The Crescent Nebula by Dietmar Hager and Immo Gerber

Hot Crescent Rolls… A Bubble?

Article Updated: 26 Apr , 2016

by

[/caption]

The Crescent Nebula, also known as NGC 6888, is a very well renown and most intriguing object located in the constellation Cygnus in the northern hemisphere. At an apparent size of about 18 by 13 arc-minutes it is a very pale nebula. Even in a moderate amateur telescope you can’t quite see this one unless you have absolute dark skies (or narrow band filters) and a decent “light bucket”. So how do we get a chance to study it? Photographically, of course…

Spanning some 25 by 18 light years, gazing at NGC 6888 means we are looking 4700 years into the past, a past that renders a nebula fueled and excited by the blue star at the center. And not just any blue star – but a high mass super-giant star – one that depleted its fuel at “full speed”. Not only was it a super giant, but hot… in the class of “Wolf Rayet” stars (HD 192163). Now, after only a couple of million years the “stellar gas” is almost used up and the star is standing right before a significant change: a supernova candidate. Behold a star that vents its outer layers into space at terrific speed!

“Images are used to constrain models of the ionization structure of nebular features.” says Brian D. Moore (et al) of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Arizona State University, “From these models, we infer physical conditions within features and estimate elemental abundances within the nebula. The results of our analysis, together with the degree of small-scale inhomogeneity apparent in the images, call into question the assumptions underlying traditional methodologies for interpretation of nebular spectroscopy. The thermal pressure of photoionized clumps is higher than the inferred internal pressure of the shocked stellar wind, implying that the current physical conditions have changed significantly over less than a few thousand years.”

While the central star sustains severe loss of mass, the gas is holding lots of oxygen and hydrogen… just before the individual big “bang” of the WR-star creating a “hot bubble” whose struture can’t quite be explained yet. “A detailed analysis of the H I distribution at low positive velocities allowed us to identify two different structures very probably related to the star and the ring nebula. From inside to outside they are: (1) an elliptical shell, 11.8Γ—6.3 pc in size, that embraces the ring nebula (labeled inner shell); and (2) a distorted H I ring, 28 pc in diameter, also detected in IR emission (outer shell). The borders of the inner shell strikingly follows the brightest regions of NGC 6888, showing the sites where the interaction between the nebula and the surrounding gas occurs. A third structure, the external feature, is a broken arc detected at slightly higher velocities than the former shells.” says Christina Cappa (et al), “We propose a scenario in which the strong stellar wind of HD 192163, expanding in an inhomogeneous interstellar medium, blew the outer shell during the main sequence phase of the star. Later, the material ejected by the star during the LBV (or RSG) and WR phases created NGC 6888. This material encountered the innermost wall of the outer shell originating the inner shell. The association of the external feature with the star and the nebula is not clear.”

For a look inside, view the full size image!

Many thanks to Dietmar Hager and Immo Gerber of TAO-Observatory for sharing this incredible image!


63 Responses

  1. Stargazer-Observatory says:

    Dear folks!

    First off: Thanks Tammy for this intruiging article and more important thanks for picking our image!

    I’d like to announce our new remote observatory TAO-Observatory (specific website is yet to come…)
    operated together with my close friend Immo Gerber. We share equipment and enthusiasm for imaging the celestial wonders.
    At TAO-obs you will find an “old friend” there: the 9″ TMB folded apo-refractor which has found new home in south of france…
    please visit:
    http://stargazer-observatory/TAO_01.html

    cheers, Dietmar

  2. Jon Hanford says:

    What a great image of this well known object by none other than Hager et al! Interesting to see the different ionization zones (the blue vs pink component of the nebula) and the tiny absorption nebula projected near the central Wolf-Rayet star. This area also reminds me of the recently discovered (by 2 groups of amateur astronomers) nearby planetary nebula PN G75.5+1.7 as reported here by UT (see the Quattrocchi and Helm page http://www.lostvalleyobservatory.com/review.nebula1/ for details & pix!).

  3. Anaconda says:

    It is a beautiful image.

    I like the filaments that are clearly visible in the image and different plasma regions.

    The pink and bue hues give the picture an appealing vitality.

  4. Jon Hanford says:

    According to the Stargazer Observatory page for the image about 70 hours of total exposure time ensued for this Hydrogen-alpha, LRGB color composite! Indeed much ionized gas( like hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur ) is visible as being ionized by direct irradiation from the WR star but also the ferocious stellar wind blasting away into space. Photo details can be found here: http://www.stargazer-observatory.com/6888-tao.html .

  5. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Anaconda Said:

    I like the filaments that are clearly visible in the image and different plasma regions.

    In case you didn’t know, those regions are called NEBULA, however, not all of it is ionised. Ionisation does not usually mean plasma, but I suppose everything damn thing to you is plasma.

    Frankly, from past experience, you could tell in space what is plasma and what is ordinary run-of-the-mill neutral matter.

  6. Manu says:

    @HSB Crumb:
    Frankly, I wonder who’s trolling now. I don’t see a problem with Anaconda’s comment on this post.

  7. Lawrence B. Crowell says:

    The WR star is throwing off material and lots of UV and X-ray radiation. So there are a lot of atomic transitions and ionizations going on in this material ejected in this stellar wind. This is a very tenuous gas of ionized and excited atoms however. Spectographic data is needed to identify atomic species, electron transitions and the extent of ionization.

    If you were placed in the middle of it you would largely see empty space. A good model for this is a flourescent lamp, but very large and tenuous. This is a type of nebula, no more mysterious than any other. It will be blasted by a supernova and replaced by a much more extensive nebula.

    LC

  8. IVAN3MAN says:

    @ Hon. Salacious B. Crumb,

    Those “Electric Universe” cranks see plasma in every nebula like fundamentalist Christians see Jebus in every water/oil stain or cheese-on-toast! πŸ™„

  9. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    @ Anaconda

    Here is two very good questions for you…

    Are commonplace Hydrogen-Alpha ions seen in gaseous nebulae really plasma?

    Also have you ever wonder why gaseous nebulae are NOT actually called plasma nebulae or even magnetic nebulae?

  10. Pvt.Pantzov says:

    attn admins:

    please put a stop to this.

  11. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Pvt.Pantzov Says:
    October 17th, 2009 at 1:29 am
    attn admins:
    please put a stop to this.

    I would suggest otherwise. It is about time the EU proponent and fringe elements be show up for the misinformation and deceptions.
    Why is it, that ordinary discussion has ti be hijacked by some lunatics who think all forums are cannon fodder for their wacky ideas and total irrelevancies?
    I like many here have worked in the sciences making a career involving investigation and study. Why should the respectable pillars of astronomy and associated subject be bulldozed by a bunch of misfits who think it their personal duty to undermine science for the sake of notoriety?

    Anoconda has inflicted misery just for the sake of causing as much trouble as possible.

    Sink the turkey!!

  12. Lawrence B. Crowell says:

    Anaconda’s statements here are fairly innocuous. He is serving more of an anti-intellectual role on the blog site on the Multi-verse. Salacious B. Crumb might want to hammer him down over there. Of course the existence of ionized nebular gas is a perfect way for him to segue discussions into EU nonsense.

    LC

  13. Anaconda says:

    “ionized gas” is plasma.

    “Zone” is a region. Nebula refers to the object as a whole.

    Filaments are evident in the image.

    SBC, “personal duty to undermine science”, no, not at all.

    I suggest considering all the possibilities actually bolsters the Scientific Method and furthers the purposes of science.

    Why the hostility from some of the other commenters regarding an innocuous comment?

  14. chairflyer2002 says:

    I’ll only make 1 comment on the war of the words being waged here.

    It could be, that Anaconda does not have the scientific knowledge to call the different forms of the OBJECT but Salacious,s “corrent termonology”. So Salacious should, in my opinion, LAY OFF of Anaconda, and anyone else who comments.

    NOW TO a couple things I wanted to post. Here again, I am not as knowledgable APPARENTLY as salacious, so whether some of the terminology ere hasalready brouth these up, is left to you other readers.

    Has anyone looked closely at the enlarged version of the photo, and seen the DARK hole area just left of the blue progenitor star?

    2ndly, hass anyone noticed the concentric circles forming a bullseye effect just to the left of the DARK hole. DARK opposed tio BLACK, ok Salacious?

  15. chairflyer2002 says:

    p.s. sorry for the typos

  16. IVAN3MAN says:

    @ chairflyer2002,

    Obviously, you are not familiar with Anaconda’s past “Electric Universe” rantings here and on Bad Astronomy, are you?

  17. IVAN3MAN says:

    Oh, I just noticed… in the article above, at the fourth paragraph, in the first line, there’s a missing “c” in structure.

  18. IVAN3MAN says:

    Correction: third line, not “first”.

    *Grumble* No bloody edit facility here! *Grumble*

  19. Mr. Man says:

    There was nothing wrong with Anaconda’s first comment, why are people getting all pissed off? Its entertaining to read everyone’s rant, but still…why?

  20. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Mr. Man
    It is called preemption, and ant sympathy for his point of view is misplaced. He is not the victim here….

  21. Torbjorn Larsson OM says:

    I suggest considering all the possibilities actually bolsters the Scientific Method and furthers the purposes of science.

    Sure, but only in order to weed out the false observations and theories, because that is what science does and what makes it work.

    And EU ideas, which seems to come down to that cosmological large-structure(s) are decided by EM effects, is known to be false.

    Therefore; (1) it has been considered and rejected, (2) it is harmful to discuss it as if it was a viable theory, (3) it is also nuts and/or trolling to do the same.

    [If you don’t agree with EU falsification, please present a EU theory and its prediction that todays theories doesn’t already explain.]

  22. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Anoconda said

    “ionized gas” is plasma.

    No.

    highly ionized gas” is a plasma.

  23. Anaconda says:

    Torbjorn Larsson OM wrote: “An[y] EU ideas..[about]…cosmological large structure(s)..is known to be false].”

    Realy?

    That seems like a pretty categorical statement.

    Did you really mean that?

    Larrson goes on:

    So, “[I]t is harmful to discuss” any EU theory.

    And, “nuts and/or trolling” to discuss EU.

    All this for two innocuous comments.

    Wow.

    You’d think somebody upset the apple cart…

    Hon. SBC presented [Anoconda’s] statement:

    “‘ionized gas’ is plasma.”

    And SBC responded, “No.

    ‘highly ionized gas’ is a plasma.”

    There is 99% plasma observed in the Universe:

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

    “The visible universe is 99.999% plasma. So quite simply, if you don’t know how cosmic plasmas behave, you don’t know the Universe. And astrophysical plasmas may behave differently to terrestrial plasmas.”

    “Even plasmas that are less than 1% ionized, may behave as a plasma, as do dusty plasmas (ie. “dust grains can be the dominant current carrier”).”

    * Note the footnotes at the bottom of the linked webpage, see the eleven ACADEMIC BOOK citations and note the two Peer Reviewed papers and other citations.

    Ionized gas is plasma…

    If ionized gas isn’t plasma, what is it?

  24. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Oh, I should have said that the fraudulent link given by AnaCONda, is produced by the avatar “Iantresman”.
    This individual has been banned from editing the wikipedia article “Plasma Cosmology”, and other places.
    Talk:Plasma cosmology

    I mean. How can you ever trust an EU proponent who says;

    I started the Plasma Universe Web site in order to overcome the overt pseudoskepticism towards the subject on Wikipedia, where a small number of individuals felt it was their mission to deny the Plasma Universe, rather than describe it.

    No wonder the guy was turfed-out from editing wikipages!!!!

    So I am 100% correct in saying; “Quoting from one of your fraudulent sites again, which we have already proven is entirely EU propaganda. Fallacies on top of more fallacies.

    Have you no shame?

    Credibility for you is fast approaching zero.

  25. Mr. Man says:

    I saw that website, the guys basically saying the universe is 99.999% plasma over and over and over again. What about dark matter/energy.

  26. Anaconda says:

    Hon. SBC:

    The Academic books and peer reviewed papers cited in the link’s footnotes stand on their own merits.

  27. Lawrence B. Crowell says:

    Mr Man,

    About 22% of matter is dark matter, which is some different form of matter which does not interact electromagnetically. It may well be supersymmetric pairs of ordinary matter. 74% of mass-energy is dark energy, which is a vacuum physics effect with the Ricci curvature of the universe. That is a different business, and is somewhat nonstandard. The remaining 4% consists of matter we are familiar with, which is luminous matter that interacts electromagnetically and by the gauge fields we understand.

    Of that 4% 3.5% is in intergalactic and interstellar gas, and .5% is in stars. Most of this is ionized. So it does turn out that about 90% or so of luminous matter is in some plasma state. A star is essentially a self-gravitationally bound plasma. Much of interstellar/galactic gas is ionized as well.

    99.999% of luminous matter being a plasma is stretching the facts considerably.

    LC

  28. Lawrence B. Crowell says:

    The plasma site is a bit hyped. Oh sure, the sun is a plasma in various plasma states and the largest body in the solar system is Jupiter a about 1/1000 the mass of the sun. That does not make 99.999% of luminous matter a plasma. For one thing the sun is rather than an average star is fairly exceptional, and more massive than most. Most stars are smaller, M-class dwarfs. and many stars have larger Jovian planets brown dwarf companions up to 50 times the mass of Jupiter. Yet by far the majority of cold ordinary matter in the universe is in dust and nebular gas that is neutral.

    So about 90% of luminous matter in the universe is in a plasma state. I have no problem with Anaconda making light of plasma aspects of astronomy. My biggest problem is when quasi-physics comes in with bogus notions that plasma physics “IS ALL.” Anaconda appears to think somehow that plasma physics is the ultimate foundations for everything, and everything else involving gravity or nuclear physics or (virtually all the rest). That is where I take exception ot Anaconda’s stuff.

    The Alfven idea of plasma cosmology is simply in the dustbin of wrong theories. That is all there is to it.

    LC

  29. Anaconda says:

    Crowell wrote: ” I have no problem with Anaconda making light of plasma aspects of astronomy.”

    Good.

    Sure, plasma physics isn’t all there is to it.

    Neither is gravity all there is to it.

    The question to answer is what are the respective roles of electromagnetism and gravity.

    As to Crowell’s comment: “The Alfven idea of plasma cosmology is simply in the dustbin of wrong theories. That is all there is to it.”

    Actually, Hannes Alfven’s idea of Plasma Cosmology is being confirmed with additional observations & measurements all the time.

    Otherwise, I doubt Crowell would even entertain any plasma aspects of astronomy.

  30. IVAN3MAN and Hon. Salacious B. Crumb – your posts have been deleted. DO NOT use swear words on anything posted to do with my work or the work of those whom i support.

    mr. crumb – you push me to the limits. unless you have a string of doctorates after your name, quit hiding behind an alias and explain to the rest of the world how you know more about any cosmological subject and what makes you more qualified to judge anyone’s opinion or idea as more or less creditable than another’s.

    Anaconda? one of the rules of engagement here is not to promote one’s own personal theories through links to one’s own site. however, in this case i have let the links stand – just as i have left mr. crumb’s – because it makes for interesting reading… one where the reader draws his own conjecture.

    as for theories? please don’t ram it down our throats. for those who are scientifically minded, we appreciate speculation and new ideas – this is the stuff of life! but there is nothing more destructive to the thought process than watching (or reading) a virtual shoving match over who is right and who is wrong. in my humble opinion, it makes you far less credulous.

    Pvt.Pantzov? my apologies for waiting so long. i had my grandchildren over to visit this weekend and this is the first opportunity i have had to check the postings. my congratulations and thanks to mr. hanford and mr. crowell for be intrigued by the article enough to actually study what was going on inside the image.

  31. Anaconda says:

    @ Tammy Plotner:

    Please review my first two comments on this board.

    They are short innocuous comments.

    And as you must be aware more and more scientific evidence based on observation & measurement confirm the role of electromagnetism in space, both near and far.

    These are not personal theories of my own making; NASA explicitly recognizes the role of electromagnetism in near-space.

    NASA recognizes electric currents generate magnetic fields.

    Magnetic fields are ubiquitous in deep-space and peer-reviewed published papers recognize magnetic fields role in star formation:

    (space.com) – 29 September 2009 – Magnetic Fields Guide Star Birth:

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090929-star-formation.html

    “The study will be detailed in an upcoming issue of the Astrophysical Journal.”

    So, there does indeed appear to be an independent basis for commenting:

    [BLOCK QUOTE] It is a beautiful image.

    I like the filaments that are clearly visible in the image and different plasma regions.

    The pink and bue hues give the picture an appealing vitality.[/BLOCK QUOTE]

    I do appreciate your time and attention to this matter.

  32. IVAN3MAN says:

    Lawrence B. Crowell:

    Yet by far the majority of cold ordinary matter in the universe is in dust and nebular gas that is neutral.

    Indeed, that’s exactly why we cannot see (optically) the galactic core of the Milky Way because of the interstellar dust cloud that permeates the central region along our line of sight.

    I have no problem with Anaconda making light of plasma aspects of astronomy. My biggest problem is when quasi-physics comes in with bogus notions that plasma physics “IS ALL.”

    Agreed! That’s what I find most irritating about Anaconda’s syllogistic reasoning, which is something like this:

    Major premise: Women with red hair are bad tempered.
    Minor premise: Nancy has red hair.
    Conclusion: Therefore, she is bad tempered.

    TRUE or FALSE?

    I say FALSE, because the major premise is based on hearsay ‘evidence’, and the minor premise is based on circumstantial evidence.

    As for Anaconda’s answer…?

  33. Anaconda? absolutely. my error for not also pointing out that you, too, were aware of what was going on inside the image. as you will notice, i did not lift any of your postings from this content. as long as you’re not using swear words and taking personal cuts at people, i am all for alternative opinions and studies that branch out beyond tradition…
    especially those that come from very well documented sources and well-respected researchers.

    as for syllogistic reasoning? where would we be without a few juicy ones?

    major premise: we believe we can create a spacecraft that can take man to the moon.

    minor premise: we managed to get into space without killing ourselves.

    conclusion: we can land a man on the moon.

    πŸ˜‰

  34. IVAN3MAN says:

    @ Tammy Plotner,

    I apologize for my colourful language in my previous post; that was due to me having a bit too much beer this Sunday evening and, consequently, I got a bit carried away. πŸ˜‰

  35. Lawrence B. Crowell says:

    Anaconda wrote: NASA recognizes electric currents generate magnetic fields.

    You see the problem with this is not that this is wrong, it is that Michael Faraday realized this in the mid-19th century. This stuff is nothing new. It is really old hat.

    To work a PhD in physics you have to take two semesters of Jackson Electromagnetism in your coursework. Please believe me, physicsist know a whole lot about electromagnetism, and the second semester of EM involves plasma physics.

    LC

  36. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Tammy said;

    “IVAN3MAN and Hon. Salacious B. Crumb – your posts have been deleted. DO NOT use swear words on anything posted to do with my work or the work of those whom i support.”

    I’ve said and done nothing of the sort.

    As for;

    mr. crumb – you push me to the limits. unless you have a string of doctorates after your name, quit hiding behind an alias and explain to the rest of the world how you know more about any cosmological subject and what makes you more qualified to judge anyone’s opinion or idea as more or less creditable than another’s

    Really, no one needs any qualification to realise that Anaconda’s continuous attack on even a basic science level is flawed, disingenuous and dishonest. (As others have pointed out.)
    Worst, he has been at it for more than a year, whose sole aim has been to confuse and misrepresent astrophysics and physics. The debate by the way is not a “cosmological subject.”
    I should point out that Science clearly is not an “opinion.” It is a discipline that is based observation and establish theory, whose results are formally concluded by the scientific method.
    “Alternative theory” being sprouted here is exactly the same problem that faces many other sites. I.e. “Bad Astronomy”, etc., where
    as much disruption and confusion is being cause by those who have an sole and well established agenda.
    Yet “Universe Today” continues to allow such contrary views to be said, leaving the only commentary left to the bloggers.
    Having an “opinion” is fine. Having alternative “opinions” that has little to do with “real science”, and are deliberately deceptive is another.
    I suggest you do something about it.

  37. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    I was disappointed that you deleted the summary of the problems faced by Anaconda here, posted on ?October 16th, 2009 at 8:47 pm (i’ve removed the presumed offending remarks.)

    @ Anaconda

    This is anther usual deliberately misleading statement, as we expect from you ilk.;

    Mostly, because plasma physics seemingly isn’t considered.
    The reason why plasma physics is not really considered, is because it is near impossible to measure with an exactitude.

    What you continue to fail to understand is that just because you think that some visual or image of an object appears , does not mean that it is so. Astronomy and astrophysics relies on observation and measurement, and applying that to explain the physical processes in the object in question. (Not some crazy notion of an in situ laboratory experiment applied on an assumption that has not been observed on astronomical scales.)?

    Bottom line is plasma physics in astronomical objects and their phenomena is important, but it is not the be all and end all, and furthermore is fairly minor compared to gravitational, evolutionary and kinematic behaviours that cause most observed phenomena.? This is unlike you continued history of unrelated balderdash, where you just dismiss out of hand any observed or deduced phenomena you don’t agree with.I.e. Black holes, mathematics, etc.. It seems very clear you are incapable of comprehending the significance of the phenomena and the necessary evidence needed to supports the underlying theory to explain it.
    All you do is act like some deluded person, who tends to set aside more achievable objectives based on his limited capabilities, but set your totally ridiculous ideals or higher goals in order to pursue something you really don’t know very much about .?Really. Your main limitation here is you lack β€” ———– -and science – combined with an inability to gauge normalcy or reality.
    ?
    In the end, you have had a bit of a respite from these posts, after being absolutely hammered into the ground because of your fraudulent deceptions and total dishonesty in what you have actually said. Yet you come back with the usual arrogance, pretending that the switch can be turned on again, so others not exposed to you endless vitriolic claptrap maybe swayed to your unfounded theories and gross delusions.

    Really, no one who has been exposed to your tactics and nonsenses wants to tolerate the EU rubbish anymore. It is just idle speculation, akin to faith in the unexplainable, and is nothing to do with science, observation, or the scientific method.

    β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”

    Note : Heliopause is one word not two!

  38. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Tammy
    In fairness, I also suggest you read all the posts on “Universe Today” ; at Spacecraft Detects Mysterious “Ribbon” at Edge of Solar System
    Several comments against “Anaconda” made regarding this article were partial in response to Nancy’s article.

  39. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Much of the original work on NGC 6888 was done by Wendker et.al in the paper High resolution radio and optical observations of NGC 6888 A&A., 42. 173 (1975). here they compare the optical and radio observations of the nebula.

    A recent model of the structure of nebulae like NGC 6888, was produced in a paper by Bychkov, K. V.; Sitnik, T. G., “Emission stratification in two-component HII regions with stellar wind“, Ast.L., 34. 104 (2008) They explain the observed stratification of these expanding shells, as;

    … the nonstationary cooling of a homogeneous gas layer heated to a temperature (42,000 K). We have assumed that the nebula is ionized by its central star and consists of a rarefied gas and a set of clouds with different densities through which adiabatic shock waves produced by the stellar wind propagate.”

    They explain the emission lines observed in the nebula as;

    “The [Hydrogen-alpha] emission attributable to the electron-collision excitation of hydrogen atoms is produced earliest on the periphery of nebulae… [O III] line emission follows next, and, finally, the [Hydrogen-alpha] recombination emission is produced. The results obtained are in good agreement with the observational data”.

    It is interesting that this paper suggests a new model of two-phases of the nebula’s evolution, where;

    “The inverse stratification lies in the fact that the [Hydrogen-alpha] in most parts of the nebula originates from regions that are closer to the central star than those emitting in [O III] lines.”

    The measure of any electron density in the filaments averages about 400 cm.^-3 – number of electrons per cubic centimetre, suggesting the actual magnetic field strength is mostly inconsequential. (Knowing the electron density gives an indication of the temperature of the nebulosity, determined by the relative strengths of the [O-III] lines and either [NII] or Hydrogen-alpha.)

    A principle cause for the expansion of the nebulosity is by strong fast stellar winds, similar to what is observed in planetary nebulae. The filaments are probably caused by pre-existing material surround the nebulosity that are enhanced by the expanding shockwave from the intense UV-radiation of the Wolf-Rayet combined with the significant mass-loss of the star.

    Magnetic field strength in nebulosities are only significant in supernova remnants, where the ‘fossil’ magnetic field of 10^?3 G, which is likely caused by the charge separation of the expanding shock fronts. I.e. The Crab nebula. This is unlike ordinary gaseous nebula, whose magnetic fields are virtually non-existant.
    In the end, the phenomena of gaseous shells around stars are produced as a consequence of dynamics and kinematic effects of the expanding shock waves. The phenomena has little to do with nebula magnetic fields at all, whose effects are mostly inconsequential.

  40. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    The article above quotes the following;

    “A detailed analysis of the H I distribution at low positive velocities allowed us to identify two different structures very probably related to the star and the ring nebula. “

    The link to the the planetary nebula known as the Ring Nebula (M57), is quite incorrect. They are referring the planetary nebulae in general which display rings
    The quote itself is also misleading, as structures like these are mostly found in bipolar nebulae or bipolar planetary nebulae.
    The author of the quote probably stated “ring” as few understand what bipolar nebulae are or mean.

  41. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    In a previous post I said;

    Magnetic field strength in nebulosities are only significant in supernova remnants, where the ‘fossil’ magnetic field of 10^?3 G, which is likely caused by the charge separation of the expanding shock fronts.

    The magnetic field strength should read 10^-3 G.

    Sorry for the confusion.

  42. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    To again paraphrase my previous post of October 18th, 2009 at 1:27 am you deleted, removing the possible offending inferences, I said;

    Oh Anaconda. β€” ————… Quoting from one of your fraudulent sites again, which we have already proven is entirely EU propaganda. Fallacies on top of more fallacies.?

    Worst is quoting; “And astrophysical plasmas may behave differently to terrestrial plasmas.” .. and yet this β€”β€”β€”β€” claims experimentation on Earth can be applied to astrophysical phenomena!?

    So plasma occupy all the universe, but good ‘ol local plasma is different than universal plasma! (Ha Ha Ha! So Funny. You just destroyed one of your own basic tenants that your always rabbeting on about!)?

    As to defining plasma, it seems you change mind to suit whatever your mood. Next you’ll be telling us that ordinary ionic dissociation in a glass of water is also plasma!!
    ?
    Sorry just posting bogus sites, prompted by proven β€”β€”β€”β€” —————–, like yourself, is no basis for scientific enquiry nor believability.?”ionized gas” is plasma.?Is not actually correct.?

    Only “highly ionized gas” is considered a plasma.

    ?Cold plasma’s (I assume you mean the equally non sequitur*, nonthermal plasma) are just an unsophisticated joke!!?

    Frankly, from past experience, you couldn’t tell in space what is plasma and what is ordinary run-of-the-mill neutral matter.

    ?*Q: How many β€”β€”β€” β€”β€”β€”β€”β€” does it take to make plasma?
    A: Fishfingers.

  43. Anaconda says:

    Crumb,

    You should relax.

    From Physorg.com:

    “These images have revolutionized what we thought we knew for the past 50 years; the sun travels through the galaxy not like a comet but more like a big, round bubble,” said Stamatios Krimigis of the Applied Physics Lab, in Laurel, Md., principal investigator for Cassini’s Magnetospheric Imaging Instrument which carries the Ion and Neutral Camera. “It’s amazing how a single new observation can change an entire concept that most scientists had taken as true for nearly fifty years.”

    To highlight:

    “It’s amazing how a single new observation can change an entire concept that most scientists had taken as true for nearly fifty years.”

    http://www.physorg.com/news174908954.html

    Obviously, this quote doesn’t apply to the beautiful image profiled in this quote.

    But it is something to think about…

  44. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    @Anaconda

    Cherry-picking totally irrelevant quotes to other unrelated topics
    Is certainly “something to think about…”

    I mean, what has the heliopause got anything to do with the nebula NGC 6888. NOTHING!

    All it shows is you have any idea about science and all you are doing is spreading your twisted and unsupported propaganda!

    It is clear you don’t have a clue about what you are talking about!

  45. Anaconda says:

    Actually, it’s pretty basic: Accepted astromomical ideas can be wrong.

  46. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Actually, it’s pretty basic:

    Accepted astronomical ideas can be wrong.…and the answer in nearly all cases, is that EU and plasma whatever is totally irrelevant.

    Yet diverting from the topic but your usual predictable methods of deceptions, doesn’t change the fact that you have little idea what you are talking about. Posturing is one thing, Knowing what you talking about is another just so lame and pathetic..

  47. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb – aka “ariane” – or should we just refer to you as mr. james?

    again, would you be so willing to comment so strongly if it were your story, your website or your scientific opinions on the line? are you willing to write Christina Cappa and her fellow researchers to tell her that you believe her work is wrong because she referred to the H I ring in her quote and the automatic link system of the website assigned it to M57 when she did not? if you did “nothing of the sort” when it came to using swear words or taking personal cuts at people, then why repeat your posting with comments edited out? do you really think so highly of yourself and your opinions that you actually save copies in case you need to re-post it?

    actually, one of the reasons i contribute to UT is because freedom of opinion is permitted here – not spammed out by by those who seem to have little to do but frequent astronomy forums to feed their ego. obviously i’ve done a pretty good job with the article if it called you in to do further research and re-write what the article already expressed. perhaps you’d do well to speak with some of the world’s foremost astronomical imagers? i’m sure they’d be interested in contributing to your pages and your write-ups. why… you could even post it on the forums you frequent! i’m sure we’d all love to comment…

    ivanman? giggle… i shall probably live to regret these words as well – even if coffee is the poison of choice this morning.

    of course, considering we’re all late night “vampyres” perhaps a cup of plasma would be better?

    oh, wait… i might see nebula floating around in there when the cream swirls. you know how us nutz are! next thing you know, we’ll be spilling salt and thinking about how much it looks like NGC 7789… or how the freckles on our grandkid’s noses look like constellations… heck, we might even start trying to revive old theories to give them new relevance… or study something we want to understand better and comment on it because the internet gives us the freedom to do so…

    or maybe when we see something we don’t agree with, we just go have a beer and go look at the stuff we talk about instead of wasting our time arguing.

    πŸ˜‰

    Blondie β€˜Forgive and Forget’ – No Exit (2004)

  48. Lawrence B. Crowell says:

    Tammy Plotner: I can sympathize with SBCrumb. I don’t see much point in chasing after plasma universe people., but I understand the sentiment. I know these guys are out there and they haunt various physics and astronomy blogs and discussions. They also do what I call “shave the point and repeat.” They will persist in an endless discussion that seeks to try to find or pretend to find holes in established understanding of things. This is seen in the creationist’s argument over “missing links.” Then once the argument fizzles out they repeat the argument at a later time.

    As a rule pseudoscientific arguments are easily shot down, but they are like ducks in a shooting gallery, the dang things pop back up. So this sort of thing is highly annoying. You can permit this here or not at the risk of inviting greater piles of nonsense. The plasma universe thesis that all aspects of the universe are explained by plasma physics is simply wrong. Of course this touches on a funny area, for plasmas are a real aspect of physics and astronomy.

    LC

  49. cool! let’s start this with a smile, then… πŸ˜€

    do you happen to remember the “mirror man”? it was some very strange site that would get linked every so often to some really wild stuff that didn’t really have anything to do with astronomy at all. there was another fellow, too, that used to take posts as an opportunity to shred what you had to say about observing and point back to his own weblog to drive his own ratings up. (man, he used to tick me off! very seldom am i capable of actually having genuine emotion towards a written comment, because i spend 14 hours a day with doing words – but he got to me!) anyhow, what happened was we generally ignored them, didn’t follow their leads and they went away. just like shadows…

    in all honesty, i have very little free time to follow forums – nor engage in banter. (even as lively as it may sometimes make a monday morning!) if i do, i want it to be serious, from serious-minded individuals who are willing to put their real name and reputation on the line. this is why i select images from Northern Galactic and Southern Galactic… and make any links open in a new window because it is unkind to Universe Today to take someone off site.

    i try to keep a very open mind towards follow up comments, because i am very human and very capable of mis-reading a statement (or the spirit in which it was intended) – just as i am equally capable of getting excited about something new i’ve read and studied and mis-stating a fact… and this is why i try to put myself in another’s place when i read.

    heck, i know it’s not an ideal world. i remember reading comments on “earth hour” – such an innocent and peaceful thing! – that i could honestly not believe that people would write. other times i read a posting or thank you that really makes my day and i walk away when it’s time to go out and observe and feel like it’s all worthwhile… i’ve managed to touch someone somewhere. and i gotta’ hand it to someone who apparently has gigantic spheres of magnetic carbon, eh?

    it’s all in a day’s work – and we’ve made people think!!

  50. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Tammy

    again, would you be so willing to comment so strongly if it were your story, your website or your scientific opinions on the line?

    My comments have never criticised you storyline at all. My problem is some claiming that the causes of the filaments are
    primarily by magnetic fields as stated by Anaconda. This is not factually true.

    are you willing to write Christina Cappa and her fellow researchers to tell her that you believe her work is wrong because she referred to the H I ring in her quote and the automatic link system of the website assigned it to M57 when she did not?

    The main paper you refer which isn’t linked. The quotes I have assume you have taken is from Cappa, Cristina Elisabet., et.al., The Interaction of NGC 6888 and HD 192163 With the Surrounding Interstellar Medium.., AJ., 112, 1104 (1996)

    Really. How am I supposed to know “ring nebula” is an “automatic link system of the website”? Why would I want to write to Argentinean Ms. Cappa at all? (besides I don’t speak or write Spanish) By not correcting this simple note certainly is confusing, as obviously this object is not a planetary nebula!
    (Even if it did, these bubble HI nebulae are “25 by 18 light years,”…The true Ring Nebula is about light-year or so) So why wasn’t it clarified after it was pointed out?

    if you did “nothing of the sort” when it came to using swear words or taking personal cuts at people, then why repeat your posting with comments edited out? do you really think so highly of yourself and your opinions that you actually save copies in case you need to re-post it?

    My use “jack***” is not a swear word, at least as far as I know, as all it means “a stupid person.” (I’ve used it in Universe Today, without any complaint for at least year. Then why now?)

    You said;

    “DO NOT use swear words on anything posted to do with my work or the work of those whom i support.”

    As far as I’m concerned, have not used swear words on this site!!

    As to repeating post with comments edited out, I did so because I was attempting to remove the presumed offence. I keep copies of my posts that my business, but if you want to know, it is because there was a time when you would write a whole lot of text, then find the “Universe Today” site had lost all the text in the browser stating “Awaiting Moderation”. Regular posters found it frustrating to find their comment vaporise (and it wasn’t just me.)

    As to “or taking personal cuts at people”, The central tenet of my argument is NOT about your article, per se. My point here is that Anaconda believes that the structure of the nebulosity is by magnetic fields and that everything we see is is due solely to plasma. (A game he has been at for months and months. I.e. Read all the black comments going back on this site.) This is simply view is not correct, as others have also stated. You give him the best of your knowledge, then he turn on you, basically saying exactly the same things and “throwing it in your face.” He then calls everyone who blogs of this UT site “pigs”, then, admits he is seeking recruits, those who don’t know better – under the general umbrella of Thunderbolts.group, who have a known agenda. Then you state there is “freedom of opinion” here!

    My repost of the my post you deleted of October 18th, 2009 at 6:11 pm, clearly states about the EU history of this individual.

    As for showing kindness and support for some your previous articles (I.e. The Jewel Box, etc.), well you certainly have made sure you have lost all my respect.

  51. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    Apologies for the end section in the last post all being in “bold”. Must have missed a

    also

    I said; “(A game he has been at for months and months. I.e. Read all the black comments going back on this site.)”

    should read; “(A game he has been at for months and months. I.e. Read all the black HOLE comments going back on this site.

  52. it’s the mother bear in me. i tend to defend when i feel like someone has done nothing wrong to receive getting verbally battered. anaconda’s original statement, in my opinion, did not warrant the torrent that came after it.

    if this person has a reputation for posting theories where they do not belong, then they have not done so on my dime, therefore i cannot judge them. however, in deference to everyone – i read the linkage…. and congratulations to nancy for posting and never looking back. (or at least being able to exhibit a certain amount of self-control not to respond – a talent i sometimes lack. ;))

    what i saw were links to creditable work by researchers and not an individual. while these theories may or may not apply, i found them entertaining, enlightening and thought-provoking… what i believed to be the spirit of commenting to be in the first place. then a whole lot of what occurred after that as posted by a certain individual was tantamount to poking your finger in someone’s eye, eh?

    but we’re going off topic…

    if someone’s pet theory is so very wrong in someone’s opinion, they shouldn’t stand on their keyboard and call them names. don’t belabor a response with repetitive cut and pastes of past comments. cite a case, back it up with research documents and let it stand on its own merit. if they are chasing shadows, they’ll eventually come to the point where there is either not enough light to cause one – or the light is coming from so many directions that there isn’t.

    displaying such vehemence towards someone’s opinion quite honestly made me look more closely at what they had to say – and thus my own comments. it made me research, and wonder why one who would work so hard to build an astronomy reputation for themselves would shoot their self in the foot like that. of course, different genders and different cultures behave differently…

    but if one could just take that awesome amount of energy that was channeled into spite and turn it towards creative research and response? wow… can you imagine what we all could have collectively learned?

  53. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    @ Tammy,
    “Anaconda’s original statement, in my opinion, did not warrant the torrent that came after it.”

    May be I jumped the gun, but after a few months of silence, I’d had hoped this individual had disappeared for good. All I was doing was short-circuiting the usual torrent that I knew was to come!

    Really, my point was exact on target. Sadly, for experience, killing the message just doesn’t seem to work anymore.

    Q. How do you talk science sensibly, when you have thrown in front of you pseudo-science at every moment, especially when you know it is aimed to decieve?

    For example, so how do you deal with individuals who actually target kid’s with sites with plasma cosmology to spread their crazy notions ?;
    I.e. Kids.Net.Au
    (just type “plasma cosmology” in the search engine.)

    Here they state “plasma cosmology is an alternative to the Big Bang.”

    Love you optimism, but sorry, in the end, this is really not an ideal world.

  54. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    I’m already somewhere else…

  55. niceandfair says:

    Maybe under a rock?

  56. DrFlimmer says:

    I don’t want to intrude, but I need to say something.

    First of all, I understand perfectly, Tammy, that you are probably bewildered about what’s going on here.
    But, although I do not like MSBC’s methods, he has a point.
    I know Anaconda since the beginning of January this year. We first met at Bad Astronomy and there were 3 really long discussions. He intruduced himself as an “interested reader” and asked some questions, which I and others (like Ivan3man) tried to answer. But as longer as those discussions went on, it became more and more obvious that he wasn’t interested in our answers, but just to show “an alternative”.
    I think, in the end, he was banned from BA, at least, he didn’t show up anymore (just like OilIsMastery – who remembers him?). I think it was Ivan3man who guided our attention to UT (for which I am very thankful, not because the discussions with Anaconda went on here, but because the stories and topics are always very interesting and informative!), where Anaconda was also at work with his nonsense.
    And sorry for saying it so directly: It is nonsense. And he is also dishonest in his words – sometimes he claims this and sometimes that, even though it could contradict himself (what it did from time to time, as can be seen in several older threads), but only to attack “mainstream science” that is using just the “gravity-only model” (to use his words).
    Even though I made some mistakes in the beginning (like my statement that there shouldn’t be any currents in space, which is obviously wrong), I always (and almost still) try to counter him with physical arguments and I try not to be offended (which would result in name calling or something like that).

    You see, during the first discussions with Anaconda, I even consulted some lecturers and professors of my university, in order to check my arguments (which, sadly, didn’t stop me from making that mistake mentioned above). But everytime I asked someone and told him/her about what was going on, they told me something like that:

    “It is interesting in the beginning to debate with such people, but it begins to annoy rather soon.”

    And they all are right.

    This is the reason for all the rattling here. I just had the feeling that I should explain it in some detail. I don’t know if it was necessary, it just felt so.

  57. thank you, dr. flimmer. i do appreciate your kind words and explanation. time and work limitations make it impossible for me to follow every thread, so i might not always know of another’s posting reputation. (and i do frequent BA, because the discussions and content there are most enlightening – even if i don’t speak.)

    sadly enough, all i really know is from forums what i’ve personally experienced with posters – and i don’t like to see obviously intelligent and well-learned people end up looking like something they are not. in teaching astronomy, it often falls upon me to have to diplomatically listen to everything from crackpot theories to genuine, deep questions… and you must approach them all with kindness, patience and answer to the best of your knowledge to be effective. sometimes i teach – and sometimes i learn – sometimes i get burnt… but it’s all good.

    oddy enough, i also become quite fond of certain members as well. over the last, what? five years? i’ve conversed with many on a personal level when time permits – finding them to be delightful and insightful – and a true pleasure to meet. others? like you said… it doesn’t take very long until i get tired of it. either my written communication skills fail to get across the point i’m trying to make, or they simply don’t want to hear it.

    in the long run, it’s all about presenting either a thought provoking picture, a review of a product i’ve been allowed to use (or abuse), and trying my best to encourage folks to actually observe. i have no wish to offend anyone, because i’ve found i love astronomy people the world over. yet, somehow i manage to put my big foot in my mouth at times!

    so i thank you for your kindness and apologize to UT readers for what was meant to delight and entertain turning into something stressful.

  58. IVAN3MAN says:

    DrFlimmer:

    I think it was Ivan3man who guided our attention to UT (for which I am very thankful…)

    Yeah, it was me, and you’re most welcome! πŸ™‚

    @ Tammy,

    May I refer you to this Wikipedia article on the common characteristics of cranks, of which this extract describes Anaconda, and others like him, to a tee:

    1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts;
    2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important;
    3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial;
    4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else’s experience or opinions.

    Some cranks exhibit a lack of academic achievement, in which case they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering “THE TRUTH™”, but actively harmful because they believe it ‘poisons’ the minds by teaching falsehoods. Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist that some alleged achievement in some entirely unrelated area of human endeavor implies that their cranky opinion should be taken seriously.

    Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary; regardless, cranks inevitably reveal that whether or not they believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning relevant matters of fact, mainstream opinion, or previous work, they are not in fact well-informed concerning the topic of their belief.

    In addition, many cranks:

    1. Seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting;
    2. Stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error;
    3. Compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus, implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility;
    4. Claim that their ideas are being suppressed by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their allegedly revolutionary insights becoming widely known;
    5. Appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.

    Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, such as mathematics or physics, almost always:

    1.Exhibit a marked lack of technical ability;
    2. Misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology;
    3. Ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understanding mainstream belief.

    That’s certainly the case with Anaconda, he often dismisses modern mathematics as “a priori”! πŸ™„

    That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation.

    In addition, cranky scientific ‘theories’ do not in fact qualify as theories as this term is commonly understood within science. For example, crank ‘theories’ in physics typically fail to result in testable predictions, which makes them unfalsifiable and hence unscientific.

    Perhaps surprisingly, many cranks may appear quite normal when they are not passionately expounding their cranky belief, and they may even be successful in careers unrelated to their cranky belief. Others can (charitably) be characterized as underachievers in all walks of life.

    Tammy, please note that last paragraph, that is why first impressions (contrary to popular belief) do not count.

  59. ND says:

    Tammy Plotner,

    If you’re not familiar with Anaconda and some of his friends who on occasion post to UT, you’re in for a fun ride.

    Some of us have been debating, arguing, pointing out his misconceptions of scientific concepts for months. He has been on the attack on what he thinks is mainstream astronomy and has been caught being dishonest and been called on it. About half of his words involve rhetoric. Some of us have unfortunately developed a knee-jerk reaction to him.

  60. Anaconda says:

    What started as a post with a beautiful image and some innocuous comments turned into an exhibition in Saul Alinksy style tactics.

    But ultimately, it’s counter-productive because fair-minded people are repelled by this kind of harsh rhetoric and see through it and realize it says more about its practitioners than about its targets.

  61. DrFlimmer says:

    Well, Anaconda, the problem is your past. And this past makes your post everything but innocous. So the reaction you’re faced with is not that “innocous” post but thing you said and did in recent times.

    Of course, it could have been that you have changed, I would welcome that, but — I doubt that!

  62. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    @Anaconda
    Do be too smug. The fallout over this is likely over this story is going to be more far reaching.
    As for Tammy, pity she has no concept of the kind of rotten and dodgy practices applied by pseudo-science and nutters like yourself.
    Science employs serious discipline, mockery of science by individuals who haven’t a clue lies with the baboons. Really, having an “opinion” doesn’t mean you know what your talking about.

    β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”

    As for the claim that “ring nebula” is; “…automatic link system of the website assigned it to M57”, still hasn’t be corrected in this article. It is not connected to the “Ring Nebula”

    Also, it is interesting that the material quoted in this article has not been properly attributed. The quotes are actually taken from the paper from; Cappa, Cristina Elisabet., et.al., “The Interaction of NGC 6888 and HD 192163 With the Surrounding Interstellar Medium.“., AJ., 112, 1104 (1996) Why haven’t you given this as the source in the formal article – especially when making use of extensively paraphrasing? Why is their no attribution to the article or the Astrophysical Journal?
    I just wonder how the Astrophysical Journal would feel about this, especially if information isn’t made for ‘profit’?

    As for saying; “sometimes i teach – and sometimes i learn – sometimes i get burnt… but it’s all good”

    There is one thing that you left-out though… you seem very happy, almost gleeful, to expunge your own personal moral standing on others, and more than willing to burn others. I suppose “but it’s all good”, too?

Comments are closed.