TPOD Nov 23, 2010 Eject This

[Nereid]

TPOD Nov 23, 2010 Eject This, by Mel Acheson and Stephen Smith

The image is taken from a Chandra website page entitled "M82: "Survivor" Black Holes May Be Mid-Sized".

It gives two references ("Feng, H. et al. 2010, ApJ 710, L137; Feng, H., Kaaret, P., 2010, ApJ 712, L169"); these are:

"Identification of the X-Ray Thermal Dominant State in an Ultraluminous X-Ray Source in M82" (link is to arXiv preprint abstract):

The thermal dominant state in black hole binaries (BHBs) is well understood but rarely seen in ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs). Using simultaneous observations of M82 with Chandra and XMM-Newton, we report the first likely identification of the thermal dominant state in a ULX based on the disappearance of X-ray oscillations, low timing noise, and a spectrum dominated by multicolor disk emission with luminosity varying to the 4th power of the disk temperature. This indicates that ULXs are similar to Galactic BHBs. The brightest X-ray spectrum can be fitted with a relativistic disk model with either a highly super-Eddington (L_disk/L_Edd = 160) non-rotating black hole or a close to Eddington (L_disk/L_Edd ~ 2) rapidly rotating black hole. The latter interpretation is preferred, due to the absence of such highly super-Eddington states in Galactic black holes and active galactic nuclei, and suggests that the ULX in M82 contains a black hole of 200-800 solar masses with nearly maximal spin. On long timescales, the source normally stays at a relatively low flux level with a regular 62-day orbital modulation and occasionally exhibits irregular flaring activity. The thermal dominant states are all found during outbursts.

"Discovery of mHz X-ray Oscillations in a Transient Ultraluminous X-ray Source in M82" (ditto):

We report the discovery of X-ray quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) at frequencies of 3-4 mHz from a transient ultraluminous X-ray source (ULX) X42.3+59 in M82. The QPOs are strong and broad and appear with weak or absent red noise, and are detected only in Chandra observations when the source is brighter than 10^40 ergs/s. The QPO behavior is similar to the type A-I QPOs found in XTE J1550-564, which is a subclass of low frequency QPOs with properties in between type A and B. Therefore, we identify the QPOs in X42.3+59 as of type A or B, and rule out the possibility of type C. With this identification, the mass of the black hole in X42.3+59 can be inferred as in the range of 12,000-43,000 solar masses by scaling the QPO frequency to that of the type A/B QPOs in stellar mass black holes. Cool disk emission is detected in one Chandra observation, and the disk inner radius suggests a similar black hole mass range. Black holes of such a high mass are able to produce an energy output in a manner similar to X42.3+59 by accreting from the interstellar medium directly.

[Goldminer]

Quote from Nereid:

Black holes of such a high mass are able to produce an energy output in a manner similar to X42.3+59 by accreting from the interstellar medium directly.

I see! Black Holes are able to do this "accreting" in spite of the fact that mathematically they are untenable! In spite of the fact that they are less visible than Seldom Seen Slim!

http://www.desertusa.com/mag09/aug09/se ... -slim.html



Simply amazing!

[Nereid]

Quote from Nereid:

Black holes of such a high mass are able to produce an energy output in a manner similar to X42.3+59 by accreting from the interstellar medium directly.

Goldminer,

Those words were QUOTED by me; I included the authors (Feng et al.) in the quote, and a link to the source.

I did not, repeat DID NOT, write those words.

Please try to ensure that your attributions are accurate.

[Goldminer]

Sorry, well taken, should have been "Nereid's post." It's a good thing gold doesn't tarnish.

[Nereid]

Thanks for that Goldminer.

Back to the TPOD.

In light of your post, and its light-hearted questioning of Feng et al.'s paper (abstract actually), what do you think about this (from the TPOD)?

Wider fields of view show the axial filaments in M82 to be helices, confirming that they are giant Birkeland currents.

Are all "helices" automatically "giant Birkeland currents"?

And how do Acheson and Smith know they are helices? After all the helix is a 3D object, and all astronomical images are 2D.

[Aristarchus]

After all the helix is a 3D object, and all astronomical images are 2D.

Again, you need to go back to source material from the consensus/establishment science to defend the contradiction in your above statement:

Strange Helix-Shaped Nebula Discovered

The double helix nebula. Image credit: NASA/UCLA Click to enlarge
Astronomers have discovered an unusual helix-shaped nebula near the centre of the Milky Way. This peculiar nebula stretches 80 light years, and looks like the classic image of a DNA molecule. The nebula formed because it’s so close to the supermassive black hole at the heart of the Milky Way, which has a very powerful magnetic field. This field isn’t as powerful as the one surrounding the Sun, but it’s enormous, containing a tremendous amount of energy. It’s enough to reach out this incredible distance and twist up this gas cloud with its field lines.

Astronomers report an unprecedented elongated double helix nebula near the center of our Milky Way galaxy, using observations from NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope. The part of the nebula the astronomers observed stretches 80 light years in length. The research is published March 16 in the journal Nature.

“We see two intertwining strands wrapped around each other as in a DNA molecule,” said Mark Morris, a UCLA professor of physics and astronomy, and lead author. “Nobody has ever seen anything like that before in the cosmic realm. Most nebulae are either spiral galaxies full of stars or formless amorphous conglomerations of dust and gas – space weather. What we see indicates a high degree of order.”

The double helix nebula is approximately 300 light years from the enormous black hole at the center of the Milky Way. (The Earth is more than 25,000 light years from the black hole at the galactic center.)

The Spitzer Space Telescope, an infrared telescope, is imaging the sky at unprecedented sensitivity and resolution; Spitzer’s sensitivity and spatial resolution were required to see the double helix nebula clearly.

“We know the galactic center has a strong magnetic field that is highly ordered and that the magnetic field lines are oriented perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy,” Morris said. “If you take these magnetic field lines and twist them at their base, that sends what is called a torsional wave up the magnetic field lines.

Apparently, with the current technology, cosmology is claiming observations of helices, although they are currently involved in refining this even further, as follows:

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/sifa/possum/

POSSUM: Polarisation Sky Survey of the Universe's Magnetism

The "Polarisation Sky Survey of the Universe's Magnetism" (POSSUM) is one of the ten major ASKAP surveys now in a design study phase for ASKAP. In POSSUM, we plan to use ASKAP's unique survey capabilities to measure the Faraday rotation of three million extragalactic radio sources over 30,000 square degrees, thereby dramatically improve our understanding of astrophysical magnetism. With these data, we will be able to determine the 3D geometry of the Milky Way's magnetic field, to test dynamo and other models for magnetic field generation, and to carry out a comprehensive census of magnetic fields as a function of redshift in galaxies, in clusters and in the overall intergalactic medium.

[starbiter]

A response from Mel Acheson.

[...]

Acheson and Smith know the squiggles are helixes (preferred spelling) in the same way that consensus theorists know they are spherical: an accepted general theory tells them how to interpret specific otherwise-meaningless observations. TPODs, like APODs, are outreach articles for a popular audience, not scholarly, peer-reviewed dissertations. They are meant to provide a snapshot view of what the image might "look like" from an Electric Universe point of view. Because plasma phenomena are more complex than gravity-and-gas phenomena, often several different descriptions are possible. Each TPOD typically provides only one description, chosen more or less arbitrarily. The squiggles could be shock waves, similar to consensus descriptions (albeit with electrical currents as the power source), or they could be a series of plasma cells with glowing sheaths seen in projection, or they could be something else. Sorting it out would probably require in situ measurements.

Mel

[Nereid]

Aristarchus, starbiter,

Let's take a closer look at this, shall we?

The TPOD begins "This image of the bright core of the active galaxy M82 depicts the twisting axial filaments and equatorial toroid current of a galactic sized plasma discharge."

Now neither the Chandra PR nor the Feng et al. (2010) paper use any of the words/prhases "axial", "filaments", "equatorial", "toroid current", "plasma discharge". Nor "Birkeland current", and not "helices" either.

So, these words - and the concepts they represent - must come from Smith and Acheson's own analyses and/or interpretations.

The Double Helix Nebula (DHN) which the PR Aristarchus cites was so-named by Morris et al., in a paper published in Nature in 2006; this arXiv preprint (link, as usual, is to the abstract) is actually better than the published paper because it includes supplementary material not found in the Nature paper. Here is the abstract:

Radioastronomical studies have indicated that the magnetic field in the central few hundred parsecs of our Milky Way Galaxy has a dipolar geometry and a strength substantially larger than elsewhere in the Galaxy, with estimates ranging up to a milligauss. A strong, large-scale magnetic field can affect the Galactic orbits of molecular clouds by exerting a drag on them, it can inhibit star formation, and it can guide a wind of cosmic rays away from the central region, so a characterization of the magnetic field at the Galactic center is important for understanding much of the activity there. Here, we report Spitzer Space Telescope observations of an unprecedented infrared nebula having the morphology of an intertwined double helix. This feature is located about 100 pc from the Galaxy's dynamical centre toward positive Galactic latitude, and its axis is oriented perpendicular to the Galactic plane. The observed segment is about 25 pc in length, and contains about 1.25 full turns of each of the two continuous, helically wound strands. We interpret this feature as a torsional Alfven wave propagating vertically away from the Galactic disk, driven by rotation of the magnetized circumnuclear gas disk. As such, it offers a new morphological probe of the Galactic center magnetic field. The direct connection between the circumnuclear disk and the double helix is ambiguous, but the MSX images show a possible meandering channel that warrants further investigation.

In the body of this paper (i.e. excluding Reference titles, etc), the only word/term similar to those I quoted above is "axial" ... and "helix".

By analogy, then, to Morris et al., how long is the double (triple? Smith and Acheson don't say how many strands) helix? How wide are the strands? How many full turns do they observe? How continuous are the strands? And so on. Smith and Acheson do not say, nor do they reference any material in which the answers to such questions can be found.

Bottom line: for the DHN, what Morris et al. report is objective, and can be independently verified; what Smith and Acheson report is subjective, and, by definition, cannot be independently verified.

[mharratsc]

Ms. Nereid said:

Bottom line: for the DHN, what Morris et al. report is objective, and can be independently verified; what Smith and Acheson report is subjective, and, by definition, cannot be independently verified.

This falls back on interpretation of data, simply. The interpretation of data provided by "Morris et al" is no more 'verifiable' than that of the EU team. You're appear to be inferring that the guys who did the observation are more credible because they have all their observations written up appropriately in a scientific paper.

I'd infer that the EU interpretation of these guys data is more simply explained by correspondence of their observations to the known behavior of plasmas, and is therefore a much more likely explanation that the one offered by the initial observers.

So in a nutshell- just because the EU team wrote up a layman-oriented article doesn't mean they aren't correct with their interpretation... the jury is still out on the matter.

[Nereid]

Ms. Nereid said:

Bottom line: for the DHN, what Morris et al. report is objective, and can be independently verified; what Smith and Acheson report is subjective, and, by definition, cannot be independently verified.

This falls back on interpretation of data, simply. The interpretation of data provided by "Morris et al" is no more 'verifiable' than that of the EU team.

If that's what you read into what I wrote, then I did not write clearly enough.

You're appear to be inferring that the guys who did the observation are more credible because they have all their observations written up appropriately in a scientific paper.

Then let me put this inference to bed; I did not intend to infer any such thing.

Focus on the "objective" part: Morris et al. used language like this: "it is at least 20 arcminutes (50 parsecs) in length, extending between galactic coordinates l = 0.08, b = 0.5 and l = 0.02, b = 0.80"; Smith and Acheson did not.

In terms of independent verification, I can obtain the source data and do my own analysis, to confirm (or not) that it is at least 20 arcminutes (50 parsecs) in length, extending between galactic coordinates l = 0.08, b = 0.5 and l = 0.02, b = 0.80; if I look at what Smith and Acheson wrote, I can say "wider fields of view do NOT show the axial filaments in M82 to be helices", and that's the end of the investigation - there are two, subjective, opinions which are mutually inconsistent.

I'd infer that the EU interpretation of these guys data is more simply explained by correspondence of their observations to the known behavior of plasmas, and is therefore a much more likely explanation that the one offered by the initial observers.

And no one can gainsay your inference!

But that inference is, pretty obviously, subjective ... or did I miss something?

So in a nutshell- just because the EU team wrote up a layman-oriented article doesn't mean they aren't correct with their interpretation...

Of course; however, as far as I know, that's all they - or anyone else - have/has done (with respect to the particular Chandra observations of M82).

the jury is still out on the matter.

Not as far as physics/astronomy is concerned; as both are quantitative, what Smith and Acheson wrote isn't either physics or astronomy.

[mharratsc]

Sorry, ma'am- I guess I was missing your point... you were talking about the *objective* observations, rather than their *subjective* interpretation of the data?

Also you stated:

Not as far as physics/astronomy is concerned; as both are quantitative, what Smith and Acheson wrote isn't either physics or astronomy.

You state that their interpretation of the observational data is "neither physics nor astronomy"... what then would you call it?

Merriam-Webster defines them as follows:

Definition of PHYSICS

1: a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions

2a : the physical processes and phenomena of a particular system
b : the physical properties and composition of something

Definition of ASTRONOMY:

the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties

How so then is it not? Part of those fields is the objective acquiring of data on a subject, but the other portion of it is the subjective attempt to understand and explain said data, isn't that correct? o.O

[Nereid]

Sorry, ma'am- I guess I was missing your point... you were talking about the *objective* observations, rather than their *subjective* interpretation of the data?

The key parts of Feng et al. (2010) and Morris et al. (2006) are objective; the corresponding key parts of the TPOD are subjective.

It is, usually, possible to independently verify these sorts of objective things; it is impossible - by definition - to independently verify subjective things.

Also you stated:

Not as far as physics/astronomy is concerned; as both are quantitative, what Smith and Acheson wrote isn't either physics or astronomy.

You state that their interpretation of the observational data is "neither physics nor astronomy"... what then would you call it?

Speculation; or, if you prefer, subjective speculation incapable of being independently verified.

How so then is it not? Part of those fields is the objective acquiring of data on a subject, but the other portion of it is the subjective attempt to understand and explain said data, isn't that correct? o.O

Physics, today, is quantitative, as is astronomy. I welcome you to join the discussion.

[Nereid]

A response from Mel Acheson.

[...]

Acheson and Smith know the squiggles are helixes (preferred spelling) in the same way that consensus theorists know they are spherical: an accepted general theory tells them how to interpret specific otherwise-meaningless observations.

That's nice to know; in which paper(s) may one read of a) the "accepted general theory", and b) its application to x-ray observations of external galaxies (specifically, M82)?

And what does "spherical" refer to ("consensus theorists know they are spherical")?

TPODs, like APODs, are outreach articles for a popular audience, not scholarly, peer-reviewed dissertations. They are meant to provide a snapshot view of what the image might "look like" from an Electric Universe point of view. Because plasma phenomena are more complex than gravity-and-gas phenomena, often several different descriptions are possible. Each TPOD typically provides only one description, chosen more or less arbitrarily. The squiggles could be shock waves, similar to consensus descriptions (albeit with electrical currents as the power source), or they could be a series of plasma cells with glowing sheaths seen in projection, or they could be something else.

Thanks for that Mel (why communicate through starbiter though; why not post directly?).

However, as I have shown, the Chandra PR cited is, itself, based on "scholarly, peer-reviewed dissertations" (actually papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals); as far as I can tell, the content of the TPOD is nothing more than (idle?) speculation.

Sorting it out would probably require in situ measurements.

Which certainly won't happen in the lifetime of anyone reading this post today (10 January, 2011)!

What, then, is the reality in astronomy?

[davesmith_au]

Nereid, your line of argument here (referring specifically to the DHN but it still covers almost everything else you've brought up in this thread) is unjustified and incessantly polemic and dogmatic. Clearly, you are comparing oranges to apples, and even when this is brought to your attention, as in the explanation offered by Mel Acheson, you ignore it and continue your rhetoric. This is not good argumentative technique, and amounts to an appeal to authority where no such authority is warranted.

Go take another peek at the Universe Today writeup on the DHN. It likewise doesn't say "it is at least 20 arcminutes (50 parsecs) in length, extending between galactic coordinates l = 0.08, b = 0.5 and l = 0.02, b = 0.80". Does this make Fraser Cain incompetent (or at least, unscientific) too? By your argumentation, that conclusion could be drawn (for the record, I am not suggesting Fraser is incompetent or unscientific, nor would I). He talks about light-years etc, but he certainly doesn't use the same language as a scienfific paper, nor should he in this context.

Furthermore, Morris is quoted as saying: “You can regard these magnetic field lines as akin to a taut rubber band, ... If you twist one end, the twist will travel up the rubber band.” Does this make him incompetent too? (The same caveat as I previously used applies to this statement).

Frankly, someone of your capabilities should be able to differentiate between a scientific paper and a popular writeup for what is essentially a lay audience, and this kind of argumentation does not do you justice. Please, let's stick to comparing oranges to oranges, where appropriate.

Cheers, Dave.

[Nereid]

Go take another peek at the Universe Today writeup on the DHN. It likewise doesn't say "it is at least 20 arcminutes (50 parsecs) in length, extending between galactic coordinates l = 0.08, b = 0.5 and l = 0.02, b = 0.80". Does this make Fraser Cain incompetent (or at least, unscientific) too?

That particular story ends with "Original Source: UCLA News Release".

The UCLA News Release contains the following: "The research is published March 16 in the journal Nature", "Morris has argued for many years that the magnetic field at the galactic center is extremely strong; the research published in Nature strongly supports that view", and "Co-authors on the Nature paper are Keven Uchida, a former UCLA graduate student and former member of Cornell University's Center for Radiophysics and Space Research; and Tuan Do, a UCLA astronomy graduate student."

So no, it doesn't; Fraser Cain cites his sources, so his story can be checked against the only thing which counts as physics, papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals.

Furthermore, Morris is quoted as saying: “You can regard these magnetic field lines as akin to a taut rubber band, ... If you twist one end, the twist will travel up the rubber band.” Does this make him incompetent too? (The same caveat as I previously used applies to this statement).

I checked Morris et al. (2006), but could not find those words; may I ask what you are quoting?

The "rules and guidelines of our forum" state (I bolded one word, for emphasis):

All posts to the scientific parts of the forum should be confined to properly constructed scientific arguments either supporting or challenging published Electric Universe theory.

In Thunderbolts Forum sections, threads, and posts where I understand the main, perhaps only, scope is physics and/or astronomy, my posts and comments should be understood by you, the reader, within the framework of what I understand to be the nature of physics and astronomy, today.

In the Future of Science section I have nine threads devoted to carefully describing, in some detail, what I understand this nature to be. Naturally, I welcome discussion of any and all points I raise in those threads. An index to all nine is here.

Of course, your own view of the nature of physics and/or astronomy may well differ from mine; if so, I propose that unless and until we reach at least a minimum of mutual understanding as to that nature, any discussion we may have will, sooner or later, become strained (and possible incomprehensible).