Giant ultraviolet rings found in resurrected galaxies

Aug 11, 2010
Astronomers have found unexpected rings and arcs of ultraviolet light around a selection of galaxies, four of which are shown here as viewed by NASA's and the European Space Agency's Hubble Space Telescope. Image credit: NASA/ESA /JPL-Caltech/STScI/UCLA

Astronomers have found mysterious, giant loops of ultraviolet light in aged, massive galaxies, which seem to have a second lease on life. Somehow these "over-the-hill galaxies" have been infused with fresh gas to form new stars that power these truly gargantuan rings, some of which could encircle several Milky Way galaxies.

The discovery of these rings implies that bloated galaxies presumed "dead" and devoid of star-making can be reignited with star birth, and that galaxy evolution does not proceed straight from the cradle to the grave.

"In a galaxy's lifetime, it must make the transition from an active, star-forming galaxy to a quiescent galaxy that does not form stars," said Samir Salim, lead author of a recent study and a research scientist in the department of astronomy at Indiana University, Bloomington. "But it is possible this process goes the other way, too, and that old galaxies can be rejuvenated."

A One-Two Observational Punch

The findings come courtesy of the combined power of two orbiting observatories, NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer and Hubble Space Telescope. First, the Galaxy Evolution Explorer surveyed a vast region of the sky in . The satellite picked out 30 elliptical and lens-shaped "early" galaxies with puzzlingly strong ultraviolet emissions but no signs of visible star formation. Early-type galaxies, so the scientists' thinking goes, have already made their stars and now lack the cold gas necessary to build new ones.

The Galaxy Evolution Explorer could not discern the fine details of these large, rounded galaxies gleaming in the ultraviolet, so to get a closer look, researchers turned to the . What they saw shocked them: three-quarters of the galaxies were spanned by great, shining rings of ultraviolet light, with some ripples stretching 250,000 light-years. A few galaxies even had spiral-shaped ultraviolet features.

"We haven't seen anything quite like these rings before," said Michael Rich, co-author of the paper and a research astronomer at UCLA. "These beautiful and very unusual objects might be telling us something very important about the evolution of galaxies."

Colors of the Ages

Astronomers can tell a galaxy's approximate age just by the color of its collective starlight. Lively, young galaxies look bluish to our eyes due to the energetic starlight of their new, massive stars. Elderly galaxies instead glow in the reddish hues of their ancient stars, appearing "old, red and dead," as astronomers bluntly say. Gauging by the redness of their constituent stars, the galaxies seen by the and Hubble are geezers, with most stars around 10 billion years old.

But relying on the spectrum of light visible to the human eye can be deceiving, as some of us have found out after spending a day under the sun's invisible ultraviolet rays and getting a sunburn. Sure enough, when viewed in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, these galaxies clearly have more going on than meets the eye.

Some ultraviolet starlight in a few of the observed galaxies might just be left over from an initial burst of star formation. But in most cases, new episodes of star birth must be behind the resplendent rings, meaning that fresh gas has somehow been introduced to these apparently ancient galaxies. Other telltale signs of ongoing , such as blazing hydrogen gas clouds, might be on the scene as well, but have so far escaped detection.

The Lord of the Ultraviolet Rings

Just where the gas for this galactic resurrection came from and how it has created rings remains somewhat perplexing. A merging with a smaller galaxy would bring in fresh gas to spawn hordes of new stars, and could in rare instances give rise to the ring structures as well.

But the researchers have their doubts about this origin scenario. "To create a density shock wave that forms rings like those we've seen, a small galaxy has to hit a larger galaxy pretty much straight in the center," said Salim. "You have to have a dead-on collision, and that's very uncommon."

Rather, the rejuvenating spark more likely came from a gradual sopping-up of the gas in the so-called intergalactic medium, the thin soup of material between galaxies. This external gas could generate these rings, especially in the presence of bar-like structures that span some galaxies' centers.

Ultimately, more observations will be needed to show how these galaxies began growing younger and lit up with humongous halos. Salim and Rich plan to search for more evidence of bars, as well as faint structures that might be the remnants of stellar blooms that occurred in the galaxies' pasts. Rather like recurring seasons, it may be that galaxies stirred from winter can breed stars again and then bask in another vibrant, ultraviolet-soaked summer.

The study detailing the findings appeared in the April 21 issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

The California Institute of Technology in Pasadena leads the Explorer mission and is responsible for science operations and data analysis. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, also in Pasadena, manages the mission and built the science instrument. The mission was developed under NASA's Explorers Program managed by the Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Researchers sponsored by Yonsei University in South Korea and the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) in France collaborated on this mission.

Explore further: Raven soars through first light and second run

Related Stories

Space Telescope Moves on with One Detector

Apr 13, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Mission engineers and scientists with NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer, a space telescope that has been beaming back pictures of galaxies for three times its design lifespan, are no longer ...

New stars from old gas surprise astronomers

Feb 18, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Evidence of star birth within a cloud of primordial gas has given astronomers a glimpse of a previously unknown mode of galaxy formation. The cloud, known as the Leo Ring, appears to lack ...

Astronomers Discover Star-Studded Galaxy Tail

Jun 17, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer has discovered a galaxy tail studded with bright knots of new stars. The tail, which was created as the galaxy IC 3418 plunged into the neighboring Virgo cluster ...

Antennae Galaxies

May 19, 2008

This image of the Antennae galaxies is the sharpest yet of this merging pair of galaxies. During the course of the collision, billions of stars will be formed. The brightest and most compact of these star ...

Colliding galaxies make love, not war

Oct 17, 2006

A new Hubble image of the Antennae galaxies is the sharpest yet of this merging pair of galaxies. As the two galaxies smash together, billions of stars are born, mostly in groups and clusters of stars. The ...

Recommended for you

Raven soars through first light and second run

7 hours ago

Raven, a Multi-Object Adaptive Optics (MOAO) science demonstrator, successfully saw first light at the Subaru Telescope on the nights of May 13 and 14, 2014 and completed its second run during the nights ...

How can we find tiny particles in exoplanet atmospheres?

Aug 29, 2014

It may seem like magic, but astronomers have worked out a scheme that will allow them to detect and measure particles ten times smaller than the width of a human hair, even at many light-years distance.  ...

User comments : 47

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Caliban
2.4 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2010
Evidence for the "Electric Universe"? Zero-point energy? Spontaneous, emergent matter from the Void? Black hole decay? Something is going on. Fascinating...
Baseline
2.8 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2010
Whats going on is evidence that our understanding of star formation and the actual composition of a star is misunderstood.

We still have much to learn and we can start right here in our own solar system by understanding our own sun.
omatumr
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 11, 2010
Whats going on is evidence that our understanding of star formation and the actual composition of a star is misunderstood.

We still have much to learn and we can start right here in our own solar system by understanding our own sun.


Baseline is right. Nature continues to ignore evidence of solar mass fractionation, neutron repulsion, and its own Mission Statement of 1869:

” . . . to place before the general public the grand results of scientific work and scientific discovery; . . . to aid scientific men . . . by giving early information of all advances made in any branch of natural knowledge throughout the world, and by affording them an opportunity of discussing the various scientific questions which arise from time to time.”

Oliver K. Manuel
frajo
2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2010
Seems that "dark matter" isn't so dark after all.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2010
"We haven't seen anything quite like these rings before," said Michael Rich, co-author of the paper and a research astronomer at UCLA. "These beautiful and very unusual objects might be telling us something very important about the evolution of galaxies."


Maybe the really important thing these objects are revealing is the majesty of the One who made them.
The universe is resplendent with the glory of God the creator.

Sure, you can now go ahead and flame me.

I really like the next statement though:
Just where the gas for this galactic resurrection came from and how it has created rings remains somewhat perplexing

Is there now a belief in life after death? OK, that's a cheap shot but still worth it! ;-)
It is indeed perplexing since there's not supposed to be any gas left and there's no other source nearby - it is galaxies we're talking about after all.
SO - where does it come from? Or can stars form without the gas? That's another issue to explore, but will they?
panorama
4.3 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2010
@kevinrtrs

Which god would that be?
MrPressure
Aug 12, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
yyz
3.5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2010
"It is indeed perplexing since there's not supposed to be any gas left and there's no other source nearby...where does it come from?"

The article mentions that additional gas may be accreted from the interstellar medium (specifically the warm hot intergalactic medium-WHIM). Filaments of dark matter are posited to exist in our universe and in regions where filaments intersect galaxy clusters are thought to form. Hydrogen, fuel for making new stars, is thought to also be entrained with these dark matter filaments. Isolated galaxies along these filaments and those within clusters may accrete some of this 'fuel' if conditions are right.

Not having read the paper, it's hard for me to say just how isolated these four systems are(three of the four DO look like they may have companions) and according to the article, this scenario is not ruled out entirely. So there may be several mechanisms at work here. (con't)
yyz
3.8 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2010
(con't)

"Whats going on is evidence that our understanding of star formation and the actual composition of a star is misunderstood."

Actually, what we are seeing may be a type of star formation that has long be theorized but only rarely seen (accretion of gas from the WHIM onto a elliptical galaxy, leading to star formation). Stellar composition is not involved per se. There are a few nearby spiral galaxies that exhibit strong ultraviolet emissions from young stars far beyond the visible-light stellar disk (M 83 is a prime example), so in this sense it is not entirely unexpected.
gunslingor1
4.6 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2010
kevinrtrs,

Which god are you refering to? Are you one of those guys whom beleives god did all this in 7 days. 4,000 years ago?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2010
kevinrtrs,

Which god are you refering to? Are you one of those guys whom beleives god did all this in 7 days. 4,000 years ago?


It was in six days, also it's "referring" and "believes". If your going to insult someone at least try to get it right...it just doesn't have the same funny factor otherwise...
Bigbangcon
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2010
An article in the Internet based journal "Apeiron" entitled "Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies" may be of some help. Link to full article is available through Google Advanced Search by typing exact words "Breeding Galaxies".
frajo
4.5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2010
An article in the Internet based journal "Apeiron" entitled "Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies" may be of some help. Link to full article is available through Google Advanced Search by typing exact words "Breeding Galaxies".
That article pretends to be scientific. But phrases like
The General Theory of Relativity is such an invariable truth
and
The Big Bang theory claims to be an invariable truth on its own merit
show that something else is going on there. Every physicist knows that these phrases are misrepresentations of GR and the standard model.
So the questions remain which public is being addressed, whom do they authors want to impress, and what's the purpose?
Bigbangcon
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2010
@frajo: Please read the whole article before making any comment on it. You seem to judge this article from a few convenient catch-words and form your opinion about the rest of it without the intellectual honesty of really going through it. This article presents views which are the exact opposite of the officially accepted paradigm and may yet have some merit. These views may be relevent (as "Caliban" speculated above) to the important finding presented in this news item and other "unexpected", "mysterious", "unknown" etc. findings of the astrophysicists and astronomers that we now come across so often. We have become tired of the "official" explanations for ALL observed cosmic phenomema based on three pet causes: 1) collision between galaxies, 2)stars going supernova (the only rational phenomena), 3)terrible monsters or "black/dark" cosmic cats "lurking" in the galaxies, whom we can recognise only from their "smiles"!! Modern official cosmology has become all too tedious and boring.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Aug 12, 2010
Hmmmm....does the truth HAVE to be interesting?
Caliban
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2010
It appears that we are reaching some sort of boundary condition regarding what is explained by the standard model, and are more and more frequently discovering things that don't readily fit the model, hence, more uexplained, unusual, mysterious phenomena.
Perhaps we've caught back up with the "cutting edge", observationally, and need to augment or change the model. The "Electric Ubiverse" plasma theory, for instance, makes sense, and doesn't violate any Laws that I'm aware of.

yyz
5 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2010
"The "Electric Ubiverse" plasma theory, for instance, makes sense, and doesn't violate any Laws that I'm aware of."

Where to start? How about: http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2010/07/electric-universe-more-data-refuting-eu.html

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2010/08/electric-universe-real-plasma.html

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2010/07/electric-universe-pulsars-planetary.html
omatumr
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2010
Repeated fragmentation in the cosmos was reported by Wilbur Brown et al. [Astrophys. & Space Sci., 72, 15-31 (1980); ibid. 121, 351-355 (1986); ibid. 123, 161-181 (1986); ibid., 126, 255-267 (1986)].

G. A. Harutyunian also noted the common occurrence of cosmic fragmentation with an increase in the relative amount of light elements (like H) during the evolution of the cosmos [Astrophys., 46, 81-91 (2003)].

Neutron repulsion is the energy source that powers cosmic fractionation ["On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars", Journal of Fusion Energy 25, 107-114 (2006)].

Oliver K. Manuel
Caliban
1 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2010
@yyz,

Thanks for the links, but I've got to say that Bridgeman's refutation seems inadequate to me.
This may be due to my lack of knowledge regarding some of the finer points of astrophysical principle, but, on the other hand, it may be because Bridgeman's criticism seems to arise more out of some type of visceral dislike for the EU and its proponents, than as a result of EU being untenable.

If need be, I'm prepared to abandon EU if it lacks merit, but do you have a link to an authoritative refutation of the model? Bridgeman for whatever reason, was unconvincing.

If anyone else can help, please be my guest.
MrPressure
Aug 13, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MrPressure
Aug 13, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MrPressure
Aug 13, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2010
Please read the whole article before making any comment on it.
The last sentence I can read is:
The textbooks and professional articles on astrophysics, astronomy, cosmology, etc. start their deliberation assuming Big Bang theory as granted.
Which is as wrong as the other two sentences I quoted.
The rest of the article is unavailable for me as I'm not living in the US or Canada.

This is not the first time someone pointed me to "apeiron" ("infinity") articles. In every case it was a disappointing experience as I expected a high-level philosophical site under this bold title and found only non-scientific or anti-scientific texts.

I'm all for questioning the standard model(s). But I'm not going to sacrifice scientific seriousness. It is acceptable to have one's preferences (mine is the Ekpyrotic/Cyclic model) but we don't strengthen our pets by misrepresenting/denouncing the standard model(s). On the contrary, such behaviour destroys our credibility.
Bigbangcon
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2010
"but we don't strengthen our pets by misrepresenting/denouncing the standard model(s). On the contrary, such behaviour destroys our credibility."
One does not have to misrepresent anything. The nakedness of the Emperor is increasingly being exposed inspite of the frantic efforts of the "official" scientists'(who by the way depend on the established order for their career, crafts and living etc.) to dress him up with ever new and fancy clothes!!
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2010
The rest of the article is unavailable for me as I'm not living in the US or Canada.
You didn't miss much.
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2010
The nakedness of the Emperor is increasingly being exposed inspite of the frantic efforts of the "official" scientists' (who by the way depend on the established order for their career, crafts and living etc.) to dress him up with ever new and fancy clothes!!


I admire your use courage and your use of English to describe so accurately the problem. It is time for Nature to:

a) Stop publishing propaganda on the Sun's origin, composition, source energy and impact on Earth's climate and

b) Start following its 1869 Mission Statement:

” . . . to place before the general public the grand results of scientific work and scientific discovery; . . . to aid scientific men . . . by giving early information of all advances made in any branch of natural knowledge throughout the world, and by affording them an opportunity of discussing the various scientific questions which arise from time to time.”

Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Bigbangcon
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2010
Thank you, Dr.Manuel for your comments. You seem to speak from your heart. It is the unfortunate poverty of our epoch that we lack the "free thinkers" of the past - the passionate and creative giants who pursued their profession under the most severe conditions and more often under the threat of persecution and death. They are now replaced by troops of conformed "scientist serfs" who toil mightly to bring out only "expected" results and offer "acceptable" explanation for the un-intended or un-expected ones.
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2010
Thank you, Bigbangcon. Once reputable scientific journals like Nature have become promoters of group-think, of lockstep opinions determined by those who distribute the research grant funds.

The problem is not ignorance or lack of education on the part of the editor.

The current editor of Nature has a BSc in engineering, a MSc in astrophysics, and a PhD in atmospheric physics. Yet Nature purposely misleads the general public and the scientific community about the formation of the solar system, the Sun's origin, chemical composition, source of energy, and influence on changes in Earth's climate.

Comments that might point out these errors - from subscribers like me - are routinely removed and/or access to post on-line comments totally blocked.

Nature's actions certainly do not match Nature's 1869 Mission Statement (above).

Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Bigbangcon
2 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2010
You are not alone Dr. Manuel. There are many others who were silenced and are being silenced. As you must know, once famous Prof. Halton Arp has now been marginalised. He maintains an isolated existance in Max Planck Institute in Garching near Munich. Paul Marmet, a Canadian dissident physicist was (most probably) eased out of his Profession, but continued his work until he later died as a proud scientist with his head up. The struggle must go on!! Cheers
james11
4.8 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2010
For what reason would they mislead people about the formation of the solar system, sun's origin, composition and so on?
Bigbangcon
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2010
"For what reason would they mislead people about the formation of the solar system, sun's origin, composition and so on?"

Hard to say why, because Dr. Manuel says he cannot not find suitable avenues to present his work. It is probably the same reason that a talented astronomer like Arp is denied access to telescopes etc, or his and others work on discordant redshifts, physical link of quasars and galaxies, quantized redshifts, explanations for shelllike structures in galaxies (like the present report) etc. are routinely rejected. All these because they contradict officially accepted truths. Dr. Manuel's work would probably be accepted if it conformed to the official paradigm
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2010
Nature could resolve this matter by publishing my message to Dr. Campbell together with his reply.

I am confident that many of the employees at Nature, Science, and other major journals are uncomfortable with the propaganda that is inside a weekly journal with this Mission Statement: "” . . . to place before the general public the grand results of scientific work and scientific discovery; . . . to aid scientific men . . . by giving early information of all advances made in any branch of natural knowledge throughout the world, and by affording them an opportunity of discussing the various scientific questions which arise from time to time.”

Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
yyz
5 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2010
"Dr. Manuel's work would probably be accepted if it conformed to the official paradigm"

Dr. Manuel's work(and other notions like EU and Anti-gravity Matter, etc) might be accorded more respect if it was more fully fleshed out. Here, now, in the 21st century the field of astronomy is awash in data. Enormous amounts of data on all aspects of astronomy are freely available to anyone with a internet connection and a computer. And computers are much more powerful than just five years ago. With all this data at anyone's fingertips, why have I not seen a EU interpretation of Sag A* at the center of our galaxy? Like "here's our predicted spectrum and here's the observed spectrum and here's where it matches and here is does not and why that is so". Followed by a discussion of how it compares to the standard model and precisely why it's an improvement. I've seen TeVeS and MOND interpretations of the Bullet Cluster and Abell 1689. Where are the EU/neutron replusion interpretation? con't
yyz
5 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2010
con't

Since these 'theories' your proposing cross many disparate fields of astronomy, a team effort is obviously needed. That you can find no one to explore your 'theories' with more detail and precision (and post them on the internet for all to see) is neither the fault of NASA, The NAS, Nature or anyone else. To then troll science blogs whining about being passed over and ignored is just plain.....juvenile. You're wasting your time posting here when you could be attending to your 'theory' and recruiting those with skill and expertise is a particular subfield. It's easy to play the martyr and does nothing to advance your ideas.
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2010
It is probably the same reason that a talented astronomer like Arp is denied access to telescopes etc, or his and others work on discordant redshifts, physical link of quasars and galaxies, quantized redshifts, explanations for shelllike structures in galaxies (like the present report) etc. are routinely rejected. All these because they contradict officially accepted truths.
I don't believe it's that simple. If contradicting "the officially accepted truths" would be a sufficient reason to isolate scientists why are there hundreds of scientists working on string theory for decades?
See http://www.physic...p;page=2 , comment #30.
yyz
5 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2010
"It is probably the same reason that a talented astronomer like Arp is denied access to telescopes etc..."

But I see no mention of work published by Arp after his departure from Caltech. Arp has authored or collaborated with other astronomers to produce a string (no pun intended frajo) of work further refining his theories of discordant redshifts and local quasars using publicly available data. I have a level of respect for Arp both for his early work with star clusters and interacting galaxies in the 60s and for how he has handled his affairs since leaving Caltech. He's collaborating with and advising other scientists to further his work. He's written some popular level pieces about his studies. He's not on the internet complaining about past grievances. For that alone he gets points in my book. He's willing to roll up his sleeves and undertake the HARD work to further his studies. So how again are EU-AWT-AGM-NR advocates being prohibited from working on their theories?
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2010
"....explanations for shelllike structures in galaxies (like the present report)..."

These are not found to be shells or shelllike. From the paper cited: "The new images show that three-quarters of these moderately massive...early-type galaxies shows clear evidence of extended SF, usually in form of wide or concentric UV rings, and in some cases, striking spiral arms."

http://arxiv.org/...41v1.pdf
Bigbangcon
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2010
"If contradicting "the officially accepted truths" would be a sufficient reason to isolate scientists why are there hundreds of scientists working on string theory for decades?"

This acertion does not make any sense at all. String and other similar theories do not contradict officially accepted truths, but tries to reinforce them by unifying gravity with the other forces of nature to find the supertruth - a "theory of everything" i.e., reconciling GR with QM. Einstein himself spent the last 30 or so years of his life trying to do this, but failed.

"He's willing to roll up his sleeves and undertake the HARD work to further his studies. So how again are EU-AWT-AGM-NR advocates being prohibited from working on their theories?"
Arp is denied any reserch proposal in any ofthe multitude of space projects. He collects thrown away data, collaborate with former students like Jack Sulentic who has megre funds, and other heretic scientists like himself e.g., Burbidge (pair), Narlikar, etc
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2010
If contradicting "the officially accepted truths" would be a sufficient reason to isolate scientists why are there hundreds of scientists working on string theory for decades?
This acertion does not make any sense at all. String and other similar theories do not contradict officially accepted truths, but tries to reinforce them by unifying gravity with the other forces of nature to find the supertruth - a "theory of everything" i.e., reconciling GR with QM.
Ok, so we have to enter the linguistic level.
What is your definition of the verb "contradict"?
Inhowfar do EU and other theories "contradict" officially accepted truths while theories with more than 4 dimensions, negation of DM, and replacement of the onetime BigBang by a smooth and repeating bounce of branes are considered an extension, but not a contradiction of the officially accepted truths?
What are the criteria that distinguish between contradiction and extension?
Baseline
1 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2010
I can think of at least one very good reason why vested parties may not wish for the standard solar model to be overturned.

The National Ignition Facility and their attempt to "Create a Star here on Earth" project. There is a considerable investment in this and other projects and they are all based on the premise that Hydrogen fusion is the only source of the suns power.

I simply ask what if we are wrong about our conclusions? What if in fact the sun is not a giant ball of gas? What if our understanding is based on an incomplete understanding of the composition and the underlying mechanisms at work?

If indeed it were to turn out that we have in fact misinterpreted the observational data and reached a conclusion based on an incomplete data set that could indeed be very bad for the NIF and other fusion based power projects.

Baseline
1 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2010
(cont.)

I know enough to know that I don't know anything, but I wish to learn. I also know there are many people who don't want me to know the truth, apparently because the truth may threaten their position or power over people. I live in a nation where today over 50% of the population does not believe the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

What is disturbing is the apparent parallel in hypocrisy that the main stream scientific community now seems to enjoy with the believers of creationism. Challenge either one of their accepted tenants and you will be labeled a crackpot and marginalized.

If the position is so weak as to not be able to stand the challenge of an alternate explanation then just perhaps it may be due to the possibility that the explanation is indeed wrong.

Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2010
I live in a nation where today over 50% of the population does not believe the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

What is disturbing is the apparent parallel in hypocrisy that (...)you will be labeled a crackpot and marginalized.

If the position is so weak as to not be able to stand the challenge of an alternate explanation then just perhaps it may be due to the possibility that the explanation is indeed wrong.


@Baseline,
I think you may be overstating your case. creationism relies on misrepresentation, misinterpretation, distortion, and outright ignorance -mongering, at times, in order to convince the gullible. There is no credible science that supports it.

Established, very-well understood observational, and demonstrable process and fact explain both the Earth and the observable universe, and make it clear that "Creation" doesn't factually explain how all this got here - even over just the span of recorded history, an internal contradiction at the outset.
Caliban
Aug 15, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2010
I can think of at least one very good reason why vested parties may not wish for the standard solar model to be overturned.
The National Ignition Facility and their attempt to "Create a Star here on Earth" project. There is a considerable investment in this and other projects
And that's why scientists all over the world (China, India, Russia) are not convinced of your "truth"?
and they are all based on the premise that Hydrogen fusion is the only source of the suns power.
Just now hydrogen fusion is the main power generator. If you think it's different from that then you have to falsify the accepted model.
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2010
I also know there are many people who don't want me to know the truth, apparently because the truth may threaten their position or power over people.
And these people who don't want you (and me, and others) to know the "truth" are uniformly distributed over China, India, Russia?
What is disturbing is the apparent parallel in hypocrisy that the main stream scientific community now seems to enjoy with the believers of creationism. Challenge either one of their accepted tenants and you will be labeled a crackpot and marginalized.
Go to arXiv: http://arxiv.org . Type "branes" into the search field. The response will be "Your query resulted in too many hits, only 1000 hits are being displayed." Do you think brane studies belong to the accepted tenants? Do you think all those scientists are labelled "crackpots" or marginalized?
omatumr
1 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2010
Some of you may be interested in the Physics World discussion of shapes of electron orbitals and stars: "Supernova ejects material asymmetrically" (11 Aug 2010).

Waveforms of matter (quantum mechanics and the Schrödinger equation) describe physical reality. [Or perhaps the spiritual template that underlies our physical reality.]

They describe the excited state (like SN1987A with dumbbells passing through the hole in a doughnut) and the ground state (spherical) of electron orbitals and stars.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2010
As I said earlier- I'm prepared to disencumber EU, but first, would like to know what, specifically, has spoiled it? Has there been failure of prediction to be confirmed by observation? Has some principle or tenet been proven unfalsifiable? Is it possibly good science that has not been sufficiently integrated with the standard Model?
Non-standard models have to generate some subjective attraction in order to motivate people to become engaged. String theory is attractive (for me) because it opens possibilities to address some of the greatest problems of physics. (Like the discrepancy between the measured and the expected values of the cosmological constant; like the uncomfortable vicinity of the BigBang model to certain religious beliefs.)
The EU model does not offer any interesting aspects. It doesn't provide any clues that might help with the known great problems of physics. It doesn't have answers to open questions. It is not interesting.
yyz
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2010
@Caliban,

Sorry, I didn't mean to leave you hanging with your original question. I don't know of any websites that specifically take on and debunk various aspects of EU in a comprehensive manner...other than Todd Bridgeman. Some background. Todd, who has a PhD in astrophysics, originally started his website with an eye toward debunking creationism and ID. Claims made by YEC Barry Setterfield motivated Dr Bridgeman to look into Plasma Cosmology and EU more closely (there are 'flavors'). He has taken the time to actually read canonical works(by Peratt, Lerner, Scott) in the field, which few critics have, so he is in a good position to critique the work. This scrutiny led Bridgeman to compile a paper, 'The Electric Sky, Short-circuited', that takes on a few key issues in EU & PC: http://homepage.m...0322.pdf

con't
yyz
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2010
In the paper, Bridgeman looks at some key points of EU-PC and then works through examples that show the shortcomings of the theory. Links to Open Source software used in the paper are given in the appendix, so anyone interested in checking the math is welcome to do so.

As for failed predictions, the apparent non-existence of giant arcs between galaxies is rather glaring. These should be easily visible in the microwave portion of the spectrum but WMAP and Planck have failed to show any (you can check this for yourself). Furthermore, where is the power source needed to maintain these HUGE currents? Major problem there. My fave, craters on the Moon, Mars, etc. (and structures like the Grand Canyon) were excavated by giant electric arcs! EU-PC has no predictive value and has a hard time just trying to match theory to observations. So I would ask that you check out the paper and maybe revisit the website with this background in mind. EU-PC is just bad science.
omatumr
2 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2010
This scrutiny led Bridgeman to compile a paper, 'The Electric Sky, Short-circuited', that takes on a few key issues in EU & PC:


Some aspects of EU have been experimentally verified.

See: "Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle," Journal of Fusion Energy 25, 141-144 (2006). xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0512633

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

yyz
5 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2010
"Some aspects of EU have been experimentally verified"

While I really don't want to take on specific EU-PC claims here, thank you Dr. Manuel, I was unaware of this. I hear Dr. Bridgeman is preparing another paper on EU-PC and might be interested in this reference, if it has not already been brought to his attention.

Bridgeman's 'Dealing with Creationism in Science' website also deals with other controversies outside EU-PC per se, including tired-light, variable lightspeed, 'nearby' quasars and such. I notice today he has posted a piece on dark matter as it relates to YECs and EU theory: http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-dark-matter-i-what-why.html

I find sites like these a refreshing contrast to some of the pseudoscience commonly found on the internet. And you can leave Todd a question or two on many topics. His time and effort here is really appreciated.
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2010
@yyz, Omatumr,

Thanks for devoting the time -the issues you raised just weren't apparent on first reading- I perceived -or thought I did- that Bridgeman had rejected EU on the basis of it having been(apparently) used to prop up the YEC fiction, and it just wasn't clear what part of the theory he was able to prove was rubbish, or impaired, or outright fiction. I will look it over again, and see if I can get a better grip on his arguments, and also check out the partial verification bits as well. Significantly, though, if EU's proponents claim that lunar craters and the grand canyon were formed by electrical discharge, then that would be a bad sign in regards to it's validity.