Athena to study the hot and energetic universe

Jun 30, 2014 by Markus Bauer




Artist's impression of an active galaxy. Credit: ESA/AOES Medialab

ESA has selected the Athena advanced telescope for high-energy astrophysics as its second 'Large-class' science mission.

The observatory will study the hot and energetic Universe and takes the 'L2' slot in ESA's Cosmic Vision 2015–25 plan, with a launch foreseen in 2028.

By combining a large X-ray telescope with state-of-the-art , Athena will address key questions in astrophysics, including: how and why does ordinary matter assemble into the galaxies and galactic clusters that we see today? How do black holes grow and influence their surroundings?

Scientists believe that lurk at the centre of almost all galaxies and that they play a fundamental role in their formation and evolution.

To investigate this connection, Athena will observe X-ray emission from very hot material just before it is swallowed by a black hole, measuring distortions due to gravitational light-bending and time-delay effects in this extreme environment. Athena will also be able to determine the spin of the black hole itself.

Athena's powerful instruments will also allow unprecedented studies of a wide range of astronomical phenomena. These include distant gamma-ray bursts, the hot gas found in the space around clusters of galaxies, the magnetic interplay between exoplanets and their parent stars, Jupiter's auroras and comets in our own Solar System.

"Athena will be a state-of-the-art observatory that will provide a significant leap forward in scientific capabilities compared with previous X-ray missions, and will address fundamental open questions in ," says Alvaro Giménez, ESA's Director of Science and Robotic Exploration.

"Its selection ensures that Europe's success in the field of X-ray astronomy is maintained far beyond the lifetime of our flagship observatory XMM-Newton."

The selection process for L2 began in March 2013, when ESA issued a call to the European science community to suggest the scientific themes to be pursued by the Cosmic Vision programme's second and third Large missions.

In November 2013, the theme of "the hot and energetic Universe" was selected for L2 for a launch in 2028, with "the gravitational Universe" selected for L3 and a planned launch in 2034.

Now officially selected for L2, Athena now moves into a study phase. Once the mission design and costing have been completed, it will eventually be proposed for 'adoption' in around 2019, before the start of construction.

After launch, Athena will travel to its operational orbit around the gravitationally semi-stable location in space some 1.5 million kilometres beyond Earth as seen from the Sun – a position coincidentally known as L2. ESA's Herschel, Planck and Gaia missions have also used L2 orbits.

Explore further: ESA's new vision to study the invisible Universe

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Image: X-raying the cosmos

Apr 22, 2014

When we gaze up at the night sky, we are only seeing part of the story. Unfortunately, some of the most powerful and energetic events in the Universe are invisible to our eyes – and to even the best optical ...

Recommended for you

Gravitational waves according to Planck

12 hours ago

Scientists of the Planck collaboration, and in particular the Trieste team, have conducted a series of in-depth checks on the discovery recently publicized by the Antarctic Observatory, which announced last ...

Infant solar system shows signs of windy weather

13 hours ago

Astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have observed what may be the first-ever signs of windy weather around a T Tauri star, an infant analog of our own Sun. This may help ...

Finding hints of gravitational waves in the stars

19 hours ago

Scientists have shown how gravitational waves—invisible ripples in the fabric of space and time that propagate through the universe—might be "seen" by looking at the stars. The new model proposes that ...

How gamma ray telescopes work

20 hours ago

Yesterday I talked about the detection of gamma ray bursts, intense blasts of gamma rays that occasionally appear in distant galaxies. Gamma ray bursts were only detected when gamma ray satellites were put ...

The frequency of high-energy gamma ray bursts

22 hours ago

In the 1960s a series of satellites were built as part of Project Vela.  Project Vela was intended to detect violations of the 1963 ban on above ground testing of nuclear weapons.  The Vela satellites were ...

User comments : 41

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 01, 2014
The observatory will study the hot and energetic Universe

Glad to see they will study 'ThePhysics of the Plasma Universe'....Curious to see how much more of Dr. Peratt's models continue to be confirmed. He is releasing a second edition which examines new data collected since his first edition 20 years ago, most of which is highly accurate.
http://www.amazon...61276667
IMP-9
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 01, 2014
Confirmed? I don't think so, after the fact is not confirmation. The fact you can fit the data available does not show your model is strong. What quantitative predictions do his models make in x-rays? There's nothing in his original papers. Perratt's models still haven't explained a lot of things, like why his currents aren't observed in the CMB maps or where these massive potentials comes from (presumably the big charge separation rather than the big bang). They don't explain why H I rotation curves agree with those of stars (which weren't included in the simulations at all), and he puts spiral arms as a physical feature rotating with the galaxy which is a conflict with than the spiral density wave picture which has now been observationally confirmed.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Jul 01, 2014
Confirmed? I don't think so, after the fact is not confirmation.

Predictions/hypotheses were made in his first edition, the second edition will discuss the successes and misses of those predictions.

What quantitative predictions do his models make in x-rays?

You do know Alfven (Peratt's mentor) is largely responsible for astronomers understanding of x-rays in space, don't you? X-rays are an obvious side effect of electric discharge in plasma.

Perratt's models still haven't explained a lot of things


Are you suggesting Einstein "explained absolutely everything"?

like why his currents aren't observed in the CMB maps


Gerrit Verschuur actually did, astrophysicists prefer their own story though.

where these massive potentials comes

Double layers and electric fields...

H I rotation curves agree with those of stars


HI clouds are Birkeland currents, the same types of currents which power stars.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Jul 01, 2014
which weren't included in the simulations at all


That's actually a lie, HI clouds are certainly present in his galaxy simulations, along with a number of other specific phenomena.

http://www.plasma...ormation

which is a conflict with than the spiral density wave picture which has now been observationally confirmed.


As you said, "The fact you can fit the data available does not show your model is strong"...
The "density wave model" fails to predict many other aspects, such as galactic magnetic fields.

presumably the big charge separation rather than the big bang


All one has to do is simply look up and see the obvious that 99.999% of the universe consists of plasma. Clearly the universe is not homogeneous but still you bring a strawman argument to the table.
IMP-9
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2014
X-rays are an obvious side effect of electric discharge in plasma.


First you didn't answer my question, what where these predictions? Secondly this is crap, x-rays come from lots of things. Alfven contributed to x-rays but he was not central to it. Appeal to authority.

Gerrit Verschuur actually did


No, you'll find a follow-up paper showing it's consistent with chance, he was cherry picking. Also note they were hot spots not currents, so where are these currents?

HI clouds are certainly present


You misread, stars weren't included.

fails to predict many other aspects


Which doesn't make it wrong. The electric universe can't predict the speed of a bird, why would you expect it to? You've avoided the point, Perratt's model is in conflict with data.

99.999% of the universe consists of plasma


Doesn't explain why the charge is separated. A plasma can be quasineutral, that is it's ground state, so what drove the charge separation?
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2014
Plasma regulated Electromagnetic Universe in magnetic field Environment -holds the key
according to Space Cosmology Vedas Interlinks.
see SPACE VISION-OM-COSMOLOGICAL INDEX-By Vidyardhi Nanduri-TXU 1-731-970 - SPACE SCIENCE-Reports Cover [ESA]-2010- PROPOSALS-Environment-Sensex-Earth-Glow-Sun Life-
Significance - Human Being in-depth-Milky-way Sensex-Aditya links
1.ENVIRONMENT SENSEX-EARTH'S GLOW-SUN-LIFE SIGNIFICANCE -VIDYARDHI NANDURI.PPT-27
2.SUN TO ADITYA-COSMOLOGY VEDAS INTERLINKS –VIDYARDHI NANDURI..PPT-27
3.COSMOLOGICAL INDEX-MILKYWAY SENSEX-VISIBLE -INVISIBLE MATRIX 2010..PPT-33
Two more books were enclosures to above proposal

1.PLASMA VISION OF THE UNIVERSE-1993 (Reg No: TXU 729718 ) (No# Pages-95, Figures 58)
2.THE VISION OF COSMIC TO *PREM UNIVERSE-1995 (Reg No: TXU 893693 )*PREM: Plasma Regulated Electro-Magnetic Universe (No# Pages 148,Figures 56)
http://vidyardhic...ion.html
Welcome Interaction-Support
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2014
First you didn't answer my question, what where these predictions?


From Dr. Peratt's first edition...

"The discovery of background radiation in the X-ray, gamma-ray, and infrared regions was unpredicted by the Big Bang model and was the first in a long list of "surprises" which theorists then sought to incorporate into that cosmology. Unfortunately, the ad hoc explanation of observations not predicted by a theory rings of Ptolemy's epicycles.
In contrast, the Plasma Universe model welcomes and seeks ever more data from the entire electromagnetic spectrum, from extremely low frequency radiowaves with wavelengths of kilometers or longer to gamma rays with wavelengths of 10-13 meters. This requirement arises because plasmas are prodigious producers of electromagnetic radiation."

So where exactly did BB cosmology predict x-rays? Oh right, there was none in contrast to PC.

he was cherry picking.

No, he was excessively meticulous unlike the CMB hacks.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2014
You misread, stars weren't included.


The particles in the simulation are equivalent to the stars, they are merely along for the ride. Stars are nothing more than z-pinch instabilities in the Birkeland currents that flow through the galaxies.

Doesn't explain why the charge is separated. A plasma can be quasineutral, that is it's ground state, so what drove the charge separation?


Quasineutral does not mean neutral. There are still ions and electrons present and has been shown since Langmuir, "a plasma- in the physical meaning of the word- will protect itself from the surrounding environment via a DL, just as plasma- in the biological meaning of the word- will protect itself from it's environment vie cell walls..." In space plasma is the primary state and the charges don't just "cancel out" as you imagine.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
Speaking of the CMB...

"One of the serendipitous but extremely significant discoveries of the Plasma Universe simulation model was a background of microwaves with an energy density very nearly equal to that observed from the cosmic microwave background."
Anthony L. Peratt, "Plasma Cosmology. Part II. The Universe is a Sea of Electrically Charged Particles", (1989) The World & I (Sept. 1989)

IMP-9
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
From Dr. Peratt's first edition.


That's not a prediction. All he does is bash the big bang, he says nothing of weight. A prediction is a specific observation that hasn't been made, The x-ray background is now known to be non cosmological as it resolves into sources.

No, he was excessively meticulous unlike the CMB hacks.


The statistics say otherwise. Ignoring rigorous science is not an argument.

The particles in the simulation are equivalent to the stars


So if the particles are stars then there are no H I regions simulated. But it's not true anyway. The original papers make it quite clear these are not stars but plasma, hence they are compared to H I maps.

Quasineutral does not mean neutral.


I didn't say it was but you've avoided the question. Those cells Langmuir talked of are Debye cells, tiny in this picture. What drove these original huge potentials?

IMP-9
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
Plasma Universe simulation model was a background of microwaves


Now thoroughly debunked. Alfven's original claim was that the CMB was was synchrotron from galactic plasma. Firstly it doesn't explain the extreme uniformity down to 1 part in 10,000 and it is debunked by late time effects on the CMB. Late time effects show where the CMB has passed though or by a galaxy cluster such as the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect, the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect and polarisation though gravitational lensing. These effects tell us where the galaxy clusters are and we can compare that to optical or x-ray maps which are in agreement. In plasma cosmology this is unexplainable as the CMB should be local, it clearly is not.

This combined with the measurements of galaxy pattern speeds which debunks Perratt's simulations that the spiral arms rotate with the galaxy tells me that this stuff is at conflict with the observations and not physical.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
The original papers make it quite clear these are not stars but plasma,

And stars are entirely plasma. The only things in a galaxy that aren't plasma are planets.

A prediction is a specific observation that hasn't been made,

And the BB made zero predictions about x-rays.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
And stars are entirely plasma.


Not the diffuse plasma in his model. You're just avoiding the point now but it doesn't matter, either way the measurement of pattern speed is in conflict with his model.

And the BB made zero predictions about x-rays.


Apparently so did Perratt. This discussion started after you claimed he made predictions about x-rays but it seems otherwise, unless you count criticising the big bang for not making predictions (lol). So I think all we are going to get from Perratt is a new after-the-fact model which will probably be just as flawed.

I guess what we've learned is that Perratt's model is in conflict with major observational results and fundamentally doesn't explain why there would be enormous potentials. I like the sound of the Big Battery.

The only thing we can be sure of is that none of this will make you hesitate in your blind faith for even a second.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
Not the diffuse plasma in his model.

Scalability, stars are but particles on a galactic scale.

Apparently so did Perratt. This discussion started after you claimed he made predictions about x-rays but it seems otherwise


Typical, never made that statement, actually referred to Alfven inre to those predictions.

fundamentally doesn't explain why there would be enormous potentials.

Maybe you can explain this "enormous potential", how can it be...
http://journals.a...1.235002

The only thing we can be sure of is that none of this will make you hesitate in your blind faith for even a second.

Ditto!
IMP-9
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
Scalability, stars are but particles on a galactic scale.


Doesn't mean they will act the same, charge to mass ratios are very different. The simulation only includes one so it is incomplete.

never made that statement


My mistake, it seems you couldn't even point to a prediction of Perratt's much less one that was tested.

Maybe you can explain this "enormous potential"


A double layer needs an energy source so it doesn't explain anything. It's a charge separation, something has to drive that. Perratt's model doesn't use double layers , it called for fields on scales much much larger that the debye length, beyond the scale of double layers.

So you haven't explained anything, there is still conflicting evidence and have failed to point out a single prediction.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Perratt's model doesn't use double layers , it called for fields on scales much much larger that the debye length, beyond the scale of double layers.


DL's occur at all scales in plasma, it's that scalability thing again. Peratt's model of two interacting Birkeland currents to create galaxies must have DL's. DL's are part and parcel of Birkeland currents, just as magnetic fields are part and parcel of electric currents.

My mistake, it seems you couldn't even point to a prediction of Perratt's much less one that was tested.

http://www.plasma...dictions

I'm sure you'll ignore those predictions as those mentioned above.

A double layer needs an energy source so it doesn't explain anything.

DL's are a natural occurrence when two non-homogeneous plasmas are adjacent to one another. Recall the physical plasma, biological plasma analogy quoted many times before.

IMP-9
5 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
DL's occur at all scales in plasma


Prove it. Really.

. Peratt's model of two interacting Birkeland currents to create galaxies must have DL's.


Doesn't explain where the current's came from. You're chasing your tail.

http://www.plasma...dictions


Of Peratt's "predictions", let's see. X-ray, gamma ray and infrared backgrounds were known about before. Large scale structure was known about before Perratt, without detailed numbers it's not a prediction. Filamentary structures were already observed in nebulea, galactic magnetic fields had been measured and Perratt did his work on rotation curves because of the problem, none of these are predictions. The CMBR? Really, I'm pretty sure it was known about before the 1980's.

As I said, after-the-fact. These are not predictions, prediction means before.

DL's are a natural occurrence when two non-homogeneous plasmas are adjacent to one another.


Yes, that's energy via order.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2014
DL's occur at all scales in plasma

Prove it. Really.

I'm curious why you insist the physics be different. We can clearly see galactic sized Birkeland current filaments;
http://phys.org/n...axy.html

You explain a BC without a DL.
"Moreover, Birkeland currents and double layers appear to be associated phenomena, in both laboratory experiments and computer simulations..."

http://www.plasma...eams.pdf
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2014
Doesn't explain where the current's came from.

You're right, don't know where they came from but you can look up and clearly see they are there.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2014
No. The quote says nothing about scale and nor does your speculation prove anything. I asked for answers you give nothing.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2014
Try reading the paper, instead of remaining willfully ignorant.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2014
Try reading the paper, instead of remaining willfully ignorant.
@cd
so... ya got nothing, ya can't find anything, and we're supposed to just "take your word' on it?
seriously?
that is the best you can do?
that sounds like a reg mundy quote... which only reinforces the pseudoscience label that you have.
No. The quote says nothing about scale and nor does your speculation prove anything. I asked for answers you give nothing.
@IMP-9
Sorry for interrupting you... you are doing so well. It's just that he is doing the same thing in another argument... pretty much an "I told you so" without evidence talking to Thermodynamics.

Please, resume destroying his argument. apologies IMP.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2014
I don't know what else I can do but link a peer-reviewed paper, which references a different paper inre to this BC and DL correlation.

Here is the linked paper again;
http://www.plasma...eams.pdf

And here is the paper Peratt referred to while making the claim;
http://adsabs.har...91..167C

It's paywalled, the info you need is there though.

Just to reiterate, you are claiming the physics are different for galactic Birkeland currents. Basically you are in diametric opposition to the laboratory research of this phenomena "just because you think it is not possible". These galactic sized currents are almost exactly the same in every way as lab BC's, but you insist the physics must be different.

I think it's the same physics, same walking, quacking, and swimming duck only bigger.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2014
Here is the linked paper again;
http://www.plasma...eams.pdf
@cd
first thing: it is a known pseudoscience site, which makes this paper about as valid as used TP in a frat house during a beer and mexican weekend bash
IF IT IS LEGITIMATE SCIENCE it will be on a legit science site
second: your paywalled harvard paper? and we are to assume that you've read it and it is cogent? we should just take your word on this?

given your history as well as your known support of pseudoscience, it is your claim that we should just take your word and accept what you say, even though you've been caught blatantly lying and posting a known fallacy over and over again... and that is only what we know about HERE on PO!

You've made a claim and IMP asked for proof (from a legitimate science site)
the burden of proof is on YOU and your extraordinary claims...
lets see some legit papers spark-boy

I think it's the same pseudoscience BS, same walking, quacking, and swimming duck only bigger.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2014
You really are a complete rube. Here is that same paper behind a paywall, you can pay for it if you want but I prefer the free version.

http://journals.c...00005401

And yes, this refereed paper referenced that other paper which is cogent. You would not understand any of it though.

barakn
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2014
A 27 year old paper in the esteemed journal "Lasers and Particle Beams." So in other words it wasn't "refereed" by anyone with any actual knowledge of astrophysics.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2014
A 27 year old paper in the esteemed journal "Lasers and Particle Beams." So in other words it wasn't "refereed" by anyone with any actual knowledge of astrophysics.

Right, just those astute in plasma phenomena. I was not aware science had an expiration date.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2014
Here is that same paper behind a paywall, you can pay for it if you want but I prefer the free version
@cd
and you just magically know that the version you have is legit, un-tampered with and exactly the same as the other?
and we're supposed to take YOUR word on that?

really?
like I said above... your burden of proof. essentially, you have NADA... and until you can prove the claim with a legit link to a whole paper that proves your point, then you got squat
IOW- ya can't prove your claim to IMP
You would not understand any of it though
how do you know whats actually in that paper? tarot? area 51 left you a message?
given your history, I would trust you to tell me that Phys.org was on the internet without proof
I was not aware science had an expiration date
nor were you aware that it advanced since 1980

I think it's the same pseudoscience BS, same walking, quacking, and swimming duck only bigger.

Keep trying, spark-boy
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2014
and you just magically know that the version you have is legit, un-tampered with and exactly the same as the other?
and we're supposed to take YOUR word on that?


CONSPIRACY! Your idiocy is reaching new heights.
barakn
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2014
I was not aware science had an expiration date.
The advent of CCDs, vast computing power, large hard drives, adaptive optics, and large space- and land-based telescopes has led to a golden age of astronomy. Peratt's ideas didn't even match observations made prior to the goldern age, but data gathered since then has made his ideas even more laughably stupid.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2014
The golden age of astronomy? Rather the Dark Ages of astronomy with the DM, DE, and feeble theories...It must be opposite day because everything you just uttered is opposite of the facts, oh, and laughably laughable.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2014
CONSPIRACY!

NOPE. lack of evidence. if you can PROVE that the papers are the same, I will admit as such. But until there is a way to do it then there is only your word that the papers are the same one... and given your propensity for blatant lies, your inability to research simple things like curricula, and your continual support of a KNOWN pseudoscience, as well as your ignorance of physics and your argument AGAINST physics that your alfie as well as other ee's actually demonstrated, videoed, and teach STILL.... then you have NOTHING
NADA ZERO ZILCH
its not conspiracy... its LOGIC
you've PROVEN nothing. you offer only your word, which is suspect... something like this in a court? epic failure!

Yes, YOUR idiocy is reaching new heights indeed. you don't need to point that out to us, though... anyone with half a brain can see it for themselves.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2014
if you can PROVE that the papers are the same


If your life and career weren't so useless, YOU could AFFORD to buy THE paywalled COPY and read IT for your own DAMN self. The original author wouldn't place an altered copy of his own paper on his own website hosted by his EMPLOYER, LANL. If you actual clicked the free link, you can clearly see the label OF the journal in the top corner of each PAGE. Only a sad rube would claim a conspiracy to alter refereed journal papers by it's own author after it's been published. CAPS LOCK!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2014
If your life and career weren't so useless, YOU could AFFORD to buy THE paywalled COPY and read IT for your own DAMN self
@cantthink
oo.aa. the painful sting of your insults... no wait... since you can't even get REAL science correct, then obviously you have no basis in reality here either! and so you don't!
IMP asked
No. The quote says nothing about scale and nor does your speculation prove anything. I asked for answers you give nothing
so the proof is up to YOU... you made the fanciful claim, but now we should just "expect" that SUDDENLY you stopped lying? really? dream on, spark-boy
Only a sad rube would claim a conspiracy
I am not claiming conspiracy, I am saying that if you cannot produce a valid peer reviewed publication that supports your conclusions that can be READ by all to prove your point, then posting from a PSEUDOSCIENCE site is stupid and irrelevant because there is NO guarantee that the papers match... and zeph is a good example of this
to be cont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2014
cont'd
about 6 months ago zeph posted a study supporting one of his cold fusion points and I questioned it. I went to the publication that was spelled out on the paper (because the site referenced was to the author's home page) and guess what? that's right! the paper was rescinded as it was not only NOT repeatable, but peer review as well as a closer look proved that the subject claimed a physical impossibility.

Enter spark boy's claims:
You made a claim and referenced a KNOWN pseudoscience site... now you say "pay money to a known pseudoscience crackpot that will not publicly debate real astrophysicists" and see the truth.
you are asking me to take the word of a pseudoscientist (him) and a known liar (you) as proof. NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
What would you do if i posted a link to a paywalled AAAS study? argue the same point, because you can't afford AAAS.

so your argument is invalid. You still have the burden of proof
you still have YET to meet that burden
if it is THAT important
YOU PAY
IMP-9
5 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2014
I don't know what else I can do but link a peer-reviewed paper, which references a different paper inre to this BC and DL correlation.


No. Nobody is asking for correlation, I asked for a paper demonstrating one could be at any scale as you claimed. Perratt's speculation does not give evidence to this claim. It's totally circular to use Perratt's speculation about giant currents powered by you-don't-know-what to prove further claims about plasma. I want a real article showing they occur at all scales, experimentally.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2014
No. Nobody is asking for correlation, I asked for a paper demonstrating one could be at any scale as you claimed. Perratt's speculation does not give evidence to this claim. It's totally circular to use Perratt's speculation about giant currents powered by you-don't-know-what to prove further claims about plasma.

Peratt goes into further explanation here;
http://www.plasma...PS-I.pdf

and;
http://www.plasma...vCos.pdf

He explains plainly that laboratory research was the basis of this consideration. When the laboratory phenomena were scaled up to galactic proportions, numerous characteristics matched observations. Field aligned currents and DL's have been confirmed from the lab to the Sun, the burden of proof is on you to explain why the physics are different than in the lab.

experimentally.


Where is the experiment of the black hole, or neutron star?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2014
Peratt goes into further explanation here
http://www.plasma...PS-I.pdf
and;
http://www.plasma...vCos.pdf
@cd
KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE
Field aligned currents and DL's have been confirmed from the lab to the Sun, the burden of proof is on you to explain why the physics are different than in the lab
YOU made the claim, so the burden of proof is upon YOU, not IMP.

you posted links to a known pseudoscience site. IF you have legitimate physics that presents evidence to support your claim, then you should be able to find it on a legitimate physics site, peer reviewed journal or other source that is not a known pseudoscience supporter
Where is the experiment of the black hole, or neutron star?
strawman, irrelevant and just another distraction

you have no proof from a legitimate source therefore you cannot prove your grandiose claims to IMP

This reinforces why EU is a pseudoscience- it only references itself and occasional legit publications

sorry spark-boy
failed again
IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2014
Still not providing real answers. Where is the evidence that double layers can me thousands or millions of Debye lengths thick? If you want to scale up phenomena you can't ignore the characteristic scale of electromagnetism in plasma. I don't care where you find them, I want you to back your claim that they exist at any scale.

Stop claiming "the lab physics said so" and start showing us the lab physics.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2014
Still not providing real answers. Where is the evidence that double layers can me thousands or millions of Debye lengths thick?


How about Cal-Tech? Intergalactic medium- 10^5 Debye lengths

http://www.pma.ca....1.K.pdf

Page 6 if you click.

If you want to scale up phenomena you can't ignore the characteristic scale of electromagnetism in plasma.

Which you don't have a clue, however, I think Dr. Peratt is clear on his understanding being he is the expert. Oddly enough, the USDOE seems to share this view being that he was the Acting Director, National Security, Nuclear Nonproliferation Directorate, USDOE, 1998.

The real irony is you accept far less evidence while still believing BB and standard cosmology nonsense.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2014
How about Cal-Tech? Intergalactic medium- 10^5 Debye lengths

http://www.pma.ca....1.K.pdf

Page 6 if you click.


Nope. That's debye lengths of 10^5 meters, not 10^5 debye lengths. Congratulations, you can't even read. Double layers aren't even mentioned in the document.

You believe Perratt knows best but that faith is completely blind, as shown by your lack of ability to reply to these questions. You put your faith in physics you don't understand and you ignore contradictions. You aren't interested in reality.

I think this a good place to leave this thread.