Curious cosmic choreography: Small galaxies locked in a strange dance around large galaxies

Jan 02, 2013
Curious cosmic choreography: Small galaxies locked in a strange dance around large galaxies
The top left hand image is a truecolour photograph (taken with the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope) of the Andromeda galaxy, the closest giant galaxy to our own, and in many ways our Milky Way’s twin sister. Also visible in this photograph are two of its satellites (these are much smaller galaxies, containing up to about a billion stars). Our study has measured the distances and velocities of 27 other such dwarf galaxies : their three-dimensional positions are shown with red spheres in the other panels. The top right hand panel depicts how these appear to us as viewed from Earth, while the bottom left panel shows the positions of the satellites as they would be seen from the side. This immense grouping is more than a million light years across and rotates in the sense shown by the arrows.

(Phys.org)—A newly discovered form of circle dancing is perplexing astronomers; not due to its complex choreography, but because it's unclear why the dancers – dwarf galaxies – are dancing in a ring around the much larger Andromeda Galaxy.

The international group of astronomers who discovered the curious cosmic choreography, including Professor Geraint Lewis from the University of Sydney's School of Physics, and Australian astronomers Anthony Conn, a PhD student at Macquarie University, and Dr Dougal Mackey from the Australian National University, are surprised at the circle around Andromeda that the small orbiting galaxies have formed.

The finding, published in Nature on January 2, 2013, presents a challenge to our ideas of how all galaxies form and evolve.

The surprising research result reveals that around half of Andromeda's 30-odd known dwarf galaxy satellites are orbiting the larger – the closest giant cosmic neighbour to our own galaxy, the Milky Way.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Credit: University of Sydney

"Astronomers have been observing Andromeda since Persian astronomers first noted it over a thousand years ago, but it is only in the past decade that we have truly studied it in exquisite detail with the Pan-Andromeda Archaeological Survey," said Professor Geraint Lewis, one of the lead authors on the Nature paper.

"The Pan-Andromeda – cutely called PAndAS – is a large project that ran between 2008 and 2011, using the Canada-France- situated on the Mauna Kea volcano on the Big Island of Hawaii. Now that we're examining the data it collected, it is providing our first panoramic view of our closest large companion in the cosmos," explained Professor Lewis.

"When we looked at the dwarf galaxies surrounding Andromeda, we expected to find them buzzing around randomly, like angry bees around a hive.

"Instead, we've found that half of Andromeda's satellites are orbiting together in an immense plane, which is more than a million light years in diameter but only 30 000 light years thick. These dwarf galaxies have formed a ring around Andromeda."

"This was completely unexpected – the chance of this happening randomly is next to nothing. It really is just weird," said Professor Lewis.

Large galaxies, like Andromeda and our own Milky Way, have long been known to be orbited by an entourage of smaller galaxies. These small galaxies, which are individually anywhere from ten to at least hundreds of thousands of times fainter than their bright hosts, were thought to trace a path around the big galaxy that was independent of every other dwarf galaxy.

For several decades, astronomers have used computer models to predict how dwarf galaxies should orbit large galaxies, and every time they found that dwarfs should be scattered randomly over the sky. Never, in these synthetic universes, did they see dwarfs arranged in a plane like that observed around Andromeda.

"Now that we've found that the majority of these dwarf galaxies orbit in a disc around the giant galaxy Andromeda, it looks like there must be something about how these galaxies formed or subsequently evolved that has led them to trace out this peculiar coherent structure," said Professor Lewis.

"Dwarf galaxies are the most numerous galaxy type in the universe, so understanding why and how they form this disc around the giant galaxy is expected to shed new light on the formation of of all masses."

PhD student, Anthony Conn, whose research proved key to this study said, "It is very exciting for my work to reveal such a strange structure. It has left us scratching our heads as to what it means."

There have been similar claims of an extensive plane of about our own Milky Way Galaxy, with some claiming that the existence of such strange structures points to a failing in our understanding of the fundamental nature of the Universe.

"We don't yet know where this is pointing us, but it surely is very exciting," said Dr Rodrigo Ibata, from the Observatoire astronomique de Strasbourg, in France, and lead author on the report.

Explore further: Spectacular supernova's mysteries revealed

Related Stories

Origins of the Milky Way

Mar 19, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- According to current astronomical models, the Milky Way and other large galaxies formed over billions of years in a process that involved interactions between smaller galaxies, and in particular ...

Four unusual views of the Andromeda Galaxy

Jul 21, 2011

The Andromeda Galaxy is revealed in unprecedented detail in four archive observations from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope. They show stars and structure in the galaxy’s disc, the halo of stars that ...

Recommended for you

Spectacular supernova's mysteries revealed

19 hours ago

(Phys.org) —New research by a team of UK and European-based astronomers is helping to solve the mystery of what caused a spectacular supernova in a galaxy 11 million light years away, seen earlier this ...

Supernova seen in two lights

20 hours ago

(Phys.org) —The destructive results of a mighty supernova explosion reveal themselves in a delicate blend of infrared and X-ray light, as seen in this image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope and Chandra ...

Toothpaste fluorine formed in stars

Aug 21, 2014

The fluorine that is found in products such as toothpaste was likely formed billions of years ago in now dead stars of the same type as our sun. This has been shown by astronomers at Lund University in Sweden, ...

Swirling electrons in the whirlpool galaxy

Aug 20, 2014

The whirlpool galaxy Messier 51 (M51) is seen from a distance of approximately 30 million light years. This galaxy appears almost face-on and displays a beautiful system of spiral arms.

User comments : 52

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 02, 2013
Cool. I love a good mystery.
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2013
Something however that kevinrtrs, cant seem to handle...

Scientific mysteries are great as is the recognition, that despite our advances in computing power, we are still decades behind meaningful simulations or understanding of not just the description as offered in mathematics and astrophysics but the why which is likely embedded somewhere within the patterns of mathematics...

Thanks
Q-Star
3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2013
Cool. I love a good mystery.


Okay, I didn't mean to be so controversial, I would certainly take it back if I could, but all I can do is apologize for any offense. Sorry.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2013
[cynical]Every good mystery will become a bad mystery after having been explained by DM.[/cynical]
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2013
[cynical]Every good mystery will become a bad mystery after having been explained by DM.[/cynical]


DM would be the first place I'd look for an explanation,,, but it would only be pondering on my part. Unlike some, I understand my limitations on "declaring" what the answer must be.

But do I feel pretty sure that answering this mystery, will answer more than just one question, and maybe offer up some new and improved questions.
Caliban
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2013
My first thought is that perhaps this is some relict of a collision between a proto-Andromeda and another galaxy of roughly equal mass/velocity a very long time ago.

Then, DM is only needed to explain the galactic rotational velocity. No need to invoke additional properties or aspects of the supposed DM.

Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 02, 2013
As the Gieco commercial would say, "So easy a caveman could do it!"

Picture a star with planets orbiting it, yes.

Scale it up 100,000 times, replace the star with a galaxy, and replace the planets with dwarf galaxies. viola.

Most orbital systems should eventually decay to disks with a single massive entity in the center, if they stick around long enough.

The fact people still can't except this continues to amaze me, as it becomes obvious that non-coplanar orbits eventually collide and neutralize one another's momenta, falling inward, or else moving towards the planes.

Fractal universe.

Galaxy acts as a star. Dwarf galaxies act as planets (or asteroids).

Not that hard of a concept.

Contrary to the article, this is actually predicted by Newtonian dynamics and Kepler's laws for orbiting bodies.

Just because these fools are so far behind the rest of us, doesn't make their false interpretations correct.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2013
Lurker,
I'm curious how globular clusters relate to your presumption.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2013
Just because these fools are so far behind the rest of us, doesn't make their false interpretations correct.


Maybe you write some original papers for their erudition.
TimESimmons
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2013
cantdrive
explanation for globular clusters:-
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
These dwarf galaxies are probably formed the same way
Ober
1 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2013
I'm no expert (you can give me a 5 rating for that comment), but if Andromeda and its satellites formed together would they not be on the same orbital inclination? Now assume that Andromeda underwent a massive collision, changing it's inclincation and throwing out remnants into random orbits. This would explain the observed to some extent. Of course I'm ignoring WHY so many stayed on their original inclination. So I could just throw in DM as the explanation.
I'd like to think of this as analogous to Uranus being tipped on its axis.

But again, I haven't done any simulations, I haven't written any papers on the subject, so accept this as mere conjecture, and food for thought.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 02, 2013
Scale it up 100,000 times, replace the star with a galaxy, and replace the planets with dwarf galaxies. viola. Most orbital systems should eventually decay to disks with a single massive entity in the center, if they stick around long enough.
So are you saying that all planets must eventually turn into asteroid belts? This must go against absolutely all of your formal training in celestial mechanics.
yyz
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2013
"....perhaps this is some relict of a collision between a proto-Andromeda and another galaxy..."

And a likely candidate is the third most massive galaxy in the Local Group, M33. Besides having overlapping outer halos and swapped globular clusters, a bridge of neutral hydrogen has been discovered between the two galaxies. One recent paper envisions a close encounter between Andromeda and M33 between 4-8 Gyr ago: http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1161

I'm interested in seeing what, if anything, this new paper has to say about any involvement this encounter may have had with the distribution of dwarf galaxies around M31.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2013
Intituitively it is DM that could be behind this. When they simulate galaxy collisions they don't figure in unknown DM masses such as filaments, which the Local Group should be tread up around unless I'm mistaken.

@Lurker: "The fact people still can't except this". I think you mean accept as anyone very well can make exceptions against some pattern search ideas that is a product from anyone not familiar with basic physics like the virial theorem.

And no, what is to accept here? Where would the massive net angular momentum come from as dwarfs are randomly loosely aggregating around a galaxy? There is no such theory out there, for natural reasons.
Argiod
1 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2013
In an infinite universe our knowledge of it will always be infinitesimal. And who among us would take away all the 'mysteries', and leave us with a cosmic scale boredom?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2013
it's unclear why the dancers – dwarf galaxies – are dancing in a ring around the much larger Andromeda Galaxy
It's just another example of prominent dark matter ring feature, which not only drags the tiny particles of interstellar gas, but even much heavier objects apparently. The dwarf galaxies are itself rich of dark matter (neutrinos evaporated from it), so they tend to interact strongly with dark matter clouds around galaxies. At the case of smaller bodies the same drag is known as so-called fly-by anomaly (it manifest itself at the equatorial plane of Earth only). Some theories of dark matter predict these rings too. The toroidal cloud of neutrinos around Sun manifest itself with radioactive decay anomalies, as it rotates with synchrony with core of Sun, not its surface.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2013
"....perhaps this is some relict of a collision between a proto-Andromeda and another galaxy..."

And a likely candidate is the third most massive galaxy in the Local Group, M33. Besides having overlapping outer halos and swapped globular clusters, a bridge of neutral hydrogen has been discovered between the two galaxies. One recent paper envisions a close encounter between Andromeda and M33 between 4-8 Gyr ago: http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1161

M31 is the parent galaxy, the interaction between M31 and M33 is that M33 was ejected out of M31 (birthed) along the plasma filament you point out. This follows along Arp's theory that quasars are proto-galaxies that evolve into mature spiral galaxies. The quasars, globular clusters, and dwarf galaxies are just young immature galaxies. The "dance" claimed in this article is because Andromeda's offspring are still connected to the parent's "umbilical cord". BTW, the Milky Way is probably also an "offspring" of the parent galaxy.
yyz
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2013
"... the Milky Way is probably also an "offspring" of the parent galaxy."

If the MWG was ejected from Andromeda, why are we heading for a collision?

http://en.wikiped...ollision
ValeriaT
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2013
Arp's theory that quasars are proto-galaxies that evolve into mature spiral galaxies
This idea was proposed with quasars founder Maarten Schmidt in 1963 already. The Schmidt law for density/luminosity correlation in star-forming galaxies is named after him. Please avoid your usual plasma universe propaganda here, as the above effect has nothing to do with charged particles or "plasma threads".
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2013
Maybe it has something to do with the "Great Attractor", or then again maybe it has something to do with limitations of determining the relative motion of such objects.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2013
This idea was proposed with quasars founder Maarten Schmidt in 1963 already. The Schmidt law for density/luminosity correlation in star-forming galaxies is named after him. Please avoid your usual plasma universe propaganda here, as the above effect has nothing to do with charged particles or "plasma threads".

That's funny, coming from the wave machine. Sorry I didn't properly give credit to the correct man, this doesn't seem to be an issue when people claim Einstein originated GR when the philosopher Boskovic came up with it 200 years before him.

"...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Boskovic, the great philospher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Boskovic dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum..." Nikola Tesla
ValeriaT
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2013
Boskovic was rather founder of the field concept, rather than space-time continuum. He dealt only with forces, i.e. with mechanical action which is just the mechanism, which has been essentially replaced with relativity. He never mentioned some time dilatations effects or similar stuff in his treatises.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2013
Although I am completely ignorant of Boskovic's work and writings, I hold Tesla in very high regard and take what he says at face value. You maybe you're right, but I have to trust Tesla's comment in dealing with relativity as well as the time-space continuum.
ValeriaT
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2013
I hold Tesla in very high regard
You shouldn't believe to anybody, you shouldn't ignore no one. So I'm checking all information for myself. It's laborious approach, but it pays off. The fact, Nicola Tesla was aetherist, genius and essentially correct with his scalar waves findings doesn't mean, he never did merely political proclamations. Regarding the Boskovic, the famous Tesla's nationalism and the fact, Boskovich was Serbian like Nicola Tesla played undoubtedly its role in the above proclamation. It's nothing new for me: many other Serbians tend to overestimate the actual contribution of Boskovich into science. Every small nation seeks for its iconic persons in rather noncritical way.
RitchieGuy01
1 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2013
ahhhh. . .GhostofOtto. . .kiss kiss my love. No one else on physorg is as smart as U. It is U who knows everything and nobody else knows as much as U do. They all just pretend to know just to impress U. I know that you laugh at everyone else that posts in your physorg. YES. . .this IS your physorg and nobody has the right to post their imbecillic junk without YOUR aproval. U hve been avoiding me lately, Ghost. Have U found another man to suuck on? When are we gonna get together again at our favorite motel darling. Remember all those nites we spent together in bed making love? It was pure heaven. I have missed you so much. I see that you're going after other men and looking for some pussytard. Why are you looking for pussy, darling? U KNOW you only love to suckee on me. I thought we were suppose ta get married. Those other men don't deserve you the way I do. I'll have to leave this message everywhere I find U. U have my number. . .please call me, my sexy juicy cockman.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2013
I think these guys would do better to "scratch" something else, rather than cling to their confusion.

Perhaps if they read LaViolette's explanation of these satellite galaxies having a common origin, it might alleviate their irritating itching! Similar observations exist for the Milky Way. Just need to puzzle it out. It is not rocket science, fortunately for the astronauts.

http://starburstf...g/?p=271
julianpenrod
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2013
The fact is that gravity is nowhere near as understood as "science" shills want to suggest. The many body problem is still generally unsolved. And General Relativity is not absolutely accepted, despite insistences by too many unethical sources on treating it as unquestioned. Invoking dark matter as "the only possible solution for gravitational anomalies" is as unwarranted as any scam, since, frankly, if gravity is not wholly understood, it's not possible to speak of "anomalies". And if they don't try to invoke darm matter for the behavior of these satellite galaxies, it is as much as an admission that it can't necessarily be definitively applied to the rotational speed of stars in galaxies, either.
yyz
5 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2013
A preprint of the paper in Nature is available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0446

The paper includes a very helpful 3D representation of the satellite galaxy population surrounding the Andromeda galaxy (Fig 3).
rubberman
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2013
Looks like Lurk missed the co-rotation aspect. Planets don't orbit stars co-rotationally , hence each planet has it's own rotational period. Invoking DM may explain the motion of the dwarf galaxies...this could be tested by pinpointing where the concentrations of DM should be to explain the motion and look for evidence of a lensing effect in those regions.

Or it could be my favourite fundamental force:

http://www.youtub...lyiW-xGI

This is 53 minutes, personally i found it well worth the watch and eagerly await parts 2-5.
Caliban
not rated yet Jan 04, 2013
Looks like Lurk missed the co-rotation aspect. Planets don't orbit stars co-rotationally , hence each planet has it's own rotational period. Invoking DM may explain the motion of the dwarf galaxies...this could be tested by pinpointing where the concentrations of DM should be to explain the motion and look for evidence of a lensing effect in those regions.

Or it could be my favourite fundamental force:

http://www.youtub...lyiW-xGI

This is 53 minutes, personally i found it well worth the watch and eagerly await parts 2-5.


Interesting stuff, rubberman. Now I'm hooked, too!

Thanks for posting.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2013
Looks like Lurk missed the co-rotation aspect. Planets don't orbit stars co-rotationally , hence each planet has it's own rotational period. Invoking DM may explain the motion of the dwarf galaxies...this could be tested by pinpointing where the concentrations of DM should be to explain the motion and look for evidence of a lensing effect in those regions.

Or it could be my favourite fundamental force:

http://www.youtub...lyiW-xGI

This is 53 minutes, personally i found it well worth the watch and eagerly await parts 2-5.

I'm curious if this is the info A2G was describing.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2013
it could be my favourite fundamental force
And you were even upvoted for it with Caliban, TheGhostofOtto1923 and Q-Star (lite). Do you really believe, that the galaxy can be modeled with discharge between magnets?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2013
it could be my favourite fundamental force
And you were even upvoted for it with Caliban, TheGhostofOtto1923 and Q-Star (lite). Do you really believe, that the galaxy can be modeled with discharge between magnets?


The Fermi bubbles could be the corollary of those magnetic field generators, ultimately what I believe they are recreating is a plasma pinch caused by the electric currents flowing through the galaxy.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2013
With the "subtle" problem: there are no electrodes
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2013
With the "subtle" problem: there are no electrodes


Alfven describes the interstellar and intergalactic circuits here;

http://ntrs.nasa....3880.pdf

and here;
http://ntrs.nasa....0655.pdf

So, there is no "subtle" problem, all the necessary aspects of a circuit are present.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2013
This is just a homology not analogy, as the streamers around galaxies are formed with neutrinos or even more lightweight particles WITHOUT electromagnetic charge. The solutions of Maxwell's theory, fluids and gravitomagnetism are selfsimilar, so they could be confused easily at the phenomenological level. But they do apply to different distance/energy density scales. That is to say, the particles of plasma (ionized atom nuclei) can be present in these streamers like any other particles trapped in it (there exist a theory, in which charged particles should be dragged with neutrino flux more, than the uncharged one) - but their mass is negligible with compare to amount of dark matter, which is actually driving this flux. The fact, the fishes inside of Gulf stream follow streamers like the particles of fluid doesn't mean, they do actually form this stream.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2013
This is just a homology not analogy, as the streamers around galaxies are formed with neutrinos or even more lightweight particles WITHOUT electromagnetic charge. The solutions of Maxwell's theory, fluids and gravitomagnetism , so they could be confused easily at the phenomenological level. But they do apply to different distance/energy density scales. That is to say, the particles of plasma (ionized atom nuclei) can be present in these streamers like any other particles trapped in it (there exist a theory, in which charged particles should be dragged with neutrino flux more, than the uncharged one) - but their mass is negligible with compare to amount of dark matter, which is actually driving this flux.

Of course, what was I thinking. Rather than applying the known properties of plasma, we should always resort to the ad hoc and invented fudge factor of DM which repeatedly has been falsified in experiment after experiment. Silly me.
rubberman
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2013
Hey Val. The experiment demonstrates the fundamental relationship between EM fields and baryonic matter on atomic AND galactic scales. The tools used for the demonstration did their job and bare in mind this only part 1 of 5. I am curious to see if he nails gravity as well as i felt he did the EM/plasma relationship, that is the tougher nut to crack IMO. Judging by this first video i will wager the rest will be as thought provoking, i am hoping. It definitely provided a mechanism for relativistic jets that demonstrates an EM field structure capable of producing them....

CD85......meet A2G
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2013
CD85......meet A2G

That's what I thought. They mention in the video that no external power was needed the create the conditions of galaxy formation etc. However, what about the magnetic bowls? What mechanism or energy creates them? This is why I think they are just recreating a plasma pinch using artificial magnets. These formations they are creating are all naturally occurring plasma formations of a pinch.
I'm not suggesting this research isn't significant, from what I can see it pretty much confirms PC and EUT. Pinches naturally occur in Birkeland currents when the charge density reaches a certain threshold, by adding the artificial magnets they are reducing the absolute energy levels needed for the pinch.
Here are a couple of articles that discuss the pinch.
http://www.thunde...bula.htm
http://www.thunde...pray.htm
Good research though, the plasma pinch is vital to much that we observe in space.
A2G
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2013
CD 85 wrote "from what I can see it pretty much confirms PC and EUT."

This is exactly what I knew you would say without actually looking at the real experiments. Ejection jets are NOT birkeland currents.

IF you even understood my video you would see that the ejection jets do not come from what you would call an aurora. Matter goes to the aurora rings. That you could call birkeland currents. But the jets coming up the middle are NOT birkeland.

The EUT is totally wrong about this. Totally.

Then where here is the electricity when the can is shot off the table?

You can only see electricity in anything and then miss some of the most important aspects of an experiment.

You EU guys blindly use things as proof that actually are proof against the EUT.

I guess I have in fact done hundreds of plasma experiments even though you repeatedly accused me of being a fraud. apology?

So are you really the expert you think you are when it comes to plasma?

From one who really knows, NFW.

A2G
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2013
You cannot create the effects I created with birkeland currents and pinches. If you could then why has NO ONE done that? Do you know how many people have tried? Many many. So why has no one done this as my experiments do?

Because that is NOT the way the universe works.

My experiments only REVEAL the structure of the magnetic field. The fields exist with or WITHOUT electricity and the fields affect matter, not just plasma.

If these magnetic fields are intrinsic to all matter then you do not need electricity to explain them.

If you think that you can do what I did without my fields emitters then go for it. I have been working on this for over six years and I have seen nothing to indicate it can be done. NOTHING.

Now where are your actual experiments? If you did some it might clear some of the confusion that is in the minds of the EU crowd.

You would find your whole thing baseless.

The EU correctly points out some errors in some theories, but never offers any true solutions.
A2G
1.2 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2013
CD 85 wrote,

"The Fermi bubbles could be the corollary of those magnetic field generators, ultimately what I believe they are recreating is a plasma pinch caused by the electric currents flowing through the galaxy."

TOTALLY wrong.

The intrinsic magnetic fields will create these bubbles and stable bubbles to boot. I have seen this hundreds of times. NO pinch, no birkeland. No EUT at all.

Eventually you will need to just admit you were as wrong about the universe as you were about me.

You couldn't even tell someone who actually understood plasma and even accused me of being a fraud even though I was giving you absolute science fact repeatedly.

But I am sure you now think, with my new info you have it all figured out.

Please stop posting your confused and delusional ideas. It is not helpful for you or anyone else.

rubberman
2.1 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2013
"From one who really knows NFW."

Perfect final statement. Only a lack of understanding could lead to the kind of misinterpretation both CD and Val displayed....or they didnt watch the whole thing. Apparently you will have to record real time construction of an actual atom and galaxy to make the concept as clear as possible...mindblowing. Stars power the EM fields on a solar scale, there is an article on masers during star formation that shows the same jets (different composition, but still powered by the EMfields).

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2013
"intrinsic magnetic fields"

?!?!?!

How do you explain an intrinsic magnetic field?

http://plasmauniv...PS-I.pdf

Refer to fig. 6 and 8, the expected morphology (bowl shape) of a Bennett pinch of interacting Birkeland currents are clearly shown in those diagrams. You have provided some excellent research, I'm humbled and contrite and apologize for any disrespect shown. Ultimately I disagree that these fields are "intrinsic". You seem scared of the word electricity, but electricity and magnetism are one in the same. The word electricity relates to the movement of the particles, the word magnetism relates to the effect of that movement, yet it is one in the same as they cannot be described separately. There is no magnetism without a moving particle, once the particle is moving, it is a current. I agree that the magnetic fields are what create the observations, but it is the flow of the particles that create the magnetic fields.
A2G
1 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2013
How do you explain an intrinsic magnetic field?

A field that is an inseparable part of the matter it surrounds. They are there.

I would of thought you could look the meaning of intrinsic up in a dictionary, but I guess I was wrong.

Show me a something that has no magnetic field to it at all.

I can show you lots of things that have a magnetic field with no electricity involved. Association does not equal causation.

You have electricity so far up your ass, that you can't see anything else. I was open to the possibility of the EU concepts for a brief time years ago, but actual experiments do NOT confirm your concepts at all.

Electricity and magnetism are NOT the same. You just showed your basic ignorance of terms.

I have no time to read anymore gibberish from your EU references.

Peratt's paper does NOT support your idea at all.

You should spend more time doing actual experiments and less time trying to show the world how ignorant you are.
A2G
1.3 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2013
CD,

You really need to go back to basic physics and start over at magnetism and consider that your ideas might not be correct. This is the approach I take.

I try and disprove my own concepts myself before anyone else can. This makes my position even stronger, not weaker.

You need to think about that. You are always trying to see electricity in anything you look at. It has become your "religion"

You seem like you could be a very logical thinker, but many logical thinkers throughout time have had to admit they were wrong. You are close to that point.

I have a lot more evidence to go. So you may want to wait to see the other data I have from actual experiments before you try and correct me any further.

You are wrong. I am positive, and I speak from actual experience, not on someone else's paper or opinion.

In fact you notice I go against the mainstream theories in a big way. Now why would a guy with all this actual plasma experience NOT support the EUT?

Because it is wrong.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2013
Electricity by definition, is nothing more than the movement of particles. Those magical bowls of yours move particles, hence the magnetic field. There is no "frozen-in" or static magnetic field, that is complete pseudo-science. Inventing an "intrinsic" magnetic field is no different than inventing DM,DE, or BH's. I completely agree that the properties you are describing the sub-atomic to extra-galactic, it is the ELECTROMAGNETIC force.
Caliban
not rated yet Jan 06, 2013
@ A2G,

What I think I understood from your video is that the whole Magnetic field/Baryonic matter interaction is, in effect, self-assembling or emergent, from the sub-atomic to the galactic scale, and beyond.

Your bowl magnets/ball bearings/electrodes were simply used to model the components and demonstrate this principle.

Zat it?

rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2013
@ A2G,

What I think I understood from your video is that the whole Magnetic field/Baryonic matter interaction is, in effect, self-assembling or emergent, from the sub-atomic to the galactic scale, and beyond.

Your bowl magnets/ball bearings/electrodes were simply used to model the components and demonstrate this principle.

Zat it?



Very nice Cal, exactly my interpretation as well.

yyz
5 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2013
A2G, the galactic magnetic fields you have represented in your video look nothing like the magnetic fields *observed* in our galaxy and several other galaxies:

http://www.univer...day-sky/

http://www.schola...c_fields

Why is that? Are observations in error, or your model?
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2013
yyz, the field structure in your second link for M31 and the milky way look very much like the fields used in his model,in the "edge on" view (they briefly mention this structure in the text), so does the structure of matter (the ring). Any large scale structure from a topographical view will contain fields generated by the matter in the structure such as galactic arms and thus appear disordered on that scale. In your first link the removal of the milky way bar in figure 1 makes the field appear to be less stuctured than in figure 3. Lastly there is the coupling of fields to consider, since fields can't cross it seems that all Magnetic/plasma interactions appear to result in spherical or "bubble" formations regardless of intensity or size. (Like Cal observed, these would appear to be self assembling emergent properties). It is this interaction that is responsible for the filamentary nature of the baryonic matter structure we observe in the universe IMO.
Caliban
not rated yet Jan 07, 2013
@yyz --good question

@rubberman --good answer.