AGN jets

[john]

We have seen matter falling into a 'black hole'.
As soon as the infalling matter
shreds, two jets form of outwardly-moving material
pointing opposite directions at right-angles to the disc.
What is the difference of the two jets?
They have opposite spin.
The outwardly-moving material in the two jets must
be opposite as well, in some way- charge?

john

[Paul Cardinale]

On May 18, 11:00 am, john <johnsefton...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have seen matter falling into a 'black hole'.

[snip]

> The outwardly-moving material in the two jets must be opposite as well, in some way- charge?
>
> john

"MUST"? Idiot. There isn't anything that requires the material to be
different. That's just some crap that leaked out of your shit-filled
cranium.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:201d4f58-ee6b-413d...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

-- ==============================================
Commiserations, Crapinale! You have managed to produce a one-line insult, your only capability.
The miserable putrid scum Paul Cardinale can only resort to lies when confronted with
his own rank stupidity.
The world will be a better place, the average happiness and the average IQ of the
human race will rise markedly on the day the Porkie Crapinale dies.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Michael Moroney]

Why would you think they'd have different charge?

They do have a characteristic opposite each other, of course.
Direction of motion.

[Sam Wormley]

Background for John:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus

> Some accretion discs produce jets of twin, highly collimated, and
> fast outflows that emerge in opposite directions from close to the
> disc. The direction of the jet ejection is determined either by the
> angular momentum axis of the accretion disc or the spin axis of the
> black hole. The jet production mechanism and indeed the jet
> composition on very small scales are not understood at present due to
> the low resolution of astronomical instruments, and as a result,
> observations cannot provide enough evidence to support one of the
> various theoretical models of jet production over the many that
> exist. The jets have their most obvious observational effects in the
> radio waveband, where Very Long Baseline Interferometry can be used
> to study the synchrotron radiation they emit at resolutions of
> sub-parsec scales. However, they radiate in all wavebands from the
> radio through to the gamma-ray range via the synchrotron and the
> inverse-Compton scattering process, and so AGN jets are a second
> potential source of any observed continuum radiation.
>

[john]

Sam unearthed, "The direction of the jet ejection is determined either by the

> angular momentum axis of the accretion disc or the spin axis of the
> black hole

And then they go on to say that
with better telescopes they will see better.

Tell me, when something goes down the
drain, is there any argument as to
which axis it spins around? Clue!!

The jets are opposite. Yes, they go the
opposite direction, but even if they
were going the same way, they would
still be opposite. It is because one sees the
disc at its feet spinning clockwise, and the
other sees the disc at its feet spinning
counter-clockwise.

Just like the difference between photons.

john
galaxy model

[Sam Wormley]

John, perhaps you can learn from your bathtub drain. As stuff goes
down, do you see opposite stuff going up? No you don't. If you think
what I just now wrote doesn't make any sense... that's the point!

[john]

Thanks for the right-on post, by the way, Sam.
Reference to the drain is to posit
that the overall axis of spin is dictated by the
huge space vortex which we call a black hole.
The magnetic poles express themselves in the
presence of infalling matter as jets.

The jets arise at right-angles to the spin
of the galactic disc, in opposite directions,
like a magnetic field produced by a current loop.

john
galaxy model

[Michael Moroney]

You pointed out an article a while ago what happens with a black hole.
The outer part of the accretion disk is aligned with the angular momentum
of the infalling matter, while the inner part, the rotation of the black
hole (if any) pulls the accretion disk in alignment with its own angular
momentum.

Meanwhile a bathtub drain's rotation arises from whatever net angular
momentum the water in the tub has.

>The magnetic poles express themselves in the
>presence of infalling matter as jets.

This is a gravitational effect, not a magnetic one. The magnetic field of
a black hole, if any, doesn't have to be aligned with its rotational axis.

>The jets arise at right-angles to the spin
>of the galactic disc, in opposite directions,
>like a magnetic field produced by a current loop.

Not really. Magnetic fields will eventually curve around to form closed
loops, while stuff flying from a BH jet will keep on going until it
encounters something.

[john]

On Sunday, 19 May 2013 17:55:52 UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>
> >On Sunday, 19 May 2013 08:16:31 UTC-6, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>
>
> >> John, perhaps you can learn from your bathtub drain. As stuff goes
>
> >> down, do you see opposite stuff going up? No you don't. If you think
>
> >> what I just now wrote doesn't make any sense... that's the point!
>
>
>
> >Thanks for the right-on post, by the way, Sam.
>
> >Reference to the drain is to posit
>
> >that the overall axis of spin is dictated by the
>
> >huge space vortex which we call a black hole.
>
>
>
> You pointed out an article a while ago what happens with a black hole.
>
> The outer part of the accretion disk is aligned with the angular momentum
>
> of the infalling matter, while the inner part, the rotation of the black
>
> hole (if any) pulls the accretion disk in alignment with its own angular
>
> momentum.
>
>
>

8 Meanwhile a bathtub drain's rotation arises from whatever net angular
>
8 momentum the water in the tub has.

The water in the drain turns at ninety degrees
to the physical position of the axis of the
1 1/4" hole at the low end of the tub.
Period.

> >The magnetic poles express themselves in the
>
> >presence of infalling matter as jets.
>
>
>
> This is a gravitational effect, not a magnetic one. The magnetic field of
>
> a black hole, if any, doesn't have to be aligned with its rotational axis.
>

Well, gravity doesn't suck, and you
can't describe any mechanism to me how
it might, so let's leave gravity out of this for awhile.

Let's look at the axis of the so-called black hole:
we're talking about a galaxy's disc here. The
rotational axis is at the center of the disc.
But does the disc always remain in the same
plane, or is there also a precession? In other
words, is there a second axis of rotation?

What about the planetary disc around our own
Sun? Does it not also precess? So, too, does
a galaxy- sweeping out a sphere and leaving
globular clusters of old stars in a spherical double-
layered oppositely-moving halo behind as first
one turning edge moves past and then its
oppositely-turning other side.

>
> >The jets arise at right-angles to the spin
>
> >of the galactic disc, in opposite directions,
>
> >like a magnetic field produced by a current loop.
>
>
>
> Not really. Magnetic fields will eventually curve around to form closed
>
> loops, while stuff flying from a BH jet will keep on going until it
>
> encounters something.

You say that with such certainty. :)
Like you've tracked them. :)
These are 'highly-magnetized' particles.
I betcha they curve back on themselves
just like field lines.

Anyway, up above you say"

The outer part of the accretion disk is aligned with the angular momentum
>
> of the infalling matter, while the inner part, the rotation of the black
>
> hole (if any) pulls the accretion disk in alignment with its own angular
>
> momentum."

Let's think about this for a second.
What accretion disc? They saw a star
track closer and closer until it shredded
and immediately the jets formed.
It wasn't star > accretion disc > jets

It was star > jets

Who said accretion discs form from infalling matter?

john

[john]

Who said accretion discs associated with AGN
jets have to be made from the same stuff
as makes up the jets?

Think about it. EVERYTHING lies in the plane
of the disc. Is electro-magnetic matter the
only thing being trapped and spun up by
this immense whirlpool?

If the accretion disc is present, THEN the star shreds
and the jets form, then the accretion disc could
be a different form of accumulating energy.

Are there ALWAYS jets present when
there is/are (an) accretion disc(s)?

john
galaxy model

[john]

[john]

Okay.
Here's a possible scenario.
Spin 1 energies are also being
trapped by the Black Hole whirlpool
and collect at the poles in a
maximum-spin state. (accretion disc).
Spin 1/2 energies get shredded as the
star accelerates too fast for the
electrical attractions to resist the
magnetic repulsions within the matter.
When the spun-up 1/2 stuff gets to the
poles it COMBINES with the energized Spin 1
stuff that is there (in some way) and
becomes a pseudo-atom.
It is then blown out as jets.

This happens at each pole, with opposite
halves combining with opposite Spin 1
waves and being blown out as jets.

Then, when the two halves recombine in
stars and fuse into matter, the Spin 1
waves are given back off, and travel
until trapped by another Black Hole whirlpool.

john
galaxy model

[john]

Now, let's look at the highly-magnetized
particles coming in a jet at right-angles to
the galactic disc.

Let's imagine the ones coming from the
exact center; since they are
coming directly up the spin axis, they
will not curve either way-they are the
center magnetic field-line.

They will also have the most energy.

They will also be POLARIZED.

These are the Cosmic Rays.

john
galaxy model

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Okay.
>Here's a possible scenario.
>Spin 1 energies are also being
>trapped by the Black Hole whirlpool
>and collect at the poles in a
>maximum-spin state. (accretion disc).
>Spin 1/2 energies get shredded as the
>star accelerates too fast for the

<snip rest of crap>

Nice word salad you tossed there.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>The water in the drain turns at ninety degrees
>to the physical position of the axis of the
>1 1/4" hole at the low end of the tub.
>Period.

Kind of like a jet formed from an accretion disk, except there's only
one of them.

>Well, gravity doesn't suck, and you
>can't describe any mechanism to me how
>it might, so let's leave gravity out of this for awhile.

Why? We know that gravity does attract ("suck" as you put it), and
we know "push" (LeSage) gravity simply doesn't work.

>Let's look at the axis of the so-called black hole:
>we're talking about a galaxy's disc here. The
>rotational axis is at the center of the disc.
>But does the disc always remain in the same
>plane, or is there also a precession? In other
>words, is there a second axis of rotation?

Where would the torque that would cause this precession come from?
Also, remember a galaxy doesn't rotate as a fixed disk, each individual
star has its own orbit with its own period around the galaxy.
Like the whirlpool of a draining bathtub, it doesn't rotate at a fixed
rate.

>What about the planetary disc around our own
>Sun? Does it not also precess?

No, there is no external torque on our solar system. Also we would be
able to measure the precession, if it did exist.

> So, too, does
>a galaxy- sweeping out a sphere and leaving
>globular clusters of old stars in a spherical double-
>layered oppositely-moving halo behind as first
>one turning edge moves past and then its
>oppositely-turning other side.

Word salad.

>> Not really. Magnetic fields will eventually curve around to form closed
>> loops, while stuff flying from a BH jet will keep on going until it
>> encounters something.

>You say that with such certainty. :)

You mean like how you say with certainty that everything is precessing
spinny things?

>Like you've tracked them. :)
>These are 'highly-magnetized' particles.

WTF is a "highly-magnetized particle"?

>I betcha they curve back on themselves
>just like field lines.

Science theory aren't "I betcha".

>Anyway, up above you say"

>>The outer part of the accretion disk is aligned with the angular momentum
>> of the infalling matter, while the inner part, the rotation of the black
>> hole (if any) pulls the accretion disk in alignment with its own angular
>> momentum."

>Let's think about this for a second.
>What accretion disc? They saw a star
>track closer and closer until it shredded
>and immediately the jets formed.
>It wasn't star > accretion disc > jets

>It was star > jets

So explain how we get jets of matter expelled from the accretion disks
if there aren't any accretion disks?

Accretion disks are relatively small and may or may not be spotted.

>Who said accretion discs form from infalling matter?

That's what the matter does as it falls into the hole. It spins faster
and faster, and friction heats it extremely hot. Think of your bathtub
drain, matter is removed from one spot (the drain/black hole) but stuff
just outside is spinning really fast due to conservation of angular
momentum. It's an extreme example of a figure skater spinning faster when
she pulls in her arms. You're obsessed with spinny things, why don't you
know that?

[john]

Michael Moroney made some
statements about the ecliptic.

The plane of the ecliptic changes
due to precession.

john

[Michael Moroney]

For the solar system as a whole to precess, the solar system's invariable
plane would have to precess. The invariable plane of the solar system
is the place perpendicular to the angular momentum vector of the solar
system as a whole. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariable_plane
Since Jupiter's orbit has most of the solar system's angular momentum,
the invariable plane is close to that of Jupiter's orbit.

The orbits of the different planets interact with each other so that they
wobble a few degrees relative to the invariable plane, so it is true
that the ecliptic wobbles (not precesses) a few degrees over time.

For the ecliptic or the invariable plane to precess, a torque would have
to be applied from somewhere. Could you tell us where this torque comes
from, if you really think the ecliptic actually precesses?

[john]

If the galaxy is precessing
then would that not
influence all the systems
within it?
john

[Sam Wormley]

Precession of axis of a rotation system requires a torque from an
external body, such as another nearby galaxy.

[Michael Moroney]

If the galaxy is precessing, what is making it precess? Where is the
enormous torque coming from?

[Sam Wormley]

That's the point. I am not aware of any precessing galaxies. Are you?

[john]

Question for any of you three:

If the galaxy isn't precessing through
the spherical space surrounded by its
double-layered halo of old globular clusters,
then where did the spherical, double-layered
oppositely-flowing halo of old globular clusters come from?

john

[Michael Moroney]

I'm sure there are plenty of them in Sefton's overactive imagination.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 19:13:11 UTC-6, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 5/22/13 7:41 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> > If the galaxy is precessing, what is making it precess? Where is the
>> > enormous torque coming from?
>>
>> That's the point. I am not aware of any precessing galaxies. Are you?

>Question for any of you three:

You didn't answer our question. Where the heck would the torque that
would make a galaxy precess come from?

>If the galaxy isn't precessing through
>the spherical space surrounded by its
>double-layered halo of old globular clusters,
>then where did the spherical, double-layered
>oppositely-flowing halo of old globular clusters come from?

That's like asking "If invisible pink fairies don't make an electron and
a proton attract each other, what does cause them to attract each other?",
hinting that invisible pink fairies is the only possibility. There are
plenty of better reasons to explain a halo of globular clusters than
galaxies precessing somehow without any torque on them.

(what _is_ this obsession of yours with precessing spinny things?)

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/23/13 7:33 PM, john wrote:
> ... halo of old globular clusters come from?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster#Formation

> At present, the formation of globular clusters remains a poorly
> understood phenomenon, and it remains uncertain whether the stars in
> a globular cluster form in a single generation, or are spawned across
> multiple generations over a period of several hundred million years.
> In many globular clusters, most of the stars are at approximately the
> same stage in stellar evolution, suggesting that they formed at about
> the same time.[18] However, the star formation history varies from
> cluster to cluster, with some clusters showing distinct populations
> of stars. An example of this is the globular clusters in the Large
> Magellanic Cloud (LMC) that exhibit a bimodal population. During
> their youth, these LMC clusters may have encountered giant molecular
> clouds that triggered a second round of star formation.[19] This
> star-forming period is relatively brief, compared to the age of many
> globular clusters.[20]
>
> Observations of globular clusters show that these stellar formations
> arise primarily in regions of efficient star formation, and where the
> interstellar medium is at a higher density than in normal
> star-forming regions. Globular cluster formation is prevalent in
> starburst regions and in interacting galaxies.[21] Research indicates
> a correlation between the mass of a central supermassive black holes
> (SMBH) and the extent of the globular cluster systems of elliptical
> and lenticular galaxies. The mass of the SMBH in such a galaxy is
> often close to the combined mass of the galaxy's globular
> clusters.[22]
>
> No known globular clusters display active star formation, which is
> consistent with the view that globular clusters are typically the
> oldest objects in the Galaxy, and were among the first collections of
> stars to form. Very large regions of star formation known as super
> star clusters, such as Westerlund 1 in the Milky Way, may be the
> precursors of globular clusters.

[john]

Mike said: There are
plenty of better reasons to explain a halo of globular clusters than Galactic precession

So John says, "Such as?"

[Michael Moroney]

Such as just about anything I can think of, up to and including invisible
pink fairies waving their magic wands and willing them into existence.

Their compositions and the ages of their stars suggests they formed from
the original cloud that formed the galaxy, while the matter that's now
in the galactic disk has been recycled through supernovae to a certain
extent, thus the disk has a different composition than the globular
clusters.

Now about where does that torque come from... ?

[john]

I think that torque is probably generated
by the bent Space.
The Space is bent and it wants to straighten,
but the disc won't let it, because if it lets
one part straighten, then all the parts
will want to straighten.
So, it sucks even harder to keep the Space bent,
and since the suckage is not symmetrical,
it causes precession according to the
right-hand rule.
Each piece of matter bends Space just by being there
but the Space is only bent if someone is looking,
because all the Space can't be bent all the Time,
so as long as there is a Box, the Space can
straighten right out, and the Cat doesn't even exist
at that point.
But when the Space gets too bent, it prolapses into
a Black Hole, which spawns innumerable new
Universes, each of whom constantly takes our
bent Space and applies it inside-out to re-juvenate it.

john

[john]

Hmmm.
Now that I lay a real word salad out there,
Michael doesn't want to play.

Could it be that he's sensitive about
Cats and their Boxes and bent Space because
these are all part of the paradigm he's
trying to defend?
I dunno, Cats and their Boxes are pretty
indefensible. They smell bad.
And so does the present paradigm.

1. A smallest 'anything'.
9 on the stinkometer.
2. Matter crushing itself into a 'Black Hole'.
10 on the stinkometer- do you think
your theory might be suspect at this point.
3. Dark Matter
To rectify galactic rotation curves?
Really? Show me a computer simulation that
will do it.
Total Fudge- 10 on the stinkometer.

oh!
Gotta go!

john

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>On Friday, 24 May 2013 08:10:26 UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Now about where does that torque come from... ?

>I think that torque is probably generated
>by the bent Space.
>The Space is bent and it wants to straighten,
>but the disc won't let it, because if it lets

...

<snip rest of crap>

Wow. I was hoping for an answer from you, but I never expected such a huge
load of word salad!

Anyway, perhaps you may want to explain the obvious violation of the
conservation of angular momentum as your "bent space" wants to
"straighten" ?

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Hmmm.
>Now that I lay a real word salad out there,
>Michael doesn't want to play.

>Could it be that he's sensitive about
>Cats and their Boxes and bent Space because
>these are all part of the paradigm he's
>trying to defend?

No, because I can't tell the difference between your word salad and some
of those gibberish generating computer programs out there. Your posts
make about as much sense as the following:

A Case for the Transistor

Abstract

The evaluation of simulated annealing is a key grand challenge. In this
work, we disprove the evaluation of the World Wide Web, which embodies the
appropriate principles of cryptoanalysis. Our focus in this position paper
is not on whether the infamous wireless algorithm for the deployment of
telephony by Miller and Bhabha is NP-complete, but rather on exploring a
novel method for the deployment of sensor networks (WelchPap).

1 Introduction

Many theorists would agree that, had it not been for replicated
information, the investigation of virtual machines might never have
occurred [10]. In fact, few physicists would disagree with the
visualization of expert systems, which embodies the structured principles
of complexity theory. Continuing with this rationale, The notion that
experts interfere with electronic communication is rarely considered
unproven. To what extent can compilers be analyzed to fulfill this
ambition?

We present new "fuzzy" information, which we call WelchPap. The
disadvantage of this type of approach, however, is that the partition
table can be made replicated, secure, and extensible. The effect on
cryptography of this result has been excellent. Unfortunately, this
approach is entirely considered essential. combined with symbiotic
modalities, it constructs an analysis of hierarchical databases.

The rest of the paper proceeds as follows. We motivate the need for
Boolean logic. Continuing with this rationale, we place our work in
context with the related work in this area. We place our work in context
with the related work in this area. In the end, we conclude.

<snip more computer-generated crap>