Our own galaxy has a object at its center with a mass of 2.6 million solar masses and a radius of no more than 1 AU.(
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/journey/blackHole.shtml).
Only a black hole could be that massive and small.
Are you sure? Perhaps there's another explanation.
One that doesn't involve gnomes.
One that the mainstream has just ignored.
Have you ever heard of a plasmoid? A plasmoid exists where converging filaments of current form a tight, magnetically confined ball of plasma. Here's a graphic of what happens in a z-pinch:
http://www.eastlundscience.com/sitebuilder/images/Focus_Fusion-292x211.jpg . It shows all the filaments coming together at the center ... in a very dense plasmoid.
Eric Lerner draws a comparison between focus fusion devices, which employ z-pinch physics to create plasmoids, and quasars that the mainstream claims are huge black holes at the center of galaxies that happen to have large amounts of matter falling into them. He expresses plasma cosmology's explanation for the source of energy in a quasar thus. It is "the rotational energy of an entire galaxy, augmented by the gravitational energy released as the galaxy contracts," "converted to electrical power by the disk-generator action and concentrated in the smaller filaments moving towards the galaxy core." A nice neat model with no gnomes. But can the density of such a plasmoid be high enough to account for the observations that have led mainstream astrophysicists to conclude there is a blackhole?
Well, according to
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2004/sagastar/ the current Milky Way black hole mass estimate is actually 4 million suns. And it's supposedly now only 14 million miles across ... i.e., it would fit inside the orbit of Mercury which orbits at about a third of an AU from the sun. The fact that the mass estimate has almost doubled in just a few years yet the radius estimate has shrunk by a third is perhaps an indication of how uncertain they really are about the characteristics of this particular black hole. But the above source gives an even better clue as to the estimate's precision.
First, it quotes one of the researchers saying "we had to push our technique really hard" to even make the observations. Hmmm. Usually when one pushes techniques hard uncertainty is introduced. And, in fact, it notes that the "
The precision of these observations allows the scientists to say that a mass of at least 40,000 Suns has to reside in a space corresponding to the size of the Earth's orbit." So if their best estimate is 4 million suns but their lower bound is only 40,000 suns, that means there is quite a range of uncertainty in the estimate.
And I suspect a galactic sized plasmoid would almost definitely lie well within that mass range. Gravity from a galactic sized plasmoid might therefore cause the stellar motions from which a black hole has been deduced. So these latest observations do NOT rule out the plasma cosmology model. Mainstream astrophysicists have simply ignored it ... AGAIN.
And are there other observations to suggest the electric universe homopolar/z-pinch model of galaxies is correct, rather than the black hole model? Well, check out the book "Colliding Galaxies: The Universe in Turmoil" by Barry Parker, copyright 1990. A section titled "Filaments" shows evidence of the type of currents and magnetic fields postulated by plasma cosmologists. Even back in 1990 they had direct evidence of these ... unlike dark matter and dark energy.
Parker wrote the following: "Another strange feature of the central region is the presence of huge filaments. In 1984 Mark Morris of UCLA and Farhad Yusef- Zadeh and Don Chance of Columbia University, using the VLA, discovered three enormous parallel arks of gas approximately 10-20 light-years thick. They are over 150 light-years long and project out from the plane of the disk. Studies soon showed that arcs of this type had to be composed of high-speed particles trapped by extremely strong magnetic fields. ... at this time we still do not know what causes them." "Soon after these filaments were discovered, much larger filaments were discovered by a Japanese team of radio astronomers of the University of Tokyo's Radio Observatory. They are horseshoe- shaped, and rise about 700 light-years above the galactic plane. They resemble the giant arches of gas that are sometimes seen on the sun, but they are, of course, billions of times larger. It is believed that they are high-speed particles trapped in magnetic fields."
Note that there is an artist's illustration in the book depicting the core region. What struck me back then is that it looks very much like the plasmoid model that Lerner had in his book "The Big Bang Never Happened" for galaxies and quasars. In other words, it depicts multiple filaments that fountain out of a small central core then loop around and reenter on the opposite side of the core ... just like Alfven, Lerner and Peratt postulated back then. Because Plasma Cosmology could explain the filaments more than two decades ago with a highly coherent model, this should count as a prediction by plasma cosmologists that's been satisfied. After all, Lerner submitted his paper describing such features in galaxies well before the VLA results were ever published.
And other galaxies display similar evidence of such a homopolar motor structure. For example, British astronomers recently discovered a giant "magnetic bubble" around M82 (
http://images.google.com/imgres?img...images?q=m82+magnetic+bubble&gbv=2&hl=en&sa=X). Of course, the astrophysicists in question talk about winds and magnetism and miss the real cause ... electric current. And miss the fact they are seeing Birkeland currents which explain the filaments. The diagram of M82 they produced is almost identical to that theorized for galaxies by Eric Lerner in his book.
In fact, NASA's Astronomy Picture Of the Day " The Galactic Center - A Radio Mystery" (
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990128.html ) admits that the arcs, threads and filaments which abound in the Milky Way's central region "challenge present theories of the dynamics of the galactic center." But only because present theories don't include Birkeland currents and homopolar motors.
And there are other recent observations in the core region that apparently surprise mainstream astrophysicists. For example ...
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/05_releases/press_101305.html "Stars Form Surprisingly Close to Milky Way's Black Hole, October 13, 2005 ... snip ... Until the latest Chandra results, astronomers have disagreed about the origin of a mysterious group of massive stars discovered by infrared astronomers to be orbiting less than a light year from the Milky Way's central black hole, a.k.a. Sagittarius A*, or Sgr A*.
At such close distances to Sgr A*, the standard model for star formation predicts that gas clouds from which stars form should have been ripped apart by tidal forces from the black hole." Yet, "'We can now say that the stars around Sgr A* were not deposited there by some passing star cluster, rather they were born there,' said Sunyaev . 'There have been theories that this was possible, but this is the first real evidence.
Many scientists are going to be very surprised by these results.'" No doubt. But they'll accept them ... as long as the major gnomes remain intact.
Never mind that plasma cosmologists aren't surprised to find stars forming near the core. That would be expected to happen in their model.
Here's another example showing how mainstream astrophysicists choose to invent more gnomes rather than look to EM for explanations for what they see:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243130,00.html "Giant Black Hole at Center of Milky Way Grabs Planet-Sized Snack, Thursday, January 11, 2007 ... snip ... An ancient X-ray outburst from the supermassive black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy caused surrounding gas clouds to glow brightly in a cosmic light show that is only now being detected. The output likely involved the consumption of a snack equal in mass to the planet Mercury, researchers said here yesterday at the 209th meeting of the American Astronomical Society."
Now I bet they never even considered the PC/EU explanation for glowing "gas" clouds. After all, these researchers are certain there's a black hole surrounded by "swirling clouds" of "gas" "blown in by stellar winds." The cause is perfectly obvious in that case. (sarcasm)
And then there's this from the same source. "Sagittarius A* is unusually faint for a galactic supermassive black hole. ... snip ... Why our black hole is so dim is not entirely understood. 'This faintness implies that stars and gas rarely get close enough to the black hole to be in any danger," said study team member Frederick Baganoff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
Hard to believe stars rarely get close enough ... especially when at the same time the mainstream claims there are millions of them within a light year of the black hole. And it's not just one black hole all these stars apparently have to avoid ...
http://spacespin.org/article.php/chandra_black_hole_swarm "Chandra finds a black hole swarm near Milky Way center, Sunday, January 16 2005 ... snip ... Among the thousands of X-ray sources detected within 70 light years of Sgr A*, Muno and his colleagues searched for those most likely to be active black holes and neutron stars by selecting only the brightest sources that also exhibited large variations in their X-ray output. ... snip ...
Of the seven sources that met these criteria, four are within three light years of Sgr A*."
Four black holes within 3 LY of the central black hole? Note that number apparently surprised them. "Although the region around Sgr A* is crowded with stars, we expected that there was only a 20 percent chance that we would find even one X-ray binary within a three-light-year radius," said Muno."
But wait ... it gets worse. "From the estimated number of stars and black holes in the Galactic Center region,
dynamical friction is expected to produce a dense swarm of 20,000 black holes within three light years of Sgr A*. A similar effect is at work for neutron stars, but to a lesser extent because they have a lower mass.
Once black holes are concentrated near Sgr A*, they will have numerous close encounters with normal stars".
But don't worry ... they still have an explanation for why the Milky way is relatively quiet. "[T]he acceleration of low-mass stars by black holes will eject low-mass stars from the central region. This expulsion will reduce the likelihood that normal stars will be captured by the central supermassive black hole. This may explain why the central regions of some galaxies, including the Milky Way, are fairly quiet even though they contain a supermassive black hole." They also theorize a recent supernova cleared all the gas out of the region surrounding the central black hole.
So while the mainstream has the black hole (that they can't see) all figured out, an explanation for what they can see is still lacking.
For example (from
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw051125-5.htm ) "The following points are made by T.J. Lazio and T.N. LaRosa (Science 2005 307:686): ... snip ...
even the basic properties of a key component of the galactic center, its magnetic field, remain poorly understood. ... snip ... Magnetic fields have the potential to transform, store, and explosively release energy, to transport angular momentum, and to confine high-energy plasmas into powerful jet flows. They are therefore central to astrophysical activity from stellar to galactic scales. ... snip ... approximately 20 years ago, the first high-resolution radio images of the galactic center revealed numerous magnetic structures that are unique to the galactic center. The most striking of these is the galactic center radio arc, a series of parallel linear filaments, each of which is merely a few light years wide yet more than 100 light years long. Also observed were a number of isolated linear features that were variously referred to as streaks, threads, and filaments.
The relation between these isolated filaments and the bundled filaments of the radio arc remains unknown."
Maybe they'd learn something if they actually tried to figure that out? Do you suppose? And while they are researching that ... maybe they should ask themselves whether the energy output of the core and quasars is proof of black holes? Because it is an interesting fact that plasmoids also produce jets with the same characteristics observed coming from quasars and active galaxies. In fact, without those jets, galaxies won't even form because they can't shed the angular momentum. That's the same problem that stars have in forming ... which is why they also produce jets ... even without black holes.
Anthony Peratt proved in simulations (see his paper "The Role of Particle Beams and Electrical Currents in the Plasma Universe at the link I provided in the previous post on filaments) back in 1986 that z-pinches can easily produce synchrotron jets with the power observed in astronomical objects like the double radio galaxy Cygnus A. And the simulations show the duration of the radiation burst can be millions of years ... just as is apparently the case in the 3C273 jet. And isn't it ironic that this mechanism for producing synchrotron radiation was first brought to the attention of astronomers back in 1950 by Hannes Alfven (
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/synchrotron.html) who was actually the first to recognize radiation from astronomical sources as synchrotron radiation. They just ignored him back them ... just like they are ignoring the plasma cosmology explanation now. Even so, let history record that one might view this as another successful prediction by plasma cosmology. No need to invent black holes, neutron stars and magnetic reconnection to do it.
There is also plenty of evidence of stellar-sized black holes.
Are you sure?
!