Fabrizio70 ha scritto:
Citazione:Ora se hai voglia di discutere di cose serie, lascia stare i refusi e spiegaci perchè gli uccelli posati sui fili non arrostiscono
Perché la corrente che passa non é sufficiente ad arrostirli
Drive ha scritto:
Mi raccomando, la prossima volta che tocchi un sasso stai attento.
Potresti prendere la scossa e morire fulminato, perchè (secondo la fisica di Ivan) il sasso è formato da protoni ed elettroni, quindi è a tutti gli effetti un "generatore elettrico", e se lo tocchi muori.
Se tanto mi dà tanto, mi sa che tu sei uno di quelli che pensano che Volt e Ampère sono la stessa cosa, oppure che (dato che la corrente è un flusso di elettroni) che la corrente stessa è quindi una sorta di reazione nucleare!
Ah, tral'altro, chi si faceva continue domande su come facesse il LEM ad avere sufficiente energia elettrica per alimentare i suoi sistemi di bordo (radio comprese), la risposta è semplice.
Una volta scesi sulla Luna, conficcavano la presa ben dentro il suolo lunare, e avevano tutti i Volts e gli Ampere che gli servivano!
Dopotutto, se come dice ivan, nello spazio c'è una quantità di energia elettrica da SPOSTARE addirittura pianeti e galassie, figuriamoci che spike di extratensione si è beccato il povero LEM non appena gli hanno attaccato la spina per terra!
Zaaazzz......PUfffff......un arrosto!
Chi la conosce si faccia avanti
ivan ha scritto:
Il mio Pc funziona a corrente elettrica, energia la cui fonte in ultima analisi risiede sul sole. Quindi è l'elettromagnetismo a potermi fornire lavoro utile, sfruttabile.
Per coerenza con le vostre idee, i vostri PC dovrebbero andare a gravità o ancor meglio a "dark energy". Di quest' ultima c'è ne tanta in giro, perchè non la sfruttate ?
Quanto a "Ma visto che "l'universo è elettrico" che diamine le facciamo a fare le centrali elettriche? ", prova a chiedere agli uccelli perchè non prendono la scossa.
Drive ha scritto:
Perchè non ce lo dici tu come mai gli uccelli che si posano sui fili dell'alta tensione non prendono la scossa?
Guarda che io lo sò.
Sono curioso di vedere se lo sai anche tu!
E poi chi te l'ha detto che l'elettromagnetismo è possibile perchè esiste il Sole?
Questa è proprio forte.
Non sapevo che la dinamo che ho sulla ruota della bicicletta genera corrente grazie al Sole.
Dovrò stare attento la prossima volta che circolo di sera.
Fabrizio70 ha scritto:
Citazione:Chi la conosce si faccia avanti
Perché la corrente che passa non é sufficientemente alta da carbonizzarli in un microsecondo ,quando tale corrente raggiunge tale valore il povero pennuto é molecolarizzato , va bene così ?
Drive ha scritto:
E poi chi te l'ha detto che l'elettromagnetismo è possibile perchè esiste il Sole?
Questa è proprio forte.
Non sapevo che la dinamo che ho sulla ruota della bicicletta genera corrente grazie al Sole.
Dovrò stare attento la prossima volta che circolo di sera.
rigel ha scritto:
ciao, allora probabilmente ne sai + tu anche se non capisco come fai a vedere il piccione e i tralicci come le armature di un condensatore il cui dielettrico è l'aria
i tralicci (sono i fili in cui passa la corrente?) sono collegati al piccione direttamente, le armature di un condensatore no
si può invece considerare un condensatore il sistema "tralicci + suolo"
Un condensatore è generalmente costituito da una qualsiasi coppia di conduttori (armature o piastre) separati da un isolante (dielettrico)
Il circuito equivalente di un tratto di linea lungo 1km si schematizza come in figura, ovvero con due parametri longitudinali (Rl e Xl) e due trasversali (Cl e Gl). Se si volesse considerare il circuito equivalente di tutta l'intera linea in considerazione vanno "uniti" questi blocchi di circuito.
e difatti mi è sempre stato detto che se i piccioni non prendono la scossa è xchè poggiano sui cavi ma nonfungono da collegamento con il suolo
se io mi arrampico su un palo elettrico e tocco un filo mi prendo la scossa xchè fungo da collegamento col suolo in quanto il mio corpo è conduttore ed è collegato a al rivestimento esterno del palo che è conduttore (generalmente è in legno o metallo)
The Sun radiates a continuous stream of charged particles, a plasma known as solar wind, ejecting it outwards at speeds greater than 2 million kilometres per hour,[27] creating a very tenuous atmosphere (the heliosphere), that permeates the solar system for at least 100 AU. This environment is known as the interplanetary medium. The influence of the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the interplanetary medium creates the largest structure in the solar system, the heliospheric current sheet.[28]
Earth's magnetic field protects its atmosphere from interacting with the solar wind. However, Venus and Mars do not have magnetic fields, and the solar wind causes their atmospheres to gradually bleed away into space.[29]
The interplanetary medium is home to at least two disclike regions of cosmic dust. The first, which lies in the inner solar system, is known as the zodiacal dust cloud and is responsible for the phenomenon of zodiacal light*. It was likely formed by collisions within the asteroid belt brought on by interactions with the planets.[30] The second, which extends from about 10 AU to about 40 AU, was probaby created by similar collisions within the Kuiper belt.[31] [32]
....
*Zodiacal light
The zodiacal light in the eastern sky before the beginning of morning twilight. A reddish auroral glow can also be seen near the horizon, especially at the left.
The zodiacal light in the eastern sky before the beginning of morning twilight. A reddish auroral glow can also be seen near the horizon, especially at the left.
The zodiacal light is a faint, roughly triangular, whitish glow seen in the night sky which appears to extend up from the vicinity of the sun along the ecliptic or zodiac. In mid-northern latitudes, the zodiacal light is best observed in the western sky in the spring after the evening twilight has completely disappeared, or in the eastern sky in the autumn just before the morning twilight appears. It is so faint that it is completely masked by either moonlight or light pollution. The zodiacal light decreases in intensity with distance from the Sun, but on very dark nights it has been observed in a band completely around the ecliptic. In fact, the zodiacal light covers the entire sky, being responsible for 60% of the total skylight on a moonless night. There is also a very faint, but still slightly increased, oval glow directly opposite the Sun which is known as the gegenschein.
The zodiacal light is produced by sunlight reflecting off dust particles which are present in the solar system and known as cosmic dust. Consequently, its spectrum is the same as the solar spectrum. The material producing the zodiacal light is located in a lens-shaped volume of space centered on the sun and extending well out beyond the orbit of Earth. This material is known as the interplanetary dust cloud. Since most of the material is located near the plane of the solar system, the zodiacal light is seen along the ecliptic. The amount of material needed to produce the observed zodiacal light is amazingly small. If it were in the form of 1 mm particles, each with the same albedo (reflecting power) as Earth's moon, each particle would be 8 km from its neighbors. The gegenschein may be due to the fact that particles directly opposite the sun as seen from Earth would be in full phase.
The Poynting-Robertson effect causes the particles to spiral slowly into the Sun, thus requiring a continuous source of new particles to maintain the zodiacal cloud. Cometary dust and dust generated by collisions among the asteroids are believed to be mostly responsible for the maintenance of the dust cloud producing the zodiacal light and the gegenschein. In recent years, observations by a variety of spacecraft have shown significant structure in the zodiacal light including dust bands associated with debris from particular asteroid families and several cometary trails.
This phenomenon was first investigated by the astronomer Giovanni Domenico Cassini in 1683 and first explained by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1684.
Interplanetary medium
The interplanetary medium is the material which fills the solar system and through which all the larger solar system bodies such as planets, asteroids and comets move.
Composition and physical characteristics
The interplanetary medium includes interplanetary dust, cosmic rays and hot plasma from the solar wind. The temperature of the interplanetary medium is approximately 100,000 K, and its density is very low at about 5 particles per cubic centimeter in the vicinity of the Earth; it decreases with increasing distance from the sun, in proportion with the inverse square of the distance.
The density is variable, and may be affected by magnetic fields and events such as coronal mass ejections. It may rise to as high as 100 particles/cm³.
Since the interplanetary medium is a plasma, it has the characteristics of a plasma, rather than a simple gas; for example, it carries with it the Sun's magnetic field, is highly electrically conductive (resulting in the Heliospheric current sheet), forms plasma double layers where it comes into contact with a planetary magnetosphere or at the heliopause, and exhibits filamentation (such as in aurora).
The plasma in the interplanetary medium is also responsible for the strength of the Sun's magnetic field at the orbit of the Earth being over 100 times greater than originally anticipated. If space were a vacuum, then the Sun's 10-4 tesla magnetic dipole field would reduce with the cube of the distance to about 10-11 tesla. But satellite observations show that it is about 100 times greater at around 10-9 tesla. Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) theory predicts that the motion of a conducting fluid (e.g. the interplanetary medium) in a magnetic field, induces electric currents which in turn generates magnetic fields, and in this respect it behaves like a MHD dynamo.
Extent of the interplanetary medium
The outer edge of the solar system is the boundary between the flow of the solar wind and the interstellar medium. This boundary is known as the heliopause and is believed to be a fairly sharp transition of the order of 110 to 160 astronomical units from the sun. The interplanetary medium thus fills the roughly spherical volume contained within the heliopause.
Interaction with planets
How the interplanetary medium interacts with planets depends on whether they have magnetic fields or not. Bodies such as the Moon have no magnetic field and the solar wind can impact directly on their surface. Over many billions of years, the lunar regolith has acted as a collector for solar wind particles, and so studies of rocks from the moon's surface can be valuable in studies of the solar wind.
High energy particles from the solar wind impacting on the Moon's surface also cause it to emit faintly at X-ray wavelengths.
Planets with their own magnetic field, such as the Earth and Jupiter, are surrounded by a magnetosphere within which their magnetic field is dominant over the sun's. This disrupts the flow of the solar wind, which is channelled around the magnetosphere. Material from the solar wind can 'leak' into the magnetosphere, causing aurorae and also populating the Van Allen Belts with ionised material.
Observable phenomena of the interplanetary medium
The interplanetary medium is responsible for several effects which can be seen from earth. The Zodiacal light is a broad band of faint light sometimes seen after sunset and before sunrise, stretched along the ecliptic and brightest near the horizon. It is caused by sunlight scattering off dust particles in the interplanetary medium between the Earth and the Sun.
A similar effect is the Gegenschein, which is seen directly opposite to the sun's position in the sky. It is much fainter than the Zodiacal light, and is caused by sunlight reflecting off dust particles outside the earth's orbit.
ivan ha scritto:
L'età delle stelle si calcola grazie al colore, questo è un dato ormai acquisito.
Tanto più alta è la temperatura superficiale di una stella, tanto più la stella è massiccia e tanto più breve sarà la sua vita.
Almeno così ci dicono.
Stelle gialle come il sole hanno 10 miliardi di anni circa, telle bianche come Sirio o Vega già molto minore, e le azzurre giganti come Rigel hanno infine una vita "brevissima", intorno ai 10 milioni di anni ( ci campassi io "solo" mille anni).
Pare, non vorrei sbagliare, che la supernova esplosa nel 1987 nella Grande nube di Magellano fosse in realtà una gigante blu, non una supergigante rossa.
Il problema è sapere se le supergiganti rosse (da non confondersi con le giganti rosse come Aldebaran che sono stelle quelle si molto vecchie e che ci fanno vedere come diventerà il nostro sole fra 5 miliardi di anni) sono stelle vecchie o giovani, se cioè le stelle molto massicce, dalle 10 masse solari in poi, in pochi milioni di anni evolvono dallo stato di giganti blu caldissime, quale è adesso Rigel, a supergiganti rosse piuttosto fredde e molto dilatate come è appunto Betelgeuse.
Mi domando :
- Che età hanno le supergiganti rosse come Betelgeuse e Antares?
- Esse rappresentano l'evoluzione finale di stelle giganti blu come Rigel e Deneb?
- Esse sono giovanissime o vecchie ( come indicherebbe il loro colore) ?
- E in ogni caso, qual'è l'evoluzione delle giganti blu caldissime, la cui vita è molto breve?
Since the Apollo missions to the Moon, astronomers have become accustomed to seeing what their theory calls for. The abundant craters, they say, are caused by meteoric, cometary, and asteroidal impact.
"We can make many suggestions about the moon, but we have rather greater difficulty in proving that what we say is more than just possibilities”. Harold Urey, 'The Nature of the Lunar Surface'.
For several decades astronomers debated whether lunar craters were created by bombardment from space or by volcanism. The issue was decided in favor of the impact theory shortly after the beginning of the space age, when astronauts walked on the moon, and Apollo mission close-up images of craters excluded the volcanic interpretation. In far too many instances, volcanic vents and lava flows were not evident.
For planetary science this was a turning point. Within a few years the vision of scarring by impact had set the direction of the space program, involving billions of dollars, all spent in confidence that astronomers were asking the right questions. The general rule was: Where there is a crater, there was an impact. Craters can therefore be counted to determine the age of a planet’s or a moon’s surface.
When we visited Venus and Mars, then viewed the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune in high resolution, theoretical perception had already frozen into dogma. And even when we rendezvoused with asteroids and comets—exceedingly unlikely attractors for cosmic bombardment—most astronomers came to see the heavily cratered surfaces as a record of impact.
Once the impact hypothesis took hold, planetary scientists sought to replicate experimentally the unique patterns of cratering on the moon and elsewhere in the solar system. On occasion, news releases touted the “successes” of such experiments, but at a more fundamental and scientific level, where detailed cratering patterns demanded experimental confirmation, the experiments proved to be a colossal failure. High-velocity impact craters do not match the features of the lunar craters. Nor do they match up with the craters we observe so abundantly on the surface of Mars, or on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. This failure of impact experiments, however, does not appear to have been the subject of any news releases.
The anomalies include (to name just a few)—
• remarkable circularity of all craters of all sizes. Oblique impacts should form many oval craters;
• lack of collateral damage expected if the crater circularity were due to a near-ground explosion like a thermonuclear detonation;
• flat-bottomed, melted crater floors instead of dish shaped excavation from impact blast. Impacts and high-energy explosions—even atomic bombs—do not melt enough material to create flat floors.
• steep crater walls rather than the shallow dish shape expected from a supersonic impact blast;
• unexpected terracing of large crater walls, with melted floors of some terraces;
• inordinate number of secondary craters centered on the rims of larger craters;
• no larger craters cut through smaller craters;
• intricate chains of small craters along the rims of larger craters;
• numerous crater pairs and crater chains;
• minimal disturbance where one crater cuts into another;
• repeated, highly “improbable” associations of craters with adjoining cleanly cut gouges and rilles, from which material has simply disappeared;
• rays of “ejecta” tangential to the crater rim;
• concentric rings.
In considering the many contradictions to a hypothesis now treated as fact, it soon becomes clear that a psychology of belief has taken over planetary science. If a crater is clearly not a volcanic vent, and not a mere “sinkhole”, then of course it is an impact site! What else could it be? The natural outcome of this limited perception is to “see what one believes”.
As a consequence, planetary scientists have stopped asking the most important questions. Indeed, they have yet to consider a fact of overwhelming importance to the future of planetary science: All of the primary cratering patterns in the solar system can be produced by electric discharge in the laboratory. This cannot be said of any other causative agent explored in the space age.
In their interpretation of craters, therefore, planetary scientists appear to have fallen victim to a modern myth, another “man in the moon” in which imagination and theoretical license lead the way, in disregard for the proper bounds of good science.
ivan ha scritto:
Leggendo qua e la:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050414.html
Tubo ha scritto:
Rigel mi sa che hai ragione... , ho rettificato.
Comunque, ho appena fatto un'incursione in un forum di astronomi e ho cercato notizie su foto lunari da telescopi o sonde, ma non ho trovato nulla di diverso da quanto già sappiamo e cioè che i resti delle missioni non si possono ancora vedere, eccezion fatta per quella famosa foto che postai in illo tempore dove effettivamente un corpo artificiale sembrava vedersi.
Un utente di quel forum però, sostiene di aver analizzato con una lente d'ingrandimento alcune foto (di Clementine o di A17, non si sa) e di aver visto "chiaramente" la base del LM.
A questo punto possiamo solo confidare in amici.
Qualcuno ha astronomi "potenti" come amici?
Tu, Rigel, non conosci nessuno che potrebbe passarti delle informazionicerte riguardo ad un'eventuale osservazione dei landing sites con LBT ?
Ciao.
...
scientists reported that in 2005 two unusual X-ray frequencies were detected coming from an extremely energetic light source, GRO J1655-40. The source is seen in the constellation Scorpius and it is estimated to lie about 10,000 light-years from Earth. Astronomers say it is a “stellar black hole” about seven times the mass of our Sun, gradually consuming the matter of a companion star.
The emissions seemed strange because scientists had recorded identical emissions nine years earlier—an improbable coincidence, they thought. This got them to thinking, and the chain of reasoning that followed led to a report given at a recent meeting of the American Astronomical Society.
The centerpiece of the story is a black hole, and black holes are said to form in the death throes of massive stars as their fuel runs out and their cores “implode into a point of infinite density”. The “rebound” that follows produces a supernova explosion that blows away the outer layers of the star. But the gravity of the collapsed star is so great that, within a boundary called the “event horizon”, nothing is able to escape, not even light. And that’s why we can’t see a black hole, astronomers say.
Astronomers also say that the gravitational tug of a black hole is sufficient to distort Einstein’s “space-time fabric”. And that means it could affect the movement of matter falling into this celestial glutton.
The X-ray emissions from GRO J1655-40 are sporadic—long periods of relative calm followed by shorter periods of more intense activity with emissions millions of times greater than during the quiescent phase.
As reported on Space.com, some scientists began to wonder if the blinking pattern of X-ray activity is “related to how matter accumulates around the black hole”. The black hole is said to be stealing gas from a companion into an “accretion disk” around the super-dense relic, and the scientists suggested that as the mass of the disk accumulates for several years, the black hole consumes very little of the gas, and X-ray emissions are minimal.
“Every few years, however, something—scientists aren’t sure what—triggers a sudden binge fest on the part of the black hole, causing it to guzzle down most of matter in the disk within a period of only a few months”. This is when the profusion of X-rays occurs, the scientists suggested. (See “Black Hole Puts Dent In Space-time”, January 24, 2006),
But NASA’s Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer recorded something curious. Among the X-ray frequencies observed in 1996 were one at 450 Hz and one at 300 Hz. The same two frequencies were observed again in 2005.
"Because it’s very hard to get gas to behave the same way twice, it argues strongly that these frequencies are being anchored by the black hole’s mass and spin”, study co-author Jon Miller of the University of Michigan told SPACE.com.
The scientists were reminded of the weird things predicted by Einstein’s theory of general relativity. “Because the black hole is so massive and spinning so fast, it warps spacetime around it”. And the more massive the object, the more spacetime is distorted. “If the massive object is also spinning, it causes spacetime to not only bend but to twist as well”.
The authors suggest that the particles moving in “warped spacetime” near the black hole exhibit two types of motions, each producing a unique frequency. “One motion is the orbital motion of the gas as it goes around the black hole. This produces the 450 Hz frequency. The lower 300 Hz frequency is caused by the gas wobbling slightly due to the spacetime deformations”.
"If spacetime were not curved, we’d probably just see one peak," said study co-author Jeroen Homan from the Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research at MIT.
The authors seemed confident that they were on the right track, and few astronomers raised objections. "We can now begin to determine the spin and thus, for the first time, more completely describe the black hole," Miller said.
-----------------------------
Though the photograph above ( => this ) is at best only marginally relevant, we have tried to be as accurate as possible in paraphrasing the logic that two scientists applied to the X-ray emissions from GRO J1655-40. Can you track the number of speculations in their reasoning? Can you separate what is known from what is imagined? If this seems difficult, that is because the language used by scientific media continually confuses fact and theory.
The light source in Scorpius is a fact. So are the sporadic X-ray emissions. But it may surprise you to hear that everything else discussed in the report is speculation, unsupported by anything we can actually study in nature: the star running out of fuel, the implosion, the rebound, the imploded star, its “infinite density”, the “spacetime fabric”, the stellar black hole, the “event horizon”, the companion star, the siphoning of the companion’s gases, the “accretion” disk, the “sudden binge fest”, X-ray production by accumulating matter, the calculated “spin-rate”, the simultaneous “bending and twisting of spacetime”, X-ray frequencies linked to orbital motion of gases, and X-ray frequencies linked to “wobbling” of gases due to “spacetime deformation”.
So it is not unreasonable to pose the question: Does the activity of GRO J1655-40 really imply a “dent in the space-time fabric”? Or is there a much simpler explanation based on accessible natural phenomena?
...
Cosmologists assure us that GRO J1655-40 hides a "black hole." But critics suggest that recent discussion of the sporadic x-ray source illustrates the growing "credibility gap" in standard theory.
Last week we reviewed a well-publicized attempt to apply modern cosmological concepts to GRO J1655-40, an enigmatic light source seen in the constellation Scorpius. Periodically, the source emits copious X-rays, before returning to its “normal” quiescence.
We found the chain of reasoning in the scientists’ speculative adventure interesting, and we were not surprised to find that it led to a report given at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society. It can be difficult for readers of such reports to assess their credibility, we suggested, “because the language used by scientific media continually confuses fact and theory”. We offered this perspective:
“The light source in Scorpius is a fact. So are the sporadic X-ray emissions. But it may surprise you to hear that everything else discussed in the report is speculation, unsupported by anything we can actually study in nature: the star running out of fuel, the implosion, the rebound, the imploded star, its “infinite density”, the stellar black hole, the “event horizon”, the companion star, the siphoning of the companion’s gases, the “accretion” disk, X-ray production by accumulating matter, the calculated “spin-rate”, X-ray frequencies linked to orbital motion of gases, and X-ray frequencies linked to “wobbling” of gases due to “spacetime deformation”.
In reports such as the one on GRO J1655-40, how is a reader supposed to identify the boundary between fact and conjecture? The Space.com report states—
“A spinning black hole in the constellation Scorpius has created a stable dent in the fabric of spacetime, scientists say”.
Fact: No one has seen a black hole. All we have are electromagnetic signals that are open to many interpretations. But “mainstream” cosmologists interpret the signals in one way only, based on their peculiar set of axioms about the nature of space, time and gravity. Many of the most accomplished plasma experts dispute the entire complex of assumptions.
Fact: The ”fabric of spacetime” is a mathematical abstraction of widely debated relevance to the study of natural phenomena. Critics say that the word “spacetime” is essentially meaningless because it combines two incompatible concepts—the 3-dimensional space we experience and a non-dimensional interval of time. In physics, a dimension can only be measured by a physical ruler. However, mathematicians use the word ambiguously to denote any number of variables. This results in the common mathematical “fallacy of ambiguity”, where the word is used with one meaning in the 'real' world of 3-dimensions, and with another meaning in the theoretical world of mathematics.
Some cosmological theories talk of 26 dimensions and parallel universes, which serve only to astound and confuse those living in the physical world of 3-dimensions. As one physicist puts it, "Any theory where time is represented as a fourth dimension does not represent reality… If the math is correct but does not represent reality; then, as far as factually describing reality, the math is meaningless, unreasonable and ambiguous”.
“The dent is the sort of thing predicted by Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. It affects the movement of matter falling into the black hole”.
Fact: The “black hole” is a theory not a fact. In his theory of general relativity, Einstein proposed a geometrical concept of gravity, suggesting that it was caused by the warping of 3-dimensional space in some “extra dimension” in the presence of mass. A growing number of scientists dispute the principle.
A common 3-dimensional illustration of the “geometric” theory of gravity shows a rubber sheet stretched by steel balls resting on it. The dents in the rubber sheet mimic the gravitational wells of the steel balls and control their movement. However, as the astronomer Tom Van Flandern has pointed out, this model only seems to work because our minds imagine the Earth's gravity acting downwards on the steel balls. Without pre-existing gravity the steel balls will not dent the rubber sheet and they will remain stationary. Critics argue that both the rubber sheet analogy and the extra-dimensional geometric interpretation of general relativity violate the principle of causality: In the physical world, all effects have causes, and it is the function of science to explore these relationships, not to deny them.
“The spacetime-dent is invisible, but scientists deduced its existence after detecting two X-ray frequencies from the black hole that were identical to emissions noted nine years ago”.
There is no actual observation of a black hole to verify this deduction from a prior guess. X-rays are most easily generated by particles accelerated in an electromagnetic field. There is no more difficult way to generate x-rays than using the weakest force in the universe–gravity. (Imagine your dentist trying to generate x-rays by dropping heavy weights from space). Nature is not in the habit of doing things the hard way.
“Black holes form when very massive stars runs out of fuel. Their cores implode into a point of infinite density and their outer layers are blown away in a powerful supernova explosion”.
Fact: There is no experimental evidence that matter can be compressed to “infinite density”. It requires the weakest force in the universe to overcome the strongest – the electric force. There is no observational evidence that stars implode. Mathematicians have simply placed a theoretical demand on an improbable model, requiring that a particular kind of star in a particular kind of binary system run out of fuel suddenly and undergo spherically symmetrical gravitational collapse to form an unreal object – a black hole.
Fact: The progenitor stars for a supernova have never been identified.
Fact: The explosion of a supernova is not spherically symmetrical. It is bipolar.
Fact: The theoretical result – a black hole – is a mathematical fiction with no verifiable connection to the natural world
"The X-ray frequencies detected by the team of researchers came from outside the event horizon of GRO J1655-40, a black hole located roughly 10,000 light-years from Earth. It is about seven times more massive than the Sun and siphoning gas from a nearby companion star."
Fact: The scenario stated here is entirely theoretical. Hence, the rest of the report can only strain credulity further by following a series of additional guesses. (See previous summary). But how would a general reader know this, when the author of the Space.com story cites all of the speculations as if they are part of scientific knowledge today?
“GRO J1655-40 undergoes short periods of intense X-ray emissions, followed by longer periods of comparative quiet. Scientists think this blinking pattern of X-ray activity is related to how matter accumulates around the black hole.
“Every few years, however, something—scientists aren’t sure what—triggers a sudden binge fest on the part of the black hole, causing it to guzzle down most of matter in the disk within a period of only a few months”.
Here, at the end of an elaborate chain of speculations, we have an admission that the sporadic X-ray outbursts remain unexplained—though the model was designed to explain them.
It therefore remains to be asked whether, from an electrical vantage point, it is possible to account for the X-ray emissions and other observed attributes of GRO J1655-40, without taking theoretical leaps beyond our present scientific knowledge.
Messaggio orinale: https://old.luogocomune.net/site/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=13&topic_id=970