New view of the supermassive black hole at the heart of the Milky Way hints at an exciting hidden feature (image)

When they first showed those pics a few years ago, I commented on how that was not a drain.....but a braid of plasma. A helical rotation. And that there was a M dipole in the center. And that it was the engine for our bubbles.

There is no such thing as a black hole. Matter can NOT superposition.
 
Feb 15, 2024
16
9
15
Visit site
When they first showed those pics a few years ago, I commented on how that was not a drain.....but a braid of plasma. A helical rotation. And that there was a M dipole in the center. And that it was the engine for our bubbles.

There is no such thing as a black hole. Matter can NOT superposition.
According to everyone with a clue it is a black hole. Want to explain the stellar orbital dynamics around such a thing if it is just plasma woo?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ryan F. Mercer
I believe that stable orbits, orbits with the same durations, repeatable resonant orbits......are helical orbits. With a one to one ratio. The earth has two rotations around the sun. The first one has a radius of about 1.5 million miles giving a diameter of about 3 million miles. And this rotation takes 12 months as it goes around the sun in 12 months. A rotation inside a rotation. A compound radius. Producing a helical circumference.

I saw this watching Io, flying thru it's debris field. From the Galileo probe. And I believe that star orbits are helical, only they can have multiple turns thru out their orbits instead of just one. Like the ringlets of Saturn.

Orbital dynamics. Two perpendicular angular accelerations. One inside the other.
 
Feb 15, 2024
16
9
15
Visit site
I believe that stable orbits, orbits with the same durations, repeatable resonant orbits......are helical orbits. With a one to one ratio. The earth has two rotations around the sun. The first one has a radius of about 1.5 million miles giving a diameter of about 3 million miles. And this rotation takes 12 months as it goes around the sun in 12 months. A rotation inside a rotation. A compound radius. Producing a helical circumference.

I saw this watching Io, flying thru it's debris field. From the Galileo probe. And I believe that star orbits are helical, only they can have multiple turns thru out their orbits instead of just one. Like the ringlets of Saturn.

Orbital dynamics. Two perpendicular angular accelerations. One inside the other.
Gibberish.
 
Feb 15, 2024
16
9
15
Visit site
What is plasma woo? Also, if you are going to comment on another member's post as gibberish, please explain why you say that. Feel free to enlighten the community.
"What is plasma woo?"

It is an explanation from the Velikovskians of 'electric universe' to dismiss the event horizon images. They like to invoke plasma nonsense. I am qualified in plasma physics. None of them are.

As for 'gibberish', did you read his post? Lol. How else would you like me to describe a bunch of sciencey sounding words thrown together that make no physical sense? I asked him to describe the orbital observations of the stars around a black hole. SgrA* will do. Do you know what Kepler's laws are, and what they tell us? Among other things, they tell us the mass of the object they are orbiting. So, if the OP wants to link to a peer-reviewed paper explaining his 'gibberish' I'll read it. Otherwise I stand by my claim the what he wrote was gibberish ,and in no way related to any known physics. Unless we encourage pseudoscience on here? In which case I'll happily leave.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cdr. Shepard

COLGeek

Moderator
"What is plasma woo?"

It is an explanation from the Velikovskians of 'electric universe' to dismiss the event horizon images. They like to invoke plasma nonsense. I am qualified in plasma physics. None of them are.

As for 'gibberish', did you read his post? Lol. How else would you like me to describe a bunch of sciencey sounding words thrown together that make no physical sense? I asked him to describe the orbital observations of the stars around a black hole. SgrA* will do. Do you know what Kepler's laws are, and what they tell us? Among other things, they tell us the mass of the object they are orbiting. So, if the OP wants to link to a peer-reviewed paper explaining his 'gibberish' I'll read it. Otherwise I stand by my claim the what he wrote was gibberish ,and in no way related to any known physics. Unless we encourage pseudoscience on here? In which case I'll happily leave.
I suggest linking sources to explain your points, to improve the knowledge of the community. Makes for a more positive experience for all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cdr. Shepard
Feb 15, 2024
16
9
15
Visit site
I suggest linking sources to explain your points, to improve the knowledge of the community. Makes for a more positive experience for all.

I have to link to well known science to refute comments that make no physical sense, and link to no sources whatsoever? Weird way of doing things. Seems like you really are encouraging pseudoscience.
If he says the Earth is flat, and I disagree, I am the one who has to link to sources proving it isn't flat? Have I got that right?
 

COLGeek

Moderator
I have to link to well known science to refute comments that make no physical sense, and link to no sources whatsoever? Weird way of doing things. Seems like you really are encouraging pseudoscience.
If he says the Earth is flat, and I disagree, I am the one who has to link to sources proving it isn't flat? Have I got that right?
No, that isn't the point and I am certain you know it. No one is suggesting pseudoscience is acceptable. Actual science, based on reality and physics, is preferred.

If you see something that falls outside of that, then point them in the right direction. That is all.
 
Mar 7, 2023
21
3
515
Visit site
While I concur with Dr. Ian that the description of Earth's "first rotation", in which OP shrewdly points out that Diameter = 2 x Radius and that 12 =12, is indeed utter gibberish; I'm now on the edge of my seat to hear OP's scientific dissection of Earth's second rotation. This cliffhanger has gone unaddressed in all of the above comments.
 
Imagine one large rotation frozen still.....a circle. Cut the circle. Now slowly pull the cut ends 90 degrees normal to the rotation. If you pull slowly and evenly you will keep the arc and reduce it's radius as you spread it apart. This is called an open rotation. The origin of the arc is moving. Thus the rotation stops at a different location than the start of the rotation. A helix.

Imagine a radius coming from the center of the sun and going out on the sun's equator at the earth's average distance. Then imagine another radius from that average distance rotation perpendicular to the first radius. The first radius is ~ 93 million miles. The second is about ~1.5 million miles. Both radii take 12 months to rotate. A closed helix.

The large rotation is a closed rotation, it ends where it starts. Only our earth's orbital rotation does not end where it starts for two reasons. Our system is moving ****-eyed to our orbits. And our system is an inertia system(frame), so this motion is not noticed. The real reason our successive orbits are out of phase a tad......is because the origin of that 93 million mile radius......is NOT a point........it's a small shell within the sun. And this is because gravity condenses to a shell, not a point. It don't make much difference with solar orbits......but with MW orbits(large gravity areas)......this has a huge effect on star orbits.

Open and close rotations are very important for particle physics. A closed charge rotation has a repulsive field pressure inside the charge. An open charge rotation does not.