Black holes banish matter into cosmic voids

February 24, 2016
A slab cut from the cube generated by the Illustris simulation. It shows the distribution of dark matter, with a width and height of 350 million light-years and a thickness of 300000 light years. Galaxies are found in the small, white, high-density dots. Credit: Markus Haider / Illustris collaboration

We live in a universe dominated by unseen matter, and on the largest scales, galaxies and everything they contain are concentrated into filaments that stretch around the edge of enormous voids. Thought to be almost empty until now, a group of astronomers based in Austria, Germany and the United States now believe these dark holes could contain as much as 20% of the mass of the cosmos and that galaxies make up only 1/500th of the volume of the universe. The team, led by Dr Markus Haider of the Institute of Astro- and Particle Physics at the University of Innsbruck in Austria, publish their results in a new paper in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Looking at cosmic microwave radiation, modern satellite observatories like COBE, WMAP and Planck have gradually refined our understanding of the composition of the , and the most recent measurements suggest it consists of 4.9 % 'normal' (i.e. the matter that makes up stars, planets, gas and dust), or 'baryons', 26.8 % is the mysterious and unseen 'dark' matter and 68.3 % is the even more mysterious 'dark energy'.

Complementing these missions, ground-based observatories have mapped the positions of and, indirectly, their associated over large volumes, showing that they are located in filaments that make up a 'cosmic web'. Haider and his team investigated this in more detail, using data from the Illustris project, a large computer simulation of the evolution and formation of galaxies, to measure the mass and volume of these filaments and the galaxies within them.

Illustris simulates a cube of space in the universe, measuring some 350 million light years on each side. It starts when the universe was just 12 million years old, a small fraction of its current age, and tracks how gravity and the flow of matter changes the structure of the cosmos up to the present day. The simulation deals with both normal and dark matter, with the most important effect being the gravitational pull of the dark matter.

The same slice of data, this time showing the distribution of normal, or baryonic matter. Credit: Markus Haider / Illustris collaboration

When the scientists looked at the data, they found that about 50% of the total mass of the universe is in the places where galaxies reside, compressed into a volume of 0.2% of the universe we see, and a further 44% is in the enveloping . Just 6% is located in the voids, which make up 80% of the volume.

But Haider's team also found that a surprising fraction of normal matter – 20% - is likely to be have been transported into the voids. The culprit appears to be the supermassive black holes found in the centres of galaxies. Some of the matter falling towards the holes is converted into energy. This energy is delivered to the surrounding gas, and leads to large outflows of matter, which stretch for hundreds of thousands of light years, reaching far beyond the extent of their host galaxies.

Apart from filling the voids with more matter than thought, the result might help explain the missing baryon problem, where do not see the amount of normal matter predicted by their models.

Dr Haider comments: "This simulation, one of the most sophisticated ever run, suggests that the black holes at the centre of every galaxy are helping to send matter into the loneliest places in the universe. What we want to do now is refine our model, and confirm these initial findings."

Illustris is now running new simulations, and results from these should be available in a few months, with the researchers keen to see whether for example their understanding of black hole output is right. Whatever the outcome though, it will be hard though to see the matter in the voids, as this is likely to be very tenuous, and too cool to emit the X-rays that would make it detectable by satellites.

Explore further: Cosmologists weigh cosmic filaments and voids

More information: The new work appears in "Large-scale mass distribution in the Illustris simulation", M. Haider, D. Steinhauser, M. Vogelsberger, S. Genel, V. Springel, P. Torrey, and L. Hernquist, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Oxford University Press, in press. mnras.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.1093/mnras/stw077

Related Stories

Cosmologists weigh cosmic filaments and voids

April 17, 2014

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

Dark matter guides growth of supermassive black holes

February 18, 2015

Every massive galaxy has a black hole at its center, and the heftier the galaxy, the bigger its black hole. But why are the two related? After all, the black hole is millions of times smaller and less massive than its home ...

The dark side of galactic radio jets

July 8, 2015

Cosmic microwave radiation points to invisible 'dark matter', marking the spot where jets of material travel at near light speed, according to an international team of astronomers. Lead author Rupert Allison of Oxford University ...

ALMA spots monstrous baby galaxies cradled in dark matter

December 4, 2015

Astronomers discovered a nest of monstrous baby galaxies 11.5 billion light-years away using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA). The young galaxies seem to reside at the junction of gigantic filaments ...

Recommended for you

Hubble spots an irregular island in a sea of space

August 29, 2016

This image, courtesy of the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope's Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS), captures the glow of distant stars within NGC 5264, a dwarf galaxy located just over 15 million light-years away in the constellation ...

NASA's Juno successfully completes Jupiter flyby

August 29, 2016

NASA's Juno mission successfully executed its first of 36 orbital flybys of Jupiter today. The time of closest approach with the gas-giant world was 6:44 a.m. PDT (9:44 a.m. EDT, 13:44 UTC) when Juno passed about 2,600 miles ...

The proliferation of Jupiter-like worlds

August 29, 2016

Our galaxy is home to a bewildering variety of Jupiter-like worlds: hot ones, cold ones, giant versions of our own giant, pint-sized pretenders only half as big around.

Rosetta captures comet outburst

August 25, 2016

In unprecedented observations made earlier this year, Rosetta unexpectedly captured a dramatic comet outburst that may have been triggered by a landslide.

77 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Steelwolf
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 26, 2016
That 'Dark Matter' projection looks a LOT like an electrical current arcing, and if that is the case, then 'Dark Matter' may merely be a filamentary form of electron plasma which would lead to a charged space that would attract the opposite charge, thus the Protons and heavier matter comes along second and That forms the galaxies and other Baryonic matter that we see. This helps to explain why the magnetic fields from the Central Black Holes in many Galaxies, and especially ones that have AGC's that are producing large jets and or Quasar activity all seem to line up along the filament that they belong to. With the recent article on jet-producing galaxies within the first 3 Billion years of the Universe's existence this has given these structures a fair amount of time to form, and if one changed the timescale to match the size of the Super-Macro Cosmic Structures it would put them much closer to the Big Bang event on Their timeline. THAT gives us something we Can study!
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2016
What and grand exercise in GIGO, with a result of even more garbage. The filamentary nature of the Universe is due to the fact the 99.999% of the matter is plasma. Astrophysicists grasping at DE and DM just shows their absolute ignorance of the physics of the matter they are charged to study. Because of that extreme ignorance they rely on fairy dust and other such magical pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo to explain their fanciful reality. Pathetic!
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (17) Feb 26, 2016
Astrophysicists grasping at
repeating a lie doesn't make it more true, sparky

unless you are a cult leader... then repetition is what is required to keep the slaves in line
it's simple... here is a very basic test

EITHER:
1- research scientists are all incompetent
2- research scientists are all in a conspiracy to deceive you
3- research scientists know something you don't
potholer54
https://www.youtu...dYvz0VwQ

now, we see you (and the eu) can't prove #1... and you can't prove #2

that leaves only #3 as an option
And the evidence proves #3 as well, considering the basic mistakes you tend to make WRT physics, astrophysics and even plasma physics
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2016
[Astrophysicists grasping at

repeating a lie doesn't make it more true, sparky

unless you are a cult leader... then repetition is what is required to keep the slaves in line
it's simple... here is a very basic test

EITHER:
1- research scientists are all incompetent
2- research scientists are all in a conspiracy to deceive you
3- research scientists know something you don't
potholer54

now, we see you (and the eu) can't prove #1... and you can't prove #2

that leaves only #3 as an option
And the evidence proves #3 as well, considering the basic mistakes you tend to make WRT physics, astrophysics and even plasma physics


Anybody notice the science & math content in the above rant? Yeah, a big fat zero.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2016
Blah, blah, blah, ... 'since we *know' DM does not interact with electromagnetism, it must do so [because I am a moron that looks at patterns without the meaning I think they have]' ... blah, blah, blah ...
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (14) Feb 26, 2016
Anybody notice the science & math content in the above rant? Yeah, a big fat zero.

I did not notice science or math in your reaction to it, either...
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2016
[Astrophysicists grasping at

repeating a lie doesn't make it more true, sparky

unless you are a cult leader... then repetition is what is required to keep the slaves in line
it's simple... here is a very basic test

EITHER:
1- research scientists are all incompetent
2- research scientists are all in a conspiracy to deceive you
3- research scientists know something you don't
potholer54

now, we see you (and the eu) can't prove #1... and you can't prove #2

that leaves only #3 as an option
And the evidence proves #3 as well, considering the basic mistakes you tend to make WRT physics, astrophysics and even plasma physics


Anybody notice the science & math content in the above rant? Yeah, a big fat zero.


Because it responded to a big fat zero in the only language you people, and I use that term loosely, have. There is a link, RTFP,

[Hey, being on pain meds is *great*! Only pains me to read nutters now...]
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2016
Anybody notice the science & math content in the above rant?
@beni-kam
1- it specifically responds to a known and oft-repeated debunked idea that is continually repeated by the eu community
this means, by definition, that there is no requirement to actually use math

2- when no mathematical argument is provided for review, then it is not required to formulate an equation for refute

3- the oft-repeated argument is debunked by simply clicking or reviewing ANY astrophysical curriculum (like this one: http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics )

4- evidence doesn't have to be mathematically based when the argument is religious or based upon delusion/conspiracy

5- my argument refuted cd using logic and common sense and was factually acurate

6- you STILL can't prove marginal competence in even basic math, let alone ODE's

7- reported for trolling/baiting
Sonhouse
5 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2016
Looks to me more like neurons in a universe sized brain. Slow response time though......
Phys1
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2016
Anybody notice the science & math content in the above rant? Yeah, a big fat zero.

I did not notice science or math in your reaction to it, either...

There is a typo in your post.
"either" should be "ever".
Phys1
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2016
Can anybody show me a post of Benni that had science in it ?
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2016
I did not notice science or math in your reaction to it, either...


There is a typo in your post.
"either" should be "ever".


Can anybody show me a post of Benni that had science in it ?


More rants with zero content in science, you don't seem to mind my following your lead do you?
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2016
Looks to me more like neurons in a universe sized brain. Slow response time though......

How slow do YOU look to your own individual neurons...? :-)
Benni,
Those weren't "rants", they were simply observations...
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2016
Apart from filling the voids with more matter than thought, the result might help explain the missing baryon problem, where astronomers do not see the amount of normal matter predicted by their models.

Dr Haider comments: "This simulation, one of the most sophisticated ever run, suggests that the black holes at the centre of every galaxy are helping to send matter into the loneliest places in the universe. What we want to do now is refine our model, and confirm these initial findings."


If one model for missing matter fails, what the heck, conjure up another one & call that the scientific approach.

DM Enthusiasts must really be upset that new models are suggesting that not only that there may not be as much of their cosmic fairy dust as they once thought, but is located in the least possible niche of the Universe to detect it, a black hole.......how nice.

Can't wait to see the newly modeled DM Black Hole, I wonder how that Event Horizon will be MODELED.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2016
If one model for missing matter fails, what the heck, conjure up another one & call that the scientific approach.
DM Enthusiasts must really be upset that new models are suggesting that not only that there may not be as much of their cosmic fairy dust as they once thought, but is located in the least possible niche of the Universe to detect it, a black hole.......how nice.

Can't wait to see the newly modeled DM Black Hole, I wonder how that Event Horizon will be MODELED.

There's just as much as they thought. And now they know where to look. And the article is not saying it's in the black hole. Rather, the BH is providing energy to send it into the "void" (My guess, via the jets that appear emanating from the polar regions of a BH).
And... your version, Mr. DE?
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2016
the BH is providing energy to send it into the "void"


......send what into the "void"? Not DM. Nothing in the entire article about DM distribution in the "voids".
TehDog
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2016
Benni said;
"......send what into the "void"? Not DM. Nothing in the entire article about DM distribution in the "voids".

"But Haider's team also found that a surprising fraction of normal matter – 20% - is likely to be have been transported into the voids."

"...The positions of galaxies and, indirectly, their associated dark matter over large volumes, showing that they are located in filaments that make up a 'cosmic web' "

Learn to read.
TehDog
4.5 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2016
And how to use ellipses (3 dots, not 5), and their correct usage.
https://en.wikipe...Ellipsis
(Wanders off muttering about so-called smart folks who can't even master their native tongue...)
cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2016
The real irony is this unexpected filamentary morphology which they're trying to explain away with fairy dust and scarwy monsters was predicted by Alfven back in the 1940's, mostly due to his expertise/experience in plasma physics/experiments. The filamentary/cellular morphology is a fundamental property of plasma controlled by EM processes, no gravity needed.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2016
the BH is providing energy to send it into the "void"


......send what into the "void"? Not DM. Nothing in the entire article about DM distribution in the "voids".

I said nothing about DM...
- matter from space surrounding the event horizon - is what it is sending into the "void"...
Benni
3 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2016
"...The positions of galaxies and, indirectly, their associated dark matter over large volumes, showing that they are located in filaments that make up a 'cosmic web' "

Learn to read.


Yeah Dog, you should do that just that, "Learn to read", before going on a rant-page of assuming the author meant something he CLEARLY never stated. Now go back & reread your own quote & refrain from putting words into the author's mouth. It is stating nothing about the actions of a BH depositing DM into the voids, only that there is so called association already contained within the filaments.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2016
There's just as much as they thought. And now they know where to look.


Really WG? How do you know that? Or do you just assume their constantly changing models are correct?

How can veracity of any model be dependable if the modelers keep changing it every couple of months? It's gotten to the point pop-science aficionados continually stumble all over themselves to keep up with the new models.

WG, explain to me, what was wrong with the original DM model that Zwicky first hypothesized? Or do you even know about it? Do you even know who Zwicky is? Do a search engine lookup for his original papers on DM, it won't be about anything you read about in pop-science that appears on this site.

A brief synopsis of Zwicky's original DM dissertation placed it in envelopes surrounding ONLY SPIRAL GALAXIES, but that isn't what we read about these days is it? No, we sure don't, but most of today's pop-sci aficionados have never taken the bother to read Zwicky's original papers.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2016
There's just as much as they thought. And now they know where to look.


Really WG? How do you know that? Or do you just assume their constantly changing models are correct?

I understand that the constant change in the models, is the result of changing (growing) input.
Thus refinements are constantly necessary.
Does Mr. Nuclear Engineer ever have to refine his settings in a nuclear plant?
It's a dynamic system, so - yes.

Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2016

WG, explain to me, what was wrong with the original DM model that Zwicky first hypothesized? Or do you even know about it? Do you even know who Zwicky is? Do a search engine lookup for his original papers on DM, it won't be about anything you read about in pop-science that appears on this site.

A brief synopsis of Zwicky's original DM dissertation placed it in envelopes surrounding ONLY SPIRAL GALAXIES, but that isn't what we read about these days is it? No, we sure don't, but most of today's pop-sci aficionados have never taken the bother to read Zwicky's original papers.

You mentioned "original". That means - subsequent revision.
BTW - this IS a pop-sci site, if you hadn't noticed. If you want more, go elsewhere.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2016
BTW - this IS a pop-sci site, if you hadn't noticed.


.....more like Pop-Sci-fiction site, is what I notice.

So, have you ever read Zwicky's original dissertation about all this Cosmic Fairy Dust you believe is found everywhere in the Universe except for inside out Solar System where we could readily detect it if it really existed?

You'd think "subsequent revision" of Zwicky's thesis would place DM in the most obvious place of detection within our location of the radial arm of the Spiral Galaxy in which we live?

Where is the "subsequent revision" model that explains why our Solar System is so uniquely exempted from ALL the models of Dark Matter? Be careful here, your response had better not carry the tone of: "It is because our solar system is unique".
HannesAlfven
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2016
cantdrive nails it.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2016
So, have you ever read Zwicky's original dissertation about all this Cosmic Fairy Dust you believe is found everywhere in the Universe except for inside out Solar System where we could readily detect it if it really existed?

I have not. Nor do I necessarily subscribe to the "Cosmic Fairy Dust" paradigm. We don't see it locally because we look for it as an individual "particle", rather than an aggregate of "force". The EFFECT is there. As such, it must have a source.
Do atomic sub-particles leave any visible signature? Quasi particles?

Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2016
The real irony is this unexpected filamentary morphology which they're trying to explain away with fairy dust and scarwy monsters was predicted by Alfven back in the 1940's, mostly due to his expertise/experience in plasma physics/experiments. The filamentary/cellular morphology is a fundamental property of plasma controlled by EM processes, no gravity needed.

It's doubtful EM processes are possible WITHOUT gravity.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2016
So, have you ever read Zwicky's original dissertation about all this Cosmic Fairy Dust you believe is found everywhere in the Universe except for inside out Solar System where we could readily detect it if it really existed?


I have not. Nor do I necessarily subscribe to the "Cosmic Fairy Dust" paradigm. We don't see it locally because we look for it as an individual "particle", rather than an aggregate of "force"
I don't get it, why don't you want to read what the Cosmic Fairy Dust godfather wrote in his original thesis?

The EFFECT is there.
What "EFFECT"? If you'd just read what Zwicky wrote his thesis you could make some headway about EFFECT, but you won't even do that.

As such, it must have a source.
Do atomic sub-particles leave any visible signature? Quasi particles?
True science does not have room for artistic license. You like models because that is your lifestyle even as you try to transpose that thinking into a science forum.
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2016
I don't get it, why don't you want to read what the Cosmic Fairy Dust godfather wrote in his original thesis?

What I don't get is your insistence that I read someone you appear to believe is a quack.
True science does not have room for artistic license.

LOL. True science DEMANDS it.
You like models because that is your lifestyle even as you try to transpose that thinking into a science forum.

I like fluid representation of observations. The whole of our lives are a collection of "models".

Whydening Gyre
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2016
The EFFECT is gravitational observations that indicate more mass than we visibly see.

The solution to rectifying classical with quantum is to visualize EVERYTHING quantumly.
IOW - quantum is not just for the tiniest particles.
You are a quantum closed set (well, almost). Everything we see - is.
my2cts
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2016
except for inside out Solar System where we could readily detect it if it really existed?

You assume that the DM hypothesis implies a measurable effect on the solar system.
From the fact that no effect is found you conclude that there is no DM.
What is missing is a verification of your assumption.
Let's have it.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2016
I don't get it, why don't you want to read what the Cosmic Fairy Dust godfather wrote in his original thesis?


What I don't get is your insistence that I read someone you appear to believe is a quack.


........but you don't believe Zwicky is a "quack", we know this because you indulge yourself in a narrative you believe is true, but you won't even study his thesis to see for yourself if your most ardent belief can stand on it's merits......Why is that? Just go read it, let the chips fall where they will and move onto to another more plausible narrative after you discover how indecipherable his thesis is.

Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2016
except for inside out Solar System where we could readily detect it if it really existed?


You assume that the DM hypothesis implies a measurable effect on the solar system.


.......and I shouldn't? The DM Enthusiasts are insistent that 80% of the mas of the Universe is missing in the form of a Dark Matter. Our solar system is also located in the same Universe, so why should it be illogical for me to believe anything other than 80% of the mass of the solar system is also missing? The problem here is the EFFECT WG keeps yapping about, GRAVITY.

From the fact that no effect is found you conclude that there is no DM.
Duuuuhhhhhhh, if there is no "effect" then how do you know where to look for it? Certainly not within the solar system because there is no "EFFECT".

What is missing is a verification of your assumption.
Let's have it.
Easy, do you know where within the solar system to find unexplained gravitational anomalies? For sure NASA doesn't.
my2cts
5 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2016
@Benni
There are no gravitational effects internal to the solar system that are ascribed to DM.
The DM hypothesis does not imply any.
Thus the DM hypothesis is not contradicted by observation.
my2cts
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2016
What is missing is a verification of your assumption.
Let's have it.
Easy, do you know where within the solar system to find unexplained gravitational anomalies? For sure NASA doesn't.

Verification still missing, Benni. Your assumption is baseless.
Therefore your conclusion is invalid.
Now go ahead with your usual whining.
my2cts
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2016
@Benni
Predict an observable effect on the solar system based on the DM hypothesis.
matt_s
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2016
@my2cts, I guarantee he's going to say something about Einstein's predicted lensing amount around the sun.
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2016
@matt_s
Indeed. Whatever he/she is going to say, it will not be a prediction based on the DM hypothesis.
Some copy/paste from his/her archive of nonsense.
HannesAlfven
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2016
The comments here really solidify the fact that astrophysics and cosmology are not an actual science.
my2cts
4 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2016
@HA
You are not in a position to make that judgement.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2016
Benni,
It's only 25% DM. Plus 70% DE, with the remaining 5% being baryonic matter.
Please be more accurate.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2016
The comments here really solidify the fact that astrophysics and cosmology are not an actual science.

Hannes - Boobie (Thanks to "Die Hard" and Bruce Willis for that one),
Your insistence that lab plasma experiments represent stellar plasma activity neglect one thing - they're done in a gravitationally bound environment.
(on the surface of Earth).
So the two are NOT necessarily the same.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2016
The real irony is this unexpected filamentary morphology which they're trying to explain away with fairy dust and scarwy monsters was predicted by Alfven back in the 1940's, mostly due to his expertise/experience in plasma physics/experiments. The filamentary/cellular morphology is a fundamental property of plasma controlled by EM processes, no gravity needed.

It's doubtful EM processes are possible WITHOUT gravity.

So you're saying you have to put the coffee maker below the outlet so the electricity can be pulled down by the gravity? Maybe that's why they put solar panels on the roof and wind turbines at the top of big poles too.
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2016
The comments here really solidify the fact that astrophysics and cosmology are not an actual science.

Hannes - Boobie (Thanks to "Die Hard" and Bruce Willis for that one),
Your insistence that lab plasma experiments represent stellar plasma activity neglect one thing - they're done in a gravitationally bound environment.
(on the surface of Earth).
So the two are NOT necessarily the same.

There is one indisputable fact about plasma physics, plasma in the presence of EM fields gravity can be ignored completely due to the infinitesimally weak effect it has on the matter.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2016
It's doubtful EM processes are possible WITHOUT gravity.

So you're saying you have to put the coffee maker below the outlet so the electricity can be pulled down by the gravity? Maybe that's why they put solar panels on the roof and wind turbines at the top of big poles too.
Perhaps I should have explained it a little better. You know - for the "special" ones....
...It's doubtful EM processes IN INTERSTELLAR SPACE are possible without gravity.
Does that satisfy you little self?
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2016
There is one indisputable fact about plasma physics, plasma in the presence of EM fields gravity can be ignored completely due to the infinitesimally weak effect it has on the matter.

That's where you get into trouble - ignoring the "little" things because YOU don't think they matter...
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2016
The comments here really solidify the fact that astrophysics and cosmology are not an actual science.
@he-ha
So wait... your argument is that, because laymen come to a free, public access pop-sci clearinghouse comment site and can (and do) sometimes misrepresent physics, it is demonstration that the scientific discipline of astrophysics/cosmology is not a science?
ROTFLMFAO
WOW... i thought you were delusional before... so, where in the thinking speed/brain did that one come from? the fast reptilian response or the slow methodical logical one?
(methinks they need to be taken in for a check-up.... i hear auto-zone will diagnose for free. considering your comment, it would make every bit as much logical sense to go there as to anywhere else! LMFAO)

EITHER:
1- research scientists are all incompetent
2- research scientists are all in a conspiracy to deceive you
3- research scientists know something you don't
potholer54
https://www.youtu...dYvz0VwQ

Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 28, 2016
So you're saying you have to put the coffee maker below the outlet so the electricity can be pulled down by the gravity?
@cd
no, that is what YOU are saying
There is one indisputable fact
there is also one indisputable fact about the electric universe that i should share: IT IS PSEUDOSCIENCE

one major reason is that it is falsified by observed and known laws of physics

this is why you have to continually repeat the same LIES to bolster your argument, as if repeating a lie made it more true (you know, where you claim astro's don't know plasma physics, etc!)

the only reason any group would do this is because (wait for it)
THEY DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE

by definition, this means you can't actually prove your point!

let me repost this
EITHER:
1- research scientists are all incompetent
2- research scientists are all in a conspiracy to deceive you
3- research scientists know something you don't
potholer54
https://www.youtu...dYvz0VwQ

julianpenrod
2.1 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2016
Among other things, it's claimed that only 4.9 percent of the mass of the universe is "normal matter". If they know what the total mass if, it can be said they should be able to discern its position. The fact is, the 4.9 percent is in comparison to the mass they want the universe to be! The amount they say it will take for the universe to collapse on itself. But nothing says it will! "Science" based on something they don't even know will happen!
Interesting the suggestion that black holes will send matter back into the universe. It was always imagined that they would send matter to other universes. And, note, if the matter travels to the new places at faster than the speed of light, they will cause the appearance there of the net matter in the universe increasing.
julianpenrod
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2016
Also, what is Captain Stumpy's "proof" that "scientists" are not incompetent or in a conspiracy, or is Captain Stumpy using the "tenet" that, if you can't obtain information on a subject, that automatically makes it untrue? And, note, if "rank and file" individuals don't have equipment, say, to measure the "precession of the perihelion of Mercury", "scientists" can say anything they want and get away with it! For many "rank and file", they act as if, if they don't automatically see that something is untrue, they go along with it, too!
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2016
or is Captain Stumpy using the "tenet" that, if you can't obtain information on a subject, that automatically makes it untrue?
@jp
as defined already as well as described in the video link:
IF you cannot prove 1 with reputable evidence
AND
you can't prove 2 with reputable evidence
THEN
the only conclusion that you can make is #3

Therefore, it is the three questions anyone should ask about their challenges to mainstream science... especially when it is to validated stuff, like you do, juli

of course, actually following the link would be far better as it also points out the logical fallacies you made above...

but that is probably why you did NOT follow the link, right?

julianpenrod
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 29, 2016
Among other things, "science devotees, required to prove their claim that God is not present, always insist that you can't prove anything. Now, Captain_Stumpy declares proof, in the sense of the inability to prove something, a legitimate concept! Deceit is a commonplace in "science". What Captain_Stumpy carefully leaves out is the idea of "reputable evidence" not being permitted into the light of day. That's what I was pointing out in my statement. Captain_Stumpy deliberately chose to act like that is not what I was talking about! In their first post on the matter, Captain_Stumpy, with suspicious assurance, makes the prediction that no one will be able to prove "scientists" are incompetent or are engaged in conspiracy. I was referring to that suspicious assuredness. "Scientists" try to hold back evidence of their lies. It's only now being admitted, though, for example, that most papers submitted to "scientific" journals are fraudulent.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Feb 29, 2016
"We live in a universe dominated by unseen matter, and on the largest scales, galaxies and everything they contain are concentrated into filaments that stretch around the edge of enormous voids. "

In the truy science the hypopthesis of flowed theories which are in dire contradiction with physical world and scientific facts are not presented as facts. The invisible and elusive for the scientific equipment virtual dark mather and energy are needed by sacret cows of "modern" cosmology.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Feb 29, 2016
The proud failed in science.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Feb 29, 2016
...dark matter...
viko_mx
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2016
In fact scientist obstinately as adopted at the party meeting refused to recognize the fact that the space vacuum has the structure and interact actively with building blocks of of matter and electromagnetic waves. Suffice it to ask that pe transmission medium of electromagnetic waves and field. Profesionalnite scientists however, prefer to follow the official dogmas and rarely think about such things. They have a more important task to make a career.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (8) Feb 29, 2016
It's only now being admitted, though, for example, that most papers submitted to "scientific" journals are fraudulent.
@juli
ROTFLMFAO - so... when all else fails and you can't find evidence... MAKE sh*t UP and then state it as fact?

ok, where is the "reputable empirical evidence" of this one?

i mean ... what are the actual numbers? now, you say that "most papers submitted to "scientific" journals are fraudulent"... that requires evidence!

and if we look at the numbers, it shows that you are not only WRONG, but actually promoting a blatantly false claim for the sake of your personal delusional belief
http://journals.p....0044118

PS- the rest of your post was all crap and proof of your literacy problem... it's been addressed above already, so repeating your lies doesn't make them more true any more than saying there is a god makes you the Pope
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2016
@viko_mx
I think this text isrepresentative of your sloppy thinking
In the truy science the hypopthesis of flowed theories which are

You are delusional and because of this you do not know it.
Those are the facts and it is tragedy.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2016
@Benni
Predict an observable effect on the solar system based on the DM hypothesis.

And then ... silence ... enjoy it while it lasts ...
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2016
@viko_mx
I think this text isrepresentative of your sloppy thinking
also a confused multi-lingual that is not highly competent in English

or... a bot
a really, really bad bot made by a photosensitive epileptic programmer who was sitting in a dark disco with the strobe on
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2016
Man...
JP, and Viko,
Do you guys lay awake at night and think up stuff? Or do you wake up from "A Vision" and come here to share your divine pronouncements with the disbelievers?

Don't you guys ever sleep?
Oh. Crap.
I'm here, too...
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2016
Don't you guys ever sleep?
Oh. Crap.
I'm here, too...

I meant, don't you OTHER guys...:-)
You know who you are... (Cap'n)
viko_mx
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 29, 2016
@Whydening Gyre

It is pity that from you and company can not hear scientific explanations. Even timid attempts will no hear in this respect from you, because you and science are distant strangers.
Focus on the answers to scientific questions if you can. Do not deal with my personality, because in this case the yellow tabloids would be suitable for your creative actions.

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (8) Feb 29, 2016
You know who you are... (Cap'n)
@Whyde
i'm in the same boat as you... wandering around in the middle of the night wondering why my underwear is in the yard and my shoes are on my hands while sipping lifer-juice
- lately, i'm lucky to get 4hrs a nite

.

It is pity that from you and company can not hear scientific explanations
@v-bot in full strobe mode
problem is: you have YET to actually give a "scientific explanations" [sic]
your predominant source of argument stems from religion first, then skews out into non-sensical pseudoscience sans evidence

that is not how "scientific explanations" [sic] work... science requires evidence... you know, like fossils, biology, DNA, and all those niggling details in just about every theory you ignore for your own personal beliefs
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (8) Feb 29, 2016
@Whydening Gyre
It is pity that from you and company can not hear scientific explanations.

More of a pity that you are unwilling to provide them.
Even timid attempts will no hear in this respect from you, because you and science are distant strangers.

I realize that waking up in the morning, standing, making coffee. looking at the sun, watching my skin get goosebumps, etc. are ALL exercises in science. Why don't you? Why does it have to be all mysterious and woo-woo for you?.
Focus on the answers to scientific questions if you can.

Physical results? Or your meta-physical interpretations...?
Hmmm... Tough call - NOT.
Do not deal with my personality, because in this case the yellow tabloids would be suitable for your creative actions.

A La "Men in Black"? You're an (gasp) - alien?!?!?


Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2016
You know who you are... (Cap'n)
@Whyde
i'm in the same boat as you... wandering around in the middle of the night wondering why my underwear is in the yard and my shoes are on my hands while sipping lifer-juice
- lately, i'm lucky to get 4hrs a nite

Don't wear underwear or shoes and you alleviate that problem.
I assume you mean coffee...
Be cup half full like me. I sleep 4 hours at a time - twice a day...:-)
OdinsAcolyte
5 / 5 (2) Feb 29, 2016
It does look like a neural network. Neat.
Black holes seeding the void. Spreading matter.
The mechanism of this universe is fascinating And we still know so little.
Steelwolf
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 29, 2016
It almost appears that, with the distribution of DM web looking such as it does, with it's connections and hubs, like the nuclei of atoms, and the matter that we see in Our Universe is only the stuff that Electrons are made of. It has long been known that even though electrons act as Quantatized packets, it is obvious that they are made of something much smaller yet. Suppose Galaxies are much like atoms, the Nucleus has it's Major Black Hole, or multiples, that themselves seem to be quantatized, that would form the Protons and Neutrons, in their various quark/gluon forms, such as different Globular Clusters and Gas or Dust Clouds. Spin we can see, at multiple levels, and since we are at a point where, to a super cosmic observer, time is at a near stop, we can see how an electron can go from one orbit to another, by way of gaining energy to expand it's dust clouds and star populations to a different orbit via energy/mass input. It comes back to that soliton knot and fractal iterations.
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2016
and the matter that we see in Our Universe is only the stuff that Electrons are made of
@Steel
What??
can you elaborate on this? because it needs some serious clarification!

... last time i checked the basics, matter is made of protons, neutrons and electrons... did you make a typo or are you intentionally saying all matter is made only of electrons
https://en.wikipe...i/Matter

not that electrons aren't important in the properties, mind you... but there is a shit-load more than just electrons in matter

even PLASMA is a state of matter, which means protons and neutrons are involved
Plasma is the most abundant form of ordinary matter in the Universe
https://en.wikipe...ysics%29

just sayin' man
Phys1
4 / 5 (8) Feb 29, 2016
@viko_mx
I still have to see the first remotely scientific statement from you yourself.
Lex Talonis
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2016
The screen shots are from The Matrix.
rpavellas
5 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2016
"Apart from filling the voids with more matter than thought,"
Whose thought? Which thought? Need an attentive editor here...
liquidspacetime
5 / 5 (1) Mar 09, 2016
On a larger scale this energy is referred to as dark energy.

A Universal black hole is likely powering the Universal polar jet we exist in.

It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2016
Lex, those pictures in the article are Not from 'The Matrix'. They happen to be the visualized data from a supercomputer run of a large block of space, the matter and energy thought to be there then, and run as far as it could with the rules we know so far. This sort of thing teaches us more because of the patterns that show up and in the simulations, sometimes things happen that we had not figured on, but the data allows for, so we learn new things from them. As far as The Matrix, there are Lots of different forms that take similar shapes, arcing electricity will do much the same, just look pretty.

Stumpy, yes, they have found material effects and particles much finer than electrons, and, IF one scales time to the distance, still using C as an absolute constant, makes for a much smaller universal fractal expression that shows the same on the quantum physics scale, as we are seeing in the super-cosmic scale. AGN Jets as cosmic rays or light and galaxies are either atoms or quarks.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2016
Continued:
Also the type of movement that we see at atomic levels, much of the attractive and repulsive effects can be resolved if one considers that there may be a version of quark-gluon soup being the "liquid form" and yet take on a finer, closer to pure energy form. Since we know that energy=matter through Einstens's E=MC^2 then if we can see or ascertain that there is a 'particle', then we can KNOW that it can be further reduced into either smaller pieces or straight energy (which may still be in a form of matter we just do not yet have the tools to measure that, just the energetic factor of it. Since Electrons can rarely be pinned down, their orbits a 'range of probabilities', the electron is a quanta of energy, it can be spread out over an area and still represent that much energy. Also, it has the propensity to 'jump' into an area that Lacks a Charge,holes in the atomic background. Sounds a LOT like the jets in the above article sending energy/matter to the cosmic voids.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2016
Also, recent articles point out to the "Dark Matter" as clumping up in points where they form globular clusters around them. This activity makes me wonder if this "Dark Matter" is, in part, the Negative Electrical Charge for super-scaled up (with C still being a hard constant to scale time from) form of an atom, that being a galaxy. We know that the galaxy has a nucleus and the central black hole does get rid of excess mass/energy by expelling it, much like normal atoms, and we can plainly see other 'atom/galaxies fusing (merging) across the sky with the attendant energy outburst in the form of Starburst star creation and the light from that and Quasars are the high energy particles. Like with gravity, a galactic black hole has to be moving slow enough to be captured, too fast and it just goes on by, but if slow enough it causes a collision and expels a pair of jets, highly charged, and often one of the black holes, or more, are thrown out of the galaxy entirely, much like neutrons.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.