Why do Blackholes have Magnetic poles ?

[Tom2]

I have also learned that CANGAS is quite smart, learned, and very good at explaining his position. His statements are, for the most part, well thought out and pleasurable to read. He often adds much to the discussion at hand and I have learned much from his insights.

That being said, CANGAS is a prick.

The main problem with CANGAS isn't that he's a prick, but rather that he is decidedly not smart, learned, or good at explaining his position. The real damage he does doesn't come from his disagreeable temperament, but rather from convincing people who don't have formal training in science that he actually knows what he is talking about. He doesn't.

p.s. some interesting reading for CANGAS can be found in the forum rules. I will quote a relevant piece for him below:

This forum may have rules posted and an official moderator, but the de facto state of affairs is that this place is an unmoderated zoo. It's the only "Physics and Math" forum I've ever seen where people are permitted to be ridiculed for presenting valid physics and mathematics, and for trying to correct the misunderstandings of the unschooled.

 

[Singularity]

Tom2 is such a moron

 

[Pete]

Tom2 is such a moron

Such an articulate, well thought out poost such as this leaves me breathless. Why waste your time with content, when you have such a breathtaking repertoire of witty insults to draw from?

Here's another one you might like:

Your mother is a whore and the daughter of a whore. Your father was likely her brother, but could have been any of her cousins. I'd have a second deliver a card on a silver platter, but your kind generally wouldn't understand it, and doesn't deserve much more than a dog-whipping anyway. You havn't got a clue. You couldn't get a clue if you smeared yourself with clue musk and danced the clue mating dance in a field full of horny clues in clue mating season. Your eyebrows meet in the middle, your forehead slopes, your pet gerbil wants you dead. Your mother would dress you funny if she could afford clothes. You're the primary reason bigots hate your ethnic group. You were obviously not toilet-trained correctly, which explains the stains on the floor of your cardboard box. Your webbed feet go well with the pointy forehead. Your manners are hideous, your brain minute, and your body odor could fell an ox. You would fit in on a short bus to a convention of Fundies.

 

[Tom2]

Wow.

 

[Singularity]

I can understand Pete.
U had to vent out the pent up anger on me.

Since u cannot explain how a singularity inside BH can sustain a horizontal fixed-directional electromagnetic disc.
Because u cant explain how a singularity be direction bias

 

[Pete]

No anger - it's just a demo flame, to show you how it's done.

"xyz is such a moron" really just doesn't cut it.

The electrodynamics of a black hole are a bit beyond you and I, I'm afraid, but if you want to try learning something about it, perhaps you could start here: Black holes and electromagnetism

Like I said, the electromagnetic fields around a black hole have nothing to do with the singularity. Nothing inside the event horizon can have any effect on the outside.

 

[Billy T]

I am not a scientist. I am not an expert in physics or math or much of anything normally discussed in sciforums. ...
I have also learned that CANGAS is quite smart, learned, and very good at explaining his position. His statements are, for the most part, well thought out and pleasurable to read. He often adds much to the discussion at hand and I have learned much from his insights. ...

I recommend you read tom2's and/or pete's comments. Look at several and note that math is used and reference given, etc. Then compare to Cangas's posts.

I have on more than one occasion felt the need to point out flaws in Cangas's statements. Mainly because he is as you state: "very good at explaining his position. His statements are, for the most part, well thought out and pleasurable to read. He often adds much to the discussion at hand and I have learned much from his insights." None-the-less, Cangas is often wrong a about the facts, which are widely accepted, even mathematically demonstrated.

I can understand why one who is not well educated in sciences (and physics in particular), might think highly of Cangas's opinions, presented as facts, but you should observe that although he does read a lot on the internet, He give little by the way of proof and thus is not giving much evidence that his reading includes physics text books He does not always understand what he does reads, and many his “internet sources” are not much better.

He misuses his intelligence to confuse others who are not either as well “internet read” as he is and who have no more education in science than he has.

 

[CANGAS]

I recommend you read tom2's and/or pete's comments. Look at several and note that math is used and reference given, etc. Then compare to Cangas's posts.

I have on more than one occasion felt the need to point out flaws in Cangas's statements. Mainly because he is as you state: "very good at explaining his position. His statements are, for the most part, well thought out and pleasurable to read. He often adds much to the discussion at hand and I have learned much from his insights." None-the-less, Cangas is often wrong a about the facts, which are widely accepted, even mathematically demonstrated.

I can understand why one who is not well educated in sciences (and physics in particular), might think highly of Cangas's opinions, presented as facts, but you should observe that although he does read a lot on the internet, He give little by the way of proof and thus is not giving much evidence that his reading includes physics text books He does not always understand what he does reads, and many his “internet sources” are not much better.

He misuses his intelligence to confuse others who are not either as well “internet read” as he is and who have no more education in science than he has.

How does clairvoyant Billy even CLAIM to know what I read on the 'net?

The fact is that the vast majority of my reading is done in real books and very little at all is ever done on the 'net.

In a very recent post Billy has confessed that he has done no science study in 25 years.

Billy Boy, I don't show up here to have any kind of intercourse with you. Do you have a thing for me?

We would be satisfied if you gave even a gram of proof about your libelous and false opinion about me.

It is virtually certain that you have declined to point out what you timidly call "errors" because you, yourself, believe that I am right and you cannot hope to prove otherwise. And unlike some of your coven, you cannot get drunk enough or high enough to step in where your fellow demons do not fear to tread.

 

[CANGAS]

No anger - it's just a demo flame, to show you how it's done.

"xyz is such a moron" really just doesn't cut it.

The electrodynamics of a black hole are a bit beyond you and I, I'm afraid, but if you want to try learning something about it, perhaps you could start here: Black holes and electromagnetism

Like I said, the electromagnetic fields around a black hole have nothing to do with the singularity. Nothing inside the event horizon can have any effect on the outside.

Pete did NOT previously say that " nothing inside the event horizon can have any effect on the outside.", but the opposite.

It is revealing that now he wants to agree with my position that, according to Einstein Relativity, due to the infinite contraction of space in the vicinity of the event horizon, anything already inside the event horizon would have to traverse an infinite distance to get outside, and therefore would have to endure an infinite travel time to do so, including the travel time of the virtual photons mitigating the electromagnetic force.

 

[CANGAS]

I can understand Pete.
U had to vent out the pent up anger on me.

Since u cannot explain how a singularity inside BH can sustain a horizontal fixed-directional electromagnetic disc.
Because u cant explain how a singularity be direction bias

How can I get to the job of draining the swamp when Pete and TomTom and BillyBoy and the rest of the alligators don't explain anything about it but just keep trying to chew off my really cute a**ss?

 

[Pete]

Pete did NOT previously say that " nothing inside the event horizon can have any effect on the outside.", but the opposite.

Ummm... no.
I'm not sure what post you're referring to, but I suggest that you've misinterpreted it.

 

[Billy T]

...We would be satisfied if you gave even a gram of proof about your libelous and false opinion about me....

OK, but I had to go back four pages (to your post 39) before finding one of your posts that contained anything much about physics instead of disparaging comments about others who know much more of generally accepted physics than you do. I have made your errors red and your false insinuations are pink in that post reproduced in part below and added some comments, in bold, to show your errors inside { } after each.

…What I want to know is, what makes you think that the fields are still there. The incoming mass is gone. The incoming charges are gone. I do not want to argue about the permanence or dissipation of gravitational fields because such has not been the subject of science experiments.{Insinuation that very well confirmed theory is false in a case where not possible to test directly}

However, electric and magnetic fields have been the subject of such experiments, both on an amateur basis and a professional basis. When the charge or the magnet is removed from a certain location, we quickly discover that the field is gone too.{reduced in strength, not “gone”} In this respect, reminding you of the Quantum Physics explanation of electric and magnetic force as the exchange of virtual photons{Insinuation that well confirmed theory is false}…

The virtual photons are the field lines,{As I explained and demonstrated in post 26, field lines do not exist, even “virtually,” but are simply a mathematical convenience that can be developed for ANY continuous vector field, such as water flow in a river}

Maxwell's equations do not tell us anything about a rotating field. The equations tell us that a time-varying electric field induces a magnetic field, and that a time-varying magnetic field induces an electric field. As I may have said before, when you were not listening, the science experiments of Faraday, Cramp/Norgrove, and others have proved that a magnetic field cannot be made to rotate or take on take on linear motion of its source. This means that the virtual photons comprising the field do not take on the motion of their source, which I hope is not a surprise. If "magnetic" virtual photons do not take on the motion of their source, it is perfectly reasonable that "electric" virtual photons don't either, {Maxwell’s equation do cover electrostatics also. Are not limited to time varing. Just set all of the time dirivative in them to zero and you have the equations of electrostatics. ANY SET OF EQUATIONS can be transformed into a rotating frame, including Maxwell's - you are so ill informed / ignorant I should have mercy and stop, but as you called me names, I will continue.}

The peer reviewed science experiments referenced here prove that the field lines of a moving source are immediately left behind and immediately dissipate. If you can explain how virtual photons can live longer than the statistically very short lifetime theorized for them, I will be eager to read it. {The electric force is achieved by a CONTINUOUS exchange of “virtual photons.” They “live” for whatever the transit time between the two charged particles is. They are “emitted by one” and “absorbed by the other“, as I understand it, but admit to not being very knowledgeable here (but much more than you) as this math was developed after I got Ph.D. in Physics 40+ years ago. I believe this math and POV is the result of the successful integration of three of the four forces of nature into one very successful model. I suspect you are confusing the very short life times of the virtual pairs the quantum uncertainity does permit with the virtual exchange of longer lived photons as the "AGENTS" of the the EM force. - your read enough and do write well enough about physics to make you very dangerous to those just begining in the field, such as Singularity, Bubber etc.}

You said you would be "satisfied" if I could demonstrate an error. - Here are many, taken from just one post, and that was the first one I came to with mainly physics (instead of insults) in this thread.

If I were willing to look for other posts, I would have posted much more serious errors where you dispute Special Relativity, SR, the constancy of the speed of light, miss-representing and/or misunderstanding Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which for me is the "crown jewel" of physics (I once understood it well, did calculation with it etc) but here just note that some of its numerical predictions have been validated to 14 decimal place accuracy (the limit on verification is the experimental accuracy achievable.)

I think, but am not sure, that at one time you were a supporter of an absolute reference frame also, (part of your lack of understanding of SR), but to find that would taken deep research of old archives.

 

[CANGAS]

OK, but I had to go back four pages (to your post 39) before finding one of your posts that contained anything much about physics instead of disparaging comments about others who know much more of generally accepted physics than you do. I have made your errors red and your false insinuations are pink in that post reproduced in part below and added some comments, in bold, to show your errors inside { } after each.


You said you would be "satisfied" if I could demonstrate an error. - Here are many, taken from just one post, and that was the first one I came to with mainly physics (instead of insults) in this thread.

If I were willing to look for other posts, I would have posted much more serious errors where you dispute Special Relativity, SR, the constancy of the speed of light, miss-representing and/or misunderstanding Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which for me is the "crown jewel" of physics (I once understood it well, did calculation with it etc) but here just note that some of its numerical predictions have been validated to 14 decimal place accuracy (the limit on verification is the experimental accuracy achievable.)

I think, but am not sure, that at one time you were a supporter of an absolute reference frame also, (part of your lack of understanding of SR), but to find that would taken deep research of old archives.

As is always the case, there is no REAL and SPECIFIC proof of any error on my part.

It is no secret that I have great skepticism about the validity of Einstein Relativity. You seem to claim that to be a priori proof of error. Not so.

You have done nothing in your post except to bleat out that you do not find me agreeable to your deadlocked and antiquated memorizations of what some prof, who was fearful of his employment, browbeat into your brain.

NO SHIR, SHITLOCK.

You will have much less luck in engaging me in pointless arguements based on your personal emotions than other morons in this forum. I live and learn about the quality ( AND LACK OF IT ) of the worthiness of an opponent.

You are in about the same category, in terms of a genuinely capable intellectually WORTHY OPPONENT, as a Yugo car.

Do not continue your pointless tactic of trying to entice me into meaningless debates about who is more clever or educated.

Raise some valid point about a physics subject that is worthy of serious discussion and which is interesting to me and worth my wasting time on it or else go soak your head.

For a long time.

 

[CANGAS]

Look at the image, its clear that they have magnetic poles, if they do have magnetic poles, then it says that Electrons are alive and very well inside the black hole. And there is no Singularity inside it but rather its just densely compacted matter, a kinda super neutron star.


http://www.wolaver.org/Space/twinjets.htm

If they dont have magnetic poles then we should find atleast one Black Hole image that shows two jet pairs, ie. one in action and another one as a remnant of old jets near the new ones.

An extremely helpful reference book for studying this subject would be:

Black Holes and Time Warps
Kip Thorne
W. W. Norton and Company
ISBN 0-393-03505-0

I strongly suggest carefully reading the entire book from first page to last, although the theoretically predicted electromagnetic qualities observable from outside the event horizon are emphasized in Chapters 7 and 9.

Whether one faithfully agrees with Einstein Relativity or not, this book thoroughly describes the creation of the idea of black holes historically and the evolution of black hole theory. Understanding this book will give one an excellent foundation upon which to agree or develop an arguement.

I personally disagree with the conclusion that an external observer would be able to detect an electric field outside the event horizon, as I have already posted. Please be careful to note that the book presents the existence of an externally detectable electric field on the basis of only one factor, the desire to uphold conservation of charge, and does not rebut my posted conjecture that electric field virtual field photons would be unable to traverse the relatively infinite distance from the inside to the outside of the event horizon.

I have made my comments based on a "clean" black hole ( and based upon Einstein Relativity, of which I am skeptical. ). This book amply describes the possibility of electromagnetic forces originating outside the event horizon, due to incoming particles and motion in the accretion disk.

The current mainstream conjectures are based on perfect acceptance of Einstein Relativity. One must have a perfect understanding of reference frames in SR and GR in order to properly understand this book.

 

[Singularity]

An extremely helpful reference book for studying this subject would be:

Black Holes and Time Warps
Kip Thorne
W. W. Norton and Company
ISBN 0-393-03505-0

I strongly suggest carefully reading the entire book from first page to last, although the theoretically predicted electromagnetic qualities observable from outside the event horizon are emphasized in Chapters 7 and 9.

Thanks, but am not professional and hence i rely on people like u for my knowledge about these topics.

....

I have made my comments based on a "clean" black hole ( and based upon Einstein Relativity, of which I am skeptical. ). This book amply describes the possibility of electromagnetic forces originating outside the event horizon, due to incoming particles and motion in the accretion disk....

This can be proved if the source of matter and the disk are always aligned. Or if there are multi-Directional Jets from the BH.