Cassini finds Enceladus is a powerhouse

Mar 08, 2011
This graphic, using data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft, shows how the south polar terrain of Saturn's moon Enceladus emits much more power than scientists had originally predicted. Images credit: NASA/JPL/SWRI/SSI

(PhysOrg.com) -- Heat output from the south polar region of Saturn's moon Enceladus is much greater than was previously thought possible, according to a new analysis of data collected by NASA's Cassini spacecraft. The study was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research on March 4.

Data from Cassini's of Enceladus' south polar terrain, which is marked by linear fissures, indicate that the internal heat-generated power is about 15.8 gigawatts, approximately 2.6 times the power output of all the hot springs in the Yellowstone region, or comparable to 20 coal-fueled power stations. This is more than an order of magnitude higher than scientists had predicted, according to Carly Howett, the lead author of study, who is a postdoctoral researcher at Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo., and a composite infrared spectrometer science team member.

"The mechanism capable of producing the much higher observed internal power remains a mystery and challenges the currently proposed models of long-term heat production," said Howett.

It has been known since 2005 that Enceladus' south polar terrain is geologically active and the activity is centered on four roughly parallel linear trenches, 130 kilometers (80 miles) long and about 2 kilometers (1 mile) wide, informally known as the "tiger stripes." Cassini also found that these fissures eject great plumes of ice particles and water vapor continually into space. These trenches have elevated temperatures due to heat leaking out of Enceladus' interior.

A 2007 study predicted the internal heat of Enceladus, if principally generated by tidal forces arising from the orbital resonance between Enceladus and another moon, Dione, could be no greater than 1.1 gigawatts averaged over the long term. Heating from natural radioactivity inside Enceladus would add another 0.3 gigawatts.

The latest analysis, which also involved the composite infrared spectrometer team members John Spencer at Southwest Research Institute, and John Pearl and Marcia Segura at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., uses observations taken in 2008, which cover the entire south polar terrain. They constrained Enceladus' surface temperatures to determine the region's surprisingly high output.

A possible explanation of the high heat flow observed is that Enceladus' orbital relationship to Saturn and Dione changes with time, allowing periods of more intensive tidal heating, separated by more quiescent periods. This means Cassini might be lucky enough to be seeing Enceladus when it's unusually active.

The new, higher heat flow determination makes it even more likely that liquid water exists below Enceladus' surface, Howett noted.

Recently, scientists studying ice particles ejected from the plumes discovered that some of the particles are salt-rich, and are probably frozen droplets from a saltwater ocean in contact with Enceladus' mineral-rich rocky core. The presence of a subsurface ocean, or perhaps a south polar sea between the moon's outer ice shell and its rocky interior would increase the efficiency of the tidal heating by allowing greater tidal distortions of the ice shell.

"The possibility of liquid water, a tidal energy source and the observation of organic (carbon-rich) chemicals in the plume of Enceladus make the satellite a site of strong astrobiological interest," Howett said.

Explore further: Rosetta's comet: In the shadow of the coma

Related Stories

Cassini Measures Tug of Enceladus

Apr 26, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- NASA's Cassini spacecraft will be gliding low over Saturn's moon Enceladus for a gravity experiment designed to probe the moon's interior composition.

Cassini finishes sleigh ride by icy moons

Dec 22, 2010

On the heels of a successful close flyby of Saturn's moon Enceladus, NASA's Cassini spacecraft is returning images of Enceladus and the nearby moon Dione.

Moon Illusion tricks the eye

Jan 19, 2011

We’ve all experienced the Moon Illusion, where our own full Moon looks bigger when seen on the Earth’s horizon. But how about this illusion where you can’t really tell which of these two moons ...

Recommended for you

Rosetta's comet: In the shadow of the coma

2 hours ago

This NAVCAM mosaic comprises four individual images taken on 20 November from a distance of 30.8 km from the centre of Comet 67P/C-G. The image resolution is 2.6 m/pixel, so each original 1024 x 1024 pixel ...

DNA survives critical entry into Earth's atmosphere

23 hours ago

The genetic material DNA can survive a flight through space and re-entry into the earth's atmosphere—and still pass on genetic information. A team of scientists from UZH obtained these astonishing results ...

Team develops cognitive test battery for spaceflight

23 hours ago

Space is one of the most demanding and unforgiving environments. Human exploration of space requires astronauts to maintain consistently high levels of cognitive performance to ensure mission safety and success, and prevent ...

User comments : 38

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2011
Yes, of course, outer planets and their Moons (Enceladus) are powerhouses because they are composed of elements from the outer layers of the supernova that gave birth to the solar system [1,2].

Material there consists mostly of light elements (H, He, C, N, etc). Heavy elements there are enriched in Uranium (U) and other (Xe, Th, U, Pu, etc) r-products from rapid neutron capture [3].

This is all explained in a new paper [4].

1. "Strange xenon, extinct superheavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle", Science 195, 208-209 (1977).

2. "Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis", Nature 277, 615-620 (1979).

3. "Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion", Meteoritics & Planetary Science 33, A97, 5011 (1998).

lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf

4. "Neutron Repulsion," The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011) 19 pages

arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
astro_optics
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2011
The soil is probably radioactive...that could explain it!
Thex1138
3 / 5 (1) Mar 09, 2011
The Enceladus plumes are the source of Saturn's icy rings...
soulman
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2011
The soil is probably radioactive...that could explain it!

Enceladus doesn't have soil. Also, any residual radioactivity would be insufficient to produce this kind of heat output.
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (17) Mar 09, 2011
Were it not for the fact that we only teach a gravitational framework in our physics PhD programs today, electrical machining on Enceladus would surely be an active field of investigation which our theorists would eagerly request funding for. But, as the situation currently stands, our PhD programs currently go to great lengths to ensure that physics PhD's dare not question the notion that that electricity can actually do things of importance in space. That we continue to call it a quest for truth -- as opposed to a quest to validate the preferred gravitational framework -- is perplexing. That we continue to imagine that we can draw a box around electricity in space is unfounded. That students are still taught that charge separation in space is rare is a real travesty. These tiger stripes, no doubt, could be simulated on a terrella, given the funding and a plasma physics laboratory. It's an electrical plasma morphology.
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (17) Mar 09, 2011
There is no philosophical justification for pursuing just one scientific framework. The scientific method never suggests it. The act of conjecturing, and then trying to disprove the consequent, stops working as a philosophical approach when you only permit one single conjecture. We can create an additional cosmology, and base a new framework upon it, if we decide to do it. And we can solve problems within that second framework as well. And, with two results to observe, we can make comparisons on how well the frameworks compared against one another. But we have to want to.

It's one thing to imagine that the current system of theories is great. To imagine that it cannot be superseded is a whole different matter.

What effort have people truly put into the creation of competing frameworks? When you consider that it's not permissible to even question many assumptions in physics today, then we've really narrowed the spectrum of theories that we can generate.
soulman
3.9 / 5 (14) Mar 09, 2011
There is no philosophical justification for pursuing just one scientific framework

Of course, who said otherwise?

The scientific method never suggests it

Yyyyeah...

The act of conjecturing, and then trying to disprove the consequent, stops working as a philosophical approach when you only permit one single conjecture

Aha...

We can create an additional cosmology, and base a new framework upon it, if we decide to do it

Sure...

And we can solve problems within that second framework as well.

I'm sold.

And, with two results to observe, we can make comparisons on how well the frameworks compared against one another

Where do I sign up!

It's one thing to imagine that the current system of theories is great. To imagine that it cannot be superseded is a whole different matter.

Sure is - let me sign up already!!

more...
soulman
3.9 / 5 (17) Mar 09, 2011
What effort have people truly put into the creation of competing frameworks?

Um, quite a lot actually.

When you consider that it's not permissible to even question many assumptions in physics today...

Really, why not? Isn't that what science does?

...then we've really narrowed the spectrum of theories that we can generate.

Humph! All that build up just to get to a deductive fallacy? I feel cheated!
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 09, 2011
@soulman

First there was Kristian Birkeland. Then, there was Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven. And then, after him, Anthony Peratt, Wal Thornhill, Halton Arp, and more recently, Gerrit Verschuur (not to mention many, many others).

Between all of these investigators and the numerous publications in IEEE, there's easily enough published by now to formulate a new electrical framework which can fully explain our most modern observations. And yet, the public instead gets a gravitational framework where 95% of the matter is missing.

Perhaps there was an era where we could afford to imagine a universe with 95% invisible matter, but this current economy needs a framework which can facilitate actual problem-solving. And that means that it must actually be predictive of our observations (where a prediction is something that happens before the observation or experiment, btw).

You and others choose to be oblivious to the creation of this second framework.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 09, 2011
This effort that you mention which people have put into competing frameworks is not the effort that I'm talking about. Your effort is the process of deduction, from the original conjecture that gravity is the dominant force. Where is the similar effort going into an electrical conjecture, that places the electric force at the top? It seems like a dramatic oversight.

But, my original point is that you've convinced yourself that the ad hoc fine-tuning that results from the gravitational deduction IS an effort to investigate competing frameworks. That is fine-tuning. That is NOT creating a new scientific framework.

There are many publications where you can "sign up" to learn the electrical framework. You could start with learning the behavior of laboratory plasmas. You could inform yourself of the most modern radio telescope observations that we have of interstellar space, where Verschuur has observed the 35 km/s critical ionization velocity to be widespread.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2011
You could read Alfven's Cosmic Plasma or Anthony Peratt's textbook on astrophysical plasmas. You might learn Wal Thornhill's electric gravity model or the Electric Sun hypothesis which Don Scott currently works on. You could learn the action of Marklund Convection, and the behavior of Birkeland Current transmission lines. I also strongly recommend studying double layers, as that is how charge is separated in space. It is all based on laboratory plasma physics, btw.

Actually, until you put some effort into learning these things, you will be incapable of identifying them in space. And this is the point really: So long as you convince yourself (and others) that there is nothing worth looking into, you are really just blinding yourself to the alternative. At the end of this process, you should not be stunned to find out that you believe in that which you permitted yourself to read about.

That is NOT science. It's a winnowing of the set of inferences through constriction of reading.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (13) Mar 09, 2011
Just to be clear: We have two very obvious forces acting around us at all times -- There is gravity and electricity. Now, the electric force is 10^36 stronger than the gravitational. And, we can see from the plasma laboratory, how the electric morphology can extend the electric force via Birkeland Currents to infinite distances. So, right there, you have sufficient justification to investigate an electrical framework.

Now, add in the problems with the plasma models which Hannes Alfven has gone to great lengths to attempt to correct. Plasma's VI curve never touches the V-axis. Thus, there exists an E-field at all points. Look it up. Plasmas NEVER behave as superconductors, and there is some -- albeit small, oftentimes -- E-field at all points.

Furthermore, the notion of frozen-in magnetic field lines may work for some special cases of plasmas, but Alfven called the approach "pseudo-pedegaogical": It's something which appears to work, but actually causes great confusion.

HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 09, 2011
If astrophysicists would do away with the inapplicable notion that plasma is a superconductor and acknowledge that electric fields can exist within plasmas, perhaps they would then also realize that (as a corollary) magnetic fields cannot be frozen in to plasmas but must be dynamically generated by electric currents therein.

By proposing that cosmic plasmas are basically electrically sterilized, you've just thrown away an entire laboratory science -- plasma physics -- which we could use to formulate this new framework. Why would we do this?!

It's done to serve the gravitational framework. And that's why this is no longer a search for truth. This has become a quest to create proofs for the gravitational framework.

I would go a step further and propose that if you go far enough into the future, our descendants will ridicule us for all of this silly behavior, and think of us as naive ... possibly even arrogant.
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2011
The soil is probably radioactive...that could explain it !


The entire batch of elements that formed giant gaseous planet and their Moons was enriched in radioactive actinide elements (Th, U, Pu: Elements # 90, 92, 92) that generate heat by radioactive decay.

All elements heavier than Bi (element #83) were made the r-process - rapid neutron capture.

Historically the association of excess r-products with primordial light elements in the early Solar System was seen in:

a.) Carbon-rich inclusions of the Allende meteorite [R. S. Lewis, B. Srinivasan, E. Anders, Science190, 1251 (1975)];

b.) Carbon-rich inclusions of diverse types of meteorites [O. K. Manuel, Icarus 41, 312-315 (1980)]; and

c.) Jupiter [O. K. Manuel, Meteoritics & Planetary Science 33, A97, 5011 (1998)], as had been predicted 15 years earlier [O. K. Manuel and Golden Hwaung, Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)]

Jonseer
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2011
One day they'll find out that the reason for the heating is in recent geological history, Enchiladas was struck by a relatively large meteorite that was made up of a significant amount of uranium 238

To some this sounds silly, but the original radioactive element that went into creating Earth were likely in the form of meteorites.

The fact that most probably came in small amounts of much larger bodies, does NOT mean that's the only way they were delivered to the growing planets.

Once in a great while (over billions of years) a large meteor could end up with a lot of uranium 238.

The half-life of 238 is about 4.3 billion years - yes about 80% the age of the solar system.

So if a meteor laden with several tons of uranium 238 hit Enceladus say 3 billion years ago, more than half would be left still melting the interior of the moon. Additionally the decay product of U238 is Plutonium itself radioactive.

Why not try and figure how much of this stuff would be required
soulman
4.2 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2011
Between all of these investigators and the numerous publications in IEEE, there's easily enough published by now to formulate a new electrical framework which can fully explain our most modern observations.

Either none of their work withstands objective scrutiny and/or some of their (valid) research has been cherry-picked and twisted by electric universe cranks to support their stupid dogma.

And yet, the public instead gets a gravitational framework where 95% of the matter is missing.

We get what the universe gives us, not cranks.

You and others choose to be oblivious to the creation of this second framework.

There is only one framework - the scientific method, which encompasses both observation, theoretical formulation, prediction and verification.

more...
soulman
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2011
This effort that you mention which people have put into competing frameworks is not the effort that I'm talking about. Your effort is the process of deduction, from the original conjecture that gravity is the dominant force.

'My' framework is the scientific framework. See above.

Where is the similar effort going into an electrical conjecture, that places the electric force at the top?

Within the scientific framework, your EU postulate has no currency, just like the aether postulate has been shown to be incorrect, or neutron repulsion for that matter.

It seems like a dramatic oversight.

Nope, it's just the scientific method doing its job.

more...
soulman
3.9 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2011
But, my original point is that you've convinced yourself that the ad hoc fine-tuning that results from the gravitational deduction IS an effort to investigate competing frameworks. That is fine-tuning. That is NOT creating a new scientific framework.

Why do you keep crapping on about new frameworks? A different framework to the scientific framework would be one where someone asserts something is true without any evidence and claims it to be reality. We've had this framework for much of our history and I dread the day if we ever go back to it.

You could start with learning the behavior of laboratory plasmas. You could inform yourself of the most modern radio telescope observations that we have of interstellar space

Thanks, but my scientific knowledge is pretty well rounded. I don't do crankology.

more...
soulman
4.2 / 5 (15) Mar 09, 2011
So long as you convince yourself (and others) that there is nothing worth looking into, you are really just blinding yourself to the alternative.

I don't need to convince myself of anything, as I don't really care what makes the universe tick. I welcome all legitimate insights and research results. Results, BTW, that have many times disproved the electric universe nonsense, so why would I waste my time on it?

you should not be stunned to find out that you believe in that which you permitted yourself to read about.

Obviously, since I don't do any direct research myself. The difference between you and me though, is that I'm widely read, am a critical thinker and apply logic filters to all my scientific consumption, whereas you are not a critical thinker, ignore logic and for some reason have become irrationally invested in a fringe notion. I've never understood that kind of behavior.

more...
soulman
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2011
That is NOT science. It's a winnowing of the set of inferences through constriction of reading.

It is precisely science - the winnowing of a set of ideas which do not reflect observations.

Just to be clear - blah, blah, Alfven, blah, Birkeland Currents, blah, frozen-in magnetic field lines, blah...

By that, I see you mean let's muddy the waters.

I would go a step further and propose that if you go far enough into the future, our descendants will ridicule us for all of this silly behavior, and think of us as naive ... possibly even arrogant.

Guess what? You need not wait for the future, we're already ridiculing you and your delusional cosmology.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 10, 2011
Re: "The difference between you and me though, is that I'm widely read, am a critical thinker and apply logic filters to all my scientific consumption, whereas you are not a critical thinker, ignore logic and for some reason have become irrationally invested in a fringe notion. I've never understood that kind of behavior."

I'm completely familiar with all of the arguments which you've used to convince yourself to not read any further -- Leroy Ellenberger, Tim Thompson, APODNereid, Tom Bridgman, etc. I've interacted with all of these people firsthand, and most of them don't even understand the difference between electrostatics and electrodynamics. They still claim that charge would accumulate on the Sun, apparently not realizing that charge does not accumulate in electrodynamics.

That you've been convinced by them is really shameful. And that you are biased against competing cosmologies is plainly evident, as it's extremely easy to create a universe with just 5% observable matter.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (12) Mar 10, 2011
The [natural] philosopher should be a man willing to listen to every suggestion, but determined to judge for himself. He should not be biased by appearances; have no favourite hypothesis; be of no school; and in doctrine have no master. He should not be a respecter of persons, but of things. Truth should be his primary object. If to these qualities be added industry, he may indeed hope to walk within the veil of the temple of nature. -- Michael Faraday
J-n
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2011
http(colon bslash bslash)www(dot)tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html

How do you respond to the arguments put forward here about your Electronic model?
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2011
Do a search on "tim thompson rebuttal".

Keep in mind that this debate has been going on for half a century now. And it started with Nobel laureate, Hannes Alfven -- the man who basically invented the MHD plasma models which are used to this day. By the end of his career, Alfven realized serious mistakes he made early in his career with those MHD models -- mistakes which are still encoded into the plasma models to this day.

When I approached this subject, I did not just adopt the views of a skeptic. I learned both sides of the debate, in great depth, by devouring all of the reading materials I could on the subject. I then went online and collected the best arguments against the EU, which I then humbly submitted to the theorists themselves. Over time, I came to see that they had responded to all of the objections.

Wal Thornhill has done nothing more despicable than adapted the functionality of a Crook's tube glow discharge to the spherical geometry of the sun. It works.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 10, 2011
The bulk of the sun's power source is an electron *drift*, no different than the drift which occurs down a copper wire. But, in plasma physics, charged carriers of opposite charges contribute to the electrodynamics by moving in opposite directions. The critics have been struggling with the concept of an electron drift for decades now, and yet, this is precisely how electricity flows down a wire.

There should be absolutely nothing controversial about proposing that the magnetic fields we observe permeating space's largest scales is an electrical current. We've known that electricity and magnetism were linked since the days of Maxwell, Faraday and Kelvin.

And, for the record, you guys might want to learn what a critical ionization velocity is, because this is how charge separation can occur in space. When a plasma beam is launched into a neutral cloud of gas, the gas becomes ionized and emits very specific redshifts at 50 km/s, 35 km/s, 13 km/s and 6 km/s.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 10, 2011
These CIV's -- especially the 35 km/s signal -- are widespread in interstellar space. Look at the work of Gerrit Verschuur, one of the world's most famous radio astronomers. In fact, this CIV-based ionization is the ONLY way to explain the "anomalous high-velocity clouds" (the anomaly relates specifically to the interpretation of the redshift as a velocity).

You guys have not dug very deep at all into this debate. And so it is for most people. It's impossible to convince people to read. People tend to read things which confirm their pre-existing beliefs.

Be careful what you are satisfied with. If we all permit ourselves to become satisfied with a universe that is only 5% baryonic, then we all may go to our graves with that same belief. Do not cast those of us who have a problem with the 95% invisible, hypothetical universe as "cranks." We should be encouraging people to think out of the box, when trying to solve the most challenging problems man has ever attempted.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2011
One more thing ... There is a public debate between David Talbott and APODNereid on the Thunderbolts Forum coming up in the next few weeks. I HIGHLY recommend that you all follow along. It will be very educational. Along the way, you're going to learn about all of the erroneous arguments that people have been misinforming one another on for decades now. What I ask is that, when it's done, you think carefully about how easily you fell for these arguments, and how fair your approach to this subject has truly been.
yyz
5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2011
You claim Halton Arp and Gerritt Verschuur believe in and endorse EU-PC theory. You've also stated that you have deeply researched both sides of the (presumed) debate.

Do you know of any papers by either where they explicitly endorse plasma cosmology or 'electric universe' theory by name? Preferably in a relevant peer reviewed journal (and no, I don't consider the Journal of Cosmology a peer-reviewed journal).

That should be simple enough, no?

omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2011
The UC-Berkeley has released an excellent video explanation on Hide the Decline" in global temperatures:

anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/hide-the-decline-explained/

As noted in my comment there, the behavior of climatologists in hiding the decline in global temperatures differs very little from the behavior of nuclear and particle physicists in hiding the solar neutrino puzzle.

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

The problem is NOT the pawns caught hiding and manipulating temperature data.

The root of the problem is in Washington, DC where the US National Academy of Sciences reviews budgets of research agencies for Congress and allocates funds to organizations that report evidence for "CO2-induced global warming" and "oscillating solar neutrinos" in exchange for government funds, as former President Eisenhower warned might happen on day in his 1961 farewell address:

www.youtube.com/w...ld5PR4ts

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2011
Re: "You claim Halton Arp and Gerritt Verschuur believe in and endorse EU-PC theory."

I have to nitpick on this: Neither "supports" the EU. If they did, I would know about it by now.

However, if you just looked into Verschuur's analysis of the WMAP data, I think you will come to see that his research nevertheless supports the EU.

Also, if you read Verschuur's excellent book -- The Invisible Universe -- you'll come away with a very large respect for outsiders in science. He is very respectful of history of science. After all, when radio waves were first observed coming from space, conventional scientists were convinced that it was a hoax (a radio wave is of course generated by electrons in motion -- aka electricity).

Verschuur's WMAP paper established dozens of correlations between WMAP hotspots and portions of the interstellar HI hydrogen filaments which he studied (!).

So, although he has not taken a "stand," per se, he appears to be the radio version of Halton Arp.
soulman
3.8 / 5 (12) Mar 10, 2011
That you've been convinced by them is really shameful

Oh the irony!

And that you are biased against competing cosmologies is plainly evident, as it's extremely easy to create a universe with just 5% observable matter.

I'm biased against DEMOSTRABLY false cosmologies. The evidence for dark matter is overwhelming, as has been thrashed out recently in anther thread. Dark energy evidence is also compelling, so the more you keep banging on about your 5% and EU-PC nonsense, the more ridiculous you look.

That's about it from me. You're not worth my time nor the oxygen to feed your delusions.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2011
Correction: "a radio wave is of course generated by electrons in motion -- aka electricity"

Should read: "synchrotron radiation -- which is what we mostly view with radio telescopes -- is generated by electricity."
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2011
Re: "The evidence for dark matter is overwhelming"

You're redefining the word "overwhelming." The word "overwhelming" should be applied to the link between electric currents and magnetic fields ... Not to something which remains invisible and hypothetical. People have been trying to directly observe dark matter for 20 years now. One would imagine that if it was going to happen, that we'd have already done it. How much longer should we keep on looking? 100 years?

Are you aware that gravitational lensing is oftentimes impossible without a little dark matter sprinkled into the equation? This act of sprinkling some dark matter in has become widespread in cosmology. Some, by now, call it "mathematical glue."

These galactic rotation curves that inspired the basis for dark matter can be reproduced with two twisting Birkeland Currents, without the need for any invisible, hypothetical matter. This has been validated both by experiment and simulation.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2011
I honestly find people who object to alternative cosmologies somewhat silly. I mean, if the conventional theorists and scientists refuse to fully investigate a lead, then they really just take a risk that some other organization will do so eventually in their place.

By not hedging their bets, with multiple conjectures meant to result in multiple frameworks, they basically place a gamble, using conventional science's reputation as their currency.

The fact that there is so much consensus on the Big Bang today means very little really. It's what one would reasonably expect if we were to train our scientists in just one world view. The public is asked to accept the implication that consensus means strength of argument. But, the implication is that this consensus was arrived at, after a thorough review of all of the options. When I talk to people online -- like you guys -- it's plainly evident that nobody has performed a thorough investigation.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2011
After all, I don't know if you guys realize this, but plasma beams naturally emit microwaves. Many famous cosmologists appear to not realize this simple observational fact, because they found the need to resort to a metaphysical inference to explain the cosmic microwave background.

Yes, the microwaves emitted by plasmas are spiky synchrotron. But, thermalizing this synchrotron into a smooth black body bell curve requires no fairy dust or "new physics." We don't have to propose that the universe exploded, or anything dramatic like that. It can be for a more mundane plasma physics reason.

So, when Verschuur observes correlations between WMAP hotspots and the interstellar filaments, this is a very important observation. It suggests that the CMB is in fact a local interstellar radio fog, emitted as a consequence of cosmic Birkeland Currents.

Of course, the CMB was the reason why plasma cosmology was dropped to begin with ... And that is the ultimate irony.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2011
Hello YEP
You could read Alfven's Cosmic Plasm
Read it. After I pointed out that he was speculating most if not all of the Plasma Cranking Sites removed the links to it because they were claiming he did actual experiments. Which was either a lie or sign of serious reading problems.

You might learn Wal Thornhill's electric gravity model or the Electric Sun hypothesis
Or you might do something useful as those ideas don't produce the power claimed.

which Don Scott currently works on.
And still can't get the numbers to match the Suns real output. By a full order of magnitude.

Birkeland Current transmission lines.
For which there is no evidence.

I also strongly recommend studying double layers, as that is how charge is separated in space
Pure speculation without any actual evidence.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2011
Actually, until you put some effort into learning these things, you will be incapable of identifying them in space.
And when you do put in the effort you find out they don't have anything they have identified. CLAIMED yes but actually proved no.

So long as you convince yourself (and others) that there is nothing worth looking into,
Well they could look into it like I did. They will see smoke and mirrors.

At the end of this process, you should not be stunned to find out that you believe in that which you permitted yourself to read about.
And you should be even less surprised if you see a bunch of unsupported claims and a LOT of handwaving. Because that is what is on those sites.

It's a winnowing of the set of inferences through constriction of reading.
I read those sites. They are Crank Sites.

And you aren't Alfven. He died. Never having proved his speculation. Neither have you.

Ethelred
MorituriMax
not rated yet Mar 13, 2011
Damn those martian tourists and their SUVs. Interplanetary Global Warming everywhere and nowhere a civilized green civilization.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.