!!!!!! I point out that he's an idiot for not understanding the difference between IR and visible, and that gravity has nothing to do with why we can't see visible light from the galactic centre.

After a while to think about it, the D-K infected loon claims it was all to 'flip' me out! What a dick, particularly as it was RNP that he was replying to when he made his schoolboy errors.
Give it up Benji, you are seriously thick.


Oh, please, keep going,,,,,,don't stop now, I'll bet you're just getting warmed up. When mommy gets back home, be sure to tell her to toss another bag of potato chips down into the basement for you.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2018
^^^^Told you. No explanation for his idiocy in reply to RNP. Thick. Like dealing with a 6 year old.
HenryE
not rated yet Feb 18, 2018
The more massive a galaxy is, the more intense it's overall gravitational field will be. Since this will result in mass moving toward it's center at a greater rate than in a smaller galaxy, it shouldn't be at all surprising that black holes in large galaxies grow at a faster rate than those in smaller galaxies. After all, they are being 'fed' more often in the larger galaxies.
shadybail
5 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2018
"'Twas obviously a vain hope!"

Au contraire! There are those in the world who are insatiably curious. Thanks for the pdf link.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2018
ps: BOTH 'sides' have been working from INCOMPLETE/RESTRICTED 'perspectives; as I have often pointed out:

Hey RC, why don't you shut the hell up. Gravity isn't even a rounding error in the matters being discussed, as Alfvén mentioned;
"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems." Hannes Alfven
@jonesdumb;
(the jet and associated current) is caused by the BH

Yep, and the return current is proposed to return to the core via the galactic plane along the galactic arms, because these guys aren't quite as moronic as you are and understand that there must be a complete circuit. And BTW, although this study framed with a BH as the progenitor the observation absolutely supports the EU/PC. The biggest difference being is EU/PC is firmly planted with realistic mechanisms and sound physics while the BH claptrap requires unicorns, leprechauns, magical faerie dust, and physics defying monsters to explain reality.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2018
After all, they are being 'fed' more often in the larger galaxies
.........fed by what? The only thing showing up in these IR photos are stars little more than the size of our SUN. If there were a 3 million solar mass object there, it would take up a distance spanning to an orbit beyond Mars.

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

And what you see are individual stars packed so closely together that millions of them could fall into the space between the Sun & Alpha Centauri. But somehow that IR Camera could not resolve the largest object in the galaxy that would have appeared as the most outstanding feature right dead in the middle of these vistas of stars. A feature so big it would have DWARFED in size all those stars appearing even within a few light hours of the exact center, & I might add these are stars many of which are not much larger than our Sun.........but no EXTINCTION feature caused by an object with millions of times the mass of our Sun., odd huh?


Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2018
http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

If there were an object surrounded by a semi-luminescent Accreting Disc, that AD based on a 3 million solar mass BH, would appear as a giant dark blob right dead in the center where the IR camera is focused but which is showing nothing but bright stars, none of which are much bigger in size than our Sun.

Dusty BH Accreting Discs have been guesstimated to be 5 times the diameter of the BH it surrounds, some say more, but it doesn't matter when it comes to photography. In this case the giant dark blob an AD would create would dwarf even the largest star found pictured in this region making it look like there was a giant hole right dead in the middle of any of those pics, there is ONLY one reason why such a feature would not occur in this IR photography, that the IR Camera sees right through the dust of the AD in which case we'd actually see the BH as huge black blob, but we see none of this.
RNP
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2018
@Benni
If there were an object surrounded by a semi-luminescent Accreting Disc, that AD based on a 3 million solar mass BH, would appear as a giant dark blob right dead in the center where the IR camera is focused but which is showing nothing but bright stars, none of which are much bigger in size than our Sun.

It has been repeatedly explained to you that;
1) It is invisible in all but the radio due to extinction, both in the intervening disk of the MW and also its own environment (accretion disc and torus - central stars are not extincted this way) .
2) Even if it were, it would not be a "giant blob", It is unresolved (i.e. imaged as just a single pixel) by even the most powerful telescopes (except perhaps long-baseline radio interferometry).

Your repeated denials of these easily verifiable facts show that you are not only uneducated in these simple ideas, but also that you are *unwilling* to be educated.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2018
It is invisible

It is wonderfully convenient that BH and DM are invisible by design. It allows continuous monumental funding efforts by the plasma ignoramuses to find that which they know, by their own definition, they will never find. It's the "scientific" equivalent to the endless funding of the war on terror or the war on drugs. Just trust us and send more money for us to waste....
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2018
Your repeated denials of these easily verifiable facts.
........and you need to get out of the 20th Century of radio emission imaging & into the 21st Century of Infrared Imaging.

Hell's bells man, you're not only stuck in 20th Century technology, you're still mired in 19th Century Cosmology when it was an accepted concept that the velocity of an electromagnetic wave was subject to the same Laws of Kinetic Energy as particles of mass, then along came Einstein in the 20th Century spoiling that silly party but people like you still haven't gotten over that.

Hey, if you're so unable to comprehend why kinetic energy does not apply to electro-magnetic waves enabling you to make the transition from the 19th Century into the 20th, then how could you be expected to move from the 20th into the 21st Century? Yeah, Rguy, stay on the plantation of your funny farm pseudo-science while those of us living in the real world simply leave you behind.

RNP
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2018
@Benni
Given that your response is complete gibberish, I am leaving you to your delusions, Bye bye.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 18, 2018
@Benni
Given that your response is complete gibberish, I am leaving you to your delusions, Bye bye.


Gibberish? Moronic would be closer to the truth. Given that any number of papers will explain his misconceptions, there is no excuse. Ignorance I can forgive; wilful ignorance is beyond forgiveness. I've already linked a very easy to read paper, but it is obviously beyond his ability to understand it. There is no use arguing black & white with a burke who doesn't understand what colour is.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 18, 2018
It allows continuous monumental funding efforts by the plasma ignoramuses to find that which they know, by their own definition, they will never find.


Oh dear, another thicko. So, when was this plasmoid seen, dear? What about the current powering your non-existent, scientifically impossible electric sun woo? What about the rock and electrical woo at your non-existent electric comets? All seem to be very invisible to the rest of us. In fact everything claimed by the EU dolts is conspicuous by its invisibleness!

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2018
Yep, and the return current is proposed to return to the core via the galactic plane along the galactic arms, because these guys aren't quite as moronic as you are and understand that there must be a complete circuit.


Yep, another idiot who can't read a simple scientific paper. I linked to the paper where Lovelace proposed this in 1976. His model is obvious, and even has pictures to help the scientifically illiterate. What he, and others, proposed, is nothing to do with any EU/PC garbage. Otherwise Peratt would have referenced it, eh?
https://www.resea..._sources

Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2018
@Benni
Given that your response is complete gibberish, I am leaving you to your delusions, Bye bye.


Yeah, we know Rguy, when you've run out of your own personal facts, it's easier to go somewhere else to peddle them rather than continuing trying to pass them off onto a person who actually knows how to solve Differential Equations as opposed to your incomplete Cut & Paste attempts which gave no solutions & for which you couldn't even identify the Order.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 18, 2018
and you need to get out of the 20th Century of radio emission imaging & into the 21st Century of Infrared Imaging.


Says the loon who couldn't distinguish between IR and visible, not far upthread! Someone who has zero qualifications in the subject. Who thinks that hundreds, probably thousands of people working on these observations, with far better understanding of them, haven't considered Benji's simple fix! See what I mean about Dunning-Kruger? Stick to mopping floors, or tightening bolts. or whatever it is that you're good at.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 18, 2018
....blah, blah.............Differential Equations....blah, blah................


Wow, there's a surprise! Hahahahahhaha. Idiot can't tell the difference between IR and visible, but he can, allegedly (zero evidence), do DEs! It doesn't matter what you allege that you can do D-K Benji - you are crap at astrophysics. Get over it.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2018
Yep, another idiot who can't read a simple scientific paper.


Oh dear, another thicko.


Moronic would be closer to the truth.
.........an especially apt description of yourself coming directly from your own litany of name calling rants.........this one because you're the guy who couldn't remember if you took Differential Equations in your high school algebra course or if it was during that one year stint you did at the Uni in Aukland.

Has mommy tossed a fresh supply of potato chips down to you in the basement to keep you calm for the day?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2018
^^^^^^^^Awwww, diddums! Still hurting from being shown up about not knowing the difference between IR and visible? And that visible light actually causes warming? Or that optical light extinction from the galactic centre is nothing to do with gravity? Go on,, have another go; have you figured it out yet? You've obviously never been near a university if you can't figure out stuff like that. Trying to deflect from your obvious failings isn't working, D-K Benni. Your ignorance is plain to see for anybody who cares to read the thread. Haven't you got some floors to mop, instead of flouting your ignorance on here?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2018
Here's a little cheat sheet for Benni, next time he wants to talk about stuff he doesn't understand;

Stars are HOT. With adaptive optics you can see them in IR. Thermal stuff, etc.
AGNs are quite HOT and if our SMBH was an AGN we should probably easily see it in IR. It isn't an AGN, however. It seems to be quite quiescent. Ergo (basically Latin for 'therefore') it is a bugger to see the accretion disk in IR, except when it flares. It can be seen in radio and sometimes x-ray. The instruments we currently possess do not have the resolution to give an accurate size of it.
VLBI will allow us to (hopefully) see the event horizon. Of course, if it isn't a BH we won't see it. That is where predictions come in. Whicjh is what I asked above. Cantthink's prediction is that thousands of scientists will conspire to fix the data. What about you, D-K Benji? Any iideas? No, didn't think so. Back to the mopping. Don't forget the corners!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2018
@cantdrive85 and @jonesdave.

Seriously, you both seem 'locked in' to OLD "either-or" type arguments/perspectives, and ignoring the reality of HYBRID phenomena at all scales.

@cantdrive85:
"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems." Hannes Alfven
Yes, as I intimated in my ps to you and jonesy; as follows:
...as I have often pointed out: in LARGE astrophysical MASS/PLASMA phenomena, Gravity 'anchors' and 'feedsback' with Plasma/Electric-current CIRCUITS. ok? :)
Please calm down and READ PROPERLY. In large mass-energy features, the gravitational 'body' ANCHORS (ie gives a PERSISTING STRUCTURE/CIRCUIT DYNAMICS to an otherwise UNSTABLE plasma dynamics which creates BURST and TURBULENCE which can self-destruct said plasma features/flow 'structure/circuits'. Hence why BH MASS-ENERGY 'gravitational force/feature' strong enough to 'anchor' such VAST high-energy plasma-gravity DISC-JET systems/phenomena lasting BILLIONS of years. Ok? :)

cont...

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2018
...cont @cantdrive and @jonesdave.

@jonesdave....
It (the jet and associated current) is caused by the BH.
Like I urged @cantdrive above: Please calm down and READ PROPERLY (especially the 'ps' in my post):
ps: BOTH 'sides' have been working from INCOMPLETE/RESTRICTED 'perspectives; as I have often pointed out: in LARGE astrophysical MASS/PLASMA phenomena, Gravity 'anchors' and 'feedsback' with Plasma/Electric-current CIRCUITS. ok? :)
Again, you and @cantdrive seem to enjoy the argument/feud which began BEFORE the full richness/hydrid nature of astrophysical/cosmological phenomena/scales etc was realized (being realized more and more now, as we speak). Just as @cantdrive ignores gravity, you ignored plasma and fast-electron CURRENTS/CIRCUITS that CAN and DO form at all scales (as recent papers NOW increasingly acknowledge/include in their analyses/interpretations as MAJOR PLAYERS in many LARGE SCALE EVOLVING/PERSISTING plasma-gravity FEEDBACK dynamics. Ok? :)

Stevepidge
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2018
Kicking and screaming it dies. Black holes indeed. They suck the intelligence and money of those whom gaze upon their nothingness.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2018
Kicking and screaming it dies. Black holes indeed. They suck the intelligence and money of those whom gaze upon their nothingness.


In cosmology, anything that can'r be seen generates the most Commentary.

Here we are in the 21st Century, still recovering from the bungled BH cosmology of the 19th when it was presumed the strength of gravitational fields is what determined the velocity of light. Then in the 20th century along came Einstein destroying their BH theory. So to hang on to their tattered BH theory they enlisted Schwarzschild to come up with his Black Hole Math. Back in those days those who knew how to do Differential Equations laughed their backsides off at Schwarzschild, just as those of us of like intellectual capacity do today in the 21st Century.

Just look at the rantings & ravings of Jonesy, the perfect example of someone stuck in the 19th century but who expects to be taken seriously.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2018
@Benni
Given that your response is complete gibberish, I am leaving you to your delusions, Bye bye.


Yeah Rguy, bye, bye, to the 19th & 20th centuries. In the 21st century we can see all the way to the center of the galaxy in such tiny arcsecs that the the doughnut accretion disc would be the biggest object found in the infrared pics at http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, but not a hint of the doughnut & that's exactly not what you wanted to see.

The gibberish is yours because the only thing you're about is 19th Century cosmology that Einstein in the 20th century shattered with Special & General Relativity, overage Trekkies like you are all bent out of shape about it.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2018
(@RC,
Seriously, you both seem 'locked in' to OLD "either-or" type arguments/perspectives, and ignoring the reality of HYBRID phenomena at all scales.


No. You are failing to understand the argument. EU/PC is very much built around idiotic ideas such as electric stars (!!!!!!!!), for which there is no viable model, nor any evidence whatsoever. And a whole lot against. The non-existent electric stars are powered by humongous Mpc and Gpc long currents flowing between galaxies. For which there is no viable model, nor evidence. And quite a bit against, such as COBE, WMAP and Planck. The galaxy thing was A. Peratt's hypothesis. I would suggest familiarising yourself with it, and why it isn't taken seriously, to the extent that he hasn't even refined the model in a couple of decades. You will not find the 'electric stars' rubbish anywhere within the scientific literature. For good reason.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2018
And I see the idiot Benji is still failing to understand even a simple astrophysics paper. No surprise there!
I even summarised it for the loon, and he still doesn't get it. He thinks that thousands of scientists are so stupid that they don't realise that they don't have to use VLBI, they can just use IR, instead! Benji knows better than all these scientists because he claims to be an engineer!
Merrit
4 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2018
@benni are you also suggesting exoplanets outside our galaxy do not exist since we haven't been able to directly observe them yet?
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2018
@benni are you also suggesting exoplanets outside our galaxy do not exist since we haven't been able to directly observe them yet?


Before you asked the question I guess you forgot to ask yourself:

How do we know planets exist?

If you don't know how to answer your own question, you like Jonesy, are into subject material so over your head that you need to repeat grade school education where we learn these things. Well, maybe not the shools you & Jonesy attended.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2018
How do we know planets exist?


Sorry, please explain o deluded one. Well, the ones in the solar system we can see! They aren't very far away, ok? Now, how about planets around stars elesewhere in the galaxy, at reasonably close distances? Well, we can detect their presence due to radial velocity. It's to do with gravity, and the interaction between the planet(s) and the star. Way beyond you. They can also be detected through the transit method. Planet blocks some of the light from the star. Easy. In addition, they can be detected via gravitational microlensing at much greater distances. Now, that really is beyond your ability to understand. Nearer star lenses distant star. Nearer star has a planet which causes an extra spike in the lensed light curve.
Now, of what relevance is that to what Merrit asked?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2018
@jonesdave (@cantdrive if reading).
non-existent electric stars are powered by humongous Mpc and Gpc long currents flowing between galaxies. For which there is no viable model, nor evidence. And quite a bit against, such as COBE, WMAP and Planck.
Please know that I have LONG been FULLY aware of ALL claims/arguments from BOTH 'sides'. That is why I keep trying to get BOTH 'sides' to calm down and drop all those OLD "either-or" FEUDS; and to try to understand the reality as increasingly being discovered recently, AS WE SPEAK: The LARGE astrophysical/cosmological PLASMA-GRAVITY features/phenomena are HYBRID (not 'either-or'), involving spatio-temporal EVOLUTIONARY INTERPLAY/FEEDBACK between quantum-gravity-plasma forces/dynamics that can arise at ALL 'scales' over time/spatial PROCESS 'extents/lifetimes'. And we have NOW observed the galaxy-connecting 'bridges' of plasma/matter/gravity which produce the cosmic WEB-like 'structure'.

Please ALL 'sides': End the feuds. :)
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2018
^^^^^Jesus Christ, RC, I know that! Do you think plasma and electricity in space were unheard of until the idiots from EU/PC came along? No, they were, and are, studied by mainstream scientists. Every time there is a study involving plasma or electricity in space, the EU trolls pounce on it as if they thought of it first. Most of this stuff was known long before these idiots even existed! As per the BH jet, which goes back at least to the 70s.

And we have NOW observed the galaxy-connecting 'bridges' of plasma/matter/gravity which produce the cosmic WEB-like 'structure'.


Which has nothing to do with anything. They are not bloody currents.

cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2018
I know that! Do you think plasma and electricity in space were unheard of until the idiots from EU/PC came along?

That's exactly what is going on. Starting from Birkeland and his "Terella" (which he had to plug-in) which led to his claim based on experiments that "electric corpuscles" from the Sun caused the Aurora. Recall adherents of the standard theory (Chapman for example) denied this was possible in the "vacuum of space" and censored Birkeland's POV.
Then there is Alfvén's prediction of large scale magnetic which were scoffed at due to the claim that such a thing couldn't occur in the "vacuum of space".
There was the totally unexpected discovery of radio waves from space, to the extent it was claimed as a hoax.
Yep, what a genuine and honest person you are to accurately represent reality, not!
Most of the closely held beliefs of the standard "theory" were developed before the space age, when the principles of the "vacuum of space" were still believed.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2018
^^^^What a load of tripe! Birkeland suggested the cause of the aurora. Well done to him! He was a mainstream scientist. Ditto Alfven. Some people were particularly put out by Einsteins theories of relativity. He was right. But he was wrong about quantum. As Alfven was wrong regards to his cosmological musings. And Birkeland has nothing worth talking about regarding what powers the Sun. He didn't know about fusion - had he done so, I'm sure he wouldn't have taken long to put 2 & 2 together. None of the above are still alive, Alfven being the most recent, and he died over 20 years ago. None of them would have been taken in by the EU idiocy. EU has done nothing. Literally. And pretty much nobody is working on PC hypotheses. They're dead in the water. All the research that comes out on plasma physics these days is mainstream. Even Falthammar, who often mentions the 'plasma universe' is mainstream. So, who is left, and what are they publishing?
savvys84
5 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2018
good article
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2018
Birkeland suggested the cause of the aurora. Well done to him!

This was not from a vacuum, so to speak.
jonesdumb, read chapter 4.5 Controversies with the British School in the book,
'Kristian Birkeland: The First Space Scientist'
By Alv Egeland, William J. Burke
Birkeland says, "It seems a natural consequence of our POV to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying ions."
He said that in 1896 or so, whereas Chapman still couldn't accept that fact still in tge 60's after it was shown to be a fact.
. And Birkeland has nothing worth talking about regarding what powers the Sun. He didn't know about fusion

What did he need fusion for? He had actual experiments which recreated the solar wind, the aurora, sunspots, Saturn's rings, cometary phenomena, among many other items, no need for the internal fusion BS. It's electric discharge.
Finally, jonesdumb can't grasp that Birkeland being correct ultimately means PC/EU are correct.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2018
Sorry, forgot link to chapter 4;
https://books.goo...p;f=true
691Boat
5 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2018
@CD85:
If the solar wind is an electric discharge, this implies the sun is at a higher voltage compared to its surroundings. We have seen no electric wires connected to the sun carrying the currents you need for this type of continuous discharge.
But the other issue is that for something to discharge, it discharges to a lower potential. Why is the sun at higher potential, and the rest of our solar system at a lower potential?
It would seem that if there was some magic current-carrying plasma bridge powering the sun, it would be travelling many many many lightyears. This being the case, why would it magically stop at our sun after traveling across hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of lightyears, and not continue on to the planets in our solar system which are apparently at a lower potential than the sun and inconveniently for your model only a fraction of a lightyear further away???
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2018
If the solar wind is an electric discharge, this implies the sun is at a higher voltage compared to its surroundings

Not sure why this is difficult to grasp, clearly the charge density of the Sun is higher than it's surroundings. Not to mention the fact that the solar wind continually accelerates well past Jupiter shows the Sun has a non-zero electric field.
We have seen no electric wires connected to the sun carrying the currents you need for this type of continuous discharge.

You don't have the slightest idea regarding plasmas do you? The "wires" in plasmas are Birkeland currents, electric currents are an inevitable result of inhomogenous plasmas. BTW, Ulysses detected just those types of currents at the solar poles.
https://science.n...spitwads
It would seem that if there was some magic current-carrying plasma bridge

It must be magic even though you are willfully ignorant...
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2018
^^^^^More complete garbage from the Saturnist! There are NO currents between the Sun and anywhere . Ulysses did not detect anything of the kind. Figure me this, woo boy; if there is a current heading in towards the Sun, where is it? Does this current have an associated magnetic field? What happens when this current of (presumably) electrons, and its associated magnetic field, encounters a bunch of electrons and ions heading in the opposite direction, with its own magnetic field (the IMF)?
Shouldn't be difficult.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2018
Lol.

Not sure why this is difficult to grasp, clearly the charge density of the Sun is higher than it's surroundings. Not to mention the fact that the solar wind continually accelerates well past Jupiter shows the Sun has a non-zero electric field.


The fact that the solar wind consists of both ions and electrons, both traveling at the same speed, in the same direction, kind of poops on that assertion!

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2018
More asinine rantings:

Finally, jonesdumb can't grasp that Birkeland being correct ultimately means PC/EU are correct.


EU have been right about precisely zero! Birkeland was demonstrably wrong about the Sun. He was wrong about Saturns rings. And EU are demonstrably wrong about comets. It is, in short, a bunch of scientifically impossible, Velikovsky inspired woo, with not a jot of evidence to back it up. Which is why it only exists on woo sites, rather than in the scientific literature.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2018
BTW, Ulysses detected just those types of currents at the solar poles.


No, it didn't, as already noted. For anybody interested, here is the paper from those observations:

Ulysses observations of solar energetic particles from the 14 July 2000 event at high heliographic latitudes
Zhang, M. et al.
http://onlinelibr...531/full
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2018
And the moron speaks up;
There are NO currents between the Sun and anywhere

Except these measured Birkeland currents;
https://science.n...oct_ftes
Oops! jonesdumb proves his stupidity again...
Ulysses did not detect anything of the kind

Actually it did, this diagram of the spiraling magnetic fields measured by Ulysses can only be created by electric currents, just like at Earth's poles. Unless of course you believe in magic which we all know you must due to your inability to understand simple plasma concepts.
https://smd-prod....ield.jpg
691Boat
5 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2018
@CD85:
Answer the simple question: why do these large inter-galactic currents go TO the sun if it apparently has a "higher charge density" and not pass it by to instead discharge to the other planets in the solar system since they are by your own admission at a lower potential than the sun???

Also,
you have any data regarding those electric currents at the earth's poles? If you want to say the spiraling magnetic fields on the sun are the same as those on earth, you need proof of the electric currents on earth to say the spiraling magnetic field on the sun is electric.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2018
Except these measured Birkeland currents;


Oh dear, more ignorance. I've already provided a link to that paper. This is the IMF (the Sun's magnetic field) connecting (actually re-connecting!) with the Earth's magnetic field. This has nothing to do with currents to or from the Sun. Only an idiot would interpret it as such. The paper is about MAGNETIC RECONNECTION!!!!

THEMIS observations of the dayside traveling compression region and flows surrounding flux transfer events
Liu, J. et al.
http://onlinelibr...673/full

jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2018
Actually it did, this diagram of the spiraling magnetic fields measured by Ulysses can only be created by electric currents, just like at Earth's poles.


Wrong again. Where does it say that in the paper? Who is claiming this, and where is their paper? This was a CME. That is, a bunch of charged particles from the Sun, both ions and electrons. The same CME was measured by ACE at 1 AU. The figures are in the paper I linked. See the ion flux? See the electon flux? Remarkably similar, aren't they? Nowhere in that paper do I see a reference to Birkeland currents, or any other kind of currents.

jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2018
The fact that the solar wind consists of both ions and electrons, both traveling at the same speed, in the same direction, kind of poops on that assertion!


And this seems to have gone unremarked. Would love an explanation.

Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2018
So boaty & jonesy,

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

This telescope with it's infrared camera cuts right through 99% of the interstellar dust between planet Earth & the center of the galaxy but somehow misses the biggest structure in the MW galaxy, the ACCRETION DISC of Sgr A, a structure that would extend as far out as the orbit of Mars in size thereby clearly would dwarf in size ALL clearly visible stars at the center of the galaxy located within light minutes & hours of an imposing AD structure.

Jonesy, you care to repeat that remark above, that telescopes can't image individual stars at the center of the galaxy?

You two neophytes like to rag on about OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, especially in going after CD's EU posts. You just go back over to that IR Camera website & point out the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for YOUR favorite topic, BHs, zero. Then scroll down to the radio pic of the arcs of hot flowing gases in a magnetic field.

jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Feb 20, 2018
^^^^^^Oh Christ, D-K Benji's back!! Read a few papers and see why they can't see it in IR, you loon. I've linked the paper. There are plenty others. Try to learn the difference between an AGN and our quiescent SMBH. It is not rocket science. Hint (yet again!!!!): stars are point sources and are rather hot. With AO they can be seen. The accretion disk isn't hot, mostly. And yes, they can see it in NIR and MIR when it flares. Not otherwise. It is non-thermal. This is basic stuff, Try to understand it before making an even bigger burke of yourself.
691Boat
5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2018
@Benni:
Your argument is that an IR telescope designed to cut through cosmic dust can't image a black hole or the accretion disk of dust around it? Do you not see the irony of that?
"Why can't my IR telescope that cuts right through 99% of the dust in the galaxy see the disc of dust around the black hole that does not emit IR!?"
RNP
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2018
@Benni
To add to jonesdave's and 691boat's commments; you need to learn some terminology. Just because you can take a picture of a star does NOT mean you can image it. When used in this way the word "image" means to have RESOLVED the object (and I suggest you make sure you have learned the meaning of this word before you further embarrass yourself). Simply put, it means that, in the picture created, the object covers a sufficient number of pixels, such that you to be able to discern significant detail.

Neither the stars NOR the BH in the Galactic centre are resolved (imaged) by even the most powerful telescope. In other words, they simply appear as (at best) pin-pricks in all the images we have so far.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2018
The fact that the solar wind consists of both ions and electrons, both traveling at the same speed,

Well, as usual your representation is misleading. You're omitting the fact that the solar wind is highly dynamic, there is a "fast" and "slow" solar and there are structures within that electric current as well. Regardless of that, this is not a matter of simple electrostatics, the system is electrodynamic and apparently it is beyond your remedial brain to grasp complex post grade-school concepts.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2018
No, it didn't, as already noted. For anybody interested, here is the paper from those observations:

Ulysses observations of solar energetic particles from the 14 July 2000 event at high heliographic latitudes
Zhang, M. et al.
http://onlinelibr...531/full

Good job to post a completely irrelevant paper about a solar flare. Note that I was referring to the items I linked. Specifically to the NASA produced diagram of the spiraling polar magnetic fields Ulysses detected. The very same magnetic fields which are impossible to create without electric currents. It's a simple fact.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2018
The paper is about MAGNETIC RECONNECTION!!!!
THEMIS observations of the dayside traveling compression region and flows surrounding flux transfer events
Plasma Ignoramus A, et al.

There is no need to remind me about that pseudoscientific claptrap, I'm well aware. Do you know what a "flux transfer event" is? From wikistupidia;
"A flux transfer event (FTE) occurs when a magnetic portal opens in the Earth's magnetosphere through which high-energy particles flow from the Sun."
What is a "magnetic portal"?
NASA claims these "magnetic portals" take the shape of a "magnetic cylinder" about the width of Earth and "that carry high energy particles and fields" between the Sun and Earth.
Hate to break this to you jonesdumb, that description fits the description of an electric Birkeland current. Besides, it is impossible to maintain a "magnetic cylinder" without an electric current driving it. It is not magic, it's electromagnetism. Stop being a moron.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2018
@Benni
To add to jonesdave's and 691boat's commments; you need to learn some terminology. Just because you can take a picture of a star does NOT mean you can image it.
............a perfect example of the manner of convoluted reasoning that is nothing less than self-explanatory why you three neophytes cannot find the exit from 19th Century Cosmology into the 20th & then on to 21st Century science & technology.

Remaining mired in the days when the velocity of an electro-magnetic wave was presumed to be subject to the Laws of Physics for Kinetic Energy, it is little wonder you remain mired in fantasy.

Here we have actual OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

.....and no EVIDENCE of a BH at the galactic center & the only response you three mis-educated neophytes can come up with is to raise the tenor of your name calling rants while at the same time trying to redefine the definition of the word IMAGE.

jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2018
The fact that the solar wind consists of both ions and electrons, both traveling at the same speed,

Well, as usual your representation is misleading. You're omitting the fact that the solar wind is highly dynamic, there is a "fast" and "slow" solar and there are structures within that electric current as well. Regardless of that, this is not a matter of simple electrostatics, the system is electrodynamic and apparently it is beyond your remedial brain to grasp complex post grade-school concepts.


Wrong. As goes without saying. You are the one failing to understand. The SW is not a current. Sorry to break that to you. If it were, such currents would be measured. Alfven would tell you that, as would others. They aren't. Only when there are perturbations, such as encountering a planet's ionosphere/ magnetosphere, are interesting things, such as currents and reconnection, induced. What Ulysses saw is not a current, and literally nobody has said it is. For good reason.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2018
Hate to break this to you jonesdumb, that description fits the description of an electric Birkeland current.


So, instead of prattling on endlessly with your claims, why not point us to the paper where the Birkeland current in this event has been described? If it is only EU loons who are claiming this, then we can safely ignore it, as there is no one associated with that cult capable of understanding such things. Please show us the measured current, particle fluxes, etc.

jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2018
Well, as usual your representation is misleading. You're omitting the fact that the solar wind is highly dynamic, there is a "fast" and "slow" solar and there are structures within that electric current as well.


Dynamic, is it? Guess what happens when the solar wind is flowing at 800 km/s as opposed to 300 km/s? The ions and electrons are travelling at 800 km/s, as opposed to 300 km/s. Equal amounts, same speed, same direction. No current. As not measured by many, many spacecraft that have traveled through that SW on their way to panets, comets etc. Where is this current?
Try to read and understand this primer for astrophys students:
https://www-spof....ift.html

jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 21, 2018
and no EVIDENCE of a BH at the galactic center & the only response you three mis-educated neophytes can come up with is to raise the tenor of your name calling rants while at the same time trying to redefine the definition of the word IMAGE.


At last, we have a prediction from one of the scientifically challenged! So, the EHT will see NOTHING. You heard it here first, folks, Bookmark this page, as the results shouldn't be too far away. Watch Benji's story change if and when it does see the EH!

jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2018
Here we have actual OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm


Oh dear. Pointing out the bleeding obvious, which had already been pointed out to him by myself not far upthread! Which part of "it is non-thermal" are you struggling with? Only when the BH has an occasional feast on matter can we determine this from IR and x-ray. As opposed to an AGN, which would be exceedingly obvious. The SMBH in our galaxy is not like that. It is quiescent. That is why scientists, who understand such things, and are well aware of their equipment's limitations, have built a VLBI telescope to look for the EH. Maybe you should write to them, and explain why they're wrong, because.........blah, blah.....................differential equations......blah, blah.....engineering.....blah, blah.
691Boat
5 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2018
@Benni:
.....and no EVIDENCE of a BH at the galactic center & the only response you three mis-educated neophytes can come up with is to raise the tenor of your name calling rants while at the same time trying to redefine the definition of the word IMAGE.

So the use of planets orbiting a high mass object we can't see that fits where a theorized SMBH would be is insufficient evidence? Because if you scroll down on your link, that is there too. And to please you, they did use observational evidence for that. But it isn't good enough, right?
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2018

So, instead of prattling on endlessly with your claims, why not point us to the paper where the Birkeland current in this event has been described?

There is little chance the plasma ignoramuses would produce such a paper, it would require them to understand real plasma physics. But, oddly enough when one looks up "flux tubes" in wikistupidia one will see that in the 'See Also' tab there is a link to, wait for it.... Birkeland currents!
https://en.m.wiki...lux_tube
And let us look at the paper jonesdumb linked and see what it has to say;
"Observed Pressure changes within an FTE (flux transfer event) are likely due to the development of strong core magnetic fields arising from field-aligned currents flowing along the twisted field lines of the rope."
You see that jonesdumb? Field-aligned currents! In other words, a Birkeland current.
Stop being a moron and pull your head out of you ass!
It's plasma, and it's electric!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2018
Observed Pressure changes within an FTE (flux transfer event) are likely due to the development of strong core magnetic fields arising from field-aligned currents flowing along the twisted field lines of the rope


And the idiocy continues! I've linked Falthammar papers for you that describe this very well. These current are not in the solar wind. They are induced due to its interaction with the Earth's magnetosphere. These field aligned currents are a necessary part of reconnection, as Carl-Gunne would tell you, if you actually bothered to read what he wrote.
I'll say it again, for the hard of thinking: the solar wind is not a current, and what Ulysses encountered was not a current. And nobody believes otherwise.

cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2018
Note to all, according to jonesdumb, no energy flows from the Sun in the solar wind.
691Boat
5 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2018
Note to all, according to jonesdumb, no energy flows from the Sun in the solar wind.

Note to all, that according to CantDrive, the only form of energy is electric.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2018
Note to all, according to jonesdumb, no energy flows from the Sun in the solar wind.


Nope, I said that there is no CURRENT. Of course the ions and electrons have energy. They have velocity and mass, ergo they must have energy. So, on an airless body, the kinetic energy of the ions may cause them to penetrate the surface of said body (although not very far, in the case of SW ions).
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2018
I said that there is no CURRENT. Of course the ions and electrons have energy. They have velocity and mass, ergo they must have energy.

Back to the basics again, deary me...
What does wikistupidia have to say about an electric current?
"An electric current is a flow of electric charge."
So somehow, this flow of electric charges is not an electric current. jonesdumb strikes again!
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2018
I said that there is no CURRENT. Of course the ions and electrons have energy. They have velocity and mass, ergo they must have energy.

Back to the basics again, deary me...
What does wikistupidia have to say about an electric current?
"An electric current is a flow of electric charge."
So somehow, this flow of electric charges is not an electric current. jonesdumb strikes again!


So the plasma retards should have no problem calculating that current, and showing us where it is observed in the undisturbed solar wind flow. Easy, yes? Here's a hint:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-......................equals?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2018
@jonesdave.
I know that! Do you think plasma and electricity in space were unheard of until the idiots from EU/PC came along?
The point is that (despite the woeful 'latency' in 'paper writers/journalists to reflect it in their 'write-by-the-numbers' HACK 'explanations' based on OLD 'standby understandings' that require no thought), mainstream is now less naive/simplistic, and more COMPLETE in their studies/interpretations. Especially the FAST-Electron currents that arise/dissociate in/from the SLOW-ion 'flows'. I already pointed this out many times. Please 'absorb' that into your 'updated understandings' construct, mate. Thanks.
Which has nothing to do with anything. They are not bloody currents.
Mainstream now discovering/acknowledging ALL high-energy plasma 'filaments' produce/sustain FAST-Electron 'currents' at all scales (anchored/redirected by gravitational/magnetic field 'features').

Please read up/understand fully what mainstream itself now saying. :)
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2018
So the plasma retards should have no problem calculating that current, and showing us where it is observed in the undisturbed solar wind flow.

What does "undisturbed solar wind flow" mean exactly? Hint, meaningless word salad.
jonesdumb pretends the largest coherent structure in the solar system doesn't exist. Recall the heliospheric current sheet, that three trillion amp electric current which is somehow not associated with the solar wind. Not a current, it is a "current".
Recall above, NASA describes "magnetic flux tubes" which connect the Earth directly to the Sun are not currents, they are "currents"...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2018
@jonesdave, @cantdrive.

Re your exchanges on Solar Wind and charge-flow features/dynamics therein/thereof.

From @jonesdave to @cantdrive:
So the plasma retards should have no problem calculating that current, and showing us where it is observed in the undisturbed solar wind flow. Easy, yes? Here's a hint:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-......................equals?
First, please, both of you, don't keep perpetuating the UNHELPFUL (to objective science discourse/understanding) name-calling and insults 'feuds'.

@jonesdave, please read up on what mainstream is now acknowledging:

- FAST-Electron currents arise in all plasma 'flows';

- FILAMENTS/SHEETS of Electric currents/wavefronts triggered/feedback by/with ambient mag-fields AND electric-pressure/currents 'induced' mag-fields (and ambient gravitational forces/features).

So, Solar Wind filamentary FAST-Eelectron currents/sheets arise/subside in SLOW-ion SW flows; ONLY detectable IF sensors adjacent/within same! :)
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2018
Mainstream now discovering/acknowledging ALL high-energy plasma 'filaments' produce/sustain FAST-Electron 'currents' at all scales (anchored/redirected by gravitational/magnetic field 'features').

Please read up/understand fully what mainstream itself now saying. :)


I have read a bit on these intergalactic filaments. I have seen nobody describe them as currents (other than EU/PC types). So, a few peer-reviewed references would be good. FYI, these are the filaments that EU want to claim as 'electric currents.':
https://watchers....nfirmed/

(Disclaimer: If you decide to watch the video, I will not be held responsible for any adverse affects it may have on anybody watching it. Extreme hilarity can do funny things to people.)

jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2018
- FAST-Electron currents arise in all plasma 'flows';

- FILAMENTS/SHEETS of Electric currents/wavefronts triggered/feedback by/with ambient mag-fields AND electric-pressure/currents 'induced' mag-fields (and ambient gravitational forces/features).

So, Solar Wind filamentary FAST-Eelectron currents/sheets arise/subside in SLOW-ion SW flows; ONLY detectable IF sensors adjacent/within same! :)


Stop making assertions, and start showing me papers where plasma physicists describe the bulk flow of the SW as a current. Thank you.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2018
@jonesdave.
Mainstream now discovering/acknowledging ALL high-energy plasma 'filaments' produce/sustain FAST-Electron 'currents' at all scales...Please read up/understand fully what mainstream itself now saying. :)
I have read a bit on these intergalactic filaments..
You are missing the point/implication of "AT ALL SCALES". Ie, ANY stream/flow/filamentary feature involving SLOW-IN and FAST ELECTRON dynamics/features evolving over time/spatial extents at ALL scales.

I cannot stress enough: BOTH 'sides' need to drop their BLINKERING "either-or' BELIEFS; s you can start actually discussing reality in a scientifically objective and humanely polite manner. That is the only way to 'get understanding' of the hybrid-dynamical nature of plasma phenomena at all scales.

You have to 'connect the dots', from lab-scale through solar/galaxy/intergalaxy/cluster scale plasma flows/filaments dynamics.

I try to ignore/forget the 'nonsense of old' from BOTH 'sides'. Try same. :)
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2018
Consider this, for the SW is a current believers;

There are equal numbers of ions and electrons leaving the Sun. Actually, not quite true - there will be slightly more electrons, as they need to balance out heavier ions, such as O^6+, for instance.
Now, if this neutrality were not true, this would mean that either more electrons were leaving the Sun than ions, or vice-versa. What would that do to the charge of the Sun, over time? What would this imply, given that we see both (negative) electrons, and (positive) ions leaving the Sun, in the same direction at the same speed? What it implies is that it isn't happening.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2018
@RC,
You are just putting words on a string. They mean nothing. Show me where the bulk flow of the SW is described as a current. Because that is what I'm arguing against. Not whether there are currents formed in space. We know that, and we knew it long before EU came along. None of it has anything to do with the solar wind being a bloody current.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2018
@jonesdave.
- FAST-Electron currents arise in all plasma 'flows';

- FILAMENTS/SHEETS of Electric currents/wavefronts triggered/feedback by/with ambient mag-fields AND electric-pressure/currents 'induced' mag-fields (and ambient gravitational forces/features).

So, Solar Wind filamentary FAST-Eelectron currents/sheets arise/subside in SLOW-ion SW flows; ONLY detectable IF sensors adjacent/within same!
Stop making assertions, and start showing me papers where plasma physicists describe the bulk flow of the SW as a current. Thank you.
Why do you need to be led by the nose? Just connect the dots for yourself; from all the recent mainstream studies re FAST Electrons playing a major role in what is observed, at many scales (from lab fusion devices to astrophysical BH etc disc-jets/winds phenomena).

Just because some mainstream guy hasn't YET connected ALL the dots FOR themselves, doesn't need to stop you from doing it BEFORE them, does it, mate?

Gotta go. Bye. :)
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2018
(from lab fusion devices to astrophysical BH etc disc-jets/winds phenomena).


I bloody know! I posted the link to the 1970s model of the current produced by a jet from a BH. That is not the argument. The argument is that the EU loons claim that the Sun is electrically powered by intergalactic currents. It isn't. They think the intergalactic filaments are those currents. They aren't. They think the solar wind is a current. It isn't. Now, if you know of any evidence to show those beliefs to be true, then I'd love to see it. Otherwise.........
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2018
(Disclaimer: I will not be held responsible for any adverse affects it may have on anybody watching it. Extreme hilarity can do funny things to people)


Yeah, that's for sure. In light of the hilarity of the numbers of ways & times you duck, dodge & weave your way around responding to questions about your mathematical acuity & your background in a science curriculum during that one year you spent at Uni in Auckland.

Everytime you're confronted with a challenge to prove your value in putting up so much worthless & prolific Comments, you go off the rails with nothing but prolific foul mouth rantings, rantings which you mistakenly imagine makes you smarter than the person you're responding to.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2018
^^^^^^^Lol. Coming from a floor cleaner, that's rich. As has been pointed out, your astrophysics knowledge has been demonstrated to be nil. Go away and finish the mopping, D-K.

p.s.
What does visible light do, Benji. Lol.
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2018
In light of the hilarity of the numbers of ways & times you duck, dodge & weave your way around responding to questions about your mathematical acuity & your background in a science curriculum during that one year you spent at Uni in Auckland.


You don't need any mathematical acuity or a background in science to grasp the basic concepts of physics and GR.
Benni always focuses on irrelevant details out of context. He has no idea of the bigger picture and how things fit together, just read his comments so far, it's a hoot.
Amazing how someone can read these articles and comment on them without any science rubbing off and without any increase in comprehension.
What a mystery life is.

savvys84
1 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2018
the flow of time at BH is infinity not zero. this is the reason EM wave cannot propagate there or at the event horizon
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2018
'A numerical investigation of electric current conservation associated with solar wind plasma under GES-model approach'
http://iopscience...1/012072

And we all know there must be a current in the solar winds due to the IMF, it is created by these very currents.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2018
You don't need any mathematical acuity or a background in science to grasp the basic concepts of physics and GR.
.........nothing like admitting your most basic problem is when it comes to sorting FACT from the fiction of cosmology.

You long for the return of the days of 19th Century BH Cosmology when the velocity of electro-magnetic waves were presumed to be subject to Kinetic Energy Equations within fields of gravity, then Einstein came along with Special & General Relativity math & proved it wrong, but you & the rest of the jonesies living here refuse to adjust. So you imagine the playing field is made level by you bitter clingers is to continuously parade your profanity laced unending name calling rants here when your theories are dragged out into the cold cruel light of day for examination & fail miserably.

691Boat
5 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2018
@CD85:
from the paper:
...A very simplified ideal plasma fluid model approach is adopted to study electric current profiles under GES model under a steady plasma flow pattern...

But you are always pushing that our plasma is not ideal, and that it is absolutely not in a steady state. How can you then use this to back up your claims if their approach is completely against your beliefs?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2018
And we all know there must be a current in the solar winds due to the IMF, it is created by these very currents.


Wrong. Apart from the fact that such a current would be measured, and isn't, that is not where the IMF comes from. I don't usually like linking to Wikipedia, but its description is concise and correct, and at a level that even EU acolytes might follow:

https://en.wikipe...ic_field

cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2018
Nice, jonesdumb links to an explanation that requires pseudoscientific claptrap. There are no "frozen-in" fields. The IMF isn't "carried out" by the solar wind, it is created by the solar wind.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2018
Nice, jonesdumb links to an explanation that requires pseudoscientific claptrap. There are no "frozen-in" fields. The IMF isn't "carried out" by the solar wind, it is created by the solar wind.


Wrong. And nobody claims otherwise. Not even Alfven or Falthammar. If you believe otherwise, please show where this current has been predicted to cause the IMF. Show where this current is measured. Show the values measured. And I'm not talking about within the Sun, I mean in interplanetary space.

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

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.