Electromagnetic explanation of universe shot down

This forum contains threads from main General Chat forum older than 3 months.

Moderator: thunderchero

User avatar
cleantoe
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:00 am

Electromagnetic explanation of universe shot down

Post by cleantoe » Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:14 am

I can't remember who made the post or believed in it, but some time ago there was a post about an Electromagnetic explanation of the universe. They claimed to successfully explain everything, and I believe, if I recall properly, that Black Holes weren't supposed to exist.

Well, today I bring to you concrete evidence that Black Holes exist! YAY!

:D

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandte ... tists.html

Proof that Albert Einstein's black holes do exist, claim scientists

Astronomers believe they have come up with concrete proof for the existence of black holes.

By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Last Updated: 11:06PM GMT 09 Dec 2008

Ever since Albert Einstein came up with his general theory of relativity, black holes has been central to our knowledge of the Universe.

Now experts say they have shown that the theoretical phenomenon, whose gravitational pull is thought to hold galaxies together, exist "beyond any reasonable doubt".

The team of scientists spent 16 years studying the existence of a super massive black hole thought to be at the centre of our galaxy, the Milky Way.

While the black hole itself is invisible to the eye, the team proved its existence by tracking the motions of 28 stars circling around it.

Just as swirling leaves caught in a gust of wind can provide clues about air currents, so the stars' movements reveal information about forces at work at the galactic centre.

The observations show that the stars orbit a central concentration of mass four million times greater than that of the Sun, claim the team from the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, near Munich, Germany.

"Undoubtedly the most spectacular aspect of our long term study is that it has delivered what is now considered to be the best empirical evidence that super-massive black holes do really exist," said study leader Professor Reinhard Genzel.

"The stellar orbits in the galactic centre show that the central mass concentration of four million solar masses must be a black hole, beyond any reasonable doubt."

The astronomers were also able to measure with great accuracy how far the Earth is from the centre of the galaxy - a distance of 27,000 light years.

Usually the central region of the Milky Way is hard to see because the view from Earth is blocked by interstellar dust.

To overcome this problem, the astronomers, who published their findings in the Astrophysical Journal, focused on infrared light wavelengths that can penetrate the dust clouds.

The galaxy's central mass, long suspected of being a giant black hole, is known as "Sagittarius A star".

The European Southern Observatory study, which began in 1992, was made using the 3.5 metre (11ft) New Technology Telescope at the La Silla observatory and the Very Large Telescope - an array of four 8.2 metre (26ft) telescopes at the Paranal observatory. Both operate from the Atacama desert in Chile.

The team, who found that one particular star made a full orbit of the black hole in the 16 year study, now hope to use even more powerful telescopes to further test Einstein's theories.

A black hole is a theoretical region of space in which the gravitational field is so powerful that nothing, not even electromagnetic radiation (visible light), can escape its pull. They are believed to be the remnants of burnt out suns.

While the idea of a black hole dates back as far as 1783, it was only after Einstein published his general relativity theory in 1916 that the modern concept was introduced by the German physicist Karl Scharzchild. The actual phrase black hole was not, however, coined until 1968.

User avatar
jaruler
Lieutenant-Commander
Lieutenant-Commander
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:00 am

Post by jaruler » Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:49 pm

hum i hardly think 16 years is enough time to see a star move. it takes 365 days for the earth to orbit the sun and the distence of these other stars from the center is far greater. and thus it would take over a 100 billion years to orbit the centre.

what 16 years would have recorded is not even a millionth of a millimeter. now count our own earth movement added to that what we are seeing is actally billions of years old. so how they can say it orbits i dont know.

plus infered is no good by the time our little light sent from earth reaches its target 27000 light years away it would have missed it by millions of miles! as the star and planets would have moved.

User avatar
ketteringdave
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:00 am

Post by ketteringdave » Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:07 pm

On the other hand, objects close to a large mass must orbit the center much faster - one "year" on Mercury is only 88 days. The article mentions one star that makes a full orbit within the 16 year window. Such an orbit would be trillions of kilometers at the very least, not millimeters.

Since we're observing motion 27,000 light years away, the orbit of the Earth, and the orbit of the Sun, would be inconsequential. If these motions made any difference, their impact could easily be calculated.

The observations were based on infrared light emitted by the 28 stars - there's no need for a light sent from Earth.

What I find most interesting is that it seems like black holes are accepted as "real" by the general public, but their very nature makes checking that claim so difficult. In one respect, these scientists really just proved that there's an extremely massive object at the center of the galaxy that they can't see, based on the statements made.

*Please note that I am not an astronomer, and am basing these comments on a background in mathematics and a familiarity with physics.

Majicman182
Cadet 2nd Year
Cadet 2nd Year
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:00 am

hmmm

Post by Majicman182 » Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:02 pm

Prob some Scientology Mumbo Jumbo. :roll: hehe

User avatar
jaruler
Lieutenant-Commander
Lieutenant-Commander
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:00 am

Post by jaruler » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:38 pm

a start only takoing 16 years to orbit the center of the galaxy? humm not sure if i can believe that. 16 years is not that long you know. i understood it was only 16 years that they did the research for.

stardust
Rear-Admiral
Rear-Admiral
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:00 am
Location: good ole Blighty

Post by stardust » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:52 pm

Who knows?....all I know is the Sun is supposedly hurtling around the galaxy a million miles a day...mind, the fact my source is an article Jeremy Clarkson once wrote....
Computers! [Expletive deleted]

My 4shared folder

User avatar
cleantoe
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:00 am

Post by cleantoe » Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:48 pm

jaruler wrote:a start only takoing 16 years to orbit the center of the galaxy? humm not sure if i can believe that. 16 years is not that long you know. i understood it was only 16 years that they did the research for.
Think of it like a racing event. You know why the guy on the inside track starts farther back than the guys on the outside tracks? It's because the distance around the inside track is shorter than those on the outisde.

Now imagine the inside track in this case is right around the center of the entire field. It'll only take you two or three steps to circumnavigate the track, right? Then apply this to our galaxy.

Remember, our solar system (Sol) is on the outskirts of the galaxy. Is it any wonder why it takes Sol so long to orbit the center of our galaxy? We travel slower and are further out. The stars at the center are closer and travel faster.

If you look at it like that, a star taking just 16 years to orbit a black hole is very believable.

User avatar
jaruler
Lieutenant-Commander
Lieutenant-Commander
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:00 am

Post by jaruler » Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:16 pm

yea tracks i understand but i am just thinking bigger. galaxy size lol. 16 years just seems to slow. the earth i think moves 42k mph the sun even less. it has to else it wil lmove away from us at a greater speed and we wont be fast enough to orbit it at the same time. if they are saying the sun is traveling at millions of miles per day or hour then the possible planets around it are going even faster.

its not possible to have bodies move that fast out there on there own inertal. plus spiral galaxys keep there form. thus the inner or middle wont go around sooner than the outer. both should be kept in a kind of line by cosmic ties and gravity pulls.

plus it cant be that close to the black hole as it would pull it in.

my 2 cents lol. im no rocket scientist mind thee

User avatar
ketteringdave
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:00 am

Post by ketteringdave » Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:57 pm

From various Wikipedia articles, the speed of the Sun relative to the galaxy is 251 km/s, which is about 21.7 million km per day. Since the Sun takes us along for the ride, the Earth is subject to this same speed. In addition, the speed of the Earth relative to the sun is about 30 km/s, or 2.6 million km per day. If you could observe the Earth from outside the solar system, the Earth would cover anywhere from 19.1 million km to 24.3 million km per day, depending on the time of year.

In terms of inertia, an object in space can travel at extremely high speeds, dependent only on some initial force to set it in motion. (Even better, the near-vacuum of space would result in very little loss of inertia). Again, I'm no astronomer, but don't galaxies have a spiral shape exactly because the inner objects must travel faster than outer objects?

In terms of gravity, a black hole at the center of our solar system would be no different than the Sun. If the Earth slows down, it falls into the black hole/Sun. If the Earth speeds up, it escapes the gravitational force of the black hole/Sun, and would continue on whatever path with its current inertia until some other object influenced the path. This is no different than putting a rocket into Earth orbit.

User avatar
jaruler
Lieutenant-Commander
Lieutenant-Commander
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:00 am

Post by jaruler » Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:04 pm

i am sure the outer is going faster than the inner part because it is so far away. imagine being hit by a rock on a string would you prefer to be hit from the inner part or the other part where it has to travel further distance but still keep up.

doesnt mean thats it orbits sooner just that the outher travels at faster speeds because it must. i think that the earth travels 67k miles or something per hour which is around 1,608,000 miles per day. now i think this differs during the tiome of year slowing when the earth is closuer to the sun and faster at its eliptical peak

User avatar
cleantoe
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:00 am

Post by cleantoe » Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:33 pm

jaruler wrote:i am sure the outer is going faster than the inner part because it is so far away. imagine being hit by a rock on a string would you prefer to be hit from the inner part or the other part where it has to travel further distance but still keep up.

doesnt mean thats it orbits sooner just that the outher travels at faster speeds because it must. i think that the earth travels 67k miles or something per hour which is around 1,608,000 miles per day. now i think this differs during the tiome of year slowing when the earth is closuer to the sun and faster at its eliptical peak
That makes no sense at all. Why do you think our galaxy is a "spiral" galaxy? Obviously the inside is spinning faster while the ends lag behind, creating a spiral effect.

Also, are you saying that these scientists who have spent the last 16 years studying this don't know what they are talking about? I think that's a bit presumptuous, especially since you know about this topic as much as I do--that is to say, not very much.

User avatar
ketteringdave
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:00 am

Post by ketteringdave » Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:30 pm

jaruler wrote:i am sure the outer is going faster than the inner part because it is so far away. imagine being hit by a rock on a string would you prefer to be hit from the inner part or the other part where it has to travel further distance but still keep up.

doesnt mean thats it orbits sooner just that the outher travels at faster speeds because it must. i think that the earth travels 67k miles or something per hour which is around 1,608,000 miles per day. now i think this differs during the tiome of year slowing when the earth is closuer to the sun and faster at its eliptical peak
I don't mean to be rude, but you might be careful making assumptions based on numbers you think are true when I am making assertions on numbers based on scientific observation. Are my numbers perfect and exact? Of course not. But they are as accurate as our planet's scientists can figure, and are pretty accurate at that.

The inner portion of any orbiting system must travel faster, to balace greater gravitational force near the central mass. Compare the Mercury, the Earth, and Neptune. The orbital speed closest to the Sun, Mercury, is 48 km/s. The orbital speed of Earth is 30 km/s, and the orbital speed of Neptune, farthest from the Sun, is only 5 km/s. Again, these numbers are all taken from the Wikipedia articles for each planet.

User avatar
jaruler
Lieutenant-Commander
Lieutenant-Commander
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:00 am

Post by jaruler » Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:46 am

hey i was just looking at how the galaxy can keep its spiral formation. if the inner was traveling faster and the outer slower then you will get a formation like an everyday solar system will you not? where way tou say about ours is true. but to keep the effect and formation of a spiral then the outer must travel faster then the inner parts, they must to keep formation. when i was in the TA and being drilled all day it is the sam effect the outer portion was be faster the the central part just to keep formation.

the spiral is KEPT spiral by this method. if we use your method there would be no spiral formation as all stars will be in random orbits from the centre of the galaxy which there are some out there like that. maybe those we see woth spiral are new born and not yet cycled round enough the centre to lose its shape?

by no means do i think i am right, its not my view on it. i have seen and heard of scientists invest there time and energy into thiongs only to be proved wrong later. nothing is really exact and what i think they observed over 16 years without watching footage myself is prob a slight movement but it INDICATED that many stars that they had been watching where orbiting around something. they did not say they has witnessed a full orbit.

i understand that the spiral fomation makes the inner parts orbit faster. that i am not arguing. what i am saying is that the outer must be as fast or faster. just look at the ground they have to cover to keep in this spiral formation.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 0401c.html

link to prove 67k mph orbit from nasa!

regards

User avatar
jonboylondon
Captain
Captain
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:00 am
Location: the greatest city in the world....
Contact:

Re: Electromagnetic explanation of universe shot down

Post by jonboylondon » Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:56 am

cleantoe wrote:I can't remember who made the post or believed in it, but some time ago there was a post about an Electromagnetic explanation of the universe. They claimed to successfully explain everything,]


No they did not.... they put an alternate theory backed up with a lot of scientific data and observational plasma physics....
cleantoe wrote:and I believe, if I recall properly, that Black Holes weren't supposed to exist...

No again they believe Black Holes to be the result of an plasma based model and not a gravity only model.
cleantoe wrote:Well, today I bring to you concrete evidence that Black Holes exist! YAY!...


Erm.... :? From your article.....

"A black hole is a theoretical region of space" and "The team, who found that one particular star made a full orbit of the black hole in the 16 year study, now hope to use even more powerful telescopes to further test Einstein's theories."

:D

I do not believe this is any kind of concrete evidence im afraid.... :wink: It seems to be an article you have found, cut and pasted and added a bit from wikki....Also why the title?

Our observations and findings recently have baffled and amazed all in the world of cosmology to an extent that uncertinty is the only constant most can agree too. Quantum Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, Plasma Cosmology, String theory, Cosmic Void Theory, Electromagnetic Universe and Super-String theory all have brought something to the table, (especially in the case of Quantum Theory and Plasma Cosmology whos basic principles are scalable up to huge orders of magnitudes and can sit together as theories unlike the standard Gravity based theory which sits with neither.)


Have a read of the following...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true (10 Dec 2008)

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/ ... -void.html (15 Nov 2008)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ll=true(01 Nov 2008)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... ?full=true (21 July 2008)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... ?full=true (7 July 2008)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... ?full=true (06 June 2008)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... e-sky.html (10 April 2008)

and from this last article......this i think describes more where my interests lie at the moment

"Questions about a time before the big bang were once thought to be meaningless, because according to Einstein's general theory of relativity, the universe began at a singularity - a mathematical point with infinite density at which all calculations break down.

However, physicists now believe that the theory of relativity is limited and the effects of quantum mechanics would have blurred out the singularity just a little, so at a crucial moment the density of matter and radiation was not infinite. If this was the case, it becomes possible to try to work out what led up to that moment."

Or in Laymens terms...."What Banged???" :wink:

JBL
Monks: Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem
[bonk!]

User avatar
jaruler
Lieutenant-Commander
Lieutenant-Commander
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:00 am

Post by jaruler » Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:30 pm

my brain!!! just reading all this lol

Post Reply

Return to “General Chat Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users