The intergalactic medium unveiled: Cosmic Web Imager directly observes 'dim matter'

Apr 29, 2014
This is a comparison of the Lyman alpha blob observed with the Cosmic Web Imager and a simulation of the cosmic web based on theoretical predictions. Credit: Christopher Martin, Robert Hurt

(Phys.org) —Caltech astronomers have taken unprecedented images of the intergalactic medium (IGM)—the diffuse gas that connects galaxies throughout the universe—with the Cosmic Web Imager, an instrument designed and built at Caltech. Until now, the structure of the IGM has mostly been a matter for theoretical speculation. However, with observations from the Cosmic Web Imager, deployed on the Hale 200-inch telescope at Palomar Observatory, astronomers are obtaining our first three-dimensional pictures of the IGM. The Cosmic Web Imager will make possible a new understanding of galactic and intergalactic dynamics, and it has already detected one possible spiral-galaxy-in-the-making that is three times the size of our Milky Way.

The Cosmic Web Imager was conceived and developed by Caltech professor of physics Christopher Martin. "I've been thinking about the intergalactic medium since I was a graduate student," says Martin. "Not only does it comprise most of the normal matter in the universe, it is also the medium in which galaxies form and grow."

Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, theoreticians have predicted that primordial gas from the Big Bang is not spread uniformly throughout space, but is instead distributed in channels that span galaxies and flow between them. This "cosmic web"—the IGM—is a network of smaller and larger filaments crisscrossing one another across the vastness of space and back through time to an era when galaxies were first forming and stars were being produced at a rapid rate.

Martin describes the diffuse gas of the IGM as "dim matter," to distinguish it from the bright matter of stars and galaxies, and the dark matter and energy that compose most of the universe. Though you might not think so on a bright sunny day or even a starlit night, fully 96 percent of the mass and energy in the universe is dark energy and dark matter (first inferred by Caltech's Fritz Zwicky in the 1930s), whose existence we know of only due to its effects on the remaining 4 percent that we can see: normal matter. Of this 4 percent that is normal matter, only one-quarter is made up of stars and galaxies, the bright objects that light our night sky. The remainder, which amounts to only about 3 percent of everything in the universe, is the IGM.

As Martin's name for the IGM suggests, "dim matter" is hard to see. Prior to the development of the Cosmic Web Imager, the IGM was observed primarily via foreground absorption of light—indicating the presence of matter—occurring between Earth and a distant object such as a quasar (the nucleus of a young galaxy).

"When you look at the gas between us and a quasar, you have only one line of sight," explains Martin. "You know that there's some gas farther away, there's some gas closer in, and there's some gas in the middle, but there's no information about how that gas is distributed across three dimensions."

The intergalactic medium unveiled: Cosmic Web Imager directly observes 'dim matter'
Observation of quasar (QSO 1549+19) taken with Caltech's Cosmic Web Imager. Blue shows hydrogen gas surrounding and inflowing to quasar. Credit: Christopher Martin, Robert Hurt

Matt Matuszewski, a former graduate student at Caltech who helped to build the Cosmic Web Imager and is now an instrument scientist at Caltech, likens this line-of-sight view to observing a complex cityscape through a few narrow slits in a wall: "All you would know is that there is some concrete, windows, metal, pavement, maybe an occasional flash of color. Only by opening the slit can you see that there are buildings and skyscrapers and roads and bridges and cars and people walking the streets. Only by taking a picture can you understand how all these components fit together, and know that you are looking at a city."

Martin and his team have now seen the first glimpse of the city of dim matter. It is not full of skyscrapers and bridges, but it is both visually and scientifically exciting.

The first cosmic filaments observed by the Cosmic Web Imager are in the vicinity of two very bright objects: a quasar labeled QSO 1549+19 and a so-called Lyman alpha blob in an emerging galaxy cluster known as SSA22. These objects were chosen by Martin for initial observations because they are bright, lighting up the surrounding IGM and boosting its detectable signal.

Observations show a narrow filament, one million light-years long, flowing into the quasar, perhaps fueling the growth of the galaxy that hosts the quasar. Meanwhile, there are three filaments surrounding the Lyman alpha blob, with a measured spin that shows that the gas from these filaments is flowing into the blob and affecting its dynamics.

Observation of Lyman alpha blob in emerging galaxy cluster SSA22 taken with Caltech's Cosmic Web Imager, showing gas filaments flowing into blob as shown by arrows. Credit: Christopher Martin, Robert Hurt

The Cosmic Web Imager is a spectrographic imager, taking pictures at many different wavelengths simultaneously. This is a powerful technique for investigating astronomical objects, as it makes it possible to not only see these objects but to learn about their composition, mass, and velocity. Under the conditions expected for filaments, hydrogen is the dominant element and emits light at a specific ultraviolet wavelength called Lyman alpha. Earth's atmosphere blocks light at ultraviolet wavelengths, so one needs to be outside Earth's atmosphere, observing from a satellite or a high-altitude balloon, to observe the Lyman alpha signal.

However, if the Lyman alpha emission lies much further away from us—that is, it comes to us from an earlier time in the universe—then it arrives at a longer wavelength (a phenomenon known as redshifting). This brings the Lyman alpha signal into the visible spectrum such that it can pass through the atmosphere and be detected by ground-based telescopes like the Cosmic Web Imager.

The objects the Cosmic Web Imager has observed date to approximately 2 billion years after the Big Bang, a time of rapid star formation in galaxies. "In the case of the Lyman alpha blob," says Martin, "I think we're looking at a giant protogalactic disk. It's almost 300,000 light-years in diameter, three times the size of the Milky Way."

The intergalactic medium unveiled: Cosmic Web Imager directly observes 'dim matter'
The integral field unit of the Cosmic Web Imager. Credit: Matt Matuszewski

The Cosmic Web Imager was funded by grants from the NSF and Caltech. Having successfully deployed the instrument at the Palomar Observatory, Martin's group is now developing a more sensitive and versatile version of the Cosmic Web Imager for use at the W. M. Keck Observatory atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii. "The gaseous filaments and structures we see around the quasar and the Lyman alpha blob are unusually bright. Our goal is to eventually be able to see the average everywhere. It's harder, but we'll get there," says Martin.

Plans are also under way for observations of the IGM from a telescope aboard a high-altitude balloon, FIREBALL (Faint Intergalactic Redshifted Emission Balloon); and from a satellite, ISTOS (Imaging Spectroscopic Telescope for Origins Surveys). By virtue of bypassing most, if not all, of our atmosphere, both instruments will enable observations of Lyman alpha emission—and therefore the IGM—that are closer to us; that is, that are from more recent epochs of the universe.

The intergalactic medium unveiled: Cosmic Web Imager directly observes 'dim matter'
The Cosmic Web Imager installed in the Cassegrain cage of the Hale 200 inch telescope at Palomar Observatory. Credit: Matt Matuszewski

Two papers describing the initial data from the Cosmic Web Imager have been published in the Astrophysical Journal: "Intergalactic Medium Observations with the Cosmic Web Imager: I. The Circum-QSO Medium of QSO 1549+19, and Evidence for a Filamentary Gas Inflow" and "Intergalactic Medium Observations with the Cosmic Web Imager: II. Discovery of Extended, Kinematically-linked Emission around SSA22 Lyα Blob 2."

The Cosmic Web Imager was built principally by three Caltech graduate students—the late Daphne Chang, Matuszewski, and Shahinur Rahman—and by Caltech principal research scientist Patrick Morrissey, who are all coauthors on the papers. Additional coauthors are Christopher Martin, Anna Moore, Charles Steidel, and Yuichi Matsuda.

Explore further: Distant quasar illuminates a filament of the cosmic web

More information: Paper 1. resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAU… S:20140303-152428640
Paper 2. resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAU… S:20140303-145821259

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Distant quasar illuminates a filament of the cosmic web

Jan 19, 2014

Astronomers have discovered a distant quasar illuminating a vast nebula of diffuse gas, revealing for the first time part of the network of filaments thought to connect galaxies in a cosmic web. Researchers ...

Cosmologists weigh cosmic filaments and voids

Apr 17, 2014

(Phys.org) —Cosmologists have established that much of the stuff of the universe is made of dark matter, a mysterious, invisible substance that can't be directly detected but which exerts a gravitational ...

Hubble image: A cross-section of the universe

Apr 17, 2014

An image of a galaxy cluster taken by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope gives a remarkable cross-section of the Universe, showing objects at different distances and stages in cosmic history. They range ...

Where are all the dwarfs?

Feb 01, 2013

Astronomers of the international CLUES collaboration have identified "Cosmic Web Stripping" as a new way of explaining the famous missing dwarf problem: the lack of observed dwarf galaxies compared with that ...

Recommended for you

The Great Cold Spot in the cosmic microwave background

Sep 19, 2014

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal afterglow of the primordial fireball we call the big bang. One of the striking features of the CMB is how remarkably uniform it is. Still, there are some ...

Mystery of rare five-hour space explosion explained

Sep 17, 2014

Next week in St. Petersburg, Russia, scientists on an international team that includes Penn State University astronomers will present a paper that provides a simple explanation for mysterious ultra-long gamma-ray ...

User comments : 53

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2014
By god thats not gas thats plaz-ma!! See - its glowing and throwing off sparks-

This will provide much fuel for our bussard ramjets and electricity for our headlights.
Dr_toad
Apr 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
animah
3.5 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
Check out the collaborators' names in the last paragraph: Chinese, Polish, Indian, anglo and Japanese.

Great stuff.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2014
Martin's group is now developing a more sensitive and versatile version of the Cosmic Web Imager for use at the W. M. Keck Observatory


That will be interresting. Maybe an all-sky survey will be possible with some future version of this type of instrument, from a dedicated space-based observatory. It would be increcible to scan the whole sky starting with near-by material and then doing successive scans with increasing levels of red-shift, slowly building increasingly larger shells of the 3d image.
GuruShabu
1.6 / 5 (10) Apr 30, 2014
Finally, we are scratching on the plasma universe.
Solon
not rated yet Apr 30, 2014
Why is it they assume the gas is flowing inwards? What technique is used to determine the flow?
IMP-9
5 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2014
Why is it they assume the gas is flowing inwards? What technique is used to determine the flow?


You can look at the absorption lines in the spectrum of the central galaxy to determine the direction of the flow. Imagine looking straight at the galaxy, if we were to look at emission from the filament only you couldn't tell if it was moving towards or away from the galaxy because it could be behind or in front. If however you look at absorption lines from the filament in the spectrum of the galaxy you know the material you are seeing is definitely in front and and the doppler shifts you see in these lines will tell you if it is accreting or is an outflow. Observationally outflows are usually much smaller structures.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) May 01, 2014
This "cosmic web"—the IGM—is a network of smaller and larger filaments crisscrossing one another across the vastness of space

Weird, seems I've heard this before...

"Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large and very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary and surface currents." Hannes Alfven

He made this prediction decades ago.

Finally, we are scratching on the plasma universe.

Bingo
IMP-9
4.4 / 5 (7) May 01, 2014
He made this prediction decades ago.


He did and his plasma universe died when it couldn't match cosmological tests or explain the uniformity of the CMB. What evidence do you have that these structures match what Alfven described? None. There is a difference between science and speculation. Saying "I think this looks like a cosmic current" is speculation. I can claim "I think this is the three-headed serpent Volron hear to seek his vengeance", but that's speculation. You could say whatever you want that about anything, and you frequently do. Without an actual model that can be quantitatively compared these claims are worthless because they are pure opinion. We can talk about the plasma universe, when a model which isn't long dead actually exists.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) May 02, 2014
Saying "I think this looks like a cosmic current" is speculation.


No, it's an obvious result of the observation, as you mentioned.

Why is it they assume the gas is flowing inwards? What technique is used to determine the flow?


You can look at the absorption lines in the spectrum of the central galaxy to determine the direction of the flow.

That flowing plasma is a current.

match cosmological tests or explain the uniformity of the CMB.

The uniformity of the CMB is achieved by the use of theoretical statistical gymnastics.

https://www.youtu...jbu3bSqI
IMP-9
5 / 5 (6) May 02, 2014
That flowing plasma is a current.


Nope, not supported by evidence. A current needs the electrons to drift from the ions, a flow does now. The observations support a flow not a current.

The uniformity of the CMB is achieved by the use of theoretical statistical gymnastics.


As usual a deflection. If the EUers can't explain it, it doesn't exist. Robitaille is demonstrably wrong. If the Planck maps were just noise why would it correlate to WMAP and why would the SV effect work to find clusters. That is second one is completely unexplainable to him. If there is no background radiation then there would be no boosted SV signal and so clusters could cause channels to be brighter but they could never cause them to be dimmer, which they are at certain frequencies they are. Observation supports the data being real. Robitaille's dismissal is empty, he has no basis in radio astronomy and it shows.
FineStructureConstant
1.8 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
See - its glowing and throwing off sparks-
- and, if you view it carefully in the right light, the image clearly shows what almost indubitably looks like pretty strong evidence of twisting in those blobs. Proof positive, if any of you mere mortals out there still had your doubts, of twisting Birkeland currents of plasma as predicted ages ago by the towering genius of the greatest of the Electric Universe savants.

If it quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it ain't a screech owl. Am I right?
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
That flowing plasma is a current.


Nope, not supported by evidence. A current needs the electrons to drift from the ions, a flow does now. The observations support a flow not a current.

If you want to disregard all we know about Birkeland currents and plasma phenomena, I guess you'd be right. But that's not really science is it. The fact that you've got plasma flowing through a magnetic field proves the presence of an electric current. You'd prefer to keep the blinders on, so be it.

The uniformity of the CMB is achieved by the use of theoretical statistical gymnastics.

As usual a deflection. If the EUers can't explain it, it doesn't exist... Robitaille's dismissal is empty, he has no basis in radio astronomy and it shows.

The preeminent radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur has a well supported explanation of the CMB, offhandedly dismissed by standard theorists. Oddly he agrees with Robitaille's analysis, which is well founded by real science.
mgmirkin
1.6 / 5 (7) May 03, 2014
He made this prediction decades ago.


He did and his plasma universe died when it couldn't match cosmological tests or explain the uniformity of the CMB. What evidence do you have that these structures match what Alfven described? None. There is a difference between science and speculation. Saying "I think this looks like a cosmic current" is speculation. I can claim "I think this is the three-headed serpent Volron hear to seek his vengeance", but that's speculation. You could say whatever you want that about anything, and you frequently do. Without an actual model that can be quantitatively compared these claims are worthless because they are pure opinion. We can talk about the plasma universe, when a model which isn't long dead actually exists.


How about you read Peratt's Physics of the Plasma Universe. Plenty of physics, modeling, comparison in there... Quit claiming there's "no science" behind P.C. when THERE CLEARLY IS.

So tired of this hand-waving argument...
mgmirkin
1.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2014
How about you read Peratt's Physics of the Plasma Universe. Plenty of physics, modeling, comparison in there... Quit claiming there's "no science" behind P.C. when THERE CLEARLY IS.

So tired of this hand-waving argument...


If I recall correctly it was recently reprinted, so there may be findable copies around. It's a worthwhile read, for those who care to bother with actual science rather than hand-waving dismissals...
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) May 03, 2014
Gerrit Verschuur has a well supported explanation of the CMB, offhandedly dismissed by standard theorists. Oddly he agrees with Robitaille's analysis, which is well founded by real science
@CD
but then again a more systematic examination of the maps published that same year in The Physical Review, Land and Slosar find the data do not support the correlation claimed by Verschuur http://adsabs.har...76h7301L http://journals.a...6.087301
https://en.wikipe...erschuur

IOW - it is NOT
offhandedly dismissed by standard theorists
but rather it was studied and taken SERIOUSLY and then a published peer reviewed study found reason to find fault with Verschuur

Therefore, like always, your grandiose claims of conspiracy against the EU are baseless and unfounded
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) May 03, 2014
Quit claiming there's "no science" behind P.C. when THERE CLEARLY IS
@mgmirkin
there is some science behind EU/PU/PC, but there are also flaws that violate modern physics in the hypothesis offered by the above. see arguments by former JPL physicist Tim Thompson in the following threads for clarification:
http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

http://phys.org/n...ngc.html

http://phys.org/n...ion.html

http://phys.org/n...a-d.html

http://phys.org/n...ust.html

The reason Mr. Thompson so easily refutes EU etc is because of the violations of physics inherent in the philosophy touting itself as a theory.
IMP-9
4.3 / 5 (6) May 03, 2014
The fact that you've got plasma flowing through a magnetic field proves the presence of an electric current.

No, no it doesn't. Current requires a net flow of charge, if the positive and negative charges are in equilibrium there is no current. We don't see any evidence of current, it may be but the observations don't support the claim.

Oddly he agrees with Robitaille's analysis


Which I have already demonstrated is wrong. You ignore that.

Quit claiming there's "no science" behind P.C.

I actually said the electric universe which Peratt calls "anti-science". He agrees with me. What his models lack is comparison to observation, analytically. Yes you can get a galaxy rotation curve if you play with the numbers, nobody doubts that. But can you square it with maps of galactic magnetic field, limits on current from synchrotron... And this is just getting a galaxy to rotate, where is the "electric comet" the EU solar flare and the CMB production? Nowhere.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2014
Current requires a net flow of charge... We don't see any evidence of current, it may be but the observations don't support the claim.

Not surprisingly, the authors disagree with your assessment;
(From second paper)
"We note that it may be the case that inflowing and outflowing gas is present, and there are some hints that this is the case."
Weird!
Which I have already demonstrated is wrong. You ignore that.

I ignore that single point just as you ignore the volumes of examples that demonstrate the SM to be wrong...

I actually said the electric universe which Peratt calls "anti-science".

There is a back story there, but I'm sure it would be beyond you to find where the truth lies. Not only has Peratt written numerous papers with EU proponents, but he also has this to say about Dr. Don Scott's (EU guy) book 'The Electric Sky' which was an direct extension of Peratt's 'Physics of the Plasma Universe'...

(con't)
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2014
(con't)

"It is gratifying to see the work of my mentor, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén enumerated with such clarity. I am also pleased to see that Dr. Scott has given general readers such a lucid and understandable summary of my own work."
– Anthony L. Peratt, PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy and member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

BTW, what does "anti-science" mean in this context? The way I see it is the EU guys are "anti-science" in the sense that many of those who claim to be "scientists" (such as yourself) are in no way real scientists, only dogmatists. Real science insist all the involved physics be acknowledged and included in any assessment, not only that which is convenient to the mathematicians.
yep
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2014
"Therefore, like always, your grandiose claims of conspiracy against the EU are baseless and unfounded" "The reason Mr. Thompson so easily refutes EU etc is because of the violations of physics inherent in the philosophy touting itself as a theory."
EU theories have hardly been considered because they go against what main stream science has decided as the ultimate truth. A gravity based reality with constants as unwavering gospel. Which is why we find ourselves constantly surprised by the data and having to make up more bogus conjecture to keep these gas light era beliefs and its shady mathematics viable.
A rebuttal of Tim Thompson
http://electric-c...nder.pdf
"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."-Max Planck

Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) May 04, 2014
So tired of this hand-waving argument...


Well Skippy, then ol Ira has the suggestion to you. If your hand is tired, rest it and quit waving. I won't post the two times like you did because ol Ira is tired sometimes too me.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) May 04, 2014
Real science insist all the involved physics be acknowledged and included in any assessment, not only that which is convenient to the mathematicians
@CD
then why does EU ignore REAL SCIENCE?
by your own post above, you state real science insist all the involved physics be acknowledged, which it is in cosmology, proven time and again by not only ME but others... did you forget your insistence that certain authors were not examining the evidence as a plasma and then I directly contacted the author to refute your claims?
guess what... THAT is accepting the reality of science.
it is YOU who ignore the science and insist that your EU claims are accepted, even when proven wrong or proven against the known laws of physics. See http://phys.org/n...day.html
a good example. you ignore physics in order to promote YOUR version of reality, as though the authors didn't consider your ideas. remember these guys do this for a living... you are just guessing
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2014
A rebuttal of Tim Thompson
http://electric-c...nder.pdf
@yep
are ya having comprehension issues or did you not bother to read the link?
after all, this is something that Tim Thompson REFUTES in his second post to scott.
so either:
you are INTENTIONALLY obfuscating for nefarious purposes
you cannot read
you didnt bother to open the links
you have comprehension issues
or you are intentionally being stupid

take your pick

as for your conjectures about
they go against what main stream science has decided as the ultimate truth
in science, EMPIRICAL DATA speaks, not conjecture. the reason EU is ignored is that it is written mostly by engineers who have NO TRAINING in astrophysics, and do not take into consideration the various aspects that modern cosmologists do, mostly because it is irrelevant to their job

IOW - Astrophysicists ignore the engineers because they don't know what they are talking about. You don't ask a firefighter to work on your home plumbing! same thing
IMP-9
5 / 5 (6) May 04, 2014
"We note that it may be the case that inflowing and outflowing gas is present, and there are some hints that this is the case."


You didn't read that properly or you have no understanding of basic electromagnetism. You can have whatever flow of gas or plasma you want but if the negative charge is not on average moving with respect to the positive charge there is no current. Current is the net flow of charge, not just some charge moving. If I send a proton and an electron down a tube a the same speed there is no current flowing because the positive current equals the negative. There is no evidence of this being a cosmic current.

I ignore that single point


Which completely destroys your cosmology, but you don't skip a beat. And you lecture us about dogma. Problems with the SM doesn't change this. That is pure deflection.
yep
2.3 / 5 (3) May 04, 2014
http://www.jobisj...eer/jobs
Pluming and fire fighting go quite well together.
99% plasma reality fits with empirical evidence far more than the old theories based in falsified priori. But you guys can keep on making up special matter, that curve in space time will catch us all.
"Science advances one funeral at a time"-Max Planck
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) May 04, 2014
Pluming and fire fighting go quite well together
[sic]
@yep
yes, I know. We learn it in the fire academy. but we learn the basics and limited info for a different purpose. You dont want a firefighter working on your home unless he has passed his plumbing exam and is certified.
That was my point. Electrical Engineers (EE) and Astrophysicists (AP) learn much of the same thing in the beginning, however, EE's do NOT learn much of what AP's do. EE's specialty does not NEED much of it, and AP's DO
99% plasma reality fits with empirical evidence far more than the old theories
personal conjecture without evidence
if you had read Thompsons replies/my links above then you would understand this. again, http://phys.org/n...day.html is a good example: feel free to read up on it in the comments

IOW - your belief in EU is unfounded, and if you learn physics, you will see this for yourself. try starting here: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) May 05, 2014
You didn't read that properly or you have no understanding of basic electromagnetism. You can have whatever flow of gas or plasma you want but if the negative charge is not on average moving with respect to the positive charge there is no current. Current is the net flow of charge, not just some charge moving.

And you have no basic understanding of plasma, electric currents are ubiquitous in plasmas. Charges don't "cancel out" in plasmas the way they do in the "ideal ionized gas" theories you seem to be referring to.

Which completely destroys your cosmology, but you don't skip a beat. And you lecture us about dogma. Problems with the SM doesn't change this. That is pure deflection.

It doesn't slow you down either, does it. Difference is you must disregard facts about 10 times more often than I. What does that say about your cosmology...
IMP-9
5 / 5 (3) May 05, 2014
Charges don't "cancel out" in plasmas

Yes they do, it's called Debye shielding but it really has nothing to do with plasma, it is simply how current is defined. You have still not motivated the case this is a current.

It doesn't slow you down either, does it.Difference is you must disregard facts about 10 times more often than I. What does that say about your cosmology.

Standard cosmology hasn't been debunked in this comment section has it? No, unlike EU facts don't have to be ignored, models change and will continue to change as new information becomes available. People are always looking for what's next not what we have now. Problems will be rectified, old models will fall and new ones built. The fact that problems exist does not show it needs to be stripped back to nothing, the SM is still the most successful theory by a long way. What does EU have? Nothing. New data isn't analysed, you get someone who says it's wrong and you declare mission accomplished.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2014
The observations support a flow not a current.


Whenever there's a flow (gas/liquid/plasma), there's a current. The water coming out of your faucet has a small current. The two are mutually inclusive, to suggest otherwise is nonsense.
IMP-9
4.5 / 5 (2) May 06, 2014
there's a current.


To suggest that random fluctuations from neutrality is anything comparable to the cosmic circuits we are actually discussing is what's really nonsense.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2014
there's a current.


To suggest that random fluctuations from neutrality is anything comparable to the cosmic circuits we are actually discussing is what's really nonsense.

What's nonsense is your inability to understand real plasma processes and applying them to cosmic phenomena regardless of scale. The difference between plasma cosmologists (PC) and standard cosmologists (SC) is PC realizes plasmas behave similarly in the lab as the cosmos, whereas SC demands plasmas behave as their theories suggest they should.

"They (SC Theories) are " generally accepted " by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not " understand ", how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them." Alfven
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) May 07, 2014
Yes they do, it's called Debye shielding but it really has nothing to do with plasma, it is simply how current is defined. You have still not motivated the case this is a current.

Debye shielding regards a surface in plasma, in two or more plasmas the equivalent is the double layer (DL). The electric double layer creates current in plasmas, this is well known stuff. One of the major claims made by Alfven was the astrophysical community not understanding the importance of DLs in astrophysical models. If you have a DL present, and in this case it is certain, then you will have a cosmic circuit you insist does not exist. There is no reason to believe plasmas should behave differently in the lab as it would in the cosmos, if it looks like a duck...

yep
not rated yet May 07, 2014
Tons of evidence just misinterpreted.
http://arizona.vo...axy-m87/
"The origin of magnetic field lines is an open problem in astrophysics and fundamental physics"
http://arxiv.org/...5429.pdf
"Our analysis brings us to a new paradigm where the M87 jet is a fundamentally current carrying system..."
Take out the word black whole in the paper replace it with plasmoid and call those helical jets for the birkland currents they are and you may get the picture.
The foundation is there the lab work has been done we have data up the wazoo, time to let the past models go.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (1) May 07, 2014
To suggest that random fluctuations from neutrality is anything comparable to the cosmic circuits we are actually discussing is what's really nonsense.


Why? Please explain to me how the components involved are any different? The scale is much larger, that's about it. We're still dealing with the flow of elements through a medium, so the effects will be similar regardless of scale.

Does it make you feel special to try and over complicate things?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 07, 2014
Hi IMP-9, CaptS, everyone. Been reading you all. Hope you are a;; well as can be. :)

The following should not be taken as agreeing/disagreeing with any other theory/claims by any individuals/group, I merely address the 'plasma physics' and phenomenlogical observables regarding the 'flowing/current' of neutral/charged plasma itself, irrespective of anyone's theory about same either way. OK? Good. :)

Now please consider the Sun rotating and generating a magnetic field. Also consider its internal localized flows and streaming 'loops' of plasma. Then ask yourself:

Is the Sun's rotating ball of plasma 'charged' overall, or 'neutral' overall? And are its various localized flow/stream 'loops' of plasma 'charged' or 'neutral' plasma flow/stream 'loops'.

I leave you to reserach all that for yourselves and come to your own conclusions. Good luck.

PS: CMB signal processing limitations/pitfalls to be closely re-examined because longtime claims/conclusions suspect: http://phys.org/n...int.html
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) May 07, 2014
Oh, by the way, an FYI about "Uncle Ira". He tried to infiltrate sciforums with his "Uncle Ira" sockpuppet account in order to operate his BOT there too. He was quickly spotted and exposed and permabanned from sciforums by an alert moderator.

Anyone here who still doesn't believe what I have already explained about downrating BOT operators in the old 'forum mafia' days, and who still naively believe that 'it couldn't happen here', then maybe this news item will help you to understand the problem did/does exist FOR REAL. Whatever you do, DON'T TRUST anyone you don't know PERSONALLY on the net, and NEVER let them gull you into 'trusting' them enough for you to divulge personal details/info which they can use for identity theft and impersonations for further gulling others. So, you've been warned against REAL THREAT to your privacy/details/identity. It is NOT an 'imaginary' threat. OK?

http://phys.org/n...ter.html

Have to go. Good luck and good thinking, everyone. See/read you round! :)
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) May 07, 2014
Oh, by the way, an FYI about "Uncle Ira". He tried to infiltrate sciforums with his "Uncle Ira" sockpuppet account in order to operate his BOT there too. He was quickly spotted and exposed and permabanned from sciforums by an alert moderator.


That is the BIG LIE Really-Skippy. I never got in that place like I told you the other day. They wouldn't let me into the door, so you are just making that up. Now SIT DOWN and SHUT UP before I have to slap you.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 07, 2014
The difference between plasma cosmologists (PC) and standard cosmologists (SC) is PC realizes plasmas behave similarly in the lab as the cosmos, whereas SC demands plasmas behave as their theories suggest they should
@cd
personal conjecture based upon stupidity and faulty logic from a dead guy who has no idea about how things are today
you've already been shown the error of this idiotic assumption by not only studies/links to higher education but direct appeal to authors. cosmologists STUDY plasma physics in their field, the only difference between your PC and SC is that the PC may specifically center their studies around plasma cosmology (much like the difference between a surgeon and a vascular surgeon)
and quoting outdated as well as fallacious comments (in regard to today) from a long dead EE is not going to help. http://www.pppl.g...ophysics
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
Oh, by the way, an FYI about "Uncle Ira". He tried to infiltrate sciforums with his "Uncle Ira" sockpuppet account in order to operate his BOT there too. He was quickly spotted and exposed and permabanned from sciforums by an alert moderator.


Okay you Really-Skippy, I wiggled my way into that place. That uncle ira is not me, it is someone who is stealing my material and using for them self. Was it you? I better not find out that it was you. I ain't never been banned from any forum site, except the political forum site where they took down their karma point thing because the Tea-Party-Skippys were getting hurt feelings. That was the only one I banned from about 6 or 5 times over a year ago back during the elections because they hate Obama and Ira-gator (not Uncle Ira) kept making them mad saying good things about Obama.

So you better knock it off and let them peoples know that wasn't the me Ira that it was a sockpuppet Ira maybe you. I got mad me, so watch yourself Skippy
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
@Everyone. See this link for all "Uncle Ira' posts in his attempt to infiltrate Sciforums and getting permabanned by an alert and honest moderator.

http://www.scifor...ncle-Ira

Note that "Undefined" was a 'visitor' to Uncle Ira's profile page in order to see who it was and what he had to say for himself on his profile page.

So, everyone, just go to that link and click on the "see more[" mlink at the bottom of each post abstract in turn and see for yourself how it went from his introductory post to all the rest eventually leading to his permabanning. Note in each thread involved what others had to say about him as well.

So, either some fellow troll took his "Uncle Ira" personna to harrass Undefined at Scifoeums, or it was the operator of the BOT "Uncle Ira" sockpuppet himself.

You judge for yourself after looking at the record as above linked. Good luck, and don't trust anyone with personal identity/financial etc details over the internet unless you are certain whom you are posting it to. The trolls on the net are PLAUSIBLE and DEVIOUS and will gull you if you aren't on your GUARD against same.

http://phys.org/n...ter.html

Cheers.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
@ Really-Skippy. That is not me Ira. That is some sockpuppet Ira who is stealing my materials.

I'm not banned from there because they wouldn't even let me sign up to join. You told them I might be coming to visit and to watch out for me. You probably made the sockpuppet to make your warning of me more Really-real.

I see they banneded you right at the same time they banned the Not-Ira-Skippy. What is the connection Cher? I also am noticing they didn't banned Not-Ira-Skippy for being disrupting and mean, they banned the Not-Ira-Skippy for being a sockpuppet. Was you what made the sockpuppet Not-Ira-Skippy? That the only thing that makes sense unless over there a sockpuppet means something different than it does every other place.

Anybody can see that stuff and tell it is pasting copied stuff from here. And the parts that aren't pasted from copying they get me wrong in how I say things.

Nice try Skippy, it's why you keep the silly looking pointy cap on your silly head.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
@ And P.S. for you Really-Skippy. Stop calling me a BOT unless you want to tell me what that mean. For all I know it might have something to do with Nounemon's momma, and he won't take that in a good mood him..

@ Nounemon-Skippy, here is good place for you vote on me. My rating is still a little bitty embarrassing, I work real hard to keep them between two and one, that's how I know I'm getting my job done right.
Pejico
May 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
@Uncle Ira BOT OPERATOR.
@ Really-Skippy. That is not me Ira. That is some sockpuppet Ira who is stealing my materials.

I'm not banned from there because they wouldn't even let me sign up to join. You told them I might be coming to visit and to watch out for me. You probably made the sockpuppet to make your warning of me more Really-real.

I see they banneded you right at the same time they banned the Not-Ira-Skippy. What is the connection Cher?


Your "material" is TOO LAME and OBVIOUS to be worth anyone's time to "steal", idiot.

I don't have time/inclination to 'pre-empt' what an idiot like you might or might not do in trying to infiltrate elsewhere. I just call you out when you DO try to infiltrate elsewhere, like at Sciforums....and you failed because the alert and honest moderators caught you out too.

I was temporarily suspended by CROOKED troll-mod "Trippy" still thinking his abuses of power are not being monitored/exposed. Insensible trolls, you and him both. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
In my opinion the gravitational lensing of this "intergalactic medium" just represents the physical basis of the recent finding of B-mode lensing observed with BICEPS2 cooperation. Which is indeed a problem for every inflationary interpretation of it, because the cosmic web of galaxies was indeed formed a much later, than the alleged inflation. The frequency tilt and relatively large signal of B-mode lensing indicates this interpretation too.

Edit:sorry guys for interruption of your jerking circle - but could we at least pretend some physics here?

Carry on, mate! I am reading the objective ideas/science from you and others. Thanks for that. Keep it up!

But it's also important that members/readers are cautioned against nefarious types on the net who would steal info and sabotage discussions on purpose and gull members into being 'friends' for CRIMINAL BOT OPERATORS exploiting the net's TRUSTING naive types. This is just latest example: http://phys.org/n...ter.html
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
PS: Yet another example of 'tip of the iceberg' of multitudes of IDENTITY THIEVES and IMPERSONATORS on the net.
http://www.abc.ne.../5436630
From the link
"According to a summary of charges, Johnathan created dozens of false identities, then used social media platforms to make contact with the girls under those identities.

He then allegedly lured them into sending sexually explicit videos and pictures of themselves, sometimes by sending pictures and videos of teenaged boys he had procured elsewhere. He also sent them sexually explicit videos and pictures of himself.

On some occasions Johnathan made contact with the girls under multiple identities, using them to buttress the credibility of the initial fake profile."
Note the various ways personal info is used to create false impressions/trust in others to divulge their info etc. There's a gamut of modus operandi of CRIMS on the net. Beware! :)
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
like at Sciforums....and you failed because the alert and honest moderators caught you out too.


So let me misunderstand what you are telling me. The moderator over at the place where the Not-Ira-Skippy was banneded for being a sockpuppet is alert and honest but then in 10 or 5 minutes later he turned into a

CROOKED troll-mod "Trippy" still thinking his abuses of power are not being monitored/exposed. Insensible trolls, you and him both. :)


Really-Skippy you are Really-Skippy in need of some help working out what you are trying to get across to us.

What is a sockpuppet over there anyway? Everywhere I go it means the Skippy who has several names to talk to himself. I just have the one names everywhere that has a Ira-Something in it except for Zephir-fan but with that one I told everybody I was Ira in almost every posting. Who is the puppet maker I'm pretending not to be so I can talk to Ira?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) May 08, 2014
So let me misunderstand what you are telling me. The moderator over at the place where the Not-Ira-Skippy was banneded for being a sockpuppet is alert and honest but then in 10 or 5 minutes later he turned into a

CROOKED troll-mod "Trippy" still thinking his abuses of power are not being monitored/exposed.


Really-Skippy you are Really-Skippy in need of some help working out what you are trying to get across to us.

What is a sockpuppet over there anyway? Everywhere I go it means the Skippy who has several names to talk to himself.
Good grief! "Uncle Ira" sockpuppet is latest 'username' for a bot operator who is more idiotic than his bot!

The honest mod who permabanned your "Uncle Ira" sockpuppet over there is NOT the many-times-proven CROOKED mod who suspended me again. Look for yourself: http://www.scifor...list.php

I was allowed to post again as Undefined there after proving to Admin that CROOKED troll-mod gang colluded to ban RealityCheck. Poor troll. :)
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (3) May 08, 2014
Who cares dude. Ignore him if you want. This childish beef between you two is annoying, so please move it along. Some people actually want to discuss big boy things here.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
Good grief! "Uncle Ira" sockpuppet is latest 'username' for a bot operator who is more idiotic than his bot!

The honest mod who permabanned your "Uncle Ira" sockpuppet over there is NOT the many-times-proven CROOKED mod who suspended me again. Look for yourself: http://www.scifor...list.php

I was allowed to post again as Undefined there after proving to Admin that CROOKED troll-mod gang colluded to ban RealityCheck. Poor troll. :)


Cher, you spending too much time down in the jukejoint, you all over the place with this one.You need to make up your mind about the these trolls and BOT and mods and the Not-Ira-Skippy sockpuppet.I'll try the one more time. If the Not-Ira-Skippy is me, and he is a sockpuppet, who make up the sockpuppet? Who I was before I was the Ira? That what the sockpuppet means. I am always the Ira, I don't pretend to be someone other than ol Ira, so if the Not-Ira-Skippy is the sockpuppet, he is not me, he someone making trouble with me. You Cher?
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
Who cares dude. Ignore him if you want. This childish beef between you two is annoying, so please move it along. Some people actually want to discuss big boy things here.


You seem like a smart Skippy so ol Ira will take your suggestion. I was getting confused anyway.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
Hi Scroofinator. :)
Who cares dude. Ignore him if you want. This childish beef between you two is annoying, so please move it along. Some people actually want to discuss big boy things here.
Don't fall for that impression he is trying to create. It's not about me and him, it's about ONLY him "Uncle Ira" being a DOWNRATING BOT operator trolling here under his latest "Uncle Ira" username. He just tried to infiltrate another site but they caught him and permabanned him quicksmart.

So he is still using tactics of distraction by lying and innuendo about me as a way of diverting attention from what HE is doing.

I already explained in earlier posts the troll's MO and the dangers of believing him 'friending' him and trusting him. He does nothing but make 'noise' posts to disrupt his targets' discussions/exchanges, and he uses his DOWNRATING BOT to intimidate, and 'reward' gullible types who go along with his tactics.

Read the links in my previous posts about him. That's all. Cheers.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2014
@Rc
I don't care, not about ratings, not about "friending" someone, not about ira. I just want to discuss the topic at hand. Your little crusade here is what's disputing conversation.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2014
Hi Scroofinator. :)

And it's not just about you, either, mate. It's about what "Unlce Ira" has been doing in the past to sabotage OTHERS here and elsewhere with his tactics and trolls and his downrating BOT. Various sites have had to ban him because of it. His rating from a list goes against all scientific principles and fair play. It also affects naive/juvenile readers and gives them a bad impression of science discussion sites. Understand?

For adult/mature readers it's ok, for they can see through his trolling/sabotaging (along with gullible people here who DID 'friend' him and became pawns in his troll/sabotage games UNTIL I took the trouble to EXPOSE him).

That was the point. I wouldn't have had to post any of these TROLL/BOT CAUTION/EXPOSURE posts at all if he and his DUPES hadn't been making a mess of discussions.

Now he is exposed and can't dupe any more, he can't carry on like he was before. And I won't need to post any more about his sabotage tactics. Win! Win! Bye. :)