The greatest field density is shown by white lines, and green is less. So the strongest field is directly between the opposite charges. The more distant charges experience a weaker field, because they are further from the opposite charges, and are repelled by the like charges in their own layer.
CharlesChandler
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
And here I've removed the top row of positive ions, so there's a net negative charge, and the field is truncated sharply...
CharlesChandler
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
Hey Folks!
Gary and Lloyd have been encouraging me to re-think my position on quasars, because I had been simply regurgitating the standard interpretation of the redshift data, which concludes that quasars are really far away, meaning that they are extremely bright. Yet the redshift anomalies are numerous, and when several quasars, at varying redshifts, are clearly associated with a galaxy at yet another redshift, something is clearly wrong with taking redshift data at face value.
Some people have proposed some pretty exotic re-interpretations of the Doppler effect, such as variability in the size of elementary particles, depending on the age of the star. But I might have found a simpler explanation that sits easily with a lot of other information.
In , I introduce the concept of a "natural tokamak" (NT) to explain the absence of radiation near an extreme gravitational source. In , I show how the toroidal geometry of the NT can produce highly collimated axial jets, as the ejecta from the fusion events inside the tokamak.
I go on to show how protons that were sucked into the NT, and electrons that were split off from them, eventually recombine in the jets, with the electrons looping around the outside and re-entering the jets traveling in the opposite direction from the positive ions, all because of magnetic forces.
I had started to think that the counter-flowing electrons might be exerting Newtonian forces on the positive ions (a.k.a., "electron drag"), and that this is responsible for the turbulence at the ends of the bipolar jets. These behave like fluid dynamic high-pressure jets that disintegrate into turbulent flows due to friction, but the bipolar outflow from stars into the interstellar medium encounters little in the way of friction, and the relativistic velocities of the jets should be sufficient to generate a magnetic pinch that would keep the columns organized forever. But where electrons stream in and neutralize the positive ions, the magnetic pinch goes away, and the jet encounters back-pressure from the inertial forces of the counter-flowing electrons. So more and more details were falling into place.
Then I realized that the electron streams, pinched by their own magnetic forces, and plowing into the plasma jets, would likely establish discrete discharge channels, and those channels would be responsible for the bulk of the photons, since that is where charge recombination is occurring. So we get a variety of bremsstrahlung frequencies (cyclotron, synchrotron, etc.) out of relativistic near-misses in these counter-flowing positive and negative charge streams. But we also get distinct emission frequencies from electron uptake, and from these we can estimate the redshift, because we can clearly identify the signature emissions of various elements. But considering the forces in question, I couldn't understand how electron uptake could occur in relativistic collisions of counter-flowing opposite charges. Electron uptake only occurs when the relative velocities of the positive ions and the electrons are much smaller, so the electrons don't have the momentum to escape the electric field of the atoms.
So then I thought that electron drag would accelerate ions within the discharge channels in the same direction as the electrons. That explains electron uptake in opposing relativistic charge streams. Where the electron uptake is occurring, the opposing velocities are slight, because electron drag is carrying positive ions in the opposite direction. If the ions get near the speed of electrons, electron uptake can occur, and then we get the characteristic emission frequencies that are distinctive for whichever element it is.
So what will be the redshift of those emission frequencies?
We're looking down the barrel of a plasma gun, and we expect blueshifting, because the plasma is coming toward us. Yet we're actually seeing redshifting, and to a huge degree. (One quasar has a redshift of 7.085, which works out to 28.85 billion light-years away. In Big Bang cosmology, this means that the plasma jet is moving away from us faster than the speed of light! So the quasar itself must be moving away at double the speed of light. )
But what if the bulk of the photons are coming from counter-flowing discharge channels within the plasma jets, because electron uptake became possible only where electron drag had gotten the ions moving away from us at nearly the speed of the electrons? We'd see a high redshift, even though the bulk of the polar jet was actually moving rapidly toward us. Now it becomes expected that we'd see high redshift quasars clearly associated with low redshift galaxies.
Chuh-ching.
I'm still working on the quasar redshift series (i.e., the redshifts occur in a regular pattern, but I don't remember where I read this). I have already read that the emissions indicate highly ionized plasma. Is the degree of ionization related to the redshift series? More ionized plasma would engage in electron uptake sooner, because the binding energy is greater, and thus a more strongly charged ion would be able to snag a faster moving electron. Degrees of ionization are step-wise, so is that what causes the step-wise redshift numbers that we see in clusters of quasars? Hmmm...
If anybody could lay out the relevant facts, it would save me hours of searching...
Cheers!
Lloyd
Galactic Jets
Brant on Galactic Jets The following are Brant's messages posted on another forum in 2006. I thought this thread may be the best place to discuss this, since we've discussed matters beyond Charles' solar model on this thread before. That includes quasars, pulsars, geophysics etc.
Brant argued back then that jets are Birkeland currents, but I believe Charles claims otherwise, though he says electric forces are very much involved in jets, as in most astronomical events. Since Brant provided a lot of interesting info, data, links etc, I thought this is likely to be a good resource worth posting here. I don't think this has been covered before, at least in detail. I hope not anyway.
Default EU: Jets and Birkeland currents. - 05-May-2006, 02:48 AM #1 - upriver - Join Date - May 2004 - This thread should pertain strictly to the formation and structure of jets. http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/41186-EU-Jets-an~ - 07-May-2006, 02:06 AM #4 - upriver - Originally Posted by tusenfem: "There is nothing beyond the main stream in Borovsky's paper." - So the mainstream interp[r]etation of intergalactic jets is that they carry an electric current from the source, central BH, to the lobes, emitting radiation and pinching along the way. - So would the MS also say there is an electrical circuit? - Also, everything I've seen on blackholes recently indicates streams of electrons and protons a[t] TEv energies going away from the blackhole. - Jets are definately powered by the central object. But its not a blackhole. - 07-May-2006, 02:14 AM #5 - upriver - Post anything relating to jets, both mainstream and ATM. - The idea is to understand jets because you can see them clearly as opposed to trying to figure out our local circuit, which has proven to be difficult. - Here is M87. http://www.astronet.ru:8105/db/msg/1172631/eng - 07-May-2006, 03:02 AM #6 - upriver - 1) What is a Birkeland current? - From wikipedia "A Birkeland current generally refers to any electric current in a space plasma," - But [it] originally referred to the currents that powered the aurora. - 2) What is the role of Birkeland currents in the structure & formation of a jet? - The jets could be considered a large Birkeland current that transfers kinetic energy from the plasma flow and electrical energy from the field aligned currents. - 3) Do Birkeland currents function as outlined in (2), at all size & time scales? - In other words, can they explain jets on both stellar & extragalactic scales? - They would be able to explain any collimated or striated plasma structures. - 4) How does the EU explanation differ from the standard, mainstream explanation? - The EU explanation clearly states that the jets are a result of a Birkeland current structure, and that there is collimation and pinching from the magnetic fields developed by the field aligned currents. - Not from the twisting of the central blackhole. - 5) Why is the standard, mainstream explanation so poor as to require replacement? - A Birkeland current is an effect that can be separated from the central BH object, and now you just have to worry about how that thing in the center is generating a stream of particles(hyper-pinch?), and it explains other filament like structures that have been discussed. - I have been following the Arp discussion with interest. A plasma universe would provide an explanation for the departure from the Hubble relation. - 12-May-2006, 02:59 AM #20 - upriver - [Quoting:] "it still adheres to a lot of gas laws, only the adiabatic constant is not 5/3 but 4/3 (if I remember correctly)." - That may be so but in this instance it has ionized constituants which allows it to carry a current which a gas does not. - "Also when you squirt gas from a nozzle there are immediate eddies on the side." - "And what is with the bar magnet and the magnetic field never twisting? - "Sure, playing with a bar magnet and filings will not generate currents (well not on an observalble scale)." - What I was trying to say is that the magnetic field was not twisting. - It was the particles that were not following the magnetic field well so that it looks like the magnetic field is twisting. - Same thing with the black hole description. - The magnetic field would not twist, the plasma would not follow the field lines very well giving the appearance of twisting, if thats what was happening. - "But take e.g. a look at the magnetic field of the Earth in the magnetotail, and you will see that the field is not nicely dipolar (like a bar magnet) but stretched, tilted, twisted, etc. - "And every change in magnetic field is created by the appropriate currents." - Yes the moving magnetic fields follow the moving plasma as electric currents are going through it. - The magnetic fields move because the plasma is moving. - "And I think the EU plasma emitter (that you forget to define!) is just the magnetic slingshot effect of main stream physics, which then basically turns the whole of the EU view of jets to regular main stream physics (apart from that you doubt that there is a black hole, but that is an aside, because we are dealing with jets)." - What I mean by plasma emitter is whatever is in the GC's [galactic centers] emitting plasma {charged particles (ions)}. - You can call it a blackhole or what ever. But it still is not the sling shot effect. - The emission of particles is a separate process from the Birkeland current forming. - It takes a large emission of particles to form a jet (Birkeland current) - Slightly OT. I have even entertained the idea that free space is a ground completing the circuit. - The reason for this is that space has permeability, permeability etc which would actually be proprerties of the ether. - As I have said before, it looks like a plasma process at the GC [galactic center]. This thing emits protons and electrons. - Kinda like the solar wind except on a larger scale with Quasars being even bigger versions. - So there is som[e]thing to that particular type of plasma flow. - 21-May-2006, 09:16 AM #29 - upriver Posts 761 - In the past couple of weeks I have learned alot about jets and galaxies. - The hard thing is that this discussion really crosses over into a lot of areas since we are talking about: circuits, and dissipation and power sources. - Every astrophysical object in the universe has a heliosphere. - I would say that Peratt is supporting the PU. - If you look at what he presents, you get the idea th[at] the structures are not really jets but large Birkeland currents that extend through a cloud of plasma. - Jets is incorrect because that implies squirting from the base. - They are more like filaments in a plasma globe. - Peratt talks about Birkeland currents i[n] this paper. - In section 7 he talks about quasars and jets (sheet beams). - There must also be invisible Birkeland currents. Dark Birkeland currents: - http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TP~ - Its all standard physics. And here are some current MS observations of some of the []fore mentioned phenomena. - [No longer available at: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/black_hole_011003.html] - I love this image. Its big, but it shows the end of a Birkeland current with double layers dissipating energy. - http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/Science/heic0206c_D.jpg - As far as what is in the center of our galaxy, I stick by the "highly compressed plasma pinch". - It fits. Look at this article about the largest reconnection captured. Its known as a x-pinch. - Look at the jet configuration. - Reconnection describes what happens afterward, pinch describes what the process is. - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060113113635.h~ - The Cygnus-A pic that I have attached, I think speaks volumes. - The jet is the Birkeland current. You can see the circuit. - The jet is col[um]nated by the current that flows from the center of the galaxy to the heliosphere[?]. - There are 2 sets of currents that flow in the jet. - The main current from the central object to the lower potential hot spot where the jet meets the heliosphere. - The other set is the magnetic curl that flows around the jet to col[um]nate it. - The galaxy gets its rotation from the rotation of the magnetic curl surrounding the jet. - As far as what is in the center of the galaxy that powers the jet, Tim is right. - A lot of scientists have invested a lot of time in blackhole calculations. - And I still dont see anything that proves its a black hole. - If you look at this picture of NGC 4261 , that is not a black hole in the center. - You can see that the jet starts some ways away from the central object. - [No longer available at: http://www.geocities.com/q17320508/focuscorrector/gallery/planetary3/planetary1.jpg] - In my other attachment you can see the area that I marked up showing some kind of structure at the core of NGC 4261. - Here [is] a paper that talks about the gap in NGC 4261. - [No longer available at: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJ/journal/issues/v122n6/201312/201312.web.pdf] - I think the DNA nebula is a "baby" jet. In other words it is ... the same as a jet just lower power. - http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060315_dna_nebula.html - I think if you were to look in the center of every galaxy you would see some kind of DNA nebula structure. - Now here is a puzzling thing. - Jets turn out to be rich in silicon but poor in iron, whereas the plasma around the central object is rich in iron. - Knowing that, I would say the jets are feeding the central object to fuse the silicon into iron, but they are supposedly going in the wrong direction? - Unless the central object is a plasma separator? - http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/04_releases/press_082304.h~ - Also silicon is a semiconductor, so with different dopants you would get different types of current modulations. - The voltage would build up and then the Birkeland filament would conduct, current would flow, leading to pulsating plasma, blobs, etc. - Here is an aproximate model from the Sloan Survey. - http://www.bathsheba.com/crystal/largescale/ - From the large scale structure of the universe there are currents big enough to power our galaxy. - Is it true that MHD does not simulate synchrotron radiation? - Interesting software, Focus corrector. - [No longer available at: http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/c22508/focus.htm] - So again they are not really jets. They are Birkeland currents. - 26-May-2006, 03:44 AM #36 - upriver - "Los Alamos researcher says 'black holes' aren't holes at all." - "The space trapped inside the Gravastar's shell is a similarly uncanny conceptually. - The interior of the Gravastar would be totally warped space-time (the traditional three dimensions plus time). - According to the researchers, this interior space would exert an outward force on the shell, adding to its durability." - [No longer available at: http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/archive/02-035.shtml] - I would say this [is] much closer to reality than blackholes. - Maybe it also charges the shell (potential), or the shell bound[a]ry is where space time turns to matter (proton[s] and electrons.) - And this provides the EMF for a jet. - Now how to explain iron plasma next to the object and silicon rich plasma in the jets? - I think this talk by Dr. Paul Bellan is pretty good at describing a jet correctly. - http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/jet+disk05/bellan/ - It seems to be that cutting edge mainstream is converging with PU. But not EU. - He doesnt use the EU terms but you can clearly see current in plasma formation. - He doesnt invoke black holes but he does say th[at] there is an EMF across the jet which means potential. - He even compares them to coronal loops. - 28-May-2006, 02:05 AM #40 - upriver - I would hope that everyone has looked at Dr Bellans lecture. - He answered all my questions and it will answer all the questions asked about jets from a plasma universe perspective. - I think this is the clearest enunciation of the PU viewpoint concerning jets although he is not (I dont think) a PU proponent. - I think this particular model {flux tube powered by EMF(electricity)} has been the EU viewpoint all along. - What it does not answer is what is in the center of a galaxy. - But that knowledge is not necessary because a galactic center is obviously doing something and that something is [making] streams of electrons and protons. - You can see by the lecture that the jet is a separate effect. - Any EMF/potential will power a plasma structure of that form, provided there is enough power. - I have been examining every picture of a jet I can find to see if this model fits. - Any names and numbers of objects with good pictures of jets would be appreciated. - If this model is correct I think there should be intermediate forms of jets. - [OT] The only variable that has not been taken into account which I believe has an effect on the jet and all the processes is the iron core and its composition and thickness. - I keep having to ask myself "Where does all this iron plasma come from?"[/OT] - but it is sort of the reverse process as one would expect from an AGN [active galactic nucleus] blowing away jets. - I would say it is the same process as our solar wind, which in the EU viewpoint is a current flow. - I seriously doubt its "blowing" away, unless you want to say the current is flowing at a rapid rate from the source. - The source is not pushing. Think of a pipe at an angle full of water. - When you release the end the water flows downhill due to the potential. - It does not depend on the source to transport the water but it does depend on the source to keep the pipe full. - 30-May-2006, 04:29 AM #43 - upriver - This EU idea only uses mainstream physics. - Its based on the work of Kirsten Birkeland who discovered the currents that are named after him. - The interesting thing is that I dont find jets that have the classic Birkeland current twist. - I am now beginning to believe that there may be several forms of currents. - The DNA twist form and the tube within a tube form, which seems to be more prevalent on the solar surface and in jets. - The twist form seems to be more prevalent in nebula[e]. - Fist mention of electric currents in space: Kirsten Birkeland On Possible Electric Phenomena in Solar Systems and Nebulae - Extracted from Section 2. Chapter VI: The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903 - http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/ - First mention of jets. Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution - By C. E. R. Bruce - M.A., D.Sc. (Edin.) F.I.E.E., F.Inst.P. F.R.A.S. - (Research Physicist in The Electrical Research Association from 1924 to 1967) 1968 The Electrical Research Association - http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm - Peratt con[s]tructs a model of jets. - Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. - Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986.(1.7M) - http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TP~ - Paul Bellan simulates jets in the laboratory. - Simulating Astrophysical Jets in the Laboratory - Dr. Paul Bellan, KITP & Caltech Schedule Jun 14, 2005 - http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/jet+disk05/bellan/ - What is this "plasma emitter"? My name for the object in the center of a galaxy based on what it is doing. - How much plasma does it emit? - Its 20-400 keV, luminosity at 8 kpc is L=5.4x1035 erg/sec. - How did you determine that it is accelerating "protons (ions) and electrons"? - They talk about the different types of radative flux from the galactic center. - This is a great paper of observations from the galactic center. - From the paper "A PERSISTENT HIGH-ENERGY FLUX FROM THE HEART OF THE MILKY WAY: INTEGRAL'S VIEW OF THE GALACTIC CENTER*" - "This wealth of high-energy data all point to the presence of one, or several, high energy non-thermal emission components likely produced by accelerated particles in the environment of the gc [galactic center]. - Both leptonic and hadronic origins for the accelerated particles giving rise to the -rays have been considered either in the inner (Marko et al. 1997; Aharonian & Neronov 2005) or outer (Atoyan & Dermer 2004) region of Sgr-A*, while Melia et al. (1998), Fatuzzo & Melia (2003) and recently Crocker et al. (2005), discussed the possibility that the site of particle acceleration could be the unusual supernova remnant Sgr-A East." - http://clusterlaunch.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm~ - "What are OOM values of RHotspot, RJet, LJet, and I? - "What is the strength of the electric field? the magnetic field? - "How fast is the plasma moving?" - I dont know. That is the wrong diagram. - ""Is I "the Birkeland current"? If not, what is?" - That diagram is incorrect because it says that I is the shear injection from the magnetic field of the accre[]tion disc surrounding the blackhole. - I would say that I should be the current in the jet equivalent to the EMF in Dr. Bellans lecture. - "What, in the EU idea, generates the high energy particles?" - Since blackholes dont exist in the real world we have to model it as a high energy z-pinch. - ""Just so that I'm clear about this, you are claiming that the Schopper et al. paper is "the Eu model" of jets?"" - No. I dont think the EU model is 100% complete. - I think Dr. Paul Bellans model is the closest so far to describing the true dynamics of a jet.(?) - "The many papers & textbooks on the subject make it fairly obvious that theory passes the test of observation. - "The jets are surely field aligned, at least in that respect perhaps the EU & mainstream do not differ much. - "But the spatial scale makes clumping via a pinch effect highly unlikely, since the pinch force can't be that large. - "But variations in density at the source are certainly not an unreasonable explanation." - Both of the papaers I posted mention the pinch effect and Dr. Paul Bellan talks about it also. - "High Energy Hadronic Acceleration in Extragalactic Radio Jets" - [No longer available at: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0106/0106530.pdf] - Parallel electric fields in extragalactic jets - Double layers and anomalous resistivity in symbiotic relationships - http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...306..451B - This paper makes clear the absence of variability in the flux from the galactic center. - So I could say that that applies to other galactic centers. - Again. From the paper "A PERSISTENT HIGH-ENERGY FLUX FROM THE HEART OF THE MILKY WAY: INTEGRAL'S VIEW OF THE GALACTIC CENTER*" "As is clearly seen from the iso-significance contours in Figure 3, the morphology of the central degrees does not radically change with increasing energy. - "However, we notice that the emission that seems to bridge the sources labelled SgrA* and 1E 1743.1–2843 at low-energy persists at higher energies such that in the 56 to 85 keV range, the emission from the region seems to be centered between the two sources. - "This is a surprising result that we cannot readily interpert." - "This lack of evidence for significant variations in flux other than the low level of variability seen on monthly timescales is in contradiction with the previous detection of a flare from IGRJ17456–2901 (B´elanger et al. 2004) that we therefore do not confirm. - "We point out that those results were obtained with the preliminary analysis procedures and without background corrections." - "So, Peratt calls the[m] "jets" but they are actually not jets, but Birkeland currents. - "And then you quote observations, where it is said that These observations confirm what theorists had expected should happen. - ""But "this is the first time we've actually seen a jet slowing down," said Philip Kaaret of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. - "So, how do you put one and one together[] here?"" - I'm not sure I understand the question. - "Lovely picture, but how on Earth do you know that this is a[t] the end of a Birkeland current, and how do you think you can see double layers from an optical picture?" - You cant "see" the double layers, but according to Peratt thats what it should look like. - The plasma makes the current flow visible. - http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/Science/heic0206c_D.jpg - On page from 3 Fig 2. Evolution of the Plasma Universe I: Adjacent Birkeland Currents and Double layers. - Thats the only thing it could be. - http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TP~ - Heres the same thing on the sun. - http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_000317_114103.gif - Close up. http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/MDI_T171_000317_11.gif - TRACE: http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive1.html - "Care to explain what the magnetic curl is? - "Do you mean a twisting of the currents around the jet, or do you mean curl as in the derivative operator "nabla", j = curl B?" - The twisting of the magnetic fields around the jets. - Quote: "Care to give an estimate on the total power that is needed to set the galaxy spinning just by the "magnetic curl" of the jet (which you do not believe in)?" - I dont know. - "In #4, upriver mentioned intergalactic jets. - "Please show how the Bellan material relates to intergalactic jets (and not coronal arcs). - ""Because the name of his lecture is "Simulating Astrophysical Jets in the Laboratory" Dr. Paul Bellan, KITP & Caltech - "What powers microquasar, YSO (young stellar object), AGN, and quasar jets (in the EU idea)?"" - If I was to haz[]ard a guess I would have to say that they are all a range of electrical intensities, sizes, and compositions. - Here is a nice little summary of AGN's Etc.... - "While both of these examples, and others that make use of the Doppler velocity profile of optical line-emitting gas or stars near galactic nuclei (8), strongly indicate the existence of black holes, they do not reveal the effects of strong gravity expected from a black hole. - "Indeed, the matter observed is not in a gravitational field much stronger than that on the surface of the Sun. - "Other techniques are thus required to probe the innermost regions where water no longer exists and any stars have been tidally shredded." - http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/9/4749 - And as they say at AAVSO. So they are all the same thing. - "Many of the spectral and behavioral properties of AGN and quasars depend upon what orientation we're viewing the central engine and jet (if any) from. - "It is believed that AGN will be brighter the more closely the jet is pointed in our direction, and that the quasars are viewed almost straight on. - "In cases where the jet is almost exactly aligned with our line of sight, we see the most extreme example of AGN — a blazar." - [No longer available at: http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/spring05.shtml] - I hope this covers everything. If it doesnt, let me know. - 03-June-2006, 05:25 AM #46 - upriver - In the work I'm doing right [now] I read this paper that made some observations that to this day nobody has explained or even addressed. - And math cannot account for the effect. - Its time related in that what should happen pretty much now, has a 15 minute delay. - Its a huge effect that I noticed in the back of my mind but reading this paper brought it to the front. - Anyhow, in thinking about what you have asked, maybe what we need to do is define what is mainstream. - The concept that jets are from squirting particles that have a magnetic field wrapped around them by the rotation of the central blackhole, and that magnetic field collimates the jet, is what I understand the MS view to be. - "Several mechanisms have been proposed in the literature (see e.g., [6, 8, 17, 19] for recent reviews on these mechanisms). - "The most promising universal mechanism for jet acceleration and collimation relies on an accretion disk threaded by a perpendicular large-scale magnetic field [98]. - "The basic idea is that some magnetic flux is in open field lines, which form a certain angle with the disk's surface. - "Ionized material is forced to follow the field lines. - "Since these lines are anchored in the disk and rotate with it, material is centrifugally accelerated along the field lines like a bead on a wire, and the lines are wound up by the rotation of the disk 7 [99] (see Fig. 11)." - [No longer available at: http://www.cea.inpe.br/wiser/ASSE2004/pdfs/rev3.pdf] - This is the latest model before Dr. Bellans model, which separates the jet from the source. - As I said before, Dr. Bellans view is cutting edge mainstream. - The EU view is that jets are collimated by the magnetic field that wraps around any conductor that carries a current from point A to point B. - This has been the EU view since the Birkeland current was introduced. - Why would it be anything else? Can the jets be considered Birkeland currents? - I say yes because it is a collimated plasma carrying a flow of electricity. - It may not have the twist characteristic of other currents such as the DNA Nebula but it is still a current carrier in plasma. - Electricity is a powerful[] accelerator. Look at the plasma Wakefield work. - It probably has nothing to do with this but it is amazing how short the distance is to accelerate electrons to high energies. - This is the mechanism that I have always assumed generates the radiation like x-rays, gammas, radio, and the electric field accelerates the ions and protons. - "Whenever a relativistic charged particle encounters a magnetic field line it spirals around it and emit[s] polarized synchrotron radiation at meter and centimeter (radio) wavelengths. - "Since the electrons are much lighter and therefore, much faster moving than, e.g., the protons, they are responsible for most of the observed synchrotron radiation from the AGN jets. - "Inverse Compton is the radiation that is produced (generally at X-rays wavelengths) by photons from the environment which are scattered by relativistic electrons to higher frequencies. - "These mechanisms are both non-thermal in nature because there is no link between the emission they produce and the temperature of the radiating object. - "Their radiation spectrum is therefore, not described by a black-body curve." - "Detailed polarization maps obtained in the optical and radio bands of the jets of M 87 (the closest AGN) [30], for example, show that the magnetic field is mainly parallel to the jet axis but becomes predominantly perpendicular in the regions of emission knots," - [No longer available at: http://www.cea.inpe.br/wiser/ASSE2004/pdfs/rev3.pdf] - I guess the ATM[?] part is that the jet is a conductor in a circuit that extends from the central object to its heliosphere. - The only problem is that idea is becoming mainstream. - Here is an interesting paper on the Lorentz force. - http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V00NO19PDF/NR1~ - Yet, as far as I can tell, there is little that is common to these three, in terms of the specifics. - I'm reading them again to see how they crossover specifically. - The plasma cannot make the current flow visible, - See attachment. http://cosmoquest.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=277~
Lloyd
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
Charles, I didn't notice your post earlier. Now we have two pots on the fire. Can we manage both? Anyway, it's great to see that you were able to start incorporating the quasar data into your model and start to explain the data thereby. Sounds very interesting.
Here are some sources, in which I found discussion of values of z (redshift). Hopefully these are relevant enough. The links I provided in this thread around November discuss possible anomalies regarding mass of quasars etc. I'll see if I can help assemble more specific data. This is short notice and I don't have a file on the most relevant data.
1. This may be the best paper to read: Intrinsic Redshifts in Quasars and Galaxies by Arp. The whole paper is readable at http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/intrinsic_redshifts_in_qu~. Here's the Abstract. "We report a cluster of quasars that has 21 of its members at redshift z = 2:149 within a range of only +/-.019. It has an extension across the sky of >/= 3.2 degrees. At its conventional redshift distance it would have a huge diameter of 249 Mpc. The front and back should reflect the expansion of space of about 13; 700 km=s, but measured velocities within the cluster are only of the order of 1,000 km=s. "A previously catalogued, compact galaxy lies near the cluster center. When transformed into the rest frame of this galaxy of origin the quasar cluster redshift is z0 = 1.96, which is exactly the most prominent Karlsson peak redshift! We explore bright galaxies in this region and find they typically have companions at the Karlsson peak periodicity, including NGC 7361 with many physical companions at the lowest Karlsson peak periodicity of zK = .06. A sampling of similar groupings of companions around other bright spirals shows the same abundance of redshifts, zK = .06 (+/-.01). From the large numbers in this transition stage from quasar to galaxy they could be said to form a major constituent of the universe. "Most importantly, it is found that when high redshift quasars are linearly paired across a galaxy that their intrinsic redshift can be measured directly as it splits into two oppositely directed components. The intrinsic redshift of the ejected quasars falls uncannily close to the predicted Karlsson peaks - within +/-.01. It is argued that data going back to 1968 confirm that quasars are ejected and evolve in luminosity and redshift into normal galaxies which lie on or near the classic Hubble relation."
2. The TPOD, Quasar Clusters, at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100817cluster~ says: "In the beginning—in the 1960s and 1970s, just after quasars were identified—several astronomers noticed that the redshifts (z) of quasars around bright nearby galaxies tended to occur closely around certain periodic values: 0.60, 0.91, 1.41, and especially 1.96." It goes on to discuss z some more.
Lloyd wrote: Now we have two pots on the fire. Can we manage both?
Probably not! But I'm slowly working through your critique of my Galaxies paper, and you were right that the quasar stuff was untenable. I'm trying to keep up with you...
Lloyd
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
Thornhill's Article Charles, I was just looking into Thornhill's article mentioned in my previous post above and it seems to have a much better summary of the quasar issue than I realized. I think he says there that BL Lac objects become quasar clusters, which impresses me as a very extraordinary statement. So maybe they explode or expand in line with your theory somewhat, but they don't then implode. I like your im/explosion cycle theory for galaxies, but it's hard offhand to visualize it for quasars. The progression seems to be for quasars to start out small within AGNs and move away a certain distance and expand, but I haven't heard of evidence that they then implode, unless they do so by moving back in toward the parent galaxy. If they did that, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between quasars moving outward and expanding and expanded quasars moving inward and shrinking. But that idea would seem to present problems too.
Im/Explosions It would be a pity to have to discard the im/explosion cycle theory, unless there's an even better theory in the wings, because it sounds very plausible for the most part. Maybe Thornhill's article above will provide hints for what could be in the wings that's better, or that could modify the im/explosion cycle theory well. I would like to be assured that galaxies like ours aren't subject to such cycles. But, if the time scale is very great, it probably isn't a problem anyway. It would be funny if humans or the like could develop tech to tame such large-scale cycles, if that would be worth doing.
Doppler Redshift? It appears that your new theory about quasars states that the redshift is a Doppler shift after all, but that it equates only to velocity away from us, but does not equate to distance. That's very interesting. Offhand it's a bit hard to picture electrons accelerating away from an AGN in a jet ( I guess in an outer double layer) and then circling back into the head of the jet to reverse direction and get sucked in by ions. But, I guess, if the head of the jet is broad enough, I guess it wouldn't really be a problem. I was thinking that maybe the electrons are drawn in from the IGM, but I guess there'd be way more to pick up from the ones that shoot out along the sides of the jet from the AGN.
If quasars are tokamak jets, then Brant's material on jets in my earlier post may come in handy too.
I plan to review Arp's paper shortly to see if it may have useful info that Thornhill didn't mention. Maybe you'll beat me to it. If not, I may post my findings tomorrow.
Well, thanks for keeping me entertained with your continuous new insights and for educating me too.
Lloyd
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
Relationship between Jets and Quasars? I'll post highlights from Thornhill's and Arp's articles below. Charles, I think I understand your explanation of redshift in bipolar jets, but I don't see how jets relate to quasars. Quasars are often seen within arc-shaped bridges of matter from parent galaxies, but I don't think I've heard of quasars found in galactic jets. It looks like the bridges of matter are in the same plane as the galactic disks. That's not an illusion, is it? Would galactic magnetic fields cause jets to curve into arcs? It seems that some bridges are extensions of galactic arms. I guess I need to look at relevant galaxy images more closely.
Iron-Silicon Jets? I think Brant's jet discussion (above) said that iron and silicon are associated with galactic jets, mainly silicon. He suggested that iron transmutes into silicon. Could ionized silicon or iron uptake of relativistic electrons account for the common redshift values?
Redshift = Velocity, Not Distance Arp and Thornhill thought the redshift values indicated age, rather than velocity, but, if your reasoning is right, it looks like it may indicate both (to some extent). Arp found that the redshift has to be compared with the redshift of the parent galaxy to find the redshift with respect to the parent, which is the redshift value that falls into discrete quantities from .06 or so up to 1.96 and beyond. So, if the parent galaxy is moving away at a redshift velocity, subtracting the redshift of a jet from the parent galaxy's redshift yields the velocity of the electrons toward the parent galaxy. Does that sound right to you? I think it does offhand. I found a table a few months ago that showed I think about 3,000 blue-shifted galaxies. I don't remember if it listed the number of red-shifted galaxies. But Santilli and maybe Dunning-Davies think that the universe might be expanding slowly, based on many galaxy velocities, while quasar velocities and some galaxies in transition from quasars are illusory.
Highlights from Grey Matter vs Dark Matter Posted on August 28, 2006 by Wal Thornhill The Real Science Behind the Bullet Galaxy Cluster - ... [Note: The redshift (z) is defined as the change in the distant object's wavelength of light divided by the rest (laboratory measured) wavelength of the light, as z = (observed wavelength - rest wavelength)/(rest wavelength). - A redshift of z = 0.3 means that wavelengths in the line spectrum of the observed object have been stretched by a factor of 1.3] - ... Arp's empirical observations ... found that parent, active galaxies, spawn infant galaxies in the form of faint, highly redshifted quasars. The quasars are ejected from the parent galaxy's nucleus, most often along the spin axis but sometimes in the plane of the galaxy. - By a process that is not understood by present particle physics, the redshift of quasars decreases in discrete steps, or quanta, as they age, grow in brightness and move away from the parent galaxy. At the same time, the ejected quasar becomes more massive and slows down, eventually becoming a companion galaxy of the parent. Arp can trace several galactic generations from charts.... Arp outlines the empirical relationships between active galaxies, quasars, BL Lac objects and galaxy clusters: - 1. High-redshift objects (such as quasars) are aligned on either side of low-redshift eruptive objects (often active galaxies). The pairs have equal positive and negative dispersions from a redshift periodicity value. This implies that quasars are ejected with quantized intrinsic (not Doppler, i.e., velocity) redshifts from active galaxies. {In 1967 Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge noted the preferred values of redshifts of quasars. In 1971 K. G. Karlsson derived a formula relating those values: (1+z2)/(1+z1) = 1.23 (where z2 is the next higher redshift from z1). This gives observed quasar redshifts of z = .061, .30, .60, .96, 1.41, 1.96, etc. ...} - 2. The youngest ejected objects appear to have the highest redshifts. As distance from the active galaxy increases, the objects decrease in redshift—stepwise, in consonance with Karlsson's periodicity. This implies that intrinsic redshift decreases with age in quantum jumps. - 3. The objects also tend to increase in brightness and to slow down with distance. This implies that they gain mass as they age. - 4. At about z = .3 and about 400 kiloparsec from the parent galaxy BL Lac objects appear. They are rare, highly variable, and very bright in optical and X-ray luminosity. Some show evidence of star formation, which quasars do not. This implies that they are a transition from the compact quasar phase to a galaxy phase. - 5. Clusters of galaxies, many of which are strong X-ray sources, tend to appear at comparable distances to the BL Lac's from the parent galaxy. This implies that the clusters are the result of the breaking up of a BL Lac. - 6. Clusters of galaxies in the range z = .4 to .2 contain blue, active galaxies. This implies that they continue to evolve to higher luminosity and lower redshift. - 7. Abell galaxy clusters from z = .01 to .2 lie along ejection lines from galaxies like Centaurus A. This implies that they are the evolved products of the ejections. - 8. The strings of galaxies which are aligned through the brightest nearby spirals have redshifts z = .01 to .02. This implies that they are the last stage of the ejection of quasars and their evolution into slightly higher-redshift companions of the original ejecting galaxies. Galaxy evolution - A schematic diagram incorporating the empirical data for low redshift central galaxies and the higher redshift quasars and companions, which have been found since 1966 to be associated. It is suggested that the most evolved companion galaxies have relative intrinsic redshifts of only a few hundred km/sec and can have fallen back closer to the parent galaxy. —From Seeing Red by Halton Arp, 1998, p. 239. - ... The Bullet Cluster emits X-rays, which fits naturally with Arp's observations of similar galaxy clusters. It is not necessary, or even likely, that a collision is required to explain the X-rays or the bullet shape of the emission. The shape is typical of the "bow shock" of many jets, as is the "trailing" pink clump, somewhat arc-shaped. The jet is evidence of "eject{ing} material in opposite directions," and the clumps of galaxies at each end are evidence of "it eventually age{ing} into … clusters…." - ... Instead of colliding, the cluster is forming, exhibiting expected features of such clusters: x-ray jets, arcs, and filaments; a profusion of irregular and disturbed small galaxies; discrepant redshifts. - ... To get some idea of the cluster's likely location, you must take a wider view than the narrow Hubble field. You must look for the cluster's possible relationship to the major "ejection family groupings" in the sky. Because of its faintness, the first place to look is the Local Group. If you draw the line of the Local Group from M31 through M33 and along the string of QSOs, clusters, hydrogen clouds and smaller (high-redshift) galaxies, including 3C120, and on to the Milky Way, the Bullet Cluster is within this "cone of ejection" from M31. It is likely a member of our Local Group. - ... But arcs are a natural phenomenon in clusters of galaxies. ... He also mentions that a casual inspection shows that some of the arcs look like an ejected shell. But the shock comes when we see that some of the arcs are radial and not tangential! - Arp concludes from his observations that "active galaxies eject high redshift quasars and also eject diffuse material, some of which is in the form of arcs." The radial jets and tangential arcs have nothing to do with gravity and dark matter. - ... Arp notes that "the tendency for young, nearby, low luminosity objects to break up, eject material, show jets and disturbances could explain the prevalence of linear, knotty objects and multiple objects as shown in the Hubble Deep Field." The evidence suggests "…that all objects we can be sure of are within the rough confines of the Local Super Cluster." - ... Plasma cosmology shows empirically and experimentally that the energy required to form galaxies and light the stars comes from intergalactic power transmission lines in the form of cosmic Birkeland current filaments. That is why the universe has a "stringy" appearance, with galaxies arranged like beads on a necklace. And the engine at the center of galaxies is a simple "plasma focus" or "plasma gun" effect. ...
Highlights from Intrinsic Redshifts in Quasars and Galaxies, H. Arp * Most importantly, it is found that when high redshift quasars are linearly paired across a galaxy that their intrinsic redshift can be measured directly as it splits into two oppositely directed components. * In the following investigation we encounter a new kind of extra galactic object: It has the redshift of the lowest redshift quasars, z = .06, or about 18,000 km/s and a luminosity ranging between that of a compact dwarf galaxy and a supergiant star. * The Figure 2 observations should demonstrate quantitatively that quasars are ejected from active galaxies as follows: These small observed red and blue shifts enable us to measure the current velocities of ejection, zv, as described in Appendix B. - The net shift toward lower zv is .027/7 = .0039 and to higher is .021/7 = .0030. - This translates into ¡1200 and +900 km/s average current outflow velocity. - An even smaller gap between the inner plus and minus velocities is shown when the central peak splits just at its maximum into two components. - This same effect is observed in the active galaxy UGC 8584 (Arp & Fulton 2008a) and it supports both the ejection and pairing of initially small, proto quasars. * The redshift of NGC 7793 itself is very small, z = 21 km/s. * The redshift of NGC 4410 / Mrk 1325 was reported at 7440 km/s for A and 7500 km/s for B (Smith et al. 2003). * If as in the previous example we let zv be the ejection velocity of a quasar and zi be its intrinsic redshift then zi + zv = .680 and zi ¡ zv = .498. - The ejection velocity, at this stage, 27,600 km/s if it is a velocity, is possibly in the process of slowing as its elementary particles gain in mass and their interaction cross sections slow down its velocity in the ambient medium. - Similar calculations on the pairs z = 1.471 and 1.429 and z = 1.471 and 1.467 yield zi = 1.39 and zv = .021 and zi = 1.41 and zv = .0025 (the last velocity being only 750 km/s). * If the redshifts in a large group as defined in Komberg et al. (1996) are taken to be velocities, then one has, for example, their LQG5 where the approaching side of the cluster is separating from the far side with a velocity of ¢v = .218c = 65,400 km/s. * NGC 4319 Mrk 205 cz 1,700 21,000 z .00567 .070 z0 ... .064 - Listed as velocities they have cz = 21,000 km/s and 1,700 km/s, respectively. - A suggested history for this unusual association would then be an encounter with material in NGC 4319 on its way out which disrupted the galaxy and stopped the quasar from completely exiting the galaxy. - It evolved through the Karlsson intrinsic redshift steps and now occupies the first peak on its way to become a low redshift companion galaxy of NGC 4319.
CharlesChandler
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
Lloyd wrote: I like your im/explosion cycle theory for galaxies, but it's hard offhand to visualize it for quasars. The progression seems to be for quasars to start out small within AGNs and move away a certain distance and expand, but I haven't heard of evidence that they then implode, unless they do so by moving back in toward the parent galaxy.
Here's what I'm currently thinking. A protostar in an elliptical orbit around the AGN might gain a lot of mass during its nearest pass to the AGN, where there is more matter to scavenge. The mass is added to the protostar's accretion disc, and on the way back out of the AGN, the protostar's energy budget has gotten a big boost. As the protostar starts ingesting its accretion disc, its luminosity increases. This process continues as the protostar moves away from the AGN. If the angular momentum in the accretion disc is sufficient, the protostar eventually ignites as a natural tokamak, radiating gamma rays, and shooting out bipolar jets. As described , the jets bend light (by the mirage effect) into polarized beams, parallel with the axes of the jets. If one of those jets is pointed right at us, we'll see an extremely bright light — more powerful than the luminosity of a giant galaxy. But like a pulsar, that's just a lighthouse beacon pointed at us, and the actual amount of energy might be no more than that of an average star.
To be clear, the conventional literature considers quasars to be galaxies, due to their intensities, but they behave like stars, hence their designation as quasi-stellar objects, but with the energy of a galaxy. Even Arp, who challenges the redshift interpretations, and thus the absolute luminosity estimates, considers quasars to be baby galaxies. But I consider them to be stars, of the natural tokamak variety, like black holes, pulsars, magnetars, white dwarfs, etc. They feed on accretion discs; they emit bipolar jets; they pulse, sometimes rapidly; and they emit gamma rays, begging the question of what created the pressure for nuclear fusion in the absence of gravitational force from overlying matter — that would have absorbed the gamma rays! — which is a question that can only be answered with magnetic pressure in a natural tokamak.
Lloyd wrote: It appears that your new theory about quasars states that the redshift is a Doppler shift after all, but that it equates only to velocity away from us, but does not equate to distance.
Exactly. Redshift only signifies distance if you invoke Big Bang cosmology, which I do not.
Lloyd wrote: Offhand it's a bit hard to picture electrons accelerating away from an AGN in a jet (I guess in an outer double layer) and then circling back into the head of the jet to reverse direction and get sucked in by ions.
Right — the electron jets are charged double-layers. And yes, it's a complex model, but if you look at the magnetic pressures, how else are the electrons going to finally join back up with the nucleons ejected from the tokamak? I didn't arrive at this by simply fishing for something to explain Herbig-Haro flare-ups at the tips of the bipolar jets, or the conversion of highly collimated jets (organized by the magnetic pinch effect) into turbulent outflows. I just acknowledged that relativistic velocities in the tokamak, if capable of ramming like charges together, would split opposite charges apart. So where would they recombine? Only where the magnetic pressures had relaxed. So I examined the magnetic fields, and concluded that the electrons stream outward in parallel double-layers. But if the electrons to run on ahead, and turn around so that they can enter the jet from the outside, the magnetic pressure is relieved, and they can get in with the positive ions within the jet.
Lloyd wrote: I was thinking that maybe the electrons are drawn in from the IGM...
That's also possible. But you're right in saying that there will still be an excess of electrons that were split off from the nucleons outside the tokamak, and they have to go somewhere.
Lloyd wrote: I don't think I've heard of quasars found in galactic jets.
I'm not saying that quasars form in the AGN jets. Rather, quasars are natural tokamaks that produce their own jets.
Lloyd wrote: It looks like the bridges of matter are in the same plane as the galactic disks. That's not an illusion, is it?
Only elliptical galaxies have AGNs, so the "plane" is not as well-defined as in a spiral galaxy. Anyway, no, I don't think it's an illusion — I think that it's a connected companion galaxy. I just don't think that there has to be a quasar there, for there to be a galaxy at all.
Lloyd wrote: Would galactic magnetic fields cause jets to curve into arcs?
I think that it's extra-galactic magnetic fields that put the spin into galactic accretion.
Lloyd wrote: Could ionized silicon or iron uptake of relativistic electrons account for the common redshift values?
I'm currently researching this. Degrees of ionization are definitely quantized, and this "might" explain the quantization of quasar redshifts.
Lloyd wrote: Arp found that the redshift has to be compared with the redshift of the parent galaxy to find the redshift with respect to the parent, which is the redshift value that falls into discrete quantities from .06 or so up to 1.96 and beyond. So, if the parent galaxy is moving away at a redshift velocity, subtracting the redshift of a jet from the parent galaxy's redshift yields the velocity of the electrons toward the parent galaxy. Does that sound right to you?
Yes. As concerns age, I'm not on board with the "particles are born with zero mass" thing yet. That would have, ummm, a lot of implications, and all of those would have to be considered. If they're saying that AGNs are manufacturing particles of zero mass from scratch, where do the old, obese particles go? Do they die? Or do they just accumulate somewhere, like near a large TV or radio source?
Thornhill wrote: The objects also tend to increase in brightness and to slow down with distance. This implies that they gain mass as they age.
I interpret the increase in luminosity and mass as evidence of the quasar consuming its accretion disc. The evidence of increased mass is simply an increase in the high-wavelength photons. More UV radiation generally comes from more massive stars. But if they're going to say that the additional mass is from sub-atomic particles growing in size, they have to go back and explain why heavier particles would emit more UV radiation. Also, I interpret the decrease in speed not as a function of increased mass, but rather, that the quasars are in elliptical orbits around the AGN, and they move the slowest when they are the furthest from the elliptical focus.
Thornhill wrote: At about z = .3 and about 400 kiloparsec from the parent galaxy BL Lac objects appear. They are rare, highly variable, and very bright in optical and X-ray luminosity. Some show evidence of star formation, which quasars do not. This implies that they are a transition from the compact quasar phase to a galaxy phase.
I'm starting to wonder if BL Lac objects are not natural tokamaks too. They behave as the other exotic stars (such as black holes), and are only considered galaxies because of their luminosity, not because we know them to be comprised of multiple stars. As point sources, those are stars, and there is no transition from quasar to galaxy.
Cheers!
Lloyd
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
Quasars Don't Become Galaxies? Charles, are you thinking that neither quasars nor BL Lac objects expand into galaxies? If not, then what becomes of quasars and BL Lacs? And why do galaxies line up, I think axially, all over the sky, in the same positions as quasars and BL Lacs, so that it can be determined which galaxies begat which others objects? I presume that Peculiar galaxies are located axially from other galaxies and that they have higher redshift than those galaxies. Isn't that true? If so, it looks like they evolve from quasars or BL Lacs. Eh?
Cathode Star Question
Someone asked: If the cathode model still requires the galaxy to be held together by electric forces then why would not the electric currents that run through the galaxy and are enough to hold it together not power the stars ... within it? It seems to me that Charles does not fully take into account the effects of cosmic plasmas, ie they produce charge separation, electric currents, and magnetic fields. These currents can be in dark mode and they can be of immense proportions - measured in light years.
My hasty reply was:
I think the electric currents are provided by the stars. Without the stars the currents would be extremely weak. They need [the] combined forces of small electric currents in photoionization etc to assist gravity and magnetism to form stars from nebulae. Then the stars produce the electric currents to hold galaxies together. Charles seems to explain a lot more details than do the anode models.
It would be nice if you'd explain it better, in more detail, if you like.
Doubting Redshift = Velocity Mathis seems to agree [with Thornhill] that redshift is due to ionization and, not linear velocity, but spin velocity, so I want to quote him a little. But first, in order to help understand Mathis better, I think he says photons have small mass and volume and are not mere points, that the spherical photon spins and the mass goes to a small area on the equator, which can stack spins, each stacked spin being kind of like gyroscopes within gyroscopes. A photon can be like a single gyroscope, or stacked in several layers. When the spins are stacked high enough they become electrons and can no longer travel at light speed, because of resistance from the "charge field" of normal photons. Several more stacks on electrons result in protons and neutrons. Electrons and protons suck in photons at their poles and emit them equatorially. Neutrons emit them polarly. Electrons aren't really attracted to protons, but, since they're small compared to protons (contradicting Kanarev's findings), they get sucked in toward protons as the protons emit photons, which makes the protons repel each other. The emission is kind of like a sump pump that sprays water out, but also sucks in water to spray more out. The water gets "recycled", a term Mathis uses. His theory seems to have problems, but probably fewer than other theories. I have a variation on his theory, but I'm not sure it's really better. Here are highlights from two of his papers.
The THEORY of TIRED LIGHT - why it is wrong and why it is right by Miles Mathis [See http://MilesMathis.com] ... it has been proven that light does not travel via an ether.... There may be an ether of some sort, and if you call my charge field an ether, then of course I agree there is an ether; but even with this ether, we know that the waves are not waves in the ether. All the experiments of the last century have proved that. And besides, I have shown that the wave is part of the photon itself. It is not a field wave. ... Since the waves are caused by the spins, any shift of the wave must be caused by a shift of the spins. In other words, it is not the linear motion that is shifted, it is the angular motion. I have already shown the mechanism for this in my previous paper on Bremsstrahlung [See below]. ... The photon has remained an unanalyzed particle. ... Although photons do a lot of inexplicable things, as we see again here, no one has bothered to give them more characteristics, beyond speed c and a wavelength. And even the wavelength is unassigned. It is the length of what? The wave. Yes. But since the mainstream knows that isn't a field or ether wave, it has no assignment. We know what it isn't, but what is it? What I have done is simply make the first assumption that comes to mind. If the wave isn't a field wave, then the very first thing you would look at is a wave caused by the spin of the photon itself [I think he means the wave motion that a glowing object would make if attached to a spinning ball moving through the air in the dark]. I made that assumption and found that it explained many things, including superposition, entanglement, and a host of other famous things. So am I really the first to seriously consider it? If so, how can that be? How can something so elementary and simple have evaded notice for this long? I would say it isn't credible. Photon spin has been ignored on purpose, to keep it from interfering with other theories.
... it wasn't until I looked closely at Reber's diagram that I realized how to correct it. If you are looking at a way to explain redshifts without Doppler, you don't look at linear velocity, you look at spin velocity. Since spin is what causes waves and determines wavelength, any change in wavelength not caused by Doppler will have to come from a change in spin velocity or radius. And once I had analzed the mechanism of Bremsstrahlung, I understood the mechanism of redshift. Zwicky was right to begin with: the redshift is caused by photons interacting with interstellar media (not just electrons, it could be any ions). The important thing is not the material, it is the mechanism. Just as an electron has its outer spin damped or stripped in Bremsstrahlung, a photon has its outer spin damped or stripped in a similar close pass with [an] electron or other ion. It is not c or the angle to the observer that is affected in this interaction, it is the outer spin radius. A collision at this spin radius slows the spin velocity, which increases the spin radius, which increases the wavelength. The photon has been redshifted. Because the photon is so much smaller than the electron, this energy shift is much much smaller than Bremsstrahlung. It requires millions or billions of interactions to create any measurable shift. [I think the many interactions are more likely to occur where there is concentration of ionized mass.]
... We don't see blueshifts because this isn't Doppler. ... we don't have Doppler here, we have a collision of spins. If the spins of photon and electron, say, are reversed, then we get a spin damping and a redshift. But if the spins are the same, we get a spin augmentation. The photon gains energy. But it doesn't show this gain by a blueshift, it shows it by exhibiting what I call "reverse Bremsstrahlung." In the previous paper, I showed that in Bremsstrahlung, the electron didn't emit the photon, it became the photon. The electron lost its outer spin, and an electron that loses its spin is, by definition (in my theory), a photon. An electron is just a photon with extra spins. That is what my particle unification was about. All the fundamental particles, including photon, electron, meson, proton, and neutron, are just different spin levels of the same particle. So if our photon in this Hubble problem encounters matter with the same spin as itself, it will gain a spin. The photon won't blueshift, it will become an electron. This is why we don't see blueshifted light from this mechanism. We don't see energy gains as blueshifts, we see them as electron production.
... We have lots of evidence the photon ... has a ... mass and radius above zero, and all logic points to that as well. The real reason current physicists believe in a zero mass and radius for the photon ... is that their gauge math requires it. ... we have some recent estimates that suggest an upper limit for the size of the photon of something on the order of 10^-36 kg. Fortunately, I found a mass of about 10^-37 kg, and I did it before I knew of this upper limit. ... I have shown a method for getting this mass straight from Planck's constant, in about two lines of simple math. ... In my Hubble paper I proposed curvature as a [redshift] mechanism, and now I have proposed a reverse Bremsstrahlung as another. ... I suspect that both mechanisms are at work to produce the shift we see, and there may be others. ... Only when I do the math will I be able to tell how much of the shift is due to curvature and how much is due to reverse Bremsstrahlung. ... how are you going to do this Bremsstrahlung math? You would have to know how much matter the light is interacting with.... Beyond that, you would need a density of photons relative to that matter.... since I have a mass and radius for my photon, I can do the calculation. I also have relative densities of matter and photons, since I have shown that the 19 to 1 ratio ... applies to the photon/matter ratio. This finding, which I discovered only recently, immediately pushes this math a long way forward. ...
BREMSSTRAHLUNG RADIATION - a better mechanism by Miles Mathis ... From web sources, you only find that Bremsstrahlung is photons emitted by electrons when they are slowed by near contact with atoms or free protons. But no one ever bothers to tell you how electrons can emit photons. Are electrons little lightbulbs? Are they glass balls full of photons? When an electron emits a big photon, like an X-ray, is the electron diminished by that amount? ... As far as I can tell, the history of Bremsstrahlung is suppressed because it is an embarrassment to the mainstream. Nikola Tesla, who was an outcast of the mainstream for decades, and still is in many ways, was the one who discovered it. ... And Grote Reber, an even greater outcast, is the one who discovered Bremsstrahlung as the source of cosmic radio emission, although he prefered to call it free-free radiation. ... What we will see is that the mechanism of Bremsstrahlung, though roughly correct, is not completely correct. The electron is not emitting a photon, it is becoming a photon [Electrons do emit photons equatorially, but in Bremsstrahlung they reduce in size to a photon and I guess they then stop emitting them]. And this new photon stands out because we have machines set up to track it.
... Ask yourself this, In all the experiments that record Bremsstrahlung radiation, are the electrons being monitored at the end? In other words, are we quite sure that we have as many electrons coming out as we had going in? No, we know we have a lot of electrons coming out, but we haven't cared to monitor how many. It never occurred to anyone to check. But we already know that all the electrons going in aren't "emitting" Bremsstrahlung radiation, otherwise we would have a lot more radiation than we see. Only the electrons that we think are making the closest passes to the atoms or protons are emitting. This is just to say that I could be right and no one would know it. It is best to show an open door before you walk through it. My theory has a logical and straightforward explanation for Bremsstrahlung, in that instead of electrons emitting photons for reasons unknown and by mechanisms unknown, I now have electrons emitting photons via easily visualizable means. Instead of an electron and a proton in a void or free space, I have an electron and a proton in a sea of charge photons, and both big particles are recycling this charge via spin. In other words, the spinning spheres are taking in the tiny particles at the poles and spitting them out at their equators. This mechanism works on the same basic principle as an exhaust fan, pulling particles from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure.
... The important thing is that we now have real spin and real density variations to work with, instead of charge as positive and negative signs or as virtual forces. Yes, the photons as well as the electrons and protons are all spinning, with real angular momenta. With this set-up I have explained many things, and it will allow me to propose a simple explanation here as well. In a free-free meeting of electron and proton, we need to propose that the two particles are spinning in opposite directions. It will not work if the electron and proton happen to be spinning in the same direction. But if they have opposite spins, then their charge fields will also have opposite spins. This helps us explain how particles that only suffer a near approach can feel a real force [from the equatorially emitted photons]. Their charge fields [emitted photons with momentum] are extensions of themselves, and they must feel what their charge field feels. Nor is this a non-mechanical "field" statement, since I can expand on it if you push me. Since the particles are recyling the field [of photons] around them, any change in that field will change the particle itself. If the electron's immediate charge field is forced to switch spin, via straight collisions of photons, the electron will also. The incoming charge wouldn't be able to maintain the spin on the electron, and the first thing that would happen is that the outer spin of the electron would be "stripped." This is because the spin maintains the charge [photon emission] and the charge maintains the spin, so that if the spins on the photons are stripped, the spin on the electron will be damped and then lost. This means that the electron is not "braking" in a linear sense. It is not slowing down. It is losing energy, yes, but it is losing angular energy by losing its spin. The spin is what is braking. And the closer the electron comes to the proton, the more spins it loses. If it loses enough spins, it is no longer really an electron. By my spin equation, an electron that loses more than two spin levels actually becomes a photon. That is simply what we call a particle with that number of spins. The electron doesn't contain the photon, like our glass jar with photons inside. An electron simply IS a photon with extra spins. We call a photon with two extra spins an electron, and a photon with six extra spins is a proton or neutron.
You [may think that] By this theory, free electrons and protons should be going c. But ... particles with angular momentum above a given limit can't go c, since the spin speed begins to conflict with the linear speed. The particle is too big, as a matter of spin radius, to dodge the charge field, and collisions with charge photons begin to slow it. So, in the free-free interaction, the electron is not slowing down, as a linear matter, it is speeding up. It is going from somewhere below c to c, and it is doing this by shedding outer spins. It is the shedding of outer spins, and thus the new smaller radius, that allows it to attain the velocity c. In a word, it becomes small enough to dodge a great deal of the charge field. A particle that can dodge the charge field in this manner is by definition a photon, since it is this dodging that allows it to go c. The photon field is interpenetrable to itself to a large degree, and it is precisely this degree of interpenetrability that determines c....
CharlesChandler
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
Lloyd wrote: Charles, are you thinking that neither quasars nor BL Lac objects expand into galaxies? If not, then what becomes of quasars and BL Lacs?
I'm thinking that they just continue as stars, unless of course they consume all of the material in their accretion discs, in which case they'll go dark, until/if/when they run into some more material, in which case they'll flare up again. In a frictionless environment, the tokamak should keep spinning forever, but if nothing is getting sucked in, there won't be an fusion producing any photons, or any ejecta in bipolar jets.
Lloyd wrote: And why do galaxies line up, I think axially, all over the sky, in the same positions as quasars and BL Lacs, so that it can be determined which galaxies begat which others objects?
Finding a quasar or BL Lac object in a galaxy doesn't mean that the star created the galaxy. It might be the other way around — the star condensed from matter in the galaxy. How would we know which caused which? My reason for distinguishing between stars & galaxies is that the property sets are quite distinct, and while quasars and BL Lac objects have a lot in common with other (exotic) stars (e.g., black holes, pulsars, and white dwarfs), they don't have any of the distinguishing characteristics of galaxies (e.g., peculiars, ellipticals, lenticulars, or spirals).
I'm becoming of the opinion that the only reason quasars etc. are considered to be galaxies is that their luminosities, when the redshifts are interpreted within Big Bang cosmology, are galactic, not stellar. But if that interpretation is wrong, and the objects are much closer, then the power output is actually stellar. And a point source emitting in the stellar power range is... a star, not a galaxy.
As concerns the alignments of galaxies, which imply family trees, I haven't been studying extra-galactic structures, but I certainly wouldn't start out assuming that a line of galaxies implies a succession of ancestors and descendants. The Universe is full of filaments. If those were already there, galaxies would form in a line along those filaments, perhaps simultaneously. Even if galactic ages could be determined reliably, and the oldest was at one end of a sequence, with the youngest at the other end, that doesn't mean that one begat the other. So until/if/when I study this some more, and find some corroborating evidence, I'm not jumping to any conclusions.
Someone wrote: If the cathode model still requires the galaxy to be held together by electric forces then why would not the electric currents that run through the galaxy and are enough to hold it together not power the stars ... within it? It seems to me that Charles does not fully take into account the effects of cosmic plasmas, ie they produce charge separation, electric currents, and magnetic fields.
In my model, the tensile force that holds galaxies together is electrostatic, not electrodynamic. It's a resting body force, in the "like-likes-like" configuration (i.e., a mutual attraction to a shared opposite charge). It doesn't imply any electric currents per se. There certainly are electric currents in space, and I'm saying that 2/3 of the solar output is from ohmic heating caused by electric currents. I specify the charge separation mechanism, and the circumstances responsible for recombination, and the power calcs are within an order of magnitude of actual. So I definitely agree that the Universe is electric. But not the way the EU has it. When I ask about the electric fields that would drive cosmic electric currents, all I get in response is that it is not necessary to determine why the currents flow — we can just assume that they flow, and then we can direct them wherever we want, and make them do whatever we want. So I looked for the electric fields, and found that they just aren't physically possible. For example, Scott's solar model has a current going into both poles and out of the equator. There just isn't a heliospheric electric field that will do that. Sorry. Still convinced of the EU premise (i.e., that little of what we see in the Universe can be explained with conventional astronomy, and that EM is just about the only other alternative), I then did my own search. I very definitely found real electric fields, and real electric currents. Just not the way classical EU theory has them.
Lloyd wrote: Mathis seems to agree [with Thornhill] that redshift is due to ionization...
Ionization, all by itself, doesn't cause redshift. The emission frequencies for each element, at each degree of ionization, are well-known, and can be measured in the laboratory, to get the "resting" frequency. For example, here are the most common frequencies emitted by hydrogen:
These are the frequencies that astronomers look for, and you need a series of them to know which elements are present. (One single frequency could be one element at one degree of ionization and a specific z value, or another element at another degree of ionization and another z value.) Once you recognize a series, you know which element(s) are present, and then you can figure out how much they've been shifted.
Lloyd wrote: ...not linear velocity, but spin velocity...
Unfortunately, I can't understand much of what Mathis is doing. He might be right. But after he gets done redefining all of the constants, and creating new forces and particles, I'm just not sure how even to evaluate his work. But for me to incorporate something into my work, I need to see assertion, support, and corroboration. I'm obviously not saying that it has to be mainstream. (If it weren't for the fallacy of authority, the mainstream wouldn't have any authority at all!!! ) But a theory needs to explain the data, and not just in one place — there need to be multiple ways of cross-checking that it is legitimate, or it's just an isolated, ad hoc epiphany. Maybe he's got all of that, and I'm just too stupid to understand it. But I'm not going to adopt things I don't understand. When you're stupid, you don't have to go out of your way to find more things that you don't understand.
Lloyd
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
Quasar Model Critique (Cri-Tweak) Charles, I'm open to your quasar model, but I think it needs more critiquing first.
You previously considered quasars to be imploded/exploding galaxies, because you thought they were as luminous as galaxies but far away, but now you see that they're much less luminous because they're nearby, so you don't think they can become galaxies. Right? You don't think Arp truly observed quasars being small with high redshift near "parent" galaxies, and grow progressively larger and with progressively smaller redshift with greater distance from "parent" galaxies? And you think he didn't observe galaxies forming in the same locations with respect to "parent" galaxies as low redshift quasars? I think I follow Arp's reasoning better than yours with respect to quasars, although I agree that we should start with the assumption that mass is not somehow created. He claims that quasars are smaller in size and with larger redshift near their central galaxies and larger with smaller redshift farther from central galaxies. I assume that he proved that claim.
You said: Finding a quasar or BL Lac object in a galaxy doesn't mean that the star created the galaxy. I haven't heard of quasars or BL Lacs found in galaxies. I think they're only found near galaxies as I just described. There's one quasar that seems to be in front of a galaxy, but not in it.
I think you agree that quasars start by being shot out of active galactic nuclei (AGNs). If they start out very small, they would not be visible to any telescope at first. If they tend to travel up to 2 million lightyears (the average distance between galaxies) from their AGNs, would they not encounter enough mass in intergalactic space over that distance to increase in mass to the size of a peculiar galaxy? Peculiars are still your starting point in galactic evolution. Aren't they? Have you seen the early stages of peculiar galaxies?
You said on your site that shockwaves from supernovae can cause condensing collapse in nearby nebulae. Wouldn't fast-moving quasars have shockwaves that could do that, condensing intergalactic matter? If quasars start out as tokamaks, would they be able to go through im/explosion cycles, like in your supernova model? Or is it only ion compressed objects that can have those cycles? If the latter, could quasars start out as ion compressed runaway stars that go through supernova cycles to scavenge matter from the intergalactic space to grow into galaxies? Could supernova shockwaves condense much matter in intergalactic space? Don't you say that supernovae can convert ion compressed objects into tokamaks too (thus turning quasars into tokamaks, if they don't start as tokamaks)?
CharlesChandler
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
Lloyd wrote: You previously considered quasars to be imploded/exploding galaxies, because you thought they were as luminous as galaxies but far away, but now you see that they're much less luminous because they're nearby, so you don't think they can become galaxies. Right?
Exactly. I "think" that the unbelievable luminosity is the only reason that anybody ever believed that quasars had to be galaxies (or at least AGNs), because they exceeded all theoretical limits for an individual star. But in every other respect (e.g., point-source emissions, black-body temperature, intensity oscillations, etc.), quasars are distinctly stellar. If you accept that the redshift interpretations are way wrong, and that quasars are much closer, you no longer have a need to call them galactic nuclei. Then many problems go away. For example, quasars sometimes oscillate in intensity. How could all of the stars in a galactic nucleus get synchronized, varying in intensity sometimes in a period as short as a few hours? So I'm going with the "looks like a star, twinkles like a star, it's a star" model (for now at least).
Lloyd wrote: You don't think Arp truly observed quasars being small with high redshift near "parent" galaxies, and grow progressively larger and with progressively smaller redshift with greater distance from "parent" galaxies?
Yes, that's exactly what he observed, and I'm now accepting his conclusion that high redshift quasars are definitely associated with low redshift galaxies. But it looks like I have a new conception of how quasars are "born". I'm still a quasar newbie, but my understanding of Arp's model is that AGNs (which are quasars) spit out new quasars (which will go on to collect new galaxies around them). So one AGN begets another. The concept I'm brewing right now neglects the designation of a quasar as a galaxy (or AGN). Rather, a quasar is just a star in the process of growing, by ingesting material from its accretion disc. And the relationship of a baby quasar to the AGN that spit it out is different. The parent galaxies are all ellipticals, where all of the stars orbit the galactic nucleus in semi-random, elliptical orbits. So I'm thinking that the quasar is a star in an elliptical orbit, and in its closest pass to the galactic nucleus, it scavenges a bunch of new material. On its way back out, it starts ingesting this new material, and the quasar gets rev'd up. At first, the noticeable effect is the increase in redshift. I'm thinking that the redshift is caused by counter-streaming electrons in the positively charged bipolar jets. As more and more material gets ingested from the accretion disc, the size of the quasar grows. And the bipolar jets mature. If the counter-streaming electrons in the bipolar jets are doing their thing at the end of a much longer jet, where it is starting to fall apart, the forces will be less intense, and the counter-streaming speed will be less — thus the redshift won't be as dramatic. And the quasar "slows down" as it matures, not because it is gaining mass, which doesn't make much sense, but rather, because it is in an elliptical orbit, and it moves the slowest when it is furthest from the nucleus of the parent galaxy. So in my model, quasars emerge from AGNs, with high velocities, high redshifts, and low masses at first, and with time, the masses increase, and the redshifts and velocities decrease. I'm accounting for all of the same data, just in a somewhat more mechanistic framework.
Lloyd wrote: I haven't heard of quasars or BL Lacs found in galaxies.
Quasars and BL Lacs are conventionally considered to be synonymous with AGNs (according to Wikipedia), so yes, quasars can be "in" galaxies. I'm thinking that in cases where we see a stray quasar, outside of the host galaxy, there are probably lots of other stars in the neighborhood, but the quasar outshines them all. The other stars would be in similar elliptical orbits around the nucleus of the parent galaxy. So the quasar would still be a member of the parent galaxy, just like the rest of the stars.
Lloyd wrote: Peculiars are still your starting point in galactic evolution. Aren't they?
Yes. I'm just saying that if there happens to be a quasar in a peculiar galaxy, near an elliptical, this doesn't mean that the quasar/AGN was shot out of the parent galaxy. It could be two distinct galaxies colliding, both of which happened to contain quasars.
Lloyd wrote: You said on your site that shockwaves from supernovae can cause condensing collapse in nearby nebulae. Wouldn't fast-moving quasars have shockwaves that could do that, condensing intergalactic matter?
Yes, but the intragalactic matter is a lot thicker, and if I'm right about the elliptical orbits of quasars, they're feeding mainly on material they got from inside the galaxy, not outside.
Lloyd wrote: If quasars start out as tokamaks, would they be able to go through im/explosion cycles, like in your supernova model?
The natural tokamak model doesn't really have a definite end-of-life scenario like normal stars. A CI star is held together by electrostatic potentials, and when charge recombination has released all of the potential, the thing falls apart. But an NT star is held together by magnetic confinement due to its relativistic angular velocity, and it could keep spinning forever (I guess). If it ingests everything in its accretion disc, it will go dark. Perhaps this is the best description of a black hole — just an NT star that doesn't currently have any food, so there is a huge gravity source there, but no photons. Sooner or later, a planet or another star will get sucked in, and the results could be explosive. But NT stars don't just wither away like CI stars.
Lloyd wrote: Could quasars start out as ion compressed runaway stars that go through supernova cycles to scavenge matter from the intergalactic space to grow into galaxies?
Then you'd be talking about a CI star, which imploded from a dusty plasma, and which eventually exploded, as a supernova or an event-less red giant dispersion, and then re-imploded, this time with enough angular momentum to instantiate an NT star. I "think" that I basically agree with that general idea. The reasoning is as follows. There is an awful lot of angular momentum in stellar systems. Where does that come from? I'm thinking that it's from the Lorentz force, where matter im/exploding gets an induced spin by moving within the galactic magnetic field. But that field is extremely weak, and the amount of energy stored in the angular momentum is extremely large. So I'm thinking that the Lorentz force had to build up the momentum over an extremely long period of time. And if you're talking about a period that's longer than the life cycle of a star, you're talking about a build-up that spanned multiple im/explosion cycles. At first, the dusty plasma implodes, picking up a little bit of angular momentum from the Lorentz force — enough to get the star spinning, but not with relativistic velocities. So you get a normal star, like our Sun, which spins, but is not a powerful dynamo with dominating magnetic fields. Then, when the CI star explodes, all of that angular momentum is preserved in the ejecta. Plus, the exploding matter picks up a little more angular momentum from the Lorentz force, because it's still within the galactic field. So the star that forms from the next implosion will spin a little bit faster. Eventually, you'll get up to relativistic velocities, and the next implosion won't form a CI star — it will form an NT star. But that star isn't going to explode until a large collision occurs. Then everything starts over from the beginning.
But this framework still has the quasar as a star, not a galaxy.
Lloyd wrote: Could supernova shockwaves condense much matter in intergalactic space?
That's the standard model, but I don't go along with that. Rather, I maintain that it's the UV radiation from a supernova that ionizes surrounding matter, and thereby strengthens the Debye sheaths. Then, there is a more powerful "like-likes-like" body force on the dusty plasmas, encouraging implosion.
So would the UV radiation from a quasar do the same thing, perhaps helping it scavenge intergalactic matter?
I dunno. I don't think that there is much matter to scavenge. Supposing there was, I haven't really considered whether or not the "like-likes-like" force could get dusty plasmas to condense on the source of the ionization. If the UV radiation is really only coming out along the axis of the bipolar jet, the dynamics of the jet itself would be far more powerful than any "like-likes-like" body force between Debye sheaths (which I'm saying is only 5 times more powerful than gravity).
Think of it this way. Is the Sun scavenging matter as it moves through the interstellar medium? Some would say yes it is. But at the rate that it's going, it would take just about forever to build a galaxy out of scavenged matter. What if the Sun was a million times larger? It would still take just about forever. Of course, when you're talking about billions of years, it actually gets difficult to conceptualize how much time that is. I don't know how long it would take for a star to get a galaxy organized around it, but I "think" that where we see galaxies organized around quasars in the AGNs, the quasars just happened to be there, for the same reason as all of the other stars. At least that's the dog that I'm walking today.
Lloyd
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
Quasar Accretion Charles, your model is starting to make more sense now, but I don't know if it makes complete sense yet. Your idea for accretion of matter around quasars makes sense and is similar to what I was saying, but it does seem more probable that more matter could be removed much more quickly from the parent galaxy than from the intergalactic medium. I didn't notice you mention anything about quasars accreting matter and growing into galaxies until now.
Quasars Are Not Galaxies I don't recall hearing Arp or Thornhill refer to quasars as galaxies or AGNs, but just as proto-galaxies, though maybe not using that term exactly. They seem to say that stars are not found in quasars, but within at least some BL Lacs, which are much more rare. So maybe BL Lacs develop from quasars and are precursors to peculiar galaxies. I'm pretty sure conventional astronomy does not consider quasars to be AGNs within known galaxies, because no galaxies have such high redshifts.
Elliptical Orbits Your idea that quasars are tokamak stars on highly elliptical orbits around ellipsoid AGNs seems to make some sense, but I wouldn't think that an orbit could extend 2 million lightyears away. Do you think so? By the way, if you're right about other stars being on elliptical orbits too, why couldn't the quasars collect them into galaxies? You don't seem to have accounted yet for the fact that quasars tend to exist in pairs on opposite sides of central galaxies and the pairs tend to have the same redshifts. See this for example: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100208cluster~. It shows 21 quasars around one galaxy and the width of the cluster seems to be about 3 million lightyears, or a radius from the center of 1.5 million lightyears. And they all have very nearly the same redshift, about 1.96 with respect to the central galaxy. The pairs found on opposite sides seem to suggest that the quasars are shot out of central galaxies by plasma focus, as Thornhill supposes. Are they able to tell which direction each quasar is moving with respect to each other?
Here's the image from the TPOD:
Lloyd
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
Charles, first, have you covered the issues I raised in the previous post here? Second, at the thread, Star Formation at Z-pinch, they're promoting the EU theory that stars form within Birkeland current filaments due to magnetic z-pinches of the filaments. I think Celeste is saying now that they actually form between adjacent filaments. I think they're saying that stars are found within filaments and it's because they form there by z-pinch. Below is a filament that seems to have 2 stars within it, as well as some whitish spots that seem to suggest stars forming. How do you think stars manage to get within such filaments? In the second image below, a filament connecting the galaxy to the universe, it looks like stars forming there too. http://alizul2.blogspot.com/2012/02/space-pictures-this-wee~ Fiery Ribbon Cloud picture: a filament of dust in space In visible light, the long ribbon of cold dust known as the Taurus Molecular Cloud, about 450 light-years away, appears as a dark scar across the universe. But by looking at light with wavelengths of a millimeter or less — invisible to the human eye — astronomers can see the faint glow from the dust, as well as stars forming inside the cloud.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/09/vast-cosmic-fi~ Vast Cosmic Filament Discovered Connecting Milky Way to the Universe Astronomers at The Australian National University have discovered proof of a vast filament of material that connects our Milky Way galaxy to nearby clusters of galaxies, which are similarly interconnected to the rest of the Universe.
So the quasar itself must be moving away at double the speed of light.
)
But I'm slowly working through your critique of my Galaxies paper, and you were right that the quasar stuff was untenable. I'm trying to keep up with you...
He might be right. But after he gets done redefining all of the constants, and creating new forces and particles, I'm just not sure how even to evaluate his work. But for me to incorporate something into my work, I need to see assertion, support, and corroboration. I'm obviously not saying that it has to be mainstream. (If it weren't for the fallacy of authority, the mainstream wouldn't have any authority at all!!!
) But a theory needs to explain the data, and not just in one place — there need to be multiple ways of cross-checking that it is legitimate, or it's just an isolated, ad hoc epiphany. Maybe he's got all of that, and I'm just too stupid to understand it.
