You are only quoting from places like space.com and similar, never from actual papers, so you are getting only strawmen and poorly worded results.
So all my sources are just strawmen and poorly worded results? And none are peer reviewed academic papers? If you want to claim that when readers can easily see for themselves by reading this thread that's not true, I'm ok with that.
By the way, you aren't quoting ANYTHING ... just making claim after claim that I show to be untrue. That works for me, too.
you seem to imply plasma cosmology is a complete, finished theory, that already explains everything.
That's not what I'm saying, as I think any intelligent reader can see. How could it be a complete and finished theory when so little resources have been spent on it over the years compared to the amazing Big Bang. But in terms of explaining what is going on out there, it does seem to do a much better job already, without resorting to all manner of kludge and fantasy object.
Quote:
"It's a bit of a challenge to understand how this black hole got enough mass to reach its size."
How does plasma cosmology explain this precise object? You are always claiming it explains everything, but have provided no hard data. We don't exactly know how these supermassive black holes form, but we know they are there.
Well, first of all, plasma cosmology would argue that's not a black hole. They can explain the jets via far more mundane and provable physics ... physics they've demonstrated in the lab. Big Bang astrophysicists only INFER that the object is a black hole (which of course they've never actually seen or created) with the mass of all the stars in the Milky Way at the extreme edge of the universe. And how did they do that?
The article I cited states that "Determining a precise mass for the black hole found by Romani's team, dubbed Q0906+6930, is a bit tricky though since it's so far away. ... snip ..., The black hole, called a blazar because it spews jets of radiation in roughly the direction of Earth, sits at the center of a galaxy about 12.7 billion light-years away in the constellation Ursa Major. ... snip ... Because the blazar is so distant, there are no nearby neighbors to scan for potential gravitational effects, and much of its radiation is absorbed by gas and dust lying between it and the Earth, Romani said. "It really is too far away to do a direct orbital measurement to help determine its mass," Romani said, adding that he and his colleagues had to estimate the mass based on a quantitative method that includes measuring particle velocity and the Doppler shift of its infrared emission lines."
Based on the above description, does anyone here understand how they arrived at the mass estimate? Well, I delved further and found they used something called the "virial relation" ... which it turns out is redshift dependent and ignores what plasma cosmologists have been saying for decades about the cause of motions in things like spiral galaxies. And if the redshift measure of distance to quasars (and this object is stated to be a quasar in numerous sources) is suspect (as I've already demonstrated in this thread) then the mass claimed for the object and its distance must be suspect too.
Even more suspicious is that Zwicky first proposed the existence of "dark matter" by applying the virial theorem. If after more than 30 years, we still haven't found any proof of that substance, perhaps we should be reexamining the root theorem that was used?
Then provide some link where they explain this object.
I have. You just haven't bothered to read anything I've posted or linked. I tell you what ... use your browser. Look up plasmoids, fusion focus devices and z-pinches. Or are you too lazy?
Everyone knows from a long time ago that neutron stars and similar objects create jets (have you heard the term pulsar?)
Neutron stars? You actually believe there are stars made entirely of neutrons ... neutronium ... a substance that science here on earth suggests is completely unstable because neutrons by themselves are unstable? And you really think that stars can rotate at the sort of speeds that are claimed for pulsars and remain intact? 38,000 RPM? Really? ROTFLOL!
Plasma cosmologists have offered explanation for the observations that caused Big Bang astronomers to invent the notion of the neutron star that don't require such silliness.
Here's the more likely explanation:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060123nebula.htm . Perhaps pulsars are electrical activity between binary stars or a plasma focus.
Here's a recent image from the Hubble Telescope of the Crab Nebula, which contains a pulsar.
Notice the "knot". That might be a binary star companion or it might be part of the jet. If you look at the shape of the plasma cloud around the pulsar and the orientation of the jet, however,
what you see is a homopolar motor, a electrical circuit concept first developed by Faraday that plasma cosmologists have applied to explain galaxies and stars. At the center of these objects, plasma cosmologists say there is the equivalent of a plasma focus, a device that plasma physicists have created and studied extensively in labs here on earth.
In a plasma focus device a plasmoid forms and stores energy at the focus of a 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. The process can be repeated over and over at very high frequencies.
It all fits. No need for Big Bang magic.
Here's another case that suggests a plasma focus is the source of the radiation from neutron stars/pulsars. Remember pulsars supposedly start out as supernova. But what are supernova? Even the standard models explanation of that is in doubt due to the following data and the work of plasma cosmologists. You'd be wise to read the following. It shows data that only plasma cosmologists seem able to explain about supernova observations using their electric sun and z-pinch models. You'd be wise to look at it because your going to be seeing a lot more of it in the future.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=re6qxnz1 "24 August 2005, Supernova 1987A Decoded"
The above source also notes that "Plasma cosmologists have not ignored the pulsar, sometimes found in a supernova remnant. Healy and Peratt in “Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory and Experiment,” concluded, “the source of the radiation energy may not be contained within the pulsar, but may instead derive either from the pulsar’s interaction with its environment or by energy delivered by an external circuit.... [O]ur results support the ‘planetary magnetosphere’ view, where the extent of the magnetosphere, not emission points on a rotating surface, determines the pulsar emission.” In other words, we do not require a hypothetical super-condensed object to form a pulsar. A normal stellar remnant undergoing periodic discharges will suffice. Plasma cosmology has the virtue of not requiring neutron stars or black holes to explain compact sources of radiation. "
Here's the peer reviewed article that is mentioned above by Healy and Peratt:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/HealyPeratt1995.pdf. Take a look at it. It demolishes the neutron star explanation and provides another ... one consistent with the tenants of plasma cosmology.
Here's another peer reviewed paper on this subject and particular case by some different scientists ... who reach the same conclusion:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=36024&arnumber=1707326&count=477&index=452 " "The plasma Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and the implications for supernova remnants ... snip ... Supernova 1987A is the closest supernova event since the invention of the telescope. It was first seen in February 1987 in the nearby Magellanic cloud, a dwarf companion galaxy of the Milky Way, and only 169,000 light years from Earth. The Hubble images of the rings of SN 1987A are spectacular and unexpected. Conventional theory did not predict the presence of the three rings nor the pattern of bright "beads" in the equatorial ring of SN 1987A. The pattern of brightening is not explained by an expanding shock front into an earlier stellar "wind". The axial shape of SN 1987A is that of a planetary nebula. It seems that new concepts are required to explain supernovae and planetary nebulae. The new discipline of plasma cosmology provides a precise analog in the form of a Z-pinch plasma discharge. The phenomena match so accurately that the number of bright beads can be accounted for and their behavior predicted. If supernovae are a plasma discharge phenomenon, the theoretical conditions for forming neutron stars and other "super-condensed" objects is not fulfilled and plasma concepts must be introduced to explain pulsar remnants of supernovae"
I'm tired of all these examples, because they are pointless.
I'm sure you are. You tired of the examples the moment I actually started citing sources to prove you are wrong about astrophysicists upholding the laws of electromagnetism. But you go ahead and keep your head in the ground, Yllanes.
Mainstream physicists violate Maxwell's equations (you need a link to a paper that does that, it is not enough with a series of analogies for laymen).
Go ahead, Yllanes ... just provide a source that shows scientists demonstrating in an experiment reconnecting magnetic field lines in the manner postulated in astrophysics. That should be easy to do if doing that doesn't violate the laws of magnetism as they've been understood all the way up until the time astrophysicists started claiming magnetic lines could "reconnect".
Here's all I could find to help you out:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/380.pdf "Introduction to Plasma Physics: ... snip ... The Sweet-Parker reconnection ansatz is undoubtedly correct. It has been simulated numerically innumerable times, and was recently confirmed experimentally in the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) operated by Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. 37 The problem is that Sweet-Parker reconnection takes place
far too slowly to account for many reconnection processes which are thought to take place in the solar system. For instance, in solar flares S ? 10^^8, VA ? 100 kms^^?1, and L ? 10^^4 km. According to the Sweet-Parker model, magnetic energy is released to the plasma via reconnection on a typical time-scale of a few tens of days. In reality, the energy is released in a few minutes to an hour. Clearly, we can only hope to account for solar flares using a reconnection mechanism which operates
far faster than the Sweet-Parker mechanism. One, admittedly rather controversial, resolution of this problem was suggested by Petschek. ... snip ... It must be pointed out that the Petschek model is very controversial. Many physicists think that it is completely wrong, and that the maximum rate of magnetic reconnection allowed by MHD is that predicted by the Sweet-Parker model. In particular, Biskamp wrote an influential and widely quoted paper reporting the results of a numerical experiment which appeared to disprove the Petschek model. ... snip ... Probably the most powerful argument against the validity of the Petschek model is the fact that, more than 30 years after it was first proposed, nobody has ever managed to simulate Petschek reconnection numerically (except by artificially increasing the resistivity in the reconnecting region—which is not a legitimate approach)."
30 years and still no demonstration of the reconnecting magnetic lines with the characteristics claimed to explain astronomical observations! Well I guess we should expect so much. Afterall, they've been looking for Dark Matter for more than 30 years too. But in that case, I guess that's not a "powerful argument" against their existence? ROTFLOL!
Here's another even later source on the above case which again proves your understanding of this subject is wrong and that I am right. Classical electromagnetism does not allow for the magnetic reconnection claimed by astrophysicists to be occurring in the sun and other stellar objects (like imagined black holes):
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/archives/19990327/bob1.asp "Although suspecting that reconnection plays a leading role in the solar drama, theorists have struggled for decades to explain how. Plasmas, especially on the sun, are wispy gases, but the magnetic fields threading through them make them behave as if they were viscous fluids, flowing and intermingling slowly. According to the classical theory of plasmas, magnetic field lines cannot reconnect or, at best, can do so only at a stately pace because of this viscosity. This model is obviously incomplete because it would require millions of years for solar flares to release the energy they expel in minutes or hours. ... snip ... The results of the Princeton experiments don't quite match any of the theories of reconnection advanced so far, Yamada explains. As described in the April 13, 1998 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, he and his colleagues see reconnection taking place at a pace much faster than classical theory would allow but still only a hundredth of the rate required to explain solar flares. Also, within the turmoil of the spheromaks' collision, they see no evidence of shock waves. Uncertain how to explain their findings, the Princeton researchers suggest that they may have discovered a new phenomenon that none of the previous theories included. It's a turbulence in the plasma that would increase interactions between plasma particles and thereby promote reconnections."
Now the first source indicated that the experiments confirm that reconnection occurs at the stately pace allowed by classical theory. The second source says this too. But when the second source states "This model is obviously incomplete because it would require millions of years for solar flares to release the energy they expel in minutes or hours", perhaps they are mistaken because they simply ignore what plasma cosmologists and electric sun theorists have been trying to tell them is the source of solar flare energy for decades. And that model doesn't require magnetic reconnection. It's already been demonstrated in the laboratory many times.
Quote:
The moment of the singularity is not part of the Big Bang. But I thought Cuddles claimed that anything after that moment wasn't part of the theory. Perhaps you two should consult one another.
This doesn't make sense. Cuddles said the same as I did, that the fact that the universe is expanding is based on observations and implies that the universe was smaller in the past.
You said "he existence of a singularity is not important to the Big Bang model". Cuddles said "Dark matter is not the big bang. Dark energy is not the big bang. Rotational curves are not the big bang. Nothing you have said has any bearing whatsoever on the big bang." What's that leave?
Quote:
If the electric model for stars is correct (and it seems to be the only one that actually explains the observations), stars will be charged bodies.
Well, they are not, so the premise for all that follows is already wrong. If stars were charged bodies, we would know.
By all means, prove that. Provide a source describing the experiment that determined the sun is electrically neutral. That it's charge has been measured. That we know this, as you claimed. I bet you can't. You are just making things up or regurgitating the ASSUMPTIONS of astrophysicists.
Black holes can have charge. Charged black holes are called Reisser-Nördstrom black holes.
A Reissner-Nordström black hole has ZERO angular momentum ... in other words it doesn't spin ... it doesn't rotate ... as is assumed in all of the cases of stellar black holes we've been discussing. Sorry, that just doesn't apply. So my challenge to you remains. If the electric sun people are right and stars are charged bodies, how could they produce the black holes that Big Bang astronomers claim are everywhere *out there*? It's a paradox. Maybe we should actually do an experiment to see if the sun is charged. The results could falsify black holes, as employed by astrophysicists.
