"The environmental anagram that is geology, is a brew of violence. Degradation by cometary wrecking balls...." -- C. Warren Hunt, geologist, 1989
Worlds in Collision: Jupiter, Saturn Plowed Through Asteroids. (Hat tip: Anaconda)
The asteroid belt has long been known to harbor gaps, called Kirkwood gaps, in distinct locations. Some of these gaps correspond to unstable zones, where the modern-day gravitational influence of Jupiter and Saturn eject asteroids. But for the first time, Minton and Malhotra have noticed that some clearings don't fit the bill.
"What we found was that many regions are depleted in asteroids relative to other regions, not just in the previously known Kirkwood gaps that are explained by the current planetary orbits," Minton wrote in an email. In an editorial accompanying the paper, author Kevin Walsh added, "Qualitatively, it looks as if a snow plough were driven through the main asteroid belt, kicking out asteroids along the way and slowing to a stop at the inner edge of the belt."
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
34 comments:
Ah yes, shades of Velikovsky. More at the Velikovsky Encyclopedia
Hiya Mr.
Welcome!
I think it more likely that the asteroid belt was formed from an exploding double layer, than from mechanical impact.
@Louis Hissink "I think it more likely that the asteroid belt was formed from an exploding double layer, than from mechanical impact"
ROFLMAO. Channeling Anaconda, are we?
Tom Marking,
Not really, I've been associated with the plasma crowd for quite a few years - specifically from a geological perspective.
I left Victorian era physics decades ago.
@ Tom Marking:
As evidenced by your attempted mocking comment, seemingly you don't know much about double layers.
Double layers are the engine of electromagnetics.
If you had carefully studied the links I provided in another post you would know that double layers create the force that accelerates electrons and ions in opposite directions.
Think galaxies with jets coming out of each end of their line of axis like sagitarius A.
It is this acceleration that causes the electrons to give off x-rays and ions acting as gamma-rays, and also synchrotron radiation in other electromagnetic wavelengths.
But you seemingly don't want to understand double layers because then it would become all too clear that you don't need made-up things like "black holes", "neutron" stars, "dark" matter, and "dark" energy to explain the large structures of the Universe.
It is the double layer that drives electromagnetism whether in the laboratory or in space.
You know about electromagnetism, yet seem to be incurious about its dynamics and mechanisms.
Why is that?
Especially, considering that unlike many of your cohorts, you know electromagnetism is ubiqitous in the interplanetary medium.
Or do I have to lay that proof out for you, again?
And presumably you know the tremendous energy generation that can be achieved by electromagnetic forces.
There is a reason why ion propulsion is being intensly studied for possible use in deep space exploration.
Regarding Louis Hissink's statement: Double layers are the engine, but like any engine they can be "blown". A double layer can be overloaded and short circuit, and as you pointed out in another post when that happens tremendous expansion results, along with emission of various electromagnetic waves and energized ions in the form of gamma-rays.
This is the actual energy source of many of the phenomenon that "modern" astronomy attributes to imagninary objects and processes.
@Anaconda "As evidenced by your attempted mocking comment, seemingly you don't know much about double layers."
I actually got Louis confused with someone else. I thought it was he who was doing a parody of you. It turns out he was serious. My apologies.
"If you had carefully studied the links I provided in another post you would know that double layers create the force that accelerates electrons and ions in opposite directions."
A "double layer" is nothing but a charge separation within a plasma body. The problem is that once you have negative and positive ions separated into different layers there is an EM force of attraction causing the layers to recombine. How do Peratt, et al keep the double layer in existence for long periods of time without charge recombination happening?
"It is this acceleration that causes the electrons to give off x-rays and ions acting as gamma-rays, and also synchrotron radiation in other electromagnetic wavelengths."
The acceleration actually IS the direct cause of the synchrotron radiation.
"But you seemingly don't want to understand double layers because then it would become all too clear that you don't need made-up things like "black holes", "neutron" stars, "dark" matter, and "dark" energy to explain the large structures of the Universe."
Well, you've actually never established ANY incompatibility at all between plasma, Birkeland currents, double layers on the one hand and black holes, neutron stars, etc. on the other hand. There can be and in fact are interactions between black holes and plasma, neutron stars and plasma, etc. What prevents them from coexisting in the same universe?
Also, I notice you never responded to my objection concerning your hypothesis that electric arcs cause craters on the moon and other planets.
Also, please chime in on the thread where OIM claims Antarctica is the former Atlantis. What are your views on that one?
Actually, this thread has veered way off course. The original idea concerning planet migration came out of the discoveries of the first exoplanets in the 1990's (although it seems that Velikovsky and various EU folks had the concept long before then).
In any case, the discovery of 51 Pegasi b in 1995 ushered in the concept of the "hot Jupiter" - i.e., a massive planet orbiting very close to its star (~0.5 Jupiter mass planet orbiting at 0.05 AU from its star).
So the question necessarily popped up: did this planet and the other hot Jupiters form where they are located now? I guess for a variety of reasons (although I don't know all of them) most astronomers answered that question in the negative - these hot Jupiters formed much farther out and then migrated inward.
So a variety of mechanisms have been proposed for how a planet migrates when its orbiting in vast field of planetesimals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_migration
Type I migration involves terrestrial size planets.
Type II migration applies to planets with masses greater than 10 Earth masses.
In short, that is the background of planetary migration theory which is still in its infancy.
@ Tom Marking:
Apology accepted.
Tom, you state: "A "double layer" is nothing but a charge separation within a plasma body."
Your explanation over simplifies what a double layer is and how it works.
Tom, you ask: "How do Peratt, et al keep the double layer in existence for long periods of time without charge recombination?"
Part of the mechanics of a double layer acts to seperate electrons and ions by accelerating them in opposite directions.
It is well worth your time to understand double layers because as I previously stated double layers are the engine or accelerating mechanism of electromagnetism.
I tried to convey the idea over at Bad Astronomy that there is an energy activation level for recombination. There is attraction as you say, but an energy level must be achieved for the electron to fully recombine with an ion, something akin to the initial energy activation level required to initiate a chemical reaction.
But to directly answer your question, as best I can, is that a continual supply of plasma keeps the double layer functioning.
Tom, you state: "The acceleration actually IS the direct cause of the synchrotron radiation."
Agreed.
(I was awkward in putting my idea to writing.)
Tom, you state: "Well, you've actually never established ANY incompatibility at all between plasma, Birkeland currents, double layers on the one hand and black holes, neutron stars, etc. on the other hand."
Agreed, but with a caveat.
And the caveat is most important: First, science looks favorably to applying known processes to unknown processes, this is known as Occam's Razor. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule of thumb; second, electromagnetism is more powerful than gravity. Energy runs down hill, i.e., a higher energy form generates a lower energy form, so, to hypothesize gravity processes that create tremendous amounts of electromagnetic force, runs counter to the law of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
It is much more in keeping with the law of entropy to suppose that electromagnetic mechanisms generate electromagnetic force (acceleration) than to suppose gravity generates electromagnetic force.
Tom, you state: "There can be and in fact are interactions between black holes and plasma, neutron stars and plasma, etc."
No, none of those supposed mechanims and objects have been confirmed by in situ measurements, they are hypothesis based on an all encompassing theory of gravity. And, truth be told, at one time or another, all have been challenged based on that all encompassing theory.
Those supposed phenomenon when closely scrutinized are not natural outcomes of the laws of gravity, but were ad hoc solutions to the paradoxes of an all encompassing theory of gravity that failed by its own constraints and requirements.
Tom, you state: "What prevents them from coexisting in the same universe?"
Nothing.
But they have to be proved, not assumed. At this juncture "modern" astronomy assumes these objects and phenomenon without sufficient justification from observation & measurement.
I suspect (I can't read their minds) that is why your cohorts reject electromagnetism in space, because once there is a plausible alternative theory for the processes and objects observed & measured at a distance in space, the assumptions: "black holes", "neutron" stars, "dark" matter, and "dark", simply don't hold up as unchallened fact.
They are theories, and when you use the strict definition of "theory" as defined in the scientific method, they are not even theories, but only hypothesis because so little scientific observation & measurement have been produced to support them.
Tom states: "I notice you never responded to my objection concerning your hypothesis that electric arcs cause craters on the moon and other planets."
My apology, as I've been busy at Universe Today, and off away from the computer.
I'll attempt to make amends.
You mentioned curvature and electric arcs seeking a highest point. But obvously, electric arcs don't always act on the highest point and with a smooth surface there are no abundances of "high points" to seek.
This POD article explains Io's electric arcing.
And, this article also states the issue from the Electric Universe perspective with additional links at the bottom.
It is my understanding that NASA has acknowledged and confirmed the presence of electric plumes emitted by Io.
This POD article actually shows a picture of an electrical plume on Io.
In regards to Atlantis, your characterization of Plato's description carries weight with me.
I have serious doubts about whether Atlantis existed in the form described by Plato. The Egyptians (where Plato got the idea) may have been referring to Knosses and the isle of Crete, and the story got mutated by Plato.
Wouln't be the first time a story grew taller by the telling.
Knosses did conquer many parts of shoreline on the Mediterranean Sea. And was so powerful that they had no need for defenses at Knosses, ifself, testimony to their power and might in a day when threat of conquest by outside powers was a constant threat for all civilizations, apparently except Knosses.
(I will add this consideration of Atlantis to the comments on the Atlantis thread.)
@Anaconda "Part of the mechanics of a double layer acts to seperate electrons and ions by accelerating them in opposite directions."
Is it not true that the direction of the force on both positive ions and electrons in a double layer is in a direction which tends to cancel out the double layer (i.e., bring the differently signed charges in the plasma body together)?
"I tried to convey the idea over at Bad Astronomy that there is an energy activation level for recombination."
Back then we tried to get some URLs from you concerning this but I don't remember if we received any.
"There is attraction as you say, but an energy level must be achieved for the electron to fully recombine with an ion"
Yes, I agree, there must be some recombination threshold energy but if you consider the plasma energies in the Peratt model (1-10 keV) I'm assuming that these energies are well over the threshold for recombination.
"But to directly answer your question, as best I can, is that a continual supply of plasma keeps the double layer functioning."
Where does the new supply of plasma come from in a nebula? From neutral matter? That would mean that not all of the matter is ionized. This tends to contradict certain statements you've been making that 99.9999...% of the universe is plasma.
"It is much more in keeping with the law of entropy to suppose that electromagnetic mechanisms generate electromagnetic force (acceleration) than to suppose gravity generates electromagnetic force."
I've never claimed that gravity causes electromagnetic force, and I don't know of any physicist who does? Can you name anyone who is claiming this?
"No, none of those supposed mechanims and objects have been confirmed by in situ measurements"
Well, that's because these objects are thousands of light-years away. In situ measurements will not happen during our lifetimes.
"I suspect (I can't read their minds) that is why your cohorts reject electromagnetism in space, because once there is a plausible alternative theory for the processes and objects observed & measured at a distance in space"
Anaconda, when pressed previously in the BA blog to provide the EU explanation for the observations of Cygnus X-1 you failed to provide such an explanation. Can EU explain Cygnus X-1 or does it remain unexplained under EU?
"You mentioned curvature and electric arcs seeking a highest point. But obvously, electric arcs don't always act on the highest point"
I said that electric arcs form preferentially in places of low radius of curvature. And do you know why? Because the electric field is higher in such places.
"It is my understanding that NASA has acknowledged and confirmed the presence of electric plumes emitted by Io."
That is not my understanding. It is my understanding that NASA has detected a Birkeland current flowing between Jupiter and Io but that this has nothing to do with the Io plumes which are volcanic in origin.
TO THE MATTER IN THE POST: PLANET MIGRATION
@ Tom Marking:
(I will return to the issues of your most recent comment, but first the planetary migration issue needs to be addressed, further.)
I appreciate your willingness to discuss issues. And while you express distrust for most of my opinions on the issues, applying reasonable scepticism can appear distrustful, yet, it may not be, rather, just evidence of a Missouri state of mind, "the show me state."
So be it.
I also consider you the most open-minded of the conventional astronomy observers I have discussed the issues with:-)
Reading your comments and finding the Wikipedia entry: Planetary migration was enlightening.
Why?
Because the entry states (in part):
"Planetary migration is the most likely explanation for 'hot Jupiters': extrasolar planets with jovian masses, but orbits of only a few days. The generally accepted theory of planet formation from a protostellar accretion disk predicts such planets cannot form so close to their stars, as there is insufficient mass at such small radii and the temperature is too high to allow the formation of rocky or icy planetesimals."
Further, the entry goes on to state planetary scientists theorize that the exoplanets migrate INWARD towards the star.
What is striking and contradictory about the paper published in Nature is that the authors found evidence that the planets, Jupiter and Saturn, migrated OUTWARD, away from the Sun.
Also, the Wikipedia entry states: "The outer two planets of our solar system. Uranus and Neptune, (known as the "ice giants") are believed to have formed in orbits near Jupiter and Saturn but to have migrated outward to their current positions over hundreds of millions of years."
So, the Nature paper's findings and theory regarding Uranus an Neptune as stated at Wikipedia contradict present hypothesis on exoplanet inward migration.
Could it be that Electric Universe theory is correct and that planets are "born" from their star and then migrate out away from it over time?
Tom, did you pick up the Nature paper's contradiction with theory that "hot Jupiters" migrate inward toward their star?
I offer the following link because it addresses the issue of planet formation. Also, while I don't agree with every idea of Wallace Thornhill, I find the majority of his ideas logically thought out.
Planet Birthing, May 25, 2003(holoscience)
In addition Thorhill does a good job of laying out passages of text from "modern" astronomy and then offering his comments, which allows a contrast & comparison that the reader can judge for himself.
Another (much shorter) link:
Planet Birthing - more evidence, July 24, 2003(holoscience)
This link provides a conventional astronomy report on new developments (at the time):
The following report is from Astronomy.com of July 23 and provides further evidence in favor of such a model:
Planets Prefer Metal
Stars with high metal content are most likely to harbor planets.
by Vanessa Thomas
"When looking for planets beyond our solar system, astronomers often target stars like the sun. But they may want to refocus their attention on stars that hold more metals than our own. A new study reveals that the more metal-rich a star is, the better the chance it hosts a planet.
Extrasolar-planet hunter Debra Fischer of the University of California, Berkeley, and astronomer Jeff Valenti of the Space Telescope Science Institute analyzed the composition of 754 nearby stars and looked to see which stars had planets. They found a strong, nearly linear correlation between a star's metal content and the likelihood that it has a planet."
[...]
Please consider these holoscience links in light of the paper's findings published in Nature and subject of this post.
I'd be intereste in your opinion.
POST SCRIPT: On proceeding comment
I find Thornhill's hypothesis of rocky planets being "born" from giant gas planets much more problematic than the idea that giant gas planets are "born" from their star for the reason that once "born" a giant gas planet would not be receiving enough electromagnetic energy from intragalactic Birkeland currents to initiate a fission event because the star would continue recieving the bulk of the electromagnetic energy -- this according to Electric Universe theory, itself.
Rocky planets likely are also "born" from the star, itself, with a gas shell and then some unknown process strips the gas away from the rocky core, leaving a rocky planet.
@Anaconda
My detailed comments on "Planet Birthing - more evidence" are as follows:
"Given the orthodox notion of how planets form, it is not clear why we should expect more gas giant planets about a star simply because it has more heavy elements in its spectrum."
The correlation would relate to how enriched the protostellar nebula was in metals. High metal (and remember a metal in astronomy is any element heavier than helium) content in the protostellar nebula implies that there is a lot of material from which to form planets assuming that planets cannot form from hydrogen and helium alone.
"Unlike the hydrogen-bomb model of stars, there is no internal heating."
Yes, but the luminosity of stars is a known fact. If the interiors of stars are cold then the energy production per unit volume in the stellar outer shell must be enormous. Has Thornhill run the numbers on how much energy would have to be produced in the stellar shell? It's probably more than you can get from matter-antimatter annihilation (the highest energy producing reaction known).
"Intense plasma discharges at the stellar surface give rise to starshine."
Plasmas are not magical fountains of energy. They have to get their energy from somewhere because the star is leaking energy into space at a prodigious rate (~1.0E26 watts). Plasmas are subject to conservation of energy just like any other system in physics.
"Those discharges synthesize "metals" that continually rain into the star's depths."
Has this synthesis of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium via electrical means been demonstrated in the laboratory? If so I'd like to see it.
"Stellar interiors become enriched in heavy elements. The star "children" are gas giants or binary partners formed from those heavier elements after expulsion from the star."
Has anyone ever seen such an explusion while it happened?
"Therefore we should simply expect from the electric star model that the longer a star has been shining the more heavy elements it will show in its spectrum and the more time it has had to "give birth.""
Typically stellar age is deduced by rotation period. Young stars rotate faster than old stars because the interaction of the stellar wind and the magnetic field lines embedded deep into the star provides a torque which slows down the star. Thornhill's prediction is that there should be a correlation between metallicity and rotation period - the higher the metallicity the greater the rotation period. As far as I know, no such correlation has ever been found.
"Whether a star has planetary companions or not is NOT a condition of its birth."
Highly dubious conclusion IMHO.
"Planet formation has more to do with the growth of internal electrical stress in a star."
How does one measure "electrical stress" in a star?
"And the separation of elements by their "critical ionization velocity" in a plasma pinch may offer an alternative explanation for differences in metallicity between the bodies."
Previously Thornhill seemed to be saying that nucleosynthesis can occur electrically. There is not much need for element separation if the elements can be produced electrically (highly doubtful IMHO).
"the propensity for close orbits of the gas giants about their parent star"
Actually, nothing Thornhill presented explained why gas giants would be close to their parent star according to the EU model.
@ Tom Marking:
Marking states: "Is it not true that the direction of the force on both positive ions and electrons in a double layer is in a direction which tends to cancel out the double layer (i.e., bring the differently signed charges in the plasma body together)?"
Yes, the z-pinch does constrict the double layer together, but the canceling out occurs by a short circuit or explosion.
Also, until such time that the z-pinch shorts out the electrons and ions are accelerated in different directions.
There are many instabilities in plasma physics which is why it is so hard to mathematically model in equations, therefore, why mathmeticians don't particularly find it appealing to try and mathematically model it.
Marking states: "I'm assuming that these energies are well over the threshold for recombination."
That sounds likely to me.
Marking: "This tends to contradict certain statements you've been making that 99.9999...% of the universe is plasma."
No, you are wrong -- every document I've seen verifies the over 99.9% figure, if you have a document that contradicts it, please bring it forth.
Simple, a nebula is like a big pile of coal, except in this case the "coal" is the plasma.
Also, what neutral matter there is, gets swept up in the ionized matter attacted by plasma double layers. This neutral matter then can be ionized. No shortage of plasma in space.
Marking states: "I've never claimed that gravity causes electromagnetic force, and I don't know of any physicist who does? Can you name anyone who is claiming this?"
Then how is all the electromagnetism detected in deep space created? If electromagnetism doesn't create it what does?
Basically, if you rule out electromagnetism as the catalyst (which all those opposed to Plasma Universe theory do by implication) then there has to be some other catalyst, and that leaves gravity, unless you want to bring the weak and strong nuclear forces into consideration. However, I've seen no one proposing that, so absent weak and strong nuclear force that leaves gravity as your only choice.
But apparently, you throw up your hands and back away from the proposition that gravity generates electromagnetism.
Okay, then that leaves electromagnetism to generate itself, which makes sense.
Unless, you got another idea?
Marking presents my [Anaconda's] statement: "I suspect (I can't read their minds) that is why your cohorts reject electromagnetism in space, because once there is a plausible alternative theory for the processes and objects observed & measured at a distance in space"
And Marking responds:
"Anaconda, when pressed previously in the BA blog to provide the EU explanation for the observations of Cygnus X-1 you failed to provide such an explanation. Can EU explain Cygnus X-1 or does it remain unexplained under EU?"
That's called ducking the statement and a distraction and frankly, a pretty weak effort on your part.
Whether Plasma Universe has an explanation for Cygnus X-1 or not, and I'll take some time to research it, here, that really has nothing to do with why your cohorts were refusing to acknowledge electric currents in near space.
Since NASA has been teaching electric currents in space for over 7 years ("Last updated 25 November 2001, Reformatted 3-13-2006"), there are several choices, all bad: one, they are totally uniformed about astrophysics, in which case they had no business arguing against Plasma Universe theory; two, they were being dishonest and wanted to keep other less informed readers in the dark; three, they are totally dependent on Bad Astronomy for their information and Plait kept them in the dark and let them act like a bunch of stupid attack dogs.
7 years NASA has been teaching electomagnetism in space, I mean my goodness, these guys are either dense as a post or dishonest or so incurious it's incredible.
One guy was even studying to get into astronomy grad school and he didn't know that and even accused NASA of lying.
I mean the denial was absolute.
Which is it? Stupidity, dishonesty, a little of both, or what?
Or are you going to duck the question, again, like some crank that gets called out on an obvious whopper?
I'll get back to you later on Cygnus X-1, frankly, by that time I was worn down, which I suspect was the purpose of the "hot box" routine with 4 interlocutors against one, but now that you mention Cygnus X-1 in hopefully a more polite setting and I don't view it as one more gotcha question, I want to find out because unlike your cohorts, I'm curious about the world and don't take all my astronomy from Plait, as if I was sucking water from a turned on fire hydrant.
I guess, that's my question for you. Do you follow the evidence wherever it leads or are you so wed to "black holes" that you'll ignore other evidence of other theories?
Now, in some sense I don't mind trying to persuade you, but it seems that if you are worth your salt, as an observer with a modicum of curiosity, you'll do some independent research on your own to try and grasp what the state of affairs is for the evidence of electromagnetism in space.
Perhaps, that is what you are doing here.
But I'll tell you what, if your attitude is, "Honey, I'm poking a stick at the alligator, or a snakeman in this case," I'll thrash the living hell out you.
And you can get off this blog and don't come back. Only you can answer that question.
Check, again, on NASA's position on the plumes.
@Anaconda "Yes, the z-pinch does constrict the double layer together, but the canceling out occurs by a short circuit or explosion."
How long does it take for this short circuit to happen and what is the scaling law for this duration versus the diameter of the initial z-pinch? If we assume a 1 meter z-pinch takes 1 second to short circuit then how long does it take for a 10,000 km z-pinch to short circuit? A 1 ly z-pinch?, etc. The answer to that question will tell you if z-pinch is a plausible explanation for many astronomical phenomena.
"There are many instabilities in plasma physics which is why it is so hard to mathematically model in equations, therefore, why mathmeticians don't particularly find it appealing to try and mathematically model it."
I told you back in the BA blog that Maxwell's equations are inherently nonlinear once you throw in realistic parameters. You pooh poohed that back then, but now you are essentially saying the same thing.
"No, you are wrong -- every document I've seen verifies the over 99.9% figure, if you have a document that contradicts it, please bring it forth."
You're missing the point. You claim plasma can replenish itself - presumably by ionizing other neutral matter. This can only be a tiny effect if plasma makes up 99.99...% of the system to begin with. It contradicts plasma replenishment as a major factor.
"Then how is all the electromagnetism detected in deep space created? If electromagnetism doesn't create it what does?"
The ultimate source of 90+ percent of the EM waves in space is nuclear fusion occurring in the cores of stars which gets transferred thermally to the surface. The other ~10 percent is attributable to nonthermal processes such as synchrotron radiation. Gravity's only real role is in compressing the stellar material to begin with which allows nuclear fusion to take place.
"Unless, you got another idea?"
Yes, I suggest you read up on nuclear fusion and blackbody radiation.
"That's called ducking the statement and a distraction and frankly, a pretty weak effort on your part."
I thought we were discussing black holes, neutron stars, etc. and how your wonderful alternative theory can explain the same observations, were we not?
"that really has nothing to do with why your cohorts were refusing to acknowledge electric currents in near space"
Since when am I responsible for what someone else on the BA blog posts? Since when am I responsible for the stuff Phil Plait posts? Are you responsible for what OIM believes? Can you explain why he refuses to believe that Atlantis is NOT Antarctica?
"one, they are totally uniformed about astrophysics, in which case they had no business arguing against Plasma Universe theory; two, they were being dishonest and wanted to keep other less informed readers in the dark; three, they are totally dependent on Bad Astronomy for their information and Plait kept them in the dark and let them act like a bunch of stupid attack dogs."
Anaconda, this is a complete straw man distraction. You complain about other posters on BA so that you don't have to deal with the legitimate criticisms I've raised concerning EU theory (see my previous point-by-point criticisms of the Peratt model which you never answered, see my current point-by-point criticism of Thornhill). Enough with the BA posters already. They're not here to defend themselves.
"Which is it? Stupidity, dishonesty, a little of both, or what?"
Yeah, like your side doesn't have its share of stupidity. Just read the posts about Atlantis being Antarctica if you want stupidity.
"I guess, that's my question for you. Do you follow the evidence wherever it leads or are you so wed to "black holes" that you'll ignore other evidence of other theories?"
Show me a theory that addresses the observations and I'll listen. After all, I was the one who brought the Tunguska paper to your attention (Good God!, OIM thinks it was ET. And you accuse my side of stupidity? :))
"I'll thrash the living hell out you."
Ah, resorting to threats of physical violence, are we now?
"And you can get off this blog and don't come back."
Anaconda, the only reason I'm here is to provide a counterweight to all the woo OIM is shovelling. Even you don't believe in all his woo like:
Antarctica is Atlantis
Tunguska was ET
Velikovskiism
etc.
@ Tom Marking:
A cool response under fire, I respect that, I will take your comment's points under advisement and research, and I haven't forgotten about Cygnus X-1, either, that will be discussed along with the points you raised.
@Anaconda "and I haven't forgotten about Cygnus X-1, either, that will be discussed along with the points you raised."
Don't research Cygnus X-1 to satisfy me because that doesn't matter. Do it to satisfy your own curiosity. That's a much better reason.
@ Tom Marking:
Yes, I did research Cygnus X-1 to satisfy myself as I had already stated previously.
The results are interesting.
Yes, this 'point source' of x-rays has been held out as a theoretical "black hole" for a long time, and frankly it's difficult to seperate the assumptions from the facts. The discussion of Cygnus X-1 is so freighted with talk of "black Holes" that it's necessary to scrub the description down to physical facts to get a accurate picture.
So, what does science know about Cygnus X-1?
It's a 'point source' of intense x-rays located inward along the same Orion Spur in which the Sun is located within the Milky Way roughly 6,000 light years from Earth.
Cygnus X-1 is not close the the Milky Way galactic center, but out on one of the spiral arms.
Cygnus X-1 was not associated with any especially prominent radio or optical source at that position.
There are other specifics, but this will do.
I have to say by this example, astronomers must have been desperate to "identify" a so-called "black hole".
When you scrub down Cygnus X-1 to bare facts that are observable & measurable all science has is it's intense and somewhat fluctuating x-ray signature.
Everything else is assumption masqerading as certainty.
I'm amazed that with this pausity of information anyone would jump to the conclusion that this was the hypothesized "black hole".
That is the principle reason I wrote above that astronomers were "desperate" to identify a "black hole".
But it depends on your perspective, of course.
I know the acceleration caused by the z-pinch in electric currents produces x-rays. And, that intense high energy z-pinches produce prodigous and highly energetic x-rays.
So, my impression is different than an astronomer who declines to consider electromagnetism as a cause of x-rays in space. Also, the fact that little visible or radio electromagnetic waves are emitted does not bother me.
Yet, for "modern" astronomers, there was likely great import given to the lack of visible light or radio waves.
The original idea, if I'm not mistaken, was that it was a candidate for being a "black hole" because it was felt an object emitting intense x-rays, but little or no visible light and radio waves was inconsistent with what astronomy knew about star mechanics. It didn't match up very well to known stars' emission patterns.
So, "modern" astronomers asked what could be different about this 'point source' of intense emission of x-rays?
Of course, by this time there were "leading lights" of astronomy lining up behind the "black hole" hypothesis and even in theoretical astronomy you have to have a physical candidate of some kind to point at to validate your hypothesis.
Cygnus X-1 fit the bill in a crude fashion. The absense of light and radio waves (which are less energetic than visible light), yet, having an intense emission of high energy x-rays suggested something big (in terms of mass) had to be there because for any theorized gravity mechanism to generate prodigous x-rays it had to be massive, but there was no light, so apparently the object's gravitational attraction was so strong "even light couldn't escape" Cygnus X-1 immediate vicinity. And the 'point source' was confined to a narrow diameter beam, as if even with great mass it was taking up little space -- bingo -- compressed mass, another assumption that fit the so-called "black hole" hypothesis.
In a crude fashion this fit the bill for what the hypothesized "black hole's" signature would appear from space.
And, because electromagnetism wasn't even seriously considered as a possible explanation there was no rival explanation.
The field was clear for Cygnus X-1to be considered the first "observed" so-called "black hole", and a theoretical construct which had been postulated to exist could be declared adding power to the supposed predictive power of the gravity "only" model based on General Relativity.
A starting point, a priori, set of equations, based on an all-encompassing theory had predicted and found a "black hole", a great triumph for astronomy was declared.
In any field of science, one does not get ahead and recognized by your peers by shouting out the great "triumph" is...well...not a triumph at all. Besides, there wasn't an alternative theory to say it wasn't a "black hole". There was no alternative that could explain an intense, x-ray 'point source' that emitted no light.
Rather, one gets ahead and recognized by your peers by acclaiming the "leading lights" who promote the great triumph for theoretical astrophysics.
The echo chamber builds to the point where, now, one would have a hard, if not impossible, time getting accepted in an astronomy gradulate school, if one told the entrance committee that "black holes" are bunk.
The entrance and promotion process tend to weed out those that would question the basic tenents of the astrophysical "community".
The echo chamber reaches full throttle.
Getting back to my perspective, electromagnetism explains the intense, fluctuating 'point source' of x-rays without resort to exotic assumptions that have never been observed and measured.
Even the fluctuation of the x-rays by Cygnus X-1 is better explained by known plasma physics and electromagnetism principles which have been experimentally verified in the laboratory.
Electromagnetism because of its many instability factors is known to produce fluctuation of electromagnetic energy emission.
In plasmaphysics laboratories x-rays can be created by intense z-pinches that accelerate electrons to near light speed.
And these process can be done without large amounts of visible light and radio waves, and in the field out in space, there might be other reasons why light and radio waves were not reaching out to Man's detector instruments circling Earth.
Also, I have nothing invested in a theoretical confirmation of a set of mathematical equations.
After reviewing the scientific evidence available it is clear "modern" astronomy concluded the confirmation of "black holes" without evidenciary, scientific justification and has careened down a path that has only further veered into a pursuit cut off from observation & measurement.
And the most difficult problem is that once off on the wrong track human nature prevents the error from being easily corrected.
So-called "black holes" are a dead end for astronomy.
Tom Marking, so this was the example that my interlocutors at Bad Astronomy were barking and baying about?
It seems more appropriate for the whimpering of a kicked dog.
@ Tom Marking:
As a house keeping matter, I note you failed to respond to my comment pointing out the paper published in Nature contradicts astronomers theorized inward migration of giant gas exoplanets, commonly referred to as "hot Jupiters". The failure to respond stands in the face of my direct questions to you about this contradiction. This reported contradiction is important to the discussion and the reason your failure to answer my questions is significant regarding this contradiction will be made apparent further on into the discussion.
Taking your comment as a whole regarding "planet birthing" and other topics raised in Thornhill's article the apparent nub in all these matters is not that electromagnetism exists in space, but, rather, what generates the electromagnetism?
Your answer echoes conventional astronomy: namely, that stars are powered by a fusion, nuclear furnace. And this "furnace" is the dynamo which generates electromagnetism.
Obviously, it's a reasonable position to take in light of conventional astrophysics current accepted theories of star mechanics.
Certainly, I acknowldge that nuclear reactions do generate electromagnetism. I'm aware of the electromagnetic pulse that is released on the detonation of a hydrogen fusion bomb. That x-rays are released as the result of this fusion process.
But the scientific evidence does not support the notion that all electromagnetism is supported by nuclear fusion in space.
Putting aside the question of "electric" stars versus "nuclear" stars for the moment, I will move to the particulars of your comment.
Tom Marking states: "The correlation would relate to how enriched the protostellar nebula was in metals. High metal (and remember a metal in astronomy is any element heavier than helium) content in the protostellar nebula implies that there is a lot of material from which to form planets assuming that planets cannot form from hydrogen and helium alone."
Yes, that would be true if your theory of star mechanics is correct, it would not be true if Thornhill's theory of star formation is correct. For Thornill's theory explains how metals are created by the star and he too suggests that stars have to have metals to create or "birth" planets.
Marking: "Yes, but the luminosity of stars is a known fact."
Yes, but not how much energy is required to generate that luminosity. The relationships are known across classes of stars, but the exact energy to generate each level of luminosity is somewhat speculative.
Marking: "Has Thornhill run the numbers on how much energy would have to be produced in the stellar shell?"
Not that I'm aware of.
Marking: "It's probably more than you can get from matter-antimatter annihilation (the highest energy producing reaction known)."
Tom, the above statement is pure speculation on your part, while you rightly challenge Thornhill's and Plasma Universe theory for not being quantified, your engaging in unquantified speculation to undercut Thornill's theory, is no better than his lack of quantification.
Marking states: "Plasmas are not magical fountains of energy. They have to get their energy from somewhere because the star is leaking energy into space at a prodigious rate (~1.0E26 watts). Plasmas are subject to conservation of energy just like any other system in physics."
No, plasma and stars are not magical fountains, agreed. There is a detailed (even to some extent, quantified) description of the electric Sun hypothesis.
Marking states: "Has this synthesis of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium via electrical means been demonstrated in the laboratory? If so I'd like to see it."
I don't know. I don't know if the laboratory can generate the hypothesized circumstances required for elemental fusion into heavier atomic weight elements.
Marking: "Has anyone ever seen such an explusion while it happened?"
No, but there are many systems with a dominant and lesser star in binary orbit, together.
Not that has been reported to my attention, but gas giant exoplanets have been observed & measured in close orbit to their star where conventional hypothesis says they can't form and this line of hypothesis has postulated that giant gas exoplanets migrate inward toward their star, but this has been specifically contradicted by the Nature papers' reports.
The scientific evidence at this point is that giant gas planets migrate outward, which leaves the exoplanets in close orbit to their star with nowhere to come from except being "born" by the star is one is to subscribe to the idea that planets can form from an accretion disk at close orbit to their star.
Marking states: "the higher the metallicity the greater the rotation period. As far as I know, no such correlation has ever been found."
Of course, that assumes the theory of star age and rotation speed is valid.
Thornhill's statement: "Whether a star has planetary companions or not is NOT a condition of its birth."
And Marking's response: "Highly dubious conclusion IMHO."
Why would that be highly dubious? The accretion disk model has many paradoxes. The gravity model fails to account for the high number of binary and multiple star systems.
While Thornhill's hypothesis easily explains binary and multiple star development.
It's the gravity "only" model that has a hard time explaining the numerous dominant and lesser stars in binary orbit.
Marking: "How does one measure "electrical stress" in a star?"
Excellent question, but fails to suggest that the difficulty in measuring the "stress" means Thornhill's theory is any less likely to happen.
Marking states: "Previously Thornhill seemed to be saying that nucleosynthesis can occur electrically. There is not much need for element separation if the elements can be produced electrically (highly doubtful IMHO)."
Why is that highly doubtful? Electromagnetic energy literly pulls atoms apart and puts them back together, again.
Marking: "Actually, nothing Thornhill presented explained why gas giants would be close to their parent star according to the EU model."
False.
Perhaps, that is why you failed to answer my questions about the Nature's paper report contradicting the outward migration of Jupiter and Saturn and the Wikipedia entry noting Uranus and Neptunes theorized outward migration.
Thornhill's model explains exactly why giant gas exoplanets would be found in close orbit to their star -- because they were recently "born" and haven't had time to migrate away from their star, yet.
Actually, Hornhill's hypothesis explains it, while conventional astronomy's hypothesis has just been significantly contradicted.
You need to explain that contradiction or the rest of your comments lose their force of argument.
After all, that is a contradiction among conventional astronomy.
Marking states: "How long does it take for this short circuit to happen and what is the scaling law for this duration versus the diameter of the initial z-pinch?"
That is a reasonable and excellent question.
I can't give specifics, but the larger the scale the more time is involved.
Marking: "The answer to that question will tell you if z-pinch is a plausible explanation for many astronomical phenomena."
Agreed.
Marking: "You're missing the point."
So are you. Plasma is ubiquitous and any discontinuity will generate electric current and 'double layers'. You apparently still haven't done independent research on the subject or appreciate earlier comments where I linked the relevant information.
Tom Marking: "The ultimate source of 90+ percent of the EM waves in space is nuclear fusion occurring in the cores of stars which gets transferred thermally to the surface."
As stated earlier in the comment, this is a reasonable position to take, but there are areas far from any star or enough stars to account for the magnetic fields in an area of space which are caused by electric currents.
Study this paper if you will and you'll note that magnetic fields exist far from any "fusion" dynamo source.
Full text Extragalactric Magnetic Fields, by Philipp P Kronberg
(partial)
"Abstract: Recent advances in observational techniques reveal the widespread existence of magnetic fields in the Universe, and produce much firmer estimates of magnetic field strengths in interstellar and intergalactic space. Ordered, microgauss-level fields are common in spiral galaxy disks and halos, and appear to be a common property of the intra-cluster medium of clusters of galaxies, indeed well beyond the cluster core regions."
Remember, every place a magnetic field exists, so too does an electric current to generate it.
Before I forget, I was speaking about an intellectual "thrashing":-)
To be fair I believe the ET OilIsMastery was referring to is an extra terrestial comet or meteorite.
@ Tom Marking:
I understand from previous comments that you have doubts about the existence of "dark" matter.
But according to the gravity "only" model, galaxy filaments are only possible with the existence of "dark" matter, just another instance of an exotic being required to save the gravity "only" model from being falsified.
On the other hand, Plasma Universe theory relies on intergalactic Birkeland currents, and plasma naturally forms into, you guessed it, filaments.
So, Plasma Universe theory doesn't rely on or need any exotics to create "galaxy filaments", the ability to form large filaments has already been demonstrated in the plasma physics laboratory as opposed to a hypothesis required to save a theory.
I like the negaive image as well of galaxy filaments.
With this caption: "Dark matter distribution in a slice with side length of 520 million light years, and a thickness of 100 million light years."
When you see the visuals you know how bloody daffy "modern" astronomy is to adopt "dark" matter, but then when you remember, it's adopt or die, then, it's all too clear why everybody bows to "dark" matter in the purple robes, but there aren't any purple robes and there isn't any "dark" matter, either.
I like this image of the Universe as well.
Clumpy, right? Definitely not the smooth even expansion talked about in the "big bang" theory. That's where the other half of the dynamic duo comes in -- "dark" energy, please, don't make me vomit.
"Dark" matter?
Utter rubbish. And the people who buy that hogwash are just fooling themselves.
Perhaps, this quote explains people who buy into "dark" matter: "The most damaging lies are told by people who believe them."
Tom, are you going to buy that gravity "only" model? No, you already bought it, then you're going to have to suck down that "dark" matter hogswallow, and you're going to have to make it taste good to the last drop in the pit of your stomach and the heart of your conscience because without "dark" matter, the whole theoretical house of cards collapses.
It's ugly, man, real ugly.
My apology, here's the negative image.
Also, while I'm at the keyboard, consider the round "image of the Universe". Notice all the huge 'voids', that contradict the smooth even expansion of the hypothesized "big bang".
Sorry, one further note on the round "image of the Universe", notice how the superclusters tend to go in linear lines, that too, is consistent with Plasma Universe theory.
Nothing in the gravity "only" model comes close to explaining that.
@Anaconda "Yes, I did research Cygnus X-1 to satisfy myself as I had already stated previously."
My responses to Cygnus X-1 and your other comments are coming. You're a bit too prolific for me to keep up. Now it's time to go home and eat.
@Anaconda "Cygnus X-1 was not associated with any especially prominent radio or optical source at that position."
Wrong. Cygnus X-1 and the star HDE 226868 orbit a common barycenter at a distance of 0.24 A.U. with an orbital period of 5.60 days. HDE 226868 is a 9th magnitude star easily seen in a small telescope. It is a spectral class O supergiant.
http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~jkaler/sow/cygx1.html
The sum of the masses of both objects can be computed as follows:
M = r^3 / T^2
M = 0.24^3 / (5.60/365.25)^2
= 59 solar masses
The breakdown in masses is thought to be something like HDE 226868 = 40 solar masses, Cygnus X-1 = 19 solar masses, but there is an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 solar masses on each side. So Cygnus X-1 is at least 9 solar masses and maybe as high as 29 solar masses with 19 solar masses being the middle value.
"When you scrub down Cygnus X-1 to bare facts that are observable & measurable all science has is it's intense and somewhat fluctuating x-ray signature. Everything else is assumption masqerading as certainty."
You failed to mention that Cygnus X-1 shows variability in its X-ray luminosity down to the 1 millisecond time period. That would mean that the X-ray source region is no bigger than ~300 km.
http://www.answers.com/topic/cygnus-x-1
"More precise measurements of Cygnus X-1 demonstrated variability down to a single millisecond."
"I'm amazed that with this pausity of information anyone would jump to the conclusion that this was the hypothesized "black hole"."
Consider a sphere with a diameter no larger than 300 km containing at least 9 solar masses. That's a minimum density of 1.2 trillion times the density of water or more than one million times the density of a white dwarf. What plasma explanation is there for such an object? Can plasma reach such a tremendous density? I think not. The intense repulsion between ions of the same charge crammed into such a tiny space will blow the plasma object to smithereens.
"I know the acceleration caused by the z-pinch in electric currents produces x-rays. And, that intense high energy z-pinches produce prodigous and highly energetic x-rays."
You said yourself that z-pinches short circuit and also that smaller z-pinches short circuit in a shorter amount of time (although you never provided the scaling law I specifically asked you for). So how long will a 300 km z-pinch last? Assuming that a 1 meter z-pinch lasts for 1 second and linear scaling, a 300 km z-pinch will last 3.5 days. Why hasn't Cygnus X-1 turned off after 3.5 days if it's a z-pinch?
"...suggested something big (in terms of mass) had to be there because for any theorized gravity mechanism to generate prodigous x-rays"
No, you're wrong. You can compute the large mass via the orbital parameters of the two objects using Kepler's Laws.
"...as if even with great mass it was taking up little space -- bingo"
Nope, wrong again. The little space is a direct computation based on the period of fluctuation of the X-rays. It is not a supposition.
"And, because electromagnetism wasn't even seriously considered as a possible explanation there was no rival explanation."
Seriously, Anaconda, you've provided no EU explanation at all for Cygnus X-1. A rival EU explanation was not considered because none existed. If it exists please provide the URL for it like you do all your other claims.
"the supposed predictive power of the gravity "only" model based on General Relativity."
You're really off base with this "all encompassing, gravity-only" stuff. Q: Can gravity explain why stars emit light? A: No, you need the strong nuclear force to get fusion to happen. What all encompassing theory are you talking about?
"Besides, there wasn't an alternative theory to say it wasn't a "black hole". There was no alternative that could explain an intense, x-ray 'point source' that emitted no light."
Yes, I agree, EU has no alternative explanation.
"Getting back to my perspective, electromagnetism explains the intense, fluctuating 'point source' of x-rays without resort to exotic assumptions that have never been observed and measured."
How? Via z-pinches that have a limited lifetime and are inherently unstable?
"Even the fluctuation of the x-rays by Cygnus X-1 is better explained by known plasma physics and electromagnetism principles which have been experimentally verified in the laboratory."
LOL. That is basically a non-explanation explanation. Just because you say it's so doesn't mean it is.
"And these process can be done without large amounts of visible light and radio waves, and in the field out in space, there might be other reasons why light and radio waves were not reaching out to Man's detector instruments circling Earth."
It's about the density, man. Have your plasma experiments produced plasmas with a density greater than one trillion grams per cubic centimeter?
"So-called "black holes" are a dead end for astronomy."
Black holes are in principle falsifiable, which is more than I can say about most of the EU garbage you seem to promote. Let's take a trip to the nearest blackhole which may be only 50 light-years away and let's drop Anaconda down it and see if there's an event horizon.
@ Tom Marking:
Marking presents my [Anaconda's] statement: "Cygnus X-1 was not associated with any especially prominent radio or optical source at that position."
And responds emphatically: "Wrong. Cygnus X-1 and the star HDE 226868 orbit a common barycenter at a distance of 0.24 A.U. with an orbital period of 5.60 days. HDE 226868 is a 9th magnitude star easily seen in a small telescope. It is a spectral class O supergiant."
There's only one problem: My statement is a quote, in fact, from the Wikipedia entry on Cygnus X-1. And it's backed up by a footnote:
Footnote 11:
^ a b c Bowyer, S.; Byram, E. T.; Chubb, T. A.; Friedman, H. (1965). "Cosmic X-ray Sources". Science 147 (3656): 394–398. doi:10.1126/science.147.3656.394. PMID 17832788. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/147/3656/394. Retrieved on 2008-03-10.
And, reviewing Marking's authority, I note the "answers" URL quotes Wikipedia's entry in total, including the offending statement and footnote.
In addition, Marking's other URL, the "UCLA" cite, states this: "Yet variations in the spectrum indeed reveal a companion, an invisible one that is oddly also very massive."
"[A]n invisible one..."
And, Further the cite states: "[E]ven though it [Cygnus X-1] is itself invisible..."
It is misleading to take Cygnus X-1's discovery out historical context. X-rays don't penetrate to the Earth's surface, so in 1964 a satellite was put up into Earth's orbit and commenced a scan with x-ray detection capability, only then was the x-ray 'point source', later identified as Cygnus X-1, observed.
Clearly, the articles, both the Wikipedia entry I took the quote from and the "answers" one, which Marking relied on, were being more specific than Mr. Marking in stating, "Cygnus X-1 was not associated with any especially prominent radio or optical source at that position."
And, yes, I was referring to Cygnus X-1, itself, just like both articles were.
Why Marking was willing to try and make it appear that I was incorrect, when his own citations back me up, needs to be placed in the mind of the reader and considered.
Marking then goes on to the crux of the issue: The assumed massive size of the x-ray 'point source' known as Cygnus X-1.
The "UCLA" cite states: "The Cygnus X-1 system is so far away that parallax measures cannot be made." As Marking avers Cygnus X-1's "massive" size is inferred by a nearby visible companion, HDE 226868.
The "UCLA" article then goes on to expain the calculations (assumptions) used to arrive at its "estimates" for HDE 226868's size. Of course, this assumes "modern" astronomy understands star mechanics as the "UCLA" article, itself, states HDE 226868's size is derived by calculating its luminosity "from stellar structure theory," and assumed distance.
An argument can be made that astronomers can't be sure that the x-ray 'point source' is close to the luminous object, but that argument is not necessary to invalidate the conclusion that Cygnus X-1 is a so-called "black hole".
The article states: "Dark interstellar dust clouds along the line of sight dim the visible star's light by 3.5 magnitudes (a factor of 25!)."
This statement of "dark interstellar dust clouds" is also an assumption". If the presumed "clouds" are dark, they can't be detected, so, to use these supposed dark "clouds" to increase the estimate of luminosity, and, therfore, size, it's a fudge factor used to increase the assumed size of HDE 226868, which is critical in all this discussion because Cygnus X-1 size estimate is wholly dependent on the estimate of HDE 226868' size, there being no independent way to estimate Cygnus X-1's size.
The "UCLA" cite states: "Estimates from the effect of the compact companion on the supergiant lead to a black-hole mass of 20 (give or take 5) times that of the Sun..."
Here, the vagueness and lack of rigor are apparent (although, I realize this is "popular" cite, so the nitty gritty calculations are left out). But the "UCLA" cite goes on: "The optically invisible companion is far too massive to be a neutron star [another doubious proposition in itself]. All that is left is to assume a black hole."
"All that is left is to assume a black hole."
This is the critical sentence of the citation.
An "accretion disk" is also an assumption, one has never been observed. What we see, here, is a bright spot in optical and we see a bright spot in X-ray. These bright spots “shimmer” in X-ray and optical light in about the same place in the night sky.
To put it in context, the density required of so-called "black holes" is much greater than 100 million tons per cubic centimeter. Frankly, we don't know how much greater because "modern" astronomy states that a so-called black hole has "infinite density", or as the "UCLA" cite puts it, "collapse forever", whatever that means.
"[C]ollaspe forver"???
This get's to a serious problem with the whole concept of the "black hole" hypothesis: It's supposed that the hypothesis rests on a rigorous set of mathematical equations derived from the field equations of General Relativity. (Einstein, himself, didn't subscribe to "black holes" and rejected the idea that mathematical equations that supported the "black hole" concept could be derived from his field equatons.)
But when one closely scrutinizes the rational used to justify "black holes", one finds, rather than rigorous mathematical equations, instead a loose descriptive terminology and interpretations relying on highly speculative explanations derived from those loose interpretations.
Ambiguous terminology such as space/time, singularities, infinite density, collaspe forever, and other ideas have been introduced that are not quantifiable.
And, Marking, the burden is on "modern" astronomers to rigorously prove so-called "black hole" exist, not on sceptics to prove "black holes" don't exist, after all, "black holes" can't be observed.
Specifically, here, there is no rigorous quantification of how an assumed "accretion disk" generates x-rays. Kind of a big problem for a concept that supposedly is based on rigorous quantification via mathematical equations (but we've already seen that the supposed quantification is a farse).
The "answers" cite states: "It is a supergiant star that is, by itself, incapable of emitting the observed quantities of X-rays."
What? How do astronomers know that? It's a huge assumption to say categorically, it's "incapable" of emitting x-rays.
The "UCLA" citation states: "The pair is so close together that the black hole raises huge tides in the supergiant, to the point that it fills its "Roche Lobe," a teardrop-shaped surface at which the gravity between the two is balanced out. As a result, the supergiant leaks its mass through the teardrop's point toward the black hole."
ALL of the above is an assumption with NO QUANTIFICATION involved at all -- it's how the astronomers would want to believe it happens, but there is no observable & measured data that even suggests it does happen -- its only location is in the astronomers' heads.
Marking states: "You failed to mention that Cygnus X-1 shows variability in its X-ray luminosity down to the 1 millisecond time period. That would mean that the X-ray source region is no bigger than ~300 km."
Presumably, Marking draws the above conclusion from the "answers" citation, mirrored in the Wikipedia entry. The "answers" citation goes on to state: "This interval is consistent with turbulence in a disk of accreted matter surrounding a black hole—the accretion disk. X-ray bursts that last for about a third of a second match the expected time frame of matter falling toward a black hole."
A "disk of accreted matter" hasn't been observed, so how can they calculate that? Again, it's an assumption, and a rather naked assumption at that, since it's based on circular reasoning. "answers" goes on: "The similarities between the emissions of X-ray binaries such as HDE 226868/Cygnus X-1 and active galactic nuclei suggests a common mechanism of energy generation involving a black hole..."
Of course, the assumption that makes it circular reasoning is that, "active galactic nuclei", are "black holes".
The similarity could easily be that both are a result of electromagnetic phenomenon wholly and apart from any "black hole".
In fact, there is a electromagnetic theory that has been around for decades. The plasmoid. and later the plasmoid was developed and added to by Dr. Anthony Peratt, and others.
Marking states: "Consider a sphere with a diameter no larger than 300 km containing at least 9 solar masses. That's a minimum density of 1.2 trillion times the density of water or more than one million times the density of a white dwarf."
The above quote is the crux of the assumption "modern" astronomy makes. I don't accept the presupposition assumed by the statement.
There is precious little actual objective observation & measurement that ANY object can aquire that density, much greater than 100 million tons per cubic centimeter, an "infinite density," "collaspe forever".
This requires the established physical laws of nature be put aside and ignored.
Science doesn't do that and still claim to be science.
I'm sorry, I can't do that. And, frankly, I think it brings into question any person's devotion to the scientific enterprise who does do that.
Marking states: "The intense repulsion between ions of the same charge crammed into such a tiny space will blow the plasma object to smithereens."
Please, that's the kettle calling the frying pan black, and it also sets up a straw man argument because as I stated above, I don't subscribe to the idea that kind of density is possible and the known physical laws of Nauture back me up 100%.
Marking, your discussion of z-pinches is simply more "kettle calling the frying pan black" type argument because while I haven't looked up the particlulars, at least I know they exist on a scalable level as demonstrated in the plasma physics laboratory.
Marking your reference to a "300 km [object]" is arguing from ontop of an assumption as I previously pointed out, it simply isn't rigorous and credible scientific argument.
Marking states: "The little space is a direct computation based on the period of fluctuation of the X-rays. It is not a supposition."
Oh, but it is a supposition, based on other objects that are presumed to be a "black hole", circular reasoning at its finest.
Yes, there are electromagnetic hypothesis for the generation of x-rays.
Actually, in plasma physics laboratories x-rays are generated all the time, and in doctor's and dentist's offices around the world.
Marking presents my [Anaconda's] partial quote:
"the supposed predictive power of the gravity "only" model based on General Relativity."
Let's present the entire quote, so it isn't taken out of context:
"The field was clear for Cygnus X-1to be considered the first 'observed' so-called "black hole", and a theoretical construct which had been postulated to exist could be declared adding [credibility] to the supposed predictive power of the gravity 'only' model based on General Relativity."
Then Marking responds: "You're really off base with this "all encompassing, gravity-only" stuff."
How so? Are you trying to imply that "black holes" somehow are NOT a complete creature of General Relativity theory?
Your fellow "black holer's" would be surprised to hear that.
Marking states: "Can gravity explain why stars emit light? A: No, you need the strong nuclear force to get fusion to happen."
Are you trying to suggest that nuclear fusion happens inside a "black hole"?
Again, that would be news to your fellow "black holer's".
Marking states: "What all encompassing theory are you talking about?"
I think it's clear that I'm refering to General Relativity. (And if you had presented the entire quote as opposed to taking part of it out of context, the readers would know that, too.)
Marking states: "Yes, I agree, EU has no alternative explanation."
False.
EU does have an alternative explanation, as I've placed above in this comment, but you are misleading because you are aware of Dr. Anthony Peratt's work (you've attempted to falsify his work of galaxy formation I know) and whether or not you disagree with his conclusions, it's still an alternative theory.
I say the above because, now, "modern" astronomers are claiming a "black hole" exists at the center of almost, if not every, galaxy.
So, to claim EU has no alternative explanation is misleading at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.
At the cosmic scale, science doesn't know how long z-pinches, or electromagnetic 'double layers' can last.
Not having exact information has never stopped "modern" astronomy has it?
Marking presents my [Anaconda's] statement: ""Even the fluctuation of the x-rays by Cygnus X-1 is better explained by known plasma physics and electromagnetism principles which have been experimentally verified in the laboratory."
And then Marking responds: "LOL. That is basically a non-explanation explanation. Just because you say it's so doesn't mean it is."
Are you claiming fluctuation of electromagnetic emissions is not a known and recognized principle?
Marking: "It's about the density, man."
Yes...yes it is, isn't it?
And the blithe manner in which "modern" astronomy casts recognized physical laws aside in order to get to it's desired result.
Apprently, you are also more than willing to cast known physical laws aside to get to your desired and believed result.
Let's put it in terms the reader can grasp, shouldn't we?
The "Black hole" hypothesis calls for density much greater than 100 million tons per cubic centimeter.
On the contrary, Marking, "modern" astronomy is the one that asks that recognized natural laws be put aside, and common sense, as well.
All Plasma Universe theory concepts have been demonstrated in the laboratory and have been confirmed every step of the way that satellite detection instruments have been able to do in situ observation & measurement.
Can the same be said of "black hole" theory?
@Anaconda "I note you failed to respond to my comment pointing out the paper published in Nature contradicts astronomers theorized inward migration of giant gas exoplanets"
If you read the original Wikipedia article on planetary migration it has a 3rd scheme called "Gravitational scattering" which may result in outward migration. Uranus and Neptune may have originated much closer to the sun but then migrated outward due to scattering with Jupiter and Saturn. BTW, I am extremely skeptical concerning the Nature article. I don't believe there is any information in the current Kirkwood gaps in the asteroid belt that tells you anything about previous migration of planets.
"Your answer echoes conventional astronomy: namely, that stars are powered by a fusion, nuclear furnace. And this "furnace" is the dynamo which generates electromagnetism. Obviously, it's a reasonable position to take in light of conventional astrophysics current accepted theories of star mechanics."
I'm surprised to hear you say that. I thought EU teaches that the energy in stars is produced "electrically" whatever that might mean.
"But the scientific evidence does not support the notion that all electromagnetism is supported by nuclear fusion in space."
Note that I didn't claim any such thing. I mentioned synchrotron radiation. In addition there was one source I failed to mention which is the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) which behaves like a 2.7 degree Kelvin blackbody from all points in the sky. This is also a significant source of EM radiation in the universe.
"For Thornill's theory explains how metals are created by the star"
I asked you for experimental confirmation of this metal creation via EM. Still waiting. :)
"...but the exact energy to generate each level of luminosity is somewhat speculative"
Shows a profound lack of knowledge of physics. Again, I urge you to sign up for a physics class at your local university. By definition, luminosity = power = energy per unit time. There is nothing speculative about the relationship between luminosity and energy. It is defined by that formula.
"Marking: "Has Thornhill run the numbers on how much energy would have to be produced in the stellar shell?" Not that I'm aware of."
Hmmm, curious for a hypothesis which seeks to supplant mainstream theory. Why does Thornhill have no quantitative results?
"your engaging in unquantified speculation to undercut Thornill's theory, is no better than his lack of quantification."
Tell me how thick this shell region at the surface of a star is supposed to be and I will give you quantitative results in terms of how much matter/antimatter is needed and how long it will last.
"I don't know. I don't know if the laboratory can generate the hypothesized circumstances required for elemental fusion into heavier atomic weight elements."
You keep telling me that EU is solely based on experimental results. Well, where are the experimental results which prove nucleosynthesis can happen via electrical means?
"No, but there are many systems with a dominant and lesser star in binary orbit, together."
Which proves what exactly? Gravity can explain that easily.
"but this has been specifically contradicted by the Nature papers' reports."
No it hasn't. Just because the Nature paper says Jupiter and Saturn migrated outward (highly doubtful IMHO) has no bearing on whether 51 Pegasi b migrated inward. They may have been undergoing separate mechanisms.
"Why would that be highly dubious? The accretion disk model has many paradoxes. The gravity model fails to account for the high number of binary and multiple star systems."
Do please explain that one. Just how does gravity not account for binary and multiple star systems?
"While Thornhill's hypothesis easily explains binary and multiple star development."
Yes, except with 100 hundred billion plus stars in our galaxy, no astronomer has seen one of these expulsions happen, ever. Assuming that the 8 planets (leaving out Pluto) in our solar system formed in equal intervals over 4.5 billion years then the average time between explulsions is 600 million years. So mean time between expulsions per system is something like 600 million years. With 100 billion stars in the galaxy there should be ~160 expulsions happening somewhere in the galaxy per year. Why is it that no one has ever seen one of these planetary expulsions?
"Excellent question, but fails to suggest that the difficulty in measuring the "stress" means Thornhill's theory is any less likely to happen."
If you can't measure a concept embedded in a hypothesis then the hypothesis isn't scientific.
"Why is that highly doubtful? Electromagnetic energy literly pulls atoms apart and puts them back together, again."
You confuse atoms with nuclei. In order to get new elements you must reshuffle the protons and neutrons in the nucleus which takes more than one million times the energy needed to pull electrons off the atom.
"Thornhill's model explains exactly why giant gas exoplanets would be found in close orbit to their star -- because they were recently "born" and haven't had time to migrate away from their star, yet."
Oh, I guess I missed that argument. So that means Mercury is the youngest planet? LOL.
"You need to explain that contradiction or the rest of your comments lose their force of argument."
The Nature paper is pure crap. Even if it was true there is no contradiction.
"That is a reasonable and excellent question. I can't give specifics"
Yes, always no specifics from you. Just links to more woo.
"But the larger the scale the more time is involved."
Well, duh.
Marking: "You're missing the point."
"Plasma is ubiquitous"
Complete garbage. How do you explain the strong 21-centimeter line produced by neutral hydrogen which pervades our galaxy and other galaxies? It's not ionized matter.
"Remember, every place a magnetic field exists, so too does an electric current to generate it."
(Smacks head, AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!) You've completely forgotten the lecture I gave you on Ampere's Law which debunked your claims that electric currents and magnetic fields must occur at the same point in space. I suggest you go reread Ampere's Law on Wikipedia.
"Before I forget, I was speaking about an intellectual "thrashing""
Yes, I think you just thrashed yourself with your forgetfulness concerning Ampere's Law. Do I have to teach you about it once again?
@ Tom Marking:
Marking: "The Nature paper is pure crap."
Yes, it could be incorrect, but judging by your vehement denunciation, with scant objective reasoning, I'd suggest your dismissal has little to do with the paper, itself, and all to do with it's being somewhat in line with Thornhill's hypothesis.
And, say what you will, the paper is peer reviewed and published in Nature magazine.
Marking: "I'm surprised to hear you say that. I thought EU teaches that the energy in stars is produced "electrically" whatever that might mean."
It's simple enough, I was characterizing your position in light of the consensus hypothesis, not my position.
I'm inclined toward the 'Electric Sun' hypothesis because the standard model has unanswered paradoxes, such as how the solar wind would virtually disappear for two days as reported by NASA if the Sun is a "nuclear furnace"?
And, why sunspots, which peer into the interior, are dark, rather than bright. Darkness suggesting a cooler interior than the surface?
And, why the surface runs about 6,000 degrees Celsius, but the corona is a couple of million degees Celsius?
There are other paradoxes that make me uncomfortable with the standard model.
See, Stellar Evolution, by Don Scott for a whole list of evidences that weigh against the standard:
This contradiction among many stands out:
"FG Sagittae
The star FG Sagittae breaks all the rules of accepted stellar evolution. FG Sagittae has changed from blue to yellow since 1955! It, quite recently, has taken a deep dive in luminosity. FG Sagittae, is the central star of the planetary nebula (nova remnant?) He 1-5. It is a unique object in the sense that for this star we have direct evidence of stellar evolution but in a time scale comparable with the human lifetime. [CCD Astronomy, Summer 1996, p.40.]"
The "nuclear furnace" model postulates millions of years to "evolve", the above star contradicts that assumption.
(I strongly encourage you to review the link provided.)
I was inartful to use the word, "all", in characterizing your position on what amount the nuclear fusion hypothesis is responsible for causing electromagnetism, but it seems you attribute clearly the majority of electromagnetic phenomenon to the nuclear fusion hypothesis.
Marking: "I asked you for experimental confirmation of this metal creation via EM. Still waiting."
This rings rather hollow in light of the almost zero experimental confirmation of standard astronomy interpretations.
Marking: "Shows a profound lack of knowledge of physics."
You provide a definition, a definition is a map, not the territory, itself. What I was referring to was the actual measurement of the stars, themselves (the territory); the measurement is more difficult than reciting a definition. I was referring to the process of collecting the measurements and the results therefrom. There are lots of variables which at the distances involved leave considerable room for variance in the ultimate results.
Your harsh reaction is unwarranted.
Marking: "Why does Thornhill have no quantitative results?"
Thornhill may have quantitative results that I am unaware of, or he may not, that would be an interesting line of investigation for nuclear physicists to explore.
Marking: "matter/antimatter..."
Interesting you bring that up since neither the nuclear furnace or electric star hypothesis relies on antimatter that I'm aware of.
Marking: "Gravity can explain that [binary and multiple star systems] easily."
You state that a couple of times without offering any supporting reasons. Yet, there is this New Scientist article stating there are exoplanets that the gravitational model posits should be unstable: "Daniel Fabrycky and Ruth Murray-Clay of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Boston studied the dynamics of the three-planet system and found that the mutual gravitational pull of the massive planets should be enough to make the solar system unstable."
Problems with the protoplanetary dust disk theory:
This Space.com article reports a simulation suggests problem with accretion model of planet formation.
The passage below recites difficulties with the standard planet accretion model:
All of the planets are drastically different in composition.
The “tilt” of the planets' poles is different between several groups of planets. If they formed from the same disk around the sun, we should expect all the polar tilts of the planets to be the same?
As the simulation points out in the article, which was well known but not acknowledged before, dust in space does not coalesce into solid bodies, simply looking at Saturn's rings shows us this to be true.
The planets' moons are all drastically different and the formation of those moons is not well explained at all by collision models.
The Earth's own moon is far too large to be reasonably explained by a collision model.
The comet collision model of Earth getting its water well after its formed makes no sense in the dusty disk model, why should comets with water suddenly arrive later after the Earth has formed and cooled?
Its also been proven that comets are almost entirely rocky, with little to no water.
Why didn't any of the other planets recieve huge amounts of water?
The findings of gas giant extra-solar planets in extremely close orbits around their parent stars is not explained by the model.
So, Marking, your statements, not withstanding, don't seem to square with what planetary theorists acknowledge as difficulties with the accretion model which of course includes the stars, themselves.
You raise an excellent question about spotting a planet or star being born, but the answer is quite simple, science does spot them in the form of nova. There are nova spotted on a regular basis. These nova seems to release energy on a continuum and there are varible stars as well. I suggest astronomers are observing & measuring star and planet "births", but can't see the planet or the new star because of distance. There are all kinds of nova, from small to Wolf-Rayet stars.
This continuum is due to the variance of electrical current coming into the star, not on whether its nuclear fuel has run out.
Difficulty in measuring something is not the same as can't be measured. I'm surprised you didn't notice the distinction.
Marking: "You confuse atoms with nuclei."
No, you underestimate the electromagnetic power.
Yes, you miss a lot of arguments because you are more interested in defeating the ideas than attempting to understand the science behind them. Too bad really.
Marking presents my [Anaconda's] statement: "Plasma is ubiquitous"
And Marking responds: "Complete garbage."
Wrong. You can't accept the scientific evidence which suggests you really are a pseudo-sceptic.
Plasma is 99.999% of the visible Universe; even plasmas that are less than 1% ionized, may behave as a plasma, as do dusty plasmas (ie. "dust grains can be the dominant current carrier")
Read this linked citation carefully and also the footnotes, notice all the peer reviewed and academic books in the footnotes.
If you can't respect all the authority cited, I have no reason to waste time and effort with someone who doesn't want to look at the evidence objectively.
Marking presents my [Anaconda's] statement: ""Remember, every place a magnetic field exists, so too does an electric current to generate it."
The import of this statement is clear, there must be an electric current that generates the magnetic field. And they have a relationship to one another.
Read carefully, do I say in the exact same place? No. There is a relationship between electric currents and magnetic fields. You can't have a magnetic field without an electric current generating it.
Regrettably, you choose to twist my words.
This is an example of electric current generating the magnetic field.
@ Tom Marking:
In reviewing my proceding comment, it occurs that I may not have been clear about what I meant regarding a continuum.
The scientific evidence suggests that stars vary in size and luminosity, hopefully a rather mundane observation, but according to the 'Electric Sun' hypothesis, electric currents, galactic Birkeland currents, fluctuate and also, the position of the star in relationship to the Birkeland currents can change and effect the amount of energy received from outside the star's stellar envelope, or stellar magnetopause.
So, some stars receive little electrical energy and so are fairly dim, others receive more electrical energy so are bright, and others recieve a lot of energy so are very bright.
But that's not all.
Some stars fluctuate in size and activity (the Sun actually fluctuates in size and activity, the 11 year sunspot cycle), this fluctuation of energy has different result depending on the size of the fluctuation and the total energy level of the fluctuation and the size and luninosity of the star and how close it is to it's electrical stress threshold.
Some stars stay fairly constant, others vary considerably, but do not fission, some fission into a binary star system, some into multiple star systems, some fission to form planets, and yes, some completely explode in a short circuit or double layer explosion.
Let's start backwords for clarity (and the best pictures):
Hypernova is where the a large star suffers a catastrophic explosion and noting the shape of the explosion in this picture, seems to have the tell tale hourglass shape of a z-pinch.
Supernova likely are where the star suffers a catastrophic electrical overload and completlely short circuits resulting in an explosion of the star.
Also, see, here.
And there are supernova remnants.
The next class down (roughly) is the Wolf-Rayet stars. These stars are borderline, some may undergo fission, most probably explode completely in a supernova.
It should be said that the fissioning process releases a lot of energy.
Possibly the next class down (remember this is inexact) is Luminous red nova. Whether these only explode or fission at all, frankly is hard to know (of course that can be said for the whole line of reasoning). Whatever the case the phenomenon is strikingly compelling.
The next class is the nova. This picture is of a recurrent nova, and this picture of a nova. Nova, along variable stars are your best condidates for fissioning binary stars and giant gas planets.
Astronomers estimate that the Milky Way experiences roughly 30 to 60 novae per year, with a likely rate of about 40.
Does this idea contradict the standard model of star mechanics?
Yes.
Does it have substantial evidenciary support.
Yes.
This website lines up a series of different arguments and links to make the case: The Electric Sun vs. the Solar Nuclear Furnace theory.
My apology.
Wolf-Rayet stars
@Anaconda "There's only one problem: My statement is a quote"
Your source is ambiguous at best. Cygnus X-1 is associated with the star HDE 226868 and this fact has been known for quite some time.
"Cygnus X-1 was not associated with any especially prominent radio or optical source at that position."
Note, the use of the word "prominent". HDE 226868 is a 9th magnitude star. Is it prominent? Well, maybe not. It's not visible with the naked eye. That does not mean there is no optical source at all associated with Cygnus X-1.
"As Marking avers Cygnus X-1's "massive" size is inferred by a nearby visible companion, HDE 226868."
Yes, they orbit their common barycenter with a period of 5.6 days which is easily detected using the Doppler shift of HDE 226868.
"An argument can be made that astronomers can't be sure that the x-ray 'point source' is close to the luminous object, but that argument is not necessary to invalidate the conclusion that Cygnus X-1 is a so-called "black hole"."
Well, the orbital period is established as 5.6 days. How could that happen if Cygnus X-1 and HDE 226868 weren't close?
"to use these supposed dark "clouds" to increase the estimate of luminosity, and, therfore, size, it's a fudge factor used to increase the assumed size of HDE 226868, which is critical..."
Critical? Not so much. We could overestimate the mass of the system by a factor of 1,000 and the average density of Cygnus X-1 would still be 1 billion times the density of water. Got any plasma experiments showing a plasma at 1 billion grams per cubic centimeter?
"But when one closely scrutinizes the rational used to justify "black holes", one finds, rather than rigorous mathematical equations"
The entire concept of a black hole comes from certain solutions to General Relativity. So it is a mathematical construct to begin with.
"And, Marking, the burden is on "modern" astronomers to rigorously prove so-called "black hole" exist, not on sceptics"
Yes, but you have an additional burdern, Anaconda, which is to show that EU can explain Cygnus X-1 which you claimed on the BA blog. So far I have heard nothing that lends any credence to the idea that EU can explain it.
"Specifically, here, there is no rigorous quantification of how an assumed "accretion disk" generates x-rays."
Thornhill has no quantification at all, zero, nada, zilch. Somehow that didn't prevent you from supporting his ideas.
"What? How do astronomers know that? It's a huge assumption to say categorically, it's "incapable" of emitting x-rays."
I think they mean via blackbody mechanisms. If you plug in the spectral type of the star you can compute the temperature. The blackbody spectrum for that temperature has negligible X-ray emission.
"A "disk of accreted matter" hasn't been observed, so how can they calculate that? Again, it's an assumption"
No, it doesn't matter what causes the X-ray luminosity to vary, whether it be an accretion disk or something else. If the overall luminosity varies with a minimum period of T-min then the maximum size of the source region is c * T-min where c is the speed of light.
"The above quote is the crux of the assumption "modern" astronomy makes. I don't accept the presupposition assumed by the statement. There is precious little actual objective observation & measurement that ANY object can aquire that density, much greater than 100 million tons per cubic centimeter"
100 million metric tons per cubic centimeter = 1.0E14 grams per cubic centimeter which is 100 times greater than the 1.0E12 value I cited. But anyway, what is the maximum density that EU allows?
"because while I haven't looked up the particlulars, at least I know they exist on a scalable level as demonstrated in the plasma physics laboratory"
Anaconda, you've just admitted you don't know anything about scaling in plasma physics. You don't know what the scaling rules are or how to apply them. Simply asserting that there must be some scaling laws while not providing any details is meaningless to our discussion.
"Marking your reference to a "300 km [object]" is arguing from ontop of an assumption as I previously pointed out, it simply isn't rigorous and credible scientific argument."
Do you deny that an object emitting any type of EM radiation with periodicity of the order of 1 millisecond can have a maximum diameter of ~300 kilometers? If you don't even know that then, again, I urge you to educate yourself by taking a physics or astronomy course at your local university.
"Oh, but it is a supposition, based on other objects that are presumed to be a "black hole", circular reasoning at its finest."
No, it is not supposition. The size is determined by the observations of the minimum period of X-ray fluctuations. It is not assumed to be black hole a priori.
"Are you trying to suggest that nuclear fusion happens inside a "black hole"?"
Black holes are not the only thing to be explained. Since you claim gravity is an "all encompassing" theory shouldn't it have to explain stars as well?
"I think it's clear that I'm refering to General Relativity."
GR, all encompassing? I'll have to remember that the next time I need to compute the Bohr radius using GR. LOL.
"EU does have an alternative explanation, as I've placed above in this comment, but you are misleading because you are aware of Dr. Anthony Peratt's work"
Show me the work where Peratt talks about Cygnus X-1 specifically.
"At the cosmic scale, science doesn't know how long z-pinches, or electromagnetic 'double layers' can last."
COMPLETE AND UTTER CONTRADICTION!!! You claim these phenomena scale which means they follow scaling laws. Now, you claim science doesn't know? Make up your wind, which is it? Do these phenomena scale or don't they?
"Are you claiming fluctuation of electromagnetic emissions is not a known and recognized principle?"
What fluctuations are you talking about? EM radiation is itself a fluctuation of the electric and magnetic fields in free space.
@Anaconda "Marking: "Gravity can explain that [binary and multiple star systems] easily."
You state that a couple of times without offering any supporting reasons."
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/brandner/topics/binaries/0596boss.html
"Andrea M. Ghez, now at the University of California at Los Angeles, and her colleagues Gerry F. Neugebauer and Keith Matthews, both at the California Institute of Technology, used a new indium antimony array camera on the five-meter Hale telescope to photograph the regions around known T Tauri stars at the near-infrared wavelength of 2.2 microns. (Visible light has a wavelength between about 0.4 and 0.7 micron.) Using a so-called speckle imaging technique to minimize the noise introduced by fluctuations in the earth's atmosphere above the telescope, Ghez and her colleagues found that almost half of the 70 T Tauri stars in their sample showed stellar companions. For the limited range of separations considered, about 10 to 400 AU, this study indicated that for the youngest systems, binaries are twice as common as for main-sequence stars. Christoph Leinert of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg also presented results of a near-infrared speckle imaging survey. Leinert and his colleagues found that 43 of the 106 T Tauri stars they examined had nearby companions, again implying that binaries were much more common in these stars than in G-dwarf stars like our sun."
Double star systems are quite common among the youngest stars (T Tauri stars). This contradicts Thornhill who states that expulsions take time and the oldest stars will have the most planets and stellar companions.
"The separation between distant pairs needs to be at least five times the gap of the close doubles for the group to survive for long. Arrangements with smaller separations are named Trapezium systems, after a young quadruple system in the Orion nebula. These arrangements are orbitally unstable they will eventually fly apart. For instance, if the three stars of a triple system come close enough together, they will tend to eject the star of lowest mass, leaving behind a stable pair."
Gravity explains why double stars are more common than triplets and quadruplets because of gravitational stability. Thornhill can't explain this. Triple expulsions and quadrupel expulsions should be as common as double expulsions.
@ Tom Marking:
The quote needs to be taken in historical context as I already pointed out in a previous comment, which you seem to ignore, but no matter.
Apparently, there is a relationship which my previous comment assumed, "but that argument is not necessary to invalidate the conclusion that Cygnus X-1 is a so-called 'black hole'," between the x-ray 'point source' and the visible light 'point source'.
Frankly, your discussion seems to be more of a distraction from the fact that you didn't notice the quote was in your own citation.
Let's move on.
Marking states: "We could overestimate the mass of the system by a factor of 1,000 and the average density of Cygnus X-1 would still be 1 billion times the density of water."
That is an assumption which I already pointed out in a previous comment is unwarranted.
And which your above rebuttal never directly addresses.
Marking, you have a hard time "grasping the nettle" of my evidenciary arguments.
Marking states: "The entire concept of a black hole comes from certain solutions to General Relativity. So it is a mathematical construct to begin with."
Exactly my point!
The physical observations & measurements simply do not warrant the conclusion Cygnus X-1 is a so-called "black hole".
Marking presents my [Anaconda's] statement: "[T]he burden is on "modern" astronomers to rigorously prove so-called "black hole" exist, not on sceptics"
And Marking responds: "Yes, but you have an additional burdern, Anaconda, which is to show that EU can explain Cygnus X-1 which you claimed on the BA blog. So far I have heard nothing that lends any credence to the idea that EU can explain it."
Well, then, let me present an Electric Universe explanation:
Let's assume this is a binary pair and it's relatively far away (roughly 6,000 light years) and it's obscured by dark "clouds" of dust, and HDE 226868, itself, is not particularly observable in the visible electromagnetic wavelengths.
So we have a binary pair where one produces visible light and one produces x-rays. Is there an alternative explanation to this situation other than the "black hole" hypothesis?
Yes.
White dwarfs are often found in multiple star systems, which puzzles astronomers because “it is not easy to understand how two stars of the same age could be so different.” The answer is simple. The appearance of stars has nothing to do with their age. In multiple star systems the brighter primary star usurps most of the electrical power, dissipating the energy in optical wavelengths. The white dwarf converts its share of power most efficiently into X-rays.
An example is the nearby double star system of Sirius, which is the brightest star in the sky and one of the closest (8.6 light-years). Sirius also has a partner, called Sirius B, a ‘white dwarf.’ To our eyes, it is 10,000 times fainter than the primary star, Sirius A. However, when astronomers pointed the Chandra X-ray telescope at Sirius, they got a shock. In the X-ray image (link to evidenciary picture), Sirius A is the lesser of the two lights. Sirius B, the white dwarf, is the greater. It is the reverse of what we see with human eyes.
So, apparently one star in the binary pair produces visible light and the other produces x-rays, sound familiar? And considering the vast difference in distance between the Cygnus X-1 pair and the Sirius A pair, 6,000 light years and 8.6 light-years, respectively, and the likelyhood of dark dust "clouds" obscuring Cygnus X-1 and it's visible partner, it's no wonder Cygnus X-1 appears to emit no visible light, yet copious amounts of X-rays.
The riddle apparently is solved with no need to invoke the exotic hypothesis of "black holes".
Occam's Razor works against the "black hole" interpretation.
Marking presents my [Anaconda's] statement: "Specifically, here, there is no rigorous quantification of how an assumed "accretion disk" generates x-rays."
And then responds: "Thornhill has no quantification at all, zero, nada, zilch. Somehow that didn't prevent you from supporting his ideas."
As I've stated before in previous comments, that is a weakness of Electric Universe theory.
But for you to bring that up at this point in the discussion in response to my statement is to acknowledge the truth of my statement: The supposed "accretion disk" x-ray generation of the "black hole" hypothesis is not rigorously quantified.
Rather, it's little more than "hand waving", word pictures with no evidenciary support.
Marking presents my [Anaconda's] statement: "What? How do astronomers know that? It's a huge assumption to say categorically, it's "incapable" of emitting x-rays."
And Marking responds: "I think they mean via blackbody mechanisms. If you plug in the spectral type of the star you can compute the temperature. The blackbody spectrum for that temperature has negligible X-ray emission."
First, "incapable" is different from "negligible".
But that is not the main point, the "answers" discussion states in the next sentence: "Hence, the star must have a companion that could heat gas to the millions of degrees needed to produce the radiation source for Cygnus X-1."
This is the crux of the gravity "only" model: Electromagnetic generation of x-rays is not considered (even though it's a well established principle), instead mechanical heating of gas to "millions of degrees" is a "must" which leads to the exotic assumption of the so-called "black hole" hypothesis.
Marking presents my [Anaconda's] statement: "A 'disk of accreted matter' hasn't been observed, so how can they calculate that? Again, it's an assumption"
And Marking responds: "No, it doesn't matter what causes the X-ray luminosity to vary, whether it be an accretion disk or something else. If the overall luminosity varies with a minimum period of T-min then the maximum size of the source region is c * T-min where c is the speed of light."
Sorry, Marking, that's not what the article states, rather, it states as follows: "More precise measurements of Cygnus X-1 demonstrated variability down to a single millisecond. This interval is consistent with turbulence in a disk of accreted matter surrounding a black hole—the accretion disk. X-ray bursts that last for about a third of a second match the expected time frame of matter falling toward a black hole."
As I stated in my prior comment, the first time, this is a prima facie example of circular reasoning. Taking one supposed "black hole" and comparing it to another supposed "black hole" to reach the conclusion that it's a "black hole".
That kind of circular reasoning doesn't cut it.
Marking states: "100 million metric tons per cubic centimeter = 1.0E14 grams per cubic centimeter which is 100 times greater than the 1.0E12 value I cited. But anyway, what is the maximum density that EU allows?"
The implication, here, of this statement by Marking is that the figure I provided, "100 million tons per cubic centimeter," is inaccurate. (I didn't use "metric" because my source didn't use metric, by the way.)
But the figure is one I got from Marking's "UCLA" citation for the density of a "neutron" star. Obviously, a "black hole" has to have a much greater density than that.
And why does Marking seemingly bristle at the figure?
Because it defies common sense, 100 million tons in the tip of my pinkie finger? And it defies the established laws of physics.
It doesn't wash and Marking knows it.
Electric Universe theory doesn't lay out maximum possible densities per se, but follows the classical laws of physics.
Marking presents my [Anaconda's] statement: "because while I haven't looked up the particlulars, at least I know they exist on a scalable level as demonstrated in the plasma physics laboratory"
And responds by castigating me for not knowing the specifics of scaling in plasma physics. Marking, I've never claimed to be a plasma physics scientist. I'm a scientific observer. Do you challenge that electromagnetic phenomenon is scalable?
If not, let's move on, shall we.
Asserting the scalability of electromagnetic phenomenon is very relevant to the discussion.
But it's highly inconvient to you, especially if you have no real intention of understanding the ideas behind the science involved with electromagnetism, but are here only as a pseudosceptic determined to challenge it with no intention of ever publically acknowledging the validity of the scientific principles supporting electromagnetism in space, including deep space structures and phenomenon.
That's called having a closed mind and it doesn't have a place in authentic scientific discussion.
Let me ask you this, Marking, do you think that the electromagnetic principles I have been discussing are possible?
Marking, the point isn't whether an x-ray emitting object can have a diameter of 300 kilometers, the 300 kilometer figure being an assumption, the point is the impossiblity that a 300 kilometer object would have far greater density than 100 million tons per centimeter. Or that it would have "infinite" density, or "collapse forever", or is a "singularity".
These are the painful realities that you simply can't come to grips with because it refutes your precious and fervent belief in so-called "black holes".
It seems to be a religious belief with you, no amount of scientific evidence will sway you from your clinging and dogmatic attatchment to this idea.
Marking, you repeat the same, "period of X-ray fluctuations", rational for two different propositions: One, "fluctuation" infers the existence of the "accretion disk" and, two, "fluctuation" infers the size, but more important "density" of the object.
Marking, it can't be both, which is it? Or does it show that it's really all a bunch of reification nonsense, or as I stated before, loose interpretation masquerading as rigorous quantification, a wolf in sheep's clothing as it were.
Marking states: "It is not assumed to be black hole a priori."
No, it assuming it's a "black hole" because it looks, fluctuates, like another assumed "black hole", or it's a "black hole" because the "fuctuation" is assumed to mean it has great mass and small diameter. Nothing demonstrates its mass or, frankly, its diameter.
Science doesn't know from the observable & mesureable evidence at 6,000 light years distance.
Marking, you're at the end of a long and thin branch with nothing, but assumptions to hang onto.
Marking states: "shouldn't it [gravity] have to explain stars as well?"
It would, but it doesn't, gravity fails in that catagory, too.
Marking: "GR, all encompassing?"
You contradict yourself because that is the rational for the gravity "only" model". The "the Bohr radius" is an atomic measurement, of atoms and their electrons not deep space phenomenon and structures.
Marking presents my [Anaconda's] statement: "EU does have an alternative explanation, as I've placed above in this comment, but you are misleading because you are aware of Dr. Anthony Peratt's work"
And Marking responds: "Show me the work where Peratt talks about Cygnus X-1 specifically."
I think it was clear when I referred to Dr. Peratt's work, I was comparing it to the general contention of the "black hole" crowd that "black holes" exist at the center of almost all galaxies. I pointed out Dr. Peratt's work to show your contention that Plasma Universe had no explanations for "black holes" was false, but not only that, but in addition, you knew your statement was false to begin with.
A case of intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Marking presents my [Anaconda's] statement: "At the cosmic scale, science doesn't know how long z-pinches, or electromagnetic 'double layers' can last."
Marking rebukes me as stating a contradiction to other statements I have made. I'll accept the rebuke because scalability does suggest time also can be scaled as well. My misatake. Although, there will always be some uncertainty because of the variability of electromagnetic phenomenon, or in Marking's terms, non-linear behavior. but on balance I stand rebuked.
Marking offers a rebuttal to my contention the gravity "only' model doesn't support binary and multiple star systems.
I note Marking doesn't respond directly to any of my proferred authority, evidence, or rational to refute my position, but rather offers a seperate rational based on his cited paper.
What is apparent is that Marking is not conscious of the layered assumptions he has and applies when he interprets the paper the way he does.
The problem with the scientific paper is that it doesn't discuss the physical descriptions of the stars and the paper relies on the assumed "nuclear furnace" model of stellar mechanics and the "accretion disk" model of stellar system formation. The paper doesn't raise the "age" differences of the binary pairs, rather, at best it assumes they are the same "age" and Marking goes ahead and makes this assumption explicit that the paper stands for the proposition that the binary pairs are the same age.
No such assumption can be implied or drawn from the paper.
For this discussion the central statement of the paper is thus: "For the limited range of separations considered, about 10 to 400 AU, this study indicated that for the youngest systems, binaries are twice as common as for main-sequence stars."
The paper does not consider the possibility that the "youngest systems" and the "main-sequence stars" have been subjected to different electrical stresses or that they started out in different sizes because the main-sequence stars were formed under different conditions, thus the younger stars and the main-sequence stars would have not fissioned at the same rates even if subjected later to an identical electrical stress.
There is no talk of planet formation, which could also effect rates of star fissioning.
It could very well be possible that different electrical energy levels and thus stress levels could result in some stars being more disposed to star "birthing" and others to planet "birthing".
The paper states: "Leinert and his colleagues found that 43 of the 106 T Tauri stars they examined had nearby companions, again implying that binaries were much more common in these stars than in G-dwarf stars like our sun."
And smaller stars in binary pairs may be the result of those "original" stars fissioning into pairs.
Wheras, the smallest stars, G-dwarf, didn't have enough matter to fission or didn't draw enough galactic electrical current to cause fissioning because other larger stars drew more current in the region.
Or the "original" stars were of different sizes and electrical capacities, so as some fissioned and others did not, this would work to make the binary pairs significantly smaller than the "original" stars that never did fission.
As stated, significantly larger stars would be able handle the same electrical stress without fissioning into binary pairs.
Marking makes the fatal assumption (to his argument that is) that, "T Tauri stars" are too young to produce binary pairs in accordance with the Thornhill star "birthing" hypothesis. Younger areas of stars are likely more active with more electromagnetic energy flowing through the galactic Birkeland currents in that region of space. Obviously, in areas of more intense galactic Birkeland currents stars will reach their electrical stress threshold sooner and thus fission into binary pairs with more alacrity.
When discussing stellar formation, "young" is a relative concept and is far from an exacting term.
So, the assumption that all the stars formed from "accretion disks" at the same time is an unwarranted conclusion, and, in fact, the paper does not state that conclusion.
Instead, the paper makes what amounts to two seperate conclusions, that there are many binary pairs of stars in the T Tauri star systems and that a number of stars were ejected from what started off as multiple star systems because of "gravitational" instability.
The later conclusion actually works against the idea that gravity expains, by way of the "accretion disk" model, stable orbital patterns of multiple star systems and multiple planetary systems. This is in direct opposition to what Marking would have readers believe.
Marking states: "Triple expulsions and quadrupel expulsions should be as common as double expulsions."
How so? Please explain. That's a naked and unsupported propositon at this point.
My point, here, is not to catagorically state that any one alternative senario happened, but to point out there are many possible alternatives.
So, for Marking to claim that the paper disproves Thornill's thesis or proves gravity explains these star systems' different rates of binary pair formation is unwarranted.
Anaconda, this post is becoming more and more out of date. I think I will repost your comments to the most recent thread and we will continue the discussion there.
Greate Blog!!! Seeding
https://maps.google.com/url?q=https://dbk.vn/
https://maps.google.de/url?q=https://dbk.vn/gioi-thieu.html
https://images.google.de/url?q=https://dbk.vn/lien-he.html
https://images.google.co.uk/url?q=https://dbk.vn/dung-cu-thuy-luc
https://maps.google.fr/url?q=https://dbk.vn/kim-bam-cos
Post a Comment