Perseus Cluster.  Credit: NASA, ESA, and Z. Levay (STScI)

Hubble Finds Evidence of Dark Matter Around Small Galaxies

Article Updated: 24 Dec , 2015
by

[/caption]
The Hubble Space Telescope has uncovered a strong new line of evidence that galaxies are embedded in halos of dark matter. By looking at the Perseus galaxy cluster, Hubble discovered a large number of small galaxies that have remained intact while larger galaxies around them are being ripped apart by the gravitational tug of other galaxies. “We were surprised to find so many dwarf galaxies in the core of this cluster that were so smooth and round and had no evidence at all of any kind of disturbance,” said astronomer Christopher Conselice of the University of Nottingham, UK, and leader of the team that made the Hubble observations. “These dwarfs are very old galaxies that have been in the cluster for a long time. So if something was going to disrupt them, it would have happened by now. They must be very, very dark-matter-dominated galaxies.”

Observations by Hubble’s Advanced Camera for Surveys spotted 29 dwarf elliptical galaxies in the Perseus Cluster, located 250 million light-years away and one of the closest galaxy clusters to Earth. Of these galaxies, 17 are new discoveries.

Cosmologists estimate that dark matter comprises 23 percent of all energy in the cosmos. An equally mysterious “dark energy,” which drives galaxies apart, is thought to take up another 73 percent or so. The ordinary matter that we can see is believed to represent only four percent of the total mass of the Universe.

Because dark matter cannot be seen, astronomers detected its presence through indirect evidence. The most common method is by measuring the velocities of individual stars or groups of stars as they move randomly in the galaxy or as they rotate around the galaxy. The Perseus Cluster is too far away for telescopes to resolve individual stars and measure their motions. So Conselice and his team derived a new technique for uncovering dark matter in these dwarf galaxies by determining the minimum additional mass contribution from dark matter that the dwarfs must have to protect them from being disrupted by the strong, tidal pull of gravity from larger galaxies.

Galaxies in the Perseus Cluster. Credit: NASA, ESA, and Z. Levay (STScI)

Galaxies in the Perseus Cluster. Credit: NASA, ESA, and Z. Levay (STScI)



The dwarf galaxies may have an even higher amount of dark matter than spiral galaxies. “With these results, we cannot say whether the dark matter content of the dwarfs is higher than in the Milky Way Galaxy,” Conselice said. “Although, the fact that spiral galaxies are destroyed in clusters, while the dwarfs are not, suggests that this is indeed the case.”

But these new images provide evidence that the undisturbed galaxies are enshrouded by a “cushion” of dark matter that protects them from being torn apart.

Source: HubbleSite


134 Responses

  1. Anaconda says:

    From the post: “The ordinary matter that we can see is believed to represent only four percent of the total mass of the Universe.”

    So, 96% of total mass is undetected…until now.

    From the Hubble site: “Astronomers have deduced the existence of dark matter by observing its gravitational influence on normal matter, consisting of stars, gas, and dust.”

    Translation: if “dark” matter didn’t exist, the gravity “only” model would be falsified.”

    From the Hubble site: “They must be very, very dark-matter-dominated galaxies.”

    Unless, of course, the “gravitational tides” have been over-stated.

    And, yet over in the Leo Ring things are much different:

    From Nature: “We speculate that the complexes are dwarf galaxies observed during their formation, but distinguished by their lack of a dark matter component.”

    So, in one region of space dwarf galaxies have no “dark” matter, and in another region of space dwarf galaxies have tremendous amounts of “dark” matter.

    Seems to be a big inconsistency, don’t you think?

    How does one set of dwaf galaxies have no “dark’ matter and another set of dwarf galaxies have alot of “dark” matter?

    Maybe, the answer is staring them plain in the face, but they just can’t see it: There is no “dark” matter at all.

    But that would be fatal to the gravity “only” model, as the saying goes — “adopt or die.”

    Such are the hard choices facing “modern” astronomy, today.

  2. Anaconda says:

    The Nature magazine published paper that discusses the Leo Ring is here:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7232/full/nature07780.html

  3. Todd Coolen says:

    This is extremely exciting news.

  4. Anaconda says:

    @ ThereIsNoSuchThingAsMagic :

    First off, you are assuming that “only” gravity can explain the “faster rotation than expected”.

    And with that assumption, well, then, there has to be some kind of “dark” matter which has a gravitational effect.

    But what if there is also the possibility of an electromagnetic effect?

    Plasma physicists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory have produced a computer simulation based on data gained from plasma physics experiments, which demonstrates galaxy formation per electromagnetic principles.

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

    Please note at the bottom of the linked webpage the published and peer reviewed papers that explain and support this theory of galaxy formation.

  5. Anaconda says:

    @ ThereIsNoSuchThingAsMagic:

    Apparently, you couldn’t bring yourself to verify the authority at the bottom of the webpage I linked to.

    That reveals your bias & prejudice which have no place in science.

    Take a look at the bottom of the home page for the Plasma Universe website.

    http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html

    See, “Our Sponsors and Associates:”

    Department of Energy

    National Science Foundation

    Los Alamos National Laboratory

    Plasma International

    Dupont

    Air Force Office of Scientific Research

    IEEE (The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Nuclear And Plasma Sciences Society (association identified at upper left-hand corner of homepage website), 360,000 members.

    All these organizations support Plasma Universe theory. They all have evaluated the scientific observations & measurements that support Plasma Universe theory.

    The above organizations don’t allow bias & prejudice to cloud their scientific judgment.

    But apparently, ThereIsNoSuchThingAsMagic, you do.

  6. Anaconda says:

    @ ThereIsNoSuchThingAsMagic:

    Calvin said it pretty well.

    If I misinterpreted your intent and meaning, which you are indicating, I sincerely apologize.

    I’m sorry for my reaction, but, yes, I have been subjected to abuse for expressing my opinions on this website, and I suppose that has left me a little touchy — and regrettably liable to misinterpret, which I did in response to your comment.

    Again, I’m sorry and I apologize.

  7. Xzr Xza says:

    I agree to an extent with this very intelligent Anaconda. Assume that dark matter is heavily enshrouding these galaxies enough to resist obliteration by larger galaxies- then wouldn’t that mean they were imparted this large amount of dark matter by galaxies previous to these dwarfs? So that would mean that their dark matter content would be determined by the amount around during their formation, and how much of it they managed to snatch up…
    Right?
    But seriously though, odd inconsistency. I’m going to go look at the article now. Er. Wherever it is.

  8. Calvin says:

    ND/Others: Blehk! >.< Let’s not bring those extremely lengthy and off-topic “debates” in to this. Honestly, what consitutes a “personal comment” is highly debatable and I don’t think Anaconda is by any means the only person to have made them.

    Olaf:
    “Dark matter is a mix name of different things, some parts could be neutrino’s, some other could be black holes or brown dwarfs. These are not really detectable if they are out there at this distance. ”

    This raised an interesting question for me. I guess the most fundamental definition of “dark matter” is simply matter which isn’t detectible through its radition. Is there any way that could include black holes, which obviously are, indeed, a bit difficult to detect through radition? 0o

    And iis it the conventional wisdom that this “Dark Matter” whatever it is is supplemented by an even greater “Dark Energy” which I don’t really understand but which accounts for an estimated 74% of the effects that we see?

  9. Mr. Greenjeans says:

    At the very least, there is a possibility (or perhaps a probability) of something preserving their shape. Call it what you will, there is the possibility (or probability) that something exists that’s yet to be understood, dammit.

  10. Calvin says:

    ThereIsNoSuchThingAsMagic: Unfortunately I think your “thank you for your time” came off as sarcastic :O that is why Anaconda reacted as he did. One must always watch sarcasm vs. non-sarcasm on the internet… I know from too much personal experience that it is difficult when we are dealing with text! 😉

    Anyway, I’m glad people are able to have a good scientific discussion on this blog and hope such discussions continue. :)Personally (and noting that I am only an amateur scientist) I am tentatively in favor of dark matter stuff, although of course I recognise there is still alot about the universe we don’t understand.

    One of the bests parts about this article about the article in my opinion is: it is so amazing how much hubble has contributed and is _still_ contributing to astronomy!

  11. ThereIsNoSuchThingAsMagic says:

    Anaconda, you go into some detail about how dark matter doesnt exist and how the “gravity only” model is incorrect, and from your post it sounds like you have knowledge in this field. So how do you explain the observed gravitational effects that we see in galaxies i.e. the faster rotation than expected, and other observed effects that appear to be caused by mass that does not interact via electromagnetic radiation ?

  12. ThereIsNoSuchThingAsMagic says:

    Im sorry anaconda, but i have to pay to view that article, so im unable to read it. The site says “To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).”

    But from reading the abstract, it doesnt seem to answer the question i asked you.

    It seems that you dont accept the current ‘dark matter’ explanation that the majority of scientists in the field have shown, so im just curious as to what theory you are basing your ideas on. Can you please elaborate?

  13. ZomZom says:

    I’d like to know how this data correspond with John Moffat’s Modified theory of Gravity (MOG). If MOG does not fit this finding, then a more-helpful headline would be appreciated. Otherwise, a bias toward dark matter is evident.

  14. ThereIsNoSuchThingAsMagic says:

    Plasma Cosmology…..

    Thank you for your time Anaconda.

  15. Marco says:

    This thought struck me recently concerning dark matter (DM). The 4% of matter that we can see is made up of various types of particles, or different types of matter to put it another way. DM is said to comprise 23% of all matter, or almost six times the amount of ordinary matter. Why do we think that DM is one thing? Why couldn’t it be a variety of things that share similar properties? I have seen a number of candidates including WIMPs, carbon dust, MACHOs, neutrinos just to name a few. If Dr. Sommerfeld’s tachyons exist, would they have a gravitational effect and be bound by gravity? Again, if they exist, in what proportion to ordinary matter would they amount to? Not being privy to all of the details of the search for DM, I wonder if instead of looking for the one thing that DM is, which could skew the search, maybe we should be looking for the things that could be DM.

  16. ThereIsNoSuchThingAsMagic says:

    That could well be the case Marco… currently, it would be of enormous help just to confirm one of those sources…but once we have a foothold, it will narrow down ( or complete ) the search.

    It kindof reminds me of the time just before Einstein came out with his papers on relativity….physicists at the time thought they had the laws of nature fully discovered and sorted…there was just that pesky phenomenon of the piezoelectric effect to be figured out…and the rest, as they say…is history.

    I suspect our discovery of what dark matter ( and dark energy ) really is will be the dawn of a new age of understanding of reality. I just hope i live long enough to see it!

  17. ThereIsNoSuchThingAsMagic says:

    Anaconda: What the hell are you on about? I simply asked you what theory you were basing your ideas on, and you gave me the answer. Question asked, question answered, nothign else was said. Bloody hell man,what else do you want me to say?

    You jump to conclusions about bias and all that rubbish, when all i said was thanks for your time….chill out dude!!

    geez, no wonder people here have so much bad stuff to say about you…yikes!! Take a chill pill….

  18. Jon Hanford says:

    After reading the original paper & studying the accompanying images, I see no reason that these dwarf galaxies couldn’t be the tidally-stripped remnants of what were once larger, old galaxies in the cluster. This would still be consistent with high concentrations of dark matter. Notice also that all 4 dwarfs contain a bright, star-like nucleus. It’s really remarkable that these ancient galaxies still exist at all in this huge, swarming galaxy cluster and have not succumbed to galactic cannibalism. (BTW, comparing the newly discovered dwarf galaxies in the Leo Ring and the dwarfs in the Perseus Cluster is sorta apples and oranges. The galaxy group associated with the Leo Ring is under a dozen galaxies strong while Abell 426 is a massive galaxy cluster with hundreds of members.)

  19. ThereIsNoSuchThingAsMagic says:

    Yeah, maybe i used the wrong font or something…but still, talk about being a bit high strung…

    I was actually being polite, because he obviously spent some time getting the info for me, but next time ill just not reply.

    Myself, i just go where the evidence points, because you can do no less when searching for the truth about things. Ive only started reading about plasma cosmology, and havent read enough of the pros and cons of its theory to make an informed decision yet compared to dark matter theory…but im not going to let the likes of Anaconda cloud my judgment.

  20. Olaf says:

    I am wondering if a massive black hole in the core cannot answer this.

    First of all, these are old galaxies, so the black hole might have enough time to get bigger. Also these dwarf galaxies are really small, so the gravitational gradient is higher keeping the stars within a certain limit.

    Then again, these are older galaxies, so they migth have attracted more dark matter since they are older too.

  21. Pat Donnelly says:

    To Thereisnosuchthingasmagic

    The concept of dark energy seems to do away with the need for dark matter, does it not? The existing matter, visible in all EM wavelengths, is attracted or repulsed into greater velocity than our deduced theories of physics permit therefore there must be an additional force?
    Is my understanding correct?
    As we have been unable to observe EM activity between the matter being observed, does this also mean that EM activity does not exist? Or does it mean that to us, it is “dark” as we have not observed it?

  22. Olaf says:

    Dark matter only interacts through gravity, and not through the other 3 forces or at leas not detectable.

    Dark matter is a mix name of different things, some parts could be neutrino’s, some other could be black holes or brown dwarfs. These are not really detectable if they are out there at this distance.

    The biggest part of Dark matter is something still exotic science has no real name for it.

    I don’t think that in this situation Dark matter plays a big role, I think more that it is because these galaxys are so small and spherical that somehow they can keep their shape since the difference of gravity between one side of the galaxy and the other is so small that the whole dwarf galaxy is moved and not the individual stars with much different forces that the other far side.

    Look at the Sun, it stays spherical even though a whole galaxy is pulling it.

  23. Pat Donnelly says:

    Anaconda

    I have noticed that EU proponents seem to be very sensitive to what and how others express themselves. I had a most unpleasant run-in with one of the DaveSmiths advocating EU theory. I have posted about the paranoia elsewhere, and admit that there may be justification for it, but when a forum has been provided (and it tolerates even OillsMastery!) should it not be warmly, gladly seduced with honeyed words?
    Just a thought…. Catching wasps with honey not vinegar?

    You might find yourself among friends! But it was just a misunderstanding and shared experience can bond.

  24. ND says:

    Pat,

    Anaconda has been very quick to attack others himself, even those who never made any personal comments towards him. I’ve wondered whether he’s even aware of what he’s doing. Either that or he’s deliberately playing cry-baby.

  25. ThereIsNoSuchThingAsMagic says:

    Anaconda: Thank you, apology sincerely accepted. It seems that we both agree…just follow truth wherever it may lie.

  26. ThereIsNoSuchThingAsMagic says:

    Calvin: Yeah youre right, Dark matter / Dark energy are just names that we have given for things that we have not figured out / discovered yet. One thing that i know for sure, is that one day we will finally get to the bottom of this, and i guess that whatever the answer may be, it will just blow our minds away with its implications. The same can be said for people pre-relativity / quantum mechanics….the things we know today about reality are just so strange, so illogical to people back then…but thats the way things seem to be. The jump from classical mechanics to what we can see today is a quantum leap ( pun intended ) from what our ancestors knew about reality….but i find what we are discovering to be so amazing, so incredibly cool, that im just so glad we live in this century….

  27. ThereIsNoSuchThingAsMagic says:

    Pat Donnely: To be honest, i am no expert in this field, im just one of the many very interested, intelligent laypeople who like to follow us on our search for truth, so please dont take my answer as absolute or factual…

    But from what i understand, dark matter and dark energy seem to be two separate things..dark energy as the force that is driving the expansion of the universe..something we know very little about….but something that can be mathematically modeled as the cosmological constant…and dark matter as an explanation for the observed differences we see with galaxy rotation, movement and gravitational lensing effects seen with certain galactic systems…where there is not enough visible mass to explain the effects we see….but there seems to be various types of indirect evidence that there is more mass that we can account for…and the difference is quite big….i think one very interesting piece of indirect evidence lies with the cosmic background radiation, where scientists were able to deduce the ratios of baryonic matter, dark matter, and dark energy, and the ratios they came up with were quite interesting indeed…where there was much more dark matter than baryonic matter…

    so to try to answer your question ( and please take it as an explanation from a layperson ), dark matter seems to be matter that does not seem to interact with EM radiation, which is our primary method of study. I guess you could look at it from the point of view of how hard it was for us to discover neutrinos, as they interact in a very minor way with ‘ordinary’ matter…the same seems to be with dark matter.

    I hope that was of some help 🙂

  28. Trippy says:

    Olaf:
    “Dark matter only interacts through gravity, and not through the other 3 forces or at leas not detectable”
    This isn’t an accurate statement.
    Firstly, as has been pointed out, dark matter is simply matter we can’t see (at this time)
    An old neutron star can’t be seen.
    A black hole that isn’t feeding can’t be sen.
    Rogue brown dwarfs, and rogue planets can’t be seen, neither can sufficiently cold white dwarfs.
    HOWEVER, having said all of that…
    Microlensing observations have placed some upperlimits on how much dark matter can be these sorts of objects (MACHO’s – massive compact halo objects).

    The other side of the coin is that, for example, many of the WIMP (weakly interacting massive particles) theories predict that the particles may annihalate with each other (for example the SUSY theories).

    The point here being (and this is a point often missed by those who choose to disregard dark matter) that they’re called weakly interacting paricles, not non-interacting particles. There are some of the dark matter theories that predict that dark matter particles might interact with ordinary matter via the weak force, and with each other via the weak force. They have a very small interaction cross section, so they interact less frequently than neutrinos do, but they still do occasionally. These theories predict that neutrino observatories might be able to detect an anomalous signal – a prediction that is being taken seriously and investigated at several neutrino observatories are currently doing experiments to look into this, and they’re also I think working on detectors that have an improved probability of finding them.

    One of the corrollaries of these ideas is that dark matter annihalation could be responsible for the distribution of 512(?) KeV gamma radiation (the dark matter annihilates with itself to (occasionally) produce a positron and an electron, which then annihilate to produce the gamma ray photons – this in itself implies that the distribution of these gamma rays should be related to the density distribution of dark matter.

    Annaconda:
    I have yet to see Plasma Cosmology explain the observed/inferred mass distribution in the Bullet Cluster, until his can be explained, Plasma Cosmology is dead in the water.

    Incidentally – MOND can not correctly account for or predict gravitational lensing, and TeVeS suffers the same problem as Plasma Cosmology in the Bullet Cluster.

  29. Excalibur says:

    @Anaconda

    The galaxy formation simulation linked on the PC website seems to be cut short, although at first it seems to create 2 extremely symmetrical spiral arms, it looks like it is ended at an early stage just as it is about to derail into something that doesnt look like a galaxy. Why is the simulation ended ?

    Maybe, the answer is staring the Plasma Cosmology proponents plain in the face, but they just can’t see it: There is no “electric universe” after all…

  30. Anaconda says:

    @ ThereIsNoSuchThingAsMagic:

    Thanks for accepting my apology.
    Yes, I also follow the observations & measurements, the evidence, wherever it leads to.

    @ Olaf:

    As part of Olaf’s broadside against Plasma Universe theory, he states:

    ” How does this electric current flow between the Sun and the planets and between the planets themselves? And how strong is this current and how can we detect it?”

    Olaf seems to be denying electrical currents exist in space, period.

    Regrettably, this is a flat-out ignorant statement.

    NASA has been teaching, “Electric Currents from Space,” for over 7 years.

    http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wcurrent.html

    It’s difficult to know how seriously to take somebody who’s that uninformed, in addition to which subscribes to the idea that the Universe started (“big bang”) smaller than an atom (it would seem somebody with that belief would have no room to talk).

  31. Anaconda says:

    @ Trippy:

    Trippy states: “Annaconda: I have yet to see Plasma Cosmology explain the observed/inferred mass distribution in the Bullet Cluster, until this can be explained, Plasma Cosmology is dead in the water.”

    Trippy, perhaps, you haven’t been looking very hard.

    Part of the problem with “modern” astronomy is that it has layered many assumptions on top of each other. To get to the bottom, one needs to peel back the layers like that of an onion.

    Once modern astronomy’s assumptions are removed the Bullet Custer can, indeed, be explained by electromagnetic principles.

    Trippy, you’ll seldom get “modern” astronomy to pull back those assumptions on their own initiative.

    Let’s look at those assumptions in relation to the Bullet Cluster, shall we:

    “According to the authors of the Chandra X-Ray Observatory website, the galactic cluster imaged above “was formed after the collision of two large clusters of galaxies, the most energetic event known in the universe since the Big Bang.” Though the announcement by the Chandra team never uses the words “theory,” “hypothesis,” or “interpretation,” its every sentence rests on a jumble of assumptions, from supposed galactic “collisions” to wildly conjectural “gravitational lensing,” all wrapped around the discredited notion that redshift is a reliable measure of velocity and distance. The capper is the announcement appearing in numerous scientific media that the image “proves the existence of dark matter.” (To bring it back to the topic of this post.)

    It’s important to note the Chandra team fails to use the terms, ” “theory,” “hypothesis,” or “interpretation,”.

    “Modern” astronomy has jumped to the pretense that all of the above are facts.

    They are not. And this gets us back to the question of assumptions. It’s my opinion and many others, I might add, that “modern” astronomy has asserted theory as fact on so many cosmological issues/phenomenon, that any climb down has become next to impossible — however, I believe while painful and humiliating for sure, a climb down is yet still possible. In fact, it’s absolutely necessary for astronomy to advance in understanding of the Universe.

    As to the Bullet Cluster I offer this link for an electromagnetism perspective and explanation.

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060904bulletcluster.htm

    Now, whether you accept this explanation is a different matter, but to say there is no electromagnetic explanation for the Bullet Cluster is simply inaccurate

    One thing I’d note from the other part of your comment and many other comments on this board is that “dark” matter lets everyone be a scientist. You can’t really be criticized too harshly by others because there really isn’t any direct evidence to begin with. i think this “everybody gets to play” dynamic is partially responsible to keeping “dark” matter alive. That, and, the harsh reality, that without this “crutch” the patient could not walk.

    I’m sorry to be long-winded, but your statement needed to be rebutted in more than a sound bite or two.

  32. Anaconda says:

    @ Excalibur:

    The sponsoring oranizations that support the Plasma Universe website would not agree with your rather flippant assessment. Your response reveals more about your underlying hostility towards Plasma Universe theory than being any kind of meaningful refutation.

    Olaf’s bullet point presentation is rife with errors, but it’s not my intention to make every post I comment on a constitutional debate on Plasma Universe theory. I attempt to stay on topic, but it seems invariably other commenters request the basis for my observations, which leads to stating my subscription to the idea that electromagnetism has a substantial role in deep space structures and dynamics.

    But, if I don’t refute every point down the line that doesn’t mean I don’t have an answer. Please keep that in mind.

    One broader point, however, if I may, about Olaf’s comments which is incapsulated in his statement: “EU was an interesting idea 100 years ago when we had no space craft out there and no one knew what was outside. Also when people did not understand atoms like we do now. ”

    Olaf’s statement is actually backwards: 100 years ago science had only limited knowledge about electromagnetism, but, today, with space exploration satellites, science has made many in situ observations & measurements that confirm the ubiquitous presence of plasma and electromagnetic processes in near-space around the Earth and in interplanetary medium.

    This can not be credibly denied — indeed, to do so, is to be in a state of willful denial.

    Olaf’s credibility should be weighed with this reality in mind. To give an example, “over 99.98% of the mass of the Solar System is in the plasma state…” It seems most contradictory that a theory that accounts for over 99.99% of the Univere’s visible matter should be discounted in favor of a theory that states 96% of the Universe can’t even be detected.

    This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, indeed, and leaves “modern” astronomy in a most compromised position.

    Some have challenged the above figures on plasma’s percentage in the visible Universe, for those that would deny these figures I link to this website to show the authroity and documentation for these claims.

    http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/99.999%25_plasma

    Please run down to the bottom of the webpage and note the number of academic textbooks and peer reviewed papers supporting my statements on this matter.

  33. Olaf says:

    EU was an interesting idea 100 years ago when we had no space craft out there and no one knew what was outside. Also when people did not understand atoms like we do now.

    Things of EU that fails dramatically are these:
    * Gravity is is explained by an electron orbitting a atom like a mini solar system. But electrons do not orbit like a solar system at all! There are shells yes, but it is not an orbit.
    * It does not allow magnetic reconnection.
    * It expects plasma everywhere in order to have gravity. And I mean the complete universe filled with plasma!
    * It expects a current through this plasma like 2 electric wires. Not one but 2! Like an electrical , curcuit to create theis gravity.
    * Time DOES NOT SLOW! When you get high speeds or high masses!

    And the odd things is that those pushing the EU has no basic understanding of their own theory! Except for the buzz-words and the technobabel.

    Other things the EU fails in dramatcially is that they do not have working models that can create testable things that van be tested BEFORE discovery.

    Also the fact that if something that does not fit in the standard model is automatic proof that the EU is correct makes it a bit unbelievable.
    “Standard model cannot explain gravity so EU is correct. ”
    “Some guy won the nobel price in 1937, so the EU must be correct”
    “It is cloudy today, so the EU must be correct”.
    “The moon looks bigger at the horizon, so the EU must be correct.”

    Stuff like that.

    You don’t have to believe me, just ask these EU proponents basic questions about physics and even their own EU theory and see for yourself.

    A very silly question could be this:
    I have a metal sphere, a cage of farraday completely closed, and I put a ball inside that cage. According to the EU, will the ball experience gravity caused by the magnetic alignment of the Earth or will it just float there? And why is that?

  34. Anaconda says:

    @ Olaf:

    Obvioulsy, NASA’s confrmation of Birkeland currents does not prove the whole of Plasma Universe theory.

    But it does do two things: One, your statement was false. I’ve pointed this out to you before, yet you persist in presenting this falsehood. Why do you persist in presenting a falsehood?

    Two, Kristian Birkeland presented this postulate around 1903, hence the name Birkeland currents, yet “modern” astronomy ridiculed and rejected Birkeland’s idea even though it was based on field observations & measurements, laboratory experiments, his terrela experiments, and mathematical modeling (Birkeland was a trained mathemetician) .

    “Modern” Astronomy vehemently rejected this idea for 70 years, then in 1972 satellites confirmed the existence of Birkeland currents.

    Astronomy had been “bull headed” for 70 years. Astronomy was wrong.

    Yet, you, 36 years after the fact of Birkeland currents being confirmed are so ignorant that you persist in the idea that electric currents in space don’t exist.

    And most regrettable of all — you aren’t the only one in this ignorant state of mind.

    But to get back to you question, science attempts to understand the unknown by applying the known. Science knows electromagnetism exists in the near-space and in the interplanetary medium, it’s a logical deduction that electromagnetic processes don’t stop at the solar magnetopause. and evidence abounds that, indeed, electromagnetism does not stop.

    So, I suggest, instead of you making easily demonstrated false assertions — and in the process making yourself look foolish — you be constructive by being objective and being informed.

    The observable & measureable scientific evidence supports electromagnetism in space, if only you would open your eyes. The more interesting question is what are the respective roles for electromagnetism and gravity in the large scale structures and phenomenon in the Universe.

    I’d rather not be tough on you, Olaf. I’d much rather reach our my hand in a spirit of cooperation and teamwork.

    How ’bout it?

  35. Olaf says:

    Other things you can ask the EU proponents:
    * Why does the EU need plasma to have a current?
    * How does this electric current flow between the Sun and the planets and between the planets themselve? And how strong is this current and how can we detect it?
    * What happens if this current is cut off by a big object, for example the Moon coming in front of Earth creating a solar eclips, wil Earth or the Moon change orbit since it is suddenly does not get electric current anymore?
    We have sattelites around the Earth even polar orbit, why are they not zapped and fried because of this electrical current?

  36. Anaconda says:

    @ Dr. Flimmer:

    Hello. In terms of space phenomenon and as just as important, plasma phenomenon, electromagnetism was not well understood until the 20th century. Having mathematical equations is important, but it doesn’t necessarily mean science understands something in terms of practical application.

  37. Anaconda says:

    @ Olaf:

    You just keep putting your foot in it.

    Olaf states: “You don’t need a plasma medium to have a current in space at all!”

    Completely wrong and it demonstrates your understanding of electromagnetics is practically zilch.

  38. OilIsMastery says:

    I burst out laughing when I read this article.

  39. OilIsMastery says:

    Do people honestly still believe in 17th century occult miracles such as Newtonian gravitation?

    No wonder they have to abandon the scientific method.

    “We are unfamiliar with plasma because we are blind to it. Modern astrophysicists are in this sense correct to claim that 90% of the universe is undetectable ‘dark’ substances. Their error is to fill in the blank with mathematical extrapolations from familiar theories and to leave their thinking blind to plasma.” — Mel Acheson, physicist, December 2008

  40. Anaconda says:

    @ Dr. Flimmer:

    I should add in response to your statement about plasma, that plasma, itself, in an analogy, is the fuel of electromagnetic processes. The engine if you will, or acceleration mechanism, is the ‘double layer’.
    As the follwoing link explains:

    http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Double_layer

    Hopefully, Dr. Flimmer, you can review the link and note the copious documentation at the bottom of the link.

  41. Anaconda says:

    @ Olaf:

    Electrons are one half of plasma, the other half are positive ions.

    Free flowing electrons are called an electric current, part and parcel of electromagnetic theory and part of almost all plasma environments.

    The electromagnetic tension between ions and electrons in a crude explanation is the mechanism that generates the electron flow in your T.V. set.

  42. ND says:

    Oils,

    I googled for Mel Acheson’s credentials but could not find it. Is he really a physicist? What are his scientific credentials?

  43. Anaconda says:

    @ Olaf:

    Birkeland currents are an electric current as stated by NASA. and are embedded with double layers. As the following link states:

    http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Birkeland_current

    Addressing your other observations, yes, “modern” astronomy has incorporated many assumptions that are not supported by observation & measurement. That is a serious predicament.

    That is why there is a constant defensive reaction from many in the “modern” astronomy “community”. I can’t help that so many faulty assumptions have been incorporated. Most were incorporated long before I was on the scene.

    I have to deal with it as I find it and follow where scientific evidence leads me.

    And, sadly, too many people like you, who get all their information about space phenomenon from only “modern” astronomy sources are, by and large, unaware of all the scientific evidence for the presence of electromagnetic phenomenon in space.

    By the way, double layer phenomenon have been detected by in situ observation & measurement with space satellites in the near-space environoment around the Earth and the interplanetary medium.

  44. Olaf says:

    Oh I forgot to mention that EU also rejects nuclear fusion, the temperature of the Sun is acording to EU a surface effect and basically lightning.

  45. gudenboink says:

    Can you two continue this cat fight on private emails?

    It seems rather rude to display this in “Public”

    Although, I must admit, now I am curious enough to do more research on this “pet” issue you two seem to have, in order to come up with my own conclusion….. Every researcher tends to lean results towards their personal opinions.

    Why wouldn’t they?

  46. Olaf says:

    Check out this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiplasma

    “While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most astronomers or physicists, a few researchers have continued to promote and develop the approach, and publish in the special issues of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science that are co-edited by plasma cosmology proponent Anthony Peratt.[16] A few papers regarding plasma cosmology were published in other mainstream journals until the 1990s. Additionally, in 1991, Eric J. Lerner, an independent researcher in plasma physics and nuclear fusion, wrote a popular-level book supporting plasma cosmology called The Big Bang Never Happened. At that time there was renewed interest in the subject among the cosmological community (along with other non-standard cosmologies). This was due to anomalous results reported in 1987 by Andrew Lange and Paul Richards of UC Berkeley and Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoya University that indicated the cosmic microwave background might not have a blackbody spectrum. However, the final announcement (in April 1992) of COBE satellite data corrected the earlier contradiction of the Big Bang; the level of interest in plasma cosmology has since fallen such that little research is now conducted.”

  47. OilIsMastery says:

    ND,

    His credentials are irrelevant. The only reason why are obssessed with his credentials is because you’re afraid of his words. Since you can’t use logic or science to refute his words you focus all your effort into ad hominem fallacies and investigating his credentials. Like a teenage boy, you think you’re being clever, but the red herring is irrelevant and we can see right through it.

  48. ND says:

    Oils,

    If he’s not an physicist then you should not place that label next to his name. And if his credentials are not relevant then why put physicist next to the name to begin with? You’re trying to add credibility to the quote by misleading the reader.

    And again, it’s just a quote. They don’t prove anything. They just establish what that person believes in at the point in time they made the statement.

    Oils: “Since you can’t use logic or science to refute his words you focus all your effort into ad hominem fallacies and investigating his credentials. Like a teenage boy, you think you’re being clever,”

    You’re trolling again.

  49. Anaconda says:

    @ ND:

    I stand corrected. You are right and I am wrong. There is no plasma as such in a T.V. set. It runs using electromagnetic principles and electric current, but no plasma.

  50. Olaf says:

    Ok a simple question for you ana:
    Why does Birkeland Current prove that EU is correct?

  51. Neil says:

    Could dark matter be the mass eaten from the black holes in galaxy centers, which spreads the gravity of that mass into a higher dimension which then trickles into ours as dark matter,

    and because this high dimension is changing shape, the effects on our lower dimension is dark energy, moving everything apart

    Can dark matter be everywhere? or just surrounding galaxies?

  52. Olaf says:

    Hold on, I am reading all I can about Birkeland Currents, but I fail to see the link between Birkeland Current an proof that EU is the only correct one!

    What I do understand about Birkeland Currents is that they stay outside the atmosphere but somehow comes down in the upper layers conducts to another part and moves in the opposite direction again.
    So above the poles you have the uup and down movement.

    Now there is a magnetic tunnel direction the sun, indicating that there is a movement of current from the SUn to the Earth, but I see no evidence that that a current is moving bal from the Earth to the Sun in the explanations.

    This magnetic tunnel (rope) is not constant but comes and goes. Again I see not relation with gravity here, if this tunnel comes and goes then we should see gravity fluctuate since gravity is created/influenced by these currents.

    I am also wondering why the eskimo’s do not exprience anti-gravity since the Birkeland Currents passes over their head so somehow they must start to float.

    So far I have understood about Birkeland Currents is that electrons coming from the sun creates the magnetic field and as a result of this magnetic field ejected plasma from the Sun tends to follow this tunnel.

  53. Olaf says:

    – I’d rather not be tough on you, Olaf. I’d much rather reach our my hand in a spirit of cooperation and teamwork. –

    Naaaaah, too easy, lets do some scientific reseach and get to the bottom of this. I want to understand it all!

  54. DrFlimmer says:

    Yes, Anaconda, EM is everywhere – but how strong is it? And this is probably a philosophical question.

    Btw: The fundamental equations of EM are about 130 years old and were calculated by Maxwell. That doesn’t sound very “limited” to me!

  55. Olaf says:

    I still don’t understand why Ana thinks I do not except that currents in space exists, of course they exist, shoot out a electron into space and you have a moving electric field which in also makes a magnetic field in a screw like direction.

    But I asked why does Eu require plasma for its electric currents!

    You don’t need a plasma medium to have a current in space at all!

  56. Olaf says:

    DrFlimmer , it is not about EM since that exists everywhere, it is all about the fact that EU clames that the standard model is completely worng! And that there is some conspiracy against the EU theory.

    At this moment the only thing in favor of the EU seems the Birkland currents. But the rest like:
    Time does not slow down when you reach relavistic speeds, the Sun does not have have nuclear fusion, but electrical lightning at the surface of the sun generating the heat, gravity does not exist but is caused by the alignment of the magnetic fields of the atoms,….

  57. Olaf says:

    Ana what is current according to you?
    In my book it is moving electrons!
    And electrons can move in vacuum, look at your old TV!

  58. Olaf says:

    gudenboink, it is not a cat fight, for me it is a discussion. It is not even about the Birkland currents, it is about the fact that EU people clames that this hubble image poves that the standard model is wrong and that Gravity does not exist!

    But I have enough information about EU now, time to do more research on it.

    I need to understand this z-pinch more and the relationship how this creates the gravity. I also need to understand the driving force that drives these currents, since it seems to be some perpetum mobile if you realise that EU does not accept nuclear fusion. Especially when you see that the EU clames that the electric current if first, that creates the z-pinch at a certain point and there the planets gets formed!

    You know, I love exotic disoveries, like the string theory, but be prepared to back it up with some real scientific evidence and not some conspiracy theory that everybody is against hem.

    I let the public discussion go, first do some more research!

  59. ND says:

    Anaconda,

    Cathode ray tubes are evacuated. There should not be any plasma in the tube to conduct the electrons.

  60. Trippy says:

    Annaconda:

    “Trippy states: “Annaconda: I have yet to see Plasma Cosmology explain the observed/inferred mass distribution in the Bullet Cluster, until this can be explained, Plasma Cosmology is dead in the water.”

    Trippy, perhaps, you haven’t been looking very hard.”
    This is an assumption on your part, and it is a pure asumption, that you can not back up.

    “Part of the problem with “modern” astronomy is that it has layered many assumptions on top of each other. To get to the bottom, one needs to peel back the layers like that of an onion.

    Once modern astronomy’s assumptions are removed the Bullet Custer can, indeed, be explained by electromagnetic principles.”
    Rhetoric that explains nothing.

    [quote]”Trippy, you’ll seldom get “modern” astronomy to pull back those assumptions on their own initiative.

    Let’s look at those assumptions in relation to the Bullet Cluster, shall we:

    “According to the authors of the Chandra X-Ray Observatory website, the galactic cluster imaged above “was formed after the collision of two large clusters of galaxies, the most energetic event known in the universe since the Big Bang.” Though the announcement by the Chandra team never uses the words “theory,” “hypothesis,” or “interpretation,” its every sentence rests on a jumble of assumptions, from supposed galactic “collisions” to wildly conjectural “gravitational lensing,” all wrapped around the discredited notion that redshift is a reliable measure of velocity and distance. The capper is the announcement appearing in numerous scientific media that the image “proves the existence of dark matter.” (To bring it back to the topic of this post.)

    It’s important to note the Chandra team fails to use the terms, ” “theory,” “hypothesis,” or “interpretation,”.

    “Modern” astronomy has jumped to the pretense that all of the above are facts.”[/quote]
    More rhetoric, that in all honesty is simply typical, and adds nothing to the argument, and simply represents a variation on the same rhetoric used by creationists when discussing evolution.

    [q]”They are not. And this gets us back to the question of assumptions. It’s my opinion and many others, I might add, that “modern” astronomy has asserted theory as fact on so many cosmological issues/phenomenon, that any climb down has become next to impossible — however, I believe while painful and humiliating for sure, a climb down is yet still possible. In fact, it’s absolutely necessary for astronomy to advance in understanding of the Universe.

    As to the Bullet Cluster I offer this link for an electromagnetism perspective and explanation.
    [Link]

    Now, whether you accept this explanation is a different matter, but to say there is no electromagnetic explanation for the Bullet Cluster is simply inaccurate.”[/q]
    Actually, I have come across this website before in an argument with another EU proponent, and it only offers an explanation if one discounts other observational facts – the simple fact of the matter is that gravitational lensing has been observed a number of times, and measure to an accuracy of a few parts per million. It has been measured using the the Gallileo Probe (I think) certainly the Cassini Probe, an dthen there was the original experiment that was conducted during a total solar eclipse in the first part of the 20th century. So no, Plasma Cosmology has self consistent explanation to offer for the apparent mass distribution in the bullet cluster.

    “One thing I’d note from the other part of your comment and many other comments on this board is that “dark” matter lets everyone be a scientist. You can’t really be criticized too harshly by others because there really isn’t any direct evidence to begin with. i think this “everybody gets to play” dynamic is partially responsible to keeping “dark” matter alive. That, and, the harsh reality, that without this “crutch” the patient could not walk.”
    Again, this represents typical rhetoric.
    First off, in the first half of the very post you’re responding to, I offered several lines of investigation that are currently being followed up that are expected to offer direct observational evidence of dark matter (or at the very least tighten constraints on its existence).
    Secondly, I am a scientest. I paid my fees, did my time, attended an internationally recognized University, and although I may not actively be involved in cutting edge research, my employment is in the field that I studied, and makes a daily difference to average people – not to put too finer point on it.

    And finally? I think this is the thid or fourth time i’ve said it, but, I still haven’t seen an Ambiplasma.

  61. Trippy says:

    Olaf:
    This thing about gravity not existing was never part of plasma cosmology as it was originally stated (at least not from what I’ve read).

    As it was originally stated, Hannes Alfven and the others believed that if we included electric currents and magnetic fields in our equations and simultations, that we could get a better explanation for the apparent filamentary structure of the universe (because plasma and magnetic phenomena tend to be filamentary in structure), but nothing in any of Alfven’s work denied the role of gravity, or the existence of gravity, it simply stated that because gravity varied as 1/r^2 and electromagnetism varies as 1/r then electromagnetic effects must play a more important role than is currently assigned to them.

    Even Halton Arp (from what I’ve read) didn’t ‘disbelieve’ in the tole of gravity in the universe, he believed that redshift was quantized, and that it didn’t neccessarily reflect the expansion of the universe.

    I don’t know where this nonsense about electromagnetic forces holding the earth in orbit comes from, but it has obvious failings as has been pointed out several times already.

  62. OilIsMastery says:

    Trippy,

    “I don’t know where this nonsense about electromagnetic forces holding the earth in orbit comes from”

    That’s the typical expected response from someone who hasn’t read anything besides fundamentalist Scriptures.

    Here are some scientists you’ve never read before for you to familiarize yourself woth so you can contribute to this converstaion in an intelligent manner:

    “Einstein’s theory of gravity is the craziest explanation of the phenomenon imaginable.” — Wallace Thornhill, physicist, 2001

    “Leibniz also disagreed with other aspects of Newtonianism, such as the use of gravity, which he held to be a revival of occultism, and Newton’s use of space as an absolute. Leibnizian physics defined motion and therefore space as relational.” — William E. Burns, historian, 2001

    “Leibniz held that the Newtonian universe was imperfect because it occasionally requires God to intervene to prevent it from running down.” — William E. Burns, historian, 2001

    “Leibniz also attacked Newtonian physical ideas, including absolute space and time, [and] the Newtonian theory of gravitation, which he charged introduced an occult force….” — William E. Burns, historian, 2001

    “Like Huygens, Leibniz never accepted Newtonian gravitation.” — Ezio Vailati, philosopher, 1997

    “By applying an electric field across a spherical capacitor filled with a dielectric liquid, a body force analogous to gravity is generated around the fluid.” — James E. Arnold, geoscientist, March 1995

    “The advantage of using this [Geophysical Fluid Flow Cell] apparatus is that it simulates atmospheric flows around stars and planets, i.e. the “artificial gravity” is directed toward the center of the sphere much like a self-gravitating body.” — James E. Arnold, geoscientist, March 1995

    “The experiment verified that dielectric forces can be used to properly simulate a spherical gravitational field to drive thermal convection.” — James E. Arnold, geoscientist, March 1995

    “But then if there were events of this character, discharges between planets and so on, I put one of the most outrageous claims before the scientific readers, that in the solar system and in the universe generally, not just gravitation and inertia are the two forces of action but that also electricity and magnetism are participating in the mechanism, so the Lord was not just a watchmaker. The universe is not free of those forces with which the man makes his life easy already more than 100 years. They were unknown practically or little known in the time of Newton in the second half of the 17th century. But today we know that electricity and magnetism, these are not just small phenomena that we can repeat as a kind of a little trick in the lab, that they permeate every field from neurology into botony and chemistry and astronomy should not be free…and it was admitted by authorities that this was the most outrageous point in my claims. But the vengeance came early and swiftly. In 1960, already in 1955, radio noises from Jupiter were detected and this was one of the crucial tests that I offered for the truth of my theory. In 1958, the magnetosphere was discovered around the Earth, another claim. In 1960, the interplanetary magnetic field was discovered and solar plasma, so-called solar wind, moving rapidly along the magnetic lines and then it was discovered that the electromagnetic field of the Earth reaches the moon .” — Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1966

    “The picture of an atom began to look more like a miniature solar system with an atomic nucleus for the sun, and electrons for planets. The analogy with the planetary system can be further strengthened by these facts: the atomic nucleus contains 99.97 per cent of the total atomic mass as compared with 99.87 per cent of the solar system concentrated in the sun, and the distances between the planetary electrons exceed their diameters by about the same factor (several thousand times) which we find when comparing interplanetary distances with the diameters of the planets. The more important analogy lies, however, in the fact that the electric attraction-forces between the atomic nucleus and the electrons obey the same mathematical law of inverse square (that is, the forces are inversely proportionate to the square of the distance between two bodies) as the gravity forces acting between the sun and the planets. This makes the electrons describe the circular and elliptic trajectories around the nucleus, similar to those along which the planets and comets move in the solar system.” — George Gamow, physicist, 1961

    “Now in the same 1845, the year of this triumph, Leverrier calculated also the anomaly of Mercury, and by this caused to think that the Newtonian law of gravitation may be not precisely true. Leverrier first thought of some planet moving inside the Mercurial orbit or of a possible unequal distribution of the mass in the sun. You have used the fact of the anomaly to prove that the space is curving in the presence of a mass. About the same time—in 1913—G. E. Hale published his paper on “The general magnetic field of the sun” (Contr. M. Wilson Obs., #71), in which he estimated the general magnetic field of the sun as of 50 Gauss intensity. At this intensity “under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation.” (Alfven) The last named author in his “cosmical Electro-dynamics” (Oxford, 1950, p. 2) shows that a hydrogen atom at the distance of the earth from the sun and moving with the earth’s orbital velocity, if ionized, is acted upon by the solar magnetic field ten thousand times stronger than by the solar gravitational field.” — Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1952

    “My book is as strange as the fact that the Earth is a magnet, the cause of which is indeterminate and the consequences of which are not estimated in the Earth-Moon relations.” — Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1952

    “Gravitation is an electromagnetic phenomenon.” — Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

    “The moon does not ‘fall,’ attracted to the earth from an assumed inertial motion along a straight line, nor is the phenomenon of objects falling in the terrestrial atmosphere comparable with the ‘falling effect’ in the movement of the moon, a conjecture which is the basic element of the Newtonian theory of gravitation.” — Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

    “The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights…Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?” — Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

    “Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers…Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.” — Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

    “Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation.” — Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

    “All planets revolve in approximately one plane. They revolve in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force of the sun’s magnetic field.” — Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

    “The mathematical proofs of Newton are completely erroneous.” — Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1942

    “The phenomenon (why not questioned at all?) that Nitrogen lighter than Oxygen does not move to the higher level in the atmosphere, though the air is a mixture and not a compound, is another fact of disobedience to the ‘law’ of gravitation. Also water, in small drops, is lifted then dropped by electrical charges and discharges.” — Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, November 1942

    “If an atom is built as a microcosmical model of a solar system, elements arriving from interatomic space, also travelling from one atom to another must be in existence. Contacts between elements, increase in numbers of electrons, polarities, change of orbits, all must take place. Change of orbits and emitting of energy at these moments were supposed by Bohr.” — Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, November 1942

    “But what do you know about gravitation? Nothing, except that it is a very recent development, not too well established, and that the math is so hard that only twelve men in Lagash are supposed to understand it.” — Isaac Asimov, writer, 1941

    “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

    “…what is really wanted for a truly Natural Philosophy is a supplement to Newtonian mechanics, expressed in terms of the medium which he suspected and sought after but could not attain, and introducing the additional facts, chiefly electrical—especially the fact of variable inertia—discovered since his time…” — Oliver J. Lodge, physicst, February 1921

    “Magnetism is possessed by the whole mass of the earth and universe of heavenly bodies, and is an essence of known demonstration and laws. By adopting it we have the advantage over the gravity theory by the use of the polar relation to magnetism. A magnetic north pole presented to a magnetic south pole, or a south pole to a north pole, attracts, while a north pole to another north pole or a south pole to another repels. This gives to us a better reason than gravitation can for the elliptical orbit of the planets instead of the circular. It also gives us some light on the mystery of the tides, the philosophy of which the profoundest study has not solved. Certain facts are apparent; but for the explanation of the true theory such men as Laplace and Newton, and others more recent, have labored in vain.” — C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

    “Since Newton announced his universal law of gravitation, scientists have accepted and educators taught it, and rarely has it been questioned. Occasionally one has the temerity to say that gravitation is a myth, an invented word to cover scientific ignorance.” — C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

    “The form of the corona and the motion of the prominences suggest that it [the sun] is a magnet.” — George E. Hale, astronomer, 1913

    “What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin.” — Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908

    “…Inertia is exclusively of electromagnetic origin….” — Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908

    “…the great truth, accidentally revealed and experimentally confirmed, is fully recognized, that this planet, with all its appalling immensity, is to electric currents virtually no more than a small metal ball….” — Nikola Tesla, physicist, 1904

    “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

    “…certain theoretical investigations … appear to me to throw doubt on the utility of very minute gravitational observations.” — George H. Darwin, physicist, 1882

    “The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.” — Michael Faraday, physicist, 1865

    “Thus, thinking as Newton did (i.e., that all celestial bodies are attracted to the sun and move through empty space), it is extremely improbable that the six planets would move as they do.” — Pierre L. Maupertuis, polymath, 1746

    “…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

    “That gravity should be innate inherent and essential to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by and through which their action or force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers.” — Isaac Newton, mathematician, February 1693

    “Since we have already proved through geometrical considerations the equivalence of all hypotheses with respect to the motions of any bodies whatsoever, however numerous, moved only by the collision with other bodies, it follows that not even an angel could determine with mathematical rigor which of the many bodies of that sort is at rest, and which is the center of motion for the others.” — Gottfried W. Leibniz, polymath, 1689

    “…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

    “And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle spirit which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the force and action of which spirit the particles of bodies attract one another at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous; and electric bodies operate to greater distances, as well repelling as attracting the neighboring corpuscles; and light is emitted, reflected, refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will, namely, by the vibrations of this spirit, mutually propagated along the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to the brain, and from the brain into the muscles. But these are things that cannot be explained in few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration of the laws by which this electric and elastic spirit operates.” — Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1686

    “I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses…” — Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1676

    “The present does not seem to be the proper time to investigate the cause of the acceleration of natural motion [i.e., gravity], concering which various opinions have been expressed by various phiolosophers, some explaining it by attraction to the center, others to repulsion between the very small parts of the body, while still others attribute it to a certain stress in the surrounding medium which closes in behind the falling body and drives it from one of its positions to another.” — Galileo Galilei, physicist, 1638

    “The example of the magnet I have hit upon is a very pretty one, and entirely suited to the subject; indeed, it is little short of being the very truth.” — Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609

    “It is therefore plausible, since the Earth moves the moon through its species and magnetic body, while the sun moves the planets similarly through an emitted species, that the sun is likewise a magnetic body.” — Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609

    “But come: let us follow more closely the tracks of this similarity of the planetary reciprocation [libration] to the motion of a magnet, and that by a most beautiful geometric demonstration, so that it might appear that a magnet has such a motion as that which we perceive in the planet.” — Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609

  63. Trippy says:

    So now the works of Perat, Alfven, Arp, and Velikovsky are fundamentalist scriptures?

    Congratulations OIM, you managed to post a whole bunch of irrelevant quotes and rhetoric that completely fails to address the point that I was making (As usual).

    Speaking of intelligent contributions, I notice you have completely failed to address any of the points that have been raised.

    You still have yet to provide one iota of proof of the existence of Ambiplasma.

    While we’re at it, perhaps you can explain something else id the magnetic field of the earth is responsible for gravitation (but wait a minute, Vellikovsky claims that the earths magnetic field has no explanation either O: ) perhaps you can explain to us how the earth managed to retain its atmosphere during those periods of magnetic field reversals where the earth had no magnetic field?

    After all, in order to change the sign of something you must pass through zero, and so when ever the earths magnetic field reverses, if magnetism is reposnible for gravity, there must be a period of time where the Earth has no discernable gravitational field – during which the atmosphere would escape, and the oceans boil off.

  64. Trippy says:

    Oh, and Gamow’s comments about electronic orbitals haven’t been relavent for a number of years (numbering in multiples of tens).

  65. Trippy says:

    “Wallace Thornhill earned a degree in physics and electronics at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and began postgraduate studies. Before entering university he had been inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky’s best-selling book, Worlds in Collision. However, the lack of curiosity and the frequent hostility toward this challenge to mainstream science convinced Thornhill to pursue an independent path outside academia.”

  66. Trippy says:

    Oh, and breifly, rather ironically, i’ve answered my own question in trying to find out who Thornhill is.

    The Electric Universe Theory is the brain child of Vellikovsky and David Talbott.

    As near as I can tell, the Electric Universe Theory is a wholly different theory from Plasma Cosmology, and, in spite of what its proponents would have us believe, I can find no connection between Vellikovsky/Talbott/Thornhill and Alfven/Perat/Arp.

  67. Bridh Hancock says:

    Is the universe actually much much brighter than it appears, and the dulling due to the presence of DarkMatter? And if so then DarkMatter has absorbed a lot of energy without a co-responding effect. Hmm. Perhaps the BrightEnergy that should have been absorbed has interacted with the DarkEnergy? The DarkUniverse is stll a bit dark to me, but I am catching up, tho darkly.

  68. OilIsMastery says:

    Trippy,

    Do you know who Kepler, Leibniz, Faraday, or Poincaré are?

  69. Trippy says:

    Yes, but that doesn’t change the fact that appealing to their authority in ways that are quite probably out of context completely fails to answer the question that was being asked.

  70. Excalibur says:

    Anaconda:

    I object to you calling me biased against PC, as i have already earlier explained that if PC does offer a viable explanation i would accept it. I am however biased against misleading statements based on an agenda though, and highly biased at that…

    PC does not offer an acceptable explanation at this time, and the supposed evidence you bring up doesnt hold up to even simple scrutiny.

    Quote anaconda from earlier thread:
    “Galaxies create stars, not the other way around”

    How do you know that ? Did you offer proof of that ? No you didnt offer proof, it just happens to be what you want it to be, and that my friend is being biased.

    I do object to your repeatedly implied statements about how scientists are covering evidence up, or that they on purpose ignore important aspects of physiscs.

    Even if you would prove someone wrong, it certainly doesnt mean you would be right anyway, becasue PC suffer from far worse problems overall. However you do not try to adress or explain those problems, you only shift the issue back towards scientist being biased and completely wrong…

    You bear all the hallmarks of a troll Anaconda.

  71. Trippy says:

    Something else occurs to me.

    It has been posited in OIM’s list of logical fallacies, and by Velikovsky, and other EU proponents that the fact that the planets all orbit in much the same plane, and this plane bears some relationship to the suns magnetic field, that they must some how be related or causally connected.

    However, why then do planetary orbits not follow the neutral current sheet?

    How then do you explain the orbit of the Ulysses space probe with an inclination of 80°?

    Not to mention the 2007 study which examined 3652 asteroids with inclinations greater than that of Pluto.

    Or the Kreutz Sun grazers – a family of comets inclined at 144°.

    The Pallas 2 family with an inclination of 33°

    The list just goes on.

  72. Anaconda says:

    I would not present the (long) list of quotations the way OIM did, but what his list of quotes does do, is reveal that in past times there was a more free discussion of the phenomenon of Nature.

    Today, at least in mainstream “modern” astronomy there is a lock-step approach to the study of celestial phenomenon, which starts out with proposition that Einstein’s General Relativity theory — the gravity “only” model describes all things — both seen and unseen.

    Time after time, in the history of science, the result has been mixed, both for science as a whole and for individual scientists’ theories.

    In other words, science has been partially successful. What do I mean? In every discipline of science, some things were right, and in hind sight, other things were wrong.

    And the same can be said for individual scientists: Some ideas, in hind sight turned out valid, and other ideas turned out invalid.

    This is true for the paradigm setting ideas, as well as the smaller details.

    But, in today’s “modern” astronomy there is an assumption that all the big paradigm setting ideas are right without question, and, in fact, to question those ideas is offensive in some manner.

    Let it not be said, in future ages, that late 20th century astronomy forgot the lessons of history, and presumed it’s infallibility, thus ensuring a sterile epoch of scientific inquiry, that led to “counting the number of angels on a pinhead.”

    Infinity can’t be quantified by definition — it has no end. But “modern” astronomy is based on the rock (or is it sand) of the infinity concept. The “big bang” and “black holes” are based on the concept of infinity.

    Any scientific principle that is based on infinity, is in reality engaged in no more than “counting the number of angels on a pinhead.”

    It can’t be done.

    That possibly is why some so determinedly reject electromagnetism, it doesn’t rely on the “infinity” concept and so is by definition a superior paradigm. The gravity “only” model, has been asked to explain too much, so has had to resort to the “infinity” concept to cover observed celestial phenomenon.

    That was a fundamental mistake of astronomy.

    But gravity AND electromagnetism CAN explain all the celestial phenomenon without recourse to “counting the number of angels on a pinhead.”

    The “infinity” concept must be left behind in the dust bin of history in order for astronomy to advance.

    Sorry to say, but the “big bang” and “black hole” hypothesis are the prime artifacts of this reliance on the infinity concept; only when those idols are smashed and thrown down can astronomy move into the 21st century of modern scientific achievement.

  73. Anaconda says:

    @ Trippy:

    What experiment can be conducted in the laboratory to demonstrate ‘dark” matter.

    There aren’t any, to my knowledge. Show me an abstract that actually outlines an experiment in a laboratory that addresses “dark” matter and got a result that demonstrated the presence of “dark” matter.

    Show me any experiment at all in a laboratory that addresses ‘dark” matter.

    My bet is that I’ll be waiting a long time…

    Your statement about “big bang”, “black hole” hypothesis is equally dubious and revealing.

    The definition of “black hole” refers to a “singualrity”, a point in space, there is no physical object such as a point — it’s an abstract term” — that has either “infinite density” or “near infinite density”.

    Trippy, what does “near infinite density” quantify to? (I add the “near” to acknowledge and demonstrate that some in “modern” astronomy realized “infinite density” was a ludicrous term, a give away to it’s utter impossibility.)

    The term “collapse forever” has been used by mainstream astronomers as a descriptive word for explaining a “black hole”.

    What does “collaspe forever” mean? How does one quantify that term?

    Regarding the “big bang”, one commenter, here, on the Universe Today website stated quite casually that the Universe started “smaller than an atom”. Do you, Trippy, subscribe to that idea as well?

    The “big bang” also relies on the term, singularity, and on infinite density, or more charitably, “near infinite density,” whatever that term means.

    Trippy, you see, your own response and others like it from the “big bang, black hole” crowd to my observations does almost as much to prevent me from subscribing to “big bang, black hole” hypothesis, as the lack of physical observation & measurement, itself. Also, the reliance on the , at best, “near infinite density” mathematical, abstract, concept.

    See, Trippy, you duck the problem and deny it even exists. That tells me you don’t have an answer. Or it tells me you you know it’s a problem, but are reluctant to tackle it on this public forum for fear causual readers will laugh out loud to your series of reifications.

    Reification: To regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing.

    Relativists are the group that divides by “zero” to generate enough gravitational force from the weak force of gravity to explain the energetic galactic centers.

    “Dark” matter is a crutch invented because it was found the patient could not walk.

    Let’s put it this way:

    But for the failure of the gravity “only” model to explain the ratational speed of galaxies (with gravity from only observable matter, galaxies should fly apart), “dark” matter would never have even been thought of, much less, be developed into a detailed hypothesis.

    Trippy, you are hopelessly enthralled to your idols. And let’s be crystal clear, It is idol worship.

    What questions regarding “dark” matter are you referring to?

    I’m happy to “grasp the nettle” of any question you put forth, unlike your ‘big bang, black hole” crowd.

  74. Trippy says:

    Actually, you’re wrong Annaconda.

    Black holes and the big bang are NOT based on Infinity (whatever that actually means).

    They’re predictions of relativity. The infinities effectively represent Relativity saying “Thar be dragons here” hence all the work that’s being put into things like String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity – to find a theory that is at least as accurate as Relativity in the realms where we’ve made observations so far, but can accurately predict what happens in these areas where relativity says “LOL U divided by Zero!”.

    What OIM did was present a list of quotes, most of which were at least 50 years old, and imply they proved his case – technically, this is a logical fallacy, he’s appealing to their authority and status to prove his case for him, rather than presenting an argument himself, or even addressing the point that was raised. His post is little better than “But mommy said so”.

    I can’t help but notice how you have gone on this tangent rather than address the points which have been raised, is that because you’re unable to? Should we then assume that you can not provide us with answers to those questions?

  75. OilIsMastery says:

    Trippy,

    Black holes, dark matter, and dark energy cannot be observed or experimented upon by defintion. They are outside the bounds of the scientific method. Therefore they have no business in science.

  76. Anaconda says:

    @ Trippy:

    I said LABORATORY experiments, not field observations with jumping off assumptions big enough that you could drive a Mack truck through, as an example, the assumptions that go into the report this post references.

    The list you provide all are field observations with jumping off assumptions.

    Because “dark” matter has never been observed & measured, there is a need to consider all possible alternatives that rely in already observed & measured phenomenon, any one of those explanations would be preferred over assuming an actor that hasn’t been observed & measured.

    The “experiments” you list are borderline speculation, at best, and simple conjecture at worst.

    Trippy states: “Mathmatically, a singularity is simply a point where the equation is undefined.”

    Exactly my point!

    No, the term, “collapse forever” is was used to specifically state what happens in a so-called “black hole”. The following quote uses the term in context: “Above perhaps a few tens of solar masses, the collapsing cores go past the neutron star state and are so massive that they collapse forever…”

    http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~jkaler/sow/cygx1.html

    Trippy states: “someone came up with the idea of looking at the equations against a different background, and poof, the singularity at the event horizon vanished.”

    Again, couldn’t have said it better myself, in other words they rebalanced, or rejiggered the equations — and everybody lived happily ever after, a fairy tale.

    Yes, “Relativity predicts”, again, you make my point for me — so-called “black holes” are nothing but the result a mathematical abstraction, assumed to be a material thing.

    I asked in my previous comment: “Regarding the “big bang”, one commenter, here, on the Universe Today website stated quite casually that the Universe started “smaller than an atom”. Do you, Trippy, subscribe to that idea as well?”

    And Trippy responds: “Rhetoric, and wholly irrelevant.”

    No, it’s a direct question. You can answer, yes, or, no, or in anyway you like. The fact that you duck such an easy question reveals a lot about your mind set.

    Trippy: “it [the “big bang”] simply requires that at some point very early in its evolution the Universe existed in a very small, very dense, very hot state.”

    That may be the way you want to present your version of the so-called “big bang”, but the formal description is as I presented it.

    Per Wikipedia: “Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.”

    See, “infinite density”. Read’em and weep.

    Of course, Trippy, you can’t respond to my reasons why I don’t subscribe to “big bang, black hole” theory because they are perfectly legitimate.

    The so-called “big bang’ is a hypothesis; there are myriad reasons for rejecting it.

    As i stated: “”See, Trippy, you duck the problem and deny it even exists. That tells me you don’t have an answer. Or it tells me you you know it’s a problem, but are reluctant to tackle it on this public forum for fear causual readers will laugh out loud to your series of reifications.”
    I haven’t ducked anything, I have made honest attempts to answer your questions, and to illustrate how they’re founded on ideas that are out of date, or are misinterpretations of what is actually being said.

    “Reification: To regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing.

    Relativists are the group that divides by “zero” to generate enough gravitational force from the weak force of gravity to explain the energetic galactic centers.”

    The above statement still stands. You just ducked it, plain and simple.

    Gravitational lensing is the hypothesis that gravity can bend light. An alternative hypothesis is that gravity does not bend light, but that magnetic fields can bend light and since magnetic fields are often strongest surrounding “bodies” in space this accounts for the appearance that gravity bends light.

    Taylor – Huse binary Pulsar is an example of the danger of confirmational bias in science. Nobody at this date claims “gravitational waves” have been detected.

    There are myriad reasons why asteroids could have highly inclined orbits. That doesn’t suggest anything except asteroids can have highly inclined orbits.

    Gravity explains why Earth retains its atmosphere during magnetic field reversals, I don’t dispute gravity.

    Trippy states: “What are you saying, you’re opposed to scientific progress? That when we make a new observation, we shouldn’t try and explain it?”

    Hardly, The reason I’m making these comments is the hope (possibly vain) that “modern” astronomy will give up its idols and move forward. The present age is stuck on “counting the number of angels on a pin head,” because it relies on the “infinity concept”.

    The point is simple, it’s an elaboration on, “‘Dark’ matter is a crutch invented because it was found the patient could not walk.”

    But for the falsification of the gravity “only” model (because galaxy rotation falsifies it), “dark” matter would have never been conjured up.

    I followed the discussion, but with “dark” matter everybody is free dream up their own ideas because there are no quantifiable constraints.

    So, I added my two cents as well.

  77. OilIsMastery says:

    Trippy,

    Your description of 1995 as being 50 years ago demonstrates your lack of mathematical aptitude.

  78. Trippy says:

    OIM:
    “Black holes, dark matter, and dark energy cannot be observed or experimented upon by defintion. They are outside the bounds of the scientific method. Therefore they have no business in science.”

    This is blatantly untrue, the only people who have claimed that Dark matter and dark energy can not be observed and experimented on are those who are opposed to the idea. Meanwhile, those of us who have actually studied the literature and investigated the work know that, as I have previously detailed in this topic, everytheory of dark matter has observable predictions that can be tested in a laboratory.

  79. Trippy says:

    “Trippy,

    Your description of 1995 as being 50 years ago demonstrates your lack of mathematical aptitude.”

    That’s nice, but that’s not what I actually said was it? What I actually said was:
    “What OIM did was present a list of quotes, most of which were at least 50 years old, and imply they proved his case…”

    The key word in that sentence being ‘most’. You provided 45 quotes, 10 of which were dated as being after 1959, so yes, most of your quotes (35 out of 45) were more than 50 years old (before 1959).

  80. Anaconda says:

    @ Colin:

    Colin stated: “However that [“dark” matter is elusive] said, it seems that what predictions there are are being met little by little through ongoing research, experimentation and observation.”

    The “little by little” is called the echo chamber effect. Each succeeding paper cites the paper before it and repeats and adds to the previous asumptions, and puts a slightly different twist on the supposed “observations” that the previous paper used to justify their claim that “dark” matter exists. So, there are a series of “observations” that supposedly back the existence of “dark” matter.

    What you really have are a series of papers which make increasingly bold assumptions and finally claims that “dark” matter exists when such is not the case.

    This process is repeated and over time the hypothesis is called a theory — without any concrete evidence, and then “dark” matter is referred to by the science media as fact, forgetting, the word, “theory” or really hypothesis, or better yet, educated speculation.

    And a bunch of popularizers will write books touting “dark” matter.

    Again, the echo chamber, repeat process is used, so that when someone like me, calls out the emperor has no clothes, the supporters of “dark” matter will stand back and confidently say, “look, here, at all these research papers, the “evidence” has been build up over time, “dark” matter exists.

    Nothing of the sorts will be true — just a case of academic incest masquerading as additional evidence.

    I already have discussed gravitational lensing, and the Bullet Cluster in this post.

    Colin, if you look at the first page of comments, you’ll see my first comment was directly on point and brought up important contradictory evidence. The Leo Ring and it’s dwarf galaxies not having any “dark” matter at all.

    Now, Colin, you imply: What the heck do you care about this?

    And it’s true most people would say, “who the heck cares, if they want to believe in “dark” matter, let them. Whether there is “dark” matter or not doesn’t effect my world worth a hill of beans.”

    And there is a lot of truth in that sentiment .

    But science needs another breakout. And the fact is the only real black hole is where a lot of talent and effort is being wasted on the “big bang, black hole” paradigm.

    The study of “big bang, black hole” theory is the scientific equivalence of navel gazing.

    Science simply can’t afford to see all that talent and effort wasted on meaningless navel gazing.

  81. Trippy says:

    Annaconda:

    “What experiment can be conducted in the laboratory to demonstrate ‘dark” matter.

    There aren’t any, to my knowledge. Show me an abstract that actually outlines an experiment in a laboratory that addresses “dark” matter and got a result that demonstrated the presence of “dark” matter.

    Show me any experiment at all in a laboratory that addresses ‘dark” matter.

    My bet is that I’ll be waiting a long time…”
    Do you actually read what you post?
    Do you actually read what other people post?
    Do you actually attempt to follow the conversation and retain context?
    I’ve named 3 or 4 already.
    Gravitational microlensing experiments have put constraints on some forms of dark matter (asteroids, planets, neutron stars and the like).
    Some theories of dark matter make predictions regarding what neutrino observatories might observe, and what gamma ray observatories might observe in the background of gamma radiation.
    Some theories predict that the particles responsible for the appeance of dark matter might be directly observable by the LHC if their mass is in the right range.

    “Your statement about “big bang”, “black hole” hypothesis is equally dubious and revealing.

    The definition of “black hole” refers to a “singualrity”, a point in space, there is no physical object such as a point — it’s an abstract term” — that has either “infinite density” or “near infinite density”.

    Trippy, what does “near infinite density” quantify to? (I add the “near” to acknowledge and demonstrate that some in “modern” astronomy realized “infinite density” was a ludicrous term, a give away to it’s utter impossibility.)”
    Actually, you’re wrong.
    Were you aware that an ice cream cone has a singularity?
    Mathmatically, a singularity is simply a point where the equation is undefined.
    Originally, up until the 60’s I think it was, there was some debate as to whether or not the event horizon of a black hole was a physical singularity, However, someone came up with the idea of looking at the equations against a different background, and poof, the singularity at the event horizon vanished.
    The rest of my points remain unchallenged. Relativity predicts that a collapsing mass will behave in a certain way until it reaches a certain limit, once it reaches that limit, relativity has no idea what happens next, and throws out a singularity. That singularity isn’t neccessarily representative of a physical object with those properties.

    “The term “collapse forever” has been used by mainstream astronomers as a descriptive word for explaining a “black hole”.

    What does “collaspe forever” mean? How does one quantify that term?”

    See, now you’re just mincing your terms, the idea of the Eternally COllapsing Object was proposed as an alternative to ‘Black holes’ which, in essence treats the Schwarizchild solution to the einstein field equations as an idealized end point that an object of sufficient mass will reach given sufficient time.

    “Regarding the “big bang”, one commenter, here, on the Universe Today website stated quite casually that the Universe started “smaller than an atom”. Do you, Trippy, subscribe to that idea as well?”
    Rhetoric, and wholly irrelevant.

    “The “big bang” also relies on the term, singularity, and on infinite density, or more charitably, “near infinite density,” whatever that term means.”
    No it doesn’t, it simply requires that at some point very early in its evolution the Universe existed in a very small, very dense, very hot state. I suppose there’s no point in pointing out to you that there are big bang theories that skip the ‘singularity’ so this objection is wholly without merit.

    “Trippy, you see, your own response and others like it from the “big bang, black hole” crowd to my observations does almost as much to prevent me from subscribing to “big bang, black hole” hypothesis, as the lack of physical observation & measurement, itself. Also, the reliance on the , at best, “near infinite density” mathematical, abstract, concept.”
    What response, you’re the one that’s responding with irrelevant rhetoric while avoiding answering questions.

    “See, Trippy, you duck the problem and deny it even exists. That tells me you don’t have an answer. Or it tells me you you know it’s a problem, but are reluctant to tackle it on this public forum for fear causual readers will laugh out loud to your series of reifications.”
    I haven’t ducked anything, I have made honest attempts to answer your questions, and to illustrate how they’re founded on ideas that are out of date, or are misinterpretations of what is actually being said.

    “Reification: To regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing.

    Relativists are the group that divides by “zero” to generate enough gravitational force from the weak force of gravity to explain the energetic galactic centers.”
    This doesn’t even make any sense.

    “”Dark” matter is a crutch invented because it was found the patient could not walk.”
    Fine.
    Explain gravitational lensing.
    Explain the Taylor – Huse binary Pulsar.
    Explain why Asteroids exist in highly inclined orbits.
    Explain how the earth retained its atmosphere during magnetic field reversals.

    “Let’s put it this way:

    But for the failure of the gravity “only” model to explain the ratational speed of galaxies (with gravity from only observable matter, galaxies should fly apart), “dark” matter would never have even been thought of, much less, be developed into a detailed hypothesis.”
    What are you saying, you’re opposed to scientific progress? That when we make a new observation, we shouldn’t try and explain it?

    “Trippy, you are hopelessly enthralled to your idols. And let’s be crystal clear, It is idol worship.”

    More rhetoric, you pretend to know what I have and haven’t done or rea, you pretend to know my motivations, you don’t.

    “What questions regarding “dark” matter are you referring to?

    I’m happy to “grasp the nettle” of any question you put forth, unlike your ‘big bang, black hole” crowd.”
    Again, if you actually made an effort to follow the conversation, you wouldn’t have to ask this, but, just for your benefit, i’ve restated the questions.

  82. OilIsMastery says:

    Trippy,

    “everytheory of dark matter has observable predictions that can be tested in a laboratory.”

    You are either lying, out of your mind, or both. Dark Matter has never been observed or experimented upon in the laboratory.

  83. ND says:

    The Taylor – Huse binary has been pointed out to Anaconda many times and he has just ignored it.

  84. Colin says:

    I’ve been following the comments on the past several articles that delve into Dark Matter, and have watched as these discussions have become a strange rant between Anaconda/OillsMastery(A/O, most likely one in the same) vs just about everyone else.

    The articles have been about observations that seem to collaborate more and more that there is Dark Matter – which everyone who studies will admit is very illusive. However that said, it seems that what predictions there are are being met little by little through ongoing research, experimentation and observation.

    Again, admittedly, on the experimental side things are tough to nail down (how do you see the aptly named WIMP?) Hopefully the LHC will find something, but lack thereof wouldn’t prove the theory wrong – a theory for which seems to be borne out by observation and observation.

    However, when pressed to answer questions relating to these observations postings by A/O has (have) be (been) completely off topic. Sure Gravity is an important subject, sure Dark Energy is a really important and incredibly illusive one – but these rants about PU are non-sequitur to say the least.

    Please explain gravitational microlensing

    Please explain The Bullet cluster (1E 0657-56)

    Please explain how the dwarf galaxies in the Perseus Galaxy Cluster have remained so intact (for crying out loud it’s the topic of the article in question!)

    And don’t respond with links, or random quotes, just explain the damn phenomena already!

  85. Trippy says:

    OIM:
    How about neither – because I didn’t say it had been, but I did say that the potential was there for it to happen in the near future.

    If you’re going to try and argue, at least try and maintain some semblance of accuracy.

  86. Bojan says:

    We need forums, these comment sections are too hard to follow lol

  87. Trippy says:

    “I said LABORATORY experiments, not field observations with jumping off assumptions big enough that you could drive a Mack truck through, as an example, the assumptions that go into the report this post references.

    The list you provide all are field observations with jumping off assumptions.”
    Actually, no, yet again you demonstrate that you don’t actually read peoples posts in their entirety (either that or your reading comprehension is sub par).
    Neutrino Observatories are Laboratory experiments.
    The LHC is a laboratory experiment.

    “Because “dark” matter has never been observed & measured, there is a need to consider all possible alternatives that rely in already observed & measured phenomenon, any one of those explanations would be preferred over assuming an actor that hasn’t been observed & measured.”
    It has been hypothesized to exist and the emasurements we make of the universe are consistent with that hypothesis.

    “The “experiments” you list are borderline speculation, at best, and simple conjecture at worst.”
    Rhetoric at best, BS ar worst.

    “Trippy states: “Mathmatically, a singularity is simply a point where the equation is undefined.”

    Exactly my point!”
    And yet, clearly you haven’t understood it.

    “No, the term, “collapse forever” is was used to specifically state what happens in a so-called “black hole”. The following quote uses the term in context: “Above perhaps a few tens of solar masses, the collapsing cores go past the neutron star state and are so massive that they collapse forever…”

    http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~jkaler/sow/cygx1.html
    The only place I have ever seen that idea used is in terms of the ECO/MECO hypothesis. Besides which, clearly your source is referring to what an outside observer sees.

    Obviously you’re unaware that according to relativity, intense gravitation causes length contraction, and time dialation, meaning that to an observer outside the event horizon, at some arbitrary distance, an object appears to fall forever. So clearly you’ve misunderstood what this article is presenting. Further – to an object that’s falling towards a black hole, it sees the event horizon as always being some finite distance in front of it, right up until it impacts the singularity.

    “Trippy states: “someone came up with the idea of looking at the equations against a different background, and poof, the singularity at the event horizon vanished.”

    Again, couldn’t have said it better myself, in other words they rebalanced, or rejiggered the equations — and everybody lived happily ever after, a fairy tale.”
    You’re full of it, and you’ve completely misrepresented what i’ve said.
    As an analogy, Polar co-ordinates have a singularity at r=0. For r=0, the angle is undefined, however, if you switch to cartesian co-ordinates the singularity vanishes, because the point (0,0) can be defined. What they did with the event horizon was very similar. The equations stayed the same, the solution stayed the same, the only thing that changes was instead of plotting using one set of co-ordinates, they plotted another.

    “Yes, “Relativity predicts”, again, you make my point for me — so-called “black holes” are nothing but the result a mathematical abstraction, assumed to be a material thing.”
    Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. What do you think happens when a neutron star gets so big that the neutrons that make it up can no longer resist the pressure?

    Or do you have some magical mechanism that stops stellar remnants from ever being big enough to allow that to happen?
    How then do you account for the presence of 1 or 2 million solar masses worth of mass being compressed into a volume only a couple of light days in diameter in the center of our galaxy?

    Or for that matter, how do you account for the behaviour of Cygnus x-1?

    “I asked in my previous comment: “Regarding the “big bang”, one commenter, here, on the Universe Today website stated quite casually that the Universe started “smaller than an atom”. Do you, Trippy, subscribe to that idea as well?”

    And Trippy responds: “Rhetoric, and wholly irrelevant.”

    No, it’s a direct question. You can answer, yes, or, no, or in anyway you like. The fact that you duck such an easy question reveals a lot about your mind set.”
    No. It is wholly irellevant to the discussion, and you’re only asking it to set yourself up for yet another ad-hominem attack against me. I can’t help but notice that rather then attempt to demonstrate its relevance (the rational thing to do under the circumstances) instead you choose to go straight for the personal attacks. Why is that again?

    “Trippy: “it [the “big bang”] simply requires that at some point very early in its evolution the Universe existed in a very small, very dense, very hot state.”

    That may be the way you want to present your version of the so-called “big bang”, but the formal description is as I presented it.

    Per Wikipedia: “Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.”

    See, “infinite density”. Read’em and weep.”
    Oh fer crissake.
    This is a strawman argument (and I can’t believe that you’re using wikipedia to try and prove your nonsenical point).
    It’s talking about the part where I have already stated that relativity throws its hands up in despair.
    It’s talking about applying relativity in realms where any real cosmologist will agree that relativity should not be applied.
    I suggest you go and get a real source on cosmology and then try again, because this argument is nonsense. Really, since has advanced in the last 40 years (or however long it’s been since you studied last).

    In fact, just to prove my point, and demonstrate your dishonesty, I present the very next sentence:
    “This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as “the Big Bang”, and is considered the “birth” of our universe. ”

    All three sentences agree exactly with everything that i’ve said.

    “Of course, Trippy, you can’t respond to my reasons why I don’t subscribe to “big bang, black hole” theory because they are perfectly legitimate.

    The so-called “big bang’ is a hypothesis; there are myriad reasons for rejecting it.”
    Sure, if you’re content with ignorance and out of date ideas.

    “As i stated: “”See, Trippy, you duck the problem and deny it even exists. That tells me you don’t have an answer. Or it tells me you you know it’s a problem, but are reluctant to tackle it on this public forum for fear causual readers will laugh out loud to your series of reifications.”
    I haven’t ducked anything, I have made honest attempts to answer your questions, and to illustrate how they’re founded on ideas that are out of date, or are misinterpretations of what is actually being said.”
    And yet i’ve ducked nothing, you’ve asked me one question that I have decliend to answer because it is simply not relevant.

    “”Reification: To regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing.

    Relativists are the group that divides by “zero” to generate enough gravitational force from the weak force of gravity to explain the energetic galactic centers.”

    The above statement still stands. You just ducked it, plain and simple.”
    Again, this is an idea that is based on out of date information.

    “Gravitational lensing is the hypothesis that gravity can bend light. An alternative hypothesis is that gravity does not bend light, but that magnetic fields can bend light and since magnetic fields are often strongest surrounding “bodies” in space this accounts for the appearance that gravity bends light.”
    And yet there is precisely zero evidence of magnetism bending light, were this the case, then there would be plainly observable consequences (for example around sunspots) and yet we see none.

    “Taylor – Huse binary Pulsar is an example of the danger of confirmational bias in science. Nobody at this date claims “gravitational waves” have been detected.”
    Right, but that wasn’t my point, it is however one of many things that confirm the predictions of relativity to a high degree of accuracy.

    “There are myriad reasons why asteroids could have highly inclined orbits. That doesn’t suggest anything except asteroids can have highly inclined orbits.”
    Right, so Vellikovsky was wrong when he said the orbits of the planets had something to do with magnetism.

    “Gravity explains why Earth retains its atmosphere during magnetic field reversals, I don’t dispute gravity.”
    CAreful, OIM will lable you a religous fundamentalist.

    “Trippy states: “What are you saying, you’re opposed to scientific progress? That when we make a new observation, we shouldn’t try and explain it?”

    Hardly, The reason I’m making these comments is the hope (possibly vain) that “modern” astronomy will give up its idols and move forward. The present age is stuck on “counting the number of angels on a pin head,” because it relies on the “infinity concept”.”
    No. What you’re saying is that as soon as an accurate model differs from observation we should abandon it and start from scratch, rather then see if it can be adapted. This is not scientific progress.

    “The point is simple, it’s an elaboration on, “‘Dark’ matter is a crutch invented because it was found the patient could not walk.”

    But for the falsification of the gravity “only” model (because galaxy rotation falsifies it), “dark” matter would have never been conjured up.

    I followed the discussion, but with “dark” matter everybody is free dream up their own ideas because there are no quantifiable constraints.

    So, I added my two cents as well.”
    Right, and congratulations, you managed to completely miss the point I was making, well done.

    So we’re still waiting for that self consisten explanation of the bullet cluster.

  88. ND says:

    Anaconda: “Taylor – Huse binary Pulsar is an example of the danger of confirmational bias in science. Nobody at this date claims “gravitational waves” have been detected.”
    Trippy: “Right, but that wasn’t my point, it is however one of many things that confirm the predictions of relativity to a high degree of accuracy.”

    This has been pointed out to Anaconda several times and he’s still playing games with it. His use of “confirmational bias” is a catch-all excuse to get out of a sticky situation. Please show us the confirmational bias in the research on the Taylor – Huse binary Pulsar.

  89. Trippy says:

    ND: Yeah, I guessed as much, but thanks anyway.

    Anaconda:

    Speaking of the emperors new clothes, I still haven’t seen any Ambiplasmas.

  90. Feenixx says:

    I find these huge posts with many quotes, which often are quotes of quotes, quite difficult to follow.
    I found reading them quite entertaining for a while, but it seems this discussion has collapsed under the gravity of the accretion of words…. or perhaps it has gone all electric and turned into plasma, due to the heat of the discussion….

    Either way, it’s about to turn into a black hole. Sense and manners have already crossed the event horizon. The concepts of meaning and reason are breaking down as they approach the singularity.
    😉

  91. DrFlimmer says:

    Even Cygnus X-1 and the Galactic Center have been pointed out to Anaconda MANY times before. And still he’s just passing over

  92. DrFlimmer says:

    Btw:
    Anaconda you wish an answer for the question “how small was the universe in the beginning?”.

    You know what? This question is useless, because of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
    Since the universe used to be very small, quantum effects will play a massive role. And Heisenberg tells us that it is useless to ask for a distance in such a small space. If you go back to the very beginning, quantum mechanics tells us that space and even time start to behave like a wave, they start oscillating like hell. This is not imaginable, indeed, but this is what quantum mechanics (the best proven theory ever!) tells us.

    The same goes for black holes. Compressed to a “dot” is a useless term in quantum mechanics, due to the same reason stated above. So why do will still use the terms of a “singularity” for black holes and the Big Bang since quantum mechanics should prevent us from them?

    This question is rather simple: The lack of a theory of quantum gravity. We haven’t figured out, yet, how to combine gravity and quantum mechanics.
    To quote from the book (oh, I forgot, you do not accept textbooks, since they are less reliable as your PU-webpages (ORLY?)) “An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics” by Carroll and Ostlie (2nd ecition, page 642):
    “The details of the singularity cannot be fully described until a theory of quantum gravity is found. The presence of a singularity seems assured, however. In 1965 an English mathematician, Roger Penrose, proved that EVERY complete gravitational collapse must form a singularity.”

  93. Anaconda says:

    @ Trippy:

    LHC hasn’t happened, yet. Maybe it will provide results IN THE FUTURE, but again, not yet.

    Neutrino experiments haven’t demonstrated ‘dark” matter and you know it.

    Trippy states: “It has been hypothesized to exist and the emasurements we make of the universe are consistent with that hypothesis.”

    You can make a HYPOTHESIS about any kind of observation; pink unicorns are responsible for it, for heaven’s sake.

    Trippy states: “Obviously you’re unaware that according to relativity, intense gravitation causes length contraction, and time dialation, meaning that to an observer outside the event horizon…”

    No, I’m aware of those ridiculous claims — there one of several that lead me to dismiss the theory — although, those are only minor falsifiers, there are many more.

    Trippy states: “they plotted another [set of coordinates].”

    That’s called rejiggering the equation.

    “Neutron” stars are another never observed item on the “big bang, black hole” make believe agenda. “Neutron” stars are theorized to have a density of 100 million tons per centimater — the equilvalence of 100 million tons in the tip of my pinkie finger.

    Doesn’t happen.

    Neutrons won’t stay together because of the nuclear physics law called the ‘Island of stability’, Nuclear physics doesn’t recognize the existence of “neutronium”.

    Trippy, there is no “black hole” at the center of our galaxy. There likely is a plasmoid that generates the dynamic energy observable at the center of the galaxy. No so-called “black hole” required.

    http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasmoid

    Trippy, you can keep believing pink unicorns and staring at your navel.

  94. Anaconda says:

    @ Trippy:

    Trippy states: “Or for that matter, how do you account for the behaviour of Cygnus x-1?”

    let me present an Electric Universe explanation:

    Let’s assume this is a binary pair and it’s relatively far away (roughly 6,000 light years) and it’s obscured by dark “clouds” of dust, and HDE 226868, itself, is not particularly observable in the visible electromagnetic wavelengths.

    So we have a binary pair where one produces visible light and one produces x-rays. Is there an alternative explanation to this situation other than the “black hole” hypothesis?

    Yes.

    White dwarfs are often found in multiple star systems, which puzzles astronomers because “it is not easy to understand how two stars of the same age could be so different.” The answer is simple. The appearance of stars has nothing to do with their age. In multiple star systems the brighter primary star usurps most of the electrical power, dissipating the energy in optical wavelengths. The white dwarf converts its share of power most efficiently into X-rays.

    An example is the nearby double star system of Sirius, which is the brightest star in the sky and one of the closest (8.6 light-years). Sirius also has a partner, called Sirius B, a ‘white dwarf.’ To our eyes, it is 10,000 times fainter than the primary star, Sirius A. However, when astronomers pointed the Chandra X-ray telescope at Sirius, they got a shock. In the X-ray image (link to evidenciary picture), Sirius A is the lesser of the two lights. Sirius B, the white dwarf, is the greater. It is the reverse of what we see with human eyes.

    So, apparently one star in the binary pair produces visible light and the other produces x-rays, sound familiar? And considering the vast difference in distance between the Cygnus X-1 pair and the Sirius A pair, 6,000 light years and 8.6 light-years, respectively, and the likelyhood of dark dust “clouds” obscuring Cygnus X-1 and it’s visible partner, it’s no wonder Cygnus X-1 appears to emit no visible light, yet copious amounts of X-rays.

    The riddle apparently is solved with no need to invoke the exotic hypothesis of “black holes”.

    Occam’s Razor works against the “black hole” interpretation.

    Sorry, Trippy, that ‘ol dog won’t hunt no more.

    Time to get a new one.

  95. Anaconda says:

    @ Trippy:

    “”I asked in my previous comment: “Regarding the “big bang”, one commenter, here, on the Universe Today website stated quite casually that the Universe started “smaller than an atom”. Do you, Trippy, subscribe to that idea as well?”

    And Trippy responds: “Rhetoric, and wholly irrelevant.”

    No, it’s a direct question. You can answer, yes, or, no, or in anyway you like. The fact that you duck such an easy question reveals a lot about your mind set.”

    Trippy responds a second time: “No. It is wholly irellevant to the discussion…”

    Just like your Cygnus X-1 question, eh?

    The difference is that I answered your question, but you keep juking and jiving, because either you can’t put a figure on it — in which case it isn’t much of a theory — or admitting that the Universe started out smaller than an atom is utterly ridiculous and you know it.

    Trippy, if you think a direct question about the size of the so-called “big bang” constitutes a “personal attack” (now, Salacious B. Crumb engages in personal attacks), that shows how weak your precious “big bang” theory is.

    Per Wikipedia: “Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.”

    See, “infinite density”. Read’em and weep.”

    Trippy responds: “Oh fer crissake.”

    Yes, Trippy it does contradict your previous shuck and jive about “infinity” being somebody elses crazy uncle in the attic — but it’s not — “big bang” and “black hole” theory depends, read that again, depends on the “infinity concept”.

    Get to know it.

    It’s your millstone.

    @ Dr. Flimmer:

    Oh, wise one. you who accused NASA of lying about electric currents in space and didn’t know Birkeland currents had been dicovered back in 1973 by satellite.

    Oh, wise one, you who didn’t know and were in complete denial about charge seperation in space.

    i’m fine with academic books, as long as they don’t ignore electromagnetism in space, which apparently were the type of text book you read.

    Please, you have been intellectually neutered already.

  96. layman says:

    Could dark energy and dark matter be God?
    A force that cannot be seen or measured but it presence is felt everywhere.

  97. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    layman said
    “A force that cannot be seen or measured but it presence is felt everywhere.”
    You could also say the same for the police or virtues like justice or liberty.
    But if you were to believe various Star Wars fanatics (like our dear Anaconda), it is a mixture of light-sabers, the wisdom of Yoda, and those pesky little metachlorins, and the dark side of the force. Yet even these have a better chance of being true than any plasma instead of dark energy or dark matter. Next Anaconda will be claiming dark energy is the manifestation of the dark side of the force! Anything’s possible with our little Ani.
    As for God, I don’t really recall plasma (whatever) ever being mentioned at all!
    May the plama be with you!

  98. OilIsMastery says:

    Trippy,

    Why did you write, “everytheory of dark matter has observable predictions that can be tested in a laboratory” if you didn’t mean it?

    Are you lying or trolling?

    Are you on drugs?

  99. Anaconda says:

    Looks like the gangs all here.

    Note that Dr. Flimmer failed to deny my contentions. Obviously, he didn’t like them and the conclusion one can draw from them.

    Although, Dr. Flimmer brings up a wholly off-topic suject and goes into great detail.

    Just one item to show Dr. Flimmer is still in the dark.

    Dr. Flimmer states: “…the solar wind (electrons and protons/ions) moves very uniformly).

    No, it does not, the intensity of the solar wind increases and decreases as part of the 11 year sunspot cycle and there are anomalous occurances of solar wind fluctuation, as per the NASA article:

    http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast13dec99_1.htm

    Dr. Flimmer, don’t tell me you are going to say NASA is lying, again.

    Solar wind and energy fluctuates on a regular basis (irony intended). But here we have wonderbluss stomping in and demonstrating he’s still clueless.

    You are wrong, again, Dr. Flimmer. hopefully this time you won’t make such a fool of yourself by accusing NASA of lying.

  100. Roger Levinson says:

    Lets keep it simple, Dark matter is just the substance that is not glowing, probably most of the universe, star fires that have gone out and grown cold, and matter that was never fired up in the first place. Expanding universe? maybe when we are looking back in time via distance we are just looking round a circle, in which case maybe the universe is not expanding. “Weak gravitational force’? Well, since no-one know actually what gravity is the bulk of it probably exists in another dimension to which we are not privy. Dark energy? Bunkum. Big bang? never happened. Probably energy excaped from another universe in another dimension via a gigantic wormhole to form out universe which then expanded and will one day contract. The question is will be get to Mars before this happens, they way our politicians dither I begin to wonder.

  101. Trippy says:

    OIM:

    “Trippy,

    Why did you write, “everytheory of dark matter has observable predictions that can be tested in a laboratory” if you didn’t mean it?

    Are you lying or trolling?

    Are you on drugs?”

    Can be is not the same thing as has been, stop trying to represent it as if it is.

  102. layman says:

    “Cosmologists estimate that dark matter comprises 23 percent of all energy in the cosmos. An equally mysterious “dark energy,” which drives galaxies apart, is thought to take up another 73 percent or so. The ordinary matter that we can see is believed to represent only four percent of the total mass of the Universe.”

    96% is a tremendous amount of unknown force. Perhaps we are just an ignorant carbon based species in the middle of the universe who will never be capable of understanding the true nature of celestial physics.

  103. Anaconda says:

    @ Trippy:

    Trippy states: “[A point in favor of “black holes, for] example the behaviour of pulse trains of infalling matter, they behave in the way that relativity predicts for a blackhole, but not a neutron star.”

    I’m doubtful that Relativity explains a supposed “accretion disk”.

    Compare your answer to the answers.com explanation for x-ray variability:

    “More precise measurements of Cygnus X-1 demonstrated variability down to a single millisecond. This interval is consistent with turbulence in a disk of accreted matter surrounding a black hole—the accretion disk. X-ray bursts that last for about a third of a second match the expected time frame of matter falling toward a black hole.”

    http://www.answers.com/topic/cygnus-x-1

    Trippy, the “pulse train” you mention is the same as the “X-ray bursts that last for about a third of a second [and] match the expected time frame of matter falling toward a black hole.”

    It would seem that we have two different explanations, both are highly problematic:

    One [Trippy’s] leads from a starting point, a priori, mathematical equation based on an all-encompassing theory; two [answers] leads from comparing Cygnus X-1 with other assumed “black holes”.

    The first is an an offer of evidence based completely on an abstract equation where if you build enough derivative equations will eventually lead you to all the phenomenon in the Universe.

    A presumtuous and dubious proposition to say the least.

    The second offer is a prima facie example of circular reasoning. Taking one supposed “black hole” and comparing it to another supposed “black hole” to reach the conclusion that it’s a “black hole”.

    That kind of circular reasoning doesn’t cut it.

    But such is the reasoning that goes into the pink unicorn…er…I mean “black hole” theory.

    Trippy, you won’t answer the question about the size of the starting point of the “big bang” because either the theory doesn’t state it because it can be quantified because the “infinity concept” is used to derive “big bang” hypothesis, or you know the answer is so foreign to common sense that it will subject to ridicule — the answer — not you personally.

    But I agree, you are played out — because the pink unicorn…er…I mean “big bang, black hole” hypothesis is played out, like an old gold mine.

    It was good for awhile, but now the gigs up, time to move on — unless you want to keep up the glorified navel gazing.

  104. Anaconda says:

    @ Ivan3Man:

    All this from a guy who denied there were electric currents in space and that Birkeland currents are electric currents:

    http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wcurrent.html

    “Last updated 25 November 2001”. So, NASA has been teaching electric currents in space for over 7 years.

    But that’s not all. Ivan3Man, was also in denial regarding the fact that electric current is the only known way to cause magnetic fields.

    So, what was it Ivan3Man, were you ignorant or were you being dishonest?

    Yes, he’s a real winner, all right.

  105. Anaconda says:

    @ Astrofiend:

    “I think we can all agree…”

    Who is “we can all agree”?

    Are you refering to all the people who have done their turn in the camp barrel at the “modern” astronomy “community”? So they don’t dare be objective about the scientific evidence?

    Is that who you, Astrofiend, mean?

    It’s obvious, the way you’re wiping your chin, that you’ve already had your night in the camp barrel.

    Was it good for you?

  106. DrFlimmer says:

    “now, Salacious B. Crumb engages in personal attacks”

    And YOU don’t?
    Why are you attacking me and do not answer my comments about quantum mechanics?

    Gentlemen, it is useless. Give it up to discuss with that guy. He is presenting exactly the same things he has presented on Bad Astronomy threads some time ago, where we presented several things to him, including why GR really works (GPS won’t work without GR). Just when we closed in on him he just fled over here.

  107. DrFlimmer says:

    Anaconda. You once told us that the sun in on a 10 billion volt potential. I’ve made a brief calculation concerning that fact. It includes basic electrodynamic formulas as well as a little SR (which you definitly cannot deny to be correct!). So, read and enjoy it!

    @ Anaconda

    Hopefully you will read this. I am about to deal with the sun again, which you suppose is powered by electric currents. I’ve made some calculations.

    So, first of all: The sun has a luminosity of L=3,846*10^26 J/s. Since the sun is fairly stable (I think, you agree on this), the same amount of energy must “enter” the sun somehow. “Mainstream” science says that this energy is created in the core by fusion. You say it is provided by currents entering the sun from the outside.

    A current is charge per unit time, or in a formula: I=Q/t, where I is the current, Q the charge and t is the time, which we consider to be 1 second, because the luminosity is the energy leaving the sun in one second and we want to get the current that is needed to provide this energy.

    So, what we need is the charge that enters the sun in one second.

    One knows that the energy of a current is charge times voltage (or the potential drop between the sun and the surrounding medium where the electrons are supposed to come from), or again as a formula: W=Q*U.

    We want the charge, so this reads: Q=W/U.

    W=3,846*10^26 J. What we need is the voltage. Here I refer to a statement that you made some time ago:

    “The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it – probably in the order of 10 billion volts.”

    That means U=10^10 V. We get the result:
    Q=3,846*10^16 C.

    How many electrons are needed for such a charge? That’s an easy task. Just divide the charge by the unit charge:
    N=3,846*10^16 / 1,6*10^-19 = 2,4*10^35.

    That is not a small number. Finally the current we get:
    I=Q/t= 3,846*10^16 A.

    I suppose that this is a big number, too.

    The question is how can one detect these electrons? One can measure the flux of electrons, of course. Probably this is the only chance, because the electrons do not need a magnetic field to guide them. And why not?

    Well, we have a potential drop. This results in an electric field that accelerates the electrons. The electrons will move along the electric field lines and will enter the sun that way. Magnetic fields are not necessary to channel the electrons. But since the electric field accelerates the electrons we can calculate the energy and the speed an electron will have when it enters the sun.

    The kinetic energy an electron can gain in an electrostatic field is: T=e*U=1,6*10^-9 J.
    That is a huge number as we will see in a minute.

    The mass-energy of an electron (the energy an electron has at rest) is E0=m(el)*c^2=9,1*10^-31 * (3*10^8)^2 J=8,19*10^-14 J.

    The kinetic energy is much higher than the mass-energy. That means the electron is highly relativistic. We can calculate the ratio b=v/c, b=1 means the electron would move with a speed equaling light-speed c.

    b=sqrt(2*E0*T+T^2)/(E0+T)=0,999999998
    That is really close to the speed of light.

    If the electrons would be guided by a magnetic field, I think the magnetic field has to be very strong.

    The distance between the interstellar medium and the sun is about d=100 AU=1,5*10^13 m. In the rest of frame of the electrons this distance contracts to about:
    d’=sqrt(1-b^2)*d=7,7*10^8m.

    That is a contraction of about five orders of magnitude! Since the electrons are moving just a little bit under the speed of light with c=3*10^8 m/s, it takes the electrons just 2,5 seconds to reach the sun (yes, the acceleration will result in a longer time, but this is only a rough estimate and we get a feeling for the magnitude). The magnetic field just doesn’t have the time to interact with the electrons unless it is very strong.

    But let’s assume that the electrons are guided by a magnetic field of the strength B.
    Ivan3man gave us a link where we can find how to calculate the synchrotron power of the electrons. I put the link in my name.

    The power for one electron is:
    P(el)=2/3 * e^4/c^3/m(el)^2 * b^2/(1-b^2) * B^2

    Inserting our previous results and the numbers of the constants we get:
    P(el)=3,247*10^-33 * B^2 W.

    To get the total power we must multiply this with the number of electrons we have also calculated before:
    P=N*P(el)=779,27*B^2 W.

    This is the energy in ONE second we would detect if the electrons are guided by a magnetic field. I do not have a reasonable number for the strength of the magnetic field, but as discussed before I would consider it to be fairly strong. To give a comparison: The protons in the LHC will be accelerated rather close to the speed of light. To bend them around the tunnel one needs a magnetic field of about 5T, that is rather much since the earth’s magnetic field is of order 10^-6 T on the surface of the earth.

    Conclusion:
    The fluxes, currents and energies are rather high. Since we do not measure anything of that sort (we are detecting high energetic protons and ions but in very few numbers in that energy-range) I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that the sun is not powered by an external current of electrons (regardless the fact the sun is not on a potential because the solar wind (electrons and protons/ions) moves very uniformly).

  108. DrFlimmer says:

    Gentlemen, probably ask Anaconda something about the cosmic microwave background.

    He told me that it is probably influenced by the heliopause, it could work just like a window or something like that. He failed to answer me how such a fluctuating, unstable and nonuniform thing can be accounted for the most isotropic and uniform radiation we’ll ever be able to detect.

  109. ND says:

    Anaconda,

    “Neutronium” does not appear to have a clear scientific definition and it does not appear to be used in science to describe neutron stars. However “neutron star” has a clear scientific definition.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium

    Also, neutron star exists within the known physical laws. The island of stability applies to atomic nuclei where gravity has essentially no influence. But in the situation leading to a neutron star, we have a very high mass body and thus a very strong gravitational field. In this situation, the known physical laws lead to a neutron star.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron-degenerate_matter#Neutron_degeneracy

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

    Corrections from anyone in the know of these physics is welcome.

  110. IVAN3MAN says:

    @ Anaconda:

    White dwarfs are often found in multiple star systems, which puzzles astronomers because “it is not easy to understand how two stars of the same age could be so different.” The answer is simple. The appearance of stars has nothing to do with their age. In multiple star systems the brighter primary star usurps most of the electrical power, dissipating the energy in optical wavelengths. The white dwarf converts its share of power most efficiently into X-rays.

    ROFLMAO! I don’t know which so-called ‘astronomers’ (are you sure they were not bloody astrologers?) you were confiding in, but real astronomers are not puzzled at all by binary or multiple star systems. In fact, the observation of binaries consisting of pre-main-sequence stars, supports the theory that binaries are already formed during star formation. Fragmentation of the molecular cloud during the formation of protostars is an acceptable explanation for the formation of a binary or multiple star system.

    [W]hen astronomers pointed the Chandra X-ray telescope at Sirius, they got a shock. In the X-ray image, Sirius A is the lesser of the two lights. Sirius B, the white dwarf, is the greater. It is the reverse of what we see with human eyes.

    Who says they were shocked? You, Anaconda?! ROFLMAO!

    Well, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, luminosity increases with increasing surface temperature; this surface temperature range corresponds to a luminosity from over 100 times the Sun’s to under 1/10,000th that of the Sun’s. Hot white dwarfs, with surface temperatures in excess of 30,000 K, have been observed to be sources of soft (i.e., lower-energy) X-rays. This enables the composition and structure of their atmospheres to be studied by soft X-ray and extreme ultraviolet observations (Source: J. Heise, Space Science Reviews 40 (February 1985), pp. 79–90).

  111. Trippy says:

    Anaconda:

    And I’mn about done with this conversation, you and OIM have done nothing but cheat and squirm.

    You’re right, the LHC hasn’t happened yet, but that’s completely irrelevant. The point I wa smaking wa sthat it can be observed directly, not that it can be observed directly.

    And no, I know no such thing about Neutrino Observatories, I have seen precisely zero papers proclaiming a verdict one way or the other.

    No. It’s not called rejiggering the equation, a circle is still a circle irrespective of whether or not you look at it using Cartesian co-ordinates or polar co-ordinates.

    Neutron Stars don’t happen? Neutron stars are a logical consequence of white dwarves. Neutron Stars are what happens when you apply more than a certain amount of pressure to an atom. And I suspect that this “Nuclear Physics doesn’t recognize neutronium” line of yours is just another misrepresentation of something you misunderstood 40 years ago.

    As far as Cygnus X-1 goes, there are observations that have been made that can not be accounted for by a white dwarf or a neutron star – congratulations on avoiding those points by the way, for example the behaviour of pulse trains of infalling matter, they behave in the way that relativity predicts for a blackhole, but not a neutron star. Equally, there’s been no evidence of teh sort of behaviour regarding outbursts that we would expect from a white dwarf or neutron star. And no, my Cygnus X-1 question was not irrelevant to my topic, you’re model has to be able to account for all of the observations the current one can, and the behaviour of the Cygnus X-1 system is one of them

    However, my personal opinion of the validity opf the status quo is completely irrelevant to the topic, which is what you were asking me about – my personal opinion. And yes, the only use enquiring after my personal opinion can possiblyt serve is for setting up personal attacks – I’ve demonstrated that i’ve done at least some reaidng of Plasma Cosmology, and i’ve demonstrated that I have at least some understanding of the big bang theory, and that’s all that’s actually relevant.

    And no, as I pointe dout, in spite of what you would have everyone believe, the Wikipedia article precisely supports what I’ve said, it does not contradict it. It even goes on in the very next sentences to use exactly the same language, and say exactly the same things that I did.

  112. Astrofiend says:

    Clearly, science can’t really be done or debated in a rigorous manner on a comment board of a website.

    However, after all of that, I think we can all agree that all proponents of EU and similar wacked out gobbledygook ‘theories’ (using the term lightly, because we all know there is no quantitative predictions from them or their cheer squads) are completely wrong and that they actually enjoy the slight challenge of leading themselves astray. Well, we all agree except for them of course, but they don’t count anyway because clearly their logic is flawed – anyone can see that. Except for them of course… But that matters not.

    There you have it – them most comprehensive, the most unshakable, and the most unbiased defense of true science the world has ever known, or indeed, will ever know.

  113. Astrofiend says:

    ‘Anaconda Says:
    March 15th, 2009 at 9:22 pm

    @ Trippy:’

    Ooooh – well done with the ‘pink unicorn’ calls Anaconda! A cunning maneuver – to link a physical theory you disagree with to a mythical creature – genius! For a while I believed in all of this ‘black hole’ business, what with the overwhelming body of evidence for their existence – the sweeping and astounding agreement of theory and observation, and the absolute dearth of alternate theories based in reality and making accurate quantitative predictions… well, actually, any quantitative predictions at all…

    But then you subtly yet surely linked black holes with pink unicorns! And I know pink unicorns don’t exist, so my mind is lead inexorably to the conclusion that black holes must, like the mythical unicorn, also be mythical!

    So now that you’ve undoubtedly shown me (and indeed everybody) the error of my ways, I had to accept that there must be an alternate explanation. I think I’ll go with electric universe, because it makes no actual predictions with you know – maths. It therefore keeps itself safe, and can morph and evolve it’s claims in response to hindrances like empirical evidence. It can never be disproven because it can never be quantitatively compared to reality, which is a massive plus! That means I can hold onto it indefinitely and help you guys out in the war on the stubborn minded sheep that most people refer to as ‘physicists’! Let’s start our own peer-reviewed journal to give us some credibility though – we could be the editors and choose what goes in. We could keep out anything based on maths or so called ‘evidence’, and let the suppressed scientific underground have a voice!

  114. Astrofiend says:

    “Anaconda Says:
    March 15th, 2009 at 9:43 pm

    “It’s obvious, the way you’re wiping your chin, that you’ve already had your night in the camp barrel.

    Was it good for you?”

    Are you implying that I may be homosexual Anaconda? I mean, I’m not the one who keeps talking about pink unicorns… But now that you mention it – I have been ‘doubting myself’ a little lately – if you catch my drift. Just the other night I had a dream about a friend… well you don’t want to know about that – I’m sure.

    No – actually, here goes.

    It was weird – there was my mate, a pink unicorn and all this electricity just pulsating around me. It was like… it was like the entire universe was ELECTRIC! It was just coursing through me – and it all became so clear! I realised that the pink unicorns represented the state of science in general – a mere fantasy. Then the electricity took the form of a black hole and told me it was so my feeble mind could understand it. It spoke to me and told me that it controlled everything – that it was the Alpha and the Omega and that I dare not try to comprehend it, for it was in and of itself incomprehensible. Then my friend flew by naked on a pink unicorn, and then I woke up. It was literally the gayest dream I’ve ever had, but I’m not saying that is a bad thing…

  115. Damien says:

    Reading these comments is like watching a train wreck. You just can’t help yourself, you must look on. Anaconda’s antics are pathetic, but fun, in a train wrecky kind of way.

    I haven’t been over at Bad Astronomy for a while, so perhaps I’ll revisit and try to locate his thread for some added amusement. Carry on.

  116. Trippy says:

    “I’m doubtful that Relativity explains a supposed “accretion disk”.

    Compare your answer to the answers.com explanation for x-ray variability:

    “More precise measurements of Cygnus X-1 demonstrated variability down to a single millisecond. This interval is consistent with turbulence in a disk of accreted matter surrounding a black hole—the accretion disk. X-ray bursts that last for about a third of a second match the expected time frame of matter falling toward a black hole.”

    http://www.answers.com/topic/cygnus-x-1

    Trippy, the “pulse train” you mention is the same as the “X-ray bursts that last for about a third of a second [and] match the expected time frame of matter falling toward a black hole.””
    Yet more proof you don’t know what you’re talking about. The observations were done with Hubble, and in the Ultra Violet. Educate yourself, here’s the paper: adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113..974D

    “It would seem that we have two different explanations, both are highly problematic:

    One [Trippy’s] leads from a starting point, a priori, mathematical equation based on an all-encompassing theory; two [answers] leads from comparing Cygnus X-1 with other assumed “black holes”.
    Umm, no. The only thing that’s been proven is that you don’t understand the differences.

    The first is an an offer of evidence based completely on an abstract equation where if you build enough derivative equations will eventually lead you to all the phenomenon in the Universe.

    A presumtuous and dubious proposition to say the least.”
    This is complete and utter BS – Relativity falls from two basic assumptions, and two basic assumptions only – that the speed of light is constant, and that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and everywhen.

    “The second offer is a prima facie example of circular reasoning. Taking one supposed “black hole” and comparing it to another supposed “black hole” to reach the conclusion that it’s a “black hole”.

    That kind of circular reasoning doesn’t cut it.

    But such is the reasoning that goes into the pink unicorn…er…I mean “black hole” theory.”
    This is quite simply wrong.

    “Trippy, you won’t answer the question about the size of the starting point of the “big bang” because either the theory doesn’t state it because it can be quantified because the “infinity concept” is used to derive “big bang” hypothesis, or you know the answer is so foreign to common sense that it will subject to ridicule — the answer — not you personally.”
    So now you’re telling me what I think?
    Wow, are you like God or something?
    Seriously.
    I’ve already told you EXACTLY why I’m refusing to answer this question – my personal opinion is IRRELEVANT, the only thing that matters is that I have examined BOTH THEORIES.

    “But I agree, you are played out — because the pink unicorn…er…I mean “big bang, black hole” hypothesis is played out, like an old gold mine.

    It was good for awhile, but now the gigs up, time to move on — unless you want to keep up the glorified navel gazing.”
    No, I’m not played out.
    I still haven’t seen you offer any proof of the existence of leprechauns, oops, I meant ambiplasmas…

  117. Trippy says:

    Actually, here’s a more accessable version:
    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/322917

  118. Anaconda says:

    @ Trippy:

    I appreciate the link to the University of Chicago abstract. I read it and compared it to the “answers.com” passage I cited.

    Please, define the difference between the term ‘pulsetrain’ as used in the Univ. of Chicago paper and the “[x-ray] variability down to a single millisecond.”, descriptive as used by the “answers.com” discussion.

    I see Trippy making a distinction without a difference. But I’m happy to read how you distinguish the two descriptives, one a word, and the other, a descriptive phrase.

    I note the University of Chicago paper uses the term “point singularity”.

    So, I looked up “gravitational singualrity”.

    Again, I’m happy to read how you would distinguish the two terms.

    A pretty standard term in “modern” astronomy.

    Per Wikipedia (Yes, I know Wikipedia isn’t perfect, but concerning non-controversial definitions it serves a purpose, also Wikipedia is known to be friendly to the “big bang, black hole” hypothesis.):

    “A gravitational singularity (sometimes spacetime singularity) is, approximately, a place where quantities which are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite. ”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

    There it is, front and center, the “infinity concept” for all to see.

    Now, who has been closer to the reality about the use of the “infinity concept” in astronomy? Anaconda, or, Trippy, who claims it isn’t used at all — yes, his position is that “others” use “infinity”, but not astronomy.

    Does the above back up Trippy’s position?

  119. ND says:

    There has been an ongoing debate regarding Cygnus X-1 on the OilIsMastery blog:

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2100054477013501859&postID=8300205476116136629

    Tom Marking has been debating Anaconda on the finer details of Cygnus X-1. It might be of interest.

  120. DrFlimmer says:

    😀

    Anaconda, you make me laugh, really. So I try to be even more precise with what I try to tell you:

    The solar wind consits of electrons, protons and ions, right?
    I said that all species are moving very uniformly. What did I mean?
    I meant that if you take a random ccm of space in the solar system, you will find electrons, protons and ions moving away from the sun. It doesn’t matter how dense it is. What matters is that you have the same amount of charges in your volume and that these charges are moving with the same velocity. The particles at a random spot in the solar wind are moving with the same speed away from the sun. I think, this should be clear enough, now.

    But how can you explain such a movement with a charged sun?
    Btw: Why did you just refer to that ONE sentence and didn’t answer to the whole thing?
    Why are you insulting me, while you are guilty of the same behaviour?

    I definitly made some mistakes over at BA, but what about quarks, anti-matter, CMB (how does EU, PC or PU explain it?) and so on?

    I just wonder, who is more reliable?
    I’m going to get my master degree in physics next year. That doesn’t proove that I am an intelligent man or that I should know everything, definitly not.
    But what about someone, who has even no grisps of mathematics and disputes physics?
    Who is more reliable, I wonder?

    “The first is an an offer of evidence based completely on an abstract equation where if you build enough derivative equations will eventually lead you to all the phenomenon in the Universe.”

    You have absolutly no idea what you are talking about!
    Even your plasma physics are written in derivative equations. And since electromagnetism has very complicated equations, the same is right for plasma physics. And the more comlicated your problem is, which you like to describe, the more complicated is your equation. And that is right for every problem in physics – even in plasma physics.

  121. ND says:

    Trippy,

    Anaconda gave his opinion on ambiplasma on the Bad Astronomy blog:

    blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/28/the-roar-of-the-centaur/#comment-152870

  122. DrFlimmer says:

    To give an example of plasma equations. One very fundamental formula is the Vlasov equiation. It tells us something about the time evolution of a plasma.
    Since a plasma consits of many particles one cannot solve the equaions of motion for every particle. Instead one analyses the distribution function f(x,v,t) where x is the coordinate of space, v the velocity and t is the time. This function includes every particle in a statistical fashion.
    To gain the time evolution of that distribution function (and thus of the plasma) one has to solve the Vlasov equation. In the collisionless form it reads:

    df/dt + v df/dx + d/dv (af) = 0

    with a being the acceleration of the particles. This seems to be very simple, but finding the solution can be a tough task.
    Including collisions (like Coulomb collisions) the equation reads:

    d(f_i)/dt + v d(f_i)/dx + d/dv (a(f_i)) = sum_q C(i,q)

    where sum_q means that one has to sum over the index q and “C(i,q) is the rate of change of f_i due to collisions of species i with species q”.
    (Quote and equations from “Fundamentals of plasma physics” by Paul M. Bellan)

  123. Trippy says:

    Anaconda:

    Enough with the dishonesty already.

    I said that the Observations were done in the UV with Hubble.

    I also said that the last Wikipedia article you cited supported what I had to say.

    This article doesn’t just talk about blackholes. And I’m well aware that the Chicago paper uses the term point singularity (having actually read it) but having actually studied relativity…

    Ugh.

    The simple fact that you’re completely failing to grasp is that according to relativity, Singularities exist, however what I have been saying is that most physicists will agree that that is a reflection of relativity breaking down under those conditions – in other words, Relativity is throwing its hands up in the air in disgust and saying “You want me to do what?”

    The point that you’ve failed to grasp is that because relativity predicts black holes, and because we’ve got nothing that doesn’t break down inside a black hole (we’ve got string theory, but that has yet to usurp relativity), those articles talk about the predictions of relativity.

    ANYBODY who has ACTUALLY studied relativity will tell you the same thing – that based on what we currently understand, at some point inside the event horizon of a black hole, the quantization of gravity starts to become important, and relativity begins to break down, and the singularity that relativity predicts lurks inside a blackhole is a reflection of this.

    This is the point that I have been arguing the whole time, and that you’ve failed to grasp, not this strawman that you’ve concocted.

  124. Trippy says:

    “I hold Plasma Cosmology to the same standards I hold the gravitational model to: Observation and measurement are required. Ambiplasma has never been observed or measured, neither has antimatter. These are theoretical speculations which I am not convinced of. ”

    If you Genuinely believe that Anaconda – I suggest you go to Wikipedia and look up Positron Emission Tomography, or even just Positron.

  125. IVAN3MAN says:

    I am resubmitting this because I am not sure if the first one got through, so apologies if it results in a double posting…

    @ Anaconda:

    All this from a guy who denied there were electric currents in space and that Birkeland currents are electric currents…

    I never that claim. Show me evidence to the contrary.

    But that’s not all. Ivan3Man, was also in denial regarding the fact that electric current is the only known way to cause magnetic fields.

    Yes, and I provided links at Bad Astronomy to articles that refer to two kinds of magnetic sources: (1) motion of electric charges, such as electric currents and (2) the intrinsic magnetism of elementary particles, such as the electron.
    Anaconda, however, obviously ignored them — just like bloody creationists!
    Furthermore, the NASA article that you provided a link to clearly states:

    Any electric current, however, must flow in a closed circuit [my emphasis], and since it seemed to be caused (like that of the aurora) by processes taking place in distant space, Birkeland proposed that it came down from space at one end of the arc and returned to space at the other end.

    The accompanying drawing in the article illustrates a circulating current of charged particles within the Earth’s magnetosphere. Space is defined as the region just above the Earth’s atmosphere and beyond; it does not state in the article that electric currents come from deep space, which is what “Electric Universe” proponents like you, Anaconda, are insinuating.

  126. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Hey Trippy
    The next thing we will hear is PR – Plasma Relativity !!! 😉

  127. IVAN3MAN says:

    @ Trippy:

    If you Genuinely believe that Anaconda – I suggest you go to Wikipedia and look up Positron Emission Tomography, or even just Positron.

    Trippy, my fellow correspondents and I have already provided links, on Bad Astronomy, to various articles proving the existence of anti-matter, quarks, etc., for Anaconda to peruse, but he just ignores them — just like a bloody creationist!

  128. Trippy says:

    IVAN3MAN:

    I’d believe that – question, how do you get your quotes to come up in gray boxes like that?

  129. IVAN3MAN says:

    @ Trippy:

    [H]ow do you get your quotes to come up in gray boxes like that?

    Use these HTML tags: <blockquote>PLACE QUOTE HERE</blockquote> (N.B. Make sure that the closing tag has the “/” in front of “blockquote”).

  130. IVAN3MAN says:

    Anaconda is an unmitigated sophist, and this is how Wikipedia defines sophism:

    In modern usage, sophism, sophist, and sophistry are derogatory terms, due the influence of many philosophers in the past (sophism and Platonism were enemy schools).

    A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone. It might be crafted to seem logical while actually being wrong, or it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing, or it might appeal to the audience’s prejudices and emotions rather than logic, i.e., raising doubts towards the one asserting, rather than his assertion. The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is, e.g., accusing another of sophistry for using persuasion techniques. An argument Ad Hominem is an example of Sophistry.

    A sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. A sophist tries to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether his argument is logical and factual.

    Sophistry means making heavy use of sophisms. The word may be applied to a particular text or speech riddled with sophisms.

    Yep, that sounds like Anaconda, alright!

  131. Anaconda says:

    Returning after the Dust settled.

    Ivan3Man spends more effort detailing the term “sophist” then pointing to anything I stated that was sophist. What intensity of magnetic field would be generated by a stationary electron? Rather, it is the ordered, vector motion of electrons that generates a magnetic field. “Intrinsic” magnetism refers to the magnetic moment, the “spin” of electrons. If enough electrons are “spinning” in the same orientation, then magnetism occurs, which in turn induces electron movement among the atoms and in turn generates larger magnetic fields.

    Obviously, there is something “intrinsic” about an electron which upon ordered, vector motion generates a magnetic field.

    It all comes back to ordered motion of electrons generating magnetic fields, whether in vector motion or in “spin”.

    So, am I being sophist to point that out?

    Or is it a case of projection by Ivan3Man?

  132. ND says:

    I check on old threads once in a while if I can find them and sure enough Anaconda pops up to get the last word.

    Anaconda: “Returning after the Dust settled.”

    Is this not a dirty trick you’re playing?

  133. An-Idiot but trying to learn says:

    Okay im an idiot, but why cant light be a factor influencing the production of gravity in some kind of interaction with magnetic fields on both a large scale and within an atom?

Comments are closed.