Re: What will the black hole look like? Black Holes EU and MECO,
posted on 01/14/2008 6:36 PM by REDquist
[Top]
In what appears to me to be the most comprehensive empirical test of the black hole concept, black holes appear to have flunked. Following are a couple of reports of a study, using gravity lensing, of a quasar:
The lead scientist for this study is Astronomer Rudy Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the study involved an international team over a period of twenty years. The study concluded that the quasar exhibited a massive magnetic dipole field (!), which is not a permitted feature for black holes.
�I believe this is the first evidence that the whole black hole paradigm is incorrect," says Darryl Leiter of the Marwood Astrophysics Research Center in Charottesville, Virginia, US, who co-authored the study. He says that where astronomers think they see black holes, they are actually looking at MECOs.
If right, that means that all the mapped quasars, blazers and other EM emitters found at galactic nuclei are not black holes, but something totally supportive of an electric universe model (!!).
�There is also a larger opaque torus extending several parsecs from the central black hole, containing a hot gas with embedded regions of higher density.� Wiki Blazars
Oh my! The magnetic dipole field would induce a loop current in conductors around it. This sounds like a plasma ring caring current generated by the MECO.
Just my casual observation but it looks like a couple of very intense galactic aurora borealis. Assuming the whole black hole thing is pass�, the MECO in each galaxy is like a particle cannon blasting the magnetic field of the neighbor. Should be even more spectacular up close!
Re: Black Holes, EU and MECO
posted on 01/16/2008 10:38 PM by REDquist
[Top]
I have performed a cursorily examination of various physics/astronomy sites and plasma cosmology sites regarding MECO�s without finding anything substantive. Now, the MECO thing may be just a passing fad except for the annoying fact that the results of a major empirical study is inconsistent with the theory of the Black Hole singularity (an absurdity to some minds). Who here can argue for this absurdity? No one?
[Parent]
Re: Black Holes, EU and MECO
posted on 01/17/2008 11:37 AM by fabianMu`aDib
[Top]
ok...this will surly disqualify me for any futher comments...but anyhow...*shrug*
you want to rescue the idea of an Everlasting Collapsing Object?
Take the following ingrediences...
[1.]There is no static state from which a massformation such as the nescessary mass for BlackHoles or MECO`s or ECO`s is initialized at.
[1.1.]Infalling matter on gravitational attractors must have velocity and distribution of density.
[Conc.--> [1.]+ [1.1.]] There is no initial state from which an equilibrium of such as the overcoming of the Eddigton Luminosity vs. Gravitational inpull could arouse rather than that the EL-mechanism of objects is a layer dependency of the inital topology at a given timeframe.
[[However...Eddington Luminosities do exists (saw them) so one has to admitt that at the point the 'limit' is overpassed layers are ejected from the `object` in question.]]
[2.]Black Holes are supposed to have higher dimensional solutions of their event-horizon-topology such as Black Rings (OR) Black Saturns.
By the fact that supressing gravitational forces upon the topology of BlackHoles/BlackSaturns/BlackRings that do form overlapping manifolded systems could arouse from ECO`s interacting with spatial-frames of BH/BS/BR`s in such a way that a renormalization of their sheer topology fluctuates [COULD?] generate layers that do form ECO`s in the first place and do press matter dense enough to be within the scharzschild-radius.............
....mhm....I`m not that good at cooking a soup out of such ingrediences I suppose....
*crawlsbackintohiscornerandcontinuesprogramming*
humbly&respectfully
Fabian
[Parent]
Re: Black Holes, EU and MECO
posted on 01/17/2008 9:00 PM by REDquist
[Top]
Sorry Fabian, but I can�t understand you.
you want to rescue the idea of an Everlasting Collapsing Object?
No. The point is that a major (the only major?) study of a quasar (which is assumed to be a black hole) determined that it wasn�t a black hole. The ECO idea seems just a patch -- something as exotic as a black hole. I could say, based on the information in my first post, that 1) quasars and other galactic nuclei phenomena (GNP) are not black holes, 2) GNP�s create massive magnetic fields, and so there should be associated massive electric fields, and 3) could such fields drive structure in galaxies.
There is no static state from which a massformation such as the nescessary mass for BlackHoles or MECO`s or ECO`s is initialized at.
So what? No BH/MECO/ECO? So we need some other phenomena to generate quasars and EM fields?
[Parent]
Re: Black Holes, EU and MECO
posted on 01/17/2008 9:01 PM by REDquist
[Top]
p.s. Hope there is no information in the spaces removed statements, because I generally don't decipher them.
[Parent]
Re: Black Holes, EU and MECO
posted on 01/18/2008 12:22 PM by fabianMu`aDib
[Top]
*grins*
*thinksthatthosemightbeimportant*
[Parent]
Re: Black Holes, EU and MECO
posted on 01/18/2008 11:21 AM by fabianMu`aDib
[Top]
*looksupfromthecornerhesitsin*
the quasar in question is in several ways `not`'normal'......
first of all it is a lensed one supposly as far as I could find out by a cluster of galaxies with a central lensing one at z = 0.355
secondly that quasar is a strong radio source with fluxes over 300 mJy/beam between 4.85 GHz and 1.40 GHz...
thirdly it seems also to be identified with an xray-source....
fourthly spectral energy distribution indicates logarithmical increase of flux/magnitude with longer wavelenght...
fifthly the spectra does really looks kinda odd, hence the 10% of QSO`s who are `supposed` to be radio sources should be: dustredened.....
*shrug*
yes...269 publications for a single quasar are impressive, but with first appearance in 1979 this one seems to be studdied for 30 years by now....*againshrugging*
But this one is just `kinda` odd.....it looks normal aside from the facts mentioned above and the flat continuum of its spectra..........while in my experience the several tenthousend spectra of QSO`s I have seen sofar at my young age that do not seem to have any substantial EM-field aside from the ususal galactic dynamo..................
So what? No BH/MECO/ECO? So we need some other phenomena to generate quasars and EM fields?
Nope...what I meant was that there is no such thing as a sure road to the existence of a phenomena at all........BH/MECO/ECO are all explanations for the energy output of AGN`s but the way they are formed can be totally different, and in my point of view any approach to figgure out the features of an phenomena by finding a `genral` solution of Existance is doomed.....
Re: What will the black hole look like? Black Holes Suck
posted on 07/03/2010 8:20 PM by REDquist
[Top]
I'm still not comfortable with black holes, but Leo Vyuk provided a link that warped my mind.
[Parent]
Cat
posted on 01/18/2008 7:44 PM by REDquist
[Top]
Thanks Fabian. Clearer.
Here are some statements for your comment.
1) The object Quasar has, in your estimation, some idiosyncratic characteristics, but is clearly a quasar. If it were a cat, it would be a breed of cat, but clearly a cat.
2) Standard Model (SM): Super-massive black holes are thought to exist at the centers of all galaxies.
3) SM: All galaxy nuclei emit radiation somewhere on a continuum from weak to strong to blasting.
4) SM: This radiation is a manifestation of the black hole.
5) SM: We need a BH as a AGN because the mass is needed to hold the galaxy together -- but still is not enough to do so, and hence the need for Dark Matter.
6) Your position is that AGN�s can arise from many different types of sources that just happen to lie in galactic nuclei. In other words, they are not just cats, but a whole zoo of exotic creatures in your Universe. You reject Uniformitarism when it comes to AGNs.
7) My position is consistent with Uniformitarism. Galaxies form, and form around, one type of AGN (a cat only), the AGN is not a black hole, and AGN is fundamental to the structure of the galaxy. It has a galactic magnetic field and associated electric currents. So no BH, no DM.
[Parent]
Re: Cat
posted on 01/20/2008 3:42 PM by fabianMu`aDib
[Top]
*greets*
5) SM: We need a BH as a AGN because the mass is needed to hold the galaxy together -- but still is not enough to do so, and hence the need for Dark Matter.
As far as I understood the main reason for the assumption of DM is that the angular momentum of oberved galaxies `should` rip it appart hence the density of Baryonic Matter decreases with radius and thus an equaly distributed halo of Dark Matter (be it MaCHO`s or WIMP`s...though the first seems to be ruled out) is needed to allow the structures to be stable.
Equaly to that you can describe the problem as the one of rotation of stars around the center of a galaxie, and that their rotation period is way to high with increasing radius....
Compared to total mass of spirals or eliptic galaxies (which as far as I know are seldomly hosts of AGN`s) even a supermassive black hole contributes just a fraction of what binds a galaxie together....billions against millions....
6) Your position is that AGN�s can arise from many different types of sources that just happen to lie in galactic nuclei. In other words, they are not just cats, but a whole zoo of exotic creatures in your Universe. You reject Uniformitarism when it comes to AGNs.
7) My position is consistent with Uniformitarism. Galaxies form, and form around, one type of AGN (a cat only), the AGN is not a black hole, and AGN is fundamental to the structure of the galaxy. It has a galactic magnetic field and associated electric currents. So no BH, no DM.
...a cat without mices is as a frog without water as a star without birth and as galaxie without stars........as a universe without dark matter?....maybe not...Dark Matter is neither the all fullfilling prophecy nor a miracle cure for every problem..., but I kinda start to notice what kind of attitude is voiced in this forum, and I have to admitt sincerly: I don`t like it........taking things for garanted people tried and try to figure out with hard work and flip them around to suite needs of projection for ideas of one own? Sure...do as you are pleased, go ahead and look for what you need to support your ideas....take it, find it along the way, even steal it................but as long as you haven`t had he pleasure of figuring it out yourself you won`t last............sorry to put it this way, I don`t want to be offending and maybe I just got the wrong picture of the whole situation, and you ARE trying to figure out the picture but....whatever...*shrug*
humbly&respectfully asking for forgiveness
Fabian
p.s.: *meow*
[Parent]
Cat o' nine tails
posted on 01/21/2008 6:54 PM by REDquist
[Top]
Fabian:
Regarding your response to my 5th point: With one caveat, you simply restate what I said using jargon without adding or detracting anything. Baryonic Matter essentially is matter, and non- Baryonic Matter is Dark Matter. You point out that centripetal forces would rip apart galaxies without Dark Matter. Well, yah. So your response has no information or conflicting opinion. [Of course, in determining a gravitational only model, we would integrate all mass sources, but the centripetal problem is worse if you lack a core supermassive black hole].
Your response here does however contain error. You write �spirals or elliptic galaxies . . . are seldomly [sic] hosts of AGN�s�. Such thoughts not permitted by the Standard Model. Here is some help with your misconceptions:
Supermassive black holes are thought to lurk at the heart of most galaxies. Scientists have long believed that only the galaxies with thick central bulges could pull together enough mass for a supermassive black hole to form. But NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has turned up evidence that even skinny galaxies, with no central bulge, can still form these galactic monsters. http://www.universetoday.com/2008/01/11/fat-black- holes-can-lurk-in-thin-galaxies/
"A feeding black hole spits out high-energy light that ionizes much of the gas in the core of the galaxy," said Satyapal. "In this case, Spitzer identified the unique fingerprint of highly ionized neon -- only a feeding black hole has the energy needed to excite neon to this state." http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2 008-01/release.shtml
So supermassive black holes are thought to lie at the core of all galaxies, and will be �active�, i.e. radiation sources, when they are �feeding� -- so logically all galaxies are thought to have AGN�s when the black hole lurking at the nucleus is feeding, which they will do from time to time. Hope this helps with your understanding of the Standard Model.
Regarding your response to my 6th and 7th points: I�m starting to smell fear here, Fabian. Your tell is when you stop writing in a clear, adult manner. Plasma Cosmology clearly moves you out of your comfort zone. It means a lot of what you were taught is wrong, that is all you know, and the alternative is real hard. You can start your re-education here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0501 05loose-cannon.htm [This talks about plasma canons! I hadn�t read that before using the same metaphor in my original post! Originality! See the pictures.]
P.S. I still wish that some Plasma Cosmologist would discuss AGN's and how they influence galactic structure.
[Parent]
Re: What will the black hole look like? Re: Cat o' nine tails
posted on 01/21/2008 7:43 PM by fabianMu`aDib
[Top]
Regarding your response to my 6th and 7th points: I�m starting to smell fear here, Fabian. Your tell is when you stop writing in a clear, adult manner. Plasma Cosmology clearly moves you out of your comfort zone.
Who is the greater fool? The one who flips facts around to suite ones own needs and ideas or the one who ignores facts to suite ones own needs and ideas?
You might smell fear, but not because I fear a new idea, but rather because I`m in fear most of the time, in awe of ideas old and new which do seem to have more power over peoples lives than their lives seem to have power over their ideas, be they of their own orign or not......
You can start your re-education here
*BROADgrin*
I have heard these words in a douzen languages from people of two douzen ethnics ranging from russian shamans beating the crap out of me to american astrophysicist who spoke them in a well-educated-manner........*shrug*.....how are you going to threat me if I don`t comply?
So supermassive black holes are thought to lie at the core of all galaxies, and will be �active�, i.e. radiation sources, when they are �feeding� -- so logically all galaxies are thought to have AGN�s when the black hole lurking at the nucleus is feeding, which they will do from time to time. Hope this helps with your understanding of the Standard Model.
*scratcheshishead*
so they just stop feeding? And do not put out the massive radiation seen in quasars? Sounds resonable to me......I assume that there must be some color/z dependency then including the fact that a big portion of quasars do shift out of visible light depending on this (color/z)[evolutionfactor]{or}[evolutiontype]?
Could lead to some intrinsic bias just by the fact that you can`t get enough/all evolutionary-stages of a quasar........*scratchinghishead*
It means a lot of what you were taught is wrong, that is all you know, and the alternative is real hard.
See.......no one came and told me that this and that is true and that I can make a living of it repeating it you know..............up until now I found it out myself, and the picture I drew in my head up until here tells me that the whole idea of involving electrical charges (and as far as I understood you discharges as well......please correct me if I`m wrong) on galaxie scales is just .....lets put it politly:"funny" and "interessting"......
I surly admitt that there is a galactic-dynamo.......but how it is supposed to generate these energies?
Yet my last question would be: Do I get you people right? You are telling that galaxies form by means of Coulomb-Forces respectivly Electromagnetic-Forces?
humbly&respectfully
Fabian
p.s.: *meow*
[Parent]
Don't miss this Link!!
posted on 01/22/2008 7:01 PM by REDquist
[Top]
You are telling that galaxies form by means of Coulomb-Forces respectivly Electromagnetic-Forces? [sic]
EM phenomena determine structure in the Universe. That is the theme of Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe, this thread, and the Cosmic Play thread, where you posted. Try looking at the links I�ve provided above, on the Cosmic Play, and this one, which will blow your mind:
Excerpt:
The magnetic field forms nice spiral patterns in almost every galaxy, even in flocculent and bright irregular types which lack any spiral optical structure (Wielebinski & Beck 2005). This is regarded as a strong argument for the action of galactic dynamos. Spiral fields are also observed in the central regions of galaxies and in circum-nuclear rings of gas.
So we have strong evidence for galactic dynamos in every galaxy, and it is assumed that super massive black holes lurk in the heart of all galaxies. So throw out the SMBH and replace with EM dynamos, which cause structure (and are the sources of radiation). Simple!
You became unstable in your last post. Read through all my posts and the links, and come back calm. Or don�t come back -- what ever.
[Parent]
Re: Black Holes, EU and MECO: BLACKHOLE IS A MISNOMER
posted on 01/17/2008 12:03 PM by vidyardhi nandur
[Top]
Sub: Blackhole is a misnomer
I pointed out several times that the BLACK-HOLE concept itself is a misnomer during last eight years or more since 1993-96.
Replace it as Electromagnetic Phenomena.
This has several aspects that have to be satisfied at the Galactic Plane- Milkyway that includes Energy Retrieval and Magnetic fields-orientation.
One can search my projections in my books
Plasma Wave guide Phenomena needs to be searched if it fits anywhere near to my projections or may partially satisfy beyond Sun- to mid plane regions.
There are many apparent contradictions- self-defeating to the purpose of Science advancements.
Images by NASA/Chandra Xray/ ESO Data are clear.
The interpretations are to be questioned.
This leads me to define Cosmic Function of the Universe and Cosmology Definition as well.
See my Books.
Cosmology Research requires best of the Scientific and Philosophical brains that help
East-West Interaction.
Plasmas and Electromagnec fields help in this endeavour but fall short of nomenclature
Presently Cosmology is undergoing REVISION and BIG-BANG,Dark Matter,DARK ENERGY and Blackholes are all under question.
Evolution needs to catch up with creation.
These books provide search links,routes and many COSMOS QUESTIONS
that form links to COSMOS YOGA SERIES as follow-up.
PURPOSE OF INTERLINKS:
1. The Science of Philosophy: Divinity, Vedas, Upanishads, Temples & Yoga
2. Philosophy of Science : Plasmas, Electro-magnetic fields and Cosmology
3. Resource : Reflectors,3-Tier Consciousness, Source, Fields and Flows
4. Noble Cause : Human-Being, Environment, Divine Nature and Harmony
Vidyardhi Nanduri
Cosmology World Peace
[Parent]
Re: Black Holes, EU and MECO: BLACKHOLE IS A MISNOMER
posted on 01/17/2008 8:11 PM by fabianMu`aDib
[Top]
*looksupfromhiscornerwithaniftygrininhisface*
*cracks with the joints*
humble *lookingdownatthepieceofpaperinfrontofhim* VIDYARDHI NANDURI *lookingup* your appearance in the net seems infinite since I kinda got lost between all the adds for thoose books of yours...but clicking on one of them randomly at
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/01/07/branson-wa nts-to-fly-space-tourists-into-the-northern-lights /
I found the following sentences I want to quote *coughs*
:
Researchers demonstrated the potential for using Earthshine as a ?practice? case for spotting
life signs from other Earth-like planets, in a session at this week�s joint assembly of the
American Geophysical Union in Baltimore, US.
Leonardo da Vinci is credited as the first to explain the Earthshine effect, which is caused by
sunlight reflecting off the Earth and illuminating the parts of the Moon that would otherwise be
in total shadow. Earthshine observations offer a potential window into the role of clouds in climate change. Variations in cloud cover affect Earth�s total reflectivity and so register as slight changes
in the brightness of Earthshine from month to month.
my respectfull question to you would be whether these are words of your own, or whether they were just like the rest of the post assembled by a mechanism unclear to me...*lookingalittlestupid*
while hopefully waiting for your lenghtly answer full of adds I will do some meditation just to overcome my own unrespectfull thoughts considering you...of course not as a person but rather as a representative [ofwhatever]...........
humbly&respectfull
Fabian
[Parent]
Re: Black Holes, EU and MECO: BLACKHOLE IS A MISNOMER
posted on 01/17/2008 8:12 PM by fabianMu`aDib
[Top]
Re: What will the black hole look like? Perhaps you could highlight the part that talks about a black holes’ gravitational influence on orbiting bodies, and how the mass of the black hole can be inferred from said orbits? I could not find anything relevant to such matters in that mass of text.
Re: What will the black hole look like? At the bottom of the first page I inserted text into Spike's post that sort of addresses your question.
The last sentence in the wall of text is:
"I'm still not comfortable with black holes, but Leo Vyuk provided a link that warped my mind."
I think it was a gif showing stars orbiting a proposed black hole, probably the same one you were remembering.
The core argument of the wall of text is that we know 1) AGN's have massive dynamos that create parasec wide magnetic fields that affect galaxy morphology, i.e. spiral galaxies; and 2) Black holes are not suppose to have magnetic fields.
MECOs were proposed as a substitute for black holes, but I don't know if they really have any validity.
The assumption when looking at the gif is that the stars are orbiting a huge mass, but an alternative is that they are magnetic bodies orbiting in an intense magnetic field. We know that there are intense magnetic fields at the core of galaxies. Why would massive black holes be found at galactic cores? They are suppose to be formed from collapsing stars, which occur randomly.
The wall post is from 10 years ago. Here's a recent vid from 'Sky Scholar'. He concludes black hole's proper domain is science fiction:
