Is it really a Black Hole or is it just an Electric Plasmoid?

[Doveaman]

Black Hole or Plasmoid?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Black Hole or Plasmoid?

Point your spaceship at the middle, turn on the warp drive, and see what happens. Actually, if it is a true Black Hole it should look the same from every angle. A plasmoid will look different from different angles.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Plasmoid, since a Black Hole, by definition, cannot be imaged.

 

[SeventyOne]

I'm inclined to think plasmoid. These electric universe people make a whole lot more sense than the LIGO people.

 

[Strathos]

I'm inclined to think plasmoid. These electric universe people make a whole lot more sense than the LIGO people.

But I thought only the earth being flat made sense to you.

 

[SeventyOne]

But I thought only the earth being flat made sense to you.

No worries. There's a lot of what I said the you and others promptly ignored. So, I understand your ignorance in anything I believe.

 

[Strathos]

No worries. There's a lot of what I said the you and others promptly ignored. So, I understand your ignorance in anything I believe.

I think you have it backwards there. Unless you're actually converting from the flat earth camp to the EU camp (which would be a huge improvement).

 

[SpiritualBeing]

No evidence that it is an Electric Plasmoid and there is absolutely no evidence for this Electric Universe nonsense.

 

[tas8831]

Does electricity produce spectra for Helium?

 

[Smithi]

Definitely not a plasmoid. Thornhill needs to explain the measured masses of M 87* and Sgr A*. And the stellar orbits in the latter. And the gravitational redshift of star S0-2 around the latter at pericentre. As usual with EU, it is a bunch of unscientific nonsense.

 

[sjastro]

First real image of a black hole

 

[Michael]

Definitely not a plasmoid. Thornhill needs to explain the measured masses of M 87* and Sgr A*. And the stellar orbits in the latter. And the gravitational redshift of star S0-2 around the latter at pericentre. As usual with EU, it is a bunch of unscientific nonsense.

FYI, EU/PC theory is fully compatible with massive objects in space. It simply treats "black holes" as homopolar generators. There's nothing about EU/PC theory that requires the core of galaxies to contain a plasmoid, and I embrace the existence of massive objects in space.

The so called "measured" (actually estimated) masses however could be debatable in EU/PC theory since their mass is typically estimated without respect to local current conditions.

Since however EU/PC theory is fully compatible with GR theory, it's no big deal if galaxies contain massive objects at their core. In fact I personally believe that they do.

 

[SelfSim]

... Since however EU/PC theory is fully compatible with GR theory ...

'EU/PC theory' doesn't even exist outside of Michael's delusion.

There is no cohesion between 'EU/PC' other than in Michael's mind. For instance 'PC' past proponents such as Peratt, outright reject the nonsensical notions of 'EU' acolytes .. this is fact and is denoted on Peratt's Plasma Universe website.

 

[Michael]

By the way, I've put together a list of a number of books and mathematical references on the topic of EU/PC theory which you can find here:

Resources and mathematical models describing the Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology theory : plasmacosmology

Electric universe theory essentially began with Birkeland's lab work and his application of circuit theory to solar system physics. The cosmology model is described in papers and books by Hannes Alfven, Anthony Peratt, Eric Lerner and many others.

 

[SelfSim]

... Electric universe theory essentially began with Birkeland's lab work and his application of circuit theory to solar system physics. The cosmology model is described in papers and books by Hannes Alfven, Anthony Peratt, Eric Lerner and many others.

Yep .. that about summarises the delusion all right!

 

[Doveaman]

Yep .. that about summarises the delusion all right!

Your arguments are full of criticisms, but empty of anything useful.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm inclined to think plasmoid. These electric universe people make a whole lot more sense than the LIGO people.

Oh, brother.

 

[Smithi]

FYI, EU/PC theory is fully compatible with massive objects in space. It simply treats "black holes" as homopolar generators. There's nothing about EU/PC theory that requires the core of galaxies to contain a plasmoid, and I embrace the existence of massive objects in space.

The so called "measured" (actually estimated) masses however could be debatable in EU/PC theory since their mass is typically estimated without respect to local current conditions.

Since however EU/PC theory is fully compatible with GR theory, it's no big deal if galaxies contain massive objects at their core. In fact I personally believe that they do.

EU/PC is not a theory. What little of it exists in the scientific literature is easily shown to be wrong. And there is most definitely an EU requirement for a plasmoid at the galactic centre. The loon Thornhill has just posted a video, claiming such a thing. I am not linking to the unscientific garbage. Just Google "black hole as a plasmoid", and you will find the offending idiocy.

And EU idiocy is not compatible with GR! The aforementioned idiot claimed that gravity was essentially instantaneous! I quote the clown;

Gravity requires the near-instantaneous character of the electric force to form stable systems like our solar system and spiral galaxies. Gravitationally, the Earth ‘sees’ the Sun where it is this instant, not where it was more than 8 minutes ago. Newton’s famous law of gravity does not refer to time.

Electric Gravity in an ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® – holoscience.com | The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE®

Given that he doesn't refer to the observations from the binary neutron star merger (something else EU claims do not exist!), showing that the speed of gravity = the speed of light, I'd say that that execrable nonsense has been debunked.

And I fail to see what current has got to do with deriving the mass of the BH from stellar orbits, using Kepler's third law - M = A^3/ P^2. Not seeing a value for current in there. M = mass, in solar masses, A = semimajor axis of the star in AU, and P = the period of the star in years. Throw in the measured values for star S0-2 around Sgr A*, and we get ~ 4m solar masses. I see no qualified astrophysicists challenging that measurement. And the gravitational redshift cannot be caused by his impossible plasmoid nonsense.

Maybe you don't believe in the claims of the high priest of the Lightning Bolt cult?

 

[Smithi]

Electric universe theory essentially began with Birkeland's lab work and his application of circuit theory to solar system physics. The cosmology model is described in papers and books by Hannes Alfven, Anthony Peratt, Eric Lerner and many others.

Alfven was out of his depth with cosmology. His model was a matter-antimatter universe, which is debunked. Peratt has also been shown to be wrong with his model of galaxy formation. And Lerner hasn't got a clue. He tried to invoke a plasmoid model for quasars! Since debunked by observation, of course.

 

[SelfSim]

Your arguments are full of criticisms, but empty of anything useful.

Why, thank you!
(There's at least some hope you may be able to see apples-to-apples comparisons).