Is there anything more to Black Holes than mathematical mumbo-jumbo? Does the simple plasma focus device explain the alleged phenomena in more simple and verifiable terms?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...06starring.htm
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tech2.html

"The existence of Black Holes is no longer questioned in conventional astronomy, despite the fact that they are based entirely on theoretical assumptions. When Stephen Hawking recently dared to question them, his scoffing peers very quickly pressured him into a retraction. This is because Black Holes at the centre of galaxies are necessary to balance the equations in a gravity dominated universe, much like Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

However, astronomers using NASAs Hubble Space Telescope have identified the source of a mysterious blue light surrounding a 'super-massive black hole' in our neighboring Galaxy, Andromeda M31. It originates from a disk of hot, young stars that whip around the 'black hole' in much the same way that planets in our solar system revolve around the Sun. Astronomers are perplexed about how this disk of stars could form so close to a giant black hole. They should, of course, be sucked into oblivion, but this isn't happening.

Similar stars close to the core of our Milky Way galaxy have also been observed.

None of this perplexes astronomers who are familiar with plasma. They can generate similar effects in a plasma lab with the plasma focus device: It is the plasmoid that forms and stores energy at the focus of the discharge. When the plasmoid reaches a critical energy level, it discharges its energy in a collimated jet along its axis in the form of electromagnetic radiation and neutrons. Being unstable outside a nucleus, the neutrons soon decay into protons and electrons. The electrons are held back by the electromagnetic field, and the high-speed protons are beamed away.

On a galactic scale this is probably the mechanism that produces the collimated jets streaming away from the cores of active galaxies. The masses of ejected protons may make up the quasars that are associated with these galaxies and could be the basis for their intrinsic redshift."

And where is the evidence for such plasma focus devices on galactic scales?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

And where is the evidence for Black Holes? They remain purely hypothetical, mathematical abstractions. Any 'observational' evidence is purely interpretative.

Plasma Focus devices, meanwhile, can produce the effects that we see on galaxial scales in the laboratory. Remember that plasma effects are scalable over at least 14 orders of magnitude, and probably more than 28.

The collimated jets seen expelled from the centre of spiral galaxies are most likely large scale plasma focus effects.

The ring of hot, young stars seen so close to 'super-massive black holes' effectively falsifies the concept.

i have a thread here in "against the mainstream" on the same concept.

Galactic Smoking Gun

Any source for this? I don't think Hawking has recently (or even in a more distant past) questioned black holes; in 2004, he changed his view on an important part of the theory of black holes, but he started from the idea that black holes are a reality. See e.g. this link.

So as far as I can see, Hawking has not "dared" to question them, and there were no "scoffing" peers pressuring him into a retraction. The only retraction was of his own idea, after 30 years, because he came to the conclusion that he was wrong. But this was of an aspect of black holes, not the phenomenon as such.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Wasn't this when he admitted that the lost a bet about black holes destroying information?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

You mean, we observe the visible effects of the presence of a black hole.
So, where is the evidence for galactic plasma focus devices? Wouldn't these be directly observable?

You have to show that there is such plasma at galactic scales that can produce the effects observed in laboratory.
Saying "plasma effect are scalable" is not good enough.

And the evidence is...?
Or is it just your interpretation?

How exactly?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

papageno
"You have to show that there is such plasma at galactic scales that can produce the effects observed in laboratory."

please have a look at the rgb composite image of the jet of m87 in my thread (linked to in above post).

remember that in just the hst optical shot alone...the "knots" along the length of the jet are said to be emission from electrons accelerated by a magnetic field.

is this not a plasma...or at the very least a very large electrical current (=>5000 light years)..if it's just electrons?

I'll give you three guesses.

Cool. A fine example of the case in point. Sorry, I missed that.

Is this the same effect as observed in plasma focus devices in a lab?

(I never claimed that there is no plasma.
I simply urge plasma cosmologists to provide the evidence that the phenomena observed on galactic scales are scaled up versions of effect observed in lab experiments.)

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

Can you explain it or not?
Remember that the burden to support your claim is yours.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

Sparky56...thanks for checking out my thread.

papageno..i don't expect "exact" matches between lab scale and cosmic scale plasma dynamics....although it would be nice to see?

So, what if the plasma on galactic scales does not have the right properties to display the effects observed in lab experiment?

Intergalactic plasma is orders of magnitude less dense than lab plasma: why would you expect to observe similar phenomena?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

sorry..i just said i don't expect exact matches.

whatever dynamics cosmic plasma expresses is fine by me.

*********************************

also....i'm not a "plasma cosmologist"...but i do think that some cosmic phenomena require electromagnetic explanations.

Sparky, you may not have noticed the BAUT rules, specifically:You have come here, you are presenting an alternative idea; it is up to you to answer the questions other folk ask of your idea.

So many questions about Black Holes remain unanswered, BTW!

Indeed.

And we have sections, here in BAUT, where questions can be asked - Q&A, Astronomy, General Science, ...

Please be sure to ask questions in those sections, or present items of news, or a new paper you found in ArXiV (for example), and not use posts there as a way to promote an ATM idea.

You may also like to join the Electric Universe Model thread, here in the ATM section (a quick read of it would likely show that many of the 'thunderbolts' ideas have been pretty thoroughly covered already).

All evidence in astronomy is literally interpretive, so what kind of criticism is this? All of our theories about stars, for instance, are based on the various forms of radiation that come from them, to be observed by us. Even proper motion assumes it is the star moving, not some invisible light-mover between us & it.

The evidence for black holes comes in 3 types.

1) Theory. Black holes are a necessary consequence of general relativity. So, if you accept GR (we do), as the theory of space-time, then you accept black holes too.

2) Indirect observation. We can detect supermassive, and not so supermassive objects by virtue of their affect on their environments. We can estimate their masses from those observed effects. If the masses are beyond the theoretical limits for non black holes in GR, then they are most likely black holes.

3) Direct observation. Supermassive condensed objects, that are not balck holes, have a solid surface (white dwarf, neutron star, quark star, strange star, exotic condensed matter object, etc.). Black holes have an event horizon, no solid surface. A solid surface should emit thermal radiation, which an event horizon will not. A solid surface should enduce flaring in accreting material, whereas an event horizon will not. We should be able to detect the observational difference between a sold surface and an event horizon, and distinguish the unique characteristics of a black hole from anything else. We can.

• On the Lack of Thermal Emission from the Quiescent Black Hole XTE J1118+480: Evidence for the Event Horizon
• The Rates of type I X-ray Bursts from Transients Observed with RXTE: Evidence for Black Hole Event Horizons
• Black Hole Event Horizon
• George Darwin Lecture: Evidence for the black hole event horizon
• Observing the effects of the event horizon in black holes
• Dying Pulse Trains in Cygnus XR-1: Evidence for an Event Horizon?
• On the Lack of Type I X-Ray Bursts in Black Hole X-Ray Binaries: Evidence for the Event Horizon?
• X-ray novae and the evidence for black hole event horizons
• New Evidence for Black Hole Event Horizons from Chandra
• Possible Evidence for an Event Horizon in Cyg XR-1

That should do for a short list.

Well, nobody has seen a real "ring" of such stars that I know of. But the stars seen near the center of our own galaxy only enhance the likelihood that the supermassive object is a black hole (see the UCLA Galactic Center Group webpage).