messier1

Have a Cigar! New Observations of Messier 82

Article Updated: 24 Dec , 2015
by

ESA’s space-borne X-ray observatory, XMM-Newton, has carried out an exclusive, 50-plus-hour observation of the starburst galaxy Messier 82, for the ‘100 Hours of Astronomy’ cornerstone project for the International Year of Astronomy 2009.

This first image shows bright knots in the plane of the galaxy, indicating a region of intense star formation, and emerging plumes of supergalactic winds glowing in X-rays. 

XMM-Newton has been studying the sky in X-ray, optical and ultraviolet wavelengths simultaneously, since its launch in December 1999.  

messier2

Messier 82 has several names including: M82, the Cigar Galaxy and NGC 3034. Located in the constellation Ursa Major at a distance of about 12 million light-years, it is the nearest and one of the most active starburst galaxies, meaning it shows an exceptionally high rate of star formation.

M82 is interacting gravitationally with its neighbour, the spiral galaxy Messier 81, which is probably the cause for the violent starburst activity in the region around its center.

This second image of Messier 82, compiled from observations in the optical and infrared, shows the very bright starry disc of the galaxy with striking dust lanes. 

Source: ESA. More images, including a downloadable poster, are here. 100 Hours of Astronomy ended on Sunday, but the website still has loads of fun information. The International Year of Astronomy 2009 celebration is, of course, ongoing!


69 Responses

  1. Anaconda says:

    This galaxy appears to be an active galaxy with emissions from its axial plane.

    The story states: “…emerging plumes of supergalactic winds glowing in X-rays. ”

    I know this is a general interest website, but isn’t the above phrase a regrettable case of ‘dumbing down’ the description?

    Couldn’t the story have stated the above phrase in a way that conveyed more information?

    Say, “[T]he emerging plumes of plasma, electromagnetically charged particles, flowing through intense magnetic fields are emitting synchrotron radiation which glows in both x-rays and radio waves.”

    Is this description a little more technical?

    Well…er…yes…but, that hasn’t stopped UniverseToday from presenting a story that did cover this added imformation, see In Depth Observing – M81 and M82(UniverseToday).

    So, am I being unfair?

    Don’t UniverseToday readers deserve to get a full description?

    Are is it bettter to keep them in the dark?

    And sure, my sugested description does make it easier to see that electromagnetism plays a significant role in galactic processes.

    But isn’t that the point: Having readers come away from the story better informed?

  2. Anaconda says:

    Why the active star formation areas?

    This is an active galaxy which suggests active areas in the galaxy where strong magnetic fields, electric currents, and plasma come together to form stars in galactic z- pinches.

    Concise enough?

  3. BrianV says:

    That’s one messed-up-looking galaxy.

    It looks like a standard Sc spiral that got run over by a truck.

  4. Jon Hanford says:

    Outstanding multiwavelength view of the nearest starburst galaxy to us! The blue Xray emission shooting out perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy is particularly impressive. Thanks for the links to the extra pix, some of the others are quite fascinating.

  5. Anaconda says:

    @ star gazer:

    First, I did answer your question:

    star gazer requested: “Please make it brief and to the point and nothing else…”

    What you really mean , is that I answered it too quickly — it was too easy.

    Yes, Plasma Cosmology is straight forward.

    star gazer asks: “why don’t ALL galaxies do the same thing, and ALL THE TIME.!!!!!!!!”

    Again, easy, because galaxies evolve from one form to another.

    It may be 10 billion years, who knows, but galaxies have a beginning, middle and an end.

    Not all galaxies started at the same time so they are at different stages in their development or evolution.

    There are stages in a galaxies development or evolution where star formation is more abundant than at other stages in development.

    And, yes, plasma cosmology predicts that as well.

    @ Joe The Sixpacker:

    I like the general attack, but not one single specific example.

    If you actually had one specific example you have more credibility…oh, and I’d actually be able to rebutt your example.

    But since you only offer a general comment there is no way to specifically respond.

    Joe The Sixpacker, your argument is like a cheap suit — it doesn’t wear well.

  6. Excalibur says:

    …yeah, and they totally covered up any information about gravity holding the galaxy togerther…

    @Anaconda:

    Not everyone do things the way you do, most people even do things better than you do…

  7. Olaf says:

    @Anaconda:

    It is a cover-up by scientists. They hide these plasma details so the public would not ask questions that hide the real truth, that we are all made up of electricity. LOL

  8. star grazer says:

    Anaconda
    The feed has this information:
    ‘M82 is interacting gravitationally with its neighbour, the spiral galaxy Messier 81, which is probably the cause for the violent starburst activity in the region around its center’
    I am not an expert on these subject matters, however, this statement ‘which is probably the cause’ -I am confused, if this is an ‘Electric-Plasma Universe’ as you and your co-horts claims, and gravity is not the true cause of the interesting results of many of the interacting galaxies, where is the plasma stream or lightning connecting M81 and M82??? I cannot believe M82 is doing what it is doing because M82 is having a very serious attitude problem!!
    Please explain ‘What Is The Cause’ of why M82 is in such star formation-I don’t need to hear about what your hypothhesis is about the bright knots and plumes. Thank you

  9. star grazer says:

    Anaconda-the state by the author ‘WHICH IS PROBABLY THE CAUSE’ for the violent starburst activity in the region around its center. I believe 99.99999925% the author made an error-however, I am open to your answer to my question: WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF WHY M82 IS IN SUCH STAR FORMATIONS: I am just a serious amateur
    astronomer and have many other interests, however, I would like to know your answer.
    Please make it brief and to the point and nothing else
    Thank you

  10. star grazer says:

    Acaconda-there is NO doubt it is an active galaxy, however, your link got me to thinking,
    why don’t ALL galaxies do the same thing, and ALL THE TIME.!!!!!!!!
    You still did not answer my simple question,
    WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF WHY M82 IS IN SUCH STAR FORMATION’ to make it more clear ‘WHAT STARTED IT?’
    I will say again, your answer and the link tells me ‘ why don’t ALL galaxies do the same thing, and ALL THE TIME!!!!!

  11. Joe The Sixpacker says:

    Stargrazer….why do you persist in trying to reason with these people? Time and time again, we all get to see that these people cherrypick evidence, fall into fallacious holes and unsuccessfully try to explain already known physics with their own theories. Never mind the fact that if they were actually onto something, physicists the world over would jump on it faster than you could say Nobel Prize.

    This is no different than trying to show religious and magic believing people the error of their delusions…reason, logic, evidence, these are all accepted and denied at whim…

    Cant we please just ignore them? People are starting to ignore Oilismastery now, and its having a lot of success in shutting him up and reducing irrelevant flame wars over what amounts to nothing. Just extend this method to the other cranks…..problem solved.

  12. Joe The Sixpacker says:

    Just let it lie people…they are almost certainly wrong. Who really cares?

    Truth is absolute, something is true or it is not. Peoples beliefs are irrelevant.

  13. star grazer says:

    Joe The Sixpacker Says
    I’m very well aware of OIM and clan, since he can’t answer a simple question and give me
    voo-doo mumbo jumbo about the EU, I will stay with saying gravity overwhelming rules the Universe, and electrical forces plays a minor role. I have plenty of time to ruffles some feathers-birds of a feather stays together, unfortunately for them, these birds lives in caves.and comes out at times to drop some bird droppings lol
    Take care

  14. IVAN3MAN says:

    RE: Anaconda

    The Troll’s Brain and MEMORY

  15. Lawrence B. Crowell says:

    M82 is a Seyfert galaxy, and is probably in a phase where the central black hole has a lot of accretion magnetichydrodynamic activity around it. Our galaxy in contrast is comparatively quiet right now, though there is a large nebula apparently heading to the central black hole. This could start some fireworks more locally.

    M81 and 82 make for reasonable observing if you have a 8″ or larger telescope.

    As for beliefs mattering, yes in the end people’s beliefs are of little importance. Yet they can serve to obscure the truth from people’s eyes. We are in danger of entering an age converse to the middle age. Then the Church imposed a single dogma which bound the western world into a mass delusion that concealed truth. Now we are entering an age where there is a growing cacophony of information, most bad, bogus and ugly, which distracts us. There is a lot of pseudo-science out there that has equal time on the web and expanding bandwidth.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  16. Feenixx says:

    Joe The Sixpacker Says:
    “Truth is absolute, something is true or it is not. Peoples beliefs are irrelevant.”

    hmmm…. do you mind if I hold a different view?
    1) I reckon people’s believes are quite important…. as long as everybody (the holders of those beliefs and those who are supposed to believe them) respects the fact that they are not truths.
    They could be seen as models which help people to understand things… as long as we are prepared to learn and sometimes step down according to what we have learned.
    2) I often have problems with “truths”: I look at them as models (based on beliefs) which have turned out to be useful, to make predictions… but there can be times when the model needs repairs, or a new model needs to be made. Wouldn’t “truth” amount to something like dogma, in the sense of “this is it, and it cannot be disputed or amended?

    Lawrence B. Crowell, what I just said seems to fly in the face of what you just wrote… ah, well, respecting your work greatly doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything you say, does it? 😉

  17. Jon Hanford says:

    Sheesh, back to the usual regurgitated nonsense. Sigh. Anaconda states: “Isn’t that the point: Having readers come away from the story better informed?’. If that is the point, than skipping posts by OilllsMastery, Anaconda, solrey, and the like then a requirement..

  18. Jon Hanford says:

    @ Anaconda, since UT is obviously dumbing down its stories and obviously hiding the truth about EU, PU, EC, PC, why not start your own blog to fully inform your followers of the real truth behind the workings of the universe. This would leave us deluded UT devotees to our own mistaken notions about how the universe really operates!

  19. solrey says:

    @anaconda
    Don’t forget, plasma structure is extremely complex, so large scale structure doesn’t have to be limited to a spiral morphology, but it’s likely to be the most common. M82 does have a structure like some supernova, as mentioned in your linked article…scalability. Plasma forms cellular structure, shaped by magnetic fields and angular momentum, whether it’s a spherical plasmoid, like a star, or ovoid, like a galaxy.
    You are right about the evolution of plasma structure, much of what we see is in one phase or another of a similar evolution.

    It is true that many articles dance around electromagnetic phenomena with ambiguous terminology or just simple omission of important, often unexplained, data like non-thermal radiation. I usually read the research papers when available and there can often be quite a contrast to what the researchers and the data actually say, compared to what’s ‘editorialized’ for the masses.

    We could just as easily yell back; where’s the dark matter?, where’s the dark energy?…HAH, that ‘dark stuff’ list is getting pretty long at this point. SO WHERE IS THIS STUFF?
    Hard evidence, please. Conjecture and circular reasoning don’t count. 😉

    Sheessh. If people just relaxed a little and didn’t get so defensive, maybe we could actually learn a thing or two from each other.

  20. jonathan says:

    why do you want to have bad breath in such a great time?

  21. Excalibur says:

    Sheeesh. The EU theory predicts my compass to point at the Sun…

  22. Amund Helland says:

    Sheeesh. The EU theory predicts my compass to point at the Sun…

  23. solrey says:

    @excalibur
    We already know that the Sun has a strong, and complex, magnetic field. Much stronger than Earths. Based on your own flawed logic, your compass should be pointing towards the Sun right now, and probably swinging wildly, regardless of the power source, be it fusion alone, or an electrically powered plasmoid. That doesn’t happen because we are inside the Earth’s magnetosphere, our own magnetic ‘cocoon’. Our magnetosphere is regularly perturbed by the sun, which DOES affect compasses.
    This does not deviate from EU whatsoever.
    Now if you’d put down your strawman and pay attention, you might learn something sometimes. 🙂

    Excerpt, from pg. 9, of the NASA education product “Solar Storms and You”, linked below:

    “This field changes in complex ways as
    CMEs find their way to the Earth and
    impact the magnetic field. Observatories
    on the ground have kept track of the
    strength and direction of the Earth’s
    magnetic field for over a century. Their
    records show that rapidly changing field
    conditions are common, especially when
    the Sun is active.
    The most dramatic of these episodes are called
    geomagnetic storms which can last several days.
    Less intense changes can last hours or minutes and
    are called geomagnetic sub-storms.
    Navigation by compass is especially difficult
    during either of these magnetic storms because
    compass bearings can change by 10 degrees or
    more during the course of a few hours. As anyone
    familiar with using a map and compass can tell
    you, without knowing the ‘magnetic deviation’, it
    is impossible to use a compass to determine where
    geographic north is located. As a result, surface
    navigation can become dangerously imprecise.”

    http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/NASADocs/nasa3.pdf

  24. Jon Hanford says:

    solrey, why give us a link almost 10 years old to support your specious arguments for EU theory being in agreement with the data supplied by the SWIFT satellite, when no such association is apparent or implied? This is disingenuous to the readers of Universe Today.

  25. solrey says:

    @jon h.
    Well, I don’t think the physics of magnetic fields have changed in the past ten years, so the linked material is still relevant.
    I also stated that the interaction of the magnetic fields of the Sun and Earth, as observed and agreed upon, don’t deviate from EU theory whatsoever. The linked paper has nothing to do with EU specifically, it’s just a tutorial about magnetic field interactions in general. Excalibur didn’t seem to have any knowledge about how magnetic fields interact.
    Nothing in my comment had anything to do with this paper supporting EU theory.
    Perhaps you didn’t understand the paper, if you even bothered to read it. After all, It is written for grades 5 – 8, so perhaps we need to find something a bit easier for you.

    A paper from NASA that’s a whole ten years old. WOW, that’s ancient. How old is GR theory again? Or Lemaitre’s Big Bang theory? Something like 70?
    Got any other strawmen we haven’t seen yet?

  26. IVAN3MAN says:

    @ Jon Hanford,

    I think that this extract from Wikipedia on Sophism will explain why:

    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.

    Sounds like our ‘friends’, eh?

  27. Excalibur says:

    solrey:

    The resulting magnetic field from the supposed galactic scale Birkeland currents would be very strong in order to ‘light up’ the Sun. It would be stronger than the earth’s magnetic field, causing compasses to point towards the sun instead of earth’s magnetic north.

    So what is your excuse ? Why does a compass point at earth’s magnetic north ?

    Sheeesh, why get so defensive ?

  28. Amund Helland says:

    solrey said:
    “After all, It is written for grades 5 – 8, so perhaps we need to find something a bit easier for you.”
    A bit condescending don’t you think?
    Jon Hanford is absolutely right. EU tends to rely on papers more than ten years old. Most usually quoted are either Perrat, or even H. Arp. It looks like there is a general tendency to take selective views ignoring swathes of current observations or theory contradicting it.
    EU will continue to an unacceptable line of astrophysics and science because most of it tenets fail to match observations in the real world. It fails mostly for totally ignoring gravitation significant interaction with mass in non-exotic phenomena. Even though there has been no ‘message’ particle as yet detected, does not mean that such a thing doesn’t exist. Until that avenue is exhausted under corresponding observational experimentation, it is far too soon to simply discard basic tenets of Newtonian or Relativity’s explanation of gravitation and its interaction.
    In the end with all the fractured BS by a variety of EU’ers hell bend on bamboozling everyone with unrelated nonsense, I really couldn’t give a toss what you think.

  29. solrey says:

    What do you people not understand about that NASA paper having nothing to do with EU or proving EU? It was to help Excalibur understand how magnetic fields interact, but apparently some of you all still don’t get it. Excalibur still doesn’t get it.
    EU does NOT say that the Suns magnetic field would be stronger than it is. Nothing in EU theory says that compasses should act any differently than they actually do.

    “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.”

    That is an accurate description of Excaliburs ‘compass pointing at the Sun’ BS.

    Yeah, I was a little condescending, but that’s nothing compared to the rudeness and insults that have been spewed my way, If you’re going to dish it, be prepared to take it sometimes.

    @amund helland
    “I really couldn’t give a toss what you think.”
    Wow, the feeling’s mutual, we agree on something. 🙂

  30. Excalibur says:

    Solrey:

    I am going to start to spoon feed you this one.

    1. EU predicts the Sun is powered by a large galactic scale Birkeland current. Now it must be large to power the Sun.
    2. This current must cause a magnetic field, and a large one at that.
    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field explains some of the trivias of magnetic fields, a line-wire current model, passing through the Sun, should suffice.
    4. Plug in required numbers, and you have a magnetic field of about 10-100 Tesla at the earths location. That is significantly more than the 0.03-0.06 Tesla the Earth have.
    5. A compass points according to the strongest magnetci field.

    Ergo, with EU’s prediction, a compass should point towards the Sun.

    This excercise have already been performed numerically on this forum, under another thread.

    You just dont _understand_ that your original prediction have this consequence. That is another matter…

  31. Jon Hanford says:

    @ IVAN3MAN: I most heartily concur with your last post. @ Amund Helland: I particularly note the lack of peer-reviewed, journal published research into Birkeland currents pervading the known universe or a re-evaluation and furtherance of Dr Perratt’s EM solution to galaxy formation actually DATED 2007 or 2008. I might then give these wild flights of fancy more serious thought. But where are the papers (not symposia summaries, press releases, etc.) that should now tally into the thousands from supposed theoretical or experimental data? Show me da research!

  32. Amund Helland says:

    Again. Sheeesh. The EU theory predicts my compass to point at the Sun…

  33. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    I note with some pleasure when solery said towards Amund Helland comment;,

    “Yeah, I was a little condescending, but that’s nothing compared to the rudeness and insults that have been spewed my way.”

    In fairness you brought all of this upon yourself. Why is it that every time someone topples one of your EU foundation stones, the EU supporter gets real nasty, insulting and acting like they were victims rather than those who incite the discord?

    Really, grace and air have absolutely no meaning when it comes to the scientific method – nor it seems when it comes to presenting meaningless ‘evidence’ or deceptions – yet, again and again and again.. (Just soooo Passé…)

    Once again another failed plan comes to an end in actions co-ordinated by the central group known as Thunderbolts.Info (Now formally known as Dunderhead.Info)

    Sorry to say folks that even the ‘expert’ blogger here named “solrey” is one of the foils in the shard of the planned plot here. Clearly your general aims, along with Thunderbolts.Info mind you, is to just to get some new ground-based support for your crazy notions by befuddling everyone just to create the general perception of doubt.
    Did you not think I/we had noticed when you (solrey) came on like the some EU messiah grossly petted and equally venerated by Messrs. Anaconda and OilisMastery. I.e. When Anaconda slipped up and said;

    “I’ve reviewed the thread, you handle the aggressive tone of sbc and I3m with aplumb,” (SBC : Sure he did. He, like you, couldn’t answer the question – and still can’t!)

    Did you think, I/we would NOT be suspicious?
    Have you also forgotten, as I told you before, there is also an informant among those in the Thunderbolts.Info? You know the discussion I’m talking about don’t you — the one which vigourously within is ranks has been discussing the “resistance” problem in Universe Today by me and others. Remember the absolute “outrage” they all basically expressed for yours truly Salacious B. Crumb (and various others) for the openly trashing Thunderbolts.Info proponents against your beloved theories. Remember when EU was being absolutely hammered from all directions placing gapping holes EU theory?
    Scientists (and science lovers) are usually far too clever to be caught up in cults and misinformed doctrines.
    Back to the drawing boards, methinks. (Suggest you might like to think of getting rid of the rat in your ranks before you start doing another tirade of provocative BS..)
    Oh… and to my fast “extermination” – as one your EU automatons (minions?) so politely put it.
    Well, sorry – I’m still here!! 🙂

    Now have a NICE day, won’t you…

  34. Excalibur says:

    Solrey:

    I am so sorry, i forgot to wipe your chin. Can you please ask Anaconda or OilIsMastery to do it for you? On second thought, thats a bad idea – they will mess that up…

  35. Anaconda says:

    @ Excalibur:

    You are making a strawman regarding EU’s hypothesis of the ‘Electric Sun’.

    The hypothesis does not require a Birkeland current going directly into the Sun. You seem to forget that the Sun has the heliopause. Science hasn’t reached it yet, we will eventually, but the heliopause acts a “cell membrane” much as the Earth’s magnetopause does. The intergalactic electomagnetic energy is diffused upon the heliopause and then the electrons migrate toward the Sun in a “drift current” effect.

    According to the hypothesis, there are no concentrated Birkeland currents going into the Sun.

    So, your sound bite is a strawman.

    Excalibur, actually, you have been the one to appear uninformed.

    You are so anxious to “debunk” electromagnetic theory that you often misstate the scientific evidence or the hypothesis.

    It’s therefore easy to refute your assertions.

    If you are going to criticize a hypothesis, which is fine by the way, have the good sense to understand it.

    Criticizing something you haven’t taken the time to understand diminishes your credibility.

    By the way, I didn’t read one good reason offered commenters for why the the article “dumbed down” the discussion.

    Are you okay with “dumbed down”?

    Of course, you aren’t okay with it, but some of the comments seemed to suggest a willingness if that kept electromagnetic discussions out of the picture.

    Silly, but such is Man’s determination to banish uncomfortable ideas.

  36. Excalibur says:

    Anaconda:

    “Silly, but such is Man’s determination to banish uncomfortable ideas”

    Yep, such as your determination to banish theories that do work better afterall than EU does… And that does not predict a compass to point at the Sun…

  37. Excalibur says:

    Anaconda:

    I am going to be as straightforward to you as i possibly can.

    Everything you accuse others of doing, you are doing more of yourself. Strawman, Desception, Hiding facts, Implying foul play, Derogatory language… Along with the other 2 puppets Solrey and OilIsMastery, and some other occasional minions.

    Almost nothing you say are quantified, its always “can it be?”, “dont this make you wonder?”. This is a clear sign of pseudo science.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current shows how Birkeland currents are directed by Earth’s magnetic field towards the polar regions. The Sun have a similar field, that should also direct the currents toward the polar regions. Is there any realistic mathematical/physical model to how the currents can NOT be directed towards the polar regions of the Sun ?

    If 10% of the currents in my model in previous post follow the simple wire analysis, it is a devastating blow to EU. Even if 1% does, its still devastating, even if 0.1% does it is extremely hurtful to EU because space probes would be able to pick up on it just outside the Earth’s magnetic field. But even so, there would be a detectable magnetic effect from thius vast current no matter what model was used – so what would be EU’s prediction specifically ? Handwaving effect ??

    But ofc, EU doesnt show its model, it does not show the consequences of that model, becasue that would be scientific (to openly expose the idea for someone outside to attack). EU doesnt openly predict any additional solar magnetic field of any level that could be detected, because that would also make it upon for shutdown. EU is pseudo-scientific, at best…

    I am with SBC on this one, this is a deliberate attack orchestrated by Thunderbolts, probably in order to sell more books and make more money… It is greed, not science…

  38. Jon Hanford says:

    Lawrence Crowell says: “There is a lot of pseudo-science out there that has equal time on the web and expanding bandwidth.” At least we can agree on this one. Arnund Helland says: “EU tends to rely on papers more than ten years old. Most usually quoted are either Perrat, or even H. Arp. It looks like there is a general tendency to take selective views ignoring swathes of current observations or theory contradicting it.
    EU will continue to an unacceptable line of astrophysics and science because most of it tenets fail to match observations in the real world. It fails mostly for totally ignoring gravitation significant interaction with mass in non-exotic phenomena. Even though there has been no ‘message’ particle as yet detected, does not mean that such a thing doesn’t exist. Until that avenue is exhausted under corresponding observational experimentation, it is far too soon to simply discard basic tenets of Newtonian or Relativity’s explanation of gravitation and its interaction.” And I reiterate this challenge to you, solrey : “Note the lack of peer-reviewed, journal published research into Birkeland currents pervading the known universe or a re-evaluation and furtherance of Dr Perratt’s EM solution to galaxy formation actually DATED 2007 or 2008. I might then give these wild flights of fancy more serious thought. But where are the papers (not symposia summaries, press releases, websites, etc.) that should now tally into the thousands from supposed theoretical or experimental data? Show me peer reviewed, journal-published papers to support your claims that are no more than 2 years old. I would be glad to read them.

  39. ND says:

    Anaconda: “Criticizing something you haven’t taken the time to understand diminishes your credibility.”

    I and others have been telling you this for month and it’s not sinking in. You don’t even understand the EM/plasma physics that EU/PC people are using to promote their ideas.

    Didn’t you at one point say that there were birkeland currents feeding the sun?

  40. Amund Helland says:

    Anaconda said;

    “Criticizing something you haven’t taken the time to understand diminishes your credibility.”

    Surely, exactly the same point applies to you too!
    Basically, all credibility is not something that is given to you, because in truth it is earned.
    So where are YOUR own credentials to give rise that [I]YOU[/I] are at all credible.
    Shout at the top of your voice and professing some belief is one thing, showing you are wise and considered is of course another.
    I have read enough to convince me that much that has been written by you is not based on some scientific proof but on alternative motives which remain murky and hidden. Salacious is quite right about one thing – there is a now well hidden agenda at hand – which in the end means you cannot be trusted or believed.
    Understanding is in fact a two edged sword. It requires comprehending openly the whole underlying theme of a subject AND also showing motives that are free of bias or unwarranted manipulation to gain support.
    As you, and many of the EU supporters, fails repeatedly because you have an agenda and have motives that appear unfounded or lack even recent evidence. Were you (and others) willing to show openness and argue in terms of possible alternative explanations in a positive light – your arguments might be positively considered.
    If we are to really criticise anything here, it is EU supporters behaviour and them acting by being disingenuous.
    In the end, EU might shed some new light on the nature of the Universe, but its path being so-far professed by OilisMastery, Sorley and yourself (and a few others) is not currently in that direction. Our current theories held by astrophysics and astronomy is really, for the most part, based on firm observations and provable theory that transcends the need for radical changes. Were this not the case, then 99% or more of that community wouldn’t support it as they do. Sure, current theory is not 100% perfect, and there are many things we still do not know. All we may have a long way to go, but this does not mean we should discard everything just because a few radicals think it is a good idea.
    If you must argue against consensus, you should do so from a place of what we know and agree, and THEN point out the differences between the ‘standard’ idea and new idea. Simply starting from a place of absolute contention to ‘standard’ ideas means you either have some motive or that you want attention.
    Right or wrong – this is just how it is, and is not deemed science or one using the scientific method. In other words such ideas are speculation and unfounded – either in the realms of philosophy, faith, dogma or religion. It is simply not science or the way science is done – but instead it plain illogical tomfoolery.

  41. Excalibur says:

    Note that Anaconda with a handwave dismisses the line-wire current model, but does no effort on explaining what model to replace with. “Carry on people, nothing to see here…EU is the truth! EU opponents are just scared and jealous of our impressive minds…”

    Also note that none of the EU proponents agree within themselves on how EU actually should work, they just agree that science is wrong. OilIsMastery claims gravity do not exist, Anaconda claims it does exist but is of no importance since eletctric forces are 10^39 times stronger, Solrey – well Solrey doesnt really claim anything, he just talks.

    Also note how Solrey was trying to trump my arguments by claiming a link to a educational PDF file from Nasa meant for grades 5-8 was sufficient to dismiss my claim, yet when he was confronted with the spoon fed version of it, he dissapeared and Anaconda came back instead to offer support by dismissing all i said with the handwave. That is coordination, and it implies Solrey dont really understand things very well either – he just passes information along that he is told to pass along.

  42. Anaconda says:

    Gentlemen, Gentlement,

    Excalibur misstates the “Electric Sun’ hypothesis.

    I point out his misstatement as the strawman it is, and in reaction, Excalibur proceeds to accuse me and my supposed co-conspirators of all kinds of calumny and nefarious conduct.

    An over reaction don’t you think?

    The hypothesis relies on a diffuse back-drift of electrons towards the Sun.

    There is a basis for this hypothesis:

    “Up to energies of ~2 keV two suprathermal electron populations can usually be distinguished in the solar wind: (1) an intense beam, known as the strahl, that is directed outward from the Sun along the heliospheric magnetic field, and (2) a more tenuous and roughly isotropic component known as the halo. The figure illustrates a newly recognized phenomenon in the ACE SWEPAM suprathermal electron data – depletions of halo electrons centered on and roughly symmetric about 90° pitch angle (PA) relative to the heliospheric magnetic field.”

    “Changes in field strength along the field line first focus the backstreaming halo electrons emerging from the compression region and then mirror them, producing the mirrored halo population (dark red) and, in steady state, a depletion in halo electrons centered on and symmetric about the direction perpendicular to the magnetic field.”

    Per Cal tech:

    http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews56.html

    Excalibur presumes to tell solrey about the ‘Electric Sun’ hypothesis: “I am going to start to spoon feed you this one [the ‘Electric Sun’ hypothesis].”

    “EU predicts the Sun is powered by a large galactic scale Birkeland current. Now it must be large to power the Sun. This current must cause a magnetic field, and a large one at that…a line-wire current model, passing through the Sun, should suffice.”

    The above isn’t the hypothesis.

    Excalibur, again, misstating a hypothesis you are opposed to so you can make a strawman and knock it down is improper.

    You know that, and I would suggest your reaction, here, demonstrates you are conscious of that fact.

  43. Anaconda says:

    Gentlemen, Gentlemen:

    Interesting series of responses.

    Aren’t we getting a bit paranoid, here?

    SBC hypothesizes a conspiracy, a “plan” between various commenters on this board to discuss Electric Universe theory.

    Boy, it seems SBC relishes a good conspiracy, and thrills to details it all out.
    Excalibur picks up on that thread (it’s all for the donations, you see).

    Goodness gracious, your imaginations are going overdrive.

    I mean you guys are really carrying on, here.

    It’s real quite simple there are several commenters on this board who are proposing that electromagnetism, a Fundamental Force, plays a much more important role than the gravity “only” model currently assigns it.

    Is that such a big deal that an older post on UniverseToday, deserves such an intense strong of comments on it?

    The reaction, here, such as it is, suggests it concerns other commenters that electromagnetism should be proposed as an alternative theory.

    Why is that a problem?

    The reaction suggests this alternative theory is a threat to “modern” astronomy.

    Of course, if “modern” astronomy would simply open its eyes and consider a Fundamental Force, electromagnetism, there wouldn’t be an issue, would there?

    Is trying to match observation & measurement to theory really a threat that deserves all this “kill it before it grows” mentality displayed, here, on this board in reaction to my pointing out Excalibur set up a strawman version of the ‘Electric Sun’ hypothesis?

    You guys should trim your sails a bit on the conspiracy talk.

    It makes you look paranoid.

    Are a handful of commenters causing so much uproar that it requires this kind of response?

    If so, then no wonder “modern” astronomy is in crisis.

  44. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Amund Helland said;

    It is simply not science or the way science is done — but instead it [is] plain illogical tomfoolery.

    Correct

  45. Anaconda says:

    @ Layman:

    What about “dark” matter, “dark” energy, and, now, “dark flow”? Do these unobserved & unmeasured supposed sustances and energies matter to you?

    All of the above have been thought of because the gravity “only” model didn’t work.

  46. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Oh, and by the way, have you noticed the description of anything plasma this or plasma that. Well this is also part of the tactic by Thunderbolt.Info group, which was to dump such terminology in favour of the more established notions of magnetic fields, and to focus on non-exotic celestial phenomena that looks like or behave with established EU. This is why this M82 story and the Sun story were so popular here.
    The hidden plan, as I understand it was, that Anaconda and Oils were to stir up trouble, then have Solrey come in and then attack the knowledge of bloggers on EU theory alone with his presumed better ‘electrical engineering skills. The aim was to break the “resistance” (their own words) of those so against the precious EU theories.
    It would have worked, except for a little few slip ups here and there, and that Sorley’s knowledge regarding astrophysics and stellar evolution is not so good. I.e. The wacky Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram (H-R Diagram) he professes.
    Hence, MY own apparently innocent question about why is the sun almost perfectly spherical is a classic argument, because if EU was dominated, then the sun would not be spherical or behave as it does. Gravitation, makes bodies spherical because it act is all directions towards the centre of mass. Therefore, the gravitational field is very symmetrical, like most bodies in the solar system. If EU were really predominate, and that nuclear fusion occurred near to the photosphere, then the shape of the sun would directly follow the shape of the magnetic field and Birkeland currents. In this case the Sun should look like amorphous shape which would vary significantly with the solar cycle. As this does not happen, ergo, what drives the sun’s power and behaviour is principally gravitation and not EU. (This is why Solrey could not and would not directly answer.)

    (Another good question you might put in place is where are all the electrons that induce the current reside. This is another particularly difficult question for the EU’ers to explain, as again it makes the conclusion that gravitation is the principle cause for the behaviour of the sun – but that is another story I’ll save for later. )

    Already there are new undisclosed plans afoot to try another series of tactics, but the damage being done to the Thunderbolts.Info proponents (and their friends like Anaconda, Oils and Solrey) already may make them abandon what we been seeing here in an open forum for a few months now.
    If they do decide another round, I might instead do the proverbial pre-emptive strike (but that often destroys the fun.)
    Sorry. You shouldn’t have awakened the dragon!
    Best of all, they still have a rat in their ranks, but they still don’t know if who or whom “Salacious B. Crumb” actually represents. (Have you oddly noticed oddly how Salacious seems to like Americans a little bit more?)
    Oh dear Anaconda. I still hold even more cards close to my chest. As you baulked at me a few months ago now. Do you want to dig deeper?
    Oh Dear. Cue. Let’s all get real angry now…

  47. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Mincing words is now over opossums…

  48. Anaconda says:

    @ SBC:

    Glad to hear there are no gravity “only” models, really I am.

    Therefore, instead of promoting conspiracies, you should open your eyes to the scientific evidence regarding electromagnetism in space.

    No comment on “dark” matter, “dark” energy, and, now, “dark flow”, eh?

    SBC, you’re hardly ever at a loss of words, but apparently the “dark” stuff doesn’t agree with you — good — it doesn’t agree with me either.

    @ ND:

    Did you see and bother to read the citation I linked to?

    ND states: “When others respond and ask for specifics…”

    Excalibur misstated the ‘Electric Sun’ hypothesis.

    And then carried on even when two commenters pointed that out to him.

    I corrected the record.

    Of course, ND is silent on Excalibur misstating the ES hypothesis so he could throw out his misleading sound bite about compasses.

    And…wait…I provided a link to back-up my contention.

    ND fails to comment on that link…so let me give it, again, here.

    http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews56.html

    That’s California Institute of Technology.

    I do the best I can to provide linked authority for my positions, however, only one link is allowed per comment.

    Oh, and yeah, ND passes on commenting on SBC’s and Excalibur’s charges of conspiracy.

    Perhaps, that failure to comment on the conspiracy charges suggests even die-hards like ND know it’s foolish to wallow in conspiracy theories.

  49. Jon Hanford says:

    Anaconda says: “I know this is a general interest website, but isn’t the above phrase a regrettable case of ‘dumbing down’ the description? Don’t UniverseToday readers deserve to get a full description?” After consulting the NASA Extragalactic Database (NED) @ http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/ I found 1,486 peer-reviewed papers on just M 82 alone. Is UT dumbing down its’ articles or should they include all 1486 papers in their entirety to be included in this short article? Would UT readers really read and comprehend all of these papers? I see no agenda by the UT staff to squelch legitimate scientific research. I do, however, see an agenda in nearly all of your posts.

  50. Excalibur says:

    …ofc not Jon.

    Anaconda means they should dumb down the peer-reviewed papers produced by Thunderbolt instead of dumbing down science articles.

    Hmmm, that didnt come out right – Thunderbolt already looks dumbed down enough…

  51. Jon Hanford says:

    @ Anaconda, where are the 1,486 peer-reviewed, journal-published papers concerning EU investigations into the nature of M 82 or any other galaxy for that matter. You made no mention of NGC 55 (featured in a previous article) also posessing no Super Massive Black Hole (SMBH) at its’ center (338 papers at the NED site). Were you being disingenuous?

  52. Jon Hanford says:

    The Thunderbolt site (among others): Not even wrong.

  53. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Jon Hanford said;
    “The Thunderbolt site (among others): Not even wrong.”

    No. Thunderbolts.Info is the central co-ordinated location of whose aim is disseminate EU theory (plasma . It work by cells, in which the EU proponent is associated but not directly link to individuals. They encourage individual sites and even slight disagreement to give the perception of an established theory with a scientific background within bogus active debate.
    They are applying an established ‘cult’ technique so-called “Leaderless Resistance” (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance ) using so-called “blowback” and actively promotes ideas via plausible deniability, where the inner circle of the group completely deny knowledge or awareness of such activities connected to people like Anaconda, OilisMastery, Solrey who are used to carry out such action.
    This is why Thunderbolts.Info (See Section “A Role For You”) says;

    “In your communications, please be sure that, unless you have developed specific strategies with Thunderbolts management, you not identify yourself as a member of the Thunderbolts group, but as a curious or interested observer.”

    It is also why it says;

    “The technique is very effective, and to counteract it you need to understand the connections and the overall aims of the proponents – in this case EU. It is rarely seen in science subjects, but is a familiar technique to the intelligent design lot, for example.”

    They also falsify the importance of EU, like what is said in Thunderbolts.Info. I.e.

    It is the primary reason that there are over 865,000 citations of Thunderbolts.info on the Internet

    Note: Please free to use any of this useful information to stop these dishonest fanatics in the future.

  54. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Above I said;

    “The technique is very effective, and to counteract it you need to understand the connections and the overall aims of the proponents – in this case EU. It is rarely seen in science subjects, but is a familiar technique to the intelligent design lot, for example.”

    Sorry this part should not have been quoted. The words are actually my own.

  55. Excalibur says:

    I believe https://www.thunderbolts.info/donate.htm explains it all. Donations, donations, donations…

  56. Layman says:

    Hey guys- I really do not think that you have to worry too much about the Thunderbolts- They do try to spread disinformation- however- I can’t make heads of tails of what they are trying to sell-
    One of the cardinal rules of a good cult is to have something that the ignorant masses can understand- So far they have struck out on that one.
    Black Holes, Big Bangs, Gravity and a Thermonuclear Sun at least make some sense to me.
    Plasma Universe not so sensible! Unfortunately I am afraid that it has become akin to a religion for the EU believers and in my experience no amount of practical reasoning will dissuade some peoples beliefs or convictions even when there is a more conventional answer.
    Thanks to all of you guys who set them straight with knowledgeable generally accepted present day science.

  57. Jon Hanford says:

    Excalibur, sometimes you really crack me up! I think the title of their page says it all: The Thunderbolts Project needs your help… (boy, does it ever!).

  58. ND says:

    Anaconda,

    You’re a great propagandist. The way you character things as a “threat” to astronomy and how you use the term “gravity only”. And specially how you picture yourself and others rather innocently and under attack.

    There is no threat when one is open to theories and ideas being turned upside down. There does need to be good evidence however and not rhetoric.

    The issue is that those who are promoting the EU/PC do so very strongly, with lots of rhetoric. When others respond and ask for specifics and genuinely think through what EU/PC proposes, the ideas fall short. Those with a science background sought more details and specific theories with predictions and again, things fall short. They wanted something to sink their teeth into, but alas there is lots of references to 10^39.

    Granted some of the people here react to you and others rather strongly than others. But there is something that you and others have hit upon in us, intentionally or otherwise There is a morbid fascination that seems to bring us back and interact with you. I have a morbid fascination with why you’re promoting plasma physics on a cosmological scale when you have no comprehension of the science involved.

  59. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Funny Anaconda in his reply doesn’t deny that co-ordinated efforts across multiple blogs and notices in recent months have been going on. I wonder why is that?

    Anaconda said;
    “It’s real quite simple there are several commenters on this board who are proposing that electromagnetism, a Fundamental Force, plays a much more important role than the gravity “only” model currently assigns it.”

    Good to see you are just as delusional as usual.
    Now let’s see who is trying to sell the exact same crazy and ridiculous notion, again.

    There are no “gravity” only models. The question is degree not whether it is one or the other. Get it!

    WHY CAN’T YOU SIMPLY UNDERSTAND THAT !!

    So is it just repeat a falsehood often enough and it becomes truth, eh?
    Denial won’t let you get out this time. As usual you accuse the accuser, but this time your own actions and words have already condemned you.
    Funny isn’t it. The bottom line of conspiracies are those who state and dramatise that there is some evil hidden crisis or a particular doubt, when in fact there is no crisis or doubt.

    The problem is that once someone has been shown, displayed and has been proven as being quite dishonest, deceitful, and fraudulent cannot be trusted. You have been shown that many times now. Even if your words were absolutely true, the person who does such things will be ignored.

    Sorry. People’s eyes are now wide open, and like every one of your fellow nutters, we can already see who are the real phoneys.

  60. Jon Hanford says:

    Anaconda, could you please explain the connection between a November 2001 NASA whitsheet on results from the Earth observation ACE satellite and the multiwavelength image of the galaxy M 82? I see no connection between the two subjects.

  61. Layman says:

    @ Anaconda
    Dark Matter- Dark Energy-
    Yes I do have many questions about these two unknowns- 94 % of everything?
    Dark Energy- Gravity?
    Dark Matter- Everything that is not a star.?

    ??????????????????????
    I hope that in the near future we will learn more about these forces of the universe and that we will have some reasonable answers. From everything that I have read- who knows!
    Sometimes I too think that the mathematicians reach- but this is what science is all about- formulate an idea- test it-prove it or disprove it- there are so few absolutes and so much to learn.

  62. Layman says:

    On the other hand I believe in atoms- I cannot see them, I cannot touch them, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates that they are the building blocks of everything in the universe. When and if the evidence explains what Dark Matter and Dark Energy are – then I will probably accept them as a reasonable fact until otherwise proven wrong!
    Now I defer to the scientists and other learned people of this site of whom I have the highest regard.

  63. ND says:

    Anaconda: “I do the best I can to provide linked authority for my positions, however, only one link is allowed per comment.”

    And I can show tons of authority showing that the Sun is nuclear powered thanks to gravity. In fact the vast majority of the authority on the subject of astronomy is behind this model. And yet you would not accept this authority if I do list them. You will, given my experience with you, start spouting rhetoric about “modern” astronomy and so on. You’re cherry picking your evidence. Is there enough current going into the Sun to power the energy output we observe today? Have you read up on the latest observational data regarding Sun’s neutrino output? Have you read any of the critiques of EU/PC by those with authority to do so? Would you understand it? Do you understand what the CIT link says?

    Regarding the conspiracy theories, I have no idea who you are and how you’re related if at all to the EU/PC sites. There is no way for me to know. But your zealotry on the subject matches those of the site and others who debate in blogs. But then again, such subjects probably (and I think do) attract certain self-absorbed persona. So I have nothing else to say. Although, that “a role for you” page on the thunderbolts.info site is mighty suspicious in trying to play a media savy game.

    As for people asking for specifics I was covering all the months I’ve seen you debate. This includes the specifc questions that Tom Marking and DrFlimmer have asked you, along with others.

    As for the electric sun hypothesis, I honestly have not though too much about it. I’ve let others who can do the math deal with itl.

  64. Excalibur says:

    Anacoinda:

    You are obfuscating, as usual, but i reiterate the statements.

    1. The Sun is claimed by EU to be powered by galactic scale Birkeland currents, in one EU version in an effect called a z-pinch. Correct?
    2. Those currents must arrive at the Sun (and they must also be removed at another end or there will be a charge accumulation). Currents dont like moving against magnetic fields, such as the Sun’s, and will be directed towards the polar regions. Correct ?
    3. Regardless of how those currents are transported, except possibly if they are teleported by magic, there would be a flow from northern to southern solar pole, or in the other direction. The current may not exactly follow a straight line, but from the Earths vantage point it will be pretty much like if it was a single wire connection. Correct ?
    4. Somehow this enormous current that constantly flows (powering the Sun no less) escapes causing a detectable magnetic field that in a simple model can be as large as 100 Tesla at Earths location. Detectability should be already at some 0.001 Tesla. How ?

    How do you power the Sun with electric currents, without causing a huge magnetic field, leading that current to and from the Sun? The actual energy conversion can be anything you prefer, even a z-pinch if you so like.

    Claiming ‘drift-currents’ wont cut it, because when those drift-currents gets close to the Sun, they will start to follow the Sun’s magnetic field lines, and will be directed towards the polar regions, just as i describe above.

    So what is it going to be Anaconda? Are you going to try to explain what i asked for, or are you going to divert into some new blind alley track ?

  65. Anaconda says:

    @ Jon Hanford:

    There isn’t a connection.

    Excalibur put out his misleading sound bite about compasses…solrey attempted to point out Excalibur’s soundbite was misleading, and I followed up on that.

    It certainly seems that Excalibur is pressing to maintain the validity of that sound bite in the face of multiple explanations why he is misreprenting a hypothesis he doesn’t even believe in.

    @ Layman:

    In fact, you do see atoms and touch atoms all the time, not as single atoms, of course, but as masses of atoms. Want to touch and see a smaller mass of atoms? Then put a drop of oil on a pan of water and see the drop spread out to a film on top of the water, some oils will even spread out close to just a few molecules thick on the water and put your finger on the film and then rub your fingers.

    You didn’t mention the “dark flow”. Is that so questionable you didn’t even want to grace it with a comment?

    You are most right, the pure mathematicians have taken over astronomy (that has been true for a long time) and their tendency is to give credence to their theoretical calculations as opposed to saying: “The gravity “only” model doesn’t work. Time to try an alternative hypothesis that doesn’t require “dark” matter, “dark” energy, or, now, “dark flow”.

    @ ND:

    I gave you a second bite at the apple by providing the link I already linked to. But you failed to address that specific link, again. Your whining about specifics rings very hollow when I give you a specific and you fail to address it.

    I’ve responded will numerous links to authority (your comment is geared to people who might stray across this discussion), the Bad Astronomy debates were long and loaded with supporting authority that I linked, but you and drflimmer and others ignored the authority and kept going on about there being no ‘charge seperation’ in space in spite of the linked authorities I provided.

    That has been the traditional opening objection by “modern” astronomy, so it didn’t surprise me you and your cohorts would attempt that gambit.

    But you guys were ultimately blown out of the water with that one, since NASA has been teaching “electric currents from space” to gradeschoolers, for the last 8 years, now.

    You guys at Bad Astronomy, but for the exception of Marking, didn’t know what gradeschoolers know — that should make you guys feel informed or you were being disingenuous, take your pick.

    @ Excalibur:

    Excalibur states: “You are obfuscating, as usual, but I reiterate the statements. The Sun is claimed by EU to be powered by galactic scale Birkeland currents, in one EU version in an effect called a z-pinch. Correct?

    NO!

    This is the third time I have corrected you, plus the correction you received from solrey. (I can only conclude that you are hoping that some stray readers [much like ND] will see your false mistatement and leave it at that.)

    Apparently, you refused to read the link I provided or failed to comprehend it

    I will link it for readers, again.

    http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews56.html

    “…backstreaming halo [of] electrons…”

    This does note a electron drift towards the Sun, and guess where they tend to concentrate? That’s right at the poles of the Sun.

    “The figure illustrates a newly recognized phenomenon in the ACE SWEPAM suprathermal electron data – depletions of halo electrons centered on and roughly symmetric about 90° pitch angle (PA) relative to the heliospheric magnetic field.”

    “..[backstreaming] halo electrons centered on and symmetric about the direction perpendicular to the magnetic field.”

    The magnetic field runs out from the Sun’s equator, so “perpendicular” is above the Sun’s axis, at the poles.

    Sorry, your whole rendition of the ‘Electric Sun’ hypothesis is false.

    It’s pathetic you would carry on this way after having your error exposed.

    Excalibur, you have been caught distorting the ES hypothesis in order to discredit it.

    And, no, I’m not going to spoon feed you. If you are interested, you can look up the ES hypothesis yourself and study it.

    Perhaps, if you do, then you will know how easy it was to detect and point out your strawman argument for what it was: An intentional distortion.

    Your credibility is zilch in these discussions.

  66. Jon Hanford says:

    @ Anaconda, you state your links & posts about this article on M 82 have “no connection” to each other. This is exactly my point. You may as well post your opinions on gynecology sites or Hollywood fashion sites if you intend to continue to make posts to these UT threads that have NO connection to the featured article. What’s your point. You’re off-topic, incomprehensible rants do nothing to push forward your ill-conceived ‘ideas’ on how the universe works.

  67. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Anaconda said;
    “Your credibility is zilch in these discussions.”

    Calling the kettle black methinks. The also so applies to you… the grand illusionist who sees science as a tool to profess his faith in utter balderdash. A buffoon with a magic wand who has no knowledge of the world nor how it works.

  68. Excalibur says:

    “Excalibur, you have been caught distorting the ES hypothesis in order to discredit it”

    Anaconda, you have been caught in the act of distorting established science in order to discredit it

    Anaconda, you are a very dishonest man…

  69. ND says:

    Anaconda,

    So is this caltech paper the definitive proof that there are birkeland currents feeding and powering the sun? You’re not claiming that and neither is that paper, so what’s your point?

Comments are closed.