The roar of the Centaur

By Phil Plait | January 28, 2009 2:00 pm

Centaurus A is a nearby galaxy — at 13 million light years distant, only a handful of big galaxies are closer to us. And it’s weird: it’s an elliptical galaxy eating a spiral! They’re in the last stages of merging into one bigger and messier galaxy. Dust from the spiral forms a huge ring around the center of the galaxy, with the gas and dust from both galaxies being dumped into the core.

But at that core is a supermassive black hole, gobbling down the matter as fast as it can… and even that’s not fast enough. The material piles up around the black hole, forming a superheated disk which helps channel all the vast forces in play around it. The end result is two corridors, twin tunnels leading up and away from the poles of the disk. Material heated to millions of degrees blasts through these paths, creating beams of matter and energy screaming out from the black hole.

And we have a front row seat.

Centaurs A, erupting. Click for a much larger, cooler version.
Credit: ESO/WFI (Optical); MPIfR/ESO/APEX/A.Weiss et al. (Submillimetre);
NASA/CXC/CfA/R.Kraft et al. (X-ray)

This new look at Cen A is a combination of three different telescopes in three different wavelength regimes: visible light from a 2.2 meter telescope in Chile, X-ray from the orbiting Chandra Observatory, and sub-millimeter emission (basically high-energy radio; if it were on your radio dial it would be off the scale to the right) taken by APEX, a 12 meter telescope located in the high desert in Chile.

The composite image is false color. The visible light (shown in more or less true color) is from stars and gas in the galaxy (and foreground stars in our own galaxy). The blue is from from Chandra, showing high energy X-rays. See how the jets are blue near the center? When they erupt from near the black hole they have tremendous energy and glow in X-rays. Measurements of how the gas is behaving indicate that the gas is moving outwards from the core at half the speed of light.

Holy Haleakala.

The new bit is the orange, which is from the submillimeter emission. That comes from cooler, less violent regions. That includes the ends of the jets, and the ring of dust circling the colliding galaxies. The jets slow as they ram gas outside the galaxy, and eventually puff up and stop. As they do, they emit much longer wavelengths in the radio and submillimeter region, where the new APEX instrument is sensitive — and this is the first time this part of the jets has been seen in this wavelength. Interestingly, the rammed gas at the tip of the bottom jet is glowing in X-rays, meaning a lot of activity is still going on there — you can see the arc of the shockwave. The density of gas in that area is much larger than "above" the galaxy, which is why you can see it better.

The ring of dust is interesting as well. It’s easy to see in visible light, too, as a dark band blocking light from stars closer to the galaxy’s center. All that gas disturbed by the collision is forming stars at a very high rate. Those stars pour out dust, which is warmed by the starlight. Warm dust emits lots of submillimeter light, making it obvious to APEX.

At the very heart of the galaxy, as material pours into the black hole, a fierce amount of energy is emitted. That can be seen as the starlike point right smack dab in the middle. We see it in all three wavelengths, which is why it looks so bright in this image.

Cen A is a funny study in contrasts. Galaxy collisions on this scale aren’t common, so it’s nice to have one so close; statistically that’s rare. The collision has made a complete mess of things, so it’s good we can see it from close by; we get more details that way. But it’s so messy it’s hard to say what’s going on exactly! We have a decent idea in general, but specifics can be hard to nail down. That’s why looking at it with many different telescopes helps so much. If we only had visible light telescopes, we’d miss the jets of matter. If we had only X-rays we wouldn’t see the stars and the dust ring. If we had only radio or submillimeter we’d miss the high-energy action going on.

Like in the blind men and the elephant parable, we need to take all the information we have and combine it to get, literally, a complete picture of the scene. With APEX added to our inventory, we’ve added new pieces to the puzzle, and that always makes it easier to solve.

Comments (210)

  1. Anaconda (or whatever his name is) inc in 3… 2… 1… :|

  2. IVAN3MAN

    Larian LeQuella, I swear, if he (Anaconda) turns up here, I’m gonna hire an assassin.

  3. Chip

    I’ve never read an essay about what it would be like to live on an Earth-like planet right smack in the middle of one of those galactic merge events. I suspect there are two factors:
    1. It depends on where you are in the galaxy, and
    2. such an event is so huge compared to the human time scale that it is quite possible we would live comfortably despite all the enormous violence of star formation going on.

    Our solar system however might eventually be flung out of, or deep into the on-going galactic train wreck. If Andromeda had started merging into the Milky Way at the end of the Pleistocene era, I suspect our night sky today might be rather wild. (Or maybe not since there are places in the Milky Way “today” that are wild and crazy.)

    P.S. Good idea not to have the solar system move toward the giant black hole beam. ;)

  4. They’re in the last stages of merging into one bigger and messier galaxy.

    But not into a Messier galaxy.

    (Sorry, couldn’t resist)

  5. MadScientist

    About APEX – what frequency does it use? What is the resolution used for that image? I’m asking because I can’t imagine a 12m radio antenna having terribly good resolution on its own so I’m wondering where’s the trick.

  6. Braxton Thomason

    Awww, Andy beat me to it :(

  7. Stark

    Currently APEX observes in the 211 to 371 GHz range across 2 detectors. A third detector is being brought online that will expand coverage up to about 500Ghz and a 4th detector covering 1250 – 1384GHz is in the works as well.

    Lots of info here : http://www.apex-telescope.org

  8. Richard

    Darnit, Phil, there you go showing pretty pictures again. I prefer it when you do political stuff. *snarkity, snark, snark*

    Seriously, that’s a cool photo.

  9. ND

    Larian LeQuella Says:

    “Anaconda (or whatever his name is) inc in 3… 2… 1…”

    I was going to post the same countdown when I saw this posting on the front page. When I clicked on it I saw that you beat me to it :)

  10. Forrest

    Sweet picture! Wish there was a scale on the pic to help me wrap my mind around the size. Amazing to think gas is moving out from the core at .5C

  11. Sundance

    It looks to me like the “upper” beam is trailing off in one direction, as if the whole mess was precessing, and the beams coming out are being bent (like the string of water droplets flung off a wet propeller). Has anybody done an analysis to see if that’s the case, maybe looking at the Doppler shift of various parts of the galaxies? It’d be somewhat interesting if the whole thing was spinning around multiple axes and we could actually see it affecting the trajectories of stuff expelled from the collision.

  12. LABOCA on APEX is a 345GHz (850 micron) bolometer array. The submillimeter emission in the radio lobes is from synchrotron emission, while that in the disk is from cold dust.

  13. Jake K

    “off the scale to the right” AM or FM?

  14. Insert obligatory “when ALMA comes online, it will see much more!” comment here.

  15. Jake, FM is to the “right” of AM, and APEX is observing to the “right” of that.

  16. Aw, Nicole, ya beat me to it! [grin]
    APEX in located on the Chajnantor plain where ALMA is being built, too!
    Yep, ALMA is gonna blow lots of socks off!

  17. Phil Evans

    Phil – can you explain the structure and shape of the jets. The upper one appears quite different to the lower one and the upper one has two clearly distinct regions. A straight section followed by one that is more amorphous but looks as if it has been blown off to one side. Is it because the jet has finally hit the Intergalactic medium and been slowed down and now shows the precession of the the galaxy? (I see that Sundance above is asking a similar question)
    Phil Evans

  18. José

    Anaconda (or whatever his name is) inc in 3… 2… 1…

    I think about 10 people had the same exact thought. I was going to suggest Phil stop using the term black hole altogether, and instead call it something like “hearty centro-galactic thingamadoo”. I don’t even think plasma cosmologists could doubt the existence of something with such an awesome name.

  19. Brian

    Good grief, but that’s a dramatic image. I like the connection to the elephant parable; it resonates well here.

    (andy: That was a terrible pun. You should be drawn and quoted.)

  20. L Ron Hubbub

    Explain to me again how matter can be ejected in opposite directions from this galaxy at half the speed of light and the material in the jets not be moving with the speed of light with respect to each other?…

  21. Great posting, and a FANTASTIC PHOTO of Centaurus A. This is one of those iconic astronomical objects often pictured, even in the closing credits of the old black & white “Outer Limits” show, and described as a particularly energetic galaxy and a bright radio source. Who would’ve fathomed back that it was actually two galaxies in collision, with a monstrous black hole churning ferociously at its core? And people wonder why I love astronomy so much!

  22. Gary Ansorge

    ROAR of the Centaur? Since when does a man/horse ROAR? I thought it would WHINNY,,,

    L Ron,,,( the angle of the dangle is directly proportional to the heat of the,,,beat,,,) ,,,oh, never mind,,,( resumes ingesting large portions of caffeine),,,

    It appears to me that the ejected gas is curling back toward the central galaxy. Trapped in the galactic magnetic field, I presume?

    Are all large galactic black holes so,,,flatulent?

    GAry 7

  23. @Sundance, @Phil Evans

    (The following comments assume a 1024 x 768 pixel screen resolution)

    I see some folks have noticed some peculiarities in the image too. If we take the broad band of dust going from lower left to upper right at about a 30 degree angle as our x-y plane then the lower portions of the upper jet in blue appear to be oriented at ~70 degrees relative to this plane. The upper jet remains narrow (~10 pixels wide) and blue for a distance of ~40 pixels. It then broadens considerably (~45 pixels wide), turns yellow, and takes ~30 degree turn to the right and continues for another ~50 pixels.

    The lower jet is a bit more ambiguous since the yellow portion starts much closer to the origin. It’s hard to tell what the initial angle of the jet is coming out of the x-y plane. It may be the same ~70 degrees but perhaps a bit lower, say ~60 degrees or so. We expect our two jets to be initially offset from one another by 180 degrees so this is interesting, perhaps an effect of perspective only. The lower jet goes ~25 pixels before turning right and going another ~55 pixels.

    If we take the width of the central dust lane which is ~140 pixels to be something like ~100,000 light-years then we have the following structure:

    The upper jet is initially ~7,000 ly in width and goes out straight for ~30,000 ly at which point it turns right ~30 degrees and goes another ~35,000 ly and balloons to a width of ~30,000 ly. Total length of upper jet is ~65,000 ly.

    The bottom jet goes out straight for only ~20,000 ly before turning right and going another ~40,000 ly. Total length of bottom jet is ~60,000 ly.

    Of course, these distances are distances projected onto a plane perpendicular to our line of sight. If the true jet orientation is tilted 45 degrees relative to this plane then multiply these distances by a factor of 1.4:

    upper jet: ~40,000 ly straight, ~50,000 ly after turn, ~90,000 ly total
    bottom jet: ~30,000 ly straight, ~55,000 ly after turn, ~85,000 ly total

    That’s roughly the scale of the structures we are seeing here. Something must be causing the jets to turn and roughly at the blue-yellow transition (at least for the upper jet) when the emission turns from X-rays to microwaves. This might make sense since the synchrotron emission has weakened sufficiently that’s telling us that the magnetic field has weakened perhaps to the level of the intergalactic medium. I am reminded of cumulonimbus clouds (i.e., thunderhead) and what happens when their tops reach the altitude of the jet stream at 35,000 feet – the strong winds shear them off and you get a beautiful anvil shape.

  24. @L Ron Hubbub “Explain to me again how matter can be ejected in opposite directions from this galaxy at half the speed of light and the material in the jets not be moving with the speed of light with respect to each other?…”

    It’s a Lorentz transformation:

    v-rel = (v1 + v2) / (1 + (v1*v2)/c^2)

    Thus if v1 = v2 = 0.5c, then v-rel = 0.8c

  25. @Gary Ansorge “It appears to me that the ejected gas is curling back toward the central galaxy. Trapped in the galactic magnetic field, I presume?”

    Probably not. A dipole field would be symmetric so you might expect the jet to get bigger but not bend in one direction only. It’s probably an effect of the ambient magnetic field of the intergalactic medium. Someone suggested it’s a precessional effect which, in essence, would mean the yellow part has the orientation of the jet at some previous time period. I’m a bit skeptical of that – if so I would expect a smoothly curving jet and not an abrupt turn out at 30,000 to 40,000 light-years.

  26. Well, such a friendly welcome from Ivan3Man: “I swear, if he (Anaconda) turns up here, I’m gonna hire an assassin.”

    Are you so threatened by my comments that you need to joke about hiring an assassin?

    Tsk, Tsk, Tsk…

    I will concentrate on the press release that is linked in the post: “From the Measurements of this emission, which occurs when fast-moving electrons spiral around the lines of a magnetic field…”

    These “fast-moving” electrons spiralling around a magnetic field are also known as synchrotron radiation. Of course, magnetic fields are caused by electric currents, but nowhere is that fact mentioned in the press release.

    That does seem like a significant item to be left out of a report.

    Oh, but I forgot, the ‘community’ hasn’t come to grips with that little detail.

    Some would rather (verbally) assassinate the messenger then deal with the message.

    The press release goes on: “[T]he fast-moving radio jets ejected from the galaxy centre, signatures of the supermassive black hole at the heart of Centaurus A.”

    This is a complete assumption — conventional astronomy has dropped all pretenses about theories — “black holes” are a fact, even though they have never been observed, and the most often cited “indirect” evidence for “black holes” existence is that without “black holes” there wouldn’t be enough gravitational pull to hold together the sprialling arms of the galaxies, especially since it has been observed that the Milky Way spins faster than previously thought.

    But since gravity is all that “matters” in standard astronomy’s view…well, then, “black holes” have to be inferred to exist.

    If alternative causations were considered this logical progression wouldn’t hold up to reasonable scepticism and close examination.

    In other words, “The theory doesn’t work without ‘black holes’, so there must be ‘black holes’,” isn’t the strongest piece of deductive logic I’ve seen.

    But now science knows electric currents exist in space. As Maxwell’s Equations clearly state only electric currents form magnetic fields.

    Also, once electric currents are considered, one can consider laboratory plasma physics experiments which tested the physical properties of plasma and accounted for the electromagnetic jets that emit radio wave radiation.

    Again, the press release states: “Centaurus A hosts a very active and highly luminous central region, caused by the presence of a supermassive black hole (see ESO 04/01), and is the source of strong radio and X-ray emission.”

    What the press release doesn’t say is that the X-rays in such cases are almost exclusively synchrotron radiation, not thermal radiation. That means the X-rays are emitted by very fast electrons spiraling in a strong magnetic field caused by electric currents.

    The press release goes on: “In submillimetre light, we see not only the heat glow from the central dust disc, but also the emission from the central radio source and – for the first time in the submillimetre – the inner radio lobes north and south of the disc.”

    Of course, all this is assumed to be caused by a “black hole,” or should I say,”black holes” in plural, since this is assumed to be two galaxies “merging”. How two ‘black holes” merge is not explained in the present article. That is already taken for fact.

    The post states: “But it’s so messy it’s hard to say what’s going on exactly! We have a decent idea in general, but specifics can be hard to nail down.”

    I appreciate, “the blind men and the elephant parable”. Perhaps, it’s too close for comfort to the real state of affairs…

    Credit is due to the scientists for combining the different electromagnetic wavelength detector images into a composite image.

    Conventional astronomy understands the source of synchrotron radiation, so attempts have been made to simulate synchrotron radiation using only gravity and magnetic fields. But as Plasma Cosmology has long already come to realize, magnetism and gravity alone is not sufficient. Causative electric fields and currents are essential. And try as conventional astronomers might, the simulations limited to gravity and magnetic fields failed.

    Why? Because electric currents are the only known cause of magnetic fields. Heat and gravity won’t do it — and that’s all you have in the gravitational model.

    I’m left scratching my head: If tremendous gravitational attraction pulls matter toward the center of the galaxy, how do particles then speed away from a galaxy?

    After all, the galaxy under consideration is distinguished by the presence of gravity-defying jets, emitting radiation that would not be there in the absence electric currents.

    And gravity has only one force: An atrractive pull toward a gravitational center.

    Astronomers state that magnetic fields alone hold the jets together, but electrical theorists remind us that the jets are self-confining Birkeland currents in the plasma environment of the galaxy. It’s in the nature of Birkeland currents to induce magnetic fields, confining the jets’ to narrow paths over cosmic distances.

    Since the attempts to “hold together” such jets experimentally—without electricity—have already failed, it is surely time for astronomers to re-examine their premises.

  27. TROLL ALERT! WE ARE AT DUMBCON 1 FOLKS! ASSUME CRASH POSITIONS! :P

  28. Todd W.

    @Phil Plait

    Before things get too heated in here, perhaps it would be good to have you post some thoughts responding to Anaconda. He’s commented on a couple threads, now, and things have tended to descend into insults and name-calling.

  29. @Anaconda “I will concentrate on the press release that is linked in the post”

    Yes, I suggest that you do that. In three previous posts when given an opportunity to explain your alternative theory to black holes you have declined each time. You don’t appear to know much about Plasma Cosmology since you have never even uttered the word ambiplasma one time or mentioned the importance of matter/antimatter annihilation to the theory.

    “Of course, magnetic fields are caused by electric currents, but nowhere is that fact mentioned in the press release. That does seem like a significant item to be left out of a report.”

    ROFLMAO. They didn’t mention the Pythagorean Theorem either. Perhaps because they are assuming that knowledgeable readers are already familiar with it?

    “Oh, but I forgot, the ‘community’ hasn’t come to grips with that little detail.”

    Uh, excuse me. James Clerk Maxwell published this “detail” back in 1865. They came to grips with it more than a century ago.

    “and the most often cited “indirect” evidence for “black holes” existence is that without “black holes” there wouldn’t be enough gravitational pull to hold together the sprialling arms of the galaxies”

    ROFLMAO once again. I suggest you read up on Cygnus X-1:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1

    A 8.7 solar mass object is orbiting the star HDE 226868 at a distance of 0.2 AUs. Whatever the object is it is emitting X-rays in prodigious quantities. Doppler studies of HDE 226868 reveal that it has a massive non-luminous (in the visible part of the spectrum) companion with a mass of 8.7 solar masses. Additional studies revealed variations in the X-ray output occurring in only one millisecond which means that the size of the source region is smaller than ~300 km. Two X-ray jets are found on opposite sides of the star.

    “If alternative causations were considered this logical progression wouldn’t hold up to reasonable scepticism and close examination.”

    O.K. Please give us your plasma explanation of Cygnus X-1 and its ~300 km wide source region.

    “But now science knows electric currents exist in space.”

    Yes, as I said before, since 1958.

    “Also, once electric currents are considered, one can consider laboratory plasma physics experiments which tested the physical properties of plasma and accounted for the electromagnetic jets that emit radio wave radiation.”

    Please tell us about these experiments (in order to prevent total boredom). Do you know anything about the experiments of Hannes Alfven?

    “Conventional astronomy understands the source of synchrotron radiation, so attempts have been made to simulate synchrotron radiation using only gravity and magnetic fields. But as Plasma Cosmology has long already come to realize, magnetism and gravity alone is not sufficient.”

    Huh? How do you create synchrotron radiation using gravity? Who is asserting that? It’s absurd.

    “I’m left scratching my head: If tremendous gravitational attraction pulls matter toward the center of the galaxy, how do particles then speed away from a galaxy?”

    You know, of course, that the electromagnetic force is something like 1.0E40 times the strength of the gravitational force, don’t you? Thus, an EM interaction will easily overcome a gravitational interaction without a problem.

    “After all, the galaxy under consideration is distinguished by the presence of gravity-defying jets”

    Gravity-defying jets? Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 are escaping from our solar system. Did they defy gravity to do so?

    “Astronomers state that magnetic fields alone hold the jets together, but electrical theorists remind us that the jets are self-confining Birkeland currents in the plasma environment of the galaxy.”

    I suggest you go bone up on your Maxwell. You seem to be implying that the electric current and the magnetic field it produces must be at the same point in space. Not true. For example, the geomagnetic field stretches thousands of kilometers into outer space but the currents that generate it are down in the earth’s outer core (thought to be circulating liquid iron).

    “Since the attempts to “hold together” such jets experimentally—without electricity—have already failed, it is surely time for astronomers to re-examine their premises.”

    Look at the dang picture, dude. The jet from Centaurus A starts out 7,000 ly in width and balloons to 30,000 ly at the end. The jet is spreading out right from the beginning. There’s no Birkeland current holding it together.

  30. Molglorf

    “only a handful of big galaxies”

    Jeez Phil, you must have HUGE hands! (or do they just embiggen when you click them?)

  31. Consider these pictures of the jet in the galaxy M87:

    http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/exotic_collection/pr2000020a

    http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/exotic_collection/pr1999043c

    The width of the jet clearly gets larger and larger the farther away it is from the galactic core.

  32. *crickets*

    *crickets*

    *crickets*

    But we haven’t heard the last from Snake Man. Of that I am sure.

  33. Richard

    Woo-hoo. I’m with “Anaconda.” Since only electric currents cause magnetism, and the earth has a magnetic field, then we should get the largest jumper cables on earth and attach them to the North and South poles. Then we can solve the energy crises once and for all. Oh, and don’t forget bar magnets, refrigerator magnets, and magnetite. Wow, what a genius, thanks for solving all of our energy needs in one fell swoop.

    *sees opportunity to out do Trudeau*

  34. Pierce R. Butler

    Chip: … what it would be like to live on an Earth-like planet right smack in the middle of one of those galactic merge events.

    IANAA, but my hunch is that few if any life-bearing planets remained in Centaurus A even 13 million years ago. Only a small percentage may have been cooked by the blasts of energy from the galactic core(s), and fewer still (if any) by collision with a star from the merging galaxy – but many will have had their orbits destabilized or simply ellipticized sufficiently to remove them (at least part of the time) from their zones of evolutionary adaptation and/or survivability, clobbered with lethal quantities of dust, rocks, or radiation, and otherwise shuffled off the mortal coil. Spacefaring civilizations, if any, probably had enough time to send a few survivors off dodging the millennia of hazards coming their way, whose odysseys might make a great sf saga, but I doubt they’d encounter many of their neighbors “living comfortably”.

  35. Well…. if what Anaconda say is true, then it should be the case that the magnetic field (B -> volt*seconds/meter^2) falls off with distance as per the solenoid equation for magnetic fields from single loop, ergo as such….

    B = (10^-7 Newtons/Amp^2)*(2pi*[avg. orbital radius]^2)*(current from acretion plasma) / ([distance from center of loop]^2 + [avg. orbital radius]^2)^(3/2)

  36. …. but, perhaps there arises a problem if the matter in orbit around such a strong gravitational body isn’t charged, however with quantum gravitational effects, well, the proton does have more mass than the electron and thereby is more likely to experience a faster orbital decay (of the gravitational sort) than the electron is. Thus, it can be inferred that there ought to be more electrons in the acretion disk than there are protons, IMO.

  37. Gary Ansorge

    I think I’ve figured out where out where all the aliens are: They’re driving their combined galaxies to a different neighborhood, probably because they heard about planet Earth, with its indigenous population of wankers and whackos,,,

    Proof? Proof you say???

    Observe the angle of the “exhaust” jets from the galactic core. Obviously designed to apply thrust to the combined galaxies. This MUST be evidence of two Dyson Type III civilizations, combining their expertise to drive their galaxies as far from US as possible,,,

    See: THAT’S why we’re all alone,,,we’re toxic!

    GAry 7

  38. Gary Ansorge

    Sorry about that. I just got back from a Live Science article, trying to explain why scientists rarely give absolutes and why we’re not gonna die when the LHC turns on,,,again,,,

    God/Goddess/Chaos,,,I get SOOOOO FRAKING TIRED trying to explain anything to num nuts,,,I’m sure glad there are younger, more energetic folk keeping up the fight,,,
    (Phil, Tom, IVAN3MAN,,,)

    Keep on trucking, Dudes. The torch is passed to Y’All.

    GAry 7

  39. Todd W.

    @Gary Ansorge

    Your theory intrigues me. It not only provides a source for electric currents, but also shows that aliens are just as bad at driving as us humans. We keep seeing all these big galactic collisions. Hmm…maybe it snowed and they subscribe to the theory of “more speed = less skidding”.

  40. L Ron Hubbub

    @ Tom Marking: It’s a Lorentz transformation

    In my frame of reference?

  41. @L Ron Hubbub “In my frame of reference?”

    In your frame of reference you could say that the 2 jets are flying away from each other at 1.0c. The transformation is in going from your frame of reference to the frame of reference of one of the jets. From the jet’s frame of reference the other jet is flying away at only 0.8c.

  42. @quantum_flux “Well…. if what Anaconda say is true, then it should be the case that the magnetic field (B -> volt*seconds/meter^2) falls off with distance as per the solenoid equation for magnetic fields from single loop, ergo as such….”

    That is essentially a magnetic dipole field that falls off as the inverse cube of the distance from the center. What Anaconda is talking about is a Birkeland current which is a current exactly aligned with the magnetic field and not at a right angle to it as with the solenoid example. They were first proposed by the Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland in the early 20th century to explain the aurora borealis.

    Recently NASA’s THEMIS spacecrafts have detected such Birkeland currents flowing from the sun to the earth:

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm

    Such Birkeland currents are frequently described as a twisting, magnetic rope. Do the jets from Centaurus A resemble a twisting rope? At least in the Sun-Earth case these ropes do NOT spread out and get wider with distance. They are also temporary phenomena – they form, go away, and reform multiple times.

    Also, a typical Sun-Earth Birkeland current might be ~600,000 amperes. The current flow in the earth’s outer core which generates the geomagnetic field is on the order of 1 billion amperes, or about 3 orders of magnitude larger than the Birkeland current.

  43. @ Tom Marking:

    You wanted my alternative theory as opposed to the “black hole” theory.

    I subscribe to Dr. Anthony Peratt’s theory of galaxy formation. Peratt’s theory is supported by computer simulation based on known quantifiable plasma properties. It should be noted this is a three dimentional sumulation. It is based on the interaction of two galactic Birkeland currents which form a plasmoid, a donut shaped high intensity electrically coherent structure of plasma, electric currents, and magnetic fields. Plasmoids have been proposed to explain natural phenomena such as ball lightning and magnetic bubbles in the magnetosphere.

    This link explains Peratt’s galaxy simulation:

    http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation

    This link explains a plasmoid:

    http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasmoid

    Please feel free to ask follow up questions about the above information and I will do my best to answer.

    Tom Marking states: “You don’t appear to know much about Plasma Cosmology since you have never even uttered the word ambiplasma one time or mentioned the importance of matter/antimatter annihilation to the theory.”

    There is a simple reason I have never addressed the above concepts: I don’t find them compelling and reject them.

    I hold Plasma Cosmology to the same standards I hold the gravitational model to: Observation and measurement are required. Ambiplasma has never been observed or measured, neither has antimatter. These are theoretical speculations which I am not convinced of. I submit the above are not necessary for the theory. The known energy dynamics of plasma are enough to cause the formation of galaxies. My understanding is that Peratt’s supercomputer simulation does not use the above theoretical concepts, only experimentally tested, observed, and measured properties of plasma as defined in the plasma physics laboratory.

    Those are the perameters I subscribe to as well.

    It makes no sense to criticise the gravitational model for relying on theoretical constructs (matters, energies, objects) and then turn around and do the same thing.

    Therefore, I don’t.

    Tom, you criticise me for pointing out the failure of the reports to state that electric currents cause magnetic fields. You believe it’s too obvious to make worth mention.

    I disagree with your conclusion.

    I am happy you don’t dispute the presence of electric currents in space, but it is all too clear to me based on what I have read and my discussions, here, and elsewhere, that the gravitational model ‘community’ is divided about the issue of electric currents in space.

    I’ve had too many folks flat out deny there are electric currents in space. It seems you are all too happy to see this issue swept under the rug, and you seem irritated I would bring it up. Your protests reveal the sensitive nature of the dispute and divide.

    In fact, the desire to deny electric currents in space is why gravitational model scientists attempted to generate synchrotron radiation without electric currents, using only gravity to generate the magnetic fields and synchrotron radiation. And, yes, they failed.

    There is a reason they don’t want to talk about electric currents — it divides their ‘community’, your protests not withstanding.

    Also, if it’s as obvious as you state (and it is obvious that electric currents exist in space for the reasons you duly mention), it seems reasonable to mention that electric currents are causing the magnetic fields in the reports, but the reports never do.

    Explicitly stating electric currents are present gives a clearer picture of the dynamics of the objects — isn’t that the reason for science?

    Tom, you actually contradict yourself right in this comment. How so? Because while you emphatically admit electric current in space in the abstract, you turn around and deny electric currents are responsible for components of this galaxy, namely the jets.

    Tom Marking states: “Look at the dang picture, dude. The jet from Centaurus A starts out 7,000 ly in width and balloons to 30,000 ly at the end. The jet is spreading out right from the beginning. There’s no Birkeland current holding it together.”

    “There’s no Birkeland current holding it together.”

    Tom, are you stating that there are no electric currents present in the jets, even though there are magnetic fields and synchrotron radiation which is caused by electric currents?

    Tom, you do seem to be stating that only (some aspect of) gravity and magnetic fields are responsible for the jets. That is in direct contradiction of your earlier agreement that magnetic fields are only caused by electric currents.

    I look at the image and see two narrow jets protruding in opposite directions, yes they do seem to widen out after awhile, but certainly they hold a tight beam or “jet” for literally light years distance. Without electric currents to cause the magnetic fields, those “jets” would dissipate and expand in a much shorter distance.

    Tom, I read your various statements, but it’s not clear to me how you think the jets are formed. Do you submit they are only magnetic fields without electric currents? Do you deny there are magnetic fields detected.

    Or do you submit the jets are magnetic fields caused by electric currents, but are not Birkeland currents? If not, then what are the jets constituent components?

    In what respect are electrical currents involved?

    Tom Marking presents my [Anaconda’s] statement: ““Conventional astronomy understands the source of synchrotron radiation, so attempts have been made to simulate synchrotron radiation using only gravity and magnetic fields. But as Plasma Cosmology has long already come to realize, magnetism and gravity alone is not sufficient.”

    Then Tom Marking responds: “Huh? How do you create synchrotron radiation using gravity? Who is asserting that? It’s absurd.”

    Well, then, Tom, how are you asserting the jets are created?

    Then it would be absurd to suggest or imply that electric currents are not components of the jets eminating out of this object, would it not?

    The basis for my statement is thus: Synchrotron radiation was detected in the jets, in order to deny that electrical currents are responsible, one must substitute some “mechanism” or process which doesn’t rely on electrical currents.

    And, but again, if “electric currents” are “no big deal,” then why not explicitly mention electric currents presence and be done with it?

    Again, Tom, if, “There’s no Birkeland current holding it together.” So
    the jets aren’t Birkeland currents (electric currents), then what are they?

    Tom Marking presnts my [Anaconda’s] statement: “Also, once electric currents are considered, one can consider laboratory plasma physics experiments which tested the physical properties of plasma and accounted for the electromagnetic jets that emit radio wave radiation.”

    Then Tom Marking responds: “Please tell us about these experiments. Do you know anything about the experiments of Hannes Alfven?”

    I’ll do the best I can, I don’t have it at the tip of my fingertips, but it’s my understanding that when large amounts of electrical energy flow into the central plasmoid, the plasmoid can overload, but rather than exploding, it discharges the excess electricity by way of these jets coming from the pole axis of the plasmoid. A little like a reverse effect of the energy coming into the poles via the aurora Birkeland currents from the Sun to the Earth.

    Tom Marking states: “You know, of course, that the electromagnetic force is something like 1.0E40 times the strength of the gravitational force, don’t you? Thus, an EM interaction will easily overcome a gravitational interaction without a problem.”

    Yes, but in your view how are EM forces involved in the jet formation process? How are jets generated?

    Tom Marking states: “For example, the geomagnetic field stretches thousands of kilometers into outer space but the currents that generate it are down in the earth’s outer core (thought to be circulating liquid iron).”

    Science doesn’t know the above asserted proposition, as your comment readily admits, “(thought to be circulating liquid iron).” It’s speculation. The better science is that the magnetic fields are in situ with the electric currents that form them.

    Do you have any authority that counters the proposition that electric currents and magnetic fields are in situ with each other?

    Tom Marking states: “You seem to be implying that the electric current and the magnetic field it produces must be at the same point in space.”

    I’m not implying. I’m stating clearly that electric currents and magnetic fields are produced in situ, together. I’m happy to stand corrected, but I’ll need authority for that, not your naked assertion.

    Not some recitation of mathematical equation or the name of that equation, but discussion from a cited authority.

    Tom Marking states: “O.K. Please give us your plasma explanation of Cygnus X-1 and its ~300 km wide source region.”

    What if anything suggests even indirectly that Cygnus X-1 is a “black hole”?

    Answer: The x-rays. But it is known to science as proved in plasma physics laboratories that x-rays are caused by intense synchrotron radiation. In other words, generated by electrical currents. X-rays are in no way, by themselves, proof of the existence of “black holes”. That is exactly my point (perhaps I wasn’t clear in my writing): It is a logical fallacy to conclude because an object emits x-rays it is a “black hole”, it’s called “circular reasoning,” Tom.

    Specifically, when you have a plausible alternative theory. And, like it or not Tom, Plasma Cosmology is an alternative theory, and I would submit that, not only is it ‘plausble’, but it is a stronger theory than the gravitational model because all of it’s principles have been observed, measured, and recorded in the laboratory, rather than being theoretical constructs based on abstract mathematical formula.

    The additional images you cite and link to, don’t add to the actual evidence, rather they simply repeat propositions while adding little or no weight to the evidence. They give the “appearance” of additional authority, without the actual substance.

    Tom I hope I have answered your questions. Please feel free to follow up and clarify if you so desire.

    Thanks for your time and attention.

  44. @ Tom Marking:

    The images of galaxy M87 you presented for consideration deserve additional comment:

    These pictures show a jet that extends for literally hundreds, if not over a thousand of light years. Yes, there is some widening over that vast distance, but when the distance is considered in conjunction with the increase of width over that distance, the maintenance of the jet’s width is remarkable.

    Synchrotron radiation has been detected coming from this jet. And as discussed above in the previous comment, synchrotron radiation is the signature of electrons spiralling around in a magnetic field caused by electrical currents.

    This is entirely consistent with Birkeland currents.

    M87 is one of the best examples of the presence of Birkeland currents in deep space because of the remarkable maintenance of the jet over incredible distance.

    As you’ve already agreed, electric currents cause magnetic fields. The magnetic fields are the only way that plasma could be maintained in such a tight beam.

    Without the combination of charged particle plasma, electric currents, and resultant magnetic fields matter would fail to stay focussed for that distance.

    Birkeland currents is the only recognized mechanism.

    There is no other known mechanism recognized by science.

    Applying the laws of fluid or (neutral) gas dynamics would result in the matter expanding out and dissipating in a rather short distance, not the light years distance observed and measured.

    In conclusion, the only scientifically verified process known to cause the jet observed would be Birkeland currents.

    Occam’s Razor: A known process as opposed to a theoretical unknown process is the rule of thumb for science.

  45. DrFlimmer

    *rumbl rumbl* I will not answer *rumbl rumbl* I will not answer *rumbl rumbl*

    *rumbl rumbl* beta-plus-decay, positrons, anti-hydrogen *rumbl rumbl*

    *rumbl rumbl* thermal radiation *rumble rumbl* completly different than synchrotron radiation *rumbl rumbl* identification is really easy *rumbl rumbl*

    *rumbl rumbl* I will not answer *rumbl rumbl* I will not answer *rumbl rumbl*

  46. IVAN3MAN

    “Anaconda” is akin to the pet shop proprietor in this video:

  47. @Anaconda “You wanted my alternative theory as opposed to the “black hole” theory. I subscribe to Dr. Anthony Peratt’s theory of galaxy formation. Peratt’s theory is supported by computer simulation based on known quantifiable plasma properties.”

    I briefly scanned the web site. This does not appear to be classical Plasma Cosmology as Hans Alfven would have recognized it. There is no mention of antimatter anywhere in it. Furthermore, the simulation supposedly starts out with two interacting Birkeland filaments. Like I said previously, structurally Birkeland currents can be thought of as twisted magnetic ropes. The CGI simulation (also frame 1 beneath it) starts out with two spherical bodies of plasma which is not what a Birkeland filament looks like.

    Although it is somewhat interesting that a spiral structure forms at the end of the sequence, there is a lot more detail concerning spiral galaxies that we know is happening that is not included in the model. How do stars form? Where are the globular clusters in this model and why do they form a spherical halo around the spiral galaxy? Does gravity play any role at all? Furthermore, where is the photographic evidence from the Hubble Space Telescope showing the 2 Birkeland filaments before they start interacting? I am unaware of any such photo showing these 2 Birkeland filaments.

    “It should be noted this is a three dimentional sumulation. It is based on the interaction of two galactic Birkeland currents which form a plasmoid, a donut shaped high intensity electrically coherent structure of plasma”

    The Sun-Earth Birkeland currents are the best established. Where is the evidence that they form this toroidal plasmoid structure?

    “There is a simple reason I have never addressed the above concepts: I don’t find them compelling and reject them.”

    Perhaps then you should not use the term Plasma Cosmology for your theory since it seems to be quite a bit different than the classical theory of Alfven.

    “Ambiplasma has never been observed or measured, neither has antimatter.”

    Well, you’re wrong about antimatter. In 2002 an experiment called ATHENA created cold antihydrogen:

    http://physics.nmu.edu/~nrussell/antihydrogen.htm

    “The known energy dynamics of plasma are enough to cause the formation of galaxies. My understanding is that Peratt’s supercomputer simulation does not use the above theoretical concepts, only experimentally tested, observed, and measured properties of plasma as defined in the plasma physics laboratory.”

    Any computer simulation is based on a set of mathematical equations which constitutes a theory. You cannot produce a simulation based on “measured properties” only, since the laboratory experiments occurred on a distance scale vastly smaller than what the simulation is attempting to portray. To say that the simulation has no theory underpinning it is a load of rubbish.

    “It makes no sense to criticise the gravitational model for relying on theoretical constructs (matters, energies, objects) and then turn around and do the same thing.”

    O.K. Now you’re getting into la-la land. You apparently reject the concept of matter, energy, and object because they are merely theoretical constructs. Alfven is probably rolling over in his grave by now.

    “I am happy you don’t dispute the presence of electric currents in space, but it is all too clear to me based on what I have read and my discussions, here, and elsewhere, that the gravitational model ‘community’ is divided about the issue of electric currents in space.”

    You keep saying that. Please provide any quotation from someone in this community you’re talking about who denies the existence of the Van Allen radiation belts.

    “I’ve had too many folks flat out deny there are electric currents in space.”

    Are you sure they were talking about any electric current or just about Birkeland currents? There’s a difference, you know.

    “In fact, the desire to deny electric currents in space is why gravitational model scientists attempted to generate synchrotron radiation without electric currents, using only gravity to generate the magnetic fields and synchrotron radiation.”

    Well, please cite your sources for that statement. Who is claiming they can generate a magnetic field with only gravity and no electrical currents?

    “Tom, you actually contradict yourself right in this comment. How so? Because while you emphatically admit electric current in space in the abstract, you turn around and deny electric currents are responsible for components of this galaxy, namely the jets.”

    No, I denied that Birkeland currents are responsible for it. Not every electric current is a Birkeland current, you know. For example, the current moving through the cable attached to your computer right now is not a Birkeland current. Birkeland currents are a specific type of current in which the current is parallel to the magnetic field lines. They can only occur in a plasma. In most cases in nature and also technology the current is perpendicular to the magnetic field lines.

    “Tom, are you stating that there are no electric currents present in the jets, even though there are magnetic fields and synchrotron radiation which is caused by electric currents?”

    No, I said there is no Birkeland current holding the jet together as evidenced by the fact that the jet spreads out. There is obviously electrical current in the jet since there is synchrotron radiation being emitted. BTW, in a synchrotron the charged particles move perpendicular to the magnetic field lines, not parallel as in a Birkeland current.

    “Tom, you do seem to be stating that only (some aspect of) gravity and magnetic fields are responsible for the jets. That is in direct contradiction of your earlier agreement that magnetic fields are only caused by electric currents.”

    Most likely the magnetic field lines that the charged particles are spiraling around in the jet, are produced by strong currents in close to the black hole as part of the accretion disk. Gravity’s only role (via the black hole) is to cause the gas in the accretion disk to become hot enough to ionize and form the plasma to begin with. Besides that it plays no role and certainly does not cause the magnetic field as you are alleging.

    “I look at the image and see two narrow jets protruding in opposite directions, yes they do seem to widen out after awhile, but certainly they hold a tight beam or “jet” for literally light years distance. Without electric currents to cause the magnetic fields, those “jets” would dissipate and expand in a much shorter distance.”

    No, look at a bar magnet with some iron filings. The magnetic field lines leaving the north pole are close at the beginning but they start to diverge right away and get farther and farther apart. Look at the M87 jet and you’ll see that it starts to diverge right away just like the field lines from a bar magnet. If it was a Birkeland current it would look like a braided rope and not get wider with distance.

    “Tom, I read your various statements, but it’s not clear to me how you think the jets are formed. Do you submit they are only magnetic fields without electric currents? Do you deny there are magnetic fields detected.”

    See my comments above about the accretion disk.

    “Well, then, Tom, how are you asserting the jets are created?”

    There is an ambient magnetic field in interstellar space surrounding the black hole. As the gas spirals into the black hole it heats up and eventually ionizes into plasma. At that point the magnetic field lines get frozen into the plasma. As the plasma continues to spiral in the field lines get wrapped around and around the black hole. The field lines get closer and closer and hence the magnetic field strength increases dramatically. As the plasma gets hotter and hotter the closer it gets to the event horizon it builds up pressure and begins to seek an exit which it finds along the north and south pole of the accretion disk magnetic field. It comes blasting out of both ends at half the speed of light following the magnetic field lines for thousands of light-years, losing energy by emitting synchrotron radiation. Those are the jets we see. There is no Birkeland current confining them, but instead they follow the natural dipole field lines of the inner accretion disk magnetic field.

    “Science doesn’t know the above asserted proposition, as your comment readily admits, “(thought to be circulating liquid iron).” It’s speculation.”

    Yes, but it’s no speculation that our compasses work on the earth’s surface, not just outer space.

    “Do you have any authority that counters the proposition that electric currents and magnetic fields are in situ with each other?”

    Check any Freshman physics book of your choosing. Check the formulas for magnetic field generated around a wire.

    “I’m not implying. I’m stating clearly that electric currents and magnetic fields are produced in situ, together.”

    How did the Oersted experiment work then? An electric current in a wire turned off suddenly, caused the deflection of a compass needle several inches away.

    Oh, this grows tiresome. I’ll finish it up later.

  48. @Anaconda “I’m not implying. I’m stating clearly that electric currents and magnetic fields are produced in situ, together. I’m happy to stand corrected, but I’ll need authority for that, not your naked assertion.”

    http://inventors.about.com/od/lessonplans/ht/magnetic_fields.htm

    Are you really saying that an electric current in a wire can only produce a magnetic field in the wire and not in the surrounding space? I think you could benefit greatly from an introductory course in college physics. It would help you to understand the physical theories that you are criticizing.

    “Answer: The x-rays. But it is known to science as proved in plasma physics laboratories that x-rays are caused by intense synchrotron radiation. In other words, generated by electrical currents. X-rays are in no way, by themselves, proof of the existence of “black holes”. That is exactly my point (perhaps I wasn’t clear in my writing): It is a logical fallacy to conclude because an object emits x-rays it is a “black hole”, it’s called “circular reasoning,” Tom.”

    Yes, that’s absolutely true. Not everything that emits X-rays is a black hole. For example, your local X-ray machine at your doctor’s office is not a black hole. What you neglected to mention is that the source of the X-rays for Cygnus X-1 are coming from a volume of space no bigger than ~300 kilometers in diameter. This is more than 4,000 times smaller than the sun. The X-ray luminosity of Cygnus X-1 is 4.0E30 watts:

    http://cool-palimpsest.stanford.edu/misc/scales1.html

    This is 10,000 times the luminosity of the sun. So something with a volume of one part in 64 billion of the sun produces 10,000 times as much energy. Furthermore, a mass of 8.7 solar masses is crammed into such a small volume making the average density more than 500 billion times the mass of the sun (or ~700 billion grams per cubic centimeter). And your “alternative theory” doesn’t explain it. I think I’ll stick with black holes.

    “stronger theory than the gravitational model because all of it’s principles have been observed, measured, and recorded in the laboratory, rather than being theoretical constructs based on abstract mathematical formula.”

    Your implication that nothing concerning gravitational theory has been measured in the laboratory is erroneous. The gravitational constant was first measured by Henry Cavendish in a laboratory back in 1798.

    “Yes, there is some widening over that vast distance, but when the distance is considered in conjunction with the increase of width over that distance, the maintenance of the jet’s width is remarkable.”

    Since we know you are totally driven by laboratory experiments, can you show me any pictures of Birkeland currents in the laboratory spreading out like these jets are doing?

    “Birkeland currents is the only recognized mechanism.”

    Nope, not true. Even for the Earth-Sun interaction via solar wind the THEMIS satellites found that the Birkeland currents are not the only mechanism. They are transient phenomena that come and go, form and reform. Our best evidence for how real Birkeland currents behave in space is from the solar wind data, and it bears little resemblance to quasar and active galactic nuclear jets.

  49. IVAN3MAN

    Anaconda:

    Tom Marking states: “You don’t appear to know much about Plasma Cosmology since you have never even uttered the word ambiplasma one time or mentioned the importance of matter/antimatter annihilation to the theory.”
    There is a simple reason I have never addressed the above concepts: I don’t find them compelling and reject them.
    I hold Plasma Cosmology to the same standards I hold the gravitational model to: Observation and measurement are required. Ambiplasma has never been observed or measured, neither has antimatter. These are theoretical speculations which I am not convinced of.

    That’s because Plasma Cosmologists, like you, Anaconda, in common with creationists, cherry-pick data that supports your hypothesis, while ignoring data that contradicts your hypothesis.

    For instance, you constantly cite (with links) the latest NASA reports regarding the “magnetic ropes” — there is no mention of “electric currents” in those reports — emanating from the Sun towards the Earth, to support the Plasma Cosmology ‘theory’, but you failed to notice (or deliberately ignored, in the hope that nobody here has noticed) the reports from CERN in 1995 that it had successfully brought into existence nine antihydrogen atoms by implementing the SLAC/Fermilab concept during the PS210 experiment, inter alia:

    First Observation of Hot Antihydrogen;

    Billions of Particles of Anti-Matter
    Created in Laboratory
    ;

    Antihelium-3 production in lead-lead collisions at 158 A GeV/c.

    So, Anaconda, stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

  50. DrFlimmer

    @ Phil Plait:
    I am about to post this twice because it is important for both discussions. If you don’t want it, no problem, just delete one. Thank you.

    In order to pass the spam filter I filled in some blanks into the links! So, copy and paste them and then kill the blanks!

    @ Anaconda:
    Since I am not a reliable source, I will give you some (btw: I still don’t understand why papers are more reliable than books).
    You always said that Cygnus X-1 is not a black hole, but you failed to say what it is instead. Just to say “it is not that” but not to give another explanation is not very scientific – it sounds more like an infant: “I want this lollipop NOW”.
    Well, I made a search for papers about Cygnus X-1 and there are quite much. At first I give you a link to a list of about 200 papers (probably there are more), then I will give you some links to papers that sound interesting – I just read their abstracts, but they have some information for you (talking about thermal components of the spectrum and such things…)

    htt p://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-basic_connect?qsearch=Cygnus+X-1&version=1
    htt p://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ…543..928M
    (btw: if I didn’t make a mistake, kT=86keV is about T=10^9K)
    htt p://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ…663..445S
    htt p://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ…199L.147W
    htt p://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A…446..591C
    htt p://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368.1025L
    All the papers I linked to are available for free.

    The next one is from Nature, so I guess it is not for free, but the abstract is quite interesting, it is about anti-hydrogen:
    htt p://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Natur.419..456A

    Oh yeah, I almost forgot. What about this one:
    http://ww w.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2008/pr-46-08.html
    You still failed to address my question, how a star (“S2”) can orbit the galactic core in less than 13 years on a greater orbit than Pluto’s around the sun?

  51. http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Miley/Miley4_4.html

    “4.4.4 CONE ANGLES AND MAGNETIC FIELDS/FREEDOM FOR JETS? Are the jets in pressure equilibrium with their surroundings? Model builders prefer jets to be free rather than confined. In a free jet the thermal electron density exceeds that of the surroundings, and Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities, which may destroy a confined jet (Blandford & Pringle 1976, Turland & Scheuer 1976), would probably be unimportant.

    For a free jet the cone angle subtended at the nucleus should be constant along its length. In the giant source NGC 6251 (Readhead et al. 1978a) this angle is indeed observed to be constant over a range of more than 1.0E5 in length.

    Also, simple arguments (Blandford & Rees 1978) predict that as a freely expanding jet widens (radius r increases) the parallel component of magnetic field should drop as r^(-2), whereas the perpendicular component should vary only as r^(-1). This is consistent with the magnetic field configuration observed in both 3C31 and NGC 315 (Fomalont et al. 1980) where parallel fields close to the nucleus change to predominantly perpendicular fields after about 2 kpc. Moreover, in 3C449 (Perley et al. 1979) and NGC 6251 (Readhead et al. 1978b) the magnetic field calculated from the minimum energy condition (Section 3.3.1) Bme scales roughly as r^(-1), a further pointer that these jets are free, as well as weak evidence that the conditions within the jet are close to equipartition. On the assumption that the jet in 3C 449 is free and in equipartition together with several of the arguments of Section 3.1.2, Perley et al. (1979) find the velocity of electron flow along the jet to be ~ 1200 km s-1.”

  52. @Anaconda “Science doesn’t know the above asserted proposition, as your comment readily admits, “(thought to be circulating liquid iron).” It’s speculation.”

    Regardless of the specific mechanism proposed to power the geomagnetic dynamo (e.g., circulating liquid iron) one thing is clear. The geomagnetic field lines exit the earth’s surface going upward in the southern hemisphere and reenter the earth’s surface going downward in the northern hemisphere. That’s a fact that I don’t think even you would dispute. That means that whatever the source of the magnetic field lines is, it is located beneath the earth’s surface and not in outer space.

    “The better science is that the magnetic fields are in situ with the electric currents that form them.”

    You hold a compass in your hand. The needle points north. According to you there must be an electric current flowing through the compass caused by the geomagnetic field. Why is it that this electric current has never been detected? Electric currents have consequences. One of them is that when they pass through conductors such as metals the conductors offer resistance (this is Ohm’s Law) and they should heat up. Thus, your compass should exhibit a small amount of heating which has also never been detected.

    Your statement that magnetic fields and electric currents must exist at the same point in space reveals a profound ignorance of Maxwell’s equations. May I refer you to:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_Equations

    Take a look at the 4th Equation called Ampere’s Law:

    Dell cross B = Mu-0*J + Mu-0*Epsilon-0 * dE/dt

    or alternatively:

    Line integral of B dot dl = Mu-0*Is + Mu-0*Epsilon-0 * dPhi/dt

    Now, what does that 2nd integral formula mean. Take any circle of any radius at all. Sum up the magnetic field B (in teslas) around that circle. Your sum is equal to Mu-0 times the electrical current passing through the circle plus a factor relating to how the electric field is changing. So regardless of whether your current is in a single wire at the center of the circle or spread out throughout the whole circle, it still causes the same magnetic field. Thus, the magnetic field does not have to be at the same point in space as the electric current. You would have known that if you had taken even a Freshman college physics class.

  53. The huge gas jets in that picture resemble vorticity, that’s for sure, but I don’t know exactly what is going on there. Did anybody do a spectrophotometric analysis on the chemistry of those gas jets?

  54. Well, a couple of cryptic comments. Let’s see if I can decipher them.

    Firt, however, a couple of housekeeping matters are in order.

    I must compliment Ivan3Man on his technical mastery of internet functions and capabilities. I’ve never sees a YouTube placed in a comment. Surely, it signals charts, graphs, schematics, pictures, and other documents can be place in comments and while this obviously adds additional steps and time to the commenting process, it also allows expanded communication of ideas, which is kinda the idea behind the internet — bravo!

    Tom Marking’s asked a question: “O.K. Please give us your plasma explanation of Cygnus X-1 and its ~300 km wide source region.”

    I explained why x-rays, alone, where an insufficient offer of evidence to show Cygnus X-1 was a “black hole”. But I neglected the other reason cited by gravitational model proponents for why Cygnus X-1 and other galaxies are candidates for having a “black hole” at their center.

    The reason is that the rotational speed and size of the galaxy can’t be explained by the gravitational pull of the observed matter in the galaxy. The observed matter’s computed gravitational pull is insuffient to hold together the galaxy, in other words, the galaxy should fly apart, but it hasn’t, therefore, gravitational model proponents infer there has to be a nearly infinite dense location of matter at the center of the galaxy, i.e., a “black hole”.

    But this is begging the question or circular reasoning in assuming that gravity is the only explanation for holding the galaxy together.

    There is a reasonable alternative explanation. As I stated previously, Dr Anthony Peratt, who works at the Los Alamos National Laboratory has developed a supercomputer simulation of galaxy formation based on scientifically recognized plasma physics where a plasmoid is at the center of galaxies. Thus, electromagnetic forces account for all the observed matter. There is no need to engage the spector of an all consuming “black hole”. No need to set aside recognized physical laws by invoking the theoretical construct of a “black hole”.

    Now on to more difficult matters.

    DrFlimmer’s comment is cryptic, but I think I can decipher it.

    DrFlimmer states: “beta-plus-decay, positrons, anti-hydrogen”, this seems to be a reference to antimatter. In my comment, I discounted the antimatter concept, no, I rejected it. The case for antimatter is theoretical. Perhaps, the super collider will provide scientific evidence by way of observation and measurement to support the antimatter construct. It seems all eyes are on the super collider, a regular Valhalla in the mountains.

    We’ll see, but until then, antimatter is speculation.

    The next item to decipher is, “thermal radiation…completly different than synchrotron radiation…identification is really easy “.

    Yes, that is true.

    But note the press release never mentions the source of the x-rays. There is no mention of “x-rays derived from thermal radiation.” The press release may have been incomplete, but I have to go on what’s released, not speculate on what the authors might have left out.

    X-rays can be derived by electric current as is done in medical x-ray labs all over the world. It’s certainly possible the x-rays were derived from thermal radiation in the image, in fact, that’s likely, but it, again, begs the question because thermal radiation can certainly also be derived from electromagnetic forces. You don’t need a “black hole” to generate the thermal radiation that would cause x-rays.

    I don’t doubt that the distinction between synchrotron radiation and thermal radiation can be readily made by science’s current generation of detection technology (and it’s likely only going to get better), but as stated above it’s a leap into assumption that anytime an x-ray can be attributed to thermal radiation that means a “black hole” is present.

    There…is that an accurate decipher of DrFlimmer’s cyptic comment? you let me know, would ya, DrFlimmer.

    As to Ivan3Man’s humor, are my comments above really equivalent to simply repeating, “it’s asleep; no, it’s asleep; no, it’s really asleep”? I’ve provided reasons, cited authority, and offered recognized scientific principles for my positions.

    Refute them if you can.

    Jim Carrey is funny, but, here, it seems more like a rhetorical tool to distract, and an implicit admission that Ivan3Man doesn’t have a response he can articulate. And as I’ve noticed over the course of this discussion over several posts — Ivan3Man is not a man at a loss for words.

    But now he’s resorted to a Jim Carrey comedy routine.

    No, I think the jokes on Ivan3Man: “It’s a “black hole”; no, it’s a “black hole”; no, it’s really, really a “black hole”!

    And so it has been…and so it goes…

    That won’t cut it anymore.

  55. ND

    Anaconda,

    “…this seems to be a reference to antimatter. In my comment, I discounted the antimatter concept, no, I rejected it. The case for antimatter is theoretical. Perhaps, the super collider will provide scientific evidence by way of observation and measurement to support the antimatter construct. It seems all eyes are on the super collider, a regular Valhalla in the mountains.

    We’ll see, but until then, antimatter is speculation.”

    Antimatter is real. It has been produced in the lab. See:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

    Care to explain how these physicists are wrong? Or are you dismissing antimatter too quickly like you did with quarks and relativity?

  56. ND

    Anaconda,

    FYI, antimatter was first postulated using math, yes math, before any lab based discovery.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation

  57. DrFlimmer

    @ Tom Marking

    May I ask you what you are for a living and/or in what ways you are related to physics? You know rather much and brought up arguments that I haven’t thought of. Btw: Thanks a lot. I think I have an idea, now, what Birkeland currents are thought to be.

    @ Anaconda

    Probably you should decipher the comments that followed mine you already deciphered. Many links has been brought up to you. I think you will need some time to read, understand and answer them all. Btw: Antimatter has been proven to exist in the 1930s, shortly after the theoretical suggestion by Dirac in 1932 (if I remember correctly).
    Anaconda, you have no clue about fundamental particle physics. Before you start attacking things, better start learning what we know already. Physics are not stuck in the 80s. The last 20 years have seen tremendous steps forward in knowledge. I think it is time for you to learn!

  58. IVAN3MAN

    DrFlimmer, a word of advice: If you want URL links in your comments to get passed the spam filter, just drop the “http / www” prefix — most web-browsers will work without them when copied & pasted into the address bar, unless you’re using some weird half-assed job that one has not heard of!

  59. DrFlimmer

    Btw, Anaconda. It is possible that the LHC is able to produce a Quark-Gluon-Plasma. If that comes true we can analize it and it will give us insights into the very first moment of the universe (since according to BBT there has been a QGP in the very first second of the universe) and probably it can tell us how a neutron star really looks like. That would be awesome results!

    BTW: Have you ever heard of the predecessor of the LHC that used to be in the same tunnel at CERN where the LHC is, now? It was called LEP – “Large Electron Positron Collider”…… electrons and positrons collided in it – and a positron is the anti-electron. We have done scientific experiments with antimatter! And it has shown that the standard model of particle physics is rather good (not complete, but very good!!).

  60. @ Tom Marking:

    You scanned over the websites I linked to. Sorry, you’ll have to do better than that. Dr. Anthony Peratt studied and worked with Hannes Alfven, so I’ll rely on his work more than a quick “scan” from you.

    Tom, you ask a series of questions, how do stars form and so on. All reasonable question, but I’m not going to write a encyclopedia here in the comments section. I encourage you to review the material at the various internet sites or reO.K. Now you’re getting into la-la land. You apparently reject the concept of matter, energy, and object because they are merely theoretical constructs. Alfven is probably rolling over in his grave by now.

    Tom, I never said there wasn’t an underlying theory, now you’re putting words in my mouth.

    Tom, I asked you a series of questions about how the jets were formed or generated, actually, I asked the question a number of different ways, so as to give you latitude in how you might answer.

    Talking about an an “accretion disc” that has never been observed leaves something to be desired.

    I’ll take your point that magnetic fields aren’t exactly limited to the actual pathways of the electrons.

    It seems you are searching or speculating on some exotic mechanism when a known mechanism is staring you in the face. Synchrotron radiation was detected in the jet, synchrotron radiation is generated by electric currents. Pretty straight forward reasoning.

    As to the simulation, it’s recognized by science that plasma physics is scalable, in fact, it is scalable upto at least 14 orders of magnitude.

    And considering how many “unobserved” items today’s astrophysics indulges in, the fact that plasma physics deals only in “known” physical relationships, and that’s what I meant by “properties.” Of course, properties or relationships are quantified into mathematical equations. I have no problems with that because unlike with unobserved items, the relationships can be tested.

    An “accretion disc” has never been observed has to infer physical processes from that theoretical construct is stacking hypothesis on top of hypothesis. Not a strong basis for scientific certainty.

    Tom Marking presents my [Anaconda’s] quote: “It makes no sense to criticise the gravitational model for relying on theoretical constructs (matters, energies, objects) and then turn around and do the same thing.”

    And then responds: “O.K. Now you’re getting into la-la land. You apparently reject the concept of matter, energy, and object because they are merely theoretical constructs. Alfven is probably rolling over in his grave by now.”

    Tom, “dark matter”, “dark energy”, and “black holes”, have little or no scientific evidence to support them.

    And, Tom, you’re grand to be attempting to suggest what Hannes Alfven would be thinking. Alfven rejected the gravitational model. You obviously don’t.

    It only makes you look foolish, considering you have already attacked Dr. Peratt, even though he studied and worked with Alfven. You come off for the worse of it.

    Please, Tom, when you deny the obvious you come off looking ilinformed.

    I spent most of one discussion thread, here, arguing about the existence or non-existence of electric currrents in space.

    Tom Marking states: “Are you sure they were talking about any electric current or just about Birkeland currents? There’s a difference, you know.”

    Care you explain what you consider the difference is?

    Tom Marking states: “Well, please cite your sources for that statement. Who is claiming they can generate a magnetic field with only gravity and no electrical currents?”

    You don’t comprehend very well, I said they failed. They weren’t successful.

    Tom Marking: “Birkeland currents are a specific type of current in which the current is parallel to the magnetic field lines. They can only occur in a plasma.”

    Agreed, with one caveat, Birkeland currents create their own magnetic field, and I’ll look into it, but I don’t think they are restricted to pre-existing field lines.

    Tom Markling states: “Look at the M87 jet and you’ll see that it starts to diverge right away just like the field lines from a bar magnet.”

    Wrong. Tom. Anybody who looks at M87 will see that the jet stays tight and focussed for a very long distance. I’m concerned, here, Tom, because you are misrepresenting what the jets look like in M87.

    Well, have to go now, to be cont.

    But I will say this before breaking off.

    My purpose is not to change you mind, or any of the people who might be reading this discussion, here and now. My purpose is to suggest you keep an open-mind on the subject by giving you a taste of it (I’m not going to write a book, here, in these comments, although, by now, I feel like I have), and hope you do some research on your own. Take your time. Let the scientific evidence percolate. What seems to be evident from the comments from my interlocutors is that they perfer you don’t investigate and see for yourself. What are they worried about? If it’s a bunch of bunk as they suggest, it will be readily apparent, but then again, you might find it makes a lot of sense and might be worth following up on more.

    That’s the fun of science, expanding what you know about the world.

    After all, this is about understanding the Universe better. Closing your eyes and ears to scientific evidence hardly seems the way to go forward in the world of science.

    You got the power, it’s up to you what your actions will be.

    Good luck.

  61. @Anaconda “But I neglected the other reason cited by gravitational model proponents for why Cygnus X-1 AND OTHER GALAXIES are candidates for having a “black hole” at their center.”

    Yo dude, Cygnus X-1 is not a galaxy last time I checked.

    “The reason is that the rotational speed and size of the galaxy can’t be explained by the gravitational pull of the observed matter in the galaxy. The observed matter’s computed gravitational pull is insuffient to hold together the galaxy, in other words, the galaxy should fly apart, but it hasn’t, therefore, gravitational model proponents infer there has to be a nearly infinite dense location of matter at the center of the galaxy, i.e., a “black hole”.”

    No, that’s one of the arguments for dark matter, not for black holes. The argument for black holes is that we observe very compact objects with intense gravitational fields. Cygnus X-1 is one of them. It has a mass of 8.7 solar masses in a sphere with a diameter of ~300 kilometers. That means its average density is ~1.2 trillion times the density of water. Cygnus X-1 has nothing to do with the issue of whether there is enough mass to keep the galaxy together.

    “There is a reasonable alternative explanation. As I stated previously, Dr Anthony Peratt, who works at the Los Alamos National Laboratory has developed a supercomputer simulation of galaxy formation based on scientifically recognized plasma physics where a plasmoid is at the center of galaxies.”

    Can you point me to a paper of Dr. Peratt in a peer-reviewed journal where he describes his model in detail? Basic details were lacking in the URL you provided such as the composition of the plasma (is it just protons and electrons are there other ion species present?), its initial state (temperature, density, etc.).

    “Now on to more difficult matters.”

    Yes, I see you have ignored all of my responses and would prefer to deal with IVAN3MAN and Dr. Flimmer. I wonder why.

    “The case for antimatter is theoretical.”

    Ya got to love Anaconda. Even when several posters (including myself) provide him with evidence that antimatter has already been created in the laboratory, he still insists that it ain’t so. That Norwegian blue parrot is still pining for the fjords of Norway. :)

  62. @DrFlimmer “May I ask you what you are for a living and/or in what ways you are related to physics? You know rather much and brought up arguments that I haven’t thought of. Btw: Thanks a lot. I think I have an idea, now, what Birkeland currents are thought to be.”

    I have a B.S. in physics. Back in the 1980’s I worked on computer simulations for EMP (ElectroMagnetic Pulse) effects from nuclear weapons for Sandia National Laboratories. So I was pretty heavily steeped in Maxwell’s Equations. That is why it pains me so much to see Anaconda mangle them the way he does. Of course, since the end of the Cold War all of that EMP stuff is ancient history. These days I work as a computer programmer in the area of operations research/microeconomics. My interest in astronomy is purely as an amateur.

  63. @Anaconda “Talking about an “accretion disc” that has never been observed leaves something to be desired.”

    Oh, really? Take a look at these. You’re looking at the accretion disks for two supermassive blackholes:

    http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/exotic_collection/pr1992027b
    http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/exotic_collection/pr1998022b

    “I’ll take your point that magnetic fields aren’t exactly limited to the actual pathways of the electrons.”

    Oh, gee. Are you now retracting your previous statement which was “I’m not implying. I’m stating clearly that electric currents and magnetic fields are produced in situ, together.” ?

    “Synchrotron radiation is generated by electric currents. Pretty straight forward reasoning.”

    You’re not claiming just any old electric current. You’re claiming a specific type of electric current called a Birkeland current. Read this link concerning synchrotron radiation:

    http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/astroII/l4.html

    The charged particles are moving both perpendicular to the magnetic field line and parallel to it. The component that is perpendicular to the field line is the only one involved in acceleration and thus synchrotron radiation.

    “It only makes you look foolish, considering you have already attacked Dr. Peratt”

    I attacked Dr. Peratt? When did I do that. I must have missed it.

    “Please, Tom, when you deny the obvious you come off looking ilinformed.”

    Coming from someone who doesn’t know the first thing about Maxwell’s Equations I’d have to say right back at ya, dude.

    “Care you explain what you consider the difference is?

    A Birkeland current is otherwise known as a field-aligned current which means the current runs parallel to the magnetic field line.

    “You don’t comprehend very well, I said they failed. They weren’t successful.”

    Who is they? Care to cite any names?

    “Wrong. Tom. Anybody who looks at M87 will see that the jet stays tight and focussed for a very long distance. I’m concerned, here, Tom, because you are misrepresenting what the jets look like in M87.”

    Sigh!, you’re like a little baby, you know that? The M87 jet is obviously thin at the beginning, of intermediate thickness in the middle, and thick at the end. Do I have to whip out Microsoft Paint and give you actual pixel coordinates to prove this?

  64. IVAN3MAN

    Tom Marking, no matter how many links you, me, DrFlimmer, et al., provide for Anaconda, he only sees what he wants to see. As I’ve stated before, it is rather like dealing with anorexics: thin people who are convinced that they need to lose weight, to the point of putting themselves at risk. Plonk them on scales and the scales are wrong. Show them their emaciated reflection in a mirror and they will still see a fat person. Try to reason with them and you are part of the conspiracy to make them obese. :roll:

  65. @IVAN3MAN “Tom Marking, no matter how many links you, me, DrFlimmer, et al., provide for Anaconda, he only sees what he wants to see.”

    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.

    I’m not sure if you visited to web site of Dr. Peratt or not, but if you do you will note that he’s talking about phenomena on a galaxy-wide scale (i.e., several hundreds of thousands light-years across). There is nothing on the web site that would give an alternative explanation of Cygnus X-1 or the 4-million solar mass entity associated with Sagittarius A. I was half hoping that Anaconda would turn to matter/antimatter annihilation as a possible energy source but he rejects antimatter out of hand. He has nothing left in his theory that can power Cygnus X-1.

  66. José

    Hasn’t anyone else come across Anthony Peratt’s ancient sky plasma theory yet?
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041231predictions-rock-art.htm
    Or is it just to silly to comment on.

  67. IVAN3MAN

    Tom Marking: “I’m not sure if you visited to web site of Dr. Peratt or not, but if you do you will note that he’s talking about phenomena on a galaxy-wide scale (i.e., several hundreds of thousands light-years across).”

    Yes, I have been familiar with that web-site and the other one at Plasma-Universe.com, since I first heard about all that “Plasma Cosmology” jazz, a few years ago, and how it attempts to extrapolate laboratory plasma results by a factor of 109 to magnetospheric conditions; another scaling jump by a factor of 109 to interstellar clouds, and yet another scaling jump by a factor of 109 to extrapolate to the Hubble distance. To me, this sounds like a cosmological version of that other pseudoscience of “homeopathy”. :lol:

    As for “gravastars”, I’ve been familiar with that hypothesis since I first heard about it in 2002, but I note from the Wikipedia entry that the article has been scaled down somewhat since 2004; it appears that it’s not being taken seriously.

  68. IVAN3MAN

    P.S. Also, I note that the “Plasma Cosmology” entry, in Wikipedia, has been virtually gutted; no doubt due to insufficient evidence.

  69. ND

    Anaconda,

    We have yet to hear a satisfactory answer from you regarding antimatter. You have our undivided attention.

    I particularly would like to hear your thoughts on
    publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-11-03.html
    It has the word “laboratory” in the title. Thought you might like that. I like the word “billions” in the title myself.

  70. ND

    José,

    I came across that in a youtube video. Sounded even silloer as a video.

  71. DrFlimmer

    Anaconda also failed to address the star “S2″ at the Milky Way’s core……

    @ Tom Marking:

    Thanks for the information!
    Btw: Our understanding of Black Holes will definitly change over time. They are supposed to be a singularity in space(time). And singularities are nothing a physicist nor a mathematician likes ;) . But since we are reaching so little volume quantum effects will have a word to say! But we still fail to combine gravity and quantum mechanics, so the answer will have to wait. I am just as anxious about “direct observation” of black holes as you are. We have recently seen the first optical picture of a planet. I cannot imagine what the first picture of a black hole will look like (a black dot in the frame probably, but there are weird things going on near an event horizon – that will be a sight to remember).

  72. DrFlimmer

    @ ND and José:

    Looks like “Plasmeidolia” ;)

  73. Anaconda could benefit from reading and understanding this essay: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100231

  74. Here are my thoughts on why the galaxy formation theory presented in

    http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation

    is almost certainly wrong. I do this not to sway Anaconda since his mind is already made up, but to give the rest of you a demonstration on how to argue against EU ideas.

    1.) The simulation starts with two spheres of plasma 35 kiloparsecs in diameter separated by 80 kiloparsecs (center-to-center one presumes). Well, the first question you have to ask yourself is what is plasma? It’s any form of ionized matter. Let’s assume it’s some type of mixed charged plasma with equal numbers of electrons and protons (assume no other positive ion species for simplicity sake) so that the two spheres start out with zero net charge each. The main thing about plasma is that it has to be hot. If the temperature drops below a critical value (typically 2,000 to 3,000 deg Kelvin) the protons and electrons will recombine into neutral hydrogen and the plasma will be no more. So the initial matter in this model is hot. How hot? Well, Peratt doesn’t say but we can assume tens of thousands of degrees at least. This conflicts with our knowledge of the interstellar and intergalactic medium where the matter is typically cold. Also it conflicts with the Cosmic Microwave Background which resembles a 2.7 degree Kelvin blackbody.

    2.) Being hot, the two plasma spheres and whatever shapes evolve afterward must be emitting copious thermal radiation. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies here which says that the power per unit area emitted scales as the fourth power of the temperature in degrees Kelvin. Thus, the hotter the plasma the more rapidly it loses energy. Once it falls below a certain temperature the protons and electrons recombine into neutral hydrogen and you have no more plasma. The Birkeland currents and other plasma phenomena turn off and the plasma evolution stops in its tracks. I wonder if Peratt included blackbody radiation in his model. Without a source of energy to replenish the lost radiated energy (e.g., nuclear fusion) the plasma body will rapidly cool off and the model stops. I haven’t done the calculations for a 35 kiloparsec plasma sphere but I suspect the temperature falls below ~3,000 deg K well before 1.0E8 years which is the end point of the simulation.

    3.) There is another problem as well and that is to do with the mass difference between the protons and the electrons. The protons are ~1,800 times more massive than the electrons are. If the protons and electrons are at the same temperature then that means that they have the same kinetic energy (i.e., 0.5 * m * v^2). So we have:

    m-electron * v-electron^2 = m-proton * v-proton^2 (non-relativistic)

    (m-proton/m-electron) = (v-electron/v-proton)^2 = 1,800

    v-electron/v-proton = 42

    The electrons should be travelling more than 40 times faster than the protons. Thus, they will be preferentially lost from the plasma sphere and the fraction of protons will accumulate as time goes on. This is bad news for the plasma body since the electrical repulsion of the protons will tend to blow it apart. Thus, in the long term the plasma body in unstable due to the preferential loss of electrons to the surrounding space.

    4.) Even if the simulation were correct the end result is a spiral shaped body of hot plasma. This is far from being a spiral galaxy since there are no stars, no interstellar dust, and no interstellar neutral hydrogen gas (observed via the 21-centimeter microwave emission line). No explanation is given for how the spiral plasma body evolves into a real galaxy. Also, there is no incompatibility shown between the plasma body and the evolution of an eventual black hole. No incompatibility is shown between a black hole and a Birkeland current either.

    Just a few of my thoughts.

  75. @Jose “Hasn’t anyone else come across Anthony Peratt’s ancient sky plasma theory yet?”

    Well, that confirms something I’ve been suspecting for some time. Namely, that this guy is a crackpot. He seems to be doing the Erich Von Daniken thing or something very similar. Funny how almost all of these petroglyphs of supposed “electrical discharges” resemble stick figure humans with a head, two arms, and two legs, now isn’t it?

  76. IVAN3MAN

    I don’t know if this is the You-Tube video referred to by ND above, but there at the Thunderbolts.info web-site is one several wacky videos called: “Symbols of an Alien Sky“. It features the one and only Immanuel Velikovsky and his wacko ideas. :lol:

  77. @Anaconda “Anybody who looks at M87 will see that the jet stays tight and focussed for a very long distance. I’m concerned, here, Tom, because you are misrepresenting what the jets look like in M87.”

    Procedure: Go to the following URL:

    http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/exotic_collection/pr1999043c

    This is a picture of the M87 jet. Go down to the HIGHEST QUALITY section and select JPEG. Download the image to your hard disk. It is 521 x 281 pixels. Then examine in using Microsoft Paint.

    Results: The jet runs from a central near-point source on the left to the right and slightly upward at ~20 degrees above the horizontal. There are several breaks in the jet but it is mostly continuous across the screen.

    From left to right (all numbers are pixel coordinates or pixel distances)

    Central source: 51,223

    1st segment of jet (top to bottom): 68,213 to 70,216
    midpoint is 69,214.5: distance = 20 pixels from central source
    jet width = 3.5 pixels

    2nd segment of jet (top to bottom): 105,200 to 108,204
    midpoint is 106.5,202: distance = 59 pixels from central source
    jet width = 5.0 pixels

    3rd segment of jet (top to bottom): 178,175 to 182,180
    midpoint is 180,177.5: distance = 137 pixels from central source
    jet width = 6.4 pixels

    4th segment of jet (top to bottom): 224,152 to 231,166
    midpoint is 227.5,159: distance = 188 pixels from central source
    jet width = 15.6 pixels

    5th segment of jet (top to bottom): 297,114 to 310,138
    midpoint is 303.5,126: distance = 270 pixels from central source
    jet width = 27.3 pixels

    6th segment of jet (top to bottom): 408,60 to 419,86
    midpoint is 413.5,73: distance = 392 pixels from central source
    jet width = 28.2 pixels

    Thus, we have the following data:

    Distance from Jet width
    AGN (active
    galactic
    nucleus)
    ————- ———
    20 3.5
    59 5.0
    137 6.4
    188 15.6
    270 27.3
    392 28.2

    Conclusion: The jet spreads out starting from the beginning. It does NOT maintain a constant width and then all of a sudden spread out.

  78. IVAN3MAN

    Er… that should read: “… is one of several wacky videos…”

  79. IVAN3MAN

    Tom Marking, good post, but, er, since the 13th General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) in 1967–1968, the official name for the unit kelvin was changed from “degree Kelvin” (symbol °K) to simply “kelvin” (symbol K). :-)

  80. @Tom Marking “I haven’t done the calculations for a 35 kiloparsec plasma sphere but I suspect the temperature falls below ~3,000 deg K well before 1.0E8 years which is the end point of the simulation.”

    Let’s assume a 35,000 parsec diameter plasma sphere with a constant temperature of 10,000 Kelvin.

    Radius = 17,500 parsecs = 57,077.3 light-years = 5.40E20 meters

    Surface area = 3.66E42 square meters

    From the Stefan-Boltzmann Law the power emitted per square meter =
    5.67E-8 * (1.0E4 ^ 4) = 5.67E8 watts per square meter

    Multiplying this by the total surface area gives the total power lost by the plasma object = 2.08E51 watts

    Now, how much stuff in in the plasma sphere? Let’s assume it has the total mass of the Milky Way galaxy which is 580 billion solar masses =
    1.15E42 kilograms = 6.90E68 times the mass of a proton.

    So the plasma sphere contains 6.90E68 protons and 6.90E68 electrons with both protons and electrons being at the same temperature.

    From kinetic theory, the total kinetic energy of the system is given by:

    E-kinetic = 1.5 * N * k-Boltzmann * T

    where E-kinetic is total kinetic energy in joules, N is the total number of particles (1.38E69), k-Boltzmann is the Boltzmann constant (1.38E-23 joules per Kelvin), and T is the temperature in Kelvins.

    Plugging in the numbers E-kinetic = 2.86E50 joules

    Now, divide E-kinetic by the total power output to get the longevity of the plasma sphere:

    t-longevity = E-kinetic / P-total = 2.86E50 / 2.08E51 = 0.137 seconds

    The plasma sphere will radiate away all of its energy in less than 1 second. Of course, as the temperature decreases the energy loss rate decreases, but it’s pretty obvious that the plasma sphere will fall below the minimum temperature needed to maintain the plasma in a few seconds, not the hundreds of millions of years claimed in the URL. Thus, thermally this plasma model is unstable.

  81. @IVAN3MAN “the official name for the unit kelvin was changed from “degree Kelvin” (symbol °K) to simply “kelvin” (symbol K).”

    I beg your apologies, sir! I won’t let it happen again. :)

  82. Just have one more thing to say on this topic, which is:

    GO CARDINALS!!!

  83. ND

    IVAN3MAN,

    yeah those were the videos.

  84. IVAN3MAN

    ND, and yet Anaconda wants us to take him seriously by referring us to that web-site. What was he thinking?!

  85. ND

    Tom Marking,

    Thanks for the analysis of the plasma galaxy simulation. From what I read it was done in the early 80’s and I’m guessing it must have run on a Cray1 or a successor. Desktop computers these days should be able to do the same simulations at least as easily, no? The reason I ask is because I’m wondering what sort of value the source code for the simulation would have if Peratt released it. It would answer your questions as to what physics it took into account. There does not seem to be any new sim work done on this (that would around 20 years ago). I’m curious how much work it would take to port it to unix/linux system running on the latest processors. Peratt’s sim must have been written in either Fortran or C. What systems and languages did you work with for your EMP work?

  86. ND

    IVAN3MAN,

    He might not care about the petroglyphs. He said he disagreed with ambiplasma. But then again, you never know. He might find the petroglyphs more compelling than antimatter in the lab.

  87. @ND “Peratt’s sim must have been written in either Fortran or C. What systems and languages did you work with for your EMP work?”

    The EMP simulations I worked on were entirely FORTRAN. And you’re right, during the 1980’s we used the Cray-1 supercomputer which was considered state-of-the-art stuff at that time. Of course, now any decent PC you could purchase for a few thousand bucks would blow the doors off the Cray-1. So I think your assumption that Peratt’s simulation code could run easily on your home PC is probably correct. Of course, since it predicts an evolving plasma body over millions of years when I know that such a plasma body will radiate away all of its heat in a few seconds, I’m not sure I want the code. It obviously didn’t take into account radiative thermal losses.

  88. ND

    Tom Marking,

    I’ve read up (wikipedia) on the Cray-1 after I sat on one at at the computer history museum :) I loved the history and development of it. That whole danged C shaped appliance is a CPU. And now we hold faster ones in our hands in an iphone.

    The reason I brought up the idea of releasing the code was to highlight that no new development has been done and that it could easily happen given today’s computing power. However I’m ignoring the reality of porting the code from Cray specific implementation (even if written in C or Fortran) to something like a linux system with available compilers on it. I’m not trying to ignore your critique of the physics of the simulation.

  89. @Tom Marking “Multiplying this by the total surface area gives the total power lost by the plasma object = 2.08E51 watts”

    This is essentially the luminosity of the initial plasma sphere (and presumably the resulting spiral plasma object) assuming the temperature is 10,000 Kelvin. The luminosity of the Milky Way is estimated to be ~1.0E37 watts. The plasma object has ~200 trillion times the luminosity of the Milky Way galaxy. If it was located anywhere in the observable universe it would stick out like a sore thumb. Two of them together would stick out like an even sorer thumb. The Hubble telescope would have found this already.

    Anaconda rejects black holes, antimatter, etc. for lack of evidence. But he embraces this plasma spiral object with 200 trillion times the luminosity of the Milky Way that has never been observed and never will be. That should give you some idea of the thickness of the tinfoil enclosing Anaconda’s head. This guy is a loon, plain and simple.

  90. @ND “I’ve read up (wikipedia) on the Cray-1 after I sat on one at at the computer history museum I loved the history and development of it. That whole danged C shaped appliance is a CPU. And now we hold faster ones in our hands in an iphone.”

    Yeah, the old Cray-1 supercomputer was an engineering marvel at the time. I’ve actually touched one (of course, I’ve touched a live nuclear weapon before too but that’s a different topic). It had metal tubes running through the chassis. High pressure water was pumped through them to provide cooling. The whole thing was like a nuclear reactor or something like that. Pretty cool stuff. It’s a pity it all became obsolete so rapidly.

  91. IVAN3MAN

    Tom Marking,

    I just want to say that I am impressed with your “plasma sphere” calculations above. If you don’t mind, I would like to use them as further ammunition against the “Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe” crowd. :-)

  92. @IVAN3MAN “I would like to use them as further ammunition against the “Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe” crowd”

    Go right ahead. You are most welcome to do so. :)

  93. IVAN3MAN

    Tom Marking, thanks! :-)

  94. DrFlimmer

    Indeed! Those calculations are so “easy” that I’m almost stunned that I haven’t thought about these phenomena you included myself. Sometimes the slution is too easy ;) .
    But thanks a lot, Tom Marking!
    Hopefully Anaconda will say something – he surley has to! I wonder where he is since he hasn’t shown up for 2 days. Eventually he is really reading the links we gave him and he sees that we are not as wrong as he thought (but I doubt that). Or he has been banned secretly ;)

  95. @DrFlimmer “Or he has been banned secretly”

    I doubt Phil banned him since he didn’t seem to notice him at all. On the other hand Phil did ban that other EU guy (I forget what his name was, Oil… something or other) and he was actually 10^N (where N >> 1) less obnoxious than Snake Man was/is. Maybe he sent a nasty e-mail directly to Phil or something ’cause I never understood what he did that was bad enough to get banned.

  96. DrFlimmer

    Oil Is Mastery – yeah, I remember that guy. He was gone rather quickly.
    If there is a secret thing going on here, I would consider it’s the “Anaconda-Hoax” ;)

  97. Davidlpf

    I have been over to OilisMastery website and Anaconda is over there supporting him (no surprise).
    Also Oil has a list of websites here has been banned from, like a badge of honor or something. Most of the electric universe people seem to leave once one or many have shown that they do not what they are talking about.
    In the bautforums a lot of electric universe people got banned for breaking the forum rules. Here is a general reference that maybe useful.
    http://www.tim-thompson.com/faqs.html

  98. IVAN3MAN

    @ DrFlimmer & Tom Marking,

    Hey, you guys! Anaconda is over at “Oil Is Mastery” blog-spot, whinging and moaning about my “friendly welcome” towards him, and about Tom Marking “ROFLMAO” regarding Anaconda’s assertions. Click here :P to see for yourself.

    Also, “Oil Is Mastery” is himself whinging and moaning because he has been permanently banned from RichardDawkins.net and had his post deleted. Click here :P to see for yourself.

  99. @ IVAN3MAN:

    Funny, you characteriize my position as being akin to creationists, but it’s the “big bang” theory that postulates “something out of nothing” or “there was nothing and then it exploded.”

    “Big bangers” have a bad habit of projecting onto others what they, themselves engage in.

    @ Tom Marking:

    Marking states (paraphrase): I didn’t attack Peratt personally.

    Then you turn around and call him a “crackpot”. Please.

    Also, there are citations to the papers that Dr Peratt wrote and others under the galaxy formation entry. Apparently, you didn’t see those or chose to ignore them.

    Marking, do you understand “perspective?” Your pixel measurements are fine, but your discussion completely ignores the known element of perspective.

    I need to correct one item: These jets should likely be called particle beams, rather than Birkeland currents per se.

    But I think this discussion oulines my points.

    Marking, in the abstract doesn’t object to electric currrents in space, in fact, he probably knows it would be ludicrous to suggest one of the four fundamental forces somehow doesn’t operate in space, but when it comes to specifics his position is much different. In fact, Markling calls a Ph.D. that works at a National Laboratory a “crackpot” and asserted that this same individual who had worked with Alfven wasn’t properly representing Plasma Cosmology.

    Markling blatently misrepresents that dust disks are “accretion disks”. There is a big difference between the two, Markling. Markling, I’m surprised that you would claim that a dust disk is the same as an accretion disk. Also, you don’t have a very high opinion of people on this website or else you wouldn’t attempt to claim something nobody has made a claim for.

    Markling pretends that he knows more about plasma than an expert at plasma, Dr. Anthony Peratt. That’s called arrogance.

    Markling’s critique of the galaxy formation simulation is based on a ton of assumptions

    Markling states: “[Peratt’s] galaxy formation theory presented …is almost certainly wrong.”

    Markling has a habit of talking through his hat. He doesn’t bother to get the particulars to the theory even though they were available at the bottom of the entry, and then assumes everything must be wrong because of his assmuptions about Peratt’s work. Please, Markling.

    You guys have demonstrated what I wanted you to: A complete overkill that reveals your deperate desire that nobody consider the scientific evidence. And, why? Because you know the observations are working against the gravitational only model.

    Ivan3Man, you are a projector. Anaconda only sees what he wants to see. Better look in the mirror.

    Markling, you can’t detect the size of something that can’t be observed, let alone mass, but you don’t even realize that is an inconsistency.

    This thread has run its course.

  100. ND

    Anaconda, “Markling pretends that he knows more about plasma than an expert at plasma, Dr. Anthony Peratt. That’s called arrogance.”

    Have you even read the stuff you write?!

    Also, what about antimatter? Your opinion and the physical evidence are at odds. Any thoughts?

  101. José

    @Anaconda
    Are you going to maintain that Peratt’s ideas on the connection between plasma and petroglyphs aren’t crackpot? I don’t care where he’s worked, who he’s worked with, or what his degree is. Something like that should give you pause before trusting such a source.

    And in case you think his petroglyph ideas are hair brained, but there’s no relationship between those ideas and his ideas on plasma and galaxy formation, there is. He’s using the exact same flawed reasoning to jump to wildly inappropriate conclusions about the role of plasma on both issues.

    Funny, you characterize my position as being akin to creationists, but it’s the “big bang” theory that postulates “something out of nothing” or “there was nothing and then it exploded.”

    Again, it doesn’t say that.

  102. José

    @Anaconda
    Funny, you characterize my position as being akin to creationists, but it’s the “big bang” theory that postulates “something out of nothing” or “there was nothing and then it exploded.”

    And you’re being compared to creationists because of the way you argue your position, not because of your position. There’s a big difference.

  103. IVAN3MAN

    Anaconda:

    Funny, you characteriize [sic] my position as being akin to creationists, but it’s the “big bang” theory that postulates “something out of nothing” or “there was nothing and then it exploded.”

    Real cosmologists have never claimed that the Universe came into existence as a result of “something out of nothing” in the Big Bang.

    The Big Bang theory can be summed up thus: In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then, it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler.

    For what its worth, I refer you to these articles:

    Evidence for the Big Bang:

    What is the Big Bang theory?
    Common misconceptions about the Big Bang
    ;

    Problems and Objections
    “Something can not come out of nothing” — the first law of thermodynamics
    ;

    Alternative Cosmological Models
    Plasma cosmology
    .

  104. IVAN3MAN

    It appears that Phil Plait has gone to bed because, at the time of writing this, my comment above is still stuck “awaiting moderation”.

    In the meantime, I’ll say this to Anaconda: Can’t you bloody see that Tom Marking’s (not “Markling”) excellent calculations above have totally refuted Anthony L. Peratt’s plasma-based Galaxy formation simulation?!

  105. DrFlimmer

    Well. Anaconda just picks those statements he can respond to without burning his hands (as I thinks). But there is a thing that I must copy from him:

    “I need to correct one item: These jets should likely be called particle beams, rather than Birkeland currents per se. ” (emphasize mine)

    Oh my god! That is ALL I ever said. Is it a dream? Has Anaconda realized that at least some points of us are not utterly wrong?
    Then he can easily correct himself on the following items (or just respond to them):
    Anti-matter, Cygnus X-1, the star “S2″ in the galactic center, the solar wind being ejected homogeneously….

    I’d love to see his answers. Hopefully he hasn’t disappeared permanently.

  106. ND

    IVAN3MAN,

    You’re missing the point, math is not a legitimate form of debating.

    DrFlimmer,

    Don’t forget quarks. He changed his mind about quarks but then still put the word quark in quotes. Wierd.

  107. “Funny, you characteriize my position as being akin to creationists, but it’s the “big bang” theory that postulates “something out of nothing” or “there was nothing and then it exploded.””

    Anyone else notice a subtle shift here? Before, Anaconda was attacking the concept of black holes. Now he has shifted to attacking the concept of the Big Bang. I guess that frontal assault on black holes didn’t turn out too well for him so now he changes his strategy.

    “Marking states (paraphrase): I didn’t attack Peratt personally.
    Then you turn around and call him a “crackpot”. Please.”

    Notice the timing. I called him a “crackpot” after finding out about his ridiculous ideas concerning ancient petroglyphs and their supposed depiction of cosmic electrical phenomena.

    “Also, there are citations to the papers that Dr Peratt wrote and others under the galaxy formation entry. Apparently, you didn’t see those or chose to ignore them.”

    I noticed them but I did not read them all. At least Peratt’s papers do not seem to address the problems I find with his model.

    “Marking, do you understand “perspective?” Your pixel measurements are fine, but your discussion completely ignores the known element of perspective.”

    If Centaurus A is located 13 million light-years away then these jets would have to be a significant fraction of this distance in length before perspective effects would change the conclusion.

    “I need to correct one item: These jets should likely be called particle beams, rather than Birkeland currents per se.”

    Oh man!, after all this hoo ha now you’re giving up on Birkeland currents? Not every particle beam is a Birkeland current.

    “In fact, Markling calls a Ph.D. that works at a National Laboratory a “crackpot” and asserted that this same individual who had worked with Alfven wasn’t properly representing Plasma Cosmology.”

    The name is MARKING. Do you support Peratt’s ideas concerning petroglyphs? Alfven believed in ambiplasma and antimatter. You apparently don’t. Alfven invented Plasma Cosmology. If your and Peratt’s theory is significantly different from Alfven’s theory then perhaps you should give it a new name.

    “Markling blatently misrepresents that dust disks are “accretion disks”. There is a big difference between the two, Markling. Markling, I’m surprised that you would claim that a dust disk is the same as an accretion disk.”

    The name is MARKING. And dust cannot be in an accretion disk for what reason? So there are disks of dusts surrounding a black hole but it’s not an accretion disk? ROFLMAO once again.

    “Also, you don’t have a very high opinion of people on this website or else you wouldn’t attempt to claim something nobody has made a claim for.”

    Huh? I’m only allowed to claim things that other people have already claimed? I don’t remember reading that in the blog rules.

    “Markling pretends that he knows more about plasma than an expert at plasma, Dr. Anthony Peratt. That’s called arrogance. Markling’s critique of the galaxy formation simulation is based on a ton of assumptions. Markling states: “[Peratt’s] galaxy formation theory presented …is almost certainly wrong.”

    Sigh, the name is MARKING. And I suppose we are obliged to take Peratt’s word for all this without any critical thinking at all.

    “Markling has a habit of talking through his hat. He doesn’t bother to get the particulars to the theory even though they were available at the bottom of the entry, and then assumes everything must be wrong because of his assmuptions about Peratt’s work. Please, Markling.”

    Yes, and I am noticing that you don’t know enough about Peratt’s theory to even dispute the four objections I raised.

    “You guys have demonstrated what I wanted you to: A complete overkill that reveals your deperate desire that nobody consider the scientific evidence. And, why? Because you know the observations are working against the gravitational only model.”

    ROFLMAO. As I recall your theory couldn’t even explain Cygnus X-1.

    “Markling, you can’t detect the size of something that can’t be observed, let alone mass, but you don’t even realize that is an inconsistency.”

    Then how does Peratt know that the plasma object starts out with a diameter of 35 kiloparsecs if it can’t be observed? Is it a magical plasma object that emits no radiation?

  108. DrFlimmer

    “Is it a magical plasma object that emits no radiation?”

    Probably like currents in “dark mode”…..

  109. @Anaconda “Markling blatently misrepresents that dust disks are “accretion disks”. There is a big difference between the two, Markling. Markling, I’m surprised that you would claim that a dust disk is the same as an accretion disk.”

    http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/exotic/dark%20matter/1992/27/image/b/

    “A Hubble Space Telescope image of a giant disk of cold gas and dust fueling a possible black hole at the core of the galaxy. Estimated to be 300 light years across, the disk is tipped enough (about 60 degrees) to provide astronomers with a clear view of its bright hub, which presumably harbors the black hole.

    The dark, dusty disk represents a cold outer region which extends inwards to an ultra hot accretion disk within a few hundred million miles of the suspected black hole. This disk feeds matter into the black hole, where gravity compresses and heats the material. Some hot gas squirts out from the blackhole’s near- vicinity to create the radio jets. The jets are aligned perpendicular to the disk, like an axle through a wheel. This provides strong circumstantial evidence for the existence of a black hole “central” engine in NGC 4261.”

    http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1994/23/text

    “Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope have found seemingly conclusive evidence for a massive black hole in the center of the giant elliptical galaxy M87, located 50 million light years away in the constellation Virgo. Earlier observations suggested the black hole was present, but were not decisive.

    This observation provides very strong support for the existence of gravitationally collapsed objects, which were predicted 80 years ago by Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

    “If it isn’t a black hole, then I don’t know what it is,” says Dr. Holland Ford of the Space Telescope Science Institute and The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.

    “A massive black hole is actually the conservative explanation for what we see in M87. If it’s not a black hole, it must be something even harder to understand with our present theories of astrophysics,” adds fellow investigator Dr. Richard Harms of the Applied Research Corp. in Landover, Maryland.

    The discovery is based on velocity measurements of a whirlpool of hot gas that is orbiting around the black hole in the form of a disk. The presence of the disk, discovered in recent Hubble images, allows for an unprecedented, precise measurement of the mass of the object at the hub of the disk.

    A black hole is an object that is so massive yet compact nothing can escape its gravitational pull, not even light. The object at the center of M87 fits that description. It weights as much as three billion suns, but is concentrated into a space no larger than our solar system.

    Now that astronomers have seen the signature of the tremendous gravitational field at the center of M87, it is clear that the region contains only a fraction of the number of stars that would be necessary to create such a powerful attraction. There must be something else there that cannot be seen.

    Ford and Harms were astounded by the M87 images taken with the telescope’s Wide Field Planetary Camera-2 (in PC mode) on Feb. 27. They hadn’t anticipated seeing such clear evidence of a gaseous disk in the center of M87.

    “It’s just totally unexpected to see the spiral-like structure in the center of an elliptical galaxy,” Ford says.

    Ford and Harms used HST’s Faint Object Spectrograph to measure the speeds of orbiting gas on either side of the disk from regions located about 60 light-years from the black hole at the center.

    They calculated that the disk of hot (about 10,000 Kelvin), ionized gas is rotating at tremendous speeds around a central object that is extremely massive but extraordinarily compact — a black hole.

    “Once you get that measurement, all you need is straightforward Newtonian physics to calculate the mass of the central object that’s making the disk spin,” says Harms.

    The measurement was made by studying how the light from the disk is blueshifted and redshifted — as one side of the disk spins toward us and the other side spins away from us. The gas on one side of the disk is speeding away from Earth, at a speed of about 1.2 million miles per hour (550 kilometers per second). The gas on the other side of the disk is whipping around at the same speed, but in the opposite direction, as it approaches viewers on Earth.

    “Now, it all knits together,” Ford said. “We see a disk-like structure that appears to have spiral structure, and it’s rotating. One side is approaching, and the other is receding.”

    The cloud of gas is composed mostly of hydrogen. The hydrogen atoms have been ionized, or stripped of their single electron, possibly by radiation originating near the black hole.

    Over the next few months, they will attempt to peer even closer to the center, where the disk should be spinning at even higher speeds, improving the measurement of the black hole’s mass.”

  110. @ Tom Marking:

    So, you acknowledge electric currents in space, acknowledge, in fact, that it is foolish not to acknowledge electric currents in space. You acknowledge Birkeland currents in space, at least between the Sun and the Earth, and acknowledge it is foolish not to acknowledge Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth. But tell me what is the limitation on electric currents in space?

    If electric currents are undeniably in space, then what is the limit from keeping them from being exactly as Plasma Cosmology asserts?

    After all, once you have admitted electric currents are in space, without some specific limiting factor, it is reasonable to believe electric currents are all over space.

    Because you have admitted electric currents in space in the ABSTRACT and specifically Birkeland currents in space. But when push comes to shove, at the point of acknowledging specifics, you are much more circumspect.

    Marking, all you will admit to are the Birkeland currents from the Sun to the Earth.

    Why the admission? Any serious scientist can’t deny the evidence of the Sun to Earth Birkeland currents, but beyond that, it’s obvious enough: Electromagnetism is one of the ‘FOUR FUNDAMENTAL FORCES'; it’s ludicrous to say that one of Nature’s fundamental forces doesn’t operate out in space, and especially when it’s the strongest of the four fundamental forces AT A DISTANCE.

    The fundamental force most efficient at transporting energy over distance.

    The most dynamic of the Four Fundamental Forces.

    Remember, electromagnetism is 10^39 more powerful than gravity.

    Marking, it will only become more apparent with additional discoveries that electromagnetism is the predominate force in Nature. As it is, the evidence is staring you in the face.

    So, Marking, what is the limitation that specifically prevents the electromagnetic, one of the ‘FOUR FUNDAMENTAL FORCES’ from having an equal if no predominate role in the Universe? I say predominate because it’s the strongest FORCE at a distance.

    Come on, Marking, what is the specific limitation on that FUNDAMENTAL FORCE?

    Otherwise, it stands to reason that electromagnetism has effect everywhere plasma is, and science knows plasma is over 99% of the Universe.

    You and your friends got a big problem.

    But the answer is simple enough: Get over it and acknowledge electromagnetism has major role in large structure dynamics in the Universe. Don’t want to say, “predominate,” fine. But this isn’t about poltics or about personal belief. This is about matching theory with reality. And as I’ve stated, here, before: Any theory that ignores one of the ‘FOUR FUNDAMENTAL FORCES’ in the Universe is an inadequate theory.

    The gravitational model is inadequate to explain the Universe.

    And fantasizing about the “big bang”, creationism by another name, “black holes”, a crutch for the falsified gravitaional model even Albert Einstein said didn’t exist, or “dark matter” which even though feverishly searched for, now over 20 years, still hasn’t been found, leaves you in a “dead end” cul-de-sac.

  111. Todd W.

    @Anaconda

    You make a big deal of Tom Marking admitting that there are electric currents in space, yet he never denied that there were. Also, try to keep the repetition to a minimum. Your last post could have been half the length or less. And finally, why have you completely ignored Tom’s questions and responses to your posts? Specifically, the refutation of Peratt’s model and his questions regarding Cygnus X-1?

    Please try to keep your posts focused on the facts and details at hand, and leave the speculation, character attacks, and other irrelevant comments out. It’ll make for shorter, easier-to-read posts. Thanks.

  112. ND

    Anaconda,

    “This is about matching theory with reality.”

    Can you show us these interstellar Birkeland currents? Is there evidence that these currents are causing supernova? Planet formations? Solar systems?

    So far the evidence points towards black holes, nuclear processes inside stars and something called dark matter. The evidence for plasma cosmology is lacking.

    What do you mean by predominate? It’s a vague term. so far it appears that currents and EM are not the predominate forces in the solar system.

    You’re hung up on the ~10^39 power difference. This comes from a pound-for-pound comparison between the gravitational forces between two protons (or one proton and electron). This example is purposefully simplified to compare the EM and gravitational forces acting on the same mass to do the same type of work. But when you get to larger sizes like planets, stars and nebula, things are different. There can be far more pounds of gravity than em.

    Your insistence that plasma cosmology is correct or that EM is dominant in the universe is based on the individual facts of 10^39, 99% plasma. This is nothing but a gut feeling that EM should be dominating processes in the universe over gravity.

    As for your handling of scientific theories, so far your statements fall far short of the evidence in favor of GR, quarks and antimatter. You have also demonstrated resoning in evaluating scientific theories based on methods other than the scientific method and critical thinking.

    What do you have against antimatter anyway?

  113. @ ND:

    You also have admitted electric currents in space. What is the limiting factor? You ask me about galactic Birkeland currents, but I already discussed that, but at the time you were in denial about ANY kind of electric currents in space, so you ignored my answers. Why should I repeat myself?

    So, again, ND, what is the limiting factor for electric currents in space?

    Same for you, Todd W., what is the limiting factor for electric currents in space?

  114. DrFlimmer

    Albert Einstein hadn’t the possibilities to search for black holes. Albert Einstein believed in a stationary cosmos and for that reason included the “cosmological constant” into his equation. He removed it later as being his “biggest fault”. Einstein didn’t believe in the weird effects of quantum mechanics he was working on himself and to what he had given the start in 1905 and for what he received his Nobel Prize. But they are real! Just because Einstein didn’t believed in black holes 60 years ago doesn’t mean that we cannot find evidences NOW. And we have!

    We have given you, Anaconda, the recent evidences, many links, papers since you distrust books, but you are just sitting back repeating your statements from the very beginning. Why are you saying that “old” stuff again? Why aren’t you reacting to our statements and links?

    You know, my friend, star formation is a really interesting thing. The “gravitational” model works quite fine and explains many things we are observing – but not every detail. And here comes electromagnetism. Including it into the models (analytically or numerically) is really hard. I don’t know if you have ever seen formulas of electromagnetic calculations. Even the simple calculation of a magnetic field turns out to be a very difficult equation (the Biot-Savart law) that can be only solved analytically for the easiest applications (like a straight wire). So including them into even more complex applications like a rotating star, one needs a computer, a super-computer.
    What does this mean? First it could mean that our models of the universe are completely wrong since we left out a fundamental thing – that is your point. But since our current models are quite fine in the limits we can obtain by observation at this moment we can say that electromagnetic interactions have their role but it’s not the dominant one, it’s more for the details. That is the standpoint of “mainstream” science. And, to repeat it once more, our models are quite fine. Why should we reject them and start from the very beginning? There is no reason for that, unless we find that the “details” are more important than we expect them to be – but by now there is a lack of evidence to support that (like the lack of evidence of your assumptions about the power source of the sun and other things).

    Btw: Probably you like this. You are right, without electromagnetic forces the earth would be dead! And do you know why? Because the exchange boson of the electromagnetic interaction is the photon! You know what that means, don’t you?

  115. DrFlimmer

    “So, again, ND, what is the limiting factor for electric currents in space?

    Same for you, Todd W., what is the limiting factor for electric currents in space?”

    I am not spoken to, but what the heck. I will tell you: THE LACK OF EVIDENCE!!!!!

  116. Todd W.

    @Anaconda

    First off, please show me where I have made any assertion that electric currents definitively do not exist in space before stating that I denied their existence.

    Second, to answer your question, I don’t know what the limiting factors are, as I have not studied astronomy, cosmology or electrical theory. I think I mentioned that fact already in the other thread.

    Third, stop dodging. The more you ignore specific questions/posts directed at you, the more you sound like a crank.

  117. @Anaconda

    “So, you acknowledge electric currents in space, acknowledge, in fact, that it is foolish not to acknowledge electric currents in space. You acknowledge Birkeland currents in space, at least between the Sun and the Earth, and acknowledge it is foolish not to acknowledge Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth. But tell me what is the limitation on electric currents in space? If electric currents are undeniably in space, then what is the limit from keeping them from being exactly as Plasma Cosmology asserts? After all, once you have admitted electric currents are in space, without some specific limiting factor, it is reasonable to believe electric currents are all over space.”

    You realize how you sound? You sound like this to me:

    “So, you acknowledge carnivores in Africa, acknowledge, in fact, that it is foolish not to acknowledge carnivores in Africa. You acknowledge lions in Africa, at least between the Serengetti and the Sahara, and acknowledge it is foolish not to acknowledge lions between the Serengetti and the Sahara. But tell me what is the limitation on lions on our planet? If lions are undeniably in Africa, then what is the limit from keeping them from being exactly as Lion Cosmology asserts? After all, once you have admitted lions are in Africa, without some specific limiting factor, it is reasonable to believe lions are everwhere on our planet.”

    “Marking, all you will admit to are the Birkeland currents from the Sun to the Earth. Why the admission?”

    Oh, I don’t know. Maybe because there is actual evidence for their existence from the NASA THEMIS satellites, unlike Peratt’s 35 kiloparsec wide plasma bodies which are apparently invisible if I caught your last post correctly.

    “Electromagnetism is one of the ‘FOUR FUNDAMENTAL FORCES’; it’s ludicrous to say that one of Nature’s fundamental forces doesn’t operate out in space”

    Yes, it’s ludicrous. That’s probably why I didn’t say it.

    “The fundamental force most efficient at transporting energy over distance.”

    Hmmm, that’s questionable to say the least. Two objects with zero net charge and no internal magnetic field have zero electromagnetic force between them.

    “The most dynamic of the Four Fundamental Forces.”

    ROFLMAO. O.K. I was half expecting Bat Man and Robin, the dynamic duo to show up at this point in your lecture. I suppose you’d have to tell us all what you mean by “dynamic” in this context.

    “So, Marking, what is the limitation that specifically prevents the electromagnetic, one of the ‘FOUR FUNDAMENTAL FORCES’ from having an equal if no predominate role in the Universe?”

    The limitation appears to be that matter as it exists in our universe has roughly the same amount of positive charge as negative charge. Thus, the charges tend to cancel one another out and the electromagnetic force is mostly nullified. Gravity doesn’t have that problem – it has in effect only a single type of “charge” otherwise known as mass. There is no cancellation of charges in gravity.

    “Otherwise, it stands to reason that electromagnetism has effect everywhere plasma is, and science knows plasma is over 99% of the Universe.”

    ROFLMAO. What about all that vacuum out there between the stars, planets, and galaxies? I think vacuum predominates over plasma by many orders of magnitude.

    “You and your friends got a big problem. But the answer is simple enough: Get over it and acknowledge electromagnetism has major role in large structure dynamics in the Universe.”

    Yes, we will all bow down and worship at the feet of Dr. Anthony Peratt. Hail to the Electric Universe!

  118. ND

    I would have to say the limiting factor is the amount of current actually occuring, in what fashion it occurs and the actual work it does. But then again I’m not a plasma physicist, like you. So you don’t know what you’re talking about any more than I do pardner. No matter how much you claim you understand plasma physics, standard mainstream science and the scientific method.

    I would have to defer the actual devilish details of plasma physics to our resident scientists.

    So what sort of affect do these currents between earth/sun, jupiter/io have on these solar system bodies? Is there hard evidence that the Sun is positively charged?

    So about antimatter. I take it your silence means that you just can’t admit or own up that you arrogantly claimed that antimatter doesn’t exist without knowing about the lab evidence on antimatter. You presumed that both quarks and antimatter didn’t exist because of your prejudice towards us. You jumped the gun.

    I wonder what chocolate ice cream made from antimatter tastes like ? :)

  119. Davidlpf

    One question to Anaconda, according to the electric universe how are elements formed.

    @Tom Marking, on your last post LOL.

  120. Todd W.

    @Tom Marking

    Yes, we will all bow down and worship at the feet of Dr. Anthony Peratt. Hail to the Electric Universe!

    Do we need to face any particular direction when we worship? Perhaps place a compass next to an electromagnet and face the direction the needle points?

  121. Todd W.

    Oh, and I predict that Anaconda will say something about how bad or convoluted Tom’s analogy was. I get it, but I have a sneaking suspicion he’ll miss the point.

  122. @ Tom Marking:

    Apparently, it is a big deal.

    I asked Ivan3Man if there were electric currents in space?

    Ivan3Man ignored the question. And so I asked, again, and the below quote was his responss:

    Ivan3Man: “I neither acknowledged nor denied electrical currents in space.”

    Then I ask him again: “Ivan3Man, do electric currents exist in space?”

    After dodging the question several times, Ivan3Man asked me: “What is your definition of an ‘electric current’?

    After I indicated that it was non-responsive to respond to a question with another question, and Ivan3Man restated his question, I went ahead and answered: “Electric currents are directional oriented charged particles in motion.”

    But then I asked him again: “Ivan3Man, do electric currents exist in space?”

    And IvaneMan’s reply: “I’ll be back.”

    Dr. Flimmer went on and on and on that there were no electric currents in space, period, before finally admitting there were electric currents in space.

    ND went on for the longest time saying there was no electric currents in space, then finally admitted there was electric currents in space, but tried to pawn it off, that he had never denied there were electric currents in space.

    So, Marking, don’t give me this, “carnivores in Africa” bit. You are either being disingenuous or ignorant of what your fellow interlocutors are saying.

    Marking, you ignore the fact that plasma has charge seperation and double layers. Also, taking your response to its implied conclusion: So, Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth are the only expression of electromagnetism is space?

    Marking, do you seriously think that’s true? A fundamental force, electromagnetism is limited to Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth?

    What about the synchrotron radiation which is only given off by electrons spiralling around a magnetic field which is, of course, an electric current. The proceeding has been detected and recorded. What about magnetic fields? They are only caused by electric currents and they also have been detected all over in deep space?

    Marking states: “Yes, it’s [no electric currents in space] ludicrous. That’s probably why I didn’t say it.”

    But then Marking goes on to state: “Thus, the charges tend to cancel one another out and the electromagnetic force is mostly nullified.”

    Which is it: It’s ludicrous to maintain there are no electric currents in space, or the there is no evidence of charge seperation in space plasma?

    Your arguments don’t hold up to reasonable scrutiny when compared to the state of the known scientific evidence.

    Science has made observations and measurements that are only consistent with electrical currents in deep space: Synchrotron radiation and magnetic fields.

    Marking says: “What about all that vacuum out there between the stars, planets, and galaxies?”

    What about it? There are many areas where plasma is concentrated and electromagnetism isn’t stopped because of a near vacuum as testiment by the 93 million miles between the Sun and the Earth.

    Marking states in attempted mockery, but it comes off as bitter acknowledgement: “Yes, we will all bow down and worship at the feet of Dr. Anthony Peratt. Hail to the Electric Universe!”

    No. simply acknowledge that electromagnetism, one of the Four Fundamental Forces in the Universe has a major role in the structure and dynamics of the Universe.

    Match theory and reality and you guys won’t crash and burn so bad in the end.

  123. All right, someone had to do it. Here is the top 10 list of stupid things Anaconda has said during this thread. I’m sure he has said stupid things on other threads but I don’t have the energy to go looking for all of his dumbosity. I put them here via cut and paste only without editing them in the slightest:

    1.) “the most often cited “indirect” evidence for “black holes” existence is that without “black holes” there wouldn’t be enough gravitational pull to hold together the sprialling arms of the galaxies”

    2.) “After all, the galaxy under consideration is distinguished by the presence of gravity-defying jets”

    3.) “In fact, the desire to deny electric currents in space is why gravitational model scientists attempted to generate synchrotron radiation without electric currents, using only gravity to generate the magnetic fields and synchrotron radiation. And, yes, they failed.”

    4a.) “Ambiplasma has never been observed or measured, neither has antimatter. These are theoretical speculations which I am not convinced of.”
    4b.) “In my comment, I discounted the antimatter concept, no, I rejected it. The case for antimatter is theoretical.”

    5a.) “I’m not implying. I’m stating clearly that electric currents and magnetic fields are produced in situ, together.”
    5b.) “I’ll take your point that magnetic fields aren’t exactly limited to the actual pathways of the electrons.”

    6.) “Yes, there is some widening over that vast distance, but when the distance is considered in conjunction with the increase of width over that distance, the maintenance of the jet’s width is remarkable.”

    7.) “I explained why x-rays, alone, where an insufficient offer of evidence to show Cygnus X-1 was a “black hole”. But I neglected the other reason cited by gravitational model proponents for why Cygnus X-1 and other galaxies are candidates for having a “black hole” at their center.”

    8a.) “Wrong. Tom. Anybody who looks at M87 will see that the jet stays tight and focussed for a very long distance. I’m concerned, here, Tom, because you are misrepresenting what the jets look like in M87.”
    8b.) “Marking, do you understand “perspective?” Your pixel measurements are fine, but your discussion completely ignores the known element of perspective.”

    9a.) “Birkeland currents is the only recognized mechanism. There is no other known mechanism recognized by science.”
    9b.) “I need to correct one item: These jets should likely be called particle beams, rather than Birkeland currents per se.”

    10.) “Markling, you can’t detect the size of something that can’t be observed, let alone mass, but you don’t even realize that is an inconsistency.”

    :)

  124. Davidlpf

    As Pauli would say Anaconda is “not even Wrong”.

  125. Greg in Austin

    Until this thread, I’ve never heard talk of electric currents in space. Please excuse my ignorance, but how exactly can electricity flow thru the vacuum of space? Ionized particles traveling from a solar flare to the earth I can understand. But that’s just charged particles, without which there would be no resemblance of current flow. And they don’t follow a path like a string to the earth, they just move outward in random directions.

    Can someone explain this for me?

    Thanks!

    8)

  126. @Anaconda

    I see you are adding to the top ten list.

    “But then I asked him again: “Ivan3Man, do electric currents exist in space?” And IvaneMan’s reply: “I’ll be back.” Dr. Flimmer went on and on and on that there were no electric currents in space, period, before finally admitting there were electric currents in space. ND went on for the longest time saying there was no electric currents in space, then finally admitted there was electric currents in space, but tried to pawn it off, that he had never denied there were electric currents in space.”

    What relevance does it have even if it’s true? Maybe they don’t have a background in physics enough to give a reasonable answer. I do. BTW, your only response to my 4 detailed objections to Dr. Peratt’s model was some lame Argument from Authority: The guy works at Los Alamos Laboratories. Therefore he knows what he’s talking about and who are you to question him. That was your only response. It pretty much shows that you have no clue what Peratt’s model is all about.

    “So, Marking, don’t give me this, “carnivores in Africa” bit. You are either being disingenuous or ignorant of what your fellow interlocutors are saying.”

    Huh? Since when did I become responsible for what they say? Get a grip.

    “Marking, you ignore the fact that plasma has charge seperation and double layers.”

    This is like your 100th post on this topic and this is the first time I am hearing about the charge separation and double layers. Please provide some evidence for that statement in the same way that I provided you with evidence that black hole accretion disks have been directly observed by the Hubble Space telescope.

    “Also, taking your response to its implied conclusion: So, Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth are the only expression of electromagnetism is space? Marking, do you seriously think that’s true? A fundamental force, electromagnetism is limited to Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth?”

    Sigh. Short answer: No. All of the photons leaving the sun constitute an oscillating electromagnetic field. You would know that if you had ever studied Maxwell’s Equations, which you apparently never have. The luminosity of the sun in this direct EM radiation is something like 3.8E26 watts. The THEMIS satellites have measured the energy of Sun-Earth Birkeland currents to be 5.0E14 joules per 2 hours or 6.9E10 watts. This is ~2.0E-16 times the power of the sun’s main photon EM output.

    “What about the synchrotron radiation which is only given off by electrons spiralling around a magnetic field which is, of course, an electric current. The proceeding has been detected and recorded. What about magnetic fields? They are only caused by electric currents and they also have been detected all over in deep space?”

    What about it? Please tell us how any of that stuff is incompatible with black holes or the Big Bang?

    “Science has made observations and measurements that are only consistent with electrical currents in deep space: Synchrotron radiation and magnetic fields.”

    Synchrotron radiation in deep space not associated with a galaxy or some other astrophysical object? Please provide some evidence for that statement.

    “No. simply acknowledge that electromagnetism, one of the Four Fundamental Forces in the Universe has a major role in the structure and dynamics of the Universe.”

    Yes it does. Just not in the way you and Peratt imagine it does.

  127. Davidlpf

    Greg, according to the plasma universe people there are currents of electricity that flow between the stars. These currents are responsible for galaxies and there formation, stars and everything in space. Most of it came about because a bunch of people who do not like the big bang because the maths are beyond them. If you want to look at what they say go to thunderbolts.info.

  128. @Greg in Austin “Until this thread, I’ve never heard talk of electric currents in space. Please excuse my ignorance, but how exactly can electricity flow thru the vacuum of space?”

    Electric current does not have to flow through a wire. Maxwell’s Equations recognize something called the J-vector or current density. It is the number of coulombs of charge flowing through a given area per second. It has the units of amperes per square meter.

    Thus, consider a one-square meter area in outer space. If one proton travels through the area per second the current density would be 1.6E-19 amperes per square meter. Let’s say you had 10 of these square meter areas. The total current flowing through all of them would be 1.6E-18 amperes. So, yes, you can have electric current in space. It is nothing but the movement of electric charge.

  129. Davidlpf

    @Greg, you nailed it, most charged particles move in random directions and most of the interstellar medium is neutral. Most of the electric universe is magical thinking, most EU/PUers do not like relativity and want to replaced so stick their fingers in their ears and go “Electricity does everything”.

  130. This one really is funny. I’m looking at the PDF file for:

    ON THE EVOLUTION OF INTERACTING, MAGNETIZED, GALACTIC PLASMAS
    by Anthony L. Peratt
    Astrophysics and Space Science 91 (1983)

    Page 2: “The existence of a confined, nonequilibrium, emf generating galactic cloud differs from some previous analyses regarding GRAVITATIONALLY bound equilibrium configurations in the presence of a magnetic field. For example, following from the magnetohydrodynamic equations, the virial theorem condition for configuration equilibrium is

    3*(gamma -1)*U + M + Sigma = 0,

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

    It turns out that gravity is indispensible to the theory proposed by Anaconda’s hero. Now, why does that make me laugh so hard? :)

  131. Greg in Austin

    @Tom,

    Ok, but current flow in general is understood to be the transfer of electrons from one atom to another inside a solid surface. As they pass thru a conductor, such as a copper wire, the flow of electrons can be measured, and they generate a magnetic field. Is a random proton or electron floating thru space really the same thing as current? Seems to me that while there may be a certain charge per square meter, there’s still the problem of the conductor.

    I understand that magnetic fields do not require a substance to travel thru, as shown by the powerful magnetic fields of the Sun, Earth and Jupiter. But if there was any kind of conductor between any of them, wouldn’t the fields look completely different as they do now?

    8)

  132. ND

    Anaconda,

    The virial theorem! The virial theorem!

    Your hero, Peratt used the virial theorem. And you had this to say in the other thread:

    “ND states: “He applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster’s total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge.”

    In other words, Zwicky applied one hypothesis to suggest another hypothesis to keep from falsifying another theory (the gravitational model).”

    Double whammy.

  133. ND

    Tom Marking,

    You might want to add the following to your list. It’s from the original thread:

    @ DrFlimmer:

    “The key to ‘double layers’ is that electrons and positive ions attract at long-distance, but repel at short-distance. This characteristic of charge seperated particles is most important to understanding why charged particles simply don’t “neutralize” each other. Yes, they can neutralize each other particularly when the ‘double layer’ shorts out or is ‘pinched’ as when a Birkeland current z-pinches in space and compresses matter together.

    But what is remarkable is this duality of charged particles: Attraction at long-distance and repulsion at short-distance.”

    I’m not sure exactly what he’s talking about. He may be trying to same something else but his wordage “electrons and positive ions attract at long-distance, but repel at short-distance.” sounds wrong.

  134. ND

    This has been a crazy adventure for sure. Almost a month of back and forth postings, with lots of “wtf!” head scratchings. I specially liked how Anaconda tried to shame people by pointing out they believed in theories from the 19th century. That should go on the list too :)

    There are still a lot of loose threads but a blog like this might not be the best place to sort them out.

  135. DrFlimmer

    The bad thing is that Anaconda is fleeing from everything and goes back to his roots. He is just repeating the same statements lately. We had other topics he didn’t refer to. I wonder if he ever just took a look at the links we gave him or if just stepped back.

    ANACONDA, there are things we wanted you to talk about!! Will you be so kind to answer those topics, please?

    One month, oh dear. Time goes by and what have we achieved?

  136. Todd W.

    @DrFlimmer

    One month, oh dear. Time goes by and what have we achieved?

    Well, there are some lovely circles that have been worn into the floor.

  137. Todd W.

    @Tom Marking

    It turns out that gravity is indispensible to the theory proposed by Anaconda’s hero. Now, why does that make me laugh so hard?

    Well, Anaconda stops short of saying that gravity does not factor in at all, though many of his posts seem to imply that. My guess is that he will say that, yes, of course it plays a role, but just not a very large one, and it is dwarfed by the role of plasma and electromagnetism.

  138. ND

    Anaconda,

    I’m surprised you didn’t bring up the Pioneer anomaly.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

    One of the PC websites claimed a PC based explanation to it. Without giving hard data to back up the claim.

  139. ND

    DrFlimmer: “The bad thing is that Anaconda is fleeing from everything and goes back to his roots. He is just repeating the same statements lately.”

    That’s his happy place. That’s where simplistic hypotheses make complete sense. That’s where the obvious truth lies. And where none of these inconvenient details that support or break ideas can enter.

  140. @Greg in Austin “Ok, but current flow in general is understood to be the transfer of electrons from one atom to another inside a solid surface. As they pass thru a conductor, such as a copper wire, the flow of electrons can be measured, and they generate a magnetic field. Is a random proton or electron floating thru space really the same thing as current? Seems to me that while there may be a certain charge per square meter, there’s still the problem of the conductor.”

    The transfer of electrons from one metallic atom to the next in a typical current flowing through a wire is strictly due to the atoms getting in the way. Replace the wire with a vacuum and push the electrons through it. Now, there is no resistance and the electrons move just fine. So the electron transfer from atom to atom is an artifact of the material resisting the flow of electrons, and is not necessary for electrical current to exist.

    You are right about randomization. If you have a collection of protons all in random motion then the net current will be zero since the motion of the protons will cancel out. There is one other way to get zero current without random motion which Anaconda ignores. If an equal number of protons and electrons are moving directionally then the electric current will be zero also. That is because an electron moving rightward is the equivalent of a proton moving leftward in terms of current.

  141. @ND quoting Anaconda ““The key to ‘double layers’ is that electrons and positive ions attract at long-distance, but repel at short-distance. This characteristic of charge seperated particles is most important to understanding why charged particles simply don’t “neutralize” each other.”

    Yep, it’s worthy to be put on the top 10 list. It shows that Anaconda recognizes the problem of plasma stability and thus, he comes up with a non-existent repulsive force between protons and electrons to prevent it from happening. This whole thing is getting more and more magical the more we dig into it. We have 35 kiloparsec plasma objects radiating at 200 trillion times the luminosity of the Milky Way galaxy but, of course, they are invisible. We have a magical repulsive force between protons and electrons to prevent the model from collapsing completely.

  142. @ Todd W.:

    Todd queried me about planet formation according to Plasma Cosmology (over at the other post).

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/07/aas-5-galaxies-grow-from-black-hole-seeds/

    Todd W. states: “Do you have some evidence to produce that planets are formed from stellar discharges? By what mechanism does the matter expelled from the star form into a planet?”

    Man’s observations of exoplanets (planets in other star systems) is in its infancy. But I’ll point to several items. The exoplanets that have been observed tend to be gas giants that orbit close into their star. Also, binary/multiple star systems are not easily explained by the gravitation model. At best, binary/multiple star systems should be an anomaly, yet the observations indicate they are a common phenomenon. If stars are electric, as the stars electrical load increases (from an increased influx of electical energy from galactic Birkeland currents) to the point where it can no longer cope with the stress, it will electrically “split” in order to distribute the electrical load over a wider surface area. This means the most common configuration of planets and stars that we see in space should be tightly orbiting gas giant planets around their parent stars or stars in binary/multiple star systems – which is exactly what we see. The planets will interact electrically with each other and their star until an electrically stable configuration is reached.

    So, yes, according to Plasma Cosmology, the star expels matter to reduce the electrical stress.

    Some points that contradict the “accretion disk” model:

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090127-st-planet-formation.html

    According to the “accretion disk” model: “Gas-rich planets such as Jupiter and Saturn grew from a disk of dust and gas which eventually crumpled like a piece of paper under its own gravitational instability — or so one theory goes.”

    “Now a computer simulation suggests that this idea falls apart under the turbulent forces within early protoplanetary systems.”

    “The old, favored theory relies on the protoplanetary dust disk becoming denser and thinner until it reaches a tipping point, where it becomes gravitationally unstable and collapses into kilometer-sized building blocks that form the basis for gas giants. But 3D modeling has shown for the first time that turbulence prevents the dust from settling into the dense disk necessary for gravitational instability to work.”

    So, even mainstream astronomy has identified problems with the standard model of planet formation.

    Problems with the protoplanetary dust disk theory:
    All of the planets are drastically different in composition.
    The “tilt” of the planets’ poles is different between several groups of planets. If they formed from the same disk around the sun, we should expect all the polar tilts of the planets to be the same.
    As the simulation points out in the article, which was well known but not acknowledged before, dust in space does not coalesce into solid bodies, simply looking at Saturn’s rings shows us this to be true.
    The planets’ moons are all drastically different and the formation of those moons is not well explained at all by collision models. The Earth’s own moon is far too large to be reasonably explained by a collision model.
    The comet collision model of Earth getting its water well after its formed makes no sense in the dusty disk model, why should comets with water suddenly arrive later after the Earth has formed and cooled? Its also been proven that comets are almost entirely rocky, with little to no water. Why didn’t any of the other planets recieve huge amounts of water?
    The findings of gas giant extra-solar planets in extremely close orbits around their parent stars is not explained by the model.

    So, while acknowledging there is a lack of hard data in this area of study (planet formation) there seems to be problems with the gravity model. An alternative hypothesis does exist as provided by Plama Cosmology.

    Both hypothsis should be investigated and assumptions towards either hypothesis should be refrained from. Let the scientific evidence speak.

    Todd W., I hope the above is what you were inquiring about.

    I will respond further to other questions and assertions made, here, on this post in a seperate comment, but I wanted to devote a seperate comment to Todd W.’s question as it’s reasonable and specific.

  143. @DrFlimmer “One month, oh dear. Time goes by and what have we achieved?”

    Lost millions of brain cells? Didn’t it take Anaconda until near the end of this period to pull out the Peratt “theory”? Did he mention it before?

  144. Todd W.

    Over on OilIsMastery, I came across this comment by Anaconda in the thread on a twisty-tailed comet:

    there’s nothing wrong with admitting a mistake. The real blunder is failing to admit a mistake after it has been pointed out.

    Now, Anaconda’s silence on issues where he was shown to be wrong indicate one of several things: he forgot to admit he was mistaken; he glossed over the posts showing he was mistaken; he still thinks he’s right; he knows he was mistaken, but made the “real blunder” of failing to admit it.

  145. The following are some excerpts from:

    ON THE EVOLUTION OF INTERACTING, MAGNETIZED, GALACTIC PLASMAS
    by Anthony L. Peratt and James C. Green
    Astrophysics and Space Science 91 (1983)

    and my reactions to them. Of course, we are obliged to review all of the sources that Anaconda gives us meticulously whereas he doesn’t have to even read the stuff we give him and shows no evidence of ever reading any of them (but that’s a different gripe).

    “The geometry of the postulated galactic cloud model is cylindrical and contains, as the essential ingredient, and electric current whose flow is primarily in the axial direction but also having some degree of heliticity (Figure IV.8 of Alfven, 1981). Also present is a dipole magnetic field whose field lines are necessarily axial within the plasma”

    So Peratt is setting up a Birkeland current artificially by aligning the current flow with a magnetic dipole field by fiat. There is no reason given why this is expected to be a naturally occurring configuration. It is completely artificial, especially the cylindrical shape.

    “The galactic current is a result of an electromotive force (emf) induced by a rotating plasma in a magnetic field (Alfven, 1981). The energy of rotation thus represents the fundamental supply source. The current path is along the galactic axis of rotation, then fans out at distances greatly exceeding the extent of the denser plasma and returns back along the plane of rotation and also along the dipole field lines”

    O.K. So Peratt is essentially saying that the energy source that drives the whole thing is rotational kinetic energy of the plasma object rotating about its axis. Also note, the current comes back along the midplane of the object which in the case of quasars and active galaxies would mean perpendicular to the jets. Why is it we don’t see any returning jet in this direction?

    “In accordance with the basic model, an equal number of electrons and ions are arranged into a cylindrical column. The simulation is set up on SPLASH, a 3D, electromagnetic, and relativistic particle simulation code (Buneman et al., 1980). A 32 grid mesh defines the simulation spatial extent and, typically, the column extends 32 grids in length and has a diameter of 6 grids.”

    For two 35-kiloparsec diameter cylinders located 80 kiloparsecs apart (center-to-center) the extent of the grid is 115 kiloparsecs. Dividing it into 32 grid spaces means each grid element is 3,600 parsecs = 11,700 light-years wide. Note, that Peratt relies on someone else’s code. He didn’t write his own electromagnetic code to do the simulation.

    “With regard to computer economy, the time scale of the evolution is speeded up as fast as temporal resolution reasonably allows; the initial electron temperatures are in the 1-10 keV range and the mass ratio is mi/me = 16 (time scale compression, necessary for affordable simulation, can be achieved by decreasing the ion’s rest mass in relation the electron’s rest mass. The use of an artificial mass ratio will not significantly change the results of this study…”

    Oh boy! Peratt changes the rest mass of a proton from 1,840 times the electron rest mass to just 16 times the electron rest mass (reduced by a factor of 115). He does this in order to save computer time and then he claims it doesn’t affect the result of the simulation. For the electrons we have:

    T = (2/3)*K / k-Boltzmann

    where T is temperature in Kelvin, K is kinetic energy in eV, and k-Boltzmann is Boltzmann’s constant = 8.617E-5 eV per Kelvin. Thus a range of 1-10 keV is a temperature range of 7.7E6 to 7.7E7 Kelvin. The temperature of the plasma is in the millions of degrees. It will have HUGE radiative thermal losses that are not accounted for in Peratt’s model.

    (To Be Continued)

  146. @ Tom Marking:

    Yes, our good friend mentioned Peratt’s theories and his simulation at the AAS5 thread before (just use my name to jump to the comment where it arose for the first time (in a link he gave)).

    @ Todd W.

    You are right. I am still waiting.

  147. DrFlimmer

    Well, damn moderation-filter – there is a reaction ;)

    @ Tom Marking:

    To add: I am glad that your definition of currents matches with mine I gave in the AAS5 thread – I was not taken seriously!

  148. ND

    Anaconda,

    Can you provide some references for your comment:

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

    The Deep Impact mission ejected quite a bit of water.

  149. Needless to say there is a lot of material to cover.

    @ Tom Marking:

    You join in Dr. Flimmer’s criticism of my comment on electron positive ion interaction. I base my comment on the recognized fact that Birkeland currents interact in “braided filaments” where the filaments attract at long-distance and repel at short-distance which is why the filaments retain their individual strands instead of merging into on undifferentiated flow of electrical current. I took that one step further. Upon research it appears that not all electrons that collide with positive ions recombine, there are several results besides recombination which suggested to me that a characteristic of positive ions exist that results in these varied results besides recombination. My idea is that for the electron to recombine and merge into the positive ion’s outer electron shell some energy must also be present to overcome the repulsion that the already present shell electrons would exert on the foreign electron before it could recombine.

    You don’t like that idea, fine. but in researching the question, it appears this is an active area of research, so it would seem science does not completely understand the recomination process. I offered my two cents.

    Also, I note when static electricity is generated (rubbing a carpet, say) the electrons don’t immediately recombine. This would suggest that some property of the electron, positive ion interaction exercises a force against that process.

    DrFlimmer’s knee-jerk response, which you join, seems typical of this general discussion. Ideas that are unfamiliar are rejected.

    To take a step back, it would seems you acknowledge electrical dynamics in deep space, but favor conventional astronomy’s theory of “black holes”.

    As, I have repeatedly stated (including comments on the other post), the response of conventional astronomy should not be to reject electromagnetics out of hand (and there is increasing evidence that serious scientists in astronomy are taking electromagnetics seriously), but to investigate and determine the respective roles of electromagnetism and gravity in the Universe.

    I have never denied gravity didn’t have a role in the structure of the Universe. What I have stated clearly is that gravity doesn’t act along or even predominately.

    Marking, say what you will, but while you don’t control what others know or their attitudes, they reflect common perceptions in the astronomical ‘community”, particularly in the amateur ‘community’. So to dimiss their attitudes and assumptions of knowledge and current scientific understanding (no knowledge of electric currents in space) is to ignore what the mainstream astronomical media and “leading lights” are telling them. These folks’ knowledge and attitudes are dependent on what they read and are told.

    Let’s be very clear: They aren’t being told the full story.

    It’s apparent they aren’t told of the existence of electric currents in space and that is a hold over from the early assumptions in astronomy that space was a vacuum. Science, now, knows that to be a false assumption. Space is full of plasma with electromagnetic forces operating in plasma (I didn’t mention charge seperation or ‘double layers’, here, on this thread, but went into great detail on the other comment thread).

    Now, it’s my suspicion they aren’t told about electrical dynamics in space because it raises uncomfortable questions, which judging by the defensive tone of this discussion and tendency for outright rejection seems to be valid, as opposed to a wait-and-see approach. The wait-and-see approach seems particularly appropriate when observational astronomy is making more and more sensitive and detailed observations all the time.

    But as is evident, from this discussion, while scientists that point the telescopes and the electromagnetic detectors, and control the satellites do take electromagnetic phenomenon seriously (and look for them), folks like my interlocutors, here, on this website aren’t aware of these recent developments.

    Your statement’s about processes being magical is ironic considering all the unobserved “objects” and “processes” that conventional astronomy relies on to maintain the gravitational model.

    Tom Marking states: “There is one other way to get zero current without random motion which Anaconda ignores. If an equal number of protons and electrons are moving directionally then the electric current will be zero also.”

    Electrons and positive ions can move in the same direction if they maintain charge seperation, which apparently in the Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth does happen.

    Also, the Birkeland currents from the Sun to the Earth are not random at all, but happen on a regular and predictable basis — every eight minutes according to NASA.

    Current mainstream astronomy media treat theories as fact and hypothesis as theory. This is troubling because it short-circuits the scientific process.

    Marking, your comments are laced with assumptions, which apparently you aren’t even aware of. This is normal for human nature, we all make assumptions, including myself, but the point of scientific inquiry is to refrain from assumptions as much as possible.

    If you think that the current posture of the astronomical ‘community’ is without issue regarding the problems of assumption and ‘confirmatory bias’ you are deluding yourself.

    As ND said, which is correct in my opinion, this forum is not the best place to resolve these issues, but on the other hand, someone at sometime must attempt to cast light in a dark room. Or if that analogy is to offensive to your sensibilities, it should be clear by now that enough evidence for electromagnetic forces have been detected, that the two rival schools should talk to one another.

    As imperfect as my attempt in these discussions has been, and by all means my attempt has fallen short of perfect as all communication does, particularly between opposing camps that disagree, my hope is that both sides will continue to offer their interpretation of the scientific evidence as it comes in. And both sides will get a hearing.

    I have no doubts the gravity model will get a hearing, my concern is that the electromagnetic model will not. Science is about sifting the evidence, not closing one’s eyes and ears.

    Does science make mistakes? Yes.

    Acknowledgement of that question and answer has been honored more in the breach than in the practice; and this discussion certainly follows suit.

  150. Continuation of Fisking of:

    ON THE EVOLUTION OF INTERACTING, MAGNETIZED, GALACTIC PLASMAS
    by Anthony L. Peratt and James C. Green
    Astrophysics and Space Science 91 (1983)

    “Fig. 1. Electric and magnetic radiation energies in arbitrary energy units. The unit vector z-hat defines the direction of the column azis.”

    We are presented with 3 charts showing electric radiation Ex, electric radiation Ey, and magnetic radiation Bz versus something called T which I took to mean time. The time axis goes from 0 to 1000 but I have no idea what the units are. They could be seconds, milliseconds, or millions of years. The y-axes go from 0 to 1 and they are in arbitrary units making them nearly useless in interpreting the results. All 3 curves have a sharp spike near the beginning and then a slower increase but with considerable statistical noise which is probably coming from instabilities in the numerical model. I have no idea why electric and magnetic radiation are separate since typically EM radiation has both the electric and magnetic fields together in space oriented at right angles to one another. So these charts are totally useless.

    “The electrons and ions, in response to the applied electric field, are accelerated in opposite directions and current starts to flow, and we record the conversion of the field associated potential energy into kinetic, magnetostatic, and radiation energies. Early in this stage of development the total radiated energy represents less than 1% of the magnetostatic energy which itself amounts to about 1% of the particle kinetic energies.”

    So the amount of radiation is miniscule at the beginning despite the charged particles being millions of degrees in temperature. Yeah, right. Apparently Peratt has never heard of the Stefan-Boltzmann law since he doesn’t mention it anywhere in his report.

    “In addition to deforming the plasmas, this produces a burst of synchrotron radiation (magnetobremsstrahlung) whose high-frequency electric field is polarized in the x-y plane, as shown in Figure 1. The radiation is thus directed along a narrow beam in the direction of instantaneous electron motion and linearly polarized at right angles to the magnetic field lines…
    For Cygnus A, the ‘prototype’ radio galaxy, we assume a mass M = 1.0E41 kg (while noting that all mass estimates are model dependent), volume V = 1.0E63 cubic meters, separation 2a = 2.44E21 meters (79 kpc), and length and width l = w = 1.0E21 meters (35 kpc). For a relative velocity between plasmas of 1000 km/sec (Shklovsky, 1960; Perola, 1981), we find Iz = 2.15E19 amperes and B-theta = mu-0*I/omega = 2.5E-8 teslas (2.5E-4 gauss)…Equating the relative velocity v to the computational distance/time quotient gives a Cygnus A time to development of 1.5E15 seconds (4.6E7 years). Thus, the entire epoch shown in Figure 2 corresponds to some 1.0E8 years while the radiation burst lasts 2.4E14 seconds (8.0E6 years). The concomitant magnetic energy is 2.5E53 joules (2.5E60 ergs) while the total simulation magnetostatic energy is 350 Arbitrary Energy Units (AEU). Thus, 1 AEU = 7.1E50 joules.”

    Note what Peratt is doing here. It’s rather subtle and it took me a while to pick up on it. He’s running his simulation in arbitrary units. Then, after the results are in he’s scaling them to match numbers from Cygnus A. So he never actually plugged in the basic parameters for Cygnus A into his calculation such as diameter, etc. He plugged in arbitrary units and then attempts to scale the results after the fact.

    “With increasing flow, the parallel Iz currents produce an attractive force between columns”

    Well, it’s well established that parallel Birkeland currents will attract each other with a strength proportional to 1/r. Antiparallel Birkeland currents will repel each other with a strength proportional to 1/r. Thus, for Peratt’s simulation to have any interaction at all the two cylinders must have parallel current, not antiparallel.

    “The total kinetic energy of the electrons during burst is 8.78E4 AEU = 6.26E55 joules (6.26E62 ergs), which yields an average energy per electron E-bar = 218 MeV.”

    Peratt has lost me here. This new statement seems to conflict with his previous statement that the electrons have energies in the range 1-10 keV. Maybe this is the energy of only certain electrons associated with the initial synchrotron burst but I don’t know.

    “The results of this research, believed to represent the largest computational study in astrophysics to date, replicate the essential features of double radio sources, peculiar, and spiral galaxies, but do not appear to be in agreement with the ‘big-bang’ creation theory of the Universe. Instead, the simulations strongly support an inhomogenous version of the Klein world model that proposes a zero-state universe consisting of magnetized plasma or ambiplasma (cf. Alfven and Klein, 1982; and the earlier references therein.”

    LOL. So Peratt says his results are consistent with ambiplasma which Anaconda rejects. He claims his results are inconsistent with the Big Bang even though his model doesn’t deal with cosmology at all.

    So to rehash, my findings concerning Peratt’s model are these:

    1.) arbitrary and unrealistic initial conditions
    2.) incorrect mass for the proton (off by 2 orders of magnitude)
    3.) Stefan-Boltzmann radiative effects not taken into account
    4.) use of arbitrary units and scaling of results afterward
    5.) statistical jitter in results caused by poor numerical modeling
    6.) inconsistent statements about electron energies

  151. Greg in Austin

    Anaconda said,

    “Also, the Birkeland currents from the Sun to the Earth are not random at all, but happen on a regular and predictable basis — every eight minutes according to NASA.”

    Please provide a source for this claim.

    8)

  152. ND

    Anaconda,

    Can you kindly also provide references you used in your research regarding ion/electron repulsion/attraction during recombination? We would like to judge this for ourselves.

    Also you thoughts (or rather re-thoughts) on antimatter. Thanks.

  153. @Anaconda “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, …”

    Why aren’t you defending Dr. Peratt’s model? Have you now abandoned it because of the numerous flaws I’ve pointed out in it? You don’t seem to be talking about it much.

  154. @ Greg in Austin:

    Here is my source:

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm

    @ Tom Marking:

    I will respond in due course.

    Food for thought:

    How does Man get his observations from space (other than samples from Mars and the moon)?

    Electromagnetism. Whether it’s in the visible spectrum or radio waves, x-rays, gamma-rays, or microwaves. All of Man’s detection ability including the naked eye is in the form of the electromagnetic wave/particle spectrum.

    What does this mean, maybe nothing, but maybe it makes folks appreciate, that while you may vigorously oppose my views and the others that share my view. How you get the information to form your views is based on the the properties that I’m convinced have a major role in the shape of the Universe.

    Oh, and this scientific abstract demonstrates scientists are actively pursuing some of the issues I have raised:

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111358

    “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.”

  155. Todd W.

    @Tom Marking

    Are you suggesting that Dr. Peratt fabricated data in order to fit his personal biases?

  156. Todd W. “Are you suggesting that Dr. Peratt fabricated data in order to fit his personal biases?”

    No, I am suggesting that a simulation that produces results in arbitrary units is meaningless. If I went and presented some results at an AAAS meeting and showed slides where the axis was labeled “Energy (arbitrary units)” I would be laughed out of the room, not to mention, have a few tomatoes thrown my way. So the whole Peratt model stinks to high heaven. I’m surprised that they were even able to find a journal that would publish this crap.

  157. Todd W.

    @Tom Marking

    Ah, yes. Silly me. Not fabricating data, just sloppy, sloppy data. Although, the scaling of the simulation until it fits Cygnus A seems a bit fishy to me.

  158. DrFlimmer

    Well, Tom Marking, remember the time. Back in the early 80s. I think it was a rather good simulation at that time and that such things were considered to be probably correct. Now there is new data, better models and better computers – so, that “crap” is just ancient by now.

    @ Anaconda

    I will repost something that you probably didn’t read (I wonder if you will read this at all…)

    “You know, my friend, star formation is a really interesting thing. The “gravitational” model works quite fine and explains many things we are observing – but not every detail. And here comes electromagnetism. Including it into the models (analytically or numerically) is really hard. I don’t know if you have ever seen formulas of electromagnetic calculations. Even the simple calculation of a magnetic field turns out to be a very difficult equation (the Biot-Savart law) that can be only solved analytically for the easiest applications (like a straight wire). So including them into even more complex applications like a rotating star, one needs a computer, a super-computer.
    What does this mean? First it could mean that our models of the universe are completely wrong since we left out a fundamental thing – that is your point. But since our current models are quite fine in the limits we can obtain by observation at this moment we can say that electromagnetic interactions have their role but it’s not the dominant one, it’s more for the details. That is the standpoint of “mainstream” science. And, to repeat it once more, our models are quite fine. Why should we reject them and start from the very beginning? There is no reason for that, unless we find that the “details” are more important than we expect them to be – but by now there is a lack of evidence to support that (like the lack of evidence of your assumptions about the power source of the sun and other things).

    Btw: Probably you like this. You are right, without electromagnetic forces the earth would be dead! And do you know why? Because the exchange boson of the electromagnetic interaction is the photon! You know what that means, don’t you?”

    Btw, what do you mean with “electromagnetic detectors”?
    Since we are detecting JUST electromagnetic radiation, our telescopes just catch that radiation and guide it to our CCDs – that are, indeed, electromagnetic detectors since they detect electromagnetic radiation!

  159. DrFlimmer

    “Also, I note when static electricity is generated (rubbing a carpet, say) the electrons don’t immediately recombine. This would suggest that some property of the electron, positive ion interaction exercises a force against that process.”

    Nope, that is the range of “solid state physics” which I have not the best ideas about since I am not very interested in these things. But I do know that a solid consists of a valence band and a conducting band (again, I hope these are the correct terms). Electrons in the valance band are not able to move but electrons can in the conducting band. Between both bands is an energy gap and as the height of the gap determines if the solid is a conductor or an isolator. But if you give the electrons enough energy to cross the gap even an isolator can become “charged”. It won’t conduct since there are not enough electrons but it will give you a shock if you short circuit it.

    Btw: If you have 6 positive charges and 5 negative charges the net-charge of the thing will be plus 1 – so an electron will be attracted by an ion as long as the ion has a positive net-charge.
    You also say something like “electrons and ions do not always recombine”. That’s right. They will only recombine if it’s cool enough. With a temperature above a few thousand Kelvin there will be very little recombination if at all. On the other hand, if the temperature is rather low, recombination will dominate every other thing.
    There is also the effect of bremsstrahlung. If an electron is very fast it will “sling-shot” around the nucleus and emit radiation but will not be captured – that even works with neutral atoms (the electron has to be free of course).

  160. @Anaconda “I will respond in due course.”

    Yes, please scurry off to your thunderbolts group and get some of your “experts” to explain to you why world famous plasma physicist Dr. Anthony Peratt thinks a proton has 16 times the mass of an electron. Their explanation will be most entertaining. And while you’re there, ask them for a plasma explanation for Cygnus X-1 (which I remind you is NOT a galaxy). :)

  161. @ Tom Marking:

    There is a reason for “arbitrary units.” The electromagnetic force is scalable to at least 14 orders of magnitude if not to 18 orders or higher still. Because of this scalability, the units can be plugged in later.

  162. @Anaconda “The electromagnetic force is scalable to at least 14 orders of magnitude”

    Let’s examine that statement of yours in more detail. Let’s say that laboratory experiments on Earth produce Birkeland filaments starting from ~1 millimeter in size which seems like a reasonable guess. 14 orders of magnitude would be 1.0E11 meters = 100 million kilometers which is two thirds of the Sun-Earth distance. You’re not even out to 1 light-year with this scaling not to mention the tens of thousands of light-years exhibited in quasar and active galaxy jets.

  163. Greg in Austin

    @Anaconda,

    That link you provided does not mention Birkeland currents. Nor does it mention “electric” currents.

    Note the title of the article, “Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth”

    Nothing in that article seems to support your theory of electric currents in outer space.

    8)

  164. @ Tom Marking:

    I’m not a math major. Yes, mathematics is important, as I stated in the other comment thread, mathematics is the language of Nature. Although, I hasten to add that mathematics must be the servant of observation and measurement, not the master. That said, I’ll acknowledge I can’t dig into Peratt’s work to dispute your take or agree with your take, one way or the other.

    In regards to the order of magnitude issue, the point is that there has been no limit determined on the scalability electromagnetic phenomenon. No one knows where the scalability stops.

    I take your point that Cyngnus X-1 is not a galaxy. So, I suppose its an old fashion “black hole”, back in the days before it was decided to make “black holes” the center of every galaxy.

    But hold on, here, if a “black hole” has infinite force of gravity (by the way, if it’s infinite, it can’t be quantified) then everything is pulled into the “black hole”, nothing escapes. There are assumptions as to its supposed size. And that gets us to heart of the matter for all of this. The calculations of size are based on various measurements of electromagnetic and redshift observations. But if there is an alternative hypothesis that explains both the various emanations and the redshift, the calculations and assumptions that it is a “black hole” go out the window.

    And that’s why you fight so hard to keep electromagnetic forces away from your beloved “blackholes”. Once you dispense with the assumptions that “x”, “y”, and “z” equals a “black hole” then the whole ediface begins to fall apart. Because, that in essence is where astronomy sits today, or this “Year of Astronomy”, “x”, “y”, and “z” equals proclamation of “black hole”.

    Plasma physics and electromagnetics doesn’t rely on “exotics”. Plasma is the fourth state of matter (some like to call it the first state of matter because…you guessed it, over 99% of the matter in the Universe is plasma) and electromagnetics is one of the ‘Four Fundamental Forces’, so to admit electromagnetics into deep space does away with the argument that, “only gravity has the power to do that,” and that really is what most of the assumptions of “black holes”, “dark matter” and “dark energy” rest on.

    Both gravity and electromagnetics ‘act at a distance’ but, not withstanding your objection, electromagnetism is much stronger.

    As I wrote above — once the other fundamental force (gravity is considered the ‘weakest’ fundamental force) that acts at a distance is admitted into consideration, the assumptions that require exotic objects and forces to make sense of the Universe are no longer valid.

    That’s why you characterized my discussion about electromagnetism and gravity both having a role in the structure of the Universe as, ““Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, …” because your menagerie can’t survive having electromagnetism on the scene.

    If the menagerie could survive, then the easy answer would have been, “Anaconda, it is reasonable for science to keep an open-mind and determine what the respective roles of electromagnetism and gravity is, and that’s what science is doing. After all, the telescopes and various detection equipment are picking up evidence that supports both theories.”

    But that doesn’t work for you, does it?

    And it puts you in between a rock and a hard place because as I stated earlier in this discussion, there is evidence for electromagnetism in deep space: Synchrotron radiation and magnetic fields. And I even allowed for the possibility that your belief of “black holes” could stand side-by-side with electromagnetism, but you weren’t interested in that because if, again, they stand side-by-side, as opposed to gravity as the only answer, science simply doesn’t have to engage in mathematical consructs.

    You protested too hard, when I gave you an out because you know eventually, the exotics will go the way of the dodo bird.

    Marking, “thou, and your crew protest, too hard.” It reveals real motivations and fear more than silence would in this debate.

  165. Greg in Austin

    Tom Marking, you seem able to back your claims with evidence, mathematics and physics.

    Anaconda, you seem to try to back your claims with personal attacks and avoiding direct questions.

    I wonder who has a stronger argument?

    8)

  166. ND

    “But hold on, here, if a “black hole” has infinite force of gravity (by the way, if it’s infinite, it can’t be quantified) then everything is pulled into the “black hole”, nothing escapes”

    When you say everything, do you mean *everything*? Like the universe?

  167. Todd W.

    I’m reposting my planet-creation comment from the AAS #5 thread, since Anaconda has chosen to address it over here, but he has ignored quite a few of my questions. Apologies for the double post and length.
    ___________________________________________________________
    @Anaconda

    The planets, according to Plasma Cosmology theory are the result of solar discharges caused by electromagnetic forces when the star is most electromagnetically active (likely in its early history). Giant gas planets like Jupiter and Saturn in other star systems are noted to be in close orbit with their star.

    Do you have some evidence to produce that planets are formed from stellar discharges? By what mechanism does the matter expelled from the star form into a planet? At what distance from the star does this happen?

    Or are you suggesting that matter circling the star is somehow formed into planets by an EM discharge from the star, rather than by gravitational forces? Where did this matter come from? Describe the mechanism and process by which an EM discharge could form the matter into a planet.

    I assume that you have some lab experiments to cite, since you base your conclusions on experimentally observed phenomena, rather than just mathematical models. And please do not feel bad about writing an encyclopedia. Such a statement reads more as a cop-out from actually supporting your claims. We would actually welcome a good, detailed description of what you assert is occurring.

    It is hypothesized that planets are lodged in their orbits or have their orbits altered by electromagnetic forces. Our solar system’s gas planets were pushed out to their current orbits by electromagnetic forces as hypothesized by some proponents of Plasma cosmology theory. I emphasize ‘hypothesis’ because no one really knows for sure.

    But if something like the above happened that is why electromagnetism is the predominate force. Gravity stabilizes orbits, after electromagnetism subsides, which is important, but electromagnetism sets the orbits. If that is accurate that would seemingly place electromagnetism ahead of gravity in forming the solar system.

    You base your claim that EM is the predominant force, rather than gravity, on an hypothesis? But isn’t that what you’ve been criticizing BB/black hole theorists for? Seems a pretty big “if”. You state that gravity stabilizes the orbits once the EM subsides. What happens until it subsides? Do the planets keep getting pushed further and further out? Does the EM make their orbits erratic, and if so, how and why? Do you have some examples of this actually occurring? Observations that show an electromagnetically active star and its planets, and how their orbits change over the duration of the EM activity? How does this compare to star systems in which the star is no longer electromagnetically active?
    ________________________________________________________________

    On to Anaconda’s reply in this thread:

    Todd W. states: “Do you have some evidence to produce that planets are formed from stellar discharges? By what mechanism does the matter expelled from the star form into a planet?”

    Man’s observations of exoplanets (planets in other star systems) is in its infancy. But I’ll point to several items. The exoplanets that have been observed tend to be gas giants that orbit close into their star. Also, binary/multiple star systems are not easily explained by the gravitation model. At best, binary/multiple star systems should be an anomaly, yet the observations indicate they are a common phenomenon. If stars are electric, as the stars electrical load increases (from an increased influx of electical energy from galactic Birkeland currents) to the point where it can no longer cope with the stress, it will electrically “split” in order to distribute the electrical load over a wider surface area. This means the most common configuration of planets and stars that we see in space should be tightly orbiting gas giant planets around their parent stars or stars in binary/multiple star systems – which is exactly what we see. The planets will interact electrically with each other and their star until an electrically stable configuration is reached.

    You are asserting, then, that since we have observed gas giants relatively close in to their parent stars, and since stars are known to eject matter, therefore planets must be the result of that matter ejection? You’re skipping some steps in there. Can you please address these questions:

    * According to your beloved PC, how does the ejected matter (I’m assuming plasma) form into a planet?
    * How far from the star does this transformation occur?
    * How does the ejected matter (ionized gas, according to you) transform into a solid spheroid?
    * What happens to planet formation when the star’s EM activity subsides?
    * What exactly is meant by the activity subsiding, for that matter? What level do we say that the star is no longer active, insofar as it affects planet formation and orbits, in your idea?
    * If the star remains active for a long, long time, does the planet get pushed out beyond the star’s influence?
    * Does the EM activity of the star cause the planet’s orbit to be erratic? If so, how? If not, why not?

    You have not provided any citations to back up any of your assumptions about how planets form from ejected star material. Furthermore, by your own admission, your assumptions are based on hypotheses and guesses, rather than fact and evidence. You have not shown any observational data that conclusively shows that EM force is what drives planet formation.

    As has already been pointed out, you show an incredible lack of understanding of how science works, and, by your own admission, you have not formally studied any of the material you are discussing. Before you argue any further, I suggest taking some courses in the appropriate material so at least you can understand it.

  168. DrFlimmer

    “The calculations of size are based on various measurements of electromagnetic and redshift observations.”

    >>It hurts us!! It hurts us!!<<

    You are referring to cosmological redshift, aren't you? But in the case of Cygnus X-1 this is not necessary! It is in our neighbourhood, INSIDE our galaxy!! The only redshift will be due to our old buddy Doppler (that redshift is different from cosmological redshift!!). So your attack doesn't work. Provide others.

    The best thing is: You say you do not understand the language of science (math) – so how do you want to understand it if you can't "read" it? Since you cannot (or maybe you don't want to) understand Tom Marking's reply to Perratt's simulation you start attacking him. This weakens your position!

  169. ND

    Anaconda,

    Some loose threads:

    1) the sources you used in your research regarding ion/electron recombination (ions and electrons repelling at close distances and attracting at large distances thus requiring energy to recombine).

    2) the evidence that comets are mostly rocky with little or now water.

  170. Todd W.

    Oops. Forgot to blockquote stuff copied from Anaconda’s response. The section from “Todd W. states” to “electrically stable configuration is reached.” should be in blockquotes.

  171. ND

    Anaconda: “Marking, “thou, and your crew protest, too hard.” It reveals real motivations and fear more than silence would in this debate.”

    Who are you trying to fool here? You came to this blog protesting and repeatedly protest about science not being done correctly after encountering strong rebuttals. Just to re-re-re-re-emphasize, you don’t have the scientific background to properly analyze what you’re reading, and you really need that. Please stick to the science and evidence instead of lecturing others about how to do science when you lack experience in that area.

    Also, not everything here has to be confrontational. There are people here with science background that can help you with some of the very fundamental scientific concepts. For example recombination. I’m sure this is an area that is very well understood and people here can fill you in on the devilish details.

    Again, not everything needs to be confrontational. Disagreeing with you is not the same as rejecting the fundamentals of EM and plasma physics. PC is bound by the same realities (human and technical) as all other sciences.

  172. @Anaconda “I’ll acknowledge I can’t dig into Peratt’s work to dispute your take or agree with your take, one way or the other.”

    What happened to “I will respond in due course.”? It’s actually your moving of the goalposts more than anything else that annoys the heck out of me. You throw assertions out there and then you throw tepid retractions of those statements at a later point in time once others (e.g., myself, ND, DrFlimmer, etc., etc.) spend the time to research them and debunk them.

    “In regards to the order of magnitude issue, the point is that there has been no limit determined on the scalability electromagnetic phenomenon. No one knows where the scalability stops.”

    You’re missing the point. I have a simulation. It produces a number, say 17, in arbitrary units. No matter what the number is I can always find a multiplicative factor to multiply it by so that it ends up matching Cygnus A, or any other astrophysical object of my choosing. So what does the simulation actually prove? Not much. You have to dig deeper and find out what type of scaling is appropriate. Is it linear scaling, logarithmic scaling, or some other type of scaling? From my past work on EM numerical modeling I will tell you that when you throw in the real details such as conductivity of real materials Maxwell’s Equations are inherently nonlinear. That’s why you need to do computer simulation in the first place. If the solution was linearly scaleable you wouldn’t even need the computer simulation, you could solve it by hand and then scale it. So that’s not going to cut it in terms of Maxwell’s Equations.

    “But hold on, here, if a “black hole” has infinite force of gravity (by the way, if it’s infinite, it can’t be quantified) then everything is pulled into the “black hole”, nothing escapes.”

    You really need to go back and read Phil’s previous posts on the subject in order to educate yourself. What would happen to the earth’s orbit if all of a sudden the sun became a black hole with the same mass that it has now? Answer: Absolutely nothing. It would continue on the same orbit unchanged. So the huge “sucking” force of black holes is a complete myth. All of that stuff only applies close to the event horizon. Far from the event horizon gravity behaves at it normally does.

    “But if there is an alternative hypothesis that explains both the various emanations and the redshift, the calculations and assumptions that it is a “black hole” go out the window.”

    But the alternative theory must be worthwhile. It cannot be something that makes absurd assumptions like the mass of a proton equals 16 times the mass of an electron, and million degree plasmas radiate zero energy in terms of radiant heat.

    “And that’s why you fight so hard to keep electromagnetic forces away from your beloved “blackholes”.”

    That’s a load of rubbish. I believe it was Torbjorn Larrsen who provided you with a research paper talking about the electromagnetics of black holes. (Actually I need to go back and save that paper and read it when I get a chance). So EM and black holes is an active field of investigation, not some kind of threat to the black hole paradigm.

    “Plasma physics and electromagnetics doesn’t rely on “exotics”.”

    Yes, that’s why it can’t explain certain astronomical objects which we know have exotic properties (e.g., Cygnus X-1, pulsars, etc.).

    “That’s why you characterized my discussion about electromagnetism and gravity both having a role in the structure of the Universe as, ““Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, …” because your menagerie can’t survive having electromagnetism on the scene.”

    Not only can they survive, but black holes, pulsars, magnetars, etc., etc. absolutely thrive when EM is introduced into the mix. There’s no contradiction there. It exists only in your mind.

    “And I even allowed for the possibility that your belief of “black holes” could stand side-by-side with electromagnetism, but you weren’t interested in that”

    Huh? What the hell are you talking about? I admitted from day 1 that electric current, magnetic fields, Birkeland currents, black holes, etc., etc. can coexist in outer space and in fact do. It is YOU who have stated repeatedly that black holes cannot coexist with Birkeland currents in outer space.

    “You protested too hard, when I gave you an out because you know eventually, the exotics will go the way of the dodo bird.”

    No, Anaconda. My prediction is astronomy will find even more exotic creatures that will make black holes look tame by comparison. What about white holes, magnetic monopoles, WIMPs, super strings? If you thought black holes were bad just wait until astronomy starts finding some of these other beasties. Then you’ll really go insane (if you are not already).

    “Marking, “thou, and your crew protest, too hard.” It reveals real motivations and fear more than silence would in this debate.”

    Talking about motivations, you know, when I started this debate I really thought that the EU people might have something to contribute to the debate. Even though they might be wrong I thought that we could all benefit from listening to another point of view. I think my interaction with the few of them that have posted on BA has pretty much shattered that illusion. I hope that you and OilIsMastery are not representative of the EU movement. If you are then it is doomed.

  173. ND

    Anaconda: “But hold on, here, if a “black hole” has infinite force of gravity (by the way, if it’s infinite, it can’t be quantified) then everything is pulled into the “black hole”, nothing escapes.”

    Tom Marking: “You really need to go back and read Phil’s previous posts on the subject in order to educate yourself. What would happen to the earth’s orbit if all of a sudden the sun became a black hole with the same mass that it has now? Answer: Absolutely nothing. It would continue on the same orbit unchanged. So the huge “sucking” force of black holes is a complete myth. All of that stuff only applies close to the event horizon. Far from the event horizon gravity behaves at it normally does.”

    This is what I was trying to find more about from Anaconda. It sounded like he did not fully understand the mechanics of gravity and that he was dismissing gravity based on his incomplete knowledge of it. He’s hung up on the value 10^39 and can’t see past it.

    Todd W did a good job in the other thread by using an electromagnet picking up a metal object as an example of how and when one force is stronger than another. Maybe Anaconda needs more examples to help him think things through.

  174. DrFlimmer

    Anaconda. You always said that X rays are (only) due to currents. Well, what about this picture:
    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090205.html
    There is definitly no current – the emission is totally diffuse. That is a strong hint for hot gas, just like the text states.

    Btw: NewScientist.com recently posted about the Themis mission:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.800-auroras-what-powers-the-greatest-light-show-on-earth.html
    They say that the magnetosphere is interacting with the magnetic fields of the solar wind – sounds like “frozen-in” field lines to me. But that is only a side-note. You have other things to answer on!

  175. ND

    I think this discussion is dead. Anaconda is over at OIM talking to himself. Oh well.

  176. IVAN3MAN

    ND: “I think this discussion is dead.”

    Like the “Dead Parrot”. :-)

  177. DrFlimmer

    No, no, no. It’s just resting! :D

  178. ND

    He’s pining for the fjords.
    The fjords of an electric universe.

  179. IVAN3MAN

    He would not “VOOM” if you put four thousand volts through it! ‘E’s bleedin’ demised!

  180. ND

    Have you guys read some of the stuff OilIsMastery is posting on this blog? He has no concept of how gravity behaves.

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2100054477013501859&postID=229881176151449639

    Anyway. Back to our own lives.

  181. IVAN3MAN

    ND: “Have you guys read some of the stuff OilIsMastery is posting on this blog?”

    Yep! That man has totally ‘gone round the bend’! :-)

  182. Todd W.

    @IVAN3MAN and ND

    I see that OiM is still going on about how gravity doesn’t exist, but rather that electromagnetism is what keeps us from flying off into space.

    And Anaconda is trying to say that OiM is not really saying that gravity doesn’t exist.

    Where’s the store that sells the mental blinders?

  183. IVAN3MAN

    @ Todd W.,

    Amongst pseudoscience proponents, as with religion and its preachers, there is never any consensus!

  184. @ Tom Marking:

    Marking states: “No, Anaconda. My prediction is astronomy will find even more exotic creatures that will make black holes look tame by comparison. What about white holes, magnetic monopoles, WIMPs, super strings? If you thought black holes were bad just wait until astronomy starts finding some of these other beasties. Then you’ll really go insane (if you are not already).”

    Enough said.

    Marking is into exotics. Marking doesn’t care how much you have to change the basic laws of physics — that’s okay. “String” theory, please, not one scrap of evidence has been brought forth for that theory. But if you and others get their way, you will be right, all the above will be accepted and astronomical science will be in the dark ages (if it’s not already).”

    Remember, where the words “magnetic field” is mentioned in a scientific paper, as in interplanetary magnetic field, interstellar magnetic field, or galactic magnetic field, electric current is present, too.

    @ IVAN3MAN:

    Real tough guy, can’t answer an easy question: “Are there electric currents in space?”

    Oh by the way, your statement equally applies to Marking who acknowledges Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth and Greg in Austin who states: “Nothing in that article seems to support your theory of electric currents in outer space.”

    But you guys go on with you beliefs, nobody will stop you.

    My job was not to go around and around until infinity, or to go until I put in the last, but to provide a taste or flavor.

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

    Electromagnetism has been proven to a scientific certainty in near space.
    Below is a summary of what science knows:

    a) In situ measurements of the properties of plasmas in the
    magnetospheres, leading to the confirmation of Birkeland
    field-aligned currents, double-layer acceleration of charged
    particles, magnetic flux ropes in the ionospheres of planets,
    and a system of currents in the magnetospheres of the outer
    planets;
    b) Discovery of an immense, filamentary, magnetic fieldaligned
    plasma structure at the center of our galaxy;
    c) Laboratory experiments duplicating the power laws of
    electromagnetic radiation from extragalactic sources and
    confirming the plasma processes responsible for the
    acceleration of charged particles to high energies; and
    d) The advent and application of multidimensional,
    relativistic, and fully electromagnetic particle-in-cell
    simulations to space and cosmic plasma.

    You gentlemen are welcome to your denial.

    Those in denial are those that rule out any significant role for a fundamental force of Nature (electromagnetism) in the structure and dynamics of the Universe. Those that have an open-mind are those that think electromagnetism should be considered side-by-side with gravity and then let the chips fall where they may, and explicitly don’t rule out the force of gravity or electromagnetism, but want science to determine by observation and measurement what those respective roles are for electromagnetism and gravity in the structure and dynamics of the Universe.

    And, so far, in the exploration of near-space, electromagnetism has been observed to play a major role.

    Near-space certainly hasn’t turned out to be a lonely vacuum with isolated islands of neutral matter. Such as was predicted by my interlocutors intellectual forebears before the space age.

    Who among you will be the last hold-out in denial?

  185. Todd W.

    @Anaconda

    So, when are you going to stop repeating the same thing you’ve said numerous times before and post something new? Like, say, responding in adequate fashion to Tom Marking’s critique of Dr. Peratt’s model? Or to my questions regarding your statements on planet formation?

    Also, you continue to mischaracterize Tom Marking’s statements regarding electric currents. He has said that there are Birkeland currents between the Sun and Earth because there is directly observed and measured evidence of them. He has also stated that there are electric currents in other regions of space, but not necessarily Birkeland currents; that there are different types of currents. Your posts suggest that you view all electric currents to be the same, when in fact there are differences.

    You continue to argue from a position of ignorance. By that I mean that you do not understand the mathematics behind the subject, nor have you formally studied the physics involved. The end result is more of an argument from personal incredulity. Again, before you go off on more lengthy posts extolling the virtues of Plasma Cosmology and decrying the weaknesses and suppression involved in mainstream cosmology, get a decent education.

  186. Todd W.

    @Anaconda

    Just to sum up what you have gone back to as a fall-back position when you would apparently rather not address the more challenging questions and responses asked of you, you claim:

    * Electromagnetism is one of the four fundamental forces. No one here disagrees with that.
    * Electromagnetism is active in shaping aspects of the universe. I don’t think anyone here would disagree with that, either.
    * Electromagnetism is 10^39 time stronger than gravity. But, that’s only on certain scales. In other scales, that does not hold true (at least, that’s what I gathered from some of the comments).
    * Birkeland currents have been observed between the Sun and Earth. No one disputes that, either.

    You don’t need to reiterate any of those statements. We get it. Move on to the other questions, rather than regressing to “But EM is the strongest of the FOUR FUNDAMENTAL forces!” That’s not an argument.

  187. DrFlimmer

    I could write a lenghty post about my point of view about the importance of electromagnetism in space, but I have done so twice, why repost it a third time?

    Btw, Anaconda:

    “My job was not to go around and around until infinity, or to go until I put in the last, but to provide a taste or flavor.”

    Your job is to answer OUR questions. There were several. The most important are probably about our links we gave you some time ago. What do you say? Have you read them as we read yours? Why are you going back to your roots and do not continue with black holes and antimatter as you’ve done before? Are you hiding behind the question of “what is primary in the universe”? It almost seems like that.

    So, what about the topics YOU have to answer on?

  188. DrFlimmer

    @ Todd W.

    “Electromagnetism is 10^39 time stronger than gravity. But, that’s only on certain scales. In other scales, that does not hold true (at least, that’s what I gathered from some of the comments).”

    The number comes from the comparison of the force between two protons. If you devide the electromagnetic force by the gravitational force you get:

    (e^2/(4*pi*epsilon_0*r^2)) / (G*m^2/r^2) = e^2/(4*pi*epsilon_0*G*m^2)

    These are all constants, insert them and you will get something that is proportional to 10^39.

    If you compare the force between a proton and the earth you will find that the gravitational attraction is much bigger (even if we neglect the fact that the earth is a neutral body). But we have even greater masses in the universe (the sun is a light-weight even though it is 6 orders of magnitude more massive than the earth). So you need quite strong electrostatic fields to push a star around.
    So problem with electrostatics is that you can cancel the force by inserting the same amount of the opposite charge. Mass on the other hand cannot be “equaled out”. It always adds up and you gain an even greater force. So gravity prevails forever while electromagnetic forces can be canceled with time (and they do).

  189. ND

    Anaconda,

    Do you still deny that antimatter is a purely theoretical construct? Do you deny that antimatter has been created in the lab? Holy crap I’m starting to sound like Anaconda :)

    Unless I’m mistaken, it was DrFlimmer who first brought up the example of the Jupiter/Io current circuit.

    Also, I concur with what Tod W said in his previous two posts. He took it up on himself to say “We get it” but I just want to make it clear that I concur.

    Anaconda, we *have* been open minded about your ideas and your belief in PC but you keep trying to paint us as closed minded and in denial.

    As for your use of “exotics”, you’re asserting an artificial limit on physical phenomenon. There was a time when plasma would have been considered exotic! How often do you come across plasma in your daily life?! Lightning and auroras don’t count since you can’t touch them like you can the air you breath.

  190. Yes, it was me who brought up the Jupiter-Io-System, and I stated in the same post that I was wondering that Anaconda didn’t mention it. Btw: “mainstream” science understands that system very well. As far as I know (and I do not know much but just take a look at the NASA/ADS page (klick on my name) and search for “Jupiter Io”; I guess you will finde some entries) the circuit is due to Io’s motion in the Jovian magnetic field. So must have something to do with time-variabilities in the magnetic field that induces the currents – it is definitely not a discharge of charged bodys. They are so close to each other that this would have happened a long time ago.

  191. ND

    Gah! That should be “Do you still *assert* that antimatter is a purely theoretical construct?” and not *deny*. oops. hehe.

  192. ND

    icanhascheezburger.com/2009/02/07/funny-pictures-iz-for-teh-weak/

    They must have rubbed that kitty with a balloon to help it overcome gravity.

  193. Todd W.

    @DrFlimmer

    Thanks for the explanation of the 10^39 number. I remember someone posting about that before, but couldn’t remember the details.

  194. Anaconda:

    Real tough guy, can’t answer an easy question: “Are there electric currents in space?”

    Now, don’t get your knickers in a twist. Be advised that you will find my belated but detailed response at the “Galaxies grow from black hole seeds” thread — click on my name for the link.

  195. IVAN3MAN

    I note that “Anaconda” has buggered off to whinge and moan over at Oil Is Mastery about the “politics” at Bad Astronomy: “Evidence had little to do with their decision — politics did — apparently it’s not what you know, but who you know over at Bad Astronomy that counts.” :roll:

  196. DrFlimmer

    Oh dear, torture. I just went over to OiM and read the comments in which OiM and Anaconda are debating about “gravity, gravitation, mass and Aristotle”. Two guys who do not understand it are debating about what they don’t understand and both claim to understand it but both in a different way. This is so terrible! Unbelievable. It really makes me sad!

  197. ND

    DrFlimmer,

    And a lot of what they don’t know can be easily learned from wikipedia. I mean, read up kids.

  198. IVAN3MAN

    DrFlimmer,

    There is a tendency of cranks not to care if other cranks (and denialists in general for that matter) have variations on their own crazy ideas, just as long as the other cranks are opposing the same perceived incorrect truth. Cranks are not honest brokers in a debate, they stand outside of it and just shovel male bovine excrement into it to try to sow confusion and doubt about real science. They don’t care if some other crank comes along and challenges the prevailing theory by tossing BS, as long as what they’re shoveling stinks. They are like adolescent punks who vandalize recently built/painted walls with graffiti. Pseudoscience is a form of intellectual vandalism!

  199. DrFlimmer

    @ Ivan3man

    How true!

    @ ND

    Oh, come on – Wikipedia is not a reliable source, how dare you? :D
    But as we have learned, books are not to be trusted, either. Probably papers are, but they wouldn’t look for them, although I gave Anaconda two links where to find them.
    The ONLY reliable sources are some internetpages…. wait, internetpages?

  200. ND

    DrFlimmer,

    hehe
    Actually I try to take each wiki article I read seperately as I expect the quality to differ from article to article. When it comes to the more well established topics and subjects, wikipedia tends to have a good overview of it. They’re also good for finding a bunch of references quickly as they list them. They have a mass vs. weight article on there, which I wish OIM and his buddies had read.

    Yes, internet pages with assertions and no good references or hard numbers to back things up. Who needs stuff like that when the those pages are written by electrical engineers? They must know what they’re talking about.

    One of the PC sites claimed the pioneer probes were slowing down (actual gravitational anomaly, you’ve probably heard) because of negative charge on the craft and the positive charge on the Sun. But no numbers or even any back of the envelope calculations to back things up. Lovely.

  201. DrFlimmer

    Yeah, that is exactly what I meant. I think one can add that “those” internetpages have citiations – of other internetpages. It’s just like with the credit-systems and our current crash. It will bloat and bloat until it (hopefully) crashes down. We will see.

    Btw: I like Wikipedia. You should not use it as source in a scientific paper, of course ;) . But it provides a short and informative overview over a subject you can investigate further.

  202. StevoR

    @Tom Marking :

    “of course, I’ve touched a live nuclear weapon before too but that’s a different topic”

    Now that I find pretty amazing and would like to hear more about. I checked your blog (Scanned over really,I’m afraid) but couldn’t find anything on it.)

    Electric universe is in the electric chair?
    Methinks: Yeah! yeah!
    I’m very tired after scanning through so many posts here trying to make sense of at least some of them ..

    Please excuse me if I’m incoherent right now; my brain’s turned to mush with sheer exhaustion. My maths is lousy at the best of times but one final thought on the issue of accretion disks ..

    Novae – anyone mentioned them yet?

    Are they not related to black hole accretion disks too – material spiralling inwards from companion star to white dwarf ..?
    Could novae be relevant? Perhaps worth using as for analogy / comparison purposes?

    Oh and positrons – antimatter elctrons – were used by Isaac Asimov to power his robots and were pretty well known back inthe 1930-s or was it 1950’s ..for whatever that’s worth.

    On that fuzzing-over thought & note I’m heading to bed. ;-)

  203. StevoR-Correcting

    Asimov’s positronic robots referred to were in his Science-Fiction in case that wasn’t clear enough.

    & I meant to be polite & put Tom Marking’s name in bold too .. Ah if only we could edit these posts.

  204. Frost Bite

    Too bad this is an old blog post…

    Black Holes: Do they NEED to do anything other than-
    Take in matter on the horizontal axis, stretching atoms until breaking the strong nuclear force and expelling particles out through the vertical axis.
    This explains the high level of Hydrogen and Helium, and why there is not a higher amount of Iron, as I understand is the stability all atoms try to achieve.

  205. Frost Bite

    It’s way past the time the scientific community got together and changed the nomenclature regarding black holes, they are neither black, nor holes. We can reclassify Pluto, but can’t change a designation that’s so misleading.

  206. As I’ve already mentioned on other Discovery Magazine web pages and elsewhere, to say that nothing escapes what the gravitational pull of a black hole has initially pulled in, is a misnomer. From what I’ve heard or viewed on the Net or TV, only I say that. Its always the erroneously ominous,” Nothing escapes a black hole.” hoohaahaahaa drama I get from supposedly serious scientists, perhaps blind to admit progress with all the new info we are obtaining nowadays. Thanks for verifying what I say. Wow, I just a did a Google search for, Andrew Planet black holes, and one of yours came out first. Thanks for the excellent publicity you give!

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »