Magnetic field may be keeping Milky Way's black hole quiet

**Magnetic field may be keeping Milky Way’s black hole quiet
Streamlines showing magnetic fields layered over a color image of the dusty ring around the Milky Way’s massive black hole. The Y-shaped structure is warm material falling toward the black hole, which is located near where the two arms of the Y-shape intersect. The streamlines reveal that the magnetic field closely follows the shape of the dusty structure. Each of the blue arms has its own field that is totally distinct from the rest of the ring, shown in pink. Credit: Dust and magnetic fields: NASA/SOFIA; Star field image: NASA/Hubble Space Telescope

Supermassive black holes exist at the center of most galaxies, and our Milky Way is no exception. But many other galaxies have highly active black holes, meaning a lot of material is falling into them, emitting high-energy radiation in this "feeding" process. The Milky Way's central black hole, on the other hand, is relatively quiet. New observations from NASA's Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy, SOFIA, are helping scientists understand the differences between active and quiet black holes.

These results give unprecedented information about the at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Scientists used SOFIA's newest instrument, the High-resolution Airborne Wideband Camera-Plus, HAWC+, to make these measurements.

Magnetic fields are invisible forces that influence the paths of charged particles, and have significant effects on the motions and evolution of matter throughout the universe. But magnetic fields cannot be imaged directly, so their role is not well understood. The HAWC+ instrument detects polarized far- emitted by celestial dust grains, which is invisible to human eyes. These grains align perpendicularly to magnetic fields. From the SOFIA results, astronomers can map the shape and infer the strength of the otherwise invisible , helping to visualize this fundamental force of nature.

"This is one of the first instances where we can really see how magnetic fields and interstellar matter interact with each other," noted Joan Schmelz, Universities Space Research Center astrophysicist at NASA Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley, and a co-author on a paper describing the observations. "HAWC+ is a game-changer."

Previous observations from SOFIA show the tilted ring of gas and dust orbiting the Milky Way's black hole, which is called Sagittarius A* (pronounced "Sagittarius A-star"). But the new HAWC+ data provide a unique view of the magnetic field in this area, which appears to trace the region's history over the past 100,000 years.

Details of these SOFIA magnetic field observations were presented at the June 2019 meeting of the American Astronomical Society and will be submitted to the Astrophysical Journal.

The gravity of the black hole dominates the dynamics of the center of the Milky Way, but the role of the magnetic field has been a mystery. The new observations with HAWC+ reveal that the magnetic field is strong enough to constrain the turbulent motions of gas. If the magnetic field channels the gas so it flows into the black hole itself, the black hole is active, because it is eating a lot of gas. However, if the magnetic field channels the gas so it flows into an orbit around the black hole, then the black hole is quiet because it's not ingesting any gas that would otherwise eventually form new stars.

Researchers combined mid- and far-infrared images from SOFIA's cameras with new streamlines that visualize the direction of the magnetic field. The blue y-shaped structure (see figure) is warm material falling toward the black hole, which is located near where the two arms of the y-shape intersect. Layering the structure of the magnetic field over the image reveals that the magnetic field follows the shape of the dusty structure. Each of the blue arms has its own field component that is totally distinct from the rest of the ring, shown in pink. But there are also places where the field veers away from the main dust structures, such as the top and bottom endpoints of the ring.

"The spiral shape of the magnetic field channels the gas into an orbit around the black hole," said Darren Dowell, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, principal investigator for the HAWC+ instrument, and lead author of the study. "This could explain why our black hole is quiet while others are active."

The new SOFIA and HAWC+ observations help determine how material in the extreme environment of a supermassive black hole interacts with it, including addressing a longstanding question of why the central black hole in the Milky Way is relatively faint while those in other galaxies are so bright.


Explore further

Magnetic fields may be the key to black hole activity

Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Provided by NASA
Citation: Magnetic field may be keeping Milky Way's black hole quiet (2019, June 12) retrieved 24 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-06-magnetic-field-milky-black-hole.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.
1609 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 12, 2019
The spiral shape of the magnetic field channels the gas into an orbit around the black hole,"

The spiral shape of the magnetic field is due to the helical motion of the electric currents which creates the central plasmoid. Another day, another observation, another confirmation of the Electric Universe paradigm.

Jun 12, 2019
The spiral shape of the magnetic field channels the gas into an orbit around the black hole,"

The spiral shape of the magnetic field is due to the helical motion of the electric currents which creates the central plasmoid. Another day, another observation, another confirmation of the Electric Universe paradigm.


Another day, another load of shit from @cantthink

Jun 12, 2019
The spiral shape of the magnetic field channels the gas into an orbit around the black hole,"

The spiral shape of the magnetic field is due to the helical motion of the electric currents which creates the central plasmoid. Another day, another observation, another confirmation of the Electric Universe paradigm.
You are the Infowars of science. The Alex Jones of astrophysics. The deep state cannot withstand the universal electric arc-light of truth. Illuminati flees, minds are liberated...

Jun 12, 2019
Another day, another load of shit from @cantthink
Yahbut

"new, more accessible and much cheaper approach to surveying the topology and strength of interstellar magnetic fields—which weave through space in our galaxy and beyond, representing one of the most potent forces in nature... Together with gravity, magnetic fields play a major role in many of the astrophysical processes—from star formation to stirring the massive dust and gas clouds that permeate interstellar space—that underpin the structure and composition of stars, planets and galaxies. On the galactic scale, magnetic fields dominate the acceleration and propagation of cosmic rays, and play an important role in transferring heat and polarized radiation"

-from another thread. 'one of the most potent forces in nature...'

It IS evidence. More and more every day.

You should always be prepared to update your POV.

Jun 12, 2019
The spiral shape of the magnetic field channels the gas into an orbit around the black hole,"

The spiral shape of the magnetic field is due to the helical motion of the electric currents which creates the central plasmoid.
.......magnetic lines of force are not spiral (helical) shaped. Magnetic lines are the part of the EM Energy Spectrum that are the lowest frequency wavelengths ( longest wavelengths). When electric current flows, the ELECTRONS spiral around the magnetic field line after a potential drop (voltage) has been induced. If the induced potential drop is high enough it can spark across gaps within a conductive pathway, but when breaks in the conductive pathway exceed the limits for the voltage to spark across the gap then conduction ceases.

In the vicinity of stars magnetic lines can span millions of unbroken miles. As those magnetic lines bend back & return to it's source of potential drop (voltage) then a spiral of electrons may be able follow the magnetic line.

Jun 12, 2019
Sagittarius A*, Our Quiescent Blackhole

Kassandra Bell and Joan Schmelz
Information about the strong magnetic field
At the centre of the Milky Way galaxy
Scientists used SOFIA's newest instrument
The High-resolution Airborne Wideband Camera-Plus
HAWC+
To make these measurements
Magnetic fields are invisible forces
That influence the paths of charged particles
And have significant effects on the motions and evolution of matter throughout the universe
The spiral shape of the magnetic field channels the gas into an orbit around the black hole
Said Darren Dowell
A scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Principal investigator for the HAWC+ instrument
And lead author of the study
Explains why our black hole is quiet while others are active

And all this time
We all thought
These blackholes
whether active
Whether inactive
There very existence
This force that bringeth forth their ravenous feeding frenzy
Waseth thiseth force of gravity
How wrong we all are
This force is Magnetism

Jun 12, 2019
These Scrumptious Electrons
Benni> When electric current flows, the ELECTRONS spiral around the magnetic field line
In the vicinity of stars magnetic lines can span millions of unbroken miles
Then a spiral of electrons may be able follow the magnetic line.

When electrons flow
Magnetic field lines encircle these electrons
Where
These electrons encircle these magnetic field lines
Producing synchrotron radiation
This energy of this scrumptious electron
Gamma-radiation

Jun 12, 2019
These electric currents were never a consideration of the standard guesswork, the electric currents are an explicit prediction of Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe

Jun 12, 2019
These electric currents were never a consideration of the standard guesswork, the electric currents are an explicit prediction of Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe


To cause electrons to flow, there must be a conductive pathway, I just don't see how only the presence of a magnetic field creates that pathway. There are two magnetic fields unrelated to one another at work here that make electrons flow in a conductor, we need to be careful not to confuse one with the other, I should have been clear about that earlier, I was trying to envision electron flow absent a solid wire conductor that would dispel the use of Fleming's left-hand rule, probably wouldn't work.


Jun 12, 2019
Before we all get overly excited over magnetic fields emanating from Our Quiescent Blackhole

Do not magnetic fields travel at this speed of light
Come to that
Do not gravitons travel at this speed of light
If truth be told
The reason
We have Our Quiescent Blackhole
Is because gravity and magnetism
Goes no further
Than Our Quiescent Blackholes event horizon

Jun 12, 2019
In this Alice in Wonder Land Event Horizon

The reason we have Our Quiescent Blackhole
Is because gravity and magnetism
Goes no further
Than Our Quiescent Blackholes event horizon

For here lies a problem
As gravity does not attract magnetism
Gravity is this Quiescent Blackholes event horizon
Is preventing electrons from exiting this event horizon
This meaneths
This magnetic field
Emanating from these electrons inside this event horizon
Meaneths this magnetic field is passing through this event horizon
To this outside world

Jun 12, 2019
Interesting.
So where does the S2 Star figure in all of this, as well as the other Stars that supposedly orbit the BH at SgrA* but haven't gotten pulled into the alleged Black Hole.

Does this 'magnetic field' prevent S2 from being pulled in/falling into the BH, instead causing S2 and other Stars to slingshot at high velocity away from the Black Hole's accretion disc as shown in Benni's video?

Jun 12, 2019
Before we all get overly excited over magnetic fields emanating from Our Quiescent Blackhole

Do not magnetic fields travel at this speed of light
Come to that
Do not gravitons travel at this speed of light
If truth be told
The reason
We have Our Quiescent Blackhole
Is because gravity and magnetism
Goes no further
Than Our Quiescent Blackholes event horizon


Magnetic lines are photons. What I am trying to resolve in my own mind is a way to get electrons to flow ON those magnetic lines when there is no obvious conductor for the flow of electrons.

There are two different magnetic fields involved in the creation of current flow & they function at right angles to one another, but in space what is the conducting medium? I can't see the conducting medium as being magnetic lines which emanate from the star as a medium on which electrons flow or maybe you could get a spiral (helical) shaped electron plasma of some kind all depending on which magnetic field electrons would flow.

Jun 12, 2019
The spiral shape of the magnetic field channels the gas into an orbit around the black hole,"

The spiral shape of the magnetic field is due to the helical motion of the electric currents which creates the central plasmoid. Another day, another observation, another confirmation of the Electric Universe paradigm.
You are the Infowars of science. The Alex Jones of astrophysics. The deep state cannot withstand the universal electric arc-light of truth. Illuminati flees, minds are liberated...
says danR

I hope you're not being sarcastic. YOU should know by now that the science isn't settled. There is far more to come than you could wrap your mind around, I assure you.
But enjoy the new data as these are SCIENTISTS who are discovering these things, not such as jonesy who seems unhappy at anything that is not in the books already. Even a mere scholar and interested observer like myself understands that 'Science is a trial by fire,' so to speak. :)

Jun 12, 2019
Question: Gravity does not attract magnetism

As of late
Google has apparently changed its search engine
So it does not want to answer the question
Does gravity affect magnetism?

Because magnetism consists of photons this should be a non question
But the impression gained is
Gravity does not attract magnetism

Jun 12, 2019
Quietness equates to lack of brightness in this case. Black holes are not considered "dark matter" so the mass contribution of black holes in a galaxy is estimated from the brightness of the galaxy not from the darkness of the galaxy.

Jun 12, 2019
Before we all get overly excited over magnetic fields emanating from Our Quiescent Blackhole

Magnetic lines are photons. What I am trying to resolve in my own mind is a way to get electrons to flow ON those magnetic lines when there is no obvious conductor for the flow of electrons.

There are two different magnetic fields involved in the creation of current flow & they function at right angles to one another, but in space what is the conducting medium? I can't see the conducting medium as being magnetic lines which emanate from the star as a medium on which electrons flow or maybe you could get a spiral (helical) shaped electron plasma of some kind all depending on which magnetic field electrons would flow.
says Benni

Correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps a "Conductor" is not required in the vacuum of outer space where free particles like electrons may be attracted to magnetic fields. On Earth. conditions are different where conductors are needed.

Jun 12, 2019
In This Weightless Vacuum

SEU, Correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps a "Conductor" is not required in the vacuum of outer space where free particles like electrons may be attracted to magnetic fields. On Earth. conditions are different where conductors are needed.


In space
Where all protons and electrons are in orbit
all electrons and protons are weightless
Magnetic fields
From this tenuous weightless plasma
Can exist as a feeble Magnetic force
Because gravity is weightless
The magnetic force to move electrons in a weightless environment is miniscule

Jun 12, 2019
I can't see the conducting medium as being magnetic lines which emanate from the star as a medium on which electrons flow or maybe you could get a spiral (helical) shaped electron plasma of some kind all depending on which magnetic field electrons would flow.
says Benni

Correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps a "Conductor" is not required in the vacuum of outer space where free particles like electrons may be attracted to magnetic fields. On Earth. conditions are different where conductors are needed.
.....exactly what I too am trying to resolve in my own mind.

I'm suggesting that a spiral shaped plasma can occur when an electron is moving nonparallel to a magnetic field & when it's intrinsic spin comes into contact with a magnetic line there is a resisting force setting up forces of kinetic energy as the spin of the electron resists the force of the magnetic line when the two come into contact, thus causing an electron to start on a spiral path creating a plasma of sorts.

Jun 12, 2019
>Egg: Look at this companion article discussing "plasmas entrained on magnetic fields", so what I'm suggesting concerning the spin of an electron encountering a magnetic field causing sudden high speed electron motion without a conductor is not unheard of, maybe even very common near stars which may have dense clouds of electrons coming into contact with magnetic field lines.

"There are very limited ways to study magnetic fields in space," explains Alexandre Lazarian, a UW-Madison professor of astronomy and an authority on the interstellar medium, the seemingly empty spaces between the stars that are, in fact, rich in matter and feature twisted, folded and tangled magnetic fields composed of fully or partially ionized plasmas entrained on magnetic fields. "Our understanding of all these (astrophysical) processes suffers from our poor knowledge of magnetic fields." https://phys.org/...asy.html

Jun 12, 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

Jun 12, 2019
@Benni
From your link:

"In addition to determining the direction of the interstellar magnetic fields, the new methodology can determine the strength of the field at a fine scale, down to each pixel on a map. "This demonstrates that the Wisconsin technique can revolutionize studies of magnetic effects on star formation by using existing ground-based telescopes without waiting for new space-based polarization missions with a higher resolution in some distant future," Lazarian says."


I have to disagree with this idea that ground-based 'scopes are sufficient to study interstellar and intergalactic magnetic fields. Earth has its own geomagnetic field that may interfere with incoming images. There are other factors to consider wrt relying on ground-based that may encounter many anomalies that are peculiar to planetary atmospheric disturbances, which is one of the reasons why space telescopes were developed in the first place.

Jun 12, 2019
..using existing ground-based telescopes without waiting for new space-based polarization missions with a higher resolution in some distant future," Lazarian says.


have to disagree with this idea that ground-based 'scopes are sufficient to study interstellar and intergalactic magnetic fields..... which is one of the reasons why space telescopes were developed in the first place.
....it does seem to be a bit farfetched.

As for myself I'm still trying to figure what the "plasmas" are that he claims ride the lines of magnetic fields.

I can only visualize a charged particle "bouncing off" magnetic field lines as I explained above, that the spin of an electron causes it to be deflected when it comes into contact with a magnetic line by which the effect causes the electron to change direction & take on a spiral motion. This is not what I would label "as plasmas riding the lines of magnetic field", actually just the opposite although conceivably with the same result.

Jun 12, 2019
In This Weightless Vacuum

SEU, Correct me if... Perhaps a "Conductor" is not required in the vacuum of outer space...


In space
Where all protons and electrons are in orbit
all electrons and protons are weightless
Magnetic fields
From this tenuous weightless plasma
Can exist as a feeble Magnetic force
Because gravity is weightless
The magnetic force to move electrons in a weightless environment is miniscule
says granville

Yes, Particles are weightless. They only gain weight when 2 or more protons and/or electrons join together as an Atom. One electron and one proton together makes one Atom of Hydrogen. Perfection.
And groupings of electrons and protons as a crowd all make up an Atom of another element. Perfection again.
But these weightless electrons out in the Cosmos are free, and yet are attracted to magnetic fields where they dance and cavort like its Prom Night. What is this Attraction that a magnetic field holds for the scrumptious electron?

Jun 12, 2019
Charges can do orbits or spins along the same axis to carry a magnetic field with the same direction. Charges orbiting around in plasma can be gravity-driven. It seems there is a novel gravity-based focused rotational/spin effect needed if gravity, not some new force, is the cause of unusually long magnetic fields. Maybe I need to look at it some more.

Jun 12, 2019
But these weightless electrons out in the Cosmos are free, and yet are attracted to magnetic fields where they dance and cavort like its Prom Night. What is this Attraction that a magnetic field holds for the scrumptious electron?
..........but it's not an actual "attraction" Egg.

As I explained above how an electron & magnetic lines interact, it's a DEFLECTION, just the opposite but maybe with the same end result, I just see no way an electron can ride an magnetic line, but I guess these are the things they're trying to figure out.

Jun 12, 2019

As for myself I'm still trying to figure what the "plasmas" are that he claims ride the lines of magnetic fields.

I can only visualize a charged particle "bouncing off" magnetic field lines as I explained above, that the spin of an electron causes it to be deflected when it comes into contact with a magnetic line by which the effect causes the electron to change direction & take on a spiral motion. This is not what I would label "as plasmas riding the lines of magnetic field", actually just the opposite although conceivably with the same result.
says Benni

I don't believe that I will be coming up with the answers any time soon to these remarkable magnetic fields and their associations with Particles, so I will wait for these scientists to develop another way to find out what is really going on. Most likely they will learn the Truth of the Matter/Energy by observing with a new space telescope built for just that. I will give it a rest for now, Benni.

Jun 12, 2019
"Charges can do orbits or spins along the same axis to carry a magnetic field with the same direction."

That could have been worded better. Took a course in E-Mag a long time ago. Charges can do spin or orbits AROUND the same axis to carry a magnetic field along the same direction as the axis. There's no need for a charge to move along the magnetic field axis as a result of the field but I haven't thought about it much.

Jun 12, 2019
As for myself I'm still trying to figure what the "plasmas" are that he claims ride the lines of magnetic fields.

I can only visualize a charged particle "bouncing off" magnetic field lines as I explained above, that the spin of an electron causes it to be deflected when it comes into contact with a magnetic line

I don't believe that I will be coming up with the answers any time soon to these remarkable magnetic fields and their associations with Particles, so I will wait for these scientists to develop another way to find out what is really going on. Most likely they will learn the Truth of the Matter/Energy by observing with a new space telescope built for just that. I will give it a rest for now, Benni.
......without a doubt this is the point we're at, we can't know more until we're better able to analyze what's really going on in the interstellar medium, we can't do that earthbound like you have already suggested.

Jun 12, 2019
Correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps a "Conductor" is not required in the vacuum of outer space where free particles like electrons may be attracted to magnetic fields. On Earth. conditions are different where conductors are needed.

Electrons need positive charge to pull themselves to. And that positive charge needs to be in a more fixed "position". IOW - baryon particles held in sufficiently structured way. As in - a magnetic field... Or in an orbit around a larger mass...
Electrons don't just "line up" around a magnetic field line unless there is baryonic matter being held there.

Jun 12, 2019
I may have to correct myself.
I just read this on Wiki;
The electron is a charged particle with charge −1e, where e is the unit of elementary charge. Its angular momentum comes from two types of rotation: spin and orbital motion. From classical electrodynamics, a rotating electrically charged body creates a magnetic dipole with magnetic poles of equal magnitude but opposite polarity. This analogy does hold, since an electron indeed behaves like a tiny bar magnet. One consequence is that an external magnetic field exerts a torque on the electron magnetic moment depending on its orientation with respect to the field.


Jun 13, 2019
To cause electrons to flow, there must be a conductive pathway, I just don't see how only the presence of a magnetic field creates that pathway.

In plasmas both ions and electrons create currents, we aren't dealing with wires but with plasma. The plasma is the conducting media. Nearly all of space is plasma, always. Even molecular clouds are plasmas, dusty partially ionized plasmas, but plasmas nonetheless. Charge separation and electric fields naturally arise in non-homogeneous and dusty plasmas, hence electric currents and double layers are also an expected occurrences. The presence of the magnetic fields indicates there are currents, and these currents and fields are created all the way up and down the scales of magnitude to further complicate the matter.

Jun 13, 2019
None of this disproves gravity. Maybe you forgot.

Jun 13, 2019
It disproves gravity is the dominant force in the Universe.

Jun 13, 2019
Earth has its own geomagnetic field that may interfere with incoming images
-Yes because photons are affected by geomagnetismistics.

You fucking moron.

Why dont you pretend to be something else somewhere else?
I don't believe that I will be coming up with the answers any time soon to these remarkable magnetic fields and their associations with Particle
I know it's wrong to make fun of sick people especially when they think they are being clever by pretending to be really really stupid. I mean that's the only explanation for this level of sickness isn't it?

Jun 13, 2019
The electric field of the electron
Benni> As I explained above how an electron & magnetic lines interact, it's a DEFLECTION, just the opposite but maybe with the same end result, I just see no way an electron can ride an magnetic line

Can repel, creating momentum by repelling electrons
But
When you observe electrons and protons
Moving under force of the electric and magnetic fields
Under the influence of the weightless environment of the vacuum of space
These two apparently simple forces
Electric and magnetic fields
Do not behave
As these forces behave in the lab
Or in magnetic motors
This intuitive feel we have that we have become accustomed to
We experience under 1g
What we're trying to do
Is transposing these experiences to this weightless environment, Benni

Jun 13, 2019
It disproves gravity is the dominant force in the Universe.
How does it do that, exactly? Considering there isn't any antigravity.

Jun 13, 2019
For in this Solarwind

The proton and electron
Flow in the same direction
But
Are able to flow in close proximity
As though they are a million miles apart
Flowing as individual trillions of electrons in line
Opposite protons flowing in trillions of protons in line
Where it would be expected electron would repel electron
Proton would repel proton
And
Electron attract proton
For
Under these differing conditions in this vacuum
As in this example in this solarwind
Our intuitive experience does not hold true in this vacuum
For these electrons flow side by side to their scrumptious electron colleagues without repeling
While
Flowing protons flow by their side
Where these two streams flow side by side with out mixing

For their we have electrons flowing as a currant across vast light years without repelling

Jun 13, 2019
To every force is a purpose: Electric, Magnetic, Gravitational Fields

Every electron has its magnetic field
This magnetic field encircles its electron
This electron encircles its magnetic field
This electron and its magnetic field are as one

These electrons are all identical
Their magnetic fields are all identical
For these electrons share their magnetic fields
For when flowing as a current
These electrons share their magnetic field
These electrons spiral their magnetic field along the long lines of electrons
Holding these electrons in formation in this plasma
Weaving its way across these galactic voids
This is this vast void where magnetic fields exist
In between galaxies
Magnetic and Electric fields are infinitely stronger than gravity

Jun 13, 2019
an external magnetic field exerts a torque on the electron magnetic moment depending on its orientation with respect to the field.
......exactly what I already stated when I wrote this:
I can only visualize a charged particle "bouncing off" magnetic field lines as I explained above, that the spin of an electron causes it to be deflected when it comes into contact with a magnetic line....
......but I included an explanatory detail that "torque" is what I termed "bouncing off", or call it "deflection" if you want, none of this having anything to do with the negative charge of an electron being attracted by a positive charge or one of the dipoles of a magnet.

depending on its orientation with respect to the field.
.......which is the effect of the intrinsic spin of the electron when it encounters a magnetic line & bounces off it like hitting a brick wall.


Jun 13, 2019
To cause electrons to flow, there must be a conductive pathway, I just don't see how only the presence of a magnetic field creates that pathway.

In plasmas both ions and electrons create currents, we aren't dealing with wires but with plasma. The plasma is the conducting media. Nearly all of space is plasma, always. Charge separation and electric fields naturally arise in non-homogeneous and dusty plasmas, hence electric currents and double layers are also an expected occurrences. The presence of the magnetic fields indicates there are currents, and these currents and fields are created all the way up and down the scales of magnitude to further complicate the matter.
......but all you're doing is making a blanket statement without explaining how "plasma" creates a "conductive pathway" for electrons as is created in a wire wherein electrons move along outer orbital electron shells.

Jun 13, 2019
"Torque" has a specific meaning in physics, and it means a twisting force. It certainly doesn't "bounce things off." It causes them to either spin or orbit, and spin and orbit combine to make up a quantity called "angular momentum." This quantity is conserved, so an outside force must act for it to change.

Electrons are more than happy to slide into magnetic lines of force, just as protons and all other charged particles are.

I'm trying to figure out how you think magnetic fields can occur in plasmas if they "bounce off"
charged particles.

Jun 13, 2019
Electric and magnetic fields
Do not behave
As these forces behave in the lab
Or in magnetic motors
This intuitive feel we have that we have become accustomed to
We experience under 1g
What we're trying to do
Is transposing these experiences to this weightless environment, Benni
......I don't know about the effects that a weightless environment could have on these things granDy, could be the case or may have nothing to do with effects of gravity. We won't begin finding out until as SEU has suggested, that we get analytical hardware beyond the effects of Earth's atmospheric conditions, until then we are just guessing.

Jun 13, 2019
We won't begin finding out until as SEU has suggested, that we get analytical hardware beyond the effects of Earth's atmospheric conditions, until then we are just guessing.
How about Gravity Probes A and B? That work for you?

Jun 13, 2019
"Torque" has a specific meaning in physics, and it means a twisting force. It certainly doesn't "bounce things off."
...it's the effects of torque I'm talking about that causes causes the electron to be repelled or bounced off & away from a magnetic line.

Electrons are more than happy to slide into magnetic lines of force, just as protons and all other charged particles are.
......no they are not so "happy", that's why when electrons encounter a magnetic field line that they are repelled away from it, this caused by the intrinsic spin of the electron creating kinetic energy as the electron hits the magnetic line, this is followed by "torque" which is created AFTER the encounter of an electron with the magnetic field line.

What they may be "happy" to do is to settle in between magnetic field lines wherein electrons find neutral zones in which they can flow unimpeded, but we won't know this is actually the case until we get hardware into space to analyze this.


Jun 13, 2019
Why are the electrons "repelled away from" magnetic fields?

Meanwhile, you do understand that "magnetic lines" are lines of equipotential, not physically existent lines in space, right?

Jun 13, 2019
....but all you're doing is making a blanket statement without explaining how "plasma" creates a "conductive pathway" for electrons as is created in a wire wherein electrons move along outer orbital electron shells.

I made a blanket statement because I thought we were passed Plasma 101 and understood the basics.
https://plasmauni...tro.html

Jun 13, 2019
Finally, someone's noticed

Benni, ......but all you're doing is making a blanket statement without explaining how "plasma" creates a "conductive pathway" for electrons as is created in a wire wherein electrons move along outer orbital electron shells

These blanket statements have to be backed up with more than a blanket statement
Or as that blanket statement of that quasi-neutral sage oft says – "nonsense"

Jun 13, 2019
For When Ones Theories
....but all you're doing is making a blanket statement without explaining how "plasma" creates a "conductive pathway" for electrons as is created in a wire wherein electrons move along outer orbital electron shells.

cantdrive> I made a blanket statement because I thought we were passed Plasma 101 and understood the basics.
https://plasmauni...tro.html

When ones theory depart from the standard accepted view
For cantdrive, it is beholden to the ownership of this shiny bran new theory
To always connect the dots with conventional theory

Jun 13, 2019
Why are the electrons "repelled away from" magnetic fields?

Meanwhile, you do understand that "magnetic lines" are lines of equipotential, not physically existent lines in space, right?
no schneibo, you do not understand.........

WORK is not required to move a charge along an equipotential, and that is not what is occurring when an electron encounters a magnetic field & the spin of an electron generates kinetic energy which in turn is followed up by the creation of torque. Torque is the after effect of the electron encountering a magnetic line & is repelled away from the magnetic field thus creating the post repelling effects of twisting motions of torque.

Jun 13, 2019
So, @cantthink, no response to how EM is the "dominant force in the universe" when it has a negative and gravity doesn't?

Thought so.

Jun 13, 2019
This Accepted Theory

So that the ownership of this shiny bran new theory
Is always in step with conventional theory
And in always making this connection
The ownership of this shiny bran new theory
Takes root in greater numbers
Which then cantdrive
Eventually
Your shiny bran new theory
Becomes this accepted theory

Jun 13, 2019
So @Benni is claiming electrons can't enter a magnetic field.

OK.

Sounds like the magic mushrooms were pretty good, there, @Benni.


Jun 13, 2019
A Charge is Massless
Benni> WORK is not required to move a charge

The electric and magnetic fields are massless
As these fields are created with massless photons
Only the electron has mass
9.1x10-31kgs of mass!

Jun 13, 2019
Finally, someone's noticed

Benni, ......but all you're doing is making a blanket statement without explaining how "plasma" creates a "conductive pathway" for electrons as is created in a wire wherein electrons move along outer orbital electron shells


These blanket statements have to be backed up with more than a blanket statement
Or as that blanket statement of that quasi-neutral sage oft says – "nonsense"
......what cd's link states about plasma(s) is a possibility, but not the ONLY one. I've seen this before & do not discount it, it's perfectly reasonable from what we know, but very possibly NOT the ONLY manner via which electrons can move around without unbroken wires.

Jun 13, 2019
@Benni, electrons are particles and they can move about without wires or plasma.

Jun 13, 2019
So @Benni is claiming electrons can't enter a magnetic field.

OK.

Sounds like the magic mushrooms were pretty good, there, @Benni.
.....and there you go as usual making stuff up that I said, "claiming electrons can't enter a magnetic field", when here is what I actually wrote much to your consternation:
What they may be "happy" to do is to settle in between magnetic field lines wherein electrons find neutral zones in which they can flow unimpeded
.......you see schneibo, YOU need to take grade school reading lessons before you try your luck on pretending to be an expert in particle physics & going off on another one of your patented name calling rants.

Jun 13, 2019
that's why when electrons encounter a magnetic field line that they are repelled away from it
You're now lying about what YOU said, @Benni, like you always do.

Jun 13, 2019
So, @cantthink, no response to how EM is the "dominant force in the universe" when it has a negative and gravity doesn't?

Thought so.

You are assuming there is no anti-gravity, if as much effort were expended looking for it as say DM, it would likely have been found. Oh right, no need because it has already been found as gyroscopes have been shown to be "anti-gravity" machines for decades now.

Jun 13, 2019
So, @cantthink, no response to how EM is the "dominant force in the universe" when it has a negative and gravity doesn't?

Thought so.

You are assuming there is no anti-gravity, if as much effort were expended looking for it as say DM, it would likely have been found. Oh right, no need because it has already been found as gyroscopes have been shown to be "anti-gravity" machines for decades now.


Talk about magic mushrooms, could you link anything that explains how a gyroscope is an "anti-gravity" machine?

Jun 13, 2019
Finally, someone's noticed

Benni, ......but all you're doing is making a blanket statement without explaining how "plasma" creates a "conductive pathway" for electrons as is created in a wire wherein electrons move along outer orbital electron shells


These blanket statements have to be backed up with more than a blanket statement
Or as that blanket statement of that quasi-neutral sage oft says – "nonsense"
......what cd's link states about plasma(s) is a possibility, but not the ONLY one. I've seen this before & do not discount it, it's perfectly reasonable from what we know, but very possibly NOT the ONLY manner via which electrons can move around without unbroken wires.

But benni the relevant topic is space plasma and the electromagnetic fields that arise in them. As all of space is plasma we should rely on known plasma physics to explain phenomena before resorting to whimsical thought experiments for no reason. Leave that futile exercise to the Darkists.

Jun 13, 2019
So, @cantthink, no response to how EM is the "dominant force in the universe" when it has a negative and gravity doesn't?

Thought so.

You are assuming there is no anti-gravity, if as much effort were expended looking for it as say DM, it would likely have been found. Oh right, no need because it has already been found as gyroscopes have been shown to be "anti-gravity" machines for decades now.


Talk about magic mushrooms, could you link anything that explains how a gyroscope is an "anti-gravity" machine?

Google is your friend, use him til your hearts content.

Jun 13, 2019
This is what comes of not knowing physics: momentum vs. gravity.

A gyroscope is sustained by its momentum, just like a top (the child's toy).

Jun 13, 2019
This is what comes of not knowing physics: momentum vs. gravity.

A gyroscope is sustained by its momentum, just like a top (the child's toy).
.....you don't know the difference between kinetic energy & momentum.

Jun 13, 2019
This is another one of these sparkly theories
cantdrive> As all of space is plasma

Cantdrive, electrons and protons occupy the vacuum
By definition
Electrons and protons are plasma
Where this plasma occupies the vacuum
As the vacuum is infinite
There is not enough plasma to occupy this entire infinite vacuum
Such that where this plasma occupies its region of vacuum
That space cannot strictly be described a true vacuum

So you are correct candrive
Space exists as plasma
It is a bit of a pointless splitting of hairs trying to justify your claim
That vacuum is occupied by plasma
When our Sun is an 800 thousand mile ball of plasma
Where we have untold trillions of these balls of plasma occupying this vacuum

Cant, this is like batting your own head against your own brick wall to prove it's a brick wall

Jun 13, 2019
Sure I do; kinetic energy is E(k) = 1/2mv² whereas momentum is p = mv.

You know, like math and stuff janitors don't understand.

Jun 13, 2019
This image of these magnetic fields
If they are a true representation of these magnetic fields
There has to be in this space occupied by these magnetic fields
Electrons in this maelstrom
Creating these convoluted magnetic paths
Meaning
Electrons are plasma
The intervening galactic void
Showing magnetic fields layered over an image of the dusty ring around the Milky Way's blackhole
The dust contains electrons
Is plasma
https://3c1703fe8...fiel.jpg

Jun 13, 2019
It seems the point here is at least that the core is a surprisingly strong magnet. Nothing about plasma or electricity driving the universe in there, of course. One would expect the magnetic field drives the plasma, and the BH would have spin and surface charge around it driving the magnetic field. The BH spin presumably involves spinning mass effects, the surrounding charge effects could be gravitationally-bound electrons under mass spin effects.


Jun 13, 2019
For when this sage, TrollianDaSchneib
TrollianDaSchneib> Sure I do; kinetic energy is E(k) = 1/2mv² whereas momentum is p = mv.
You know, like math and stuff janitors don't understand.

Utters these trollians
How does, TrollianDaSchneib with any apparently unconnected formula
For when uttered in TrollianDaSchneib trollian
Does it all ways appear
As if TrollianDaSchneib, is uttering his inscription engraved above his bridge
For immortalised in TrollianDaSchneib trollian
TrollianDaSchneib 2+2/2 = ?

p.s. just saying

Jun 13, 2019
Cant, this is like batting your own head against your own brick wall to prove it's a brick wall
......reminds you of schneibo who keeps trying to make us believe infinite gravity can exist on a finite stellar mass called a black hole, this despite the immutable law of physics that gravity is totally mass dependent, right schneibo?

Jun 13, 2019
When GW170817 hit the lime light
Benni> ...reminds you of schneibo who keeps trying to make us believe infinite gravity can exist on a finite stellar mass called a BH this despite the immutable law of physics that gravity is totally mass dependent right schneibo?

For Benni, P.W allowed a rare privilege
For after P.Ws brush with an assistant professor where this professor surely rebuked P.W
P.W allowed a free for all on their article concerning GW170817
Even though it drew 80 comments the old guard this P.W 5star club refused to comment
For Benni this is where this Light Radius Star emerged
So Benni after P.W inadvertently deleted this professors comments
P.W took a shine to this Light Radius Star
Because
The theory stated that as gravity travels at this speed of light
This light radius can only have an escape velocity of this speed of light and no greater
And gravity can only compress matter to this speed of light
And no infinite gravity
P.W only accepted science comments

Jun 13, 2019
And gravity can only compress matter to this speed of light
And no infinite gravity
P.W only accepted science comments


.....and what they accepted was the 19th Century hypothesis/calculation for the formation of BHs based on another hypothesis that light is made of PARTICLES not WAVES & therefore subject to the laws of kinetic energy for ESCAPE VELOCITY. Then along came Einstein in 1905 & completely spoiled that silly party proving EM Waves are NOT subject to the escape velocity equations of Kinetic Energy.

Jun 13, 2019
P.W did not agree with infinite gravity

For Benni, this commentary of these Shire's
With this benefit of a 1000 words
Courtesy of that P.W
That existed long since
For now only exists
In these quantum fluctuations
Where most things oft ended up
For Benni, there is one good that emerged out this P.W
Because of this luxury of their 1000 words
It gave every ones commentary style free reign to develop
For the rare few who chose to comment
For Benni, only professors reviewed P.W comments
Those that did not pass muster
Went to live in these quantum fluctuations
As now they live on in this phys.org

Jun 13, 2019
This Accepted Theory
Benni> .....and what they accepted was the 19th Century hypothesis/calculation for the formation of BHs based on another hypothesis that light is made of PARTICLES not WAVES & therefore subject to the laws of kinetic energy for ESCAPE VELOCITY. Then along came Einstein in 1905 & completely spoiled that silly party proving EM Waves are NOT subject to the escape velocity equations of Kinetic Energy.

P.W had to, has to toe the intellectual line handed down by university professors
Because
This is where every ones bread and butter lies
They are staffed by the very same professors that work in universities
You do not get your wages if you do not toe the line
Of This Accepted Theory

Jun 13, 2019
For Benni, this is this rare privilege the likes of only commentators enjoy
Because
Benni, commentators take no remuneration for all these comments we make
They can be pure genius or utter drivel
We do not get paid
We make these comments out of the goodness in our souls
But not so in academia
Their wages are totally dependent on the prevalent view of the university professors
So this why those students that toe the line
Have these leprechaun pots of gold flowing their way with no apparent effort

Jun 13, 2019
Is Light a Wave or Photon
Benni> another hypothesis that light is made of PARTICLES not WAVES & therefore subject to the laws of kinetic energy for ESCAPE VELOCITY.

For what is a wave
Or is light
Is a photon this wave of light
For what is this wave we speak
For wave oscillates with amplitude and frequency
This photon can oscillate
Pulsate with frequency
Likened to a rubber ball that is squeezed with frequency
A wave does not need to be visualised as a string or on water
Just a pulsating particle
An oscillating photon
Simply a photon

Jun 13, 2019
This is what comes of not knowing physics: momentum vs. gravity.

A gyroscope is sustained by its momentum, just like a top (the child's toy).
.....you don't know the difference between kinetic energy & momentum.
says Benni replying to Schneib

WRT Gyroscopes and antigravity, the following is but one of many sites with explanations for the phenomenon:

https://pdfs.sema...c9cb.pdf

Additionally, there is another phenomenon that involves the uplift and other maneuvers at velocity by the so-called "UFOs" aka Extraterrestrial Aerial Vehicles that exemplify true AntiGravity.
These ET aerial vehicles are "flying gyroscopes" where the whole ship IS a gyroscope. At highest velocity the UFO experiences a loss of Mass which it regains as its velocity lessens or stops.

Just sayin' so don't tell the CIA

Jun 13, 2019
Professor Eric Laithwaite - gyroscopic gravity modification

Gyroscopic Antigravity
SEU> Just sayin' so don't tell the CIA

With no centrifugal force
https://www.youtu...AJ7vySC8

Jun 13, 2019
This Philosophers Stone - The Anti-Gravity Wheel

For those interested in this mysterious 40lbs held at arm's length
Held at arm's length, a human arm cannot direct force down its centre of mass
In the same way a pivoted steel arm can
Despite
All these amateur boffins posting their research on YouTube
No one has discovered this gyroscopic secret
Not even Professor Eric Laithwaite discovered this secret
if you want to discover this secret that is alluding everyone
You could start your voyage to discovery
With
The Anti-Gravity Wheel
https://www.youtu...Df4ooPdo

Jun 13, 2019
Is Light a Wave or Photon

Benni> another hypothesis that light is made of PARTICLES not WAVES & therefore subject to the laws of kinetic energy for ESCAPE VELOCITY.

For what is a wave
Or is light
Is a photon this wave of light
For what is this wave we speak
For wave oscillates with amplitude and frequency
This photon can oscillate
Pulsate with frequency
Likened to a rubber ball that is squeezed with frequency
Just a pulsating particle
An oscillating photon
Simply a photon
......just so everyone & especially the schneibos & Whyguys can better comprehend Special Relativity, a PHOTON is not a PARTICLE of light. There are those who like to dredge up references to light as being of a Wave/Particle theory without realizing it should be Wave/Photon. This is the reason the schneibos & Whyguys can't get their ducks to line up in a row using 19th Cosmology for calculating the speed of light Particles, particles which don't exist.

Jun 13, 2019
Professor Eric Laithwaite - gyroscopic gravity modification

Gyroscopic Antigravity
SEU> Just sayin' so don't tell the CIA

With no centrifugal force
https://www.youtu...AJ7vySC8
says granville

Thanks for the video. I also watched the following video depicting the genius of that Scotsman (wouldn't you know it :) ) Sandy Kidd and his mentor, Professor Laithwaite. I am very impressed with his antigravity invention and I know that it is the basics of the type of antigravity in the UFOs that we see in the sky.

Jun 13, 2019
Professor Benni

And gravity
Can only
Compress matter to this speed of light
And
No infinite gravity
P.W
Only accepted science comments

Formulating oscillatory light theory

Bennies theory, …and what they accepted
Was the 19th Century
Hypothesis
Calculation
For the formation of BHs
Based on another hypothesis
That light is made of PARTICLES
Not WAVES
& therefore subject to the laws of kinetic energy
For ESCAPE VELOCITY
Then along came Einstein
In 1905
& completely spoiled that silly party
Proving EM Waves
Are NOT subject
To the escape velocity Equations
Of Kinetic energy

Benni, as with all theories
This has contradictory legs
I'm just working on these contradictory legs

Jun 13, 2019
No infinite gravity
P.W
Only accepted science comments
......give me a link to this PW forum or article or whatever this reference is, sounds corny but I always like a good laugh, you know, like when I read something schniebo puts up.

Jun 13, 2019
Is Light a Wave or Photon


Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens and exhibit wave interference with itself, and it can behave as a particle with definite and finite measurable position or momentum, though not both at the same time as per Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The photon's wave and quantum qualities are two observable aspects of a single phenomenon—they cannot be described by any mechanical model;[2] a representation of this dual property of light that assumes certain points on the wavefront to be the seat of the energy is not possible. The quanta in a light wave are not spatially localized.

Jun 13, 2019
A PHOTON is not a PARTICLE of light

There are those
Who like to dredge up references
To light
As being
Of a Wave/Particle theory
Without realizing it should be Wave/Photon theory

For the closest it is possible to imagine a photon
Is an equivalent electric field
As it is massless energy
So not a particle

Jun 13, 2019
Momentum without a photon being a particle of light

For when an electron absorbs a photon
This electron is absorbing energy
This is massless energy
And this electron
Cannot increase its mass
It can reflect a photon and rebound with kinetic energy
For kinetic energy of motion is massless
Electrons can absorb photons and rebound with kinetic energy
Without a photon being a particle of light

Jun 13, 2019

A photon is not a particle
Is Light a Wave or Photon


SEU> Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens and exhibit wave interference with itself, and it can behave as a particle with definite and finite measurable position or momentum, though not both at the same time as per Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The photon's wave and quantum qualities are two observable aspects of a single phenomenon—they cannot be described by any mechanical model;[2] a representation of this dual property of light that assumes certain points on the wavefront to be the seat of the energy is not possible. The quanta in a light wave are not spatially localized.

Bennies point, SEU
Is a photon is not a particle of mass
SEU, a photon is not a particle

Jun 13, 2019
A PHOTON is not a PARTICLE of light

There are those
Who like to dredge up references
To light
As being
Of a Wave/Particle theory
Without realizing it should be Wave/Photon theory

For the closest it is possible to imagine a photon
Is an equivalent electric field
As it is massless energy
So not a particle
says granville

But that would mean that Wikipaedia has erred when it said:

"Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens and exhibit wave interference with itself, and it can behave as a particle with definite and finite measurable position or momentum, though not both at the same time as per Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. "

Oh my, what a quandary!!

Jun 13, 2019
A photon is like an electric field
Or a magnetic field
It is simply energy
Held in a electromagnetic field of energy
As electromagnetic field
Oscillating with frequency and wave
The phrase photon, is an obsolete descriptor

Jun 13, 2019
A photon is like an electric field
Or a magnetic field
It is simply energy
Held in a electromagnetic field of energy
As electromagnetic field
Oscillating with frequency and wave
The phrase photon, is an obsolete descriptor
says granville

So that a Photon, being Massless cannot be a Particle which has Mass. But then where is this 'duality' of which Wiki speaketh?

Jun 13, 2019
For the energy of this scrumptious electron
Is synchrotron gamma-radiation
As electrons only absorb pure energy
Electromagnetic energy is pure energy
No particles involved

Jun 13, 2019
This is Bennies gripe
SEU> So that a Photon, being Massless cannot be a Particle which has Mass. But then where is this 'duality' of which Wiki speaketh?

Instinct says Benni is right
Photons are pure energy
Electromagnetic energy
There is no wave particle duality
As a particle is mass
For there is no mass in energy

Jun 13, 2019
The wave particle duality
Is the electron absorbing photons
Where the electron rebounds with kinetic energy
The electrons mass is this photons momentum, not the massless photon

Jun 13, 2019
For the energy of this scrumptious electron
Is synchrotron gamma-radiation
As electrons only absorb pure energy
Electromagnetic energy is pure energy
No particles involved


Therefore I can only assume that Wikipaedia is engendered with old science, in the case of their Photon having a Wave-Particle duality. I am very disappointed and unnerved with Wiki, having had the idea that the site was indubitable in its accuracy.
So, a magnetic field is 'pure energy' and its electrons depend on that field???
Sorry for my seeming confusion.

Jun 13, 2019
This is Bennies gripe
SEU> So that a Photon, being Massless cannot be a Particle which has Mass. But then where is this 'duality' of which Wiki speaketh?

Instinct says Benni is right
Photons are pure energy
Electromagnetic energy
There is no wave particle duality
As a particle is mass
For there is no mass in energy
says granville

So Benni was correct all along, eh? I'm impressed, but no longer impressed with Wikipaedia am I.
By the way, granville, do you by any chance hold a Professorship at Cambridge?

Jun 13, 2019
Momentum without a photon being a particle of light

For when an electron absorbs a photon
This electron is absorbing energy
This is massless energy
And this electron
Cannot increase its mass
It can reflect a photon and rebound with kinetic energy
For kinetic energy of motion is massless
Electrons can absorb photons and rebound with kinetic energy
Without a photon being a particle of light
.......on the money granDy. If an EM Wave were a particle of sorts, it could not be absorbed by an electron energizing an electron to move between energy states within the atomic shell structure of an atom. Such an electron/particle would change the mass of an electron as it moves around inside the electron shell structure of & it would no longer be an electron & energy will not be conserved to the system.

Jun 13, 2019
A photon is like an electric field
Or a magnetic field
It is simply energy
Held in a electromagnetic field of energy
As electromagnetic field
Oscillating with frequency and wave
The phrase photon, is an obsolete descriptor
says granville

So that a Photon, being Massless cannot be a Particle which has Mass. But then where is this 'duality' of which Wiki speaketh?
......it's a throwback to 19th Century Cosmology when it was presumed that LIGHT was made up of PARTICLES, not a wave as we know today. There are those who dabble around in quantum mechanics who simply don't have a good grip on E=mc².

Jun 13, 2019
By the way, granville, do you by any chance hold a Professorship at Cambridge?


Egg, I already know he's incognito here as granDy, he owns the damn place, his biggest problem are some of his employees.

Jun 13, 2019
This is Bennies gripe
SEU> So that a Photon, being Massless cannot be a Particle which has Mass. But then where is this 'duality' of which Wiki speaketh?

Instinct says Benni is right
Photons are pure energy
Electromagnetic energy
There is no wave particle duality
As a particle is mass
For there is no mass in energy

Shouldn't that read "no MEASURABLE mass"?

Jun 13, 2019
By the way, granville, do you by any chance hold a Professorship at Cambridge?


Egg, I already know he's incognito here as granDy, he owns the damn place, his biggest problem are some of his employees.
says Benni

I don't doubt it. LOL
granville knows far too much to be an ordinary British citizen living in the Shires. He has given us many teachable moments, those moments of which I'm grateful. I have also learnt a lot of good science from YOU, Benni. I have long suspected that both you and granville know far more good science than most who comment on this site.
As a mere scholar and interested observer, I salute you both.
But i am also concerned about Wikipaedia providing such incorrect information as I have copied and pasted here in this phorum. It is such an error in judgment that I MIGHT write to them about it.

Jun 13, 2019
Wow, the crazy stuff these people come up with.

"There is no wave-particle duality" fails upon the experimental results of the Young dual-slit experiment (which proves waves- particles can't interfere, they can only collide and that doesn't give interference wave patterns) and the photoelectric experiments and Planck's quantum theory that explains them. There's no ambiguity here at all; Einstein won his Nobel Prize in Physics for showing that photons are not only emitted (as Planck showed) but also absorbed as individual particles.

C'mon, now, this has been known for over a century. Do try to keep up.

Jun 13, 2019
Waiting for the cranks to deny the data again.

Hundred-year-old data that have been confirmed over and over again in science classes around the world.

Do it yourself: both dual-slit and photoelectric experiments are easily replicated for not much money. You don't have to be a rocket scientist.

Jun 13, 2019
I've done these experiments myself; checked all the components, observed the effects. You can't do a college degree in any of the physical sciences without doing them.

If you're gonna lie, at least try to make it credible.

Jun 13, 2019
@granville
@Benni et al

https://www.youtu...4VA1L_vw

And here is the video that I highly recommend. It comes in (I believe, 2 parts). The story of Sandy Kidd who has built a working antigravity machine. He persevered even though his wife didn't approve.

I am trying to determine what is its current energy source. Probably works on the grid unless one can be found that doesn't depend on fossil fuels.

Jun 13, 2019
https://www.youtu...zjdUTu0o

A nice demonstration of the photoelectric effect. You can do it a bit more cheaply with a so-called blacklight. They are popular for detecting fluorescing compounds in cat urine and for wild parties. You can get one for under $20 and the electroscope can be made for a similar amount. Overall a demonstration of one of the most important discoveries in physics for under $100.

Jun 13, 2019
https://www.youtu...aRJ3vAmA

And here's a very good demonstration of Young's double-slit experiment showing unambiguous wave behavior of light. This one's even cheaper than the photoelectric effect experiment; you can probably get it done for under $50.

Now, have we sufficiently demolished the weird contention that there is no wave-particle duality, or do we need more YouTubes?

Jun 14, 2019
I have done these experiments (though not intended as experiments in physics- I was designing a laser device to collimate telescopes) in my garage. This stuff is not hard. Measuring with light is the most accurate with current commonly available technology and has been proven to work for hundreds of years.

LED lasers have only improved the situation.

Jun 14, 2019
TrollianDaSchneib

Thanks for reminding us for what dear old Albert is famous
TrollianDaSchneib> Wow, the crazy stuff these people come up with
Einstein won his Nobel Prize in Physics for showing that photons are not only emitted (as Planck showed) but also absorbed as individual particles

TrollianDaSchneib, Albert is famous for his photo electric effect
Becoming famous
After receiving this prestigious award
This Nobel Prize
Albert showed electromagnetism
Comes in discreet quantise of energy we call photons
Where this energy is dependent on frequency
Electrons absorb and reflect photons with no change in mass
For electrons electric and magnetic field can oscillate at the speed of light
When it absorbs a photon of energy
For an electron can rebound in kinetic energy
And oscillate as physical mass
For matter physically oscillating is the same as kinetic energy of matter in physical motion

A photon being massless has no kinetic energy of motion
Only frequency of energy

Jun 14, 2019
Mass does not change its mass as it approaches light speed

For TrollianDaSchneib
This has been mentioned before
Staffordshire University
When electrons accelerate in particle accelerators
They are held aloft in magnetic field coils
When the electron increase their velocity to the speed of light
This professor stated
This electron gains kinetic energy of motion
Relativistic kinetic energy is not mass
This electron does not increase its inertial mass
For this electron remains at 9.1x10-31kgs
For this Staffordshire University professor proved his statement
He stated
The particle accelerator technicians do not increase or decrease the magnetic field
In response to any change in mass
For this is simply this electron gaining kinetic energy
For this energy is massless kinetic energy
This professor stated in no uncertain terms
Mass does not change its mass as it approaches this speed of light
This electron remains at 9.1x10-31kg
Kinetic energy is massless
Energy is massless

Jun 14, 2019
Energy has no Gravitational Acceleration

This Massless Photon
Which come full circle, TrollianDaSchneib
Kinetic energy is electromagnetic energy is energy is massless
All this is energy
For energy
Is massless
Is invisible
Does not increase this protons and electrons inertial mass
Only inertial mass exhibits gravity
Photons are energy
Photons are massless
Photons do not posses inertial mass
For photons do not exhibit gravity
Because Energy has no Gravitational Acceleration

Jun 14, 2019
This is Bennies gripe
SEU> So that a Photon, being Massless cannot be a Particle which has Mass. But then where is this 'duality' of which Wiki speaketh?

Instinct says Benni is right
Photons are pure energy
Electromagnetic energy
There is no wave particle duality
As a particle is mass
For there is no mass in energy

Shouldn't that read "no MEASURABLE mass"?
..........Why no "measurable mass"?

Jun 14, 2019
Do the experiments in your own garage (or, more likely for you, basement) @Benni. Anybody who's telling the truth will know if you are.

Jun 14, 2019
photons are not only emitted (as Planck showed) but also absorbed as individual particles.

C'mon, now, this has been known for over a century. Do try to keep up.
......so you admit believing the 19th Century theory that LIGHT of made of particles of mass? Therefore you also believe the speed of light varies with the strength of the gravitational field through which those light particles are traveling.

Ok then schneibo, mister quantum expert, then tell us what the REST MASS of a photon/particle/EM Wave is? If you can't put a number on it's REST MASS then it is not a PARTICLE that is subject to equations derived from Kinetic Energy calculations. In other words prove an electro-magnetic wave is subject to 1/2mv² by establishing the REST MASS for an electro-magnetic wave. Can't do it can you?

Jun 14, 2019
Photons don't have a rest mass since they don't have mass. They have energy, however, and energy has momentum.

You can buy (or just see) a device at a local science shop: a radiometer. This shows the momentum of light.

There it sits in the sunlight, @Benni, making a fool of you with every rotation.

Jun 14, 2019
A photon being massless has no kinetic energy of motion
Only frequency of energy

Photons are energy
Photons are massless
Photons do not posses inertial mass
For photons do not exhibit gravity
......you gotta be careful here granDy, EM Waves/Photons in fact do possess gravity because they are TRANSFORMED mass.

You will read in some corners of scientific thought that because of the gravitational content of an EM Wave that it has MASS EQUIVALENCE due to the known & measurable parameter of gravity within EM energy fields.

It is important to distinguish that MASS EQUIVALENCE does not translate to EM Energy as having a content of MASS, if it did then it's speed would be subject to Escape Velocity equations derived from KE=1/2mv² the old 19th Century light particle theory that schneibo loves to hang onto also being the reason he loves that catch phrase "Wave/Particle Duality" instead of Wave/Photon Duality.

Jun 14, 2019
https://www.youtu...tjEjh7k4

A real radiometer.

Every time it spins around, @Benni, it says "idiot idiot idiot" to you.

Jun 14, 2019
Here, this is about your speed: https://www.youtu...3hDCWJGg

Jun 14, 2019

...then tell us what the REST MASS of a photon/particle/EM Wave is? If you can't put a number on it's REST MASS then it is not a PARTICLE that is subject to equations derived from Kinetic Energy calculations.


Photons don't have a rest mass since they don't have mass.
......nice that YOU learned something from Benni today, keep reading my Comments & you'll continue establishing a worthwhile learning curve.

You can buy (or just see) a device at a local science shop: a radiometer. This shows the momentum of light.
Momentum is established by an input of kinetic energy, it doesn't just show up out of nowhere, nothing moves of it's own volition.

Jun 14, 2019
@Benni does its usual and lies about what someone else said after lying about what it said.

Do the experiments, @Benni. Tell us how they come out for you. Keep in mind many other people will be doing them too and will know if you lie.

Jun 14, 2019
@Benni does its usual and lies about what someone else said after lying about what it said.

Do the experiments, @Benni. Tell us how they come out for you. Keep in mind many other people will be doing them too and will know if you lie.
.........and in your mind they prove what? That an EM Wave is also a PARTICLE as in that fictitious Wave/Particle Duality catch phrase?

Jun 14, 2019
Momentum is established by an input of kinetic energy, it doesn't just show up out of nowhere, nothing moves of it's own volition.
.......except for an EM Wave, this because it has no Mass/Particle content & therefore is not subject to 1/2mv².

Jun 14, 2019
They don't prove anything "in my mind" @Benni. You're lying again.

In reality, which is what experiments show, the experiments show that light can be neither a particle nor a wave exclusively, a fact you are trying to draw attention away from with outrageous claims.

Jun 14, 2019
MASS EQUIVALENCE of Blackholes
A photon being massless has no kinetic energy of motion
Only frequency of energy

Photons are energy
Photons are massless
Photons do not posses inertial mass
For photons do not exhibit gravity

Benni> you gotta be careful here granDy EM Waves/Photons do possess gravity they are TRANSFORMED mass

This is getting to this nitty-gritty of where BHs gravity extract their energy
When a proton in a BH accelerates a proton in the BHs accretion disk
For our sun at 2x10+30kgs to nearly the speed of light
Where is this BH getting its energy from?
For according to E = MC²
Our sun at nearly the speed of light requires infinite numbers of suns converted to KE
This BH is going to be losing most of its mass as it accelerates mass
As it accelerates mass it loses mass
And so loses gravitational attraction
Where this BH loses its event horizon
E = MC² means gravity converts inertial mass to kinetic energy of motion
For 2x10+30kg is our suns only mass

Jun 14, 2019
Not a Single Paltry Electron to the Speed of Light

If dear old Albert is correct in his assertion
That as inertial mass is accelerated to the speed of light
The reason Albert gives for inertial mass failing to reach the speed of light
Is that there is not sufficient energy in this universe to complete this task
Inertial mass requires infinite energy
An electron is inertial mass
On this basis, Benni
There is insufficient energy in this universe to accelerate a paltry electron to the speed of light

This energy dear old Albert is referring to is tied up in inertial mass
Because
All the mass in this universe is tied up in inertial mass
As it is just coincidental inertial mass and gravity are interlinked
This famous formula
E = MC²
As M = mass
Where mass = Inertial mass
Our sun contains 2x10+30kg of inertial mass

RNP
Jun 14, 2019
@Benni
If you can't put a number on it's REST MASS then it is not a PARTICLE that is subject to equations derived from Kinetic Energy calculations.

......it's a throwback to 19th Century Cosmology when it was presumed that LIGHT was made up of PARTICLES, not a wave as we know today. There are those who dabble around in quantum mechanics who simply don't have a good grip on E=mc².


This sequence of posts shows that it is *you* that are stuck on old ideas.
Your comments make clear that you do not understand Special Relativity and are
still using Newtonian ideas (which I note are *17th* century).

Let me explain.
In SR the equation for energy of a particle is E²=(mc²)²+(pc)². The equation E=1/2mv² is the Newtonian equation that Einstein's work superceeded.

From the SR relation it is clear a PARTICLE of zero mass if perfectly possible (it will have energy given by E=pc). The photon is one such particle.

Jun 14, 2019
This Circular Argument

It's always comforting
When these scientific niceties come full circle
This Circular Argument all way tells you everything is right in this world
It was said mass increases it mass with velocity
When mass simply acquires kinetic energy
As there is no change in mass
It was said this increase in mass prevented electrons travelling at light speed
When it is simply there is insufficient energy to provide kinetic energy of motion
It was said these heavy relativistic electrons in motion energy lay in this increased mass
As it never was increased mass in the first place
Just simply kinetic energy of motion
Then this formula was used E = MC² to prove this increase in mass
Where this is this ultimate circular argument
The mass in E = MC² is this increase in kinetic energy

This ultimate circular argument of circular arguments
For if you divide this increased KE by MC²
You arrive at the multiples of inertial mass mC²
It always ends this way with Circular Arguments

Jun 14, 2019
Where momentum lies in photons

In this cherished formula
RNP> E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²

The photons momentum is derived mathematically from its energy
Just as electrons mass is derived from its velocity
When this formula E²=(mc²)²+(pc)² supersedes E=1/2mv²
Both formulas are measuring massless kinetic energy of motion
As is the case with formulas
E²=(mc²)²+(pc)² = mass = momentum for there is velocity c² and mass
So this photons momentum is energy divided by the speed of light
The formula predicts momentum

For dear old Albert stated only massless particles travel at light speed
For as soon as a particle becomes massless it ceases to be a particle
For particles contain mass
Photons are massless otherwise the speed they are travel is not this ultimate speed
For if photons have mass, 299792458m/s is slower than the ultimate speed in this vacuum

Jun 14, 2019
Tis crunch time - This massless photon

Is it the formula predicting photon momentum?
There by predicting a photon of mass
Or
Is this observational research proving photons are attracted by gravity?
There by proving photons posse's inertial mass and have gravity of their own

Jun 14, 2019
From the SR relation it is clear a PARTICLE of zero mass if perfectly possible (it will have energy given by E=pc).

Which just goes to show SR is nonsensical pseudoscientific maths based woo.

Jun 14, 2019


Magnetic lines are photons. What I am trying to resolve in my own mind is a way to get electrons to flow ON those magnetic lines when there is no obvious conductor for the flow of electrons.

Magnetic fields are not photons. Fields are not particles.

Jun 14, 2019


Magnetic lines are photons. What I am trying to resolve in my own mind is a way to get electrons to flow ON those magnetic lines when there is no obvious conductor for the flow of electrons.

Magnetic fields are not photons. Fields are not particles.

And magnetic field lines do not exist in reality, they are merely used as an artistic impression of what the magnetic field might look like in a snapshot of time.

Jun 14, 2019
From the SR relation it is clear a PARTICLE of zero mass if perfectly possible . The photon is one such particle.
........showing off your freelance journalistic style again I see.

You don't even know the definition of a "particle", that massless particles do not exist. How much of your last meal was entirely composed of massless particles?

Let Benni here be the bearer of some really bad tidings for you RNP, a photon is an electro-magnetic wave, and electro-magnetic waves are not a "particle" of ANYThING, EM Waves are transformed PARTICLES. There is no such thing as a "particle" without mass & it sure ain't a photon because a photon is TRANSFORMED MASS.

But I know Rguy, you & the rest of the schneibos are still unable to move out of the 19th Century into the 21st. I'll bet YOU still remember back in the 19th Century when Cosmology thought LIGHT was made up of particles whose speed was subject to the gravity field in which those particles were traveling.

Jun 14, 2019
From the SR relation it is clear a PARTICLE of zero mass if perfectly possible (it will have energy given by E=pc).

Which just goes to show SR is nonsensical pseudoscientific maths based woo.
......it's more about pseudo-science mindset re-interpreting EVERYTHING because they have no comprehension of the subject in the first place, RNP being a perfect example with his Photon Particle not comprehending one is the transformed inverse of the other.

Jun 14, 2019
Bilbo Baggins in there and back again

TRANSFORMED MASS is TRANSFORMED ENERGY
Benni> a photon is TRANSFORMED MASS

What in TRANSFORMED MASS
Are other forms of energy in the meaning of TRANSFORMED MASS
For electric fields are forms of energy
That is not the same as gravitational energy
That is not the same as the energy of the nuclear fields
Then there is vibrational energy which is kinetic energy which is different again
Come to that all energy is TRANSFORMED ENERGY
Which it seems all energy being interchangeable with mass
All forms of energy are TRANSFORMED MASS
So TRANSFORMED MASS is TRANSFORMED ENERGY

Which comes back to beginning
What exactly is being said when a photon is TRANSFORMED MASS
Because every time a neutron decays a pristine Yotta life electron is born
The point being there is no connection with the original electron
For this is a TRANSFORMED ELECTRON as every reflected photon is a TRANSFORMED PHOTON
For every reflected photon is pristine photon anew

Jun 14, 2019
@granville
@Benni
@CD95 et al

https://www.omics...763.html

Please read this that discusses Photodynamics, particularly the Concluding remarks. There seems to be some 'antagonism toward at least SOME of Einstein's E=MC2 wrt Photons, etc.

I have regarded the "Double-Slit experiment" as bogus due to my disbelief that a Photon that is massless could also carry a particle that has mass. I thought that a Photon carrying a Particle would possibly experience some Friction in flight at the speed of c. As Space is not totally empty and has particles floating in it, it would also seem that Photons might collide 'in flight' with those particles and cause the Photons to slow down in spite of its inherent KE.
Was I wrong?

Jun 14, 2019
For every reflected photon is pristine photon anew

Where the electrons electric and magnetic fields
Absorb this photon and reflect a pristine photon anew
With the same energy as the original photon
Where is this transformed mass
Because every time a neutron decays a pristine Yotta life electron is born
With it a pristine electric and magnetic field anew


Jun 14, 2019
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
@granville
@Benni
http://ktemoc.blo...html?m=1

Jun 14, 2019
Sailing through the vacuum
SEU> I thought that a Photon carrying a Particle would possibly experience some Friction in flight at the speed of c. As Space is not totally empty and has particles floating in it, it would also seem that Photons might collide 'in flight' with those particles and cause the Photons to slow down in spite of its inherent KE

Actually SEU, Benni keeps pointing out when space travel becomes possible our spaceships would be riddled with meteor like holes as million mph particles rip through the hull and us with it
Any photons, if their energy equals mass, will slow down in collision with all the debris in space!

Jun 14, 2019
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
@granville
@Benni
http://ktemoc.blo...html?m=1
......I didn't bother, just so you know.

Jun 14, 2019
TRANSFORMED MASS is TRANSFORMED ENERGY


No, TRANSFORMED MASS is ENERGY just as transformed energy is mass.

Benni> a photon is TRANSFORMED MASS
And vice versa as I pointed out above.


Jun 14, 2019
Were all starting to sound the same
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
@granville
@Benni
http://ktemoc.blo...html?m=1
......I didn't bother, just so you know.

Just saying

Jun 14, 2019
TRANSFORMED MASS is TRANSFORMED ENERGY

No, TRANSFORMED MASS is ENERGY just as transformed energy is mass.
Benni> a photon is TRANSFORMED MASS
And vice versa as I pointed out above.

will have another look when I refresh some more transformed energy

Jun 14, 2019
From the SR relation it is clear a PARTICLE of zero mass if perfectly possible (it will have energy given by E=pc).

Which just goes to show SR is nonsensical pseudoscientific maths based woo.


Which has been demonstrated to match experiment and observation multiple times, idiot.

Jun 14, 2019
These electric currents were never a consideration of the standard guesswork, the electric currents are an explicit prediction of Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe


What currents? And where did EU woo predict black holes? And the orbits of stars around BHs? And the gravitational redshift of one of those planets at pericentre? Show me in the literature, woo boy.

Jun 14, 2019
Were all starting to sound the same
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
@granville
@Benni
http://ktemoc.blo...html?m=1
......I didn't bother, just so you know.

Just saying
says granville

It seems that it is theghostofotto1923 aka SpookyOtto1923 who is attempting to make fools of you and Benni and everyone else by submitting the above link that says something about malaysian morons, which shows Otto as being a racist bigot, amongst other things.

MY link was this one: https://www.omics...763.html

Just letting you know.

Jun 14, 2019
These electric currents were never a consideration of the standard guesswork, the electric currents are an explicit prediction of Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe


What currents? And where did EU woo predict black holes? And the orbits of stars around BHs? And the gravitational redshift of one of those planets at pericentre? Show me in the literature, woo boy.
says Castrovagina

Ahhh jonesy jonesy jonesy - electrical currents just may BE a normal occurrence in the spaces between Stars and Galaxies - so you shouldn't be so dismissive of something that may have potential. Do you remember the Magnetic Field that was found to reach across from one galaxy cluster to the other galaxy cluster across 10 MLY; as it was shown in the article that the Magnetic Field and its EM was drawing/attracting both galaxy clusters to each other? It isn't Gravity doing it.
Both galactic clusters are too far apart for any gravitational attraction to take place.

Jun 14, 2019
These electric currents were never a consideration of the standard guesswork, the electric currents are an explicit prediction of Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe


What currents? And where did EU predict black holes? And the orbits of stars around BHs? And the gravitational redshift of one of those planets at pericentre? Show me in the literature.
says Castrovagina

Ahhh jonesy - electrical currents just may BE a normal occurrence in the spaces between Stars and Galaxies - so you shouldn't be so dismissive of something that may have potential. Do you remember the Magnetic Field that was found to reach across from one galaxy cluster to the other galaxy cluster across 10 MLY; as it was shown in the article that the Magnetic Field and its EM was drawing/attracting both galaxy clusters to each other? It isn't Gravity doing it.
Both galactic clusters are too far apart for any gravitational attraction to take place.
....that was a real eye opening paper.

Jun 15, 2019
[q....]It isn't Gravity doing it.
Both galactic clusters are too far apart for any gravitational attraction to take place. ....that was a real eye opening paper. says Benni

If you are referring to the one I submitted here, I enjoyed it too. But the author insists that a Photon is also a particle, which is what Newton claimed it to be, IIRC, as opposed to Huygens who claimed it to be a Wave.

Incidentally, while examining the photo at the top of this article, I thought that the "Streamlines" reminded me of 'iron filings', the directions of which are determined by a magnet. What 'magnetic material' could there be in that dusty ring?
So, they couldn't get an image of the Black Hole at SgrA* itself, but they were able to get an image of magnetic fields surrounding it?

"Streamlines showing magnetic fields layered over a color image of the dusty ring around the Milky Way's massive black hole. The Y-shaped structure is warm material falling toward the black hole..."

Jun 15, 2019
The nutjobs are still denying observation and experiment.

Why is anyone bothering with these idiots?

Listening to Trower, Bridge of Sighs. Just finished Too Rolling Stoned.

Jun 15, 2019
The deniers have poked the demons of stupidity. No one should listen to their psychotic rants.

Jun 15, 2019
The Photon is Passing the Buck

Atoms are held together with electric fields
In the same way
Atoms are held together with magnetic fields
For when we stand on the ground
We are separated from the ground under foot by magnetic fields
For we are separated from the ground between two electrons
Where this magnetic field encircles each electron in repulsion
For this passing the buck
For what is this magnetic field that supports these massive weights apart
That is encircling these electrons
That absorbs photons
For a magnetic field is a wave
For a photon is a wave
But we perceive a magnetic field as a continuous encircling force that's not diffracted
Where we perceive a photon as a particular force because it is diffracted
For loops of magnetic fields break and reconnect
This means magnetic fields are continuous
Whereas photons are particular
As they
Refract
Reflect
By
Being absorbed by the electrons in the mirror and diffraction grating
Then Reemitted as Pristine Particular Photons Anew

Jun 15, 2019
Light is Particular

Magnetic and electric fields are continuous
As they flow
Flow round objects, as in shielding
Flow and reconnect in multi million Ly loops

Whereas photons are particular
As they do not flow round objects
Their beam can be cut while the beam ahead continues as particular photons
In point of fact this laser light is cut in trillions of a metre in high speed photography
As this limit is the size and space between each individual particular photon
Then photons are absorbed as individual photons in the electrons in diffraction gratings
Then reemitted as pristine particular photons anew

There is no escaping this fact
Light is composed of particular photons
Whereas magnetic fields are composed of continuous streams of magnetic field

Light is particular
Magnetic fields are continuous

Jun 15, 2019
"You'd be fools to ignore the Boolean anti-binary least square approach."


Jun 15, 2019
It seems that it is theghostofotto1923 aka SpookyOtto1923 who is attempting to make fools of you and Benni and everyone else
Retard can't even count to 3.

Jun 15, 2019
For out of the multitudes

And then there were two
DaSchneib

GhostlyOtto

In this pristine anew

How sad a way to enter those twilight years

Jun 15, 2019
"The other ones are complete bullshit."

-Sting, at the beginning of On Any Other Day.

Jun 15, 2019
It seems that it is theghostofotto1923 aka SpookyOtto1923 who is attempting to make fools of you and Benni and everyone else
Retard can't even count to 3.
.......but somehow you've been able to figure out infinite gravity can exist on a finite stellar mass & that kind of math makes sense to you?

Jun 15, 2019
@Benni doesn't get Dilbert.

RNP
Jun 15, 2019
@Benni

You don't even know the definition of a "particle", that massless particles do not exist.


Balderdash!!

Einstein got the 1921 Nobel prize for his work on the photoelectric effect which showed categorically that light is a particle (the photon) as well as wave (wave-particle duality).

Here is an article called "How Einstein discovered that light is a particle and won a Nobel for it" to prove my point.
https://medium.co...46195dd2

That is why in every school text book it is explained that the photon is a particle.

Your inability to grasp this point clearly indicates that you do not understand even *high school* physics.

Jun 15, 2019
These electric currents were never a consideration of the standard guesswork, the electric currents are an explicit prediction of Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe


What currents? And where did EU woo predict black holes? And the orbits of stars around BHs? And the gravitational redshift of one of those planets at pericentre? Show me in the literature, woo boy.

jonesdumb prefers willful ignorance and playing stupid rather than admitting the obvious. Those magnetic fields could not be there without electric currents.

Jun 15, 2019
@Benni

You don't even know the definition of a "particle", that massless particles do not exist.


Balderdash!!

Einstein got the 1921 Nobel prize for his work on the photoelectric effect which showed categorically that light is a particle (the photon) as well as wave (wave-particle duality).

Here is an article called "How Einstein discovered that light is a particle and won a Nobel for it" to prove my point.
https://medium.co...46195dd2

That is why in every school text book it is explained that the photon is a particle.

Your inability to grasp this point clearly indicates that you do not understand even *high school* physics.

That the mob deemed light is a particle by popular vote by no means proves it to be so.

Jun 15, 2019
Benni, This photoelectric effect is not what it seems

It does not say this particular photons been observed
It is assumed to exist
Because
Of this ejected electron
For this photo effect requires threshold quanta of energy to eject an electron
Commonsense demands that only a photon as a particle quanta of energy can eject an electron
It is this mathematicians reasoning that a particle photon exists
Their does not appear to be any observational proof a photon exists
As their does not appear to be any observational proof a photon exists as a particle

For it appears a stream of energy enters this electron
And when this stream reaches a threshold this electron has sufficient energy
To break free, to be ejected
This photo electric effect is only observing electrons as individual particles ejected
It is not observing individual photons ejected
This photon appears to be a mathematical assumption

The electron recoils when a threshold stream of light is shone on it – Where are the photons?

Jun 15, 2019
That the mob deemed light is a particle by popular vote by no means proves it to be so.
"The mob?" What "the mob?" And they proved it by experiment and observation, two things you seem singularly incapable of understanding. That's why you're @cantthink.

Jun 15, 2019
This Photonic Picci

When we see this picci
This algorithmic photonic picci
This elusive photonic picci
For although it is the most illuminated energy
Energy that lights quasars across this universe divide
This photon is deceptively elusive
Neither wave nor particle
For this belief
It changes from particle to wave in flight
It changes between particulate mass to massless energy in flight
With no loss in momentum
Breaking Albert's most cherished gold standard
For
Albert hath written on these scrolls of scientific truth
No mass shalt travel at this speed of light
For only massless energy shalt thou travel at light
For
Even Albert himself broke these commandments of massless light speed
By
This introduction of a photon by its definition a photon of mass
For
Our llittle cupeths of joyeth
Will overfloweth with joyeth
When we are given this picci
This photonic picci

Photographic proof this photon of light actually exists

Jun 15, 2019
We see scintillator screen impacts of photons all the time. You can even get a quote if you want to buy one: https://www.proxi...screens/

Waves don't make localized impacts. Particles do.

In fact, when X-rays were first introduced as a medical diagnostic imaging tool they all used scintillation screens. It wasn't until film technology was improved beyond glass plates coated with photographic emulsions that this became the most widely used method for medical diagnostic imaging.

Jun 15, 2019
But you see, then there's the interference thing.

Particles don't interfere. Waves do.

And the same X-rays that make little spots of light on the scintillator screens, also make diffraction patterns in a dual-slit experiment. Particles don't diffract; waves do.

So, plug that in your itty bitty mind and tell us what you think. They can't all be lying.

Jun 15, 2019
Benni, This photoelectric effect is not what it seems

It does not say this particular photons been observed
It is assumed to exist
Because
Of this ejected electron
For this photo effect requires threshold quanta of energy to eject an electron
Commonsense demands that only a photon as a particle quanta of energy can eject an electron
It is this mathematicians reasoning that a particle photon exists
Their does not appear to be any observational proof a photon exists
As their does not appear to be any observational proof a photon exists as a particle

For it appears a stream of energy enters this electron
And when this stream reaches a threshold this electron has sufficient energy
To break free, to be ejected
This photo electric effect is only observing electrons as individual particles ejected
It is not observing individual photons ejected
This photon appears to be a mathematical assumption

The electron recoils when a threshold stream of light is shone on it – Where are the photons?
Waitaminut…
Don't electrons collect and eject photons as part of their changing energy states?

Jun 15, 2019
The point is, until the photons are strong enough, they can't push the electrons around. And "strong enough" doesn't mean bright light; it means high frequency light, like UV or X-rays, or harder.

Jun 15, 2019
So where do these cranks come up with these fairy tales about light intensity affecting the photoelectric effect? It was pretty obvious from the YouTubes I posted.

Jun 15, 2019
Why not when it's not a photon
Whydening Gyre> Waitaminut…
Don't electrons collect and eject photons as part of their changing energy states?

When it's between states
When its electromagnetic waves
As when a stream of electromagnetic waves entering electrons reemitted as electromagnetic waves
In reflection and diffraction
The electron still recoils with the energy of reflection
As electromagnetic waves are still visible

It is not the photon that is visible but the electromagnetic wave
It was said neutrinos could not change flavours in flight for neutrinos fly at light speed
Until it was realised there is only one neutrino changing massless energy levels at light speed

For this electromagnetic wave enters electrons which reemit in energy intensity and duration of time
As then this massless photon exists as a mathematical nicety
As in all reality it is a duration of electromagnetic wave
Cut into smaller and smaller durations till it is so small it no longer exists

Jun 15, 2019
That is why in every school text book it is explained that the photon is a particle.
.....anyplace you read this is dead wrong.

Photons/EM Waves do create kinetic energy recoil effect, Particles do........for example when an electron changes orbital position within the electron shell of an atom there is the KE recoil of an electron but no recoil of a photon when an electron gives up a photon to move to a lower energy state.

Jun 15, 2019

That the mob deemed light is a particle by popular vote by no means proves it to be so.


More conspiracist crap from our resident EU ignoramus.

Jun 15, 2019
jonesdumb prefers willful ignorance and playing stupid rather than admitting the obvious. Those magnetic fields could not be there without electric currents.


Yes they can, thicko. As observed. Where is the current in the solar wind that produces the IMF? Where are the currents that cause said IMF to pile up and become stronger at comets, Venus, Mars, etc?
You need to stop commenting on anything to do with plasma (astro)physics, because you are clueless.

Jun 15, 2019


Ahhh jonesy jonesy jonesy - electrical currents just may BE a normal occurrence in the spaces between Stars and Galaxies - so you shouldn't be so dismissive of something that may have potential. Do you remember the Magnetic Field that was found to reach across from one galaxy cluster to the other galaxy cluster across 10 MLY; as it was shown in the article that the Magnetic Field and its EM was drawing/attracting both galaxy clusters to each other? It isn't Gravity doing it.
Both galactic clusters are too far apart for any gravitational attraction to take place.


Liar. That is not what the paper says, you illiterate clown. Nobody is claiming EM woo is responsible for the galaxies colliding, you cretin. It is a risible suggestion. Only an idiot could read that paper and come away with that conclusion. Go get an education, you idiot.

Jun 15, 2019
That is why in every school text book it is explained that the photon is a particle.
.....anyplace you read this is dead wrong.

Photons/EM Waves do NOT HAVE kinetic energy recoil effect, Particles do........for example when an electron changes orbital position within the electron shell of an atom there is the KE recoil of an electron but no recoil of a photon when an electron gives up a photon to move to a lower energy state.
......had to correct my omission of DO NOT from the previous post, RNP is probably really confused now.

Jun 15, 2019
Energy of Momentum of massless energy

For it's not the electromagnetic wave that has the momentum
It only has the energy of momentum
For when an electron absorbs and reemits this electromagnetic wave
This electron recoils with this energy of momentum
For when light reflects of a light mirror balance
This mirror bounces with the energy of momentum of reflection of massless electromagnetic energy

This is one of the many properties of electrons
As with all atomic particles
That they have this property of reaction when absorbing massless energy
They react in momentum as though they have been struck with a massive body
Electrons convert this energy to momentum and react accordingly

Jun 15, 2019
I think this article said it best:

"Astronomers not involved in the research said the measurement of the magnetic field lines was exciting, but were skeptical that those lines fully accounted for the black hole's quiet state. (Each one also each noted that it's difficult to fully evaluate the work before the paper is published.)"

[ https://www.lives...ole.html ]

Einstein got the 1921 Nobel prize for his work on the photoelectric effect which showed categorically that light is a particle (the photon) as well as wave (wave-particle duality).


That is classical, pre-relativistic quantum mechanics. The irony is that when it was figured out how to make relativistic quantum mechanics, quantum field theory of the 30s, the duality got absorbed by the field notion - the concept disappeared within physics a century ago.

- tbctd -

Jun 15, 2019
The infamous muon in recoil

When this pion flying through the atmosphere decays
It emits a muon with the energy to fly at light speed
This is this reason why electrons recoil reflecting energy
There is no earth to push against in this vacuum
This is why the muon accelerates to light speed when there is no massive body to push against
For this pion does not exist
The muon recoils as it receives the energy of momentum and recoils at light speed
For in this vacuous vacuum of space
All atoms are weightless
For atoms recoil in response to energy have no action and reaction in this vacuum
Newton's third law does not apply

Jun 15, 2019
- ctd -

You can think of the field and its localization of particles in many ways, but I like the model that particle physicist Matt Strassler uses:

"Virtual particles" are not particles at all, they are non-resonant disturbances in a field with non-particle properties such as imaginary mass. Particles are the quasi-stable resonant ripples of the field:

"If something makes a real particle, that particle can go off on its own across space. If something makes a disturbance, that disturbance will die away, or break apart, once its cause is gone. So it's not like a particle at all, and I wish we didn't call it that.

For example, an electron is a real particle, a ripple in the electron field; you can hold one in your hand, so to speak; you can make a beam of them and send them across a room or inside an 20th century television set (a cathode-ray tube)."

[ https://profmatts...re-they/ ]

Jun 15, 2019
Energy of Recoil
That is why in every school text book it is explained that the photon is a particle.

Benni> .....anyplace you read this is dead wrong.

Photons/EM Waves do create kinetic energy recoil effect, Particles do........for example when an electron changes orbital position within the electron shell of an atom there is the KE recoil of an electron but no recoil of a photon when an electron gives up a photon to move to a lower energy state.

Whether in this vacuous vacuum
or
In the atomic nuclease
The electrons are so small
The relative distance between electrons is so vast
It is though they are all alone in this vacuous vacuum

Jun 15, 2019
But note that the single-field ripple is a simplified model of a particle. A bit later Strassler says:

"A particle is not as simple as I have naively described. Even to say a particle like an electron is a ripple purely in the electron field is an approximate statement, and sometimes the fact that it is not exactly true matters.

It turns out that since electrons carry electric charge, their very presence disturbs the electromagnetic field around them, and so electrons spend some of their time as a combination of two disturbances, one in in the electron field and one in the electromagnetic field."

His figures describes localized ("in you hand") particles even better than his words. But of course localization is a property of observation, so in other cases we have the "slit" system - Feynman's "all possible ways" situation - in full force.

Jun 15, 2019
Benni
Light cannot recoil
As light has only one speed
That is light speed
Light does not stop in reflection
However this electron is achieving this neat trick
This light is absorbed reemitted at light speed

Jun 15, 2019
Benni
Light cannot recoil
As light has only one speed
That is light speed
Light does not stop in reflection
However this electron is achieving this neat trick
This light is absorbed reemitted at light speed
.......exactly, it's the reason it's the height of silliness to make statements about a photon wave being a particle. A lot of people never get this figured so they just keep repeating the same mistake, just like RNP.

Jun 15, 2019
Interesting
Benni> ......you gotta be careful here granDy, EM Waves/Photons in fact do possess gravity because they are TRANSFORMED mass.

You will read in some corners of scientific thought that because of the gravitational content of an EM Wave that it has MASS EQUIVALENCE due to the known & measurable parameter of gravity within EM energy fields.

Massless electromagnetic energy possessing gravity
Has the circle been squared?

Jun 15, 2019
Massless electromagnetic energy possessing gravity


Has the circle been squared?
......no, it has been completed.

Jun 15, 2019
@Benni

You don't even know the definition of a "particle", that massless particles do not exist.


Balderdash!!

Einstein got the 1921 Nobel prize for his work on the photoelectric effect which showed categorically that light is a particle (the photon) as well as wave (wave-particle duality).

Here is an article called "How Einstein discovered that light is a particle and won a Nobel for it" to prove my point.
https://medium.co...46195dd2

...every school text book it is explained that the photon is a particle.

Your inability to grasp this point clearly indicates that you do not understand even *high school* physics.
says RNP

You are too late. IF you had paid attention, you would have seen Benni responding to the link I offered that claims that the Photon is a Particle as well as a Wave. I argue that the Photon in flight must be frictionless as only a Wave.

Jun 15, 2019
For it appears a stream of energy enters this electron
And when this stream reaches a threshold this electron has sufficient energy
To break free, to be ejected
This photo electric effect is only observing electrons as individual particles ejected
It is not observing individual photons ejected
This photon appears to be a mathematical assumption

The electron recoils when a threshold stream of light is shone on it – Where are the photons?
Waitaminut…
Don't electrons collect and eject photons as part of their changing energy states? says Whyde

The Photon IN FLIGHT LOSES ITS MASS which is the Particle that had absorbed the Photon. A Photon in flight can't carry an Electron (Particle). It can only be a WAVE which renders the Photon 'frictionless' as it passes the billions of Electrons in the interstellar and intergalactic space. Particles are Mass and Photons are pure Energy. Only Photons without Mass can travel at the speed of light = c

Jun 15, 2019


Ahhh jonesy jonesy jonesy - electrical currents just may BE a normal occurrence in the spaces between Stars and Galaxies - so you shouldn't be so dismissive of something that may have potential. Do you remember the Magnetic Field that was found to reach across from one galaxy cluster to the other galaxy cluster across 10 MLY; as it was shown in the article that the Magnetic Field and its EM was drawing/attracting both galaxy clusters to each other? It isn't Gravity doing it.
Both galactic clusters are too far apart for any gravitational attraction to take place.


Liar. That is not what the paper says, you illiterate clown. Nobody is claiming EM woo is responsible for the galaxies colliding, you cretin. It is a risible suggestion. Only an idiot could read that paper and come away with that conclusion. Go get an education, you idiot.
says jonesy

https://phys.org/...ers.html

Perhaps this will refresh your memory

Jun 15, 2019
I argue that the Photon in flight must be frictionless as only a Wave.
......dead on the money.

I wonder if anyone else here, besides RNP, knows of the existence of an Electro-Magnetic Particle?
Maybe Whyd? Probably he has, shows you what kind of pseudo-science sites he visits along with RNP & probably schneibo as well.

Jun 15, 2019
I have a fridge magnet that doesn't need an electric current to make a magnetic field.

Just sayin'.

Jun 15, 2019
I argue that the Photon in flight must be frictionless as only a Wave.
......dead on the money.

I wonder if anyone else here, besides RNP, knows of the existence of an Electro-Magnetic Particle?
Maybe Whyd? Probably he has, shows you what kind of pseudo-science sites he visits along with RNP & probably schneibo as well.
says Benni

Re the Particle-Wave Duality that was used to 'prove' that the Photon is both particle and wave. Such a duality could ONLY happen when an Electron had absorbed the Photon PRIOR to the Double-slit experiment when the Photon was not in flight, for if the Photon had already been in flight, it would have been rendered Massless. In other words, the Particle would have ejected or been ejected as the Photon itself continued on at c while the Particle (Electron) would be left behind.
Photons in a vacuum are passing particles (Mass/Energy) but aren't slowed by such particles because the Photon is a Wave. When it encounters Mass, it's deflecte

Jun 15, 2019
The photon is technically the particle of the EM force.

Thought everyone knew that. I suppose home-schooled mind reading aliens don't.

Jun 15, 2019
@Torbjorn's explanation is not bad, but a bit technical for this crowd.

I kind of like the wave-packet analogy, but it breaks down in several ways that you have to keep in mind if you use it.

The thing to keep in mind is that EM is a quantum field, which is something that there is no real analogy for in classical mechanics. That's why it can have apparently paradoxical characteristics, like being both a wave and a particle.

In fact, if you start investigating, you'll find that all particles are both waves and particles. An electron beam can be made to diffract and show interference patterns in a dual-slit experiment. This was first shown after Louis de Broglie theorized it in 1924 in his doctoral thesis, in the Davisson-Germer experiment in 1927 (the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to de Broglie in 1929 after this clear demonstration of electron diffraction).

The three most important ideas in physics are spacetime, fields, and symmetry.

Jun 15, 2019
@Benni
@granville
@Whyde et al

https://www.skate...project/

This is the official website for the new Square Kilometre Array that is being built in Western Australia and South Africa to improve on LOFAR.


Jun 16, 2019
Still waiting for an explanation of why fridge magnets don't need electrical currents and The Amazing Eclectic Plasma Universe does.

Jun 16, 2019
Not to mention why a psychotic nutjob who thinks he's a mind-reading alien is posting on a physics forum.

https://www.youtu...bv2ZKOto

Jun 16, 2019
I think the woman running away from you is the most evocative image. Especially considering @Phyllis Harmonic's reaction to you.

Jun 16, 2019
Listening to 'Trane tonight. Along with Rite of Strings, after. Real jazz.

https://www.youtu...rnR7_yT8

Jun 16, 2019
Electromagnetism rules the roost in this plasmatic vacuum

For electromagnetism is this source of gravity
Benni> you gotta be careful here granDy EM Waves/Photons possess gravity they are TRANSFORMED mass

For in the atom
Electric and magnetic fields rule this pecking order
Of electron orbital's
Binds atoms in their atomic lattice
Their electric and magnetic fields bind plasma between galaxies
Holding galaxies in billion Ly honeycomb structures in this vacuum
Plasmatic magnetic fields looping these plasmatic tendrils through this honey combed galactic vacuum
For this is where electric magnetic fields truly rule this roost
In the stars in starry fusion binding protons releasing energy
Is it no wonder?
Around these BHs where these plasmatic matters loop around in magnetic fields
This BH hole is beholden on magnetism in the plasma it provides
Because as this plasma orbits these BHs
This plasma is weightless
Is why magnetism starves this BH
As it loops this plasma out of reach

Jun 16, 2019
No detectable EM force connects the Earth and Moon,

Yet the Moon orbits the Earth.

Eppur si muove.

Jun 16, 2019
Light Years are of the Essence

TrollianDaSchneib
TrollianDaSchneib> No detectable EM force connects the Earth and Moon,

Yet the Moon orbits the Earth.

Eppur si muove.

TrollianDaSchneib, put Sagittarius*A where our Sun now resides
You will probably surmise as your Bridge is flung some 25 thousand Lys to safety
Our solar system and our nearest stars Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B
Will no longer exist
Except as some nibbley snack to quell a peckish moment between meal times
For these plasmaticly magnetic tendrils
Exist in these vast Ly distances
From Lys, to 100s of thousands of Lys, to 10s, 100s, 1000s of millions of Lys

Jun 16, 2019
says jonesy

https://phys.org/...ers.html

Perhaps this will refresh your memory


I read it and have it, you idiot. Once again, for the hard of thinking - nobody is claiming that the magnetic fields are anything to do with the galaxies' trajectories, or the fact that they are approaching each other. Learn to read, you cretin. Stop commenting on things that are beyond you. In other words, pretty much everything.

Jun 16, 2019
I wonder if anyone else here, besides RNP, knows of the existence of an Electro-Magnetic Particle?
Maybe Whyd? Probably he has, shows you what kind of pseudo-science sites he visits along with RNP & probably schneibo as well.
says Benni

Re the Particle-Wave Duality that was used to 'prove' that the Photon is both particle and wave. Such a duality could ONLY happen when an Electron had absorbed the Photon PRIOR to the Double-slit experiment when the Photon was not in flight, for if the Photon had already been in flight, it would have been rendered Massless. In other words, the Particle would have ejected or been ejected as the Photon itself continued on at c while the Particle (Electron) would be left behind.
Photons in a vacuum are passing particles (Mass/Energy) but aren't slowed by such particles because the Photon is a Wave. When it encounters Mass, it's deflected
......it's called Compton Scattering.

Jun 16, 2019
@Torbjorn's explanation is not bad, but a bit technical for this crowd.
.......it's typical unadulterated Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble, even he can't make sense of what he wrote which is why to you it sounds so good.

Jun 16, 2019
@Torbjorn's explanation is not bad, but a bit technical for this crowd.
.......it's typical unadulterated Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble, even he can't make sense of what he wrote which is why to you it sounds so good.


Says a scientifically illiterate moron.

Jun 16, 2019
Listening to 'Trane tonight. Along with Rite of Strings, after. Real jazz.

https://www.youtu...rnR7_yT8
...... listening is not much of a challenge, you should try doing it yourself, like I do.

Jun 16, 2019
@Benni, you still can't explain why my fridge magnet works without batteries and your Fantastic Incredible Awesome Eccentric Plasma Universe needs them.

Jun 16, 2019
@Benni, you still can't explain why my fridge magnet works without batteries and your Fantastic Incredible Awesome Eccentric Plasma Universe needs them.
.......why don't you explain why you have to listen to someone else's music instead of creating it yourself........you should hear me do riffs on my guitar & other musical selections on my guitar that cost me $6k.

Jun 16, 2019
@Benni got pwnt again and is trying to change the subject again.

Did you use UltraVolts instead of Duracells again for the batteries?