Something new under the sun

[Zeuzzz]

BAC claimed that Lerner had suggested that the mass at the center of our galaxy is not a black hole but some form of plasmoid.

And just because a black hole is attracting in all surrounding light does not suddenly change what it is made of, surely, it still is a type of star? and stars are technically constituted of matter in a plasma state. But yes, its a star that you cant see with normal light, only lower wavelengths of the EM spectrum like gamma rays. It need not be so mysterious. Its basically a star that you cant see, and will still likely be made of plasma. No sort of mathematical spookiness is required, no point mass, extra dimensions, or other mathematical constraints need be put on it in my opinion.

What do you think black holes are made of?

 

[sol invictus]

Yes i am, hold on. I am reading through some material at the moment, to be precise, a sequential study of two plasmoids fired from sources 10 cm
apart across a magnetic field of 4800 G. And i will also post some of the resounding successes of plasma scaling with the work of Kristian Birkeland and his terella experiments which mimicked exactly many separate aspects of the sun, including the plasma torus only just discovered very recently by SOHO that I linked to in my previous post.

So is it predictions of plasma cosmologists that you want? I could give a good few of them aswell. Or exmaples of plasma scaleablitity from lab to cosmos? which one?

I repeat - I want an example of an astrophysical phenomenon which PC claims to explain in a way which differs from the mainstream. A lab experiment might constitute part of the explanation, but it is not an astrophysical phenomenon.

Also, if the phenomena in question are solar, that has little or nothing to do with cosmology. Cosmology is the study of the universe on scales larger than galaxies - it's the collective dynamics of billions or trillions of stars (plus whatever other matter is around). Still, if you consider some solar phenomenon to be part of plasma cosmology and you will abide by the terms of our deal, we can go with that.

 

[edd]

And just because a black hole is attracting in all surrounding light does not suddenly change what it is made of, surely, it still is a type of star? and stars are technically constituted of matter in a plasma state. But yes, its a star that you cant see with normal light, only lower wavelengths of the EM spectrum like gamma rays. It need not be so mysterious. Its basically a star that you cant see, and will still likely be made of plasma. No sort of mathematical spookiness is required, no point mass, extra dimensions, or other mathematical constraints need be put on it in my opinion.

What do you think black holes are made of?

The interior of a black hole can not be pressure supported. It collapses. Completely. You might argue that the infalling matter is still plasma before it actually hits the middle and before it reaches ludicrous densities but it doesn't matter because it's inside the horizon and can't affect anything else in the universe, including this discussion.

You don't see black holes with gamma rays. You only see the accretion disks in x-rays and the like. It's the processes going on outside the hole that are astronomically observable, not the hole itself.

 

[Belz...]

EM forces are known to exist in space. They are unbelieveably stronger than gravity. Pick up a metal object with a magnet, and you have just demonstrated that a small EM attraction is able to overcome the gravitational attraction caused by the entire mass of the earth.

Yes, but can you say the same thing about that magnet when it's 2 million light years away vs a galaxy ?

 

[Zeuzzz]

The interior of a black hole can not be pressure supported. It collapses. Completely. You might argue that the infalling matter is still plasma before it actually hits the middle and before it reaches ludicrous densities but it doesn't matter because it's inside the horizon and can't affect anything else in the universe, including this discussion.

Where exactly has this matter gone? vanished to balance out some more equations?

It's the processes going on outside the hole that are astronomically observable, not the hole itself.

Precisely.

No-one has ever seen a black hole, and i accept that one very well could exist at the centre (hard as that is to actually disprove ), but its effects would likely be analogous to a plasma of similar mass density, whether the plasma was attracting in all surrounding light or not. I still think that black holes are made of plasma, its just plasma that is (supposedly) dense enough to attract back light, and so hard to see. A star would be made of 100% mater in the plasma state, and i see no reason why black holes should not be too.

 

[Dancing David]

.
Sure, but in a a typical galaxy containing millions to billions of stars (much more than 40,000 solar masses), the dynamics appears more complex... I don't see signs of the stars being attracted towards the centre... nor even following gravitational rotation curves. Which is not the say that gravity is not important.

Now that again really seems to be a strange statement. Are you just ignoring the behavior of the stars? You really have to be willfully blind to ignore the effect of gravity on all sorts of scales and events.

The roatation curve problem is that they are acting like there is more gravity , not less.

And since you have made a vague allusion to Perrat:
1. What size would the magnetic field have to be to have a flat rotational curve for the galaxy.

You have avoided the exact same issues that BAC has avoided, you are not providing a direct answer to a direct question.


I will assume that you are just avoiding the issue and will bid you faretheewell.

 

[Dancing David]

And just because a black hole is attracting in all surrounding light does not suddenly change what it is made of, surely, it still is a type of star? and stars are technically constituted of matter in a plasma state. But yes, its a star that you cant see with normal light, only lower wavelengths of the EM spectrum like gamma rays. It need not be so mysterious. Its basically a star that you cant see, and will still likely be made of plasma. No sort of mathematical spookiness is required, no point mass, extra dimensions, or other mathematical constraints need be put on it in my opinion.

What do you think black holes are made of?

Considering that gravity would be stronger than any other force, at any scale once the contraction has occured I can imagine that they could be plasma, except that it would not be like any plasma that has ever been described.

Again, how is any sort of repulsive pressure going to maintain as a plasma when it will be compressed to degenerate matter and then the singularity?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I think that this question is not really plasma cosmology material. Plasma cosmologists have written a few papers themselves on pulsars and neutron stars, and other compact stars, so they obviously do not disagree with these objects or how they are created. To my knowlegde no plasma astrophysicist has disputed gravitational collpase once it has started. There are however many filaments in space that seem to not obey gravitational collapse, and are arranged in huge filamentary structures. These types of stars have been looked at by EU theorists, they have propsed a quite different model, a bit more speculative, but interesting anyway.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly on this thread that such large scale structures will not undergo gravitational collaspe into a black hole because they are not bound into a small enough volume. It is the density of matter that is important for whether or not something becomes a stellar black hole.

For you to keep going on and on about various astrophysical phenomena in completely the wrong context, after having been corrected numerous times, seems to indicate that you are being very disingenuous.

Why do you keep bringing up the same errors again and again and again...?

 

[Belz...]

Contrary to popular belief, the Big Bang doesn't say anything about the origin of the universe.

It says a lot about the immediate aftermath, though.

This is hilarious! Mainstream scientists are saying that plasma cosmology is not viable because it is not based on things that they made up to plug the numbers in their models! The irony.

Plasma cosmologists accusing mainstram scientists of making stuff up. THAT's the irony.

 

[Dancing David]

Where exactly has this matter gone? vanished to balance out some more equations?




Precisely.

No-one has ever seen a black hole, and i accept that one very well could exist at the centre (hard as that is to actually disprove ), but its effects would likely be analogous to a plasma of similar mass density, whether the plasma was attracting in all surrounding light or not. I still think that black holes are made of plasma, its just plasma that is (supposedly) dense enough to attract back light, and so hard to see. A star would be made of 100% mater in the plasma state, and i see no reason why black holes should not be too.

At the densities of all the mass confined to a space of the Plank lenth, would it still be plasma.

You haven't explained how the EM or any other force is going to be strong enough to overcome the gravity.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Modern cosmology is actually becoming a precision science. Most of the large scale parameters have been measured to 1% or so.

Anyway, back to PC - if I mis-stated your position, sorry, but we are clear that you cannot even define it, let alone use it to make a prediction, right?

In that case, Zeuzzz is our only hope. May god have mercy on our souls.

So iantresman, the only one of these woo who seems to be reasonable, admits that there aren't any concrete predictions of EU-PU cosmology to be made. And now we're left with the flagrant arm-waving of Zeuzzz.

I think this thread is dead folks. Perhaps Sol's suggestion of using the "ignore" setting is well advised.

 

[sol invictus]

Where exactly has this matter gone? vanished to balance out some more equations?

It's inside the horizon of the hole. And yes, the equations are solved.

So iantresman, the only one of these woo who seems to be reasonable, admits that there aren't any concrete predictions of EU-PU cosmology to be made. And now we're left with the flagrant arm-waving of Zeuzzz.

I think this thread is dead folks. Perhaps Sol's suggestion of using the "ignore" setting is well advised.

If he doesn't answer my question soon that's what I'm going to do. At that point both of the plasma cosmology advocates here will have admitted that they can't produce even one single prediction of their "theory" - which means they don't have a theory at all.

 

[iantresman]

And since you have made a vague allusion to Perrat:
1. What size would the magnetic field have to be to have a flat rotational curve for the galaxy.

.
I would suggest referring to Peratt himself, who includes electromagnetic forces (not just magnetic), and gravity.

 

[iantresman]

So iantresman, the only one of these woo who seems to be reasonable,

.
My last comment to you requested just one peer reviewed citation; calling someone a woo doesn't quite do it.

We may disagree on many matters, but I expect the same civility I extend to you. I will not respond to you any further while you continue to use terms of disrespect.

 

[Reality Check]

.
Sure, but in a a typical galaxy containing millions to billions of stars (much more than 40,000 solar masses), the dynamics appears more complex... I don't see signs of the stars being attracted towards the centre... nor even following gravitational rotation curves. Which is not the say that gravity is not important.

You are correct - the black holes at the center of galaxies like the Milky Way (known as Sagittarius A* with a mass of about 3.7 million solar masses) and the M87 galaxy (a mass of about 3000 million solar masses) have a minor effect on the dynamics of the galaxy. The dynamics of a galaxy are determined mostly by the surrounding dark matter with a smaller contribution from stars.
Every scientist knows that a rotating object has to have a force to keep it rotating around the center and not fly off. For galaxies, etc. this force is gravity.

 

[BeAChooser]

And you still haven't explained how a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses avoids gravitational collapse?.

What do you think conditions are like inside a plasmoid, David? Is it really hot? Are the plasmas fast moving? Think about that, then tell us what will keep Betelgeuse from collapsing before it runs out of fuel?

 

[BeAChooser]

I am sure about the mass of the M87 black hole because this is the mass that is stated by the very link that you have.

Hey ... want a quote from the scientist who did the measurements and claimed the M87 black hole has a mass of about 3 billion suns? Here:

"These are clearly remarkable creatures," Ford said. "We are talking about 1 billion stars like the sun smashed down to a volume the size of your thumbnail."

A thumbnail? You really believe that? And why a thumbnail? Why not the size of a pea? Or the period at the end of this sentence. Why not the size of a bacterium? Or an atom?

 

[Reality Check]

What do you think conditions are like inside a plasmoid, David? Is it really hot? Are the plasmas fast moving? Think about that, then tell us what will keep Betelgeuse from collapsing before it runs out of fuel?

BeAChooser: You are the one that brought up plasmoids so presumably you know something about them. So these questions are for you to answer.
By the way: All the descriptions that I have seen have plasmoids as small, low mass phenomenon in stellar systems.

 

[MattusMaximus]

.
My last comment to you requested just one peer reviewed citation; calling someone a woo doesn't quite do it.

Moving goal-posts... You are in no position to make demands. You are the one going contrary to the mainstream astrophysics, you make the plasma cosmology claims, so you need to justify your claims to the astrophysics community and convince them of your arguments. Thus far, by the standard of pretty much everyone here who understands BBC, you haven't done that.

It's not up to me to do your homework for you. If you really wish your "theories" to gain any level of acceptance in the astrophysics community, you're going to have to do much better than hanging around on these forums pushing lousy arguments like we've seen here.

We may disagree on many matters, but I expect the same civility I extend to you. I will not respond to you any further while you continue to use terms of disrespect.

So, you haven't come up with that prediction or test for PC that Sol (and others) have demanded yet, eh?

Looks like "ignore" time Sol...

 

[Klimax]

Hey ... want a quote from the scientist who did the measurements and claimed the M87 black hole has a mass of about 3 billion suns? Here:

"These are clearly remarkable creatures," Ford said. "We are talking about 1 billion stars like the sun smashed down to a volume the size of your thumbnail."

A thumbnail? You really believe that? And why a thumbnail? Why not the size of a pea? Or the period at the end of this sentence. Why not the size of a bacterium? Or an atom?

As far as I know they can be of almost any size-not sure wheter there is any limit.(near Univers-sized ones do not look so nice )
And LHC might create somewhat(maybe atom-sized? ) small black holes as a result of indirect evidence for String Theory...