Not believing in naked singularities is not the same as not believing in singularities.
But you believe in a naked singularity. It's called the Big Bang.
Quote:
But now astronomers use blackholes to explain the material seen flying out from galaxies and quasars.
Non sequitur, this has nothing to do with the no hair theorem.
Perhaps but it is curious that objects that were supposed to be invisible and swallow everything they encountered are now repeatedly invoked by Big Bang enthusiasts to explain all manner of material and energy being ejected from galaxies and quasars.
BH have accretion disks, when matter is falling in it can emitjets of EM radiation.
Astronomers have only
interpreted their observations as a black hole with an accretion disk. They haven't actually seen the nature of the object in the center of that disk. What if plasma cosmologists can explain all the same phenomena using physics that can be demonstrated in the lab? Ever hear of a guy named Occam?
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn9620-mysterious-quasar-casts-doubt-on-black-holes.html "Mysterious quasar casts doubt on black holes, 27 July 2006 ... snip ... Rudolph Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, led a team that observed a quasar situated 9 billion light years from Earth. A quasar is a very bright, compact object, whose radiation is usually thought to be generated by a giant black hole devouring its surrounding matter. A rare cosmological coincidence allowed Schild and his colleagues to probe the structure of the quasar in much finer detail than is normally possible. Those details suggest that the central object is not a black hole. "The structure of the quasar is not at all what had been theorised," Schild told New Scientist. ... snip ... A well accepted property of black holes is that they cannot sustain a magnetic field of their own. But observations of quasar Q0957+561 indicate that the object powering it does have a magnetic field, Schild's team says. For this reason, they believe that rather than a black hole, this quasar contains something called a magnetospheric eternally collapsing object (MECO). ... snip ... The researchers found that the disc of material surrounding the central object has a hole in it with a width of about 4000 Astronomical Units (1 AU is the distance between the Earth and the Sun). This gap suggests that material has been swept out by magnetic forces from the central object, the researchers say, and must therefore be a MECO, not a black hole. "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.'
Now, of course, the above astronomers are so engrained to inventing new objects or forces to explain any observation they can't explain, and so prone to ignoring what plasma cosmologists say, that they failed to notice that plasma cosmologists had already described and modeled the physics of an object that would fit the observations.
The article then states that "Chris Reynolds of the University of Maryland, in College Park, US, says the evidence for a MECO inside this quasar is not convincing. The apparent hole in the disc could be filled with very hot, tenuous gas, which would not radiate much and would be hard to see, he says. "Especially if you're looking with an optical telescope, which is how these observations were made, you wouldn't see that gas at all," he told New Scientist."
I only point this statement out because it calls what must be plasma ... "gas" and thus this astronomer also misses the physics of what is going on.
Leiter responds to Reynolds criticism by noting "this scenario would leave other things unexplained, however. The observations show that a small ring at the inner edge of the disc is glowing, which is a sign that it has been heated by a strong magnetic field, he says." It might also be a sign that plasma cosmologists are right.
There are other reports that suggest Big Bang astronomers don't really know what is going on in black holes.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060124_spacetime_dent.html is a report that in 2005 two unusual X-ray frequencies were detected coming from an extremely energetic light source, GRO J1655-40. Astronomers say it is black hole, gradually consuming the matter of a companion star. The emissions were strange because scientists recorded identical emissions nine years earlier. They wondered if the blinking x-rays were “related to how matter accumulates around the black hole”.
The scientists suggested that material "siphoned from the companion star builds up steadily in an accretion disk around the black hole. This process continues for several years. While the accumulation is taking place, the black hole consumes very little gas from the disk" and emits very little x-rays. But every few years, "
something—scientists aren’t sure what—triggers a sudden binge fest on the part of the black hole, causing it to guzzle down most of matter in the disk within a period of only a few months”.
But NASA’s Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer recorded something curious. Among the X-ray frequencies observed in 1996 were one at 450 Hz and one at 300 Hz. The same two frequencies were observed again in 2005. "Because it’s very hard to get gas to behave the same way twice, it argues strongly that these frequencies are being anchored by the black hole’s mass and spin”, study co-author Jon Miller of the University of Michigan told SPACE.com.
Notice how they call it gas, not "plasma"? And I bet plasma cosmologists could argue that the same plasma phenomena-related that occurred the first time could produce output at the same frequencies.
Now, of course, the black hole-minded astronomers had to come up with an explanation that would fit their model. “Because the black hole is so massive and spinning so fast, it warps spacetime around it”. The authors suggest that the particles moving in “warped spacetime” near the black hole exhibit two types of motions, each producing a unique frequency. “One motion is the orbital motion of the gas as it goes around the black hole. This produces the 450 Hz frequency. The lower 300 Hz frequency is caused by the gas wobbling slightly due to the spacetime deformations”.
Sometimes all you can do is laugh at all the speculation they pile on top of other speculation to justify, in the end, the ultimate speculation ... the Big Bang.
Here's what plasma cosmologists say about this case. Plasmas carry electric currents, and at those focal points where currents pinch down to form stars, infrequent but catastrophic releases of energy may occur. Anthony Peratt says in electric discharges flickering electromagnetic radiation is commonplace. “The flickering comes from electrical changes at the observed load or radiative source, such as the formation of instabilities or virtual anodes or cathodes in charged particle beams that are orders of magnitude smaller than the supply.” So if a flickering is interpreted by a distant observer to be both the “source and supply,” Peratt notes, the results will not only be bizarre, they will lack a basis in any verifiable physics.
By the way, I don't know if you are aware of this, but the gravity-only crowd has some serious problems explaining how accretion disks form planets around stars and even the stars themselves. There are severe problems in getting a rotating nebula to collapse gravitationally to form a star in the first place. I got the following from a link at
www.earth.rochester.edu that unfortunately is now defunct.
"The Law of Conservation of Momentum states that the angular momentum in a system must be conserved. This means that the angular momentum in a system must remain the same, unless it is transferred to an outside force. The amount of angular momentum in a system depends on how much mass there is and how spread out it is. This applies to the solar nebula theory in that, if mass is suddenly transferred to the center of the system by gravity, the angular momentum must somehow remain the same. To compensate for the contraction of the mass, the system starts spinning faster. An earthly example of this is the spinning figure skater. As the figure skater pulls her arms (mass) inwards, she starts spinning faster. Angular momentum is conserved. This presents a problem for the solar nebula theory in that, by the conservation of momentum, the sun should be spinning much faster. The sun contains 99% of the mass in the solar system. According to the conservation of angular momentum stated above, since most of the mass is contained within the sun, it should also be spinning very fast. Yet the sun currently contains less than 1% of the angular momentum in the solar system. If it followed the rules as stated above, it should spin 400 times faster than it currently does."
The answer to this problem lies, not surprisingly, with electromagnetic forces and plasmas. Stars and galaxies are mostly made of plasmas. Ergo, if electromagnetic effects have a large effect on plasmas (and they do), then it seems reasonable that they will have a large effect on the process of formation of objects from those plasmas. In fact, one of the most important effects described by plasma cosmologists is to shed excess rotational energy that would otherwise prevent the formation of stars and galaxies.
In 1972, Alfven, a Nobel prize winner in physics, and his colleague, Gustaf Arrhenius, developed a detailed model of solar system formation which uses plasma filaments -- "superprominences," they called them -- to transfer the angular momentum from the sun to the plasma from which the planets formed ... and because the filaments pinch the plasmas together in the process, they even sped up planet condensation. Alfven's model is now widely accepted as the correct answer. Here is a good description of what happens taken from the above now defunct (sorry) link.
"This problem is addressed by the interaction of the sun's magnetic field with charged particles. As the proto-sun spins, it pulls the lines of magnetic force with it. The force lines resist the spinning motion of the sun and thus form a spiral about the sun. Charged particles are captured by the magnetic field, and cause a drag to form along the magnetic force lines. These charged particles, in turn, drag along the gas and other particles in the infant solar system. In this way, the problem of angular momentum is solved. Angular momentum is transferred from the proto-sun to the outlying gas and dust, slowing the spin of the sun down in the process."
Quote:
But now astronomers use blackholes to explain the material seen flying out from galaxies and quasars. And have had to alter the theories of magnetic fields to make that work ... in ways that contradict our understanding of magnetic fields for the past 100 years and which still haven't been demonstrated in the lab.
This is false, show me were they alter the theories of magnetic fields to make black holes work.
Not black holes, per se, but they violate what we know from a 100 years experience to explain how black holes throw matter and energy out in jets.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/radiojets_991025.html "Two superheated jets of plasma shooting in opposite directions at nearly the speed of light are making a hot case for the existence of a black hole in the direction of the center of the Milky Way. ... snip ... The jets -- which were some of the fastest fountains of material ever detected -- were revealed by recent radio observations conducted by Robert Hjellming, an astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Soccoro, New Mexico. ... snip ... he basic picture that Eikenberry and his co-workers have developed is that matter in a black hole's accretion disk may be warping its magnetic fields. ... snip ...
"Basically, as you're dumping material on, it's spiraling in, and that tends to tangle up the magnetic fields," Eikenberry said. "What may happen is, once you get the magnetic field too tangled, it will just reconnect suddenly," he offered. "It'll just sort of untangle itself and, in doing so, release a whole lot of energy."
From Donald Scott's book "The propositions that magnetic fields lines "open up," "merge,"or "recombine" are fallacies. They result from an error (violation of Maxwell's equations) compounded by another error (the mistaken belief that the lines are real 3D entities in the first place). ... snip ... Solar astronomers describe the magnetic field of the Sun as having "lines that extend outward, never returning to the solar surface." They also propose that magnetic field lines "reconnect" as a means of transporting energy across the temperature minimum, from the solar interior out to the intensely hot lower corona. "Reconnection" is invoked to explain how material can be ejected outward from the solar surface in Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs). These proposals are so crucial to the accepted explanations of observed phenomena -- and so wrong -- that we must examine them in detail. The primary motivation for writing this book was astronomers' repeated assertions of these flawed concepts, assertions that any undergraduate EE student would immediate recognize as false." And he then proceeds to spend a entire chapter showing why they are demonstrably false.
Scott notes that Hannes Alfven (a Nobel Prize winner who knew a LOT about this subject) condemned the "merging" and "reconnecting" concepts thus: "The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism is due to Heikkila who, with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudoscience which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics."
Dr Anthony Peratt, a graduate student under Alfven, said "I just noticed the term Alfvenic reconnection. Read Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma" on "reconnection." He says it deserves no attention. He would be spinning in his grave had he [seen] this [his name associated with reconnection]."
Scott ends his chapter on this with this: "As of this writing, vast sums of research money are being poured into investigations of "magnetic reconnection. In March of 2005, a worldwide conference was held on the topic. The organizers said, "The recent development of astrophysical observations has revealed that the universe and astrophysical objects are much more dynamic than had been thought. They often show flares, bursts, jets, and high-energy particles, and most of them are more or less related to magnetic reconnection."
Make no mistake about it - open magnetic field lines and magnetic reconnection cannot and do not occur. They simply do not exist. Astrophysicists who do not understand magnetic fields irresponsibly propose these invalid concepts. But no one is at liberty to fabricate non-existing "new" properties of magnetic fields no matter how convenient these new properties might be for propping up outmoded theories. That solar [BAC - and I would add Big Bang supporting] astronomers feel free to promote these fictions speaks volumes about the state of astrophysics today."
You were saying?
Of possible interest:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v426j6441q34102t/ " Elementary ideas behind plasma physics, Walter*J.*Heikkila ... snip ... This contribution is in support of Alfvén''s use of circuit theory to advance the understanding of complex plasma physical problems, such as magnetic reconnection; these ideas have often been mis-understood. Circuit analysis is not a full description of the physics, being a scalar relationship. However, it is suitable for dealing with energy relationships and cause and effect, and it is fully capable of showing fallacies behind various fashionable ideas, including steady-state reconnection."
Quote:
And by the way ... isn't it the contention of some Big Bang proponents that the whole universe came from a naked singularity at one point ... something Wheeler said was ... well ... impossible?
This is actually a good question and it has an answer. I don't have time to write it now, because it is a bit subtle
I bet it is.
but in the meantime, here's a link to the sci.physics FAQ which explains it.
Well, first, I don't see the term "naked singularity" mentioned.
Second, it appears that the reason given for the Big Bang not becoming a Black Hole is "it is expanding rapidly near the beginning". Are they talking about inflation? Because if they are, they are using a gnome to explain the problem away.
In any case, the existence of a singularity is not important to the Big Bang model
It seem Yllanes and Cuddles are tossing out anything related to the Big Bang theory that gives them trouble in this debate. ROTFLOL!
The Big Bang itself is the least important prediction of standard cosmology. The important thing is that the universe is expanding and that the visible universe was very small a long time ago.
So why is plasma cosmology fought so vigorously by you. It says that too. Only plasma cosmologists don't have to dream FAIRIE DUST, Dark Energy, unexplainable events like Inflation, change the laws of magnetism, and ignore a host of cosmic data to do it.
, but way back when I first read up on distance measurements, the textbooks said it was done by paralax measurements. Is that still the case? That would semm to me to be a fairly indisputable method of establishing exactly which is more distant. Has anyone done this for this quasar yet?