Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

Arbitrageur

poet1b
I would say those orbits are somewhat supportive of a black hole, but the black hole model goes way beyond what we currently know.

If you mean it's widely expected we will eventually come up with a refined model that resolves the singularity issue in a black hole, you're in good company because I hear plenty of people say such refinements are possible with the current model, which is obviously a work in progress if you've seen the flurry of papers on the topic.

The problem with black holes is the difficulty of observing them. We can infer that one with the orbits of those stars, and there is a gas cloud headed for that black hole so if it falls in we'll get some good observations of what happens to the gas cloud as it falls in. It might even give us some measure of the event horizon which would be nice. But I don't see how we'll ever get any measurement of what it's like inside the event horizon. The only way it might happen is if we can communicate faster than light and the no communication theorem says we can't and I'm not expecting it to be falsified, though it would be interesting if it is because then we might be able to make some black hole measurements eventually.

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

How did that blue one get so close without getting 'sucked in/ripped up'?

That's part of the reason we think it's orbiting a black hole. The black hole would have a high enough mass in a small enough radius to permit such an orbit. If Crothers was right and black holes didn't exist, then it might do as you suggest because it would be a larger object. For example, if the moon was a black hole, it would have a diameter less than 0.1 millimeter. With such a small diameter we could obviously put objects in much tighter orbits than with its present diameter.

Is it not possibly they made those orbital turns because of the total surrounding matter away from the center (of stars and planets and debris) and that greater outer unit moving together as a galaxy spinning so when one star is traveling with the pack while the galaxy is moving linearly and rotating, there is the gravitational weight of all rotating masses further from the center then that star perhaps keeping that star from leaving the center area, and forces it to curve back around.

I don't see how, but I never tried to model such a thing. I have tried to model an elliptical orbit with the mass at one focal point, and that model does work and these orbits match that model.

edit on 15-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Im interested in Quantum gravity and black holes because than there is no singularity whatsoever. My problem with black holes has always been the singularity are equations tells us its impossible yet we continue to believe it happens. I think at the end of a black hole that energy has to go somewhere because turning into infinite density and infinite mass just seems like a cop out.In quantum gravity we actually find that gravity starts to reduce again as you travel further in the blackhole. Ill have to find the paper i was reading.

dragonridr
Im interested in Quantum gravity and black holes because than there is no singularity whatsoever. My problem with black holes has always been the singularity are equations tells us its impossible yet we continue to believe it happens.

Actually I don't believe the singularity happens and a lot of other people such as Michio Kaku don't believe it really happens either, rather, it signals a breakdown of the theory.

As you suggest, some future quantum gravity theory is expected to spell out how the singularity is avoided:

Black Hole

The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory. This breakdown, however, is expected; it occurs in a situation where quantum effects should describe these actions, due to the extremely high density and therefore particle interactions. To date, it has not been possible to combine quantum and gravitational effects into a single theory, although there exist attempts to formulate such a theory of quantum gravity. It is generally expected that such a theory will not feature any singularities.

Decided not to sidetrack the thread.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


More accurately you have a model of an elliptical orbit that basically works, and you feel that you can apply that model to the galaxy.

The problem is that you only have a minuscule segment of the orbit of these stars, and science has no idea whether or not it matches their model.

reply to post by dragonridr


I don't play with definitions, you people just don't like to accept existing definitions.

So what object is pushing and or pulling electrons through a wire?

poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

More accurately you have a model of an electic orbit that basically works, any you feel that you can apply that model to the galaxy.

The problem is that you only have a miniscule segment of the orbit of these stars, and science has no idea whether or not it matches their model.

Are you talking about the orbits of stars around the black hole at the center of the Milky Way? I guess you need to explain further because we indeed have plotted them through observation.

reply to post by dragonridr


And how much of those orbits have we plotted?

The term segment is key.

poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I don't play with definitions, you people just don't like to accept existing definitions.

So what object is pushing and or pulling electrons through a wire?

Come on guy really? Ok ill try to make this simple for you. The electric force acting on a point charge is caused by the presence of a second point charge.This means that an electric field can influence charge within a circuit as it moves from one location to another. Electric force is an action-at-a-distance force what i mean is the objects dont touch or pass they influence their neighbor we call this field forces.The space surrounding a charged object is affected by the presence of the charge and as a result an electric field is established in that space.An electric field is a vector quantity whose direction is defined as the direction that a positive test charge would be pushed when placed in the field. Thus, the electric field direction about a positive source charge is always directed away from the positive source.Or to put this simply opposites attract just like a magnet this is the force it has to do with charged particles.This is all explained under coulomb's law you have been pointed to this page multiple times yet you appear not to understand it. But will try again see below.





en.wikipedia.org...

poet1b
The problem is that you only have a minuscule segment of the orbit of these stars, and science has no idea whether or not it matches their model.

One star (SO-2) has already completed more than a full orbit. They are really moving fast.

www.astro.ucla.edu...

My educated guess on interpreting the dotted lines is they might represent what your post refers to, meaning a smallish segment of the orbit insufficient to have confidence in the rest of the orbit. It looks to me like once the line turns from dotted to solid, there is a large enough segment to be confident of the orbit and that's why it changes, but I could be wrong since it's just an educated guess. I can't think of what else it might mean.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Could you point at the place where it states one star has almost completed an orbit, or that describes more acurrately what we are seeing?

This video is more for illustration than an accurate depiction from the description on the page.

reply to post by dragonridr


Let me enlighten you, when you slap your hand on a table, no physical parts touch each other, it is all force against force.

Now with this logic in mind, once again, what body of matter is pushing/pulling the electrons moving as a body through the wire?

reply to post by dragonridr


I know, but that graphic was posted as proof of black holes, arguing against a poster who denied the existence of black holes, so I was trying to form a question in order to seek a point as to how that appearance and activity of the stars on the graphic could be due to manners other then a 'black hole'.

Arbitrageur
If you mean it's widely expected we will eventually come up with a refined model that resolves the singularity issue in a black hole, you're in good company because I hear plenty of people say such refinements are possible with the current model, which is obviously a work in progress if you've seen the flurry of papers on the topic.

The problem with black holes is the difficulty of observing them. We can infer that one with the orbits of those stars, and there is a gas cloud headed for that black hole so if it falls in we'll get some good observations of what happens to the gas cloud as it falls in. It might even give us some measure of the event horizon which would be nice. But I don't see how we'll ever get any measurement of what it's like inside the event horizon. The only way it might happen is if we can communicate faster than light and the no communication theorem says we can't and I'm not expecting it to be falsified, though it would be interesting if it is because then we might be able to make some black hole measurements eventually.

Im very curious as to what you think of in your head when you think of the term 'black hole'. Can you describe it a bit, dont skirt the issue, I know what space is, I know what matter and energy are, I know the general idea of gravity field and energy fields, I know what a spiral galaxy is. When you think of a black hole how do you picture it, what is causing it to exist, please note I am only referring to super massive black holes, to be specific the super massive black hole at the center of galaxy, is that what the graphic you posted was showing?

What is the approximate distance from the center of mass of the super-massive black hole to the area where its gravitational prowess becomes negligible? Or does the outer most stars of the milky way stay in because the black hole has gravity affect all the way out there? Yes I know the answer to that last part is thats why dark matter is needed, so yea ok.

That's part of the reason we think it's orbiting a black hole. The black hole would have a high enough mass in a small enough radius to permit such an orbit. If Crothers was right and black holes didn't exist, then it might do as you suggest because it would be a larger object. For example, if the moon was a black hole, it would have a diameter less than 0.1 millimeter. With such a small diameter we could obviously put objects in much tighter orbits than with its present diameter.

My argument entirely depends on that graphic you showed being of the central super massive black hole, I was merely using the act of critical thinking to play devils advocate and ask if it was possible for the torque and total gravitational mass of the galaxy to while traveling linearly through intergalactic space, and rotating through intergalactic space, forces a star near the center of the spiral to act in such a way; Or is the combined affects of this, and everything about everything, is why 'black holes' exist, and that is what a black hole is, the central ( I dont think fulcrum would be the right word) point of most sheer spatial torque caused by the totality of galactic mass spinning around a common point, in a circle there has to be a center, in a spinning circle also traveling linearly made of mass, that center might have novel characteristics, how or why would it not.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Why/how are they going from all angles, like up down axis and left right? Does that mean they are orbiting over the top?

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Why/how are they going from all angles, like up down axis and left right? Does that mean they are orbiting over the top?

I think this might help its a movie gives you more of a 3D aspect. Makes it easier to understand how they placed the black holes position.

www.astro.ucla.edu...

poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Let me enlighten you, when you slap your hand on a table, no physical parts touch each other, it is all force against force.

Now with this logic in mind, once again, what body of matter is pushing/pulling the electrons moving as a body through the wire?

Has been explained if you need further explanation i will find some website for you at a later time maybe graphics will help you to understand. As for why your hand doesnt pass through the table well let me start here high school textbooks like to say atoms are mostly empty there not. This just shows a lack of understanding probability distributions see quantum particles fill all space. This is why science should really do away with orbital models but there so good at helping us understand chemical reactions. Any way the reason your hand stops is two objects cant occupy the same space at the same time well baryonic matter anyway. So look up Pauli exclusion principle and of course the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Im beginning to understand why your so confused start looking at things from the aspect of particle interactions. Here lets look at the Pauli exclusion principle this is a big idea in physics it controls most interaction.The Pauli exclusion principle is used to explain electrical, magnetic, optical and chemical properties of solids. In the case of a wire like i tried to explain so ill try a different approach in metal there are very large numbers of molecular orbitals which effectively form a continuous band structure of energy levels. To explain molecular orbitals this explains the wave function of an electron. Remember all particles exist as waves until observed and waves can combine to create a pathway for energy to flow. Depending on AC or DChow it doesnt this will be different.

Now in the future why not try to prove your point instead of play games because if your going to jump into the deep end of the pool you need to know how to swim.In other words no more oh explain this just make your point show us why you believe this and will discuss it.

poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Could you point at the place where it states one star has almost completed an orbit, or that describes more acurrately what we are seeing?

I already did state which star completed the orbit and the star is labeled, though the label appears only at the end.

Arbitrageur
One star (SO-2) has already completed more than a full orbit.

I don't know if they made an explanation but I can explain what is self evident except for the meaning of the dotted lines which I'm guessing at.

You can see a date of observation in the time index in the upper right (year in decimal format), which starts in 1995 and ends in 2013. They put a marker where they observed each star at each of those times. If you look at SO-2, you can see that it completes the orbit by returning to its original observation position in 2010, so it's got roughly a 15 year orbit, and it's now about 3 years into the second orbit.

ImaFungi
Im very curious as to what you think of in your head when you think of the term 'black hole'. Can you describe it a bit, dont skirt the issue.

Yes the graphics I posted were for the supermassive black hole in the milky way called Sagittarius A*
Here are my thoughts:

-I think our black hole model is probably a decent approximation but it's obviously not a fully defined model without a theory of quantum gravity.

-When I do think about what it's like inside I imagine some quantum things happening near the center. Outside a black hole I think of over 90 percent of the mass of a neutron is not in the quarks, so right off the bat I have no problem imagining if quarks existed inside a black hole they could be more dense than neutrons. I can't even speculate whether quarks still exist or whether there is some as yet unknown form of matter inside, and I'm also disappointed that because we can't observe the interior we may never know exactly what it's like inside, ever, at least not through observation. I expect we will develop better models.

-In some respects I think of it simply as the "no hair theorem" describes it, which means all the arguments about exactly what it's like inside don't matter to how it interacts externally, like with the stars orbiting around it. So the no hair theorem can be a nice sanity saver.

-A black hole doesn't appear the same to an outside observer and an infalling observer. Like many aspects of relativity this has some non-intuitive implications. It's not so easy to wrap my mind around the concept of "frozen stars". I don't worry about it too much since i don't plan on falling into any black holes but as the gas cloud approaches our own black hole in the center of the Milky Way, I do try to think about both reference frames, ours and the gas falling in, and the difference is amazing. This has more to say about that and other aspects of black holes:

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Black Holes

What is the approximate distance from the center of mass of the super-massive black hole to the area where its gravitational prowess becomes negligible?

The sun at one solar mass is thought to be too small to ever form a black hole since the smallest ever observed is just under three solar masses and we don't expect to observe any under two solar masses. But to answer your question, temporarily suspend that discrepancy and imagine the sun is replaced with a black hole of equal mass. The orbits of the planets would be unchanged. Does that answer your question? I'm not sure quite what you're after. Where do you consider the gravitational effects of our sun to be negligible?

My argument entirely depends on that graphic you showed being of the central super massive black hole, I was merely using the act of critical thinking to play devils advocate and ask if it was possible for the torque and total gravitational mass of the galaxy to while traveling linearly through intergalactic space, and rotating through intergalactic space, forces a star near the center of the spiral to act in such a way

Um, yeah I already figured out what you were thinking, and it's not a bad idea to think of such things but I already gave you my best answer which I won't repeat, but I can cite a scientific paper I put in a similar light. The authors state that our dark energy observations may be explained without dark energy, if we happen to be at the center of the universe. I'd say that's about a million times more likely than your suggestion, and the probability of it being the correct explanation for dark energy observations is very close to zero. But still I have no problem with putting such ideas on the table, as long as we don't completely forget about things like Occam's razor, the Copernican principle, etc. Any good scientist will play devils advocate with their own ideas though I think they usually do so with more plausible alternatives.

Arbitrageur

Here are my thoughts:

-When I do think about what it's like inside I imagine some quantum things happening near the center. Outside a black hole I think of over 90 percent of the mass of a neutron is not in the quarks, so right off the bat I have no problem imagining if quarks existed inside a black hole they could be more dense than neutrons. I can't even speculate whether quarks still exist or whether there is some as yet unknown form of matter inside, and I'm also disappointed that because we can't observe the interior we may never know exactly what it's like inside, ever, at least not through observation. I expect we will develop better models.

I was wondering for more of a physical description as well, is it like a hollowed out sphere of sorts, the event horizon being its edge, I say hollow because thats what the term hole, has always implied to me, but would it be more appropriate to think of it as a physically massive body, like a star or earth, like a semi solid mass of sorts but just 'black'? If 90 percent of the mass of neutron star is not in the quarks what is it in (electrons or will you say I forgot the word, imaginary particles like gluons?)? Is it possible that the 'dense energy/matter' of a black hole, and please believe I just got a sort of chills that there must be something to this, and ive thought of it before but never in exactly the confident way as right now, that I have always stressed the need to firmly believe that space is an energetic medium if one wants to believe general relativity and the theory of the (perhaps dense) energetic medium of space being curvable and 'strong enough' to contain bodies in its warpedness, one must firmly believe just that. So could it be that black holes are an interaction of 'space' the gravity field under a highly novel circumstance, a twisting and torquing and densifying and compounding of such an extent as to create a sort of 'dense material object composed predominately of space'? Well also probably composed of other stuff that gets trapped in it, and maybe even turns baryonic matter into the material of the energy field of space. Also its possible light doesnt emit from a black hole, because its rotating so fast all the light that is emitted is 'spread' out in the highest of Doppler affect, it could even be that the super massive black hole is entirely responsible for background radiation.

-In some respects I think of it simply as the "no hair theorem" describes it, which means all the arguments about exactly what it's like inside don't matter to how it interacts externally, like with the stars orbiting around it. So the no hair theorem can be a nice sanity saver.

I am just wondering how come it appeared the stars were able to come so close and not get dragged in, if it is so massive and gravitational, how they didnt get sucked in and destroyed after appearing to orbit a relatively very small point. The point that is suppose to keep a decent amount of the entire galaxy in its gravitational sphere. I suppose its as if a small asteroid were heading for the sun, if its trajectory was from a decent distance away from the sun in linear space distance (like where pluto is, but headed towards the sun), what the distance from that linear path towards the sun, in a target like manner lining its sights, from the edge of the sun outward, would the leeway be for its trajectory to be aimed at a certain distance away from the suns edge, and as it grew nearer would not be compelled to collide. This is a similar situation, and it shows how relatively weak gravity is, and how important the mass ratios are?

Or if its something like a whirlpool or tornado, but imagine if it was really strong, and an object got caught in its swirl, if the object was moving towards the tornado at a decent speed and even if it was heading straight towards it, most likely the force and momentum of the spinning medium would deflect or reflect or reject the body from entering its confines, and this would be a ricochet like event but if that rotating energetic/material object was so large and expansive and had such a compelling rotational affect on the space and material surrounding it a distance away from its strongest, tighetest, most material rotating area, one wold expect the body which is heading to make contact or near by miss, to be compelled to follow a slingshot like rotation/orbital as is seen.

The sun at one solar mass is thought to be too small to ever form a black hole since the smallest ever observed is just under three solar masses and we don't expect to observe any under two solar masses. But to answer your question, temporarily suspend that discrepancy and imagine the sun is replaced with a black hole of equal mass. The orbits of the planets would be unchanged. Does that answer your question? I'm not sure quite what you're after. Where do you consider the gravitational effects of our sun to be negligible?

My question was regarding the gravitational extent of the super massive black hole at a distance from 'its center or its event horizon'. The whole mass and square of the distance thing.

Um, yeah I already figured out what you were thinking, and it's not a bad idea to think of such things but I already gave you my best answer which I won't repeat, but I can cite a scientific paper I put in a similar light. The authors state that our dark energy observations may be explained without dark energy, if we happen to be at the center of the universe. I'd say that's about a million times more likely than your suggestion, and the probability of it being the correct explanation for dark energy observations is very close to zero. But still I have no problem with putting such ideas on the table, as long as we don't completely forget about things like Occam's razor, the Copernican principle, etc. Any good scientist will play devils advocate with their own ideas though I think they usually do so with more plausible alternatives.

What is the scientific theory on what dark energy is or how it was created? Is it thought to be a fundamental field? Is it thought to be made of quarks, or connected to the gravity or EM field?

reply to post by dragonridr


Again, all you are doing is dodging the question.

I repeat, What force is pushing and pulling electrons through a wire?

All you are doing is repeating a point about current theory of physics that I had already pointed out.

You are the one confused.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I don't know if they made an explanation but I can explain what is self evident except for the meaning of the dotted lines which I'm guessing at.

So you are just guessing at what is illustrated here. You don't know what data was used to create this illustration that supports the theory of a black hole at the center of our galaxy, an illustration created by people who believe a black hole exists at the center of our galaxy.

An illustration is what they think they are seeing, not what they are actually observing.