On 01/07/2010 03:08 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Problem is Stephen, you did not read the part where it explains that the > "narrow-angle" model does not apply when the jet is more than 19° from our > line-of-sight. > > In the case of M87, the best evidence (from Hubble, and it was not available > before that) suggests that the jet is in fact about 43° to our > line-of-sight, and consequently any narrow angle model or a variant, cannot > apply to M87.
Interesting. No, I hadn't read that; certainly, unlike the case with a shell, it seems like there should be a maximum angle beyond which a jet won't look superluminal. > The same group of scientists later revised that first "spin" argument What makes you think they're "spinning" it, rather than merely looking for what seems the most likely explanation given what is currently known? Many things observed in the sky require a lot of work and thought to explain, and the explanations sometimes require work and thought to understand, as well. Why do you feel this explanation should be any different? Repeating novas, which came up recently, are another example of something which took substantial effort to understand, and which exhibit surprising behavior. > to > argue in favor of a "superluminal bulk movement" model in which the jet is > "embedded". It is an even shakier rationalization, since it involves purely > "invented" assumptions for which the evidence is thin. A major chunk of the "evidence" is that the jet is assumed to be traveling slower than C, of course. This is not considered a test of the relativistic speed limit (by anybody in the mainstream, at least), and that speed limit will naturally be used in modeling the jet in an attempt to understand it, just as conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum will be used. > > IOW it was "spin" then, and still is spin now, IMHO. I think there's an issue here with what "spin" means. A proposed explanation of an astronomical phenomenon is not propaganda designed to impress somebody, which is how the word "spin" is normally used. "Wrong" can apply to such an explanation, "bogus" may be appropriate, "implausible" could be applied, but "spin"? ... no. > The observable facts > tell us otherwise. > > And yes, M87 still remains a rather huge problem for anyone with a critical > mind relative to a lightspeed limitation. > > Jones > >
