Why do Blackholes have Magnetic poles ?

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I AM A FIRM BELIEVER OF WHAT YOU CALL SUPER MASSIVE NUETRON STARS.

black holes.... dont exist... they just look black.

-MT

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your conclusion was not based on a logical inference. Besides, Kerr-Newman black holes always had magnetic poles.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

black holes arent black either IMO

there is a radius at which light CAN escape. it will be only bent, not sucked in. which means if you look at a black hole from any angle you will see light from behind it coming towards - bent. not even just from behind it, from everywhere. if the light passes close enough the event horizon it will do an almost 180 degree slingshot around the black hole.

 

Hello all

The answer to the question question depends on an the assumption of where the magnetic fields are generated.

If the magnetic fields are generated at the accretion disk by moving charge then what is separating the positive and negative charges to generate a current flow? Does a black hole without an accretion disk have a magnetic field? Does a black hole need to have a rotation to separate the charges in the accretion disk?

If the magnetic fields are generated by the black hole itself then does the black hole need rotation (moving charge) to generate the magnetic field? Doesn't this mean that electric charge is not effected by gravity? What is causing the charge imbalance (positive or negative?) within the black hole?

Too many questions (?)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

They probably have poles, due to the black hole's rotation.

 

Black holes and Electromagnetism

Black hole electrodynamics is the theory of electrodynamics outside a black hole.​

 

black hole

According to my work, no black hole at all.

Rudy Schild et all from Harvard has already shown observationally no black hole. Instead they are MECOs.
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060811_quasar.htm

Richard Lieu from Univ Alabama at Huntsville has already shown observationally no Big Bang.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-09-11-big-bang-doubts_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

Talking about black holes and big bang is some kind of inertia

 

Thanks for that article

So do u have any info about a twin Jet Black hole that has jet pairs in two distinct directions ?

I think that the BH at the center of Galaxies have a lot of opportunities to have multi directional Jet pairs, but i havent heard of any. Until then we have to believe that BH have magnetic poles and hence electrons are intact within it.

 

I didnt understand these lines from that great article of yours:

"A black hole can’t sustain such charge, because any charged hole will immediately suck in enough oppositely-charged material to cancel out its own charge."

 

I wouldn't expect such a beast to exist. As far as I know, the jets are fired perpendicularly to the accretion disk, which must be aligned with the black hole's rotation and magnetic field.

I don't understand why you think that jets should form in different directions?

 

black holes don't exist they're just fucking neutron star.s

everything is magnetic. planets. stars. thoughts. crap.
because everything has dualistic consciousness (you + universe)

 

Do u think theres any relation between Magnetism and Electricity ?

 

If there is a magnetic field around a black hole, it is a product of the material outside the event horizon. Wikipedia has a good explanation of these, with a diagram:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The most conspicuous effects are believed to come from matter accreting onto a black hole, which is predicted to collect into an extremely hot and fast-spinning accretion disk. The internal viscosity of the disk causes it to become extremely hot, and emit large amounts of X-ray and ultraviolet radiation. This process is extremely efficient and can convert about 10% of the rest mass energy of an object into radiation, as opposed to nuclear fusion which can only convert a few percent of the mass to energy. Other observed effects are narrow jets of particles at relativistic speeds heading along the disk's axis.

 

Pointing out that charges around the exterior of physical holes are responsible for a magnetic field is dodging the actual question. The real question is whether a black hole itself can have a magnetic field. My answer was the correct one. Yes, Kerr-Newman black holes have a magnetic field. This is not a magnetic field of charges outside the hole. This is the hole's field itself. Any black hole with both charge and rotation which are both allowed by relativity will have a magnetic field. In nature one doesn't expect to find any holes with significant charge, but if there were one it would have its own magnetic field. In nature black holes are expected to have near maximal spin and near zero charge.

 

I thought the magnetic field of a charged spinning black hole was strictly produced by the hole's electrostatic field being rotated by frame dragging, rather than from inside the horizon?

 

As I understand it the tiny little dot type of black hole is pretty much a physical impossibility and Kerr-Newman black holes are the norm. This "new discovery" doesn't sound like anything new to me.

 

Pete, I think Triliarian's answer about Kerr Black hole is fully correct.

I just want to note that It was R.W. Wood (I think) in early 1900s, who at Johns Hopkins did a related experiment. He had metal rim on plastic (probably bakelite as I think that was first plastic, but not sure of details*) disk which he charged up as high as he could. He could measure the E field and thus knew the charge on metal ring. Then he spun the disk at known RPM (and tangential rim speed) and measured the magnetic field.

It was of course well known that moving charge would make a magnetic field, but I believe this was the first experiment to allow all the factors to be directly measured. One can measure the current in a wire, but that is a complex average net velocity which is very small compared to the thermal velocities of the free electrons in the wire. He knew the unique velocity of his charges.
-----------------------------------
*Might have been a glass disk.

 

Electricity is a consequence of magnetism, like smoke is the consequence of fire.

This is how it goes: magnetism causes motion > atomic motions cause heat > heat creates fire > fire creates smoke

Magnetism is the cause of everything, but magnetism is caused by 'something' too.

 

No joke. A moving static electric charge produces an observable magnetic field. Proved by peer reviewed and published science experiment. So, a charged particle moving through space has a magnetic field. Right?