Hubble Immortalizes Itself With New Image: “Fountain of Youth”


To commemorate the Hubble Space Telescope’s 19 years in space, the ESA and NASA have released an image of a celestial celebration. 

Two members in this trio of galaxies are apparently engaged in a gravitational tug-o-war, giving rise to a bright streamer of newborn blue stars that stretches 100,000 light years across.

 

fountain-region
Constellation region near ARP 194. Credit: NASA, ESA Z. Levay and A. Fujii

Resembling a pair of owl’s eyes, the two nuclei of the colliding galaxies can be seen in the process of merging at the upper left. The bizarre blue bridge of material extending out from the northern component looks as if it connects to a third galaxy but in reality this galaxy is in the background, and not connected at all.

Hubble’s sharp view allows astronomers to try and sort out visually which are the foreground and background objects when galaxies, superficially, appear to overlap.

The blue “fountain” is the most striking feature of this galaxy troupe and it contains complexes of super star clusters that may have as many as dozens of individual young star clusters in them. It formed as a result of the interactions among the galaxies in the northern component of Arp 194. The gravitational forces involved in a galaxy interaction can enhance the star formation rate and give rise to brilliant bursts of star formation in merging systems.

The stream of material lies in front of the southern component of Arp 194, as shown by the dust that is silhouetted around the star cluster complexes.

The details of the interactions among the multiple galaxies that make up Arp 194 are complex. The system was most likely disrupted by a previous collision or close encounter. The shapes of all the galaxies involved have been distorted by their gravitational interactions with one another.

Arp 194, located in the constellation of Cepheus, resides approximately 600 million light-years away from Earth. Arp 194 is one of thousands of interacting and merging galaxies known in our nearby Universe.

The observations were taken in January 2009 with the Wide Field Planetary Camera 2. Blue, green and red filters were composited together to form the galaxy interaction image.

This picture was issued to celebrate the 19th anniversary of the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope aboard the space shuttle Discovery in 1990. In the past 19 years, Hubble has made more than 880,000 observations and snapped over 570,000 images of 29,000 celestial objects.

Image credit: NASA, ESA and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

Source: HubbleSite

38 Replies to “Hubble Immortalizes Itself With New Image: “Fountain of Youth””

  1. The main photograph is remarkable, a fitting photograph to commemorate the Hubble telescope’s contribution to Science.

    However, since electromagnetism is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, it is much more likely that electromagnetism is the Fundamental Force that connects these two galaxies.

    The “bridge” of blue stars, of course, is plasma, and it has been observed & measured as reported at Space.com, Unknown Force Triggers Star Formation
    (March 1, 2005), “Some previously unrealized energetic process, likely related to magnetic fields, is superheating parts of the cloud, nudging it to become a star, scientists said.”

    Related to magnetic fields?

    Could that be electric current?

    What are the observations that lead to this possible conclusion?

    As the, above, reports goes on:

    “The detection of X-rays from the cold stellar precursor surprised astronomers. The observations reveal that matter is falling toward the core 10 times faster than gravity could account for.”

    The post discusses star formation in the “bridge” region.

    It seems that additional observation & measurement of the “bridge” region could identify the presence, strength, and shape of any magnetic fields in the region.

    Do these magnetic fields (and their concomitant electric currents) form filaments between the various blue stars and in aggregate between the two galaxies?

    Is synchrotron (non-thermal) radiation detectable in the “bridge” region? If present what morphology does it take? Does it also take the shape of filaments?

    These questions would seem to be answerable by current observational capability.

    “…10 times faster than gravity could account for.”

    Something to think about.

    Yes, Hubble and the other observational capabilities of Science need to be celebrated no matter what your perspective is.

  2. Space.com — “Previous observations have captured the shape of such gas clouds but have never been able to peer inside. The detection of X-rays this early indicates that gravity alone is not the only force shaping young stars.”

    The results will be published in the Astrophysical Journal.

  3. @ Feenix:

    “But, if those fields and currents are supposed to have created the stars, then the stars cannot have been there to power the currents in the first place.”

    Yes, I agree. Star formation would be a “load” on any electric current circuit, and thus, a result of electromagnetic energy, not the cause.

    And, yes, the ultimate “power source” has not been identified. But galaxies have been observed to emit copious amounts of energized electrons and ions, plasma, which by its inherent nature has electrical potential energy, via the voltage drop in double layers.

    The “bridge” stands between the two galaxies. it would seem possible that at an intermediate level (not the ultimate “power source”), the galaxies provide the electromagnetic energy to support the “bridge” between them.

  4. @ Jon Hanford:

    Thanks for the link to the abstract.

    Hanford states: “I agree. Gravity is just the predominant force.”

    You are right, of course, that the paper published in the Astrophysical Jounal reported on by Space.com is not “gospel”.

    In Science, nothing is “gospel” and beyond question.

    And, the Astrophysical Jounal paper is referring to a different location and scale in deep-space, athough, electromagnetism and, one would think, star formation are scalable processes.

    “…10 times faster than gravity could account for.”

    10 times faster than gravity, is a considerably greater rate than the gravitational force, alone. Enough greater, so that one could question the proposition that gravity is the predominate force in the described star formation process.

    The abstract you linked makes no reference to electromagnetism, at all.

    it would seem that to rule out a Fundamental Force, electromagnetism, one would need to consider it in the first place.

    From the abstract we have no idea whether electromagnetism was considered or not.

    And there might be the rub; to “rule out”, first one must actively consider.

    And as the Astrophysical Jounal paper suggests, at this point with what Science has already observed & measured, failing to address electromagnetism as a participating Fundamental Force in star formation, wherever the location and scale, is leaving the “canvass” an incomplete picture.

  5. What a great image of interacting galaxies. The press release and your article mention a “blue fountain” between the pair as being composed of super star clusters (SSCs). Might some of the largest of these be tidal dwarf galaxies (or future TDGs)? They look very similar to TDGs studied in previous HST images. Or are these inherently small galaxies (making some of the blue objects appear larger than they really are)? Certainly many of these objects ARE SSCs. It’s just a couple that appear too large to be SSCs.

  6. @ Davidlpf:

    My comments, here, are hardly “rants”.

    @ Jon Hanford:

    Maybe, I failed to communicate effectively. The Space.com report is based on a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal, so to state Space.com is not “gospel” in this instance is to imply the paper the report is based on is not “gospel”.

    No?

    The electromagnetism you refer to (sorry, I read the links provided) is how observations & measurements are made on Earth. All astrophysical data recorded is by way of the electromagnetic spectrum.

    But your discounting response completely ignores the findings of the Astrophysical Journal paper reported in Space.com:

    “…10 times faster than gravity could account for.”

    Hanford states: “So you give me a link to a peer-reviewed, published paper explicitly mentioning EU theory and Arp 194.”

    You are right; I can’t. But does that mean that electromagnetism should not be considered when there is scientific evidence of its presence and participation?

    @ Davidlpf:

    Davidlpf states: “Anaconda maybe since the authors of the paper know not to consider EM in that situation because they are professional astronomers and know when to apply it.

    Maybe, is it possible they have been systematically trained not to consider it?

    Still, I asked a series of questions about potential observations & measurements that could be made.

    Is there any reason why all the possible available evidence should not be gathered and considered?

    @ Lawrence B. Crowell

    Crowell states: “For any large scale structure, even a plasma, generally the numbers of + and – charges balance. ”

    You fail to consider the known property of plasma to form double layers due to physical discontinuities. In other words, localized charge seperation.

    Of course, you too, also fail to adress the findings in the Astrophysical Journal paper referenced in the Space.com report.

  7. Star formation due to currents and magnetic fields in this case looks like a chicken and egg situation, really:
    Currents, anywhere, need a power source.
    The stars can conceivably be a power source for those currents which create those fields – fine,
    But, if those fields and currents are supposed to have created the stars, then the stars cannot have been there to power the currents in the first place.
    Something in the electricity explanation for this beauty makes no sense to me.

  8. While checking for info at NED, I came across this 2003 study of Arp 194: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?2003AJ….125.1897M . Their ground based observations show measured speeds of 10,502 km/s for the Southern galaxy (A194S) and 10,430 km/s for the merged Northern component (A194N). They propose that the Southern component was responsible for dragging out material from the Northern component (Gravitationally, I might add). Additional imaging in Hydrogen-alpha light and radio plus spectra show the brightest ‘blue blob’ to be actively forming stars and that “the mass of ‘blob A’ is within the range of dwarf galaxies”. Also, it’s recession speed closely matches the other galaxies, ruling out line-of-sight arguments. So it may be a tidal dwarf galaxy (or its’ precursor) after all. @ Anaconda: How does an link to an article of a star forming in our galaxy relate to gravitationally interacting galaxies? You’re sense of scale is way off. Do you have peer-reviewed published material explicitly mentioning Arp 194 and EU in the same paper? Space.com stories are not gospel, even if it did pertain to this galaxy system (which it did not). If your argument is “The detection of X-rays this early indicates that gravity alone is not the only force shaping young stars.” I agree. Gravity is just the predominant force.

  9. Stunning and beautiful. Goes some way to offering the feelgood factor again when trying to cope with the light pollution around here!

  10. “Gravitational tug of war”

    You’ve got to be joking.

    F = G x m^1m^2/r2 = 17th century occult pseudoscience at it’s most laughable.

    Do you see witches to burn at the stake in that photograph too?

    Oh no wait, it’s the actual scientists that gravitational muttawa want to burn at the stake.

    “[Hilton] Ratcliffe should be thankful the laws have changed. He should be burnt at the stake.” — M.R., astrophysicist, 2008

    “There is also the Plasma Model, first proposed by Nobel Prize-winner Dr. Hannes Alfvén in 1965. It is rapidly gaining wide international support from the scientific community, due in no small measure to it’s rock solid empirical base and the weight of observational evidence on it’s side. The predictions of Plasma Cosmology have passed every single test that has come from empirical evidence over a period of forty years. Makes you think, doesn’t it?” — Hilton Ratcliffe, astronomer, 2007

  11. Wow – look at those star forming regions.

    This image is like Hubble telling us “look at what I can do now – imagine what I could do when I get my new suite of instruments and upgrades!”

  12. @ Anaconda, Why twist my words from a previous post. Read it again. I said no article at Space.com was gospel, not the Astrophysical Journal. As for the link I provided, read the PDF or arXiv.org copy of the actual paper. You state “The abstract you linked makes no reference to electromagnetism, at all.” Well, no, not the abstract, I was referring to the actual papers, duh. What do you think all the spectra presented are precisely measuring. The Electromagnetic Spectrum! Most of this paper deals with electromagnetism, not your fallacious EU theory. So you give me a link to a peer-reviewed, published paper explicitly mentioning EU theory and Arp 194. You either can’t or won’t, I believe it’s the former.

  13. OilIsMastery Says: F = G x m^1m^2/r2 = 17th century occult pseudoscience at it’s most laughable.

    Coulomb’s law for the electrical force between two charges is

    G = (1/4pi eps)qq’/r^2,

    same formula, different constants. With gravity there is only positive mass, m > 0, but with electric charge you have + and – charges. For any large scale structure, even a plasma, generally the numbers of + and – charges balance. Hence on a large scale the Coulomb interaction “saturates out.” These galaxies are not being attracted by the electric field, or any electromagnetic influence. Yet with billions of solar masses in each of these galaxies gravity works great.

    We do after all get robots to the planets using Newtonian gravity, and can put a spacecraft in a precise location on Mars. Pretty good for an “occult” psuedo-scientific idea, aye!

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  14. Anaconda maybe since the authors of the paper know not to consider EM in that situation because they are professional astronomers and know when to apply it. There are places for electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak force. The difference between a couple of fools on the internet and being traind professionals in science comes out loud and clear by yours and OilisMisery rants.

  15. Back On Topic (BOT): The hi-res TIFF image at the Hubble site is just awesome to view closeup. I’m sure at least someone will write up a paper analyzing the data gathered to make this pic. This image could also help large ground-based telescopes zero in on regions of interest for spectroscopic and kinematic analysis. The 2003 paper mentioned an estimated 30,000 O and B supergiants populate the brightest of the ‘blue blobs’ designated ‘blob A’ in the paper! That really is a super star cluster (or maybe a smallish tidal dwarf galaxy).

  16. @ Ananconda: you state “Hanford states: “So you give me a link to a peer-reviewed, published paper explicitly mentioning EU theory and Arp 194.”

    You are right; I can’t. But does that mean that electromagnetism should not be considered when there is scientific evidence of its presence and participation?” NO, EM can certainly be considered, and this is why I’m asking for papers from EU ‘scientists’ on how EU theory explicitly explains what is observed in Arp 194. What’s the big deal. There ought to be plenty. Just one!

  17. Cool Coulombs law is invalid! It’s good to be so enlightened. Also for double layers, these occur on scales approaching the Debye length, which is considerably smaller than the distance between two interacting galaxies!

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  18. @Anaconda the scientists are trained to look at the spectrum of the images taken to determine what is there. The images we see are not the ones that they originally get. They get images taken through various filters, they all look black and white. I do not the process for galaxies but for stars what the do is determine the brightness of the object for each of the filters and depending on system they are using they would subtract blue from ultraviolet and doe this for the various values and compare them to each other. In comparing them to each other you can figure out fow far they are and how much dust is there. Also they probably have take a spectrum which will just show as bunch of lines. You can get a lot out of the spectrum if you know how to read them right. Some lines maybe wider or narrower then expected. Another thing you can see sometimes are double lines close to each other these could be zeeman lines cased by a large magnetic field. The lines could be shifted towards red or blue ends of the spectrum telling you the object might travelling farther away or closer. You can also get the relative abundance of the elemets in the objects. Neutral atoms look completey different then charged atoms and unless there are charged you cannot see them. If throw in radio astronomy you can search for 21 cm radaiation which is given by neutral hydrogen atoms. The nessage is unlike you the astronomer is not just looking at pretty puture but a number of pictures and all the infomation combined tells them what the object is doing.

  19. Davidlpf,

    “the scientists are trained to look at the spectrum of the images taken to determine what is there.”

    What spectrum? The real electromagnetic spectrum? Or the occult and imaginary gravitational spectrum?

  20. @ Jon Hanford:

    “Just one [EU paper on Arp 194]!”

    There is are several issues regarding your request.

    EU papers have a notoriously difficult time passing the “peer-review” system to get published — I’m sure you know that.

    Why is that so?

    I’m sure your response would be something to the effect: “The supporting science for EU is unsubstantiated.”

    My response is this: “No, Plasma Cosmology is threatening to the established status quo and the “peer-review” system is controlled by the status quo.

    This is even more true, today, than in Hannes Alfven’s day.

    Also, there are few, if any, post-graduate astronomy schools that teach and give degrees in Plasma Cosmology — again, a result of the current status quo. And, it’s next to impossible to get admitted by post-graduate school and openly maintain the major tenents of “modern” astronomy are wrong.

    Which Plasma Cosmology does loudly proclaim.

    Everything is very intrenched (note the hostility on this blog to Plasma Cosmology view points).

    It is even harder still to get “employed” as a Plasma Cosmologist — there might as well be a sign at the door — “Plasma Cosmologists need not apply”, actually no sign is needed, everybody knows that.

    And if you happen to get employed by a miracle, you are very unlikely to get telescope time to make observations.

    See, Halton Arp, when he challenged ‘redshift’, which challenged the so-called “big bang”.

    So the road is long and mostly unrewarding.

    “Too bad,” you say with crocodile tears, I’m sure.

    @ Lawrence B. Crowell:

    Crowell states: “Also for double layers, these occur on scales approaching the Debye length, which is considerably smaller than the distance between two interacting galaxies!”

    I must give you credit, as I’ve seen your arguments against Plasma Cosmology evolve, you run out every traditional objection and when that is knocked down you move to the next.

    Debye length is scalable just like the rest of electromagnetism processes and phenomenon, known up to 14 orders of magnitude, in actuality, there has never been an observed upward limit to the scalability of electromagnetic phenomenon.

    Read the link and move on to the next objection on the “play list”.

    Running out of objections?

    Do independent research and prepare for the the Revolution:-)

  21. @ DrFlimmer:

    I saw your previous response — it resonates with my take on astrophysics: Do not invoke “new physics” to explain deep-space phenomenon.

    So, I’m inclined to agree with your analysis in regards to the particular propositions you highlight.

    The temptation to explain objects and processes by way of “new physics” gets the best of them.

    But Arp subscribes to a “steady state” view of the cosmos that requires creation of mass.

    Electromagnetism requires no such creation of mass.

    I subscribe to the idea that Arp’s description of quasars as being ejected from galaxies is correct (and there have been additional observations suggesting dwarf galaxies are products of larger galaxies), but that his interpretation of ‘intrinsic’ redshift is wrong. Rather, while it does invalidate the Hubble law and the so-called “big bang” because ‘redshift’ does not equal speed and distance, the ‘intrinsic’ redshift is a product of energetic plasma dynamics.

    What those dynamics are, exactly, I don’t know, but the point, here, was not whether Arp was right, it was that he crossed the “big bang” gospel and for that he had to get “run out of town” to your neck of the woods, I believe, to the Max-Planck Institute in Germany.

  22. @ DrFlimmer:

    DrFlimmer asks: “According to your link the Debye-length in the intergalactic medium is of the order of 10^5 m. That is 100km. Do you really think that 100km count compared to scales of several Mpc?”

    It does seem like an increase in many hundreds of orders of magnitude (and hard to get your mind around). But what is the limit to the scalability of electromagnetism?

    Electromagnetism because it is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity AND because it both repels and attracts is much more dynamic than gravity.

    Electromagnetism is demonstrated to be a more efficient carrier of energy than gravity, which is a rather weak, blunt instrument.

    Nature has demonstrated time and again that it uses the most efficient means available.

    Electromagnetism is the most efficient energy transfer device known to Man.

  23. @ Jon Hanford:

    “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”

    This statement is frequently cited as a kind of authority in reference to scientific questions.

    But it is inacurrate in regards to Science.

    The proper statement is thus:

    Competing scientific theories all start at the same “starting line”. The evidentiary bar is the same for all theories — no theory has a leg up simply because it represents the accepted status quo thinking in a “community”.

    That is why applied material science is so advanced: Every hypothesis can be tested in the laboratory by observation & measurement. Each hypothesis rises and falls by weight of the evidence derived in the laboratory — there are no favorites.

    Yes, I realize that by its very nature astrophysics and astronomy can’t be tested in a laboratory — yet, to the extent that in situ observation & measurement has been done in the near-space environment, electromagnetism has been confirmed to be present.

    Seemingly, to the exasperation of the astromomical “community”.

    Your discussion of General Relativity seems more appropriate at the “gravitational” post.

    Yes, I’m well aware of “the problems in the EU community”. But it seems to me that it really is a problem for the wider astronomical “community” because it is their failure to consider a Fundamental Force, electromagnetism, that has left it in a position where it won’t actively consider all the available scientific evidence and resulting possibilities.

    That’s the bottom line and obligation in Science: To consider alternative theories based on the evidence, not bias & prejudice.

    Substitute “Irish” for plasma cosmologists and the sign is the same: “Plasma Cosmologists need not apply”, a dogmatic reaction based on bias & prejudice.

    It may be hard for you to grasp or accept this, but I have studied the evidence for both sides of the question and applying my precept: Competing scientific theories all start at the same “starting line”, and you know what? Electromagnetism shapes up pretty well, against the gravity predominates model.

    Actually, it is my firm conviction that were the two competing theories starting “afresh” electromagnetism would win hands down.

    There is more evidence in electromagnetism’s favor as it stands at the present.

  24. @ Lawrence B. Crowell:

    Actually, this discussion, here, was one of the more civil conversations. Review the thread, a bare minimum of ad hominems.

    Ideally, this should be the tone of the discussion on scientific matters.

    It is you, Lawrence B Crowell, who injected “wackos” at the end of this thread, which is to your discredit.

    You failed to address the quotes from the author of the paper published in the Astrophysical Journal as reported in Space.com, Unknown Force Triggers Star Formation(March 1, 2005)

    “Some previously unrealized energetic process, likely related to magnetic fields, is superheating parts of the cloud, nudging it to become a star, scientists said.”

    “The detection of X-rays from the cold stellar precursor surprised astronomers. The observations reveal that matter is falling toward the core 10 times faster than gravity could account for.”

    “Previous observations have captured the shape of such gas clouds but have never been able to peer inside. The detection of X-rays this early indicates that gravity alone is not the only force shaping young stars.”

    These quotes are the result of actual observation & measurement.

    But Crowell, your response to these quotes is silence…

    Sometimes silence speaks louder than words…

  25. @ Anaconda:

    Debye length is scalable just like the rest of electromagnetism processes and phenomenon, known up to 14 orders of magnitude, in actuality, there has never been an observed upward limit to the scalability of electromagnetic phenomenon.

    According to your link the Debye-length in the intergalactic medium is of the order of 10^5 m. That is 100km. Do you really think that 100km count compared to scales of several Mpc?

    See, Halton Arp, when he challenged ‘redshift’, which challenged the so-called “big bang”.

    See, Halton Arp is wrong. To show you this one, I repeat what I stated someplace else:

    I can’t believe that I was right, not exactly, but close. The following is quoted directly from Arp’s page:

    Observed: The whole quasar or galaxy is intrinsically redshifted.

    Objects with the same path length to the observer have much different redshifts and all parts of the object are shifted closely the same amount. Tired light is ruled out and also gravitational redshifting.

    The fundamental assumption: Are particle masses constant?

    The photon emitted in an orbital transition of an electron in an atom can only be redshifted if its mass is initially small. As time goes on the electron communicates with more and more matter within a sphere whose limit is expanding at velocity c. If the masses of electrons increase, emitted photons change from an initially high redshift to a lower redshift with time (see Narlikar and Arp, 19936)

    Predicted consequences: Quasars are born with high redshift and evolve into galaxies of lower redshift.

    Near zero mass particles evolve from energy conditions in an active nucleus. (If particle masses have to be created sometime, it seems easier to grow things from a low mass state rather than producing them instantaneously in a finished state.)

    So. Electrons gain mass over time. But I would guess this process would not stop. So over time the electrons become heavier and heavier. Our experiments here on earth are extremely sensitive. I wonder if such an effect wouldn’t have been observed. And would be spoken out loud, because it is fundamentally important!

    On the other hand: All our accelerators are producing electrons all the time, NEW ones, popping out of the energy of the collisions. And what do you think? Those electrons have ALL, without any doubt, the same mass of about 9.1*10^-31 kg!

    Arp’s assumption has exactly zero experimental evidence. And since it is so important for his idea, I think it is quite right to say that it is, well, wrong.

  26. @ Anaconda, I think that the problem with EU research in general boils down to “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”. How many years was it between Einstein publishing his theory of Relativity and the first experiments were performed confirming one prediction made by his theory( the bending of starlight around the sun experiment)? Then more predictions derived from the theory (precession of Mercury’s orbit, etc.) were proven correct and bolstered the theory. GR has now made many predictions that have been borne out by extremely precise measurements. It obviously is not the last word on gravitation, but if you ditch it entirely for a new theory, this new theory must pass all the tests that GR has and then confirm predictions that this new theory itself makes that would refute GR. At least I see you have a grasp of the problems in the EU community.

  27. @ Ivan3Man:

    Yes…something very much like that:-)

    @ Lawrence B. Crowell:

    Yes, gravity plays a role in the dynamics of the Universe, no question about that.

    The question, now, is to determine the respective roles of electromagnetism and gravity without bias & prejudice or favortism.

    How do we do that? Simple, consider all the evidence available with an open-mind; exactly as Science is supposed to operate.

    However, Crowell, you seem ever determined to paint yourself into a corner.

  28. It is too bad that scientific discussions has degenerated into a fencing argument with wackos.

    If Coulombs law is false, then the Gauss’ law is false, which in differential form is:

    ?_iE^i = 4??.

    This is one of the Maxwell equations. Does EU ideology contradict itself

    I am not going to get into arguments over Debye lengths. I will say that if these two galaxies are charge separated, then the electric potential is huge, and there must be some mechanism for that.

    There is a native American “joke” totem name given to people who are consistently bogus. it is “Walking Eagle,” which means too full of s**t to fly. 🙂

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  29. I tried to get math symbols in here. The first ? is a differential and the two ?? are charnge density rho.

    L. C.

  30. In no way do I say that gravity is the only force at work in astrophysics. Yet I am certain that it is not all electromagnetism. Gravity is real, we land robots in craters marked as “targets” using it.

    As for wacko, I suppose other terms might suffice as well: crackpot, crank and so forth. There is no scientific revolution awaiting EU and PU in the future. All this amounts to is lots of confusion and smokescreen that can reduce the signal to noise ratio out there. As such you and thousands of other cranks are really doing a disservice.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  31. Anaconda:

    Electromagnetism because it is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity AND because it both repels and attracts is much more dynamic than gravity.

    You mean like THIS?
    😉

  32. @ Anaconda,

    RE: The overloaded cart picture.

    Err… it appears that you do not understand the irony of that picture anymore than you understand the laws of physics. The point that I was trying to convey to you is this fact: When mass is sufficiently large enough — like that overloaded cart — the gravitational force will overcome any force, even that of light (EMR), trying to pull against it — hence black holes.

  33. That is the case. Heap enough mass into any region of space and it will self-gravitate and implode into a black hole. Gravity does not saturate like the other gauge fields, such as EM.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

Comments are closed.