So if not a black hole, then what?

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: So if not a black hole, then what?

Unread postby nick c » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:36 pm

In the Thunderbolts version of the Electric Universe things like "event horizons" and "super massive" objects like Black Holes and neutron stars are mathematical constructs with no real life existence.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: So if not a black hole, then what?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:23 pm

Brigit Bara wrote:
Image

What is at the center of electric galaxies?


Good question.
These electric galaxies hold on of the secrets of the universe.

My personal idea is that some physics breaks under extreme circumstances.
The energy that is released is far stronger than the hydrogen-bomb explosions that
we see on the sun. So this is not caused by normal nuclear reactions.

There might be some form of matter annihilation, which we don't understand yet.
But for simplicity, let's assume that this matter somehow breaks down into matter
and anti-matter.

The result would give off enormous energy, but these beams also contain charged matter,
which is expelled from the centre.
So I think that the energy is not converted to light-energy, but to charge-separation.
With this I mean that these two beams contain particles of the same charge, which will go with the
speed of light into two opposite directions.

In my model, we see protons and ions in the beams. The electrons move somewhere else.
Maybe they made some jump (due to annihilation) or form some structure that is not yet visible.
Maybe we can see some electron cloud near or around such a structure.

Because the beams are charged, they go off in opposite directions.
After a while they will lose speed and start to spiral.
Where they stop they will build up new material.

This direction could be focussed by magnetism.
But the currents necessary for magnetic focus are not the same as the
currents that we see in these beams.
So maybe the direction is focussed with the electric field.
Or there is some current that is not visible. A current that rotates around
the centre.
We can also see some slow spiralling of the plasma beams as they travel through space.
So they do encounter some weak magnetic field.

The "Plasmoid" structure seems science-fiction to me. This is an object
that is based on circling magnetic fields that again circle around each other.
This is not like anything that I see in nature.
But on the other hand, I invented something new too.

So what I want to know:
1- What charge are those beams.
2. What elements are in the beams and in the clouds.
3. What is the speed of the matter in the beams. Is it constant?
4. What is the strength of the magnetic field that causes the rotation. And is it constant along the beam?
5. What energy levels are reached in the clouds and in the beams.
6. Are there any invisible structures or clouds that can create a circuit or that can store charge?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: So if not a black hole, then what?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:43 pm

by Zyxzevn » Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:23 pm
Very very interesting thoughts (and questions) about the nature and energies of these galactic bi-polar jets, Zyxzevn.

The "Plasmoid" structure seems science-fiction to me. This is an object
that is based on circling magnetic fields that again circle around each other.
This is not like anything that I see in nature.
But on the other hand, I invented something new too.


I think we are all a little bit in the same situation when it comes to understanding the behaviors of plasma. We live on a tiny isthmus of solids, liquids and gases, so to understand the properties of plasma does not come naturally. And, after all, a lot of effort goes into trying to suppress and control plasma instabilities in the fusion research. But the days have now arrived when the experimentalists will let the plasma organize itself, and there are going to be a lot of big surprises for all of us!

Here is the definition of a plasmoid from Wik:

A plasmoid is a coherent structure of plasma and magnetic fields. Plasmoids have been proposed to explain natural phenomena such as ball lightning,[1][2] magnetic bubbles in the magnetosphere,[3] and objects in cometary tails,[4] in the solar wind,[5][6] in the solar atmosphere,[7] and in the heliospheric current sheet. Plasmoids produced in the laboratory include field-reversed configurations, spheromaks, and in dense plasma focuses.


Here is a short video with an animated scientific diagram of a plasmoid forming from a dense plasma focus which everyone here has already seen many times (: :

Nuclear Fusion: DPF Animation
channel: FocusFusionSociety
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVif4hUAJ8c
dur 1:44
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: So if not a black hole, then what?

Unread postby kodybatill » Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:23 pm

Open Mind wrote:For those who aren't able to fast track they're knowledge of the electrical universe, and struggle with fundamental elements of the theory, but are thoroughly intrigued, Can any or all help us comprehend what we're really seeing in this supposed 'final proof of black holes' image?

I'd like to have some kind of answer to the hypothetical cosmologist who reals in agony if I suggest that I'm not completely sold on what, to his thinking is completely confirmed fact.

I understand that the concept of a singularity which is all mass collapsing into a single point of infinite mass and density, is apparently just a mathematician, smoking a joint and then dividing things by zero and coming up with an explanation to impress his date.

I think I understand how they got there, and I also comprehend that manipulating filters and reading the 'noise' is like the shaman throwing up the bones and telling you your future.

But I'd like to understand more specifically what it actually is in the picture, regardless of how they processed the image.

And dumb it down for the unelectrically minded. lol.

Possible? I had to ask.

Thanks


I saw the picture. It is mainly White-Orange - and in it's purest form - light takes White-Orange color from Near-Neutron Plasmons.
It is really my theory that Muonic Hydrogen coxes Electrons from over fast distances - to propel Plasmons into the Black-Holes - causing the White-Orange rays.
kodybatill
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:28 pm

Re: So if not a black hole, then what?

Unread postby Xantos » Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:16 am

I don't think it's a black hole at all. It's quite likely a bokeh donut effect.

Radio Telescope dishes are nothing but a mirror lens telescope equivalent, looking at a different part of EM spectrum.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/uploadsgallery/med_gallery_95887_13_5293.jpg
Xantos
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:11 am

Re: So if not a black hole, then what?

Unread postby D_Archer » Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:49 am

Xantos wrote:I don't think it's a black hole at all. It's quite likely a bokeh donut effect.

Radio Telescope dishes are nothing but a mirror lens telescope equivalent, looking at a different part of EM spectrum.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/uploadsgallery/med_gallery_95887_13_5293.jpg


Good idea, so you are saying this was caused by 'an over-corrected spherical aberration'

I still have to read the paper about how they got their "result" (the paper is mostly about the imaging technique they used). From a quick glance they did keep correcting the image until they got what they wanted.... does not really sound all that scientific to me..

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: So if not a black hole, then what?

Unread postby crawler » Fri Apr 12, 2019 3:32 am

Stephen Crothers & Co have shown that the Einsteinian singularity blackhole does not exist. However there are say 8 other possible kinds of dark star.

The event horizon team of course will not admit that their black hole might be a Michellian dark star, nor that it might be a Laplacian invisible object. A MDS & LIO are simply ballistic -- they dont need any GR assistance, nor do they need any singularity.

Me myself i believe that photons are slowed near mass, hencely i believe in a version of GR, but i dont believe in Einstein's version of GR (& i dont believe in singularities). Hencely i believe that a dark star can be much less massive than Michell's dark star, & much much less massive than Laplace's invisible object.
crawler
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: So if not a black hole, then what?

Unread postby Webbman » Fri Apr 12, 2019 4:19 am

It is well known that sunspots can have x and gamma ray bursts that can disrupt radio wave frequencies. A Black star, aka a star with full ( or even high) sunspot coverage might have a sufficient energy to only emit gamma rays in that location and thus there would be no radio waves to detect. What was the radio frequency they used again?

smoke and mirrors again, that's all there good for.
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: So if not a black hole, then what?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:56 am

Great example Xantos!
Image

The BOKEH effect is can be caused in different ways.
It is usually a projection of some kind.
It is possible to see this in the clouds.
Or as a projection on the wall of your room.

The simplest method is to have an object near the lens of the camera.
It happens when you have the lens not completely focussed, and
use a very wide lens.
In this case the object near the camera is projected onto the sensor,
using the light of the object far away. You can create heart-shaped bokeh
by having a heart shaped object stuck on the lens.
Example of a heart-shape hole in front of the lens.
Image

Or this one with hole and 6-sided aperture-ring:
Image

But just an unsharp picture can be anything.
Here is something that looks like a black hole:
Image

It is a ...<link>...
In this case the round shape merges with the different lights.
Each big circle is a small point of light.

With radio-telescopes there is no lens, but the lens is artificially simulated
using maths. But still, any object near the receiver can cause bokeh.
Because the radio-telescopes are spread around the earth this black-hole
effect can be caused by:
1) the positions of the telescopes around the Earth
2) Earth's atmosphere
3) Objects in front of the telescope. Like the receiver.
4) Earth's gravity (time-delay)

Because the magnification is far beyond the specifications of the telescopes,
it is very likely that one of these bokeh effects happened.

Image

If we know what caused the effect, we can slightly correct it.
But in any case it is much smaller, and has likely no hole in it.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: So if not a black hole, then what?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:04 am

For fun:
Image
Also explains the "smoke trail"
Case solved!
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: So if not a black hole, then what?

Unread postby nick c » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:12 am

I don't think it is a bokeh effect. Bokeh is a photographic effect of blurring part of a photo, usually the background, because it is not within the lens' depth of field. In order for a bokeh to appear as a donut the lens would have to have been a catadioptric lens, for example a Schmidt-Cassegrain, Maksutov, etc. The donut effect arises because of the lens design which has a central obstruction caused by the secondary mirror.
I was told that the supposed Black Hole image in question was not an optical photograph but was rather computer generated from radio telescope data. If that is the case I sincerely doubt that there could be a donut type of bokeh.

I could be wrong about that, but if that is the case then I think that we are probably looking at a toroidal plasmoid. Possibly a scaled up version of M57 aka the Ring Nebula(?)
0_O60KKHgFEor3PL9d.jpg
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: So if not a black hole, then what?

Unread postby Solar » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:30 am

Open Mind wrote: Can any or all help us comprehend what we're really seeing in this supposed 'final proof of black holes' image?

Possible?
Thanks


Yes, possible.

This formation has been seen numerous times within the realm of “Plasma Interactions”.

Some of the portrayals from links on the Google page show this formation such as:

Laser-Plasma Interactions (notice the mound on the “Target Foil”)

Helical Particle Beam Generation (notice the formation labeled “DL” in red)

Even within the laboratory discipline of Plasma Physics and interactions one will find the characterization “hole” and/or "hole boring" being used in reference to the “phase space” at the center of the mound. Also, depending on the intensity of the interaction, this particular formation can be accompanied by a “plasma torus” (aka a “disk”, “ring”, or “donut”). Moving from the lab to Plasma Astrophysics, but particularly relevant to the image in question these tori are often referred to as:

Circumnuclear Disk

The Chandra Wide Field image reveals the the larger scope of what is applicable from the link at Laser Plasma Interactions

Don't look at the "hole" alone. Also look at the protrusion extending up to the so called "hole" in its entirety.

It is a bit too easy to adopt the mindset that these features are separate. One person sees a “hole”, another sees a “disk”, and still another sees a “tube”, and yet another a “mound”, and that person over there sees “waves” and/or “beams”. All of these features are aspects, or qualities, of an integrated dynamic as seen in Plasma Physics and applicable to the electrodynamics of astrophysical plasmas (to large extent).

Therefore, the image(s) in question reveal a known Plasma Electrodynamic Formation occurring at the (relative) center of that particular galaxy. There is another (and even better) image of this kind of interactive Plasma Electrodynamic formation in a different galaxy altogether taken years ago. I'm not sharing that one though. :D
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: So if not a black hole, then what?

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:56 am

seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: So if not a black hole, then what?

Unread postby Xantos » Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:41 am

nick c wrote:Bokeh is a photographic effect... <snip> The donut effect arises because of the lens design which has a central obstruction caused by the secondary mirror.
I was told that the supposed Black Hole image in question was not an optical photograph but was rather computer generated from radio telescope data.


It does not matter. Data is the important thing. And data is in both cases received by a catadioptric system. Radio Telescopes (glorified satellite dish antennas) are a variation of that. Eye and visible spectrum are therefore replaced by a computer and radio waves that assembles all of the to the naked eye incomprehensible photons at radio frequencies.

Image

If I am not mistaken, the same philosophy is used in TV Satellite antennas and Radio Telescopes.

Ergo, bokeh is IMO possible, especially with a complex solution like a "global telescope".

Imagine this image of HL Tauri modified by a bokeh donut type of an error.

Image

Easily becomes the "black hole" image they presented.

Image
Xantos
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:11 am

Re: So if not a black hole, then what?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:45 am

nick c wrote:I don't think it is a bokeh effect.

Good point, but I meant that it is LIKE a bokeh effect.
It is a projection onto the detector, which appears clearly when the object is not in focus.

In this case the lens is made by shifting the phases of the light per radio-telescope.
And the object is not in focus in my opinion.

So what is in front of this lens?
It is the earth and atmosphere.
And the telescopes are spread around the earth's surface, with holes at the oceans.
And each telescope has a receiver in the middle.

All these features would show up as distortions in the unsharp part of the image, just like Bokeh.
And it might be a good thing to ask some astronomers, if they know, what distortions we can
expect from the object not being exactly in focus.

We also have non-bokeh distortions in star photographs, where stars are pointy due to the construction
of the telescope. This even appear in sharp photographs.
With the extreme magnification that they used, I think we will see
more distortions than signal.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests