Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

https://phys.org/news/2024-11-simulatio ... herit.html

Simulations reveal black holes inherit magnetic fields from parent stars

I wonder if Hannes Alfven is rolling over in his grave.

Co-author of this study, Ore Gottlieb, is quoted in the article saying …

"What had been thought to be the case is that the magnetic fields of collapsing stars are collapsing into the black hole," says Gottlieb. "During this collapse, these magnetic field lines are made stronger as they are compressed, so the density of the magnetic fields becomes higher."

Now I distinctly recall Alfven making the point that magnetic field lines ARE NOT REAL, a view widely held by the EU/Plasma Cosmology community. As this 2020 Thunderbolts article (https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2020/1 ... agination/) states, “Talking about electromagnetic fields as if they are 'things' that can twist and tangle, or become trapped, is a failure to understand what electromagnetism is and how it is expressed. There are no magnetic field lines. Electromagnetic fields exist as continua, without discrete domains. What astronomers reify to create their theories are schematic representations that plot those fields. They are no more real in space than lines of latitude or longitude are on the surface of the Earth.”

Now, interestingly enough, the authors’ belief in “magnetic field lines” causes trouble in their research. They admit …

The problem with that explanation was that strong magnetism in the star causes the star to lose its rotation. And without rapid rotation, a newborn black hole can't form an accretion disk—the flow of gas, plasma, dust and particles around a black hole—and could not produce the jets and gamma ray bursts we've observed.

"It appears to be mutually exclusive," says Gottlieb. "You need two things for jets to form: a strong magnetic field and an accretion disk. But a magnetic field acquired by such compression won't form an accretion disk, and if you reduce the magnetism to the point where the disk can form, then it's not strong enough to produce the jets."

To solve this problem, they invoked what they claim is the black hole’s parent … a neutron star, which is another gnome. And of course, gnomes can be made to do anything they want so … walla … problem solved ...

"And so, the idea is that maybe an accretion disk can save [BAC - inherit] the magnetic field of the neutron star. This way, a black hole will form with the same magnetic field lines that threaded the neutron star."

And as always, I conclude my posts with the question … of what possible use is this research to those actually paying for it? NONE, into the foreseeable future at least. These research projects are like black holes sucking up taxpayer dollars with not even jets escaping. Just saying ...

Are they saying the magnetic material, the magnetic mass, is entering the black hole and so the magnetic field, the magnetic force, goes with it adding to the total magnetic force of the 'hole'. ?? If you put two magnets together they combine forces to be more powerful than one.

Maol wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 1:18 pm Are they saying the magnetic material, the magnetic mass, is entering the black hole and so the magnetic field, the magnetic force, goes with it adding to the total magnetic force of the 'hole'. ??

They never mention "magnetic material" in the article. So I presume they don't in the study. All they mentioned in "magnetic fields" and "magnetic field lines", and neither of those is a "material". So I think the answer to your question is no. Their talking about a gnome.

Could if be your frustration is due to semantics? Are they, we, us, y'all, using different words to describe the same phenomena and just not understanding each other because definitions are lost in translation?

Maol wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 5:49 am Could if be your frustration is due to semantics? Are they, we, us, y'all, using different words to describe the same phenomena and just not understanding each other because definitions are lost in translation?

Isn't science supposed to be about precise language? Why do they continually say gas when they're talking about plasma? Because they don't understand plasma. No, I don't it's my frustration with semantics. I don't think they understand magnetism. Alfven certainly thought they didn't.

These people are taught in university programs these days that magnetic field lines are real things. Just as they believe dark matter is a real thing. They accept those beliefs on the basis of faith and little more. They are indoctrinated to accept them.

And why would the article use the word material if they thought magnetic material was what they were talking about? Are field lines material? No. Are fields material. No. This is not just a matter semantics, Maol.

Are your comments perhaps wishful thinking, hoping there is still come common ground between them and us? I don't think there is any longer. I think the only way we are going to get a change in consensus, or even a fair hearing for EU/PC now, is if we work to take away their funding on the basis that what they are doing has no real value to the people paying for it. Not unless they're planning to create a black hole in our backyard. Just saying ...

If there are no magnetic fields and therefor no magnetic field lines, to avoid ambiguity what is the proper description of the phenomena evident when iron dust is sprinkled on a sheet of paper over a magnet?

If there are no magnetic fields and therefor no magnetic field lines, to avoid ambiguity what is the proper description of the phenomena evident when iron dust is sprinkled on a sheet of paper over a magnet?

The lines are not really there, but they are a depiction of the direction and strength of a magnetic field.

Magnetic field lines are analogous to the contour lines on topographic map. The contour lines are not really there but they do represent the shape of a real terrain.

I think a big part of the contention is the mainstream concept of magnetic reconnection which attributes a release of energy to magnetic field lines breaking and reconnecting. Of course, they cannot do that any more than the breaking and reconnecting of contour lines on a topographic map can cause earthquakes.

A bit off topic, but, did u know that iron filings around a magnet are a kind of MMX?
Its like this, the field lines tend to follow the aetherwind.
Now, the aetherwind blowing throo a lab can vary by say 500 km/s, which is c/600.
So, a compass near the magnet might swing by an angle of up to 1 mm in 600 mm during a day.
But i suppose that there would be lots of non-wanted magnetic noise spoiling the results.

I apologize if this is not directly related, but I saw this video from an electrical person rationalizing why moving charge produces an electric field through an Einsteinian perspective.

https://youtu.be/sDlZ-aY9GN4?si=TXRp543_29PFta43&t=1

Can we identify and elaborate on the mistake here?

Open Mind wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 1:44 pm I apologize if this is not directly related, but I saw this video from an electrical person rationalizing why moving charge produces an electric field through an Einsteinian perspective.

https://youtu.be/sDlZ-aY9GN4?si=TXRp543_29PFta43&t=1

Can we identify and elaborate on the mistake here?

I started a new thread today re this stuff.
https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/php ... 103#p11103