A Question Concerning Blackholes

[astrophoto]

Crazyeddie, your link actually showed concisely the problem with BH theory:<br /><br />""Now, to actually say that it is a black hole is going to be very tough, since in order to do that we have to witness an event horizon -- the defining property of a black hole," Gebhardt told SPACE.com. An event horizon is a theoretical sphere surrounding a black hole through which objects pass into oblivion. "We are not there yet with this black hole or any other.""<br /><br />First he says to call it a black hole is going to be very tough, then he closes by saying We ar enot there with this BLACK HOLE or any other. The problem with BH theory is that we are trying to force the observations to fit the model. He's already convinced himself it's a BH even though we have not yet been able to observe the defining property of a BH -- the Event Horizon or the Singularity. Until that can be shown, there will ALWAYS be some doubt that it can be some other exotic object or scenario driving the observed behavior of surrounding materials.<br />

 

[siriusmre]

COOL! Dueling links! I LOVE this game!<br /><br />Electric Motor of the Milky Way<br /><br />Milky Way Plasma-focus Plasmoid<br /><br />Galaxies & Stars: what are they really? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scull]

I would also like to add another thing about the two people I have mentioned above. Jocelyn Bell earned her Ph.D. from Cambridge and Antony Hewish won the Nobel Prize mainly on their discovery of neutron stars/pulsars.<br /><br />Cambridge University and the Nobel Committee can't be both wrong.<br /><br />--

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">You're kidding, right? Electrical forces are 10^39 times stronger than gravity.</font><br /><br />Gravity is not a constant.<br /><br />If the escape velocity on the surface of an object is half the speed of light (which is the case for neutron stars), then you're bound to get loads of compression.<br /><br />Electrical forces in atoms are discrete (+/-), gravitational forces are not, but they are affected by density. All there needs to be is a gravitational field <i>denser</i> than the electrical field.<br /><br />Since the gravitational field shrinks due to collapse, whereas atoms by themselves do not, the gravitational field can potentially become denser than the electrical field in very heavy, dense stars.<br /><br />Except on scales when there is a segregation of positive and electrical charge, electrical forces are not as strong as gravity.

 

[siriusmre]

<font color="yellow">"Cambridge University and the Nobel Committee can't be both wrong."</font><br /><br />Can't they? Are they beyond reproach? Are not those institutions run by mere mortals?<br /><br />I am challenging their ASSUMPTIONS. Even with wrong assumptions, one is often able to put together a rather cogent scenario for just about anything. And the scenario's conclusions are "right" in the context of the faulty assumptions. But, what if you introduce a set of equally viable but different assumptions? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[siriusmre]

<font color="yellow">"Electrical forces in atoms are discrete..."</font><br /><br />What about the electrical forces in a lightning bolt? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scull]

Yes, I agree with you we have to keep asking questions: that's science. <br /><br />But we can't deny the results of the hard work by these scientists either.<br /><br />--

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

<font color="yellow">not a big leap</font><br /><br />yeah...agree. and evidence for their existence are mounting.<br /><br />I don't want to hurt someone else's feelings around here, so I won't go steve's way. ( But I really wanted to...) no pun for steve.. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />P.S. you won't want me to crack some jokes about universites <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

You know, if there was anything at all to the "Electric Universe Theory", we would be able to identify Extra-solar planets by observing the massive electrical discharges occurring between stars and their planets and also within accretion discs.<br /><br />Because these are not in evidence, it pokes a big hole in the entire "Electric Universe Theory".

 

[siriusmre]

<font color="yellow">"But we can't deny the results of the hard work by these scientists either."</font><br /><br />EXACTLY! There are scores of scientist who have done competent work to show that many of the more "popular" theories may be based on faulty assumptions. They get ignored. Why? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scull]

Yes.... I'll say no more.<br /><br />Peace out--<br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

just like copernicus years ago...<br /><br />(blame the church---- /> joke) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[siriusmre]

<font color="yellow">"You know, if there was anything at all to the "Electric Universe Theory", we would be able to identify Extra-solar planets by observing the massive electrical discharges occurring between stars and their planets and also within accretion discs."</font><br /><br />Not necessarily:<br />"There are three distinctly different steady state modes in which a plasma can operate: <br />1. Dark Current Mode - The strength of the electrical current (flow of charged particles) within the plasma is very low. The plasma does not glow. It is essentially invisible. We would not know a plasma was there at all unless we measured its electrical activity with sensitive instruments. The present day magnetospheres of the planets are examples of plasmas operating in the dark current mode. <br />2. Normal Glow Mode - The strength of the electrical current (flow of charged particles) is significant. The entire plasma glows. The brightness of the glow depends on the intensity of the current in the plasma. Examples: Any neon sign. Emission nebulae. The Sun's corona. <br />3. Arc Mode - The strength of the electrical current in the plasma is very high. The plasma radiates brilliantly over a wide spectrum. Current tends to form twisting filaments. Examples of this mode of operation are: An electric arc welding machine. Lightning. The Sun's photosphere."<br /><br />More: Electrical Plasma<br /><br />Novae and supernovae are possibly stars undergoing the birth event (arc mode discharge) of a companion gas giant or binary partner, which then glows (normal glow mode discharge), and finally balances (dark current mode discharges).<br /><br />Most stars in our neighborhood are at least binary. Why? How? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

But the "Electric Universe Theory" postulates that craters are the result of electrical discharges rather than impacts from debris. We've observed debris strikes (Shoemaker-Levy & Jupiter) but never an "Electrical" strike. Why is that?<br /><br />Doesn't that mean that the accretion disc method of Solar System development is indeed much more plausible than the "Electric Universe Theory" model?<br /><br /><i>"Most stars in our neighborhood are at least binary. Why? How?"</i><br /><br />More material was available and gathered into the original accretion disc because the dust cloud from which they formed was denser. <br /><br />Note that if Jupiter was about eight times more massive it would also be a star and the Solar System would be a binary star system.<br /><br /> <br />

 

[siriusmre]

<font color="yellow">"But the 'Electric Universe Theory' postulates that craters are the result of electrical discharges rather than impacts from debris."</font><br /><br />Right. Most "impact craters" are almost perfectly round. That would suggest that the "debris" struck the surface perpendicularly, right? Some craters have "spires" or even buttes in their centers. How do impacts do that? What about crater chains? What about the gigantic "impact craters" on asteroids and moons like Saturn's moon Mimas?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"We've observed debris strikes (Shoemaker-Levy & Jupiter) but never an 'Electrical' strike. Why is that?"</font><br /><br /><i>Did</i> we actually see any impact craters on Jupiter? As I recall, we saw several bright flashes as the comet pieces--why <i>did</i> it break up by the way?--dove deeper into Jupiter's electrical envelope. See Deep Impact and Shoemaker-Levy 9. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[neutron_star69]

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE "ELECTRIC UNIVERSE THEORY"?

 

[siriusmre]

Electric Cosmos <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[telfrow]

<b>Four</b> links to Thunderbolts in one post?!?! Are you paying SDC to advertise?<br /><br />BTW: http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[siriusmre]

I have no financial interest in the Thunderbolts site. I cite it most often because it has an extremely user-friendly layout that allows one to easily find articles about specific topics.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">BTW: http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html"</font><br /><br />Well, I guess that settles it, then, doesn't it? I'm completely wrong. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[telfrow]

If you're going to post links to that site and the Thunderbolts site all over the board, you should expect someone to post something that refutes it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[siriusmre]

This WHOLE BOARD is set up to refute it. These fora are little more than echo chambers for standard theory adherents. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[telfrow]

It's a conspiracy. If you'd been around a few months ago, you'd have discovered (thanks to some posters with other "alternative" ideas) that most of us are on the NASA/Mainstream Science payroll - paid monthly to post here and debunk anything "outside the box." <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Neither of you can refute a theory with a theory; there are a great many facts in both theories, and electricity is evidence to my statement. Our solar system is supposed to pass through an interstellar cloud of gas, and the friction effects should be interesting.

 

[Saiph]

well, that's true, it's the exact same, until you get really, really close to the event horizon of the spinning (note I said spinning) black hole.<br /><br />Then things get a little different/more complicated, but it never becomes a "vacuum cleaner" for the universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[neutron_star69]

what?