Radio Telescopes Capture Best-Ever Snapshot of Black Hole Jets

If it was a bit wider, I'd have already made the OP's image my desktop background, because it's beautiful.

reply to post by Tsurugi

Thanks for the explanation! But the fact remains that these are all theories. Deductions.

How about Plasma cosmology? Take a peek at this vid.....



Well, that's one theory against the other! Neither are fact until scientifically PROVED!

It's time for a reality check!

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Tsurugi

 

i would like to thank you for your very interesting information and the simple way it was presented
thanks

My pleasure.

i would also like to ask a few questions,
if a supermassive black hole was at the center of a lens,
and light going through the lens was passing the black hole without being captured by the higher than C gravity well, would that increase the distence that we could see throught the lens?

a gravity induced increase in lens "perscription" because of light being "bent" around the black hole gravity well in a denser medium?

Hmm...not quite sure what you mean by "lens"....are you referring to gravitational lensing? Astronomers and Astrophysicists have used this phenomenon to great effect already. I recall reading a report of a gravitational lens caused by a relatively nearby galactic cluster that allowed scientists to image what is, to date, the most distant(in both time and space) objects yet observed...hmm, let me see if I can find it....ah, here it is.

I also recall a NASA APOD(Astronomy Picture Of the Day) demonstrating the power of gravitational lensing to produce "ghost" galaxies-- i.e. false reflections. APOD articles are short and to the point, and almost always interesting. The one about lensing can be found here.

Now that I've linked all that stuff, I'm still not sure I understood what you mean in your question. Are you talking about gravitational lensing? Or are you talking about an actual singularity somehow situated within an actual glass lens of a telescope? ....or possibly something else?

I think the presence of a black hole would possibly destroy the effectiveness of a gravitational lens. The best ones found so far are galactic clusters; in these the mass is spread out rather evenly, creating a well-shaped lensing effect while not blocking or diverting too much light. A singularity in one of these would have to be perfectly placed in reference to our "line of sight" on the object we are trying to view, otherwise the major local distortions of time and space along with the intense radiative output unleashed by matter being pulled into the hole would ruin any chance of the lens being useful. But, supposing we could move about freely and fairly quickly in space(think Star Trek/Wars ships), we should be able to position ourselves such that any distant object we wished to view would be powerfully boosted by a gravity lens caused by a black hole. Some might ask, why bother with any kind of lens if we have access to zippy ships with "warp" drives? Well, ships in the"'Star' sagas were still only "Galactic" level transportation. In those stories everyone pretty much stayed in this galaxy(or in one far, far away), because intergalactic distances are many orders of magnitude greater than interstellar distances...and we use gravitic lensing to observe and study objects so ridiculously distant from us that they are about to red-shift right out of our universe. So the use of collapsed matter to provide powerful lensing effects will very likely become, at some point in the future, the only way we build telescope systems.

Well. Hopefully, somewhere in there, your question got answered,

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
reply to post by Tsurugi

 

Thanks for the explanation!

But the fact remains that these are all theories. Deductions.

How about Plasma cosmology? Take a peek at this vid.....

Well, that's one theory against the other! Neither are fact until scientifically PROVED!

Watched the vid. Yay techno!

I do want to say, in my defense, that I don't think I went running about proclaiming any outrageous theories or hypotheses. At least, I didn't mean to. I meant to explain the tidal effect, and the "event horizon" effect of a gravity well with an escape velocity exceeding "c". Neither of those things are far-fetched, are they? The tidal effect in particular has given us concrete evidence of itself in the form of washing away our sandcastles at the beach. And wildly different escape velocities, ranging from a few feet per second(Phobos and Deimos) to 500 miles per second(the sun), exist just within the confines of our solar system. Is it a wild extrapolation to postulate the existence of gravity wells so strong as to have a surface escape velocity above "c"?

Okay. Now for Plasma Cosmology. I recall, I think, that I had a few long debates with a guy who fervently believed in the PC model. At times, however, it seemed he was more against the Standard model than for the PC model...if that makes sense. Also, he seemed to revel in the sort of romantic or poetic vision of the universe given by the PC model; everything is connected by invisible strands of pure crackling blue energy, a cosmic God-web of flickering entanglement upon which the stars and galaxies dance. Compared to that, who wants to contemplate the Standard model, which basically says the universe consists of a vast cold void peppered with deep holes that have compressed, burning stuff down in the bottoms? How uncivilized!
Incidentally, the guy also completely disagreed that we ever actually landed on the moon. The Apollo Missions, and all related media and materials, were a giant hoax perpetrated by the U.S. Government in order to undermine the rise of communism, according to him.

Those were fun debates. I doubt I changed his views one single iota; and he had even less effect on me...still, we had fun. So I will happily discuss this with ya...are you a Plasma Cosmologist, through and through? Or do you mix PC and the Standard model into your own custom blend? Personally, I like the Standard model, and am enthralled by the latest developments on the quantum level, particularly in string, entanglement, multiverse, and causuality/determinism theories. Schrodinger's Cat will never die!! If the people working on the LHC at CERN find the Higgs Boson, I think we will be able to look forward to a Unified Field Theorem in the next few decades.

So that's where I stand; now you know where to aim in order to kick my feet out from under me.

To open the debate, I will start with this: Plasma Cosmology asserts that the Electromagnetic force, as opposed to Gravitic, is the dominant macro-scale force of the universe, right? Both forces have unlimited, or infinte, range. However, the Electromagnetic force has polarity; it can be positive or negative in application. At the macro scale, this would logically result in a great deal of canceling itself out. Gravity, on the other hand, is mono-polar; it is always attractive. Net result on the macro scale: it always adds up, never down. This by itself would suggest that gravity, rather than EM, is the dominant macro force.

I also have stuff to say in response to the video you posted(yes, I did watch the entire thing!), but will have to post them later. Need a nap before work. So, over to you.