Stellar Jets are Born Knotted

Article written: 11 Feb , 2009
Updated: 24 Dec , 2015
by

[/caption]

Some of the most beautiful structures observed in the Universe are the intricate jets of supersonic material speeding away from accreting stars, such as young proto-stars and stellar mass black holes. These jets are composed of highly collimated gas, rapidly accelerated and ejected from circumstellar accretion disks. The in-falling gas from the disks, usually feeding the black hole or hungry young star, is somehow redirected and blown into the interstellar medium (ISM).

Much work is being done to understand how accretion disk material is turned into a rapid outflow, forming an often knotted, clumpy cloud of outflowing gas. The general idea was that the stellar jet is ejected in a steady flow (like a fire hose), only for it to interact with the surrounding ISM, breaking up as it does so. However, a unique collaboration between plasma physicists, astronomers and computational scientists may have uncovered the true nature behind these knotted structures. They didn’t become knotted, they were born that way

The predominant theory says that jets are essentially fire hoses that shoot out matter in a steady stream, and the stream breaks up as it collides with gas and dust in space—but that doesn’t appear to be so after all,” said Adam Frank, professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester, and co-author of the recent publication. According to Frank, the exciting results uncovered by the international collaboration suggest that far from being a steady stream of gas being ejected from the circumstellar accretion disk, the jets are “fired out more like bullets or buckshot.” It is therefore little wonder that the vast stellar jets appear twisted, knotted and highly structured.

A member of the collaboration, Professor Sergey Lebedev and his team at the Imperial College London, made an attempt to replicate the physics of a star in the laboratory, and the experiment matched the known physics of stellar jets very well. The pioneering work by Lebedev is being lauded a possibly the “best” astrophysical experiment that’s ever been carried out.

Using an aluminium disk, Lebedev applied a high-powered pulse of energy to it. Within the first few billionths of a second, the aluminium began to evaporate, generating a small cloud of plasma. This plasma became an accretion disk analogue, a microscopic equivalent of the plasma being dragged into a proto-star. In the centre of the disk, the aluminium had eroded completely, creating a hole. Through this hole, a magnetic field, being applied below the disk, could penetrate through.

It would appear that the dynamics of the magnetic field interacting with the plasma accurately depicts the observed characteristics of extended stellar jets. At first, the magnetic field pushes the plasma aside around the disk’s hole, but its structure evolves by creating a bubble, then twisting and warping, forming a knot in the plasma jet. Then, a very important event occurs; the initial magnetic “bubble” pinches off and is propelled away. Another magnetic bubble forms to continue the process all over again. These dynamic processes cause packets of plasma to be released in bursts and not in the steady, classical “fire hose” manner.

We can see these beautiful jets in space, but we have no way to see what the magnetic fields look like,” says Frank. “I can’t go out and stick probes in a star, but here we can get some idea—and it looks like the field is a weird, tangled mess.”

By shrinking this cosmic phenomenon into a laboratory experiment, the investigators have shed some light on the possible mechanism driving the structure of stellar jets. It appears that magnetic processes, not ISM interactions, shape the knotted structure of stellar jets when they born, not after they have evolved.

Source: EurekAlert


54 Responses

  1. Member

    @Copson: It’s not ‘airless’ space, well, it is, but it’s not a pure vacuum. This is why it was thought that jets are shaped through ISM interactions. If it was indeed airless space, there wouldn’t be much of an interaction…

    The jets travel through tenuous gas in the ISM. It may be very thin, but features such as shock fronts have been observed. The jets also travel very fast (relativistic in extreme cases), so you can see we are talking about a supersonic situation 🙂

    Cheers, Ian

  2. Anaconda says

    “These jets are composed of highly collimated gas,” parallel arrayed plasma, charged particles, that when in concerted motion generate magnetic fields.

    It would appear that plasma physics experiments demonstrate dynamic arrayed motion of plasma generates magnetic fields which in turn serve to “pinch” electromagnetic plasma into cells.

    “It appears that magnetic processes [electric currents], not ISM interactions, shape the knotted structure of stellar jets…”

    “[T] he field holds the jet together, but it also pinches the jet into bulges as it does. ”

    “T] he magnetic fields begin to warp and twist, creating a knot in the jet.” This is consistent with other plasma experiments where the magnetic field constricts and twists the electrically charged particle plasma flow until a Z-pinch disrupts the flow of current causing a high release of electromagnetic energy.

    Plasma, charged particles in motion, collimated jets, magnetic fields, “pinches”, plasma cells, and the specific electrical signature of synchrotron radiation that has been detected in both X-ray and radio waves from these jets.

    All aspects of electromagnetism.

  3. Copson says

    “supersonic material” in airless space…?

  4. Anaconda says

    @ Olaf”

    The original press release uses the word “pinch”, as does the post uses as a descriptive, but the process is essentially the same. A Z-pinch is where electric current is constricted by the magnetic field.

    The press release of U of Rochester states: “[T] he [magnetic] field penetrates further and the bubble grows, however, the magnetic fields begin to warp and twist, creating a knot in the jet.”

    The “knot” and “twist are important words. It is well documented that electric currents in the laboratory will twist and knot as a result of constriction, causing the Z-pinch phenomenon.

    The example used to characterize the process by the scientist is similar:

    “Frank likens the magnetic fields’ affect on the jet to a rubber band tightly wrapped around a tube of toothpaste—the field holds the jet together, but it also pinches the jet into bulges as it does.”

    The use of the word “pinch” explains how the plasma was divided into cells , ” bullets or buckshot” ,as ir were, and stated by the press release: “The experiments strongly suggest that the jets are fired out more like bullets or buckshot. ” This suggests discrete cells of plasma, (being that you can’t have “magnetic ‘bubbles'” with out electric current) that have been seperated by a constricting force, thus the word “pinched.”

    There is little to distinghish in terms of function and process between the “pinch” in this press release and the well understood Z-pinch involving electric current in a plasma physics laboratory.

    Which is after all exactly where this experiment was conducted.

  5. Sound speed on earth is 767mph. That is just the speed at which sound waves or other pressure disturbances can move through the atmosphere. If anything travels faster it is considered supersonic.
    In space, the interstellar medium is not quite a vacuum. There is some hydrogen just about everywhere. The ‘sound speed’ of the ISM is around 3000mph. Anything traveling faster than that, stellar jets, supernovae ejecta, etc., is considered supersonic.

  6. Joe says

    Couldn’t it simply be that if a jet comes out of a spinning object and the location of the jet is not on the axis – it forms a helical shape??

  7. Anaconda says

    @ Bill Davis:

    I also noticed the vagueness regarding the “high powered pulse of energy” as the input to the experiment and that most likely meant an electromagnetic source of energy.

    Plasma physics relies on proven in the laboratory physical principles as opposed to assumptions based on single force of gravity.

    Astrofiend states: “Gravity comes in by creating the accretion disk in the first place around stars/black holes etc. I.e. an accretion disk is formed by the action of gravitational attraction on material surrounding these objects. Frictional heating then creates a plasma accretion disk…”

    Nice words, but all conjecture based on theories that have never been demonstrated in the laboratory and require violation of the physical laws of nature.

    Astrofiend further reminds the readers that all matter has mass and energy. But gravity has never been shown to cause such dynamic energy exchanges, while electromagnetism has repeatedly been shown to cause such dynamic energy exchanges.

    It’s entirely natural to expect that electromagnetism, one of the ‘Four Fundamental Forces’, has a major role in the structure and dynamics of the Universe.

    And when one is reminded that electromagnetism is 10^39 stronger than gravity and has already been shown by in situ observations & measurements to transport energy from the Sun to the Earth by electromagnetic Birkeland currents as recognized by NASA, it is much easier to accept and understand electrodynamics’ role in the larger structures in the Universe.

  8. Olaf says

    Anaconda, nowhere in the text is talked about a z-pinch.

    They talk about a magnetic bubble beeing pinched off, but this has nothing to do with a z-pinch.

  9. Member

    There’s plasma? In our Universe? Get out of town!

    @Astrofiend: What you said. I think I need to employ you as my chief commentbox debater, 99.999% of the time I agree with you… huh, that’s a coincidence, your arguments are as correct as the universal abundance of plasma 😮 That must be significant in some way…

    I was going to get into the debate, but then I realised there wasn’t a debate. I have no idea where the Electric Universe theory gets its energy… lol, do you see what I did there?

    OK, continue!

  10. Bill Davis says

    Anaconda’s got it. Beat me to the punch line: it’s most telling that the experimental means of investigation uses a “high powered pulse of energy” – which sounds like a particle beam or electic pulse, not heat or a hammer blow, wish they had not been vague – for initiation. The language and methods of the funded experimenters is converging on what plasma universe people have been saying. We note that the target disk did not need an intrinsic mag field or internal “dynamo” to get the result as do the purported sources of astrophysical bipolar jets. Also the energy source was external and that lends validity to the experiment in the context of purported current flows to and from astrophysical objects.

  11. Banarama says

    Laboratory simulation of astrophysical jets, with pinches (knots) were identified over twenty years ago. See:

    Winston H. Bostick, “What Laboratory-Produced Plasma Structures Can Contribute to the Understanding of Cosmic Structures Both Large and Small”, IEEE TPS v14 n6 (Dec 1986)
    http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4316621

    Anthony L. Peratt, “The role of particle beams and electrical currents in the plasma universe”, Laser & Particle Beams Vol 6 Part 3 (Aug 1988)
    http://plasmascience.net/tpu/papers.html

  12. robbi says

    Whatever the final results of the findings will be on this interesting object, it is amazing what the HST can image. I hope the HST will still function when a more advanced space telescope is in orbit and functioning well.

  13. jerry says

    It is interesting that an electromagnetic experiement is used to simulate what is generally theorized as a gravitational accretion event. Did the model work because the plasma ‘simulated a accretion flow’; or because the plasma is primarily an electromagnetic medium?

  14. Hmmmm, I sure would like to see these experiments on youtube.

  15. Anaconda says

    @ Excalibur:

    You assert there is a lack of charge seperation. But that is old saw put out by gravitation only astronomers. The scientific evidence is that there is an over abundance of charge seperation in the Universe and that any discontinuity or difference in various bodies of plasma set up electric potential and electric current flow and double layers.

    The idea that there is little charge seperation is false. If there wasn’t charge seperation, there wouldn’t be plasma. And we know over 99% of the Universe is plasma.

    Also, electric current is required to cause magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are ubiquitous in the Universe at all levels of astrophysical structure. And a corollary to the presence electric currents is the necessity of charge seperation.

    @ Ian O’Neill:

    You state: “I have no idea where the Electric Universe theory gets its energy…”

    But there are galactic and extragalactic magnetic fields all over the Universe, these magnetic fields are only caused by electric currents. The cosmic web linking the superclusters of galaxies are “super highways” of extragalactic Birkeland currents that transport energy over long distances.

  16. Dave Finton says

    Not to burst anyone’s bubble here, but “plasma jets are influenced by magnetic fields” does not equate to “ZOMG WE LIVE IN A PLASMA UNIVERSE!” It’s like pointing to a dog and then concluding that we must all be dogs. Let’s be real here.

  17. Banarama says

    We live in a plasma universe, not just because “plasma jets are influenced by magnetic fields”, but because:

    1. The Sun and all the stars are 100% ionized plasma
    2. Interplanetary medium is 100% ionized plasma
    3. Interstellar space includes large amounts of plasma
    4. Intergalactic space is 100% ionized plasma.
    5. 99.999% of the visible universe is plasma.

    It’s like pointing to a dog in a dog pound…

  18. Astrofiend says

    “# jerry Says:
    February 11th, 2009 at 2:20 pm

    “It is interesting that an electromagnetic experiement is used to simulate what is generally theorized as a gravitational accretion event. Did the model work because the plasma ‘simulated a accretion flow’; or because the plasma is primarily an electromagnetic medium?”

    Gravity comes in by creating the accretion disk in the first place around stars/black holes etc. I.e. an accretion disk is formed by the action of gravitational attraction on material surrounding these objects. Frictional heating then creates a plasma accretion disk, from which electromagnetic phenomena cause astrophysical jets. This later part of the process is what was investigated in this experiment, after having created a miniature plasma cloud acting to simulate basic properties of an accretion disk.

  19. Astrofiend says

    “# Banarama Says:
    February 11th, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    “We live in a plasma universe, not just because “plasma jets are influenced by magnetic fields”, but because:

    1. The Sun and all the stars are 100% ionized plasma
    2. Interplanetary medium is 100% ionized plasma
    3. Interstellar space includes large amounts of plasma
    4. Intergalactic space is 100% ionized plasma.
    5. 99.999% of the visible universe is plasma.

    It’s like pointing to a dog in a dog pound…”

    Yep. But hopefully you’re not using that as an argument for EU or plasma cosmology, seeing as:

    1. The Sun and all the stars are 100% made of mass/energy
    2. Interplanetary medium is 100% made of mass/energy
    3. Everything in interstellar space is made of mass or energy
    4. Intergalactic space is filled with 100% mass/energy.
    5. 100.00000% of the visible universe is made of
    mass/energy. Oh wait, make that 100% of the universe is made up of mass/energy.
    6. Every particle in existence is made up of mass/energy.
    7. Gravity is universally attractive whereas electromagnetic forces are not.
    8. General relativity has been confirmed 100% by among the most exacting experiments known to man and EU has nothing to even suggest it, let alone confirm it.

    It’s like pointing to real physics in a universe ruled by four fundamental forces, and yet dominated on the large scale by gravity.

  20. Anaconda says

    @ Quantum_Flux:

    It is scientifcally recognized that the interstellar medium is filled with plasma, and yes, you can have plasma that doesn’t give off light.

    Birkeland currrents between the Sun and the Earth are recognized by NASA, but those Birkeland currents don’t give off light until they enter Earth’s atmomosphere and generate the aurora.

  21. ??????!!! Mainstream scientists have finally discovered magnetism. Welcome to reality.

  22. Excalibur says

    Dont forget to mention that the electromagnetic forces to a large extent also are cancelled out over large distances because charges of opposite sign ‘cancel’ themselves out. What determines a ‘large distance’ here depends on the amount of charges and the separation between them, but in any case the factor 10^39 becomes very much reduced over large distances. In fact, in the limiting case, it becomes reduced to zero. Unless ofc there is an overabundance of one of the charges, but there is no proof of that.

    Unless negative mass would be found to exist and be equally abundant as normal mass, gravity will be the stronger force over large distances – but again, what determines ‘large’ depends on the actual separation of charges.

    Stars in dynamic development (and the early years of a newborn star certainly is just that, as is the case in the star in the article) have very strong influenses of magnetic forces, and this willl have immediate impact on its near surroundings, but on a galactic scale that single star will be rather dosile, and on cosmic scale it is just another shiny point. Why ? Because positive and negative charges cancel themselves out…

  23. Dave Finton says

    I was going to say that I would need a beer after reading this thread, but then I realized that my beer would be 99.999% plasma, and its influence over me would be 10^39 times greater than any force that could be explained with gravity alone. At least I can drink with the comfort of knowing that my beer has been completely proven and verified in the laboratory, and also my beer has played a major role in the structure and the dynamics of the Universe. My beer doesn’t need dark matter to “explain away” its effects on me. In summary, my beer is not in violation of the physical laws of nature.

  24. Peter says

    You bet! Intergalactic space is FILLED with the stuff! I’ve been there! I know! In fact, I was brought up on a strict diet of nothing but intergalactic plasma. Mmmm. Donuts dipped in plasma…plasma filled pop-tarts, pouring plasma over my cereal in the morning. That’s what toothpicks are for, to get those nasty magnetic bubbles from between your bicuspids!

  25. robbi says

    I am neither an expert on gravity or electic-plasma Universe, however, I would think
    drinking 1- 12 once plasma beer would give a person a beer belly who appears to have triples or quads,also,having an appearance of also having a couple of spare-tires around my waste would also make my years of keeping myself looking trim and fit and now 57yo quite a waste of time, therefore, I’ll stay to the proven products. Thank you.

  26. “I have no idea where the Electric Universe theory gets its energy.”

    Do you know what electricity is? It’s a form of energy.

  27. I think astronomers would notice if the interstellar medium was filled with plasma. You can’t have accelerating and decelerating plasma without also having light given off.

  28. Excalibur says

    @Anaconda

    I am not asserting there is a lack of charge separation, i am asserting that regardless what amount of charge separation, gravitation will always be stronger over sufficiently large distances because of this:

    2 opposite charges in some proximity will cause an inverse cube law on its surrounding – F ~= 1 / r ^3. A large quantity of mutually exclusive charges (a plasma) will behave in the same manner. Moreover, the charges will not separate themselves, the will require energy to get separated.

    Gravity have inverse square law- F ~= 1 / r^2

    Over distance, gravity will therefor become the strongest force, because its is a factor r stronger at any given level of charge separation – simple mathematical relation.

    The idea that charge separation is dominating the universe is false, charge separation will always eventually be overcome by gravity and distance. At the intermediate distances, it will however have impact.

    Birkeland currents are a very small energy contribution afterall, in no way comparable to the suns electromagnetic output, or the suns gravitation.

  29. Anaconda says

    @ Bill Davis:

    Thanks.

    It appears that the threshold question, the existence of electric currents in deep space is where propnents of the “gravity only model” want to fight their battle.

    The reason is obvious enough.

    Side-by-side comparison and analysis by open-minded people of the scientfic evidence for both competing theories would leave the “gravity only model” in tatters.

    “The gravity only” model relies on too many unseen “objects”, and “energies” that once stood up in comparison to the alternative theory of electromagnetism’s role in dynamic large structure formation, would simply be an exercise in the “emperor has no clothes on.”

    Once a sizable number, significantly less than a majority, look at the evidence, the “gravity only model” crumbles.

    Notice how Excalibur changes his argument once I responded. At first, it was (paraphrase), “there is not enough charge seperation in space.”

    After my response he changes course to state (paraphrase), “gravity has a greater force over distance than electromagnetism.”

    Bill, as you adroitly and succinctly pointed out, he subtely changed the relation of the physical forces between gravity and electromgnetism.

    But I’ll give Excalibur this: At least he didn’t attempt to pass on the false Idea that electromagnetism doesn’t act beyond atomic scales.

    I read a comment where the commenter (pro “gravity only model”) made that assertion and linked to an authority specifically stating electromagnetism DOES act at a distance and specifically noted electromagnetism’s greater strength over distance than gravity?

    This was his cite, no less.

    See, they are hoping to smother the electromagnetism theory in the crib, as it were, and if it takes cutting a few corners to do it — well, the end justifies the means.

  30. Anaconda says

    @ Olaf

    Olaf, you wanted some sources of authority regarding the idea that the interstellar medium is made up of mostly plasma.

    Per Wikipedia (friendly to the “gravity only model”): “The interstellar medium consists of an extremely dilute (by terrestrial standards) mixture of ions [charged particles], atoms, molecules, larger dust grains, cosmic rays, and (galactic) magnetic fields. The matter consists of about 99% gas and 1% dust by mass. Densities range from a few thousand to a few hundred million particles per cubic meter with an average value in the Milky Way Galaxy of a million particles per cubic meter.”

    I would throw in electrons as well, and as previously discussed and noted in the quoted passage above magnetic fields that are only caused by electric currents.

    I’m slightly surprised you don’t know this, but maybe not ,as “gravity model only” proponents, mostly ignore this reality.

  31. Anaconda says

    @ Olaf:

    You state: “…sounds like you have no hard proof [of Plasma Cosmology]!”

    Hmmm…what do you suppose the experiment posted is? It replicated processes observed in the pictured jet.

    And it used !00% plasma energy and electromagnetism to mimmic it, too.

    Not bad for “no hard proof!”

  32. Dave Finton says

    F = G*m1*m2/d^2

    Not just a good idea, it’s the law!

  33. Bill Davis says

    Coulomb’s law of force between charges is an inverse square law, like gravity. This is in all textbooks on the subject. I don’t know where Excalibur got his version. Current-carrying filaments attract or repel each other inverse to the separation, which trumps gravity. This is the Biot-Savart law. Also in all the textbooks.

  34. Olaf says

    “OilIsMastery – Do you know what electricity is? It’s a form of energy.”

    OilIsMastery, can you please explain in your own words (no copy and paste) what electricity is?
    And can you also explains in your own wordse how it is possible that plasma at only 2.7K stays plasma and not revert to it’s normal state? Electrons move through it, so it will revert to its normal state. What is the mechanism that keeps it in plasma state?

  35. Olaf says

    “It is scientifcally recognized that the interstellar medium is filled with plasma, and yes, you can have plasma that doesn’t give off light.”

    Please I would live some sources with that clame.

    Locally this could be possible, within a solar system and near a planet or sun where plasma gets ejected by the Sun, but far way from a sun this is simply not scientificly true.

  36. Olaf says

    Excalibur, you also forget the fact that when you have a positive charge and a neutral charge, the net result is zero!

    This is not the case with gravity, so gravity has even a bigger effect than charges since it does not get avaraged out to zero.

    I still want to see a model that shows how the EU currents are flowing in our solar system. So far I have not seen any credible explanation, not credible model, no credible explanation and especially not credible numbers how big these currents are, how these currents actually moven how the supposed plasma stays plasma at only 2.7K, how it is possible that stars and planets stay in orbit witout a drag of the supposed void filled with plasma and no one have a number how dense this plasma is.

    All I have seen about this EU theory is some fuzzy buzz-words, some drawing that would look impressive to a child that has no scientific basis.

    I want to see real hard facts, numbers, models and theories!

  37. Olaf says

    “The reason is obvious enough.
    Side-by-side comparison and analysis by open-minded people of the scientfic evidence for both competing theories would leave the “gravity only model” in tatters.”

    “open-minded people”, sounds like you have no hard proof!
    Open minded people also believe in the flying spagetti monster.

  38. jerry says

    “General relativity has been confirmed 100% by among the most exacting experiments known to man and EU has nothing to even suggest it, let alone confirm it.”

    Ah, we have been trying for more than thirty years to obtain direct observational evidence of gravitational waves (LIGO, ALEGRO…); the results are still zelch.

    Also the Gravity B probe was a 90+% failure. The Pioneer 6 GR experiment failed. We don’t have direct evidence of several phenomenon predicted by GR, but not for lack of trying.

  39. Olaf says

    This pictured jet is very tiny compared to the very huge universe.

  40. Olaf says

    So the vaccuum between galaxies has a few thousands of particles per cubic meter, and you call this plasma? This hydrogen gas is not even plasma!

    And if I understand correctly of EU this plasma is like copperwires, it conducts electricty?

    So one electron has this charge e = 1.60217653^-19 C

    Since a coulomb is approximately equal to 6.24150948+18 elementary charges, one ampere is approximately equivalent to 6.24150948^+18 elementary charges, such as electrons, moving past a boundary in one second.

    Start to see the problem here of EU?
    How can you move 6.241.509.480.000.000.000 electrons in 1 second over 999 particles of gas/m^3 that is even not plasma.

    And how big would these currents need to be to ceate the gravity we see now?

  41. Olaf says

    Interesting is also how fast that electic current would move.

    In copper electricity moves about 3 inches per hour!!! And copper wire is waaaaaaay dense than those 999 atoms/^3
    More in the order of Q = 8.5*10^+22 movable electrons per cm^3, or 8.5*10^+28 per m^3

    Interesting, 8.5*10^+28/999 atoms/^3 see the magintude of scale?

    8.500.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 times slower than copper!!!!!

    The formuale for the movement of electricity is: I/(Q * e * R^2 * pi)

    http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html

    No, if you DARE to tell me that electricity moves much faster, than it clearly proves that you have no understanding of EU!!!

    Now unlike EU, the standard model does not require plasma so it can actually move near the speed of light.

  42. Olaf says

    Yes I agree, it is a trick question. If electricity only moves with a speed 3 inches an hour, how is it then possible to come out at a spead near 2/3 of the speed of light at the other side of the copper?

    I just want to see if those with EU actually know their stuff about basic electricity.

  43. Banarama says

    Gravity and electromagnetic forces co-exist, and dominate in different domains. In general, dust particles and smaller behave as a plasma (in a magnetised plasma), larger particles are dominated by gravity. See:
    http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Dusty_plasma

    The Solar Wind plasma leaves the Sun’s gravitation field with ease.

    The current density in interplanetary/intergalactic space is typically very small. But space is rather big, so the overall currents relatively large. eg. the current flowing through the heliospheric current circuit is around 10^9 Amps, the intergalactic current circuit is up to 10^19 Amps. See:
    http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Heliospheric_current_circuit

  44. Dave Finton says

    @Olaf

    I think the trolls are back hiding under the bridge, silently waiting to strike in another thread as the opportunity arises.

    By the way, I had another successful experiment while testing my beer hypotheses last night. There was a n-cubed relationship between the number of glasses I consumed and my sense of self-confidence. In fact, I felt 10^39 times stronger and better looking than I did earlier in the evening!

  45. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    @ jerry: “Also the Gravity B probe was a 90+% failure. The Pioneer 6 GR experiment failed.”

    Can you provide links to those news reports, or did you just pull them out of your ass?!

  46. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    @ Anaconda:”I’m slightly surprised you don’t know this, but maybe not ,as ‘gravity model only’ proponents, mostly ignore this reality.”

    It is you, Anaconda, who has ignored reality by quoting from that Wikipedia article out of context and conveniently leaving out the rest of the paragraph. The FULL paragraph read thus:

    “The interstellar medium consists of an extremely dilute (by terrestrial standards) mixture of ions, atoms, molecules, larger dust grains, cosmic rays, and (galactic) magnetic fields. The matter consists of about 99% gas and 1% dust by mass. Densities range from a few thousand to a few hundred million particles per cubic meter with an average value in the Milky Way Galaxy of a million particles per cubic meter. [Now here this… Now here this…] As a result of primordial nucleosynthesis [which means: THE BIG BANG!], the gas is roughly 89% hydrogen and 9% helium and 2% elements heavier than hydrogen or helium by number of nuclei, with additional heavier elements (“metals” in astronomical parlance) present in trace amounts.”

    So, how much is “a million particles per cubic meter”? Well, there are 1,000,000 cubic centimetres in a cubic metre, so 1M particles divided by 1M cm^3 = 1 part per cm^3.

    How does this compare with a vacuum(s) achieved on Earth.? To answer that question, here — http://tinyurl.com/2xmrfc — are some examples:

    * Atmospheric pressure: 101.3 kPa (pascal); 760 torr
    * Vacuum cleaner: ~80 kPa; 600 torr; 10^19 molecules/cm^3
    * Incandescent (early) light bulb: 10 to 1 Pa; 0.1 to 0.01 torr ; 10^14 molecules/cm^3
    * Thermionic valve (vacuum tube): 10 uPa to 10 nPa; 10^-7 to 10^-10 torr
    * Cryopumped MBE chamber: 100 nPa to 1 nPa; 10^-9 to 10^-11 torr; 10^9 to 10^4 molecules/cm^3
    * Pressure on the Moon: ~1nPa; 10^-11 torr; 4 x 10^5 molecules/cm^3
    * Interplanetary space: 10^1 molecules/cm^3
    * Interstellar space: 1 molecule/cm^3
    * Intergalactic space: 10^-6 (that’s minus six) molecules/cm^3

    So , Anaconda, where is this 99.999% plasma in the Universe, then?

  47. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    P.S. Correction above: I should have written, “Now HEAR this…”, not “here”! Jesus H. Christ, I need a coffee break!

  48. Olaf says

    “So , Anaconda, where is this 99.999% plasma in the Universe, then?”

    It is not even plasma, it is just a normal hydrogene atom. I am wondering now if the EU proponents have any clue what plasma is?

    Also gravitational lensing is clearly visible and works as predicted by the standard theories.

    The gravity probe experiment is not a failure. Yes there is an error bigger than expected because of a design issue but at this moment saying that it was a failure ius just BS. The data is still being analyzed.

    “Stanford has agreed to release the raw data to the public at an unspecified date in the future. It is likely that this data will be examined by independent scientists and independently reported to the public well after the September 2008 release. Because future interpretations of the data by scientists outside of GPB may differ from the official results, it may take several more years for of all the data received by GPB to be completely understood.”

  49. Olaf says

    I am learning this EU right now:

    “This is what they tell you about gravity:
    . Gravity requires the near-instantaneous character of the electric force to form stable systems like our solar system and spiral galaxies. Gravitationally, the Earth ‘sees’ the Sun where it is this instant, not where it was more than 8 minutes ago. Newton’s famous law of gravity does not refer to time.”

    blablabla

    “The advantage of this interpretation of the conversion of mass into energy and vice versa is that we are not forced to accept the increase of mass to infinity as a moving mass approaches the speed of light.”

    So basically an electron accelerated at the speed of light does not increases in mass at all.

    We could actually do Large Hadron cllider experiments in out backyard according to EU!

  50. Olaf says

    It gets worse:

    “Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons. The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. ”

    Righ now I am trying to understand what this all means. I am wondering if you have a cage of farraday, put something it it, will it float because external electric fields cannot penitrate it. Still checking…

  51. Olaf says

    Time to do more analysis:

    “An electric field will transversely squash the subtron orbits within an electron or proton. If you cause acceleration at one point in a circular orbit and a deceleration at the diametrically opposite point of the orbit, the result is an elliptical orbit.”

    If you read something like this, then you can only come to the conclusion that these people still believe that the Sun is rotating around the Earth.

    They have really no clue what the orbits of electrons means. They think it is a tiny solar system at atomic level, it is completely different mechanism.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but the so called orbits is the statistically probability that an electron happens to be at that distance from the atom nucleus. The electrons does not rotate, but appears and dissapears and jumps everywhere. Actually the electron can even cross the complete universe but the chance that it is somehwere in this location is for 99.999999999999999% sure.

    The reason why they show the atomic model as an nucleus with a shell arount it, is just a simplified model which works great when used for chemicals and basic stuff to understand electronics.

  52. ND says

    Olaf,

    It would seem you’re caught up in Anaconda and Oil’s fly paper 🙂

    You might want to look at Anaconda’s discussions at Bad Astronomy. The discussions at the following threads span literally a month. That is if you have the time. We even compiled a list of memorable Anaconda quotes at one point.

    blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/07/aas-5-galaxies-grow-from-black-hole-seeds/

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

    blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/21/a-black-hole-wind-is-rising/

  53. Banarama says

    Olaf wrote:
    “So , Anaconda, where is this 99.999% plasma in the Universe, then?”

    It is not even plasma, it is just a normal hydrogene atom. I am wondering now if the EU proponents have any clue what plasma is?
    =====================

    No, 99.999% of the visible universe is in the plasma state, as confirmed by all the different sources and quotations listed on this page:

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

  54. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    The Plasma-Universe.com web-site, with its fancy red font, resembles an advert for a Soho knocking-shop!
    ===================================

    For some serious science, check this out:

    Evidence for the Big Bang: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

Comments are closed.