Despite extensive analysis, Fermi bubbles defy explanation

Aug 01, 2014
This artist's representation shows the Fermi bubbles towering above and below the galaxy. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

(Phys.org) —Scientists from Stanford and the Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory have analyzed more than four years of data from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, along with data from other experiments, to create the most detailed portrait yet of two towering bubbles that stretch tens of thousands of light-years above and below our galaxy.

The bubbles, which shine most brightly in energetic , were discovered almost four years ago by a team of Harvard astrophysicists led by Douglas Finkbeiner who combed through data from Fermi's main instrument, the Large Area Telescope.

The new portrait, described in a paper that has been accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal, reveals several puzzling features, said Dmitry Malyshev, a postdoctoral researcher at the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology who co-led on the analysis.

For example, the outlines of the bubbles are quite sharp, and the bubbles themselves glow in nearly uniform gamma rays over their colossal surfaces, like two 30,000-light-year-tall incandescent bulbs screwed into the center of the galaxy.

Their size is another puzzle. The farthest reaches of the Fermi bubbles boast some of the highest energy gamma rays, but there's no discernable cause for them that far from the galaxy.

Finally, although the parts of the bubbles closest to the galactic plane shine in microwaves as well as gamma rays, about two-thirds of the way out the microwaves fade and only gamma rays are detectable. Not only is this different from other galactic bubbles, but it makes the researchers' work that much more challenging, said Malyshev's co-lead, KIPAC postdoctoral researcher Anna Franckowiak.

"Since the Fermi bubbles have no known counterparts in other wavelengths in areas high above the galactic plane, all we have to go on for clues are the gamma rays themselves," she said.

What Blew The Bubbles?

Soon after the initial discovery theorists jumped in, offering several explanations for the bubbles' origins. For example, they could have been created by huge jets of accelerated matter blasting out from the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy. Or they could have been formed by a population of giant stars, born from the plentiful gas surrounding the black hole, all exploding as supernovae at roughly the same time.

"There are several models that explain them, but none of the models is perfect," Malyshev said. "The bubbles are rather mysterious."

Creating the portrait wasn't easy.

"It's very tricky to model," said Franckowiak. "We had to remove all the foreground gamma-ray emissions from the data before we could clearly see the bubbles."

From the vantage point of most Earth-bound telescopes, all but the highest- are completely screened out by our atmosphere. It wasn't until the era of orbiting gamma-ray observatories like Fermi that scientists discovered how common extra-terrestrial gamma rays really are. Pulsars, supermassive black holes in other galaxies and supernovae are all gamma rays point sources, like distant stars are point sources of visible light, and all those gamma rays had to be scrubbed from the Fermi data. Hardest to remove were the galactic diffuse emissions, a gamma ray fog that fills the galaxy from cosmic rays interacting with interstellar particles.

"Subtracting all those contributions didn't subtract the bubbles," Franckowiak said. "The bubbles do exist and their properties are robust." In other words, the bubbles don't disappear when other gamma-ray sources are pulled out of the Fermi data – in fact, they stand out quite clearly.

Franckowiak says more data is necessary before they can narrow down the origin of the any further.

"What would be very interesting would be to get a better view of them closer to the galactic center," she said, "but the galactic gamma ray emissions are so bright we'd need to get a lot better at being able to subtract them."

Fermi is continuing to gather the data Franckowiak wants, but for now, both researchers said, there are a lot of open questions.

Explore further: Astronomers find 'cousin' planets around twin stars

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Ghostly gamma-ray beams blast from Milky Way's center

May 29, 2012

(Phys.org) -- As galaxies go, our Milky Way is pretty quiet. Active galaxies have cores that glow brightly, powered by supermassive black holes swallowing material, and often spit twin jets in opposite directions. ...

Recommended for you

The origins of local planetary orbits

10 hours ago

A plutino is an asteroid-sized body that orbits the Sun in a 2:3 resonance with Neptune. They are named after Pluto, which also orbits the Sun twice for every three orbits of Neptune. It is thought that Pluto ...

Wild ducks take flight in open cluster

11 hours ago

The Wide Field Imager on the MPG/ESO 2.2-meter telescope at ESO's La Silla Observatory in Chile has taken this beautiful image, dappled with blue stars, of one of the most star-rich open clusters currently ...

Image: The Pillars of Creation

11 hours ago

The Pillars of Creation (seen above) is an image of a portion of the Eagle nebula (M16) taken by Hubble Space Telescope in 1995. It soon became one of the most iconic space images of all time. The Eagle nebula ...

User comments : 55

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

no fate
2.3 / 5 (20) Aug 01, 2014
"What Blew The Bubbles?"

It's called a confinement dome. Hence "the outlines of the bubbles are quite sharp, and the bubbles themselves glow in nearly uniform gamma rays over their colossal surfaces, like two 30,000-light-year-tall incandescent bulbs screwed into the center of the galaxy." -AND- "farthest reaches of the Fermi bubbles boast some of the highest energy gamma rays, but there's no discernable cause for them that far from the galaxy.

https://www.youtu...gyJ0k8Kw

10 minutes in.

shavera
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2014
Since they pass through the dark matter halo, I'd love to see if we can tease out any interactions with it. Not saying we *would*, just... if dark matter is some kinds of things, maybe we could.
SoylentGrin
4.8 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2014
Is it just me, or does that look like the dz^2 orbital?
Tuxford
1.1 / 5 (11) Aug 01, 2014
The sharp boundaries of the bubbles argues in favor of the superwave theory of LaViolette. Periodic cosmic ray outbursts from the central supermassive grey hole are the origin. A recent wave which passed during the last ice age is now illuminating the Crag Nebula. But then, this idea is too disturbing to consider. Surely these thinkers have a better idea?

http://etheric.co...-center/
EWH
5 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2014
Ideas:
1.Forget the Stay-Puff marshmallow man, this is what happens when you cross the streams.
2. Really hot chili peppers
3. That galaxy's Blacklight Power's hydrino BS generator not only worked, but worked way too well.
4. Space flatulence.
5. Quantum.
6. Branes.
7. Quantum branes.
8. Miscellaneous
9. Advertising
10. Squirrels. You can't trust those little b*stards.
supamark23
5 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2014
Is it just me, or does that look like the dz^2 orbital?


Funny, I was thinking the same thing...
richardwenzel987
4.8 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2014
Has anyone looked for similar features in other galaxies? These things should not be unique.
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2014
no fate,

I like the Primer Field idea of bowl-shaped magnetic fields, but the problem I have is conceiving of how these fields are formed. Do you know if LaPoint has put together any equations or theories beyond the observation alone describing the nature of these fields?
Dr_toad
Aug 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2014
Good point, Richard. Resolving structures in gamma rays in distant galaxies might present some engineering challenges right now, but hold out hope for more sensitive instruments..

If they are unique to the Milky Way, I vote for number 10 above.. ;)
From the article you didnt read:

"about two-thirds of the way out the microwaves fade and only gamma rays are detectable. Not only is this different from other galactic bubbles..." ;))
Arties
2.2 / 5 (11) Aug 01, 2014
Despite extensive analysis, Fermi bubbles defy explanation
Ironically just before few days another LQG model of black holes has been published, which allows the periodical bursts of black holes - in exactly the way, which American astronomer LaViolette predicted before thirty years. In AWT the black holes share many points with dense stars including the gravitational brightening at their poles (polar jets) and occasional bursts in form of neutrinos and dark matter particles, which materialize with CMBR above and bellow galactic plane. That idea, that the black holes may turn into white holes by itself is not new at all.
Arties
2 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2014
The whole controversy follows from the fact, that despite general relativity by itself predicts, all massive objects will end in gravitational singularity with no mercy, the quantum mechanics has exactly the opposite opinion in this matter. So that everything what you derive with random combination of these two theories can be true to some less or more distant portion of the Universe. IMO the black holes can evaporate their matter as vivaciously as common stars, the only difference is, this evaporation is limited to smallest / most lightweight particles we know. The alleged white holes (time-reversed black holes) are represented with tips of black hole jets in AWT geometry and at the beginning of black hole life their number and intensity is quite prominent. As the black hole evaporates, it becomes more quiet and the number of jets decreases. At the very end only pair of jets remains and the black hole only occasionally puffs its matter into outside like the puffball.
jburchel
5 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2014
Looks just like the 2s orbital. How weird.
Dr_toad
Aug 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Arties
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2014
The models in which black holes aren't quite black are emerging recently with increasing rate: Black Holes Aren't Black After All, Say Theoretical Physicists
Looks just like the 2s orbital. How weird.
It's not weird, but an example of holographic duality. Even at the water surface the transverse ripples at short distance get scattered into longitudinal ones in geometrically similar way, like the waves at large scale. But the above picture is very artistic one and it hides an important details: the X-ray lobes are composed of bundle of jets, which I consider the remnants of black hole explosive past.
Arties
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2014
But no mention of bubbles other than that
The galactic lobes are actually quite frequent for more active/younger galaxies. Note that they tend to ignore the orientation of galaxy axis, which brings another similarity of black hole jets with common pulsars. In classical theories such an observations could never happen, as the black hole jets can be only parallel with axis of black hole rotation. Therefore, if the astronomers looked at this more carefully, they would already deduce a problems with black hole theory before many years.
Arties
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2014
For example, the outlines of the bubbles are quite sharp, and the bubbles themselves glow in nearly uniform gamma rays over their colossal surfaces
They're sharp from the same reason, like the outer envelope of another lobes: the neutrinos get absorbed fast with CMBR under formation of shock waves, when their energy decreases bellow certain level. An absorption curve of elementary particles inside of matter (Braggs peak) comes on mind here and it's an example of holographic AdS/CFT duality again: the phenomena at small distance scale tend to replicate itself at large cosmic scales.
shmeshly
1 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2014
Relevant? If not this community may be interested anyhow. http://merlib.org/node/4004
tim_hammett_56
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2014
"What Blew The Bubbles?"

It's called a confinement dome. Hence "the outlines of the bubbles are quite sharp, and the bubbles themselves glow in nearly uniform gamma rays over their colossal surfaces, like two 30,000-light-year-tall incandescent bulbs screwed into the center of the galaxy." -AND- "farthest reaches of the Fermi bubbles boast some of the highest energy gamma rays, but there's no discernable cause for them that far from the galaxy.

See video: It answers the question. There is a perfectly good reason for them. It would be surprising If these where not found.

https://www.youtu...gyJ0k8Kw




vidyunmaya
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 02, 2014
Sub:In search of origins.
About 20-24 PPT projections were presented by me combining my two research papers-
1.NANDI AN INTRODUCTION OF NEW CONCEPT FOR FLOW-FIELDS INTEGRATION By VIDYARDHI NANDURI
2.SUPER-IMPOSITION OF VISIBLE -INVISIBLE MATRIX MODE OVER SPACE BASED OBSERVATIONS VIDYARDHI NANDURI
THE FIRST COSPAR SYMPOSIUM- Planetary Systems of our Sun and other stars and the Future of Astronomy, Bangkok, Thailand, 11-15 Nov 2013
additionally, More projections and a few books were made available at the poste desk.
All these should have helped to -Vision next dimensional Science.-Milky-way becomes onset-mode receiver.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (9) Aug 02, 2014
Sigh! Text editors, going from "none of the [several] models is perfect" to 'defy explanation'. If they don't stress the predictions of the models severely, the Fermi bubbles 'defy' nothing.

Indeed, the abstract of the arxiv paper claim only verifications, of the bubbles not being made by jets and: "Both inverse Compton (IC) models and hadronic models including IC emission from secondary leptons fit the gamma-ray data well. In the IC scenario, the synchrotron emission from the same population of electrons can also explain the WMAP and Planck microwave haze with a magnetic field between 5 and 20 μG." [ http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.7905 ]

But it seems odd that these relatively recent features are "different from other galactic bubbles". But the [long, quickly scanned] paper doesn't seem to say anything on other bubbles or how the analysis differ; the above well fit and agreeing models seem to be standard.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.9 / 5 (14) Aug 02, 2014
@no_fate: Bullshit, and an embarrassing testament to that you didn't even opened the paper, similar to the many crackpots that infested this comment thread. The sharp boundary, which is a result of particles acting on gas, is just a testament to a dynamic, recent, short lived process.

Your "electric universe" idea, if such pseudoscience BS is what you are attempting to inject into the science of the paper, or else a pattern search failure akin to EU pseudoscience, fails because the galactic magnetic fields are non-homogeneous, they point in every which way. [See the Planck data archive.]
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2014
But no mention of bubbles other than that?
The internet is a big place. How do you know there's no other mention of galactic bubbles unless you look?
My question is valid, since there's no evidence to the contrary except a vague stub with no references..
You only think its valid because you fail to acknowledge your mistake and you fail to do any research whatsoever to find out.

Ignorance is next to sloth, a defining trait of cold-blooded bug-eating amphibians.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2014
Looks just like the 2s orbital. How weird.

It does. Makes me wonder if there are other structures similar to other molecular orbit paths.
Arties
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2014
Makes me wonder if there are other structures similar to other molecular orbit paths.
They're already above linked.
Dr_toad
Aug 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2014
But no mention of bubbles other than that?
The internet is a big place. How do you know there's no other mention of galactic bubbles unless you look?
My question is valid, since there's no evidence to the contrary except a vague stub with no references..
You only think its valid because you fail to acknowledge your mistake and you fail to do any research whatsoever to find out.

Ignorance is next to sloth, a defining trait of cold-blooded bug-eating amphibians.


Bugger off, Mouth. Torbjorn_Larsson_OM said exactly the same thing I did in the post that directly preceded your... whatever it was.
Well he read the article and researched the info in question for you. You did neither. You always expect others to follow you about and clean up your mess?
Shitead
3 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2014
Where is the spectogram for the bubble? If you can remove the foreground gamma rays, you can remove their spectra to leave just the bubble. Does the bubble rotate?
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2014
@no_fate: Bullshit, and an embarrassing testament to that you didn't even opened the paper, similar to the many crackpots that infested this comment thread. The sharp boundary, which is a result of particles acting on gas, is just a testament to a dynamic, recent, short lived process.

Your "electric universe" idea, if such pseudoscience BS is what you are attempting to inject into the science of the paper, or else a pattern search failure akin to EU pseudoscience, fails because the galactic magnetic fields are non-homogeneous, they point in every which way. [See the Planck data archive.]

You do realize that there are electrically driven stars inside the non-homogeneous galaxy you speak of right? So of course they point in every which way. Connectivity at all scales.
eliabir
1 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2014
It is the holographic projectile that presents the galaxy back to us. If they triangulate the bubbles one against the other they will see amazing stuff.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2014
Is it just me, or does that look like the dz^2 orbital?


The scalability of the electric forces on display.

The hourglass morphology was a prediction of Alfven's, it's no surprise it still "defies" explanation though.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
Just looking at the "artistic rendition" above, I would be inclined to say it's generally a combo of the central gravity well and centripetal force of galactic spin...
So, to be safe, I'm sticking with selection 8 on EWB's list.
But then, I've been known to be wrong before. Just ask my wife...
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2014
The same hourglass morphology can be seen on a stellar level as well;

http://electric-c...xies.pdf

all the way down to the sub-atomic level;
http://chemwiki.u...Orbitals

The magnetic z-pinch of electric Birkeland currents on all scales is likely what is responsible for much of what we see, and don't see...
IMP-9
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2014
all the way down to the sub-atomic level;


Those are derived from theory, the schrodinger equation. Not z-pinches. It doesn't even make any sense as the hourglass orbitals appear in they hydrogen atom, when there is only one moving charge. "This looks like that" is really not a sensible way to do science.

The hourglass morphology was a prediction of Alfven's


And where exactly did the predict this feature?
kochevnik
1.5 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2014
The bubbles are shapes formed in the center of nested toroids. These outline in turn the inflow/outflow phase waves that constitute the mercaba's black hole singularity at the toroid pinch point. I can point to an illustration if anyone is interested

This same structure is universal and applies to the atom or any naked singularity
Moebius
not rated yet Aug 03, 2014
Stuff like this and the microwave thruster that produces thrust without reaction mass reminds me of something I've been saying for years. I've said many times that much of what we think we know about physics is probably wrong. This is why I think the dark matter effect is more likely to be an error of our understanding of physics than turning out to actually be dark matter. I am also convinced after a lifetime of being skeptical that we have been visited by ET which means there must be a way to travel FTL and there are sources of power beyond our current knowledge. Wacky as all that sounds.
eric96
1 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
@Moebius

You are right, dark matter does not exist.
What "truly" exists is scale physics.
Different physics apply at different scales, the scientific community has thus far only accepted 2 scales: equal or greater than an electron, smaller then an electron, classic vs quantum physics. But I tell you now, there is galactic physics, and one of the unique physics is agglomerated cellestial gravity, where gravity at the galactic level functions not by its parts, but moreso by its whole. For this reason, the stars in a galaxy can all have the same orbital velocity except when close to dense object like black hole. Dark matter, lols, fools.
The same galactic physics can start to explain this phenomenon. Radiation in large sum would form sphere like shape. My best bet is that the milky way accumulated this radiation on its journey through previous galactic collisions, and picked up massive amounts of radiation. It does mean however, that the radiation was originally dense enough.
eric96
2 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
As Aristotle stated, there may be infinite sub-divisible particles which may or may not mean there is infinite scales of physics. We will never know as our sight will never approach infinite. God gave us eyes not so we can see, but so we can be blind.
tjdover
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2014
"What Blew The Bubbles?"

It's called a confinement dome. Hence "the outlines of the bubbles are quite sharp, and the bubbles themselves glow in nearly uniform gamma rays over their colossal surfaces, like two 30,000-light-year-tall incandescent bulbs screwed into the center of the galaxy." -AND- "farthest reaches of the Fermi bubbles boast some of the highest energy gamma rays, but there's no discernable cause for them that far from the galaxy.

https://www.youtu...gyJ0k8Kw

10 minutes in.



David's Primer Field theories also explain the hexagon shape at the top of Saturn among other things. If these theories are correct, it makes you wonder what caused him to go silent.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
"What Blew The Bubbles?"

It's called a confinement dome. Hence "the outlines of the bubbles are quite sharp, and the bubbles themselves glow in nearly uniform gamma rays over their colossal surfaces, like two 30,000-light-year-tall incandescent bulbs screwed into the center of the galaxy." -AND- "farthest reaches of the Fermi bubbles boast some of the highest energy gamma rays, but there's no discernable cause for them that far from the galaxy.

https://www.youtu...gyJ0k8Kw

10 minutes in.



David's Primer Field theories also explain the hexagon shape at the top of Saturn among other things. If these theories are correct, it makes you wonder what caused him to go silent.

It's probably because he has realized all he has discovered is the magnetic field created by a z-pinched Birkeland current, but on second thought I 'm sure he doesn't realize it.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2014
It's probably because he has realized all he has discovered is the magnetic field created by a z-pinched Birkeland current, but on second thought I 'm sure he doesn't realize it.
@CD
I guess you didn't read IMP's post? it completely destroys your argument.

and your post here only supports the conclusions that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND PHYSICS

thanks for flooding the site with pseudoscience and virus infected links to PSEUDOSCIENCE SITES like your thunderbutts.com EU crud

shall I post links to the Saturn article where you made such a brain-dead statement as this
Q's links discussed kelvin helmholtz instabilities of gases/fluids, looks cool but it's not applicable to this plasma. Diocotron instabilities in plasma is what drives these formations
[sic]
do I even need to point out your FLAWED thinking here again?

Cantdrive=TROLL and PSEUDOSCIENCE SPAMMER
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
As Aristotle stated, there may be infinite sub-divisible particles which may or may not mean there is infinite scales of physics. We will never know as our sight will never approach infinite. God gave us eyes not so we can see, but so we can be blind.
Holy shit religion and philosophy in one post! Ive gone blind!

-Only temporary. Im not even going to research what youre claiming here to see if its bullshit or not. Aristotle was a philo who had absolutely no access to experimental data. Therefore he couldnt begin to postulate on the nature of matter.

And no, priests gave you religion so you could be taught to ignore your senses and your common sense. This is the only way to get you to do that which you would not normally do, like hating people youve never met and killing them on the battlefield. And also forcing your wife to make babies until it kills her.
eric96
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2014
@TheGhostofOtto1923

Yes well, only intelligent people know intelligence when they see it, so I'll spare you and your dim witted humor and your even worse chaotic logic. The dumbest person on earth is thee which only hears his own voice, cough cough. If you can't think, why speak. You're not even a funny clown.
DeliriousNeuron
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2014
It's probably because he has realized all he has discovered is the magnetic field created by a z-pinched Birkeland current, but on second thought I 'm sure he doesn't realize it.
@CD
I guess you didn't read IMP's post? it completely destroys your argument.

and your post here only supports the conclusions that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND PHYSICS

thanks for flooding the site with pseudoscience and virus infected links to PSEUDOSCIENCE SITES like your thunderbutts.com EU crud

shall I post links to the Saturn article where you made such a brain-dead statement as this
Q's links discussed kelvin helmholtz instabilities of gases/fluids, looks cool but it's not applicable to this plasma. Diocotron instabilities in plasma is what drives these formations
[sic]
do I even need to point out your FLAWED thinking here again?

Cantdrive=TROLL and PSEUDOSCIENCE SPAMMER


A spammer because hes bored with mainstream science and computer simulations? I've got news for ya.
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2014
Its becoming a reality. You might wanna read up a little on the Electric Universe Theory. Its far more convincing than gravity models. Yes I've studied it for over 30 years and became bored.It doesn't fit what I observe. EU makes more sense to me.
So I guess I'm a spammer too huh? I'm simply pointing out another view.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
EU makes more sense to me.
So I guess I'm a spammer too huh? I'm simply pointing out another view.
@delerious
for believing inanother POV? no...
for promoting a debunked pseudoscience? yes

There are those who look, but do not see
there are those who listen, but do not hear

The EU theory and site are a bunch of Electrical eng. that conned you out of money and logic if you believe them over the empirical data of mainstream science. their theory makes assumptions that are physically impossible and their record for prediction is worse than bad, it is stellar (pun intended) in its inability. Just because you might see a similar pattern in a picture does NOT mean there is causation or correlation. You cannot predict E=MC2 from abstract or surreal art (think Dali's The Persistence of Memory)

mostly, TOO MUCH has been thoroughly DEBUNKED so...
if you post it, you would also be a spammer and troll

http://www.tim-th...eas.html
if you can learn, learn real physics first
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
Yes I've studied it for over 30 years and became bored.It doesn't fit what I observe.
@Delerious
one last thing
a belief is NOT the same thing as SCIENCE or empirical data... and a POV is NOT the same thing as postulating about the scientific reasons for something happening.

CD posts here with pseudoscience and DEBUNKED science from the EU handbook because he does NOT know physics.

Did you understand the flaw in his comment I posted above? If you did... then good, you should learn MORE about real physics...

If you did not, go here: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
You can take the courses free just like I did (and still do)
learn the RIGHT way and WHY things are doing what we know they are doing before suggesting that EU is the correct interpretation. Some of their science is pretty legit (SOME of the plasma science) but THAT does not mean it ALL is... only that there is SOME legit science!

I hope you learn and enjoy. You will find reality a lot more interesting than EU
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2014
[

There are those who look, but do not see
there are those who listen, but do not hear

The EU theory and site are a bunch of Electrical eng. that conned you out of money and logic if you believe them over the empirical data of mainstream science. their theory makes assumptions that are physically impossible and their record for prediction is worse than bad, it is stellar (pun intended) in its inability. Just because you might see a similar pattern in a picture does NOT mean there is causation or correlation. You cannot predict E=MC2 from abstract or surreal art (think Dali's The Persistence of Memory)

mostly, TOO MUCH has been thoroughly DEBUNKED so...
if you post it, you would also be a spammer and troll

http://www.tim-th...eas.html
if you can learn, learn real physics

Written in 1998! So much has changed since then.
yep
1 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2014
Empirical data based in a false priori is pseudoscience, and because you are unwilling to read about scientific history you have become high priest of the gaslight era dogma and to question those assumptions is heresy as evidenced by your righteous indignation of what is "legit" which is quite humorous considering your own belief system.
animah
5 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
Empirical data based in a false priori


No.

Empirical adj. "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

Data is data. If you disagree with it, go design your own instruments.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2014
@TheGhostofOtto1923

Yes well, only intelligent people know intelligence when they see it, so I'll spare you and your dim witted humor and your even worse chaotic logic. The dumbest person on earth is thee which only hears his own voice, cough cough. If you can't think, why speak. You're not even a funny clown.
'Thee' eric? Thee? Try the NIV. It's also full of adulterated translation but at least it's readable. It makes it a little easier to read about all the many things your god says happened, which we now know didn't happen.

So what does that make him? An incompetent? A liar? An omnipotent god who chooses to obliterate evidence and replace it with only absolutely convincing contrary evidence?

And why would he do that eric? Why would he LIE to you to find out how much you TRUSTED him?

Or perhaps he is just the clumsy invention of incompetents and liars. The NIV makes this a little easier to see that this is probably the case.
charles_ivie_1
not rated yet Aug 05, 2014
I wonder if these gamma ray sources are related to the recently discovered clouds of gas that surround galaxies. Powerful emissions along the spin axis of the central super massive object might produce a Bremsstrahlung type of reaction in the gas cloud.
Pexeso
5 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2014
Powerful emissions along the spin axis of the central super massive object might produce a Bremsstrahlung type of reaction in the gas cloud.
Indeed - the problem is in source of these emissions. The central black hole in Milky Way seems to be pretty quiet and it even f*cks the visible clouds falling into it. The accretion process from outside is not apparently the main culprit there.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2014
Written in 1998! So much has changed since then
@delerious
& updated recently (28 January 2014)as shown HERE : http://www.tim-th...aqs.html
and the updated page is here: http://www.tim-th...l_1.html
Scott gets trounced by PHYSICS... and the inability to do research on the subject that he is supposedly talking about and redefining.

Again... there is SOME legitimate science in EU (plasma physics) but there is FAR MORE in mainstream, & its supported with empirical data.

Go here: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

Learn about PHYSICS and then go on to learn about astrophysics (which will include classes on plasma physics)... THEN come back and re-read EU. You will see the foundation of fallacies that it is built upon
yep
1 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2014
"Empirical data based in a false priori"
Yes!
"A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience"
It has nothing to do with the Data or the instruments it has everything to do with the assumptions someone has interpreting that data.
Read some science history.
"There is no polite way of asking someone have you considered that your entire life has been devoted to a delusion" Daniel Dennett
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2014
no fate,

I like the Primer Field idea of bowl-shaped magnetic fields, but the problem I have is conceiving of how these fields are formed. Do you know if LaPoint has put together any equations or theories beyond the observation alone describing the nature of these fields?


He has done both. The theories are spot on...if he ever puts out the one on the solar cycle it would be fun listening to the antiquated notions of the mainstream about why it is still a gravitationally confined ball of gas.
@ TJdover - He is building right now, not theorizing. The bowls do more than anyone can fathom...strangely enough the 70 or so of us that have access to the machines have no doubt who the masters of pseudoscience are and who has it right. But hey, I am just a pompous crank on an internet forum without a PHD from an accredited learning institution...barely more educated than a patent clerk.
Heliospheric
1 / 5 (1) Sep 19, 2014
@Torbjorn_Larsson_OM Your comments are rude, and you do yourself no credit in resorting to insults @no_fate.

I almost failed to reach your important criticism, that "galactic magnetic fields are non-homogeneous," I disagree that this is an issue, and think it is confusing chaotic systems with turbulent systems. I'm also pretty sure that the morphology of the lobes is expected from plasma systems.

Heliospheric
not rated yet Sep 20, 2014
@Torbjorn_Larsson_OM. The Planck data seems to "show that there is large-scale organisation in some parts of the Galactic magnetic field". This may or may not be typical of other galaxies, and does not seem to offer data outside the galaxy, above and below its plane where the lobes are seen. Details on the ESA website here: http://goo.gl/LTIyOP