"An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." -- Bertrand Russell, physicst, 1924
It has recently been claimed that there is proof of stars orbiting a black hole at the center of our galaxy. However, gravity predicts that stars are sucked into black holes not that they orbit them regularly: Unprecedented 16-year-long Study Tracks Stars Orbiting Milky Way Black Hole.
ScienceDaily (Dec. 10, 2008) — By watching the motions of 28 stars orbiting the Milky Way's most central region with admirable patience and amazing precision, astronomers have been able to study the supermassive black hole lurking there. It is known as "Sagittarius A*" (pronounced "Sagittarius A star"). The new research marks the first time that the orbits of so many of these central stars have been calculated precisely and reveals information about the enigmatic formation of these stars — and about the black hole to which they are bound."The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the 'Schwarzschild singularities' do not exist in physical reality. … The 'Schwarzschild singularity' does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light. This investigation arose out of discussions [with Robertson and Bargmann] on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1939
"Even mainstream scientists admit that at singularities the ‘laws of physics’ break down. It would be more accurate to say that their own theories break down." -- David Pratt, natural philosopher, 2005
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
15 comments:
So, this is just a very charged mass then? How did it get so charged up in the first place?
Quantum_Flux,
As Hannes Alfven concluded in his address to the assembled when he received his Nobel Prize, "In the beginning was the plasma".
In a philosophical sense, magnetic fields and electric currents are inseparable - one cannot exist without the other and the situation is similar to the chicken and egg conundrum - which came first?
Incidentally eletric fields are quite different to electrostatic fields.
Electric fields are produced by electric currents, while electrostatic fields are localised to static charges on particles.
And I am not going to debate this topic here either.
Incidentally I note that astronomers etc point to the centre of a galaxy - what its center of gravity? That cannot be a physical location since it is an imaginary point to facilitate the maths of calculating Newton's Laws.
As for your question, it was never charged up in the first place. On what basis do you presume that there was initially uncharged matter which was then electrically charged?
Then, why hasn't it discharged yet?
If you have such a dense electric charge, then what is keeping it from going supernova? Something has to constrain the forces between the like charges that repel each other....
EINSTEIN OBJECTS TO "BLACK HOLE" THEORY
'Schwarzschild singularities' are the name given to "black holes" before they were called...well, er..."black holes".
So:
"...the 'Schwarzschild singularities' do not exist in physical reality." -- Albert Einstein, 1939
Pretty stong stuff from the guy who supposedly gave birth to the "black hole" concept with his theory of General Relativity.
So, which is it, the "big bang" is harder to believe or "black holes" are harder to believe.
Better flip a coin...
Exploding Capacitor....also, modern theoretical science allows for Black Holes if quantum gravitation is taken into effect. The same goes for how electrons, in combination with anti-neutrinos (W-boson), can tunnel through the probability barrier into a proton forming a neutron of spin 1/2 (electron capture is a quantum mechanical effect that is widely known to exist based on years of observational evidence in the manmade syncrotrons of the world).
Einstien couldn't merge his General Relativity equations with his Special Relativity equations simply because of his belief that "God does not play dice" and because he never had a Hadron Supercollider to work with. Simply, nobody knows for sure until an observation is made.
Quantum_Flux:
Louis Hissink would most likely have a better answer, like his short and concise answer for the difference between electric currents and electrostatic fields.
And it would be great if Wallace Thornhill gave an answer (but there are a lot of "boards" discussing Electric Universe theory), so what the heck, I'll give it a shot:
Quantum_Flux asks: "why hasn't it discharged yet?"
I suspect there are "discharges" and "charge buildups" going on all the time at one level of intensity or another. These charge buildups and discharges most likely proceed in series, not all at once.
Occasionally, there is a crescendo effect with one discharge event running into another, kind of like a rolling blackout with "overloads" causing more overloads overwhelming the charge buildup capacity in a given region of space.
Charge buildups act as "charge absorbers" in the circuit.
A supernova occurs when this cresendo of discharge "events" loads into a supergiant star that in turn can't handle the load and "blows the circuit".
Thankfully, this is a rather infrequent event and it hasn't happened nearby...
Quantum_Flux asks: "If you have such a dense electric charge, then what is keeping it from going supernova?"
An electric charge has a tendency to distribute evenly over the length of the electric current's circuit. Obviously, this tendency can be overridden by specific events as discussed above.
Quantum_Flux states: "Something has to constrain the forces between the like charges that repel each other...."
I believe that is where the 'double layer' comes into play (seperating the like charges). But sometimes these 'double layers' collaspe, thus, there is another seperate process that can release huge amounts of energy.
So, why is the supercharged hole black then? How are mass measurements made on the surrounding stars?
ELECTRIC PLAINING ON PHOBOS?
Is Stickney Crater an Impact Feature?
December 11, 2008 (thunderbolts.info) -- "Stickney crater is almost half the diameter of Phobos itself. Why did the impact not shatter this small moon?"
"The color picture above is a composite from two pictures taken about 10 minutes apart in order to give the 3-dimensional aspect. A recent Picture of the Day described some of the large-scale formations on Phobos, especially Stickney Crater, but this more dramatic picture, which has recently become available, deserves another showing because it portrays the distinctive features of an Electric Discharge Machining (EDM) event with greater clarity.
The smaller, later craters on the rim deserve special attention. This is the pattern that one would expect to see in a discharge event, since the initial strike from the plasma bolt would be the most energetic and later, smaller discharges would preferentially strike the higher feature—the rim. The clean machining of the crater part way up on the inside of the rim is another distinguishing mark of EDM. How can this feature be part of an impact?"
A solid scientific observation.
Is there a rival analysis and interpretation?
Just a small example, but since electric plasma cosmology is known to be scale independent up to the 18th magnitude and possibly up to the 24th magnitude, if this is an example of "electric plaining" on Phobos, and/or a "touch" as a result of an electric discharge "event" because the charge differential changed as the distance from the Sun changed, then this is a solid piece of scientific evidence for Electric Universe theory.
It seems like a reasonable analytical conclusion from the evidence.
ELECTRICITY MAKES THE ELECTRON GO ROUND, RIGHT?
OilIsMastery: Excellent quote:
"An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." -- Bertrand Russell, physicst, 1924
But what if it isn't gravity that makes the planets go around the Sun; What if it's electricity that makes the planets go round the Sun?
What if the scale independence of "Electro-phenomeonon" is beyond our wildest dreams, and in fact electrons spin around the nucleus the same way planets spin (rotate) around the Sun; and what if electrons spin on their axis the same way planets rotate on their axis (the days and nights of Earth).
Maybe, by understanding how planets behave in reaction to injections of energy, as to their orbits and spins [rotations]), so too, we will understand how electrons orbit around the nucleous and spin on their own axis and how that is effected by injections of energy?
Is it worth thinking about?
A dense charge does explode - I think Hannes Alfven put forward the idea of exploding Double Layers for this.
Quantum_Flux
"why has it not discharged yet" - this is the logical conclusion when the assumption is based on electrostatics.
This is not correct - the electrical charge is continually being kept up.
For example, the Earth has an electric field from its surface up to the ionosphere (basically we are inside the earth's plasma Double Layer), and the DL continues to exist as long as the electric current powering it is maintained. The Earth's electric field is not electrostatic, by the way.
So this means that the Earth is receiving electrical energy via the flux tube events in the ionosphere, as well as via the circular polar auroras whcih light up when the currents jump from dark mode to glow mode.
This electrical energy is the source which thus maintains the earth's surface electric field, and presumably also powers the Earth's rotation via the Faraday Motor Effect.
And of course electric currents passing through matter generate heat and guess what the major source of the Earth's internal heat would be then.
If this is so, then the all the hub bub over CO2 warming the earth's atmosphere is pure baloney.
Equally electric currents passing through the ionosphere and troposphere would emit infrared radiation, and guess what another source of downwelling IR might be :-)
And why call it a Black Hole? Because no light is emitted from black I suppose.
How do you have a superdense charge that is so dense that it is whipping stars in all directions and it is not emitting any light even though it is supposedly sending out gigantic Birkeland currents?
Louis Hissink:
Louis, you state: "A dense charge does explode - I think Hannes Alfven put forward the idea of exploding Double Layers for this."
I used the word, "collapse" in regards to "Double Layers". I stand corrected. It just goes to show how permeated I am with gravitational jargon. Collapse is a favorite image from gravitational model proponents, but it doesn't have a strong basis in actual observation and measurement.
Quantum_Flux:
You make a couple of statements:
"So, why is the supercharged hole black then? How are mass measurements made on the surrounding stars?"
"How do you have a superdense charge that is so dense that it is whipping stars in all directions and it is not emitting any light even though it is supposedly sending out gigantic Birkeland currents?"
Both of those statements/questions make big implied assumptions.
Namely, that there is a body at the center of the galaxy that doesn't emit light. That has not been verified. Actually, the observations and measurements, as well as current technology allows science to do so, shows the center of the galaxies are bright and there is no "dark spot" at the center of galaxies.
"Black holes" or in your terminology "dark spots" have been assumed to exist at the center of galaxies, not because they have been observed and measured, but because General Relativity demands there be a "black hole" at the center of galaxies or the theory FAILS.
Quantum_Flux asks: "How are mass measurements made on the surrounding stars?"
You bring up a good question, and there is controversy outside the hallowed halls of "big bang, black hole" advocates because if the assumptions about the "Red Shift" are wrong then, in fact, science does not have a good handle on the mass measurements of the surrounding stars. And there is scientific observations and measurements that, indeed, do contradict the "Red Shift" hypothesis, best stated by Halton Arp, astrophysicist.
Basically, gravitational model astrophysicists have been so anxious to "explain the Universe" and establish their primacy to an interested public that they have made a number of assumptions that CAN NOT be verified with existing detection technology of light telescopes and 'radiation' detection and measurement devices.
Astrophysicists are loathe to acknowledge they have violated a basic protocol of the empirical scientific method when they have stated hypothesis as fact.
They are even more loathe to admit there is substantial contradictory evidence to their theories.
Quantum_Flux, remember a hypothesis can end up as a "square peg, trying to fit in a round hole."
Nature's relationships and "mechanics" are like a lock already made and theories are like a key. But man didn't make the lock and many times can't see inside the lock to make the key.
Therefore, the theory has to be right before the key will turn the lock. And there can be many "keys on the ring", but only one key that turns the lock.
Post a Comment