Jump to content
BeAChooser

Dark Matter Even More Missing Now ...

Recommended Posts

Here’s news that’s relevant to this thread about Dark Matter …

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hubble-space-telescope-finds-massive-halo-around-andromeda-galaxy/

 

May 8, 2015

Hubble Space Telescope finds massive halo around Andromeda galaxy

… snip …

Using data from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, the dark, nearly invisible halo was calculated to be about six times larger and 1,000 times more massive than previously measured. The halo stretches about a million light-years from its host galaxy and halfway to our own Milky Way galaxy.

"Halos are the gaseous atmospheres of galaxies. The properties of these gaseous halos control the rate at which stars form in galaxies according to models of galaxy formation," Nicolas Lehner, the lead investigator on the project from the University of Notre Dame, said.

The gargantuan halo is estimated to contain half the mass of the stars in the Andromeda galaxy itself, in the form of a hot, diffuse gas. If it could be viewed with the naked eye, the halo would be 100 times the diameter of the full moon as seen from Earth - equivalent to the patch of sky covered by two basketballs held at arm's length.


Notice how they call it hot “gas”? What it is, folks, is PLASMA.

At least Sci-News got that right …

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-halo-andromeda-galaxy-02780.html

Astronomers using the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS) on the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that a nearly invisible halo of hot plasma surrounding the Andromeda Galaxy is 6 times larger and 1,000 times more massive than previously measured.


But they still don’t grasp the implications.

And this isn’t the only instance recently where mainstream astronomers have grossly underestimated the mass of ordinary matter that’s out there. As Michael Mozina at thunderbolts.info notes (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15758 ):

1. In 2008, they had to admit that they grossly underestimated the amount of scattering taking place in the plasma medium, and galaxies were actually about twice as bright as they had "estimated" even at *lower* redshifts. They basically underestimated even the mass of the largest stars that we can actually observe, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.space.com/5348-view-universe-suddenly-bright.html

2. In 2009 they discovered yet another error in their flawed galaxy mass estimation techniques in 2006 when they admitted that they've been *grossly* (by a factor four) underestimating the number of stars the size of our own sun in various galaxies. Note that they've been *guestimating* at the number of these size stars because we cannot directly observe them.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20090819.html

Were just getting warmed up:

3. In 2010 we discovered that they've been underestimating the number of dwarf stars (most common) too, by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the type of galaxy.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/01/scientists-sextillion-stars/

4. This is all in addition to the what they found in 2012. In 2012, they finally figured out where all their "missing baryons" were actually located:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-331.html#.VVKGec4-Ci4

Apparently the mainstream is adverse to the use of proper scientific terms, and they can't tell a million degree "plasma" from a "hot gas".

5. This year in 2015 we found out that one of the closest galaxies to us has a halo that's 6 times larger, and a 1000 times more massive than they "guestimated", and this is literally our next door neighbor!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hubble-space-telescope-finds-massive-halo-around-andromeda-galaxy/

6. Oooops, now we find out that some dark matter might not even be "dark" at all, effectively *refuting* that 2006 lensing study.

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-potential-interacting-dark.html

Talk about important revelations. There were *at least* 4 or 5 *different* errors discovered in the mass estimation techniques that they used in that 2006 lensing study! Wow!

Now let's see how they did "in the lab" in terms of their so called "predictions" about 'dark matter"

1. LHC (BAC - Large Hadron Collider) *crushed* every single "popular" SUSY (BAC - dark matter) theory on the books prior to firing up LHC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14680570

2. LUX experiments found absolutely nothing that matched their "predictions" prior to building LUX:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/oct/31/lux-dark-matter-search-comes-up-empty

3. SUSY theory predictions about electron roundness turned out to be all wet too:

http://news.discovery.com/space/perfect-electron-roundness-bruises-supersymmetry-131219.htm

4. Panda X blew more SUSY theories out of the water:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-09/scp-fdm092814.php

5. Darkside-50 also struck out:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.0653

6. The standard model predictions related to unusual decay rates were right on the money, and SUSY theory predictions were shown to be wrong:

http://news.discovery.com/space/lhc-discovery-maims-supersymmetry-again-130724.htm

So there you have it. Not only were their galaxy mass estimates *repeatedly* shown to be completely and utterly *worthless* in 2006, every single testable *prediction" that they have made about DM has been *refuted* by experimentation. Nevertheless, they still *claim* to know for a fact that DM is *not* composed of ordinary matter even though the evidence all says otherwise, and they absolutely, positively refuse to abide by the results of their own "tests".

The whole DM field is simply *garbage in, garbage out*. They never properly "guestimated" the mass of galaxies in 2006, so they called their gross estimation error "dark matter".


Have to agree with Michael.

It’s time for dark matter proponents to wake up and smell the roses.

Don’t be like AGWTruthers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note the title of this recent announcement …

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-astronomers-baffled-discovery-rare-quasar.html

 

Astronomers baffled by discovery of rare quasar quartet

150514-space-view-four-quasars_c40cb6ddc

Using the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii, a group of astronomers led by Joseph Hennawi of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy have discovered the first quadruple quasar: four rare active black holes situated in close proximity to one another. The quartet resides in one of the most massive structures ever discovered in the distant universe, and is surrounded by a giant nebula of cool dense gas. Because the discovery comes with one-in-ten-million odds, perhaps cosmologists need to rethink their models of quasar evolution and the formation of the most massive cosmic structures.


Yeah … maybe mainstream cosmologists need to look for a theory that would explain 4 quasars not only being in close proximity to one another, BUT LINING UP AS SEEN IN THE PHOTO. The fact that they are in a line probably stacks the odds against them using the current black hole theory far greater than ten million to one. Fortunately, there already is a theory out there that would explain this … the one offered by plasma cosmologist, Halton Arp.

Here is one of his papers …

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/origins_of_quasars_and_galaxy_clusters

You see, Arp looked at lots of galaxies and quasars and came to several conclusions.

First, he concluded that quasars are not extremely distant objects despite their high red shifts. They are objects ejected by relatively near AGNs (Active Galactic Nucleus). Suggesting this is the fact that quasars have been found IN FRONT of galaxies … not at the redshift distances they supposedly have. A good example is this one reported in Astrophysical Journal in 2004, where a quasar is seen in front of galaxy NGC 7319, right near its Active Galactic Nucleus. The arrow points to the quasar:

quasar-in-ngc7319.jpg

The redshift of the galaxy is 0.022, denoting a distance of about 360 million light years. But the quasar’s redshift puts it at a distance thirty times farther. IMPOSSIBLE.

Second, Arp concluded that the ejections occur roughly perpendicular to the plane of the galaxies in which the AGN is located and then the objects evolve as they move away from the core. He found lots of evidence of this.

For example, in the above galaxy (NGC 7319) he noticed that there is a jet emanating from the AGN and the quasar is lined up with the projection of that jet, suggesting the two are associated in some way:

ejection_wake_from_the_center_of_NGC_731

Here is another example he found … four quasars roughly lined up in an apparent ejection cone close to the well known galaxy M82:

M82%20Arp-%20Quasar%20Cone.jpg

The quasars are all circled. And amazingly enough 3 of the quasars have the exact same redshift. What are the odds of THAT? Astronomers calculated the odds of there being 4 quasars in such a small field at less that 1 in 30 million. And the circled object closest to the galaxy near the base of the proposed ejection cone happens to be a strong radio source, which is what Arp’s theory would predict.

Here’s yet another example

NGC%204258%20Quasar.JPG

with quasars on opposite sides of galaxy with an AGN.

And there are many other examples of multiple quasars associated with a nearby AGN (http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclusive_evidence_for_non_velocity_redshifts , http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO3PDF/v05n3arp.pdf ). With this data, Arp formulated a theory illustrated with the following figure:

fig02.jpg

He suggested these objects are ejected from parent galaxies and as they travel out they lose their intrinsic redshift and evolve into companion galaxies. In short, they aren’t black holes and not all that “baffling”.

By the way, here’s another recently learned fact about quasars that has mainstream astronomers/cosmologists baffled … but which shouldn’t baffle a plasma cosmologist:

http://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-mystifies.html

Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers

(PhysOrg.com) -- The phenomenon of time dilation is a strange yet experimentally confirmed effect of relativity theory. One of its implications is that events occurring in distant parts of the universe should appear to occur more slowly than events located closer to us. For example, when observing supernovae, scientists have found that distant explosions seem to fade more slowly than the quickly-fading nearby supernovae.

The effect can be explained because (1) the speed of light is a constant (independent of how fast a light source is moving toward or away from an observer) and (2) the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which causes light from distant objects to redshift (i.e. the wavelengths to become longer) in relation to how far away the objects are from observers on Earth. In other words, as space expands, the interval between light pulses also lengthens. Since expansion occurs throughout the universe, it seems that time dilation should be a property of the universe that holds true everywhere, regardless of the specific object or event being observed. However, a new study has found that this doesn’t seem to be the case - quasars, it seems, give off light pulses at the same rate no matter their distance from the Earth, without a hint of time dilation.

Astronomer Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh came to this conclusion after looking at nearly 900 quasars over periods of up to 28 years. When comparing the light patterns of quasars located about 6 billion light years from us and those located 10 billion light years away, he was surprised to find that the light signatures of the two samples were exactly the same. If these quasars were like the previously observed supernovae, an observer would expect to see longer, “stretched” timescales for the distant, “stretched” high-redshift quasars. But even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth.

This quasar conundrum doesn’t seem to have an obvious explanation, … snip …


Yes, it does. They aren’t as distant as mainstream astronomers think. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s another recent, interesting discovery about quasars that puzzles mainstream cosmologists …

http://www.eso.org/public/usa/news/eso1438/

Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years

VLT reveals alignments between supermassive black hole axes and large-scale structure

19 November 2014

Quasar-alignments-ESO.jpg
(this is an artists impression although the article doesn’t say it)

New observations with ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile have revealed alignments over the largest structures ever discovered in the Universe. A European research team has found that the rotation axes of [s[the central supermassive black holes in[/s] a sample of quasars are parallel to each other over distances of billions of light-years. The team has also found that the rotation axes of these quasars tend to be aligned with the vast structures in the cosmic web in which they reside.

Quasars are galaxies with very active supermassive black holes at their centres. These black holes are surrounded by spinning discs of extremely hot material that is often spewed out in long jets along their axes of rotation. Quasars can shine more brightly than all the stars in the rest of their host galaxies put together.

A team led by Damien Hutsemékers from the University of Liège in Belgium used the FORS instrument on the VLT to study 93 quasars that were known to form huge groupings spread over billions of light-years, seen at a time when the Universe was about one third of its current age.

The first odd thing we noticed was that some of the quasars’ rotation axes were aligned with each other — despite the fact that these quasars are separated by billions of light-years,” said Hutsemékers.

The team then went further and looked to see if the rotation axes were linked, not just to each other, but also to the structure of the Universe on large scales at that time.

When astronomers look at the distribution of galaxies on scales of billions of light-years they find that they are not evenly distributed. They form a cosmic web of filaments and clumps around huge voids where galaxies are scarce. This intriguing and beautiful arrangement of material is known as large-scale structure.

The new VLT results indicate that the rotation axes of the quasars tend to be parallel to the large-scale structures in which they find themselves. So, if the quasars are in a long filament then the spins of the central black holes will point along the filament. The researchers estimate that the probability that these alignments are simply the result of chance is less than 1%.

A correlation between the orientation of quasars and the structure they belong to is an important prediction of numerical models of evolution of our Universe. Our data provide the first observational confirmation of this effect, on scales much larger that what had been observed to date for normal galaxies,” adds Dominique Sluse of the Argelander-Institut für Astronomie in Bonn, Germany and University of Liège.

The team could not see the rotation axes or the jets of the quasars directly. Instead they measured the polarisation of the light from each quasar and, for 19 of them, found a significantly polarised signal. The direction of this polarisation, combined with other information, could be used to deduce the angle of the accretion disc and hence the direction of the spin axis of the quasar.

The alignments in the new data, on scales even bigger than current predictions from simulations, may be a hint that there is a missing ingredient in our current models of the cosmos,” concludes Dominique Sluse.


But it doesn’t puzzle plasma cosmologists.

The missing ingredient is electric fields, birkeland currents and plasma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s an interesting observation, from 2011.

 

Mainstream astronomers/cosmologists only seem able to explain with their ubiquitous gnome, the black hole.

 

Well … sort of …

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/star-disintegration.html


NASA Telescopes Join Forces to Observe Unprecedented Explosion

533746main_grb110328a.jpg
Images from Swift's Ultraviolet/Optical (white, purple) and X-ray telescopes (yellow and red) were combined in this view of GRB 110328A. The blast was detected only in X-rays, which were collected over a 3.4-hour period on March 28. Credit: NASA/Swift/Stefan Immler

WASHINGTON -- NASA's Swift, Hubble Space Telescope and Chandra X-ray Observatory have teamed up to study one of the most puzzling cosmic blasts yet observed. More than a week later, high-energy radiation continues to brighten and fade from its location.

Astronomers say they have never seen anything this bright, long-lasting and variable before. Usually, gamma-ray bursts mark the destruction of a massive star, but flaring emission from these events never lasts more than a few hours.

Although research is ongoing, astronomers say that the unusual blast likely arose when a star wandered too close to its galaxy's central black hole. Intense tidal forces tore the star apart, and the infalling gas continues to stream toward the hole. According to this model, the spinning black hole formed an outflowing jet along its rotational axis. A powerful blast of X- and gamma rays is seen if this jet is pointed in our direction.

On March 28, Swift's Burst Alert Telescope discovered the source in the constellation Draco when it erupted with the first in a series of powerful X-ray blasts. The satellite determined a position for the explosion, now cataloged as gamma-ray burst (GRB) 110328A, and informed astronomers worldwide.

As dozens of telescopes turned to study the spot, astronomers quickly noticed that a small, distant galaxy appeared very near the Swift position. A deep image taken by Hubble on April 4 pinpoints the source of the explosion at the center of this galaxy, which lies 3.8 billion light-years away.

That same day, astronomers used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to make a four-hour-long exposure of the puzzling source. The image, which locates the object 10 times more precisely than Swift can, shows that it lies at the center of the galaxy Hubble imaged.

"We know of objects in our own galaxy that can produce repeated bursts, but they are thousands to millions of times less powerful than the bursts we are seeing now. This is truly extraordinary," said Andrew Fruchter at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore.

"We have been eagerly awaiting the Hubble observation," said Neil Gehrels, the lead scientist for Swift at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "The fact that the explosion occurred in the center of a galaxy tells us it is most likely associated with a massive black hole. This solves a key question about the mysterious event."

Most galaxies, including our own, contain central black holes with millions of times the sun's mass; those in the largest galaxies can be a thousand times larger. The disrupted star probably succumbed to a black hole less massive than the Milky Way's, which has a mass four million times that of our sun

Astronomers previously have detected stars disrupted by supermassive black holes, but none have shown the X-ray brightness and variability seen in GRB 110328A. The source has repeatedly flared. Since April 3, for example, it has brightened by more than five times.

Scientists think that the X-rays may be coming from matter moving near the speed of light in a particle jet that forms as the star's gas falls toward the black hole.

]"The best explanation at the moment is that we happen to be looking down the barrel of this jet," said Andrew Levan at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom, who led the Chandra observations. "When we look straight down these jets, a brightness boost lets us view details we might otherwise miss."

This brightness increase, which is called relativistic beaming, occurs when matter moving close to the speed of light is viewed nearly head on.


Now several things are worth noting here. First, the source is repeatedly brightening, even though the output was previously thought to require the destruction of a star. But more important, look at the structure of the object. Looks a lot like this:

sheath.jpg

As already noted on this thread, that’s what a plasma focus looks like when viewed down it’s axis.

And it’s a beam of x-rays that’s produced by such a device ... just like what was observed.

And a plasma focus periodically discharges … just like what was observed.

And the output of these period bursts of energy is huge … just like was observed.

 

Just saying ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the stupidity of modern astrophysicists.

http://www.space.com/28525-quadruple-star-babies-cosmic-womb.html

For the first time, a litter of four infant star siblings have been seen gestating in the belly of a gas cloud. Researchers say the finding supports the theory that most stars do not begin their lives alone.

dust-perseus-star-forming-region.jpg?142

In the Perseus star-forming region, four stars are emerging from a single parent filament, and have been observed moving together as a family. Three of the siblings are balls of gas (within the larger gas filament) that researchers say are on the cusp of collapsing into stars, while the fourth sibling has already become a star.

quadruplet-star-formation-region-close-u

… snip …

The new research shows that these four stars are forming from the same gas filament, and are linked together in a single system. But the stars (or soon-to-be-stars) are separated by 3 to 4 thousand astronomical units or AU (the distance from the Earth to the sun), which the authors of the new work say is a very large distance for star binaries. Normally, star twins are separated by only 10 to 1 hundred AU.

"These objects are so far apart that previously we all thought they were unrelated," said Jaime Pineda, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Theoretical physics and lead author on the new research. "But with the new observations, we can measure that these systems are really part of a whole. In this case it's the first time we can say it's like a family."


First, it’s NOT “gas” in that filament. It’s PLASMA. And that’s a VERY important difference.

Second, that “filament” is a Birkeland filament. And that's a VERY important fact.

Third, Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology has a well developed theory for how Birkeland filaments form stars. Birkeland filaments carry Birkeland currents which move in a spiral. There are usually two filaments interacting, forming a helix shape. The current undergoes a phenomena called a Bennet pinch and this is what forms stars. The stars form as plasmoids in the Bennett-pinches, also known in plasma labs on Earth as Z-pinches.

The Nobel winning father of plasma cosmology, Hannes Alfven, explained it in 1986, while noting the blinders that modern astrophysicists wear:

“That parallel currents attract each other was known already at the times of Ampere. It is easy to understand that in a plasma, currents should have a tendency to collect to filaments. In 1934, it was explicitly stated by Bennett that this should lead to the formation of a pinch. The problem which led him to the discovery was that the magnetic storm producing medium (solar wind with present terminology) was not flowing out uniformly from the Sun. Hence, it was a problem in cosmic physics which led to the introduction of the pinch effect…

However, to most astrophysicists it is an unknown phenomenon. Indeed, important fields of research, e.g., the treatment of the state in interstellar regions, including the formation of stars, are still based on a neglect of Bennett’s discovery more than half a century ago… present-day students in astrophysics hear nothing about it.”


Fourth, this is not the first time astronomers have shown us stars forming on Birkeland filaments. For example, here’s a Herschel image (from http://www.holoscience.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Star-birth-filaments.jpg ) with numerous filaments that have stars forming along them:

Star-birth-filaments.jpg

Of course, these ignorant astronomers again STUPIDLY referred to the filaments as “gas clouds”.

But at least they admitted the fact “that a dark, cool area such as this would be bustling with activity, WAS UNEXPECTED.”

In fact, in another source Hershel astronomers stated they found an ““impossible star in the act of formation… This is because the fierce light emitted by such large stars should blast away their birth clouds before any more mass can accumulate. But somehow they do form. Many of these ‘impossible’ stars are already known, some containing up to 150 solar masses, but now that Herschel has seen one near the beginning of its life, astronomers can use the data to investigate how it is defying their theories.” The answer to these "impossible" stars is simple. The mainstream astrophysicist’s theories are simply wrong. Because they’ve completely ignored the electromagnetic physics of plasmas that form filaments and stars.

Here’s an even better image of the region in a different light:

Cold_gas_in_the_Milky_Way.jpg

Notice all the stars forming along the Birkeland filaments.

You can even tell they are Birkeland filaments because they show the characteristic double helix (if you look closely).

Here’s an even better image from the Hershel database of filaments in that star nursery (From http://inspirehep.net/record/1255052/plots ):

fig8.png

Look at the bottom filament.

If you don’t see the characteristic spiraling double helix structure of Birkeland filaments, you’re downright blind.

If you don’t see the stars forming along those filaments, you’re downright blind.

Here’s another Hershel image (from http://phys.org/news/2013-11-stars-born-filaments-tend-outweigh.html ):

starsborninf.png

Again you can clearly see the spiraling helix Birkeland filaments (indicating electric current) and stars forming along them. But sadly, the source states that “the Herschel Space Observatory has revealed that the star forming sites across the Milky Way are riddled with filaments: tube-like structures of gas and dust that span tens of parsecs [1 parsec = 3.26 light-years] within molecular clouds. Although the existence of such structures has been known for quite a few years, this is the first time that we can resolve them and start exploring their nature and properties, thanks to this ESA satellite. Despite the fact that we do not really understand how filaments are formed their importance in the star forming process is apparent as we observe most of the embryonic stars to be located on such structures.”

Since modern day astronomers have been taught (indoctrinated) in sterile university environments controlled by Big Bang believers, they likely never even heard of Birkeland currents, Bennet pinches, and the theory Plasma Cosmologists like Hannes Alfven. So it’s no wonder they don’t understand how filaments are formed (they thinks it by gravity) or see their importance in forming stars. It’s no wonder they are just now even getting around to even taking a close look at filaments. It’s no wonder they publish garbage like this, http://herschel.esac.esa.int/SFaxz2014/Talks/11-1040_HacarA.pdf , which doesn’t even contain the word plasma or Birkeland. It’s no wonder they miss the significance of multiple what they call “subcritical” filaments making up what they call “critical” filaments (i.e., the ones that form stars). It’s no wonder they miss the significance of polarization vectors along the filaments that are perpendicular to filaments

ppvi_ph_andre_fig3.png

(they indicate electric currents are traveling down the filaments and producing magnetic fields). It’s no wonder they miss the significance of the spiral/helix structure in those filaments (even though it’s been staring them in the face for 30 years). They miss all that because their *education* has the words “gas” and “gravity” bouncing around in their Big Bang brainwashed brains and little else. That and “dark matter” and "black holes". :rolleyes::angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Fresh_theories_about_dark_matter_999.html

Fresh theories about dark matter

May 20, 2015

… snip …

the X-ray emission from the hot gas (left) with the model of the hot gas (right).

… snip …

gravity

… snip …

Gravitational forces

… snip …

compresses the gas

… snip …

this gas cloud

… snip …

In Tom Broadhurst's opinion, "it's all the more important to find a new model that will enable the mysterious dark matter to be understood better".

… snip …

interpreting the gas observed

… snip ….

shape of the hot gas


You don’t suppose the problem with these new theories is that they only know “gas” and “gravity” ...

 

... when the universe is filled with plasma and electromagnetic phenomena?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mainstream astrophysicists say they still don’t understand Dark Matter.

But here’s what mainstream astrophysicists fundamentally really don’t understand.

cloop_col_log.gif

filaments_iac_big.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a very interesting article that just came out about filament observations by the Herchel observatory …

 

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-herschel-filaments-milky.html

 

Herschel's hunt for filaments in the Milky Way

 

Observations with ESA's Herschel space observatory have revealed that our Galaxy is threaded with filamentary structures on every length scale. From nearby clouds hosting tangles of filaments a few light-years long to gigantic structures stretching hundreds of light-years across the Milky Way's spiral arms, they appear to be truly ubiquitous. The Herschel data have rekindled the interest of astronomers in studying filaments, emphasising the crucial role of these structures in the process of star formation. (BAC - which is EXACTLY what plasma cosmologists predicted would be observed if mainstream astronomers took the time to look.)

 

Stars are born in the densest pockets of the interstellar medium, a diffuse mixture of gas and dust that pervades galaxies, including our Milky Way. One of the most intriguing questions in astrophysics concerns understanding how this material, which is typically characterised by very low density, can come together, creating denser concentrations that later evolve into compact cores and, finally, give birth to stars.

 

In the search for answers, astronomers observe giant molecular clouds, the cosmic incubators where gas and dust are transformed into stars. While these studies are performed using a variety of techniques, one crucial approach is the observation of infrared light, since the interstellar material shines brightly at these long wavelengths.

 

In this context, ESA's Herschel space observatory has been a true game changer. Probing the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that ranges from the far-infrared to sub-millimetre wavelengths, it has collected unprecedented data during its three and a half years of observing. One of the key aspects that emerged from these observations is the presence of a filamentary network nearly everywhere in our Galaxy's interstellar medium. The picture that is emerging is that these structures are closely linked to the formation of stars. (BAC - Which is EXACTLY what plasma cosmologists have been saying for 30 years to the sound of crickets from mainstream astrophysicists.)

 

Prior to Herschel, astronomers had already identified several filaments in interstellar clouds and recognised their potential importance for star formation. However, only with the increased sensitivity and spatial resolution granted by this observatory, combined with its large-scale surveys, could they reveal the full extent of filamentary patterns in the Milky Way.

 

One of the surveys performed with Herschel – the Gould Belt Survey – focussed on a giant ring of star-forming regions, all located no more than 1500 light-years away from the Sun. The vicinity of these clouds allowed astronomers to obtain exceptionally detailed images using Herschel, unearthing intricate webs of filaments in each region that they examined.

 

"The greatest surprise was the ubiquity of filaments in these nearby clouds and their intimate connection with star formation," explains Philippe André from CEA/IRFU, France, Principal Investigator for the Herschel Gould Belt Survey. (BAC - it shouldn't have been a surprise since plasma cosmologists had been trying to tell mainstream astrophysicists for 30 years that is what they'd find if they only looked.)

 

"But there is more: these observations revealed that filaments, which may extend to several light-years in length, appear to have a universal width of about one third of a light year. This suggests that something fundamental is lurking underneath." (BAC - yeah, what do you suppose that might be, folks? Perhaps something to do with electromagnetic effects?)

 

The astronomers are still trying to understand the details of the star formation processes taking place in these clouds, aided by the abundance and variety of data collected with Herschel.

 

While most filaments are dotted with compact cores, suggesting that stars are readily taking shape in these dense 'fibres' of the interstellar medium, there are also regions that exhibit complex tangles of filaments but no signs of on-going star formation. A study of the most spectacular example of this phenomenon, the Polaris Flare, indicates that filaments must somehow precede the onset of star formation. (BAC - just as plasma cosmologists said.)

 

The scenario that has emerged from the new Herschel data suggests that star formation proceeds in two steps: first, turbulent motions of the interstellar gas and dust create an intricate web of filamentary structures; then, gravity takes over, causing only the densest filaments to contract and fragment, eventually leading to the formation of stars. (BAC - "gas, dust, turbulence, gravity ... but the biggest force of all ... electromagnetism ... and the effect that has on plasma is not mentioned. It's almost like these scientists have horse blinders on.)

 

Indeed, the universal width of filaments seems to correspond, at least in the nearby clouds of the Gould Belt Survey, to the scale at which interstellar material undergoes the transition from supersonic to subsonic state.

 

In addition, the material along filaments is not at all static: astronomers have detected what appear to be accretion flows, with the most prominent filaments drawing matter from their surroundings through a network of smaller filaments. A striking example of such processes is seen in the Taurus Molecular Cloud, where the B211/B213 filament exhibits a series of so-called 'striations' perpendicular to the main filament.

 

This pattern is very similar to that predicted from numerical simulations that model the process of star formation in molecular clouds. According to these simulations, interstellar material flows towards dense filaments along routes that are parallel to the direction of the local magnetic field, as was observed, so the new data indicate the importance of interstellar magnetic fields in shaping these structures. (BAC - well gosh, folks, aren't magnetic fields a product of electromagnetic effects? Gee ... don't you think there might be a clue for these *scientists* to grab on to?)

 

However, star formation does not appear to take place only in filaments. While these structures seem to be the preferred sites for stellar birth, the extraordinary data from Herschel confirmed that a small fraction of stars may also form far away from dense filaments.

 

In particular, a detailed study of the L1641 molecular clouds in the Orion A complex suggests that star formation along filaments is the preferential channel to produce typical solar-type stars, while stars that are born away from these dense, elongated structures tend to have lower masses. This dichotomy could be a result of the greater availability of raw material to protostars that are forming on a filament compared to those that take shape in less dense environments.

 

Another of Herschel's key findings is that the presence and abundance of filaments are not limited to our immediate neighbourhood. In fact, these structures appear everywhere also in the Herschel infrared Galactic Plane Survey (Hi-GAL), which scanned the distribution of the interstellar medium in the huge disc – about 100 000 light-years across – where most of the Milky Way's stars form and reside.

 

"We detected a wealth of huge filaments, with lengths ranging from a few to a hundred light-years, revealing what seems to be the 'skeleton' of our Galaxy," explains Sergio Molinari from IAPS/INAF, Italy, Principal Investigator for the Hi-GAL Project.

 

"While it is possible that these structures arose from different physical processes than those giving rise to the small-scale filaments observed in the Sun's vicinity, the omnipresent aspect of filamentary structures in the Milky Way is beyond doubt."

 

In the post-Herschel era, one thing is certain: filaments play a leading role in the build-up of galactic material, creating favourable hubs for the formation of stars. This is likely a hierarchical process, starting on very large scales and propagating onwards, to smaller and smaller scales, funnelling interstellar gas and dust into increasingly denser concentrations and thus fostering stellar birth across the Galaxy.

 

Large-scale filaments fragmenting into compact cores that later evolve into stars have been detected all across the Galactic Plane, even in its outermost, peripheral regions. As filaments grow more massive, the material within them contracts and forms smaller structures, preserving the filamentary pattern on all length scales.

 

Further investigation of the Hi-GAL survey has revealed new and even more prominent filaments, extending over hundreds of light-years and weaving their way through the spiral arms of the Milky Way. The study revealed nine filaments in some very dense, inner regions of the Galactic Plane, detecting these for the first time through the direct emission of dust within them, allowing an accurate determination of their mass, size and physical characteristics. Astronomers believe that almost a hundred similar, gigantic structures are still hiding in the data.

 

"The intricate distribution of filaments in the interstellar medium revealed by Herschel has definitely revolutionised our view of how stars form in the Milky Way and, presumably, also in other similar galaxies," comments Göran Pilbratt, ESA Herschel Project Scientist.

 

"An increasingly coherent picture is now emerging from combining the analysis of these data with predictions from theory and numerical simulations, as astronomers continue to study the physical processes underlying the fascinating origin of stars and planets."

Notice that again there is no mention of plasma. NONE. A material that is 99.999% of all we see isn't even mentioned. It’s all just “gas” and “dust”. Are these so-called scientists just ignorant of this thing called “plasma”? Do they not teach them about it in school any longer? Is their education that poor nowadays? And then they talk about “turbulence”, which is a phenomena in gas and water. Not in plasma, where electric currents and electromagnetic effects dominate. Do they even know what “turbulence” really is? I'm surprised they didn't mention viscosity too. It's all rather depressing when you think about it. These are supposed to be our best and brightest minds and all they seem capable of doing is dreaming up imaginary gnomes to explain what they see ... rather than seeing the obvious. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Herschel data must be giving mainstream astrophysicists all sorts of headaches from having to ignore the obvious to maintain the meme they were taught in *school*.

 

Here’s a relatively recent paper on the filaments discovered by the observatory: http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2011/05/aa16596-11.pdf .

 

First, note that it does not contain the word plasma. It talks only about “dust” and “gas”. Isn't that strange, given that 99.99% of the visible matter in the universe is said to be plasma? It doesn’t mention that the gas is “ionized”, which is the case with plasmas. But it must be. Isn't that strange, too?

 

And then it tries to explain the filaments with phenomena like “turbulence” and “shock” and “gravity”. Strange that it doesn’t mention electromagnetism, which is a force that STRONGLY affects plasmas over great distances due to their ionized nature and it's 1/r nature.

 

The paper does admit that the main birth sites of stars are the filaments (a surprise to the authors!) but it doesn’t mention who predicted many years ago that would be the case (plasma cosmologists). Shouldn't such validation of plasma cosmologist theories at least them pause?

 

To explain the filaments, the paper suggests they are formed when slow “shockwaves” dissipate in the interstellar clouds. These shockwaves are said to be the result of exploding stars. Funny thing, however, the filaments don’t have the curvature one might expect from shockwaves emanating from an exploding star. Surely the shock fronts from point sources like exploding stars would impose some curvature on the filaments. But that seems to be missing. What one sees instead are filaments that seem more like the path of lightning between clouds. And where are the leftover traces of the exploding stars that caused these filaments that, in some cases, are tens of light years long? They didn’t seem to leave a trace. Isn’t that a bit surprising also?

 

But what I find particularly interesting in this paper is that it says the characteristic width of the filaments is about 0.1 +- 0.03 parsecs … in other words, about 0.3 light years. The authors acknowledge that it’s somehow important and speculate as to the explanation. Again, they say it's due to turbulence and shock.

 

But what if plasma cosmologists are right. They postulated long ago that the filaments are Birkeland filaments that each carry current (i.e., electricity) as part of a larger interstellar circuit. Note that the movement of LARGE electric currents in interstellar filaments has finally been acknowledged by mainstream astronomers. But then the mainstream researchers never seem to make the connection between those currents and their effect. For example, those currents produce magnetic fields perpendicular to the filaments. Such magnetic fields are observed in the Herschel data but then basically dismissed by the mainstream astrophysicists as being irrelevant.

 

Plasma cosmologists say the constant width of the filaments over vast distances is not unexpected because the current in the Birkeland filaments is basically unchanged over those vast distances. And Marklund convection (http://www.plasma-universe.com/Marklund_convection ) explains the consistency of the widths of the filaments. Marklund convection is the mechanism which results in scavenging matter with a long range 1/r force (in other words, it’s stronger than gravity). Indeed, the behavior of current carrying plasmas is well understood because it has been studied and modeled in detail here on earth for about a hundred years. No gnomes needed. The plasma rearranges itself under the influence of internal electromagnetic forces to form what is effectively an insulated cable around the current path.

 

Here’s an interstellar image that I showed earlier of a Birkeland filament in space:

 

cygnus-loop-nebula-birkeland-currents-hu

 

Back in 1986 Hannes Alfven wrote that the fact that "parallel currents attract each other was known already at the times of Ampere. It is easy to understand that in a plasma, currents should have a tendency to collect to filaments. In 1934, it was explicitly stated by Bennett that this should lead to the formation of a pinch.” In other words, two such parallel filaments will twist about each other. The Double Helix Nebula is a good example of his happening:

 

False-Color_Image_of_Double_Helix_Nebula

 

but even better, as pointed out earlier, you can clearly see this happening to filaments in the Herschel data. For example, look again at the filament along bottom of this image:

 

fig8.png

 

It’s clearly doing EXACTLY what the plasma cosmologists predicted. Winding up in a helical fashion. And the hard, cold truth is that mainstream, Big Bang, dark matter supporting astrophysics can not explain what this image clearly shows that filament doing with their sterile “gas”, “dust”, “exploding star”, “turbulence”, “shock”, “gravity” and gnome filled theory. But like Truthers they continue to try to do so and ignore what’s starring them in the face BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT TRUTHERS DO.

 

Here’s a video of what is thought to be occurring along pairs of Birkeland filaments in interstellar space:

 

 

They wind up and then form a Bennett pinch … which creates a star.

 

And Hannes Alfven explained all this 30 years ago. THIRTY YEARS AGO. And still the mainstream astrophysicisits wear their horse’s blinders.

 

The universe is really beautiful. Here’s the Taurus Molecular Cloud … as seen by optical telescopes and by radio telescopes:

 

taurus-molecular-cloud-comparison-2.jpg?

 

Putting the two together yields this image:

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

It’s just too bad that the folks society has tasked to explain such beauty can’t really see or appreciate it. They see just “gas” and miss the electric currents running through such filaments … even though the only reason the radio can see the filament details is because the plasma is producing synchrotron radiation due to the electric currents running through it. They also miss the helical structure that is evidence of Birkeland currents interacting. Not to mention the z-pinches that result in stars. It’s really quite sad how much of the universe’s beauty modern day astrophysicists are missing … their view obstructed by the fantastical gnomes they’ve created with near religious fervor. And their blinders are keeping the rest of society from seeing that beauty too. But then we do live in an age of mystical gnomes it seems rather than reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Literally everywhere that mainstream astronomers are now pointing their instruments, they are seeing pairs of filaments winding about each other, with stars being formed along their length, AND IGNORING THE IMPLICATIONS.

 

Here is the Orion B Molecular Cloud in near infrared:

 

Compo_HorseHead_04_BIS_Herschel.jpg

(go to this link for a much larger image: http://herschel.cf.ac.uk/files/Compo_HorseHead_04_BIS_Herschel.jpg )

 

If you click on the attacked link and enlarge it to the maximum, you will find multiple pairs of helically wound filaments (just like plasma cosmologists/electric universe proponents PREDICTED wed see decades ago) with stars forming along the length of those filaments (just like plasma cosmologists/electric universe proponents PREDICTED). Go ahead, take a close look at the filament extending downward from the left portion of the nebula. A close up view clearly shows a pair of helically wound filaments interacting with one another. It's quite obvious. Look at the filaments in the internal body of the left portion of the nebula. You will see helically wound filaments there as well. Of course typical of mainstream sources, the article that accompanies this image on the Herschel website (http://herschel.cf.ac.uk/results/horsehead-nebula ) mistakenly says the nebula is gas and dust, when in fact its ionized plasma. When mainstream astronomers constantly start with a false premise like that, they of course will reach a spurious conclusion.

 

Heres another filament. This one is in also in the Orion cloud.

 

orionrockspe.jpg

 

Heres a close up view of it:

 

GMMRadio_nrao-277x800.jpg

 

Now, of course, I see helically wound plasma filaments (look near the bottom of the second image) with stars being created along their length. But heres the sort of nonsense that mainstream astrophysicists have come up with to explain what they see in this image:

 

http://www.technology.org/2014/08/28/orion-rocks-pebble-size-particles-may-jump-start-planet-formation/

 

Astronomers using the National Science Foundations (NSF) Green Bank Telescope (GBT) have discovered that filaments of star-forming gas near the Orion Nebula may be brimming with pebble-size particles planetary building blocks 100 to 1,000 times larger than the dust grains typically found around protostars. snip The new GBT observations extend across the northern portion of the Orion Molecular Cloud Complex, a star-forming region that includes the famed Orion Nebula. The star-forming material in the section studied by the GBT, called OMC-2/3, has condensed into long, dust-rich filaments. The filaments are dotted with many dense knots known as cores. Some of the cores are just starting to coalesce while others have begun to form protostars the first early concentrations of dust and gas along the path to star formation.

The usual gas and dust explanation is there but now they also claim filaments that are made of pebble sized rocks. While they admit that these pebbles are incredibly large for such young star-forming regions (another surprise!), hat doesnt deter them from adopting this new magical gnome. They go on to hypothesize

 

Due to the unique environment in the Orion Molecular Cloud Complex, the researchers propose two intriguing theories for their origin.

 

The first is that the filaments themselves helped the dust grains grow to such unusual proportions. These regions, compared to molecular clouds in general, have lower temperatures, higher densities, and lower velocities all of which would encourage grain growth.

 

The second scenario is that the rocky particles originally grew inside a previous generation of cores or perhaps even protoplanetary disks. The material could then have escaped back into the surrounding molecular cloud rather than becoming part of the original newly forming star system.

As you can see, they dont really provide more than vague speculation as to how ten light year long filaments of pebbles might have formed what forces would have done it or what forces would now hold such structures together. They admit that there could be other explanations for the bright signature detected in the emissions from the cloud but then dont consider the solution that has been staring them in the face for 30 years. That's because they WILLFULLY ignore PLASMA as the basic building block.

 

They might, for instance, open their eyes to research like this for 2001: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/562/1/400/fulltext/ , that observed a polarization pattern in the OMC 3 filament that is predicted by helical field models for filamentary clouds. They note that along 75% of the filament's length, the polarization vectors correlate strongly with the filament axis, a signature of a toroidally dominated helical magnetic field. And then one of the explanations offered to explain it is the crisscrossing of two filamentary structures. This isnt pebbles and dust, folks this is interacting plasma filaments. Of course, not even this mainstream produced paper sees that. They have to stick with their gnomes because if they dont, the whole magical gnome dominated edifice that modern astrophysicists and cosmologists have built will collapse. And they cant have THAT. :angry:

 

Heres yet another recent mainstream scientific paper where the authors miss the obvious in Orion:

 

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/01/12_helical.shtml

 

Astronomers find magnetic Slinky in Orion

 

BERKELEY Astronomers announced today (Thursday, Jan. 12) what may be the first discovery of a helical magnetic field in interstellar space, coiled like a snake around a gas cloud in the constellation of Orion.

 

"You can think of this structure as a giant, magnetic Slinky wrapped around a long, finger-like interstellar cloud," said Timothy Robishaw, a graduate student in astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley. "The magnetic field lines are like stretched rubber bands; the tension squeezes the cloud into its filamentary shape."

 

helicalfield.jpg

 

snip

 

The findings provide the first evidence of the magnetic field structure around a filamentary-shaped interstellar cloud known as the Orion Molecular Cloud.

 

snip

 

Using the GBT, Robishaw and Heiles observed radio waves along slices across the Orion Molecular Cloud and found that the magnetic field reversed its direction, pointing towards the Earth on the upper side of the cloud and away from it on the bottom. They used previous observations of starlight to inspect how the magnetic field in front of the cloud is oriented. (There is no way to gain information about what's happening behind the cloud since the cloud is so dense that neither optical light nor radio waves can penetrate it.) When they combined all available measurements, the picture emerged of a corkscrew pattern wrapping around the cloud.

First, that is by no means the first discovery of a helically wound magnetic field in interstellar space.

 

Second, being mainstream gnome-believing astrophysicists, the explanation they offer only involves gas and shock and exploding stars. Of course. :rolleyes:

 

"It's a very dense object," Heiles said. "It also happens to lie inside the hollowed-out shell of a very large shock wave that was formed when many stars exploded in the neighboring constellation of Eridanus."

 

That shock wave would have carried the magnetic field along with it, he said, "until it reached the molecular cloud! The magnetic field lines would get stretched across the face of the cloud and wrapped around the sides. The signature of such a configuration would be very similar to what we see now. What really convinces us that this is a helical field is that there seems to be a constant pitch angle to the field lines across the face of the cloud."

The truth is that they dont really understand this at all. Magnetic field lines do not exist and thus cant have tension or squeeze anything ... certainly not "gas". But at least we have them admitting that something besides gravity is causing compression of a molecular cloud into a filamentary shape. If we and the data keep nudging them in the right direction who knows? May in a hundred years these pigs will learn to fly. :D

 

Heres still another nebula (N49) filled with star producing filaments:

 

n49_1920.jpg

(for closeup see http://www.chandra.harvard.edu/graphics/resources/desktops/2010/n49_1920.jpg )

 

Click on the associated link and study a closeup of the filament on the bottom side of the dense bundle of filaments running roughly perpendicular to the middle of the cloud about halfway down its length. Youll note stars being formed periodically along its length. AND you will see it to be a case of two spirally wound filaments of plasma interacting with each other just as plasma cosmologists PREDICTED would happen 30 years ago. But of course, the paper that accompanied this image ignores that and talks only about gas and shockwaves. Go figure. :rolleyes:

 

Heres another view of the same object (flipped upside down and left to right):

 

N_49_Supernova_remnant.jpg

(for closeup see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/N_49_Supernova_remnant.jpg )

 

Study the closeup of that image carefully and over and over you'll see pairs of filaments spiralling about each other.

 

The implications are OBVIOUS, provided you open your mind to the possibility that Alfven and other plasma cosmologists were right.

 

But can modern astrophysicists open their mind any longer ... or are they now as hidebound as AGW*scientists*?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this on another thread but will add it here as well for topic completeness and to stimulate conversation (hopefully) here:

This is actual fact


  • In about 5 billion years from now, the sun will begin to die. As the Sun grows old, itwill expand. As the core runs out of hydrogen and then helium, the core willcontact and the outer layers will expand, cool, and become less bright. It will become a red giant star.
QED

 


Actually, that's just a theory … a theory that is chock full of problems and “mysteries”.

For example, here’s one such problem …

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."


Perhaps the problem comes about because the mainstream theory assumes that the energy from the sun is produced by fusion. But is it? There may be an alternative theory that does away with all the problems that the mainstream theory has encountered with observations that are mysterious or surprises, and with the magical gnomes (dark matter, black holes, etc., etc. etc) invented to explain those observations. Ever hear of the Electric Sun? Ever hear of the Electric Universe? The Electric Sun theory is a subset of the Electric Universe alternative to the Big Bang theory. I’ve been discussing this issue in http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/122589-dark-matter-even-more-missing-now/ but no one seems very interested. A shame given how significant this might be.

And here’s a good video (well worth the hour you’ll need to watch it) that starts with this larger Big Bang model, discusses the alternative plasma/electric theory, and eventually explores the Electric Sun and Plasma z-pinch alternatives and how they might fit into the Electric Universe model:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvTWxrLzHZU

As to the Electric Sun model, here’s another brief video

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

One of the data items mentioned in that video is discussed here:

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. 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.”


Here’s another explanation of the Electric Sun model fitting solar related observations that the mainstream model is struggling to explain:

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-sun-verified/

NASA’s IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) spacecraft has made the first all-sky maps of the boundary between the Sun’s environment (the heliosphere), and interstellar space. The results, reported as a bright, winding ribbon of unknown origin which bisects the maps, have taken researchers by surprise. However, the discovery fits the electric model of stars perfectly.

… snip …

The meter-wide, hexagonal IBEX monitors the edge of the solar system from Earth orbit by “seeing” the heliosphere’s outer boundary in the “light” of energetic neutral hydrogen atoms (ENA’s). The news releases of October 15 highlighted the difficulties this discovery causes. “The thing that’s really shocking is this ribbon,” says IBEX principal investigator David McComas of Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. Researchers had expected gusts in the solar wind blowing against the boundary to create 20% or 30% variations in ENA emissions, but the ribbon is 10 times that intense—a narrow band blazing across the sky like some Milky Way on fire. Charged particles have apparently become bunched along the ribbon near the boundary, says McComas, but how they got there “is still a big mystery. Our previous ideas about the outer heliosphere are going to have to be revised.” “I’m blown away completely,” says space physicist Neil Murphy of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. “It’s amazing, it’s opened up a new kind of astronomy.”

Heliosphere.jpg


And as I said, the Electric Sun model seems to address/solve a lot of the mysteries that mainstream astrophysicists have encountered with their gas/shock/gravity/fusion model:

http://osnetdaily.com/2013/10/sciences-looming-tipping-point/

An Electric Sun?

Powerful electrical exchanges between planets on eccentric orbits in the time of prehistoric humans imply an electrical mechanism at work in the solar system to swiftly restore order. Gravity, working alone, tends to increase chaos rather than restore and maintain order. Therefore the central issues are the true nature of gravity and the body central to our existence – the Sun. In the past some scientists have drawn analogies between lightning and features on the Sun. The British physicist C. E. R. Bruce wrote, “It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.” The Italian solar astronomer Giorgio Abetti wrote, “It is likely that the problem of the dynamics of the explosions affecting the prominences will only be solved when the electrical conditions obtaining in the chromosphere and inner corona are better understood.”

However, our most cherished belief is that we understand how the Sun works with no reference to electricity. Unconsciously, perhaps out of our existential fears, scientists have produced a comforting story that the Sun will continue to shine steadily for billions of years, courtesy of nuclear fusion. But is this so? A century will soon have elapsed since the promise of fusion power ‘like the Sun’ began to drive energy research. It has cost the public dearly while producing nothing. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington gave us the basis for the Standard Solar Model in The Internal Constitution of the Stars, published in 1926. The Standard Solar Model refers to specific calculations based on a set of basic assumptions that are accepted as valid. Eddington wrote,

“In seeking a source of energy other than contraction the first question is whether the energy to be radiated in future is now hidden in the star or whether it is being picked up continuously from outside. Suggestions have been made that the impact of meteoric matter provides the heat, or that there is some subtle radiation traversing space which the star picks up. Strong objection may be urged against these hypotheses individually; but it is unnecessary to consider them in detail because they have arisen through a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem. No source of energy is of any avail unless it liberates energy in the deep interior of the star.

It is not enough to provide for the external radiation of the star. We must provide for the maintenance of the high internal temperature, without which the star would collapse.”

Having dismissed external inputs, Eddington simplified the problem by defining the Sun as an isolated ‘ideal gas sphere’ subject to self-gravitation and a central heat source to ‘blow it up’ to the size we see. His model was limited because he had no practical experience of electric discharge phenomena in a near vacuum, otherwise he might have seen the photosphere as an atmospheric electric discharge phenomenon and not the surface of the Sun.

This highlights a fundamental problem with modern computer modelling. How well do we understand what we are looking at? Our interpretation is limited by our experience and imagination. No one has any experience of the interior of a star so the complex Standard Solar Model is purely imaginary. Never mind that it’s not understood how to collapse a molecular cloud to form a star and no known physical body transfers internal heat through a ‘radiation zone.’ Nevertheless, the complexities involved in trying to get the Standard Solar Model to mimic what we observe have kept theorists busy for a century — without success! Surely it’s overdue for a total rethink?

An Engineer’s Model of the Sun

… snip picture of Juergens …

It seems not to have occurred to anyone since Eddington, with the notable exception of an engineer, the late Ralph Juergens of Flagstaff, Arizona, that sunshine may be produced by “some subtle radiation traversing space which the star picks up.” Juergens was involved in the interdisciplinary research mentioned earlier and he saw the need to investigate the electrical nature of the Sun and solar system. He published a seminal paper in 1979, The Photosphere: Is it the Top or the Bottom of the Phenomenon we call the Sun? He emphasised the fact that none of the observed features of the Sun such as the corona, chromosphere, spicules, granulation, sunspots etc., had any business being there in the Standard Solar Model. For example,“..the established theory of stellar energy is embarrassed by the mild behavior of the Sun’s photospheric granules.” The photospheric granules are supposed conventionally to be the tops of vigorous convection cells driven by the Sun’s central nuclear furnace. Internal convection is essential to the Standard Solar Model because convection is supposed to ‘somehow’ generate the Sun’s complex magnetic fields.

Juergens’ observation about the “mild behavior of the Sun’s photospheric granules” foreshadowed a recent discovery by a team of scientists who have developed an ‘MRI’ of the Sun’s interior plasma motions. Shravan Hanasoge, an associate research scholar in geosciences at Princeton University and a visiting scholar at NYU’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences is reported as saying,
“..our results suggest that convective motions in the Sun are nearly 100 times smaller than these current theoretical expectations. If these motions are indeed that slow in the Sun, then the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field is broken, leaving us with no compelling theory to explain its generation of magnetic fields and the need to overhaul our understanding of the physics of the Sun’s interior.” [reprinted from materials provided by New York University.]

This discovery alone should be a ‘tipping point’ for the Standard Solar Model. But foundational beliefs die hard. Earlier there was ‘the solar neutrino problem,’ which for many decades directly discounted the thermonuclear model of the Sun when the neutrino fluxes were found to be 3 or more times less than expected. That problem has been swept under the carpet by assuming that neutrinos change on their way from the Sun’s core to the detectors on Earth. Conveniently for theorists, there is no way of verifying this for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile it has been found that the neutrino count varies inversely with sunspot number, which is a photospheric effect that cannot be influenced by anything going on in the Sun’s core. All of the action seems to be happening in the photosphere itself, which emphasizes Juergens’ unusual question.

A recent article in Nature (28 June 2012), Swirls in the corona, unintentionally answers both Juergens’ question and the most intractable problem for the Standard Solar Model: “The high temperatures associated with the Sun’s corona have made explaining its existence one of the most long-standing problems in astrophysics.”

… snip conjectured image of magnetic tornado in solar atmosphere …

The article highlights the discovery of ‘super-tornadoes’ in the chromosphere, between the corona and the photosphere. It is estimated there are more than 10,000 of them continuously present in the quiet Sun. The researchers have leapt to a possible heating mechanism for the corona via these super-tornadoes, which are connected magnetically to vortexes in the photosphere. However, it is not clear how the tornadoes are formed or how energy is transferred from the super-tornadoes to the corona. Predictably, all of this energy is supposed to be driven by convective motion and trapped magnetic fields beneath the photosphere. But we have just seen there is insufficient photospheric convection to produce the Sun’s magnetic fields.

More recently another report in Science (28 September 2012), How Oblate is the Sun, notes, “…the Sun appears not to be as flattened as it should be… The new oblateness measurements beg explanation.” This is a measure of the uselessness of the Standard Solar Model to predict or explain even the most basic observations about the Sun. “Observations give a wealth of detail about the photosphere, chromosphere and the corona. Yet we have difficulty in matching the observations with a theory.”[solar Interior & Atmosphere, J.-C. Pecker] But students and the public through the media are unaware of this. It seems that scientists forget this unpleasant truth too when they sign off on research that will produce thermonuclear power ‘like the Sun.’

These recent discoveries support Juergens’ external electrical powering of the Sun. Together with findings about the Sun’s interface with the galaxy at the heliopause that deny all previous theoretical models, they put an emphatic end to standard solar theory. The photosphere is the bottom of the phenomenon we call the Sun. The Sun may now be easily understood and the electrical model confirmed empirically since what we can see is all we need to know. The Thunderbolts Project is dedicated to this task.

The following paragraphs briefly demonstrate the simplicity and unity of the electrical model of the Sun. It is a single model that explains long-standing mysteries of the Sun and can be applied to all stars, from brown through red to blue-white, and dwarf to giant. Stellar differences can all be understood in terms of the three different modes of plasma discharge — dark, glow and arc. The Electric Universe meets all of the demands of a good theory. It follows sound electrical engineering principles and space plasma science as recognized by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE).

Electrical Star Birth

Glossy media presentations show the Sun and planets forming from a rotating dusty cloud. So it will surprise most people that experts consider star formation an “open question,” and as “the most important challenge in astronomy over the next decade.” [R. de Grijs (2012)] The challenge becomes more difficult as telescopes improve. I predict that it will become impossible when new instruments like the James Webb Telescope and the Square Kilometer Array become operational. Unexplained magnetic fields are involved. “Something creates and maintains micro-Gauss coherent magnetic fields on an enormous scale.” [b. Gaensler (2008)] So common sense suggests we should turn to plasma cosmology, which explains star formation simply in electromagnetic terms.

Star-forming-filaments-small.jpg
A network of 27 star forming filaments derived from Herschel observations of the IC 5146 molecular cloud. Credit: D. Arzoumanian et al.

Stars form in molecular clouds by a process of Marklund convection toward current filaments that look just like a cosmic form of cloud-to-cloud lightning. This discovery was a surprise to theorists who rely on spherical 1/r2 gravitational accretion of matter toward a center of mass. In sharp contrast, Marklund convection concentrates matter along a current filament with a long-range and more powerful 1/r electromagnetic force. Significantly, Marklund convection separates the chemical elements with the coolest and most easily ionized elements, such as iron and silicon, nearest the axis. With sufficient matter along the filament, gravity assists in forming separate stars and smaller bodies rather like glowing beads along a lightning channel with cool cores of heavy elements and atmospheres of hydrogen and helium. Note that a thermonuclear reaction cannot ignite in a cool heavy element stellar core!

Electrical Planet Origins

If the heavy elements are concentrated in stellar cores, how do we account for planet formation with heavy element cores? With over 800 ‘exoplanets’ discovered the standard accretion model is in increasing difficulties. The first problem was finding ‘hot Jupiters’ orbiting stars closely. The accretion model says that it’s impossible for them to form there. So the gas giants must have somehow ‘migrated’ inwards from a more distant orbit. But the accretion model requires our gas giants to migrate before they formed so that the inner planets have the time necessary to achieve their elemental composition!

But what of stars that sport ‘accretion disks?’ It is simply assumed that the disks are due to gravitational in-fall. However, gravity is easily overcome by electromagnetic repulsion, as we observe in solar mass ejections. Consequently, stars have expulsion jets and disks rather than accretion disks. Sometimes, for dynamic reasons or to spread the electrical load over a greater surface area, forming stars will electrically fission into binaries or multiple star systems. This scenario may explain some of the surprising abundance of multiple star systems and close orbiting ‘hot Jupiters.’

Also, the birth of plentiful brown dwarf stars and smaller bodies in proximity along an electrical umbilical cord provides the opportunity for capture by bright stars to form planetary systems. Capture is greatly enhanced by electrical energy exchange where the cross-section for capture is that of a star’s huge electrical boundary, called the heliosphere (~200 AU wide), or ‘astrosphere.’ Brown dwarfs captured by a bright star will have their power source stolen, lose their radiance and become gas giants. This explains a mystery known as the ‘brown dwarf desert,’ around main sequence stars.

The capture process of a brown dwarf involves drastic electrical readjustment from being an anode to a cathode, which the captured star achieves by a cometary-type electrical expulsion of matter from its heavy-element core and atmosphere, forming satellites and rings. Some of the expelled debris escapes to become families of comets, asteroids and meteoroids. It is a process entirely analogous to the observed electrical splitting of comet nuclei, often as they too approach the Sun.

The applicability of this model to the solar system is obvious with the distant gas giants sporting rings and many satellites. Saturn, with its spectacular ring system, appears to be the most recently captured. The inner planets are satellites lost to the gas giants/former dwarf stars. Astronomers have recently begun to suggest that the environment close to a dwarf star is conducive to life. But there is far more to this idea in an Electric Universe. So the Sun’s weird assortment of planets and their satellites are an adopted family and not primordial. Comparing gyroscopically stable axial tilts may show some familial associations. Significantly, Saturn, Mars and Earth seem related via this hypothesis.

Gravitational systems are essentially chaotic because orbital perturbations are not corrected. With intruders upsetting the solar system the obvious question is how come the planets move like clockwork? It is important that an effective ‘damping’ mechanism operates to enforce order in the solar system. The Electric Universe simply proposes that protons, neutrons and electrons, like the atoms they form, have orbital structures too and can be distorted in an electric field to form tiny electric dipoles. Gravity can then be understood, like a form of molecular bonding, as the force between induced weak electric dipoles in all subatomic particles in a body. This gives the crucial ability to modify a planet’s gravity and orbit by altering the charge on its surface. Such a gravity model mitigates against collisions by spacing orbits so that planets exchange electric charge the least via their cometary plasma sheaths.

Electrical Star Light

The Electric Universe model of a star proceeds where plasma cosmologists left off. It seems that stars continue to receive electrical energy from the galactic current filament in which they formed. This has been recently established by the ‘surprising’ influx of energetic neutral atoms (ENAs) from a ring about the solar system, aligned across the interstellar magnetic field. The ring with its ‘bright spots’ indicates the presence of an electromagnetic ‘pinch’ in the co-axial interstellar current cylinders that power the Sun.

M2-9.jpg

This ‘planetary nebula’ shows a typical star’s co-axial circuit in a more active ‘glow mode.’ The electromagnetic plasma ‘pinch’ centered on the star is clearly evident.

So the photospheres of stars should be viewed as a global electric discharge phenomenon at the very top of their gravitationally stratified atmospheres where the lightest elements, hydrogen and helium, are in abundance. The problem for solar theorists is that there is no explanation for lightning in the Earth’s gravitationally stratified atmosphere! Much less are the weird phenomena above lightning storms understood. And lacking that understanding the relevance of electrical activity in the photosphere goes unnoticed today, although several scientists in the past sensed it. For example the solar physicist Giorgio Abetti wrote, “[solar] prominences can be explained as electrical discharges.” [The Sun (1963)] And Eddington himself wrote, “If there is no other way out we may have to suppose that bright line spectra in the stars are produced by electric discharges similar to those producing bright line spectra in a vacuum tube.” [1926]

A fundamental mistake is that students are taught the conductivity of space plasma is so high that any electric field in it can be set to zero. But experience in gaseous discharges shows that currents and not electric fields in plasma are important. Everywhere we look in space we find magnetic fields, which are the result of electric currents. So it is not correct, as Hannes Alfvén pointed out, to merely treat the solar wind as a magnetized gas, which is the conventional approach. Alfvén showed that the solar ‘wind’ must be a ‘dark’ current that flows in a circuit between the Sun and its galactic environment. Most importantly, the electric field in the bulk of the plasma within the heliosphere is not zero, but vanishingly small — just sufficient to accelerate the solar ‘wind’ protons away from the Sun and then reversing direction to bring the solar wind mysteriously to a halt at the heliosphere boundary, or ‘virtual cathode’ of the solar discharge. The latter recent discovery was a total surprise. “There no longer exists any guidance on what constitutes getting out of the Solar System and into the Galaxy.” [s. Krimigis, Nature 489:21, 2012]

Stars as Positive Anodes

Juergens identified the many observed discharge phenomena on the Sun as characteristic of those above a positive anode. The interplanetary plasma potential ‘locks’ to that of the anode — the Sun. So the electric driving potential of the Sun is confined largely to the distant heliosphere boundary — in the region being encountered by the two Voyager spacecraft, where the solar wind has ‘mysteriously’ come to a halt. It is not a mystery when the electrical model is applied to the Sun. The heliospheric plasma sheath is the ‘virtual cathode’ in the Sun’s circuit. The electric field first reverses on approaching the cathode, causing the protons to decelerate with no evidence of a galactic ‘head wind.’ Beyond that region the protons will accelerate rapidly away to become cosmic rays. The electrons coming from that vast ‘virtual cathode’ sphere are focused down a trillion times by the time they reach the photosphere and produce the radiance of the Sun.

The evidence to look for is filamentary currents following the ambient magnetic field direction down to the photosphere. Such filaments are seen at all scales in the Sun’s corona, chromosphere and photosphere. The Sun’s corona is simply a coronal discharge effect where diffuse plasma is apparently heated to millions of degrees by the electric current flowing through it. Referring back to Swirls in the corona, energy is not transferred from the Sun up to the corona via magnetic “super tornadoes” but in the opposite direction, down toward the Sun by electromagnetic tornadoes. The “super tornadoes” are typical of plasma self-organization at high current densities, in which the current filaments take a helical path, or ‘tornado.’ This phenomenon is important when we look in detail at the photosphere.

Photospheric “Granulation”

The photosphere can now be examined for anode phenomena. The solar plasma discharge switches from dark-mode in interplanetary space, where it is referred to inaccurately as the ‘solar wind,’ to glow-mode in the corona and chromosphere, to arc-mode in the photosphere. The photosphere exhibits complex structure in the form of granulation and sunspots, neither of which are explained or to be expected if the Sun were simply radiating internal energy. Juergens wrote,
“..the idea of thermal convection as the explanation for granulation in the photosphere – a concept that at first seemed handsomely supported by a resemblance between granules and blocky cells in molten wax – fares rather badly when subjected to scrutiny. Nevertheless, so compelling is the conviction that the Sun generates its own energy that such practical difficulties are generally disregarded. The consensus has it that convection there must be, and therefore photospheric granulation must somehow be a manifestation of the process.”

Instead, Juergens identified solar granulation as a “tufted anode discharge” phenomenon where a “dense, highly luminous, secondary plasma springs into being in the embrace of a thinner, less luminous, primary plasma.”

Anode-Tufts2.jpg

The plasma tufts float and move about above the anode. Having a net positive charge they space themselves symmetrically apart on the anode surface. [F. H. Clauser, Plasma Dynamics]
Irving Langmuir explained anode tufts as a region of increased ionization of the plasma in response to excessive current to the anode. It seems the granulations of the photosphere are the tops of millions of closely packed anode tufts separated by their plasma sheaths from the primary plasma of the Sun’s ionosphere, which forms the dark lanes between the granulations.

The body of the Sun is much smaller than that occupied by the photosphere. So the Sun’s almost perfect spherical shape can perhaps be attributed to electromagnetic forces combined with the need to achieve the highest packing density of the anode tufts at the top of the Sun’s ionosphere. The resultant spherical symmetry of the discharge following magnetic field lines in ‘force free’ mode down to the photosphere results in the Sun’s dipole magnetic field not having the predicted bar-magnet shape, or crowding of field lines near the poles. This answers the surprising fact that the Sun’s magnetic field lines spread out uniformly from the photosphere.

Anode Tufts and the Solar Constant

Juergens refers to the curve of the electrical potential distribution across an anode tuft. Electrical engineer Dr. Donald Scott recognized the curve as characteristic of the voltage curve across a transistor. This insight offers a simple explanation for another mystery of the Sun — how does the heat and light of the Sun remain steady to within 0.1 percent (the ‘solar constant’) while its output in X-rays varies markedly with the solar activity cycle? The answer is ‘electronically!’ The X-rays come from the corona and solar flares, which respond directly to the varying galactic power input. However, a small shift in voltage of the tuft plasma relative to the body of the Sun is sufficient to regulate the current through the tuft, and hence the heat and light from the photosphere.

Tuft-Transistor1.jpg

Schematic of the photospheric tuft transistor analog. The cool body of the sun is at the origin. Courtesy of D. Scott.

Mysterious Sunspots

To have any confidence in our understanding of the Sun, and stars in general, we must first be able to explain simply the things we can see. Therefore it is crucially important to understand a sunspot because it is the only place on the Sun that gives a glimpse below the bright photosphere. Sunspots show a formation like the pupil and iris of an eye, the pupil being the dark umbra and the iris the filamentary penumbra.

Sunspot-closeup.jpg
Closeup of section of a sunspot.

Sunspots have been described as “a phenomenon lacking scientific explanation.” [E. N. Parker] The lack stems from narrow training that doesn’t recognize plasma discharge phenomena. Anyone who has seen the snaking filaments in a novelty plasma ball will have seen how electric currents in plasma naturally form filaments. Filamentary structure is seen at all heights in sunspots. But astrophysicists talk instead of magnetic ‘flux tubes’ as if magnetism can be present without an electric current. Notably, sunspots of the same magnetic polarity do not repel each other. This requires that sunspots are bundles of parallel current filaments drawn together according to Ampère’s law and punching through the photosphere. Sunspots are the footprints of concentrated discharges from a plasma doughnut or ‘plasmoid’ electromagnetic energy storage ring encircling the Sun above its equator.

Solar-plasmoid1.jpg

The solar plasmoid has been imaged in UV by SOHO. Kristian Birkeland performed his Terrella experiment demonstrating the effect more than one hundred years ago.

Anode Tufts have Structure

High-resolution images of sunspots allow us to see the structure of anode tufts below the photosphere. They show the photospheric granulations sit atop glowing penumbral filaments. The invisible twisting tornadic form of plasma discharge detected in the corona is visible in arc-mode on a finer scale in the penumbral filaments. It is typical for plasma phenomena to scale the same patterns over a vast magnitude range.

Penumbral-Filament1.jpg

A penumbral filament is a semi-transparent tornadic plasma discharge. Where the filament current density is high it brightens to form moving striations. The darker core is visible only at favorable angles of the filament axis to the observer.

Time-lapse movies of penumbral filaments show steady downward movement of their bright point-like lower ends called ‘penumbral grains,’ which are generally brighter than the photosphere. Conventionally, the observed vertical velocities of matter do not suffice to transport the energy radiated away by penumbrae. So convection is not the answer. Can we find electric discharge activity in the Earth’s gravitationally stratified atmosphere for analogs to the activity seen in the penumbral filaments? Earthly tornadoes suppress lightning activity over a wide area by providing an intense but slow helical discharge path to ground, which can account for their powerful effects and longevity. And like a tornado, the solar atmosphere is lofted up the penumbral filament to produce the enigmatic ‘Evershed flow’ out of the sunspot.

DPF1.jpg

By analogy, the bright penumbral grains may be lightning in the more dense atmosphere at the base of a glowing tornadic funnel. Or more likely, they may be a further stage of plasma instability called a dense plasma focus (DPF) where both matter and electromagnetic energy is intensely concentrated in a tiny ‘plasmoid.’ In the lab the DPF is the simplest and most promising fusion energy source.

All Bright Stars Produce Heavy Elements

Experimentally, a DPF produces nuclear fusion and is a copious source of neutrons. Neutron capture in a dense plasma environment of protons and positive ions is necessary to ‘build’ the heavy elements from the lighter elements. So here we have a straightforward possible solution to the continuous production of heavy elements by all stars. The resultant complex nucleosynthesis in the photospheric granules can also be expected to produce a mix of different neutrino types. The observed neutrino modulation by sunspots is then easily explained because the sunspots clear areas of the photosphere of granulation. Common sense demands an alternative to the conventional story of heavy-element production only from rare dispersive supernova explosions, followed by somehow accreting the scattered matter to form the ‘next generation’ of stars containing more heavy elements. Clearly, the electrical model of the Sun does not require the unverifiable complexity of stellar thermonuclear cookery and stellar evolution through self-immolation.

Umbral ‘Dots’

Viewing the Sun as a body with global electrical activity in its ionosphere provides a clue to another solar mystery. Sunspots have an intense magnetic field, which identifies the umbra as the imprint of a powerful field-aligned plasma discharge punching through the bright photosphere to lower levels. So the dark umbra is not uniformly dark. It is packed with a kind of granulation known as ‘umbral dots,’ which are finer and longer lived than photospheric granules and are hotter (~6200K) than the photosphere. These are characteristics we might expect from a lightning discharge at higher current and atmospheric densities than are present in the photosphere above. Significantly, penumbral filaments tend to split in a ‘Y’ shape at their bases and seem involved in the formation of umbral dots. At higher atmospheric density a plasma discharge tends to split into thinner filaments. It is a phenomenon observed stretching between the glows in the ionosphere to the lightning at ground level in major Earthly thunderstorms. Lightning also heats and accelerates gas upwards in the lightning channel from the higher-pressure region to the lower. That may account, in part, for the hot umbral dots against the dark background of the cool body of the Sun.

The Solar Cycle

The solar cycle is an enigma for the standard solar model. “The solar activity cycle has fascinated scientists and amateurs alike for over a century, but its mystery remains, and even deepens, as we collect new data that reveals its full complexity.” [D. M. Rabin et al., Solar Interior & Atmosphere] Attempts to model the solar cycle have relied on a hypothetical dynamo inside the Sun, in other words, the inductive action of fluid motions pervading the solar interior, to explain features that occur outside the Sun. But nothing remotely resembling consensus currently exists as to the mode of operation of the solar dynamo. And the coup de grace seems to have been delivered by the recently discovered lack of fluid motions beneath the photosphere.

Solar-transformer.jpg

In the Electric Universe model, the solar sunspot cycle is simply the result of varying the direct current (DC) input to a plasma discharge focused on the Sun. For a continuous current to flow there must be a circuit. Hannes Alfvén provided the circuit but misidentified the Sun as a generator in a local closed circuit instead of a load in a galactic circuit. Dr. D. Scott provided an electrical engineer’s perspective of the Sun’s magnetic field changes due to a changing input current.The simplicity is obvious. The reversal of the Sun’s dipole field and sunspot order during the solar cycle is a natural result of a transformer action as the main current increases and decreases but never reverses. The solar cycle is to be expected since plasma circuits are notorious for their oscillatory tendency.

Stellar Mass

Hidden in plain sight is the well-known relationship between mass and energy, E = mc2, which tells us that mass is an electromagnetic variable. The higher the electrical stress on a body, the greater is the internal charge polarization and hence the greater is the body’s mass. The mass of a star cannot tell us how much matter is in the star. So estimates of the composition of celestial objects based on their measured mass and the volume of their photosphere are invalid. The mass of a star gives no information about the size or composition of its heavy element core or the internal structure of the star. The fact that the relation breaks down for white dwarfs and red stars is due to the fact that their luminosity is generated by extensive coronal and chromospheric glow mode discharges respectively.

The Mass-Luminosity Relation

The stellar mass–luminosity relation is important in the conventional model because, in an attempt to match observations, a tottering tower of theory has been built. The model is impossible to verify and requires an ad hoc system of complex thermonuclear ‘cookery’ and the effects of the resulting ‘burnt ashes’ on the internal structure of stars. If we discard standard theory, we require an electrical explanation.

The mass-luminosity relation for bright stars indicates that both variables are related to the degree of electrical stress suffered by a main-sequence star. Variations in the M-L relation for different mass ranges may be attributed to differences in the manner of a plasma discharge to cope with the current density at the photosphere. For example, the luminosity depends on the brightness and size of the photosphere, which expands and changes color from yellow to blue-white to meet increasing electrical stress.


Continued in part 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 2 of response to 5x5

Furthermore, the electric/plasma alternative to mainstream astrophysics seems to explain all sorts of problems that the mainstream community has encountered beyond our solar system. For example, with the standard model, NASA doesn't have a good explanations for observations like these:

herca_vlahst_1280.jpg

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

Their explanations invariably rely on some unverified or unverifiable magic gnome.

But the Electric Universe/Electric Sun folks might have an answer using physics we can study in the lab here on earth … using physics that are relatively well understood:

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

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

Even phenomena like supernovas have an explanation that’s seems more reasonable … because the Electric Sun/Electric Universe model uses ordinary physics and doesn’t rely on a menagerie of gnomes that can’t be tested in the laboratory. For example, consider Supernova 1987A:

SN_1987A_HST.jpg

Mainstream astrophysicists say (http://earthsky.org/space/supernova-1987a-closest-brightest-supernova-star-death ) this beautiful object is caused by an exploding star. But they were surprised to find the star that supposedly exploded to create it was a blue supergiant. Their theory had concluded that only red supergiants could supernova. After the fact, of course, they found other examples of blue-derived supernova and claimed to have massaged their theory to account for them. The shape and structural details of what they were seeing was also quite puzzling to mainstream astrophysicists. “The Hubble images of the rings are quite spectacular and unexpected,” said Dr. Chris Burrows of the European Space Agency and the Space Telescope Science Institute. They explained the brightest ring (and the dots in the ring) as being due to energy from the explosion reaching a ring of previously ejected “gas” and lighting it up. You can see how the brightness varied over time:

SN1987Atimelapse1.jpg

Of course, they weren’t able to find proof that there had been a ring of matter in that location prior to the explosion. They did find evidence of something surrounding the star but it was not at that location. Then there is the fact that given the size of the original star, astrophysicists expected a neutron star (one of the mainstream theory’s gnomes) to form. But to this day, although they’ve searched, they have not found one. Another group of astrophysicists then said there might be a black hole (another gnome) where the star once was. But again they haven’t found evidence of one. Even the expected pulsar is missing. It’s just got mainstream astrophysicists in a tizzy.

But Electric Sun advocates have a different explanation. One that doesn’t require an exploding star. That doesn’t require a neutron star, black hole or pulsar. One that seems to fit all the data:

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/supernova-1987a-decoded-2/

An electric star has internal charge separation which can power a star-wide, expulsive lightning-flash. The star relieves electrical stress by fissioning or blowing off charged matter. A star also has electromagnetic energy stored in an equatorial current ring. Matter is ejected equatorially by discharges between the current ring and the star. Our own Sun does it regularly on a small scale. However, if the stored energy reaches some critical value it may be released in the form of a bipolar discharge, or ejection of matter, along the rotational axis. The remnant of SN 1987A shows such a bipolar ejection in the form of two blobs of matter (inside the bright ring).

A companion star may initiate a stellar discharge that results in fissioning. It is significant in this context that an unexplained and much-disputed “Mystery Spot” appeared along the line joining the two blobs and was seen briefly a couple of months after the explosion and then quickly faded from sight. The spot was too far away to have been ejected by the supernova and its brightness (10% of the supernova) was too great to be explained by reflection off a cloud of matter. It may have been a faint companion that triggered, or was a part of the circuit of the electrical supernova discharge.


Now part of the problem with the mainstream explanation is that the ring around the object clearly is not expanding very fast. Here’s a time-lapse:

SN1987a_debris_evolution_animation_time_

It’s basically at the same location now as it was in 1994 … twenty years ago. The bright beaded ring would show that matter has been ejected equatorially (it any was ejected) but a shock wave from an exploding star should show spherical, rather than axial, symmetry. We should expect some visible indication of the spherical cavity but there is none. And why would the shock front form a ring of bright spots? Here’s what the latest radio telescope *imaging* of the object shows:

Supernova_1987A.jpg

Now this is a VERY interesting picture because plasma scientist Anthony L. Peratt published a paper in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science in December 2003 titled “Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity.” In it he explained the unusual characteristics of a high-energy plasma discharge from a plasma pinch as studied in the lab. A Z-Pinch is what the Electric Sun/Electric Universe community believe form stars along electricity carrying plasma filaments like those recently observed to be ubiquitous in interstellar space. He discussed mega-ampere particle beams and showed their characteristic 56- and 28-fold symmetry using lab data. He wrote:

“A solid beam of charged particles tends to form hollow cylinders that may then filament into individual currents. When observed from below, the pattern consists of circles, circular rings of bright spots, and intense electrical discharge streamers connecting the inner structure to the outer structure.“

witness_plate1.jpg
This photograph shows a 0.6-mm-thick titanium witness plate that has been placed 15 cm in front of a 100 kilo-Gauss, sub-megaampere charged particle beam. Initially, the particle beam was cylindrical but after traveling the 15 cm has filamented. In the sub-gigaampere range, the maximum number of self-pinched filaments allowed before the cylindrical magnetic field will no longer split into "islands" for the parameters above has been found to be 56.

… snip …

Peratt adds:

“Because the electrical current-carrying filaments are parallel, they attract via the Biot-Savart force law, in pairs but sometimes three. This reduces the 56 filaments over time to 28 filaments, hence the 56 and 28 fold symmetry patterns. In actuality, during the pairing, any number of filaments less than 56 may be recorded as pairing is not synchronized to occur uniformly. However, there are ‘temporarily stable’ (longer state durations) at 42, 35, 28, 14, 7, and 4 filaments. Each pair formation is a vortex that becomes increasingly complex.”

 


Now it turns out the number of bright spots in the supernova 1987A images is a number that looks suspiciously close to 28, and the bright spots tend to be paired or in groups of three as Peratt said would be the case for a jet produced by a z-pinch. Is that just coincidence?

Furthermore, a z-pinch naturally takes on the hourglass shape seen in planetary nebula. There are “no special conditions or mysteriously conjured magnetic fields” required to produce what is observed as is the case in the mainstream fusion/explosion models. Indeed, Dr. Charles E. R. Bruce argued 50 years ago that the bipolar shape, temperatures and magnetic fields of planetary nebulae could be explained as an electrical discharge. He was ignored but the results of these stellar *explosions* do seem to fit what plasma/electric researchers have been saying for 50 years:

herbig-haro-46-47-plasma-z-pinch.jpg

NGC6302-2012-07-22-HLA-715.jpg

hubble.eta_carinae.jpg

boomerang_hst_big.jpg

051230bugnebula.jpg

ant_hubble_1072.jpg

Astronomers regularly call these objects “surprisingly” common.

But they’re rather ordinary objects in the pantheon of an electrical/plasma universe model.

Just saying …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An encouraging sign …

 

… slowly, very slowly, a few mainstream astrophysicists are coming to a new understanding …

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7548/full/nature14291.html

 

Self-similar fragmentation regulated by magnetic fields in a region forming massive stars

 

30 March 2015

 

Most molecular clouds are filamentary or elongated. For those forming low-mass stars (<8 solar masses), the competition between self-gravity and turbulent pressure along the dynamically dominant intercloud magnetic field (10 to 100 parsecs) shapes the clouds to be elongated either perpendicularly or parallel to the fields. A recent study also suggested that on the scales of 0.1 to 0.01 parsecs, such fields are dynamically important within cloud cores forming massive stars (>8 solar masses). But whether the core field morphologies are inherited from the intercloud medium or governed by cloud turbulence is unknown, as is the effect of magnetic fields on cloud fragmentation at scales of 10 to 0.1 parsecs. Here we report magnetic-field maps inferred from polarimetric observations of NGC 6334, a region forming massive stars, on the 100 to 0.01 parsec scale. NGC 6334 hosts young star-forming sites where fields are not severely affected by stellar feedback, and their directions do not change much over the entire scale range. This means that the fields are dynamically important. The ordered fields lead to a self-similar gas fragmentation: at all scales, there exist elongated gas structures nearly perpendicular to the fields. Many gas elongations have density peaks near the ends, which symmetrically pinch the fields. The field strength is proportional to the 0.4th power of the density, which is an indication of anisotropic gas contractions along the field. We conclude that magnetic fields have a crucial role in the fragmentation of NGC 6334.

At least some mainstream scientists are finally beginning to realize that the magnetic fields have a “crucial” role in the formation of stars along the filaments … and that they form at locations where the fields “symmetrically pinch”. Isn’t that EXACTLY what the plasma cosmologists said was going to be the case long before mainstream astrophysicists even acknowledged that interstellar space was filled with filaments?

 

While we wait for more to begin to wake up … more images of filaments and Z-Pinches.

 

First some filaments ...

 

ngc6960_block_big.jpg

(See expanded/closeup at http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0808/ngc6960_block_big.jpg )

 

View the expanded image and notice all the filaments that seem to be in pairs, and how many of them twist about each other. This is an observation that plasma cosmology PREDICTS but which again the mainstream astrophysicists simply cannot explain with their lame gas/gravity/exploding star/shockfront theories.

 

And then a Z-Pinch.

 

479639main_image_1752_1600-1200.jpg

(See http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/479639main_image_1752_1600-1200.jpg )

 

Mainstream astrophysicists claim that's the remnant of an exploding star. But what an odd configuration for something that should be spherical.

 

Here's another ...

 

hubbleseesap.jpg

(See http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/hubbleseesap.jpg )

 

Z-Pinch? Looks like it to me. I really like this image (of Hen 3-1475). Notice what appear to be helically wound filaments at both ends of the pinch. Mainstream astrophysicists call this (http://phys.org/news/2012-10-hubble-planetary-nebula.html ) a “mysterious object” and a “planetary nebula in the making”, claiming there are jets emanating from both pole of an aged central star which is soon to explode. Those might be jets … but that would again would be better explained by a z-pinch as discussed previously. However, what they call jets might also be the filaments leading into a z-pinch along a filament. In any case, the notion that what is seen is matter ejected from a very old star before it explodes seems quite a stretch.

 

Here’s another Z-Pinch observed by the Hubble:

 

hubbleimages.jpg

(from http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/hubbleimages.jpg )

 

The mainstream explanation (http://phys.org/news/2012-04-hubble-images-searchlight-preplanetary-nebula.html#nRlv ) is again that it’s an old star getting ready to explode. It’s admitted that this “ class of object remain shrouded in mystery.” It’s admitted that the “mechanism by which stellar jets produce these holes is not known for certain, but one possible explanation is that a binary star system, rather than a single star, exists at the center of the nebula” (another gnome). Looks to me like a Z-Pinch.

 

Here’s another Z-Pinch viewed by Hubble:

 

Hubble-Views-Bizarre-Alignment-of-Planet

(See http://scitechdaily.com/images/Hubble-Views-Bizarre-Alignment-of-Planetary-Nebulae.jpg )

 

What makes this object particular interesting is that the article that contains this picture (http://scitechdaily.com/astronomers-find-bizarre-alignmenat-planetary-nebulae-milky-way/ ) says that Hubble observations indicate that bipolar planetary nebulae located near the central bulge of our Milky Way, like this one, “appear to be strangely aligned in the sky.” Now why would the axis of old stars that are about to explode (the mainstream theory) be influenced by their location in the Milky Way? Mainstream astrophysicists don't have an answer to that question. In plasma cosmology, however, this alignment isn’t a problem because the orientation of the stars is governed by the orientation of the filaments and near the central bulge, plasma cosmology says the filaments will be aligned similarly.

 

But all the mainstream astrophysicists can say is that “they have found that butterfly-shaped members of this cosmic family tend to be mysteriously aligned — a surprising result given their different histories and varied properties.” The scientists say “while any alignment at all is a surprise, to have it in the crowded central region of the galaxy is even more unexpected.” They say “We can learn a lot from studying these objects. If they really behave in this unexpected way, it has consequences for not just the past of individual stars, but for the past of our whole galaxy.” But they haven't learned anything. As yet they have found no explanation. Another mystery requiring a magic gnome, I guess. Or better a clue that plasma cosmology is the answer they should be looking at instead of dismissing it out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.universetoday.com/120638/rosetta-discovery-of-surprise-molecular-breakup-mechanism-in-comet-coma-alters-perceptions/

A NASA science instrument flying aboard the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosetta spacecraft has made a very surprising discovery – namely that the molecular breakup mechanism of “water and carbon dioxide molecules spewing from the comet’s surface” into the atmosphere of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is caused by “electrons close to the surface.”

The surprising results relating to the emission of the comet coma came from measurements gathered by the probes NASA funded Alice instrument and is causing scientists to completely rethink what we know about the wandering bodies, according to the instruments science team.

“The discovery we’re reporting is quite unexpected,” said Alan Stern, principal investigator for the Alice instrument at the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) in Boulder, Colorado, in a statement.


No it wasn’t. It was predicted by the Electric Universe theorists. Just saying …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ibtimes.com/cern-hopes-large-hadron-collider-will-yield-big-surprise-dark-matter-research-1950402

CERN Hopes Large Hadron Collider Will Yield 'Big Surprise' For Dark Matter Research


Why do I think the only “Big Surprise” they’re going to get is that the LHC doesn’t detect Dark Matter.

 

But will they learn anything from that … or insist they just need to build an even more powerful collider?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does comparing dark matter to light matter distinquish which form is of more value. Dark and Light are like day and night. Some animals are nocturnal, and they choose to go about there business in the dark, where they cannot be seen or dectected much how a predator stalk his prey then strikes when they are off guard. The sound of night is general silence. But in the light the animals that choose to come out lets say the birds for instance, they don't start making there presence know until the sun starts to shed some light so they are free to see what is around them and recognize threats, food, birds from a similar flock. That a reason I believe there is dark and light, some things are not meant to be seen or heard and the best place for the dark matter to conduct its energy would be at night to keep lurking eyes off there methods. If someone or something is consisting of light matter it is reasonable to expect it should be seen or else it would be dark matter, there may be more dark matter controlling the energy but if we were all living in the dark would that not make us all blind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some folks are beginning to have doubts, even if they don’t see what’s been in front of them as an alternative ...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630263.000-chasing-shadows-how-long-can-we-keep-looking-for-dark-matter.html#.VYUBIs4-Ci4

Chasing shadows: How long can we keep looking for dark matter?

WE HAVE been aware of the need for dark matter since the 1930s. Without this stuff, we can't make sense of the rotation of galactic clusters, or how galaxies formed in the first place. And yet, to date, we have found nothing. Even CERN's Large Hadron Collider, our best and by far most expensive tool for finding it, has so far drawn a blank. How much longer can we keep looking?

Dark matter is posited as the resolution to several obstinate anomalies – as Isaac Asimov put it, things that make you exclaim not "Eureka!" but "that's funny..." Such anomalies are often the key to scientific progress. But dark matter, and our efforts to pin it down, have been around long enough for doubts to creep in.

Perhaps we have simply been looking for the wrong thing. Perhaps dark matter particles are very massive, rather than fairly light, as many assume. The first experiments are now under way to detect any such "superheavy" dark matter that might have been created when the universe was just getting started (see "WIMPZILLAs: Monster particles from the dawn of time").

Or perhaps the true identity of dark matter is so unexpected that we haven't even thought to look for it, despite potential evidence lurking somewhere in the vast quantities of data from the LHC.

Or perhaps we have embarked on one of those quixotic quests that mark the history of physics. At the beginnings of cosmology, Ptolemy devised a model of planetary motion that closely fitted observations. For more than a millennium, his successors adjusted these "epicycles" for new-found anomalies. Their laudable commitment and ingenuity was to increasingly little effect. In the end, Copernicus and Kepler blew the whole thing away – though it took a while for their model to be accepted.

A more recent parallel comes from the search for luminiferous ether, the all-pervading substance once thought to be the medium for light. When Albert Michelson and Edward Morley failed to detect it in 1887, they didn't declare that the world needed a new theory for the propagation of light. Instead, they and others built a series of bigger and better instruments to find it. Eventually special relativity abolished the anomaly – but many etherists carried on looking regardless.

Can we be sure we're not in their position, looking for something that isn't there? Well, there is no robust alternative to dark matter; plans to resolve the cosmic anomalies by other means, such as modified gravity are not well-attested.

But pragmatically, the real issue is not the science, but the money. Most physicists would say it's worth persevering with the search, given its potentially huge ramifications. But how long can they persuade their funders to keep paying for it? Consider the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, which, despite its potential impact, now receives no public money and relatively little private support. That's easily explained: the scale of the task and the limits of our technology mean the chances of finding intelligent aliens seem slim. Given a few more years of null results, dark matter might come to seem a less worthwhile investment to cash-strapped funding bodies too.

We'll have to hope that doesn't happen before we find either dark matter, some fresh anomalies that upset the apple cart, or a clever new resolution to our cosmic conundrums. And we'll also have to hope that, unlike the epicyclists and etherists, we'll recognise that breakthrough promptly when it comes.


LOL! Too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s amazing that even though the truth is staring modern astronomers in the face, they still can’t see it.

 

They are just too enamored with their black hole and gas gnomes to open their eyes.

http://phys.org/news/2015-06-magnetic-field-discovery-clues-galaxy-formation.html#nRlv

Magnetic field discovery gives clues to galaxy-formation processes

Jun 18, 2015

zoom.jpg

Astronomers making a detailed, multi-telescope study of a nearby galaxy have discovered a magnetic field coiled around the galaxy's main spiral arm. The discovery, they said, helps explain how galactic spiral arms are formed. The same study also shows how gas can be funneled inward toward the galaxy's center, which possibly hosts a black hole.

… snip …

The scientists studied a galaxy called IC 342, some 10 million light-years from Earth, using the National Science Foundation's Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA), and the MPIfR's 100-meter Effelsberg radio telescope in Germany. Data from both radio telescopes were merged to reveal the magnetic structures of the galaxy.

The surprising result showed a huge, helically-twisted loop coiled around the galaxy's main spiral arm. Such a feature, never before seen in a galaxy, is strong enough to affect the flow of gas around the spiral arm.

"Spiral arms can hardly be formed by gravitational forces alone," Beck said. "This new IC 342 image indicates that magnetic fields also play an important role in forming spiral arms."

The new observations provided clues to another aspect of the galaxy, a bright central region that may host a black hole and also is prolifically producing new stars. To maintain the high rate of star production requires a steady inflow of gas from the galaxy's outer regions into its center.

"The magnetic field lines at the inner part of the galaxy point toward the galaxy's center, and would support an inward flow of gas," Beck said.

zoom.jpg

The scientists mapped the galaxy's magnetic-field structures by measuring the orientation, or polarization, of the radio waves emitted by the galaxy. The orientation of the radio waves is perpendicular to that of the magnetic field. Observations at several wavelengths made it possible to correct for rotation of the waves' polarization plane caused by their passage through interstellar magnetic fields along the line of sight to Earth.

The Effelsberg telescope, with its wide field of view, showed the full extent of IC 342, which, if not partially obscured to visible-light observing by dust clouds within our own Milky Way Galaxy, would appear as large as the full moon in the sky. The high resolution of the VLA, on the other hand, revealed the finer details of the galaxy. The final image, showing the magnetic field, was produced by combining five VLA images made with 24 hours of observing time, along with 30 hours of data from Effelsberg.


The article calls this result “surprising”, but it’s not surprising to plasma cosmologists. They predicted this decades and decades ago. Apparently none of the *scientists* were listening or perhaps were taught that. Just saying.

A clue as to why these *scientists* see it as “surprising” lies in the fact the article doesn’t mention the word plasma even once. Indeed, download the *scientific* paper itself (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.05439v3.pdf ) and you’ll find it mentions the word plasma just 5 times (while it mentions “gas” 83 times). Blinders.

Now these *scientists* just need to realize that magnetic fields are formed by electric currents .. that they are not “frozen in”. Now THAT would be an “ah ha” moment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This stuff always blows my mind. Can't comprehend some of this stuff. Sad that I'll probably die before the great age of space exploration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad that I'll probably die before the great age of space exploration.

With the group now in control of *science*? That's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This stuff always blows my mind. Can't comprehend some of this stuff. Sad that I'll probably die before the great age of space exploration.

 

They're mapping it, and exploring it, and determining its composition with telescopes and sensor arrays.... exciting all by itself.

 

I think the prelude to manned exploratory expeditions will be commercial mining ventures like extracting H-3 from the moon. Also metals and minerals, incredibly concentrated in some comets. These ventures will help to improve the technology, equipment and human needs necessary for space travel.

 

 

With the group now in control of *science*? That's for sure.

 

The Chinese are eager to mine H-3 on the moon. When that competition gets started, I'm guessing the US will be prodded to enter the race big time.

 

By the way, the enhanced images you post are simply stunning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s another recent *discovery* where mainstream astronomers are just missing the obvious …

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/01/21/milky-way-bones-could-reveal-secrets-about-our-galaxy/

Milky Way 'bones' could reveal secrets about our galaxy

SEATTLE — Scientists are finding more evidence of a galactic "skeleton" lurking inside the appendages of the Milky Way, and studying these massive "bones" could help researchers get a better idea of what our galaxy looks like from the outside.

In 2013, researchers first suggested that long, thin, dense clouds of gas may form inside the spiral arms of the Milky Way, creating a sort of galactic skeleton that traces the shape of these massive structures. At the time, only one such "bone" — known as Nessie — had been identified.

Now, new research presented at the 225th meeting of the American Astronomical Society shows that Nessie is not alone. Catherine Zucker, an undergraduate physics student at the University of Virginia, has dug up six strong candidates for additional galactic bones.

… snip …

But the "bones" that scientists have now identified — long, thin, highly dense clouds of gas that can also be identified by the light they absorb — would be significantly easier to spot, and could help scientists create a more precise sketch of what the Milky Way looks like from the outside.

Bone hunter

"It's a really new field of study," Zucker told Space.com at the AAS meeting in Seattle, where she presented a poster featuring her work on the galactic skeleton. When Zucker started her work, the gas cloud known as "Nessie" was the only object of its kind that had been identified, and the only candidate for a bone. "What I was trying to do was basically prove that the Nessie filament wasn't some curiosity, wasn't a fluke — that there are other filaments out there similar to Nessie that can trace galactic structure."

Zucker started looking through images of the galaxy taken by various telescopes, including the Spitzer Space Telescope. She found 15 long, thin gas clouds that looked like they could be galactic bones.

There were six initial criteria for a galactic bone. For example, it must lie mostly parallel to the plane of the galaxy and be associated with a known spiral arm — Nessie appears to trace the spine of the Scutum-Centaurus Arm, one of the largest arms in the Milky Way. A bone must also be more than 50 times longer than it is wide — Nessie is more than 300 times longer. Zucker also had to make sure she was seeing a single cloud and not multiple clouds in the same line of sight.

With her list of criteria, Zucker identified 10 candidate bones, six of which met the entire list of requirements. She spelled out her conclusion on her poster: "Nessie is not a 'curiosity' ­­-- other bones exist."

Zucker is focusing on something called "Filament 5," which could be a bone that lies in the Scutum-Centaurus Arm, just like Nessie, but on the opposite side of the galaxy. There is still some debate about the exact location of the Scutum-Centaurus arm. Different measurements put it within a few degrees of the center of the galactic plane. Zucker said bones like Nessie could "potentially resolve a lot of those issues."

Ultimately, these bones could serve as a guide for creating a sketch of the Milky Way' major structural elements, and give scientists an outside view of our galaxy, without requiring them to leave home.


“gas”? And now “bones”? A “skeleton”? :rolleyes:

Here’s a preprint of a science paper associated with these “bones”: https://www.authorea.com/users/23/articles/249/_show_article . There are 27 mentions of “gas”. Not one mention of plasma. Now what do you suppose the outcome of incorrect assumptions like that will be?

In the paper it notes that Nessie, “a highly elongated filimentary cloud”, has several massive star forming regions spaced at regular intervals. They still haven’t explained what that occurs either. When it comes to explaining Nessie, the article admits that “Nessie is so skinny, and so much denser than it’s surroundings that no extant numerical simulation has the combination of spacial resolution and dynamic range in density needed to produce a feature like it.” Unless, of course, you use the right time of simulation … one that models plasma, electric current, homopolar motors and magnetic fields. But modern *scientists* wouldn’t think to do that because their minds are clouded with visions of “gas”, “gravity” and a bunch of gnomes.

According to http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50404088/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/new-bone-milky-way-skeleton-discovered/#.VYoqzM4-Ci4 , Nessie is 300 light years long and just 1 or 2 light years wide. Here’s a picture of Nessie:

nessie_extended.jpg
(http://www.allesoversterrenkunde.nl/media/medialibrary/2013/01/nessie_extended.jpg from http://www.allesoversterrenkunde.nl/#!/actueel/artikelen/_detail/gli/milky-ways-dark-skeleton/ )

It’s the think long dark, disjointed cloud in the image. The link describes it as “cool gas and dust”. Which is complete nonsense. It’s plasma. And I bet the grad student who’s doing the research on these bones doesn’t really grasp the significance of that … because she was never taught the significance in the university … because mainstream, Big Bang, astrophysicists control that university’s curriculum.

And one more point. Calling these bones and skeletons implies that they provide *support* for the galaxy. But there is no way that the gravity produced by these structures can be doing that. They simply aren’t massive enough and gravity falls off as 1/r^^2. So it's a misnomer ... if you believe the cosmology of the mainstream. But if massive electric currents are running through these filaments of plasma (which are located, they think, in the center of the galaxy's arms) and producing large magnetic fields … they could be providing *support* for the rest of the matter in the galaxy. Because PLASMA is affected by magnetic fields and the effects fall off as 1/r. Here's the plasma cosmology model:

electric_galaxy_dynamics.jpg

Just saying …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a group of objects that is VERY troubling to modern mainstream cosmologists.

Troubling because they threaten the very foundation of modern mainstream cosmology ... the link between redshift and distance.

The objects are Seifert galaxy NGC 7603 and it’s companion NGC 7603B, plus 2 HII galaxies (classified by some astronomers as quasars instead).

Here are some images …

NGC-7603-fix-resize_0.jpg

What troubling is that all four objects have very different redshifts supposedly corresponding to very different distances … but all four are aligned with a filament that appears to be connecting NGC 7603 and NGC 7603B. The red shift of the filament is that of NGC 7603.

The authors of a recent paper … http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A%26A...421..407L … calculated the probability of three background galaxies of any type being randomly projected on a filament of a fourth galaxy at 3000000000 to 1. And, furthermore, as the linked abstract of that paper states, the “detection of very vigorous star formation observed in the HII galaxies of the filament would have a low probability if they were background normal-giant galaxies; instead, the intensity of the lines is typical of dwarf HII galaxies.” So the probability of this is even lower than 3 billion to 1.

In the paper, the authors conclude that non-cosmological redshift couldn’t be rejected (a fundamental challenge to Big Bang cosmology). They considered the hypothesis of galaxies ejecting new matter (as proposed by Halton Arp) and thought it fit the system very well. In the end, they favored the ejection hypothesis because it explains the low probabilities in the system.

Now, did any of you hear about this on the front page of Time? Of course not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah … another surprise development for modern astrophysicists.

 

And the gnomes keep multiplying and interacting.

 

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-universe-hidden-supermassive-black-holes.html

 

Astronomers have found evidence for a large population of hidden supermassive black holes in the Universe.

 

Using NASA's Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) satellite observatory, the team of international scientists detected the high-energy x-rays from five supermassive black holes previously clouded from direct view by dust and gas.

 

The research, led by astronomers at Durham University, UK, supports the theory that potentially millions more supermassive black holes exist in the Universe, but are hidden from view.

 

The findings were presented today at the Royal Astronomical Society's National Astronomy Meeting, at Venue Cymru, in Llandudno, Wales (Monday 6 July).

 

The scientists pointed NuSTAR at nine candidate hidden supermassive black holes that were thought to be extremely active at the centre of galaxies, but where the full extent of this activity was potentially obscured from view.

 

High-energy x-rays found for five of the black holes confirmed that they had been hidden by dust and gas. The five were much brighter and more active than previously thought as they rapidly feasted on surrounding material and emitted large amounts of radiation.

Keep in mind, they didn’t actually see these black holes.

 

They detected jets of x-rays.

 

And inferred they were produced by black holes.

 

But, of course, there are other explanations for those x-rays.

 

They require one not ignore plasma and electromagnetism.

 

And that’s something that modern astrophysics majors just aren’t taught to do.

 

They are taught to think only in terms of gas and gravity.

 

The two Holy Grail of their Big Bang religion.

 

And there’s the rub.

 

Garbage in … garbage out.

 

And guess what else they “know” about black holes …

 

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2015/06/nasa-simulation-suggests-black-holes-may-make-ideal-dark-matter-labs

 

While we don’t yet know what dark matter is, we do know it interacts with the rest of the universe through gravity, which means it must accumulate around supermassive black holes.

LOL!

 

I have this picture in my head of modern astrophysics …

 

housecards.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another problem for Big Bang Black Hole cosmology …

https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2015/07/precocious-black-hole.html

A precocious black hole

11.07.2015

Black holes can be found at the centres of most galaxies. Most have little mass compared with their host galaxy. ETH researchers, however, have discovered a particularly massive black hole, which clearly grew so quickly that the host galaxy was not able to keep pace. This calls into question previous thinking on the co-evolution of galaxies and their central black holes.

Benny Trakhtenbrot, a researcher at ETH Zurich’s Institute for Astronomy, together with an international team of astrophysicists, was hunting for ancient massive black holes using the 10 meter Keck telescope in Hawaii. Although this kind of observations are routine for them, Trakhtenbrot and the team were surprised by the first black hole they looked at. The data, collected with a new instrument, revealed a giant black hole in an otherwise normal, distant galaxy, called CID-947. Because its light had to travel a very long distance, the scientists were observing it at a period when the universe was less than two billion years old, just 14 percent of its current age (almost 14 billion years have passed since the Big Bang).

An analysis of the data collected in Hawaii revealed that the black hole in CID-947, with nearly 7 billion solar masses, is among the most massive black holes discovered up to now. What surprised researchers in particular was not the black hole’s record mass, but rather the galaxy’s mass. “The measurements correspond to the mass of a typical galaxy,” says Trakhtenbrot, a postdoctoral fellow working within the Extragalactic Astrophysics research group of Professor Marcella Carollo. “We therefore have a gigantic black hole within a normal size galaxy.” The result was so surprising, that two of the astronomers had to verify the galaxy mass independently. Both came to the same conclusion. The team reports its findings in the current issue of the scientific journal Science.

… snip …

Until now, observations have indicated that the greater the number of stars present in the host galaxy, the bigger the black hole. “This is true for the local universe, which merely reflects the situation in the Universe’s recent past,” says Trakhtenbrot. This link, along with other evidence, led the scientists to assume that the growth of black holes and the formation of stars go hand-in-hand. This is quite reasonable, if a common reservoir of cold gas was responsible for the formation of the stars and the ‘feeding’ of the black hole at the galaxy’s centre, says Trakhtenbrot. Furthermore, previous studies suggested that the radiation emitted during the growth of the black hole controlled, or even stopped the creation of stars, as the released energy heated up the gas. The latest results, however, suggest that these processes work differently, at least in the early universe.

Star formation continues

The distant young black hole observed by Trakhtenbrot and his colleagues had roughly 10 times less mass than its galaxy. In today’s local universe, black holes typically reach a mass of 0.2 to 0.5 percent of their host galaxy’s mass. “That means this black hole grew much more efficiently than its galaxy – contradicting the models that predicted a hand-in-hand development,” explains the ETH researcher. The researchers also concluded from their observations that although the black hole had reached the end of its growth, stars were still forming. Contrary to previous assumptions, the energy and gas flow, propelled by the black hole, did not stop the creation of stars.


So once again, it’s back to the drawing board … and another magic gnome is needed ...

By the way …

It’s important to keep in mind how these *astronomers* *detect* black holes.

They don’t actually see them.

They see the x-rays they supposedly produce.

And how do they determine their mass?

They determine the average speed of the stars orbiting the galaxy.

Or they measure the temperature of the “gas” emitting the x-rays.

But what if there was another explanation of those x-rays and the orbital velocity?

Because there is …

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...