Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Notice in that article that they don't refer to the material as plasma
Because it's not plasma.
Really? You believe that?
The thread's article doesn't say what comprises the jet. Another source on the current discovery says its "charged particles", but that again is rather vague. But the galaxies and gas they do mention in the thread's article are indeed mostly plasma. And production of these charged particle jets should be explained in THAT context. If there is an electromagnetic explanation for jets and some of the galactic behavior now attributed to black holes and bogus magnetic physics, then it should be considered rather than just ignored as mainstream researchers are currently doing.
If you look at articles on the production of jets by black holes, you will find they again do not mention electromagnetism. They talk about gravity and magnetic phenomena that for some reason they have been unable to demonstrate in laboratories: such as frozen-in, tangled, open and reconnecting magnetic fields. Plus they add in huge amounts of dark matter to make galaxies rotate correctly. There is no mention in any mainstream article that there is an ELECTROmagnetic explanation for jets that actually has been seen in laboratories and can be modeled using state of the art computer codes based on proven physics. There is no mention that electromagnetism was proven decades ago to be capable of explaining the rotation curves too.
Now let's look at the question of whether the jet is plasma by looking at more general articles on the subject of jets coming from black holes. There is no reason to suspect this particular jet is any different than all the other jets. Right?
Here's a mainstream source on the nature of jets:
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Mirabel/Mirabel6.html
It starts by noting that "the processes by which the jets are accelerated and collimated are still not clearly understood, but it is believed that several of the concepts proposed for extragalactic jets can be extended to galactic jets."
As an aside, could it be the reason they still do not clearly understand these jets (and that's an understatement as the quote I previously cited by an astronomer on the subject demonstrates) is that the underlying phenomena they assume responsible are gnomes?
You will read in that article that in order explain jets from black holes, mainstream researchers have had to posit a "magnetized accretion disk" and magnetic field lines frozen into the disk. The first sounds like a gnome and second most certainly is one.
Now ignoring their use of bogus magnetic field physics, let's see how these authors explain the acceleration and collimation of the jet. They state "The magnetic field lines are taken to be frozen into the disk and
the plasma is assumed to follow them like a "bead on a wire", at least close to the disk. If the field line forms an angle with the plane of the disk smaller than 60°, the displacements of
the plasma from its equilibrium position become unstable. This happens because along these field lines the component of the centrifugal force will be larger than the component of the gravitational force and
the plasma will be accelerated outwards."
Oh my. That seems to be saying the jets are plasma.
Let's see what other sources say.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_antics_021111.html "Among the most powerful phenomena in space are the jets of material spat out by supermassive black holes, which anchor many galaxies. These hypervelocity streams of superheated gas,
called plasma, are concentrated into two narrow paths that travel in opposite directions, along a galaxy."
Oh my. That clearly says the jets are plasma.
Let's look some more.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_jets_040817.html "At the centers of some galaxies are supermassive black holes that can hold more material than a billion Suns, theorists say. From some of these galaxies, focused beams of hot gas shoot into space at more than 99 percent the speed of light.
The plasma emits X-rays, radio waves and other radiation, all of which has been widely observed."
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/512533 "lack hole jet sources are modeled as collimated relativistic
plasma outflows with radiation beamed along the jet axis due to strong Doppler boosting."
http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR04/DPP04/baps/abs/S400.html "Mini-conference on Astrophysical Jets ... snip ... Relativistic
Plasma Jets from Black Hole Accretion
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060411080753.htm "Sarazin's team found that the two merging supermassive black holes in Abell 400 appear to be swallowing gas from their host galaxy, and each is ejecting a pair of oppositely-directed jets of radio-emitting
plasma."
And I could go on and on and on. Even the jets from neutron stars are plasma.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/13894 "Material from the companion star is drawn by gravity into a spinning disk that spirals slowly toward the neutron star, accreting onto its surface and somehow powering
the plasma jets that beam energy and matter into space at nearly the speed of light."
So it looks like you are wrong, all the way around. Maybe "You've got a lot to learn."
Well gee, when you're modelling a gas and not a plasma, doesn't it kind of make sense to use methods for gasses and not for plasmas?
And now that I've proven they are modeling plasma, not a "gas", doesn't it kind of make sense to use methods for plasmas and not for gases?
