Astronomers find stream of gas—2.6 million light years long

Aug 07, 2014
The bridge of gas (shown in green) stretches from the large galaxy at the bottom left to the group of galaxies at the top. A third nearby galaxy to the right also has a shorter stream of gas attached to it. Credit: Rhys Taylor / Arecibo Galaxy Environment Survey / The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Collaboration

(Phys.org) —Astronomers and students have found a bridge of atomic hydrogen gas 2.6 million light years long between galaxies 500 million light years away. They detected the gas using the William E. Gordon Telescope at the Arecibo Observatory, a radio astronomy facility of the US National Science Foundation sited in Puerto Rico. The team publish their results today in a paper in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

The stream of atomic hydrogen is the largest known, a million longer than a gas tail found in the Virgo Cluster by another Arecibo project a few years ago. Dr Rhys Taylor, a researcher at the Czech Academy of Sciences and lead author of the paper, said "This was totally unexpected. We frequently see gas streams in galaxy clusters, where there are lots of galaxies close together, but to find something this long and not in a cluster is unprecedented."

It is not just the length of the stream that is surprising but also the amount of gas found in it. Roberto Rodriguez, a 2014 graduate from the University of Puerto Rico in Humacao who worked on the project as an undergraduate, explained "We normally find gas inside galaxies, but here half of the gas – 15 billion times the mass of the Sun – is in the . That's far more than in the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies combined!"

The team is still investigating the origin of the stream. One notion surmises that the large galaxy at one end of the stream passed close to the group of smaller at the other end in the past, and that the gas bridge was drawn out as they moved apart. A second notion suggests that the large galaxy plowed straight through the middle of the group, pushing gas out of it. The team plan to use computer simulations to find out which of these ideas can best match the shape of the bridge that is seen with the Arecibo Telescope.

The project involved three undergraduate researchers: Roberto Rodriguez and Clarissa Vazquez from UPR Humacao, and Hanna Herbst, now a graduate student at the University of Florida. Dr Robert Minchin, a staff astronomer at Arecibo Observatory and the principal investigator on the project, said "Student involvement is very important to us. We are proud to be inspiring the next generation of astronomers, and particularly proud of the involvement of Puerto Rican students."

The bridge was found in data taken between 2008 and 2011 for the Arecibo Galaxy Environment Survey (AGES), which is using the power of the Arecibo Telescope to survey a large area of sky with a high level of sensitivity.

Explore further: For galaxies, having neighbors matters

More information: The new work appears in R. Taylor et al., 2014, "The Arecibo Galaxy Environment Survey VII : A Dense Filament With Extremely Long HI Streams", Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 443, pp. 2634-2649, published by Oxford University Press. A pre-print of the paper can be found on the arXiv.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

For galaxies, having neighbors matters

Jun 10, 2014

Where galaxies live has an enormous effect on how they form stars, a puzzle that a new Canadian study is helping to solve. "To understand how galaxies evolve, we need to study the link between stars and gas, ...

Galactic clusters low on hydrogen

Nov 25, 2013

Astronomers at Swinburne University of Technology and their international collaborators have found evidence that galaxies that are located in groups might be running out of gas.

Neighbor galaxies may have brushed closely: research

Jun 11, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Two of our Milky Way's neighbor galaxies may have had a close encounter billions of years ago, recent studies with the National Science Foundation's Green Bank Telescope (GBT) indicate. The new ...

Triangulum galaxy snapped by VST

Aug 06, 2014

The VLT Survey Telescope at ESO's Paranal Observatory in Chile has captured a beautifully detailed image of the galaxy Messier 33. This nearby spiral, the second closest large galaxy to our own galaxy, is ...

Recommended for you

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 ...

Glowing galaxies in telescopic timelapse

Sep 17, 2014

We often speak of the discoveries and data flowing from astronomical observatories, which makes it easy to forget the cool factor. Think of it—huge telescopes are probing the universe under crystal-clear ...

User comments : 71

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
1 / 5 (16) Aug 07, 2014
A third notion is that the gas is formed from the etheric submatrix deep within the active cores of the diverging galaxies and ejected therefrom in massive outflows from the active grey holes, leaving behind a trail of gas in extremely long tail as they separate over billions of years. But then, this would not fit the merger mania models.
DeliriousNeuron
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 07, 2014
Stream if gas. LOL! Maybe they'll run gravity based computer simulations to confuse everyone a little more.
wasp171
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 07, 2014
This is the typical example that cannot be explained by gravity and inertia alone.
It needs a much stronger force to produce such an effect.
The force is obviously EM, which is 10 powered to 39 stronger than gravity.
However, the present paradigm will try all sorts of magicmathics and all fancy "models" to explain it in a different way.
This phenomenon was already explained almost a century ago (1908) and it is called Bikerland current. (http://en.wikiped...current)
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (18) Aug 07, 2014
Stream if gas. LOL!
@DeliriousNeuron
so tell us all... WHAT makes you think the statement is NOT accurate?
Please, point out which part of the following link is the FALLACIOUS statement that you think is so funny: http://arxiv.org/...16v1.pdf

Maybe they'll run gravity based computer simulations to confuse everyone a little more.
the only one confused here is YOU
gravity based simulations will INCLUDE MHD as well as Plasma physics in them, so WHAT exactly is your specific beef with this article and its study?

Considering your support of EU pseudoscience, I would like to make a special point to you:
Where is YOUR specific peer reviewed refutation of this study? (or ANY study?)
Yours! not some thunderbutts BS (because that is PSEUDOSCIENCE, not real science)

before casting dispersions upon the hard work of scientists, you really SHOULD get a background in it yourself, at least so you can be methodical and correct in your assumptions:
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (15) Aug 07, 2014
Stream if gas. LOL!
@delerious
perhaps you missed THIS part?
It is known that galaxies in dense environments are eficient in neutral atomic hydrogen (Hi) with respect to galaxies of the same morphological type and diameter as those in the field (Haynes & Giovanelli 1984), and that they are also redder (see Boselli & Gavazzi 2006 for a review, and also Cortese et al. 2011)
OR this part?
Hi is an excellent tracer of the effects of environment - being typically more extended than the stellar component by about a factor of 1.7 (Swaters et al. 2002) it is less gravitationally bound to the galaxy and therefore easier to remove. In certain circumstances, very long Hi streams may be produced extending for tens or even hundreds of kiloparsecs (e.g. Chung et al. 2007, Minchin et al. 2007, Koopmann et al. 2008). These offer direct evidence as to
how the environment affects the gas content of galaxies, and in particular can indicate the cause of the gas removal
Why the argument, d?
alfie_null
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2014
. . . and it is called Bikerland current.

Ah yes. We had one of these near where I live a few weeks ago. Seemingly endless stream of mostly Harley Davidsons. I think it was a charity ride.

P.S. I'm impressed with your mastery of the written word. Should I presume it reflects a like mastery of science knowledge?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
And on a related note, Harley just came out with an electric bike.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 08, 2014
One more item which is "totally unexpected" by standard theorists but is a prediction of Plasma Cosmologists. I see the apologists are out in force again...
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2014
One more item which is "totally unexpected" by standard theorists but is a prediction of Plasma Cosmologists.
@CD
prove it
yep
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2014
Wow! Captain are you serious how many times has CD posted about EU? Did you not read any of it? Is your faith of the scientific creationism called Big Bang so entrenched and your cries of heresy so loud that it blinded you to another possibility. It seems so, since you obviously do not have the slightest clue about what plasma cosmology is, yet you spent the last year railing against it.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2014
The (correctly spelled) Birkeland Current is a phenomenon associated with the Earth's magnetosphere, not with distant galaxies.

1 star for everyone who bought this BS as well as the poster who said it first.

Plasma cosmology proposes that the electromagnetic force overwhelms gravity at the largest scales in the universe; this is silly because EM is the U1 symmetry and therefore has positive and negative charges which cancel/offset each other, whereas gravity has no negative and thus adds and adds together without any cancellation.
yep
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2014
Da Scheib you have a very narrow view of what and where Birkeland currents exist maybe start with reading about them before displaying rightious ignorance.
Keep your star to illuminate where the sun don't shine cause it's just a tool for you scientific zealots with a scientific creation fantasy.
You may want to chew on Ampere's and the Bio-Savart laws as far as attraction and repulsion go. And while your at it brush up on what plasma because its 99% of our reality with no dark magic or black holiness needed to keep it viable.
VCRAGAIN
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2014
I wish you would all stop ripping alternative ideas to bits - there ARE no completed/final facts which encompass ALL discovered data - the problem is that those who consider themselves 'professionals' are too conceited and full of themselves to entertain anything that makes THEM look like less of an 'expert'. The Electric Universe has wonderful ideas that explain a lot of discoveries, but does NOT claim to be anti 'evolution' because they consider the 'big bang' to be untrue - does NOT necessarily follow - we are ALL trying to understand what is out there, physical world AND spiritual world, and labeling any particular concept as 'untrue' is stupid. Let's all enjoy the learning experience, and maybe we will all discover where we came from. There are other ideas (besides standard evolution v creation) - (see macroevolution.net ) - is yet another take on how various species could have 'evolved'. NONE of the ideas can yet explain WHO/WHAT the start of our existence was !!!!!
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2014
Plasma cosmology proposes that the electromagnetic force overwhelms gravity at the largest scales in the universe; this is silly because EM is the U1 symmetry and therefore has positive and negative charges which cancel/offset each other, whereas gravity has no negative and thus adds and adds together without any cancellation.

"Magnetism" is the gravity part. "Electro" is everything else as a RESULT of varying magnetism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2014
I wish you would all stop ripping alternative ideas to bits - there ARE no completed/final facts which encompass ALL discovered data
Yah I second that emotion.

"8/7/14 - On July 31, 2014, BlackLight Power closed on $11 M in private equity financing that was oversubscribed by $1 M."

-Heres another one:

"The NASA team just presented their test results at 50th Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland, Ohio, and have verified the claims of Guido Fetta. The results have been published in a paper titled "Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum"."
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2014
"Magnetism" is the gravity part. "Electro" is everything else as a RESULT of varying magnetism.

Actually, magnetism is the relativistic correction for the speed-of-light delay in the action of the electric force. If the electric force operated instantaneously across any distance, there would be no magnetism, only the electric force. This is why magnetism always acts orthogonally to the electric field.

You're arguing about magnetism with an electronics engineer. You might want to think about that a while.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2014
Most alternative energy schemes are bunk; a few are legitimate. Most scientific theories are legitimate; a few are bunk.

Science is a method of procedure that winnows most of the chaff from the wheat. That's why refrigerators, computers, and jet aircraft work and phlogiston, astrology, and "activated" water don't.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2014
You're arguing about magnetism with an electronics engineer. You might want to think about that a while.

Just an "Eclectic Engineer" here, so you're more than likely right about that...:-)
But, hey - I'm just an artist... The fancy stuff is what we have scientists for...;-)
Whydening Gyre
2.7 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2014
The Da...
In my Universe, magnetism (anything, actually) is a "charge". As a matter of fact, in all the fractal facets of our observational horizon, you can view all things as such.
no zero, no negative. just varying levels of charge of whatever "force" you want to consider as charge. Everything is a quantum at it's own scale.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Maxwell's Equations, the foundation of every formula from Ohm's and Joule's Laws to the right-hand and left-hand rules, and the definition of resistance, reactance, impedance, capacitance, and inductance, along with everything else in electronics, say your understanding of magnetism is incorrect. This is fundamental; these are Laws of Nature, the only things in science stronger than theories.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
If you want to learn some stuff, Whyde, I'll teach it to you... but you have to not go off into never-never land. These are fundamental understandings of nature that make everything from electric motors to microwave ovens to computers work. These devices, and all the other ones we plug into the wall, or put batteries in, or whatnot, are the proof in front of your nose that these fundamental understandings are correct. If they were wrong none of these things would work.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
Maxwell's Equations, the foundation of every formula from Ohm's and Joule's Laws to the right-hand and left-hand rules, and the definition of resistance, reactance, impedance, capacitance, and inductance, along with everything else in electronics, say your understanding of magnetism is incorrect. This is fundamental; these are Laws of Nature, the only things in science stronger than theories.

LOL, the Da...:-)
ANY law can be broken - or at least bent. Just ask a lawyer...
Just takes imagination...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
If you want to learn some stuff, Whyde, I'll teach it to you... but you have to not go off into never-never land. These are fundamental understandings of nature that make everything from electric motors to microwave ovens to computers work. These devices, and all the other ones we plug into the wall, or put batteries in, or whatnot, are the proof in front of your nose that these fundamental understandings are correct. If they were wrong none of these things would work.

30 years as a tech (mostly hardware) says you are right. I've understood and used all the rules/laws in my "past" life.
last 12 yrs as an Artisan hints to me that our "fundamentals" are just the tip of the iceberg...:-)
Learn the Laws - then figure out how to bend 'em...:-)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
Hi Da Schneib.
If you want to learn some stuff, Whyde, I'll teach it to you... . These are fundamental understandings of nature that make everything from electric motors to microwave ovens to computers work. These devices, and all the other ones we plug into the wall, or put batteries in, or whatnot, are the proof in front of your nose that these fundamental understandings are correct. If they were wrong none of these things would work.

Careful. Glib 'examples of proof' like that have no real bearing in this context.

eg, Cavemen used sticks rubbed together and/or struck flint to start a fire. They understood nothing about the true deeper origins/mechanisms/structures and processes involved.

Their 'technology', evolved from observation and trial-and-error, 'worked' to their satisfaction, but it did not mean they 'understood' the underlying reality.

Sure, they made up 'fire myth' stories etc, but they were not 'proof' of anything.

So careful re 'proofs/myths', ok? Cheers. :)
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
The (correctly spelled) Birkeland Current is a phenomenon associated with the Earth's magnetosphere,


A Birkeland current is nothing more than a field-aligned current, a formation which is ubiquitous in all plasmas, and not limited to local plasmas. It is the tendency of these currents which explains why the Universe is filamentary and cellular and is a prediction by Alfven many decades before it was observed.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
since you obviously do not have the slightest clue about what plasma cosmology is, yet you spent the last year railing against it.
@yep
i don't rail against plasma in cosmology... only EU bullshite
cd has posted plenty, but his supporting evidence to date is from thunderbutts which is a KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE and not from any legitimate science sites with cosmological impact.

EU can only talk a game conning people into believing their pseudoscience

Astrophysicists PROVE their comments using the scientific method

One more item which is "totally unexpected" by standard theorists but is a prediction of Plasma Cosmologists.
@CD
PROVE IT
you STILL HAVEN'T PROVEN ANYTHING ...
other than the EU is based upon fallacy and is a PSEUDOSCIENCE

SHOW WHERE THIS WAS PROVEN BY EU IN THE PAST and published in a reputable peer reviewed journal that has an impact for astrophysics
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
Maxwell's Equations, the foundation of every formula from Ohm's and Joule's Laws to the right-hand and left-hand rules, and the definition of resistance, reactance, impedance, capacitance, and inductance, along with everything else in electronics, say your understanding of magnetism is incorrect. This is fundamental; these are Laws of Nature, the only things in science stronger than theories.

LOL, the Da...:-)
ANY law can be broken - or at least bent. Just ask a lawyer...
Just takes imagination...:-)
Not physical laws. That's what "law" means in physics.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib.

Careful. Glib 'examples of proof' like that have no real bearing in this context.
So computers, refrigerators, and jets don't work?

eg, Cavemen used sticks rubbed together and/or struck flint to start a fire. They understood nothing about the true deeper origins/mechanisms/structures and processes involved.
If you don't know how a transistor works, you can't make a computer.

Their 'technology', evolved from observation and trial-and-error, 'worked' to their satisfaction, but it did not mean they 'understood' the underlying reality.
Sticks aren't transistors.

Sure, they made up 'fire myth' stories etc, but they were not 'proof' of anything.
So computers, jets, and refrigerators are "myths?"

So careful re 'proofs/myths', ok?
There are no proofs in science. Proofs are mathematics, not science. Science has theories.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
The (correctly spelled) Birkeland Current is a phenomenon associated with the Earth's magnetosphere,
A Birkeland current is nothing more than a field-aligned current, a formation which is ubiquitous in all plasmas, and not limited to local plasmas. It is the tendency of these currents which explains why the Universe is filamentary and cellular and is a prediction by Alfven many decades before it was observed.
There are three major objections to plasma cosmology: magnetic fields hinder collapse of plasmas, for example into stars or galaxies; there are no observations that support the existence of currents of the magnitude needed to create stars, far less galaxies (10¹⁹ amps, fer cryin' out loud; we'd be able to see that for billions of light years); and the length scales for observed electric charge neutrality are far too short to create a galaxy.

See this paper: http://arxiv.org/.../0609031
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
magnetic fields hinder collapse of plasmas, for example into stars or galaxies;


Such a notion completely ignores the Bennett Pinch, something which has been studied in detail since the 1930's. You're not alone there though, it is a phenomena which astrophysicists systematically ignore as well.

there are no observations that support the existence of currents of the magnitude needed to create stars, far less galaxies (10¹⁹ amps, fer cryin' out loud;


Actually, there are...

http://arxiv.org/...97v3.pdf

we'd be able to see that for billions of light years)


That's quite untrue, electric currents in plasma are very difficult to "see", especially if they're flowing in dark mode. The discovery of Earth's predicted (by Birkeland himself) BC's were not confirmed until the space age when we put satellites in orbit and recorded in situ measurements.

the length scales for observed electric charge neutrality are far too short to create a galaxy.


Disregards ubiquitous plasma phenomena such as electric double layers and such
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
@yep
i don't rail against plasma in cosmology.


I've said it before, I'll say it again. I've skipped rocks smarter than you!

yep said;
you obviously do not have the slightest clue about what plasma cosmology is,


Plasma Cosmology is a theory, and the correct theory about how "plasma in cosmology" should be modeled. The basis for EU is the "Physics of the Plasma Universe" (Plasma Cosmology)
http://www.spring...4-7818-8

The disconnect must be complete stupidity, hence your other nickname of "Neutron Starman, the densest among us".

@CD
PROVE IT


I know your stupidity is nearly infinite, but all you must do is read the first few paragraphs in just about any Plasma Cosmology paper to see this as being a fact. Try one of these;
http://www.plasma...erse.pdf

http://www.plasma...1993.pdf
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
I know your stupidity is nearly infinite
@cd
wow. i ask for proof and you give me a redirect which only proves that you still have no idea what you are talking about! and you say that I am stupid?
ok, lets use really REALLY small words for the EU moron!
you said
One more item which is "totally unexpected" by standard theorists but is a prediction of Plasma Cosmologists
to which I replied
PROVE IT
Now, using your precious EU bullshite and legitimate papers published in a science journal that highly impacts astrophysics, it is upon YOUR SHOULDERS to provide PROOF

because YOU made a fallacious statement (above)
and YOU CAN'T PROVE IT without resorting to redirect or pseudoscience

IF THERE IS A LEGITIMATE PAPER PUBLISHED @ A LEGIT SITE WITH ASTROPHYSICS IMPACT, THEN YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVE YOURSELF

like the physicists say: EU is pseudoscience wrapped in tin-foil conspiracy sold by CON MEN for the scientifically illiterate and stupid to follow like a religion!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Plasma Cosmology paper to see this as being a fact. Try one of these;
http://www.plasma...erse.pdf

http://www.plasma...1993.pdf
one last thing, spark-boy

I don't open these sites anymore. After visiting one of your thunderbutts site links and a plascosmo link I got hit with a nasty virus...

So if IT AINT FROM A LEGIT SITE, I don't even bother opening your links... you find me one from a reputable site, with a reputable EDU ending or at least affiliated with a college like PPPL.gov, and THEN you can talk smack...

until then, YOU and YEP and the REST of your EU acolytes are PUSHING A KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE AND BULLSHITE

THAT is why YOU CAN'T FIND REPUTABLE SITES to LINK!
because REPUTABLE SITES DON'T PUBLISH PSEUDOSCIENCE

STILL NO PROOF FROM YOU spark boy... why not?
BECAUSE IT IS PSEUDOSCIENCE! and theONLY support you get is FROM PSEUDOSCIENCE

sorry spark boy...still an EPIC FAIL at proving EU!!

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
Maxwell's Equations, the foundation of every formula from Ohm's and Joule's Laws to the right-hand and left-hand rules, and the definition of resistance, reactance, impedance, capacitance, and inductance, along with everything else in electronics, say your understanding of magnetism is incorrect. This is fundamental; these are Laws of Nature, the only things in science stronger than theories.

LOL, the Da...:-)
ANY law can be broken - or at least bent. Just ask a lawyer...
Just takes imagination...:-)
Not physical laws. That's what "law" means in physics.

Then how did a cop break the laws of physics (along with the current rule book on automotive engineering) to insure I was convicted of a DUI?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
So computers, refrigerators, and jets don't work?

If you don't know how a transistor works, you can't make a computer.

Sticks aren't transistors.

So computers, jets, and refrigerators are "myths?"
You miss the point. :)

Whatever the level of sophistication of our tools and technology, there is a development trajectory involved which depends on serendipity and trial-and-error etc etc as well.

Successful development/implementation does not necessarily guarantee that current 'science' understands all the underlying universal nature/mechanisms/causes.

Eg, we USE gravity 'principles' observed to 'work' in particular way; design tools/technology (spaceships/rockets) that 'work' accordingly; BUT 'science' still has no mechanism-understanding of the underlying how-and-why 'gravity' is physically effected. Do you?

That was the point.

There are no proofs in science.
Yes, semantics. Anyhow, was you used 'proof' in the post to which I responded in kind.:)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
Plasma Cosmology paper to see this as being a fact. Try one of these;
http://www.plasma...erse.pdf
one last thing, spark-boy...
and
sorry spark boy...still an EPIC FAIL at proving EU!!


Lol, Cap'n...:-)
That just reminded me of an old ZZ Top song - "Master of Sparks"(Fandango album), for some reason...:-)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
Then how did a cop break the laws of physics (along with the current rule book on automotive engineering) to insure I was convicted of a DUI?
@Whyde
because he was crooked
any decent 1st year grad would be able to defeat this if there is proof
"Master of Sparks"(Fandango album),
I thought that it was Tres Hombres? 1973 WARNER BROS RECORDS?
you must be thinking about The Sixpack (disc 2: Tres Hombres / Fandango!)
used to have the original in vinyl. :-)
Might still... don't remember
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
You're right was Tres Hombres...
Dang, now even the LONG term memory is fuzzy...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
Then how did a cop break the laws of physics (along with the current rule book on automotive engineering) to insure I was convicted of a DUI?
@Whyde
because he was crooked
any decent 1st year grad would be able to defeat this if there is proof.

I had the proof - defence counsel advised that any attempt to make a cop look bad would draw the "ire" of the court.
And speaking of investigations - I'll post on Sapos for you an interesting investigative effort that needs to be done, if you're interested.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
So computers, refrigerators, and jets don't work?
If you don't know how a transistor works, you can't make a computer.
Sticks aren't transistors.
So computers, jets, and refrigerators are "myths?"
You miss the point.

Whatever the level of sophistication of our tools and technology, there is a development trajectory involved which depends on serendipity and trial-and-error etc etc as well.

Successful development/implementation does not necessarily guarantee that current 'science' understands all the underlying universal nature/mechanisms/causes.

Eg, we USE gravity 'principles' observed to 'work' in particular way; design tools/technology (spaceships/rockets) that 'work' accordingly; BUT 'science' still has no mechanism-understanding of the underlying how-and-why 'gravity' is physically effected. Do you?

That was the point.
There are no proofs in science.
Yes, semantics. Anyhow, was you used 'proof' in the post to which I responded in kind. Cheers :)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2014
After visiting one of your thunderbutts site links and a plascosmo link I got hit with a nasty virus...


Don't blame me for your twisted porn habits, thunderbutts is yours and previously barakn's. You're not even bright enough to come up with your own jokes.
BTW, PROVE IT!

And plasmauniverse.info? Yes, those ruthless fellows over at Los Alamos NL. note their copyright at the bottom of the page.

The fact that you're claiming such BS says much...Oh, and you willingness to remain willfully ignorant. The stupidity is just hereditary, can't blame you for that. Ya is what ya is, and that is DA DA DAH; Captain CAPLOCKS/Stupid.

STILL NO PROOF FROM YOU spark boy... why not?


You're a book burning censor, only willing to read and believe what he's been told by the "proper authorities".

Why not go a check out a book, it'll be right there printed in black and white and no worries about those scary viruses.

Try 'Cosmic Plasma' by Alfven, you may have to go to a Univ library.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2014
I like this "framed" response, or backdoor lie as you could say.
like the physicists say: EU is pseudoscience wrapped in tin-foil conspiracy sold by CON MEN for the scientifically illiterate and stupid to follow like a religion!


Should read if truthful,
"like THE physicist Timmy Thompson says; Blah, blah, blah, Timmy!

https://www.youtu...8tXeUDP8
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2014
Don't blame me for your twisted porn habits
@cd
porn is your habit, not mine
those ruthless fellows over at Los Alamos NL. note their copyright at the bottom of the page
And Google servers hold everything from PORN to some official Gov't websites... doesn't mean that they support either, only means that the server is theirs
Still haven't learned squat about the internet yet boy?
You're a book burning censor, only willing to read and believe what he's been told....]no worries about those scary viruses
warning was for others, not you.

I noticed that in all your posts above you provide NO EMPIRICAL DATA FROM ANY REPUTABLE SOURCES.
thanks for proving my point about you having NO proof.

nice attempt to change the topic though

now... back on topic

WHERE IS MY PROOF sparky?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
So computers, refrigerators, and jets don't work?

If you don't know how a transistor works, you can't make a computer.

Sticks aren't transistors.

So computers, jets, and refrigerators are "myths?"
You miss the point.


You tried that one already and it didn't work then, and it's not gonna work now. Put some science in them or I'm not interested.

I'd say it was you who missed the point. I'd also say you're clearly trawling. (You do know how that's properly pronounced in English, right?)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2014
I noticed that in all your posts above you provide NO EMPIRICAL DATA FROM ANY REPUTABLE SOURCES.
:D This is the hammer. Keep using it. Reputable scholarly sources that use peer review. Every time they deny it they get another five or ten Baez points.
yep
1 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2014
Hammer this into your head boys.
http://advan.phys...45.short
http://onlinelibr...112/full
http://journals.c...00011444
http://www.ploson...738-g006
Again, empirical evidence based in a false premise is garbage in garbage out.
Its kind of silly, you have brilliant scientists completely discounted until the "empirical evidence" is gathered, they are then vindicated by this data only to be discounted as their basis is ignored and the status quo continues in righteous denial in favor of theories with priori justification.
http://plato.stan...apriori/
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2014
All links no quotes.

You're not even trying, yep.

What do you claim each link proves? You're not making any claims, nor showing how those claims you didn't make are supported by the "evidence." You post a link to some 100-page document and go, "it's all in there."

It would be a complete waste of time to attempt to respond other than to note the above facts.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2014
I noticed that in all your posts above you provide NO EMPIRICAL DATA FROM ANY REPUTABLE SOURCES.
:D This is the hammer. Keep using it. Reputable scholarly sources that use peer review. Every time they deny it they get another five or ten Baez points.
Da Schneib
Yeah... they even tried this whole SERVER argument back in another thread... apparently they think that the Los Alamos servers give them credibility
Tim Thompson schooled them on it but apparently CD forgot about reality
feb 6 Tim Thompson
The server for plasmauniverse.info sits at Los Alamos, but they do not institutionally endorse anything on that site, nor do they own the URL, which belongs to Anthony Peratt. The fact that it sits at Los Alamos is irrelevant.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

CHECK OUT THAT LINK to the Higgs story...
even after being thoroughly trounced, they (EU idiots) STILL make the SAME mistakes over and over

yep
1 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2014
Its not a waste of time to understand the context of what you are asking, and those are excellent posts for doing that. "This is the Hammer" "Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science"
Standard theory is your faith. Its a devotion to assumption and conjecture in a time before data was available to give us the larger picture.
Here is a the larger picture, "its all in there"
http://www.diva-p...LLTEXT01
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2014
Standard theory is your faith
@yep
no... it is just far EASIER to believe in the empirical evidence provided by the numerous studies that prove the point than to skip past reality and take a ride on teh WOO-HOO train and accept a debunked pseudoscience like EU... THAT is a FAITH
you accept it without consideration of reality and in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary, which is the very definition of FAITH... whereas WE are willing to adapt OUR POV based upon the evidence provided

sorry... you still are not providing any PROOF or empirical data supporting your position... you are trying to draw attention away from this point by offering volumes of irrelevant data to wade through in the hopes that we will tire of the exchange

RE READ Da Schneib's posts!
You're not making any claims, nor showing how those claims you didn't make are supported by the "evidence."
your post above only supports my conclusions of "diversion due to panic" because ya got nothing
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2014
Da Schneib
Yeah... they even tried this whole SERVER argument back in another thread... apparently they think that the Los Alamos servers give them credibility


You really are a complete moron. First, Peratt is an employee at Los Alamos NL and is why they allow him to use the server for his website. They explain it here;
http://www.lanl.g...egal.php
and yes, I understand they don't "institutionally" endorse the material, but that point really is meaningless.

Also, all of the papers that are linked from his site were originally published elsewhere in "reputable" peer reviewed journals, this just happens to be repository (not suppository, such as yourself) of his own and others work in regards to Plasma Cosmology.

The "credibility" arises from the fact this guy is an eminent nuclear and plasma physicist employed by the DOE and LANL to better understand the US' nuclear arsenal. The physics he uses in that charge are the same he uses to explain the physics of the Plasma Universe.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2014
no... it is just far EASIER to believe in the empirical evidence provided by the numerous studies that prove the point than to skip past reality and take a ride on teh WOO-HOO train and accept a debunked pseudoscience like EU.


The real irony is how you profess "empirical evidence" yet prefer theories that totally disregard that empirical evidence in favor of theoretical beliefs. If the models you prefer to believe in were correct, Chapman would have been right and Birkeland would have been wrong about the auroras. Oddly, what we call the currents feeding the aural ring are Birkeland currents, not Chapman currents. Once again, your fanciful beliefs are founded only in theoretical mathematical beliefs, Plasma Cosmology on the other hand is firmly based upon experimental and in situ measurements as clearly stated in Yep's link written by Falthammar.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2014
and yes, I understand they don't "institutionally" endorse the material, but that point really is meaningless
@cd
it is NOT meaningless when you are using it as a point of endorsement. when you state
at Los Alamos NL. note their copyright at the bottom of the page
then you are suggesting that Los Alamos endorses the material, and this is COMPLETELY WRONG, as you FINALLY just admitted!
all of the papers that are linked from his site were originally published elsewhere in "reputable" peer reviewed journals
then you should be able to EASILY find them on THOSE JOURNALS... what you DON'T want is those journals peer review to be seen traching the stupidity of those arguments
The "credibility" arises from the fact this guy is an eminent nuclear and plasma physicist
NOPE. the CREDIBILITY arises from eth EMPIRICAL DATA

now, get back to the POINT

WHERE IS MY PROOF spark-boy?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2014
The real irony is how you profess "empirical evidence" yet prefer theories that totally disregard that empirical evidence in favor of theoretical beliefs
@cd
please provide PROOF of this
i follow EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE... and you have YET to provide EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE THAT IMPACTS ASTROPHYSICS

YOU provided the argument for a subject
YOU posted links to KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE SITES as proof
YOU are the one saying that there is empirical data supporting your position
YOU are the one FAILING to present this data
YOU are the one that cannot post links from reputable sources
YOU are the one that the burden of proof falls upon
IF THERE IS EMPIRICAL DATA PUBLISHED IN A REPUTABLE JOURNAL SUPPORTING YOUR ASSERTIONS AND CONJECTURE, THEN YOU SHOULD USE THAT INSTEAD OF YOUR PSEUDOSCIENCE LINKS

another epic failure for eu, cd and the whole pseudoscience community
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2014
then you are suggesting that Los Alamos endorses the material, and this is COMPLETELY WRONG, as you FINALLY just admitted!


YOU CLAIMED that you got a VIRUS and in turn SUGGESTED it was FROM plasmauniverse.info, I merely pointed out that the host of the website is A GOVERNMENTAL institution.

@cd
please provide PROOF of this

Yep's link explains it quite well, can you read?

IF THERE IS EMPIRICAL DATA PUBLISHED IN A REPUTABLE JOURNAL SUPPORTING YOUR ASSERTIONS AND CONJECTURE, THEN YOU SHOULD USE THAT INSTEAD OF YOUR PSEUDOSCIENCE LINKS

Done it, and your response? CONSPIRACY! Damn fool!

WHERE IS MY PROOF spark-boy?


If you could read, you would see it has already been "proven" and in spades. Here is another instance where Alfven made the claim over four decades ago;
http://www.nobelp...ture.pdf

Note in 'Table 1-Cosmical Electrodynamics'; "Currents produce FILAMENTS or flow in thin sheets"...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2014
NOPE. the CREDIBILITY arises from eth EMPIRICAL DATA


Yep, and that is what Peratt employs in his study of both nuclear physics and his extrapolation of those physics to cosmological scales.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2014
YOU CLAIMED that you got a VIRUS and in turn SUGGESTED it was FROM plasmauniverse.info
@cd
i said thunderbutts, your EU site... and directly thru one of YOUR links, so ANY link you provide that is NOT a reputable site I will ignore and denounce to all. I added plasma because ANY site that supports EU is PSEUDOSCIENCE and that has been PROVEN already
I merely pointed out that the host of the website is A GOVERNMENTAL institution
AND you tried to suggest that it was somehow affiliated with the EU bulls**t you posted... as proven by THIS comment
at Los Alamos NL. note their copyright at the bottom of the page
THIS is something you tried before and got schooled, that is why you are SERIOUSLY backpedaling now in the hopes that you can recover from this gaff
Yep's link explains it quite well, can you read?
Yep's links do NOT provide proof that I
profess "empirical evidence" yet prefer theories that totally disregard that empirical evidence
NO PROOF=PSEUDOSCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2014
Done it, and your response? CONSPIRACY!
@cd
i never cried CONSPIRACY... that is YOUR thing!
I simply state that IF THERE IS EMPIRICAL DATA PUBLISHED IN A REPUTABLE JOURNAL SUPPORTING YOUR ASSERTIONS AND CONJECTURE, THEN YOU SHOULD USE THAT INSTEAD OF YOUR PSEUDOSCIENCE LINKS

So far, your idea of PROOF is to link to pseudoscience sites like your thunderbolt BS site INSTEAD of a reputable journal WITH AN ASTROPHYSICS IMPACT that has peer reviewed empirical data.

SO AGAIN... we see you have ZERO PROOF
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

If you could read, you would see it has already been "proven" and in spades
NOT ONLY have you NOT provided proof, but you also can't point to ANY reputable journals and peer reviewed articles supporting your assertions

and you never point out ANYTHING in your links to support your assertions either... and when you TRY to, you get it wrong most of the time

AGAIN
NO PROOF = YOU POST PSEUDOSCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2014
Yep, and that is what Peratt employs in his study of both nuclear physics and his extrapolation of those physics to cosmological scales
@cd
and you make an ASSUMPTION that the above authors study knows nothing about plasma physics,
IF THERE WAS EMPIRICAL DATA supporting your assertions, you would have posted it
just because he doesn't comply to the eu pseudoscience posting requirements and jargon/lexicon doesn't mean he is wrong
show me WHERE in the study he gets it wrong!

PROOF that you ignore EMPIRICAL DATA
http://plasma.phy...ome.html

before you start to try and spin your eu doctrine bullsnot, you should READ the paper and LEARN something about REAL PHYSICS... and skip the faith based acolyte posts you usually do

SO AGAIN
BACK TO THE POINT
WHERE IS MY PROOF spark-boy?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2014
Sorry, cantthink, post about science instead of politics and perhaps I'll bother to respond.
yep
1 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2014
If you read history you will find science is politics.
http://www.scient...oratory/

"because ya got nothing"
Time will tell, and we've got the equipment up there working on it.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2014
If you read history you will find science is politics.
@yep
and if you read SCIENCE, you will find it is about empirical data, evidence and a methodology that requires certain things which you and your eu don't have
https://en.wikipe...c_method

"because ya got nothing"
Time will tell, and we've got the equipment up there working on it.
so... in other words... YA GOT NOTHING and you are ADMITTING IT... but you don't want to drop it because you have FAITH that you are right?

UNTIL there is empirical data supporting a conclusion and proof that I can read and see for myself from a REPUTABLE SOURCE that is PEER REVIEWED and has an IMPACT IN ASTROPHYSICS, then I will remain skeptical and I will not accept your CLAIMS... which are NOT based upon facts or empirical proof

which you essentially agree to with your post above!
THANKS
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2014
If you read history you will find science is politics.
It's only part of it and not the important part.
yep
1 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2014
Wishful on thinking on your part, but an excellent example of your misunderstanding of data from my posts and data from my words. See how a false premise can confuse the data.
My initial post was in awe that you were asking CD to prove EU predicts transmission of gasses because it meant you did not understand the basis for Plasma Cosmology. That alternative to gravity based thermonuclear imagination, Birkeland currents, double layers, particle acceleration, pinching up the interstellar dust, creating suns, connecting galaxies, cosmic web etc. Here this post may help your understanding with pretty pictures of Plasma in various states.
http://www2.warwi...e_04.pdf
Then DA new kid chimed in with the neutrality assumption of no charge separation because beautiful math.http://axelmaas.b...try.html Fortunately we have Chandra's (space equipment) x-ray data to dispel that nonsense.
yep
1 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2014
Your hammer of peer review became a pillow,ok, goose feathers because you guys didn't want to read several posts to give you a perspective about bias and Peer Review "A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science"
And you keep pounding the empirical evidence drum unable to comprehend the "priori justification" you have for it. It does not matter how correct the data is if its based on flawed assumptions, big bangs, black holes, neutron stars and other scientific creation myths which defy physics and common sense.
If you read the abstract you might not be making these mistakes.
Since Alfven's Noble award lecture is not valid enough for you.
Reputable source with facts and empirical proofs!
Department of Plasma Physics The Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm Sweden
http://www.diva-p...LLTEXT01
p.s. You get to read more fun measurements from "space equipment"
Whoohoo!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2014
Your hammer of peer review became a pillow,ok, goose feathers because you guys didn't want to read several posts to give you a perspective about bias and Peer Review
@yep
reading from a pseudoscience site is NOT going to prove ANYTHING
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt ,
your comment only proves that you are more interested in TROLLING than in empirical evidence proving something
It does not matter how correct the data is if its based on flawed assumptions
this is actually the drum I want you to remember! if it is based upon FLAWED assumptions, it cannot be correct at all... and eu is based upon FLAWED ASSUMPTOINS... which is what I have been trying to drill into cd for a long time now.
He even had the benefit of a physicist to show him the flaws, and that was ignored for the pseudoscience links on the eu site.
now considering this, are you still wanting to take this any further?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2014
My initial post was in awe that you were asking CD to prove EU predicts transmission of gasses because it meant you did not understand the basis for Plasma Cosmology
@yep
lets see what was said, ok?
CD said
One more item which is "totally unexpected" by standard theorists but is a prediction of Plasma Cosmologists. I see the apologists are out in force again
to which I replied
prove it
and then you posted
Wow! Captain are you serious how many times has CD posted about EU? Did you not read any of it? Is your faith of the scientific creationism called Big Bang so entrenched and your cries of heresy so loud that it blinded you to another possibility. It seems so, since you obviously do not have the slightest clue about what plasma cosmology is, yet you spent the last year railing against it
this makes several assumptions that are totally not true... but lets not get ahead of ourselves
here is everything in black and white
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2014
continued
cd's assertions was one of total stupidity. it takes something out of context and leaves the uniqueness of the situation completely out of it.
MY challenge was to PROVE that this is " "totally unexpected" by standard theorists but is a prediction of Plasma Cosmologists" to which he cannot bring one single peer reviewed source from a legitimate journal with an astrophysics impact.
Then YOU chime in with your comments, yep.
WTF does cd and his ranting about debunked eu have to do with it? NOTHING! yes, he posts about eu all the time... SO WHAT... he also fails, time and again, to provide ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of his conjectures without referring to a KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE

I've been to your eu site... more than once. the last time I was hit with a virus... and it took me a few days to fix. but even THAT is not important...

what IS IMPORTANT is this:
he made an unsubstantiated claim that is NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2014
continued
so then you pop off wit YOUR comments... well guess what, yup: unlike YOU or CD or your EU BULLSNOT... my mind is open to MOST things, as long as there is evidence to prove it!
I am not like you... I cannot just accept the eu crap without empirical data and then make dreamy ties between unsubstantiated claims based on vague similarities of jpg's posted on an internet site that is not controlled except by the greed of the con-men writing your site.

i demand... THAT IS RIGHT... I DEMAND EMPIRICAL PROOF!

i don't accept even my MOMMA's words without proof! what makes you think you should be treated better?
I have met some incredible con-men in the past, and they all sound lust like you and your eu bullsnot... and then get just as defensive as you do when you point out that they have no empirical evidence supporting them

THAT IS WHY YOU CONTINUALLY FAIL
that is also why your eu has been continually DEBUNKED in the physics community
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2014
continued
just because you can see sime vague similarities between unrelated objects doesn't mean there is a connection
take the comments from the past cd made about the grand canyon or the moon craters... we have OBSERVED asteroids making craters... no one EVER has observed ANY plasma discharge making ANY formations on the moon or on earth that rival the moon craters or the grand canyon. EVER
there would also be EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE left behind that IS NOT FOUND

but getting back on topic
my "Your hammer of peer review" is exactly that... a hammer that DESTROYS pseudoscience... ANYONE can print up something that looks like a legitimate document/study... heck, zephir has posted retracted studies before... it proves only ONE thing! that you cannot find legitimate evidence supporting your conjectures!

and so I will pound away on that point
UNTIL YOU CAN PROVIDE LEGITIMATE PEER REVIEWED RELEVANT ARTICLES FROM A JOURNAL THAT IMPACTS ASTROPHYSICS then you are pushing PSEUDOSCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2014
lastly
so UNTIL YOU START SKIPPING THE BLOG POSTS
and until YOU POST EMPIRICAL DATA SUPPORTING YOUR CONJECTURE
and until you guys start using legitimate science that is provable and leave off linking to your PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE thunderbolts and all that CRAP... then the only thing you are doing is proving, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, how correct I am in assigning you to the moniker of TROLL, as well as PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT

Now, if you wish to continue in this direction, please note this: from you eu types
I don't open links that are to BLOGS anymore
I don't open links that are not edu anymore
I don't accept anything other than peer reviewed empirical data from legitimate journals with an astrophysical impact

especially after proving TIME AND AGAIN that modern astrophysicists learn plasma physics to be considered an astrophysicist... whereas electrical engineers DO NOT LEARN ABOUT ASTROPHYSICAL CONCEPTS

so... I ask cd again to PROVE IT!
so far ya aint done SQUAT