Scientists have observed jets of electric plasma but they call it a black hole: Black hole outflows from Centaurus A detected with APEX.
Astronomers have a new insight into the active galaxy Centaurus A (NGC 5128), as the jets and lobes emanating from the central black hole have been imaged at submillimetre wavelengths for the first time. The new data, from the Atacama Pathfinder Experiment (APEX) telescope in Chile, which is operated by ESO, have been combined with visible and X-ray wavelengths to produce this striking new image.I hearby offer a million dollars to anyone who can see the black hole in this picture: Black Holes Light Up.
Centaurus A is our nearest giant galaxy, at a distance of about 13 million light-years in the southern constellation of Centaurus. It is an elliptical galaxy, currently merging with a companion spiral galaxy, resulting in areas of intense star formation and making it one of the most spectacular objects in the sky. Centaurus A hosts a very active and highly luminous central region, caused by the presence of a supermassive black hole (see ESO 04/01), and is the source of strong radio and X-ray emission.
But what you won't see -- even with a telescope -- black holes! In fact, Miller doesn't even use one to study black holes. He uses his computer.So much for observation and the scientific method.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
6 comments:
CONVENTIONAL ASTRONOMY MISSES THE BOAT
Editorial note: This comment was originally made at Bad Astronomy in reaction to this same press release and an accompanying post:
(The following quote was the second comment 32 minutes after the item was posted at 1/28/09 at 2:00 pm: "...I swear, if he (Anaconda) turns up here, I’m gonna hire an assassin.)
The original comment was made on Bad Astronomy, The roar of the Centaur, at 1/29/09, 1:43 pm
"Well, such a friendly welcome from Ivan3Man: "I swear, if he (Anaconda) turns up here, I’m gonna hire an assassin."
Are you so threatened by my comments that you need to joke about hiring an assassin?
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk...
I will concentrate on the press release that is linked in the post: "From the Measurements of this emission, which occurs when fast-moving electrons spiral around the lines of a magnetic field..."
These "fast-moving" electrons spiralling around a magnetic field are also known as synchrotron radiation. Of course, magnetic fields are caused by electric currents, but nowhere is that fact mentioned in the press release.
That does seem like a significant item to be left out of a report.
Oh, but I forgot, the 'community' hasn't come to grips with that little detail.
Some would rather (verbally) assassinate the messenger then deal with the message.
The press release goes on: "[T]he fast-moving radio jets ejected from the galaxy centre, signatures of the supermassive black hole at the heart of Centaurus A."
This is a complete assumption -- conventional astronomy has dropped all pretenses about theories -- "black holes" are a fact, even though they have never been observed, and the most often cited "indirect" evidence for "black holes" existence is that without "black holes" there wouldn't be enough gravitational pull to hold together the sprialling arms of the galaxies, especially since it has been observed that the Milky Way spins faster than previously thought.
But since gravity is all that "matters" in standard astronomy's view...well, then, "black holes" have to be inferred to exist.
If alternative causations were considered this logical progression wouldn't hold up to reasonable scepticism and close examination.
In other words, "The theory doesn't work without 'black holes', so there must be 'black holes'," isn't the strongest piece of deductive logic I've seen.
But now science knows electric currents exist in space. As Maxwell's Equations clearly state only electric currents form magnetic fields.
Also, once electric currents are considered, one can consider laboratory plasma physics experiments which tested the physical properties of plasma and accounted for the electromagnetic jets that emit radio wave radiation.
Again, the press release states: "Centaurus A hosts a very active and highly luminous central region, caused by the presence of a supermassive black hole (see ESO 04/01), and is the source of strong radio and X-ray emission."
What the press release doesn’t say is that the X-rays in such cases are almost exclusively synchrotron radiation, not thermal radiation. That means the X-rays are emitted by very fast electrons spiraling in a strong magnetic field caused by electric currents.
The press release goes on: "In submillimetre light, we see not only the heat glow from the central dust disc, but also the emission from the central radio source and – for the first time in the submillimetre – the inner radio lobes north and south of the disc."
Of course, all this is assumed to be caused by a "black hole," or should I say,"black holes" in plural, since this is assumed to be two galaxies "merging". How two 'black holes" merge is not explained in the present article. That is already taken for fact.
The post states: "But it’s so messy it’s hard to say what’s going on exactly! We have a decent idea in general, but specifics can be hard to nail down."
I appreciate, "the blind men and the elephant parable". Perhaps, it's too close for comfort to the real state of affairs...
Credit is due to the scientists for combining the different electromagnetic wavelength detector images into a composite image.
Conventional astronomy understands the source of synchrotron radiation, so attempts have been made to simulate synchrotron radiation using only gravity and magnetic fields. But as Plasma Cosmology has long already come to realize, magnetism and gravity alone is not sufficient. Causative electric fields and currents are essential. And try as conventional astronomers might, the simulations limited to gravity and magnetic fields failed.
Why? Because electric currents are the only known cause of magnetic fields. Heat and gravity won't do it -- and that's all you have in the gravitational model.
I'm left scratching my head: If tremendous gravitational attraction pulls matter toward the center of the galaxy, how do particles then speed away from a galaxy?
After all, the galaxy under consideration is distinguished by the presence of gravity-defying jets, emitting radiation that would not be there in the absence electric currents.
And gravity has only one force: An atrractive pull toward a gravitational center.
Astronomers state that magnetic fields alone hold the jets together, but electrical theorists remind us that the jets are self-confining Birkeland currents in the plasma environment of the galaxy. It's in the nature of Birkeland currents to induce magnetic fields, confining the jets’ to narrow paths over cosmic distances.
Since the attempts to “hold together” such jets experimentally—without electricity—have already failed, it is surely time for astronomers to re-examine their premises."
--------------------------------------------------
Surely, a comment like mine above isn't worthy of joking about assassins.
But really, if Plasma Cosmology was so widely off the mark, would people like Ivan3Man make such caustic comments. And this was in anticipation, no less.
I hadn't even commented yet.
Is this an indication of the fear and loathing that some in the conventional astronomy 'community' feel for those that would threaten their world view?
The Abiotic Oil theory debate was tame by comparison.
For those gentle readers out there who are unaware of the debate, realize how high the stakes are in the world of science, today.
And don't underestimate the desire of others to protect their world view, even in the face of contradicting evidence.
But for science to advance in understanding, sacred cows must be challenged and reasoned arguments must be made.
Man's future depends on it.
Bad Astronomy should change it's name to Bad Censorship. Phil Plait banned me after one day of posting.
"Magnetism...is a joke in astronomy." -- Phil Plait, writer, August 2008
"I can't remember a single thing V [Velikovsky] said in his book 'Worlds in Collision' that was astronomically correct. " -- Phil Plait, writer, March 2005
Well, if this is correct then the magnetic field (B -> volt*seconds/meter^2) should fall off as such....
(10^-7 Newtons/Amp^2)*(2pi*[avg. orbital radius]^2)*(current from plasma) / ([distance from center of loop]^2 + [avg. orbital radius]^2)^(3/2)
TAKING A 2x4 RIGHT BETWEEN THE EYES
Editorial note: This comment consists of response to my above previous comment originally made at Bad Astronomy and my answer to that response:
@Anaconda “I will concentrate on the press release that is linked in the post”
Yes, I suggest that you do that. In three previous posts when given an opportunity to explain your alternative theory to black holes you have declined each time. You don’t appear to know much about Plasma Cosmology since you have never even uttered the word ambiplasma one time or mentioned the importance of matter/antimatter annihilation to the theory.
“Of course, magnetic fields are caused by electric currents, but nowhere is that fact mentioned in the press release. That does seem like a significant item to be left out of a report.”
ROFLMAO. They didn’t mention the Pythagorean Theorem either. Perhaps because they are assuming that knowledgeable readers are already familiar with it?
“Oh, but I forgot, the ‘community’ hasn’t come to grips with that little detail.”
Uh, excuse me. James Clerk Maxwell published this “detail” back in 1865. They came to grips with it more than a century ago.
“and the most often cited “indirect” evidence for “black holes” existence is that without “black holes” there wouldn’t be enough gravitational pull to hold together the sprialling arms of the galaxies”
ROFLMAO once again. I suggest you read up on Cygnus X-1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1
A 8.7 solar mass object is orbiting the star HDE 226868 at a distance of 0.2 AUs. Whatever the object is it is emitting X-rays in prodigious quantities. Doppler studies of HDE 226868 reveal that it has a massive non-luminous (in the visible part of the spectrum) companion with a mass of 8.7 solar masses. Additional studies revealed variations in the X-ray output occurring in only one millisecond which means that the size of the source region is smaller than ~300 km. Two X-ray jets are found on opposite sides of the star.
“If alternative causations were considered this logical progression wouldn’t hold up to reasonable scepticism and close examination.”
O.K. Please give us your plasma explanation of Cygnus X-1 and its ~300 km wide source region.
“But now science knows electric currents exist in space.”
Yes, as I said before, since 1958.
“Also, once electric currents are considered, one can consider laboratory plasma physics experiments which tested the physical properties of plasma and accounted for the electromagnetic jets that emit radio wave radiation.”
Please tell us about these experiments (in order to prevent total boredom). Do you know anything about the experiments of Hannes Alfven?
“Conventional astronomy understands the source of synchrotron radiation, so attempts have been made to simulate synchrotron radiation using only gravity and magnetic fields. But as Plasma Cosmology has long already come to realize, magnetism and gravity alone is not sufficient.”
Huh? How do you create synchrotron radiation using gravity? Who is asserting that? It’s absurd.
“I’m left scratching my head: If tremendous gravitational attraction pulls matter toward the center of the galaxy, how do particles then speed away from a galaxy?”
You know, of course, that the electromagnetic force is something like 1.0E40 times the strength of the gravitational force, don’t you? Thus, an EM interaction will easily overcome a gravitational interaction without a problem.
“After all, the galaxy under consideration is distinguished by the presence of gravity-defying jets”
Gravity-defying jets? Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 are escaping from our solar system. Did they defy gravity to do so?
“Astronomers state that magnetic fields alone hold the jets together, but electrical theorists remind us that the jets are self-confining Birkeland currents in the plasma environment of the galaxy.”
I suggest you go bone up on your Maxwell. You seem to be implying that the electric current and the magnetic field it produces must be at the same point in space. Not true. For example, the geomagnetic field stretches thousands of kilometers into outer space but the currents that generate it are down in the earth’s outer core (thought to be circulating liquid iron).
“Since the attempts to “hold together” such jets experimentally—without electricity—have already failed, it is surely time for astronomers to re-examine their premises.”
Look at the dang picture, dude. The jet from Centaurus A starts out 7,000 ly in width and balloons to 30,000 ly at the end. The jet is spreading out right from the beginning. There’s no Birkeland current holding it together.
Consider these pictures of the jet in the galaxy M87:
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/exotic_collection/pr2000020a
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/exotic_collection/pr1999043c
The width of the jet clearly gets larger and larger the farther away it is from the galactic core.
ANACONDA'S ANSWER:
@ Tom Marking:
You wanted my alternative theory as opposed to the “black hole” theory.
I subscribe to Dr. Anthony Peratt’s theory of galaxy formation. Peratt’s theory is supported by computer simulation based on known quantifiable plasma properties. It should be noted this is a three dimentional simulation. It is based on the interaction of two galactic Birkeland currents which form a plasmoid, a donut shaped high intensity electrically coherent structure of plasma, electric currents, and magnetic fields. Plasmoids have been proposed to explain natural phenomena such as ball lightning and magnetic bubbles in the magnetosphere.
This link explains Peratt’s galaxy simulation:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation
This link explains a plasmoid:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasmoid
Please feel free to ask follow up questions about the above information and I will do my best to answer.
Tom Marking states: “You don’t appear to know much about Plasma Cosmology since you have never even uttered the word ambiplasma one time or mentioned the importance of matter/antimatter annihilation to the theory.”
There is a simple reason I have never addressed the above concepts: I don’t find them compelling and reject them.
I hold Plasma Cosmology to the same standards I hold the gravitational model to: Observation and measurement are required. Ambiplasma has never been observed or measured, neither has antimatter. These are theoretical speculations which I am not convinced of. I submit the above are not necessary for the theory. The known energy dynamics of plasma are enough to cause the formation of galaxies. My understanding is that Peratt’s supercomputer simulation does not use the above theoretical concepts, only experimentally tested, observed, and measured properties of plasma as defined in the plasma physics laboratory.
Those are the perameters I subscribe to as well.
It makes no sense to criticise the gravitational model for relying on theoretical constructs (matters, energies, objects) and then turn around and do the same thing.
Therefore, I don’t.
Tom, you criticise me for pointing out the failure of the reports to state that electric currents cause magnetic fields. You believe it’s too obvious to make worth mention.
I disagree with your conclusion.
I am happy you don’t dispute the presence of electric currents in space, but it is all too clear to me based on what I have read and my discussions, here, and elsewhere, that the gravitational model ‘community’ is divided about the issue of electric currents in space.
I’ve had too many folks flat out deny there are electric currents in space. It seems you are all too happy to see this issue swept under the rug, and you seem irritated I would bring it up. Your protests reveal the sensitive nature of the dispute and divide.
In fact, the desire to deny electric currents in space is why gravitational model scientists attempted to generate synchrotron radiation without electric currents, using only gravity to generate the magnetic fields and synchrotron radiation. And, yes, they failed.
There is a reason they don’t want to talk about electric currents — it divides their ‘community’, your protests not withstanding.
Also, if it’s as obvious as you state (and it is obvious that electric currents exist in space for the reasons you duly mention), it seems reasonable to mention that electric currents are causing the magnetic fields in the reports, but the reports never do.
Explicitly stating electric currents are present gives a clearer picture of the dynamics of the objects — isn’t that the reason for science?
Tom, you actually contradict yourself right in this comment. How so? Because while you emphatically admit electric current in space in the abstract, you turn around and deny electric currents are responsible for components of this galaxy, namely the jets.
Tom Marking states: “Look at the dang picture, dude. The jet from Centaurus A starts out 7,000 ly in width and balloons to 30,000 ly at the end. The jet is spreading out right from the beginning. There’s no Birkeland current holding it together.”
“There’s no Birkeland current holding it together.”
Tom, are you stating that there are no electric currents present in the jets, even though there are magnetic fields and synchrotron radiation which is caused by electric currents?
Tom, you do seem to be stating that only (some aspect of) gravity and magnetic fields are responsible for the jets. That is in direct contradiction of your earlier agreement that magnetic fields are only caused by electric currents.
I look at the image and see two narrow jets protruding in opposite directions, yes they do seem to widen out after awhile, but certainly they hold a tight beam or “jet” for literally light years distance. Without electric currents to cause the magnetic fields, those “jets” would dissipate and expand in a much shorter distance.
Tom, I read your various statements, but it’s not clear to me how you think the jets are formed. Do you submit they are only magnetic fields without electric currents? Do you deny there are magnetic fields detected.
Or do you submit the jets are magnetic fields caused by electric currents, but are not Birkeland currents? If not, then what are the jets constituent components?
In what respect are electrical currents involved?
Tom Marking presents my [Anaconda’s] statement: ““Conventional astronomy understands the source of synchrotron radiation, so attempts have been made to simulate synchrotron radiation using only gravity and magnetic fields. But as Plasma Cosmology has long already come to realize, magnetism and gravity alone is not sufficient.”
Then Tom Marking responds: “Huh? How do you create synchrotron radiation using gravity? Who is asserting that? It’s absurd.”
Well, then, Tom, how are you asserting the jets are created?
Then it would be absurd to suggest or imply that electric currents are not components of the jets eminating out of this object, would it not?
The basis for my statement is thus: Synchrotron radiation was detected in the jets, in order to deny that electrical currents are responsible, one must substitute some “mechanism” or process which doesn’t rely on electrical currents.
And, but again, if “electric currents” are “no big deal,” then why not explicitly mention electric currents presence and be done with it?
Again, Tom, if, “There’s no Birkeland current holding it together.” So
the jets aren’t Birkeland currents (electric currents), then what are they?
Tom Marking presnts my [Anaconda’s] statement: “Also, once electric currents are considered, one can consider laboratory plasma physics experiments which tested the physical properties of plasma and accounted for the electromagnetic jets that emit radio wave radiation.”
Then Tom Marking responds: “Please tell us about these experiments. Do you know anything about the experiments of Hannes Alfven?”
I’ll do the best I can, I don’t have it at the tip of my fingertips, but it’s my understanding that when large amounts of electrical energy flow into the central plasmoid, the plasmoid can overload, but rather than exploding, it discharges the excess electricity by way of these jets coming from the pole axis of the plasmoid. A little like a reverse effect of the energy coming into the poles via the aurora Birkeland currents from the Sun to the Earth.
Tom Marking states: “You know, of course, that the electromagnetic force is something like 1.0E40 times the strength of the gravitational force, don’t you? Thus, an EM interaction will easily overcome a gravitational interaction without a problem.”
Yes, but in your view how are EM forces involved in the jet formation process? How are jets generated?
Tom Marking states: “For example, the geomagnetic field stretches thousands of kilometers into outer space but the currents that generate it are down in the earth’s outer core (thought to be circulating liquid iron).”
Science doesn’t know the above asserted proposition, as your comment readily admits, “(thought to be circulating liquid iron).” It’s speculation. The better science is that the magnetic fields are in situ with the electric currents that form them.
Do you have any authority that counters the proposition that electric currents and magnetic fields are in situ with each other?
Tom Marking states: “You seem to be implying that the electric current and the magnetic field it produces must be at the same point in space.”
I’m not implying. I’m stating clearly that electric currents and magnetic fields are produced in situ, together. I’m happy to stand corrected, but I’ll need authority for that, not your naked assertion.
Not some recitation of mathematical equation or the name of that equation, but discussion from a cited authority.
Tom Marking states: “O.K. Please give us your plasma explanation of Cygnus X-1 and its ~300 km wide source region.”
What if anything suggests even indirectly that Cygnus X-1 is a “black hole”?
Answer: The x-rays. But it is known to science as proved in plasma physics laboratories that x-rays are caused by intense synchrotron radiation. In other words, generated by electrical currents. X-rays are in no way, by themselves, proof of the existence of “black holes”. That is exactly my point (perhaps I wasn’t clear in my writing): It is a logical fallacy to conclude because an object emits x-rays it is a “black hole”, it’s called “circular reasoning,” Tom.
Specifically, when you have a plausible alternative theory. And, like it or not Tom, Plasma Cosmology is an alternative theory, and I would submit that, not only is it ‘plausble’, but it is a stronger theory than the gravitational model because all of it’s principles have been observed, measured, and recorded in the laboratory, rather than being theoretical constructs based on abstract mathematical formula.
The additional images you cite and link to, don’t add to the actual evidence, rather they simply repeat propositions while adding little or no weight to the evidence. They give the “appearance” of additional authority, without the actual substance.
Tom I hope I have answered your questions. Please feel free to follow up and clarify if you so desire.
Thanks for your time and attention.
------------------------------------------------------
Gentle readers, you make the call. Who took the 2X4 right between the eyes?
Additional comment was added over at Bad astronomy:
"@ Tom Marking:
The images of galaxy M87 you presented for consideration deserve additional comment:
These pictures show a jet that extends for literally hundreds, if not over a thousand of light years. Yes, there is some widening over that vast distance, but when the distance is considered in conjunction with the increase of width over that distance, the maintenance of the jet’s width is remarkable.
Synchrotron radiation has been detected coming from this jet. And as discussed above in the previous comment, synchrotron radiation is the signature of electrons spiralling around in a magnetic field caused by electrical currents.
This is entirely consistent with Birkeland currents.
M87 is one of the best examples of the presence of Birkeland currents in deep space because of the remarkable maintenance of the jet over incredible distance.
As you’ve already agreed, electric currents cause magnetic fields. The magnetic fields are the only way that plasma could be maintained in such a tight beam.
Without the combination of charged particle plasma, electric currents, and resultant magnetic fields matter would fail to stay focussed for that distance.
Birkeland currents is the only recognized mechanism.
There is no other known mechanism recognized by science.
Applying the laws of fluid or (neutral) gas dynamics would result in the matter expanding out and dissipating in a rather short distance, not the light years distance observed and measured.
In conclusion, the only scientifically verified process known to cause the jet observed would be Birkeland currents.
Occam’s Razor: A known process as opposed to a theoretical unknown process is the rule of thumb for science."
Post a Comment