THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

Cuddles · Jan 14, 2010

Bjarne said:
I am sure you know what vvawes is.

You didn't say "vvawes", you said "valves". I have even less idea what vvawes might be.

Only speculation.

No.

If you ask RC all EM wawes (with vv) is light.

If you ask anyone with a basic high school understanding of physics, all EM waves are light.

I off course do not agree.

Oh, of course. That would require you to actually be correct about something.

You will not know before measuring.

But we have already measured many of the things you make claims about. I notice you've stopped posting nonsense about particle accelerators recently, for example.

Until then your believes aren’t better than mine.

Even in the absence of direct measurements, our beliefs will always be better than yours because they are based on established theories and reality, rather than the insane ramblings yours are based on.

You don’t know if the attraction is “gravitational”
It's only speculation without any coherent support.

Only in the same way that it's only speculation that the Earth orbits the centre of gravity of the solar system.

Because you don’t know

The nature of gravity.

The nature of central gravity

The cause of black holes.

How much mass there really are in black holes.

What is the underlaying cause of magnetic field or electromagnetism.

How space and matter is connected and interacts.

And once again you are having serious difficulty keeping your posts relevant to the matter at hand. None of that is in any way relevant to knowing that gravity causes something. Even if you were correct that we know none of that (which obviously you are not correct about), it still does not change that we can state with complete confidence that apples fall to the ground because of gravity.

It's only speculation without any coherent support.
Because you don’t know

The nature of gravity.
The nature of central gravity
The cause of black holes.
How much mass there really are in black holes.
What is the underlaying cause of magnetic field or electromagnetism.
How space and matter is connected and interacts.

It's only speculation without any coherent support.
Because you don’t know

The nature of gravity.

The nature of central gravity

The cause of black holes.

How much mass there really are in black holes.

What is the underlaying cause of magnetic field or electromagnetism.

How space and matter is connected and interacts.

It's only speculation without any coherent support.
Because you don’t know

The nature of gravity.

The nature of central gravity

The cause of black holes.

How much mass there really are in black holes.

What is the underlaying cause of magnetic field or electromagnetism.

How space and matter is connected and interacts.

It doesn't matter how many times you spam this nonsense, it won't magically become relevant. Or sane for that matter.

He did. Everyone knows that he did not believe that’s space could expand “or” contract, even though he was the first to calculate excactly that. Later he said; this wasn’t his biggest mistake.

Actually no (why am I not surprised to see that word again?). He calculated that the universe must either expand or contract unless there was something to counter it. What he said was his biggest mistake was arbitrarily adding that something. He always accepted that space could expand or contract, he merely didn't think it was actually happening and therefore needed to explain how that could be the case.

But in any case, you once again fail completely to understand your own words, let alone anyone else's. You did not say anything about Einstein's views on expanding or contracting space, you claimed he did not believe in flexible space. Since pretty much the entire point of general relativity is that space is flexible, that's rather obvious a large pile of bollocks.

One day we will all know he did even a bigger mistake.
Mercury’s orbit anomaly is not caused by time dilation because off course distances also deforms too. Hence the yardstick is not definitive.

Seriously, please just stop talking about physics. It's embarrassing. Everyone with the slightest understanding of relativity, and most of those without any understanding at all, know that space is distorted as well as time. That you imagine you and you alone have had a breakthrough that proves relativity wrong by realising that is quite possibly the single stupidest thing you've said yet. And that really is an impressive achievement.

Then it is off course not easy to discuss anything.

It's certainly not easy to discuss anything with you. This is because you appear to be utterly incapable of actually understanding anything anyone says, including yourself. Instead, you randomly mash your keyboard and hope the resulting mess magically forms itself into a coherent scientific theory. Unsurprisingly, it's not easy to discuss things with someone who does that.

Bjarne · Jan 15, 2010

Only in the same way that it's only speculation that the Earth orbits the centre of gravity of the solar system.

No, you can see the Earth, and you can measure its mass in many ways.
But you can’t know how much mass there is inside a black hole.
The fact that stars circles towards the black hole doesn’t prove that there are mass inside the black hole.

We have several problems to understand what’s really happen in the central area of a galaxy. The fact that stars in that area “falls from the sky” is a much related mystery that not is solved.
Nobody believes that stars fall from the sky because of gravity or mass somewhere.
Even nobody believes it happens because of dark matter.

Both these mysteries disappears (as consequences) just by accepting that matter consumes/sucks space.
It’s just to follow the main thread. For example:

Matter / space connection means that matters must pull space in its “wake”.
Such connection must mean resistance – from space, ( pretty simple mathematically to conclude so).
Resistance from space explains why the inner stars of a galaxy are to slow, not following Keplerian orbits, and hence why these fall from the sky.
But this does not only happens in the centre of a galaxy, all matter in a galaxy is spinning towards the black hole, -our Sun too.
This is why the spiral arms never turn together in any galaxies (wick also is a mystery, to understand).
When matter sucks space, it must sucks from the central area as well, and hence the central area must deform too, not “stronger” but proportional with the mass here, and in a way that where the effect on space must result in a funnel shape.
The exact same happens centrally inside a cluster of galaxy, which means that dark matter here, is misunderstood naturally central gravity.

We are simply dealing with the very fundamentally nature of gravity, and yes it turns the previously understanding completely upside down.
My friend if this is right, you can be measure for less as 1000 USD, simply by measuring central gravity inside big buildings.

All this mean you do not need much mass inside the hole, - because mass around & outside the black hole is responsible for the funnel-shape in space and the way space also centrally in a galaxies stretcher / deforms.

Stars “fall from the sky”, - sometimes none, sometimes plenty.
These falls into the hole, - and because matter and space is connected space must rotate into the hole as well.
This must create a magnetic field and this simply mean that space must moving into the hole from one side and out from other side.

So the force inside the centre of a galaxy that drives stars into the black hole are:

The funnel shape created by mass outside the hole.
Resistance against motion
Very power magnetic field, but due to stars orbit (space follow matter) and because of starts and star fragments spinning down to the black hole.
And mass inside the hole, but far so much as believed.

But in any case, you once again fail completely to understand your own words, let alone anyone else's. You did not say anything about Einstein's views on expanding or contracting space, you claimed he did not believe in flexible space.

Einstein’s calculation revealed that space was either expanding or contracting.
But Einstein didn’t believe that this really was possible, and he invented the cosmological constant. Later he said this was his biggest mistake. – dot.

Seen from a mathematical point of view space hence must be flexible.
Whether space right now is either expanding or contracting is in fact irrelevant.
Because it would in any case be flexile, simply because eif it can expand it must also be able to contact. In a same way if a cow can move forward, it also move backwards.
It’s obviously that Einstein did not believe in a flexible space, and hence invented the cosmological constant.
This mean that Einstein also was not able to interpret the full range of what "curvature" space really mean.

Everyone with the slightest understanding of relativity, and most of those without any understanding at all, know that space is distorted as well as time.

Ask you self, do you believe that the yardstick always will be the same doesn’t matter where in the Universe it is placed.
For example what would happen with a yardstick (relative to a copy on the Earth), when it would travel thorough a black hole. ?

It is obviously that distance as well as the yardstick both must change.
BUT if Einstein should have claimed that, his speculation causing the Mercury orbit anomaly would be wrong.
Therefore he did not also claim that distance-dilation MUST be proportional with time dilation.
For example if time runs faster distances must be shorter.
This mean everything (any motion) would still looks completely normal, also for a distant observer.
This makes much more logical sense for everybody to understand GR.
It become logical, in a same way that if you know why Jeppe on the hill drinks you will understand it is maybe not because he is stupid, or in a different strange dimension.

It's certainly not easy to discuss anything with you.

I agree, but listen now.
I do NOT have any intention to produce endless number of hypotheses, but only to stick the to the main thread, as well as the consequences that follows.
I must stick to what are consequences of the simple and obviously fact that: matter sucks / consume space. We can’t compromise with nature.

But it should really not be so hard to accept.
If you do you do no longer needd:

dark matter
higgs,
11 dimensions
parallel universes
gravity that escape to other universes
and much more crap.

I believe a such universe should be more acceptable....
I feel my self as well as my thought pretty much down to Earth, and can’t see any problems, except off course that the time for fanatic fantastic entertainment could be soon finish?
A old proverb says: the world want to be deceived, - I man afraid it’s very true..

Cuddles · Jan 15, 2010

Bjarne said:
But you can’t know how much mass there is inside a black hole.

Of course we can.

The fact that stars circles towards the black hole doesn’t prove that there are mass inside the black hole.

Well no. That's because stars don't circle towards black holes at all. That's pretty fundamental to the definition of a circle. However, the fact that things obviously do orbit black holes, and that black holes clearly have mass, does prove that black holes have mass.

We have several problems to understand what’s really happen in the central area of a galaxy. The fact that stars in that area “falls from the sky” is a much related mystery that not is solved.
Nobody believes that stars fall from the sky because of gravity or mass somewhere.

Nobody believes that stars fall from the sky at all. That's something you just made up right now.

It’s obviously that Einstein did not believe in a flexible space, and hence invented the cosmological constant.
This mean that Einstein also was not able to interpret the full range of what "curvature" space really mean.

Once again, Einstein did not believe any of the crap you attribute to him. He knew full well that space was flexible, since that's basically the entire point of his most famous theory. He never said anything about it not being possible for the universe to expand or contract, he simply didn't think it was actually happening. In the same way that I believe it is entirely possible for a group of scantily-clad supermodels to dance around me handing out large bags of cash, but I don't think that it is actually happening right at this moment.

It is obviously that distance as well as the yardstick both must change.

Of course it is obvious. That's exactly what the theory of relativity says. This has been known for over a century now. Attempting to refute relativity without having the slightest clue what it actually says is just plain stupid.

BUT if Einstein should have claimed that, his speculation causing the Mercury orbit anomaly would be wrong.

No it wouldn't. Claiming that this is the case just demonstrates yet again that you have absolutely no clue what the hell you are dribbling about.

This mean everything (any motion) would still looks completely normal, also for a distant observer.

No it doesn't.

This makes much more logical sense for everybody to understand GR.

Except that it's completely wrong and has nothing whatsoever to do with relativity, in which one of the fundamental points is that things can look very different to different observers.

I must stick to what are consequences of the simple and obviously fact that: matter sucks / consume space.

But there are two main problems there. Firstly, your simple and obvious fact is not only not obvious, it is complete bollocks. Secondly, you either cannot understand or will not accept what the actual consequences would be.

I believe a such universe should be more acceptable....

The universe doesn't care in the slightest what you find acceptable.

I feel my self as well as my thought pretty much down to Earth

Your thoughts are about as far from down to Earth as it is possible to be. Frankly, I'm amazed that you don't believe in parallel universes, since it's clear that your mind does not reside in this one.

A old proverb says: the world want to be deceived, - I man afraid it’s very true..

The world does not want to be deceived, but it is painfully clear that you take great pleasure in deceiving yourself. It's just lucky that no-one else is stupid enough to be deceived by you.

Bjarne · Jan 15, 2010

Well no. That's because stars don't circle towards black holes at all.

Hair splitting, is that your point ?

Nobody believes that stars fall from the sky at all. That's something you just made up right now.

Bullock
Please Read this:
http://translate.google.dk/translat...r.dk/Videnskab/Videnskab/2006/06/27105328.htm
And you’ll know, that stars ”falls from the sky” (we don’t know why)

Once again, Einstein did not believe any of the crap you attribute to him. He knew full well that space was flexible, since that's basically the entire point of his most famous theory.

He knew space was curved, not it was flexible. - He simply denied to belive that, and that's it.

That's exactly what the theory of relativity says. This has been known for over a century now.

And so does the yardstick, this have not been known, but this must happen as well.

Firstly, your simple and obvious fact is not only not obvious, it is complete bollocks.

Until measurement proves I am right, and you’ll will see who allready are drowned in bullock.

Your thoughts are about as far from down to Earth as it is possible to be.

Its good to have both legs on the ground, i am happy you agreee.

The world does not want to be deceived, but it is painfully clear that you take great pleasure in deceiving yourself

Ohh my freind, soon you and many more will see a huge load of painfull bullock that will turn over.
For example today the news is that NASA have discovered a strong magnetic field just outside the edge of the solar system
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/15jan_ibex2.htm

The last year I have wrote about that such must exist. > The space wind of the Milky way.
Get used to it. > Matter sucks.
Matter in motion = > A magnetic field.

Dancing David · Jan 16, 2010

Man the helio sheath shock wave is the new black for woo.

MRC_Hans · Jan 16, 2010

MRC_Hans said:
Not at all. I simply want to know what the forum rules allow.

You have no theory to hit.

Hans

Update: I am informed that it is not against the rules to spam your homepage, so carry on, Bjarne.

Hans

Reality Check · Jan 17, 2010

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads include:

"Bended space is Contracted Space"
Curved space is not contracted space
First Asked 11 November 2009
Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.
- Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !
Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
- Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
  First asked 2 November 2009
- Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).
- Bjarne's idea is proven wrong (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere).
  First asked 2 November 2009
Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
First asked 26 November 2009
Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
First asked 26 October 2009
Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
First asked 3 December 2009
So far the answer is no !
Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
First asked 3 December 2009.
So far the answer is no !
Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force and cannot "equalize" a force?
First asked 9 December 2009. You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force as a hovering helicopter does. But the simple facts are:
- Forces are vectors but energy is a number.
- The SI units of force are Newtons but the SI units of energy is Joules.
Bjarne asks what a particle is!
His simplistic knowledge of physis is betrayed by his delusion that since the force of gravity varies as 1/r^2 (e.g. a factor of 4 when r doubles) then the "speed factor “should” hence have been factor 4 as well" (plust other silly previous posts).
The Basics of Space Flight: Circular Orbital Motion shows clearly that the mean orbital speed of objects should vary that the inverse of the square root of r. The fact that objects actually act like this in the real universe shocks Bjarne!
More of Bjarne's ignorance of simple physics (circular motion).
Bjarne asks "( What is ”radian” ? – 1 orbit)"
Bjarne does not understand that gravitational time dialation has been measured and matches GR. It is not "guessing".
Bjarne's ignorance of GR
Bjarne's ignorance of the electromagnetic spectrum and geometry
Bjarne's delusion that black holes are a result of stretching space.
(one post displaying so, so much ignorance !)
Bjarne's delusion that galactic jets are emitted from within black holes.
(one post displaying so, so much ignorance !)

And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):

Does Bjarne know that the Lorentz factor does not have any units of measurement?
First asked 22 November 2009
Does Bjarne think that the Lorentz factor is measured in kilograms?
First asked 23 November 2009
Why does relativistic mass have the units of mass
First asked 23 November 2009

Reality Check · Jan 17, 2010

Bjarne is ignorant that a black hole has zero radius

Bjarne said:
Stars “fall from the sky”, - sometimes none, sometimes plenty.
These falls into the hole, - and because matter and space is connected space must rotate into the hole as well.
This must create a magnetic field and this simply mean that space must moving into the hole from one side and out from other side.

Bjarne must be ignorant and because must is in bold it must be true!

Stars do not fall from the sky. Meteors (shooting stars) are not stars thay are rocks.

But you probably mean that stars can fall into black holes. This is possible. It has not happened in the 15 years that the orbits of stars around the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way has been observed.

Matter and spaces are connected - matter curves space. Space does not rotate into the black hole. A black hole has zero radius (no size).
Rotating matter inside the event horizon of a black hole could create a magnetic field. That magnetic field cannot cross the event horizon.
Rotating matter outside the event horizon of a black hole can create a magnetic field.

Bjarne · Jan 17, 2010

------

Stars do not fall from the sky.

This only proves you haven’t read this
Far before a black hole: "stars fall from the stars" - Not like a stone off course...

Space does not rotate into the black hole.

I didn’t say "rotate", I wrote it “spins” – follows matter, - because matter and space is connected.

You know that a star deforms space around it self.
Hence you also know (or should know) that “deformed” space must follow that star into a black hole.
This is (deformed) space in motion my dear friend, and even you can’t deny that.
I'am just take a further step, and claims that this is the exactly same as a magnetic field.

Already a lot of research shows that there must be strong magnetic fields many places inside galaxies. But we are far from close to understand all these:

Magnetic field in balck holes.

Magnetic field fare from a black hole

New knoglewge, magnetic field close to the solar system

The day we really understand; that matter in motion also sets (deformed) space in motion, and that this is a magnetic field, a lot of thick mist will certainly disappear.

This is what I mean with “spacewind” that also is responsible for the outer stars fast motion, as well as lost of energy, and therefore that inner stars "falls from the sky"

That magnetic field cannot cross the event horizon.

Space is dragged into that hole, and follows particles out of the galaxy (with the jet) as well.

In the same way that space is pulled after each star and hence space in motion (magnetism) is present everywhere in galaxy.
------

Reality Check · Jan 17, 2010

Bjarne said:
------

This only proves you haven’t read this
Far before a black hole: "stars fall from the stars" - Not like a stone off course...

This only proves you cannot read at all.
Stars do not "fall from the sky" because there is no sky in a black hole.
Stars could fall into a black hole. as I stated. They would not cross the event horizon as stars since they would be within the Roche limit (as far as I know). They would be torn aprart, become pert of the gas in the accretion disc and some of that gas would fall cross the event horizon.

This only proves you haven’t read this

Black holes grow by attracting matter from stars and other objects.
"Sorte huller vokser ved at tiltrække stof fra stjerner og andre objekter"

A shorter English version of that article is here: Chandra solves black hole mystery

Until now, it was not clear how this angular momentum was removed, but scientists suspected that it was due to magnetic turbulence in the disk. This turbulence generates friction in the disk and drives a wind from it. The wind can carry away the angular momentum and therefore allows matter to fall into the black hole.
Jon Miller of the University of Michigan and colleagues have now produced the first observational evidence that magnetic fields are indeed responsible for this effect. Using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, the team studied a stellar-mass black hole in the Milky Way called GRO J1655-40 As intergalactic distances go, GRO J1655-40 is relatively nearby at "just" 10,000 light years away. The X-ray spectrum of the black hole shows that the speed and density of the wind from J1655's disk corresponds to theoretical simulations performed by the team for winds that are magnetically-driven

Bjarne said:
------
I didn’t say "rotate", I wrote it “spins” – follows matter, - because matter and space is connected.

Liar:

Originally Posted by Bjarne
Stars “fall from the sky”, - sometimes none, sometimes plenty.
These falls into the hole, - and because matter and space is connected space must rotate into the hole as well.
This must create a magnetic field and this simply mean that space must moving into the hole from one side and out from other side.

Bjarne said:
You know that a star deforms space around it self.

All scientists know that a star deforms space around it self.
All scientists know that any body with mass curves spacetime as described by General Relativity.

Bjarne said:
Hence you also know (or should know) that “deformed” space must follow that star into a black hole.

Hence I know that that “deformed” space must not follow that star into a black hole.
What I know must happen is that the star adds to the mass of the black hole and that mass curves spacetime.

Bjarne said:
This is (deformed) space in motion my dear friend, and even you can’t deny that.

This is (curved) space being curved more my dear friend, and even you can’t deny that.

Bjarne said:
I'am just take a further step, and claims that this is the exactly same as a magnetic field.

And that is where you go crazy.
A magnetic field is not a gravitational field. It is not rotating, spining, spindling or dancing the fandango space.

Bjarne said:
Already a lot of research shows that there must be strong magnetic fields many places inside galaxies. But we are far from close to understand all these:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg19826535.000/mg19826535.000-1_250.jpg
Magnetic field in balck holes.

http://www.dr.dk/NR/rdonlyres/7C3B31C3-1507-49F8-9B04-BD8486E7AC04/288190/pix2.JPG
Spiral magnetic fields in winds into a growth-disc around a black hole and thereby creates very strong winds.

Already a lot of research shows that there must be strong magnetic fields many places inside galaxies. And we have great understanding of all these which is increasing all of the time: Chandra solves black hole mystery.

I also added the actual caption from the news article.

Bjarne said:
------
The day we really understand; that matter in motion also sets (deformed) space in motion, and that this is a magnetic field, a lot of thick mist will certainly disappear.
...snipped space wind stuff...

Today we really understand that you are a typical crank with lots of pretty pictures, vague decriptions and a display of abysmal ignorance.

Curved space is not contracted space
First Asked 11 November 2009
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !
Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
First asked 26 November 2009
etc.

Bjarne · Jan 18, 2010

Reality Check said:
Reality Check said:

This only proves you cannot read at all.
Stars do not "fall from the sky" because there is no sky in a black hole.
Stars could fall into a black hole. as I stated.

Click to expand...

Liar
Its far before a black hole that stars: “falls from the sky”
Everybody can read this.

They would not cross the event horizon as stars since they would be within the Roche limit (as far as I know). They would be torn aprart, become pert of the gas in the accretion disc and some of that gas would fall cross the event horizon.

Click to expand...

It’s doesn’t matter Liar.
Stars falls from the sky towards a black hole, long before they are riped apart.
First close to a black hole they are tom apart..

Readthis

Hence I know that that “deformed” space must not follow that star into a black hole.

Click to expand...

Off course deformed space must follow a body.
You can't seperate deformed sapce from matter. This is cow simple.

A magnetic field is not a gravitational field.

Click to expand...

Liar.
I didn’t say that.

It is not rotating, spining, spindling or dancing the fandango space.

Click to expand...

Liar. I didn’t say that too.

ArcturusA · Jan 18, 2010

Bjarne said:
Readthis

I keep reading that article to see if there's anything I've missed, but I'm honestly confused why you think it lends anything to your ideas.

Off course deformed space must follow a body.
You can't seperate deformed sapce from matter. This is cow simple.

No, the deformation in space follows the body, not the space itself.
Imagine rolling a bowling ball over a stretched tarp. The dip in the tarp moves, but the material stays where it is.

Bjarne · Jan 18, 2010

I keep reading that article to see if there's anything I've missed, but I'm honestly confused why you think it lends anything to your ideas.

The simple point is that far from a black hole, stars keep "falling from the sky" and we don't know why.

No, the deformation in space follows the body, not the space itself.

It's hard to say exactly what’s happen, since what is deformed space really.
You can say that when a planets, a proton, or a electron etc, is passing by, you'll have a “space-vacuum” on that route. – Simple because space is stretching (“gets thinner”) towards matter.

If a whole galaxy rotates you'll also have a rotating ”space-vacuum".

Or if you better like: - "space-density" gets thinner towards the direction where a body is passing by.

It's no doubt that when matter disturbs space, - by moving through it, - the whole Universe will be disturbed (towards that place with the speed of light).

If I ‘am right and measurement shows that central gravity is stronger as believes, - I think we are force to realize that matter (elementary particles) sucks space, - (spins space around them self).

This will also lead to deeper insight to what happed with particles that spins them self in to space near “space vacuum” in motion.

It’s seems that the underlying cause of a magnetic field is very simple. Also doesn’t matter which kind of expression is chosen.

steenkh · Jan 18, 2010

Bjarne said:
The simple point is that far from a black hole, stars keep "falling from the sky" and we don't know why.

The article does not say that any stars fall into a black hole "from far away". And in any case, if you read the article, you will find that if there was a mystery, it is now solved!

ArcturusA · Jan 18, 2010

Bjarne said:
The simple point is that far from a black hole, stars keep "falling from the sky" and we don't know why.

But it doesn't say that. At all.

What it does say is that for a long time we haven't had any experimental evidence suggesting which of several theoretical models for friction in accretion discs, which allows for matter to lose angular momentum to move closer to the black hole (and eventually to cross the event horizon), is correct.
The article then says that after some measurements made by Chandra, we can now be sure that it is the magnetic fields in the disc (not the black hole) that provide the frictional forces.

MRC_Hans · Jan 18, 2010

Bjarne said:
The simple point is that far from a black hole, stars keep "falling from the sky" and we don't know why.

Read the article you reference. READ it. Then you will find that the riddle is considered solved, and that this solution did not include 'resistance to motion'.

It's hard to say exactly what’s happen, since what is deformed space really.

It is space where various vectors are displaced from their undisturbed direction.

You can say that when a planets, a proton, or a electron etc, is passing by, you'll have a “space-vacuum” on that route. – Simple because space is stretching (“gets thinner”) towards matter.

Ahh, no. The only connection to the motion of the mass is if it moves at relativistic speeds (close to the speed of light), then it will have more mass and thus create a larger (or deeper) disturbance, but htere is no kind of 'wake'.

If a whole galaxy rotates you'll also have a rotating ”space-vacuum".

No. The bending of space does not rotate with an object.

Or if you better like: - "space-density" gets thinner towards the direction where a body is passing by.

No.

It's no doubt that when matter disturbs space, - by moving through it, - the whole Universe will be disturbed (towards that place with the speed of light).

Wrong.

If I ‘am right and measurement shows that central gravity is stronger as believes, - I think we are force to realize that matter (elementary particles) sucks space, - (spins space around them self).

And what if you are wrong?

This will also lead to deeper insight to what happed with particles that spins them self in to space near “space vacuum” in motion.

Nonsense.

It’s seems that the underlying cause of a magnetic field is very simple. Also doesn’t matter which kind of expression is chosen.

Well, at least I now see why you are connecting magnetism to it, but you are mistaken. Do remember that not all atoms cause a magnet field.

Hans

Bjarne · Jan 18, 2010

-------

The article does not say that any stars fall into a black hole "from far away".

It is obviously what happens. I mean it can’ really be so difficult. Or do you believe that many stars already are inside the black holes.

On the other hand yes a magnetic field as described exists.
But the cause of this is: matter in motion.

But it doesn't say that. At all.

My friend, it is obviously.
We are talking about stars that “circles” towards the black hole. And that’s it.
These stars are not inside the black hole, but outside, and hence far away from the hole. Slowly these are approaching, that's the point, and that's it.

What it does say is that for a long time we haven't had any experimental evidence suggesting which of several theoretical models for friction in accretion discs, which allows for matter to lose angular momentum to move closer to the black hole (and eventually to cross the event horizon), is correct.
The article then says that after some measurements made by Chandra, we can now be sure that it is the magnetic fields in the disc (not the black hole) that provide the frictional forces.

The quote: “frictional” force - is in fact > resistance against motion.
And the lost of “angular momentum” is the “Space wind” that transfer KE to the outer stars, speeding up those - as well as off course preventing those to “fall from the sky” – at least for a while.

In fact the whole Milky Way “falls from the sky” that’s why the arms of galaxies never turns together. (Otherwise they should) .
When inner mass – slowly – get lost, it’s also losses of “angular momentum” and hence stars further out will be the next to pull the “friction” (resistance against motion).
We are about to discover that also in a galaxy so called dark matter is only a dark joke.

And what if you are wrong?

Rather ask the opposite question..
If a “crazy” crackpot like me is right, how would the “responsible” authoritarian feel them self?
I mean try to imaging a big PORCHE being overtaken of a homemade go-cart. Ohh boy …How painful.
500 to 1000 USD to prove that the higgs, dark matter and much more crap only was fanatic fantasy. .. What a extreme funny cold ducking..

Well, at least I now see why you are connecting magnetism to it, but you are mistaken. Do remember that not all atoms cause a magnet field.

If you are thinking about slow moving (charged) protons ?
Whether protons creates a magnetic field, - probarly depend only on speed. – It’s off course a lot more to discover.

And in any case, if you read the article, you will find that if there was a mystery, it is now solved!

Almost 30 year’s speculation, - nothing is solved.
Read the last 2 lines:
Quote:
We are certainly not reached the end yet," points out Miller. "There is still much work ahead of us."

Regarding the last “last work ahead ”
Just realize
Matters deformation of space, (and hence the deformation of the whole Universe), is NOT “free of charge". (You probably understand that) - and hence of the exact same reason the motion of matter is also not "free of charge" - This is cow logic simple. - It must be like that. There is also resistance by constant motion.

This is what planet, stars, spacecraft and galaxies all shows...
It’s only a question to: open your eyes, and at least try to see the obviously coherent main broad from every corner of the universe, telling almost the exact same story....
-------

Reality Check · Jan 18, 2010

Bjarne said:
Liar
Its far before a black hole that stars: “falls from the sky”
Everybody can read this.

Liar or maybe you do not understand Danish or English
Everybody can read this or this shorter English version.
Stars falling into black holes are not mentioned.

The article is about gas falling into black hole event horizons. It states "Black holes grow by attracting matter from stars and other objects.". The stars themselves do not fall into the black hole. They orbit it and matter is stripped from from them. This is is a well known and measured activity of black holes that is used to detect them.

Reality Check · Jan 18, 2010

Bjarne said:
It is obviously what happens. I mean it can’ really be so difficult. Or do you believe that many stars already are inside the black holes.

It is obviously what does not happen - except in very rare cases. Black holes are really small. The chances of them being hit directly by a star is extremely small.

Stellar black holes contain the mass of less than 1 star - the remains of the star that formed them.
Supermassive black holes contain mass of less than 1 star - the remains of the star that formed them - and the mass of all of the gas that they have added. I have no probelm with an occasional star being added but that would be a rare event.

Bjarne said:
On the other hand yes a magnetic field as described exists.
But the cause of this is: matter in motion.

Yes magnetic fields as decribed in the scientific literature exists outside of the black hole and are generated by the accretion disk. The accretion disk is "matter in motion".

Bjarne said:
My friend, it is obviously.
We are talking about stars that “circles” towards the black hole. And that’s it.
These stars are not inside the black hole, but outside, and hence far away from the hole. Slowly these are approaching, that's the point, and that's it.

Orbits do not work that way. Orbiting stars are the same as orbiting planets. They do not “circles” towards the black hole.

Bjarne said:
What it does say is that for a long time we haven't had any experimental evidence suggesting which of several theoretical models for friction in accretion discs, which allows for matter to lose angular momentum to move closer to the black hole (and eventually to cross the event horizon), is correct.
The article then says that after some measurements made by Chandra, we can now be sure that it is the magnetic fields in the disc (not the black hole) that provide the frictional forces.

Maybe you can read Danish!

Bjarne said:
The quote: “frictional” force - is in fact > resistance against motion.
And the lost of “angular momentum” is the “Space wind” that transfer KE to the outer stars, speeding up those - as well as off course preventing those to “fall from the sky” – at least for a while.

And now you go dumb again :eye-poppi

!

Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.
- Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !
Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First asked 2 November 2009
Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).
Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
First asked 26 November 2009

Bjarne said:
In fact the whole Milky Way “falls from the sky” that’s why the arms of galaxies never turns together. (Otherwise they should) .

And dumber.
The arms of sprial galaxies do not maan that matter is falling into the center of the galaxy.

Bjarne said:
When inner mass – slowly – get lost, it’s also losses of “angular momentum” and hence stars further out will be the next to pull the “friction” (resistance against motion).
We are about to discover that also in a galaxy so called dark matter is only a dark joke.

And even more ignorant:
Conservation of angular momentum
Dark matter.

Bjarne said:
Rather ask the opposite question..
If a “crazy” crackpot like me is right, how would the “responsible” authoritarian feel them self?

[
You have answered the question quute clearly.
There is no chance that a “crazy” crackpot like you is right given that you do not know even the basics of physisc: Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)

Bjarne said:
Almost 30 year’s speculation, - nothing is solved.
Read the last 2 lines:
Quote:
We are certainly not reached the end yet," points out Miller. "There is still much work ahead of us."-------

That is right. Science never ends. Nothing is ever solved. Everything is always tested again and again. Scientific models are refined again and again to fit what the universe tells us.

It is only “crazy” crackpots like you that think that science gives absolute answers.

Bjarne · Jan 18, 2010

Reality Check said:
Liar or maybe you do not understand Danish or English
Everybody can read this or this shorter English version.
Stars falling into black holes are not mentioned.

The article is about gas falling into black hole event horizons. It states "Black holes grow by attracting matter from stars and other objects.". The stars themselves do not fall into the black hole. They orbit it and matter is stripped from them. This is is a well known and measured activity of black holes that is used to detect them.

OK my friend.
Let me now try to make it a little clearer.
Let’s say there once were 2 crusty bolls in you house. But you have eat both loong ago. Now it should be zero.
But it is a mystery how you can continue to eat 2 crusty bolls every day.
Or every week or what so ever.. -
How is this possible when it only was 2 crusty rolls?

A similar mystery we have with a galaxy.
This is the point with the article, also even though the article still haven’t all the answers.

Please read third line third line in the article:
Quote:
"But it has been unclear how the black holes can continue to eat and eat."

I mean when first the two crusty balls is eaten, then these are eaten.
Now the points with the whole mystery is how you can continue to eat crusty balls (and get a fat stomach).

In the same way with the stars around a black hole.

Haven't you still got that part of the point now?

If not please especially notice the point: ”Continue to eat"

So my friend, how do you think it is possible to continue to crusty rolls long after the two near you was eaten long ago.

Well someone must bring them, or you must be picking them right?

Now you are ready for the second point (of the article). OK ?

Ready ?> Scientists had advance a theory that friction process was helped by an accomplice: magnetic-win.

OK.
We can call the magnetic wind: the delivery boy - maybe he brings the crusty rolls to you..

And therefore the article continues like that:
The theory assumes that the spiral magnetic field passes through the rotating disc growth and creates a wind that blows with almost 500 kilometres per second.
The wind makes the angular momentum flowing into space.
Scientists believe that the torque is lost due to friction and wind, goes straight up with the torque created by rotation propensity.

So if scientist “invents” a magnetic wind, it begins to make sense how it all can be possible.

And also notice that the story is NOT finished and it ends :

For Miller and his colleagues this discovery represents the first step in understanding how black holes grow. ”
We are certainly not reached the end yet," points out Miller.
There is still much work ahead of us."

Did you notice the 2 magic words, quote: “first step”.

The model fit!
To prove the theory, researchers used data from Chandra for a specified wind around a black hole in our own galaxy. These data are compared with the computer models of a hypothetical magnetic-wind.

Also notice that a “hypothetical magnetic-wind” has been invented.
I call this space wind, caused by space in motion.

But well this is not something taken out of the blue, but a statement that seen from a larger perspective really make a lot of sense.

Yes the hypothetical magnetic-wind is a fact, as well as the (“friction”) that in fact just is resistance against motion, goes nicely hand in hand with my understanding.

We are closing in.

Dark matter in a galaxy is a dark unnecessary joke.

Inner stars are too slow, - we know that.
So can it really be so difficult to figure out the rest of the mystery?
I mean if a airplane is too slow it falls down right?
Do you believe it's a exception for a star?

THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Thinker

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Thinker

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Share this page

ISF - Join now!