Thursday, March 12, 2009

Electromagnetic Batteries



Science Daily: Spin Battery: Physicist Develops Battery Using New Source Of Energy.

ScienceDaily (Mar. 12, 2009) — Researchers at the University of Miami and at the Universities of Tokyo and Tohoku, Japan, have been able to prove the existence of a "spin battery," a battery that is "charged" by applying a large magnetic field to nano-magnets in a device called a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ).

The new technology is a step towards the creation of computer hard drives with no moving parts, which would be much faster, less expensive and use less energy than current ones. In the future, the new battery could be developed to power cars.

The study is published in the journal Nature.

The device created by University of Miami Physicist Stewart E. Barnes, of the College of Arts and Sciences and his collaborators can store energy in magnets rather than through chemical reactions. Like a winding up toy car, the spin battery is "wound up" by applying a large magnetic field -- no chemistry involved. The device is potentially better than anything found so far, said Barnes.

"We had anticipated the effect, but the device produced a voltage over a hundred times too big and for tens of minutes, rather than for milliseconds as we had expected," Barnes said. "That this was counterintuitive is what lead to our theoretical understanding of what was really going on."

The secret behind this technology is the use of nano-magnets to induce an electromotive force. It uses the same principles as those in a conventional battery, except in a more direct fashion. The energy stored in a battery, be it in an iPod or an electric car, is in the form of chemical energy. When something is turned "on" there is a chemical reaction which occurs and produces an electric current. The new technology converts the magnetic energy directly into electrical energy, without a chemical reaction. The electrical current made in this process is called a spin polarized current and finds use in a new technology called "spintronics."

The new discovery advances our understanding of the way magnets work and its immediate application is to use the MTJs as electronic elements which work in different ways to conventional transistors. Although the actual device has a diameter about that of a human hair and cannot even light up an LED (light-emitting diode--a light source used as electronic component), the energy that might be stored in this way could potentially run a car for miles. The possibilities are endless, Barnes said.

"There are magnets hidden away in many things, for example there are several in a mobile telephone, many in a car, and they are what keeps your refrigerator closed," he said. "There are so many that even a small change in the way we understand of how they work, and which might lead to only a very small improvement in future machines, has a significant financial and energetic impact."

59 comments:

Tom Marking said...

OIM, sorry for the OT post but Anaconda and I were having a discussion on a different thread which kept getting harder and harder to find, so I thought I would continue it here:

@Anaconda "The physical observations & measurements simply do not warrant the conclusion Cygnus X-1 is a so-called "black hole"."

What additional evidence would you require before you would admit that Cygnus X-1 is a black hole? Part of our problem is that this object is 7,000 light-years away which is probably too far for even the Hubble Space Telescope to resolve adequately. Hopefully in the future there will be larger telescopes that can provide more information.

"Marking presents my [Anaconda's] statement: "[T]he burden is on "modern" astronomers to rigorously prove so-called "black hole" exist, not on sceptics""

Originally Cygnus X-1 was declared to be a "black hole candidate". I'm not sure where and when the "candidate" status was dropped.

"Well, then, let me present an Electric Universe explanation"

Finally, after I've asked about a dozen times. :)

"So we have a binary pair where one produces visible light and one produces x-rays."

Since you admit that this is a binary pair then do you also admit to the sum of the masses being 58 solar masses (see my previous calculation on that one)?

"White dwarfs are often found in multiple star systems"

Is there another example of a white dwarf that emits essentially none of its radiation in the visible part of the spectrum and all of it in the X-ray part of the spectrum? It is my understanding that white dwarfs are classified according to the characteristics of their visible spectrum. Is that not correct?

"The answer is simple. The appearance of stars has nothing to do with their age."

Well, the age argument is irrelevant to the Cygnus X-1 debate, although it is relevant to the other debate concerning Thornhill.

"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 shouldn't have been a shock. Even Planck's formula for blackbody radiators would predict it. Sirius A is a spectral class A1V star with a luminosity of 25.4 suns and a temperature of 9,940 Kelvin. In the X-ray wavelength range of 1 to 100 nanometers it should radiate 7.60E-3 suns. Sirius B is a spectral class DA2 white dwarf with a luminosity of only 0.026 suns and a temperature of 25,200 Kelvin. It radiates 4.31E-3 suns in the 1-100 nanometer wavelength range, more than half of what Sirius A does, even though its overall luminosity is only 0.001 times that of Sirius A. So this is predictable via the Planck formula, and not some kind of shock.

"So, apparently one star in the binary pair produces visible light and the other produces x-rays, sound familiar?"

Sirius B, a pretty typical white dwarf, emits 2.04E-3 suns in the visible part of the spectrum which is almost half of its X-ray radiation. If Cygnus X-1 is like Sirius B why isn't it visible in the optical part of the spectrum?

"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"

Yes, but its companion HDE 226868 is also obscured by these same dust clouds and yet it is easily visible optically even in a small telescope.

"The riddle apparently is solved with no need to invoke the exotic hypothesis of "black holes"."

And the 1 millisecond fluctuations in radiation are solved how? Let's assume Cygnus X-1 is the size of the sun, 1.4 million km in diameter. It couldn't fluctuate in a 1 millisecond time period. Why not? Because the light from the closest point on the surface and the light from the farthest visible point on the surface are separated by the radius, 700,000 km. Travelling at 300,000 km per second it would take light 2.3 seconds to make it from the limb to a plane perpendicular to your line of sight at the nearest surface point. Thus, any 1 millisecond fluctuation would be smeared out into a ~2 second fluctuation once you summed up the contributions of light from various parts of the surface. Thus, a 1 millisecond fluctuation is telling you that the light is coming from a sphere no bigger than ~300 km in radius.

"The supposed "accretion disk" x-ray generation of the "black hole" hypothesis is not rigorously quantified."

Well, whether it be an accretion disk or some other mechanism, the previous argument tells you that the X-ray source region of Cygnus X-1 is tiny.

"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)"

Actually, I think the black hole accretion disk model assumes synchrotron radiation which requires a magnetic field and plasma. It is not a hot blackbody radiator of X-rays, which ironically is your supposed EM solution using white dwarfs (which is thermal radiation, not synchrotron radiation). That web site may be wrong in assuming it's thermal blackbody radiation.

"Because it defies common sense, 100 million tons in the tip of my pinkie finger? And it defies the established laws of physics."

What established laws of physics does a very high density value violate?

"Electric Universe theory doesn't lay out maximum possible densities per se, but follows the classical laws of physics."

There is no limitation in classical phyics either. The only thing I could think of would be the Pauli exclusion principle but that comes from quantum physics which I believe you EU folks reject also.

"And responds by castigating me for not knowing the specifics of scaling in plasma physics."

Well, claiming scalability while not being able to say what the scaling law is, is a bit lame IMHO. It would be like claiming to know what pi is but not knowing that its value is 3.14...

"...understanding the ideas behind the science involved with electromagnetism, but are here only as a pseudosceptic determined to challenge it"

Interesting comment coming from someone who had to be taught (by me, I might add) what Ampere's Law is.

Let me ask you this, Marking, do you think that the electromagnetic principles I have been discussing are possible?

"... the point is the impossiblity that a 300 kilometer object would have far greater density than 100 million tons per centimeter."

I'd say that an a priori assumption on your part. What if you measured such an object to have a diameter of 300 kilometers and a mass of 9 solar masses? The high density would then necessarily follow.

"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"

Religious belief? LOL. Hardly. I would much prefer that black holes don't exist in the universe. After all, they are extremely dangerous to space travellers and extraterrestrial civilizations. Unfortunately the universe does not have to oblige my wishes.

"One, "fluctuation" infers the existence of the "accretion disk""

No, a fluctuation is just that, an increase or decrease in emitted power over some time period.

"Marking, it can't be both, which is it?"

Size versus density? Anaconda, I'm surprised at you. I thought even you would be able to figure out the relationship between these:

rho = M / ((4/3) * pi * R^3)

"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."

The 2nd one of those.

"Nothing demonstrates its mass or, frankly, its diameter."

O.K. So a 1 million km wide object can fluctuate in only 1 millisecond, magically. Sure.

I believe this is the end of the Cygnus X-1 part of your last post.

Quantum_Flux said...

Hmmmm, so this nanodevice can store magnetic energy in the form of electron spins and then release it slowly in the form of voltages. Cool!

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "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."

Actually, the Peratt model is silent on the subject. There could be black holes at the center of galaxies in the Peratt model since he includes gravity in his model.

"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."

Point me to the line in either Peratt document where the phrase "black hole" is mentioned. For you to claim that Peratt debunks black holes in his papers when he never even mentions the term is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

"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."

Yes, it assumes the standard theory for both of these but the energy source is relatively unimportant to the argument.

"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."

Other than the rotational slowing principle what method exists to measure the age of a star?

"The paper does not consider the possibility that the "youngest systems" and the "main-sequence stars" have been subjected to different electrical stresses"

Yes, but assuming the opposite is just as much an assumption on your part.

"...if subjected later to an identical electrical stress."

I asked you before how this "electrical stress" is measured in stars. You had no convincing answer. It is beginning to sound just like "phlogiston".

"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"."

Complete, handwaving yet again. Yes, maybe it's POSSIBLE. Maybe it's POSSIBLE that pink unicorns are in control of the fissioning. That is not a scientific theory.

"And smaller stars in binary pairs may be the result of those "original" stars fissioning into pairs."

You're forgetting the original Thornhill proposition which is that expulsion events take time. The more time you wait the more expulsions you would expect to have taken place since the system has accumulated more energy from the galactic Birkeland current. Thus, a prediction of the Thornhill model is that older stars will have more companions, stellar and planetary. Why is it that stars which we think of as young (i.e., T Tauri stars) have more stellar companions than stars that are assumed to be older?

"As stated, significantly larger stars would be able handle the same electrical stress without fissioning into binary pairs."

Is there a correlation between stellar mass and number of stellar companions?

"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."

Read the paper again. It's talking about G spectral type stars in the solar neighborhood, within a few hundred light-years. Why would the galactic Birkeland current have major variations over such a small distance on the galactic scale? I see you hand waving trying to save this preposterous hypothesis.

"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."

How so? You get stability by ejecting one of the stars from the system. What remains behind is more stable.

"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."

Triple objects and quadruple objects that are too close together are unstable in the gravitational model and therefore don't occur in nature. In the Thornhill model all you have to do is wait long enough for the 2nd explulsion, the 3rd expulsion, etc. to happen and it will happen.

"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."

For you to even claim that the "Thornhill idea" is even a scientific hypothesis is unwarranted unless you can demonstrate that "electrical stress" in stars is a measureable property. Without that it's just handwaving.

OilIsMastery said...

Tom,

No problem. Chat all you like. That's what comments are for...=)

QF,

For sure.

Louis Hissink said...

Black holes by definition are not observable. Therefore no direct evidence is possible.

End of story.

Bloggin' Brewskie said...

Good one, Mr. Oil.

Tom Marking said...

@Louis Hissinck "Black holes by definition are not observable."

Black holes can have gravitational effects on other nearby objects which are observable (e.g., Cygnus X-1) and can thereby make their presence known. It is true that nothing beyond the event horizon can be observed but that does not mean that the existence of black holes cannot be inferred from things that can be observed.

OilIsMastery said...

Tom,

There is no such thing as black holes OR gravitational effects so neither are possible except in Meinong's Jungle.

OilIsMastery said...

Brewski,

Thx!

Tom Marking said...

@OIM "There is no such thing as black holes OR gravitational effects so neither are possible except in Meinong's Jungle."

You've also made statements like "The mass of the Earth has never been measured and never will be" and similar goofy things. I wonder what percentage of EU folks support you in such claims. It's got to be small even for the EU people.

Quantum_Flux said...

Tom Marking, keep in mind that this is the same guy who believes that biodiesel doesn't exist though.

OilIsMastery said...

Tom,

What is the mass of the Earth and how did you determine it?

QF,

Who doesn't believe in biodiesel?

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "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"?"

To be fair, your linked article said that the solar wind intensity was reduced by 98 percent. That is not exactly the same thing as "disappeared", but I will grant you it was a significant event. One thing I want to know concerning this May 1999? event is this: Was it only the solar wind in the vicinity of the earth which was reduced 98% or did spacecraft travelling far away from the Earth also notice this anomaly? The answer to that question makes a big difference in understanding the magnitude of this event and in attempted explanations.

"And, why sunspots, which peer into the interior, are dark, rather than bright. Darkness suggesting a cooler interior than the surface?"

This is an old, old idea. I believe it was the British astronomer Sir William Herschel who believed that sunspots were holes peering down onto a solid surface. He even believed that the sun was inhabited by plants and animals, much like Earth (although I'd be surprised if you take it that far). I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest that sunspots are indeed holes in the solar atmosphere.

"And, why the surface runs about 6,000 degrees Celsius, but the corona is a couple of million degees Celsius?"

You need to keep in mind that temperature is not the same thing as heat capacity. Even though the solar corona is 500 times hotter than the solar photosphere (3 million Kelvin vs. 6,000 Kelvin) it stores less heat since its density is only one trillionth the density of the photosphere. So yes, the corona is 500 times the temperature but it contains less than a millionth the heat of the photosphere.

"See, Stellar Evolution, by Don Scott for a whole list of evidences that weigh against the standard"

A somewhat interesting web site. In it we find that "electric stress" is measured in amperes per square meter, with this value increasing from spectral class M through spectral class O. No specific numbers are given for this "electric stress" nor is the specific nature of this current density explained (e.g., what charges flow in which direction on the stellar surface). No explanation of how this "electric stress" can be measured independently is presented.

"FG Sagittae: The star FG Sagittae breaks all the rules of accepted stellar evolution. FG Sagittae has changed from blue to yellow since 1955! The "nuclear furnace" model postulates millions of years to "evolve", the above star contradicts that assumption."

The nuclear fusion model of stellar evolution makes no such claim that stellar evolution proceeds only over long period of time (e.g., millions of years). It is well understood that in the final phases of stellar evolution events can happen over days or even seconds in the case of supernovae.

Considering FG Sagittae the following URL contains an excellent analysis:

http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/index.pdf

"This rings rather hollow in light of the almost zero experimental confirmation of standard astronomy interpretations."

Yes, but remember you propose that Cygnus X-1 is an X-ray emitting white dwarf similar to Sirius B. Sirius B has a density more than 2 million times the density of water. No scientific experiment in the laboratory has ever produced matter reaching that density. That means you also believe in something that has no experimental backing.

"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."

Unless you can present them his notions are too vague to validate whether he knows what he is talking about. Specifically I want to know:

1.) How thick is this shell of energy producing material at the surface of a star?

2.) What exists beneath this shell?

3.) How is "electrical stress" measured?

4.) How can a star or gas giant expel an object with a vastly different chemical composition? How are specific chemical elements concentrated?

"Yet, there is this New Scientist article stating there are exoplanets that the gravitational model posits should be unstable"

You fail to cite one of their next paragraphs which says:

"As the planets trace their elliptical orbits, the 1:2:4 timings would mean that the three planets never gather closely enough as a group to gravitationally upset the system. If such resonances are common, it suggests there could be many more massive planets out there in extrasolar systems that would otherwise have been too unstable to persist."

So the planets would be unstable without the orbital resonances. With them their orbits are stable because they never approach one another closely.

"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?"

No, planetary collisions can cause the spin axis to tilt in a random direction. Just look at Uranus. Also, without a large satellite the rotation axis of Mars, Venus, Mercury, etc. wanders chaotically over millions of years. The axial tilt can vary enormously. Even on Earth our axial tilt is subject to the Milankovitch cycles where it varies several degrees.

"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."

What about Saturn's large moons? Considering just the rings is not proof of the nonexistence of coalescence.

"The planets' moons are all drastically different and the formation of those moons is not well explained at all by collision models."

I would think Thornhill would be sweating bullets trying to explain this one. The gravity model solves it easily - the various objects condensed in different locations in the solar nebula that had different chemical compositions. The Thornhill model has a big problem since these various objects were expelled from the same object.

"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?"

The late comet theory is not essential to accretion at all. It's an optional add-on. Personally I am skeptical of it - the water in the hydrosphere could have come from bound H2O tied up in minerals. We also know that water vapor is a primary component of volcanic gasses.

"Its also been proven that comets are almost entirely rocky, with little to no water."

Again, completely irrelevant to the gravitational collapse versus EU expulsion debate.

"Why didn't any of the other planets recieve huge amounts of water?"

Huh, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Enceladus, ring any bells there, chief?

"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."

If novae are Thornhill expulsion events then we would expect them to be associated with double stars in creation. Has there ever been a nova observed where a double star was detected after the nova event which didn't exist before the nova event? To the best of my knowledge that has never been observed.

"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 many spectroscopic binaries that are too close to resolve via telescope, but can be detected via their spectrum. So I'm not buying the distance argument. We should still see these new stars spectroscopically.

"This continuum is due to the variance of electrical current coming into the star, not on whether its nuclear fuel has run out."

Can a Birkeland current create energy or only transfer it from one place to another place?

"Plasma is 99.999% of the visible Universe"

Please provide information on how this value was arrived at. As with the "Dark Matter" census I'm extremely skeptical of this "Plasma" census. It probably makes most of the same mistakes.

Tom Marking said...

@OIM "What is the mass of the Earth and how did you determine it?"

Once you measure the gravitational constant G via the Cavendish experiment you derive the mass as follows:

M = g * R^2 / G

For g = 9.81 m/s^2, R = 6.37E6 m,
G = 6.67E-11 m^3/(kg-s^2),
M = 5.97E24 kg

Let's say you distrust Newton and want to do it another way. You could assume that the Earth has an average density similar to rocks at the surface:

rho = 2,700 kg / m^3
M = (4/3) * pi * rho * r^3
M = 2.92E24 kg or about half of the previous result

Funny how two completely different methods yield results that differ by only a factor of two, now isn't it? If the gravitational model was so wrong wouldn't its result be way different from the other one?

Tom Marking said...

OIM,

Assume you think that the Earth's density increases with depth. You might model it like:

rho = rho-max - alpha*R

where rho-max is the density at the surface of the earth and alpha is the rate of decrease in density with increasing radius (assumed to be a positive number).

Then the mass of a spherical shell is:

dM = 4*pi * r^2 * rho * dr

Integrating this from r = 0 to r = R (radius of the earth) we get:

M = 4*pi*R^3 * ((1/3)*rho-max - (1/4)*alpha*R)

R = radius of the earth = 6.37E6 m
Let's assume that rho-max is the density of iron = 7,800 kg/m^3.

The alpha = (7,800 - 2,700)/6.37E6
= 8.0E-4 kg/m^4)

So M = 4.30E24 kg. This is now only 40% different from the value computed using the gravitational model. The more accurate you make the density profile the more closely does the computed mass of the Earth match the gravitational number.

So saying that the mass of the earth cannot be computed is complete rubbish.

Tom Marking said...

@Myself "where rho-max is the density at the surface of the earth"

Ooops, meant to say that rho-max is the density at the CENTER of the earth, obviously. :)

Anaconda said...

CORRECTION AND PROPER ATTRIBUTION

In the the course of responding to Tom Marking I quoted two passages from a work by Wallace Thornhill without giving proper credit and attribution. This was a lapse of judgment on my part and I apologize to Mr. Thornhill and to the readers and last, but not least to Tom Marking.

The passages in question are from the following work by Wallace Thornhill, Twinkle, twinkle electric star, July 1, 2008(holoscience)

These two passages refer to white dwarfs and the Sirius A & B star pair. The evidenciary picture is covered by the fair use doctrine.

My apology to Wallace Thornhill for not properly attributing the two quoted passages from his work. Hopefully this acknowledgment will right that regrettable lapse of judgment.

However, the idea that Sirius A & B are analogous to Cygnus X-1 & HDE 226868 (visible partner) was solely my idea and conception based on a comparison of the recorded physical observations & measurements of the two pairs of stars. It is my contention that the analogy is still by far the better explanation based on the observable & measured scientfic evidence.

The scientific evidence does not support the assertion that Cygnus X-1 is a so-called "black hole".

(Further response will be made, to be continued.)

OilIsMastery said...

Tom,

"@OIM "What is the mass of the Earth and how did you determine it?"

Once you measure the gravitational constant G via the Cavendish experiment you derive the mass as follows:"

Ah the Cavendish Experiment that you've never performed in a Faraday Cage. Try again.

"G = 6.67E-11 m^3/(kg-s^2),"

Scientists disagree with your math.

See here:

Gillies, G.T., et al., The Newtonian Gravitational Constant: Recent Measurements and Related Studies, Reports on Progress in Physics, Volume 60, Pages 151-225, Feb 1997

Mazumder, R., and Arima, M., Tidal Rhythmites and Their Implications, Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 69, Pages 79-95, 2005

Tom Marking said...

@OIM "Scientists disagree with your math."

Gee, OIM, which math is that? You mean the one where I say mass equals volume times average density? I doubt you will even get Thornhill and Peratt to disagree with that one.

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "My apology to Wallace Thornhill for not properly attributing the two quoted passages from his work. Hopefully this acknowledgment will right that regrettable lapse of judgment."

Is Thornhill a participant here? If so what pseudonym is he using? Is OIM Thornhill? :)

No need to apologize to the dude if he's not here.

Anaconda said...

@ Tom Marking:

I appreciate your sentiment, but I made the statement because of my own sense of propriety.

OilIsMastery said...

Tom,

"Gee, OIM, which math is that?"

If you'd take the time to read the links you would know the answer to that question.

Quantum_Flux said...

So, OIM, what is the actual value of G when that experiment is performed in a faraday cage?

Quantum_Flux said...

Okay, I found this while researching the dispute:

Controversy over the big G

It sounds as though there needs to be a better method of measuring G. I am surprised this experiment was never performed in space or on the moon. Actually, in freefall of the spaceshuttle the Big G could be measured directly between two accelerating masses.

OilIsMastery said...

QF,

"So, OIM, what is the actual value of G when that experiment is performed in a faraday cage?"

If you find a scientist on Earth who has the courage to do it and share his results please let me know.

Quantum_Flux said...

Heck yeah, I mean, changing the value of a constant (assuming it's a constant independent on Earth's magnetic or electric fields) shouldn't have any effect on the equations. However, if G is dependent on local electromagnetic fields then that is quite a different story. My belief in the existance of a universal G constant, however, is due to the fact that NASA has had such tremendous success in its space endeavors throughout the solar system based on the various planetary mass assumptions over the last 50 years.

Louis Hissink said...

Tom

"Black holes can have gravitational effects on other nearby objects which are observable (e.g., Cygnus X-1) and can thereby make their presence known. It is true that nothing beyond the event horizon can be observed but that does not mean that the existence of black holes cannot be inferred from things that can be observed."

This assumes that "Black Holes" are real physical objects that can affect nearby matter.

First and foremost Black Holes are mathematical singularities positioned at the centre of gravity of the object, here a galaxy. Further Black Holes are essentially points in Cartesian Space having zero volume and infinite density.

Mathematics can only describe physical reality, it cannot explain it.

The centre of gravity of an object is a simple mathematical trick to aid computation of Newton's laws.

Furthermore a proposed physical entity whose existence cannot be observed in a 3D universe should not be preferred to an explanation for the phenomena using known empirically derived facts.

Galaxy motions can be adequately described by the equations of Maxwell and Lorentz, and gravity can be basically ignored as gravitational forces, in the presence of electro magnetic ones are 10^39 weaker. Dr. Peratt's PIC simulations don't use gravity because of this fact and the obvious limitations of accuracy in the math.

Variations computed at 10^39 less magnitude than the principal ones can be safely omitted from the model; it's basically a signal to noise issue.

But you also err in a fundamental way - Science is about using empirically determined facts to explain novel phenomena. In the case of Black Holes, these have not been empirically determined as fact, and therefore cannot be used to explain secondary phenomena. for that is waht we call pseudoscience.

Tom Marking said...

@Louis Hissink

"This assumes that "Black Holes" are real physical objects that can affect nearby matter. First and foremost Black Holes are mathematical singularities"

I use the term "black hole" loosely to describe anything with an event horizon. There are solutions to General Relativity that have no singularity but still have an event horizon. A gravastar is one of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravastar

IMHO, a gravastar is much more likely model than the traditional black hole singularity.

"...positioned at the centre of gravity of the object, here a galaxy."

Central galactic supermassive black holes are not the only ones in existence (e.g., Cygnus X-1). There may be a black hole within only ~50 light-years of Earth based on stellar evolution models.

"Further Black Holes are essentially points in Cartesian Space having zero volume and infinite density."

Again, not necessarily so depending upon the definition used.

"Mathematics can only describe physical reality, it cannot explain it."

It can explain it to extent that it says nature follows such-and-such formula.

"The centre of gravity of an object is a simple mathematical trick to aid computation of Newton's laws."

Are you talking about center of mass here? If so it has nothing whatsoever to do with gravity. It is defined as:

x-center = (sum of x * delta-m) / m-total

"Furthermore a proposed physical entity whose existence cannot be observed in a 3D universe should not be preferred to an explanation for the phenomena using known empirically derived facts."

I agree, but your assertion that black holes "cannot be observed in a 3D universe" is simply not true. Their effects on other objects CAN be observed.

"and gravity can be basically ignored as gravitational forces, in the presence of electro magnetic ones are 10^39 weaker"

That would be true if there was only one type of charge for EM, say, positive. Unfortunately for your argument, there are 2: positive and negative.

Q: What force does a sphere containing only positive charge distributed evenly have on a neutron at some distance outside the sphere?
A: Zero

Q: What force does a sphere containing the same amount of positive charge and negative charge distributed evenly have on a proton at some distance outside the sphere?
A: Zero because the positive and negative charges within the sphere cancel out their force on the proton.

So your vaunted EM force has no effect, whatsoever, on neutral particles such as neutrons (50+ percent of your body mass) or neutrinos. Furthermore, the EM charges seem to occur in nature in equal amounts so that their force on remote charged particles tends to cancel out.

"Dr. Peratt's PIC simulations don't use gravity because of this fact and the obvious limitations of accuracy in the math."

Well, what can I say. It seems even the EU folks are ignorant of what is actually in the Peratt model:

On the Evolution of Interacting, Magnetized, Galactic Plasmas by Anthony L. Peratt and James C. Green: page 3:

"... where U, M, and Sigma are the internal, magnetic field, and GRAVITATIONAL energies..."

Gravity IS in the Peratt model.

"Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies" by Anthony L. Peratt: page 1:

"Although the gravitational force is weaker than the electromagnetic force by 39 orders of magnitude, GRAVITATION IS ONE OF THE DOMINANT FORCES IN ASTROPHYSCIS when electromagnetic forces neutralize each other, as is the case when large bodies form...

It is the purpose of this paper to continue the investigation of the dynamics of the denser interacting plasmas pinched within filaments by means of the electromagnetic and GRAVITATIONAL force laws"

Myth of gravitation? Hmmm, seems like Dr. Peratt believes in this "myth".

"Variations computed at 10^39 less magnitude than the principal ones can be safely omitted from the model; it's basically a signal to noise issue."

Peratt disagrees with you since he included gravity in his model.

"But you also err in a fundamental way - Science is about using empirically determined facts to explain novel phenomena. In the case of Black Holes, these have not been empirically determined as fact, and therefore cannot be used to explain secondary phenomena. for that is waht we call pseudoscience."

No, you're wrong. Novel phenonema can cause the creation of new scientific facts, particularly when they are not explainable in terms of the existing scientific paradigm. If what you said was true we would still be stuck trying to explain nature in terms of Aristotelian physics instead of inventing new physics.

Anaconda said...

Discussion originates from this Oil Is Mastery post: Jupiter and Saturn Collided With Other Worlds, February 26, 2009.

Anaconda said...

@ Tom Marking:

Marking presents my [Anaconda's] comment: "The physical observations & measurements simply do not warrant the conclusion Cygnus X-1 is a so-called "black hole"."

And then reasonably asks: "What additional evidence would you require before you would admit that Cygnus X-1 is a black hole?"

My Answer comes in two interrelated parts: One part is the style of the responses one receives after raising objections to the so-called "black hole" hypothesis. And the other part is the scientific merits of the responses that one receives after objecting to the "black hole" hypothesis.

The first part regarding the style is significant. Marking, it's hard to take your responses seriously because of certain repeated patterns.

Marking, the following statement/question of yours is a perfect example: "Since you admit that this is a binary pair then do you also admit to the sum of the masses being 58 solar masses (see my previous calculation on that one)?"

This is classic distortion: Both of my prior answers earlier in the dialogue assumed a binary pair, and in each of those answers I offered scientific reasons and analysis why Marking's size and density propositions for Cygnus X-1 were assumptions not supported by actual observation & evidence.

Why would my answers change, now, simply because of Marking's attempt to distort the prior discussion in the mind of the reader?

That's called revisionism and an attempt to mislead readers to believe that I failed to consider the binary pair proposition as a possibility in my prior comments when in fact I had twice already addressed Cygnus X-1 as a binary pair and each time rebutted the evidence you offered for your size and density conclusions.

What Marking is counting on is that readers will not read the whole prior (which I have linked in my proceeding comment) discussion & dialogue, but will only read the last few comments.

Why should I treat Marking's dialogue seriously at all if he repeatedly distorts and mostly skips over my answers without addressing the points I raised?

I've, now, had an opportunity to discuss the so-called "black hole" hypothesis several times with its supporters and the style is the same each time.

Never admit a weakness in the "black hole" hypothesis, never acknowledge a solid supported point of objection to the "black hole" hypothesis.

And note in the entire prior dialogue & discussion leading up to this in terms of the "black hole" hypothesis: Not one admission of weakness, not one acknowledgment of a solid point against the "black hole" hypothesis, not one, not one bloody admission or acknowledgement.

(Every scientfic hypothesis has its weaknesses, to maintain the idea that a specific hypothesis has no weaknesses is to proclaim the dishonesty of the proponent.)

As said elsewhere that is the sign of insincerity in a scientific discussion. But Marking has spent too many nights in the barrel for him to realize his error.

Plausible deniability is Marking's game. but that strategy has no place in scientific discussion if truth is the objective both parties seek.

Marking, your approach simply becomes obvious that you aren't interested in scientific discussion, but simply as a debating game.

For you, Marking, it all about protecting the hypothesis, at all costs even to the detriment of your own personal integrity.

I made this comment regarding Marking's explanation: "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."

And rather than address and attempt to refute this argument, Marking ignores it entirely and reponds this way:

"And the 1 millisecond fluctuations in radiation are solved how? Let's assume Cygnus X-1 is the size of the sun, 1.4 million km in diameter. It couldn't fluctuate in a 1 millisecond time period. Why not? Because the light from the closest point on the surface and the light from the farthest visible point on the surface are separated by the radius, 700,000 km. Travelling at 300,000 km per second it would take light 2.3 seconds to make it from the limb to a plane perpendicular to your line of sight at the nearest surface point. Thus, any 1 millisecond fluctuation would be smeared out into a ~2 second fluctuation once you summed up the contributions of light from various parts of the surface. Thus, a 1 millisecond fluctuation is telling you that the light is coming from a sphere no bigger than ~300 km in radius."

There is one problem with this response. If this is the best evidence for the milisecond pulsation of x-rays from Cygnus X-1, then why didn't either of your citations bring this up?

Rather, the millisecond pulsation gets explained as due to matter falling toward the so-called "black hole" not as a function of diameter or density.

Are we to believe that Marking knows the "best evidence" and the authority he cites doesn't? That he is smarter than the authority he relies on?

You have to respond to objections directly, not shuck and jive in different directions.

Sorry, I can't buy that. So what we really have here is a shuck and jive designed to distract from the circular reasoning offered in the citation.

Also, consider this first answer on Marking's part: "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."

It's a completely different kind of answer from Marking's second stab. But again, it doesn't explain the ciruclar reasoning in his citation.

See, rather than acknowledge that his citation relied on circular reasoning and that is a weakness, he distracts and won't be forthright about the weakness.

I'm sorry, but again, it's hard to take somebody seriously if they won't acknowledge weakness in their case.

That is a true sign of whether a interlocutor is sincere or just playing the debating game: Do they acknowledge weaknesses?

And just as important: Do they acknowledge the strong evidenciary issues on the other side of the discussion?

After all, in debate you are taught never admit a weakness. But in scientfic discussion, you test sincerity by how readily someone admits weaknesses.

It makes little sense to engage in scientific discussion with an interlocutor who is not sincere.

Dishonesty can always find a way to rationalize a point at issue, or ignore a point entirely by responding, not by addressing the point raised directly, but respond by raising a new point: A seperate and distinct line of evidence and/or reason.

Marking does this repeatedly.

Marking has proved to my satisfaction he is not sincere, so further effort is a waste of time.

Other than his insincerity needs to be exposed. That may justify going on with this "discussion", but that is all.

Marking comments regarding his above quoted lengthy passage: "Well, whether it be an accretion disk or some other mechanism, the previous argument tells you that the X-ray source region of Cygnus X-1 is tiny."

Maybe, maybe not. But what Marking just implicitly admitted is that the fluctuation has nothing to do with density. His mathematical offering has nothing to do with density, only size and I'd have to see authority for his calculations to take them at face value.

Remember, Marking made this statement in a previous comment: "GR, all encompassing? I'll have to remember that the next time I need to compute the Bohr radius using GR. LOL."

So, Marking tried to pass-off subatomic measurements (Bohr radius) as having to do with galactic and deep space structure (where GR is all-encompassing).

So, I can't trust Marking's calculations at face value.

I [Anaconda] presented this statement: "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)"

And Marking responded: "Actually, I think the black hole accretion disk model assumes synchrotron radiation which requires a magnetic field and plasma. It is not a hot blackbody radiator of X-rays, which ironically is your supposed EM solution using white dwarfs (which is thermal radiation, not synchrotron radiation). That web site may be wrong in assuming it's thermal blackbody radiation."

Marking misses my point entirely: Marking, and "modern" astronomy present electromagnetism as a secondary effect (at best), (as a result of friction) as opposed to a first causation. Marking suggests mechanical friction will generate enough energy to send matter away from the "black hole", but how does it create focussed collimated jets? Friction derived energy is difussed and would supposedly have a large swath of it produced without sufficient angular momemtum to escape the so-called "event horizon", but that is never taked about.

There is simply never any discussion of how simple friction energy in the form of heat generates collimated electromagnetic jets.

Again, I encourage those that want to see the whole debate to read it, this here is the beginning of the debate.

And on the flip side I asked Marking if he thought electromagnetic principles were possible, just possible and here is his response: "____________".

Nothing, Marking never responds to my question, one way or the other.

Which tells me, no matter what evidence I might bring Marking would be unpersuaded.

Funny that Marking would have the gall to ask me that very question without having the curtesy of answering my question first.

But that is just a repetition of the pattern I indicated at the beginning of this comment.

Why waste time with somebody with a closed-mind and who isn't prepared to listen to evidence anyway?

This just emphasizes why somebody like Marking can't be taken seriously.

Again, it's a debating game with Marking not a serious discussion.

Why he wastes his time I can't be sure, I suppose maybe he thinks he can "debunk" the ideas presented here against "black holes", but a careful reading form beginning to end (I know Marking is counting on that never happening) and you see how insincere Marking is in this discussion.

Marking is a weasel, but he doesn't care because all he cares about are his "barrel buddies" in the "modern" astronomy "community".

Could you ever imagine Marking telling his astronomy buddies that he'd changed his mind based on the evidence?

And pigs can fly.

A commitment to reality? The best evidence?

No, to weigh the evidence and renounce the "big bang, black hole" idols would be unthinkable for Marking.

Marking is enthralled with his idols. That kind of person can not be reasoned with.

It is a waste of time.

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "And then reasonably asks: "What additional evidence would you require before you would admit that Cygnus X-1 is a black hole? My Answer comes in two interrelated parts..."

You admit it's a reasonable question but then you launch into some tirade concerning my style. Typical of you.

"This is classic distortion: Both of my prior answers earlier in the dialogue assumed a binary pair, and in each of those answers I offered scientific reasons and analysis why Marking's size and density propositions for Cygnus X-1 were assumptions not supported by actual observation & evidence."

Then do tell us all what is the mass of Cygnus X-1 and its companion based on EU theory. Or are you claiming the mass of these two objects is entirely unknown (such as what OIM claims about the earth, LOL)?

"And note in the entire prior dialogue & discussion leading up to this in terms of the "black hole" hypothesis: Not one admission of weakness, not one acknowledgment of a solid point against the "black hole" hypothesis, not one, not one bloody admission or acknowledgement."

I've already said repeatedly and in multiple forums that I find gravastars to be the superior model over the classical black hole singularity model. I don't know what more of an admission you want.

"Every scientfic hypothesis has its weaknesses, to maintain the idea that a specific hypothesis has no weaknesses is to proclaim the dishonesty of the proponent."

Yes, I suggest you keep that in mind the next time you are carrying water for Peratt, Thornhill, et al.

"Marking, your approach simply becomes obvious that you aren't interested in scientific discussion, but simply as a debating game. For you, Marking, it all about protecting the hypothesis, at all costs even to the detriment of your own personal integrity."

LOL. Yes, and now the ad hominems start flying and claims that I've lost my personal integrity.

"And rather than address and attempt to refute this argument, Marking ignores it entirely and reponds this way"

I was attempting to explain some physics to you which might be a bit beyond your usual quote mining game. I see now that I have erred - you will only accept something cited chapter and verse from some authority figure.

"There is one problem with this response. If this is the best evidence for the milisecond pulsation of x-rays from Cygnus X-1, then why didn't either of your citations bring this up?"

Here is one for you:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-466/ch17.htm

"To summarize, then, a black hole that is part of a close binary system should show evidence of a mass greater than three solar masses concentrated into a small area, and it should be a strong source of X-radiation. The X-ray source Cygnus X-1 meets all these requirements. It is part of a binary star system in which a blue supergiant star is orbiting an invisible companion star. This invisible companion star has a mass greater than about nine times the mass of the Sun. It is a strong X-ray source that shows rapid time variations in the intensity of its X-ray flux. Because of the good fit between what is expected and what is observed, and more importantly, because they can think of no other object that could meet the requirements described above, most astronomers believe that Cygnus X-1 is a black hole. This belief is tempered with a dose of caution, however. In most scientific papers describing Cygnus X-l, it is referred to as a black hole "candidate" rather than simply as a black hole; somehow, the concept of a black hole is still a little difficult to swallow."

In short, the reason most astronomers believe that Cygnus X-1 is a black hole is that it meets the requirments of what they would expect from one.

"You have to respond to objections directly, not shuck and jive in different directions."

Yes, the way you responded to my detailed critique of your Cygnus X-1 as X-ray emitting white dwarf hypothesis? LOL.

"See, rather than acknowledge that his citation relied on circular reasoning and that is a weakness, he distracts and won't be forthright about the weakness."

There are hundreds of references concerning Cygnus X-1 being a black hole. Would you like me to give them to you?

"And just as important: Do they acknowledge the strong evidenciary issues on the other side of the discussion?"

Yeah, still waiting for that strong evidence. According to you Cygnus X-1 is an X-ray emitting white dwarf, an object which from your own point of view, CANNOT exist since it has a density (~1.0E6 grams per cm^3) far beyond anything created in the laboratory. Your explanation falls apart according to your own standards of empirical evidence.

"Marking has proved to my satisfaction he is not sincere, so further effort is a waste of time."

Yes, it's been clear for a while that this will be Anaconda's cop out for not answering direct objections to EU and other topics. It's not that he lost the debate, it's that his debaters were insincere and caused psychological trauma on poor, little, ol' Snake Man. No wonder he has gained a reputation on BA and other blogs as a bit of a "nutjob".

"Maybe, maybe not. But what Marking just implicitly admitted is that the fluctuation has nothing to do with density. His mathematical offering has nothing to do with density, only size"

If you already know the mass is 9 solar masses, the size tells you the average density. Is that not obvious?

"I'd have to see authority for his calculations to take them at face value."

He wants authority for the density of a sphere? ROFLMAO. Here ya go, chief:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Physics/density.html

"So, Marking tried to pass-off subatomic measurements (Bohr radius) as having to do with galactic and deep space structure (where GR is all-encompassing)."

ROFLMAO. Truly funny, Snake Man. You can do a parody of yourself.

"Marking misses my point entirely: Marking, and "modern" astronomy present electromagnetism as a secondary effect (at best)"

Gee, Anaconda, I require a URL citation for that before I'll accept that statement.

"Marking suggests mechanical friction will generate enough energy to send matter away from the "black hole", but how does it create focussed collimated jets?"

Via a magnetic field. Once the gas gets hot enough to ionize and become a plasma it must follow the magnetic field lines.

"Friction derived energy is difussed and would supposedly have a large swath"

Not if it was constrained to follow the magnetic field lines.

"And on the flip side I asked Marking if he thought electromagnetic principles were possible, just possible and here is his response: "____________"."

That was a mistake on my part. I missed one of my responses. My response should have been: The electromagnetic principles are well understood and have been known since James Clerk Maxwell in 1865. It is their application to specific phenomena which we disagree on. Saying that EM could be a possible explanation for some phenomenon is not evidence that it is.

"Which tells me, no matter what evidence I might bring Marking would be unpersuaded."

Bring me observations of gas falling into a black hole candidate. Show me that as the gas gets closer and closer to the black hole candidate that its spectrum gets blue shifted instead of red shifted. That would mean it's not an event horizon and therefore no black hole. I would drop the theory of black holes in a heart beat. Can you provide such evidence?

I always told you that black hole theory is falsifiable. Is EU theory? If I showed you spectral evidence that no new star was created during a nova would you drop the Thornhill model?

"Why waste time with somebody with a closed-mind and who isn't prepared to listen to evidence anyway?"

Why, indeed? Unless you like to listen to your own voice ranting?

"Marking is a weasel"

Yes, this coming from a guy who claims I'm intellectually dishonest well at the same time claiming that Peratt's model debunks black holes when he knows full well that Peratt doesn't even mention the term in his papers.

"It is a waste of time."

Anaconda, don't go away mad. Just go away.

Anaconda said...

@ Marking:

Marking, I laid down the reasons why I can't subscribe to the "black hole" hypothesis.

And a big part of that is the style of discussion you and others that defend that hypothesis use.

And in the course of describing your style I placed substantive reasons, but let me add another:

Both the "big bang" and the "black hole" hypothesis rely on the concept of infinity. Infinity can't be quantified by definition. It falsifies the theory.

In other words, its a fudge factor built right into the theory.

Marking: "I've already said repeatedly and in multiple forums that I find gravastars to be the superior model over the classical black hole singularity model."

Marking, that's the first time you have mentioned this "gravitar" hypothesis on this website, and certainly while I don't track your commenting, you didn't mention that on the comment thread I was reading and commenting on at Bad Astronomy.

I did check your citation and apparently the gravitar is an attempt to harmonize the "black hole" hypothesis with quantum mechanics.

Actually, I never raised an objection to the size and mass of the visible companion of Cygnus X-1, so you are misstating my position, again.

Misstating your opponents position is the hight of chicken shit, Marking. It's called making a strawman argument. Another description is "chicken shit".

Marking presents my [Anaconda's] statement: "Every scientfic hypothesis has its weaknesses, to maintain the idea that a specific hypothesis has no weaknesses is to proclaim the dishonesty of the proponent."

And Marking responds: "Yes, I suggest you keep that in mind the next time you are carrying water for Peratt, Thornhill, et al."

Actually, I'm the one who has repeatedly stated the lack of quantification of Electric Universe theory is a weakness.

Marking, when someone consistently distorts the other interlocutor's responses and ignores points raised by ducking into another line of reason...well...after awhile of that kind of chicken shit action, that's what you're going to get, besides my characterizations are not ad hominem attacks.

I specifically point out where and how you pull chicken shit answers or you duck and ignore the point. I simply draw the conclusion about what kind of person you are from your actions.

Nothing ad hominem about that.

Direct and to the point, ad hominem, no.

Marking presents my [Anaconda's] statement: ""And rather than address and attempt to refute this argument, Marking ignores it entirely and reponds this way"

And Marking responds: "I was attempting to explain some physics to you which might be a bit beyond your usual quote mining game. I see now that I have erred - you will only accept something cited chapter and verse from some authority figure."

More chicken shit dodging.

Answer my charge that your citation is engaged in circular reasoning by engaging the actual passage I quote and present to the readers; then state why it is or isn't circular reasoning, then you can go on and make your own statement.

Just don't pretend you answered my question.

Frankly, what I think is going on is that you haven't been in a challenging debate before, you just go along with the crowd of "big bang, black hole" supporters where, of course, nobody calls you on your shit.

Sorry, Marking, I'm calling you out on your chicken shit style and duplicitous ways. If you don't like it, you have two choices, go away, or stop giving chicken shit answers that dodge the arguments I make regarding the hypothesis or your answers.

It's that simple.

The difference is that I don't play games with insinuation and implied character attacks. I take it right to your face.

You really don't get it do you, Marking? You present a URL, a citation, I call you out on the language of your citation, how it is circular reasoning, then you pull another citation out.

It doesn't work that way buster.

First, you have to defend the language in your original citation or repudiate it.

Then you can go on and find a better citation. Is that clear?

As far as your new citation: "This belief is tempered with a dose of caution, however. In most scientific papers describing Cygnus X-l, it is referred to as a black hole "candidate" rather than simply as a black hole; somehow, the concept of a black hole is still a little difficult to swallow."

Well, finally, you cite a more reasonable paper.

That I can acutally have respect for.

Marking states: "In short, the reason most astronomers believe that Cygnus X-1 is a black hole is that it meets the requirments of what they would expect from one."

And why do they come to that conclusion? Two reasons that I can determine, one, the circular reasoning route, by comparison to other assumed "black holes"; two, the starting point, a priori, abstract equations derived from the all-encompassing theory and its mathematical abstract equations.

As I've already laid out my reasoning prior, both rationals are problematic and dubious in my opinion.

Marking states: "Yes, the way you responded to my detailed critique of your Cygnus X-1 as X-ray emitting white dwarf hypothesis? LOL."

Why, you are a little chicken shit aren't you?

Here is your supposed answer to my Sirius analogy:

"And the 1 millisecond fluctuations in radiation are solved how? Let's assume Cygnus X-1 is the size of the sun, 1.4 million km in diameter. It couldn't fluctuate in a 1 millisecond time period. Why not? Because the light from the closest point on the surface and the light from the farthest visible point on the surface are separated by the radius, 700,000 km. Travelling at 300,000 km per second it would take light 2.3 seconds to make it from the limb to a plane perpendicular to your line of sight at the nearest surface point. Thus, any 1 millisecond fluctuation would be smeared out into a ~2 second fluctuation once you summed up the contributions of light from various parts of the surface. Thus, a 1 millisecond fluctuation is telling you that the light is coming from a sphere no bigger than ~300 km in radius."

That doesn't refute my Sirius A & B pair analogy at all. It was your dodge away from the language in one of your original citations.

And I already put that quote of yours up in my previous comment and delt with it. It was non-responsive to my point that's why I called it a dodge.

If you want it to stand as an independent reason in support of your argument for "black holes", fine.

Just don't pretend it refutes my Sirius x-ray analogy because it doesn't.

Look at your quote, either above, or the first time I put it in quotes. Does it say one thing about the Sirius analogy at all?

Marking states: "If Cygnus X-1 is like Sirius B why isn't it visible in the optical part of the spectrum?

Anaconda's statement: "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"

Yes, but its companion HDE 226868 is also obscured by these same dust clouds and yet it is easily visible optically even in a small telescope.

Apparently, this easy bit of logic escapes you: Cygnus X-1 is 6,000 light-years away. Sirius is 8.6 light years away. So, the small amount of light that Cygnus does put out, remember Sirius B (the x-ray emitter) puts out 10,000 times less light that Sirius A, in fact it wasn't even visible until the 1860's when more powerful telescopes became available.

So, Cygnus X-1 is very consistent with Sirius B when distance 6,000 light-years and 8.6 light-years, respectively, is considered including the dust obsurity.

That's not a "detailed critique" that's a weak argument at best.

Marking states: "There are hundreds of references concerning Cygnus X-1 being a black hole. Would you like me to give them to you?"

Only the ones you intend to rely on in the discussion.

And multiple cites doesn't add to the scientific weight of the evidence, it only suggests there is a healthy echo chamber effect.

If citations have independent observations & measurement, okay, simply repeating the same arguments is a waste of time.

Marking states: "Yeah, still waiting for that strong evidence. According to you Cygnus X-1 is an X-ray emitting white dwarf, an object which from your own point of view, CANNOT exist since it has a density (~1.0E6 grams per cm^3) far beyond anything created in the laboratory. Your explanation falls apart according to your own standards of empirical evidence."

Are you saying Sirius B does not exist?

Or are you attempting to make another chicken shit strawman argument that I don't believe in white dwarfs? I accept there are white dwarfs, but I don't accept that astronomy knows how dense they really are. That is an assumption, again.

That's pure chicken shit, again.

Astronomy assumes the density of white dwarfs is high because it assumes it is the result of a collapsed star. Not because there is empirical evidence that proves how dense of white dwarf really is.

Marking states: "Yes, it's been clear for a while that this will be Anaconda's cop out for not answering direct objections to EU and other topics."

You are truly a pathetic creature Marking.

I've responded to your questions and assertions and frankly and forthrightly acknowledged where I could not.

It is you that consistently duck, shuck, and give, instead of just acknowledging a weakness and then moving on to a stronger point for your side of the discussion.

Marking, let me be perfectly clear: You are a liar. And I will call you out every time you lie or distort or ignore.

Your style won't go without being called out to your face.

Marking state: "If you already know the mass is 9 solar masses, the size tells you the average density. Is that not obvious?"

No. That is an assumption on your part and "modern" astronomy.

Your citation is for the mass of a planet or moon -- not a star light years away.

Another misleading citation from Marking. Another chicken shit move.

Anaconda: "So, Marking tried to pass-off subatomic measurements (Bohr radius) as having to do with galactic and deep space structure (where GR is all-encompassing)."

Marking: "ROFLMAO. Truly funny, Snake Man. You can do a parody of yourself."

No, that was another chicken shit answer that you attempted to pass off, that I called bullshit on.

Marking states: "Via a magnetic field. Once the gas gets hot enough to ionize and become a plasma it must follow the magnetic field lines."

That assumes that an "accretion disk" generates magnetic field lines. And thermal energy by nature tends to disrupt magnetic field lines.

Marking states: "Not if it was constrained to follow the magnetic field lines."

But, again, the formation of magnetic field lines by thermal energy is an assumption.

Marking, your dishonesty is evident by this statement: "Peratt doesn't even mention the term in his papers."

Peratt doesn't mention "black holes" in his paper because they aren't needed and Peratt doesn't rely on a "black hole" to generate a galaxy. All you need is electromagnetic energy and normal gravity.

Marking, you are a chicken shit.

Anaconda said...

When Tom Marking revealed his "style".

Tom Marking said...
@Anaconda "Calling somebody a "crank" does nothing to sort the insightful ideas from the worthless ideas."

@OIM "Anyone who uses the word crank is simply resorting to ad hominem because they have no logical or scientific argument."

Note, that nowhere did I ever call OIM or Anaconda a crank. I merely cited some of the defining characteristics from Wikipedia which apparently hit rather too close to home. I'll let the readers decide for themselves if the term applies to anyone on this blog.

March 2, 2009 10:40 AM
OilIsMastery said...
Tom,

Crank is the language of pseudoscience and those who use the word are pseudoscientists.

At least we now know where you stand.

March 3, 2009 1:00 AM
Tom Marking said...
@OIM "Crank is the language of pseudoscience and those who use the word are pseudoscientists."

Hmmm, you just used the word in a sentence. Does that make you a pseudoscientist? This reminds me of the skit in the Monte Python movie "The Life of Brian" concerning the word Jehovah. :)

March 3, 2009 9:25 AM
Anaconda said...
@ Tom Marking

I'm sorry, but you are being disingenuous.

You place a comment that introduces the idea of "crank" well into the comments section.
[a Wikipedia entry for "crank" to be exact.]

Then you place a comment quoting both OilIsMastery and myself, and then self-servingly claim your remarks aren't directed at either of us.

Marking: "[N]owhere did I ever call OIM or Anaconda a crank."

Then go on to state: "[it] hit rather too close to home."

It's rather like myself coming on to your blog and placing a wikipedia entry for liar, then when you object in writing, I turn around quoting you, but say "I didn't call you a liar, but judging by Marking's response it hits too close to home.

Marking, your rationalization is intellectually dishonest, and I can't help wondering if that bleeds over into your assessment of scientific evidence?

March 3, 2009 9:58 AM
Tom Marking said...
@Anaconda "Marking, your rationalization is intellectually dishonest, and I can't help wondering if that bleeds over into your assessment of scientific evidence?"

Since you are so into intellectual honesty then perhaps you won't mind answering this simple question that requires a Yes or No answer: Did I call you a crank?

March 3, 2009 4:42 PM
Anaconda said...
@ Tom Marking:

If you you don't understand the concept of an inference or an insinuation, I can't help you, man.

March 3, 2009 7:57 PM

This exchange is an illustration of Marking's style: Make an insinuation and then when called on it cynically deny the insinuation, by standing on the the idea that if he didn't directly call somebody a "crank"...well...he didn't. Of course, the insinuation was obvious enough, as Marking intended when he made it, but he doesn't have the integrity to admit to the insinuation.

This is the "chicken shit" style.

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "Marking, that's the first time you have mentioned this "gravitar" hypothesis on this website, and certainly while I don't track your commenting, you didn't mention that on the comment thread I was reading and commenting on at Bad Astronomy."

It's gravastar, not gravitar.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/28/the-roar-of-the-centaur/

"Tom Marking Says:
January 31st, 2009 at 8:44 pm

The ironic part is that I’m not a very strong believer in the classic black hole paradigm myself. I think these things could well be GRAVASTARS OR SOME OTHER FORMULATION WE’VE YET TO COME UP WITH. I’d like to see some better resolution of the event horizon itself. There are several predicted effects that we should see when we zoom in really close such as increasing gravitational redshift in the accretion disk the closer you get to the event horizon. I’m not sure these effects have been observed yet or not."

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "Marking, your dishonesty is evident by this statement: "Peratt doesn't even mention the term in his papers.""

Anaconda, the statement "Peratt doesn't even mention the term black hole in his 2 papers" is either true or false. Specifically, I am referring to these 2 papers:

1.) On the Evolution of Interacting, Magnetized, Galactic Plasmas by Anthony Peratt and James Green

2.) Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies by Anthony Peratt

You claim the statement is false and hence I am a liar. If that is true you should have no problem pointing to the page, paragraph, and sentence where Peratt uses the term "black hole" in either of these two papers. Please provide that data and if I confirm it I will gladly declare myself a liar. If you can't provide the data then I suggest you retract your accusation.

Anaconda said...

CORRECTION:

I stand corrected on Marking mentioning "gravitar" at Bad Astronomy. Apparently, Marking did mention it and I stand corrected, I was wrong. if I used liar in regards to this contention, I was wrong to do so and so withtract any derogatory statements connected with this mistake on my part.

I [Anaconda] incorrectly referred to "mass" when I should have referred to "density" in the following passage:

"Marking state: "If you already know the mass is 9 solar masses, the size tells you the average density. Is that not obvious?"

[Anaconda]No. That is an assumption on your part and "modern" astronomy.

Your citation is for the mass of a planet or moon -- not a star light years away. [The above reference to "mass" on my part was incorrect, it should read "density".]

Another misleading citation from Marking. Another chicken shit move.

Density calculation for planets and moons

Please review the link. In order to calculate the density you have to know the mass and the radius, but note two things: One, the calculations are limted to planets and moons in our solar system; and, two, but not stars light-years away, specifically the Cygnus X-1 star pair, 6,000 light-years away. To calculate the density of of an object that can't be observed in visible light is problematic. This is the assumption Marking never acknowledged, but rather he simply kept repeating the supposed density of Cygnus X-1, derived from what? Apparently, the density and diameter of its visible companion HDE 226868. First, it's problematic to deduce the diameter and density of an invisible object from the diameter and density of another object, even those two objects are in binary pair.

Another correction is due at this point, I did question the density and diameter calculations Marking offered for HDE 226868, my mistake.

All measurements at a distance of 6,000 light-years are problematic.

Apparently, there is a dispute as to the diameter of Cygnus X-1 (and distance is cited variously as 6,000 light-years and Marking cites 7,000 light years). Marking uses 300 kilometers as the diameter of Cygnus X-1, while one of his authorities uses a diameter of 10-100 kilometers.

The variance for both distance (1,000 light-years) and diameter (290-200 kilometers) for Cygnus X-1 is substantial, not within a statistical meanless range. So, Marking and others can hardly claim and exact knowledge of the properties of Cygnus X-1 other than it emits copious x-rays.

There is also a dispute as to the density of Cygnus X-1. Marking claims density can be calculated, his citation linked above basically states density can't be calculated.

Marking misstates "black hole" hypothesis because when "infinite density" is one of the supposed characteristics of a "black hole", per the hypothesis, a defined density can never be calculated as Marking's citation linked above clearly states.

So, why does Marking falsely provide a figure for the density of Cygnus X-1?

Three possible reasons, different sources of authority supporting the "black hole" hypothesis for Cygnus X-1 give different answers, either they provide no density figure per standard "black hole" theory reliance on the "infinite density" theorem, or they provide a density figure based on supposed calculations of diameter and density for HDE 226868, a direct contradiction to basic "black hole" theory, or Marking decided an unknown density, or rather an "infinite density" of Cygnus X-1 would not sell.

Certainly no detailed data that would allow the conclusion of a so-called "black hole".

Marking states: "In short, the reason most astronomers believe that Cygnus X-1 is a black hole is that it meets the requirments of what they would expect from one."

So what does the above statement mean in practical terms?

One, it means this: At a starting point, a priori, based on abstract mathematical equations derived from an all-encompassing theory, and its master mathematical equations, it was determined that the so-called "black hole" hypothesis was not only possible, but probable based on the master mathematical equations and the derived equations.

Then astronomers went out and searched for and located a "candidate" that fit the theorem.

Now, the observations & measurements didn't match perfectly the anticipated observations, but no matter, simply adjust the theory to fit the facts and say the theory is still valid.

In other words, fit a square peg in a round hole and swear the peg was round to begin with.

Or claim that other so-called confirmed "black holes" at the center of galaxies match the "new object", this is circular reasoning and Marking for all his protest never addressed this problem.

Collimated jets of electromagnetic energy where not predicted for "black holes", but when that was what was observed & measured at the center of galaxies, the theory was quickly adapted to explain a phenomenon that directly contradicts the central proposition of a "black hole": Not even light can escape.

The whole caper doesn't wash, from a theoretical standpoint (relying on the "infinity concept"), and an observational standpoint (electromagnetic energy and matter escaping a "black hole"), and it can be added, here, Marking in his recitation of the "accretion disk" model of the "black hole", mentions magnetic fields, but studiously omits electric currents, which is scientifically recognized to be required to generate magnetic fields, not randum thermal energy generation form friction.

Marking states "black hole" theory can be falsified, refering to doppler effect light, but he never explains that idea, he just throws it out on the table.

That is the problem with "black hole" theory, it can't be falsified. Apparently, Marking knows that is an objection because he thows that out.

Marking states: "Bring me observations of gas falling into a black hole candidate. Show me that as the gas gets closer and closer to the black hole candidate that its spectrum gets blue shifted instead of red shifted. That would mean it's not an event horizon and therefore no black hole. I would drop the theory of black holes in a heart beat. Can you provide such evidence?"

This statement is entirely misleading because there is no observable & measurable light drawn to a "black hole" candidate.

There are no observations of light of ANY HUE being drawn to a supposed "black hole". By definition of a "black hole", once the light is within the "event horizon" it is undetectable.

This is another crux of the "black hole" fallacy, "gas [plasma] falling [attracted] into a black hole [energetic plasmoid]candidate will always have a doppler redhift because the plasma is moving away from the observer.

This kind of argument is known as a red herring. Why? Because there are is no such thing as a "red" herring, and in this case there will never be detected doppler "blue shifted" light.

Marking knows this fact.

Why would there never be doppler "blue shifted" light from a electromagnetic plasmoid?

Because a plasmoid gives off tremendous amounts of electromagnetic radiation, both in the visible spectrum and the radio and x-ray spectrum (there is only a very dusty and bight area at the center of the Milky Way, as opposed to a "dark" spot) this dusty and bright spot would obscure any doppler "blue shifted" light that would have to be emitted from plasma (attracted to the center of the plasmoid) on the opposite side of the plasmoid from the observer (Man on Earth) to be "blue shifted".

It is a safe bet that no "blue shifted" light would ever reach the observer on the opposite side of the plasmoid.

All doppler "blue shifted" light would be obscured by the plasmoid.

Marking (being that he is smart, but duplicitous) knows and understands this situation.

But Marking puts out this red herring intentionally in order to appear reasonable -- plausible deniability -- when he knows it is a test that can never be met.

Making red herring arguments are also another example of "chicken shit" arguments.

Finally, Marking states: "The electromagnetic principles are well understood and have been known since James Clerk Maxwell in 1865. It is their application to specific phenomena which we disagree on. Saying that EM could be a possible explanation for some phenomenon is not evidence that it is."

So, what does Marking acknowledge in practice? Only that theoretically electromagnetism exists. That's it. Nothing more, nothing concrete.

This is a meaningless statement, again, meant to appear at first blush reasonable, as most readers would see it, but when one analyzes the statement, it means nothing.

Every "modern" astronomer would acknowledge the theoretical existence of electromagnetism, particlualry when expressed as "Maxwell's equations", a theoretical equational expression of electromagnetism if ever there was one.

Why does Marking state it this way?

Exactly because it gives nothing away. Any fellow "modern" astronomer who read that statement would nod his head to himself and think, "that shrewd Marking, he didn't admit to anything, good boy."

It's a chicken shit answer.

And that's the point, Marking is a half-step too slick for is own good.

Marking came on this website thinking the "hayseed" cranks, here, couldn't see through his cynical game of "duck, shuck, and jive, and ignore."

Marking was wrong.

Now, Marking wants to make a big deal about Dr. Anthony Peratt's galaxy formation not mentioning "black hole" as evidence that Peratt didn't exclude "black holes" as a possibility from his simulation.

Marking, the point is that your logic is ludicrous. Peratt's failure to categorically exclude "black hole" does not constitute any kind of evidence.

In a computer simulation with controlled inputs (equations) and express results, only an express report of a "black hole" possibility would have any meaning.

Does Peratt every state a "black hole" is a resulting possibility?

No.

Marking wants me to withtract my statement that he is a liar.

Because it is possible that Marking actually believes his convoluted reasoning I will withdraw any statement of liar associated with the Peratt simulation.

Marking's logic backward and he knows it. Peratt, indeed, never mentions "black holes" in his simulation parameters.

What does that show?

If Peratt was figuring in the "black hole" hypothesis in his simulation Peratt would have mentioned it, don't you think?

Marking is in the dubious position of stating the emperor is wearing clothes when everybody else on the parade route sees the emperor is naked.

Either Marking is as dumb as a post (and he's not) or he knows he has no choice but to keep up the pretense.

There is one reason Peratt doesn't mention "black holes" in his paper reporting on his computer simulations; "black holes" are not part of the mathematical equations that were entered into the computer before the simulations.

So-called "black holes" would have a very definite impact on any computer simulation. The mathematical equations that encapsulate the gravitational powers of a "black hole" would have to be entered into the master equations for any simulation to consider a "black hole".

Marking has stated (paraphrase): "Show me where Peratt specifically excludes "black holes" from his simulation.

But that is not the test and Marking knows it.

The test is this: Are there any equations mentioned in Peratt's paper that represent the effect of a "black hole"?

Or equations that would have "black hole" results.

Marking, does Peratt state the mathematical equations of General Relativity are included in the equations he entered into the computer before the simulation?

Because without General Relativity equations entered into the computer it is clear without doubt that Peratt did not entertain the possibility of a "black hole" in his computer simulations of an electromagnetic progression of the formation of a galaxy.

General Relativity equations are specific and detailed, simply mentioning normal gravity equations were entered into the computer simulations does not get you to "black holes" as a possibility.

There must be a specific General Relativity equation entered into the computer simulation.

Does anywhere in Peratt's paper mention the result of his simulation would be a "black hole"?

The answer to these two questions is, "NO."

It is ludicrous on it's face for Marking to insist "black holes" could be a result of the simulation.

A computer simulation by it's very nature is a controlled progression and result.

If a "black hole" was even a possibility as a result of the computer simulation, that would be stated in the paper.

Such is not the case.

This is the perverted logic Marking used to deny his insinuation that he was calling OilIsMastery and myself cranks. Because Marking never directly stated as such. That rational was ludicrous then and his supposed rational regarding Peratt's galaxy simulation is ludicrous, now.

Sorry, Marking, your too cute, by half arguments don't fly in my view.

Tom Marking said...

Anaconda, you said you weren't going to waste any more time on this. I think I've come to the same conclusion myself.

Anaconda said...

BINARY PAIR OF STARS ELECTRICALLY GENERATED

Marking stated that there was no suppport for my concept of the Sirius A & B pair being analogous to Cygnus X-1 and its visible partner, HDE 226868, in terms of x-ray generation for Cygnus X-1.

Marking's lame contention that an x-ray emitting star (Cygnus X-1) would still have visible light from 6,000 light-years away has been demonstrated as a bogus argument. If the analogy holds true with Sirius B, 8.6 light-years distance, then it's visible light is 10,000 times dimmer than HDE 226868 the visible light emitting star in the pair.

Include a dark dust "cloud" and it adds to the evidence supporting my position.

In addition, here, is a published scientific paper that contrdicts Marking, again:

Astrophysics

An electrically powered binary star?

"We propose a model for stellar binary systems consisting of a magnetic and a non-magnetic white-dwarf pair which is powered principally by electrical energy. In our model the luminosity is caused by resistive heating of the stellar atmospheres due to induced currents driven within the binary. This process is reminiscent of the Jupiter-Io system, but greatly increased in power because of the larger companion and stronger magnetic field of the primary. Electrical power is an alternative stellar luminosity source, following on from nuclear fusion and accretion. We find that this source of heating is sufficient to account for the observed X-ray luminosity of the 9.5-min binary RX J1914+24, and provides an explanation for its puzzling characteristics."

While this is different from what I described is does suggest science is getting closer to an Electric Universe.

Marking, you are a pseudosceptic and you have been exposed.

Anaconda said...

BINARY STARS OBSERVED WHICH INDICATE DIFFERENT AGES FOR PAIR

Story that presents the Nature finding:

The study, which is published in the June 19 issue of the journal Nature, suggests that one of the stars formed significantly earlier than its twin. Because astrophysicists have assumed that binary stars form simultaneously, the discovery provides an important new test for successful star formation theories, forcing theorists back to the drawing board to determine if their models can produce binaries with stars that form at different times.

...

Because the two stars condensed from the same cloud of gas and dust they should have the same composition. With identical mass and composition, they should be identical in every way. So the astronomers were surprised when they discovered that the twins exhibited significant differences in brightness, surface temperature and possibly size.

...

[T]he astronomers were able to determine that one of the stars is two times brighter than the other and calculate that the brighter star has a surface temperature about 300 degrees higher than its twin. An additional analysis of the light spectrum coming from the pair also suggests that one of the stars is about 10 percent larger than the other, but additional observations are needed to confirm it.

...

In addition to causing theorists to re-examine star-formation models, the new discovery may cause astronomers to readjust their estimates of the masses and ages of thousands of young stars less than a few million years old. Current estimates are based on models that were calibrated with measurements of young binary stars that were presumed to have formed simultaneously. The recalibration required could be as much as 20 percent for the mass of a typical young star and as much as 50 percent for very low-mass stars like brown dwarfs, Stassun estimates.

[Anaconda's note: The evidence keeps adding up for Wallace Thornhill's star "birthing" hypothesis.]

Anaconda said...

SUPERCLUSTERS AND GALAXIES (BEADS ON A STRONG)

During the course of this debate with Tom Marking, the "big picture" as opposed to the "big bang" was brought up.

Super large galactic structures (superclusters of galaxies) have been observed & measured -- this is non-controversial -- even "modern" astronomy subscribes to these super large structures.

Here is another over-view picture (computer generated) of our neighborhood of the Universe. Does the structure appear filamentary in nature?

Why is it that "modern astronomy" seemingly ignores the link between the filamentary structues of the Universe and the fact that electromagnetism as expressed in filamented structures like Birkeland currents?

Is this all just coincidence?

The problems arise when the implications of these super large structures are considered.

There are two main problems: One, the gravity "only" model of the Universe (standard model) has only one explanation for these structures, "dark" matter, which has never been observed & measured; two, gravity is exceedingly weak and on galactic time scales, slow acting, the time frame of the "big bang" (14 billion years) is not long enough for the slow acting force of gravity to form these superclusters of galaxies, it is estimated it would take 80 billion years for these superclusters to form. Some of these superclusters are 350 million light years across.

Also, galaxies have been observed to be structured like beads on a necklace.

See the story in Astronomy.com, titled, Galaxies like necklace beads, and an accompanying graphic illustration with the story.

This "beads on a string" observation is consistent with the Plasma Universe theory of galaxy formation, quasars being ejected from galaxies to form new galaxies in a line from the galaxies' axis.

In a final note, why is it that "modern" astronomy has to rely on a series of phenomenon, "dark" matter, "dark" energy, "black holes", "neutron" stars, that can't be detected and require setting aside the normal laws of physics, and that undetected phenomenon are 96% of the Universe, as opposed to Plasma Universe theory that explains 99.99% of the visible matter with no reliance on exotic undetected phenomenon?

Surely, the contrast between the two theories could not be more evident at the supercluster level of structure in the Universe.

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "Marking's lame contention that an x-ray emitting star (Cygnus X-1) would still have visible light from 6,000 light-years away has been demonstrated as a bogus argument. If the analogy holds true with Sirius B, 8.6 light-years distance, then it's visible light is 10,000 times dimmer than HDE 226868 the visible light emitting star in the pair."

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/620961/hubble_sees_faintest_stars_in_a_globular_cluster/index.html

"Hubble Sees Faintest Stars in a Globular Cluster
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2006, 12:45 CDT

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has uncovered what astronomers are reporting as the dimmest stars ever seen in any globular star cluster. Globular clusters are spherical concentrations of hundreds of thousands of stars.

.
.
.

Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys completed a census of two distinct stellar populations in NGC 6397. Hubble surveyed the faintest red dwarf stars, which fuse hydrogen in their cores like our sun, and the dimmest white dwarfs, which are the burned-out relics of normal stars.

The light from these faint stars is as dim as the light produced by a birthday candle on the Moon seen from Earth. NGC 6397 is 8,500 light-years away from Earth."

The Hubble Space Telescope has directly resolved white dwarfs optically in the globular cluster NGC 6397 which is 8,500 light-years away.

http://www.seds.org/messier/more/m004_hst.html

Here are Hubble pictures of white dwarf stars in the globular cluster M4 which is 7,000 light-years from earth.

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "Marking's lame contention that an x-ray emitting star (Cygnus X-1) would still have visible light from 6,000 light-years away has been demonstrated as a bogus argument. If the analogy holds true with Sirius B, 8.6 light-years distance, then it's visible light is 10,000 times dimmer than HDE 226868 the visible light emitting star in the pair."

Also, HDE 226868 has an apparent magnitude of +8.9:

http://www.shortopedia.com/H/D/HD_and_HDE_objects

Sirius A has an apparent magnitude of -1.46 and Sirius B has an apparent magnitude of +8.30:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius

Sirius B has an apparent magnitude
difference of 9.76 or 8,000 times dimmer than Sirius A. If a similar ratio holds between Cygnus X-1 and HDE 226868 then the supposed Cygnus X-1 "white dwarf" would have an apparent magnitude of +18.66.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_magnitude

"The Hubble Space Telescope has located stars with magnitudes of 30 at visible wavelengths"

The HST can detect objects more than 11 magnitudes dimmer than what we would expect for this Cygnus X-1 "white dwarf" (25,000 times dimmer). Such a white dwarf would be easily detectible by the HST if it existed.

Your argument doesn't hold up when you look at it quantitatively.

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "Marking, you are a pseudosceptic and you have been exposed."

Anaconda, a pseudoscientist would be someone who is not a real scientist. So a pseudosceptic would be someone who is not a real skeptic, right? Gee, does that mean I must believe all the crap you and OIM are shovelling? I'm just pretending not to believe it, right? :)

Anaconda said...

CONCLUDING COMMENT ABOUT THE DEBATE WITH TOM MARKING

(Note: Marking has made additional comments. I will review them and address their merits without abuse, in a subsequent and seperate comment, although, notice his descriptive: "I must believe all the crap you and OIM are shovelling?" No, but you need to engage in good faith discussion, not short-cuts and debate tricks.)

Tom Marking has withdrawn from the debate and I can't blame him, I rained abuse on Marking toward the end of the debate. I also was inclined to end the debate as I stated in the midst of hurling abuse at Marking.

Carl Popper has stated falsification is the key to scientific advance and I agree with that position.

Many, if not most readers of this discussion thread might easily conclude that Marking was simply engaging in an attempt to falsify Plasma Cosmology, and I lost my cool and started personally attacking him because I was losing the debate. That is one interpretation.

There is another interpretation.

I'll offer my interpretation in hind sight, now, after the dust has cleared, but hopefully some readers have tailed to the end of the debate.

As I stated above, falsification is the prime vehicle for validating hypothesis in the scientific method. And reasonable scepticism is a welcome state of mind for scientific inquiry.

But the dialectic is also required: An open-mind.

The two states of mind must simultaneously be held in oppostion to each other in one person's mind.

Not an easy task considering people have biases & prejudices which tend to make us take one side or the other to disputed questions. It's hard to straddle the fence, so to speak, and vigorously examine a question. Fence straddlers tend to either refuse to examine the question or never come to conclusions.

Both examining questions and coming to conclusions are part of the scientific enterprise.

But getting back to Marking and this discussion and the role of falsification.

It is my postion that the process of falsification has to have a very high ethical standard maintained. Debunking for the sake of "debunking" is not productive.

In science, there are ideas and physical relations that can't be "debunked", the physical relations can be validated and if so, have to be acknowledged.

This can frustrate the intention of the "debunker".

At this point in a scientific debate where hypothesis and theory is validated as opposed to "debunked" or falsified, temptation arises in the heart and mind of the frustrated "debunker".

Human Nature is resistent to change: Interlocutors in a debate want to win. At this point the temptation is to take short-cuts and engage in debating tricks.

When one side in a debate becomes aware and conscious of the other side taking short-cuts and engaging in debating tricks (sophism), what is that side to do?

One strategy is to point out the logical short-cuts and debating tricks and hopefully upon having this pointed out, the offending side will either become conscious of these actions (yes, sometimes interlocutors are not even conscious they have slipped into this mode of debate), or realizing their tactics have been exposed, desist from the tactics and the debate can move forward on a good faith basis.

Regarding this debate, it did not take long before I was conscious of Marking taking short-cuts and playing debating tricks.

So, initially, I attempted to make Marking aware that I knew what he was doing, simply by taking the extra time and effort to expose his strategies by carefully laying out his arguments for examination. My hope being that Marking would become self-conscious of his tactics and desist or knowing that his intentional tactics had been exposed and would be demonstrated to the readers, thus Marking would begin to engage in good faith debate and drop the short-cuts and tricks.

But this path takes a lot of effort and work, much more so than is needed in a good faith debate.

Yet, it also can serve as an illustration to readers that because the ideas and thesis presented can't be invalidated without resort to short-cuts and debating tricks, it shows the strength to the ideas and thesis presented.

Again, this requires much more energy and work than a straight-forward, good faith debate.

So, the interlocutor eventually comes to a fork in the road: Do you continue patiently exposing the short-cuts, or do you take more abrupt and unpleasant action?

I would much rather engage in good faith debate -- it is a worthwhile and pleasurable pursuit.

In this case, I could have simply continued exposing Marking's game by logical refutation -- in my opinion it was becoming increasingly obvious to the readers (what started as a gut feeling became palpable as the debate wore on), or take abrupt action.

I decided on abrupt action.

I was tired of Marking's game and it was apparent that no matter how forcefully I might expose his tactics in a polite way, Marking would not change his tactics and continue the debate in a good faith manner -- the key to a constructive debate.

In fact, as the deabate wore on, and I was more forceful in exposing his style, the more flagrant Marking became.

And, yes, I was getting tired of just politely refuting his fallacious arguments.

That is when I came down on him like a ton of bricks and called him out for his actions in no uncertain terms.

Marking had a choice: Either change tactics and move away from short-cuts and tricks, and, instead engage in good faith; or Marking could continue on as before and subject himself to having his shit called out and put in his face (rub his nose in it); or quit.

Marking chose the latter, he quit.

I admit it was not likely Marking would change his style. It seems evident that his purpose from the start was not good faith falsification, but an arrogant strategy of "debunking" no matter what.

Under those terms, the "debunker" attempts to appear as reasonable as possible in the initial stages of the debate, the thinking being that a reasonable appearing "debunking" may be all that is required to dispose of the interlocutor. But as their "reasonable debunking" fails, then the determination to "debunk" is more evident as the debate wears on. Remember, they have no intention to admit that the theory they are attempting to "debunk" may be valid, after all.

That's not why they got into the debate to begin with, the last thing they want to do is facilitate the validity of the theory they are attempting to "debunk".

So, they get more aggressive and outlandish in their arguments.

Their reaction to their tricks being exposed politely, is to take it as a sign of weakness, rather than strength, so they coninue on.

And when they finally are called out in no uncertain terms, they quit, rather than be forced by logic and evidence to admit the validity of the theory they oppose.

Marking quit.

End of story.

(Maybe not, we'll see how it goes.)

Anaconda said...

PERHAPS READERS ARE TIRED OF MY "SHIT" AND WOULD BE MORE OPEN TO SOMEONE ELSE'S TAKE ON PLASMA COSMOLOGY

I realize I can grate on people's nerves. I'm a head banger, I admit it.

My writing is mechanical and while I try to be patient, yes, sometimes I'm abusive.

So, in an effort to be accommodating, I have linked this story for readers. The writer is conversational, yet direct and engaging, his article is well documented with links to authority in both mainstream media and Plasma Cosmology.

This writer is non-threatening and takes a persuasive approach to the issue:

Big Bang vs. Plasma Cosmology: Competing Approaches to Understanding the Universe, by Michael Gmirkin.

This author also has other articles about plasma Cosmology and the difficulties of the standard model (gravity "only" model), which one can easily access once one goes to the above linked article.

If my expired body lays on the barbed wire at the top of the hill so that other more eloquent and appealing voices can step over the top and plant the flag of reason, I'm glad to sacrifice myself for the cause of reason and scientfic advancement.

(Okay, I'm being facetious:-)

Hopefully, with my obnoxious presence out of the picture, readers can take a more relaxed approach and give Plasma Cosmology due consideration.

Anaconda said...

A BEAUTIFUL PICTURE (Color is Magnificent)

See this galactic sized filament, Birkeland current. Well worth clicking the link. Notice the helix form the filament takes.

"Original Caption:
This delicate Hubble Space Telescope image shows a tiny portion of the Cygnus loop, a supernova remnant in the constellation of Cygnus, the Swan. Measurements on this super-detailed image of a cosmic veil shows that the original supernova explosion took place only 5, 000 years ago."

Anaconda said...

@ Tom Marking:

I have reviewed your star magnitude evidence. Provisionally, it does falsify the "white dwarf" hypothesis.

Has Hubble been trained on Cygnus X-1 or it's visible apparent binary partner, HDE 226868?

On a different line of reason: If x-rays are emitted by the postulated "accretion disk" of Cygnus X-1, why would it be limited to x-rays?

Thermal heating due to friction as the result of the "accretion disk" process should release energy across a broad band of the electromagnetic spectrum.

What theoretically would limit the emission from Cygnus X-1 to only x-rays?

Anaconda said...

WHITE DWARF HYPOTHESIS ALREADY IN SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE

It turns out that my "white dwarf" hypothesis to explain Cygnus X-1 has already been presented to the astrological community. (I never claimed I was first, but I hadn't been aware that others had suggested this idea.)

X-ray binary stars are not unique.

Per Wikipedia, X-ray binary stars are fairly common.

Here is the relevant statement from Wikipedia:

"High-Mass X-ray binary"

"A high-mass X-ray binary (HMXB) is a binary star system that is strong in X rays, and in which the normal stellar component is a massive star: usually an O or B star, a Be star, or a blue supergiant. The compact, X-ray emitting, component is...possibly a white dwarf."

So, my idea is while not original, already has been broached in atronomy circles.

Anaconda said...

IS THERE A HUBBLE PICTURE OF CYGNUS X -1?

In a previous comment I asked Marking if there were any Hubble telescope pictures of Cygnus X-1 or it's apparent binary partner the visible giant blue star HDE 226868.

I decided to look around on the internet, myself.

Strangely, there was a lot of chatter about Hubble and Cygnus X-1, but I couldn't find a picture.

Now, I understand Cygnus X-1 is supposedly invisible so wouldn't make a good picture, but, surely, there would be a Hubble picture of star HDE 226868.

Where is the Hubble picture of HDE 226868?

If one does not exist, then why not?

I hope Marking can prove me wrong or somebody else that has tailed down this path.

But with Cygnus X-1 being one of the most discussed and assumed "black holes" in astronomy, as one of the first "black hole" candidates, it would seem rather obvious for Hubble to fix its gaze on that specific area of space.

I'm left wondering if a Hubble picture has been taken, which revealed light at the source of Cygnus X-1 or maybe there has been an oversite.

But this question must be resolved one way or the other before I would accept that the "white dwarf" hypothesis has been disproved.

Anaconda said...

Marking stated Cygnus X-1 was 300 in meters diameter. A source of authority Marking cited stated Cygnus X-1 was from 10 to 100 meters in diameters, now I find that another source puts the diameter of Cygnus X-1 at 3000 kilometers!

"X-rays from Cygnus X-1 are seen to vary irregularly - in strong contrast to the regular pulses emitted by X-ray pulsars. The X-rays from Cygnus X-1 can grow substantially brighter or dimmer over time scales as short as 0.01 second. The natural deduction from the rapid variability of Cygnus X-1 is that the X-rays are coming from a region less than 0.01 light-second across. (0.01 light-second is 3000 kilometers, or roughly the diameter of the Earth's Moon.)"

Per Ohio State on line lecture notes.

Now I am left to assume that the lecturer knows what she is talking about, which leaves a big question in my mind: How did Marking come up with 300 kilometers instead of 3000 kilometers.

And how come we have diameters all over the board for Cygnus X-1?

Could that mean "modern" astronomy doesn't know the measurements with any degree of certainty because there hasn't been any direct observations?

And if "modern" astronomy has such large variance in supposed measurements how can they be sure about their conclusions?

No. At this point with these numerous problems and question marks unanswered, I'm not about to accept "modern" astronomy's conclusion about Cygnus X-1.

It is better to admit you don't know an answer than go around spouting of a possibly wrong answer as the reality of the situation.

Something I fear "modern" astronomy has been doing for far too long.

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "Where is the Hubble picture of HDE 226868? If one does not exist, then why not?"

I haven't been able to find a HST image but here is one from the Schmidt telescope at the Palomar Observatory which is apparently able to resolve HDE 226868 from Cygnus X-1:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/YBA/cyg-X1-mass/cygX1-image.html

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "Marking stated Cygnus X-1 was 300 in meters diameter."

Nope. Go back and read. I said ~300 km based on ~1 millisecond fluctuations. That actually should be the radius, not the diameter, so I erred on that one. A 9 solar mass black hole would have a radius of 27 km, so a 300 meter diameter object would not be a black hole.

Tom Marking said...

"A 9 solar mass black hole would have a radius of 27 km"

That's the radius of the event horizon, of course, not of some physical object.

@Anaconda "The natural deduction from the rapid variability of Cygnus X-1 is that the X-rays are coming from a region less than 0.01 light-second across."

As I recall you reject such a "natural deduction" and claim that it is all an unfounded assumption. Surprised to see you quoting this now. So if the diameter is ~3,000 km what is the average density?

Anaconda said...

@ Tom Marking:

I was not subscribing to the explanation or the validity of the result, my point was simple: Three different sources (counting you as a 'source'), three different estimates of diameter.

And wildly different estimates at that.

Please, be careful about your assumptions, I suggest most readers, based on my prior statements and the tenor of the proceeding discussion would not assume that I was abruptly taking the position that so-called "black holes" exist, rather, readers would understand I had quoted the passage, not as an adoption of the statement, but as an offer of evidence that there are various figures given for the diameter of Cygnus X-1 and that under those circumstances of multiple figures for the diameter of Cygnus X-1, in reality they are only estimates.

Shoehorning unwarranted assumptions from an interlocutor's statements diminishes your credibility.

It is "modern" astronomy's claim of rigorous quantification that it subsequently relies on to be able to claim the assertion that the "black hole" hypothesis has validity.

But as I've demonstrated, above, such rigorous quantification is simply not the case.

"Modern" astronomy can't claim rigorous quantification when you have figures for Cygnus X-1's diameter all over the board.

On a seperate note: Marking, you keep trying to squeeze in the assumption of density by simple repetition: That doesn't wash and you should know that.

On another line:

"As his [W.T. "Tom" Bridgman] final "Homework Problem" [p 48] he challenges me to calculate the density of a binary pair of stars that orbit a common center in a period of one millisecond. Why? What has this got to do with anything I have said? Please read pages 173 to 188 in The Electric Sky. In there, one of the things I do say is, "The rate of this [pulsar] charge/discharge phenomenon depends on the strength of the input (Birkeland) current, the capacitances (surface areas of the stars) and the breakdown voltage of the (plasma) connection. It in no way depends on the mass or density of the stars." It is also independent of the orbital periodicity of any binary pair." -- Don Scott, electrical engineer

Let me say, I would not have recognized the significance of that figure if I hadn't been dealing with it, here. But I do find it "slippery" that Bridgman would put this computation in front of Scott without identifying the significance or relationship to Cygnus X-1. I note that Bridgman's Ph.D. was earned studying Cygnus X-1.

Marking, do you think it is scientifically ethical for Bridgman to throw that out there without identifying its significance?

Scott's passage taken at face value invalidates all the computations you offered either by your own calculations or as citing authority in terms of mass and density calculations.

Interesting.

And consistent with my position.

Anaconda said...

@ Tom Marking:

I looked at that telescope image NASA provided...

It sure would be nice to get a Hubble picture...

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "I was not subscribing to the explanation or the validity of the result, my point was simple: Three different sources (counting you as a 'source'), three different estimates of diameter."

Even if the varying estimates differ among themselves by 3 orders of magnitude this is still better than anything you have provided for EU.

As I recall you have made the following statements concerning EU:

1.) The longevity of Z-pinches in space is entirely unknown and it's scalability is unknown as well.

2.) The Thornhill model lacks quantification (or at least you don't know any quantification for it) which you admit is a liability.

So apparently ultra-precise numbers is not something you require since EU doesn't have it. The only EU documentation I've read with any quantification is the Peratt model which is a computer simulation (which BTW, also has no error bars in the data).

It would be nice if there were some numbers for these galactic Birkeland currents you believe in, electrical stress on stars, etc., etc.

Anaconda said...

@ Tom Marking:

I appreciate your hanging in there.

Tom Marking states: "As I recall you have made the following statements concerning EU:

1.) The longevity of Z-pinches in space is entirely unknown and it's scalability is unknown as well."

You scolded me for being inconsistent and I agreed that I had been inconsistent and restated that in Plasma Universe theory electromagnetism is scalable so it's not "entirely unknown", rather there are instabilities, or nonlinear properties inherent that make exact prediction difficult.

Please, why do you constantly misstate my positions? After all, you scolded me, I accepted the scolding and then was specific in my restatement, there is no excuse for misstating my position.

Yes, the Thornhill model lacks quantification. And, yes, that is a weakness.

But here's the thing: The gravity "only" model holds itself out as quantitatively rigorous, does it not?

But on close inspection, it isn't quantitativley rigorous, is it?

That supposed rigorousness is the reason the gravity "model" has used as a justification for incorporating "new physics", but if it isn't rigorous then there is no reason to justifiy "new physics" is there?

And, yes, I agree that quantification is desirable.

But holding yourself out under false pretenses is worse. The gravity "only" model holds itself out as rigorously quantified -- it isn't.

That's misleading and deceptive.

Don't you see the problem with that?

Essentially, the gravity "only" modle is "living a lie".

Anaconda said...

MORE MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTS SUPPORT ELECTROMAGNETIC MODEL

It seems that the more you scratch the surface, the more you can find in the mainstream science media that supports electromagnetic phenomenon in space.

Magnetic Fields Crucial To Star Formation, Astronomer Says

ScienceDaily (September 10, 1999) -- "Observations by a University of Illinois astronomer have shown that magnetic fields are a critical component controlling when and how stars form."

And by hard fought discussion and debate and presentation of evidence and authority we know electric currents must be present to generate magnetic fields.

Further from the ScienceDaily article:

"Understanding the physics governing the structure and evolution of dense interstellar clouds is a necessary part of understanding the fundamental astrophysical process of star formation," said Richard Crutcher, a professor of astronomy at the U. of I. "Theoretical studies have suggested that magnetic fields play a vital role in the evolution of interstellar clouds and in the formation of stars, but those studies needed to be compared with observational data."

Clearly, electrotmagnetism pehnomenon is present in star forming regions.

Unknown Force Triggers Star Formation

Space.com (March 1, 2005) -- "The best look ever inside a womb of star birth reveals a force at work astronomers were not aware of."

Further:

"Some previously unrealized energetic process, likely related to magnetic fields, is superheating parts of the cloud, nudging it to become a star, scientists said. The detection of X-rays from the cold stellar precursor surprised astronomers. The observations reveal that matter is falling toward the core 10 times faster than gravity could account for."

"Some previously unrealized energetic process, likely related to magnetic fields..." Gee, could that "process" be electric currents? Ya think?

As we saw in the first report electric currents are required to generate mangnetic fields.

And don't think I didn't notice this beauty quote: "The observations reveal that matter is falling toward the core 10 times faster than gravity could account for."


"Ten times faster than gravity..."

No need for "magic beans"...oops...I mean "dark" matter, electric currents are there and they can attract plasma with more force than gravity -- kind of like we have here in the article.

But there is more, and much more recent -- hot off the science media presses, in fact:

Star Explodes, and So Might Theory

Space.com(March 22, 2009) -- "A massive star a million times brighter than our sun exploded way too early in its life, suggesting scientists don't understand stellar evolution as well as they thought. 'This might mean that we are fundamentally wrong about the evolution of massive stars, and that theories need revising,' said Avishay Gal-Yam of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel."

Recall the prior link that reported on the apparent different ages of partner stars in binary pairs, and it seems that "modern" astronomy has been really thrown for a loop.

Really, Marking, it appears that "modern" astronomy should be humble. Astronomers are being "surprised" way too often, to have confidence in their theories.

Tom, instead of simply trying to debunk Plasma Universe theory, spend some time and actually research it. I don't get the impression from your comments that you've done much independent research on the subject.

You already have admitted to interplanetary electromagnetism in our solar system. Maybe a good idea would be for you to study what you already know to be true, then you might understand better and be more open-minded when studying phenomenon outside the solar systme.

Anaconda said...

@ Tom Marking:

"You already have admitted to interplanetary electromagnetism in our solar system. Maybe a good idea would be for you to study what you already know to be true, then you might understand better and be more open-minded when studying phenomenon outside the solar system."

This is important: I asked you in a prior comment if electromagnetism was possible. At first you failed to answer the question, then on being prompted, you responded that you subscribe to Maxwell's Equations, which really doesn't say much -- it was a dodge, but as I stated, above, it would be beneficial if you would catalog what electromagnetic processes within the interplanetary medium you do subscribe to.

Please list electromagnetic phenomenon you subscribe to.

Be specific. If you won't be specific, I know you are nothing but a pseudosceptic.

I'll wait for your specific list of electromagnetic phenomenon.