Jump to content
BeAChooser

Dark Matter Even More Missing Now ...

Recommended Posts

What are comets?

That’s an important question.

Especially since mainstream astronomers claim they’ve had a dramatic impact on earth’s biosphere.

The Rosetta mission to Comet 67P was supposed to confirm the mainstream theories.

Mainstream astronomers predicted that they’d find a icy snowball.

Indeed, the Philae lander harpoons were designed to penetrate compacted snow.

And mainstream astronomers said it is protons falling on the comet that are important.

That the jets coming from the comet are due to sublimation of ice by solar input.

They ruled out electrical energy and electron activity of any kind.

But even before Rosetta arrived, 67P was causing problems with the mainstream’s theories.

The comet activity flared briefly when the comet was still very far from the sun.

It was too far away from the sun for this to be due to solar warming.

Another jet was just as strange since it appeared in the unlit portion of the comet.

ezgif.com-crop-3.gif

The mainstream had no explanation, but EU modelers did.

They said electrical activity was causing jets.

The Electric Universe folks made some other predictions about comets.

They predicted that we’d find a dry, hard surface with little or no visible ice.

They predicted that electrons falling on comets would be the source of the jets.

And here’s what Rosetta found:

First of all, 67P is A ROCK.

It looks like a rock.

Rosetta_OSIRIS_NAC_comet_67P_20140803_1.

ESA_Rosetta_NAVCAM_20150101_montage.jpg

comets-minerals-rock-not-ice.jpg

It behaves like a rock.

In fact, it’s probably fortunate that the harpoon didn’t fire.

The ricochet from hitting solid rock probably would have taken the lander back into space.

Instead, the lander bounced multiple times (to planners’ surprise) before finally coming to rest.

When the first pictures arrived, the project manager said “It’s certainly rougher than what we thought.”

“We were expecting a softer layer, with a consistency like compact snow, or maybe chalk”.

Instead, they found “rocky-like stuff”.

They did NOT find ice on the surface … even in the carved or shaded areas.

So the jets that were observed couldn’t be due to sublimation of that ice.

So they started claiming that there must be ice sublimating below the surface.

However CONSERT (an experiment on the orbiter) has so far NOT found ice under the surface.

And it was specifically designed to detect it.

Further, CONSERT says the comet is homogenous … there are no voids.

It’s a rock.

Even their attempts to drill into the comet encountered rock … not ice.

Here is something else that was unexpected.

The average temperature of the comet surface is measured to be 30 degrees higher than expected.

Mainstream astrophysicists have no adequate explanation.

But EU folks again suggest electrical activity is the cause.

The dust from the comet is odd.

First, they were surprised to detect dust so far away from it.

Then they were surprised by it’s size … bigger than expected.

Then they announced that the dust was fluffy.

All of these characteristics could infer from an electrical origin.

Even the craters on the object don’t fit the expectations of the mainstream astrophysicists.

They don’t look like the result of collision or volcanism.

Here’s yet another mystery to mainstream astrophysicists …

The Ptolemy instrument on the mission says there is H2O in the atmosphere just above the ground.

But how did it get there if there’s no ice to sublimate?

Mainstream astrophysicists are just scratching their heads.

EU theorists suggested it’s created by electrical activity.

Then there are the many jets with high speed ejection velocities.

ESA_Rosetta_OSIRISwac_20141122-1024x1024

Comet67P_NavCamFeb3.jpg

jets-crop.jpg

But they don’t appear to be coming from sublimating ice.

They don’t appear to be coming from vents in the surface.

In fact, the origin of many jets can be traced back to sharp edged features and even boulders.

Which again suggests an electrical phenomena.

Mainstream astrophysicists suggested they were pressurized jets from underground sublimation.

But the source would equalize pressure with the atmosphere over time and velocity would drop.

But shots taken weeks apart of jets that come from the same place seem to be increasing output.

Again, the mainstream astrophysicists remain puzzled with no explanation.

Further, these jets have large diameters which is inconsistent with the mainstream theory of small vents.

But eyes are starting to open.

In a blog from ESA before Christmas, they mentioned that the jets coming off the head of the comet were due to electrical sputtering on the surface. What? Electrical sputtering!!!

And it was just announced (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4609 ) that ELECTRONS, not protons, have been observed near the surface of the comet.

As the principle investigator said “The discovery we’re reporting is quite unexpected.”

Well, not to EU theorists.

Of course, the mainstream astrophysicists still want to believe there’s ice in the comet.

Even though their own instruments have found no sign of it.

But it has to be there for their explanation to make any sense.

 

So they go on believing.

And they still want to believe that the electrons are being produced by solar radiation … by protons.

Because there just can’t possibly be electric currents in space.

 

Just saying ... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More problems with black holes …

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/young-black-holes-evade-detection

“We have this weird problem, where on the one hand the universe makes really supermassive black holes very shortly after the Big Bang,” says Kevin Schawinski, an astrophysicist at ETH Zürich in Switzerland. “But when we look at more typical galaxies, we find no evidence for growing black holes.


… and more nonsense regarding them …

https://www.rt.com/news/311857-galaxy-star-birth-nasa/

Astronomers have discovered how the universe's largest elliptical galaxies are able to continue making stars long after their peak “star birth” years. The finding was made using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope.

Such a discovery was no small feat, as it required the combination of Hubble data with observations from ground-based and space telescopes.

After analyzing the information gathered, two independent teams determined that the black hole, jets, and newborn stars are part of a self-regulating cycle.

To be more specific, high-energy jets shooting from the black hole heat a halo of surrounding gas. This controls the rate at which the gas cools and falls into the galaxy.

“What we are seeing is a process like a thunderstorm. As the jets propel gas outward from the center of the galaxy, some of that gas cools and precipitates into cold clumps that fall back toward the galaxy’s center like raindrops,” said Megan Donahue of Michigan State University, leader of one of the studies, as quoted by NASA.

Those 'raindrops' eventually cool down and become star-forming clouds of molecular gas, according to the lead of the second study, Grant Tremblay of Yale University.

“We know that these showers are linked to the jets because they’re found in filaments and tendrils that wrap around the jets or hug the edges of giant bubbles that the jets have inflated,” Tremblay said. “And they end up making a swirling ‘puddle’ of star-forming gas around the central black hole.”

But the amount of raining gas is kept to a minimum, because although some of the outwardly flowing gas manages to cool, the rest of the gas around the galaxy is heated by the black hole.

It's a process that NASA has described as a “self-regulating feedback mechanism,” comparing it to a thermostat on a house's heating and cooling system.

Since the 'puddle' of gas around the black hole provides the fuel that powers the jets, those jets become more powerful and add more heat if too much cooling occurs. If the jets add too much heat, they reduce their fuel supply and ultimately weaken.

The findings answer an age-old mystery in the world of astronomy.

Scientists have long wondered by galaxies awash in gas don't turn all of that gas into stars. However, it has now been confirmed that star births are being moderated by the cycle of heating and cooling.


“gas”, “gas”, “gas”

Not a word about plasma or electromagnetic fields.

Never mind that astronomers still don’t really know how black holes make jets with their *tangled* magnetic fields.

Black holes can solve ANY problem or mystery in the universe.

Handy little gnomes … aren’t they? :rolleyes:

And then there is this recent announcement from the mainstream *priests*:

http://www.everythingselectric.com/black-hole-plasmasphere/

Do black holes have a plasmasphere?

blackhole-plasmasphere.jpg

Similar to planets, our Sun and other stars? And perhaps even asteroids and active asteroids (comets)?

Researchers using two X-ray telescopes have identified a cosmic wind blowing outward from the supermassive black hole at the center of galaxy PDS 456. Astronomers have seen these winds before, but the authors of the new research say this is the first observation of a wind moving away from the center in every direction, creating a spherical shape.

“It tells us that the shape of the wind is not just a narrow beam pointed in our direction. It is really a wind that is flowing in every direction away from the black hole,” said Emanuele Nardini, a postdoctoral researcher at Keele University in Staffordshire, England. “With a spherical wind, the amount of mass it carries out is much larger than just a narrow beam.”
Monster Black Hole’s Mighty Belch Could Transform Entire Galaxy

Previous XMM-Newton observations of PDS 456, which is more than two billion light years away, showed its winds blowing towards us carrying iron atoms. But it wasn’t until the researchers got the high-energy X-ray data from NuSTAR that they were able to find these atoms scattered all around, showing that the winds weren’t blowing out in a beam but almost in a spherical fashion.
Black Hole’s Howling Cosmic Winds Stop Galaxies From Getting Too Big

 


What a shame that astrophysics can’t see what should be obvious from observations like this ...

... that this is what plasma cosmologists predicted long ago from ordinary electromagnetic physics.

That not only are galaxies similar to planets and stars, the reason they have these “plasmaspheres” is similar, too.

For example …

http://scitechdaily.com/esas-cluster-spacecraft-detects-plasmaspheric-wind/

ESA’s Cluster Spacecraft Detects Plasmaspheric Wind

July 3, 2013

Plasma-Outflow-from-Plasmasphere-to-Magn
Plasma outflow from plasmasphere to magnetosphere. Credit: ESA/ATG medialab

In a newly published study, researcher Iannis Dandouras details the discovery of plasmaspheric wind, providing the first conclusive proof of the existence this wind first proposed theoretically over 20 years ago.

By analyzing data from the European Space Agency’s Cluster spacecraft, researcher Iannis Dandouras detected this plasmaspheric wind, so-called because it contributes to the loss of material from the plasmasphere, a donut-shaped region extending above the Earth’s atmosphere. The results are published today in Annales Geophysicae, a journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU).

“After long scrutiny of the data, there it was, a slow but steady wind, releasing about 1 kg of plasma every second into the outer magnetosphere: this corresponds to almost 90 tonnes every day. It was definitely one of the nicest surprises I’ve ever had!” said Dandouras of the Research Institute in Astrophysics and Planetology in Toulouse, France.


And guess who predicted the existence of plasmaspheres 20 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what passes for science, nowadays …

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/massive-study-confirms-universe-slowly-dying-n407536

A survey of over 200,000 galaxies has confirmed that our universe is slowly dying. "The universe has basically sat down on the sofa, pulled up a blanket and is about to nod off for an eternal doze," said the University of Western Australia's Simon Driver, head of the research team, in a news release. If he doesn't sound worried, that's because the idea that the universe is on its way out has been the consensus for decades. But this latest study documents it more thoroughly than ever before.

The Galaxy and Mass Assembly project is a collaboration between dozens of universities that combines a variety of readings on observable galaxies to find large-scale trends. Essentially, instead of watching a single star, system or galaxy, researchers are watching as much of the universe as possible.

"We used as many space and ground-based telescopes as we could get our hands on," Driver said.

What the team has found, and what they presented Monday at the International Astronomical Union General Assembly in Honolulu, is that the energy being produced by stars and other objects is about half what it was two billion years ago. The universe is getting dimmer by the millennium, and not just in visible light: The GAMA project tracks 21 separate wavelengths, and each is declining in power — "slowly dying," as the European Space Organization put it.


ASSUMING redshift is what mainstream *scientists* claim it is.

http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/redshift/mechanisms.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s another great example of mainstream, Big Bang, Black Hole believing astrophysicists not understanding what they are seeing ... because their education was deficient when it comes to plasma and electromagnetism. And it’s another example of their gnome based theories failing under direct observation … AGAIN. Read it carefully and you’ll see the truth in this …

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hinode/marshall-astrophysicists-solar-x-ray-jet-discoveries-published-in-nature.html

Marshall Astrophysicists Study Intricate Activity of Solar X-ray Jets

… snip …

Sterling and Marshall astrophysicist Mitzi Adams’ most recent paper, detailing some of their discoveries, was published July 6 in Nature, science’s most highly cited interdisciplinary journal.

… snip …

For their article, Small-Scale Filament Eruptions as the Driver of Solar Coronal Hole X-ray Jets, Adams and Sterling teamed with UAH Research Scientists Ronald Moore and David Falconer.

Using data from the Hinode satellite, a NASA and Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency joint mission, and the Solar Dynamics Observatory, the first mission of NASA’s Living With a Star Program, the team studied solar X-ray jets in the coronal holes of the sun. Solar X-ray jets are explosions that erupt from the sun's surface, expelling hot gas into the corona, the sun’s outer atmosphere.

“These jets are very significant,” said Sterling. “They could help us explain one of the long-standing mysteries of astrophysics -- the heating of the sun’s corona.”

… snip …

As Sterling, Adams and their teammates examined these jets, they noticed the generally accepted theory of how jets were created didn’t accurately explain what was occurring. The long-standing theory, the Emerging-Flux Model, explained that new flux coming up to the photosphere and its interaction with the photosphere’s complex magnetic topology created the jets.

“We were looking everywhere to find this flux emerging,” said Adams, in regards to an earlier study that set the stage for their current work. “Farther and farther back in time, we sifted through hours and hours of data searching for magnetic signatures, emergences that occurred at the right location to fit the model.”

No matter where she looked, Adams couldn’t find evidence of the emerging flux. Sharing her frustrations with Sterling, who has spent years working with filament eruptions, they began to find similarities with his previous work.

“After we finally realized what we were looking at, it became clear,” said Sterling. “These jets were being caused by filament eruptions -- very small, scaled down filament eruptions.”

A filament is a structure in the corona consisting of cool plasma supported by magnetic fields. Filaments can be very, very large -- more than 68,000 miles long, or 8.5 times longer than Earth’s diameter -- and appear as long threads stemming from the photosphere, suspended in the corona, similar to a loose stitch on a baseball.

Changes in magnetic fields around filaments can cause them to erupt and result in solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs). CMEs can enhance the flow of the solar wind, affecting our planet's magnetic field and causing geomagnetic storms. In Earth's magnetic field, such disturbances can energize spectacular auroras, cause communications interference and induce overloads in electrical power grids and equipment.

The team believes the small-scale filaments were hidden in earlier studies. Just like in larger filaments, the plasma of the smaller filament is significantly cooler than the corresponding eruption. Earlier satellites recording the eruptions could not separate the two occurrences, essentially hiding the filament. Advances in technology with the Hinode and SDO made it possible to separate the filament from the eruption by observing the event at different wavelengths.

For the paper, they examined 20 coronal-hole solar X-ray jets occurring on the solar limb, or the sun’s edge. With the profile view on the limb, the team was able to clearly see the small-scale filaments. These “smaller” filaments are, on average, almost 5,000 miles in length, roughly the distance from New York to Hawaii.

“The important thing we learned in our observations is that things scale down,” said Adams. “As technology advances and we are allowed to see things in greater detail, we continue to learn more.”

Scientists first began X-ray observations of the sun on Skylab, America’s first space station, in the 1970s. “It took that wavelength to discover the new things we are seeing now. We keep making better and better observations at finer and finer scales, and as technology advances this will continue.”

“The observations of these jets involve stellar magnetic fields, plasmas and their interactions,” said Sterling. “These interactions are taking place all over our universe, and it is important for us to understand how these events, from the smallest to the largest, can affect us in our solar system and on Earth.”


And here’s the abstract of the paper …

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7561/abs/nature14556.html

Small-scale filament eruptions as the driver of X-ray jets in solar coronal holes

… snip …

Solar X-ray jets are thought to be made by a burst of reconnection of closed magnetic field at the base of a jet with ambient open field. In the accepted version of the ‘emerging-flux’ model, such a reconnection occurs at a plasma current sheet between the open field and the emerging closed field, and also forms a localized X-ray brightening that is usually observed at the edge of the jet’s base. Here we report high-resolution X-ray and extreme-ultraviolet observations of 20 randomly selected X-ray jets that form in coronal holes at the Sun’s poles. In each jet, contrary to the emerging-flux model, a miniature version of the filament eruptions that initiate coronal mass ejections drives the jet-producing reconnection. The X-ray bright point occurs by reconnection of the ‘legs’ of the minifilament-carrying erupting closed field, analogous to the formation of solar flares in larger-scale eruptions. Previous observations have found that some jets are driven by base-field eruptions, but only one such study, of only one jet, provisionally questioned the emerging-flux model. Our observations support the view that solar filament eruptions are formed by a fundamental explosive magnetic process that occurs on a vast range of scales, from the biggest mass ejections and flare eruptions down to X-ray jets, and perhaps even down to smaller jets that may power coronal heating. A similar scenario has previously been suggested, but was inferred from different observations and based on a different origin of the erupting minifilament.


They are sooooo close to the truth but yet still soooooo far. It’s disheartening to watch.

They admit that what they observed didn’t match the generally accepted theory … the so-called Emerging-Flux Model … which says new flux coming up to the photosphere and its interaction with the photosphere’s magnetic topology creates the jets. Instead, they found no evidence of this new flux and found that explosions in small PLASMA filaments near the surface drive the jets. But instead of looking to what REAL science has to say about the cause of explosions in plasmas, they continue to cling to the magic gnome of magnetic reconnection that they’ve created out of whole cloth over the years. It’s sad to watch these *scientists* flail about so when the truth is right in front of them and has been for more than 30 years. What they don’t grasp is that they are observing “double layers” in action. That filaments are generated by the flow of electric field aligned currents. That exploding double layers occur due to instabilities in the charge separation in plasma filaments. And that a Nobel Physicist named Hannes Alfven explained a lot of this more than 60 years ago:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1963IAUS...16...35A&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1947MNRAS.107..211A&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

And that double layers have been known since the 70s and early 80s:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1971P%26SS...19..749H&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c23669

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1985PhFl...28.2100I&db_key=PHY&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c26001

But the authors of this latest bit of mainstream garbage are right about one thing that ironically they seem so surprised to discover. The physics IS scaleable from the small to the vast. That’s the very nature of electromagnetic phenomena. Plasma cosmologists have pointed to that scaleability for as long as they’ve been around trying to counter the nonsense coming from the mainstream community. It's a fact is that we can create and observe exploding double layers in the lab. It’s too bad that none of these so-called astrophysicists apparently did that in school or understand that such phenomena SCALE UP.

 

What this all proves is that a mind is indeed an awful thing to waste. And Big Bang, Black Hole loving instructors wasted a generation or two of these minds. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is definitely worthy of this thread …

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

Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests

May 23, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Interesting … yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/

The Growing Case Against the Big Bang

A Summary from LPPFusion, Inc.

The new evidence on surface brightness is by no means the only recent research that contradicts the Big Bang theory. Despite the continuing popularity of the theory, essentially every prediction of the theory has been increasingly contradicted by better and better data, as shown by many teams of researchers. The observations are, on the other hand, consistent with a non-expanding universe with no Big Bang.

Key contradicted predictions:

1) Lithium

Prediction: Any superhot explosion throughout the universe, like the Big Bang, would have generated a certain small amount of the light element lithium.

Evidence: Yet as astronomers have observed older and older stars, the amount of lithium observed has gotten less and less, and, in the oldest stars is less than one tenth of the predicted level. This, however, accords with non-Big-Bang predictions that explain the production of light elements by stars and cosmic rays within the galaxies themselves.

2) Dark Matter

Prediction: The Big Bang theory requires the existence of dark matter—mysterious particles that have never been observed in the laboratory, despite huge experiments to find them.

Evidence: Multiple lines of evidence, especially observations of the motions of galaxies, show that this dark matter does not exist.

3) Too Large Structures

Prediction: In the Big Bang theory, the universe is supposed to start off completely smooth and homogenous.

Evidence: But as telescopes have peered farther into space, huger and huger structures of galaxies have been discovered, which are too large to have been formed in the time since the Big Bang.

4) Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) Asymmetries

Prediction: The inflation that was supposed to have occurred during the Big Bang should have smoothed out any large-scale asymmetries in the universe. The CBR should show be perfectly symmetrical.

Evidence: The CBR in fact shows strong evidence of asymmetries from one side of the sky to the other that, although small, could not have been produced by the ultra-symmetric “inflation” that hypothetically occurred in the Big Bang.

The response of most cosmologists to this growing body of evidence has, unfortunately, not been to decide the Big Bang theory has been falsified, but to add new “parameters” and hypotheses, like dark energy. The theory is now far more complex and speculative than the Ptolemaic epicycles that were destroyed by the Scientific Revolution. Each contradiction with observation is taken as a mere “anomaly” that does not undermine the theory as a whole. Strong peer pressure is applied against many of those who question the theory.

“It’s as if researchers are saying ‘I can see the Emperor’s elbow through his New Clothes’, ‘I can see the Emperor’s knee though his New Clothes’ and so on, “ says Lerner. “It is time to say: ‘The Emperor is not wearing any clothes’. This theory has no correct predictions.”

To replace the Big Bang, other researchers have elaborated, in peer-reviewed publications, alternative explanations of the generation of light elements and of the energy in the CBR by ordinary stars, and of the development of large-scale structures through the interaction of gravity and electromagnetic processes. “No one would claim that all the problems in cosmology have been resolved, “agrees Lerner,” but the evidence is consistent with an evolving, but non-expanding universe, which had no beginning in time and no Big Bang.”

MORE DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE BIG BANG THEORY

1 Lithium Evidence

The Big Bang theory unequivocally predicts certain amounts of light element, including lithium, helium and deuterium, must be produced in the explosion that is hypothesized to have started the universe. For lithium, the prediction is 400 lithium atoms for every trillion hydrogen atoms.

However, astronomers have measured the abundances of lithium in old stars in our galaxy and they have not found the Big Bang predictions to be correct. They know the stars were formed very early in the history of our galaxy, because they have very tiny amounts of iron and other heavy elements that are produced by previously-existing stars. In most of these stars, the lithium abundance is only 160 lithium atoms per trillion atoms, far below the Big Bang predictions.

In addition, as more data became available over the last few years (as described by many researchers, including, for example, Sbordone, Bonifacio and Caffau) it became clear that the older the stars, the less the lithium. By now, eight stars have been discovered with less than one tenth the amount of lithium predicted by the Big Bang, and all are of the type of star that would not have destroyed any lithium. The star with the least iron of these, born in the very early days of the Milky Way galaxy, has less than 3% of the lithium predicted.

… snip graphic …

The abundance of lithium is plotted logarithmically here against the abundance of iron, a measure of how old the star is: the less iron the earlier the star formed. The horizontal line near the top is the Big bang prediction of lithium abundance. Arrows mark upper limits on lithium abundance of individual stars. From Sbordone, Bonifacio and Caffau.

While these data flatly contradict the predictions of the Big Bang, they were predicted and simply explained by theories of galactic evolution that assumed there was no Big Bang, including a paper published in 1989 by Lerner. Lithium, as is well known, is produced by cosmic rays, emitted by early stars, crashing into carbon and oxygen nuclei, as well as by stars in their giant phase. The same stellar processes, Lerner showed, could produce the observed abundance of helium –from thermonuclear reactions in early intermediate-mass stars—and deuterium (again from cosmic rays), while producing the observed amounts of heavier elements like carbon and oxygen.

2 Evidence Against Dark Matter

The Big Bang theory , in its current form, predicts that most matter in the universe is dark matter, unlike any that has been found on earth.

Increasingly sensitive experiments on earth have failed to turn up any evidence of the dark matter particles that are firmly predicted by the Big Bang theory. But in addition, astronomical evidence as well has ruled out dark matter. The simplest evidence is in the relatively low velocities of galaxies in the universe. (These can be measured for galaxies for which there are independent, non-redshift-based measurements of their distance. The redshifts can then be used to measure velocities of galaxies relative to one another.) The large amounts of dark matter predicted by the Big Bang would generate gravitational forces that will whip the galaxies around at hundreds of km per second. But the observed average velocities of 50 km/sec rules out the large amounts of dark matter required by the Big Bang, as Baryshev, Sylos- Labini ,Montuori, Pietronero and Teerikourpi have pointed out. Nor would a super-smooth distribution of dark matter needed to avoid high velocities be compatible with the lumpiness—inhomogeneity– of matter that is observed on all scales.

In addition, the satellite galaxies of both the Milky Way and the nearby Andromeda galaxy are in a disk configuration, just as expected if the gravitating mass is ordinary matter. If the gravitating mass were dark matter, the satellites would have to be in a random sphere. This evidence completely contradicts the dark matter hypothesis, as Pavel Kroupa, among many other researchers, has pointed out.

Again, there are other, simpler, non-Big Bang ways of explaining the data. Over 30 years ago, Peratt and Green showed that electromagnetic forces would produce the constant velocity of rotation in spiral galaxies that has long been used as a key evidence of dark matter. These velocities are measurements of the velocity of radio-emitting plasma within a galaxy, which is as much influenced by magnetic forces as by gravitational forces. Many researchers, including Dr. Scarpa, have demonstrated evidence that a small modification of gravitational forces, termed MOND, could also explain the data.

3 Structures Too Large to Form in the Time Since the Hypothesized Big Bang

The Big Bang theory hypothesizes that the universe came into existence with an almost perfectly homogenous – even–distribution of matter, and that structures built up gradually from stars to galaxies to cluster to superclusters.

But larger and larger structures have been uncovered at earlier and earlier times. To cite just one recent example of many, last year a team of observers, Roger Clowes, et al, discovered a huge collection of quasars over 3 billion light years in extent, existing billions of years ago. This was, in their view, too large to have been created within the hypotheses of conventional cosmology.

… snip graphic …
The huge agglomerations of quasars discovered by Roger Clowes et al. Tick marks are separated by 600 million light years. These objects are far too large to have been generated in the time since the Big Bang.

Indeed, Lerner has pointed out that, when the existing low velocities of galaxies are taken into account, the large structures of conglomerations of galaxies that we observe would take hundreds of billions of year to form. In pioneering work in 1986 Lerner used plasma physics to predict a fractal structure of the universe, including structures up to billions of light years across, structures that were later discovered. In Lerner’s theory, these structures could only have formed in a universe whose history stretches far back before 14 billion years ago.


4 The Cosmic Background Radiation and
the Problem of Large-Scale, Non-Random, Asymmetries

The Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) is frequently cited as the key evidence for the Big Bang, and more recently for inflation, the super-expansion during the Big Bang that is a critical element of the theory. One of the few concrete predictions of inflation is that the universe is isotropic, the same in all directions. The inflation theory predicts that any asymmetries in the universe existing before inflation would be wiped out by the vast expansion during inflation. “The most decisive observational evidence against inflation would be provided by evidence that the Universe possesses large-scale rotation,” wrote Barrow and Liddle in a 1997 paper.

But in fact the CBR evidence, combined with evidence from observations of galaxies, flatly contradicts the prediction of perfect isotropy.

The latest results from the Planck satellite confirmed what had been known for years, that there are non-random alignments on the sky of the small fluctuations in the intensity of the CBR. (These are only the most prominent contradictions of inflation predictions by Planck data).

In addition, a study of the handedness of spiral galaxies in 2012 showed a non-random alignment of the galaxy spins on a very large scale. Such spin alignments indicate precisely the large scale rotation that contradicts inflation.

On the other hand, plasmas-based theories of structure that scale up the well-know formation of filaments in plasma to cosmological scales predicted such evidence of rotation. Vortex filaments, which have been observed for decades from the laboratory to extremely large astrophysical scales, must rotate, so this is no surprise. Of course, such ultra-large vortices would, again, have taken hundreds of billions of years to form.

It has also been known for decades that the energy needed to account for the microwave background is equal to the energy that would have been released by the production by ordinary stars of the known amount of helium. Plasma effects can also, in part, account for the isotropy and blackbody spectrum of the CBR, although this 20–year old work needs to be updated to take into account new data as well as the surface brightness results.

Conclusion

Each of these sets of problems could be, and in fact often are, dismissed as mere “anomalies” in an otherwise well-supported theory. But taken collectively they contradict all the predictions of the theory, leaving no support at all. The response of supporters of the Big Bang theory has been to continually add “parameters” to the theory to account for new discordant data. As a result, as Michael Disney has demonstrated, the theory, now with over 20 parameters to be adjusted, has never had any power to predict new results. So it lacks the basic hallmark of a sound scientific theory. Indeed, the recent, well-publicized results from the BiCEPS instrument has led many researchers to add yet more parameters to the theory to explain apparent contradictions between BiCEPS and Planck results.

In contrast, the data that contradicts the Big Bang theory can be explained far more simply with hypotheses that are consistent with a universe that had no beginning in time and no Big Bang.


Yes, very interesting …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/spiral-galaxy-bx442-supports-hubbles-belief-redshift-does-not-mean-expansion/

Oldest Spiral galaxy BX442 supports Hubble’s belief: Redshift does not mean expansion

Louis Marmet

A team of astronomers have reported the discovery of the oldest spiral galaxy known so far. What makes this discovery interesting is that this grand-design spiral galaxy already existed 3 billion years after the Big Bang when the universe was too hot and chaotic to allow such a regular structure to survive long enough to be seen.

Usually, galaxies born this early after the Big Bang look clumpy and irregular. When the astronomers saw the regular spiral arms of this unusual galaxy, they studied it further with the Keck Observatory in Hawai’i. The results confirmed that grand-design spiral galaxies existed at a very early age of the universe.

bx442.jpg
Q2343-BX442: A false color composite image of galaxy BX442 generated with data from NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and the W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii. (Credit: David Law/Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics)


The newly discovered galaxy, named Q2343-BX442, existed at a distance of 10.7 billion light years. The details of the discovery are reported in Nature[1]. The galaxy is one of 300 galaxies photographed in a survey carried out by the Hubble Space Telescope at a redshift near z=2. It has a redshift z=2.18 and is a well developed spiral galaxy. The disk of the galaxy is dynamically hot as inferred by the broad spectroscopic lines of the ionized gas. A small companion galaxy weighing only a few percent of the mass of BX442 is visible. It is proposed that the companion might have triggered the formation of a short-lived (100 million years) spiral structure.

A “grand-design spiral galaxy” is a type of galaxy with well-defined spiral arms. Grand-design spiral galaxies are relatively common in the local universe. However, theories of galaxy formation predict that the hot and chaotic conditions of the early universe prevent grand-design spirals to survive. This is because frequent collisions with other galaxies would destroy the fragile spiral structures. Moreover, the hot disk of BX442 implies that the structure is gravitationally unstable – the gases and stars are moving too fast to be held together by the gravity of the galaxy.

The spiral structure has therefore an uncertain origin. These characteristics are described as being “contrary to expectations” in the paper published in Nature. The structure of BX442 can only exist for a short time when produced by the unlikely interaction with another galaxy.

… snip image …

Commentary:

Standard cosmology interprets BX442 as a surprising observation since it is such a rare event. The very symmetric shape of BX442 seems to indicate that it is a very old galaxy.

All these surprises result from the cosmological redshift being interpreted as expansion of space. However, several interpretations of the cosmological redshift have been suggested in which there is no expansion. One of these, suggested by Zwicky in 1929, explains the redshift via a “tired-light” mechanism[2]. Although Zwicky’s mechanism was shown to be ineffective, recently proposed tired-light mechanisms involving an interaction of light with electrons[3] can explain the measured characteristics of BX442:

– Broadened spectroscopic lines result from the quantization of the redshift mechanism. This is clearly explained by Ashmore in reference [4]. The apparent hot disk of BX442 is in reality a result of the broadening due to the statistical distribution of the number of photon-electron interactions. BX442 is a stable galaxy.

bx442-382f2cb.jpg
The shape and velocity measurements of galaxy BX442 are consistent with a disk with an inclination of 42 degrees to the line of sight[1]. The image in Figure 1 was corrected to show the galaxy as it would look from a direction perpendicular to the disk. The resultant image was then added to itself, rotated by 180 degrees, then smoothed and processed to show intensity contours. Two arms clearly appear and a bar is almost visible, indicating that BX442 is a very old galaxy.

– The extinction of the light observed from distant galaxies is explained by Thomson scattering on electrons. Thomson scattering reduces the number of photons that reach the observer by scattering light away from the image of the galaxy. This process is independent of wavelength, giving the impression that the galaxies are farther than they really are. A good discussion of this is given by Brynjolfsson [5]. The galaxy BX442 is at a distance consistent with the magnitude-redshift equation, but the reason behind this agreement is not that space is expanding but instead that Thomson scattering on electrons produces extinction.

– The redshift is the result of a physical effect on light and does not mean expansion. Edwin Hubble maintained this position to the very end of his life[6]. At that time, he maintained that the redshift “represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature.” Today, physics has several explanations to offer involving an interaction of light with electrons.

Hubble was right, there is no expansion and the universe is much older than 14 billion years, old enough to form grand-design spiral galaxies 10.7 billion years ago.


Dare I say … interesting? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/observation-of-two-early-mature-galaxies-rare-objects-or-is-big-bang-model-inaccurate/

Observation of two early yet mature galaxies: Rare objects or is Big Bang model inaccurate?

Louis Marmet

The European Southern Observatory (ESO) recently reported a surprise while observing two extremely distant galaxies; at a very high redshift (z = 3.57); so far away that they are seen as they were a long time ago: only 1.8 billion years after Big Bang.

The surprise was to discover that the cool gas in these presumably young galaxies was very rich in heavy elements (all called metals), a chemical composition usually only seen in older galaxies because it takes so long to make heavy elements. The ESO web site reports that an international team used the flash of a distant gamma-ray burst GRB 090323 as a probe to study the spectra of the two galaxies (G0 and G1).

The bright light emitted by the burst was absorbed by the gas in both galaxies. The measured absorption spectrum allowed an evaluation of the density of heavy elements.

In a preprint submitted to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, they explain that the metallicity of G1 “is also among the highest ever inferred, with other systems of comparable density all residing at z < 2.9. [...] At this high redshift, this would make G1 a rare object."

To explain this surprising observation, they claim that “the newly discovered pair of young galaxies must be forming new stars at a tremendous rate, to enrich the cool gas so strongly and quickly.” The two galaxies “may be in the process of merging, which would also provoke star formation when the gas clouds collide.”

Commentary:

The problem with this interpretation is that the metallicity is almost ten times higher than the metallicity of objects measured at the same redshift. The ESO report claims that this is “something unthinkable until recently,” but provides no explanation why we should accept the conclusion that these galaxies have a high rate of star formation!

The preprint suggests that “what happens at higher redshift is not totally understood,” and “the situation might be different in the nearby Universe,” but still accepts that the observed galaxies are only 1.8 billion years old.

Certainly, these two galaxies haven’t been merging for their entire life. It is difficult to understand how such a high density of heavy elements could have been formed in such a short time.
Of course, if the universe is much older than the Big Bang model accounts for, then these galaxies form new stars at the same rate as all other galaxies. The interpretation of the cosmological redshift as a Doppler shift forces cosmologists to assign a limit to the age of the universe.

But if the redshift is produced by a “tired light” mechanism then the universe can be much older than 13.7 billion years and the metallicity content of all galaxies can be similar.

Not only do the new results point to a weakness of the Big Bang model, they support non-conventional redshift mechanism. The two galaxies G0 and G1 made visible by GRB 090323 have heavy elements because they are much older than 1.8 billion years!theory will change cosmology as we know it.”


More and more interesting …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is typical of the sort of discoveries mainstream astrophysicists are announcing …

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/786/2/108

THE MOST LUMINOUS z ~ 9-10 GALAXY CANDIDATES YET FOUND: THE LUMINOSITY FUNCTION, COSMIC STAR-FORMATION RATE, AND THE FIRST MASS DENSITY ESTIMATE AT 500 Myr*

Abstract

We present the discovery of four surprisingly bright (H 160 ~ 26-27 mag AB) galaxy candidates at z ~ 9-10 in the complete HST CANDELS WFC3/IR GOODS-N imaging data, doubling the number of z ~ 10 galaxy candidates that are known, just ~500 Myr after the big bang. Two similarly bright sources are also detected in a reanalysis of the GOODS-S data set. … snip … Thorough testing and use of grism data excludes known low-redshift contamination at high significance, including single emission-line sources, but as-yet unknown low redshift sources could provide an alternative solution given the surprising luminosity of these candidates. Finding such bright galaxies at z ~ 9-10 suggests that the luminosity function for luminous galaxies might evolve in a complex way at z > 8. … snip … The remarkable brightness, and hence luminosity, of these z ~ 9-10 candidates will enable deep spectroscopy to determine their redshift and nature, and highlights the opportunity for the James Webb Space Telescope to map the buildup of galaxies at redshifts much earlier than z ~ 10.


Indeed, the study body is filled with instances of the authors saying how surprised they are …

"... the detection of such bright z ~ 9 − 10 galaxy candidates in the GOODS-N dataset is surprising given previous constraints on UV LFs at z > 8."

- "... the unusual brightness of our GOODS-N sources led us to give particular attention to this aspect."

- "While it is quite unlikely that we have identified sources with very unusual SEDs, the possibility remains, though finding four such undocumented sources seems a remote possibility."

- "While it would be surprising (though very interesting) to see significant AGN activity just a few hundred million years after the formation of the first stars, without spectroscopic observations, it is of course nearly impossible to reliably assess such a contribution."

- "To see if magnification was contributing to their [two highest-redshift sources] unusual brightness we estimated their possible magnification bias based on the simplified assumption ..."

- "The detection of four very bright z > 9 galaxy candidates in GOODS-N is quite surprising given the dearth of candidates in the very similar GOODS-S data..."

- "...the most plausible outcome is that these galaxy candidates are really at z ~ 9 − 10. Yet we cannot rule out that they constitute very unusual objects at lower redshift."

- "...the detection of four such bright sources is surprising given the expected number of only 1 source at H160 < 27 mag in the full search area."

- "The unusual brightness of these z ~ 9 − 10 candidates makes them obvious targets for spectroscopy, both from the ground and from space."

- "Spectroscopic redshift measurements could show if these surprisingly luminous candidates are really at high redshift as all the photometric tests suggest."

Need I say more?

 

The authors just can't seem to get over their shock at seeing these results.

Fortunately, all these surprises are finally causing a glimmer of reality starting to seep into the mainstream …

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10509-014-1910-2

03 Apr 2014

Astronomical redshifts of highly ionized regions

Abstract

Astronomical or cosmological redshifts are an observable property of extragalactic objects and have historically been wholly attributed to the recessional velocity of that object. The question of other, or intrinsic, components of the redshift has been highly controversial since it was first proposed. This paper investigates one theoretical source of intrinsic redshift that has been identified. The highly ionized regions of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) and Quasi-Stellar Objects (QSO) are, by definition, plasmas. All plasmas have electromagnetic scattering characteristics that could contribute to the observed redshift. To investigate this possibility, one region of a generalized AGN was selected, the so called Broad Line Region (BLR). Even though unresolvable with current instrumentation, physical estimates of this region have been published for years in the astronomical literature. These data, selected and then averaged, are used to construct an overall model that is consistent with the published data to within an order of magnitude. The model is then subjected to a theoretical scattering investigation. The results suggest that intrinsic redshifts, derivable from the characteristics of the ambient plasma, may indeed contribute to the overall observed redshift of these objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-black-hole-blast-biggest-science-galaxies-space/

Astronomers Find a Dusty Galaxy That Shouldn't Exist

A object from the very early universe is bafflingly rich with dust that theory says shouldn't have formed yet.


FEBRUARY 28, 2015

Peering back in time to find the very earliest objects in the universe, an international team of astronomers has discovered a galaxy that shouldn't be there at all.

The problem, the scientists report Monday in Nature, is that while the tiny galaxy dates from just 700 million years or so after the big bang, it's far more dusty than something this young and small has any right to be.

It's surprising, says Daniel Marrone, a University of Arizona expert on galaxy formation who wasn't involved in the research, because although dust is essential for the formation of planets and other solid material, the cosmos started out with no dust at all. In the aftermath of the big bang, the universe consisted only of hydrogen and helium gas (along with dark matter, but that's invisible).

The dusty galaxy is just one of the recent surprises astronomers have found. "Last week," says Marrone, "we learned of an incredibly massive black hole in the early universe. Now we have this average galaxy with significant amounts of dust. We've had this cartoon picture of the early universe, but it's clear that we really don't know what's going on."

The gas in the post-big bang universe condensed to form the first stars, which forged heavier elements, including carbon, silicon, and oxygen, then died and released those elements into space. It was from these that the first particles of dust formed.

Those first stars had already lived and died by the time this newly discovered galaxy, known as A1689-zD1, was up and running, so the universe was hardly dust free at that point. But most of the dust should have been in large, bright galaxies that formed lots of stars. A1689-zD1 is relatively small and dim—no bigger than the Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy that orbits the Milky Way.

Few early galaxies have been spotted, because even the brightest among them is far away and thus relatively dim. To get around that problem, astronomers use the magnifying effect of gravity. Einstein's general theory of relativity says the gravity from an object closer to Earth can warp light rays from a more distant one. (Einstein thought we'd never actually observe this so-called gravitational lensing, but he was dead wrong about that.)

In this case, the Nature paper's lead author, Darach Watson, of the deliciously named Dark Cosmology Centre at the University of Copenhagen, used the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile's Atacama Desert to look at a massive cluster of galaxies called Abell 1689. The cluster's gravity magnified A1689-zD1 by a factor of nine, says Watson, which allowed him and several colleagues to gauge its distance from Earth and thus how long ago its light began traveling in our direction.

The VLT can see starlight but not dust, so Watson called on a colleague who was using the dust-sensitive ALMA radio telescope (see "Cosmic Dawn" in National Geographic magazine). "She had a look," says Watson, "and bingo!"

Like Marrone, Watson was taken aback by how dusty A1689-zD1 turned out to be. In bigger galaxies with more massive, short-lived stars, dust can pile up quickly since giant stars explode violently as supernovae after just a few million years. In smaller galaxies, most of the dust should emerge from the more gentle deaths of smaller stars that live for billions of years. So maybe A1689-zD1's dust comes from supernovae after all, says Watson. "But they'd have to produce the maximum possible dust," he says, to account for what ALMA sees, "and the dust can't be destroyed."

The only way to find out for sure is to uncover more galaxies like A1689-zD1. Unfortunately, they're extremely difficult to find—and the one other example astronomers have is almost entirely dust free, so it's impossible to say which type is more common. "We don't have any other candidates at this point," says Watson.

With ALMA, completed two years ago, and a new generation of giant optical telescopes now under construction, however, they're likely to find more of these galaxies before long. (See "Cosmic Vision: Telescopes.") The very early universe doesn't make a lot of sense at the moment—but that's almost certainly going to change.


Yeah … it will certainly change.

 

When you folks wake up to the possibility that your fundamental assumptions are wrong.

 

When you wake up to the fact that 99.999% of the universe is plasma and that electromagnetism is the dominate force affecting that plasma.

 

When you open your eyes and minds, rather than let them be guided only by what Big Bang magic gnome believing professors taught you.

 

Just saying ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s something new and VERY interesting …

http://phys.org/news/2015-08-astronomers-unveil-distant-protogalaxy-cosmic.html

Astronomers unveil a distant protogalaxy connected to the cosmic web

August 5, 2015

1-caltechastro.jpg
Using the Cosmic Web Imager at Palomar Observatory to study a system with two quasars 10 billion light years away, a team of astronomers led by Caltech has unveiled a giant swirling disk of gas -- a protogalaxy, or galaxy in the making -- being fed cool gas by a filament of the cosmic web. Credit: Chris Martin/PCWI/Caltech ( http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2015/1-caltechastro.jpg )

A team of astronomers led by Caltech has discovered a giant swirling disk of gas 10 billion light-years away—a galaxy-in-the-making that is actively being fed cool primordial gas tracing back to the Big Bang. Using the Caltech-designed and -built Cosmic Web Imager (CWI) at Palomar Observatory, the researchers were able to image the protogalaxy and found that it is connected to a filament of the intergalactic medium, the cosmic web made of diffuse gas that crisscrosses between galaxies and extends throughout the universe.

The finding provides the strongest observational support yet for what is known as the cold-flow model of galaxy formation. That model holds that in the early universe, relatively cool gas funneled down from the cosmic web directly into galaxies, fueling rapid star formation.

A paper describing the finding and how CWI made it possible currently appears online and will be published in the August 13 print issue of the journal Nature.

"This is the first smoking-gun evidence for how galaxies form," says Christopher Martin, professor of physics at Caltech, principal investigator on CWI, and lead author of the new paper. "Even as simulations and theoretical work have increasingly stressed the importance of cold flows, observational evidence of their role in galaxy formation has been lacking."

The protogalactic disk the team has identified is about 400,000 light-years across—about four times larger in diameter than our Milky Way. It is situated in a system dominated by two quasars, the closest of which, UM287, is positioned so that its emission is beamed like a flashlight, helping to illuminate the cosmic web filament feeding gas into the spiraling protogalaxy.

Last year, Sebastiano Cantalupo, then of UC Santa Cruz (now of ETH Zurich) and his colleagues published a paper, also in Nature, announcing the discovery of what they thought was a large filament next to UM287. The feature they observed was brighter than it should have been if indeed it was only a filament. It seemed that there must be something else there.

In September 2014, Martin and his colleagues, including Cantalupo, decided to follow up with observations of the system with CWI. As an integral field spectrograph, CWI allowed the team to collect images around UM287 at hundreds of different wavelengths simultaneously, revealing details of the system's composition, mass distribution, and velocity.

… snip image …

Martin and his colleagues focused on a range of wavelengths around an emission line in the ultraviolet known as the Lyman-alpha line. That line, a fingerprint of atomic hydrogen gas, is commonly used by astronomers as a tracer of primordial matter.

The researchers collected a series of spectral images that combined to form a multiwavelength map of a patch of sky around the two quasars. This data delineated areas where gas is emitting in the Lyman-alpha line, and indicated the velocities with which this gas is moving with respect to the center of the system.

"The images plainly show that there is a rotating disk—you can see that one side is moving closer to us and the other is moving away. And you can also see that there's a filament that extends beyond the disk," Martin says. Their measurements indicate that the disk is rotating at a rate of about 400 kilometers per second, somewhat faster than the Milky Way's own rate of rotation.

"The filament has a more or less constant velocity. It is basically funneling gas into the disk at a fixed rate," says Matt Matuszewski (PhD '12), an instrument scientist in Martin's group and coauthor on the paper. "Once the gas merges with the disk inside the dark-matter halo, it is pulled around by the rotating gas and dark matter in the halo." Dark matter is a form of matter that we cannot see that is believed to make up about 27 percent of the universe. Galaxies are thought to form within extended halos of dark matter.

The new observations and measurements provide the first direct confirmation of the so-called cold-flow model of galaxy formation.

Hotly debated since 2003, that model stands in contrast to the standard, older view of galaxy formation. The standard model said that when dark-matter halos collapse, they pull a great deal of normal matter in the form of gas along with them, heating it to extremely high temperatures. The gas then cools very slowly, providing a steady but slow supply of cold gas that can form stars in growing galaxies.

… snip video …

That model seemed fine until 1996, when Chuck Steidel, Caltech's Lee A. DuBridge Professor of Astronomy, discovered a distant population of galaxies producing stars at a very high rate only two billion years after the Big Bang. The standard model cannot provide the prodigious fuel supply for these rapidly forming galaxies.

The cold-flow model provided a potential solution. Theorists suggested that relatively cool gas, delivered by filaments of the cosmic web, streams directly into protogalaxies. There, it can quickly condense to form stars. Simulations show that as the gas falls in, it contains tremendous amounts of angular momentum, or spin, and forms extended rotating disks.

"That's a direct prediction of the cold-flow model, and this is exactly what we see—an extended disk with lots of angular momentum that we can measure," says Martin.

… snip graphic …

Phil Hopkins, assistant professor of theoretical astrophysics at Caltech, who was not involved in the study, finds the new discovery "very compelling."

"As a proof that a protogalaxy connected to the cosmic web exists and that we can detect it, this is really exciting," he says. "Of course, now you want to know a million things about what the gas falling into galaxies is actually doing, so I'm sure there is going to be more follow up."

Martin notes that the team has already identified two additional disks that appear to be receiving gas directly from filaments of the cosmic web in the same way.


Now why do I find this article particularly interesting?

First, notice that the word “plasma” is not mentioned anywhere in it. Again, just “gas”. Talk about astrophysicists putting blinders on … because plasma does not behave the same as “gas”. But they go on acting as if it does. STUCK ON STUPID.

Second, notice that they label the gas “cold” but that’s a misnomer. It isn’t “cold”. It’s at 10000+ C. Because it’s not a neutral “gas”. It’s a PLASMA. A fourth state of matter and one that acts quite differently than ordinary cold gas. STUCK ON STUPID.

Third, notice that they are finally admitting that huge intergalactic filaments are UBIQUITOUS in the current AND past universe. This from a group of *scientists* who not many years ago derided the very notion that the universe was filled with such filamentary structures as was being predicted by plasma cosmologists.

Fourth, notice that they are now connecting huge filaments of plasma (not "gas") in the intergalactic medium to the formation of galaxies … something that plasma cosmologists predicted 40 years ago. And now they even have a picture of those filaments connecting protogalaxies. But they still can’t see the obvious. I (and others) see something in the above that they’ve missed entirely because they don’t know what to look for due to their limited education and gravity/dark matter blinders.

Look closely at the above image, folks … you can click on the link I provided to blow it up even bigger. You can clearly see that there isn’t just a single filament of "gas" connecting the two protogalaxies. There are clearly TWO filaments running into the left most quasar and out of it towards the right most quasar. And if you look carefully at the filamentary structure between the two quasars, you can see that the two filaments are helically wound. This is just as predicted by the plasma cosmologists for the formation of galaxies from plasma filaments carrying Birkeland currents. Haven’t I been saying that throughout this thread? Here’s a graphic depicting the plasma cosmologist’s (electric universe) model of galaxy formation from YEARS AND YEARS ago …

Electric-galaxy.jpg

Fifth, notice that this study is linking quasars to galaxy formation (protogalaxies) … which again is something that has taken mainstream astrophysicists decades to finally do. In contrast, plasma cosmologists (Alfven and Lerner, in particular), predicted this linkage decades and decades ago … saying that quasars are part of the galaxy formation process. They occur when two intergalactic current carrying plasma filaments interact and wind themselves helically together thus jump starting a homopolar generator with a plasmoid at the center where all the current flowing as a result of the rotating magnetic fields is concentrated, releasing vast amounts of energy as the system further collapses due to gravity.

As Lerner wrote in his 1980s book,

“the energy taken from rotation and gravitational contraction of the object will go into the creation of the dense plasmoid and will be released in the beams the plasmoids create as they decay. A quasar is thus the birth cry of a galaxy, the means by which the excess energy of rotation, which must be removed if the galaxy is to collapse, is carried away in the form of the energetic jets. Once the galaxy forms, the same process at a lower rate rules the repetitive formation of small plasmoids at its nucleus. The process is today generation stars in the dense filaments of the spiral arms. The theory can explain the source of a quasar’s immense power. The ultimate source is the rotational energy of an entire galaxy, augmented by the gravitational energy released as the galaxy contracts. This energy is converted to electrical power by the disk-generator action and concentrated in the smaller filaments moving toward the galaxy core. The filament pinches into a plasmoid that, for the largest quasars, might be a hundred light years across. The visible quasar, though, is far smaller. This is the region, a light-year or so wide, where each individual sub filament that composes the plasmoid is bursting apart as it radiates its energy and powers the emitted jets. Just as a hydroelectric dam draws power from the water falling in a river valley, the quasar is drawing energy immediately from the plasmoid’s magnetic field, a million times larger in volume, and ultimately from the entire galaxy. In this way the energy gained by the collapse of the galaxy is expelled as electrical energy in the quasar jets. Without the elimination of this energy, the galaxy would never form at all.”


Now this was written at a time when most astrophysicists were still denying that there were large intergalactic current carrying plasma filaments (which we now know is true). The mainstream astrophysics journals rejected Lerner’s scientific papers on this subject, dismissing the analogy between galaxies and plasma focuses (which were being tested in labs at the time by the way) as absurd. Only when his papers were resubmitted to a small plasma physics journal did they get published. Here’s one of those papers: http://bigbangneverhappened.org/Magnetic%20Self%20Compression%20No%201.pdf . You can clearly see how prescient Lerner (and Alfven) were ... and how blind the mainstream astrophysics community has been for more than 30 years since. It's pathetic what modern science has become.

Fifth, the paper says “Once the gas merges with the disk inside the dark-matter halo, it is pulled around by the rotating gas and dark matter in the halo." Dark matter is a form of matter that we cannot see that is believed to make up about 27 percent of the universe. Galaxies are thought to form within extended halos of dark matter.” So once again, we see the astrophysicists falling back on a magic gnome they haven’t really seen or detected to fill in the holes in their model ... to explain the rotation curve of the galaxy … even though plasma physicists explained the rotation curves of galaxies without dark matter decades and decades ago. It's pathetic how blind and hidebound modern astrophysicists have become.

And finally, as someone noted in the comments of the linked article, an earlier discovery showed that the plasma is flowing in parallel with helically wound magnetic fields … just as predicted by plasma cosmologists ... but a phenomena that is still a basic mystery to the big bang black hole dark matter “gas” crowd. You would think that sooner or later one of these *brilliant* mainstream astrophysicists would wake up … if for no other reason then because of the comments on the websites where they announce their *discoveries* point them to the truth.

But no … the paper’s astrophysicists conclude that this is observational evidence of galaxies are being created by gravity and dark matter (a gnome)

They are just Stuck On Stupid if you ask me. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s another recent article concerning quasars and filaments that shows the mainstream’s blinders …

https://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1507/

Hubble finds ghosts of quasars past

2 April 2015

heic1507a.jpg
The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has imaged a set of enigmatic quasar ghosts — ethereal green objects which mark the graves of these objects that flickered to life and then faded. The eight unusual looped structures orbit their host galaxies and glow in a bright and eerie goblin-green hue. They offer new insights into the turbulent pasts of these galaxies.
(click at the original linked you can enlarge each of these images)

The ethereal wisps in these images were illuminated, perhaps briefly, by a blast of radiation from a quasar — a very luminous and compact region that surrounds a supermassive black hole at the centre of a galaxy. Galactic material falls inwards towards the central black hole, growing hotter and hotter, forming a bright and brilliant quasar with powerful jets of particles and energy beaming above and below the disc of infalling matter.

In each of these eight images a quasar beam has caused once-invisible filaments in deep space to glow through a process called photoionisation. Oxygen, helium, nitrogen, sulphur and neon in the filaments absorb light from the quasar and slowly re-emit it over many thousands of years. Their unmistakable emerald hue is caused by ionised oxygen, which glows green.

These ghostly structures are so far from the galaxy’s heart that it would have taken light from the quasar tens of thousands of years to reach them and light them up. So, although the quasars themselves have turned off, the green clouds will continue to glow for much longer before they too fade.

Not only are the green filaments far from the centres of their host galaxies, they are also immense in size, spanning tens of thousands of light-years. They are thought to be long tails of gas formed during a violent past merger between galaxies — this event would have caused strong gravitational forces that would rip apart the galactic participants.

Despite their turbulent past, these ghostly filaments are now leisurely orbiting within or around their new host galaxies. These Hubble images show bright, braided and knotted streams of gas, in some cases connected to twisted lanes of dark dust.

Galactic mergers do not just alter the forms of the previously serene galaxies involved; they also trigger extreme cosmic phenomena. Such a merger could also have caused the birth of a quasar, by pouring material into the galaxies’ supermassive black holes.


Notice that they again speak only of gas and dust, and never mention plasma.

Notice the clearly visible helical winding of the filaments in some of the images is also ignored.

Some of the images (like NGC 5972 and NGC 7642) are quite dramatic in this regard …

Here:

NGC-5972-With-H-Alpha-Filters.jpeg

Quasar-UGC-7642-NASA-ESA.jpg

You’d think with something this obvious, the mainstream astrophysicists might get a clue.

But notice that instead they introduce the gnomes of black holes and hypothesized galaxy mergers, instead.

Here’s another article on this *discovery*:

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-hubble-ghosts-quasars.html

Hubble finds phantom objects near dead quasars

… snip same image as above …

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has photographed a set of wispy, goblin-green objects that are the ephemeral ghosts of quasars that flickered to life and then faded.

The glowing structures have looping, helical, and braided shapes. "They don't fit a single pattern," said Bill Keel of the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, who initiated the Hubble survey. Keel believes the features offer insights into the puzzling behavior of galaxies with energetic cores.

The ethereal wisps outside the host galaxy are believed to have been illuminated by powerful ultraviolet radiation from a supermassive black hole at the core of the host galaxy. The most active of these galaxy cores are called quasars, where infalling material is heated to a point where a brilliant searchlight shines into deep space. The beam is produced by a disk of glowing, superheated gas encircling the black hole.

"However, the quasars are not bright enough now to account for what we're seeing; this is a record of something that happened in the past," Keel said. "The glowing filaments are telling us that the quasars were once emitting more energy, or they are changing very rapidly, which they were not supposed to do."

Keel said that one possible explanation is that pairs of co-orbiting black holes are powering the quasars, and this could change their brightness, like using the dimmer switch on a chandelier.


It’s still gas and dust, not plasma, but at least this article mentions the helical nature of the filaments.

And then promptly ignores their significance. :rolleyes:

Notice that the authors invent another gnome …

… that the quasars were once much energetic …

otherwise they can’t explain why the filaments are now glowing so brightly.

Indeed, the authors state that “eight of the newly discovered clouds were more energetic than would be expected given the amount of radiation coming from the host quasar. … snip … The host quasars were as little as one-tenth the brightness needed to provide enough energy to photoionize the gas.

So yet another magic gnome is introduced to explain the quasar variability … “co-orbiting black holes.”

Wow! Picture that!!!

All this conjecture, just to explain the “puzzling behavior of galaxies”.

Behavior that plasma cosmologists predicted and explained long ago.

Interacting, helically wound intergalactic plasma filaments creating a plasmoid.

Just like the computers models they developed said would happen.

But mainstream cosmologists can’t seem to see past their blinders.

Even though these aren’t the only filaments emitting too much energy and associated with a quasar.

Here’s another from a study in 2014:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jan/23/quasar-shines-a-bright-light-on-cosmic-web

As the article explains

The team's observation does, however, present a challenge to our previous understanding of the web. "The filament appears too bright given the typical density and distribution of hydrogen gas in the simulated cosmic web," says Cantalupo. One possible explanation of the discrepancy, he explains, is that the gas in the web is actually much denser and has a much more "clumpy distribution" than is predicted by current models. "This is telling us that we are likely missing some physical mechanism on intergalactic scales in our models. Our observation therefore is a unique (so far) laboratory to increase our physical knowledge on how matter is distributed in the universe," he says.


Thus yet another magic gnome explanation is born … clumpy gas ... instead of seeing the obvious.

But to see clearly, the astrophysicists are going to have to look outside the blinders their dogma has created.

To see, they need to have been better educated in plasma physics.

And not just speak of “gas” every time they discuss the universe.

Just saying …

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is a recent and GREAT article on why the black hole model for our own galaxy simply doesn’t work and why plasma cosmology offers a excellent alternative:

https://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/solar08/062308_milky_way_birkeland_current.htm

Milky Way's Birkeland Current Falsifies "Black Hole" Assumption

06/23/08

Anatomy of the Milky Way core

At present, we find ourselves in the unsatisfying position of having remarkable new observational insight into the nature of the galactic center but lacking a sturdy interpretive framework. - Robert L. Brown and Harvey S. Listz "Sagittarius A and it's Environment" Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics


Written in 1984 it appears that since then things have only worsened.

According to some estimates the bright radio source known as Sagittarius A* (pronounced A-star), residing at the heart of our Milky Way galaxy, is more than 50 light-years wide. It's radio glow stems from synchrotron radiation, the result of charged particles spiraling around magnetic field lines at relativistic speeds. Assumptions have been made that the Sag A* complex is the result of a massive black hole. Yet, save for mathematical computer models based on gravitational conjecture, not a single black hole has ever been found. Might the well known plasma dynamics of an electric universe reveal the true nature of the Milky Way's galactic center?

The central most region of our galaxy is filled with a variety of dense molecular clouds (plasma). A variety of factors such as temperature, chemical composition, bulk velocity etc are known to separate plasma of differing characteristics into separate molecular clouds. This self-organization is a fundamental aspect of plasma and is the 'life like' quality that prompted Irving Langmuir to so name them after blood plasma.

The Sagittarius A complex is divided into "Sag A East" and "Sag A West". Running perpendicular to the galactic plane is a series of filaments known to be magnetic called the Arc. They collectively form a long linearly polarized filament that appears to also interact with other molecular clouds but the filaments do not appear to be deflected by that interaction. That characteristic and their perpendicular relationship also implies that the "threads" composing the Arc are tracing the path of magnetic field lines.

One of these molecular clouds is known as "M-0.02-0.07" or simply the "50 km s-1 cloud". This particular dense cloud of plasma, often mistakenly called a "gas", is considered "unique" due to high levels of energetic activity. This energetic activity is the result of an interaction which produces the central "plasma-focused plasmoid" and non-thermal filamentation as explained in Galaxy Filaments.

Wheel within a Wheel

Within the brightest region of Sagittarius A* yet another dynamic feature resides. It is known as the "circumnuclear disk" and has been described as an orbiting oval shaped ring of "molecular gas". However, that description belittles the true nature of the Milky Way galaxy's plasma torus.

At an estimated 100 kilometers per second the plasma torus appears to orbit, and is said to "feed" the central 7 light-year wide feature known as the " Mini-Spiral". The "wheel within a wheel" of our Milky Way galaxy. The Mini-Spiral is composed of the "Eastern Arm", the "Western Arc", the "Northern Arm" and all three appear to be joined at a relatively small central "bar" such as those which distinguish barred spiral galaxies from spiral galaxies.

Astrophysicists are generally at great pains to determine the cause of such highly energetic activity but not one of their number has, or can, explain how their gravity only universe can account for the wide variety of compelling features collectively embodied in the Milky Way's galactic nucleus.

It's "wheel within a wheel", or the "Mini-Spiral", has sent them scrambling for any number of assumptive gravitational scenarios such as 'tidally stretched and disrupted clouds', "gravitational potential due to the point-mass", "accretion disk", explosive "blast waves" from supernova - although the magnitude of Sag A* refutes that notion, 'molecular cloud collisions', "shock models", and of course a theoretical black hole "with over 2 million times the mass of the Sun." Or is it 3.7 million solar masses? 3.6? Maybe 4 million?

But no one has explained how so many supposedly "young stars" and star clusters, such as The Arches Cluster, and The Quintuplet Cluster can exist in a region so close to an alleged black hole.

In it's attempts to wrestle with the cause of anomalous gravitational behavior modern astrophysics inadvertently misconstrues the known plasma dynamic of self-organization and reinterprets the observed behavior as "self-consistent". Atop this interpretation any number of gravitational scenarios and inferences are then placed. The conventional theory of stellar formation via gravitational collapse fails at galactic center. For example:

According to the standard model for star formation, gas clouds from which stars form should have been ripped apart by tidal forces from the supermassive black hole. Evidently, the gravity of a dense disk of gas around Sagittarius A* offsets the tidal forces and allows stars to form. The tug-of-war between the black hole's tidal forces and the gravity of the disk has also favored the formation of a much higher proportion of massive stars than normal. - Chandra: "Stars Surprisingly Form in Extreme Environment Around Milky Way's Black Hole" [Emphasis added]


And also:

Finding such big star clusters so near the gravitational pull of the galactic center is surprising; tidal forces should rip them apart. - Angelle Tanner, Sky & Telescope


When observation contradicts the gravity only cosmology the result is to immediately 'morph' the supposed gravitational characteristics of the ever pliable theoretical black hole. It is habitually done on autopilot.

Not only do we see the 'scavenging' of plasma via well known Marklund Convection which "“convects radially inwards, with the normal E x B/B2 velocity, towards the center of a cylindrical flux tube”" it has been a lack of familiarity with plasma dynamics that has gravitationally interpreted the E x B drift of plasma towards the Mini-Spiral as "“material... falling inward”".

The Serpent in the Sky

When we assign culpability for radio structures many hundreds of kilo parsecs in extent to "nuclear activity" and then ascribe that activity to a massive nuclear black hole, we appear to basing our conclusions in large measure on informed, or perhaps inspired speculation. We may be correct, but we also may be simply engaged in clever legerdemain. - Robert L. Brown and Harvey S. Listz "Sagittarius A and it's Environment": Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics [Emphasis added]


060315_spacecom_dnanebula_vlg12p.grid-4x
The double helix nebula in infrared - Credit: M. Morris UCLA

In June 2006 NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope and UCLA announced the "unprecedented" discovery of The Double Helix Nebula. The customary photo released on the occasion merely revealed the approximately 80 light-year long tip of a proverbial iceberg.

It appears to have been Mark Morris of UCLA who made the connection and described the Double Helix Nebula in a manner appropriate for the active plasma dynamics of an electric universe:

The direct connection between the circumnuclear disk and the double helix is ambiguous, but the images show a possible meandering channel that warrants further investigation - M. Morris "A magnetic torsional wave near the Galactic Centre traced by a 'double helix' nebula" Nature Journal Letters vol 440 [Emphasis added]


The Double Helix Nebula [is] not sitting still. At a distance of perhaps some 300 light-years from the Sag A* complex the Double Helix Nebula exhibits unusually high dust temperatures for a galactic feature so far above the galactic plane and unaccompanied by nearby star formation. Morris also points out that the axis of the Double Helix Nebula points "roughly" towards galactic center and is oriented along the galaxy's axis of rotation.

Morris and his colleagues say the cause of the twist may be a huge disc of gas, known as the circumnuclear disc, which orbits just a few light years outside the black hole at our galaxy's center.

Morris told New Scientist the magnetic lines should be anchored in the circumnuclear disc. New Scientist


Again, to accredit the existence of such fully formed electromagnetic structures within such close proximity to a theoretical black hole should refute the existence of the latter. Morris then searched for a "meandering channel" through which a possible "torsional Alfven wave" could travel from the bright circumnuclear disk of the Sag A* complex. Although heavily obscured by dust as can be seen from UCLA's comparative photos, it appears that Morris successfully traced the 'dust infused' portion of a "meandering" Birkeland current at least 300 light-years in length towards it's point of intersect with the 50 km s-1 cloud and circumnuclear disk.

In addition, the unusually hot dust within the 80 light-year long tip is directly related to the scavenging of dust and plasma via the plasma related process of Marklund convection as misconstrued in the above mentioned Sky & Telescope article as being "“material... falling inward”". The plasma flow is usually inwards as matter is accumulated in the filaments revealing helically twisted densities greater than the surrounding area.

When coupled with the work of Anthony Peratt wherein:

Plasmas in relative motion are coupled by the currents they drive in each other and nonequilibrium plasma often consists of current-conducting filaments.

In the laboratory and in the Solar System, filamentary and cellular morphology is a well-known property of plasma. As the properties of the plasma state of matter is believed not to change beyond the range of our space probes, plasma at astrophysical dimensions must also be filamentary. - A. L. Peratt "Plasma and the universe: large scale dynamics, filamentation, and radiation"


Consider the structural formations: The plasma torus (circumnuclear disk), the "Mini-Spiral" enclosed within it, dust undergoing inwardly directed radial convection apparently up and out along the massive Birkeland current filament away from the galaxy center. The very existence of such structural integrity stares in complete defiance of said black hole theory.

During particle-in-cell simulations with up to 12 filaments Peratt also noted that multiple Birkeland currents can "neck off" leaving fewer (2-3) in number to account for the majority of "cosmic plasma phenomena". Through the decades long work of plasma physics the Electric Universe is not found "lacking a sturdy interpretive framework". The Double Helix Nebula fully demonstrates the nature of galactic-dimensioned Birkeland currents.

————————————

Further references:

The Double Helix Nebula: a magnetic torsional wave propagating out of the Galactic centre: Mark Morris (UCLA), Keven Uchida (Cornell), Tuan Do (UCLA) (see pages 11 & 14 for graphical presentation of "meandering channel") [bAC - use this link to read it: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0512452.pdf ]

A trip to Galactic Center: Sky & Telescope

 


Two of the links at the bottom of the above article are also worth examining in detail.

The first one is the paper by Morris mentioned in the above article. In addition to already noted comments, I found this statement at the end of Morris(et. al.)’s paper particularly indicative of the sort of blinders that mainstream big bang black hole astrophysicists continue to wear. The authors are trying to explain the structure of the Double Helix nebula in the conventional way that mainstream black hole believing astrophysicists do … BUT …

One question that our hypothesis leaves unanswered is why the helical structure has two strands. A uniform, axisymmetric, rotating disk driving a torsional wave in a field perpendicular to the disk would produce a cylindrically symmetric structure. The presence of two strands indicates that the driver has an m=2 symmetry (surface density has a term of the form eim[/size]φ[/size], where φ is the azimuthal angle). This could take the form of a bar, or, in the extreme case, one could attribute the strands of the double helix to two diametrically opposed blobs into which the vertical magnetic flux threading the disk had been concentrated. Since the time scale for propagation of an Alfvén wave from the CND to the observed double helix, ~100 pc away, is [100000] years, or 10/R(pc) rotation periods of the disk, there has been sufficient time for the strong shear in the CND to have eliminated any m=2 deviation from axisymmetry that may have been present when the double helix was launched. Nonetheless, the CND is somewhat non-axisymmetric at the present time, and its inner portions have two prominent concentrations of material on opposite sides of the center along the major axis of the projected disk 24,25,12,14,15. Consequently, it is possible that the m=2 deviation from axisymmetry is still in place, or that it has reformed since the double helix was launched.


You see, rather than see the Double Helix for what I think it obviously is (two interacting, current carrying Birkeland filaments winding about each other), they introduce a new gnome … a “bar” shaped object (that would be a rather strange black hole or event horizon) or two “blobs” (presumably both black holes rotating about each other) at the center of the galaxy to explain the double helix nature “launched” from the core. :rolleyes:

The second link above is a very interesting mainstream article that shows images and depictions of all the structures talked about in the above article (the Arches, arms, circumnuclear disk, and mini-spiral). This will help you get a better feel for the structural complexity at the heart of our galaxy … a complexity that a simple black hole just wouldn’t seem likely to produce. I find it interesting that the article mentions the term “black hole” 12 times, but doesn’t mention the term “plasma” even once. Nor is the term “helix” or “helical” mentioned, even though some of the structures clearly have that significant shape. The term “gas” is mentioned 11 times on the other hand. “Wind” is mentioned more times than “magnetic”. The notion of current (as in electrical) isn't mentioned. As you can see, the blinders are firmly in place on the authors of this otherwise interesting article. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that mainstream astrophysicists have had to acknowledge that filaments are a feature that’s almost everywhere out there, they now have to come up with some sort of explanation for their existence and behavior. Sometimes those explanations are almost laughable … as in this example of mainstream black hole blinders …

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/science_year_in_review/pdf/2008/magnetic_filaments_in_an_active_galaxy.pdf

Magnetic Filaments in an Active Galaxy

NGC 1275 is located about 235 million light-years away in the constellation Perseus. Also known as Perseus A, the galaxy lies at the heart of the Perseus cluster, a rich collection of more than 500 galaxies. The largest galaxy in the cluster, NGC 1275 is also one of the closest giant elliptical galaxies.

The galaxy is home to a supermassive black hole that is accreting material at a very rapid rate. The presence of this central black hole makes the giant galaxy a well-known radio source and a strong emitter of x-rays. NGC 1275 is classified as an active galaxy—one that shows physical activity near its core and radiates at higher-than-average luminosity levels over some or all of the electromagnetic spectrum. Gas, swirling near its black hole, is causing energetic activity that creates spherically-shaped “bubbles” of material to be ejected into the surrounding galaxy cluster. Extremely long filaments of cold gas are seen emanating from the core of the galaxy and extending out in the wake of the rising “bubbles.”


Don’t you just love that description? “bubbles” “wakes” Other sources (like http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7207/full/nature07169.html ) say the filaments have been “dragged” out of the center of the galaxy by the “bubbles”. Why it almost sounds like they are talking about the behavior of water or air … not plasmas. And never mind that those “cold” filaments are still hot enough to … well … glow. :rolleyes:

These gossamer-appearing filaments have withstood the hostile, high-energy environment of the galaxy cluster for more than 100 million years. The gravitational forces alone within NGC 1275 would destroy the filaments within 10 million years if not for additional forces keeping them in equilibrium. The filaments are also likely experiencing turbulence from the rising, hot “bubbles.”


Ah. So now they’re admitting the need for a gnome. Because otherwise, the gravitation environment would have destroyed the filaments long ago. ;)

Indeed, the long, gaseous tentacles stretch out beyond the galaxy into the multimillion degree, x-ray–emitting gas that fills the cluster. The tentacles provide evidence in visible light of the intricate relationship between the central black hole and the surrounding gas in the galaxy cluster. But why have they not heated up, dispersed, and evaporated by now, or simply collapsed under their own gravity?


Yes, a gnome is definitely needed, it appears. ;)

Using Hubble data, a team of astronomers led by Andy Fabian from the University of Cambridge, UK, has proposed a solution—magnetic fields hold the charged gas in place and resist the forces that would distort their filamentary structure. The team deduced this by resolving, for the first time, the individual threads of ionized gas that make up the filaments. The team found that the tentacles are only about 200 light-years wide, are often very straight, and extend for up to 20,000 light-years. Such thin filaments require constraining magnetic fields for integrity and survival. The magnetic field lines provide a skeleton that holds the filaments together against their surrounding forces.


Of course … the gnome is to be magnetic fields … that one is often used by mainstream astrophysicists when faced with something they can’t explain. And as usual, they don’t tell us how those magnetic fields got to be there. They are created by … well … *something* (perhaps another gnome is needed?). And these magnetic fields have … “magnetic energy” … the source of which is … (well, another gnome is needed). In any case, the field lines from these magnetic field “hold” the filaments together. Sounds like field lines are real things (I know some plasma physicists who'd argue they are not). But in any case, the filaments are made of “ionized” gas … don’t worry, that shouldn’t affect their behavior … or origin … in the slightest. Right?

I hate to say it, folks, but plasma physicists … the sort who developed the field of plasma physics … not the sort that Big Bang, black hole, gnome believing university professors are putting out nowadays and calling astrophysicists … are shaking their heads at this stuff and wondering what *science* is becoming. Truth is the *astronomers* who developed this “proposal” are quite clueless as to the behavior of real plasmas and the source of magnetic fields. They probably have never even heard of birkeland current and double layers.

The thinner the filament, the stronger the maintaining magnetic field must be. Hubble data enabled the team to measure individual filaments and deduce the strength of the magnetic fields that are in equilibrium with the hot gas. The astronomers determined that the strength of the fields are only about 1/10,000th that of Earth’s, but because they extend over galaxy-sized regions, they contain an immense amount of magnetic energy.


LOL! So they *deduced* all this, eh? ;)

Most ionized gases possess magnetic fields. Churning gas can wind up the fields, making them stronger. The black hole, while not the source of the magnetic field, causes motions that stir up the gas and amplify the fields.


How convenient that a fundamental characteristic of ionized gases is magnetic fields.

But here’s a question … how do those magnetic fields come about from the plasma?

Are they “frozen in” to the plasma? Huh? (Warning … that’s a trick question … :D.)

And the astronomers say it’s “churning gas” that winds up the fields (create their helical shape, I'm guessing).

Churning … now there’s a real scientific term folks. :rolleyes:

And while they at least admit that the black hole is NOT the source of the magnetic fields (that’s still a mystery), the motions they create somehow are … well … a gnome.

Sorry, but this reads like something a 6th grader might come up, folks. Just saying …

The filamentary system in NGC 1275 provides a striking visual example of the workings of extragalactic magnetic fields. These structures may be common on much smaller scales in normal galaxies. In our own Milky Way galaxy, there is an arc-like feature near the central black hole that is believed to be hot plasma flowing along magnetic field lines.


Or are the plasma filaments creating the magnetic fields in the first place? Because REAL plasma physicists would suggest THAT’S the case. Just saying …

Now of course there are a lot of problems with the latest mainstream theory for NGC 1275. Here’s a 2009 paper that admits some of them:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.0545.pdf

Turbulence and the formation of filaments, loops and shock fronts in NGC 1275

… snip …

It has been suggested that the formation of filaments and the increase of turbulent energy in galaxy clusters could be related to the cooling flows and the consequent magnetic compression (Pistinner & Shaviv 1995, Godon et al. 1998). However, there is no evidence of strong cooling flows that could reproduce these models. Both the origins of the giant gas filaments and suppression of the cooling flow in A426 can be associated with the presence of giant bubbles of hot gas inflated by the AGN (Fabian et al. 2003). However, recent hydrodynamical simulations have shown that the AGN feedback seems to be insufficient to reduce the cooling flow effects to the observed values, TICM/Tcore ∼ 3 (Gardini 2007). Simulations also suggest that AGN are likely to be ineffective in creating a nearly isotropic distribution of filaments. This is because, despite the large AGN power output (1042 − 1044 erg s−1), which explains the production of the hot bubbles, the low density and momentum associated with the relativistic jets do not readily distribute the thermal energy isotropically. Additional energy/momentum mechanism(s) may be required to produce both the isotropic filamentary structure and the isotropization of energy.


Oh oh … more gnomes may be needed.

Just saying …

Here are some images of NGC 1275:

NGC_1275_Hubble.jpg
(To see enlarged view, click https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/NGC_1275_Hubble.jpg )

Skitch.png

Skitch.png

ha-3.1v-grey-crop.jpg

figure_1.jpg

Sure are a lot of filaments, aren't there? :D

This next link has a NASA video that supposedly *explains* what they’ve found around NGC 1275: http://datab.us/PFreZA5iaMU#Hubble%20sees%20magnetic%20monster%20in%20erupting%20galaxy . Watch the video and you’ll learn that NASA's mainstream astrophysicists believe magnetic fields are apparently just lying around out there waiting to affect things … like intergalactic filaments. There is no effort to explain where the magnetic fields come from. They are just there, I guess. ISN’T THAT ANOTHER GNOME? And notice that the animation they show for the filaments in NGC 1275 indicates that they are all helically wound. I wonder why that is and why they don’t comment on that characteristic in the video? ;) Indeed, no explanation for this behavior is offered at all. Might I suggest this is because these *scientists* don’t have a clue what they are looking at?

The truth is these so-called scientists continue to miss something really important … that there are electric currents in space and that electric currents create magnetic fields. That’s been a blinder they’ve worn for decades and decades. How can they ever hope to arrive at the truth if they don’t realize that electric currents and magnetic fields are intimately related? They won’t. They will only go on dreaming up more magic gnomes to explain what they never quite understand. It’s a house of cards just waiting for one piece of evidence that will knock it all down. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a new announcement from the mainstream astrophysicists …

http://astronomynow.com/2015/08/10/hubble-reveals-galaxy-gas-flow-and-star-birth-regulated-by-black-hole-jets/\

Hubble reveals galaxy gas flow and star birth regulated by black-hole jets

black_hole_gas_jet_circulation_940x940.j

This artist’s rendering shows a central black hole interacting with gas in the galaxy’s halo to create a self-regulating cycle. In this cycle, high-energy jets shooting out of the galaxy’s centre heat a halo of surrounding gas, controlling the rate at which the gas cools and falls into the galaxy to form stars. Image credit: NASA, ESA, and P. Jeffries (STScI).

Combining Hubble data with observations from a suite of ground-based and space telescopes, two independent teams found that the black hole, jets, and newborn stars are all parts of a self-regulating cycle.

“Think of the gas surrounding a galaxy as an atmosphere,” explained the lead of the first study, Megan Donahue of Michigan State University. “That atmosphere can contain material in different states, just like our own atmosphere has gas, clouds, and rain. What we are seeing is a process like a thunderstorm. As the jets propel gas outward from the center of the galaxy, some of that gas cools and precipitates into cold clumps that fall back toward the galaxy’s center like raindrops.”

“The ‘raindrops’ eventually cool enough to become star-forming clouds of cold molecular gas, and the far-ultraviolet capabilities of Hubble allowed us to directly observe these ‘showers’ of star formation,” explained the lead of the second study, Grant Tremblay of Yale University.

“We know that these showers are linked to the jets because they’re found in filaments and tendrils that wrap around the jets or hug the edges of giant bubbles that the jets have inflated,” said Tremblay. “And they end up making a swirling ‘puddle’ of star-forming gas around the central black hole.”

But what should be a monsoon of raining gas is reduced to a mere drizzle by the black hole. While some outwardly flowing gas will cool, the black hole heats the rest of the gas around a galaxy, which prevents the whole gaseous envelope from cooling more quickly. The entire cycle is a self-regulating feedback mechanism, like the thermostat on a house’s heating and cooling system, because the “puddle” of gas around the black hole provides the fuel that powers the jets. If too much cooling happens, the jets become more powerful and add more heat. And if the jets add too much heat, they reduce their fuel supply and eventually weaken.


LOL! Does this get any more ridiculous, folks?

Now it’s not just “gas” that fills the galaxy … galaxies have an “atmosphere” with phenomena like “clouds” and “rain”! What we’re seeing is a process like a “thunderstorm”!

Never mind that galaxies are not filled with “gas” but with PLASMA … which fundamentally behaves differently than a neutral gas.

Never mind that that 99.999% of the observable universe … the stuff we actually know is there … is PLASMA … not “gas”.

Never mind that a THUNDERstorm is fundamentally a phenomena filled with ELECTRICAL energy:

Never mind that in all the above mainstream gobbledegook, there is no explanation for how the NOW ubiquitous (to the surprise of mainstream astrophysicists) magnetic fields and filaments are formed … at ALL scales. Or how their helical shape comes about.

Never mind that these *scientists* are still (after all these years) struggling with how black holes produce jets with helical magnetic fields surrounding them. And how galaxies form at all.

 

Never mind that they’ve had to invent a literal ZOO of magical gnomes to make any sense of what they see. And they still get continually *surprised*.

And never mind that the energy produced by what plasma cosmologists say is at the center of energetic galaxies … plasmoids created by interacting Birkeland filaments … a phenomena that can be studied in the lab using well established, ordinary physics … would do all the thunderstorm-like things they are now ascribing to this magic black hole gnome that they invented out of whole cloth.

If you ask me, these *scientists* couldn’t be more blind as to what’s really going on out there. It’s sad what’s become of modern *science*.

 

I’ve a suspicion that scientists a 100 or 200 years from now, assuming we manage to survive this current crop, will view the current batch with distain ... much like the current batch views aboriginal witch doctors. Or worse, since the witch doctors could at least be excused for not knowing better at the time. Current astrophysicists can't fall back on that excuse.

 

Just saying ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hot off the press …

http://gadgets.ndtv.com/science/news/newly-discovered-dwarf-galaxy-signals-presence-of-dark-matter-study-730221

A newly discovered dwarf galaxy orbiting our Milky Way appears to be radiating gamma rays, according to an analysis by physicists at Carnegie Mellon, Brown and Cambridge universities.

The exact source of this high-energy light is uncertain at this point but it just might be a signal of dark matter lurking at the galaxy's centre.

"Something in the direction of this dwarf galaxy is emitting gamma rays. There is no conventional reason this galaxy should be giving off gamma rays, so it's potentially a signal for dark matter," explained Alex Geringer-Sameth, post-doctoral research associate and the lead author.

The galaxy, named Reticulum 2, was discovered earlier this year in the data of the Dark Energy Survey, an experiment that maps the southern sky to understand the accelerated expansion of the universe.

At approximately 98,000 light-years from Earth, Reticulum 2 is one of the nearest dwarf galaxies yet detected.

Using publicly available data from Nasa's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, researchers have shown gamma rays coming from the direction of the galaxy in excess of what would be expected from normal background.

In the search for dark matter, gamma rays from a dwarf galaxy have long been considered a very strong signature.


Actually, there is something "conventional" that creates gamma rays.

Three guesses, folks!

Hint: It starts with a “P” and ends with an “a”.

Hint 2: Lightning. Solar Flares.

I’m surprised that these *astronomers* never heard of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, it’s STUNNING the amount of money that has been wasted pursuing the Dark Matter gnome.

 

It’s been one expensive project after another … and one complete detection failure after another.

 

LHC eliminated every single brand of SUSY (string) theory (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-20300100 ).

 

LUX found ZERO evidence of exotic matter (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/oct/31/lux-dark-matter-search-comes-up-empty ).

 

PandaX came up empty (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-09/scp-fdm092814.php ).

 

Experiment after experiment (and there are many more than just those mentioned) … costing BILLIONS … have found ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 

NOUGHT … ZERO … NOT A DAMN THING.

 

But the search goes on because dark matter is propping up Big Bang ... and Big Bang is the biggest moneymaker for astronomers in history.

Even the latest experiment, the XENON100, was an obvious disaster for dark matter proponents. The experimenters admit (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150820144842.htm ) that it “recorded results that challenge several dark matter models and a longstanding claim of dark matter detection” … that it “did not detect dark matter”. But then they turned around and labeled XENON100 a “bright spot in the search for dark matter “. THAT is a bright spot? These *scientists* are DELUSIONAL. And they are money grubbing. They now call for the deployment of an even more sensitive (i.e., more expensive) detector. Anyone here want to bet me that they find dark matter with it? I’d say the odds are very good that they won't. :D

What’s really sad is that if all this money had been spent on exploring the ideas of people like Birkeland, Alfven, Juergens, Lerner, Peratt, Scott and other plasma / electric universe proponents, we’d probably have revolutionized not only astrophysics and astronomy by now … but a number of other scientific fields as well (particle physics, for instance). The opportunity costs of scientists treating Big Bang and it's gnomes like a religion is likely staggering ... even without adding in the wasted minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Scientific* American should be ASHAMED for publishing stuff like this ...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/two-steps-closer-to-the-search-for-dark-matter-and-dark-energy/

Only about 5% of the universe consists of ordinary matter such as protons and electrons, with the rest being filled with mysterious substances known as dark matter and dark energy.


We don’t “know” that. That is only a THEORY. Nothing more. And we should never forget that.

So far, scientists have failed to detect these elusive materials, despite spending decades searching for them.


Which is why that remains only a theory and not fact like so many … even *Scientific* American apparently … treat it.

But now, two new studies may be able to turn things around as they have narrowed down the search significantly.


Hope springs eternal. Eh?

Is there ANY point where mainstream scientists would conclude the theory wrong?

Dark matter was first proposed more than 70 years ago to explain why the force of gravity in galaxy clusters is so much stronger than expected.


Yes, but it didn’t gain any traction as an idea until the 70s when it was used to explain why the rotation curve of galaxies did not match the curves that scientists were getting from their gravity only simulations of galaxies. This however is a problem that plasma cosmologists solved without resorting to a gnome. It’s just that none of the mainstream scientists listened … they ignored them much like they ignored Zwicky back in the 30s when he first suggested dark matter.

Next *Scientific* American talks about dark energy. But it’s inference depends on the assumption that red shift equals distance. And there’s much to suggest that is not the case. And then the article talks about experiments to find this dark energy force … with negative results so far. But like they did in the XENON100 experiment case, their response is not to question their underlying assumptions but call for building better (and more expensive) detectors. After all … it’s a well paying job. Just saying …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! This is what passes for modern astrophysics nowadays ...

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

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.

June 24, 2015

A new NASA computer simulation shows that dark matter particles colliding in the extreme gravity of a black hole can produce strong, potentially observable gamma-ray light. Detecting this emission would provide astronomers with a new tool for understanding both black holes and the nature of dark matter, an elusive substance accounting for most of the mass of the universe that neither reflects, absorbs, nor emits light.

“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,” said Jeremy Schnittman from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “A black hole not only naturally concentrates dark matter particles, its gravitational force amplifies the energy and number of collisions that may produce gamma rays.”

In a study, Schnittman describes the results of a computer simulation he developed to follow the orbits of hundreds of millions of dark matter particles, as well as the gamma rays produced when they collide, in the vicinity of a black hole. He found that some gamma rays escaped with energies far exceeding what had been previously regarded as theoretical limits.

In the simulation, dark matter takes the form of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPS) now widely regarded as the leading candidate of what dark matter could be. In this model, WIMPs that crash into other WIMPs mutually annihilate and convert into gamma rays, the most energetic form of light. But these collisions are extremely rare under normal circumstances.

Over the past few years, theorists have turned to black holes as dark matter concentrators where WIMPs can be forced together in a way that increases both the rate and energies of collisions.


But actually, it’s an example of how confused and desperate modern astrophysicists have become ... relying on computer models more than observations ... like AGWalarmists.

Actual experiments (the LHC, LUX and XENON100) have so far ruled out the existence of WIMPS.

 

In fact, as this January 2015 article in Nature said ...

http://www.nature.com/news/crunch-time-for-pet-theory-on-dark-matter-1.16757

the string of disappointments means that some theorists are already beginning to back away from WIMPs and look at alternatives, says cosmologist Scott Dodelson of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois.


But of course, the search for WIMPs is a business.

 

So the LHC has been upgraded (at great expense) and will look some more.

 

And XENON1T (at great expense) will soon come on line.

 

And LUX has been upgraded to LZ (at great expense) and will also rejoin the search for WIMPS.

 

Because, as the mainstream astrophysicists making computer models like the above (at great expense) say … “We KNOW that WIMPs are out there”. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh oh … another BIG puzzle for mainstream astronomers …

http://m.space.com/30166-giant-galaxy-ring-should-not-exist.html

Astronomers are constantly uncovering the "most distant," "most massive" or "most energetic" objects in our universe, but today, researchers have announced the discovery of a truly monstrous structure consisting of a ring of galaxies around 5 billion light-years across.

The galactic ring, which was revealed by 9 gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), is located 7 billion light-years away and spans an area of the sky more than 70 times the diameter of a full moon.

GRBs are thought to be detonated when a massive star reaches the end of its life. As the star implodes after running out of fuel, a black hole is formed and vast quantities of energy are blasted in collimated beams. Should Earth be aligned with these beams, an incredibly luminous signal can be observed and these beacons can be used to precisely gauge the distance to the GRB and the location of the galaxy that hosts it.

The GRBs are all cataloged in the Gamma Ray Burst Online Index, which precisely records each GRB distance and location, like pins on a cosmic map.
Astronomers believe these GRBs (and therefore the galaxies they inhabit) are somehow associated as all 9 are located at a similar distance from Earth.

According to its discoverers, there's a 1-in-20,000 probability of the GRBs being in this distribution by chance — in other words, they are very likely associated with the same structure, a structure that, according to cosmological models, should not exist.

"If the ring represents a real spatial structure, then it has to be seen nearly face-on because of the small variations of GRB distances around the object's center," said Lajos Balazs, of Konkoly Observatory in Budapest, Hungary, and lead author of a paper published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. "The ring could though instead be a projection of a sphere, where the GRBs all occurred within a 250 million year period, a short timescale compared with the age of the universe."

But what could possibly be creating a sphere an unprescedented 5 billion light-years across?

According to most cosmological models, the universe should have a roughly uniform distribution of matter over the largest scales. This is known as the "Cosmological Principal" and observations by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and Europe's Planck space telescope, which both studied the distribution of the universe's ancient cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, seem to agree. However, other results have recently challenged this idea hinting that structures as large as 1.2 billion light-years may exist. But a growing list of discoveries in the cosmic abyss seem to contradict even the 1.2 billion light-year "limit."

The GRB ring is 5 times larger than the 1.2 billion light-year limit; a pretty huge anomaly by anyone's standard. And this latest discovery isn't even the biggest. In 2013, another distribution of GRBs revealed a 10 billion light-year structure. Other large structures also defy this theoretical limit.

So what could be causing this particular ring of GRBs? One idea focuses around the large-scale structure of the universe where clusters of galaxies amass together in a web-like structure, thought to be clumped around concentrations of dark matter. The "holes" in this web are referred to as voids — regions of the cosmos that are conspicuously near-empty of any matter. The largest voids are called, unsurprisingly, "super-voids."


I just knew they’d eventually get around to using Dark Matter to explain this.

 

But how did dark matter get organized into such a huge structure in the time that was available?

 

Sounds like another gnome is needed.

Here’s another article on this (from the mainstream) …

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/20/the-new-biggest-thing-in-the-universe-and-why-its-a-headache-for-scientists/

The new biggest thing in the universe, and why it’s a headache for scientists

The biggest thing in the universe — sounds pretty straightforward, right?

Well, not exactly. We all love a good cosmological superlative — the hottest, the brightest, the most massive — but studying space is rarely that simple. In many cases, the "mosts" of the universe bend our theoretical properties of physics in ways we don't understand.

A group of international scientists have recently discovered something that's vying for the title of biggest thing in the observable universe: a clustered ring of galaxies located about 7 billion light-years away. But the ring, detailed in the latest monthly notice of the Royal Astronomical Society, is so big that some cosmologists are saying it violates the basic theoretical principles governing the universe.

The proposed cluster isn't visible from Earth because it's so far away. It was revealed to cosmologists after they observed nine gamma-ray bursts, which are the result of super-massive stars collapsing into black holes.

The bursts offer brief clues about the location of other galaxies. In this case, the bursts are so close together and similar to one another that scientists think they must be a single feature. The team said there's a very low chance — one in 20,000 — that the arrangement appeared by random chance.

This discovery is the latest addition to a mix of galaxy clusters referred to as galaxy filaments — the great walls and massive threads that clothe the vast voids of space. These features are so inconceivably large that scientists don't know how they could possibly be formed.

If you were to travel from one end of the new cluster to the other at the speed of light, it would take more than 5.6 billion years. Lajos Balazs, contributor to the ring's discovery and a professor from the Konkoly Observatory in Budapest, said that if we could see the feature in the night sky, it would be 70 times bigger than the moon.

But the ring has stiff competition for the title of "biggest." A team of scientists found another enormous cluster back in 2013, a tapestry of galaxies estimated to be somewhere around 10 billion light years across.

"The ring is based on distinct observations, and the first cluster is based upon a humongous over-density of bursts," said Jon Hakkila, an astrophysics professor at the College of Charleston who contributed to the discoveries of both the giant ring and the great wall.

He thinks the great wall will end up taking the throne, but added there's still a lot of research to be done because the wall doesn't have a strong, distinct boundary.

Regardless, both of these features are problematic because they might contradict what is known as the Cosmological Principle.

To understand the principle, consider sand on a beach. If you look at small sections of the sand, there might be points that stick out, maybe a small pebble here or an abnormally large mound there. But when observed at a larger scale, the sand looks relatively uniform.

That's theoretically the same way that the space works. There's no special place in the universe — no center, no edge, no area where stars cluster more than another place. Each region is governed by the same physical laws of nature.

… snip …

The Cosmological Principle has been a bedrock concept for scientists studying stars over the past couple of centuries because, unlike many other fields of science, there isn't much opportunity for experimentation. There's only one sky and one set of stars to work with.

These massive galaxy filaments breaks the rules, though. They are way too big to obey physical laws of gravity, which have previously limited the size of cosmological features to, at most, 1.2 billion light years.

So do these massive discoveries put the basic tenants of cosmology in jeopardy? That's still up for debate.

In 2013, Robert Clowes of the University of Central Lancashire discovered what he said was a quasar group about 4 billion light-years across, the first feature that was too big to exist under physical law. But the feature, called the Huge Large Quasar Group, fell under intense scrutiny when researchers started to question the statistical validity of its existence. They argued that his group of galaxies was the result of randomness — not due to actual physical properties pulling them together.

"People say, 'Well did you find them there because you were looking for them?'" Hakilla said. "A lot of the cosmologists are hoping that this is just going to go away."

So far, Balazs said his team's discovery has received a somewhat icy response from their fellow cosmologists.

"The first reaction is that they don't believe it," Balazs said. "Some people believe that it's only some statistical something."

Balazs argued that the staggering size of the ring cluster may end up not contradicting the principles of science. Instead, he said it could unlock clues to the mystery of star formation, helping us with much broader questions about the evolution of the universe.

"There's always some wiggle room," Hakilla said. "Scientists always have to add some bells and whistles based on the observations. It's not like cosmology will be overthrown."


Want to bet?

Did I mention that plasma cosmology has no problem with structures this big?

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s what modern Big Bang, Dark Matter, Black Hole, Etc, Etc, Etc gnome believing astrophysicists have wrought upon science …

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html?_r=0

A Crisis at the Edge of Physics

JUNE 5, 2015

DO physicists need empirical evidence to confirm their theories?

You may think that the answer is an obvious yes, experimental confirmation being the very heart of science. But a growing controversy at the frontiers of physics and cosmology suggests that the situation is not so simple.

A few months ago in the journal Nature, two leading researchers, George Ellis and Joseph Silk, published a controversial piece called “Scientific Method: Defend the Integrity of Physics.” They criticized a newfound willingness among some scientists to explicitly set aside the need for experimental confirmation of today’s most ambitious cosmic theories — so long as those theories are “sufficiently elegant and explanatory.” Despite working at the cutting edge of knowledge, such scientists are, for Professors Ellis and Silk, “breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical.”

Whether or not you agree with them, the professors have identified a mounting concern in fundamental physics: Today, our most ambitious science can seem at odds with the empirical methodology that has historically given the field its credibility.

How did we get to this impasse? In a way, the landmark detection three years ago of the elusive Higgs boson particle by researchers at the Large Hadron Collider marked the end of an era. Predicted about 50 years ago, the Higgs particle is the linchpin of what physicists call the “standard model” of particle physics, a powerful mathematical theory that accounts for all the fundamental entities in the quantum world (quarks and leptons) and all the known forces acting between them (gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces).

But the standard model, despite the glory of its vindication, is also a dead end. It offers no path forward to unite its vision of nature’s tiny building blocks with the other great edifice of 20th-century physics: Einstein’s cosmic-scale description of gravity. Without a unification of these two theories — a so-called theory of quantum gravity — we have no idea why our universe is made up of just these particles, forces and properties. (We also can’t know how to truly understand the Big Bang, the cosmic event that marked the beginning of time.)

This is where the specter of an evidence-independent science arises. For most of the last half-century, physicists have struggled to move beyond the standard model to reach the ultimate goal of uniting gravity and the quantum world. Many tantalizing possibilities (like the often-discussed string theory) have been explored, but so far with no concrete success in terms of experimental validation.

Today, the favored theory for the next step beyond the standard model is called supersymmetry (which is also the basis for string theory). Supersymmetry predicts the existence of a “partner” particle for every particle that we currently know. It doubles the number of elementary particles of matter in nature. The theory is elegant mathematically, and the particles whose existence it predicts might also explain the universe’s unaccounted-for “dark matter.” As a result, many researchers were confident that supersymmetry would be experimentally validated soon after the Large Hadron Collider became operational.

That’s not how things worked out, however. To date, no supersymmetric particles have been found. If the Large Hadron Collider cannot detect these particles, many physicists will declare supersymmetry — and, by extension, string theory — just another beautiful idea in physics that didn’t pan out.

But many won’t. Some may choose instead to simply retune their models to predict supersymmetric particles at masses beyond the reach of the Large Hadron Collider’s power of detection — and that of any foreseeable substitute.

Implicit in such a maneuver is a philosophical question: How are we to determine whether a theory is true if it cannot be validated experimentally? Should we abandon it just because, at a given level of technological capacity, empirical support might be impossible? If not, how long should we wait for such experimental machinery before moving on: ten years? Fifty years? Centuries?

Consider, likewise, the cutting-edge theory in physics that suggests that our universe is just one universe in a profusion of separate universes that make up the so-called multiverse. This theory could help solve some deep scientific conundrums about our own universe (such as the so-called fine-tuning problem), but at considerable cost: Namely, the additional universes of the multiverse would lie beyond our powers of observation and could never be directly investigated. Multiverse advocates argue nonetheless that we should keep exploring the idea — and search for indirect evidence of other universes.

The opposing camp, in response, has its own questions. If a theory successfully explains what we can detect but does so by positing entities that we can’t detect (like other universes or the hyperdimensional superstrings of string theory) then what is the status of these posited entities? Should we consider them as real as the verified particles of the standard model? How are scientific claims about them any different from any other untestable — but useful — explanations of reality?

Recall the epicycles, the imaginary circles that Ptolemy used and formalized around A.D. 150 to describe the motions of planets. Although Ptolemy had no evidence for their existence, epicycles successfully explained what the ancients could see in the night sky, so they were accepted as real. But they were eventually shown to be a fiction, more than 1,500 years later. Are superstrings and the multiverse, painstakingly theorized by hundreds of brilliant scientists, anything more than modern-day epicycles?

Just a few days ago, scientists restarted investigations with the Large Hadron Collider, after a two-year hiatus. Upgrades have made it even more powerful, and physicists are eager to explore the properties of the Higgs particle in greater detail. If the upgraded collider does discover supersymmetric particles, it will be an astonishing triumph of modern physics. But if nothing is found, our next steps may prove to be difficult and controversial, challenging not just how we do science but what it means to do science at all.


Just saying …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To really understand the hole that mainstream Big Bang, Dark Matter, Black Hole, Etc Etc Etc gnome believing astrophysicists have dug for themselves, consider these facts:

Back in 2006, with great fanfare they announced proof of Dark Matter with lensing studies: http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html , http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2006/aug/25/gravity-lens-reveals-dark-matter , http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407 . Problem is that later studies have proven they botched the stellar mass assumptions used in their lensing studies by a factor of between 3 and 20, depending on the size of the star and the type of the galaxy. They also underestimated the number of stars *between* various galaxies. In fact, they *grossly* underestimated every single aspect of their galaxy mass estimation, including overlooking the massive amount of million degree plasma that we now know surrounds every galaxy. Their so called proof has evaporated and what have they done? Pretend it never happened and go on claiming that lensing proves the existence of Dark Matter … you see, it’s a meme now. It's not science. It's religion. Based on *belief*.

The truth is that since dark matter was first proposed, all sorts of satellite objects have been found on the outskirts of our own galaxy, as well as a *massive* amount of plasma that contains more mass than all the stars combined. But has this discovery caused the mainstream astrophysicists to rethink their claim that galaxy rotation curves prove existence of Dark Matter? No. Because the meme is everything and the mainstream is dead set against even the *thought* of including anything related to Peratt's work, or the other MHD explanations for the rotation curves. Observations no longer matter to these *scientists*. Their memes … their religion … is everything.

And still the observational evidence piles up showing the mainstream is wrong. Just last month a study announced the discovery of “plasma blobs” in deep space: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27856-mystery-plasma-blobs-lurk-in-deep-space-and-no-one-knows-why/ . It was a mystery to the mainstream. As one of the authors says “This is an interstellar cloud way out in the middle of nowhere. It makes a person wonder – what the hell is that out there?” The authors admitted that to affect radio signals as much as they do, the blobs must be filled with plasma that is at least a hundred times denser than normal interstellar space. And that the plasma must be hot. This has mainstream astrophysicists stumped. “You need something that can create these and confine them,” says one. Of course, not one of them imagines for a moment that what they are seeing observationally might have something to do with electric currents and electromagnetism. Because in their schools, Big Bang Gnome believing astrophysics professors have dumbed down the concept of electromagnetism to pure magnetism. Their students can’t even properly identify a Birkeland current when one is staring them in the face … 100 years after Birkeland mathematically and observationally described them from experiments in the lab. They’ve reduced solar atmospheric physics to a concept that Hannes Alfven himself called “pseudoscience” and that he made obsolete with a paper on double layers 40 years ago. But I suspect that most modern astrophysicists never heard of a double layer in school … which just about says all you need to know about the current state of astrophysics and *science* education.

It's also been recently discovered that the so called 'standard candles' central to claims about the amount of dark energy are not actually 'standard' at all, pretty much *destroying* the entire basis for dark energy claims: http://science.slashdot.org/story/15/04/12/037220/supernovae-may-not-be-standard-candles-is-dark-energy-all-wrong , http://blog.physicsworld.com/2015/06/08/is-dark-energy-becoming-marginalized/ , In other words, the inference they drew … that the Universe is accelerating … might be based on a misinterpretation of the data. But have they changed their tune? No, they go on claiming that Dark Energy is the cat’s meow and the major component of the Universe’s energy content. They ignore the new observations … just like they ignore all the evidence that red shift doesn’t necessarily mean distance … that there are other causes for red shift … because the meme ... the religion ... is everything.

Next there was their announcement (with great fanfare, of course) of direct evidence of inflation (http://blog.vixra.org/2014/03/17/first-direct-evidence-of-cosmic-inflation/ , http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/ , http://www.nbcnews.com/science/cosmic-log/smoking-gun-reveals-how-inflationary-big-bang-happened-n54686 ), proving that the Big Bang happened. Except that again newer observations show their proof was nothing of the sort: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2933137/A-dusty-mistake-groundbreaking-Bicep2-Big-Bang-signal-just-interstellar-debris-galaxy-scientists-reveal.html , http://phys.org/news/2015-02-cosmic-inflation-bicep2-results.html , http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/02/02/bicep2-discovery-gravitational-waves/#.Vd1flc4-Ci4 , http://www.vox.com/2015/1/30/7951371/gravitational-waves-big-bang ). But has this caused them to rethink inflation? No. They still believe in Big Bang and without inflation there’s a real problem. So the hunt goes on: http://www.space.com/28516-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves-hunt.html . More money gets spent. The meme is king. The religion lives.

The dictionary defines “science” as “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” Well, the high priests of the Big Bang religion have given up on the observation part and their experiments are all designed to confirm their biases (and keep them employed). Science is dead folks. Just saying …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s are images that sure shows a lot of helically wound plasma filaments in a star making regions …

DR21_context_annot_max-res.jpg
Full size: http://herschel.cf.ac.uk/files/DR21_context_annot_max-res.jpg

veil-2000.jpg
Full size: http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr08/images/veil-2000.jpg

Notice the text …

When a star explodes, the expanding gas, will, over thousands and even tens of thousands of years, mix with the pre-existing gas between the stars. When it does, they interact and form sheets, ribbons and filaments.


Now I challenge any of you mainstream astrophysics supporters out there to link an experiment in which gas injected into a vacuum chamber forms glowing sheets, ribbons or filaments over any period of time. Or even a computer simulation of that happening without resorting to one or more magical gnomes. And why are there pairs of helical twisting filaments in the image? Any of you Big Bang supporters out there (come on, don’t be bashful) want to tell us? Seems to me it is pretty clear that these are charged plasma structures not a structure made of neutral gas like the mainstream ASSUMES.

Just look at all the twisted pairs of filaments in this image …

ap091201.jpg
Full size: http://cmech.dynip.com/apod/2009/ap091201.jpg

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.popsci.com/scientists-find-double-black-hole-inside-nearby-quasar

The brightest objects in the universe have massive black holes at their hearts.

Quasars (“quasi-stellar radio sources”) can be brighter than entire galaxies, and they’re thought to be fueled by the friction and heat of stuff that’s getting swallowed up by a black hole. (Although light can’t escape a black hole, it can escape from the event horizon—the boundary and point-of-no-return surrounding the black hole.)

Now, it turns out that the quasar nearest to Earth, located 600 million light-years away in a galaxy called Markarian 231, is actually built around two twirling black holes. It’s a first-of-its-kind type of find, and scientists think there could be a lot more quasars with binary hearts out there.

Hubble data revealed a mysterious hole in the quasar’s accretion disk, or the ring of gas that spirals around the black hole, waiting to fall in. After doing some modeling studies, scientists concluded that the system must be made of two black holes: a large one and a small one orbiting each other.


Here it is …

Mrk0739_close.jpg

Not only is it a double gnome, it just happens to be the closest quasar to earth.

That seems quite a coincidence, if you ask me, unless double black holes are pretty common.

It is true that there are some other galaxies with double nuclei.

Like NGC 6240:

Hubble_revisits_tangled_NGC_6240.jpg

Here it is in x-rays (by Chandra) …

news0231_bild1k.jpg

And M83, the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy also has a double nucleus.

And Andromeda … M31 … has two light peaks at it’s core.

This image of M31 shows only the central 30 light years of the galaxy.

opo9318a.jpg

But double nucleus galaxies don't seem all that common to be showing up in the quasar nearest earth.

And why aren’t astrophysicists claiming these other cases are two giant black holes?

They seem a bit inconsistent if you ask me.

And not only that, the two black holes in Markarian 231 are predicted to spiral together and collide within a few hundred thousand years.

Think about that. That’s just a blink of the eye in the lifetime of a galaxy.

What are the odds of Homo Sapiens ... who have only been on earth 200,000 years or so, and only technologically capable to study the universe a few hundred years ... just happening to see an object that will be gone in a just hundred thousand years ... in the nearest quasar to them.

Seems quite a coincidence, if you ask me … not only in location but in timing as well.

It's almost asking us to believe in yet another magic gnome, in addition to the double black hole.

Now rather than multiply the number of gnomes like this to explain double nuclei, here’s what plasma cosmologists would say is happening …

04.jpg

Just saying …

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...