Hubble solves cosmic 'whodunit' with interstellar forensics

March 22, 2018, ESA/Hubble Information Centre
This is a photo mosaic of an edge-on view of the Milky Way galaxy, looking toward the central bulge. Superimposed on it are radio-telescope images, colored pink, of the stretched, arc-shaped Magellanic Stream below the plane of the galaxy and the shredded, fragmented Leading Arm crossing the galaxy’s plane and extending above it. These gas clouds are being gravitationally pulled apart like taffy from the Small and Large Magellanic Clouds—satellite galaxies to our Milky Way—which appear as bright clumps within the gas. The source of the ribbon-like Magellanic Stream was uncovered by the Hubble Space Telescope about five years ago, and it was found to come from both Magellanic Clouds. However, the source of the Leading Arm remained a mystery until today. Now, scientists have used Hubble’s ultraviolet vision to chemically analyze the gas in the Leading Arm and determine its origin. Because they could not directly sample it, they instead used the light from seven quasars—the bright cores of active galaxies—to measure how it filtered through the Leading Arm’s gas. These quasars reside billions of light-years beyond the Leading Arm and act as “lighthouses” shining through the gas. Scientists looked for the absorption of the quasars’ ultraviolet light by oxygen in the cloud. This is a good indication of how many heavier elements reside in the Leading Arm’s gas. The team then compared Hubble’s measurements to hydrogen measurements made by the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope in Green Bank, West Virginia, as well as several other radio telescopes. Marked locations indicate the three brightest of the seven quasars used to study the composition of the Leading Arm. Spectra for these three quasars are superimposed at the bottom of the graphic. The vertical axis of each spectrum indicates how much absorption is taking place. The more absorption, the greater the signal strength is. The horizontal axes indicate the velocities of the gas at different points. Blue boxes isolate the velocities unique to the Leading Arm. The oxygen, combined with the hydrogen, provided conclusive chemical “fingerprints” to match the origin of the Leading Arm’s gas. The team found that the gas matches the contents of the Small Magellanic Cloud. Credits: Illustration: D. Nidever et al., NRAO/AUI/NSF and A. Mellinger, Leiden-Argentine-Bonn (LAB) Survey, Parkes Observatory, Westerbork Observatory, Arecibo Observatory, and A. Feild (STScI) Science: NASA, ESA, and A. Fox (STScI)

On the outskirts of our galaxy, a cosmic tug-of-war is unfolding—and only NASA's Hubble Space Telescope can see who's winning.

The players are two , the Large Magellanic Cloud and the Small Magellanic Cloud, both of which orbit our own Milky Way Galaxy. But as they go around the Milky Way, they are also orbiting each other. Each one tugs at the other, and one of them has pulled out a huge cloud of gas from its companion.

Called the Leading Arm, this arching collection of gas connects the Magellanic Clouds to the Milky Way. Roughly half the size of our galaxy, this structure is thought to be about 1 or 2 billion years old. Its name comes from the fact that it's leading the motion of the Magellanic Clouds.

The enormous concentration of gas is being devoured by the Milky Way and feeding new star birth in our galaxy. But which dwarf galaxy is doing the pulling, and whose gas is now being feasted upon? After years of debate, scientists now have the answer to this "whodunit" mystery.

"There's been a question: Did the gas come from the Large Magellanic Cloud or the Small Magellanic Cloud? At first glance, it looks like it tracks back to the Large Magellanic Cloud," explained lead researcher Andrew Fox of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland. "But we've approached that question differently, by asking: What is the Leading Arm made of? Does it have the composition of the Large Magellanic Cloud or the composition of the Small Magellanic Cloud?"

Fox's research is a follow-up to his 2013 work, which focused on a trailing feature behind the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. This gas in this ribbon-like structure, called the Magellanic Stream, was found to come from both dwarf galaxies. Now Fox wondered about its counterpart, the Leading Arm. Unlike the trailing Magellanic Stream, this tattered and shredded "arm" has already reached the Milky Way and survived its journey to the galactic disk.

The Leading Arm is a real-time example of gas accretion, the process of gas falling onto galaxies. This is very difficult to see in galaxies outside the Milky Way, because they are too far away and too faint. "As these two galaxies are in our backyard, we essentially have a front-row seat to view the action," said collaborator Kat Barger at Texas Christian University.

In a new kind of forensics, Fox and his team used Hubble's ultraviolet vision to chemically analyze the gas in the Leading Arm. They observed the light from seven quasars, the bright cores of active galaxies that reside billions of light-years beyond this . Using Hubble's Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, the scientists measured how this light filters through the cloud.

In particular, they looked for the absorption of ultraviolet light by oxygen and sulfur in the cloud. These are good gauges of how many heavier elements reside in the gas. The team then compared Hubble's measurements to hydrogen measurements made by the National Science Foundation's Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope at the Green Bank Observatory in West Virginia, as well as several other radio telescopes.

"With the combination of Hubble and Green Bank Telescope observations, we can measure the composition and velocity of the gas to determine which dwarf galaxy is the culprit," explained Barger.

After much analysis, the team finally had conclusive chemical "fingerprints" to match the origin of the Leading Arm's gas. "We've found that the gas matches the Small Magellanic Cloud," said Fox. "That indicates the Large Magellanic Cloud is winning the tug-of-war, because it has pulled so much gas out of its smaller neighbor."

This answer was possible only because of Hubble's unique ultraviolet capability. Because of the filtering effects of Earth's atmosphere, ultraviolet light cannot be studied from the ground. "Hubble is the only game in town," explained Fox. "All the lines of interest, including oxygen and sulfur, are in the ultraviolet. So if you work in the optical and infrared, you can't see them."

Gas from the Leading Arm is now crossing the disk of our galaxy. As it crosses, it interacts with the Milky Way's own gas, becoming shredded and fragmented.

This is an important case study of how gas gets into galaxies and fuels star birth. Astronomers use simulations and try to understand the inflow of gas in other . But here, the gas is being caught red-handed as it moves across the Milky Way's disk. Sometime in the future, planets and solar systems in our galaxy may be born out of material that used to be part of the Small Magellanic Cloud.

The team's study appears in the Feb. 20, 2018, issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

As Fox and his team look ahead, they hope to map out the full size of the Leading Arm—something that is still unknown.

Explore further: Astronomers create most detailed radio image of nearby dwarf galaxy

More information: Andrew J. Fox et al. Chemical Abundances in the Leading Arm of the Magellanic Stream, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa9bb , https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.06446

Related Stories

Festive nebulae light up Milky Way Galaxy satellite

December 20, 2016

The sheer observing power of the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope is rarely better illustrated than in an image such as this. This glowing pink nebula, named NGC 248, is located in the Small Magellanic Cloud, just under 200 ...

Hubble finds source of Magellanic Stream

August 8, 2013

(Phys.org) —Astronomers using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope have solved the 40-year-old mystery of the origin of the Magellanic Stream, a long ribbon of gas stretching nearly halfway around the Milky Way. New Hubble ...

Hubble sees a vapor of stars

July 2, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Relatively few galaxies possess the sweeping, luminous spiral arms or brightly glowing center of our home galaxy the Milky Way. In fact, most of the Universe's galaxies look like small, amorphous clouds of vapor. ...

VISTA peeks through the Small Magellanic Cloud's dusty veil

May 3, 2017

VISTA's infrared capabilities have now allowed astronomers to see the myriad of stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud galaxy much more clearly than ever before. The result is this record-breaking image—the biggest infrared ...

Milky way sidelined in galactic tug of war

September 29, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The Magellanic Stream is an arc of hydrogen gas spanning more than 100 degrees of the sky as it trails behind the Milky Way's neighbor galaxies, the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. Our home galaxy, the ...

Recommended for you

Unconfirmed near-Earth objects

June 22, 2018

Near-Earth objects (NEOs) are small solar system bodies whose orbits sometimes bring them close to the Earth, potentially threatening a collision. NEOs are tracers of the composition, dynamics and environmental conditions ...

'Red nuggets' are galactic gold for astronomers

June 21, 2018

About a decade ago, astronomers discovered a population of small, but massive galaxies called "red nuggets." A new study using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory indicates that black holes have squelched star formation in these ...

The Rosetta stone of active galactic nuclei deciphered

June 21, 2018

A galaxy with at least one active supermassive black hole – named OJ 287 – has caused many irritations and questions in the past. The emitted radiation of this object spans a wide range – from the radio up to the highest ...

HESS J1943+213 is an extreme blazar, study finds

June 21, 2018

An international group of astronomers have carried out multi-wavelength observations of HESS J1943+213 and found evidence supporting the hypothesis that this gamma-ray source is an extreme blazar. The finding is reported ...

187 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 22, 2018
The "streams" as described above are in fact electric currents connecting the three galaxies, much of the speculation in the article is nonsense based on faulty beliefs.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (20) Mar 22, 2018
The "streams" as described above are in fact electric currents connecting the three galaxies, much of the speculation in the article is nonsense based on faulty beliefs.


And your speculation is based on nothing at all, other than an unending inability to understand science.
tblakely1357
not rated yet Mar 22, 2018
Wasn't there a movement a few years ago by some in the astronomy science establishment to shutdown Hubble? If I remember correctly, the proponents of the shutdown stated that Hubble was at the end of it's usefulness and it was a waste of funds to keep it operational.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2018
Wasn't there a movement a few years ago by some in the astronomy science establishment to shutdown Hubble? If I remember correctly, the proponents of the shutdown stated that Hubble was at the end of it's usefulness and it was a waste of funds to keep it operational.


If and when they do retire the 'scope, they should give it a Nobel Prize! Can you give a Nobel to an inanimate object?
setnom
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2018
If and when they do retire the 'scope, they should give it a Nobel Prize! Can you give a Nobel to an inanimate object?


No, but they can give the award to the team. :)
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2018
Inanimate objects are like ships have female persona's, equal opportunities don't stretch as readily to Nobel prizes for women as readily as it does for men, which probably answers your question.

tblakely1357:- Wasn't there a movement a few years ago by some in the astronomy science establishment to shutdown Hubble? If I remember correctly, the proponents of the shutdown stated that Hubble was at the end of it's usefulness and it was a waste of funds to keep it operational.


jonesdave:- If and when they do retire the 'scope, they should give it a Nobel Prize! Can you give a Nobel to an inanimate object?

Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 22, 2018
#physicscranks hate data. The more we get the stupider they look.
IMP-9
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2018
Wasn't there a movement a few years ago by some in the astronomy science establishment to shutdown Hubble? If I remember correctly, the proponents of the shutdown stated that Hubble was at the end of it's usefulness and it was a waste of funds to keep it operational.


I don't think so, Hubble is still the most productive telescope in terms of papers published with data from it even now. There was a time in ~2004 when the NASA administration cancelled Service Mission 4 due to safety concerns, after that it was believed a mission ending problem was a matter of years away. That was a NASA decision however, not a science one. SM4 did eventually happen in 2009, many problems were fixed and more modern instruments were added. After HST there will likely to be a rather large gap in ultraviolet capabilities, observations like those in the article above cannot be done from the ground. I think anyone claiming it's no longer useful is misinformed.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2018
#physicscranks hate data. The more we get the stupider they look.


Yeah, like: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

.......... and remember, you're the guy who said a couple weeks ago that there are no telescopes equipped with cameras that can resolve individual star images with the resolution that can be found in the 7th photo frame. Remember all those name calling rants you binged out on Schneibo, & jonesy & RNP. ?

Yeah, you couldn't believe there were real pictures of the center of the Milky Way showing no image of a supermassive BH there. But did you label yourself a #physicscrank? Nooooo, you sure didn't, instead you went on a name calling binge because I once again proved your bitter clinging onto 19th century TUG math BH Cosmolgy was dead on wrong.

Old man, try a different retirement career, 21st century science & technology is not your forte.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 22, 2018
Old man, try a different retirement career, 21st century science & technology is not your forte.


And maths isn't yours. Figured out how to work out the Schwarzschild radius yet? Lol.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 22, 2018
The "streams" as described above are in fact electric currents connecting the three galaxies, much of the speculation in the article is nonsense based on faulty beliefs.

And your speculation is based on nothing at all, other than an unending inability to understand science.

Yet, there are coherent "streams" of plasma, the very definition of an electric current. They are physically connected, predicted by EU/PC, not standard theory. There is not alot of speculation on my part here, the currents are observed as da schnied pointed out. It's you #physicscranks which hate data, especially when it confirms theories other than your religion.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2018
The "streams" as described above are in fact electric currents connecting the three galaxies, much of the speculation in the article is nonsense based on faulty beliefs.

And your speculation is based on nothing at all, other than an unending inability to understand science.

Yet, there are coherent "streams" of plasma, the very definition of an electric current. They are physically connected, predicted by EU/PC, not standard theory. There is not alot of speculation on my part here, the currents are observed as da schnied pointed out. It's you #physicscranks which hate data, especially when it confirms theories other than your religion.


Nope. Any evidence for these currents, other than the usual 'looks like a bunny' nonsense? Thought not. Why not stick to misinterpreting mythology? Science really isn't for you people.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2018
And a fourth thread in which @LenniTheLiar posts its link that it can't ever seem to show means what it claims it does.

Or even articulate it.

Or even refute what it says. This is its own link. Its latest post on the subject has gravity emanating from nowhere.

I also noted you had no explanation of where the flash of energy came from and tried to sweep it under the carpet by claiming gravity comes from nowhere. Cute, but you missed again.

@Lenni, you can keep lying all you like, but everybody knows. They can't miss it.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2018
Old man, try a different retirement career, 21st century science & technology is not your forte


And maths isn't yours. Figured out how to work out the Schwarzschild radius yet?


Einstein proved here that it doesn't exist:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses
Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable

The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2018
Einstein was wrong and admitted he was wrong. As you've been told and shown many times, @LenniTheLiar.

Can you even make a post without lying? From the evidence I'd say not.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2018
Didn't Einstein say something about quantum, as well?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2018
@jones, yep, and it led straight to Bell's Theorem. Lately they've been doing experiments that show the "spooky action at a distance" Einstein derided actually happening.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2018
Einstein was wrong and admitted he was wrong. As you've been told and shown many times, @LenniTheLiar.

Can you even make a post without lying? From the evidence I'd say not.


Then why did he write:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses
Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:.
http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

You see Schneibo, the real problem with you is that you don't like 21st century science, you just love being a bitter clinger to that archaic 19th century BH TUG Math Cosmology that was also cooked up by the 19th century AETHER guys, you're almost 200 years behind in Cosmology.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2018
Then why did he write:.....................


Because he didn't like the idea of the logical extension of his own maths. A bit like his 'God doesn't play dice with the Universe' quote. However, that is what the maths predicts, and he tried to find a way out of it. He was wrong.

https://www.natio...-eaters/
shadybail
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2018
@jonesdave, that was a good link. 99.9% of experts agree BH exist. I wonder what do the other .1% think that the BH in the center of our galaxy is?
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2018
Nope. Any evidence for these currents, other than the usual 'looks like a bunny' nonsense?

There is the radio signature, as one would expect from plasma currents.
https://www.space...eic1314/
And being we are discussing plasma, your BS bunny logical fallacy falls on it's face. Even Cal-Tech acknowledges the scalability of plasma phenomena;
https://phys.org/...ets.html

Benni
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 22, 2018
Then why did he write:.....................


Because he didn't like the idea of the logical extension of his own maths. A bit like his 'God doesn't play dice with the Universe' quote. However, that is what the maths predicts, and he tried to find a way out of it. He was wrong.


Einstein set himself up in contradictory calculations from which he couldn't extricate himself is your premise.........this coming from the Jonesy guy who still can't recall if he took Differential Equations in high school algebra or during that one year you spent at Uni in Auckland.

Jeepers Jonesy, you know so much about Einstein's "maths" of Differential Equations, supposing you just dig into "On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses" at:

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf and tell us which were the wrong "maths", then we can all be just as smart as you imagine you already are.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2018
Einstein set himself up in contradictory calculations from which he couldn't extricate himself is your premise.........this coming from the Jonesy guy who still can't recall if he took Differential Equations in high school algebra or during that one year you spent at Uni in Auckland.


This from the moron who couldn't even do the simple maths to work out the Schwarzschild radius, and likely never graduated high school! Get back to your mopping; those floors aren't going to clean themselves!

jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2018
Nope. Any evidence for these currents, other than the usual 'looks like a bunny' nonsense?

There is the radio signature, as one would expect from plasma currents.
https://www.space...eic1314/



Sorry? I was talking about the Magellanic stream. What is the evidence? I know what the magnetic field is; do you? Searched for any evidence of synchrotron from these streams? Stark effect? Just give us the evidence, instead of 'looks like a bunny.'
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2018
I know what the magnetic field is; do you?

I've read about it, there is a coherent magnetic field along the whole thing, just like an electric current would.

http://www.iflsci...-clouds/

It should be told however, the plasma ignoramuses who wrote that paper can't fathom what is causing the magnetic fields in the supersonic stream of plasma. LOL! They actually suggest that tidal effect have pulled the magnetic fields into the streams...Morons!
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2018
BTW it's worth mentioning that Einstein couldn't get his 1939 paper attempting to refute black holes published in Physical Review Letters; it was rejected by the peer reviewer. He had to publish it in a mathematical journal. And the paper has never been cited. Not even to rebut it. Later that year, Oppenheimer published a paper detailing the formation of a black hole during stellar collapse and no one has ever looked back since.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Mar 22, 2018
I know what the magnetic field is; do you?

I've read about it, there is a coherent magnetic field along the whole thing, just like an electric current would.

http://www.iflsci...-clouds/


Lol. That's actually less than the ones I had read about, but at least one of the authors is the same, and it is more recent. So.....0.3 microgauss. The ones I had read about were in High Velocity Clouds that have detached from the stream. That was ~ 6 microgauss. 6 microgauss is 0.6 nT.
0.3 microgauss is 0.03 nT. The IMF, carried by the solar wind, with no current within cooee, is ~5 nT. So, about 150 times stronger than the one in the stream. So, by your logic, there is one hell of a current in the solar wind! And yet we have never detected such a current after decades of spaceflight. So, it still looks like a bunny.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2018
They actually suggest that tidal effect have pulled the magnetic fields into the streams...Morons!


I expect they know what a collisionless plasma is, though.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2018
@DS,
He had to publish it in a mathematical journal. And the paper has never been cited.


Actually, according to Google Scholar, it has been cited 351 times:
https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=
Whether that is by people disagreeing with it, I'm not sure. I'm sure as hell not going through 350 papers to find out! There is a good article here about his misconceptions in regards what Schwarzschild was saying:
https://www.scien...2007-04/
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2018
Meh, shoulda checked my sources. I got that from an article in the New York Review of Books, if I recall correctly. My bad.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2018
Meh, shoulda checked my sources. I got that from an article in the New York Review of Books, if I recall correctly. My bad.


It could be that it was pretty much ignored at the time. I went through a few pages of the citing papers, and the earliest I could find was 1961. Of course, much earlier papers may not be in the system for Google Scholar to locate. I don't think it was all that big a deal at the time.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2018
The largest problem with the paper was that it didn't take into account that a singularity that only appears in certain coordinate systems (a coordinate singularity) indicates a flaw in the system, not in the physics. It's only singularities that appear in all coordinate systems that indicate a flaw in the underlying mathematical physical theory. Unfortunately this was not discovered until the 1960s or so, and certainly was not clear to physicists in the 1930s and 1940s.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2018
Moving right along, note that the paper was published in Annals of Mathematics, not a physics journal. So I had that part right.
Indagator
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2018
WOW! What a mess!

@Benni, I'll wager you're going to stop using that IRCamera link in very short order!

In an earlier thread where you cite the same link, you wrote, "... I guess OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE doesn't count when it comes to fantasy, right?"

What OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE do you think you've found? Let's look at your OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, shall we?

You claim that the Galactic Center webpage provides evidence that there is no black hole at the center of the galaxy because of what? DUCKS? A tactical error on your part!

1) The Galactic Center webpage you are so fond of, is just one of many lecture pages which make up a first year "intro" course at the University of Arizona called Astronomy 170B1 - The Physical Universe! These lecture webpages do not support your views! FYI - The electric universe is a lie! The electric star is a lie! And the electric comet is a lie! But let's get back to shredding your precious evidence!

(TBC)
Indagator
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2018
(contd)

3) Quoting directly from the IRCamera Galactic Center webpage, "Sagittarius A*, or Sgr A* for short, turns out to be a unique radio source and its characteristics clearly suggest it is the supermassive black hole. For example, unlike the stars, radio measurements show it is not orbiting but just sits stolidly in the center. This requires it to be far more massive than any of the stars." OUCH! And a direct quote, too!

4) Refering to either Galactic Center webpage, please click on the question mark "link" at the top of the page! Tell me what you see. In light of what I've just presented, does any of this course material actually support your "observational" claim? Would you also like to discuss accretion disk physics? Maybe we should shred your "knowledge" of spectroscopy next?

(TBC)
Indagator
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2018
(contd)

Now for some really damning evidence! Let's meet the Rieke's (the owners of the IRCamera webpage at the University of Arizona that you think supports your agenda)! Please note, the Rieke's are both instrumentation specialist, especially in the area of IR systems ... and they actually support the mainstream view that there is a black hole at the center of our galaxy!

George Rieke - JWST MID-IR INSTRUMENT TEAM LEAD
Marcia Rieke - JWST NIRCAM PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Damn it! Two mainstream scientists working on the JWST!

In truth, given this brief overview, I expect you would actually fail the Rieke's "intro" astronomy course!

(TBC)
Indagator
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2018
Apologies! Problems posting Part 2 ... will try again ...

(contd)

2) For educational purposes, there are a number of other lecture pages you might want to review for some "observational evidence" of the Professor's mainstream views (referring to the 2016 syllabus ...)

Black Holes (covered 2016 Feb 05): http://ircamera.a...hole.htm
Dark Matter (covered 2016 Mar 30): http://ircamera.a...tter.htm

For completeness, compare your link with the original Galactic Center webpage which was uploaded over ten years ago in Dec of 2007 (course material was covered 2016 Apr 06): http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

Exam Review #2: http://ircamera.a...iew2.htm

Now, given your academic claims, I'll wager you'll easily score 100% on these review questions!

(TBC)
Indagator
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2018
Some hard lessons learned on formatting ....

(contd)

The links to George and Marcia's JWST intros ...
George Rieke - JWST MID-IR INSTRUMENT TEAM LEAD: https://jwst.nasa...eke.html
Marcia Rieke - JWST NIRCAM PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: https://jwst.nasa...eke.html

FYI - George also wrote an excellent grad-level instrumentation textbook called, "Measuring the Universe: A Multiwavelength Perspective" (Cambridge University Press, 2012) --- Check it out! You might learn something about IR instrumentation and spectroscopy!

Benni, I have read your words and it is obvious to me, and no doubt everyone else here, your knowledge and understanding of the physical world and the simple physics that govern same is visibly lacking!
Indagator
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2018
@Benni

Check out, Narayan and McClintock (2014) Observational Evidence for Black Holes: https://arxiv.org...6698.pdf

A key point (in the Narayan and McClintock paper) regarding evidence for a SMBH at our galaxy's center is the Keplerian orbits of stars around a "compact" gravitational mass that, within error limits, does not move (ref. Fig. 1.2)! And Benni, please note the scaling arrow in the upper left of Fig 1.2, which is comparable to the major-axis length of S0-2, and realize that, at 6", GCIRS 7 (an M1 class supergiant) is located approximately 0.9 light years away from Sgr A*.

Question - Given this separation distance, why would IRS 7's orbit or other physical properties be comparable to that of S0-2 and S0-102?

Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2018
You claim that the Galactic Center webpage provides evidence that there is no black hole at the center of the galaxy because of what? DUCKS? A tactical error on your part!
I made no such claim, it was the website making the claim, here read it for yourself:

"Here is a very deep, high resolution (1 arcsec) X-ray image of the Galactic Center -- the source elongated up and down just above and to the right of the center is Sgr A*, but it doesn't stand out at all. Even in X-rays, where we look to find stellar black holes, there is nothing to draw our attention to a supermassive black hole here!" http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

The tactical error is on you in giving me credit for someone else's conclusions, I just don't disagree with the conclusions for reason of lack of OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, nor do I disagree with Einstein's FALSIFICATION of Schwarzschild's black hole math.
Spacebaby2001
4 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2018
@jonesdave, that was a good link. 99.9% of experts agree BH exist. I wonder what do the other .1% think that the BH in the center of our galaxy is?


It took me a long time to drag that answer out, but I believe they see Sag A* as the gravitational barycenter of a galaxy size n body problem. With my layperson knowledge this seems to some degree plausible, but I'll stick with the evil 99.9% who say its a SMBH so their evil conspiracy to control the secrets of the center of the galaxy succeeds.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2018
I just don't disagree with the conclusions for reason of lack of OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, nor do I disagree with Einstein's FALSIFICATION of Schwarzschild's black hole math.


Then what is the invisible 4m solar mass object that the stars in the galactic centre are orbiting?
And it doesn't matter what you think about Schwarzschild's maths, as you have shown yourself to be totally incompetent in that department.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2018
It took me a long time to drag that answer out, but I believe they see Sag A* as the gravitational barycenter of a galaxy size n body problem.


I think I've read that before somewhere. However, it was easily refuted, as the orbital parameters simply wouldn't be as observed if they were merely cruising around a barycentre.

cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2018
The electric universe is a lie! The electric star is a lie! And the electric comet is a lie!

Amusing, someone doesn't want their "education" to be all for not. You got thousands of dollars in student debt for a well-rounded knowledge of pseudoscience. LOL!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2018
You got thousands of dollars in student debt for a well-rounded knowledge of pseudoscience. LOL!


His knowledge of what is and isn't pseudoscience seems to be spot on. As he said:

The electric universe is a lie! The electric star is a lie! And the electric comet is a lie!


Looks pretty damned accurate to me.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2018
It took me a long time to drag that answer out, but I believe they see Sag A* as the gravitational barycenter of a galaxy size n body problem.


Go to: http://ircamera.a........now count 10 pics down to the animation of the dozen or so rapidly moving stars in an orbital pattern around an unseen centers of mass. Draw a transverse line through the centers of the orbits of the few stars that indicate this orbital pattern, that will indicate the approximate center of mass about which that star is orbiting.

Note that none of the stars in the animation will show any relation to one another with a common center of mass as you draw a transverse line through the direct center points of their orbits. A couple of the orbital patterns cross directly over the 5 point star where they indicate Sgr"A", but most don't, and this why there is a center of mass BH problem, these stars orbit a center of mass far distant from Sgr"A".
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2018
Go to: http://ircamera.a........now count 10 pics down to the animation of the dozen or so rapidly moving stars in an orbital pattern around an unseen centers of mass. Draw a transverse line through the centers of the orbits of the few stars that indicate this orbital pattern, that will indicate the approximate center of mass about which that star is orbiting.

Note that none of the stars in the animation will show any relation to one another with a common center of mass as you draw a transverse line through the direct center points of their orbits. A couple of the orbital patterns cross directly over the 5 point star where they indicate Sgr"A", but most don't, and this why there is a center of mass BH problem, these stars orbit a center of mass far distant from Sgr"A".


Lol. You think all those orbits are face on to us? Dear me.
http://www.galact...ons.html
theredpill
3 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2018
@jonesdave, that was a good link. 99.9% of experts agree BH exist. I wonder what do the other .1% think that the BH in the center of our galaxy is?

An exhaustive search demonstrates the above statement to be false. There is no documented percentage of how many "experts" agree on this topic. The recently deceased expert changed his mind enough times to keep the rest of them guessing...I guess.

cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2018
That's actually less than the ones I had read about, but at least one of the authors is the same, and it is more recent. So.....0.3 microgauss. The ones I had read about were in High Velocity Clouds that have detached from the stream. That was ~ 6 microgauss. 6 microgauss is 0.6 nT.
0.3 microgauss is 0.03 nT.

Annnnd? Your point is? The measured field is "relatively" weak. Doesn't matter, the fact there are magnetic fields supports the fact there are currents generating them. It's certainly isn't magic creating those field as you would assume.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2018
That's actually less than the ones I had read about, but at least one of the authors is the same, and it is more recent. So.....0.3 microgauss. The ones I had read about were in High Velocity Clouds that have detached from the stream. That was ~ 6 microgauss. 6 microgauss is 0.6 nT.
0.3 microgauss is 0.03 nT.

Annnnd? Your point is? The measured field is "relatively" weak. Doesn't matter, the fact there are magnetic fields supports the fact there are currents generating them. It's certainly isn't magic creating those field as you would assume.


So where is the current in the far stronger IMF?
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2018
You tell 'em and tell 'em and they still don't get it.

A flow of plasma-- by definition ionized gas and stripped electrons-- IS a current. It's a flow of charged particles. A current is a flow of charged particles. By definition.

Pitiful.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2018
And bringing this all back around again, none of what's in this article says anything about magnetic fields or the black hole at the galactic center.

It's gravity from the LMC that's ripping the gas out of the SMC. Then the gas gets drawn into the Milky Way by its gravity.

Nothing much in the way of electric currents. Nothing much in the way of magnetic fields (0.03 nanotesla is pretty weak). Where's the beef?

The SMBH at the galactic center is 160,000 light years away from the LMC and SMC. Where's the beef?

When you make stuff up, you can't help but get pwnt.

Pitiful.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2018
You tell 'em and tell 'em and they still don't get it.

A flow of plasma-- by definition ionized gas and stripped electrons-- IS a current. It's a flow of charged particles. A current is a flow of charged particles. By definition.

Pitiful.


Yes, it's the quasi-neutrality thing that they struggle with. Yes there are ions; yes, there are electrons. And they are basically heading in the same direction at the same speed. And there are enough of each to balance the other, charge-wise. The field they are dragging is from the Sun's corona. It's frozen-in. The same will likely be happening in the Magellanic stream, where the interaction of the SMC and LMC has caused tidal disruption, and the field from one of the galaxies (or both?) is carried within the plasma. At such feeble magnetic strengths, the plasma will dominate and take the field along for the ride, just as with the solar wind and IMF.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2018
It's frozen-in.

LOL, magical pseudoscience. Should be easy enough to replicate with a Tokamak, funny thing is when they flip the switch it shuts down without jonesdumb's "frozen-in" fields.
At such feeble magnetic strengths, the plasma will dominate

Meaningless word salad, typical of pseudoscience supporters.
You tell 'em and tell 'em and they still don't get it.

A flow of plasma-- by definition ionized gas and stripped electrons-- IS a current. It's a flow of charged particles. A current is a flow of charged particles

Me thinks da schnied and jonesdumb need to get on same page. Da schnied so stupid he doesn't get that he supports my POV while giving jonesdumb atta boy. What a moron he being...
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2018
LOL, magical pseudoscience. Should be easy enough to replicate with a Tokamak, funny thing is when they flip the switch it shuts down without jonesdumb's "frozen-in" fields.


Says who? Let's get this straight, woo boy - are you saying that the IMF is not frozen-in to the solar wind? A straight yes or no will do, before I start posting some links to Alfven.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2018
The "frozen-in" condition is pseudoscientific claptrap!
From Alfvén;
"I thought that the frozen-in concept was very good from a pedagogical point of view, and indeed it became very popular. In reality, however, it was not a good pedagogical concept but a dangerous "pseudo-pedagogical concept" By "pseudo-pedagogical" I mean a concept which makes you believe that you understand a phenomenon whereas in reality vou have drastically misunderstood it."
https://inis.iaea...18060222
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2018
^^^^^Nope, as usual, all you've done is take a quote out of context, and learn it by rote, like some piece of holy scripture. He was merely cautioning against its unthinking use, by some people, in some circumstances.
So, what was Alfie saying in 1957, about comet interactions with the solar wind/ IMF?

It is shown that some of the difficulties of this theory can be overcome if the assumed radiation consists of beams with a frozen-in magnetic field of the same type as required in the electric field theory of magnetic storms and aurorae.


On the Theory of Comet Tails
https://www.tandf...9i1.9064

So, has he changed his mind by 1987?
http://www.imageb...92544903

What is he saying about cometary comae? Yep, still frozen-in. And as Alfven correctly surmised elsewhere, comets don't have an intrinsic magnetic field. So, which magnetic field is he talking about being frozen-in?

Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2018
Note that none of the stars in the animation will show any relation to one another with a common center of mass as you draw a transverse line through the direct center points of their orbits. A couple of the orbital patterns cross directly over the 5 point star where they indicate Sgr"A", but most don't, and this why there is a center of mass BH problem, these stars orbit a center of mass far distant from Sgr"A".

You think all those orbits are face on to us?


What you fail to comprehend about ISOMETRICS only thing needed is a simple graphical diagram outlining the widest viewable extent of the orbit of a body, it doesn't matter if the orbiting body is inclined straight towards the viewer at 0° or anything in between out to 90° of the transverse.

At 0° inclination the elliptical of the orbit can be more clearly established because 100% of the the elliptical eccentricity is immediately in view, on a graph it would appear as a straight line. Capiche? Probably not.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2018
At 0° inclination the elliptical of the orbit can be more clearly established because 100% of the the elliptical eccentricity is immediately in view, on a graph it would appear as a straight line. Capiche? Probably not.


Complete bollocks, as usual. Tell you what Benni; why not publish your findings and show that the clever people at UCLA have been out-thought by a janitor from nowheresville? If it's all the same to you, I'll take the results detailed by actual scientists, rather than know-nothings like you.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2018
What is he saying about cometary comae? Yep, still frozen-in. And as Alfven correctly surmised elsewhere, comets don't have an intrinsic magnetic field. So, which magnetic field is he talking about being frozen-in?

Seems as if you are the one needing a lesson in context. That table you referred to (conveniently not along with the context), Alfvén was showing the difference from the pseudoscientific fluid plasma and the real particle plasma. You continue with your lies of omission.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2018
What is he saying about cometary comae? Yep, still frozen-in. And as Alfven correctly surmised elsewhere, comets don't have an intrinsic magnetic field. So, which magnetic field is he talking about being frozen-in?

Seems as if you are the one needing a lesson in context. That table you referred to (conveniently not along with the context), Alfvén was showing the difference from the pseudoscientific fluid plasma and the real particle plasma. You continue with your lies of omission.


And that just shows that you are an idiot who can't even read a table properly! Jackass. He is showing where (he thinks) it is appropriate to use it, and where it isn't. i.e. precisely what I was saying about his warnings of where it should and shouldn't be used
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2018
Yep, agreed. He is showing where it is appropriate to use in real science (particle/circuit model) and how it is use in pseudoscience (fluid models).
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2018
Yep, agreed. He is showing where it is appropriate to use in real science (particle/circuit model) and how it is use in pseudoscience (fluid models).


No, you idiot. He is showing you in which situations you can use a fluid model, and which you can't. Why do you think there are different regimes in the two separate columns, you prawn? Which part of the row heading, 'Exists in', are you failing to understand? What does 'exists in' mean to you? Jesus, talk about delusional!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2018
The plasma doesn't carry the magnetic field with it, it creates it moron. In the case of the solar wind, there is a flow of plasma across the Sun's magnetic field. It's quite simple, draw the large scale magnetic flux of the Sun. Clearly the solar wind moves across these flux lines. This creates EMF and thus the IMF, there is no question as to whether this is an electric current. No plasma anywhere are the fields frozen-in, this is just maths nonsense trying to invade reality.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2018
The concept of 'frozen-in magnetic field lines' has played a central role in plasma physics due to the fact that in several situations, but far from all, ***it is legitimate to use it.***


Cosmic Plasma
Section 2.3.

Hence a bloody table showing where he thinks it is and isn't legitimate. And cometary comae, within the IMF, are one.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2018
The plasma doesn't carry the magnetic field with it, it creates it moron.


Lol. Dear me, Where did you learn this crap? Primary school? Seriously, it's no wonder you are capable of falling for Thornhill's garbage, with beliefs like that!
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2018
They call Alfven's Theorem "Alfven's frozen in theorem" as well. You can look it up on Wikipedia. It even says why they call it that, and they quote Alfven.

See for yourself: https://en.wikipe..._theorem
barakn
4 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2018
.. Draw a transverse line through the centers of the orbits of the few stars that indicate this orbital pattern, that will indicate the approximate center of mass about which that star is orbiting.

Note that none of the stars in the animation will show any relation to one another with a common center of mass.... A couple of the orbital patterns cross directly over the 5 point star where they indicate Sgr"A", but most don't, and this why there is a center of mass BH problem, these stars orbit a center of mass far distant from Sgr"A". -Benni
In the case of a small object orbiting around a large object, the orbit of the small object is typically elliptical and the large object will be at one of the two foci of the ellipse, neither of which is at the center of the elllipse. You can't tell where the foci are without knowing the true shape of the ellipse, but the image only shows the projection of each ellipse onto a two-dimensional surface.
barakn
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2018
Even a circular orbit will look elliptical if not viewed directly face-on. So we need additional information: the inclination of the plane of the orbit relative to the perpendicular to our line of sight. And that comes from radial velocity data. You can't just draw a bunch of fucking lines on a photo to figure out where the large object is, you need more data than that. The fact that Benni is oblivious to even the most basic geometrical facts related to orbital mechanics suggests everything he/she/it says about this subject can be safely ignored.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2018
^^^^^^^^Well put sir! "A bunch of f****ing lines", was precisely the phrase I was searching for, but didn't quite find! :)
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2018
They call Alfven's Theorem "Alfven's frozen in theorem" as well. You can look it up on Wikipedia. It even says why they call it that, and they quote Alfven.

And Alfvén pointed out how it was wrong, it is how he began his Nobel lecture.
https://www.nobel...ure.html
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2018
The fact that Benni is oblivious to even the most basic geometrical facts related to orbital mechanics suggests everything he/she/it says about this subject can be safely ignored.


Well then, apply the same logic to prove Sgr"A" is the center of mass of the galaxy? Can't do it can you?

You were oblivious to my using the words: "will indicate the approximate center of mass about which that star is orbiting".......what you miss is the fact that a mere "approximation" method for locating the orbital centers of mass for these stars is all that is necessary to show that the well defined orbital patterns of these stars show absolutely no relation to Sgr "A", and that's what has got you so bent out of shape, here go take another look: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

I see losing a 3-4 million solar mass BH at the center of the galaxy has been tough stuff for some here, but that's science for you.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2018
Alfven said that because plasmas are often not perfectly conductive.

As you would know, @cantthink69, if you actually understood Alfven's Theorem, and knew anything about sparse (i.e. collisionless) plasmas.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2018
@LenniTheLiar, you were just claiming that gravity comes from nowhere. I can't see any reason anyone would believe a word you say after that. Gravity comes from matter, not some arbitrary point in space.

@barakn's post is right on the money. You also claimed that orbits are defined by their centers, which is incorrect according to Kepler's Laws of orbital mechanics. I would bet you don't even know what the focus of an ellipse is.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2018
They call Alfven's Theorem "Alfven's frozen in theorem" as well. You can look it up on Wikipedia. It even says why they call it that, and they quote Alfven.

And Alfvén pointed out how it was wrong, it is how he began his Nobel lecture.
https://www.nobel...ure.html


No, he didn't! How many times do you idiots need this explaining to you? Are you all thick and blind? Look at the table from 1987. Look at the quote from CP. Jesus, what is the matter with you people? Brainwashed, or what? You have it in his own words that it is legitimate in certain situations. He then tells you what those situations are. How much more do you need, before it sinks in?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2018
The fact that Benni is oblivious to even the most basic geometrical facts related to orbital mechanics suggests everything he/she/it says about this subject can be safely ignored.


Well then, apply the same logic to prove Sgr"A" is the center of mass of the galaxy? Can't do it can you?

You were oblivious to my using the words: "will indicate the approximate center of mass about which that star is orbiting".......what you miss is the fact that a mere "approximation" method for locating the orbital centers of mass for these stars is all that is necessary to show that the well defined orbital patterns of these stars show absolutely no relation to Sgr "A", and that's what has got you so bent out of shape, here go take another look: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

I see losing a 3-4 million solar mass BH at the center of the galaxy has been tough stuff for some here, but that's science for you.


My god he's thick!
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2018
We present the current evidence, from the analysis of the orbits of more than two dozen stars and from the measurements of the size and motion of the central compact radio source, Sgr A*, that this radio source must be a massive black hole of about 4.4 × 10^6 Msun, beyond any reasonable doubt.


The Galactic Center Massive Black Hole and Nuclear Star Cluster
Genzel, R. et al.
https://arxiv.org...0064.pdf

But.....but.....but....it can't be! Benni's drawn a bunch of f****lines on a webpage, and said it isn't so! All those 600+ authors who have cited that paper, are going to look mighty stupid! Maybe Benji should have published his f****ing lines.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2018
The Galactic Center Massive Black Hole and Nuclear Star Cluster
Genzel, R. et al.
https://arxiv.org...0064.pdf

All those 600+ authors who have cited that paper, are going to look mighty stupid!


They already do look stupid when all they do is write papers before looking at OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE & simply declare they're not about to believe their lying eyes.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2018
You don't have any observational evidence, @LenniTheLiar. You're lying about that too.

Besides, this thread isn't about black holes or plasma currents. It's about gravity. You didn't even understand the article in the first place.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2018
The Galactic Center Massive Black Hole and Nuclear Star Cluster
Genzel, R. et al.
https://arxiv.org...0064.pdf

All those 600+ authors who have cited that paper, are going to look mighty stupid!


They already do look stupid when all they do is write papers before looking at OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE & simply declare they're not about to believe their lying eyes.


They do look at observational evidence, you moron. That is how they can say that it is beyond reasonable doubt.

(What is it with these cranks on here? Are every single one of them infected by Dunning-Kruger syndrome? Really makes you wonder what makes some people tick.)

Figured out how to calculate the Schwarzschild radius yet, Benni? Need a hand?
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2018
Alfven said that because plasmas are often not perfectly conductive.

As you would know, @cantthink69, if you actually understood Alfven's Theorem, and knew anything about sparse (i.e. collisionless) plasmas.

That is what nullifies the frozen-in condition, is it opposite day again da schnied?
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2018
That is what nullifies the frozen-in condition, is it opposite day again da schnied?


Except that it isn't nullified in the areas of interest we are talking about; namely the solar wind and the Magellanic stream. And it isn't so much the sparcity as the density of the plasma compared to the magnetic field strength.
The plasma in the SW is ~ 7 ions cm^3 at 1 AU. Doesn't sound much, but that is more than enough for the puny IMF to be as frozen-in as makes no difference. I'm not sure of the ion density in the stream, but as the MF there is even punier, then one would expect the MF to also be frozen-in.
Let's face it - Alfven modelled the IMF as being frozen-in in '57, and he hadn't changed his mind 30 years later. Quite why you are having such a problem with it, I can only guess. Probably something to do with not really knowing what Alfven said, and basing your dogma on what other people have written. People who are equally clueless on the subject.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2018
What exactly is what, err, "nullifies" it, @cantthink69?

You just make cryptic comments like they mean something without supporting evidence or logic. Typical #physicscrank.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2018
Here, let's review this: I said that Alfven's Theorem says magnetic fields are completely frozen into plasmas if they are perfectly conductive, and the structure of the mathematical proof of Alfven's Theorem says they're partially frozen in for plasmas that are partially conductive. As you would know if you understood Alfven's Theorem. I also said that Alfven pointed out that the assumption that all magnetic fields are perfectly frozen in is based on the assumption that all plasmas are perfectly conductive, when it is known they are not.

Now, what exactly are you not getting about this?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2018
The concept of 'frozen-in magnetic field lines' has played a central role in plasma physics due to the fact that in several situations, but far from all, ***it is legitimate to use it.***


Cosmic Plasma
Section 2.3.

Hence a bloody table showing where he thinks it is and isn't legitimate. And cometary comae, within the IMF, are one.

Hey jackass, just because he said it is "OK" to use it to model it, that does not mean that in reality the fields are frozen-in. That is what he meant about the dangerous pseudo-pedagogical concept, it's not reality.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2018
Now, what exactly are you not getting about this?

No plasma is perfectly conductive, it is a theoretical concept. Hence, no frozen-in fields anywhere.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2018

Hey jackass, just because he said it is "OK" to use it to model it, that does not mean that in reality the fields are frozen-in. That is what he meant about the dangerous pseudo-pedagogical concept, it's not reality.


Which frigging part of him using it himself are you not getting? Which part of him saying "in several situations, but far from all, ***it is legitimate to use it.*** "? How bloody thick can you continue to be? So, according to the EU idiot, there are several situations, according to Alfven, where the plasma is infinitely conducting? Don't be stupid. It is as close to infinitely conducting as makes no difference, and you can model it as such, and it will behave as such. And that, as shown in the table, includes the solar wind.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2018
Now, what exactly are you not getting about this?

No plasma is perfectly conductive, it is a theoretical concept. Hence, no frozen-in fields anywhere.
That's not what Alfven said at all. You're lying, @cantthink69.

Alfven said, at the first and at the last, that you get perfect frozen in fields with perfect conductance, partial frozen fields with very low resistance, and no frozen fields only with zero conductance. It's what the theorem says, and you can check it on Wikipedia:
with a high electric conductivity, or equivalently a small resistivity, the frozen in theorem can be approximately applied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfvén%27s_theorem

Here is the exact statement of Alfven's Theorem in plain English: the magnetic flux passing through a surface moving along with the fluid of a current is conserved.

It's all right there in Wikipedia.
Indagator
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2018
Benni

You still seem to be a little unclear on the concept of evidence! Tis sad that you need someone to take you by the hand and show you your mistakes! I guess some people take longer than others to learn simple concepts. I can be patient.

The IRCam Galactic Center webpage actually SHOWS EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A BLACK HOLE at the center of our galaxy! Let's go another round, shall we? Isn't this fun!

Remember, the IRCam "lecture" webpages (plural) are part of an introductory course in Astronomy. As we walk down the Galactic Center webpage we see a progression of evidence that shows the SMBH at the center of our galaxy is not very luminous. However, a "compact" gravitational, radio source "object" exists, regardless of your eu religious beliefs!
Indagator
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2018
Quoting DIRECTLY from the Galactic Center webpage ...
"There is a supermassive black hole (about 3 million times the mass of the sun) in the center of the Milky Way, and we can study it and its surroundings in far finer detail than we can for the nucleus of any other galaxy."

Now, given your poor reading comprehension skills, Benni, I feel it necessary to highlight something from that last quote.

Again the Rieke's say, "THERE IS A SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLE (about 3 million times the mass of the sun) IN THE CENTER OF THE MILKY WAY, and ..."

Where on the IRCam webpage did they happen to say that, Benni? How about here: http://ircamera.a...hygc.htm

Image 6: "The region is a dramatic radio source ....The Galactic Center itself is the bright source to the lower right"
Indagator
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2018
Continuing ...

"Many galaxies have supermassive black holes at their centers. Could ours be one of those? If so, why is the black hole so dim?" Interesting questions to ask first year astronomy students!

Image 7: "Ever increasing resolution in infrared images SHOWED THE BLACK HOLE IS NOT THE ENERGY SOURCE."

Remember, this image is more than ten years old, and the Rieke's (along with the mainstream science community) have evidence that there is a black hole at the center of the galaxy! That evidence is not obvious in GC lecture image #7, as they say, "Any black hole must be invisible. If the black hole dominated the ENERGY of the Galactic Center, it would be the second brightest source in the infrared image."

But only the second brightest? What is this GCIRS 7 object? GCIRS 7 is an M1 red supergiant with a radius of approximately 980 solar radii! Friggin' huge!
Indagator
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2018
Continuing ...

Image 8: "Even in X-rays, where we look to find stellar black holes, there is nothing to draw our attention to a supermassive black hole here!"

So, what do you think we have we learned so far? The "compact" gravitational object, Sgr A*, is not "hot" enough to be seen in x-rays or IR. Furthermore, extinction from dust blocks our view of the galactic center at visible wavelengths. Is there some other wavelength we might "see" Sgr A* in? Yup!

Sgr A*, "... turns out to be a unique radio source and its characteristics clearly suggest it is the supermassive black hole. ... unlike the stars, radio measurements show it is not orbiting but just sits stolidly in the center. This requires it to be far more massive than any of the stars."

Please REREAD that quote from the Rieke's Galactic Center "lecture" webpage! Is anything starting to dawn on you, Benni? Perhaps this is not the "evidence" you are looking for to support your religious views.
Indagator
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2018
Continuing ...

Benni

Don't you think it's interesting? Sgr A* is not visible in several bands of the electromagentic spectrum, yet it is quite visible in the radio! That fact tells scientist something about what it is doing sitting "stolidly in the center" of our galaxy! Perhaps a second year astronomy course in instrumentation might help you address that issue. Not effin' likely though, eh Benni?

Image 9: "... in the Galactic Center the frame is filled with millions of stars (none of which can be seen in the radio image). We zoom in by a factor of about 1,000 to see the Sgr A* radio source just barely resolved by our highest resolution radio measurements."

Remember, this image is more that ten years old as the original webpage was uploaded to the interwebz in December of 2007!
Indagator
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2018
Continuing ...

The next question asked by the Rieke's is salient to a first year astronomy course ...

"Can we prove there is a black hole?????"

Why YES! Of course we can!

Image 10: "We have measured enough velocities of stars to measure the gravitational field accurately. Even if it doesn't make much energy, and is virtually invisible, it turns out there is a very massive (more than 3 million sun masses) black hole right in the center."

Please note, this animation is constantly being updated (elsewhere) as data is collected! At present, there are now more than two dozen stars being tracked orbiting the central "compact" gravitational mass! Furthermore, much of the data used to construct this animation comes from the Keck 10m telescopes using diffraction-limited NIR instrumentation and AO.
Indagator
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2018
Continuing ...

Image 11: "Although it is too dim to detect most of the time, once in a while the black hole flares up - presumably because something has fallen into it and energy has been released as a result!"

So, Benni, the good doctors are still talking about our SMBH, this time flaring as some small "object" is consumed, converting its mass into energy. All very simple mainstream science!

Regarding accretion disk physics, from the webpage, "We think that the matter surrounding the black hole in the Galactic Center is very hot and in a sphere rather than a disk, and virtually transparent to its own radiation so it does not heat up efficiently. The energy is not emitted in the X-ray, but is carried inward by the flow of matter toward the event horizon."
Indagator
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2018
Continuing ...

The study of this "sphere of infalling material" is tied to the physics of advection-dominated accretion flows. An area of active research!!! For example, is the ADAF mechanism responsible for the birth of the young stellar population? Are the thousands of older stars in the galactic center at all important to the formation of an ADAF?

Finally, the Rieke's leave a question for the keen first year student ... How did the young stars form so close to the Sgr A* black hole? Sounds like it might be a good topic for a grad thesis?

Indagator
4 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2018
Continuing ...

Benni

Through their Galactic Center "lecture" webpage, the Rieke's have given us evidence for the existence of a black hole at the center of our galaxy! Recall ...
1) Sgr A* is a unique radio source located at the center of our galaxy!
2) The radio source, Sgr A* does not move! Please reread again!!!
3) Sgr A* is surrounded by dozens of stars following Keplerian orbits around a "compact" gravitational object with a mass currently estimated to be 4E+06 solar masses!

Time to open your eyes, Benni! Our "world" does not orbit around ducks and bunnies, but around a SMBH at the center of our galaxy! The evidence is there! You choose to ignore this evidence because it causes you to question your religious convictions! Remember --- The electric universe is a LIE!
Indagator
4 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2018
Continuing ...

One last post for tonight.

Benni!

Every time you open your mouth, you prove how little you know about general science, physics, astronomy, astrophysics, instrumentation ... the list goes on. Tis truly sad! You seem to have problems grasping even the most basic concepts. In the military, we would call you a waste of rations! Perhaps you have a learning disability. If so, my heart goes out to you! I can't imagine what your world must be like.

Again, I don't think the IRCam webpages provide the "evidence" you are looking for to support your religious views. Black holes exist! We are starting to get a handle on how to image them! Tis a great time to be alive and doing science!
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2018
I don't think the IRCam webpages provide the "evidence" you are looking for to support your religious views. Black holes exist! We are starting to get a handle on how to image them! Tis a great time to be alive and doing science


......"religious views": I have seen things about something called "faith" & what that means in the context of religious experience, it goes something like this: "Hebrews 11:1-6 King James Version (KJV)
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."........sounds eerily like the BLACK HOLE you claim exists at the galactic center for which there is NO OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE.

Nice having all that faith to believe in things for which OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE is totally absent from the 7th pic at: http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, but you have "faith", well good luck with your faith fantasies, I just don't believe the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE is lying to my eyes.
RNP
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2018
@Benni
Incredible. Indagator kindly takes a lot of time to carefully explain to you the web site that you keep linking.....and you learn NOTHING!

You are clearly not only uneducated in science, but also uneducable. Perhaps that explains how you can be so ignorant after your purported 6 years studying as and Electrical/Nuclear Engineer.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2018
^^^^^^^ Frankly, Benni, nobody could care less what you think. You have shown that you are clueless when it comes to science (and maths). What you might think is a total irrelevance. However, if you actually had a pair, you'd do what I asked weeks ago, and give us your prediction for what the EHT will have seen when the data is analysed and published. After all, in your view, there is nothing there. This is yet another observational test of your claims. Given that the orbital data have already left you unable to explain what Sgr A* is, perhaps you can now clue us in? What will they find?
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2018
Perhaps that explains how you can be so ignorant after your purported ***6 years studying as and Electrical/Nuclear Engineer***.


For anybody that believes that, I have a bridge for sale.

Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2018
You are clearly not only uneducated in science
.....uh, huh, coming from the one who said this along with jonesy:

"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."

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

...and then I started outting up links to:

http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, it's called eating crow.
RNP
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2018
@Benni
All the points I make in my quote you give above are correct, Indagator also provided you with evidence to the same effect in the detailed description he gave you. Your links do NOTHING to disprove anything I said and the fact that you think they do just further illustrates you lack of comprehension. Why do you REFUSE to try and learn?
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2018
And Alfvén pointed out how it was wrong, it is how he began his Nobel lecture.
https://www.nobel...ure.html


No, he didn't! How many times do you idiots need this explaining to you?

Try not to be the utter moron you are for 5-minutes, read sections 3 and 4 in his Nobel lecture. He is telling everyone that the frozen-in condition is often misleading. And Alfvén did say the frozen-in condition ***may*** be applicable, not that it was an absolute. There is no, zero, not any perfectly conductive plasma anywhere, there is always a non-zero resistance. Your nonsensical claim that it is "as close to infinitely conducting as makes no difference" is just a bunch of hand wavy BS. The frozen-in condition is pseudoscientific claptrap as Alfvén pointed out. You're just too stupid to see the facts.

https://www.nobel...ure.html
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2018
@cantthink69, I did a text search and the only place the word "frozen" appears in Alfven's Nobel Prize lecture is in a table where he says you can't assume that all magnetic fields generated by plasmas are completely frozen in.

Which is exactly what his theorem says. Which is what I said above: the higher the conductance, the more the field is frozen in, the higher the resistance, the less the field is frozen in.

And it's still all there in Wikipedia. The article in Wikipedia says it all. It's what the math says, and it's what the text says. Why don't you read it instead of continuing to make a fool of yourself?
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2018
The frozen-in condition is pseudoscientific claptrap as Alfvén pointed out. You're just too stupid to see the facts.


Nope. You wouldn't have a clue. Ask any plasma physicist. And you most certainly are not one. Why did Alfven use the frozen-in condition in 1957 to model comets? Why is he still saying in 1987 that it is still fine to use it there? Why does he never say that you mustn't use it under any circumstances? Why does he produce a table showing where he believes it is safe to use, and other places where it isn't? What was the point of that? So, his own words show you to be wrong.
I'm afraid that you EU wooists just haven't a clue what you're talking about. Which is not surprising, given that there is nobody with a clue about plasma physics connected with your mythology cult.

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2018
A theorem can't be pseudoscientific. Theorems have mathematical proofs. And it is, after all, Alfven's own theorem (that's why it's named after him). Are you claiming Alfven was a pseudoscientist, @cantthink69?
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2018
Another obvious example of why the frozen-in approximation is fine to use in certain circumstances, is the aforementioned interaction of the solar wind/ IMF with a comet. Alfven first came up with the draped magnetic field scenario in 1957, by assuming a frozen-in state for the IMF within the solar wind. Later, more sophisticated modelling, agreed with this. When artificial comet experiments were carried out in 1984-5, they also confirmed it. And then we went to Halley, and saw it at a real comet. And since at 67P, and elsewhere. Not a bad outcome for a faulty theorem! It's a pity that the EU geniuses have never managed anything remotely successful in predicting anything to do with comets, or anything else, for that matter. They just sit on their backsides moaning about stuff that they don't even understand.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2018
[Updated the thread and so that most of my points were made. The end can remain:]

I hope we can agree that a useful approximation is, like Newton gravity it is "true enough for governmental work (rocket science)". And it is neither "hand wavy" nor "BS" nor "pseudoscientific claptrap", which we can all see where *words Alfvén did not use*.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2018
@Benni
All the points I make in my quote you give above are correct, Indagator also provided you with evidence to the same effect in the detailed description he gave you. Your links do NOTHING to disprove anything I said and the fact that you think they do just further illustrates you lack of comprehension. Why do you REFUSE to try and learn?


All your points are dead wrong, the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE in real pictures from the telescope using IR technology at http://ircamera.a...nter.htm are proof that stars at the center of the galaxy can be IMAGED in quite detailed resolution, contrary to your insistence that they couldn't be.

Why do you refuse to try & learn? Try learning we are not living in the 20th century with your archaic concept of technology, it's 21st century tech that performed in the manner you were adamant was impossible, all I did was link you to the above website that proved it, embarrassing for you I know.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2018
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Oh dear, the stupid in that post!
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2018
@LenniTheLiar, you're just lying again. That entire page was explained to you and you just ignored it and hoped it would go away. There isn't any place to hide any more. It doesn't show anything at all that supports any of your implicit claims, and in any case you won't explicitly explain what you claim it says in the first place, so it's obvious you're just flailing anyway.

Go sweep some toilets. That's about all you're good for.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2018
r, you're just lying again. That entire page was explained to you and you just ignored it and hoped it would go away. There isn't any place to hide any more. It doesn't show anything at all that supports any of your implicit claims, and in any case you won't explicitly explain what you claim it says in the first place, so it's obvious you're just flailing anyway.


Seriously old man, you do need to find a different retirement career, even pop-sci cosmology is over your head. Pop-sci cosmology has at least tried to move into the 20th century, but you can't even catch up to that wagon, what with all your piddling around in 19th century TUG Math concepts of BHs. But hey, you RNP, Jonesy, etc, get used to the 21st century, that's what http://ircamera.a...nter.htm is all about, you three clowns shot your mouths off & you resent me having to make you eat one hell of a lot of crow dished out to you right off your own funny farm.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2018
^^^^^Christ, what an idiot. This was the loon who thought visible light didn't heat things! And boasted about differential equations, but then couldn't even get a simple equation right to figure out the Schwarzschild radius! And then thinks that drawing lines in crayon on his laptop screen proves that the stars in the galactic centre aren't orbiting a black hole! Messrs. Dunning & Kruger, where are you? We need you urgently. This looks terminal!
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2018
^^^^^Christ, what an idiot. This was the loon who thought visible light didn't heat things! And boasted about differential equations, but then couldn't even get a simple equation right to figure out the Schwarzschild radius! And then thinks that drawing lines in crayon on his laptop screen proves that the stars in the galactic centre aren't orbiting a black hole! Messrs. Dunning & Kruger, where are you? We need you urgently. This looks terminal!


........funny farm occupant on call.

What does crow taste like?
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2018
I suppose one benefit of being Benni is that he is too stupid to realise how stupid he is, and therefore cannot possibly be embarrassed by the idiotic nonsense he writes.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2018
@LenniTheLiar, you still haven't said what claim you are making that you think that web page actually substantiates, nor where. You're afraid to. It's obvious. You caper and gibber and point to some random page and claim (implicitly) it "prooooooooves their are NO BLAK HOLEZ" without ever actually saying how it does so, and when the page is reviewed it turns out to show good evidence for the existence of the black hole at the galactic center of our own galaxy. This is just more LenniLies™. If you're going to make something up, at least have the common sense to make it credible.

Or go back to sweeping toilets which you probably aren't any better at than this.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2018
Are you claiming Alfven was a pseudoscientist, @cantthink69?

Alfvén explained his mistake, he said it was the biggest error in his career. Just because there is a maths equation doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality. It's a simple fact that there is no frozen-in condition in reality, it is a misleading approximation which allows morons like jonesdumb think they understand the processes but drastically misinterprets them.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2018
Oh, really? And where exactly did Alfven "explain" this "mistake?"

Understand as well that the derivation of Alfven's Theorem is from Maxwell's Equations. They seem to work fine everywhere else. For 180 years. Just sayin'.

Finally, understand as well that because a theorem is proven, there isn't any way for it to be a mistake. The proof is public, and everyone can see it for themselves and verify whether it's right or not. So if you claim you have "proof" it was a "mistake" you're simply lying, nothing more.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2018
Are you claiming Alfven was a pseudoscientist, @cantthink69?

Alfvén explained his mistake, he said it was the biggest error in his career. Just because there is a maths equation doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality. It's a simple fact that there is no frozen-in condition in reality, it is a misleading approximation which allows morons like jonesdumb think they understand the processes but drastically misinterprets them.


Then why, you idiot, is he still saying it can be used in 1987? Did he change his mind before he died in 1995? It's in black & white, you loon. Areas where is can be modelled as a fluid, with a frozen-in approximation, and areas where it can't. Why is he telling us to use it in thnose situations? Was he lying? Or, far more likely, is it that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about, as usual? Want me to post the link to that table again? And to the quotes saying it was fine to use in some situations?
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2018
OK, here are Alfven's own words from the paper in which the table I linked is included;

Properties of Cosmic Plasmas.
Magnetohydrodynamics was born in the solar photosphere, conceived by the magnetized sunspot problem. In the photosphere the mean free path is small, and it is reasonable to use a fluid model in which the properties of the plasma are similar to a magnetized fluid (see Table 1).


Viking in the plasma universe (1987)
Alfven, H.
https://agupubs.o...04p00475

If anybody doubts that that is indeed what he wrote, then I'm afraid the paper is paywalled. However............ http://www4.zippy...ile.html

So I would say that is incontrovertible proof that CD has get things all wrong. As per usual. I understand that EUists would struggle to understand the plasma physics outlined by Alfven, but you'd think they would have a few people who could actually understand written English.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2018
@LenniTheLiar, you still haven't said what claim you are making that you think that web page actually substantiates, nor where. You're afraid to.


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

"Ever increasing resolution showed the black hole is not the energy source. The brightest source in the very high resolution near infrared image to the right is IRS 7, a red supergiant that puts out most of its energy in the near infrared. The other bright stars are also very young and massive. The blue-appearing ones in the center of the image are a unique clustering of very luminous, massive stars." Photo#7

"This series of images shows the stars moving very rapidly (~1000 km/sec) in their orbits around the position of Sgr A* (the small yellow cross). On this scale, its motion would be imperceptibly small, so this animation demonstrates that it is truly undetected - there is no source to be seen under the yellow cross." Photo #8



jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2018
^^^^^^^Again failing to understand the words 'black' and 'quiescent'. Give it up Benji, you are way too stupid to be tackling this.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2018
What does Alfvén have to say about the frozen-in condition. Hint, it contradicts jonesdumb and da schnied. From 1986, 'Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics';
A. Frozen-in Field Lines - A Pseudo-Pedagogical Concept
In Cosaical Electrodynamics I tried to give a survey of a field in which I had been active for about two decades. In one of the chapters I treated magnetohydrodynamic waves. I pointed out that in an infinitely conductive magnetized fluid the magnetic field lines could be considered as "frozen" into the medium - under certain conditions - and this concept made it possible to treat the waves as oscillations of frozen-in strings.
The "frozen-in" picture of magnetic field lines differs from Maxwell's views. He defined a magnetic field line as a line which everywhere is parallel to the magnetic field. If the current system which produce the field changes, the magnetic field changes and field lines can merge or reconnect.
-TBC-
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2018
...cont...
However, if the current system is constant the magnetic field is also constant. To speak of magnetic field lines moving perpendicular to the field makes no sense. They are not material.
In a detailed analysis of the motion of magnetic lines of force Newcomb (1958) has demonstrated that "it is permissible to ascribe a velocity v to the line of force if and only if vx(E + v x B) vanishes identically".
I thought that the frozen-in concept was very good from a pedagogical point of view, and indeed it became very popular. In reality, however, it was not a good pedagogical concept but a dangerous "pseudo-pedagogical concept" By "pseudo-pedagogical" I mean a concept which makes you believe that you understand a phenomenon whereas in reality vou have drastically misunderstood it.
I never believed in it 100% myself. This is evident from the chapter on "magnetic storms and aurora" in the same monograph....
...TBC....
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2018
...cont...
I followed the Birkeland-Störmer general approach but in order to make that applicable to the motion of low-energy particles in what is now called the magnetosphere it was necessary to introduce an approximate treatment (the "guiding-centre" method) of the motion of charged particles. (As I have pointed out in CP III.1, I still believe that this is a very good method for obtaining an approximate survey of many situations and that it is a pity that it is not more generally used.) The conductivity of a plasma in the magnetosphere was not relevant.
Some years later criticism by Cowling made me realize that there was a serious difficulty here. According to Spitzer's formula for conductivity, the conductivity in the magnetosphere was very high. Hence the frozen-in concept should be applicable and the magnetic field lines connecting the auroral zone with the equatorial zone should be frozen-in....
...TBC...
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2018
...cont...
At that time (-1950) we already knew enough to understand that a frozen-in treatment of the magnetosphere was absurd. But I did not understand why the frozen-in concept was not applicable. It gave me a headache for some years.
In 1963 Carl-Gunne Fälthammar and I published the second edition of Cosmical Electrodynamics together. He gave a much higher standard to the book and new results were introduced. One of them was that a non-isotropic plasma in a magnetic mirror field could produce a parallel electric field EH. We analyzed the consequences of this in some detail, and demonstrated with a number of examples that in the presence of an E (electric field) the frozen-in model broke down....
...TBC...
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2018
...cont...
On p. 191 we wrote: "In low density plasmas the concept of frozen-in lines of force is questionable. The concept of frozen-in lines of force ***may be*** useful in solar physics where we have to do with high- and medium-density plasmas, but may be grossly misleading if applied to the magnetosphere of the earth. To plasma in interstellar space it should be applied with some care."

So, in conclusion,
1. Alfvén never believed the frozen-in condition 100%.
2. The frozen-in condition does not agree with Maxwell's equations (per Alfvén), contrary to da schnied's claims.
3. It is not at all relevant to low density plasmas, as jonesdumb keeps claiming.
4. The frozen-in condition is a dangerous pseudo-pedagogical concept rife with misuse.
5. Clearly jonesdumb and da schnied are morons who live in opposite world.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2018
It would seem as if da schnied and jonesdumb are relying on General Magnetivity again.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2018
^^^^^^^Again failing to understand the words 'black' and 'quiescent'. Give it up Benji, you are way too stupid to be tackling this.


......coming from the one of the chief occupants on the plantation of funny farm 19th century cosmology who can't remember if he took Differential Equations in his high school algebra class or if was was in that one year stint at Uni in Auckland.

Hey, why only one year at Uni? Got the boot, right? Algebra class too tough for you? Maybe it was those Differential Equations you thought you took in that class that proved to be the coup-de gras for you?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2018
It would seem as if da schnied and jonesdumb are relying on General Magnetivity again.


Nope. The table from 1987 post-dates that, and he makes no mention of not being able to use the frozen-in concept in certain scenarios. As he did himself with comets. As he agreed with for the interaction of the solar wind with Venus. Etc.
What you have done, is translate, "is not applicable across the board" to "is never applicable." And I've shown that to be wrong. See Table 1. I'm assuming it is merely an inability to understand written English on your part. The alternative is that you are deliberately misrepresenting Alfven, for whatever reason.
Alfven was mainly interested in the magnetosphere, which is a very complicated place to model. Even more so in his day, as we hadn't had Cluster, Themis, MMS, etc. He was right about the frozen-in concept in parts of the magnetosphere. A breakdown of frozen-in is required for MRx. As Falthammar would tell you.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2018
Hey, why only one year at Uni? Got the boot, right? Algebra class too tough for you? Maybe it was those Differential Equations you thought you took in that class that proved to be the coup-de gras for you?


Sorry, what would be the Schwarzschild radius of a 4m Msun black hole? No differentiation required, and you still stuffed it up. You've never been near a maths class in your life, let alone a university, Mr. Dunning-Kruger.
'Coup de grâce', by the way. Spelling not your thing either. Anything you were good at?
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2018
Sorry, what would be the Schwarzschild radius of a 4m Msun black hole?
Zero, because such things don't exist, therefore there is nothing to calculate:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses
Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:.
http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

Einstein here FALSIFYING the premise of Schwarzschild radius for anything.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2018
Zero, because such things don't exist, therefore there is nothing to calculate:


So why did you try, and manage to stuff it up? Sorry, Benji, you've been busted. Can't even do a simple maths equation. Back to the cleaning.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2018
On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses


...........Has nothing to do with the Schwarzschild radius. He didn't like the idea that his maths led to a ***singularity***. Nobody does. It is where GR breaks down. If he was right we should see a very large number of separate objects in a spherical shell where the BH is. Reckon they'll find them? Why can't your IR telescope see them? What are they?
Sorry, Einstein, not for the first time, was wrong.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2018
What you have done, is translate,

Actually, you are doing the "translating" (IOW; lying)
"In low density plasmas the concept of frozen-in lines of force is questionable. The concept of frozen-in lines of force ***may be*** useful in solar physics where we have to do with high- and medium-density plasmas, but may be grossly misleading if applied to the magnetosphere of the earth. To plasma in interstellar space it should be applied with some care."
Clearly you are the one struggling with Engrish.
Merely the presence of any electric field nullifies the frozen-in condition, show me one example of a natural plasma w/o an electric field.
Solar wind electric field, check!
Cometary electric field, check!
Magnetospheric electric field, check.
Magellanic stream with it's changing magnetic fields, i.e. electric fields, check!
Any natural plasma devoid of electric fields? None!
Your frozen-in field pseudoscience is bupkis. It's not an approximation, it's a delusion.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2018
What you have done, is translate,

Actually, you are doing the "translating" (IOW; lying)
"In low density plasmas the concept of frozen-in lines of force is questionable. The concept of frozen-in lines of force ***may be*** useful in solar physics where we have to do with high- and medium-density plasmas, but may be grossly misleading if applied to the magnetosphere of the earth. To plasma in interstellar space it should be applied with some care."
Clearly you are the one struggling with Engrish.


And.....................? That is precisely what I said, you burke. Why do you think I posted a link to Table 1 from VITPU? So brainwashed acolytes like you could actually see precisely where he said it was and wasn't applicable. What part of that table are you having difficulty interpreting?
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2018
Alfvén was also clear, and repeatedly stated that the frozen-in condition ***may be*** applicable. Even when he stated it should be applicable to certain regions he always prefaced by saying it may or may not apply. He went so far to state he didn't believe in it as a valid approximation.
The presence of the measured electric currents in the solar wind, at Venus, and at comets nullifies the frozen-in conditions as stated by Alfvén. There are no perfectly conductive plasmas in nature, as such the frozen-in condition approximates fantasy.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2018
Alfvén was also clear, and repeatedly stated that the frozen-in condition ***may be*** applicable. Even when he stated it should be applicable to certain regions he always prefaced by saying it may or may not apply. He went so far to state he didn't believe in it as a valid approximation.
The presence of the measured electric currents in the solar wind, at Venus, and at comets nullifies the frozen-in conditions as stated by Alfvén. There are no perfectly conductive plasmas in nature, as such the frozen-in condition approximates fantasy.


There are no electric currents in the solar wind, you prawn! Why do you ****ing think he used the frozen-in approximation when modelling the behaviour of the SW/ IMF with a comet?????? Why is he still sayiog in 1987 that cometary comae are fine to model with MHD? Because he was an idiot? Or because you are an idiot, and can't see what is written in front of you in a table, as well as his own words.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2018
Merely the presence of any electric field nullifies the frozen-in condition, show me one example of a natural plasma w/o an electric field.


Outright lie. Show me where this is said. Be careful. Alfven came up with the frozen-in concept himself. Was he so ignorant of plasmas that he forgot, or didn't know about electric fields? Seriously? Geez, bit of a doofus, wasn't he? So why are we even discussing him?

jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2018
Cometary electric field, check!


Uncheck.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2018
Ever increasing resolution showed the black hole is not the energy source. The brightest source in the very high resolution near infrared image to the right is IRS 7, a red supergiant that puts out most of its energy in the near infrared. The other bright stars are also very young and massive. The blue-appearing ones in the center of the image are a unique clustering of very luminous, massive stars. Photo#7
Yes; this shows that the BH at the GC is not visible in NIR. Draw a conclusion. Then I will refute it.

This series of images shows the stars moving very rapidly (~1000 km/sec) in their orbits around the position of Sgr A* (the small yellow cross). On this scale, its motion would be imperceptibly small, so this animation demonstrates that it is truly undetected - there is no source to be seen under the yellow cross." Photo #8
Yes, precisely what one would expect from a BH. Did you have a point to make here?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2018
@cantthink69, I noticed you didn't provide any links to scholarly sources. Can you explain this lack of reliable sources as other than obfuscation and typical lying?

Presentation very fast of many arguments without sources is the discernible pattern of the "Gish Gallop." This is a well-known rhetorical device. My solution to it is to address the first lie and I never bother with anything else.

Good luck with that.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2018
What you have done, is translate,
is not applicable across the board
to
is never applicable.
And I've shown that to be wrong.
Yes, you have @jones. It's also what @cantthink69 keeps doing; same maneuver as with Alven's Theorem, claiming it means nothing if it's not perfect, when it's clearly evident to anyone competent that it says it applies perfectly with perfect conductivity, partially with some resistance, and not at all only when resistance is perfect.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2018
Cometary electric field, check!


Uncheck.

Ignorance is bliss, eh, jonesdumb

https://agupubs.o...GL072419
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2018
There are no electric currents in the solar wind,

On the contrary, wiki-type site w/ all refs included.

https://www.plasm...nt_sheet

Electron beams in the solar wind.

https://www.resea...Ecliptic
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2018
@cantthink69, I noticed you didn't provide any links to scholarly sources. Can you explain this lack of reliable sources as other than obfuscation and typical lying?


........but you think 19th century Black Hole TUG Math is a reliable concept for building theories about what is claimed to be the most massive object at the center of our galaxy?

In the meantime your "reliable sources" can't find it in the 7 & 8th pictures at http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, but you're not embarrassed by it?

C'mon Schneibo, I keep trying to coax you out of 19th century cosmology & all you do is double down right along with the aether guys.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2018
You appear to be under the delusion that showing that black holes are just as possible in Newtonian TUG as in Einsteinian relativity is somehow "wrong."

It's not. Black holes are a feature of all gravity theories. You seem to have missed the point.

And I'm pretty content to go with Pierre-Simon Laplace, since he's the one who first applied calculus to celestial mechanics. Newton's TUG was what he used. If you want more refinements, then you can get the same result with relativity, which also has black holes.

As far as your claims about low resolution pictures not seeing the black hole, this is idiocy. Of course you can't see it at low resolution, it's too small duhhh umm. You've missed the point of the entire web page. And it seems this is yet another place you've missed the point. You seem to do that a lot.

You're telling #LenniLies™ again, @LenniTheLiar.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2018
@cantthink69, I noticed you didn't provide any links to scholarly sources. Can you explain this lack of reliable sources as other than obfuscation and typical lying?

Curious, I post relevant scholarly sources which with the slightest bit of effort even da schnied could have located, yet nary a comment from da schnied regarding his own slew of lies. Typical.
And crickets from jonesdumb after being shown he is clearly a moron.
Spacebaby2001
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
@Benni

So out of curiosity lets set three 'just for fun' axioms. 1- Things move around, 2- Given enough time things that move around will bump into other things, and 3- Gravity will cause some things that bump into each other to stick together forming one larger thing.

Ok, now lets be a little crazy and think about a lot of big things (lets say stars) bumping into each other and sticking to each other. In your studies and in your mind what happens when 4 million stars move around and bump into each other and stick together? is it like one big ultra mega star? Does it continue to shine? I'm just curious to your thoughts on what happens to matter when when crazy bonkers amounts of it come together. Is it just a big rock?
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
@cantthink69, I noticed you didn't provide any links to scholarly sources. Can you explain this lack of reliable sources as other than obfuscation and typical lying?

Curious, I post relevant scholarly sources which with the slightest bit of effort even da schnied could have located, yet nary a comment from da schnied regarding his own slew of lies. Typical.
And crickets from jonesdumb after being shown he is clearly a moron.


Sorry? What are you yabbering about now? I showed you that Alfven modelled his comet tails using the frozen-in condition. He was still saying that was fine in 1987. 1 year after he had been shown to be correct at Halley. As were a number of other predictions based on MHD modelling. You have yet to provide any evidence that Alfven, or anybody else, says that you cannot use the frozen-in concept in some situations. Ergo, you were lying when you claimed that he did. See Table 1.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2018
Your first reference says that H2O+ ions were detected, @cantthink69.

Weren't you claiming there's no ice in comets?

Oops.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2018
Oh, and @cantthink69, something not mentioned in the abstract for your first reference: seems that it's not the comets making the electric field. It's the solar wind. See here: http://blogs.esa....et-sing/

In other words, even though the nucleus of 67P/C-G has no magnetic field of its own (as announced at this year's EGU General Assembly), the comet's atmosphere or coma is magnetised.
Weren't you claiming that comets make electric fields? That is wrong.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2018
Your first reference says that H2O+ ions were detected, @cantthink69.

Weren't you claiming there's no ice in comets?

Oops.

Nope, that is a strawman jonesdumb uses to "prove" the electric comet is incorrect. It's his own claim due to his ignorance of plasma processes.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2018
Your first reference says that H2O+ ions were detected, @cantthink69.

Weren't you claiming there's no ice in comets?

Oops.

Nope, that is a strawman jonesdumb uses to "prove" the electric comet is incorrect. It's his own claim due to his ignorance of plasma processes.


Nope. It is what the idiot Thornhill claimed. No H2O or ice. The H2O was due to dumb scientists mistaking OH for H2O. And the OH was impossibly made by H+ from the solar wind hurtling into O- at 400 km/s. Impossible. I've told you; the guy is a cretin.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2018
Oh, and @cantthink69, something not mentioned in the abstract for your first reference: seems that it's not the comets making the electric field. It's the solar wind. See here: http://blogs.esa....et-sing/

In other words, even though the nucleus of 67P/C-G has no magnetic field of its own (as announced at this year's EGU General Assembly), the comet's atmosphere or coma is magnetised.
Weren't you claiming that comets make electric fields? That is wrong.


Precisely. No intrinsic magnetic field for the comet. None detected at Halley, either. However, Alfven knew this years before the Halley mission. Why these people struggle with it I have no idea. It's all down to their belief in Velikovskian woo, most likely.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2018
And the OH was impossibly made by H+ from the solar wind

Only impossible to jonesdumb and the plasma ignoramuses, because that is what the data showed. There is very little h2o on the surface, easily explained by condensation from coma.
Weren't you claiming that comets make electric fields?

Precisely. No intrinsic magnetic field for the comet.

Tag team logical fallacy, it's a daisy chain of cockpuppets. I never said that, I said there was an electric field. Besides, it makes no difference if it is intrinsic or otherwise, it's there and it has it effects.
It was jonesdumb who claimed there was no electric fields at comets, incorrect.
It was jonesdumb who claimed there were no electric currents in the solar wind, also incorrect.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2018
And the OH was impossibly made by H+ from the solar wind

Only impossible to jonesdumb and the plasma ignoramuses, because that is what the data showed.
Thought that was just @jones making it up. Yet here you are arguing it again.

Liar.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
Meanwhile, @cantthink69, here you are claiming there are electric currents coming out of these comets. If there's an electric current there's a magnetic field. Yet here's a mission to 67P, and we see no electric currents coming out of it (or going in for that matter) and no magnetic field. All of that comes from the solar wind, and it all happens where the cloud of dust and gas meets the solar wind. And that gas is H2O, which gets ionized by the solar wind to H2O+.

The problem with lying is you have to keep straight what you said. And to do that you have to be a lot brighter than you are.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2018
Yet here's a mission to 67P, and we see no electric currents coming out of it (or going in for that matter) and no magnetic field. All of that comes from the solar wind, and it all happens where the cloud of dust and gas meets the solar wind.

You have much catching up to do da schnied, or try to stop lying.
There is a measured magnetic field, check.
Electric currents, check.
Electric field, check.
You too can look it up, obviously pretty hard for you.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2018
All from the solar wind, @cantthink69, which is what it says in the source I linked. Let's repeat: no intrinsic magnetic field. The only measured electric field fluctuates at 40 millihertz, thus no net electric field at all. The comet is emitting H2O.

Now stop lying about it. And stop trying to pretend others are lying when the data are right there in front of you from a reliable source, the EESA mission Rosetta to comet 67P.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2018
There is a measured magnetic field, check.


Outright lie.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2018
If the surface was magnetised, we would have expected to see a clear increase in the magnetic field readings as we got closer and closer to the surface," explains Hans-Ulrich. "But this was not the case at any of the locations we visited, so we conclude that ***Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is a remarkably non-magnetic object***.


https://www.esa.i...gnetised
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2018
@jones, for your convenience, the underlying paper: https://www.ann-g...2015.pdf

Annals of Geophysics, 2015, open access, has all the hard data from the EESA Rosetta report I linked earlier.

Magnetic field strength 4 nanoteslas. Incidentally there may be an error in the EESA article; the paper says they measured *magnetic* field strength, not *electric*. Not quite sure; it may be both, depending on the nature of the instruments used, I'll look into that.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
Electric currents, check.


Caused by the SW/ IMF interaction with the cometary species. In other words, induced. There is a weak current at the diamagnetic cavity boundary, for instance. This is where, as predicted by Alfven, the IMF piles up, and then cometary ions and electrons do their thing around the piled up field. The comet itself produces no currents. Why would it?
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
@jones, for your convenience, the underlying paper: https://www.ann-g...2015.pdf

Annals of Geophysics, 2015, open access, has all the hard data from the EESA Rosetta report I linked earlier.

Magnetic field strength 4 nanoteslas. Incidentally there may be an error in the EESA article; the paper says they measured *magnetic* field strength, not *electric*. Not quite sure; it may be both, depending on the nature of the instruments used, I'll look into that.


Yes, this was within the coma, and would obviously be the IMF. 4nT sounds about right. However, Philae took measurements all the way to the surface. There is a paper, but I've a nasty feeling it's paywalled. It was in a Science Express special issue. I shall have a butcher's.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
Unfortunately, I was right about it being paywalled. I do have it though. The abstract is here:

The nonmagnetic nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Auster, H-U, et al.
http://science.sc.../aaa5102
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2018
There is a measured magnetic field, check.


Outright lie.

LOL, willful ignorance is jonesdumb's way of life. Magnetic field measured at comet. Doesn't matter if it's induced, it is there and has its effects.
https://academic..../3883760
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
Of course, we had a very good indication that comets didn't have much, if any, intrinsic magnetic field from over 30 years ago. Giotto flew through the diamagnetic cavity of Halley. Zilch nT, for the most part, so not a lot going on.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
@cantdrive69 can't stop lying.

Not "at" the comet. Nor "from" the comet, either. *Around* the comet, where the solar wind and the coma interact.

"At" the interaction zone between the coma and the solar wind. "From" the solar wind.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
There is a measured magnetic field, check.


Outright lie.

LOL, willful ignorance is jonesdumb's way of life. Magnetic field measured at comet. Doesn't matter if it's induced, it is there and has its effects.
https://academic..../3883760


Yes, dummy. That is the IMF. We knew about that since Adam was a boy. Your point is? Did you expect the IMF to disappear as a comet hove into view?????
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
Doesn't matter if it's induced, it is there and has its effects.


Yes, as it's frozen-in to the solar wind, then when the solar wind gets diverted around the comet, so does the IMF. As Alfven told us in 1957.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
OK, sorted out the instrumentation. Rosetta used a Langmuir Probe, which measures electric fields, *and* a magnetometer (both instruments were boomed out from the spacecraft to reduce interference from the spacecraft, and both were dual instruments to measure differences both spatially and temporally). It was not the EESA article/blog post but the paper @cantthink69 linked that talked about electric field measurements, using the Langmuir Probe; both the article I linked and the underlying paper talk about the magnetometer measurements.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2018
Clearly jonesdumb didn't read the most recent paper I linked, clearly not as simplistic as jonesdumb's beliefs. And any real scientist knows that in reality zero magnetic fields are frozen-in to any plasma, jonesdumb drastically misinterprets this fact as Alfvén warned against. It's as if Alfvén made the warning specifically for jonesdumb's ilk.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
Magnetic field measured at comet.
No, it wasn't. You're lying again.

Doesn't matter if it's induced, it is there and has its effects.
Sure it does; your bestest boi is talking about lightning bolts shooting out of comets. Are you claiming Thornhill is wrong or, more likely, lying? You seem to be willing to throw all your buddies under the bus here. First Alfven, now Thornhill. Just sayin'.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
Interestingly, the paper linked by Cantthink has a regular poster at International Skeptics Forum as one of its co-authors. If he thinks I'm dismissive of the EU/PC plasma woo, then he really should post some of his nonsense on there!
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
Clearly jonesdumb didn't read the most recent paper I linked, clearly not as simplistic as jonesdumb's beliefs. And any real scientist knows that in reality zero magnetic fields are frozen-in to any plasma, jonesdumb drastically misinterprets this fact as Alfvén warned against. It's as if Alfvén made the warning specifically for jonesdumb's ilk.


Alfven modelled the SW/ IMF interaction with a comet using the frozen-in condition. And is still advocating it 30 years later.
And I have read the paper. Like I said, one of the authors is a regular poster at ISF. Fancy joining up and talking to a real plasma physicist? You haven't got any in the EU cult, have you?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
And any real scientist knows that in reality zero magnetic fields are frozen-in to any plasma,
And lying again. Not according to Alfven's Theorem; and you tacitly admitted it's right, by saying
Just because there is a maths equation doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality.
. You're trying to play both ends against the middle and getting caught in your own lies. Pitiful.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
Incidentally, @cantthink69, it's worth mentioning (since we're talking about lying) that Alfven's Theorem isn't "just... a maths equation." It's a theorem, and that means it has a proof. And you lied again, trying to hedge your bets on throwing Alfven under the bus.

You're not just a liar, you're also a slimeball for throwing Thornhill under the bus, and for trying to do the same to Alfven.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2018
.... you're also a slimeball for throwing Thornhill under the bus......


Nah, he can be forgiven for that! :)
Indagator
4 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2018
Perhaps that explains how you can be so ignorant after your purported ***6 years studying as an Electrical/Nuclear Engineer***.


For anybody that believes that, I have a bridge for sale.


jonesdave! Would that be the Magellanic Bridge?

And given that Benni is having a world o' trouble understanding the Galactic Center lecture notes from Astronomy 170B1, there is no way he could have passed an engineering or calculus course!
Indagator
4 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2018
Benni!

You wrote, "... I just don't believe the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE is lying to my eyes."

That, my friend is EVIDENCE of blind faith! Pure and simple blind faith! And those lying eyes ...!

What is Image #7? It is a pretty picture of some ducks! Really! Nothing more! In order to use that image as observational evidence we need to know some things!

Which of the two Gemini telescopes was used to produce the image? And when? What Gemini instrumentation was used to acquire the data? Please note, the human eye cannot see in infrared, so what IR frequencies are associated with the RGB image that we see? What do these frequencies tell us about the objects in the image?

How "hot" is IRS 7? How "hot" are the four blue stars just below there? How far apart are all these objects? Is Image #7 even an IR image and not something acquired at visible wavelengths?
Indagator
4 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2018
(continuing...)

WE KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE ABOUT THIS IMAGE!

It cannot be used as OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE to claim there is no black hole at the center of our galaxy!

It cannot be used as OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE to support any kind of scientific conclusion!

In reality, only the animation (Image #10) can be used as any kind of observational evidence. If you'd like, I can start posting links to the various papers that were used to build the animation. And yes, most of the animation data comes from NIR instrumentation employed on the Keck 10 m telescopes. The rest of the images on the Rieke's "first year Astronomy course lecture webpage" are used to instruct students in how to assemble evidence to support a scientific position. Of course, first year students won't figure that out until third year as they will be more concerned with what is on the next exam!
Indagator
4 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2018
(continuing...)

And what's on the next exam, Benni?

From the GC webpage, "Key points: How the Galactic Center was hidden; evidence for a black hole AND for recent star formation; the circumnuclear ring"

Now, I have pointed this fact out many times to the fundamentalists of the eu religion: we humans are BLIND to the world around us! The measureable electromagnetic spectrum runs from picometers to kilometers, and we can only "see" a pathetically thin slice ranging from approximately 380 to 710 nm. Our optical sensory organs, you see, evolved in an environment dominated by a star with a temperature of approx. 5800 K. FYI, that yields a peak spectral density of around 550 nm! And 550 nm is what colour? We truly are blind! You must learn to look at all the evidence and not just the ducks that support your religious point of view!

Indagator
4 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2018
Benni, a short time later you reply to RNP by saying, "All your points are dead wrong, the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE in real pictures from the telescope using IR technology at (the same webpage) ...."

How many images from the Rieke's "first year Astronomy course lecture notes" were acquired using IR instrumentation? How many come from visible wavelength data? How many from radio? Are you certain? And I've just shown you to be dead wrong about what may constitute observational evidence vs. "real" pretty pictures!

Image #7 does not support your claim! Image #7 is one of many images used to teach a first year student elementary concepts in astronomy! Why do you cling to your religion so tenaciously? What if you're wrong? What if everything the eu claims is wrong? Where does that leave you? How many years have you been swallowing Thunderbolt lies?
Indagator
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2018
(continuing...)

And, why do YOU refuse to learn? We use science and engineering to do things! We've visited planets, asteroids, comets, moons, and soon we will be diving into the Sun's corona! Space-based telescopes have produced volumes of real scientific data as well as some pretty pictures! Rosetta data will take years to analyze! And all with concepts and physics brought to you by mainstream scientists and engineers!

The eu produces nothing! The eu has no viable model! The eu cannot make predictions! The eu offers nothing of value to humanity! Absolutely nothing! Why should anyone care about a scam religion?

What is it about your religion that has such a hold on you? Is it the hookers and blow you get at the annual eu conventions?

By the way, Benni, "What does crow taste like?"

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.