by Lloyd » Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:43 am
https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=6124&start=15#p67212
CC: I don’t see a theoretical problem with a black hole with 4 million solar masses. I don’t see why there would be a theoretical limit. I just disagree that black holes warp space because of the {wrongly assumed} infinite gravitational field. I think that they can be explained with conventional physics.
by CharlesChandler » Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:21 pm
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=7315&start=45#p72433
{Lloyd wrote: When you use the term "black hole", you probably confuse people, who are likely to suppose that you mean the conventional definition of black hole. Whereas, I believe your definition is considerably different, although the result is fairly similar. [...] Then how about a black star?}
How about "natural tokamak"? Pretty much all of the existing terms (planetary nebulae, white dwarfs, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, black holes, and quasars) become misnomers if there is a theoretical shift. So I use the existing terms to refer to the known property sets, but explain them as toroidal plasmoids doing nuclear fusion without gravitational pressure.
{Lloyd wrote: Do you still think pulsars are neutron stars?}
That's how they're conventionally defined. Note that I don't even think that neutron stars are neutron stars.
by CharlesChandler » Thu May 02, 2013 8:45 pm
https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php??f=3&t=11164&start=315#p82687
AFAIK, the standard black hole model depends on accretion discs, but I didn't know that all accretion disc models depend on black hole theory. Mine certainly doesn't. Nor is gravity the reason for the accretion in my model.
IMO, laboratory tokamaks will never release more energy than they consume, because it's such a lossy configuration. Nevertheless, my model of what I call "exotic stars" (including the so-called black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, quasars, blazars, BL Lacs, planetary nebulae, and white dwarfs) has a ring of plasma rotating around the center at relativistic speeds. "Tokamak" unambiguously conjures up the correct notion of this configuration. But unlike laboratory tokamaks, which accomplish magnetic confinement with the help of externally applied magnetic fields, my "natural tokamak" model gets all of its confinement just from the relativistic velocities of the plasma itself. In other words, it's a z-pinch, in circular form.
by CharlesChandler » Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:08 pm
{PersianPaladin wrote: Perhaps Charles Chandler should consider evidence such as this: "A growing body of evidence indicates that the formation of filaments in interstellar clouds is a key component of the star formation process."}
OK, but you're just assuming that those filaments are formed by currents. If filaments form stars, and currents form filaments, then currents form stars. But the second "if" is unsupported.
by CharlesChandler » Sun Mar 17, 2013 11:58 pm
{PersianPaladin wrote: Are there no relativistic or near-relativistic electron velocities in these high-energy regions?}
I'm not saying that there cannot be relativistic particles in these regions. I'm saying that relativistic particles don't condense.
{PersianPaladin wrote: If so...why have we measured synchrotron radiation at the heart of quasars?}
That's caused by free electrons moving rapidly in a powerful magnetic field. That isn't condensed matter.
{PersianPaladin wrote: Is there a plasmoid or a black hole at the center?}
All that synchrotron radiation tells us is that 1) there is an electric field, to motivate the electrons to high velocities, and 2) there is also a magnetic field, whose lines of force are parallel to the electric field's. The source of the fields could be solid (such as the Earth) or some sort of plasmoid. I consider black holes to be plasmoids, where extremely rapid rotation has generated a "natural tokamak", and the magnetic fields will be intense.
by CharlesChandler » Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:54 pm
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=14874#p92578
Einstein said that black holes were not possible, because the centrifugal force should prevent the collapse. He was thinking mechanically. But shortly after he died, scientists announced that black holes were a prediction of GR, and everybody bought it. Thinking mechanically is now taboo (even if you happen to be agreeing with Einstein), because Einstein's claim to fame was his mind-bending non-physical abstractions, not his rationality.
by CharlesChandler » Fri May 03, 2013 6:20 pm
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=82889#p82720
{PersianPaladin wrote: You also admit there is a plasmoid at the center of galaxies:-}
What I actually said was that "black holes" are toroidal plasmoids. But scientists haven't found a "black hole" at the center of every galaxy, nor is every "black hole" in the center of a galaxy. (They're now saying that quasars are driven by black holes, and Arp's work demonstrates that quasars aren't always at the center of the host galaxy.) So the mainstream correlation between "black holes" and galactic centers isn't correct IMO.
by CharlesChandler » Sat May 04, 2013 9:20 am
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=82889#p82748
Actually, extremely powerful magnetic fields (> 100 million Gauss) have been measured in white dwarfs and in magnetars, which have a lot in common with black holes and quasars. Some I'm going with the same model for all of those. Fields like that can only be generated by relativistic velocities. Steady-state fields like that, from apparent point sources, can only be generated by rotating charges. So they're "natural tokamaks", with magnetically-confined plasma rotating around the center. Steady-state gamma rays can only be generated by nuclear fusion, and only the magnetic force can cause nuclear fusion without blocking the gamma rays. Finally, DPF (if it was possible in space) could generate gamma ray bursts, so it would be a possible explanation for pulsars (if it was actually possible anyway), but DPF {dense plasma focus} can't create steady-state gamma ray emissions. That leaves the "natural tokamak" as the only possibility.
by CharlesChandler » Sun May 12, 2013 4:39 pm
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=7315&hilit=bolide&start=180#p83383
{Goldminer wrote: Seems to me this "gravitational pull" (the pull of the surface particles on the deeper particles) precludes the formation of "black holes" in the center of any massive object.}
I don't believe that "black holes" are spherical objects -- I think that they're toroidal plasmoids. But even if they were spheres, I agree that matter wouldn't crushed into a singularity by gravity, IMO because thermonuclear explosions would prevent it.
by CharlesChandler » Thu May 23, 2013 8:54 pm
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=7315&hilit=bolide&start=180#p84126
Frankly, I think that scientists are too eager these days to invent new forces and/or particles. We have a good understanding (IMO) of inertial, gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces, and it has been over 75 years since a new fundamental force has been discovered that can be demonstrated in the laboratory. That doesn't preclude the possibility of new forces/particles yet to be discovered out there. But what I find intriguing is that with all of the emphasis on inventing new stuff, nobody is considering the implications of what we already know. There are many paradigms in science that solidified before we had a complete atomic theory. Einstein and Eddington weren't convinced that matter is atomic, and yet GR, QM, and the "fusion furnace" model of the Sun have all become widely accepted, without substantial reconsideration since the early 1900s. So I'm taking a simplistic atomic model, which incorporates the known forces and the stablest of particles, and I'm re-opening some of the most basic questions in astrophysics. No GR, QM, QED, dark matter, dark energy, black holes (as conventionally described), neutronium, or anything else like that. Just laboratory-proven atomic theory, and its macroscopic implications. And what I'm finding is that intractable problems in the existing frameworks might have straight-forward solutions, not by adding more forces/particles of an even more mysterious nature, but by getting rid of all of that stuff, and re-building the model with proven physics.
by CharlesChandler » Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:24 pm
https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=5734&start=315#p88086
{Sparky wrote: Poking around in "star" data, I happened onto supernovas. From several interesting observations and conclusions of standard cosmology, I have begun investigating the possibility of supernova being a star, overwhelmed by incoming energy. Standard theories are very complex and attempt to explain supernovas in a variety of ways.}
Right. And all of them are ridiculous. As JeffreyW and others have agreed elsewhere, there are several things about mainstream supernova theory that are just impossible. For one thing, a supernova leaves behind a "remnant", like a black hole or white dwarf. OK. And a supernova is a nuclear explosion. OK. So looking for a remnant at ground zero of a nuclear explosion is about like looking for the remnant left behind where there used to be a stick of dynamite. At ground zero, everything is vaporized, and no, there just isn't going to be an organized little remnant. Sorry. Maybe in PhD school they teach BS like that, but I went to GED school, and no, that isn't going to work for me.
by CharlesChandler » Mon Nov 17, 2014 8:27 pm
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=15374&start=45#p101717
{Lloyd wrote: Like me, many get the impression at first that his model for black holes must be similar to the mainstream model. But that ain't the case.}
Precisely. I have one model for all of the "exotics": black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, quasars, blazars, BL Lac objects, white dwarfs, and planetary nebulae. The reason is that all of these objects have a variety of things in common, such as bipolar jets, extremely powerful magnetic fields, non-black-body radiation, and gamma-ray emissions. Main sequence stars have none of these, which is what convinced me that there are two fundamentally different types of stars: main sequence stars, and then the "exotics". But just because I talk about black holes doesn't mean that I buy into the mainstream model for them, any more than I think that neutron stars are made of neutronium. I just have to use the existing terminology for things, even if they're misnomers in my model.
by CharlesChandler » Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:49 am
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=15374&start=45#p101848
{Lloyd wrote: Charles, in your Black Hole paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/6092.html, do you claim that black holes have been observed or detected? If so, how? You don't seem to have any references about that.}
Yes, I should cite some references for that, but black holes have been detected on the basis of their gravitational influences on nearby objects. So we know that they are there -- the question is how could there be such a huge gravity source without the radiation that the standard model predicts, from stuff getting pulled into it. The standard model also asserts that stars can implode under their own weight, and black holes are way over the weight limit. This is what caused mainstream theorists to take a walk on the wild side, conjuring up the whole "event horizon" thing.
I countered with my "natural tokamak" model, with a toroidal structure of matter, contained by the magnetic field that it generates with relativistic angular velocities. This model is the only one to my knowledge that accounts for bipolar jets emanating from stars with extremely powerful magnetic fields. Since sometimes black holes emit bipolar jets, I threw black holes into the same category, though for the hole to be black, the fusion in the tokamak needs to either have stopped, or the radiation has to be blocked by surrounding dust clouds.
But the more I think about it, the more I think that black holes aren't necessarily all that fancy. Elsewhere I dismiss the possibility that stars implode under their own weight, becoming neutron stars, which is non-sense. In my model, there is no theoretical limit to the mass of a dead star, where it stopped radiating simply because it eventually cooled down. And if all of the matter that was going to get drawn into it already has been, there isn't going to be even any infrared radiation from thermalized collisions of infalling particles at the surface. So it could be just a huge gravity source that has already consumed all of the surrounding matter, but without any atoms getting crushed into neutronium. Only black holes that emit bipolar jets should be considered exotics.
{Lloyd wrote: You say that fusion should occur in black holes, producing heavier elements from lighter ones. Which elements do you expect are produced from which?}
In my model, fusion occurs in exotic stars (i.e., natural tokamaks) due to magnetic confinement, and in main sequence stars due to electrostatic discharges, and in the case of extremely large stars, due to gravitational loading. There is a standard progression, from hydrogen to helium, through carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, all of the way up to the 7th period elements. Even-numbered atomic masses dominate, since two out of the three combinations (even-even, even-odd, odd-odd) produces an even-numbered sum. But you get the whole periodic table in the end.
{Lloyd wrote: The end of your paper there seems to say that black holes should have electric double layers. Offhand it's sounding like the CFDL model somewhat.}
Sorta, but for a very different set of reasons. I'm saying that in a "natural tokamak", with matter revolving around the center at relativistic speeds, the +ions will take the outside track, due to centrifugal forces developed by their greater masses. This leaves the center to be populated by free electrons, attracted to all of the positive charge in the toroid, and thus favoring the center. So it's two circular charge streams, with the positive ring having a greater radius than the negative ring, and with the electric force between them pulling the outer ring inwards.
by CharlesChandler » Sat Nov 22, 2014 1:43 pm
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=15374&start=45#p101919
{Lloyd wrote: Charles, is Sagittarius A the only region in which a black hole can be inferred so far?}
Sag A isn't the only one -- it's just the closest, and therefore, we have the most accurate numbers for it.
{Lloyd wrote: By fitting their motion to Keplerian orbits they were able to infer in 1998 that 2.6 million solar masses must be contained in a volume with a radius of 0.02 lightyears.}
I can understand how they estimated the mass of the black hole, but I don't understand how they arrived at the volume, just knowing the Keplerian orbits. A black hole of 2.6 million solar masses, at the same density as the Sun, would have a radius of 0.88 the orbit of Venus. OK, that's Really Big. But if only one of the stars orbiting Sag A has completed a full orbit since 1998, it would have to be a long ways away -- so far away that the gravity of Sag A would behave as a point source, and they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between big and small volumes just by the Keplerian orbits. So I think that the volume came from black hole theory, not observations. And I don't buy into black hole theory (i.e., the atomic structure is getting crushed). I think that most of the matter inside stars is at or near its liquid density. So I think that they got the volume wrong.
{Lloyd wrote: Have you read Stephen Crothers' analysis of conventional black hole theory? Is the Schwarzschild radius inapplicable to black hole calculations?}
I haven't looked at it -- that kind of thing is off of my radar screen. I have enough targets to worry about. It doesn't surprise me that GR {General Relativity} isn't self-consistent, and it doesn't surprise me that nobody really cares. I just think that the whole thing is flawed.
by CharlesChandler » Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:08 am
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=15917&start=15#p110555
{Roshi wrote: Also, about "black holes", I did not read much about black hole formation except wikipedia, but did they take into account what happens to gravity as one goes down into the giant mass?}
They didn't take any physics into account. Black holes are not formed -- they are imagined into existence.
by Lloyd » Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:16 am
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=15374&start=285#p114973
CC: Finally, the standard model of quasars has black holes at their centers, with gravitational acceleration being the energy source. The NT model shows that the more plausible energy source is the implosion of a dusty plasma. If there isn't any need for black holes to power quasars, is there any need for them at all? There are certainly some instances of some large, non-radiating gravity sources. But there is no evidence of such objects possessing any sort of exotic properties, such as event horizons. A large, non-radiating gravity source might just be a large dark star. Or it might be a star with such a thick atmosphere that all of the radiation is scattered.
by Lloyd » Fri May 10, 2019 2:16 pm
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=15374&start=375#p127668
STAR FORMATION, FILAMENTS, SUPERNOVAS
This is a recent exchange between Charles and me {regarding his paper on Filaments at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15482}.
{Charles said:} I have a different model for "exotic" stars, such as the so-called black holes, neutron stars, quasars, etc. These are characterized by non-blackbody radiation, and sometimes they emit observable polar jets. I have these as toroidal plasmoids, with a ring current establishing a solenoidal magnetic field that keeps the whole thing organized [such a ring current is visible in X-ray light at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=16754 - LK]. I'm currently trying to figure out what the expected limits might be, if any, for those stars. There won't be any upper limit due to gravitational loading, since the toroid distributes the matter all of the way around the annulus, meaning that G will never amount to much in that configuration. But there might be a lower limit, in that it will take an extremely energetic implosion to get the charge separation within the imploding filaments required by my "natural tokamak" model.
Interestingly, the sizes of some "natural tokamak" candidates are within an order of magnitude of each other. This includes Mira, the Egg Nebula, and the recently published findings on the "black hole" at the center of M87. Mira has the radius of Pluto's orbit around the Sun, while the Egg Nebula and M87 are roughly ten times larger. Maybe the preference for the same size reveals physical limits, or maybe it's just a statistical preference, without distinct limits at the upper or lower end, but with a likelihood of more stuff in the middle of the range.
See also THE NONEXISTENCE OF THE BLACK HOLE by Stephen Crothers at https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Crothers-EU-2013.pdf .