Researchers Describe 'Most Spectacular and Most Disturbed' Galaxy Cluster
Written by Anne Minard
Composite image of MACSJ0717. Credit: X-ray (NASA/CXC/IfA/C. Ma et al.); Optical (NASA/STScI/IfA/C. Ma et al.)
It's hot. It's crowded. And it's one of the most raucuous space parties astronomers have ever seen.
A research team using a combination of three powerful telescopes is spilling the beans on the galaxy cluster MACSJ0717.5+3745 (MACSJ0717 for short), located about 5.4 billion light years from Earth. The wild system contains four separate galaxy clusters undergoing a triple merger — the first time such a phenomenon has been documented — and that's just the beginning.
Galaxy clusters are the largest objects bound by gravity in the Universe. Using data from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, Hubble Space Telescope and the Keck Observatory on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, astronomers were able to determine the three-dimensional geometry and motion in MACSJ0717.
Its 13-million-light-year-long stream of galaxies, gas and dark matter — known as a filament — is pouring into a region already full of galaxies. Like a freeway of cars emptying into a full parking lot, this flow of galaxies has caused one collision after another.
“In addition to this enormous pileup, MACSJ0717 is also remarkable because of its temperature,” said lead author Cheng-Jiun Ma, of the University of Hawaii. “Since each of these collisions releases energy in the form of heat, MACS0717 has one of the highest temperatures ever seen in such a system.”
While the filament leading into MACJ0717 had been previously discovered, these results show for the first time that it was the source of this galactic pummeling. The evidence is two-fold. First, by comparing the position of the gas and clusters of galaxies, the researchers tracked the direction of clusters’ motions, which matched the orientation of the filament in most cases. Secondly, the largest hot region in MACSJ0717 is where the filament intersects the cluster, suggesting ongoing impacts.
“MACSJ0717 shows how giant galaxy clusters interact with their environment on scales of many millions of light years,” said team member Harald Ebeling, also from the University of Hawaii. “This is a wonderful system for studying how clusters grow as material falls into them along filaments.”
Computer simulations show that the most massive galaxy clusters should grow in regions where large-scale filaments of intergalactic gas, galaxies, and dark matter intersect, and material falls inward along the filaments.
“It’s exciting that the data we get from MACSJ0717 appear to beautifully match the scenario depicted in the simulations,” said Ma.
In the future, Ma and his team hope to use even deeper X-ray data to measure the temperature of gas over the full 13-million-light-year extent of the filament. Much remains to be learned about the properties of hot gas in filaments and whether infall along these structures can significantly heat the gas in clusters over large scales.
“This is the most spectacular and most disturbed cluster I have ever seen,” says Ma, “and we think that we can learn a whole lot more from it about how structure in our Universe grows and evolves.”
The paper describing these results appeared in the March 10 issue of Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Source: Harvard University's Chandra site. More information can be found at NASA's Chandra site, and the paper is available here.
Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don't advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We'll delete any comments that break these policies. Click here for more details.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:40 am
That's cool, indeed.
But I want to add a note:
Those filaments are due to GRAVITY and nothing else….
April 16th, 2009 at 9:19 am
DrFlimmer Says:
"Those filaments are due to GRAVITY and nothing else…."
how DO you know?
I suspect you might be trying to pick a fight with somebody else who "knows" they are due to something else… I think that's what "trolling" means…
Anyway, its a mighty impressive picture. I just gave up trying to count all those galaxies.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:38 am
@Feenixx
"DrFlimmer Says:
“Those filaments are due to GRAVITY and nothing else….”
how DO you know?"
Because the FSM told us so! LOL
April 16th, 2009 at 10:01 am
After studying Xray images of dozens of galaxy clusters (most by CXO or XMM), I've yet to see such a bizarre pattern as in MACSJ0717. The paper points out that this is the confluence of 4! galaxy clusters mixing it up (Thanks, Anne, for the link to the paper). Those downloading the highest-res optical images, especially the cropped image, will be able to make out numerous blue arcs in the vicinity of the densest portion of this amazing cluster. These represent distant galaxies lensed by the gravitational potential of the cluster(s) imaged by Hubble. Reference is made to a previously known galaxy 'filament' that was discovered in an earlier study. That paper, with some awesome imagery from the Subaru scope, can be found here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?2004ApJ…609L..49E. What an incredible coincidence to be able to see 4 galaxy clusters caught in gravitational embrace! (BTW: why no illustration or picture for the article?)
April 16th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Whoops, by the time I hit the 'Submit Comment' button, a picture of the system appeared. Just one of those things:)
April 16th, 2009 at 10:34 am
F = G x m^1m^2/r^2
It is obvious just by looking at this picture that the Emperor has no clothes.
LOL @ gravitation.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Its obvious just by reading the above poster that the crank has no brain.
LOL @ the Troll
Oils, seriously, you should do standup comedy…you crack me up every time haha
April 16th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself." – George Bernard Shaw (1856 – 1950)
"He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave." – Sir William Drummond
"Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors." Thomas H. Huxley
April 16th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
OilIsMastery – EPIC Fail!
April 16th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Nice Quotes Joe!
April 16th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I have no idea why you guys are going on about the cause of galaxy filiments. The didn't really form at all. they where already part of the mass distribution in the primordial universe. The only developed structure as time went by. (I'm of course talking about the well defined filiments.)
April 16th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Tjips,
They are going on about the cause of electromagnetic plasma filaments because it's obviously not gravitation. Gravitation is a 17th century creationist myth.
"…to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." — Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710
"Meanwhile remote operation has just been revived in England by the admirable Mr. Newton, who maintains that it is the nature of bodies to be attracted and gravitate one towards another, in proportion to the mass of each one, and the rays of attraction it receives. Accordingly the famous Mr. Locke, in his answer to Bishop Stillingfleet, declares that having seen Mr. Newton's book he retracts what he himself said, following the opinion of the moderns, in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, to wit, that a body cannot operate immediately upon another except by touching it upon its surface and driving it by its motion. He acknowledges that God can put properties into matter which cause it to operate from a distance. Thus the theologians of the Augsburg Confession claim that God may ordain not only that a body operate immediately on divers bodies remote from one another, but that it even exist in their neighbourhood and be received by them in a way with which distances of place and dimensions of space have nothing to do. Although this effect transcends the forces of Nature, they do not think it possible to show that it surpasses the power of the Author of Nature. For him it is easy to annul the laws that he has given or to dispense with them as seems good to him, in the same way as he was able to make iron float upon water and to stay the operation of fire upon the human body." — Gottfriend W. Leibniz, polymath, 1695
April 16th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Tjips, – See what we are dealing with now?
Gravity is a creationist myth? LMAO!!!
April 16th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
OilIsMastery: FAIL!
gimme moar!
April 16th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Joe (if that's your real name),
Gravitation is a creationist myth; gravity is electromagnetic: http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
April 16th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
No, Joe is not my real name.
A creationist myth huh? Mate, ill beleive the overwhelming consensus from experts in the field over a couple of cranks any day. Ill beleive physical evidence and reasoned, logical development of Theory over illogical denial any day. I'll believe knowledge gained by Science and the results from the Scientific Method over crackpot, unproven, illogical and unneeded theories any day.
Do you actually think one link to one paper that hardly anybody has heard of, will make me deny that gravitation exists and is in fact explained away as electromagnetism? In light of the fact that the VAST majority of physicists and cosmologists do not accept that theory at all? ( oh noes, its a conspiracy! ) Do you actually think your antics can sway the worlds belief in physical reality? What a complete and utter joke.
Get over it mate. Take a long hard look at yourself someday. Methinks that you are too scared to confront your delusions and use your brain instead of your ego. Is it really the end of your world because you are actually wrong?
Whatever.
OilIsMastery: EPIC FAIL!
April 16th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Joe,
"Mate, ill beleive the overwhelming consensus from experts in the field over a couple of cranks any day."
If 50 million people believe a fallacy it's still a fallacy.
"Ill beleive physical evidence and reasoned, logical development of Theory over illogical denial any day."
What evidence and logic are you referring to? Newtonian theology?
"…lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." — Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687
April 16th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Here is some more gravitational "logic" for you:
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." — Lord Kelvin, gravitational physicist, 1895
April 16th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Joe The Sixpacker Says:
"Tjips, – See what we are dealing with now?
Gravity is a creationist myth? LMAO!!!"
Hey don't laught!
Yesterday I saw Jezus on my toast, so that is proof enough that gravity does not exist!
April 16th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
"If 50 million people believe a fallacy it’s still a fallacy."
That is only true if it is a fallacy. If you believe gravitation is a fallacy, go ahead and write a peer reviewed paper that truly 'proves' ( in the proper sense of the word ) that your theory is right, and the prevailing theory is wrong. If you cannot, you are just another uneducated crank trying to prove to the world that the whole world ( minus a few cranks ) is wrong, and you are right. The burden of proof lies upon you.
If you can prove it, congratulations, you have just guaranteed yourself a Nobel Prize. Go ahead, please prove the worlds experts wrong.
"What evidence and logic are you referring to? Newtonian theology?"
Newtonian theology? What planet are you on?
The evidence and logic based reasoning i was talking about is….duh…the current accepted scientific theories on gravity? What else would i be talking about? The feeding habits of the tooth fairy?
You are One. Weird. Dude.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Olaf: Unfortunately, that is proof enough to many people.
Another example of what delusion and deliberate ignorance does to thought.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Joe,
"Newtonian theology?"
Do you know who Newton is?
Did you read the Newton quote I provided from Book 3's General Scholium of Newton's Principia?
"…lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." — Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687
That's called theology not science.
" What planet are you on?"
It's called Earth. What planet are you on?
"the current accepted scientific theories on gravity?"
There is no current acepted scientific theory of gravity. There are Newtonians, Relativists, Lagrangians, Velikovskians, etc.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
What? Your STILL going on at it?
I smack your ass down so hard youre crapping in China, and yet you still go on…sad, so very sad…
"Do you know who Newton is?"
Trying to change the argument to a different tack because you were beaten…obvious!
"Did you read the Newton quote I provided from Book 3’s General Scholium of Newton’s Principia?"
I did, and it provided nothing of value to your argument. You have a habit of quoting…it doesnt help your arguments, it just shows you can use a quote search engine….Obvious!
"There is no current acepted scientific theory of gravity."
And that makes your theory right….how? And that makes everything we know about gravity wrong….how? The great thing about science is that scientists readily accept what we do and dont know about things. But your argument is fallacious when you try to imply that because we dont know "everything" about a certain subject, then that somehow makes every alternative theory right.
It simply comes down to this Oils: Our current understanding of gravity is FAR MORE correct than your against the mainstream theory. Your theory has less proof, less predictability, and is simply a lesser theory.
I will believe the majority of experts in the fields of physics and cosmology over a supposed New York hedge fund manager ( as you call yourself in your blog ), any day.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Anyways, i tire of these easy smackdowns…time for lunch.
Before i go…word of advice Oils…seriously, give up the hedge fund dayjob, and go do standup comedy. Seriously! Ill even pay to watch!
Good luck with the burden of proof Oils….
April 16th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
At least with this "imaginary"
gravity we can actually predict where our space craft flies. LOL
April 16th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Olaf,
No. According to the theory of gravitation, heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
“Heavier than air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, gravitational physicist, 1895
And as far as gravitational prediction is concerned:
"If we were to assert that we knew more of moving objects than this their last-mentioned, experimentally-given comportment with respect to the celestial bodies, we should render ourselves culpable of a falsity." — Ernst Mach, physicist, 1893
April 16th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Gravitation is an electromagnetic phenomena! LOL@Oils!!!
So I'm attracted to the Earth by electromagnetism?
For that to be the case, there would have to be a charge imbalance between myself and the Earth. i.e.either the Earth or myself would have to be at a higher relative voltage than the other. That means that we could vary the 'electromagnetic gravitational force' by simply changing the charge of an object. Hell, I could revere gravity and levitate objects simply by changing their net charge! I think you'll agree that both of these things are demonstrably false Oils.
Not only that, but there are additional constraints – the charge imbalance would have to be uniform through out my body at least – otherwise some parts of me would be attracted more strongly than others which is clearly not the case.
Also, the equivalence principle has been shown to hold down to the accuracy of any measurement we can currently make. Not only on Earth, but in space too. That means that the voltage difference between objects that would be needed to cause your 'electromagnetic gravity' has to be absolute and cannot vary. But we can vary the charge of an object – so that is a logical contradiction in itself.
Or perhaps you have a magnetic effect in mind? Wrong! we could still vary the force on the object by modifying the charge it carries.
Jesus Christ Oils. Gravity and electromagnetism are so different by their nature and effects that it is frankly simply astounding that someone would try to account for the effects of one with the other.
P.S – Lord Kelvin wasn't a gravitational physicist – he worked mainly on thermodynamics and electricity – your area of expertise unless I'm mistaken. And yes – his statement was utterly wrong. But how does not accounting for the existence of the Bernoulli Principle and the advances in modern engineering that allows aircraft flight invalidate gravity? You're a strange one mate.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
OilIsMastery Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Olaf,
"No. According to the theory of gravitation, heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
You cannot be serious. Are you in fact a psychology student performing an analysis of how people on the internet react to complete logical fallacy and misinformation? What else can I say – WRONG. Gravity as a force acts downwards on an aircraft, and the pressure difference between the lower and upper surfaces of the wing caused by the Bernoulli principle causes a net upward force on the aircraft that opposes the gravitational force.
Honestly mate – this is high-school stuff. Go and grab a textbook and read.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Astrofiend,
"So I’m attracted to the Earth by electromagnetism?"
That's correct.
"For that to be the case, there would have to be a charge imbalance between myself and the Earth. i.e.either the Earth or myself would have to be at a higher relative voltage than the other."
That's correct. The movement of negative electricity into the ground (lightning) is due to the charge of the Earth.
"That means that we could vary the ‘electromagnetic gravitational force’ by simply changing the charge of an object."
No. Proximity is a factor you need to remember.
"Hell, I could revere gravity and levitate objects simply by changing their net charge! I think you’ll agree that both of these things are demonstrably false Oils."
All inertia is of electromagnetic origin.
"…inertia is exclusively of electromagnetic origin…." — Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908
"Not only that, but there are additional constraints – the charge imbalance would have to be uniform through out my body at least – otherwise some parts of me would be attracted more strongly than others which is clearly not the case."
Straw man.
"Also, the equivalence principle has been shown to hold down to the accuracy of any measurement we can currently make."
There are no gravitational measurements.
"…certain theoretical investigations … appear to me to throw doubt on the utility of very minute gravitational observations." — George H. Darwin, physicist, 1882
The moon does not fall to the Earth at 9.8 meters per second squared but rather falls away from the Earth at 3.8 centimeters per year.
"Not only on Earth, but in space too. That means that the voltage difference between objects that would be needed to cause your ‘electromagnetic gravity’ has to be absolute and cannot vary. But we can vary the charge of an object – so that is a logical contradiction in itself."
More assumptions and straw mans that are not supported by plasma physics.
"Or perhaps you have a magnetic effect in mind? Wrong! we could still vary the force on the object by modifying the charge it carries."
Electromagnetism. Yes.
"Jesus Christ Oils. Gravity and electromagnetism are so different by their nature and effects that it is frankly simply astounding that someone would try to account for the effects of one with the other."
I agree. Electromagnetism exists. Gravitation does not.
"P.S – Lord Kelvin wasn’t a gravitational physicist"
Why didn't Lord Kelvin believe in gravitation? If he didn't believe in gravitation, then why did he say heavier than air flying machines are impossible?
"And yes – his statement was utterly wrong."
Just like the statements of Newton and Einstein.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Astrofiend,
"Gravity as a force acts downwards on an aircraft"
Must be the weakest force in the universe if an electromagnetic engine can counteract it.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
In greater detail, on a galactic cluster scale, that filament is likely composed of smaller, intertwined filaments similar to this:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/images/040730nebula.jpg
They have basically mapped a huge Birkeland filament.
The "kinks" within, "pinches" between, or "branches" of, these relatively smaller filaments, that comprise the larger filamentary structure, would be where the galaxies are created.
The overall structure of the broader area is very much like an ongoing/billions of years long, "Lichtenberg figure" discharge, with a large discharge column, a kink instability, and shorter "branches" radiating out from the central column.
April 16th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
I'm glad you're finally agreeing with all these gravitationist.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Hmm – where to start Oils?
"That’s correct. The movement of negative electricity into the ground (lightning) is due to the charge of the Earth."
Lightning has nothing to do with what we're talking about – I made a specific point. Stop trying to deflect and distract the conversation. You're always accusing people of setting up straw man arguments, but you;ve plainly done just that right there. You claim that you and I are attracted to the Earth as a result of a voltage difference. Let's debate that point.
"No. Proximity is a factor you need to remember."
In what way? Show me quantitatively how proximity comes into play in the instance I'm talking about, but it does not in the general 'EM gravitation' that you suggest is the case. You agree with my statement that your claim is that a delta V causes gravitational effects. Then by the fundamental definition of the electrostatic force, varying that delta V will change the force between two objects. Proximity doesn't come into it – we're discussing the difference between the force between two objects resulting from a given delta V and a different delta V. The location of the attracting objects is the same in both circumstances. Proximity is accounted for in both circumstances. My argument holds.
"All inertia is of electromagnetic origin."
How? What mechanism to you propose that makes that the case? There is certainly none in classical EM theory.
"Straw man."
How is the following a straw man?
“Not only that, but there are additional constraints – the charge imbalance would have to be uniform through out my body at least – otherwise some parts of me would be attracted more strongly than others which is clearly not the case.”
It has direct bearing on the issue, and flows as a consequence of your theory. Do you even know what a straw man is?
"There are no gravitational measurements."
OK – measurements of the inverse-square, universally attractive force that acts on all massive objects in proportion to their mass.
"The moon does not fall to the Earth at 9.8 meters per second squared but rather falls away from the Earth at 3.8 centimeters per year."
Are you arguing that it is not in a central potential, subject to a centripetal force? If that is that case, it would fly away in a straight line tangential to is current orbital acceleration. The moon gains orbital energy for a number of reasons, increasing the energy of it's orbit. It is easily predictable using both Newtonian mechanics and GR. Show me the numbers on what your theory predicts.
"More assumptions and straw mans that are not supported by plasma physics."
Again with the straw man accusations. I'm sure you don't even know what a straw man argument is. Not sure which plasma physics you're talking about. I'm guessing it's not the one universally recognised by physicists though. Perhaps something that you developed in an EU chat room?
"I agree. Electromagnetism exists. Gravitation does not."
Hmm – where exactly is your evidence that gravitation does not exist? Religious faith and absolutism. Good luck with that. We'll see what bears out in the next 50 years eh?
"Why didn’t Lord Kelvin believe in gravitation? If he didn’t believe in gravitation, then why did he say heavier than air flying machines are impossible?"
He did. He just wasn't a 'gravitational physcist', meant to imply by your post that he was somehow a leading expert on the topic and that somehow not knowing about the Bernoulli principle renders gravity invalid.
"Just like the statements of Newton and Einstein."
You demonstrate time and time again that you don;t even understand the statements of Newton and Einstein – it is merely your ideas about their statements that are wrong.
"Must be the weakest force in the universe if an electromagnetic engine can counteract it."
Uhh – it is. Measured to be 10^39 times intrinsically weaker than the Strong Nuclear force, 10^37 times weaker than the EM force, and 10^33 times weaker than the Weak nuclear force. That is assuming you have heard of these other forces…
But gravity is unique – it is both universally attractive, and long range – it all adds up.
Once again Oils, you avoid all of the salient arguments, present no quantitative predictions of the theory you support nor any qualitative arguments as to why your mysterious theory predicts the things that you claim it does, you don't answer questions put to you, attempt to frame others arguments as logical fallacies or irrelevant when they are not, resort to quoting scientists from the depths of time that do not have access to current data or technology, and the list goes on.
Keep peddling your wares – it doesn't bother me. As I always say – a theory stands or falls on its merit. Yours doesn't appear to have much, because as evidenced by your quotes, science has left you in the middle ages. When you use your theory to develop some amazing new technology, or actually fit the thing with all available observations and predict the outcome of all new ones, come and see me – I'd be delighted to admit I was wrong.
Quick – you've got the Plank satellite heading up soon to study the microwave background. Your theory claims to know what it is and how it got there, so predict the structure of the anisotropies that it will measure and you will be a hero! You'll get the Nobel!
April 16th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
In fact, gravity is nothing any creationists/intelligent designers came up with. See, e.g., http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=gravity+intelligent+design&aq=f — there's a whole series of lectures linked there, which show that gravity and intelligent design/creationism contradict each other. BTW, Oills, when do you have your 14th birthday? Maybe we should throw a party for you.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Oh good lord. People are responding to Oils? The only response I can think of to his trolling and babbling is: You can't be this stupid!!!
His sole purpose here is to troll and then rub into people's faces how wrong they are by quoting people. He's not hear to listen to rational arguments or make any good-faith effort in trying to understand the topics he's attacking.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:05 am
# ND Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
"Oh good lord. People are responding to Oils? The only response I can think of to his trolling and babbling is: You can’t be this stupid!!!
His sole purpose here is to troll and then rub into people’s faces how wrong they are by quoting people. He’s not hear to listen to rational arguments or make any good-faith effort in trying to understand the topics he’s attacking."
>>>I completely agree ND! However, there are a few reasons I respond every now and then.
First of all, I enjoy arguing the point with people. If I don't feel like it at the time or when I can't be bothered anymore, I simply let it slide. I'm under no illusions that my arguments will make the slightest difference to his opinion. I also don't feel the need to 'stick up' for science – any scientific theory can stick up for itself or fall on it's own sword. I just find the process of arguing fun.
Secondly, I like to f^^k with people that either come in here with an attitude or wear their ignorance like a crown. I like to call them names and piss them off. Get them riled up. Get them to write huge rants and sermons and then ignore their opinion in its entirety. Childish for a person of my age I know, but entertaining if work is a bit slow at the time – it has been today.
Third, I like to let him know that he's the only person in the world that believes what he believes (except for the other few that believe it too, but they don't matter so they don't count), and that hell will come into actual existence and then freeze over before his ideas are accepted. He'll live out his life in growing frustration and bitterness as science moves on while he can't… I look forward to that being reflected in his monologues, rants and snide comments.
Fourth – some people may actually be persuaded by his unchallenged arguments if they didn't know any better (hadn't taken high-school science). I feel that a voice of sanity every now and then is a healthy thing.
Anyway – the weekend calls. Check ya.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:35 am
All i got to say is… Woah…
April 17th, 2009 at 3:46 am
OIM,
Surely you understand that magnets only attract when their fields are aligned North to South and South to North. (This has been demonstrated in the laboratory and can thus be extrapolated to the Universe as a whole.) When the Sun and Earth are in this configuration, I can see how magnetism might actually work to hold the Earth in orbit. But, every 11 years, when the Sun goes through a pole reversal, we are left with poles aligned North to North and South to South. If, one way, the field is strong enough to hold on to the Earth, then the other way must be strong enough to expel it. Is there a quote that explains this?
April 17th, 2009 at 4:40 am
There is only one response to the little debate here:
>>>Electromagnetic forces can be canceld, gravitation cannot!<<<
Put together equal amounts of positive and negative charges and the (em) force outside of them will be exactly ZERO.
Put together two big balls of mass and the (gravitational) force will add up! There is NO negative mass to cancel gravitation.
Period.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:44 am
@ solrey:
You need an energy source in order to get plasma, Birkeland currents, etc.
Question: What is the energy source?
And I mean the one that gave rise to plasma in the first place.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:33 am
@ solrey, you state above that "They have basically mapped a huge Birkeland filament." Could you please provide peer-reviewed, published papers that explicitly make this claim for this mega-cluster MACSJ0717 ? The filament mentioned in the article was discovered in 2004 (I posted a link to that paper above). It's been 5 years since its' discovery, so many EU/PU/PC "scientists" should have scads of papers directly bearing on this galaxy cluster. My guess is there are NO papers on MACSJ0717 that directly state that the filament in this cluster is "a huge Birkeland current" Or, would this lack of research papers simply be 'redundant', as you have stated elsewhere on this site. Just one paper is all I'm asking for. Surely IEEE journals should be filled with papers on the Birkeland current mapped in MACSJ0717!
April 17th, 2009 at 8:38 am
OilIsMastery Says about gravity:
"Must be the weakest force in the universe if an electromagnetic engine can counteract it."
Full marks to you, you are absolutely correct!
You are beginning to learn about gravity. I didn't expect that.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Astrofiend,
I see what you're saying and believe me I've had to fight off the urge to correct what Oils says, but after observing for a while, I've concluded that he's not here to discuss and I would not succeed in trying to help him. Good luck!
April 17th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Astrofiend,
"Lightning has nothing to do with what we’re talking about"
LOL. It has everything to do with what we're talking about.
Lightning is electricity. Electrons. They travel to the Earth because, contrary to your religious beliefs, the Earth has an electric charge.
Are you denying the existence of lightning?
"My argument holds."
Good luck changing the electric charge of the electrons in your body. Let me know how that works out for you, I'd like to repeat your experiment.
"How? What mechanism to you propose that makes that the case? "
Opposite electric charges repel. So when you put your foot to the ground, the electrons in your foot and the electrons on the surface repel eachother, thus creating inertia.
"OK – measurements of the inverse-square, universally attractive force that acts on all massive objects in proportion to their mass."
Those measurements don't exist. The inverse square so-called law is a joke.
"It is easily predictable using both Newtonian mechanics and GR."
The secular acceleration of the moon was observed by Halley so the observation was made before any of your mythological predictions could have taken place.
"Not sure which plasma physics you’re talking about"
That's obvious.
"Hmm – where exactly is your evidence that gravitation does not exist?"
Look around you! Do you see any massive objects being attracted towards one another? I don't.
"Religious faith and absolutism. Good luck with that."
Newton, Lemaitre, and religous fundamentalism don't need luck because you already accept it as dogma.
"…lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." — Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687
"Uhh – it is"
Duh.
"it all adds up."
You must be using that New Math they use out in California. 2+2=5?
"Quick – you’ve got the Plank satellite heading up soon to study the microwave background. "
The Big Bang theory predicted 50 degrees Kelvin for CMB. Plasma Universe predicted 2.8 degrees Kelvin. Which one of those predictions do you think is more accurate?
April 17th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Yael,
"In fact, gravity is nothing any creationists/intelligent designers came up with."
It is obvious you have never read Newton's Principia so you don't know what gravitaiton is.
Isaac Newton was a creationist and his hypothesis of gravitation is a creationist belief.
For you to state otherwise demonstrates profound illiteracy and ignorance.
"…lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." — Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687
April 17th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Andy,
"Surely you understand that magnets only attract when their fields are aligned North to South and South to North. (This has been demonstrated in the laboratory and can thus be extrapolated to the Universe as a whole.) "
No. The aurora, so-called "Northern Lights," have been observed away from the poles. It was reported by the New York Times that in Boston on Friday September 2, 1859 the Aurora was "so brilliant that at about one o'clock [AM] ordinary print could be read by the light."
"When the Sun and Earth are in this configuration, I can see how magnetism might actually work to hold the Earth in orbit."
Welcome to the crackpot asylum. I'm inmate 101.
"But, every 11 years, when the Sun goes through a pole reversal, we are left with poles aligned North to North and South to South. If, one way, the field is strong enough to hold on to the Earth, then the other way must be strong enough to expel it. Is there a quote that explains this?"
Link, citation, or reference please.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Dr. Flimmer,
"You need an energy source in order to get plasma, Birkeland currents, etc.
Question: What is the energy source?
And I mean the one that gave rise to plasma in the first place."
You need an energy source in order to get gravitation, the Big Bang, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, etc.
Question: What is the energy source?
And I mean the one that gave rise to Dark Energy, Dark Matter, the Big Bang, and gravitation in the first place.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Astrofiend,
"Opposite electric charges repel" should read "like charges repel." Sorry for typo.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:14 am
OIM,
The physical basis of the solar cycle was elucidated in the early twentieth century by George Ellery Hale and collaborators, who in 1908 showed that sunspots were strongly magnetized (this was the first detection of magnetic fields outside the Earth), and in 1919 went on to show that the magnetic polarity of sunspot pairs:
* Is always the same in a given solar hemisphere throughout a given sunspot cycle;
* Is opposite across hemispheres throughout a cycle;
* Reverses itself in both hemispheres from one sunspot cycle to the next.
Hale's observations revealed that the solar cycle is a magnetic cycle with an average duration of 22 years. However, because very nearly all manifestations of the solar cycle are insensitive to magnetic polarity, it remains common usage to speak of the "11-year solar cycle".
Half a century later, the father-and-son team of Harold Babcock and Horace Babcock showed that the solar surface is magnetized even outside of sunspots; that this weaker magnetic field is to first order a dipole; and that this dipole also undergoes polarity reversals with the same period as the sunspot cycle. These various observations established that the solar cycle is a spatiotemporal magnetic process unfolding over the Sun as a whole.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Andy,
Thank you for your intelligent, informative, and scholarly reply.
I think this is the most informative comment I've ever seen on Universe Today thus far.
I'm still not sure what the 11 year solar cycle means exactly so I'll have to study it more.
It doesn't mean that electrons suddenly change their charge and become positrons.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:40 am
@OIM
With the Big Bang everything there is just came into being, even energy (and mass, and thus matter, is just another form of energy). To answer your question I would need to answer the question: "Where did the BB come from?".
But since the BB is a moment without a previous second, this question is useless. I know this is hard (almost impossible) to comprehend and very unsatisfying. But since quantum effects play a major role in the BB (because everything was very small), everything, including space and time, starts to fluctuate close to the "very beginning". This in turn means that all our senses of cause and effect are violated. Physics break down at that point (even em). Very unsatisfying, indeed, but that's the deal.
As I said, nobody will answer that one. BUT here is the advantage over EU:
We know that we fail to answer. EU claims to tell you something about known things. It should not break down anywhere. So they are in a position that they actually NEED to explain the energy source, it must be a known source, otherwise EU is even less powerful than they are right now.
BB probably has a chance, if we find a theory of quantum gravitation which combines the two most succesful theories that there are, so far. GR and the weird things of quantum mechanics. And that is the point: Physics are not made to be understandable. Nobody can visualise the strange things of quantum mechanics. And since they definitly play a major role in the BB, the same is true for the BB itself.
So, OIM. What is the energy source of EU? And what do you say about quantum mechanics?
April 17th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Dr. Flimmer,
"OIM. What is the energy source of EU?"
The exact same energy source as the Big Bang.
"And what do you say about quantum mechanics?"
Quantum mechanics correctly recognizes that space and time are not physical material objects that can have shape, be curved, or warp matter.
"The arguments of Hume and Kant have been confirmed by quantum mechanics." — Sunny Y. Auyang, physicist, 1995
Quantum mechanics says prediction is pure luck.
"One part that came to maturity in the pauses between ping pong games is also perhaps the most important from the point of view of general interest. The name of this particular discovery is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It takes a strange position in regard to an ancient question, determinism. Is the future really predictable? If we knew the situation at the present with complete accuracy, then the laws of physics say that the future should be completely predictable. What Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says is that it is impossible to know completely accurately what the present is." — Edward Teller, physicist, 1990
Quantum mechanics laughs at the myths of relativity and gravitation as no quantum gravity has been found, nor will it ever be found.
"An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." — Bertrand Russell, physicist/philosopher, 1924
April 17th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
@drflimmer
What is the energy source of EU? Basically we're looking for the catalyst for charged particle movement. First, what causes the cold, cosmic medium become ionized/plasma? Once it is established that near 0 K plasma can exist, then space would be an infinite volume of tenuous, inhomogenous plasma. Inherently, regions of varying density and charge potential would drive charged particle flow between them, magnetic fields created induce their own particle movement, creating their own magnetic fields…etc. As long as the cosmic medium remains in the plasma state, it will maintain charged particle movement and magnetic fields.
Admittedly none of the following links prove that the cosmic medium can remain in an ionized state, there is evidence that this is very probable
This research into ultracold plasmas is intriguing and could be useful in exploring ultracold plasma in space:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/16818
I'm also thinking of the way water is, essentially, constantly self-ionizing.
The question is, does any of this apply to the cosmic plasma medium, and if so, how? While not direct proof, I think it provides some evidence for the possibility of the cosmic medium naturally being in a self-induced plasma state.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Solrey said…
"…magnetic fields created induce their own particle movement,"
Ha Ha. This is the funniest thing I've read in years! Next thing you will be telling us about is Santa and the Tooth Fairy. How can this actually happen, I mean, you might as well believe in perpetual motion.
As for "I’m also thinking of the way water is, essentially, constantly self-ionizing." What? I assume you are talking about dissociation, but what has that go to do with self-ionising or EU. Next think you will be telling us is magnetic fields are being produced just by simple running water – the ultimate battery!
As for plasmas existing at 0 K that is absolutely ridiculous – they may be ionic but that does not make them a plasma (worst because of it, by you nutso views, deduces space in infinite! How wrong can you be.)
Next you will tell us water is a plasma – come think of it by you crazy definition every atom, electron, proton, neutron, etc., according to you, the entire Universe is in a plasma state. Absolute rubbish.
All I read here is utter gibberish archaic nonsense by a crackpot.
No I know you are seriously delusional.
Dr Flimmer go totally nuts on the fruitcake – please !!
April 17th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
ND Says:
"Oh good lord. People are responding to Oils? The only response I can think of to his trolling and babbling is: You can’t be this stupid!!!"
I think just like Astrofiend .
And it also forces me to learn the hell more about the standard model and the universe.
The more I learn about this EU, the more wacko I find this theory and the more flaws I discover. It also forces me to think skepticall about the current standard model and the more I find that the standard model is a pretty good model that actually makes a lot of sense.
The hard part of the EU is to convert the techno bable into something that is easier to understand. And once you convert this to easy understandable wording then you discover how wacko this theory really is.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Olaf,
I see your points too
I've had to relearn some of the stuff I learned well over a decade ago. It's also been conducive to gaining debating skills. Not that I would consider myself effective at it.
That said Oils is like a brick wall. Nothing gets through.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
@ ND & Olaf, I must agree with your assessments of these discussions. It's also gratifying that there are several regulars at this site who do think critically and in a reasoned manner. I always worry about neophytes & curious visitors reading some of this pseudo-science garbage and falling for some slick website or nonsensical argument in support of these fringe ideas. @ Solrey, you state above that “They have basically mapped a huge Birkeland filament.” Could you please provide peer-reviewed, published papers that explicitly make this claim for this mega-cluster MACSJ0717 ? I'm still waiting, where's the papers?
April 17th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
"The Big Bang theory predicted 50 degrees Kelvin for CMB."
More lies Oils. Just flat out lies. Gamow, Alpher and Herman (1948) calculated, from a very simple argument based entirely on early rudimentary BIg Bang physics that the temp of the BB should be 5 Kelvin. What's more, it should have a black body spectrum.
With a very slightly modified argument incorporating more parameters, we can arrive at a value of 2.45 Kelvin. This is all before the microwave background was even discovered. With modern analysis and observational results, the BB prediction predicts the form and temperature of the microwave background so accurately that the predicted energy spectrum basically lies bang on top of the measured spectrum.
Further, inflation predicted the anisotropies in the background long before they were discovered Where was your theory on this one? Now, physics is putting out it's predictions in ever more detail, waiting for the new round of data to come through from Plank to confirm or refute. Where is your prediction? It seems that your theory only ever seems to make it's predictions in hindsight. Shame.
"Good luck changing the electric charge of the electrons in your body. Let me know how that works out for you, I’d like to repeat your experiment."
Why would I have to do that when I could just add some or take them away to increase or decrease my net charge? Is that the best you can come up with in response to the serious problems identified with your theory?
"Opposite electric charges repel. So when you put your foot to the ground, the electrons in your foot and the electrons on the surface repel eachother, thus creating inertia." (corrected to like charges repel)
a) – that makes no sense. I think you may need to read up on inertia.
b) OK assuming that that was somehow the case, inertia is independant of direction – it is (paraphrasing) a 'resistance to a change in velocity' – it applies equally in every direction, so how are you accounting for this with the force between the electrons in the ground and those in my foot? What about the inertia of objects in space? What about inertia for objects moving parallel to the ground? Your proposed mechanism makes no sense at all.
"Those measurements don’t exist. The inverse square so-called law is a joke."
Scientists made them up? Or was it the Illuminati?
Weak Oils. You addressed none of my arguments at all – just trotted out the same tired old lines. I'd love to pick through them all, but it's getting a bit old.
I look forward to seeing your response on Monday.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
If gravity is an EM force then why do things in Faraday cages not float?
April 17th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
OilIsSlippery Says:
"If gravity is an EM force then why do things in Faraday cages not float?"
I KNOW that answer! I KNOW that answer!
but I am not going to tell.
I mean I know what the arguments of the EU would be, and again it is deeply flawed if you check it.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
AND Says:
"That said Oils is like a brick wall. Nothing gets through."
I agree ND, but that is not important.
I have no desire to convert him or let him to see the light. But he is an interesting praktice target to actually test my own understanding of the universe.
It would be foolish to believe that the standard model is perfect, so it should be tested with wierd stuff thrown at it.
Did you know that I also test the EU proponents by making mistakes just to see if they actually detect that I told something wrong? It is very clear that they have no understanding of their own theories except for the buzzewords and technobable.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
@oils:
“Opposite electric charges repel. So when you put your foot to the ground, the electrons in your foot and the electrons on the surface repel eachother, thus creating inertia.” (corrected to like charges repel)
You mean ALL electrions in ALL the universe including the electrons in you food AND electrons in the ground repell each other with a net result of ZERO!
And if you have some basic knowlede of elctronics, ONLY the electrons that are free floating will repell each other, all those that are bound to an atom will NOT repell at all!
This is how a capacitor works, by forcing too many electrons to one side of the capacitior resulting the electric field to push away all other electrons at the other side of the capacitor.
Also this inertia with electrins does not make sence, if my foot is conducting all my free electrons will immediately move to the ground.
But if if my foot was perfectly isolated and the electric field of electrons are repelling my foot, then because it is perfectly iolated all my electrons in my foot should stay there and my foot would start to float!
But again Oils is showing that he has no understanding of his own EU theory since it is not the static force that creates the inertia, but the very fact that the subtronics orbit gets deformed because an magnetic field creating a static dipole that looks like a static magnet where the plus side attracts the negative side of the electron AND THE proton and even a neutron! yes it is a waco theory once you dig deeper into it, but that is what they EU clames!
April 17th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I have no desire to convert him or let him to see the light. But he is an interesting praktice target to actually test my own understanding of the universe.
This is the exact opposite the way I feel about him. He rarely bring anything coherent to the table unless he quoted it, and even when he does it is the kind of stuff a middle schooler could refute.
Explaining why he is wrong feels like a waste of time for me. I'm not a big EU fan but sometimes people here bring up things that prompt me to seek an answer or to critically examine what I've read in the past. The short way of saying it would be; it's interesting with a chance of productivity.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Sorry, forgot to close my italic quote brackets!
April 18th, 2009 at 3:11 am
@ OIM
And still your DvD-player is running, although noone knows about the current state of its photons to read the DvD?
@ solrey
Well, as much as I have read from your link, this seems to be impossible in space.
Consider at first that it would be possible for atoms to reach a near-0K-state in space. The link says that there is need of another laser to push the electrons away from the proton. Where should this laser (an energy source!) come from in space? A 0K-hydogen will not give away its electron just because it likes to, you still need an energy source!
Second: There is still something outside we call the "Microwave Background". Since it is SO uniform and isotropic, the assumption that it "comes" from everywhere holds. It doesn't really matter what causes this radiation. The main fact is that is a THERMAL spectrum (the best we ever detected!!). This means, it belongs to a temperature. And since this radiation is everywhere the same, it means that the universe has a mean temperature of about 2,7K. Nothing can become colder than that in space (it is possible on earth, but (although seeming counterproductive) with great need of energy).
Infinite space and probably infinite time. Is this really easier to comprehend than a beginning with a moment without a previous one?
But this is not the real argument. Have you ever heard of "Olbers' Paradox" ?
Olbers' Paradox is the simple question: Why is it dark at night?
Assuming infinite space and infinite time. That would lead to an infinite number of galaxies and that would mean that in every solid angle there is also an infinite (probably smaller than the "infinite" from before – yes, infinity is not always the same, ask mathematicians…) number of galaxies. Since we have an infinite time already gone by, photons of even the most dinstant galaxies should have reached us by now. This in turn means that from everywhere, and really from everywhere, an infinite number of photons should hit us. Thus: The nightsky couldn't be dark, it should be extreamly bright – BUT IT IS NOT.
So, taking the steps back, this means: No infinite time, since at least some photons cannot have reached us. That means that there HAD to be a beginning and I think it is unreasonable that the universe "started" with infinite space.
Conclusion: The solution of Olbers' Paradox is the Big Bang (even the expansion is needed). Check the Wikipedia article if you want a more detailed explanation.
Be careful with this one. Only changing magnetic fields induce currents. AND those corrents always try to counter their cause, thus the magnetic field will be weakend (Lenz's law).
Indeed, it sounds like perpetual motion.
Ever heard of the 21cm-line? It is a flip in the groundstate of hydrogen-atoms, the electron (or is it the proton? I don't know exactly at the moment, but it's not so important) changes it's spin direction. This is a clear sign of neutral hydrogen in space. And guess what? We observe LARGE clouds of neutral hydrogen in galaxies. We can even use them to measure the rotational curve of the galaxy, which is independent of the motion of the stars. And what is the result? LARGE NEUTRAL clouds are moving exactly the same way as the stars. I don't think that EU can explain this little fact. Neutral clouds are not effected by em-forces – so what other force can push the clouds around? Gravitation is the only one. An independent hint for dark matter.
What? Water is a polar molecule (which is good, since otherwise it would not be liquid at "room temperature"), but not ionized.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
@drflimmer
A few quotes regarding the auto-ionization of water.
"Water, however pure, is not a simple collection of H2O molecules. Even in "pure" water, sensitive equipment can detect a very slight electrical conductivity of 0.055 µS·cm-1. According to the theories of Svante Arrhenius, this must be due to the presence of ions."
"The resulting equilibrium constant is called the ionization constant, dissociation constant, or self-ionization constant, or ion product of water and is symbolized by Kw."
"Removal of all ions from water is next to impossible, since water self-ionizes quickly to reach equilibrium."
"Because of the autoionization of water, the concentration of H3O+ and the concentration of OH– are inversely related in any aqueous solution."
The comment about ultra-cold plasma was not intended as unequivocal proof that it exists in space. The research being conducted on ultra-cold plasma indicates that further studies relating to cosmic plasma is justified.
"Electrons in a spherical ultracold, quasi-neutral plasma at temperature in the Kelvin range can be created by laser excitation of an ultracold, laser-cooled atomic cloud. The dynamical behaviour of the electrons is similar to the one described by conventional models of star cluster dynamics. The single mass component, the spherical symmetry and no star evolution are here accurate assumptions. The analogue of binary star formations in the cluster case is a three-body recombination in Rydberg atoms in the plasma case with the same Heggie's law: soft binaries get softer and hard binaries get harder. We demonstrate that the evolution of such an ultracold plasma is dominated by Fokker–Planck kinetics equations formally identical to the ones controlling the evolution of a star cluster. The Virial theorem leads to a link between the plasma temperature and the ions and electron numbers. The Fokker–Planck equation is approximate using gaseous and fluid models. We found that the electrons are in a Kramers–Michie–King type quasi-equilibrium distribution as stars in clusters. We suggest that the evaporation rate can be used to determine the temperature. As an example, knowing the electron distribution and using forced fast electron extraction, in a 'violent extraction' way, we are able to determine the plasma temperature knowing the trapping potential depth.
Accepted 2005 May 30. Received 2005 May 21; in original form 2005 January 5"
"Radu Balescu writes in his book, Aspects of Anomalous Transport in Plasmas,:
Plasma is often called the "fourth state of matter", assuming that solid, liquid and gas are, respectively the first, second and third state. If however, the criterion of classification is changed, plasma should be called the "first state of matter", given that more than 99% of matter in the universe is in the plasma state. This trivial remark underlies the importance of plasma physics."
The CMBR is Anisotropic, btw.
"Analyses of recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations have provided increasing indications for the existence of large scale anisotropy in the universe."
"Dr. Gerrit Verschuur, Adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Memphis, has noticed a disturbing correlation between the small-scale structures in the Cosmic Background Radiation (CMB) and data from his All Sky Survey of Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen (HI.)
The Nobel Winning COBE and it's successor, WMAP were designed to detect faint variations in the CMB signals left over from the Big Bang. The age and composition of the Universe has been predicted from the small-scale structure observed in this data.
However, if even a small fraction of the anisotropy can be associated with structure in the Milky Way, the cosmological interpretations of the data could be called into question.
Verschuur, a pioneer in the science of radio astronomy, has been studying the properties of the Milky Way using interstellar HI for almost 50 years. According to his recent work, it appears that many of the small-scale structures observed by WMAP are correlated with HI.
If confirmed, Verschuur's discovery means that the structure superimposed on the CMB is produced in the Milky Way and does not have a cosmic origin. Thus the CMB signal from the early universe may be smoother than anyone expected, which raises new questions as to how structure ever emerged in the Universe to create galaxies."
IMO, it's because we're close to the Birkeland current "transmission lines", within our galaxy, that we see this overlaying structure from our galaxy, but since we're far from the surrounding, intergalactic transmission lines, the background signal becomes diffused, or closer to isotropic.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Verschurr reminds me of Arp. An honest scientist who stumbled into information that brings the "accepted" theory into question.
Sometimes we just can't see the forest for the trees.
April 19th, 2009 at 3:16 am
@ solrey
We are talking about 10^-5K (if I remember correctly). I consider this to be highly isotropic.
And again: It is a thermal spectrum. How is the HI related to it? It must by thermal radiation, otherwise the spectrum would look different. That in turn means that the galactic HI has to have a temperature of about 3K. The coolest clouds I know of have about 20K.
It could also be coincedental, just like Arp's theory. Arp's idea has been discussed in the 90ies, until we found with better data that it was just a matter of statistics.
Anyway, Planck is due to launch next month. We will see!
April 19th, 2009 at 3:45 am
A few more notes:
Ok, if I have known that I forgot about it. But you will not tell me that water is a plasma, will you?
The star cluster is used as an analogy. It does not mean that it is "the same" or that one thing can be used to explain the other. That is, how I see the abstract.
And this tells us exactly what? This is nitpicking and not an argument.
Are you talking about "flux tubes"?
Btw: gyrating charged particles produce cyclotron or synchrotron radiation. But they will never ever produce a thermal spectrum. Your Birkeland currents cannot account for the CMB!
April 19th, 2009 at 3:50 am
Ah, and I forgot:
We don't only find neutral hydrogen in space, we also find big molecules (some form of acids and alcohols, e.g.). This would violate a "self-ionizing" mechanism in space. There is also a big portion of dust out there.
I beg you for answering this question:
How is it possible that large neutral clouds move around in galaxies with the same velocity as the stars?
April 19th, 2009 at 6:24 am
It is strange that Newton's laws and gravity are being called a "creation myth" by OIM. It is interesting how we are able to get robots on the surface of Mars and exporation craft around Juipter and Saturn with this "myth."
This observation is likely to provide some information on how dark matter and ordinary matter interact. The DM is gravitationally influencing the system, while luminous matter is interacting via EM (and yes as a diffuse plasma) giving distinct signatures which depart from the gravity lensing by the DM. This might be thought of as the Bullet galaxy collision , where instead of it being a two-some, this more like a party.
Lawrence B. Crowell
April 19th, 2009 at 7:27 am
@ lbc: And what a party! Continuing observations at many wavelengths will shed some light on the dynamics & physics of a bona fide filament (i.e. DM distribution, mechanics of a four cluster collision, relative mass contributions, etc.). Filaments of galaxies, gas (& presumably DM) have been observed by astronomers (6dF, 2dF, etc) and predicted theoretically (Millenium Galaxy Simulation and others). Detailed research (both observational and theoretical) on filaments and voids in the cosmos is in its infancy, so the next few years should provide a more informed consensus of the structure and dynamics of filaments and what really abounds in these cosmic voids.
April 19th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Solrey said;
"A few quotes regarding the auto-ionization of water.
“Water, however pure, is not a simple collection of H2O molecules. Even in “pure” water, sensitive equipment can detect a very slight electrical conductivity of 0.055 µS·cm-1. According to the theories of Svante Arrhenius, this must be due to the presence of ions.”
Clear you know little about chemistry, and to quote such a thing is frankly irrelevant and completely misleading.
Dissociation is theoretically caused in all solutions, where there is a small probability in molecules exchanging between ionic states – based on a small temporary transference of electrons. The ability to change these ionic states produces the equilibrium constant, which varies between solutions. But where are these solutions in space or celestial objects?
Really this has absolutely nothing to do with plasmas nor magnetic fields. A solution may conduct electricity – but it has nothing to do with EU at all. As for "self-ionizing" – the misnomer – and you know it. Such term are just used as an illusional trick to fool the casual reader, whose term sound like it is from the EU lot. IDISSOCIATION, and is actually chemical term to describe the behaviour of solutions. No more no less.
It seems all this is inversion from the topic at hand, unless you are stupid enough to admit water is in fact plasma.
It is totally irrelevant to EU!
As for 99% of the universe being in a plasma, well actually that is pure idol speculation – especially on the way you loose define and bandy around the term. Most of the plasma in fact exists within stars, and any in space has rarely been proven except with the quite rare exotic or dynamic phenomena. There is absolutely no evidence to show plasma exists throughout space – and it is likely to remain that way for sometime. You sound very much like the druggy and veronal addicted Birkeland who speculated such an ideas, without real prove nor evidence – except for stumbling evidence of his observation of aurorae. (Pity it is 2008 and not 1900, because EU'ers remain stuck there in the past!)
As a general warning. Be very care quoting chemistry here, because I will simply tear you to little pieces. Others may be fooled, but you won't be able to
get past me.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:44 am
@ solrey: As Astrofiend has asked before, where are the peer-reviewed published papers with predictions of the precise spectrum and size/distribution of the anisotropies in the CMBR Planck will measure? I've read or noted dozens of peer-reviewed published papers predicting what Planck will find based on the predictions or extensions of the Standard Model? What about papers by EU 'scientists' on the nature of the anisotropies detected by WMAP? Or papers predicting the anisotropies WMAP (pre-launch) will observe? I can't seem to be able to find any peer-reviewed papers by EU 'scientists' addressing these questions directly. Do you have any links to papers regarding EU theory or predictions involving Planck or WMAP?
April 20th, 2009 at 11:11 am
@ solreay:
Where are you? There are many questions waiting to be answered by you.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
I'd also like to know how much neutrinos the EU/PC models expect to come from the sun given their take on nuclear fusion in (on?) the Sun.
Unfortunately I might be around to read any answers for a while.