ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 7th August 2012, 02:05 PM   #281
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,858
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Your claim was too big.
What claim was that? Care to quote it?
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 02:13 PM   #282
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
"Elliptical galaxies are characterized by several properties that make them distinct from other classes of galaxy. They are basically huge squished balls of old stars, starved of star-making gases." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_galaxy

Old stars, and starved of material to make new stars = young stars in eliptical galaxies is an anomaly.
What has that got to do with measuring the age of a star.
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 02:14 PM   #283
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by mike3 View Post
WTF? Bollox! No! Does it LOOK like one?! From every observation we've made, it's a big ball of gas/plasma. If you view it with a special filtered telescope, you can see the surface made of roiling gas and plasma, glowing from the heat. Heck, even observation of sun spots and similar irregularities, which can be done with nothing more than a pinhole camera, is a clue. You can also see the gas streaming out -- how does that happen with a BH?! Except for the Hawking radiation, BH's don't _emit_ stuff. Rather, they pull it _in_.

How much energy would it generate as a black hole? I guess you're referring to the Hawking radiation. In that case, very, very little. In fact, the more massive the BH, the less energy generated..

And if it were big enough the horizon was the radius of the sun's surface, it'd have gobbled up our planet easily as the gravity would have been so much stronger due to the vastly higher mass. Even going fast enough to orbit, it'd likely get shredded by the tidal force to form a ring.
The last paragraph is wrong, and the first is partly incorrect (or to put it another way, the influence of a black hole on its immediate surroundings is profound - no argument that the Sun is nothing like one of course). Also, black holes are about the most efficient energy producers that exist - that's a fair chunk of the reason we think they power quasars. And stellar mass black holes in the right circumstances can act like quasars too - microquasars.

Of course a microquasar has to be in a binary system and looks nothing like the Sun and if we were in orbit near one we'd probably be toasted by X-rays or something. And I don't agree with Anders Lindman, clearly.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 02:16 PM   #284
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
"The quasars' pedestrian surroundings came as a shock. "It's like finding a Formula One racing car in a suburban garage," said Dr Scott Croom of the Anglo-Australian Observatory in Australia who led the study. Put another way, "On our previous idea that brighter Quasars should inhabit brighter host galaxies, these observations were a bit of an insult to the superb Gemini North telescope!" -- http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14288

Insult, the article said. Only to false theories. I predict that the massive energy quasars generate comes from extracting particles out of the vacuum.
Funnily enough, while working with some of the people involved in that study (but not on it or at that time) I got my all time favourite crank email from someone trying to convince the physics community that quasars were powered by supermassive black holes. Cranks go surprisingly quiet when you reply "Yes, we know."
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 02:19 PM   #285
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by dlorde View Post
What claim was that? Care to quote it?
You claimed that I couldn't use a search engine, and then you gave an example of an article that was about the coronal heating problem without solving the problem! So my original post stands, as do my skill in using search engines it seems.

The coronal heating problem remains unsolved!!! And that's a massive flaw in the standard models in physics when it comes to explaining how the sun works.

And nanoflares? Sounds like a desperate attempt to come up with some explanation. What next in the series of unbelievable patchworks and ad hoc additions? Femtoflares?

Last edited by Anders Lindman; 7th August 2012 at 02:21 PM.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 02:24 PM   #286
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
What has that got to do with measuring the age of a star.
If it turns out that the current way the age of stars is measured is flawed, then there is perhaps no anomaly. What they believe are young stars may in fact be old stars.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 02:26 PM   #287
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
"Elliptical galaxies are characterized by several properties that make them distinct from other classes of galaxy. They are basically huge squished balls of old stars, starved of star-making gases." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_galaxy

Old stars, and starved of material to make new stars = young stars in eliptical galaxies is an anomaly.
There's a strong correlation between morphology and the ages of stellar populations, but the correlation is not perfect. Ellipticals with significant star formation do exist, and our methods of properly understanding stellar populations from galaxy spectra are only relatively recently much improved.

The whole area is one of active research, but especially in areas of what can be quite complicated or messy astrophysics it isn't an indication that peculiar physics is involved, any more than our inability to solve the Navier-Stokes equations as well as we might like implies a fundamental problem in the laws of physics regarding fluid flow.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 02:27 PM   #288
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by edd View Post
Funnily enough, while working with some of the people involved in that study (but not on it or at that time) I got my all time favourite crank email from someone trying to convince the physics community that quasars were powered by supermassive black holes. Cranks go surprisingly quiet when you reply "Yes, we know."
Ok, but did you notice this part of my post: "extracting particles out of the vacuum"

Is that how quasars produce their energy?
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 02:29 PM   #289
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
If it turns out that the current way the age of stars is measured is flawed, then there is perhaps no anomaly. What they believe are young stars may in fact be old stars.
So our theory is only flawed in one environment - Perhaps the better question is what dont we understand about star formation in that environment rather than other theories.

Your theory reminds me of the elephant in Kansas fallacy. We find an elephant in Kansas, and decide that leads to a possible issue with the theory of evolution, when the actual answer is the thing was found in a zoo.
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 02:33 PM   #290
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Ok, but did you notice this part of my post: "extracting particles out of the vacuum"

Is that how quasars produce their energy?
Well it depends what you mean by 'extracting particles out of the vacuum'. The Blandford-Znajek process involves production of electron-positron pairs 'out of the vacuum' due to intense electromagnetic fields. See here if you really want to.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 02:41 PM   #291
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by edd View Post
Well it depends what you mean by 'extracting particles out of the vacuum'. The Blandford-Znajek process involves production of electron-positron pairs 'out of the vacuum' due to intense electromagnetic fields. See here if you really want to.
But what about this contrary claim?

"The Blanford-Znajek (BZ) mechanism as well as the “Membrane Paradigm” are frequently invokedto explain extraction of energy from spinning Kerr Black Holes (BHs). However it was shown byPunsly & Coroniti (1989, 19990) that the key assumption of “force -free” magnetosphere is notrealized in such scenarios. And therefore these two mechanisms fail." -- http://barc-in.academia.edu/AbhasMit...lack_Kerr_Hole
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 02:48 PM   #292
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
But what about this contrary claim?

"The Blanford-Znajek (BZ) mechanism as well as the “Membrane Paradigm” are frequently invokedto explain extraction of energy from spinning Kerr Black Holes (BHs). However it was shown byPunsly & Coroniti (1989, 19990) that the key assumption of “force -free” magnetosphere is notrealized in such scenarios. And therefore these two mechanisms fail." -- http://barc-in.academia.edu/AbhasMit...lack_Kerr_Hole
"Journal of Cosmology"
- I'd say 'enough said' but you might not realise that the journal in question is utterly disreputable.

It might well be that the BZ process isn't right - I have to say I've not kept terribly on top of that bit of physics, but pretty much everyone I know in the area seems satisfied that rotating black holes can be very efficient at producing energy.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 02:49 PM   #293
Hercules Rockefeller
Woof!
 
Hercules Rockefeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,278
Why are smart people so easy to troll?

__________________
Quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war! - Deepak Chopra
Hercules Rockefeller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 02:55 PM   #294
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by edd View Post
"Journal of Cosmology"
- I'd say 'enough said' but you might not realise that the journal in question is utterly disreputable.

It might well be that the BZ process isn't right - I have to say I've not kept terribly on top of that bit of physics, but pretty much everyone I know in the area seems satisfied that rotating black holes can be very efficient at producing energy.
Interesting. You are correct about the journal it seems:

"Journal of Cosmology describes itself as a peer-reviewed open access scientific journal of cosmology,[1] although the quality of the process has been questioned." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cosmology

I didn't think so far as to check that.

So, if there is a spinning (small) black hole inside the sun, then it should in theory, given the right electromagnetic conditions, be able to produce enormous amounts of energy, even equal to that of what the sun actually produces?
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 02:59 PM   #295
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Interesting. You are correct about the journal it seems:

"Journal of Cosmology describes itself as a peer-reviewed open access scientific journal of cosmology,[1] although the quality of the process has been questioned." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cosmology

I didn't think so far as to check that.

So, if there is a spinning (small) black hole inside the sun, then it should in theory, given the right electromagnetic conditions, be able to produce enormous amounts of energy, even equal to that of what the sun actually produces?
I suspect it wouldn't be stable for billions of years, would not produce the solar neutrinos we see and would have a highly anisotropic output... while it lasted.

(I might be understating things by saying it wouldn't be stable for billions of years)
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 03:05 PM   #296
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by edd View Post
I suspect it wouldn't be stable for billions of years, would not produce the solar neutrinos we see and would have a highly anisotropic output... while it lasted.

(I might be understating things by saying it wouldn't be stable for billions of years)
But a quasar, doesn't it produce neutrinos similar to what the sun produces? And a quasar is stable for long periods of time, isn't it?
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 03:07 PM   #297
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by GeneMachine View Post
May I then ask you to please provide any explanation as to how all of our known physics could be wrong without a giant conspiracy of all phycisists? You made that extraordinary claim.
.
It's only an SOP thread by Anders.
Takes something from "science", misunderstands and misrepresents it, and loves all the nice guys trying to set him straight.
Ain't gonna happen.
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 03:10 PM   #298
mike3
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,466
Originally Posted by Wolfman View Post
A further addition to Quandumb Physics:

If a knowledgeable expert makes a revolutionary discovery, I should conclude that it isn't because of his years of study and dedication to the topic, but that some other guy who didn't bother studying it at all came up with the idea, and that scientist guy just stole it from him.

I have no proof for this whatsoever...but it makes me feel a hell of a lot better about myself!
Why do you have to feel bad about yourself if you're not some expert in some field of science? I bet you don't feel bad about yourself that you aren't some expert in whatever of the many fields in which you are not an expert in. So I suspect he could do the same, but he'd have to change his views on himself and other things.
__________________
“Ego is subversive and devolutionary, truly destructive and terrible; ego is the generator of privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Ego is the fire that burns within the pit of hell, devouring and consuming everything that enters and leaving utterly nothing behind. Ego is horrible, cruel, and restraining, the darkness of the world, and the doom and bane of man.” – my reaction to that famous Bertrand Russell quote.
mike3 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 03:16 PM   #299
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
A black hole with the mass of the sun would only have a diameter of 6 km (3.8 miles). That's tiny compared to the size of the sun. But I came to think of a possible solution to the size of the sun:

Let's say that there is a small black hole inside the sun spinning in an electromagnetic field and that it produces huge amounts of radiation and particles moving outwards with explosive force. Even though the particles are moving outwards at great velocities, the particles with mass will be effected by the gravitational field of the black hole. At a certain distance from the surface (event horizon) of the black hole there will be a point of equilibrium between the average outflow of particles and the gravity pull of the black hole. That distance is marked by the surface of the sun! If the actual calculations for this will support this. Then that would explain the size of the sun, even though the black hole is very small compared to it.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 03:17 PM   #300
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,858
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
You claimed that I couldn't use a search engine, and then you gave an example of an article that was about the coronal heating problem without solving the problem! So my original post stands, as do my skill in using search engines it seems.
Yeah; I guess I'm just not taking this seriously - your skill with search engines is clearly unimpeachable

Quote:
The coronal heating problem remains unsolved!!! And that's a massive flaw in the standard models in physics when it comes to explaining how the sun works.
If you read the wiki article you quoted, you'll see there are several phenomena with sufficient energy to account for the coronal temperature; they just haven't yet established the mechanism. Science is like that - plenty still to discover. The day that ceases being true, science comes to an end.

Quote:
And nanoflares? Sounds like a desperate attempt to come up with some explanation. What next in the series of unbelievable patchworks and ad hoc additions? Femtoflares?
If you had some good evidence against nanoflares, I'm sure it would be considered. But you don't.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 03:20 PM   #301
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
But a quasar, doesn't it produce neutrinos similar to what the sun produces? And a quasar is stable for long periods of time, isn't it?
If you leave a tap running then you might call that stable, but there's a constant flow of stuff down the plughole. A glass of water is stable in a very different way. A quasar's like a running tap - it needs a constant flow of something into it, but the Sun is more like the glass of water. Microquasars especially exhibit massive variation in their output in short timescales - like someone fiddling with the faucet. Seriously, microquasar variation timescales at their fastest are not actually that dissimilar from someone running a bath. They're really utterly different.

Even galactic scale quasars show signficant variations on the timescale of years, and are starting to get some idea of how rapidly they can shut off altogether as well.

As for neutrinos - we don't measure neutrinos off a quasar, but we do measure them off the Sun. We can also measure their energies and you'll probably find solar neutrinos match fusion pretty well, not anything more exotic.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 03:27 PM   #302
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by edd View Post
it needs a constant flow of something into it
Now you contradict your first claim. You said that particles were extracted from the vacuum. This means that there is a constant flow into the black hole without the need for external material being sucked in.

The black hole in the sun would not produce something like a quasar, but could work by a similar principle, or?
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 03:27 PM   #303
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller View Post
Why are smart people so easy to troll?

Anders is no troll, he really believes this stuff.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 03:32 PM   #304
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by dlorde View Post
If you read the wiki article you quoted, you'll see there are several phenomena with sufficient energy to account for the coronal temperature; they just haven't yet established the mechanism. Science is like that - plenty still to discover. The day that ceases being true, science comes to an end.
Well, I think you are wrong again. The article I quoted doesn't mention anything about that. There is a link in the article to another article but that doesn't support what you say:

"Many coronal heating theories have been proposed,[21] but two theories have remained as the most likely candidates, wave heating and magnetic reconnection (or nanoflares).[22] Through most of the past 50 years, neither theory has been able to account for the extreme coronal temperatures." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona#...eating_problem
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 03:35 PM   #305
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Now you contradict your first claim. You said that particles were extracted from the vacuum. This means that there is a constant flow into the black hole without the need for external material being sucked in.

The black hole in the sun would not produce something like a quasar, but could work by a similar principle, or?
No, it's more complicated than that. The magnetic field that powers the pair production comes from the infalling material, not the hole. Without that infalling material and therefore that field, the B-Z process doesn't happen.

It's not exactly simple, I know. Sorry.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 03:44 PM   #306
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by edd View Post
No, it's more complicated than that. The magnetic field that powers the pair production comes from the infalling material, not the hole. Without that infalling material and therefore that field, the B-Z process doesn't happen.

It's not exactly simple, I know. Sorry.
Some of the particles that are extracted from the vacuum will become the infalling material! And some of it will be radiated outwards. The particles that radiate outwards are what generates the sun's radiation of energy and the particles that fall back into the black hole generate the electromagnetic field.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 03:45 PM   #307
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by edd View Post
It's not exactly simple, I know. Sorry.
That really is the issue with most of pseudoscience--people try to oversimplify things. I love geology because it makes sense, but I don't for an instant assume that things are simple. And if dirt falling downhill can be complex, I can only imagine the issues involved with exotic states of matter falling down hills that can only be expressed mathematically!

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller
Why are smart people so easy to troll?
Because even answers to stupid questions can be informative. (Side note: one reason I'm not teaching is that I believe there ARE stupid questions--or at least stupid ways to ask questions.)
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 03:50 PM   #308
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
How can sunspots be explained by a black hole model? That's easy. Most of the particles radiating from the massive energy production near the spinning black hole are electrically charged, meaning their travel path will be affected by the electromagnetic field in which they travel. That's similar to how electrons are directed by an electromagnetic field in the old-fashion TVs. So the sunspots are simply a result of fluctuations in the electromagnetic field inside the sun.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 04:20 PM   #309
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
In the black hole model, the 'temperature' of the outflow of particles is basically the same in all directions (with some variations caused by inhomogeneities in the magnetic field). So how to explain the huge difference between the relatively low temperature at the surface of the sun and the extremely hot temperatures in the corona?

That's easy to explain. Imagine that the temperature of thousands of candles is measured from a great distance. When the candles are put close together, it will look to the measuring device that the temperature is high, and when the candles are placed very far apart, the measured average temperature will be much lower.

The surface of the sun is an area. The corona is a volume. That means a huge difference in how many 'candles' meaning particles are measured. So even though the temperature in reality is essentially uniform, the average measured values will differ hugely between the surface of the sun and the corona. And the inside of the sun will be measured to a very high temperature, like in the corona, since then too it's a volume that is measured and not an area as is the case for the surface of the sun.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 05:36 PM   #310
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
What if Einstein's relativity is wrong, does that mean that the black hole concept is wrong or that the values for the event horizon and mass will be different? No, the black hole model would still be valid! Because Laplace calculated approximately the same values before Einstein was even born (based on a fairly accurate value for the speed of light). So that's quite remarkable.

It seems to me that black holes definitely are possible at least in theory. Then the question is how compressible for example hydrogen is. I guess with the immense gravitational forces present in the formation of black holes, most materials would be compressible, but I haven't checked that yet.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 05:50 PM   #311
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,858
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Well, I think you are wrong again. The article I quoted doesn't mention anything about that.
Did you actually read it?

Nanoflares and Coronal Heating (I've italicized the sentence you quoted):
Quote:
The problem of coronal heating is still unsolved, although many steps ahead have been done in this direction and other evidences of nanoflares have been found in the solar corona. The amount of energy stored in the solar magnetic field can account for the coronal heating necessary to maintain the plasma at this temperature...
... solar convection can supply for the required heating, but in a way not yet known in detail...
... Alfvén waves generated by convective motions in the photosphere can go through the chromosphere and transition region, carrying an energy flux comparable to that required to sustain the corona...
... The Ohmic dissipation by currents [generated by a spontaneous relaxation of the magnetic field towards a configuration of lower energy]1 could be a valid alternative to explain the coronal activity...
1. contextual insert
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:15 PM   #312
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller View Post
Why are smart people so easy to troll?

The working assumption here is that people who appear to be confused (or just plain stupid) are honestly confused (or stupid). It takes dedication to get written off as a troll.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:23 PM   #313
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
 
Macgyver1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,164
Originally Posted by TheRedWorm View Post
AL doesn't DO explanation or evidence. He's a not particularly entertaining troll, who pretends to believe all sorts of crazy stuff because he knows the folks will respond.
I must congratulate him on a very successful thread. While the OP is so full of woo, it has caused multiple face palms around the world...it has made people think....and learn. I've come away with some new knowledge about suns from the informed rebuttals to his ludicrous OP.

Long live woo!
__________________
"Fixin' crap that ain't broke."
Macgyver1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:28 PM   #314
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
A black hole with the mass of the sun would only have a diameter of 6 km (3.8 miles). That's tiny compared to the size of the sun. But I came to think of a possible solution to the size of the sun:

Let's say that there is a small black hole inside the sun spinning in an electromagnetic field and that it produces huge amounts of radiation and particles moving outwards with explosive force. Even though the particles are moving outwards at great velocities, the particles with mass will be effected by the gravitational field of the black hole. At a certain distance from the surface (event horizon) of the black hole there will be a point of equilibrium between the average outflow of particles and the gravity pull of the black hole. That distance is marked by the surface of the sun! If the actual calculations for this will support this. Then that would explain the size of the sun, even though the black hole is very small compared to it.
Well let’s see your calculations then and see if “the actual calculations for this will support this”.

I’m not sure what you think “spinning in an electromagnetic field” has to do with producing “huge amounts of radiation” but by all means please describe this feild and how a black hole rotating in it produces “huge amounts of radiation” (showing how you would expect to calculate any of that would at least help a bit). In the membrane paradigm mentioned before the magnetic fields are “frozen” onto the surface of the event horizion (treated as a membrane) and thus rotate with the black hole. Rotating or changing magnetic fields have been known to accelerate charged particles.

The problem (well one at least) with your speculative inquiries is that the virtual pair production (Hawking radiation) variant just can’t produce the energy of the CBR let alone what you're asking for (the stars). The accretion model you have posited as an alternative (like a quasar) needs material to, well, accrete before you can even be concerned with how that material interacts and thus transfers energy from your black hole. So you need source, amount and type of that material to work into your “calculations”. I expect you’ve got a lot of studying and calculating to do, by all means please let us know when you have actually calculated any of this. I sincerely hope that it isn’t that you just want to do the easy and most useless part, speculate about stuff, while expecting others to do the heavy lifting ( research, calculations, experimentation and actual application of theory) for you.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 7th August 2012 at 06:58 PM. Reason: typo and typos
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:36 PM   #315
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,988
Edit to replace double post.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
What if Einstein's relativity is wrong, does that mean that the black hole concept is wrong or that the values for the event horizon and mass will be different? No, the black hole model would still be valid! Because Laplace calculated approximately the same values before Einstein was even born (based on a fairly accurate value for the speed of light). So that's quite remarkable.

It seems to me that black holes definitely are possible at least in theory. Then the question is how compressible for example hydrogen is. I guess with the immense gravitational forces present in the formation of black holes, most materials would be compressible, but I haven't checked that yet.

Depends on what part of general relativity is wrong and all Laplace did was calculate based on setting the speed of light equal to the escape velocity. It was Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar who calculated that there is no stable solution (in those Einstein field equations) for degenerative matter above a certain limit and thus that black holes where an inevitable result of general relativity.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 7th August 2012 at 06:53 PM. Reason: typo
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:01 PM   #316
schrodingasdawg
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 327
Besides all the problems with trying to claim the sun is a black hole, I have to ask: why? Why even make that speculation? What problems with our present understanding of physics is this supposed to solve? How is this supposed to fill in holes, rather than add them? I just find it odd, when there are so many unsolved puzzles in physics, that crackpots should spend all their time and energy trying to answer questions that haven't been asked.
schrodingasdawg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:04 PM   #317
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 View Post
I must congratulate him on a very successful thread. While the OP is so full of woo, it has caused multiple face palms around the world...it has made people think....and learn. I've come away with some new knowledge about suns from the informed rebuttals to his ludicrous OP.

Long live woo!

Exactly Macgyver1968, I learn the most from threads where the OP simply refuses to learn anything. Both from the other posters and by researching or review for my own posts.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:18 PM   #318
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by schrodingasdawg View Post
Besides all the problems with trying to claim the sun is a black hole, I have to ask: why? Why even make that speculation? What problems with our present understanding of physics is this supposed to solve? How is this supposed to fill in holes, rather than add them? I just find it odd, when there are so many unsolved puzzles in physics, that crackpots should spend all their time and energy trying to answer questions that haven't been asked.

Well a lack of understanding of “our present understanding of physics” seems to be the direct problem. While not acctualy solving it the unbridled speculation may make one feel better about it. Just more evidence of Wolfman’s Quandumb Physics:TM International*




*A wholly owed solipsistic subsidiary of Wolfman Incorporated INC.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 09:35 PM   #319
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by dlorde View Post
Did you actually read it?

Nanoflares and Coronal Heating (I've italicized the sentence you quoted):

1. contextual insert
I read 'unsolved'. As for energy, there is more energy is a cubic centimeter of the vacuum than the energy from all the known stars in the universe. Doesn't say much.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 09:43 PM   #320
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Well let’s see your calculations then and see if “the actual calculations for this will support this”.

I’m not sure what you think “spinning in an electromagnetic field” has to do with producing “huge amounts of radiation” but by all means please describe this feild and how a black hole rotating in it produces “huge amounts of radiation” (showing how you would expect to calculate any of that would at least help a bit). In the membrane paradigm mentioned before the magnetic fields are “frozen” onto the surface of the event horizion (treated as a membrane) and thus rotate with the black hole. Rotating or changing magnetic fields have been known to accelerate charged particles.

The problem (well one at least) with your speculative inquiries is that the virtual pair production (Hawking radiation) variant just can’t produce the energy of the CBR let alone what you're asking for (the stars). The accretion model you have posited as an alternative (like a quasar) needs material to, well, accrete before you can even be concerned with how that material interacts and thus transfers energy from your black hole. So you need source, amount and type of that material to work into your “calculations”. I expect you’ve got a lot of studying and calculating to do, by all means please let us know when you have actually calculated any of this. I sincerely hope that it isn’t that you just want to do the easy and most useless part, speculate about stuff, while expecting others to do the heavy lifting ( research, calculations, experimentation and actual application of theory) for you.
The quasar model doesn't perhaps need extra material than what can be extracted from the vacuum, i.e. there is then no need for some external source of material.

And the calculation is for the size of the sun. If it's assumed that the amount of energy produced near the black hole is equal to what the sun actually generates, how large will the radius be for where those particles on average are at a point where the outwards velocity of the particles with mass is zero?

It's actually similar to the fusion model where there is a balance point between the expansive force of the fusion process and the gravity holding the sun together, and that determines the size of the sun.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.