MEASUREMENT OF THE ELECTRIC CURRENT IN A KPC-SCALE JET
P.P. Kronberg R.V.E. Lovelace G. Lapenta S.A. Colgate
Draft version June 8, 2011
ABSTRACT
We present radio emission, polarization, and Faraday rotation maps of the radio jet of the galaxy
3C303. From this data we derive the magnetoplasma and electrodynamic parameters of this 50 kpc long
jet. For one component of this jet we obtain for the first time a direct determination of a galactic-scale
electric current (∼ 10e18 A) , and its direction − positive away from the AGN. Our analysis strongly
supports a model where the jet energy flow is mainly electromagnetic.
Introduction The outward transport of electromagnetic energy and angular momentum in jets from accretion disks (with little mass outflow) in the form of a collimated, magneticallydominated (or ‘Poynting-flux jet’) was first proposed by Lovelace (1976) and Blandford (1976) and subsequently studied in many papers (Benford 1978; Lovelace, Wang, & Sulkanen 1987; Lynden-Bell 1996; Li, et al. 2001; Lovelace, et al. 2002; 2003; Nakamura et al. 2008). The model has a collimated current outflow (or inflow) Iz along the spine of the jet of cylindrical radius rJ (normal to the disk plane). An equal but opposite “return current” flow inward (or outward) at much larger distances from the jet axis must occur, so that the net current outflow from the source is zero. The reversal of RM sign just on the jet axis matches the signature of a current-carrying “wire”, where we are measuring an azimuthal component of magnetic field strength3 at an approximate mean y distance on opposite sides of the synchrotron radiating cocoon surrounding the unresolved spine of the jet. The inferred current, Iz , is an average within the cocoon’s radiating volume, over which we measure the transverse ∇(RM ) of ∼ 10 rad m−2/kpc. The result is Iz ∼ 7.5 × 10e17A http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.1397
H/T to OrkneyLad who adds:
Universe’s highest electric current found:
A COSMIC jet 2 billion light years away is carrying the highest electric current ever seen: 10-to-the-power-18 amps, equivalent to a trillion bolts of lightning. [this is a HUGE current: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 amps]
Philipp Kronberg of the University of Toronto in Canada and colleagues measured the alignment of radio waves around a galaxy called 3C303, which has a giant jet of matter shooting from its core. They saw a sudden change in the waves’ alignment coinciding with the jet. “This is an unambiguous signature of a current,” says Kronberg.
The team ‘thinks’ magnetic fields from a colossal black hole at the galaxy’s core are generating the current, which is powerful enough to light up the jet and drive it through interstellar gases out to a distance of about 150,000 light years.
No black hole required IMHO…..I think the stable door is truly open!
“For one component of this jet we obtain for the first time a direct determination of a galactic-scale electric current, and its direction away from the AGN. Our analysis strongly supports a model where the jet energy flow is mainly electromagnetic.”
Holoscience has this to say at the conclusion of its page on “Electric galaxies”
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=2m1r5m3b
“The gravitational ‘explanation’ of the galactic jet can be summarized in one word — “garbage.” The confident assertion that the galactic nucleus is hiding a supermassive black hole is nonsense. Black holes are a ‘school-kid howler’ perpetrated by top scientists. It involves taking Newton’s gravitational equation to an absurd limit by dividing by zero to achieve an almost infinitely powerful gravitational source. This is done by impossibly squeezing the matter of millions of stars into effectively a point source. And then mysteriously available magnetic fields are pressed into performing miracles to create something that approximates a relativistic jet of matter from an object that is supposed to gobble up anything that comes near.
It is very disturbing that the public accepts this blatant baloney without question. If scientists were forced to defend their statements in a court of law under the rules of evidence, most of the misbegotten ideas that make up modern science would never have survived. Physics would have remained in the classical hands of the experimentalists and the engineers who have to make things work. Countless billions of dollars could have been saved in misdirected and pointless experiments.
The experimental evidence for the electrical nature of galaxies has been available for many decades now. But who has heard anything about it? The lack of debate demonstrates the power of institutionalized science to maintain the “uncanny inertia” of the “erroneous theories” they have introduced into our culture. We have given scientists that power by trusting them more than our commonsense.
Having discovered electric power we find it indispensable. We also find that Nature does things with exquisite economy. So the commonsense question is simply, “would Nature choose the weakest force in the universe —gravity — to form and light the countless magnificent galaxies?” I don’t think so!”
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
We are told that before the bang, the universe did not exist. There was this infinitely small thing/no-thing called the singularity [don’t ask where it came from or why it was there in the first place]. Infinity is not only a beautiful mathematical concept, it is also very convenient and useful. Just stretch the imagination to assume it was plausible for a singularity to exist. Never mind for the time being about its physical reality or meaning.
“Now you think that I am looking back at my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But, on closer look, it is quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm and I am not sure if I was on the right track after all.”
Albert Einstein
Are we going to witness a ‘paradigm shift’ in our lifetime? I can feel it coming, it will be interesting to see if the MSM picks this up…..
Looks like we could solve the problem of humanities future energy needs if only we had a long enough extension lead… 🙂
OL: To bring about a paradigm shift, we will have to roll our sleeves up, use the new equations Miles Mathis is developing, and make successful predictions which remove doubt over the underlying principles. But we don’t need to publish in the journals which will fight every inch of the way. We publish on this blog and others and when fresh young physicists see the excitement build, they will abandon the useless and work with the useful. It’s a process which will take around 30 years, once it gets going.
Tenuc: Gonna need a big screwdriver for the terminals on that baby. 🙂
tb:We publish on this blog and others and when fresh young physicists see the excitement build, they will abandon the useless and work with the useful.
This would be a good starting point:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HmL.htm
OrkneyLad has been bigging us up on James delipole’s blog:
“Hawking and Penrose…..hmm…….do you accept the black hole, dark matter, flat universe hypothesis?
Their error is the notion that the Universe is electrically neutral –
that electricity does not “do anything” in space. It is a perverse
stance given the overwhelming importance of electricity in our lives.
Who is foolish enough to believe that the force which binds our very atoms together plays virtually no part on a galactic &
inter-galactic scale? The answer is, the ruling paradigm in cosmology.
Lucky for us, the astronomers keep throwing up examples that leave them ‘baffled’.
And this is breaking right now:
Galactic scale electric current detected: more amps than you can shake a black hole at
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com
There’s going to be a lot of pulped textbooks….
“Now you think that I am looking back at my life’s work with calm
satisfaction. But, on closer look, it is quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm and I am not sure if I was on the right track after all.”
Albert Einstein
There are no black holes, the universe is not flat.
Time will not, one day, run backwards.
And a few words from Alfvén, who took the unprecedented step of predicting in his December 11, 1970 Nobel prize acceptance speech the eventual crash of astrophysics at the end of its long dark tunnel:
“In conclusion, it seems that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of theoretical astrophysicists who have gotten their education from the listed textbooks. The multibillion dollar space data from astronomical telescopes should be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics, circuit theory, and, of course, modern plasma physics. More than 99 percent of the Universe consists of plasma, and the ratio between electromagnetic and gravitational forces is 10 to-the-power-of 39.”
– H. Alfvén, NASA Conference Publication 2469, 1986, p. 16.”
Plenty of haters over there TB, it’s going to be a long bumpy journey! 🙂
OL: When I was in the final year of my history and philosophy of science degree, we went to a lecture given by the Astronomer Royale, who told us that it was all worked out, and they were just mopping up the ‘last little details’. I got a fit of the giggles, and my prof gave me a dig in the ribs with his elbow. “Don’t laugh at the Atronomer Royale” he hissed. 🙂
23 years later, I’m still waiting for these ‘last little details’ like where 99% of the allegedly missing matter is hiding to be worked out. It’s a bit like Kevin Trenberth’s missing heat. It was never there in the first place.
@Tallbloke: No black hole required IMHO… Black holes are but withchcraft. These guys have rediscovered a Birkeland Current, where as in every current there is a corresponding magnetic field at 90°…btw I was wondering how Pythagoras found the importance of this arrangement of forces in his famous theorem. Then this relation between electricity and magnetism it is always and everywhere kept where only the catethi (“legs”), the magnitude of forces, its ratio, change.
Paradigms are changing for the good!…thanks God, God is the ultimate conspirer! 🙂
@Tallbloke: Their error is the notion that the Universe is electrically neutral….
Anything ABSOLUTELY neutral does not exist, it couldn´t.
Simple question 1: When did black holes come into existence, before, during or after the big bang?
“THERE are three guides for the life of man. First is principle, which has been long and carefully tested; the second is experience, strengthened by long practice; and third, the authority of those ancients who could not have been easily deceived by anyone, and who appear not to have wished to deceive others. Attend more to what a man has done than to what he has said, for many speak well but few act well.”
“The best principle for living is to think, and to do your utmost to live in harmony with the mind, for this is to live for ever and to live happily. For it is in the mind that stability and peace are found.”
Marcilio Ficino [1433 – 1499]
OL, wise words from Marcillo Ficino. I find the big bang theory to be nihilistic and unsatisfying. In a universe where there is enough room for Branes and String, there is enough room for Aesthetics too.
Ah Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
Would not we shatter it to bits—and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart’s Desire!
– Omar Khayam – Rubayat
Adolfo – You might find this interesting:
Newton and the ‘Pipes of Pan’:
Click to access 66McGuire%28Pipes%29.pdf
“Newton’s most brilliant disciple, Maclaurin, expressed the same view, though with a slight but significant reservation:
A musical chord gives the same notes as one double in length, While the tension or force with which the latter is stretched is quadruple : and the gravity of a planet is quadruple of the gravity of a planet at a double distance. In general, that any musical chord may become unison to a
lesser chord of the same kind, its tension must be increased in the same proportion as the square of its length is greater; and that the gravity of a planet may become equal to the gravity of another planet nearer to the sun, it must be increased in proportion as the square of its distance from
the sun is greater. If therefore we should suppose musical chords extended from the sun to each planet, that all these chords might become unison, it would be requisite to increase or diminish their tensions in the same proportions as would be sufiicient to render the gravities of the planets
equal. And from the sirnilitude of those proportions the celebrated doctrine of the harmony of the spheres is supposed to have been derived (20).”
J. E. McGuire; P. M. Rattansi
Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Dec., 1966), 108-143.
“nihilistic and unsatisfying”…….indeed! 🙂
I can’t help but think that our modern science & philosophy [if can be forgiven such a hackneyed & generic phrase] has led us down a bleak cul-de-sac……
Best regards,
OL
“This also applies to black holes, of course, which are supposed to be collapsed superstars. The big theorists like Hawking and Penrose propose quantum effects in black holes almost daily, and quantum effects are E/M effects. Why does nobody ever ask them how E/M effects enter the field equations, which are gravitational equations, not quantum or E/M equations? When someone like me proposes that the field includes E/M, I am shouted down with a chorus of derision, told that there is no room in the field equations for any corrections. When someone like me proposes that Relativity is wrong by 4%, I am shouted down with a chorus of derision, told that there is no room in the field equations for any corrections. They are already correct to within a billionth of a nanometer or something, I am assured. But then Hawking and Penrose and all the other big names propose quantum effects in black holes, and no one bothers to tell them that there is no room in the field equations for E/M. Quantum effects are E/M effects, and if there is no E/M in the celestial field equations, Hawking and Penrose can’t propose quantum effects to fill mathematical holes!”
-Miles Mathis- http://milesmathis.com/sunhole.html
The rest is a fun read too.
By the way, if you’re wondering what went wrong with the url this thread lives at, the letter ‘e’ that should be on the end of “more-amps-than-you-can-shake-a-black-hol-” got sucked in, ok? 🙂
[…] amps or 10 to the power 18 amps. It reaches as far out into the IGM as the galaxy itself. Team member Lovelace’s model of a collimated current outflow and inflow is most credible. Blac… Outer space is >99.9% plasma. This means that dark matter components should not be applied to […]
I am not a Scientist and not even very well educated, but when I see Astrophysicists adding “Fudge Factors” like Dark Matter and Dark Energy to make the Big Bang theory work it reminds me of the Positive feedback theory required to make CO2 drive catastrophic global warming.
Can’t find, can’t measure it, but it must be there to make the thoeries work
I find this forum the most interesting in terms of Science content and you have my greatest admiration.
@Tim Channon says:
Simple question 1: When did black holes come into existence, before, during or after the big bang?
You have inagurated a new profession: Physicist-Comediant 🙂
[snip]
[reply] I sense issues. But you ‘ll have to tone them down a bit if you want them discussed here. I understand it’s unsettling when you feel the paradigm shaking under your feet though.
When did black holes come into existence, before, during or after the big bang?
Physicists at Stanford University (Svalgaard’s intellectual home base) calculated the hypothetical number of universes created as a result of the Big Bang is 10^1016.
Kronberg says in the paper “Measurement of the Electric Current in a KPC-Scale Jet” that the radiated power of Galaxy 3c303 is expected to be significantly less then the electromagnetic energy from the jet power, because the jet power goes into a combination of pdV work on the ambient medium and to energizing ions and electrons in the outer lobes. Gravitational fusion as star formation models are outdated, and need to include observations that protostars form like beads on strings inside cosmic filaments. This would explain why galaxies do not require dark matter components inside filaments, to maintain galactic spiral magnetized plasma shapes of dust and gas. Along the jet axis there is a net flow of negative charge toward the AGN core within knot E3. Black holes can be described by charge, mass, and spin. 3c303’s radiating knots are a few thousand times larger in volume then in M87. Likely Gravito-magnetism and Gravito-electric forces exist, and are analogous representations where gravitational mass was substituted for Maxwell’s EM equations, as described by NASA about Gravity Probe B. The feeding pull of a black hole is obviously an electromagnetic effect, where the negative charged particles are pulled towards the AGN. Black holes are entirely theoretical, hypothetical, and have never been observed neither in the LHC nor any galaxies. The naked singularity likely is gaining acceptance, along with a larger scale filamentary structure of the Universe. The dark flow likely fits comfortably in the scaling of the filamentary universe, as another albeit largest known hole about 150 billion light years away. Shaun Thomas has recently discovered a aggregation of galaxies stretching far more then 3 billion light years, using the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Megaz DR7. They believe they have discovered “HYPERCLUSTERS” that would seriously undermine the big-bang theory.
http://HOLOGRAMUNIVERSE.WORDPRESS.COM
http://HOLOGRAPHICGALAXY.BLOGSPOT.COM
@quantauniverse.com:
…Likely Gravito-magnetism and Gravito-electric forces exist
Click to access unified_field.pdf
Click to access unified_field_explained_9.pdf
It will like you.
I love all this discussion and chaotic points of view. I believe that this electric argument relates to the sun’s behavior. When the sun goes into a grand minimum, tremendous changes in energy take place (huge reductions). Those who would say that it is caused by the rotational inertia hits to the sun due to rotation of the planets don’t have the big hammer to provide this hit to energy. On the other hand, if there were a disturbance of current flow into the poles of the sun….causing a reduction in emitted charge at the equator of the sun (solar wind) then now we have the energy scale which would support the reduction in the suns magnetic fields, currents, sunspots etc. It doesn’t mean that fusion is effected, just the electrical nature of the sun. How could the planets have a damping effect on the electrical energy feeding the sun be it blocking in-bound electrical plasma etc from the galaxy or feedback from the outer part of our solar system. It seems to me that the positions of the planets coincide with historical sun grand minimums (hence the orbital inertia etc arguments) so if we can figure out the mechanism for reducing energy input to the sun during that time, then we can also understand what amps up the sun to higher energy levels both during solar cycle maximums and during active sun periods. And then predict the weather trends accordingly.
Another weird phenominon from this electrical theory etc that strikes me is the black hole argument. We are told that black holes radiate high energy particle beams from their poles (or maybe plasma currents). This is the opposite of the way the sun works, so could this mean that the black hole sucks in charge (plasma etc) into it’s equator and radiates that out of it’s poles. Would that not cause the light to disappear and make the object black. And this being a reversed activity imply that the electrical/magnetic properties of black holes are reversed to that of typical suns and galacies?
tallbloke,
Miles Matthis is a scientific “crackpot” – I’m disappointed that you’re enthusiastically linking to (and buying, and publishing) his material without it seems taking the time to evaluate it.
You may be accepting some of his work “on trust”, but at least have a look at some of his mathematical output, which you might be able to more easily check :
An example of his far-out wrongness. According to Mathis’s paper “The Extinction of Pi” :
“Abstract: I show that in kinematic situations, π is 4. For all those going ballistic over my title, I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static situations. I am analyzing an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4. ”
The maths and reasoning in the paper is junk.
He goes on to claim that the use of the “wrong” value (3.14159.. instead of 4) was what caused Explorer 1 to enter a higher-than-planned orbit, and that NASA and all other space agencies have just fudged the equations since. He writes:
“This begs the question of the real status of rocketry. Do NASA and JPL and Russia know that π is wrong in the orbit or the kinematic circle, or are they just flying on fumes? Is it crashing and persistent ignorance or is it another conspiracy? I don’t know. If Hoagland is right, and NASA and the government are keeping alien civilizations from us, then they probably have π buried at Area51 with everything else. They can’t admit that π is wrong, because that would make everyone look very stupid. The public might stop reading science journals and funding hadron colliders. ”
An old-school crank – junk mathematics, conspiracy theories, self-professed lone genius (“To these people, I say that it is not I who am doing the calculus wrong. It is Newton and Leibniz and Cauchy and everyone since who has been doing the calculus wrong. “).
Or look at his “short formal proof” of Goldbach’s Conjecture (wow!). Again, it’s wrong – try working through the proof, it’s simple (if junk) algebra.
Or follow through his simple but wrong algebraic workings in his article, “The Derivatives of the Natural Log and of 1/x are Wrong”.
Given that as a mathematician he’s utterly useless, being systemtically wrong and deluded, does it make you wonder about the credibility of his grandiose scientific pronouncements ?
big-bang theory does error believing the universe is essentially neutral. Mass is the analog to Charge in relativity. Einstein used Maxwell’s equations to develop relativity, so bending of light around galaxies is considered grav lensing by mass. Newton’s Grav force constant G corresponds to the Coulomb force constant k. Gravity G is the equivalent of the Electrostatic field E. The Geodetic effect confirmed by NASA for the earth by gravity probe b, is the exact analog of Thomas precession in electromagnetism. Atoms, stars, galaxies : All have magnetized bubbles, electric currents and jets, plasma, and many more fractal like similarities. Gravitational fields are imaginary, but EM fields are REAL. Thorne’s gravity model shows B (magnetic) and E (electric tidal gravity) with merely invisible gravity field lines. A good story is if Gravity and Electromagnetism are Isomorpic? Isomorphism is a 1-1 correspondence of every element of one set to that of another set. Insights are extended that preserve all operations and relationships. The accuracy of relativity by using EM equations is extraordinary. The ignorance is in not giving plasma physicists their say in cosmology, but giving it to textbook gravity believers of the big-bang. The story is at
oneuniverse says: Miles Matthis is a scientific “crackpot”
Is that opinion settled science? 🙂
Oneuniverse:
Miles is great fun and good value for money. Given the rate of his output it’s unlikely he gets everything right. Rather than writing him off for things he says which seem unbelievable, I look more at the things he says which make some sense. You haven’t seen me promoting his Pi=4 piece here have you?
oneuniverse says:
June 27, 2011 at 11:13 pm
“…Abstract: I show that in kinematic situations, π is 4. For all those going ballistic over my title, I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static situations. I am analyzing an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4…
The maths and reasoning in the paper is junk.”
If you took the trouble to examine the logic Miles applies to orbits and take a few minutes to work through the simple maths, you will find that in kinematic systems pi = 3.142… is senseless and, indeed, pi = 4.
Tenuc, do you think we could resolve this one with experiment? A strain gauge between a spinning weight and it’s fulcrum point perhaps?
tallbloke says:
June 29, 2011 at 8:52 am
“Tenuc, do you think we could resolve this one with experiment? A strain gauge between a spinning weight and it’s fulcrum point perhaps?”
I’ve been trying to find a way of testing some of Miles ideas experimentally, but it is difficult to do on the surface of our large planet. Gravity, as stated by Einstein and other mainstream scientists, is just an acceleration and not an instantaneous force at a distance as the also wish us to believe when it is convenient for them!
The best test of any theory is can it predict future observation or explain anomalous behaviour which current theory cannot. So far Miles is doing well in this context across a wide range of physics related disciplines and a good example of this is the confirmation that pi=4 in kinematic situations can be found in his explanation/calculation of the Explorer orbital anomaly, explained here…
http://milesmathis.com/pi4.html
Always takes a long time to displace an established model, as we have all been indoctrinated into believing a foundational assortment of ‘facts’ and ‘laws’ which may not all be 100% true. Belief is a tremendous block to progress as it becomes entwined in the very fabric of the person.
@quantauniverse.com You are absolutely right. “pebbles universe” it is just a matter of politics not about reality whatsoever. Have you wondered how is it possible, in the famous Einstein´s equation E=mc2, “C” being “squared”?
tallbloke: Given the rate of his output it’s unlikely he gets everything right.
tallbloke (Un-Unified Field book thread) : Miles is a master at getting down to the root of mechanical science and pulling apart the accepted equations of motion into their constituent parts so we can see how they hang together.
His kinematic Pi=4 was one of those instances where he claims to be correcting the accepted equations of motion. If you’re not going to stand behind that one, please point me to a few maths or physics article of his that in your opinion he’s got right?
I’m not going to play patsy in a game of gotcha, so if you have a refutation of anything Miles has written, give us a link to it and we’ll put it up for discussion.
I’m not attempting to play “gotcha”. You said “Miles is a master at getting down to the root of mechanical science and pulling apart the accepted equations of motion into their constituent parts so we can see how they hang together.”. I’m just asking if you could be more specific. His kinematic Pi=4 was one of those instances (and he claims to find a flaw and offers his Pi=4 correction). Is that one of the articles in which in your opinion he’s shown his mastery? If not, are you willing to say which of his deconstructions of the accepted equations of motion moved you to make the above statement ?
re: your request for refutations
For Tenuc too – please see a refutation of Mathis’ Pi=4 proof . That website contains other critiques of Mathis’ work (eg. it points out that Mathis’ alternative explanation for Bremsstrahlung radiation involves a violation of Conservation of Charge (such a violation has never been observed in any observations of nature).
This post highlights basic errors in his kinetic energy paper.
By the way, in the Hole in the Sun article which you link to above, Mathis says:
The core of the Sun is much larger and denser than the Earth, and yet the Earth’s gravity creates a density in its own atmosphere of about 1.2kg/m3, some 10,000 times more density than the Sun’s photosphere as a whole.
I will be told that the energy of the fusion percolating up counteracts the gravity of the core acting on the rest of the Sun, but if mainstream physicists propose that, they are already admitting a unified field. I hardly think they want to do that, because that would be admitting I am right. If they are going to do that, I can stop this paper now. What I mean is, they can’t propose that, because they have no mechanism for it. According to current theory, you can’t turn off or cancel gravity, not by an E/M field, and especially not by an ion field. Gravity is gravity, and it doesn’t matter how many ions or photons are flying up through the field.
Mathis has misunderstood the argument – there’s no proposal that violates standard physics. The argument isn’t that gravity is cancelled or turned off, the argument is that the particles in the sun have greater kinetic energy than those in the Earth’s atmosphere, hence the lower density (in the same way that the Earth’s troposphere expands and contracts (and so changes density) with the seasons).
ps. thanks for correcting the formatting error in my previous comment.
OK, I just read http://mathisdermaler.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/a-reply-to-%E2%80%9Cthe-extinction-of-pi-the-short-version%E2%80%9D/
Dan hasn’t understood Mathis contention. The giveaway is at the end when Dan asks Miles:
“if this notion Pi=4 only applies to kinematic situations, and if we assume by measuring your waistline you mean Pi = 3.14159265… for the purposes of plane geometry, then why did you bother with this little “proof” if you knew it was wrong?”
Mathis goes to some effort in this short version of the Pi paper (and a much longer effort in the long one) to state that he is approaching the orbital problem from the perspective of Newtons laws of motion. He is therefore trying to represent both space and time on 2D paper. His way of squaring the circle in the paper is alliterative, and not susceptible to overly literal interpretation. We can see that the perimeter of a square is longer than the circumference of the inscribed circle, but that not what Mathis is trying to convince you of. It’s an argument about kinematics not geometrics.
To quote Mathis’ short version:
“In my paper on Newton’s lemmae, I proved that the tangent in his triangle must be longer than the chord and arc at the limit. If we apply that to this problem, it means that the arc cannot approach the chord at the limit. The tangent is a component of the arc, by Newton’s own definition of it in the Principia, so if the tangent is longer than the chord at the limit, the arc must be also. This means that the curve does not approach the hypotenuses of these steps, no matter how many there are. The hypotenuses are the chords, and they cannot be approached by the arc or tangent.
You will now ask where in the Principia Newton says that the arc is composed of the tangent. It is where he tells us that the orbital motion is composed of the centripetal acceleration and the innate motion of the body. These two vectors compose the orbital motion. They are the only two motions given us by Newton, and he explicitly assigns the innate motion of the body to the tangent.”
But Mathis has to show that Newton is wrong about what happens at the limit in calculus, and that is where the real battleground for the proof/disproof of Mathis’ idea lies. Mathis holds that he has disproved Newtons fundamental Lemma and this enables him to overturn Newton’s conception of what happens at the limit. I haven’t found the time to read that paper yet, so it’ll have to be an open question for me at the moment.
http://milesmathis.com/lemma.html
By the way O.U. I wrote to Miles earlier today on a subject where I disagree with what he has to say about Milankovitch cycles.
There’s no hero worship going on here. 😉
oneuniverse says:
June 30, 2011 at 1:50 pm
“…For Tenuc too – please see a refutation of Mathis’ Pi=4 proof . That website contains other critiques of Mathis’ work (eg. it points out that Mathis’ alternative explanation for Bremsstrahlung radiation involves a violation of Conservation of Charge (such a violation has never been observed in any observations of nature)…”
After a quick skim through Dan’s paper on the above link which claims to refute Miles Mathis, ‘The Extinction of Pi”, I’m horrified by his lack of insight into the difference between geometry and kinematics. Don’t know why but the following joke springs to mind…
“There are only 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t.”
When I have a bit of time I will go through the paper and illustrate Dan’s lack of understanding about what Miles conjecture is really about, which how Newtons orbital mechanics are wrong.
Not yet read the Bremsstrahlung radiation paper or the paper that refutes it, but I will respond after I’ve had a look through it.
Dan’s query is sensible: Mathis says Pi=4 only applies to a kinematic situation, so why has he attempted a geometrical proof (this fallacious proof is not new, by the way) ?
tallbloke: We can see that the perimeter of a square is apparently longer than the circumference of a circle, but that not what Mathis is trying to convince you of.
Yet Mathis writes : “This must mean that the length of the arc AC is equal to the distance AD + DC. “.
ie. the perimeter of the square is exactly equal to the circumference.
The entire proof (which finishes with the line “π does not exist in the circle equation. It is extinct.”) uses the standard geometrical concepts of angles, lengths, lines, arcs etc. There is no mention of time in the proof.
tallbloke: His way of squaring the circle in the paper is alliterative, and not susceptible to overly literal interpretation.
“Alliterative” doesn’t make sense in the context – did you mean “allegorical” ..?
The Pi=4 proof is presented as a mathematical geometrical proof, to be evaluated mathematically. Unless it’s impossible, he needs to express his concept in the rigorous framework of mathematics, if he wishes to provide a formal proof.
Oneuniverse says:
did you mean “allegorical” ?
Yes I did, thanks for the correction.
The entire proof (which finishes with the line “π does not exist in the circle equation. It is extinct.”) uses the standard geometrical concepts of angles, lengths, lines, arcs etc. There is no mention of time in the proof.
As I pointed out, if it was simply a geometrical paper, Mathis would have no need to introduce Newton’s concepts of centripetal motion and the innate motion of the body. And as Mathis points out elsewhere, these motions necessarily take place during the passage of time. All kinematics involve time as an implicit quantity. In the short Pi paper he says:
“Logically, the time or length cannot go to zero, since there is no time or length at zero.”
Now MIles loves riddles and paradoxes, and he delights in confounding people’s common sense. I strongly suggest you attempt to understand the proof as an attempt to ‘shock’ the understanding in such a way that it can comprehend his kinematic theory. It is illustrative of something which cannot be drawn in two dimensions, which the printed page is bound by.
I appreciate that it’s hard for people brought up on literal understanding and syllogistic logic to get their heads round. What Miles is saying is, you can keep Pi for static measurements, but for orbiting bodies with real motions, it’s a different ballgame. It’ll be interesting to try to devise an experiment which can settle the matter. Mathis thinks the experiment took place with NASA’a launch of the first orbiting spacecraft, but maybe he’s just poking fun at NASA. 🙂
@ oneuniverse
I was going to do a refutation of Dan’s refutation of Miles Mathis, “The Extinction of Pi”, but came across this which summarises the main points and saved me the effort… 🙂
http://sagacityssentinel.wordpress.com/2010/11/
tallbloke, Mathis’ proof that the circle circumference C=8r (ie. the circle’s cirmuference is equal to the perimeter of the square it inscribes) is a straight (but flawed) geometrical proof not involving time. If he wants it to be a proof involving time, acceleration etc., he needs to incorporate them in his proof, which he hasn’t done.
What Miles is saying is, you can keep Pi for static measurements, but for orbiting bodies with real motions, it’s a different ballgame. It’ll be interesting to try to devise an experiment which can settle the matter.
Mathis rejects the implicit multiple verifications of the standard orbital equations by NASA (and other space agencies) in their successful space projects (satellite launches etc): to prevent his hypothesis being falsified, he claims that all space agencies have all been secretly fudging the orbital equations ie. he posits a giant conspiracy that has gone undetected until now.
Mathis implies an even larger conspiracy of silence when he claims that the equations for angular velocity and momentum are wrong. According to Mathis, “One of the greatest mistakes in the history of physics is the continuing use of the current angular velocity and momentum equations.”.
He goes on to say : “Because v = rω is false, L = rmv is false. But this angular momentum equation is used all over the place.”
Yes it is – and over the centuries the generations of scientists and engineers who’ve relied on the angular velocity and momentum equations in their experiments and engineering works should have detected what Mathis says is “One of the greatest mistakes in the history of physics” if Mathis’ claim is true, but they haven’t – instead, they’ve repeatedly found evidence for the validity of the standard equations.
Tenuc, Dan provides two separate disproofs. Sleestack only tackles one of them, and all he does is repeat Mathis’ claims. As Dan proves, Mathis’ method for calculating the length of curves is wrong for at least the whole family of curves between A and C (referring to their diagram) which have monotonically decreasing slope from A to C (this includes the arc of the circle considered by Mathis).
Oops, sorry Rog; don’t know what happened there! Please can you delete my previous post which I screwed up.
oneuniverse says:
July 2, 2011 at 1:13 am
“…Tenuc, Dan provides two separate disproofs. Sleestack only tackles one of them…”
Both of Dan’s ‘proofs’ are linked as they are both to trying to falsify Miles Mathis use of the principle of exhaustion. Dan clearly cannot understand how to apply the method as his following statement shows…
“Mathis is correct, no matter how few or how many of these steps we subdivide the interval [0,1] into, the total of their lengths will remain constant. They steps can be made small, medium, large, evenly sized, or unevenly sized yet their total length will remain the same.”
Mathis clearly states only when the steps are of even size will the method work.
It appears from this that Dan has actually proven Mathis’ analysis correct, rather than falsifying it.
I’m a bit concerned that Dan is having trouble understanding the very simple and logical mathematics which underpin Mathis’ explanation. It is possible this is just a lack of reading comprehension or perhaps a lack of understanding of the principle of kinematics in question.
BTW oneuniverse, the failure of the Explorer I, III & IV missions to achieve the correct earths orbits and the Russian Luna mission missing it’s intended rendezvous with the moon are well documented and a good indication that the underlying equations used were wrong. I expect current orbital calculations have a heuristic element, similar to MOND methodology.
Tenuc: I think the lengths will still add up with uneven steps. Anyway, the ratio of the vertical and horizontal components, changes as the curve flattens towards point A.
Mathis is squaring the circle.
Thanks for removing the offending post Rog – sorry about that.
Regarding the evenness of approach, here’s a quote from Miles…
“The straight line is actually the most difficult thing to approach, and the impossibility of this approach is actually the easiest to discover. For instance, draw four equal steps along AC, then look at them from the point D. There isn’t any way you could have approached those four equal steps from D. In the method, you aren’t just drawing any steps you like. You are supposed to be drawing steps that would occur if you pushed the line AD + DC toward AC. Exhausting a process or going to a limit is not a willy-nilly process, it is a defined and rigorous process. You will find, if you try, that you can’t approach a line evenly from any point, using this method. No matter where you place D along the line AB, it will not approach AC at the same rate, with steps logically defined in any possible way. And it may eventually become clear to you why this is so: the distance of a line cannot be approached from off the line, because the line is already the distance itself. It is “even to start with”; therefore, it cannot be approached evenly (except by a parallel line of the same length).
As one more short demonstration of this, say we place D on the line AB so that it is equidistant from A and C to begin with. You may think we could make it approach AC in an even manner in this way. But no. If we draw smaller steps in the middle and larger ones toward A and C, we can force one set of steps to act right. But we cannot make our next set of steps act right, both in regards to D and in regards to our first set. To make our next set of steps diminish evenly, we would have to vary the rate of change along the steps, and this isn’t allowed. An approach to a limit must progress in a defined way, else the approach won’t happen. An approach that progressed unevenly would create “bumps” as the limit was approached, and the limit would not be the curve we see. It is one thing to approach a limit that is a point, and another to approach a limit that is a line or curve. In approaching a line or curve, the approach has to be the same at all places along the curve, and to achieve this the approach must be monitored all along the curve, as I am showing you.”
Yes, but Mathis also says that the sum of all the steps must equal the sum of a single step where the vertical and horizontal components both equal OA. This must be so for the circumference to equal 8C (the radius). So Mathis is saying the circumference of the circle equals the perimeter of the square which circumscribes it. This appears to defy common sense, which ‘sees’ that the circle is formed of 4 ‘cut corners’ within the square. That is the apparent paradox. That’s why I believe Mathis is not trying to create a geometrical proof but to elucidate the relationship between the innate motion of the body and the centripetal force acting on an orbiting body.
I don’t know if he is right or not, but it’s noticeable that the numbers fit in terms of the extra time Explorer took to complete orbit. Unless Miles has cherry picked that figure. Where’s the original data?
@Tallbloke: The apparent contradiction is solved by realizing that a real round circle does not exist at all in nature, it is but the vertical projection of the spiral movement, where there are three main “gaps” (the same ones as in the musical octave).
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Enneagram_as_an_octave.svg
tallbloke :
I don’t know if he is right or not, but it’s noticeable that the numbers fit in terms of the extra time Explorer took to complete orbit. Unless Miles has cherry picked that figure. Where’s the original data?
We can at least have a quick check of the calculations relied on by Mathis. According to Mathis :
Although the rocket flew over 1/3 higher at apogee, the math shows “almost a 20% error”, according to Hoagland. I have scanned his math, and he appears to be right. The error in the Explorer propulsion equations is 19%.
Two points can immediately be made :
1) According to Hoagland, the error in the propulsion equations is 17%, not 19%.
Mathis says that he agrees with Hoagland’s math, so why does he use 19% instead of Hoagland’s 17%? Of course, 17% is not as good a fit for Mathis’ explanation.
2) Mathis has missed a glaring error in Hoagland’s calculations. Even if we accept Hoagland’s formula and raw numbers, and the fact that he doesn’t do a stage-by-stage calculation, specifically, as pointed out by Stuart Harris, Hoagland forgets to take a logarithm when carrying out his calculations.
He first gives the equation for the final rocket velocity as :
dV = -g*ISP*ln(1- Wp/Wi)
g is given as 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
ISP is taken as an average of in-atmosphere and in-vacuum values, giving 228 seconds .
1-Wp/Wi = (Wi-Wp)/Wi = (Empty weight/Initial fully loaded weight) is calculated as 662lb/1380lb for last 3 stages.
Hoagland then plugs these numbers into the above equation :
dV = -32.2 X 228 X (662lb/1380lb) = 3520 feet per sec
Firstly, please note that the LHS is a negative number, while the 3520 figure in the RHS is positive.
Most glaringly, though, Hoagland has forgotten to take the natural logarithm : according to his equation, it should be ln(662/1380) , not (662/1380). This would give the correct sign, and a very different figure of 5293 feet per sec.
I have it on good authority that pi does in fact equal 4. I put the question to my pet German Shepherd. When asked, the dog licked himself, sniffed everyone’s butt, and then bleched what sounded like a ‘yes’. That’s all the evidence I need; [snip, no need to add that and lowers the tone –mod]