Researchers decipher the history of supermassive black holes in the early universe

Researchers decipher the history of supermassive black holes in the early universe
Illustration of a supermassive black hole. Credit: Scott Woods, Western University

Astrophysicists at Western University have found evidence for the direct formation of black holes that do not need to emerge from a star remnant. The production of black holes in the early universe, formed in this manner, may provide scientists with an explanation for the presence of extremely massive black holes at a very early stage in the history of our universe.

Shantanu Basu and Arpan Das from Western's Department of Physics & Astronomy have developed an explanation for the observed distribution of supermassive black hole masses and luminosities, for which there was previously no scientific explanation. The findings were published today by Astrophysical Journal Letters.

The model is based on a very simple assumption: form very, very quickly over very, very short periods of time and then suddenly, they stop. This explanation contrasts with the current understanding of how are formed, which is they emerge when the centre of a very massive star collapses in upon itself.

"This is indirect observational evidence that originate from direct-collapses and not from stellar remnants," says Basu, an astronomy professor at Western who is internationally recognized as an expert in the early stages of star formation and protoplanetary disk evolution.

Basu and Das developed the new mathematical model by calculating the mass function of supermassive black holes that form over a limited time period and undergo a rapid exponential growth of mass. The mass growth can be regulated by the Eddington limit that is set by a balance of radiation and gravitation forces or can even exceed it by a modest factor.

"Supermassive black holes only had a short time period where they were able to grow fast and then at some point, because of all the radiation in the universe created by other black holes and stars, their production came to a halt," explains Basu. "That's the direct-collapse scenario."

During the last decade, many supermassive black holes that are a billion times more massive than the Sun have been discovered at high 'redshifts,' meaning they were in place in our universe within 800 million years after the Big Bang. The presence of these young and very massive black holes question our understanding of black hole formation and growth. The direct-collapse scenario allows for initial masses that are much greater than implied by the standard stellar remnant scenario, and can go a long way to explaining the observations. This new result provides evidence that such direct-collapse black holes were indeed produced in the .

Basu believes that these new results can be used with future observations to infer the formation history of the extremely that exist at very early times in our .


Explore further

Hubble observes tiny galaxy with big heart

More information: Shantanu Basu et al. The Mass Function of Supermassive Black Holes in the Direct-collapse Scenario, The Astrophysical Journal (2019). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2646
Citation: Researchers decipher the history of supermassive black holes in the early universe (2019, June 28) retrieved 23 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-06-decipher-history-supermassive-black-holes.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
2 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 28, 2019
Direct collapse seems logical, given the incredible hydrogen density packing the early universe. It must have been a virtually solid mass, a feast for gravity.

Jun 28, 2019
Blackholes, their demise their beginning

Shantanu Basu
Supermassive black holes only had a short time period where they were able to grow fast and then at some point, because of all the radiation in the universe created by other black holes and stars, their production came to a halt

For in this beginning
Blackholes only had a short time period where they were able to grow
This mass is neither created or destroyed
For when these galaxies were collapsing to this beginning
This mass was creating trillions of blackhole
That
When this crunch finally stalled
Is when this beginning began
Where
If this beginning is true
These blackholes that demised just before this beginning
Once again
Like the phoenix from the ashes
These demised blackholes sprung back into being
So
This question
How many galaxies containing blackholes does it take to collapse to create this beginning?

Jun 28, 2019
Within this radius of no escape

Rhugh1066
Direct collapse seems logical, given the incredible hydrogen density packing the early universe. It must have been a virtually solid mass, a feast for gravity.

As all this mass of this beginning
Inside this eventhorizon
Of no escape
For how did this mass escape this crunch to begin this beginning

Jun 28, 2019
If spacetime is defined by the presence of matter and energy, does it even make sense to talk about black holes "forming quickly" or "stopping suddenly?"

Do these early SMBHs happen to coincide with the fluctuations in the CMB, or the filaments and voids of the cosmos?

Jun 28, 2019
A historical timeline of a fabled maths monster, quite the fictional recreation they have conjured up.

Jun 28, 2019
I have read this article a couple of times and I do not see what is new here. There still is no explanation how these supermassive black holes were able to grow so fast, by direct collapse or any stellar collapse or anything else.

When a cloud of gas is warm, the kinetic energy of the individual gas molecules resists the pull of gravity and prevent the cloud from collapsing. They must radiate at least some of this energy away in order for collapse to occur. And without the presence of metals (i.e. in the very early universe), radiative cooling is very slow.

This affects both collapse to create stars as well as direct collapse as proposed in this article. But some kind of mechanism to allow that to happen on short time scales even in very warm gas must be proposed or demonstrated for that to make much sense.

Jun 28, 2019
amazing the incoherent nonsense people are willing to believe when it is convenient tu prevent further thinking.

if you consider the preceding comments?

they are seriously claiming that they were running marathons before their parent's even conceived them!
as momma & poppa-to-be were rolling around the backseat of the family car.

so?
all this cosmic confusion
& your conception
are to be explained
as "miraculous" events
of time running in reverse?

Jun 28, 2019
Contraction in expansion

Parsec
When a cloud of gas is warm, the kinetic energy of the individual gas molecules resists the pull of gravity.....

When, Parsec
All the galaxies in our region of vacuum
Gravitationally collapse
Billions of light years before this crunch
The plasma temperature is all ready rising these billions of degrees
For it follows
As this crunch occurs momentarily before this beginning
When all this matter rebounds
This plasma's temperature
Is still
Billions of degrees
In this beginning
For no gravity exists in this vacuum that can resist this expanding plasma
Expanding plasma at billions of degrees

Jun 28, 2019

When a cloud of gas is warm, the kinetic energy of the individual gas molecules resists the pull of gravity and prevent the cloud from collapsing. They must radiate at least some of this energy away in order for collapse to occur.
The radiative cooling would have been suppressed during the 'opaque' period of the (early) universe. As for the originality part, I'm familiar with the conjecture about primordial black holes, but these seems to extend the notion, through a somewhat different mechanism, to SMBHs.

And we could speculate even more grandly: instead of BHs being the result of evolving galaxies and their coalescing stellar components, perhaps galaxies developed   a r o u n d   massive BHs that were never of stars in the first place.

Jun 28, 2019
[The radiative cooling would have been suppressed during the 'opaque' period of the (early) universe.
hmm... maybe not. The abstract says z ~ 7.  Long afterward.

Jun 28, 2019
Like my boy says - if you havent got the maths, dont even bother. Its fascinating for me in my complete ignorance, and I'm very happy with that. Go go monster black hole.

Jun 28, 2019
In search of black holes and dark matter astrophysicists are relying on indirect observations. It would seem that the measurement of the event horizon of a black hole directly would be a direct evidence. However, by the nature of a horizon, any real measurement of the event horizon will be indirect. The Event Horizon Telescope will get picture of the silhouette of the Sgr A* which is due to optical effects of spacetime outside of the event horizon. The result will be determined by the simple quality of the resulting image that does not depend on the properties of the spacetime within the image. So, it will be also indirect and an existence of BH is a hypothesis.
https://www.acade...ilky_Way
https://www.acade...and_Jets

Jun 28, 2019
*Sigh*

Why don't Big Bang cosmologists and 'exotic'-DM theoretical physicists talk to each other to get their stories straight?

Consider...

ALL 'exotic' (ie, non-EM-interacting/radiating) 'Dark Matter' in alleged 'early-BB' epoch would have gone into BHs long since; with NONE left over for doing anything at all TODAY. This is because alleged 'exotic' DM would NOT be 'retarded' by radiative/frictional etc EM forces/interactions. Which is why I long ago challenged proponents of 'exotic'-DM existence/properties to EXPLAIN HOW all such gravity-only-interacting 'dark matter' would have escaped getting trapped into the ubiquitous BHs long before now.

I still await a cogent scientific logical answer to that challenge; especially from those still promulgating/claiming 'exotic'-DM is 'real' and forms 4x the ordinary (ie, Gravity-AND-EM-interacting) matter content today.

It's now obvious these 'exotic'-DM and Big-Bang/DE speculations/interpretations/claims have had their day. :)

Jun 28, 2019
Oh where oh where have all the black holes gone ?
Photons don't lie like you lot.

Jun 28, 2019
The other possibility is that the universe is quite a bit older, and that the big bang theory is just a neo-epicycle backstopping the last bastion of creationism: "Let there be light."

Jun 29, 2019
I haven't read the paper (not interested right now) but it seems they can do simple estimates to derive a " broken [i.e. having a knee] power law with two characteristic features" for the early SMBH mass function. Testing that may be feasible, but it sounds difficult as they are hard enough to observe.

I have read this article a couple of times and I do not see what is new here. There still is no explanation how these supermassive black holes were able to grow so fast, by direct collapse or any stellar collapse or anything else. When a cloud of gas is warm, the kinetic energy of the individual gas molecules resists the pull of gravity and prevent the cloud from collapsing.


The new thing is the testable hypothesis on mass function, and FWIW it seems from the article it is derived from precisely such a later warming scenario. I suspect they don't go into detail since they don't have to, they can test the mass function first and derive detail later.

Jun 29, 2019
If spacetime is defined by the presence of matter and energy, does it even make sense to talk about black holes "forming quickly" or "stopping suddenly?"


Why would the rest of the universe be affected by local events? Speaking of which, cosmology leaves space as average flat on large scales so Einsteinian modifications to Newtonian gravity are not - in the large - significant in the "defined by" sense.

Do these early SMBHs happen to coincide with the fluctuations in the CMB, or the filaments and voids of the cosmos?


I suspect the paper does not need to deal with that, but that the empirical test must relate the mass function behavior with early fluctuation spectra. I.e. if denser regions, the ratio would reach the knee faster.

Jun 29, 2019
[The radiative cooling would have been suppressed during the 'opaque' period of the (early) universe.
hmm... maybe not. The abstract says z ~ 7.  Long afterward.


I think they are referring to when the earliest observed SMBHs appear; but I would have to read the paper.

Jun 29, 2019
A historical timeline of a fabled maths monster, quite the fictional recreation they have conjured up.


Lol. Stick to Velikovsky, woo boy. We've just seen the event horizon of one.

Jun 29, 2019
A historical timeline of a fabled maths monster, quite the fictional recreation they have conjured up.


Lol. Stick to Velikovsky, woo boy. We've just seen the event horizon of one.

Nope, all that was imaged is a toroidal plasmoid.

Jun 29, 2019
A historical timeline of a fabled maths monster, quite the fictional recreation they have conjured up.


Lol. Stick to Velikovsky, woo boy. We've just seen the event horizon of one.

Nope, all that was imaged is a toroidal plasmoid.


Lol. Where do you get this crap from? Like I said - stick to Velikovsky. You haven't got a scooby. Plasmoid! Dear me! Tell me - how does this plasmoid woo explain stellar orbits and gravitational redshift? Please point to where any plasma physicist has ever suggested a stable plasmoid of such dimensions. What would a bunch of plasma in a magnetic field look like in radio? Would it occasionally flare up in IR? Lern to scienz.

Jun 29, 2019
Please point to where any plasma physicist has ever suggested a stable plasmoid of such dimensions.

Here you go.
Is it really a BH 1-5
https://youtu.be/f2wXzofSJwA
https://youtu.be/r0dA6gX7yYs
https://youtu.be/akqprIMviM0
https://youtu.be/6Hh1bbU8ZQk
https://youtu.be/iIlu7F8Qhx0
Needless to say, no fictional gravity monsters exist.

Jun 29, 2019
Please point to where any plasma physicist has ever suggested a stable plasmoid of such dimensions.

Here you go.
Is it really a BH 1-5
https://youtu.be/f2wXzofSJwA
Needless to say, no fictional gravity monsters exist.


Nope. Where is it written up by a plasma physicist. Lerner is a crank, and never got a PhD. Where does he explain the points I brought up? Show me the science.

Jun 29, 2019
@cantdrive85
@Castrogiovanni.
Lol. Stick to Velikovsky, woo boy. We've just seen the event horizon of one.
Nope, all that was imaged is a toroidal plasmoid.
Please adjust your mindset, @cantdrive. I already explained how such a gigantic 'central plasmoid' would be extremely unstable due to the commensurately stronger E-M forces/dynamics of instability FAST electrons/magnetic turbulence, that would arise according to observed nature of plasmoids phenomena at all scales, including in the lab. And the 'image' you speak of was obviously the 'accretion disc' radiating feature, and NOT the 'central massive gravitating body' around which that accretion disc obviously formed in the same way any accretion disc is observed to form around any central gravitating body at scales from large planetoids to Neutron Stars and, by logical/scientific extrapolation, to Black Holes'.

So it's way past time you dropped the "no-black-hole, only plasmoid" fixation, isn't it mate? :)

Jun 29, 2019
Lerner is a crank, and never got a PhD

Straight to the ad hominem attacks. jonesdumb primary M.O., call him Quick Shot.
Lerner produces real plasma science in the lab. The plasmoid is a real object, predictable, repeatable, and explained quantitatively, developed with the dense plasma focus device. You know a real scientist.
Your cranks with all their maths gymnastics, computer games, and movie making using movie prop gravity monsters is decidedly pseudoscientific claptrap. No science anywhere near BH fiction.

Jun 29, 2019
Lerner is a crank, and never got a PhD

Straight to the ad hominem attacks. jonesdumb primary M.O., call him Quick Shot.
Lerner produces real plasma science in the lab. The plasmoid is a real object, predictable, repeatable, and explained quantitatively, developed with the dense plasma focus device. You know a real scientist.
Your cranks with all their maths gymnastics, computer games, and movie making using movie prop gravity monsters is decidedly pseudoscientific claptrap. No science anywhere near BH fiction.


Missed the point, didn't you dummy? He cannot explain a black hole with plasmoid woo. Where is the explanation of the stellar orbits? Where is the explanation of the gravitational redshift? Where is the explanations of the spectroscopy? Just link to the paper/s, and stop pissing around. The idiot has ions being ejected in one direction, and electrons in the other. Is that what we see? No, it is not. Where does he explain this observational failure?

Jun 29, 2019
Please adjust your mindset, @cantdrive. I already explained how such a gigantic 'central plasmoid' would be extremely unstable blah blah....

And I explained you are wrong, so you can stop know. You clearly don't have the capacity to digest the scaling parameters of the object. Lerner described it quantitatively in the description of the quasar, you are wrong.
As Lerner describes, a polar view of a plasmoid will be a donut, as observed in the lab. Why didn't we get a view of Sag A*? Because it doesn't look the same given the different perspective. Their guesswork failed so rather than revealing the observations they withheld and only showed M87 which looks just as a plasmoid given the perspective. Gravity monsters are completely fictional, spurious, and an example of how easy it is to convince stupid people to believe utter nonsense.

Jun 29, 2019
Please adjust your mindset, @cantdrive. I already explained how such a gigantic 'central plasmoid' would be extremely unstable blah blah....

And I explained you are wrong, so you can stop know. You clearly don't have the capacity to digest the scaling parameters of the object. Lerner described it quantitatively in the description of the quasar, you are wrong.
As Lerner describes, a polar view of a plasmoid will be a donut, as observed in the lab. Why didn't we get a view of Sag A*? Because it doesn't look the same given the different perspective. Their guesswork failed so rather than revealing the observations they withheld and only showed M87 which looks just as a plasmoid given the perspective. Gravity monsters are completely fictional, spurious, and an example of how easy it is to convince stupid people to believe utter nonsense.


And you are a clueless, gullible idiot. Where does Lerner describe the points I raised? Show me the paper/s.

Jun 29, 2019
RealityCheck sigh

Why don't Big Bang cosmologists
And exotic DM theoretical physicists
Talk to each other to get their stories straight
Consider
ALL exotic
Non EM interacting radiating Dark Matter
In alleged
Early BB epoch
Would have gone into BHs long since
With NONE left over
For doing anything at all TODAY
This is because
Alleged exotic DM
Would NOT be retarded
By radiative frictional EM forces interactions
Which
Is why I long ago challenged proponents of exotic DM existence properties
To EXPLAIN HOW all such gravity only interacting dark matter
Would have
Escaped getting trapped into the ubiquitous BHs long before now

I still await a cogent scientific logical answer
To that challenge
Especially from those still promulgating
Claiming exotic DM is real
And forms 4x the ordinary Gravity
AND EM interacting matter content today.

It's now obvious
These exotic DM
And Big-Bang DE speculations interpretations claims have had their day

Sigh RealityCheck untangled

Jun 29, 2019
@cantdrive85.
And I explained you are wrong, so you can stop know. You clearly don't have the capacity to digest the scaling parameters of the object.
You are OBVIOUSLY CONFUSING the lab context experiments-----involving PHYSICAL MATERIAL STRUCTURES that provide the circuit and the geometry and the transient confinement location/parameters/forces etc-----with FREE SPACE plasmoids, mate.

Whereas in free space context a CENTRAL GRAVITATIONAL BODY can 'anchor' the ACCRETION DISC E-M feature/dynamics and any plasmodia events occurring in that 'local chaos'. And THAT is what was observed, because the black hole ITSELF is NOT 'bright' (hence the name).

Again, concentrate and consider:

- IF that central feature WAS a plasmoid, then it would quickly EXPLODE because of the unstable forces I already explained to you;

- AND that ONE-OFF EXPLOSION would make the most EXTREME HYPER-HYPER-NOVA ever seen;
- WHEREAS QUASARS are LONG LASTING (observed) phenomena.

Get all that? :)

Jun 29, 2019
ps @cantdrive85.

FYI, I read all Lerner's work, from his book to his further Plasma Focus Device and associated research work/results. For your further FYI, I also made a small donation early on in his research efforts. So please IN FUTURE don't make scattergun claims again about what I do or don't know/understand about Lerner's excellent work. Ok? :)

Moreover, I am (unlike you, apparently) widely competent/objective enough to be able to assess the DOMAIN OF APPLICABILITY of his various results/findings in BOTH plasma dynamics/phenomena per se, AND in SPIN-OFF findings useful in X-Ray and other fields of research/applications. Ok? :)

Jun 29, 2019
Where does Lerner describe the points I raised? Show me the paper/s.

jonesdumb obviously doesn't know how science works. That the papers aren't written yet isn't evidence these items aren't explainable in the paradigm. Where are the papers that show it's not possible?
The idiot has ions being ejected in one direction, and electrons in the other. Is that what we see?

According to scientists, they haven't a certain answer for that question either;
http://theconvers...es-20155
"However, despite decades of intense study, it is still unclear what these jets are made of."
So another logical fallacy from jonesdumb. They are endless...

Jun 29, 2019
involving PHYSICAL MATERIAL STRUCTURES that provide the circuit and the geometry and the transient confinement location/parameters/forces

Birkeland currents and the EM fields it creates provide the geometry/confinement/forces in the creation of said plasmoid as Peratt et al have explained.
about what I do or don't know/understand about Lerner's excellent work.

Well, quite frankly, you clearly don't understand his work in relation to actual plasma physics. Not your nonsensical pseudoscientific claptrap, but actual plasma physics.

Jun 29, 2019

jonesdumb obviously doesn't know how science works. That the papers aren't written yet isn't evidence these items aren't explainable in the paradigm. Where are the papers that show it's not possible?

According to scientists, they haven't a certain answer for that question either;
http://theconvers...es-20155
"However, despite decades of intense study, it is still unclear what these jets are made of."
So another logical fallacy from jonesdumb. They are endless...


Wrong, idiot. It isn't written up because it is unscientific gibberish. What is causing the stellar orbits? The gravitational redshift? Etc, etc. It is pure woo. Which is why it only exists on idiottube. And believed by scientifically illiterate clowns like you. Lerner will never write it up, because he knows it is BS.

Jun 29, 2019

Well, quite frankly, you clearly don't understand his work in relation to actual plasma physics. Not your nonsensical pseudoscientific claptrap, but actual plasma physics.


And there are thousands of plasma physicists who will tell you that Lerner is talking out of his semi-qualified arse. It is why he is a crank. He knows the square root of zero about astrophysics, or astrophysical plasma. He is a PC loon. And that crap has been dead for decades. Observation killed it.

Jun 29, 2019
@cantdrive85.
[the LAB experiments] involving PHYSICAL MATERIAL STRUCTURES that provide the circuit and the geometry and the transient confinement location/parameters/forces
Birkeland currents and the EM fields it creates provide the geometry/confinement/forces in the creation of said plasmoid as Peratt et al have explained.
You miss the crucial point, mate. The 'creation' of plasmoids can be achieved easily enough in plasma contexts/dynamics...BUT THEY ARE UNSTABLE; hence why material lab-structure setups used to maintain some stability.

In 'free space' contexts the Birkeland currents etc you mention are THEMSELVES affected by electro-magnetic feedback and other perturbatory phenomena; and hence can NOT stabilise/prevent EXPLOSION. :)

about what I do or don't know/understand about Lerner's excellent work.
...you clearly don't understand his work in relation to actual plasma physics.
Much more than you do, obviously. Try more 'objective focus', mate. :)

Jun 29, 2019
**Sigh** at plasmoid woo!

Virial theorem (https://en.wikipe..._fields)

A plasmoid is a finite configuration of magnetic fields and plasma. With the virial theorem it is easy to see that any such configuration will expand if not contained by external forces. In a finite configuration without pressure-bearing walls or magnetic coils, the surface integral will vanish. Since all the other terms on the right hand side are positive, the acceleration of the moment of inertia will also be positive. It is also easy to estimate the expansion time τ. If a total mass M is confined within a radius R, then the moment of inertia is roughly MR^2, and the left hand side of the virial theorem is MR^2/τ^2. The terms on the right hand side add up to about pR^3, where p is the larger of the plasma pressure or the magnetic pressure. Equating these two terms and solving for τ, we find......................................................[TBC]


Jun 29, 2019
BUT THEY ARE UNSTABLE

Scalability RC, galactic plasmoids time frames must be scaled as the energy, size, and all other factors as well. As Lerner explained in his quasar papers.

And here is a stable plasmoid without the "structure" you keep blathering about;
https://www.calte...ir-80367
Get caught up RC, your knowledge is out of date.

Jun 29, 2019
[cony..........................] τ ∼ R/cs
where cs is the speed of the ion acoustic wave (or the Alfvén wave, if the magnetic pressure is higher than the plasma pressure). Thus the lifetime of a plasmoid is expected to be on the order of the acoustic (or Alfvén) transit time.

So, we'll let Eric work out how long his plasmoid woo would last. Not long is my educated guess.

Jun 29, 2019
In a finite configuration without pressure-bearing walls or magnetic coils, the surface integral will vanish. Blah blah blah

See open air plasmoid with no structure I pointed out to RC, no walls needed. The plasmoid can be a stable plasma structure.

So, we'll let Eric work out how long his plasmoid woo would last. Not long is my educated guess.

Which he accounted for in his quasar papers, which you claim to gave read. As usual which you clearly didn't comprehend.

Jun 29, 2019
In a finite configuration without pressure-bearing walls or magnetic coils, the surface integral will vanish. Blah blah blah

See open air plasmoid with no structure I pointed out to RC, no walls needed. The plasmoid can be a stable plasma structure.


Why are we even discussing this? It is impossible woo. It does not exist in the scientific literature. Nobody believes it. If some dumb a--hole wants to write it up, rather than taking the usual crank's route of posting on youtube, he will be told in short order why he is talking out of his arse. I await his paper. Not. Lol.

Jun 29, 2019
In a finite configuration without pressure-bearing walls or magnetic coils, the surface integral will vanish. Blah blah blah

See open air plasmoid with no structure I pointed out to RC, no walls needed. The plasmoid can be a stable plasma structure.

So, we'll let Eric work out how long his plasmoid woo would last. Not long is my educated guess.

Which he accounted for in his quasar papers, which you claim to gave read. As usual which you clearly didn't comprehend.


Yep, I comprehended that they were utter shite, in a totally inappropriate journal, before we even knew for sure that quasars were actually AGN's in giant elliptical galaxies. Dumb idea then, even dumber now. Which is why nobody takes it at all seriously. He lost. You lost. PC woo is dead.

Jun 29, 2019
See open air plasmoid with no structure I pointed out to RC, no walls needed. The plasmoid can be a stable plasma structure.


Lol. Where is your jet of water?

Jun 29, 2019
@cantdrive85.
BUT THEY ARE UNSTABLE
Scalability RC, galactic plasmoids time frames must be scaled as the energy, size, and all other factors as well. As Lerner explained in his quasar papers. And here is a stable plasmoid without the "structure" you keep blathering about;
https://www.calte...ir-80367
Get caught up RC, your knowledge is out of date.
Did you actually read/understand your linked report properly, @cantdrive? If you had, you would not have jumped to the mistaken impression that it is a "stable plasmoid in thin air without underlying lab structures etc", mate! Please NOTE WELL: the creation of that 'plasmoid ring' formation requires a SOLID PLATE against which to DEFORM the incident water jet so that the water stream is FORCED into a SIDEWAYS SPRAY/STREAM expanding from the impact point!

See? It's NOT an UNSTRUCTURED or 'free space' plasmoid context. You're MISLEADING yourself, mate. :)

Jun 29, 2019
In a finite configuration without pressure-bearing walls or magnetic coils, the surface integral will vanish. Blah blah blah

See open air plasmoid... The plasmoid can be a stable plasma structure.


Why are we even discussing this? It is impossible woo. It does not exist in the scientific literature. Nobody believes it. If some dumb a--hole wants to write it up, rather than taking the usual crank's route of posting on youtube, he will be told in short order why he is talking out of his arse. I await his paper. Not. Lol.

jonesdumb devolves into his typical lowbrow crude vulgar manner, utterly incapable of discussing any real science. It's clearly not impossible because we have an image of a toroidal plasmoid at the heart of M87. And you are lying again, Lerner describes plasmoids in his quasar papers;
https://www.cambr...BFBB2446

Jun 29, 2019
My god you people are morons...
It is the EM forces creating the torus, not the flat electrified surface.

Jun 29, 2019
See open air plasmoid with no structure I pointed out to RC, no walls needed. The plasmoid can be a stable plasma structure.


Lol. Where is your jet of water?

The astrophysical analog would be the intergalactic Birkeland currents. And no plate is required because the matter in the Birkeland current is already plasma.

Jun 29, 2019
Lerner describes plasmoids in his quasar papers;
https://www.cambr...BFBB2446


Which were a heap of crap in an irrelevant and inappropriate journal. When Lerner gives us some science for stellar orbits, gravitational redshift etc, we can discuss it. He hasn't. He won't. Pure woo. Nothing to discuss.

Jun 29, 2019
@cantdive85.
It is the EM forces creating the torus, not the flat electrified surface.
What is 'anchoring' / 'constantly generating' that plasma torus in the air just above the water flow through which the electrons travel to ionise the air just above the radial pattern of the water-flow? :)

Get it, @cantdrive? The structure is there to produce and anchor the plasma torus. Without that solid material plate and purposely controlled geometry/configuration and the intermediate medium of waterflow structure, then the plasma loop would immediately wander away and stop being fed/controlled...and either explode or just fade away.

Why can't you see the salient underlying factors that make that NOT 'free space' or 'unstructured/uncontrolled' plasma context, mate?

Try harder to drop the same personal animus and biases that you keep accusing others of, and just 'rethinkitall' in light of what I've been pointing out that shows you are mistaken about 'free space' plasmoids. :)

Jun 29, 2019
See open air plasmoid with no structure I pointed out to RC, no walls needed. The plasmoid can be a stable plasma structure.


Lol. Where is your jet of water?

The astrophysical analog would be the intergalactic Birkeland currents. And no plate is required because the matter in the Birkeland current is already plasma.


There are no intergalactic Birkeland currents! Stop making sh1t up! There are two fecking jets, both heading OUT. How much crap do you need to invent to believe the garbage that you do, you uneducated clown? You have no science. You have no mechanisms. You have no evidence. Stick to Velikovsky.

Jun 29, 2019
My god you people are morons...
It is the EM forces creating the torus, not the flat electrified surface.


Oh dear! There is no torus, you loon! Only cranks believe such crap. It is a fairy story. No science, no mechanisms, no evidence. All dreamed up by an aging, semi-qualified PC loon, because he sees yet another aspect of his belief system going up in smoke. And on youtube, to boot! Tells us all we need to know.

Jun 29, 2019
The structure is there to produce and anchor the plasma torus.

You keep believing whatever you choose to RC, real plasma physicists say otherwise. Alfvén, Peratt, Lerner, Falthammar, etc disagree with you, I will certainly regard their opinion more valid than yours. I have seen your website, nuff said.

Jun 29, 2019
There is no torus,

Yet, that is what the EHT imaged. Your ignorance and beliefs blind you. But like Planck said, there is no convincing old minds, they just die off and with them their failed guesswork.

There are two fecking jets, both heading OUT

As Lerner describes, I already know that. But the Birkeland currents house the entire galaxy, not just the polar jets. Think Fermi bubbles etc, much larger scale.

Jun 29, 2019
The structure is there to produce and anchor the plasma torus.

You keep believing whatever you choose to RC, real plasma physicists say otherwise. Alfvén, Peratt, Lerner, Falthammar, etc disagree with you, I will certainly regard their opinion more valid than yours. I have seen your website, nuff said.


Oh you're quoting Falthammar for support? Strange that you called him a pseudoscientist for accepting magnetic reconnection! And nobody is explaining BHs as plasmoid woo other than the loon Lerner. Alfven died long before we know what we know now. I have never seen Falthammar claim such things. As for Peratt.......well, he does seem to have lost the plot in the last few decades, so anything is possible, I guess!

Jun 29, 2019
There is no torus,

Yet, that is what the EHT imaged. Your ignorance and beliefs blind you. But like Planck said, there is no convincing old minds, they just die off and with them their failed guesswork.


Nope it is not what the EHT imaged, and nobody is claiming otherwise, other than cranks. There is zilch in the scientific literature claiming such things (a bit early, mind), and that won't change. Because nobody is dumb enough to submit such idiocy to a respected journal. I realise Lerner doesn't have much of a reputation to lose, but even he couldn't possibly be that dumb!

Jun 29, 2019
@cantdrive85.
The structure is there to produce and anchor the plasma torus.

You keep believing whatever you choose to RC, real plasma physicists say otherwise. Alfvén, Peratt, Lerner, Falthammar, etc disagree with you, I will certainly regard their opinion more valid than yours. I have seen your website, nuff said.
Mate, seriously, there is no "belief" involved; since it's all there in black and white in your own referenced report!

I keep trying to get you to realise: there is NO 'free space plasmoid' that can remain stable for any significant amount of time/process WITHOUT an underlying anchoring and flow-maintenance structure.

Hence why the central Gravitational bodies (ie, the Black Holes) can produce STABLE accretion disc plasma/jets features for LONG periods. If they were a 'central plasmoid' as you claim, then there would be no structure/stability involved that could prevent such a humongously powerful plasmoid from EXPLODING almost immediately it formed. :)

Jun 29, 2019
Strange that you called him a pseudoscientist for accepting magnetic reconnection!

Falthammar understands the pitfalls of the moving and breaking field lines concept, he even wrote a paper calling out plasma ignoramuses for the incorrect treatment.
Alfven died long before we know what we know now.

Alfvén died in 1995, and was active until shortly before his death. He was aware of Lerner's work and agreed with it.
I have never seen Falthammar claim such things.

Willfully ignorant then, he and Alfvén wrote about it in 1963 in 'Cosmic Plasma'.
As for Peratt

Same relevant physics as Alfvén, same results.

Jun 29, 2019
I keep trying to get you to realise:

I keep trying to get you to realize your opinion is meaningless in the face of the real plasma physicists named above. And like I said, I have seen your website and you believe in some real looneytoon nonsense.

Jun 29, 2019
Falthammar understands the pitfalls of the moving and breaking field lines concept, he even wrote a paper calling out plasma ignoramuses for the incorrect treatment.


Yes, where he pointed out that the most interesting phenomena, including magnetic reconnection, appear where that concept breaks down! I don't know how many EU plasma ignoramuses I've seen quote that paper over the years, without realising that they are putting their collective foot in their mouths! You do it frequently!

Alfven didn't know what we know now. Hard of reading, are you?

Willfully ignorant then, he and Alfvén wrote about it in 1963 in 'Cosmic Plasma'


I have the book. Just give me the page where they discuss quasars. In 1963! Lol. We've learned nothing in the intervening 56 years!

And Peratt lost the plot. Just like Alfven.

Jun 29, 2019
Nope it is not what the EHT imaged,

But there it is, a toroidal plasmoid...
https://eventhori...ope.org/

Jun 29, 2019
Nope it is not what the EHT imaged,

But there it is, a toroidal plasmoid...
https://eventhori...ope.org/


Nope, and nobody is claiming that it is, other than cranks. So why should we care what loons believe? Hmmm? Just because it destroys yet another pillar of their science-free belief system? Tough luck. Gravitational waves, neutron star mergers, event horizons.......... it's all going tits up for the mythologists, isn't it? That's what happens when you follow unqualified fruitloops.

Jun 29, 2019
@cantdrive85.
I keep trying to get you to realise: there is NO 'free space plasmoid' that can remain stable for any significant amount of time/process WITHOUT an underlying anchoring and flow-maintenance structure.
I keep trying to get you to realize your opinion is meaningless in the face of the real plasma physicists named above.
I'm not denying actual plasma physics, mate; I'm challenging YOUR ATTEMPT to FORCE-FIT YOUR interpretations/claims of the actual plasma physics as a SUBSTITUTE for the central Gravitational BH which happens to underpin/stabilise the accretion-disc and jets plasma phenomena as observed. Try to get that subtle distinction, will you? :)

And like I said, I have seen your website and you believe in some real looneytoon nonsense.
Then you obviously went to the same reading/understanding 'class' that Uncle Ira attended, mate! Anyhow, this is not about me, but about known plasma physics and observed dynamics of 'free space' plasmoids. :)

Jun 30, 2019
where he pointed out that the most interesting phenomena, including magnetic reconnection, appear where that concept breaks down!

It's not about "where it breaks down", that is a misdirection because the concept is only valid if equation 2 in his paper is satisfied, this is rarely if ever the case. This is the crux of Alfvén's protest of its use, these conditions are only rarely met in the densest of plasmas. The are completely invalid anywhere in the solar system save possibly the Sun.

Jun 30, 2019
I don't know how many EU plasma ignoramuses I've seen quote that paper over the years, without realising that they are putting their collective foot in their mouths! You do it frequently!

As usual, you reside in opposite world. The argument put forward by Falthammar is precisely the argument Alfvén pointed out, and is the exact claim Dr. Scott, the EU, and myself have always made. The pseudoscientific claptrap Fäthammar points out is the crux of a unified argument against its use. That he mentions the words "magnetic reconnection" is meaningless, the argument has always been the plasma ignoramus misuse of the moving/breaking, frozen-in field line concept. Parallel electric fields are ubiquitous in astrophysical plasma.
That you still don't seem understand these facts goes to show just one more example of how deluded you are. The irony being, one can go to the PPPL website and they still rely on this erroneous concept which Falthammar shows is incorrect.

Jun 30, 2019
I'm challenging YOUR ATTEMPT to FORCE-FIT YOUR interpretations/claims of the actual plasma physics

Do you understand how childish the use of your Cap'n Capslock technique really is?
I am not force fitting anything, Lerner quantitatively described these plasmoids. In that quantitative analysis, gravity plays minor rolls and has nothing to do with the magnetic compression Lerner describes. They were originally proposed by Alfvén, Falthammar, et al. The processes have been confirmed by experiment and simulation by Bostick, Peratt, and Lerner among others. And now we have an image of a toroidal plasmoid at the center of M87.
And I understand your message just fine, it's just wrong.

Jun 30, 2019
It's not about "where it breaks down", that is a misdirection because the concept is only valid if equation 2 in his paper is satisfied, this is rarely if ever the case. This is the crux of Alfvén's protest of its use, these conditions are only rarely met in the densest of plasmas. The are completely invalid anywhere in the solar system save possibly the Sun.


Wrong dumbo. Read the paper. For MRx, you idiot, frozen-in has to break down. It cannot happen in ideal MHD, fool. That was Alfven's problem. You do not understand enough about plasma physics to understand why you are talking crap. As usual. Stick to Velikovsky, woo boy.

Jun 30, 2019
That you still don't seem understand these facts goes to show just one more example of how deluded you are. The irony being, one can go to the PPPL website and they still rely on this erroneous concept which Falthammar shows is incorrect.


You are a lying moron, you really are. How many times have you been linked to Falthammar claiming MR is valid? Do I need to do it again, you uneducated cretin? From the paper, you blind retard;

In fact, the most interesting plasma physics ***occurs*** precisely where and because this equation is not satisfied, such as the auroral acceleration region, ***magnetic field reconnection***, turbulence, shocks, and many wave modes.


Want some more, thicko?


Jun 30, 2019
Magnetic-field aligned electric fields in collisionless space plasmas – a brief review
Falthammar, C-G. (2004)
http://citeseerx....type=pdf

It also means that change of connectivity is possible not only at magnetic x-points (as in ordinary reconnection) but also within regions of non-vanishing magnetic field (as in Figure 2). This process was studied by Schindler et al. (1988) and Hesse and Schindler (1988) who proposed that the term reconnection should not be limited to the ordinary (Zero-B) reconnection, but equally well to Finite-B reconnection. This has been further elaborated by for example Birn et al. (1997).


Should I keep going?


Jun 30, 2019
Direct observation of a tangential electric field component at the magnetopause
F. S. Mozer et al (including Falthammar, C-G) (1979)
https://agupubs.o...04p00305

The first direct, in situ measurements of the quasi‐static electric field at and near the magnetopause, in the magnetosheath, bow shock, and solar wind, have been made on the ISEE‐1 satellite. Both the large scale average electric field and the fine scale field observed during a magnetopause crossing show the existence of significant tangential electric field components on both sides of the magnetopause, ***in agreement with the requirements of reconnection theories***.


Wow, 1979! Wonder if he told Alfie about this?


Jun 30, 2019
The Earth's Magnetosphere as a Key to the Plasma Universe
Falthammar, C-G. (2010)
http://www.diva-p...XT01.pdf

In particular, Alfvén waves appear to be responsible for certain kinds of auroras, and recent observations (Chaston et al., 2009) indicate that they play an important role in magnetic reconnection.


In the same paper, he has a whole section entitled 'Reconnection'.

[TBC]


Jun 30, 2019
[CONT....]

Reconnection is considered to be one of the most important phenomena in cosmic plasma, as a means of topology change and energy release. In the Earth's magnetosphere, reconnection takes place both at the magnetopause and in the tail current sheet. In addition, local reconnection of limited strands of magnetic flux, so-called flux transfer events, are also common (Le et al. 2008).The reconnection events in the geomagnetic tail that are associated with magnetospheric substorms have many similarities to the fast energy release that takes place in solar flares (Lin et al., 2008). In the magnetosphere, the phenomenon can be studied empirically in great detail by means of in situ measurements (Paschmann, 2008). ***The value of this for understanding solar flares and other kinds of energy release in cosmic plasmas can hardly be exaggerated.***


Read it and weep, woo boy. And then head back to Worlds in Collision! Lol. Stay away from plasma physics.

Jun 30, 2019
And now we have an image of a toroidal plasmoid at the center of M87.


No we don't, and nobody is claiming such an idiotic notion, other than cranks on youtube. We should care..... why?

Jun 30, 2019
So, at the end of the day, who is responsible for Fathammar's conversion to the dark side, re magnetic reconnection? Well, Alfven, of course!

On the Concept of Moving Magnetic Field Lines
Fallthammar, C-G & Mozer, F. S. (2007)
https://agupubs.o...EO150002

The nonexistence of parallel electric fields was later challenged by Alfven,....... and described how parallel electric fields can 'cut' magnetic field lines. Alfven's idea was contrary to contemporary beliefs......., but when in situ measurements in space became possible, they brought the first indications that Alfven might be right. Since then, an overwhelming amount of empirical data have proven that magnetic field aligned electric fields exist and are of key importance in the physics of auroras [Falthammar,2004], ***in magnetic field reconnection*** [Mozer,2005], in shocks [Mozer et al,2006], and in plasma turbulence and many wave modes


:)

Jun 30, 2019
So, at the end of the day, who is responsible for Fathammar's conversion to the dark side, re magnetic reconnection? Well, Alfven, of course!

On the Concept of Moving Magnetic Field Lines
Fallthammar, C-G & Mozer, F. S. (2007)

The nonexistence of parallel electric fields was later challenged by Alfven,....... and described how parallel electric fields can 'cut' magnetic field lines. Alfven's idea was contrary to contemporary beliefs......., but when in situ measurements in space became possible, they brought the first indications that Alfven might be right. Since then, an overwhelming amount of empirical data have proven that magnetic field aligned electric fields exist and are of key importance in the physics of auroras [Falthammar,2004], ***in magnetic field reconnection*** [Mozer,2005], in shocks [Mozer et al,2006], and in plasma turbulence and many wave modes


:)

You are an utter moron, that Alfvén was correct is the point. You still don't get it...LOL

Jun 30, 2019
The nonexistence of parallel electric fields was later challenged by Alfven,....... and described how parallel electric fields can 'cut' magnetic field lines. Alfven's idea was contrary to contemporary beliefs......., but when in situ measurements in space became possible, they brought the first indications that Alfven might be right. Since then, an overwhelming amount of empirical data have proven that magnetic field aligned electric fields exist and are of key importance in the physics

This is what led Alfvén to state "magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience ", and Falthammar pointed out Alfvén was correct. You still don't get it! You are hung up on terminology, everyone else including Fäthammar is pointing out the flawed application of the physics. Try and catch up.

Jun 30, 2019
The root of the issue, and a plasma ignoramus announces how space "scientists" resort to pseudoscience;
https://agupubs.o...EO210002
"Space physicists regularly use a concept that is unfamiliar to the majority of professional physicists: the concept of moving electromagnetic field lines."

Jun 30, 2019
Since then, an overwhelming amount of empirical data have proven that magnetic field aligned electric fields exist and are of key importance in the physics .....
This is what led Alfvén to state "magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience ",
and Falthammar pointed out Alfvén was correct. You still don't get it! You are hung up on terminology, everyone else including Fäthammar is pointing out the flawed application of the physics. Try and catch up.


You are the moron. Can't you read, you utter clown? You are an uneducated liar. Here is the full quote you tosser;

and are of key importance in the physics of auroras [Falthammar,2004], ***in magnetic field reconnection*** [Mozer,2005], in shocks [Mozer et al,2006], and in plasma turbulence and many wave modes


How can they be of 'key importance' in something you say he claims doesn't exist, you thick oik? You really do need to get an education, you mythologist loon.

Jun 30, 2019
You are an utter moron, that Alfvén was correct is the point. You still don't get it...LOL


You are the moron, earth-orbiting-Saturn-boy! Alfven was wrong, and that is what Falhammar is telling you. If Alfven said MR couldn't happen in ideal MHD, he was right, idiot. It can't. And doesn't. That is the whole point. Alfven's ideal MHD needs to break down. He was well behind the times when he was still making these claims. Even Falthammer could see that. Albeit, he tries to credit Alfven with a contribution to MR!

Jun 30, 2019
Reconnection is considered to be one of the most important phenomena in cosmic plasma, as a means of topology change and energy release. In the Earth's magnetosphere, reconnection ***takes place*** both at the magnetopause and in the tail current sheet......................................... .....***The value of this for understanding solar flares and other kinds of energy release in cosmic plasmas can hardly be exaggerated.***.


According to the scientifically challenged retard, cantthink, this is C-G F saying MR cannot happen! Comprehension is something else to add to the list of things this Velikovskian clown needs to brush up on. Or maybe I'm being unkind, and English isn't his first language. If anyone could therefore run that quote through Google translate, from English to Moronish, I'd be grateful!

Jun 30, 2019
Meanwhile, NASA is announcing detection of magnetic reconnection in the Earth's magnetosphere, which they detected using satellites.

https://www.nasa....nt-space

Magnetic reconnection is one of the most important processes in the space — filled with charged particles known as plasma — around Earth.


So, got any satellites, bozos?

Jun 30, 2019
Wow, stupid is contagious and you and da schnied share the title of Titans of Stupid!

Jun 30, 2019
According to the scientifically challenged retard, cantthink, this is C-G F saying MR cannot happen!

As usual, the dumb hurts. Still conflating two concepts, incapable of processing complex ideas.

Jun 30, 2019
According to the scientifically challenged retard, cantthink, this is C-G F saying MR cannot happen!

As usual, the dumb hurts. Still conflating two concepts, incapable of processing complex ideas.


Wrong, woo boy. One concept. MR either happens, or it doesn't. C-G F says it does. Unequivocally.

Jun 30, 2019
Meanwhile, NASA is announcing detection of magnetic reconnection in the Earth's magnetosphere, which they detected using satellites.

https://www.nasa....nt-space

Magnetic reconnection is one of the most important processes in the space — filled with charged particles known as plasma — around Earth.


So, got any satellites, bozos?

That they call it magnetic reconnection is meaningless, it doesn't change how the plasma ignoramuses misuse the physics. Astrophysicists still call planetary nebula by that name in spite of the fact it isn't a planetary nebula at all. Same goes for MRx.

Jun 30, 2019
Same goes for MRx.


Wrong. There is no difference in the MR CG-F accepts and that of Birn or Hesse & Schindler going back as far as the 80's. Or that of Vasilunyas from back in the 70's. Same sh!t, woo boy. His co-author on the 'moving lines' paper is F. S. Mozer. Look up his work on MR. You lost, woo boy. This is what happens when you try to argue about a subject in which you are clueless.

Jun 30, 2019
That;
"Space physicists regularly use a concept that is unfamiliar to the majority of professional physicists: the concept of moving electromagnetic field lines."
;is the objection.
That space physicists use a pseudoscientific concept (admittedly) is what Alfvén claimed as incorrect, to which Falthammar and observation agrees;
"Since then, an overwhelming amount of empirical data have proven that magnetic field aligned electric fields exist..."
And those field aligned electric fields are ubiquitous in astrophysical plasma.

Jun 30, 2019
That;
"Space physicists regularly use a concept that is unfamiliar to the majority of professional physicists: the concept of moving electromagnetic field lines."
;is the objection.
That space physicists use a pseudoscientific concept (admittedly) is what Alfvén claimed as incorrect, to which Falthammar and observation agrees;
"Since then, an overwhelming amount of empirical data have proven that magnetic field aligned electric fields exist..."
And those field aligned electric fields are ubiquitous in astrophysical plasma.


And.......................? As Falthammar says, they are necessary in reconnection. We kind of knew that, long since! I do not get your point. In fact, I think you have built your own strawman and are happily burning it down, whilst the plasma physics community has been getting on with this stuff for the past 40 odd years or more. And you haven't bothered catching up. Still stuck with Alfven in the 60s.

Jun 30, 2019
Like all nutjobs @cantthink69 has a cunnspiracy theory.

@cantthink69, NASA is not engaged in a sooper sekrit cunspirasy to discredit you. How much do you think they'd spend on it with their limited budget?

Jun 30, 2019
Cantthink gets his plasma physics ignorance via Dunderdolts. Unfortunately, they don't have anyone remotely qualified to understand it, or what Alfven proposed. It is pure pseudoscience dogma, by unqualified mythologist cranks.

Jun 30, 2019
@cantdrive85.
challenging YOUR ATTEMPT to FORCE-FIT YOUR interpretations/claims of the actual plasma physics
Do you understand how childish the use of your Cap'n Capslock technique really is?
I explained to Forum many times already: I am FORCED to use CAPS whenever interlocutors keep missing subtle points/aspects/distinctions due to shallow/non-existence reading/comprehension of what I try to convey.

Fortunately, I find I need to use CAPS much LESS than in past years; perhaps because many erstwhile 'poor readers' have since LEARNED to PAY MORE ATTENTION to subtleties/details when reading me. :)

gravity plays minor roles and has nothing to do with the magnetic compression Lerner describes.
I know full well the long-understood 'magnetic compression' and other aspects Lerner experimenting with via Plasma Focus Devices. THAT is NOT the issue! It's that SOME keep MISAPPLYING that KNOWN plasmoid phenomena to claim "Gravitational BHs are plasmoids".

Ok, mate? :)

Jun 30, 2019
" they (SMBH) were in place in our universe within (T4=) 800 million years after the Big Bang. The presence of these young and very massive black holes question our understanding of black hole formation and growth."

It would help to forget the GR based standard theory of cosmology and astro-physics about BB, DE/DM etc in terms of Dynamic Universe balance of the motion and gravitational energies of the total mass in 3-D space along the direction of Riemann 4-sphere R4. Super-symmetry with T4=R4=0 can readily explain the energized mass (regular structured and 'dark' matter without any DE) needed in the discussed SMBH formation near the bouncing stage of DU, see literature at 'Suntola DU' search results or at lfs.fi

Jun 30, 2019
As Falthammar says, they are necessary in reconnection.

Whoosh!
Fäthammar states the frozen-in condition is only applicable in one and only one situation, when figure 2 is satisfied.
https://agupubs.o...EO150002
What was claimed by Alfvén (and not shown to be incorrect) is that condition is almost never met in astrophysical plasmas. That astrophysical plasmas are nearly always the "interesting" plasmas that Falthammar refers to, that astrophysical plasmas nearly always have non-zero parallel electric fields. Falthammar's expertise is magnetospheric physics, he has found MHD doesn't work for it. That's the interesting part, the same goes for all astrophysical plasma.
I do not get your point.

I know that, you have never been able to grasp it despite it being explained ad nauseam. Alfvén describes it clearly, Falthammar agrees and points out the misuse (which you still confuse the point).

Jun 30, 2019
It's that SOME keep MISAPPLYING that KNOWN plasmoid phenomena to claim "Gravitational BHs are plasmoids".

That is what Lerner is suggesting, he is applying his own hypothesis using the physics he knows. He disagrees with your assessment there is a misapplication, I agree with Lerner and not your skewed beliefs.

Jun 30, 2019
@Castrogiovanni
@cantdrive85.

Why you two STILL arguing about such terminology?

Again:

1) "magnetic field line" is merely an ABSTRACT ILLUSTRATIVE 'picturing device'; ie: NOT REAL 'lines' in energy-space. They are used to 'visualise' LEAST ACTION torque/force effects experienced by 'test particle' charges being accelerated within/by the applicable magnetic field energy-space 'fluxing' region. In PHYSICAL REALITY, these 'lines' are a handy way to depict the CONTINUOUS LONGITUDINAL 'AXIAL STRING' of the relevant magnetic field energy-space SWIRL that a CHARGED 'test' PARTICLE 'spirals' around/along as the magnetic field forces them to move according to the direction/torque which the particles 'feel' in such energy-space Magnetic FIELD 'swirl' phenomena.

2) "magnetic reconnection" is an ABSTRACT ILLUSTRATIVE 'picturing term' to convey the breaking/reconnecting of ACTUAL PLASMA-ENERGY STREAMS within the relevant MERGING/DIVERGING magnetic field 'flux patterns'.

Chill! :)

Jun 30, 2019
ps
@Castrogiovanni
@cantdrive.

Another terminology confusion between you can be clarified as follows:

3) "frozen in" is yet another ABSTRACTION for visualising the situation when the energy/magnetic swirls/perturbations etc within a particular body/steam of PLASMA is LESS QUICKLY transferred to the outer edges and lost as heat/radiation therefrom; hence is merely idealised situation rarely obtaining in natural plasma contexts (especially in space plasmas; and even more especially in fusion reactors where the CONTROL of such plasma stream energy-loss in the form of heat/radiation quickly 'migrates' to the outer surface and so 'cooling' that beam, halting fusion).

So: there are actually very few situations where energy-heat is NOT quickly transferred to the outermost surfaces of a plasma stream/body by turbulence/collisions within said plasma stream/body...hence the "frozen in" state/condition/phase is TRANSIENT; the more so the smaller the plasma stream cross-section.

:)

Jun 30, 2019
Why you two STILL arguing about such terminology?

jonesdumb is arguing terminology, I am arguing physics. jonesdumb still believes in the frozen-in conditions despite that which Falthammar points out;
"an overwhelming amount of empirical data have proven that magnetic field aligned electric fields exist and are of key importance in the physics".
"magnetic reconnection" is an ABSTRACT ILLUSTRATIVE

MRx is a term to describe a physical mechanism but uses non-physical physics.


Jun 30, 2019
@cantdrive85.
It's that SOME keep MISAPPLYING that KNOWN plasmoid phenomena to claim "Gravitational BHs are plasmoids".
That is what Lerner is suggesting, he is applying his own hypothesis using the physics he knows. He disagrees with your assessment there is a misapplication, I agree with Lerner....
If THAT is where/who you got your "no BH" claim/idea from, then it's time to rethink; and consider how long ago that 'idea' was mooted on the basis of a then-seeming 'superficial similarity' between the Plasma Focus Device etc 'swirls' and the Spiral Galaxy 'swirls' seen in the night sky. But 'superficial similarity' does NOT mean BOTH phenomena are in reality 'plasmoid phenomena' structure/swirls!

Lerner must have a more nuanced view now. He KNOWS plasmoids are NOT stable unless 'anchored, fed, controlled' (as in Plasma Focus Device); galactic ARMS, ACCRETION DISCS/JETS are HYBRID Gravitational-EM phenomena; and BHs are NOT 'plasmoids'.

Drop the "BHs are plasmoids". :)

Jun 30, 2019
hence the "frozen in" state/condition/phase is TRANSIENT

Nope, frozen-in is a non-physical hypothetical condition that doesn't exist in reality.

Jun 30, 2019
Lerner must have a more nuanced view now. He KNOWS plasmoids are NOT stable unless 'anchored, fed, controlled' (as in Plasma Focus Device); that galactic ARMS, ACCRETION DISCS/JETS are HYBRID Gravitational-EM phenomena; and that BHs are NOT 'plasmoids'. :)

You must not have watched the videos to which I linked above, Lerner is still promoting his ideas. And he says nothing of your nonsense.

Jun 30, 2019
You must not have watched the videos to which I linked above, Lerner is still promoting his ideas.

Amusingly jonesdumb did watch the videos, or at least posted his typical commentary. jonesdumb's name appears to be Ian W. 'Lying Ian' seems to be apropos.

Jun 30, 2019
@cantdrive85.
Nope, frozen-in is a non-physical hypothetical condition that doesn't exist in reality.
Yes, like I said. That abstraction is used to convey the 'relative evolutionary phase' of when a plasma is moving and carrying with it its INTERNAL TURBULENCE features...but that turbulence results in eventual emergence of the plasma-perturbating ENERGY to the exterior surface of a chosen region of plasma flow. Hence the 'frozen in' is only implying a certain time/duration UNTIL the perturbation is EXPELLED. It is NOT 'frozen in' as in, eg, a SOLID 'solenoid' being moved about the lab while it is still carrying a current and associated magnetic field pattern. Get the subtlety? :)

Lerner is still promoting his ideas.
Based on OLD misconception re TIME DILATION. That does NOT apply to STRAIGHT LINE MOTION through space; ie, particles 'falling' towards a common BH 'location' DOES NOT SLOW DOWN; only the particles' INTERNAL (clock cycle/emissions) processes 'slow down'! :)

Jun 30, 2019
ps @cantdrive85.

Now you know all the mistaken interpretations underlying the 'reasoning' which led to the "no Black Holes" and "BHs must be plasmoids" arguments, then you can see for yourself that Lerner's ongoing videos are just "going through the motions' for funding-attracting motives DESPITE deep down he KNOWS what he is 'explaining' must be false according to the reality observed regarding all sorts of Gravitational systems involving a central gravitating body with accretion disc and polar jets (from planets to stars and galaxies)...which are NOT plasmoids. I would also advise him to rethink like I suggested to you....given all that we know now that was not known when all these early hypotheses and simplistic misunderstandings started. Much the same way the Big Bang, Inflation/Expansion, 'exotic'-DM and Dark Energy and Wormholes etc etc were a result of mistaken simplistic ideas about what was actually happening in reality. :)

Jun 30, 2019
Get the subtlety?

No, you're blathering nonsense in capital letters.
Lerner is still promoting his ideas.

Based on OLD misconception re TIME DILATION.

What are you talking about? That is BH nonsense, nothing to do with plasmoids. Lerner is promoting plasmoids. Did you make it past the first video?
then you can see for yourself that Lerner's ongoing videos are just "going through the motions' for funding-attracting motives DESPITE deep down he KNOWS what he is 'explaining' must be false

Project much? Lerner is saying what he is saying and there is no reason to discount that. You, however, clearly don't understand the physics of plasmoids as you claim.

Jun 30, 2019
@cantdrive85.
Based on OLD misconception re TIME DILATION.
What are you talking about? That is BH nonsense, nothing to do with plasmoids. Lerner is promoting plasmoids. Did you make it past the first video?
His 'time dilation' argument SET THE SCENE/LOGICS for his "No Black Holes" view; and his subsequent argument/claim that it was PLASMOIDS not BHs. It started on that false premise and went on to false conclusions. Old/simplistic/erroneous views MISled many otherwise intelligent physicists (eg, BB etc); and in his own case, Lerner is led astray by his 'time dilation' misunderstandings.

Did you understand the DIFFERENCE between a particle's straight-line motion THROUGH SPACE (while star material falling/collapsing) and the CYCLIC INTERNAL MOTIONS of particles which determine the RATE of radiation/emission?

They're TWO different things; but ONLY ONE is affected by TIME DILATION phenomenon. :)

It is his conflation of these two by Lerner that misled him/you. :)

Jun 30, 2019
His 'time dilation' argument SET THE SCENE/LOGICS for his "No Black Holes" view;

There are no black holes, almost black holes, gravity monsters, or any other fictional maths constructs. Theory, experiments, and simulations show BH's are not necessary for galactic creation, evolution, and features/phenomena. The logics for "no black holes" is voluminous, and actually quite unnecessary anyway. The consideration of the plasmoid is a different paradigm of cosmology, it's not an A or 2 choice.
It is his conflation of these two by Lerner that misled him/you.

Which is meaningless in the consideration of the plasmoid.

Jun 30, 2019
@cantdrive.
His 'time dilation' argument SET THE SCENE/LOGICS for his "No Black Holes" view;
There are no black holes, almost black holes, gravity monsters, or any other fictional maths constructs. Theory, experiments, and simulations show BH's are not necessary for galactic creation, evolution, and features/phenomena. The logics for "no black holes" is voluminous, and actually quite unnecessary anyway. The consideration of the plasmoid is a different paradigm of cosmology, it's not an A or 2 choice.
It is his conflation of these two by Lerner that misled him/you.
Which is meaningless in the consideration of the plasmoid.
You forgot that 'free space plasmoids' are NOT stable; hence all his/your arguments are moot. Your earlier 'find' of a 'stable free space plasmoids' ended in a link that was describing anything-but such a thing (as I pointed out for you, that linked example was a lab-constructed structured/controlled case; and not a 'free space plasmoid' case). :)

Jun 30, 2019
You forgot that 'free space plasmoids' are NOT stable

That is your claim, I take Lerner's POV over yours every time. He is an expert in the study of plasmoids and he sees no limitations of "free space". Remember, it is the EM forces in the Caltech plasma ring, and in the dense plasma focus creating the plasmoid, not the apparatus.

Jul 01, 2019

Whoosh
Fäthammar states the frozen-in condition is only applicable in one and only one situation, when figure 2 is satisfied.


Christ you are thick! As well as a liar. Why do you even comment on plasma physics? You know nothing about it! Neither does anybody else in your cult. The frozen-in condition is just fine when applied in the appropriate circumstances, you idiot. That means taking account of the linear and temporal scales you are studying. In most astrophysical plasmas, it is legitimate to use it. For MR it is not appropriate, you clown. Frozen-in has to break down for MR to happen. Alfven said it couldn't happen (MR). Falthammar says it can. As does every other plasma physicist on the planet. You lose again, woo boy. Get an education, and stop spewing your ignorant mythologist dogma, you clown.

Jul 01, 2019
His 'time dilation' argument SET THE SCENE/LOGICS for his "No Black Holes" view;

There are no black holes, almost black holes, gravity monsters, or any other fictional maths constructs. Theory, experiments, and simulations show BH's are not necessary for galactic creation, evolution, and features/phenomena. The logics for "no black holes" is voluminous, and actually quite unnecessary anyway. The consideration of the plasmoid is a different paradigm of cosmology, it's not an A or 2 choice.
It is his conflation of these two by Lerner that misled him/you.

Which is meaningless in the consideration of the plasmoid.


Lol. It cannot be a plasmoid, you idiot. Observation and physics totally rules it out. You lose again, thicko.

Jul 01, 2019
You forgot that 'free space plasmoids' are NOT stable

That is your claim, I take Lerner's POV over yours every time. He is an expert in the study of plasmoids and he sees no limitations of "free space". Remember, it is the EM forces in the Caltech plasma ring, and in the dense plasma focus creating the plasmoid, not the apparatus.


Lerner is a crank. Hence why not a single scientist agrees with his woo. He should have done his PhD. Might have learned the science that would tell him that he's talking out of his arse. He has contributed zilch to plasma physics. He is a complete nobody.
Plasmoid! Lol. Youtube! Lol. Where all the cranks end up. With their crankery. Sad.

Jul 01, 2019
So, where are we with MR? Not a plasma (astro)physicist on the planet claims that it doesn't occur. Alfven had his doubts due to setting up erroneous boundary conditions. Falthammar was obviously not convinced by Alfven. He was obviously open to it from the late 70s, at least. And the same MR that Falthammar accepted, is the very same as that proposed since way back, that Alfven said couldn't happen! They can't both be right. And eventually experiment and in-situ observation proved Alfven wrong. Ho hum. Everybody has moved on since then. Except a bunch of Velikovskian loons, who cannot name a single plasma physicist in their cult. So, why should we care what these irrelevant, unqualified clowns think? It's not as if they are ever going to write it up!

Jul 01, 2019
So, where are we with MR? Not a plasma (astro)physicist on the planet claims that it doesn't occur. Alfven had his doubts due to setting up erroneous boundary conditions. Falthammar was obviously not convinced by Alfven. He was obviously open to it from the late 70s, at least. And the same MR that Falthammar accepted, is the very same as that proposed since way back, that Alfven said couldn't happen! They can't both be right. And eventually experiment and in-situ observation proved Alfven wrong. Ho hum. Everybody has moved on since then. Except a bunch of Velikovskian loons, who cannot name a single plasma physicist in their cult. So, why should we care what these irrelevant, unqualified clowns think? It's not as if they are ever going to write it up!

You obviously care, else you wouldn't stalk, name call, or get worked up into a tizzy at every turn.

Jul 01, 2019
It cannot be a plasmoid, you idiot. Observation and physics totally rules it out

LOL, point to one paper which shows observation and physics (like) totally rules it out.

Jul 01, 2019
It cannot be a plasmoid, you idiot. Observation and physics totally rules it out

LOL, point to one paper which shows observation and physics (like) totally rules it out.


Show one paper that says it is! Start with one that explains stellar orbits and gravitational redshift due to plasmoid woo. Trust me, there aren't any.

Jul 01, 2019
You obviously care, else you wouldn't stalk, name call, or get worked up into a tizzy at every turn.


Nope, why would anybody get worked up about idiots from a Velikovskian cult who are clueless about science? The only reason to continue to debunk this idiocy is purely for any dummies who might get sucked in by said idiocy.

Jul 01, 2019
@cantdrive85.
You forgot that 'free space plasmoids' are NOT stable
That is your claim, I take Lerner's POV over yours every time. He is an expert in the study of plasmoids and he sees no limitations of "free space".
It's not my claim, it's the conclusion which plasma dynamics and free space conditions lead inevitably to....if you are objective and knowledgeable in these fields...which, @cantdrive, it seems you are not at this point in time...but there's hope yet, since I can tell you are intelligent if not yet properly objective with it.

Remember, it is the EM forces in the Caltech plasma ring, and in the dense plasma focus creating the plasmoid, not the apparatus.
There...right there!...is the problem for you, Lerner, and anyone else conveniently dismissing the underlying SOLID physical structure/controlled-circuitry etc which BOTH Plasma Focus experiments AND that Caltech experiment entail!

Surely you can't be that obtuse and/or self-deluded, mate!? :)

Jul 01, 2019
Magnetic Loops in Reconnection

RealityCheck
"magnetic field line" is merely an ABSTRACT ILLUSTRATIVE 'picturing device'; ie: NOT REAL 'lines' in energy-space.

TRC, this sage under his bridge
"magnetic field line is NOT REAL lines in energy-space"

As simply stumps
Is taking time out
To write these
Goings on
On this phys.org
For all our foibles
This giant that once was on this phys.org
Has taken to the this quite seclusion
On this sunny river bank
Taking note
Of our sage under his bridge
For
TRC - a phrase that tickled simply stumps

TRC, magnetic fields
Loop
Break
Reconnect
So are continuous lines of field of force
For then TRC, your piece de la resistance
Lines in energy-space
For energy space
Space is this vacuum
There is no such entity as energy space
For
Space is this vacuum
And
Energy like protons and electrons
Simply
Occupy this infinite vacuous vacuum

A little thought TRC for your contemplation
In this warmth of these evening sunbeams under your bridge

Jul 01, 2019
@granville583762.
There is no such entity as energy space; For Space is this vacuum; And
Energy like protons and electrons Simply Occupy this infinite vacuous vacuum
If energy-space was not a ubiquitous physically effective underlying universal source and substance for all the higher level evolutions and interactions of constantly cycling/recycling of protons, electrons etc arising from that energy-space physically effective underlying substance, then neither Gravity nor Electro-Magnetism effects would be able to propagate 'remotely' across such incredible distances within the Cosmic Quantum Vacuum Infinity. :)

So I would humbly advise you now to rethink your reality-ineffective "vacuous vacuum" view, and to start immediately paying closer attention to the actual physical reality around you, @granville. Here's wishing for a happy reality to you and yours going forward, mate! :)

Jul 01, 2019
It cannot be a plasmoid, you idiot. Observation and physics totally rules it out

LOL, point to one paper which shows observation and physics (like) totally rules it out.


Show one paper that says it is! Start with one that explains stellar orbits and gravitational redshift due to plasmoid woo. Trust me, there aren't any.

That's what I thought, you got nothing. You're lying as usual;
"It cannot be a plasmoid, you idiot. Observation and physics totally rules it out" jonesdumb

Jul 01, 2019
It cannot be a plasmoid, you idiot. Observation and physics totally rules it out

LOL, point to one paper which shows observation and physics (like) totally rules it out.


Show one paper that says it is! Start with one that explains stellar orbits and gravitational redshift due to plasmoid woo. Trust me, there aren't any.

That's what I thought, you got nothing. You're lying as usual;
"It cannot be a plasmoid, you idiot. Observation and physics totally rules it out" jonesdumb


No, idiot. You are the one with nothing! Nobody is claiming this is a bloody plasmoid, other than a crank on youtube! Explain the stellar orbits. Explain the gravitational redshift. Those are observations, O clueless one. And the physics says that it cannot be due to plasmoid woo. Understand? If you think it can, then show us where it is written up.

Jul 01, 2019
@cantdrive85
@Castrogiovanni.
LOL, point to one paper which shows observation and physics (like) totally rules it out.
Show one paper that says it is! Start with one that explains stellar orbits and gravitational redshift due to plasmoid woo. Trust me, there aren't any.
That's what I thought, you got nothing. You're lying as usual; "It cannot be a plasmoid, you idiot. Observation and physics totally rules it out" jonesdumb
That was unworthy of one who claims to know better than others, @cantdrive. You blithely ignored @Castro's reasonable request for reference(s) from you which explain exactly how the observed stellar orbits, gravitational redshifts, and other phenomena would be consistent with (your claimed) central 'plasmoid feature' in our galaxy.

You failed to comply with @Castro's reasonable request, and instead resorted to the sort of dismissive insulting retorts you have so often received from him.

You should be better than that, mate. :)

Jul 01, 2019
It's not my claim, it's the conclusion which plasma dynamics and free space conditions lead inevitably

That is YOUR conclusion, real plasma physicists such as Alfvén and Lerner disagree. I prefer their opinions over yours.
Surely you can't be that obtuse and/or self-deluded, mate!?

Right back at ya, pal. I'll agree with the real plasma physicists.

Jul 01, 2019

Right back at ya, pal. I'll agree with the real plasma physicists.


One is long dead, the other is a crank.

Jul 01, 2019
@cantdrive85.
It's not my claim, it's the conclusion which plasma dynamics and free space conditions lead inevitably

That is YOUR conclusion, real plasma physicists such as Alfvén and Lerner disagree. I prefer their opinions over yours.
Surely you can't be that obtuse and/or self-deluded, mate!?

Right back at ya, pal. I'll agree with the real plasma physicists.
But, but, what value your "real plasma physicists" if they and you expediently IGNORE the SOLID apparatus required to maintain/stabilise their lab-created/controlled plasmoids; which would otherwise immediately explode and/or wander off and dissipate if they were truly independent of the supporting SOLID structure/circuitry and other man-applied artificial conditions/control mechanisms employed that makes those plasmoids NOT 'free space plasmoid' events/features that are KNOWN to BE unstable and extreme transient UNLESS there's an anchoring/stabilising underlying massive Gravitational Body (eg, BH)?

Jul 01, 2019
We present the stellar kinematics in the central 2′′ of the luminous elliptical galaxy M87 (NGC 4486), using laser adaptive optics to feed the Gemini telescope integral-field spectrograph, NIFS. The velocity dispersion rises to 480 km s^−1 at 0.2′′. We combine these data with extensive stellar kinematics out to large radii to derive a black-hole mass equal to (6.6 ± 0.4)×10^9Msun, using orbit-based axisymmetric models and including only the NIFS data in the central region.


THE BLACK-HOLE MASS IN M87 FROM GEMINI/NIFS ADAPTIVE OPTICS OBSERVATIONS
Gebhardt, K. et al.
https://arxiv.org...1954.pdf

So, let us see where Alfven or Lerner replied to that 2011 paper contesting the findings, and suggesting that it is all due to plasmoid woo!

Jul 01, 2019
Kinetic Energy is The de Broglie frequency
RealityCheck
energy-space

Kinetic energy is not space
But the energy of frequency of protons and electrons in motion – oscillations
The de Broglie frequency
Where the frequency of the protons electric and magnetic field
Oscillates depending on the protons kinetic energy
Energy and this vacuum do not mix

For TRC take a leaf from simply stumps as to quiet contemplation under your residential accommodation by this babbling brook

Jul 01, 2019
@granville583762.
energy-space
Kinetic energy is not space But the energy of frequency of protons and electrons in motion – oscillations ...
Kinetic energy is but ONE manifestation of energy-space effects which arise due to the connection between the underlying energy-space continuum and the moving particle/wave perturbations of higher levels which arise from, move and evolve and eventually subside back to the underlying energy-space 'reservoir' which gave rise to them. The term energy-space" is intended to convey the 'one-ness' of the underlying universal 'fabric', which fabric differentiates into higher level states/evolutions to manifest as the energy-matter particles/waves of all sorts you already mentioned. Kinetic energy is just one aspect of the overall phenomena being observed/studied; any particular chosen arbitrary part of which may be 'analysed' via thermodynamic/energy-space 'partition' techniques in any 'finite volumetric' of infinite energy-space continuum. :)

Jul 01, 2019
Of infinite energy-space continuum

Kinetic energy is but ONE manifestation of energy-space effects
Which arise due to the connection
Between the underlying energy-space continuum
And the moving particle wave perturbations
Of higher levels
Which arise from
Move and evolve
And eventually subside
Back to the underlying energy-space reservoir
Which gave rise to them
The term energy-space
Is intended to convey the one-ness
Of the underlying universal fabric
Which fabric
Differentiates into higher level states
Evolutions to manifest as the energy-matter particles
Waves of all sorts you already mentioned
Kinetic energy
Is just one aspect of the overall phenomena
Being observed studied
Any particular chosen arbitrary part of which
May be analysed
Via
Thermodynamic
Energy-space partition techniques
In any finite volumetric of infinite energy-space continuum

Time and contemplation well spent RealityCheck

p.s. this needs sleeping on for this morn sky is brightening for this dawn

Jul 01, 2019
It cannot be a plasmoid, you idiot. Observation and physics totally rules it out

LOL, point to one paper which shows observation and physics (like) totally rules it out.


Show one paper that says it is! Start with one that explains stellar orbits and gravitational redshift due to plasmoid woo

That's what I thought, you got nothing. You're lying as usual;
"It cannot be a plasmoid, you idiot. Observation and physics totally rules it out" jonesdumb


No, idiot. You are the one with nothing! Nobody is claiming this is a bloody plasmoid, Explain the stellar orbits. Explain the gravitational redshift. Those are observations, O clueless one. And the physics says that it cannot be due to plasmoid woo. Understand? If you think it can, then show us where it is written up.

That it has yet "to be written up" doesn't mean it is not explainable. Allow the hypothesis to be allowed to mature like the standard guesswork.

Jul 01, 2019
@cantdrive
@Castrogiovanni.

@Castro said to @cantdrive:
...Nobody is claiming this is a bloody plasmoid, Explain the stellar orbits. Explain the gravitational redshift. Those are observations, O clueless one. And the physics says that it cannot be due to plasmoid woo. Understand? If you think it can, then show us where it is written up.

@cantdrive replied to @Castro:
That it has yet "to be written up" doesn't mean it is not explainable. Allow the hypothesis to be allowed to mature like the standard guesswork.


@cantdrive, that would be proper allowance IF your hypothesis had any 'prima facie' chance at all of being consistent with observed reality re well-demonstrated dynamics of 'free space' plasmoids and their inherent IN-stability/explosive nature. BUT your hypothesis is ALREADY CONTRADICTED/FALSIFIED by observations/dynamics I already pointed out re 'free space plasmoids'. So that hypothesis is stillborn; with no reality-avenue for 'maturing' at all. Ok, mate?

Jul 02, 2019
BUT your hypothesis is ALREADY CONTRADICTED/FALSIFIED by observations/dynamics I already pointed out re 'free space plasmoids

Yep, you pointed it out with hand wavy claims. You now have the obligation to actually point it out with some evidence that shows these plasma physicists are wrong.
Dr. Winston Bostick's proposal;
"Bostick went on to apply his theory of plasmoids to astrophysical phenomena. His 1958 paper,[9] applied plasma similarity transformations to pairs of plasmoids fired from a plasma gun (dense plasma focus device) that interact in such a way as to simulate galaxy formation."
Just one more opinion that carries far more weight than your blathering nonsense.

Oh, and BTW jonesdumb, Bostick is another physicist who claims BH's are plasmoids. Caught lying again.

Jul 02, 2019
That it has yet "to be written up" doesn't mean it is not explainable. Allow the hypothesis to be allowed to mature like the standard guesswork.


Yes it is unexplainable. The stellar orbits require a mass. Where is it? The orbits of stars around Sgr A* have been known about since the mid-90s. They all point to a mass of ~ 4m Suns. What have the wooists been doing for the past quarter of a decade? There is no way of explaining those orbits, and the gravitational redshift, without a huge mass. And nobody has ever attempted to do such a thing. Because it is a really, really dumb idea. Lerner is a crank.

Jul 02, 2019
BUT your hypothesis is ALREADY CONTRADICTED/FALSIFIED by observations/dynamics I already pointed out re 'free space plasmoids

Yep, you pointed it out with hand wavy claims. You now have the obligation to actually point it out with some evidence that shows these plasma physicists are wrong.
Dr. Winston Bostick's proposal;
"Bostick went on to apply his theory of plasmoids to astrophysical phenomena. His 1958 paper,[9] applied plasma similarity transformations to pairs of plasmoids fired from a plasma gun (dense plasma focus device) that interact in such a way as to simulate galaxy formation."
Just one more opinion that carries far more weight than your blathering nonsense.

Oh, and BTW jonesdumb, Bostick is another physicist who claims BH's are plasmoids. Caught lying again.


Bostick's ideas were dumb. Nobody takes them seriously. Except wooists. However, given when he wrote them, he can maybe be forgiven.

Jul 02, 2019
We present the stellar kinematics in the central 2′′ of the luminous elliptical galaxy M87 (NGC 4486), using laser adaptive optics to feed the Gemini telescope integral-field spectrograph, NIFS. The velocity dispersion rises to 480 km s^−1 at 0.2′′. We combine these data with extensive stellar kinematics out to large radii to derive a black-hole mass equal to (6.6 ± 0.4)×10^9Msun, using orbit-based axisymmetric models and including only the NIFS data in the central region.


THE BLACK-HOLE MASS IN M87 FROM GEMINI/NIFS ADAPTIVE OPTICS OBSERVATIONS
Gebhardt, K. et al.
https://arxiv.org...1954.pdf

So, let us see where Alfven or Lerner replied to that 2011 paper contesting the findings, and suggesting that it is all due to plasmoid woo!

Where in that paper does it say plasmoids are impossible as you continuously blather on about? What you still don't seem to grasp is your plasma ignoramuses are just presenting an interpretation based on their own beliefs.

Jul 02, 2019
Where in that paper does it say plasmoids are impossible as you continuously blather on about? What you still don't seem to grasp is your plasma ignoramuses are just presenting an interpretation based on their own beliefs.


Nope, based on known science regarding orbital mechanics. It requires gravity, and the mass can be quite easily worked out. Which rules out plasmoid woo. On the other hand, you have no theory for the stellar orbits. Nor does Lerner. Nor the idiot Thornhill. Just cranks getting upset as their belief system is destroyed by observation yet again.

Jul 02, 2019
Where in that paper does it say plasmoids are impossible as you continuously blather on about?


Why on Earth would real scientists need to mention plasmoids? Nobody in their right mind has suggested such idiocy. It only exists on youtube, unless you count Lerner's laughable 1980s paper, in a journal that no astrophysicist would have seen. Why don't scientists write a paper saying the Moon is not made of cheese? No need to.

Jul 02, 2019
Where in that paper does it say plasmoids are impossible as you continuously blather on about?


Why on Earth would real scientists need to mention plasmoids? Nobody in their right mind has suggested such idiocy. It only exists on youtube, unless you count Lerner's laughable 1980s paper, in a journal that no astrophysicist would have seen. Why don't scientists write a paper saying the Moon is not made of cheese? No need to.

Still waiting for that paper which show plasmoids are impossible.

Jul 02, 2019
Still waiting for that paper which show plasmoids are impossible.


Can't you read, idiot? There is nothing to rebut. Plasmoids cannot be a BH. Only an idiot would suggest such a thing. Why rebut something that doesn't exist within the literature? Where is the paper? Where are the calculations of the stellar orbits? The gravitational redshift? It doesn't exist. Like I said; why would anyone write a paper to say the obvious? BHs aren't cheese. Or perspex. Or rock. Or plasmoids. There is no paper saying they aren't cheese. Therefore the cheese hypothesis is as valid as the plasmoid woo hypothesis!

Jul 02, 2019
@cantdrive85.
BUT your hypothesis is ALREADY CONTRADICTED/FALSIFIED by observations/dynamics I already pointed out re 'free space plasmoids
...pairs of plasmoids fired from a plasma gun (dense plasma focus device) that interact in such a way as to simulate galaxy formation."
Transient plasmoid INTERACTION does NOT equate to PERSISTENT STABILITY, does it? Hence the need for some anchoring/stabilising structure (such as the Plasma Focus Device in the lab; and the Extreme Gravitational Body in free space at our galactic centre). Again, the DEMONSTRABLE INHERENT INSTABILITY of untethered/uncontrolled 'plasmoids' already refutes your claim that a 'free space' plasmoid feature (in place of a material BH-and-torus-and-jets feature) can survive as long as we observe in active galactic nuclei.

ps: Of COURSE plasmoids are possible! Generic plasmoid phenomena isn't in question; only YOUR plasma-reality-falsified claim that "there is no Gravitational (BH), only a plasmoid". :)

Jul 02, 2019
There is nothing to rebut.

Just more excuses, still waiting.
Plasmoids agree with numerous observational evidence, more in agreement than you fictional gravity monsters.
Your willful ignorance of the quantitative analysis is despicable however.

Jul 02, 2019
There is nothing to rebut.

Just more excuses, still waiting.
Plasmoids agree with numerous observational evidence, more in agreement than you fictional gravity monsters.
Your willful ignorance of the quantitative analysis is despicable however.


Idiot. There is no theory! You don't have one. It fails observationally. Where is the explanation of the stellar orbits, you clown? How many bloody times? You have no mechanism, no science and no evidence. Just a bunch of junk on youtube. It is pure woo that doesn't exist in the scientific literature.

Jul 02, 2019
Just more excuses, still waiting.


Still waiting for what, you clown? Somebody to write a rebuttal to a bunch of crap by a crank on youtube! Lol. If scientists rebutted every crank on the internet, they'd never get any work done. And plasmoids agree with no observations.

Jul 02, 2019
Transient plasmoid INTERACTION does NOT equate to PERSISTENT STABILITY, does it?

When you finally grasp how time scales along with all the other factors we can continue this discussion. Lerner explains it in his paper, Alfvén wrote a paper about it. That which occurs in seconds in the laboratory extrapolates to millions of years on a galactic scale. Both you and jonesdumb are equally ignorant on the matter.
'Are Black Holes Necessary?'
http://plasmauniv...oles.pdf
Answer is no!

Jul 02, 2019
Somebody to write a rebuttal to

A published paper in a plasma physics journal;
https://www.cambr...7522FF57

Stop lying jonesdumb, it's pathetic.

Jul 02, 2019
Somebody to write a rebuttal to

A published paper in a plasma physics journal;
https://www.cambr...7522FF57

Stop lying jonesdumb, it's pathetic.


You are the liar, moron. It is not a journal that any astrophysicist is going to see. The paper is a heap of crap from 1985, that has no explanation of stellar orbits or gravitational redshift. It is pure garbage by a crank, deliberately dumped in a journal where he knew nobody would see it. You have no hypothesis. This is a black hole. There are no competing theories. Zilch. Loons don't count.

Jul 02, 2019
http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/1983Peratt-AreBlackHoles.pdf
Answer is no!


Lol! This really is pathetic! An article in Sky & Telescope from 1983! Show me the follow-up, peer-reviewed papers, where Peratt attempts to use his woo to explain the observed orbits of stars around a BH. He never did it. It is just one more failed PC woo idea. I expect he knows it has failed, which is why we have seen nothing more about it. Only idiots like you still cling on to this nonsense, because your quasi-religion requires it.

Jul 02, 2019
@cantdrive85.

https://www.cambr...7522FF57
I have long pointed out that at 'root' of the POLAR JETS are on-going series of plasmoid events arising within the swirling magnetic fields that bring the plasmatic material to the polar regions; whereat SOME of that matter is directed INWARDS (towards the EH of the EXTREME GRAVITATIONAL BODY that is anchoring/stabilising the whole BH-Accretion disc-and-polar jets system), while MUCH of more of that matter is directed OUTWARDS as the observed jets 'collimated' by the action of the AXIAL electro-magnetic field compressive/accelerative forces. So there's nothing new (for me at least) in your above reference.

See? The salient points: BH body constitutes the PERSISTENT central 'structure' that ANCHORS and STABILISES the whole system; and that BH ITSELF is NOT a 'plasmoid'. :)

Jul 02, 2019
@cantdrive85.
Transient plasmoid INTERACTION does NOT equate to PERSISTENT STABILITY, does it?
When you finally grasp how time scales along with all the other factors we can continue this discussion....

'Are Black Holes Necessary?'
http://plasmauniv...oles.pdf
Answer is no!
You keep missing my points made, mate. Such POWERFUL plasmoids would be even MORE UNSTABLE than lower-powered ones; since the instability forces acting to self-destruct such a plasmoid would be COMMENSURATELY STRONGER....hence no matter HOW BIG the scale gets, the 'life-time' of 'free space' plasmoids NOT ANCHORED/STABILISED (by EXTREME Gravitational bodies which maintain the torus/magnetic etc geometries/effects) would NOT be long enough to result in what we see: ie, some 'jets' go for many thousands/millions of lightyears into deep space; meaning YOUR FREE-SPACE 'plasmoid' would have to survive at least THAT many years ON ITS OWN! Please also see my previous. :)

Jul 03, 2019
SOME of that matter is directed INWARDS (towards the EH of the EXTREME GRAVITATIONAL BODY

Blah, blah, blah. Flawed reasoning, failed understanding, easily ignored.

You keep missing my points made,

It's intentional, YOUR points are invalid and easily ignored. As explained, your claims are baseless blathering.

Jul 03, 2019
@cantdrive85.
SOME of that matter is directed INWARDS (towards the EH of the EXTREME GRAVITATIONAL BODY
Blah, blah, blah. Flawed reasoning, failed understanding, easily ignored.
You keep missing my points made,
It's intentional, YOUR points are invalid and easily ignored. As explained, your claims are baseless blathering.
Oh-oh, you're 'doing a jonesy' again! Stop it or (as the saying goes) "you'll go blind!" :)

Anyhow, mate, your "no BH, only plasmoid" claim IGNORES free-space plasmoids' already well observed/proven INHERENTLY UNSTABLE dynamics which I pointed out for you. So UNLESS or UNTIL you explain exactly how free-space plasmoids CAN stabilise/survive for millions of years without the continued stabilising/anchoring role of EITHER Solid Material Structures/Controls (eg, Focus Fusion Device in lab) OR without a Central Gravitating Body (eg, Extreme Gravity Black Hole feature at centre of galaxy), THEN you're the one bringing the "blah". Do better. :)

Jul 03, 2019
So UNLESS or UNTIL you explain exactly how free-space plasmoids CAN stabilise/survive for millions of years without the continued stabilising/anchoring role of EITHER Solid Material Structures/Controls (eg, Focus Fusion Device in lab) OR without a Central Gravitating Body (eg, Extreme Gravity Black Hole feature at centre of galaxy), THEN you're the one bringing the "blah". Do better.

I provided a quantitative model of it in the linked paper, you have responded with hand wavy assertions with zero supporting evidence.

Jul 03, 2019
@cantdrive85.
So UNLESS or UNTIL you explain exactly how free-space plasmoids CAN stabilise/survive for millions of years without the continued stabilising/anchoring role of EITHER Solid Material Structures/Controls (eg, Focus Fusion Device in lab) OR without a Central Gravitating Body (eg, Extreme Gravity Black Hole feature at centre of galaxy), THEN you're the one bringing the "blah".
I provided a quantitative model of it in the linked paper, you have responded with hand wavy....
No. I pointed out that the assumption in all your 'readings' of such papers is that those plasmoids would be stable/survive for millions of years WITHOUT any underlying stabilising/anchoring etc system. Which I pointed out for you is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE due to inherently UNSTABLE dynamics of plasmoids and their well observed/proven (in/by lab experiments) natural tendency to EXPLODE/DISSIPATE without such underlying solid structures (as in lab) or gravitational anchoring body (as in space). :)

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