Jump to content
BeAChooser

Dark Matter Even More Missing Now ...

Recommended Posts

August 9, 2012 - An international research team led by astronomers from the University of Zurich has announced that they have detected the presence of dark matter near our own sun. Their findings have been published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Would that be germane to this argument?

Sure we can discuss this latest claim by dark matter theorists. Here's more details of their work (I've highlighted the key words in the descriptions) …

 

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-08-11/news/33153267_1_dark-matter-fritz-zwicky-stars-and-gas

 

Sun surrounded by dark matter, claim scientists

 

LONDON: Scientists have claimed that the Sun is surrounded by dark matter, a phenomenon first proposed in the 1930s by a Swiss astronomer.

 

Researchers from the University of Zurich have developed a new theory - and built a simulation of the Milky Way to test their mass-measuring method before applying it to real data, the 'Daily Mail' reported.

 

"We are 99 per cent confident that there is dark matter near the Sun," lead author Silvia Garbari was quoted as saying by the paper.

 

The study claims that the techniques used over the past 20 years were biased, always tending to underestimate the amount of dark matter in the universe.

 

"This could be the first evidence for a 'disc' of dark matter in our Galaxy, as recently predicted by theory and numerical simulations of galaxy formation, or it could mean that the dark matter halo of our galaxy is squashed, boosting the local dark matter density," Garbari said.

 

The researchers then developed a new unbiased technique that recovered the correct answer from the simulated data.

 

Applying their technique to the positions and velocities of thousands of orange K dwarf stars near the Sun, they obtained a new measure of the local dark matter density.

http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2012/wo-licht-ist-ist-auch-viel-dunkle-materie_en.mobile.html

 

Astronomers at the University of Zürich and the ETH Zürich, together with other international researchers, have found large amounts of invisible "dark matter" near the Sun. Their results are consistent with the theory that the Milky Way Galaxy is surrounded by a massive "halo" of dark matter, but this is the first study of its kind to use a method rigorously tested against mock data from high quality [/b]simulations[/b]. The authors also find tantalising hints of a new dark matter component in our Galaxy[/b].

 

... snip ...

 

Testing the method on a simulated Milky Way

 

Now an international team, lead by researchers of the University of Zürich with the participation of the ETH Zürich, have developed a new technique. The researchers used a state-of-the-art simulation of the Milky Way to test their mass-measuring method before applying it to real data. This threw up a number of surprises: they noticed that standard techniques used over the past twenty years were biased, always tending to underestimate the amount of dark matter. The researchers then developed a new unbiased technique that recovered the correct answer from the simulated data. Applying their technique to the positions and velocities of thousands of orange K dwarf stars near the Sun, they obtained a new measure of the local dark matter density.

 

Evidence for dark matter near the sun

 

"We are 99% confident that there is dark matter near the Sun," says the lead author Silvia Garbari. In fact, if anything, the authors' favoured dark matter density is a little high: they find more dark matter than expected at 90% confidence. There is a 10% chance that this is merely a statistical fluke, but if future data confirms this high value the implications are exciting as Silvia explains: "This could be the first evidence for a "disc" of dark matter in our Galaxy, as recently predicted by theory and numerical simulations of galaxy formation, or it could mean that the dark matter halo of our galaxy is squashed, boosting the local dark matter density."

Frankly, it sounds to me like gobbledegook based on *simulation*, "mock data", and a lot of wishful thinking. Anytime these folks claim 99% confidence in something, it's time to raise the red flags. Here's more …

 

http://www.livescience.com/22333-dark-matter-common-near-sun.html

 

This high resolution simulation of the Milky Way galaxy was used to test a mass-measuring technique used to estimate the density of dark matter near the sun in an August 2012 study.

 

The area around our sun is probably rife with dark matter, the pervasive invisible stuff that populates the universe, a new study suggests.

 

Dark matter is thought to be all around us, making up a large fraction of the mass in the universe. Yet whatever particles compose dark matter interact so rarely with normal matter that we cannot shine light on it nor detect it through any means other than gravity.

 

While scientists have been fairly sure for decades that dark matter is common in galaxies and clusters of galaxies, experts have been unclear on just how prevalent it is in our immediate cosmic neighborhood.

 

Some past measurements have suggested the vicinity of our sun is chock-full of dark matter, while a 2011 study with new data predicted a relative dearth of the stuff near us. [Gallery: Dark Matter Throughout the Universe]

 

Now astronomers have used a new mass-measuring technique to tackle the problem. To test their method, the researchers tried it first on a simulation of our whole galaxy. The results suggested that this and other past methods have been undercounting dark matter, so the team adjusted their technique to correct for the bias.

 

They then applied their measurement algorithm to real data, using the known positions and velocities of thousands of orange K dwarf stars near the sun to estimate the density of invisible matter nearby.

 

The new calculation suggests that dark matter almost definitely exists around the sun, and there's a 90 percent chance it is more abundant than thought.

Again, full of "could be"s, "maybe"s and "probablies" based on "adjusted" "simulations" using "mock data". :rolleyes:

 

What's my first impression? Well this sums it up ...

 

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/lots_dark_matter_near_sun_says_computer_model-92910

 

science has mapped the motions of more than 400 stars, up to 13,000 light-years from the Sun, and calculated the mass of material in the vicinity of the Sun in a volume four times larger than ever considered in the past and found it isn't there, disputing prior studies claiming 3-6 times more 'dark matter' than expected using Jan Oort's discovery that the density of matter near the Sun was nearly twice what could be explained by the presence of stars and gas alone.

 

What's wrong? Computer simulations, basically. So a group of researchers has created another one and this time they say all the other numerical models were biased, always tending to underestimate the amount of dark matter. How does anyone know this model is not biased, since dark matter can't be measured and measured data and calibration is the heart of any accuracy determination? Indeed.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, the latest REAL observations are telling us this ...

 

http://www.tgdaily.com/space-features/62962-more-doubt-cast-on-dark-matter-theories

 

The theory of dark matter has taken another knock, with the discovery of a vast structure of satellite galaxies and clusters of stars surrounding our galaxy, stretching out across a million light years.

 

The finding challenges the idea that a large percentage of our universe consists of dark matter, which can't be seen. This theory's already taken a bit of a bashing this week, after scientists announced that there's no dark matter anywhere near our sun.

 

University of Bonn scientists used a range of sources, from twentieth century photographic plates to images from the robotic telescope of the Sloan Deep Sky Survey to assemble a full picture.

 

"Once we had completed our analysis, a new picture of our cosmic neighbourhood emerged," says PhD student Marcel Pawlowski.

 

The team found a vast quantity of objects, distributed in a plane at right angles to the galactic disk. The newly-discovered structure is huge, extending from as close as 33,000 light years to as far away as one million light years from the centre of the galaxy.

 

As the different companions move around the Milky Way, they lose material, stars and sometimes gas, which forms long streams along their paths. The new results show that this lost material is aligned with the plane of galaxies and clusters

too.

 

"This illustrates that the objects are not only situated within this plane right now, but that they move within it," says Pawlowski. "The structure is stable."

 

But these observations can't be explained if theories of dark matter are correct.

 

"In the standard theories, the satellite galaxies would have formed as individual objects before being captured by the Milky Way," says team member Pavel Kroupa.

 

"As they would have come from many directions, it is next to impossible for them to end up distributed in such a thin plane structure."

 

The scientists believe that the satellite galaxies and clusters must have formed together in a collision of two galaxies.

 

"The other galaxy lost part of its material, material that then formed our galaxy’s satellite galaxies and the younger globular clusters and the bulge at the galactic centre," says Pawlowski.

 

"The companions we see today are the debris of this 11 billion year old collision."

 

Kroupa points out that this model appears to rule out the presence of dark matter in the universe - threatening a central pillar of current cosmological theory.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/sep/10/dark-matter-hope-fades-in-microwave-haze

 

Dark-matter hope fades in microwave haze

 

Sep 10, 2012

 

Planck's view of the microwave universe

 

The latest results from the Planck space telescope have confirmed the presence of a microwave haze at the centre of the Milky Way. However, the haze appears to be more elongated than originally thought, which casts doubt over previous claims that annihilating dark matter is the cause of the emissions.

 

A roughly spherical haze of radiation at the heart of our galaxy was identified as far back as 2004 by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). Since then, some astrophysicists have suggested that this haze is produced by annihilating dark-matter particles.

 

However, some researchers have questioned whether the haze actually exists at all, suggesting that it could be an artefact of how the WMAP data were analysed. Doubts were raised as to whether WMAP was capable of picking out this weak signal buried deep in emissions from galactic dust, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and other noise from hectic regions of the galaxy.

 

It is definitely there

 

The argument now seems to have been settled by the latest results from Planck, a European Space Agency mission launched in May 2009. "Crudely speaking, we agree with all the WMAP results," explains Krzysztof Gorski of NASA's Jet Propulsion

Laboratory in California, who is a member of the Planck team. "Planck is more sensitive, and has a greater frequency range, taking us into a realm that WMAP couldn't even see," he told physicsworld.com. One of the telescope's main objectives is to accurately map fluctuations in the CMB, so it is well suited to subtracting that radiation to reveal the haze.

 

With the presence of the haze independently verified, focus has returned to determining its origin. After its original discovery, some researchers, including Dan Hooper of Fermilab near Chicago, US, argued that annihilating dark matter could explain the galactic haze. Dark matter has long been thought to bind galaxies together, but detecting it directly has remained elusive. In Hooper's mechanism, dark-matter particles annihilate to produce conventional electrons and positrons. These particles then spiral around the Milky Way's magnetic field to produce the radiation we see as the microwave haze.

 

However, as well as confirming its existence, Planck was also able to reveal details of the shape of the haze. "The new results seem to suggest that the haze is elongated rather than spherical [as previously thought]," explains Hooper, who was not involved in the Planck research. "Simulations suggest that we would expect to find dark-matter halos that are roughly spherically symmetric," he adds.

 

… snip …

 

The Planck observations also revealed a sharp southern edge to the haze. This implies that the formation mechanism is sporadic – if it were continuous, then the edges of the haze would appear diffuse. "The sharpness also implies that the haze might be related to the Fermi bubbles," says Hooper. The Fermi bubbles are two giant, gamma-ray-emitting structures extending 25,000 light-years above and below the centre of the galaxy. Spotted by the Fermi space telescope in November 2010, these bubbles also have sharp, defined edges pointing towards a rapid release of energy as their cause, rather than a continuous, steady process.

 

It is possible, then, that the two phenomena have a common origin. "There may be some mechanism crossover between the haze and the bubbles," says Andrew Pontzen, a theoretical cosmologist at the University of Oxford in the UK. "The next step would be to see exactly how much overlap there is in the data," he adds. Any areas where the two phenomena do not overlap still leaves the door open for dark matter to play a part. "Maybe the cause [of the haze] is a mixture of dark-matter annihilation and other mechanisms," Hooper adds.

 

Whichever explanation turns out to be correct, the Planck results have focused the argument. "Observationally, this is a great step forward," Pontzen says. "However, the centre of the galaxy remains an intrinsically complicated place where a plethora of strange things are going on," he adds. In the end, it might take Planck's successors to settle the debate.

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-dark.html

 

Shedding light on the existence of dark matter

 

August 8, 2012

 

A global team of scientists looking for evidence of the existence of dark matter announced that they found none from the leading candidates. The analysis of 13 months of data at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory (LGNS), a collaborative effort led by Elena Aprile, professor of physics at Columbia, provided no evidence for the existence of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, the phenomenally-named WIMPs, that are the leading candidates for dark matter. This doesn’t mean that dark matter doesn’t exist, only that potential candidates can be ruled out.

 

The latest results draw from 225 days of gathering data, more than twice as much as was previously assessed in 2011. Such negative findings are an important step towards proving the existence of dark matter. By demonstrating what is not dark matter, researchers can further refine the realm of what might yet prove that dark matter does exist.

LOL! As you can see, despite negative experimental result after experimental result, the mainstream community just refuses to give up on the notion of dark matter. They will tweek simulations to make it appear as if it exists. They will even argue that not finding it is "an important step towards proving" it's existance! :rolleyes: Do you see the desperation in the search?

 

Meanwhile, NONE of these researchers use the word PLASMA, even though 99.9% of what we do see is plasma (http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast07sep99_1.htm ). Here's a recent example of what I mean:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120924123046.htm

 

NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way Is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

ScienceDaily (Sep. 24, 2012) — Astronomers have used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to find evidence our Milky Way Galaxy is embedded in an enormous halo of hot gas that extends for hundreds of thousands of light years. The estimated mass of the halo is comparable to the mass of all the stars in the galaxy.

You won't find the word PLASMA used once in that article, and yet that's what this material is … NOT electrically neutral "gas". You also won't find a rational explanation in that article of how the "gas" came to be so hot … "between 1 million and 2.5 million kelvins, or a few hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun." It certainly wasn't the mainstream's normal explanation that "bow shock" did it. ;) And when that article concludes that

 

The estimated mass depends on factors such as the amount of oxygen relative to hydrogen, which is the dominant element in the gas. Nevertheless, the estimation represents an important step in solving the case of the missing baryons, a mystery that has puzzled astronomers for more than a decade. Although there are uncertainties, the work by Gupta and colleagues provides the best evidence yet that the galaxy's missing baryons have been hiding in a halo of million-kelvin gas that envelopes the galaxy. The estimated density of this halo is so low that similar halos around other galaxies would have escaped detection.

what they are really saying is that dark matter might not exist … but they can't bring themselves to actually say that. ;)

 

The reason they can't find a rational explanation for the extremes temperatures of this PLASMA is that NONE of the dark matter proponents consider electromagnetic effects in their explanations of what they see happening out beyond the solar system and, in many cases, even within the solar system. In fact, I'll bet you that the simulation in the lastest study that you mentioned, ingrid, ONLY includes the effects of mass. That the simulation does NOT account for electromagnetic effects. Yet, everywhere we look out there, we detect electromagnetism and we see it's obvious effects. EVERYWHERE.

 

For example we see magnetic fields and filaments everywhere and have long known the process that wherein plasmas create currents and electromagnetic fields which in turn create filaments in the plasmas. Yet, we still see articles like this, in the mainstream, which try to use gravity and dark matter to explain all filaments:

 

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/341985/title/Dark_matter_filament_illuminated

 

The answer is staring them in the face and they are still looking under the bed for it. :rolleyes:

 

And instead the mainstream will publish the discovery of synchrotron radiation coming from the center of the Milky Way and claim it must be evidence of dark matter too. Here:

 

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-mystery-dark-deciphered.html

 

Mystery of dark matter may be near to being deciphered

 

September 4, 2012

 

(Phys.org)—The universe is comprised of a large amount of invisible matter, dark matter. It fills the space between the galaxies and between the stars in the galaxies. Since the prediction of the existence of dark matter more than 70 years ago, all sorts of researchers – astronomers, cosmologists and particle physicists have been looking for answers to what it could be. With the latest observations from the Planck satellite, researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute, among others, may be closer than ever to a solution to the origin of the mysterious dark matter.

 

The Planck satellite, which was launched in 2009, has extremely sensitive instruments that can map microwave radiation in the entire sky with great precision. The latest data from the Planck mission reveals unusual radiation from our own galaxy, … snip ...

 

"We have observed a very unique emission of radio radiation from the centre of our galaxy, the Milky Way. By using different methods to separate the signal for very broad range of wavelengths, we have been able to determine the spectrum of the radiation. The radiation originates from synchrotron emission, i.e. electrons and positrons circulating at high energies around the lines of the Magnetic Field in the centre of the galaxy, and there are quite strong indications that it could come from dark matter," explains Pavel Naselsky, professor of cosmology at the Discovery Center at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

 

… snip …

 

Pavel Naselsky explains that leading scientists like Niels Bohr professor Subir Sarkar have predicted, using calculations, that dark matter may consist of very heavy particles that are around 10 times as heavy as the Higgs particle, that is to say, 1,000 times heavier than a proton. But they have very unique properties and do not interact with 'normal' matter particles. Dark matter particles are also usually very scattered and do not interact with each other."But we know from theoretical predictions that the concentration of dark matter particles around the centre of galaxies is very high and we have a strong argument they can collide there and in the collision electrons and positrons are formed. These electrons and positrons start to rotate around the magnetic field at the centre of the galaxy and in doing so produce this very unusual synchrotron radiation.

 

… snip …

 

It has simply not been possible to observe this radiation in such detail before, as previous instruments have not been sensitive enough. But with Planck, this unusual radiation is seen very clearly. "The radiation cannot be explained by the structural mechanisms in the galaxy and it cannot be radiation from supernova explosions. We believe that this could be proof of dark matter. Otherwise, we have discovered absolutely new (and unknown for physics) mechanism of acceleration of particles in the Galactic centre", says Pavel Naselsky

Never mind that they can't really say what dark matter is because NONE of their experiments are finding the particles they theorize. Never mind that they only have theories about how these mystical, yet to be discovered, particles create such radiation. Never mind that they never really explain to satisfaction how the galactic magnetic fields needed to create the radiation came to exist. Never mind that their "proof of dark matter" basically consists of saying they can't think of any other mechanism that could produce sychrotron radiation. And most of all, never mind that plasma cosmologists (such as Hannes Alfvén and Anthony Peratt) long ago explained and predicted the existance of such synchrotron radiation in and from galaxies.

 

Here, watch this for an explanation, ingrid_iv:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgMldh8hL3w

 

Finally, NONE of the dark matter proponents are paying attention to other cracks that are opening in their theories … cracks that bolster the electric universe explanation of what we see out there as well. For example, I doubt a fraction of the mainstream dark matter believers are even aware that they've now observed plasma redshifts in the lab. And if you paid attention to what I posted earlier in this thread, then you know there probably was never a single laboratory observation that was a bigger threat to mainstream Big Bang theory than seeing plasma redshifts in the lab. Yet, now they have … http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf . And they are being ignored.

 

So consider me quite skeptical regarding the discovery you cited. I've seen it all before and it amounted to NOTHING.

 

By the way, here's an article published in 2011 by the authors of this *discovery*:

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.6339v2.pdf

 

Read it, and you'll find the word plasma or electro-anything are not mentioned ONCE. That tell you anything? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J have seen some suggestions that due to the way string theory handles gravitation and in particular the graviton that the anomaly we associate with dark matter may simply be a result of gravitational leakage from elsewhere or a variety of elsewhere's. It would seem as reasonable an answer as a huge amount of matter we can't see or detect. Any comments/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-381

 

December 03, 2012

 

PASADENA, Calif. -- NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft has entered a new region at the far reaches of our solar system that scientists feel is the final area the spacecraft has to cross before reaching interstellar space.



Scientists refer to this new region as a magnetic highway for charged particles because our sun's magnetic field lines are connected to interstellar magnetic field lines. This connection allows lower-energy charged particles that originate from inside our heliosphere -- or the bubble of charged particles the sun blows around itself -- to zoom out and allows higher-energy particles from outside to stream in. Before entering this region, the charged particles bounced around in all directions, as if trapped on local roads inside the heliosphere.


The Voyager team infers this region is still inside our solar bubble because the direction of the magnetic field lines has not changed. The direction of these magnetic field lines is predicted to change when Voyager breaks through to interstellar space. The new results were described at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco on Monday.



"Although Voyager 1 still is inside the sun's environment, we now can taste what it's like on the outside because the particles are zipping in and out on this magnetic highway," said Edward Stone, Voyager project scientist based at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena. "We believe this is the last leg of our journey to interstellar space. Our best guess is it's likely just a few months to a couple years away. The new region isn't what we expected, but we've come to expect the unexpected from Voyager."

 

… snip …

 

"We are in a magnetic region unlike any we've been in before -- about 10 times more intense than before the termination shock -- but the magnetic field data show no indication we're in interstellar space," said Leonard Burlaga, a Voyager magnetometer team member based at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "The magnetic field data turned out to be the key to pinpointing when we crossed the termination shock. And we expect these data will tell us when we first reach interstellar space."

 

LOL! Remember how a few years ago NASA (i.e., mainstream scientists) were totally *surprised* when the solar wind stopped in the region Voyager had entered? And now they encounter another unexpected phenomena … a so-called "magnetic highway"? You'd think that if this was really a mechanical phenomena akin to aerodynamic/hydrodynamic bow shock, they wouldn't be *surprised* every time they turn around. Afterall, our understanding and modeling of such mechanical phenomena was rather good long before Voyager ever came along. Seems to me that NASA is still trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

 

If NASA would only consider the alternative explanation … the one proposed by electric sun/electric universe theorists. Then they wouldn't view these observations as unexplained surprises but as data confirming the theory. Then they'd see these observations as indicative of Voyager approaching a double layer at the boundary of the solar system … that the spacecraft has entered the plasma sheath protecting the solar system from the interstellar environment. That this is an electrical, not mechanical phenomena. That what they are seeing isn't a "magnetic highway" but current flow. Perhaps current flow supportive of the electric sun model.

 

Here are some sources that NASA might find useful in that case ...

 

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/voyager-1-at-the-edge-of-what/

 

The solar plasma and that of interstellar space are two different plasmas, which must therefore have a “double layer” or Langmuir plasma sheath between them. So to treat the heliospheric boundary simply as a magnetohydrodynamic shock problem is naïve. A second hypothesis to be considered when looking at the data from Voyager 1 is that the spacecraft is entering the Sun’s plasma sheath, which is protecting it and the planets from the interstellar environment.

 

http://electric-cosmos.org/NewsRelease102012.pdf

 

In 2010, Voyager passed the point where the solar wind, a stream of charged particles flowing outward from the sun, seemed to reach the end of its leash. The probe's detectors indicated that the wind had suddenly died down, and all the surrounding solar particles were at a standstill.

 

This "stagnation region" came as a surprise. Scientists had expected to see the solar wind veer sideways when it met the heliopause, like water hitting a wall, rather than screech to a halt. As Voyager scientists explained in a paper published last month in Nature, the perplexing collapse of the solar wind at the edge of the heliosphere left them without a working model for the outer solar system.

 

"There is no well-established criteria of what constitutes exit from the heliosphere," Stamatios Krimigis, a space scientist at Johns Hopkins University and NASA principal investigator in charge of the Voyager spacecraft's Low-Energy Charged Particle instrument, told Life's Little Mysteries. "All theoretical models have been found wanting."

 

LOL! Not quite "all", as the linked article and the material below shows.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfNearCezJQ

 

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/donald-scott-voyager-1-updates-solar-electron-flux/

 

In the late 1970’s Ralph Juergens investigated how (or whether) the Sun could be obtaining its energy via an externally supplied flow of electrical power[2]. Now, in late 2011, we find that, because of data just recovered by the Voyager I space probe, Juergens’ estimate of the number of available incoming electrons was far too conservative. Either that, or his initial estimate of the Sun’s required cathode drop (voltage) was far too high.

 

… snip …

 

NASA’s observation (#3 above) that the direction of the solar wind actually reverses (begins to flow sunward) out near the heliopause is further confirmation that the analogy between the behavior of the Sun’s surrounding plasma and what is observed in laboratory “gas” (plasma) discharge tubes is a valid one. Near the cathode of such a tube, a layer of electrons is often observed. Such a layer creates a reversal in the direction of the electric field (force per unit charge) applied to the positive charge carriers (+ions in the solar wind). The heliopause is a virtual cathode for the Sun’s plasma discharge.

 

A standard (hackneyed) criticism from skeptics of Juergens’ Electric Star hypothesis has always been, “where are all the necessary incoming electrons?” It appears NASA is in the process of finding them. Perhaps we could issue a press release of our own entitled “Dark Electrons Found by NASA.”

 

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-sun-verified/ "Electric Sun Verified"

 

 

:D

 

By the way, NASA doesn't really have a good explanation these observations either:

 

herca_vlahst_1280.jpg

 

the-planetary-nebula-Fleming-1-in-the-co

 

But the Electric Universe folks might.

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060213hhtornado.htm

 

http://holographicgalaxy.blogspot.com/2012/11/polar-jets-of-electricity-weave-knotty.html

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/12/06/voyager-1-confirms-electric-heliosphere/

 

Voyager 1 Confirms Electric Heliosphere

 

Mission scientists on NASAs Voyager 1 mission have reported the discovery of a new layer of the solar system that scientists hadnt known was there. The scientists are calling the region Voyager 1 has entered a magnetic highway, where charged particles from inside the heliosphere flow outward, and cosmic rays come in. The long-standing view of the heliosphere as an electrically neutral and isolated bubble can no longer be maintained.

 

One scientist quoted on Newscientist.com says of these findings:

Everything weve seen [from Voyager] is not what we expected to see People have been working on this for a long time. Just about every expectation weve had has been confounded so far.

 

In this interview, Wal Thornhill explains why these latest findings, along with countless other surprises for solar physicists, are not confounding at all for proponents of the electric sun hypothesis.

 

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Thirteen+little+galaxies+Configuration+deviates+from+expected/7781858/story.html

Thirteen little galaxies all in a row: Configuration deviates from the expected chaotic behaviour of such celestial bodies

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/7781859.bin?size=620x400s

A string of 13 dwarf galaxies in orbit around the massive galaxy Andromeda are not behaving as they should.

The galaxies are spread across a flat plane more than one million light years wide and only 30,000 light years thick, moving in synchronicity with one another, according to University of Victoria astronomer Julio Navarro, one of the co-authors of an article on the phenomenon in the latest edition of the journal Nature.

The view from Earth is of the thin edge of the plane, so the galaxies all appear to be moving in a line, Navarro said. Their behaviour is so different from the usual chaotic orbits of galaxies around each other that the researchers believe they have revealed a huge hole in science’s understanding of galaxy formation.


“It’s a very unusual, unexpected configuration,” Navarro said. “It suggests our thinking about how galaxies form is totally wrong.”

Computer models suggest that galaxies — collections of stars formed from dust and gas spread across the vastness of space — should orbit independently, almost randomly.


http://ring.uvic.ca/news/ring-around-andromeda-challenges-galactic-ideas

The findings defied scientists’ expectation—based on two decades of computer modeling—that satellite galaxies would orbit in independent, seemingly random patterns. Instead, many of these dwarf galaxies seem to share a common orbit, an observation that currently has no explanation.

“It’s a very unusual, unexpected configuration,” says UVic astrophysicist Dr. Julio Navarro, a co-author of the paper. “It’s so unexpected that we don’t know yet what it’s telling us. The fact that it is there at all is pointing us toward something profound.


http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature11717

A vast, thin plane of corotating dwarf galaxies orbiting the Andromeda galaxy

Dwarf satellite galaxies are thought to be the remnants of the population of primordial structures that coalesced to form giant galaxies like the Milky Way. It has previously been suspected that dwarf galaxies may not be isotropically distributed around our Galaxy, because several are correlated with streams of H I emission, and may form coplanar groups. These suspicions are supported by recent analyses. It has been claimed that the apparently planar distribution of satellites is not predicted within standard cosmology, and cannot simply represent a memory of past coherent accretion. However, other studies dispute this conclusion. Here we report the existence of a planar subgroup of satellites in the Andromeda galaxy (M 31), comprising about half of the population. The structure is at least 400 kiloparsecs in diameter, but also extremely thin, with a perpendicular scatter of less than 14.1 kiloparsecs. Radial velocity measurements12–15 reveal that the satellites in this structure have the same sense of rotation about their host. This shows conclusively that substantial numbers of dwarf satellite galaxies share the same dynamical orbital properties and direction of angular momentum. Intriguingly, the plane we identify is approximately aligned with the pole of the Milky Way’s disk and with the vector between the Milky Way and Andromeda.


So mainstream astronomers encounter yet another surprise observation that they can't explain with current models.

But there is a group that might have a possible explanation.

You might even say they made a prediction about such an observation long ago.

Electric Universe/Plasma cosmologists.

They've previously suggested that the alignment of galaxies (and there are other examples of this, by the way) is due to their formation along gigantic Birkeland currents running through intergalactic space (which would also affect the "sense of rotation" mentioned above. They would point to evidence of other "strings" of galaxies and stars with aligned axes of rotation … which mainstream astronomers have basically ignored rather than explain.

Indeed, one troubling observation for Big Bang was the discovery of a very long string of galaxies at a distance that corresponds to an age so soon after the hypothetical Big Bang that astronomers said there would not have been enough time to form such a structure (if you believe the red shift data is correct in giving distance). Dr Paul Francis (Paul J. Francis et al., “An 80 Mpc Filament of Galaxies at Redshift
Z=2.38,” presented to the American Astronomical Society, 7 January 2004), a Big Bang proponent who headed the team that discovered the string of aligned galaxies, was unable to reproduce the observation using existing simulation models. In his own words, "We are looking back four-fifths of the way to the beginning of the universe and the existence of this galaxy string will send astrophysicists around the world back to the drawing board to reexamine the theories of the formation of the universe. The simulations tell us that you cannot take the matter in the early universe and line it up in strings this large. There simply hasn't been enough time since the Big Bang for it to form stuctures this colossal." Eventually, they found strings of galaxies over 300 million light years in length (http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/annualReport/2003/RSAA_AR2003.pdf ) at distances that "according to current theories, … snip … should not have been able to form so early after the Big Bang."


So how did mainstream astronomers eventually *sort of* explain it? With lots and lots of that hypothetical magic goblin … dark matter … and some major *tweeking* of the way dark matter hypothetically behaves (again, magic). In other words ... hand waving. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest announcements about confirmation of the Higgs Boson seems to have just forgotten this CERN announcement from November 2012 …

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/two-higgs-bosons_n_2302897.html

The original Higgs data from back in July had shown that the Higgs seemed to be decaying into two photons more often than it should—an enticing though faint hint of something new, some sort of physics beyond our understanding. In November, scientists at the Atlas and LHC experiments updated everything except the two-photon data. This week we learned why.

Yesterday researchers at the Atlas experiment finally updated the two-photon results. What they seem to have found is bizarre—so bizarre, in fact, that physicists assume something must be wrong with it. Instead of one clean peak in the data, they have found two. There seems to be a Higgs boson with a mass of 123.5 GeV (gigaelectron volts, the measuring unit that particle physicists most often use for mass), and another Higgs boson at 126.6 GeV—a statistically significant difference of nearly 3 GeV.

Although certain extensions of the Standard Model of particle physics postulate the existence of multiple Higgs bosons, none of them would predict that two Higgs particles would have such similar masses. They also don’t predict why one should preferentially decay into two Z particles (the 123.5 GeV bump comes from decays of the Higgs into Zs), while the other would decay into photons.

The particle physicist Adam Falkowski (under the nom de plume Jester) writes that the results “most likely signal a systematic problem rather than some interesting physics.” (By “systematic problem” he means something like a poorly-calibrated detector.) The physicist Tommaso Dorigo bets that it’s a statistical fluke that will go away with more data. Indeed, he’s willing to bet $100 on it with up to five people, in case you’re the kind of person who likes to wager on the results of particle physics experiments with particle physicists. The Atlas physicists are well aware of both of these possibilities, of course, and have spent the past month trying to shake the data out to see if they can fix it. Still, the anomaly remains.


So what exactly are they claiming to have found now?

Was only one Higgs boson discovered or two?

If the double peak was just a statistical fluke, why didn't they mention this in any of the latest announcements?

 

I certainly saw no mention.

Why it's almost like their previous announcement went down a … black hole. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well …maybe they're going to have to take another look at Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe to explain a lot of the observations they've attributed to black holes?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2769156/Black-holes-NOT-exist-Big-Bang-Theory-wrong-claims-scientist-maths-prove-it.html

 

Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths to prove it

… snip …

The research was conducted by Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Scientists.

She claims that as a star dies, it releases a type of radiation known as Hawking radiation - predicted by Professor Stephen Hawking.

One of the biggest unanswered questions about black holes is the so-called information paradox.

Under current theories for black holes it is thought that nothing can escape from the event horizon around a black hole - not even light itself.

Inside the black hole is thought to be a singularity where matter is crushed to an infinitesimally small point as predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity.

However, a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear.

This creates a paradox; how can a black hole make matter and information 'disappear'?

Professor Mersini-Houghton's new theory manages to explain why this might be so - namely because black holes as we know them cannot exist.

However in this process, Professor Mersini-Houghton believes the star also sheds mass, so much so that it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

Before the black hole can form, she said, the dying star swells and explodes.

The singularity as predicted never forms, and neither does the event horizon - the boundary of the black hole where not even light can escape.

‘I’m still not over the shock,’ said Professor Mersini-Houghton.

‘We’ve been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about.’

Experimental evidence may one day provide physical proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the universe.

But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive.

What’s more, the research could apparently even call into question the veracity of the Big Bang theory.

Most physicists think the universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago.

If it is impossible for singularities to exist, however, as partially predicted by Professor Mersini-Houghton, then that theory would also be brought into question.

One of the reasons black holes are so bizarre is that they pit two fundamental theories of the universe against each other.

Namely, Einstein’s theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes. But a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear.

Efforts to combine these two theories proved problematic, and has become known as the black hole information paradox - how can matter permanently disappear in a black hole as predicted?

Professor Mersini-Houghton’s new theory does manage to mathematically combine the two fundamental theories, but with unwanted effects for people expecting black holes to exist.


‘Physicists have been trying to merge these two theories - Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum mechanics - for decades, but this scenario brings these two theories together, into harmony,’ said Professor Mersini-Houghton.


http://uncnews.unc.edu/2014/09/23/carolinas-laura-mersini-houghton-shows-black-holes-exist/

In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe’s black holes.

But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.

The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed, offers exact numerical solutions to this problem and was done in collaboration with Harald Peiffer, an expert on numerical relativity at the University of Toronto. An earlier paper, by Mersini-Houghton, originally submitted to ArXiv in June, was published in the journal Physics Letters B, and offers approximate solutions to the problem.


Here's an interesting video from Mersini-Houghton talking about her work …

http://iai.tv/video/out-of-darkness

Just saying, folks … :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone noticed (or cares), but Big Bang/Black Hole proponents are already scurrying around as result of Houghton's research. I listened to several saying that … well … Houghton's research doesn't rule out super massive black holes (like those claimed to be in galaxies) … that her research was only on stellar sized black holes. They then suggested that there must be some (still not understood) mechanism that would create super massive ones. Yeah… right.

Indeed, the formation of supermassive black holes is still one of the great mysteries of astrophysics (http://space.about.com/od/blackholes/a/Supermassive_Black_Holes.htm ) . Of course this article, http://www.universetoday.com/104044/how-do-black-holes-get-super-massive/ , from last year, announced new research that "explains how a supermassive black hole might begin as a normal black hole, tens to hundreds of solar masses, and slowly accrete more matter, becoming more massive over time." But if you can't form a normal black hole, then what?

And they need a LOT of these super massive blackholes to explain what they see (without resorting to notions like plasma cosmology and the electric universe). Indeed, the Hubble website states that "there are so many black holes in the universe that it is impossible to count them." Right. Meanwhile, what BlackHoleTruthers thought they knew about super massive blackholes just keeps getting challenged by actual data:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/sep/18/gargantuan-black-hole-found-at-the-heart-of-dwarf-galaxy

A supermassive black hole (SMBH) has been found lurking in an unexpected location – at the heart of an ultra-compact dwarf galaxy – according to new observations made by an international team of astronomers. Although SMBHs are thought to reside at the centre of most large galaxies including our own Milky Way, this is the smallest galaxy known to host a black hole. The team’s findings suggest that many other such ultra-compact dwarf galaxies may house black holes, meaning that there may be many more SMBHs in our galactic neighbourhood than previously thought. … snip … Indeed, there may be as many as double the known number of black holes in what astronomers refer to as our "local universe". … snip … The team's findings also have an impact on current theories of how ultra-compact dwarf galaxies themselves are formed. "This finding suggests that dwarf galaxies may actually be the stripped remnants of larger galaxies that were torn apart during collisions with other galaxies, rather than small islands of stars born in isolation," explains Seth. "We don't know of any other way you could make a black hole so big in an object this small."


Perhaps it's time for them to invent some new magical gnomes? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of needing new magical gnomes ...

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/06/a-new-look-at-big-bang-theory-the-universe-should-not-have-lasted-for-more-than-a-second.html


British cosmologists are puzzled: they predict that the universe should not have lasted for more than a second. This startling conclusion is the result of combining the latest observations of the sky with the recent discovery of the Higgs boson. according to Robert Hogan of King's College London (KCL), who will present the new research today, 24 June at the Royal Astronomical Society's National Astronomy Meeting.

After the Universe began in the Big Bang, it is thought to have gone through a short period of rapid expansion known as 'cosmic inflation'. Although the details of this process are not yet fully understood, cosmologists have been able to make predictions of how this would affect the Universe we see today.

In March 2014, researchers from the BICEP2 collaboration claimed to have detected one of these predicted effects. If true, their results are a major advance in our understanding of cosmology and a confirmation of the inflation theory, but they have proven controversial and are not yet fully accepted by cosmologists.

In the new research, scientists from KCL have investigated what the BICEP2 observations mean for the stability of the Universe. To do this, they combined the results with recent advances in particle physics. The detection of the Higgs boson by the Large Hadron Collider was announced in July 2012; since then, much has been learnt about its properties.

Measurements of the Higgs boson have allowed particle physicists to show that our universe sits in a valley of the 'Higgs field', which describes the way that other particles have mass. However, there is a different valley which is much deeper, but our universe is preventing from falling into it by a large energy barrier.

The problem is that the BICEP2 results predict that the universe would have received large 'kicks' during the cosmic inflation phase, pushing it into the other valley of the Higgs field within a fraction of a second. If that had happened, the universe would have quickly collapsed in a Big Crunch.

"This is an unacceptable prediction of the theory because if this had happened we wouldn't be around to discuss it" said Hogan, who is a PhD student at KCL and led the study.

Perhaps the BICEP2 results contain an error. If not, there must be some other -- as yet unknown -- process which prevented the universe from collapsing.

"If BICEP2 is shown to be correct, it tells us that there has to be interesting new particle physics beyond the standard model" Hogan said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe not …

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/58927

The Planck collaboration has published an all-sky map of the polarized thermal emission of dust grains in the Milky Way. It shows that the field used by the experiment for Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization (BICEP2) to measure B-mode polarization of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is contaminated significantly by galactic-dust emission. The B-mode signal detected by the BICEP2 collaboration would, therefore, at least in part, be due to dust, and not to the claimed primordial gravitational waves giving evidence for inflation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another mystery requiring the Dark Matter Gnome to explain …

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/mysterious-missing-pulsars-dark-matter-black-holes/

The center of the galaxy should be chock-full of rapidly spinning, dense stellar corpses known as pulsars. The problem is, astronomers can’t seem to find them.

The galactic center is a bustling place. Lots of gas, dust, and stars zip about, orbiting a supermassive black hole about three million times more massive than the sun. With so many stars, astronomers estimate that there should be hundreds of dead ones, says astrophysicist Joseph Bramante of Notre Dame University. Scientists have found only a single young pulsar at the galactic center, where there should be as many as 50 such youngsters.

Bramante and astrophysicist Tim Linden of the University of Chicago have a possible solution to this missing-pulsar problem, which they describe in a paper accepted for publication in the journal Physical Review Letters. Maybe those pulsars are absent because dark matter, which is plentiful in the galactic center, gloms onto the pulsars, accumulating until the pulsars become so dense they collapse into a black hole. Poof. No more pulsars.


Of course, to make it work they have to posit a different kind of dark matter … asymmetric dark matter. Thus magical gnomes breed magical gnomes in the minds of magic minded astronomers. But at least the scientists admit their hypothesis is "unlikely".

Unfortunately, while pursuing this explanation, they may be missing the obvious ... that they don't really understand what pulsars are ... that they are an electromagnetic phenomena related to non-magical objects. Back in 1995, two physicists (Healy and Peratt) looked at that possibility and published a peer reviewed report:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995Ap%26SS.227..229H

They concluded, “Our results support the ‘planetary magnetosphere’ view, where the extent of the magnetosphere, not emission points on a rotating surface, determines the pulsar emission. In other words, we do not require a hypothetical super-condensed object to form a pulsar. A normal stellar remnant undergoing periodic discharges will suffice. Plasma cosmology has the virtue of not requiring neutron stars or black holes to explain compact sources of radiation."

And here's another recent puzzling pulsar observation …



One that doesn't fit the model of mainstream astronomers but which Healy and Peratt's model might explain.

And what about the jets that pulsars produce? Here is an image of the Vela Pulsar

vela_pulsar_jet.jpg

Mainstream scientists (believers in magic gnomes) claim the jets result from magnetic reconnection physics. Plasma cosmologists say the jet is produced by the same phenomena created in what's called a focus fusion device here on earth. In a focus fusion device a plasmoid forms and stores energy. When the plasmoid reaches a critical energy level, it discharges its energy in a collimated jet along its axis in the form of electromagnetic radiation and neutrons. Being unstable outside a nucleus, the neutrons soon decay into protons and electrons. The electrons are held back by the electromagnetic field, and the high-speed protons are beamed away. The process can be repeated over and over at very high frequencies. Here is a diagram of such a device with the plasma discharge on the right:

lasma_focus.gif

Here's an animation you can watch of a focus fusion device in action.

Foki1a2.gif

Not only do the "bow-like" arcs observed in the Vela Pulsar have the same shape as the discharge from this device but the plasma filaments that form in a focus fusion device look a lot like the circuit diagram envisioned by Hannes Alfven to explain what is going on in and around stars and galaxies.

Plasma cosmologists note (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040920pulsar.htm ) that "astronomers expected that the 'rotation' (pulsing) of the neutron star--conceived as an isolated mass in space -- would slow at a consistent rate. But then they observed a significant 'glitch' in the pulse rate, an event that 'released a burst of energy that was carried outward at near the speed of light by the pulsar wind.' Of course, unpredictable variations in both the pulse rate and intensity of an electrically discharging Pulsar would be expected with any changes in the electrical environment through which it moved. Proponents of the electric model are particularly impressed by the two embedded 'bows' seen along the polar jet ... snip ... . Astronomers initially called these 'windbow shocks', a theorized mechanical effect of high-velocity material encountering the interstellar medium. But electrical theorists recognized a configuration common to intense plasma discharge in laboratory experiments: toruses or rings stacked along the polar axis of the discharge. And subsequent enhanced pictures ... snip ... made clear that the 'bows' were in fact stacked toruses, not easily explained in gravitational terms."

And this is not the only pulsar example where plasma cosmologists seem to have a better explanation of the observations than Big Bang proponents. Consider the Crab Nebula pulsar. Here a photo of that object:

sol01_07.jpg

The shape is consistent with a homopolar motor ... the electrical circuit concept that plasma cosmologists (like Alfven) use to explain stars and galaxies. And the concept as envisioned by Alfven included double layers along the axis of rotation of the object with the known property of producing jets. And some plasma theorists also speculate that a plasmoid forms at the center of such an object. The bottom line is that known physics can produce what is seen. Neutron stars aren't needed and prior to the observation the jets and pulsar emissions, had theoretically dismissed.

Furthermore, there are problems with the neutron star model, just as there are problems with the black hole model. And they are having to introduce "quark stars" (another gnome) to explain some of the neutron star observations. It seems that every time one turns around, Big Bang supporting astronomers and astrophysicists are adding yet another deduced, untestable, magic gnome to their celestial zoo to explain observations that might otherwise be explained with normal objects and normal physics if they spent a fraction as much money investigating them as they have these gnomes. Just saying ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Dark Matter missing - yow, I hate when that happens. My most favorite theory on the universe is - at one time, the entire universe may have been compressed to the size of a pin point. I do believe - no doubt in my mind, there are areas of physics we are totally unaware of; and most likely, will remain unaware of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my …

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp

(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

… snip …

No singularities nor dark stuff

In addition to not predicting a Big Bang singularity, the new model does not predict a "big crunch" singularity, either. In general relativity, one possible fate of the universe is that it starts to shrink until it collapses in on itself in a big crunch and becomes an infinitely dense point once again.

Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations.

In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.


Oh my …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2015/01/curtain-falls-controversial-big-bang-result

As predictably as the heroine's death in an opera, the biggest claim in cosmology in years has finally officially unraveled. Last March, cosmologists working with a specialized telescope at the South Pole called BICEP2 claimed direct evidence that in the first fraction of a second after the big bang, the universe underwent a bizarre exponential growth spurt called inflation. The signs came in their study of the big bang’s afterglow, the cosmic microwave background (CMB). But now, in a joint analysis with cosmologists working with the European Space Agency's (ESA's) Planck spacecraft, BICEP researchers take back that claim and report no such signs of inflation, according to a press release issued by ESA.


And another one bites the dust …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests

May 23, 2014

According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all.

In their study, the scientists tested one of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory – that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances.

In the space around us, on Earth, in the Solar System and our Milky Way Galaxy, as similar objects get farther away, they look fainter and smaller. Their surface brightness, that is the brightness per unit area, remains constant.

In contrast, the Big Bang theory tells us that in an expanding Universe objects actually should appear fainter but bigger. Thus in this theory, the surface brightness decreases with the distance. In addition, the light is stretched as the Universe expanded, further dimming the light.

So in an expanding Universe the most distant galaxies should have hundreds of times dimmer surface brightness than similar nearby galaxies, making them actually undetectable with present-day telescopes.

But that is not what observations show, as demonstrated by this new study published in the International Journal of Modern Physics D.

The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average luminosity of the near and far samples.

Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.

These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis.

“Of course, you can hypothesize that galaxies were much smaller, and thus had hundreds of times greater intrinsic surface brightness in the past, and that, just by coincidence, the Big Bang dimming exactly cancels that greater brightness at all distances to produce the illusion of a constant brightness, but that would be a very big coincidence,” Mr Lerner said.

That was not the only startling result of their research. In order to apply the surface brightness test, first proposed in 1930 by physicist Richard C. Tolman, the team had to determine the actual luminosity of the galaxies, so as to match near and far galaxies.

To do that, the astrophysicists had to link the distance to the galaxies with their redshift. They hypothesized that the distance is proportional to the redshift at all distances, as is well verified to be the case in the nearby Universe.

They checked this relation between redshift and distance with the data on supernova brightness that has been used to measure the hypothesized accelerated expansion of the Universe.

“It is amazing that the predictions of this simple formula are as good as the predictions of the expanding Universe theory, which include complex corrections for hypothetical dark matter and dark energy,” said study co-author Dr Renato Falomo of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Italy.

Dr Riccardo Scarpa from the Instituto de Astrofısica de Canarias, Spain, who is a co-author of the study, added: “again you could take this to be merely coincidental, but it would be a second big coincidence.”

Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space.

“We are not speculating now as to what could cause the redshift of light,” Mr Lerner said.

”However, such a redshift, which is not associated with expansion, could be observed with suitable spacecraft within our own Solar System in the future.”

---------

Eric J. Lerner et al. UV surface brightness of galaxies from the local Universe to z ~ 5. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, published online May 02, 2014; doi: 10.1142/S0218271814500588


Interesting.

Good to know that Eric Lerner is still around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/03/27/dark-matter-is-apparently-darker-than-we-thought/

 

A new study published Thursday in Science suggests that dark matter might be able to zip through the universe without slowing or dragging because particles of it don't even interact with each other.

 

Based on what we can observe about the universe, galaxies should be tearing themselves apart. That's where so-called dark matter comes in: It's a term for the as-of-yet unobserved matter that must be bulking up cosmos, giving galaxies the gravity they need to spin at the rates they do without falling to pieces.

 

... snip ...

 

In this study, researchers looked at galaxy clusters (big groupings of galaxies that stick together) to study how dark matter might behave when galaxies collide with each other. Galaxies collide all the time, sometimes combining and sometimes streaming right past each other. The gas inside galaxies slows down when it hits other gas, and stars tend to be too spread out to actually collide with each other or interact.

 

"We know how gas and stars react to these cosmic crashes and where they emerge from the wreckage," lead author David Harvey of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) in Switzerland said in a statement. "Comparing how dark matter behaves can help us to narrow down what it actually is."

 

In watching 72 galactic showdowns, Harvey and his colleagues found that dark matter didn't slow down when clusters collided. That was unexpected, because scientists think that dark matter is really common in the universe, perhaps making up as much as 90 percent of total matter. So dark matter (whatever it is) had to be hitting other dark matter en route, but these unseen particles weren't showing any evidence of dragging against each other.

 

So basically, dark matter is even less like "regular" matter than we thought.

 

"If you bang your head against the wall, the electrostatic force between the molecules in your head and the ones in the wall cause a collision. This is what dark matter doesn't seem to feel," study author Richard Massey told the BBC.

 

In a written statement for the BBC, fellow study author Tom Kitching poo-poo'ed the "darkness" of dark matter:

 

 

Sometimes I think dark matter is a terrible name. It was originally coined because the phenomenon does not emit or absorb light. But light is everywhere in the dark matter we have observed, passing within it and around it. Indeed, the lensing effect that we employed in our study uses the light from distant galaxies that has passed through dark matter.

 

So perhaps "transparent matter" or "clear matter" are better names. My favourite alternative is "materia incognita" (the unknown material). Maps used to be labelled "terra incognita" in areas that were unknown, and in a similar way we could be explicit about the unknown nature of this phenomenon.

 

However, thanks to studies like this one - and much more work planned for the coming years - our ignorance will one day end. Then we can finally give this "something" a proper name.

 

Maybe we should change its name to "weird matter"? "Freaky matter"? "Idk matter"?

 

In any case, these findings suggest that idk matter isn't actually made up of particles -- even really weird particles -- like the matter we're familiar with is.

 

"We have now pushed the probability of two 'dark matter particles' interacting below the probability of two actual protons interacting, which means that dark matter is unlikely to consist of just 'dark-protons'," Harvey said. "If it did, we would expect to see them 'bounce' off each other".

LOL! So ... when, after 80 years, BigBangTruthers finally admit that the strange gnomes they've invented to explain the universe haven't been found and don't apparently work like they've claimed all along, what do they do? Act like Truthers. Make the gnomes even stranger. Rather that entertain the possibility that the initial observation that prompted the invention of their gnomes ... the rotation curves of galaxies ... can be explained by the rather ordinary physics of plasma and electromagnetism. As plasma cosmologists have been saying all along. They sound a lot like AGWalarmists. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL!

Here’s a brand new paper by some Big Bang proponents …

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.01437.pdf

The unexpected diversity of dwarf galaxy rotation curves

… snip …

We conclude that present rotation curve data support neither a revision of the nature of dark matter, nor current models for “core formation” in galaxies formed in ΛCDM universe. The mystery of the inner rotation curves of galaxies thus remains unsolved.


So basically they saying there is no way to tweak dark matter theory to explain galactic rotation curves.

Yet dark matter was invented in order to explain galactic rotation curves.

 

What irony.

Now guess the one physics that goes unmentioned in their "scientific" paper?

Electromagnetism.

Which Anthony Peratt proved long ago can explain galactic rotation curves.

For example, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1995Ap%26SS.227..167S&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c17128 .

 

A paper just ignored by Big Bang proponents.

Just saying ...

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

These BigBangDarkMatter(BBDM)Truthers are getting outright ridiculous …

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/science/dark-matters-deep-reach.html?_r=0

 

Earlier this year, Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist in Stockholm, made the jarring suggestion that dark matter might cause cancer.

 

… snip …

 

Shortly after Dr. Hossenfelder broached her idea in an online essay, Michael Rampino, a professor at New York University, added geology and paleontology to the picture.

 

Dark matter, he proposed in an article for the Royal Astronomical Society, is responsible for the mass extinctions that have periodically swept Earth, including the one that killed the dinosaurs.

 

:rolleyes:

 

This desperation … to find anything that might keep the public interested in this magical gnome … to keep the funding spigots open ... is not unlike the desperation we are now seeing in the AGWalarmist community where they are busy explaining pointing at global warming as the cause of every bad thing imaginable. While ignoring data, logic and reason.

 

Continuing from the article …

 

It is surprising to see something as abstract as dark matter take on so much solidity, at least in the human mind. The idea was invented in the early 1930s as a theoretical contrivance — a means of explaining observations that otherwise didn’t make sense.

 

Galaxies appear to be rotating so fast that they should have spun apart long ago, throwing off stars like sparks from a Fourth of July pinwheel. There just isn’t enough gravity to hold a galaxy together, unless you assume that it hides a huge amount of unseen matter — particles that neither emit or absorb light.

 

The above is ironic given the recent paper concluding that Dark Matter does not explain the rotation curve of galaxies. Maybe this article should have mentioned THAT scientific paper, as well as the fact that decades ago plasma cosmologists explained galactic rotation curves using ordinary physics. They did it not with magical gnomes but with the well understood physics of plasma and electromagetism, then validated that explanation using highly regarded models of electromagnetic phenomena as well as with laboratory experiments. But the BigBangDarkMatter community just ignored that explanation and instead keeps adding more mindless mysticism to the Dark Matter gnome as new problems arise.

 

In another example of this, some Big Bang astronomers have just announced (with great excitement!) that the dark matter in the Abell 3827 galaxy cluster is interacting with itself. For example … http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-may-feel-a-dark-force-that-the-rest-of-the-universe-does-not1/ . But as noted in the article, just last month a study 0f 72 large cluster collisions was published by the same research team (http://spacetelescope.org/news/heic1506/ ) with the conclusion that dark matter "interacts with itself even less than previously thought”. Sure wish these BBDMTruthers could make up their mind. :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stupidity/ignorance of modern astronomers and astrophysicists continues to astound me.

http://astronomynow.com/2015/05/03/the-dark-matter-conspiracy/

The dark matter conspiracy

W. M. Keck Observatory Press Release

An international team of astronomers, led by Michele Cappellari from the University of Oxford, has used data gathered by the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii to analyse the motions of stars in the outer parts of elliptical galaxies, in the first such survey to capture large numbers of these galaxies. The team discovered surprising gravitational similarities between spiral and elliptical galaxies, implying the influence of hidden forces. The study will be published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

The scientists from the USA, Australia, and Europe used the powerful DEIMOS spectrograph installed on the world’s largest optical telescope at Keck Observatory to conduct a major survey of nearby galaxies called SLUGGS, which mapped out the speeds of their stars. The team then applied Newton’s law of gravity to translate these speed measurements into the amounts of matter distributed within the galaxies.

One of the most important scientific discoveries of the 20th century was that the spectacular spiral galaxies, such as our own Milky Way, rotate much faster than expected, powered by an extra gravitational force of invisible “dark matter” as it is now called. Since this discovery 40 years ago, we have learned that this mysterious substance, which is probably an exotic elementary particle, makes up about 85 percent of the mass in the universe, leaving only 15 percent to be the ordinary stuff encountered in our everyday lives. Dark matter is central to our understanding of how galaxies form and evolve — and is ultimately one of the reasons for the existence of life on Earth — yet we know almost nothing about it.

“The surprising finding of our study was that elliptical galaxies maintain a remarkably constant circular speed out to large distances from their centres, in the same way that spiral galaxies are already known to do,” said Cappellari. “This means that in these very different types of galaxies, stars and dark matter conspire to redistribute themselves to produce this effect, with stars dominating in the inner regions of the galaxies, and a gradual shift in the outer regions to dark matter dominance.”

spiral_elliptical_galaxies_684x800.jpg

However, the conspiracy does not come out naturally from models of dark matter, and some disturbing fine-tuning is required to explain the observations. For this reason, the conspiracy even led some authors to suggest that, rather than being due to dark matter, it may be due to Newton’s law of gravity becoming progressively less accurate at large distances. Remarkably, decades after it was proposed, this alternative theory (without dark matter) still cannot be conclusively ruled out.


So first, these *scientists* are just *discovering* something that probably wouldn’t have surprised a plasma cosmologist 30 years ago … that elliptical galaxies show the same rotational characteristic as spiral galaxies. That's because they continue to ignore the FACT that plasma cosmologists explained the rotational characteristics of spirals … which evolve from ellipticals … using electromagnetism ... 30 years ago … both with computer models that were well validated against electromagnetic phenomena on earth at the time and with lab experiments. Those explanations were all IGNORED by mainstream astronomers/astrophysicists back then and are still being ignored today (notice the press release doesn’t even mention plasma or electromagnetic physics, even though the visible matter of the universe is 99.99% plasma and electromagnetic phenomena seem universally pervasive).

Second, they admit that “some disturbing fine-tuning is required to explain the observations” with the dark matter gnome … meaning the addition of more gnomes … then, ironically, suggest still another gnome … that gravity doesn’t work the same at large distances ... to explain what they see out there. They just never learn, do they? :rolleyes:

For those who are curious, here’s information on the plasma cosmologist who explained, 30 years ago, the observations that these *scientists* are claiming to have just discovered … who explained the observations with rather ordinary physics (no gnomes):

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve, but no hypothetical dark matter is needed, as required by the conventional model of galaxy formation.

The simulations derive from the work of Winston H. Bostick who obtained similar results from interacting plasmoids.[1] [2]

In the early 1980s Anthony L. Peratt, a student of Alfvén's, used supercomputer facilities at Maxwell Laboratories and later at Los Alamos National Laboratory to simulate Alfvén and Fälthammar's concept of galaxies being formed by primordial clouds of plasma spinning in a magnetic filament.[3]

The simulation began with two spherical clouds of plasma trapped in parallel magnetic filaments, each carrying a current of around 1018 amperes. The clouds spin around each other until a spiral shape emerges. Peratt concluded that the shapes seen in the simulation appeared similar to observed galaxy shapes, and posited a morphological sequence that corresponded to Halton Arp's ideas that galaxies formed out of quasars ejected from AGN.[4] Perrat's spirals had qualitatively flat rotation curves.

Experiments with the PK-3 Plus (Plasmakristall-3 Plus) dusty/complex plasmas laboratory on the International Space Station, has shown dusty plasmas in a weightless environment that seem to show "vortices in the plasma resembling a galaxy",[5] and a "mini-galaxy [that] can be used to study formation of real galaxies".

Simulation characteristics

Peratt further notes that:[3] "When scaled to cosmic dimensions the simulations show:

1 a burst of synchrotron radiation of luminosity ~1037 W lasting 107-108 years as the interaction began;

2 isophotal topologies of double radio galaxies and quasars, including juxtapositioned "hot spots" in the radio lobes (cross sections of the interacting Birkeland currents);

3 the formation of "dust lane" peculiar and elliptical galaxies at the geometric center of quasars and radio galaxies (due to plasma trapped and compressed within the elliptical magnetic separatrix);

4 a spatially varying power law along the major axis of the simulated double radio galaxies in agreement with observations;

5 alternating beams of betatron-pumped synchrotron-emitting electrons on either side of the elliptical center (these have the morphologies (i.e., "knots" or vortices) and polarization properties of jets); and

6 a "superluminosity" and fading of jets as the betatron-induced acceleration field sweeps over and ignites previously confined plasma."

Peratt continues: "The simulation time frame of this investigation lasted some 108-109 years. The lifetime and evolution of quasars and double radio sources, the so-called end problem of double radio galaxies, was addressed in this paper (Paper II) by continuing the simulation run ~1-5 x 109 years farther in time. This extension of the simulation showed:

1 the transition of double radio galaxies to radioquasars to radioquiet QSO's to peculiar and Seyfert galaxies, finally ending in spiral galaxies;

2 the formation of irregular and dust lane galaxies, as well as more flattened E and S0 galaxies within the magnetic separatrix;

3 barred and normal spiral galaxies resulting from the inflow of plasma from the outer Birkeland currents onto the the elliptical galactic center; the characteristic rotational velocities of spiral galaxies including the fine-detail vortex cotangent structure on the "flat" portions of the spiral-arm velocity components;

4 replications of the morphologies of multiple interacting galaxies;

5 "horseshoe" like regions of nearly neutral Hi gas in spiral galaxies resulting from the convection and neutralization of plasma into regions of strong galactic magnetic fields; and

6 toroidal and poloidal components of the galactic magnetic field with field strengths reaching 2 x 10-4 G at the galactic center (fields as high as 10-2 G can occur in concentrated regions). These results were reported prior to their observation in the Galaxy"


Here’s the abstract of one of Peratt’s peer reviewed articles from 30 years ago that covered the above …

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The formation of Systems of Galaxies

Anthony L Peratt

Abstract — The model of the plasma universe, inspired by totally unexpected phenomena observed with the advent and application of fully thee-dimensional electromagnetic particle-in-cell simulations to filamentary plasmas, consists of studying the interaction between field aligned current-conducting, galactic-dimensioned plasma sheets or filaments (Kirkland currents). In a preceding paper, the evolution of the interaction spanned some 10^^8-10^^9 years, where simulational analogs of synchrotron-emitting double radio galaxies and quasars were discovered. This paper reports the evolution through the next 10^^9- 5x10^^9 years. In particular, reconfiguration and compression of tenuous cosmic plasma due to the self-consistent magnetic fields from currents conducted through the filament leads to the formation of elliptical, peculiar, and barred and normal spiral galaxies. The importance of the electromagnetic pinch in producing condense states and initiating gravitational collapse of dusty galactic plasma to stellisimals, then stars, is discussed. Simulation data are directly compared to galaxy morphology types, synchrotron flux, H1 distributions, and fine detail structure in rotational velocity curves. These comparisons suggest that knowledge obtained from laboratory, simulation, and magnetospheric plasmas offers not only to enhance our understanding of the universe, but also to provide feedback information to laboratory plasma experiments from the unprecedented source of plasma data provided by the plasma universe.


Read the rest of the paper at that link. It’s just as interesting now as it was back then.

And here’s one more point for modern astronomers/astrophysicists to consider … which also wouldn't surprise Peratt ...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714101631.htm

Most elliptical galaxies are 'like spirals'

Date: July 15, 2011

Source: University of Oxford

… snip …

The majority of 'elliptical' galaxies are not spherical but disc-shaped, resembling spiral galaxies such as our own Milky Way with the gas and dust removed, new observations suggest.

The results come from Atlas3D, a survey of all 260 early-type ('elliptical' and 'lenticular') galaxies in a well-defined volume of the nearby universe. Atlas3D shows a much closer link between 'elliptical' galaxies and spiral galaxies than previously thought.

A report of the research, by the international Atlas3D team, is published in an upcoming issue of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

'Because we rely on optical images, up until now it has been very difficult to separate discs of stars seen face-on from rounder, spherical balls of stars seen edge-on,' said Dr Michele Cappellari of Oxford University, a Royal Society Research Fellow who is the UK lead of the Atlas3D project. 'But because stars in a thin disc rotate much faster than those in a spheroid, obtaining maps of stellar motions for all elliptical galaxies in the sample, we have shown that out of these 66% are disc-like.'

The findings suggest that the idea that galaxies can be clearly separated into two different 'families', spiral galaxies and elliptical galaxies, reflecting two distinct paths to galaxy formation, is inaccurate.


Isn't that just what Peratt’s work suggested?

Just saying …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed … the stupidity of modern astrophysicists just seems to know no bounds.

 

They’re much like those *scientists* who keep pushing global warming in the face of an 18 years “pause”.

 

A while back, Scientific American published an article (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fermi-haze/ ) about efforts to explain a mysterious emission (a gamma ray signal) coming from the core of the Milky Way (our) galaxy. It pointed to evidence suggesting there is a population of high-energy electrons near the core. An excess of microwaves in the inner galaxy, produced by what was theorized to be synchrotron emission, was the evidence of these electrons. A black hole had been suggested as the source of the electrons themselves but problems with that theory led astrophysicists to suggest that perhaps dark matter is the source … through some yet unknown process. And on top of that, the emission of gamma rays was theorized as coming from high energy electrons that occasionally react with a photon from a star, bumping them up to gamma ray levels.

 

But the saga continues. Now Nature has published this article (http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-galactic-signal-points-lhc-to-dark-matter-1.17485 ) which suggests that dark matter is the direct source of the “mysterious galactic signal”. No high energy electrons are even needed. It notes that in 2009, the two scientists who spotted the gamma ray signal, in data from NASA’s Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope, proposed that the gamma ray “bump” was caused by two colliding dark-matter particles, which would annihilate each other, just as ordinary matter does with antimatter. The annihilation would generate a succession of short-lived particles that would eventually produce γ-rays. They proposed a particle dubbed the hooperon or gooperon after the theory’s proponents (such egos these people have), but soon ran into problems with the theory.

 

The article then noted that “sceptics suggested that the γ-ray excess spotted in the Fermi data had more-mundane explanations, such as emissions from neutron stars or from the remnants of exploded stars.” But one thing about dark matter proponents, if at first they don’t succeed they keep on trying. Such is the nature of Truthers. So in late 2014, they found a new way to explain it using dark matter. As the article states, “it emerged that calculations for the range of dark-matter-particle masses that would be compatible with the Fermi bump were too conservative. Fresh estimates of the γ-ray ‘noise’ produced by known sources, provided by the Fermi science team and others, allow for much heavier particles. ‘The excess can be explained with a particle of up to 200 GeV,’ says Simona Murgia, a physicist at the University of California, Irvine, and a leading scientist in the Fermi team.” And thus a new theoretical dark matter particle was born … the neutralino … one that just happened to be in the range of the Large Hadron Collider to detect. So the search is on again. :rolleyes:

 

But here’s what’s truly astonishing. The above articles don’t mention plasma or electromagnetism even though an answer to this puzzle was offered years ago via them … by plasma (electric universe) cosmologists (like Eric Lerner) viewing the inner core of the galaxy. You see, the central region of our galaxy is filled with dense molecular plasma clouds and crisscrossed with glowing filaments 1 to 3 light years thick and 10 to 100 light years long … known as the Arc. Like these:

 

center.JPG

 

The filaments run perpendicular to the galactic plane. They appear to interact with other molecular clouds but the filaments do not appear to be deflected by that interaction. That characteristic and their perpendicular relationship implies that the "threads" composing the Arc are tracing the path of magnetic field lines near the galactic core … field lines that are emanating from a plasmoid. Their theory is that it those filaments represent Birkeland currents flowing in along the spiral arms and out along the galactic spin axis.

 

Supporting evidence included the infrared “double helix nebula” which is oriented perpendicular to the galactic plan and is apparently connected to the circum-nuclear disk (CND) … which mainstream astrophysicists interpret as the accretion disk of a supermassive black hole:

 

Double-Helix-Nebula.jpg

 

But as the website holoscience observes (http://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-black-hole-at-the-heart-of-astronomy/ ),

 

 

The double helix is the characteristic form of a Birkeland current filament. Like the filaments in the Galactic Center Radio Arc in the first image, it is a glowing section of the electric circuit connecting the central plasmoid to the galaxy and beyond. The CND is typical of a dusty plasma ring current circulating around a magnetized celestial object. There is no gravitational or dynamical explanation for the twin helical filaments. It has no place in black hole theory. The metaphors and language used in the scientific report are wrong and misleading. The title of the report alone highlights the problem—“A magnetic torsional wave near the Galactic Centre traced by a ‘double helix’ nebula.” As usual, there is no explanation for the presence of the magnetic field (which requires an electric current and circuit) or the source of the imagined “torsional wave.” The authors admit: “The absence of a negative-latitude counterpart is another potential weakness of the torsional wave hypothesis, inasmuch as such waves should propagate equally in both directions away from the driving disk, if that disk is symmetric about its midplane” and “One question that our hypothesis leaves unanswered is why the helical structure has two strands.”

 

Researchers also report that “the magnetic field in the central few hundred parsecs of the Milky Way has a dipolar geometry and is substantially stronger than elsewhere in the Galaxy.” Birkeland filaments align with the ambient magnetic field which is, in turn, generated by electric currents flowing into the central plasmoid.

 

The energy of the jets seen issuing from active galactic nuclei (AGNs) is attributed to conversion of gravitational energy of accreting matter into radiation. But that does not explain the character of the jets, or the puzzling “quietness” of our own hypothetical black hole. As recently as 26 March in Nature it was admitted “the mechanisms that trigger and suppress jet formation in [black holes] remain a mystery.” Meanwhile, the plasmoid is well known in the plasma laboratory as a high-density energy storage phenomenon that produces well-collimated jets after a time that depends upon particle collisions within the plasmoid.

 

X-ray emission is a signature of electrical activity. There is a persistent high-energy flux from the heart of the Milky Way. The spectral characteristics of the X-ray emission from this region suggests that the source is most likely not point-like but, rather, that it is a compact, yet diffuse, non-thermal emission region, which we should expect from an electromagnetic plasmoid. There is an overabundance of X-ray transients in the inner parsec of the Galactic Center compared to the overall distribution of X-ray sources. Recent observations show that X-ray flares fire roughly every 20 minutes – a regularity that is hard to explain in terms of erratic infall of matter into a black hole. But clockwork regularity of plasma discharges already explains the pulsations from other bodies in deep space. Scientists were also startled when they discovered in 2004 that the center of our galaxy is emitting gamma rays with energies in the tens of trillions of electron volts. The plasma focus is the most copious source of high-energy particles and radiation known to plasma experimenters.

 

… snip …

 

The plasmoid is “quiet” while storing electromagnetic energy. The persistent high-energy flux comes from synchrotron radiation from the circulating charged particles in the plasmoid. Experiments indicate that as soon as the particle densities in the plasmoid filaments reach some critical value, collisions begin to dominate and the plasmoid begins to decay. The density is greatest in the bundle of axial filaments, so that is where the stored energy is released in the form of thin axial jets of neutrons, charged particles and radiation. In the process the axial current is “pinched off,” which could focus upon the plasmoid some of the prodigious electromagnetic energy stored in the intergalactic circuit. The plasmoid becomes an Active Galactic Nucleus.

Lerner described the plasmoid even clearer in the section of his book where he described galaxy formation … starting with the phase when collapsing galaxies form quasars:

 

The theory can explain the source of a quasar’s immense power. The ultimate source is the rotational energy o fan entire galaxy, augmented by the gravitational energy released as the galaxy contracts. This energy is converted to electrical power by the disk-generator action and concentrated in the smaller filaments moving toward the galaxy core. The filament pinches into a plasmid that, for the largest quasars, might be a hundred light years across. The visible quasar, though, is far smaller. This is the region, a light year or so wide, where each individual sub filament that composes the plasmid is bursting apart as it radiates its energy and powers the emitted jets. Just as a hydroelectric dam draws power from the water falling in a river valley, the quasar is drawing energy immediately from the plasmoid’s magnetic field, a million times larger in volume, and ultimately from the entire galaxy. In this way the energy gained by the collapse of the galaxy is expelled as electrical energy in the quasar jets. Without the elimination of this energy, the galaxy would never form.

The Milky Way is way past the quasar stage … the contraction stage … but the plasmoid remains at the heart of the galaxy because the structures that make the galaxy a homopolar motor … a generator of magnetic fields and electric currents … still remain. Observations show all the features of such a structure … including jets. Why can't mainstream astrophysicists see this?

 

It was Nobel Prize winning plasma physicist Hannes Alfven who originated the idea that a galaxy is a huge electric generator. Quoting Lerner again, Alfven theorized that

 

a galaxy, spinning in the magnetic fields of intergalactic space, generates electricity, as any conductor does when it moves through a magnetic field (the same phenemenon is at work in any electric generator). The huge electrical current produced by the galaxy flows in great filamentary spirals toward the center of the galaxy, where it turns and flows out along the spin axis. This galactic current then short-circuits, driving a vast amount of energy into the galactic core. The galaxy “blows a fuse”: powerful electrical fields are created in the nucleus which accelerate intense jets of electrons and ions out along the axis.

And it was Tony Peratt, the plasma physicist I’ve mentioned, who proved, using the latest computer simulations, that what Alfven theorized would happen when filaments of current hundreds of thousands of light years thick (the sort that have been observed) interacted. As Alfven predicted, they formed rotating galaxy like structures … electric generators … from which bursts of intense radiation (quasar level) were emitted in jet like fashion before settling down into ordinary galaxy like structures.

 

And it's a fact that plasmoids produce gamma rays. Therefore, long ago plasma cosmologists PREDICTED what Big Bang/Dark Matter astrophysicists only discovered in 2009 and have yet to explain with anything except still undetected gnomes. Mainstream astronomers/etc haven’t even the intellectual honesty to admit as much.

 

Mainstream scientific article after article (like this one, for example: http://www.space.com/19099-milky-way-galaxy-giant-geysers.html) never mention plasma or electromagnetic phenomena. It’s all gravity and dark matter as far as they are concerned … as if those are the only things that *matter* in a universe composed almost entirely of plasma and ubiquitous electrical phemonena.

 

And they always refer to plasma as “gas”, even though the two are not the same thing. They talk about the “gas” being magnetized. But “gases” are not easily magnetized because “gases” are neutral. In fact, the first magnetism observed in a gas was in a lab at MIT in 2009: http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2009/magnetic-gas-0918 . What’s magnetized is PLASMA and if these scientists and science reporters can’t get something this basic right, what else do they have wrong? I suspect just about everything.

 

In the above linked article, the lead author (Ettore Carretti) of a study that discovered “colossal magnetized fountains of gamma-ray emitting gas” “spewing from the center of the Milky Way galaxy” (here’s a picture)

 

tumblr_mg1wrgFNkU1rd1n1oo1_r1_1280.jpg

 

said “These findings tell us there is transport of a massive amount of energy and strong magnetic fields from the galactic center to the outskirts of the galaxy.” Isn’t that EXACTLY what Alfven described was happening back in 1986, folks? Doesn't that "gas" look like it's moving along the field lines that Alfven predicted way back when?

 

Carrot goes on to say “It is an interaction we did not know about” … to which I’d say … why the hell not? Plasma cosmologists have been talking it for more than THREE DECADES. Did Carretti and the rest of the mainstream astrophysics community just ignore everything they published during that time … all the conferences they held discussing their work?

 

Carrot at one point states “how the galactic magnetic field is generated and sustained is still a mystery.” Is he kidding? Is he totally ignorant of the work of Alfven, Lerner, Peratt and many others? I tell you folks, mainstream astrophysicists are either IDIOTS or dishonest … not unlike the *scientists* (and I use that label with hesitation) that still pushing the notion of man made global warming with CO2 being the chief culprit.

 

The evidence that there’s a plasmoid at the center of our galaxy has been staring them in the face for 30 years. Here’s a photo looking down the axis of a plasma focus device in a lab:

 

focus_barrel.jpg

 

At the center is the plasmoid with the magnetic plasma filaments streaming from it. The filaments pinch together, forming a dense, magnetically-confined, hot spot or plasmoid that emits copious amounts of energy.

 

Now here’s the structure at the center of our galaxy:

 

gcradio_arc_vla.jpg

 

It shows filamentary “power lines” feeding the plasmoid at the core. Imaging yourself looking down the axis.

 

No strange physics, or strange matter, or singularities (black holes) are involved in a plasma focus device in the lab … nor are they needed to explain what we see out there in the universe. Matter (PLASMA, not “gas”) in the vicinity of the galactic center is under the control of powerful electromagnetic forces. Gravitational calculations may even be inappropriate and misleading under those conditions. During the time that energy is being stored in the central plasmoid, the galactic center is quiescent. Jets are only produced when the plasmoid becomes unstable. Just as we observe when looking out into the universe. The periodic outbursts from a galactic plasmoid can briefly release more energy than all of the stars in the galaxy. No need to be surprised like Carretti was about the amount of energy being released. No need to look to Dark Matter or Black Holes to explain it. Just ordinary physics. The sort we’ve known about for 30 years and which we understand with a thoroughness that should make mainstream astrophysicists envious. Sooner or later they need to wake up. But they've become Truthers and that may be asking too much. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each expanding universe is a growing cell. Some cells grow fast, some grow slow, some don't grow at all. Each cell is slightly different from the last but all form generally in the same pattern. Galaxies are cellular structures, solar systems are atoms and all the crap orbiting the stars are sub-atomic particles flying around the nucleus. Human lives are the information encoded in RNA/DNA. We are all a part of God and God is part of all of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...