A bridge of stars connects two dwarf galaxies

February 7, 2017
The white line gives the approximate (average) track of the stellar bridge and the blue line shows the track of the gaseous bridge. The stars and the gas do not follow the same path. Credit: V. Belokurov, D. Erkal and A. Mellinger

The Magellanic Clouds, the two largest satellite galaxies of the Milky Way, appear to be connected by a bridge stretching across 43,000 light years, according to an international team of astronomers led by researchers from the University of Cambridge. The discovery is reported in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS) and is based on the Galactic stellar census being conducted by the European Space Observatory, Gaia.

For the past 15 years, scientists have been eagerly anticipating the data from Gaia. The first portion of information from the was released three months ago and is freely accessible to everyone. This dataset of unprecedented quality is a catalogue of the positions and brightness of a billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy and its environs.

What Gaia has sent to Earth is unique. The satellite's angular resolution is similar to that of the Hubble Space Telescope, but given its greater field of view, it can cover the entire sky rather than a small portion of it. In fact, Gaia uses the largest number of pixels to take digital images of the sky for any space-borne instrument. Better still, the Observatory has not just one telescope but two, sharing the one metre wide focal plane.

Unlike typical telescopes, Gaia does not just point and stare: it constantly spins around its axis, sweeping the entire sky in less than a month. Therefore, it not only measures the instantaneous properties of the stars, but also tracks their changes over time. This provides a perfect opportunity for finding a variety of objects, for example stars that pulsate or explode - even if this is not what the satellite was primarily designed for.

The Cambridge team concentrated on the area around the Magellanic Clouds and used the Gaia data to pick out pulsating stars of a particular type: the so-called RR Lyrae, very old and chemically un-evolved. As these stars have been around since the earliest days of the Clouds' existence, they offer an insight into the pair's history. Studying the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds (LMC and SMC respectively) has always been difficult as they sprawl out over a large area. But with Gaia's all-sky view, this has become a much easier task.

Around the Milky Way, the clouds are the brightest, and largest, examples of dwarf satellite galaxies. Known to humanity since the dawn of history (and to Europeans since their first voyages to the Southern hemisphere) the Magellanic Clouds have remained an enigma to date. Even though the clouds have been a constant fixture of the heavens, astronomers have only recently had the chance to study them in any detail.

Whether the clouds fit the conventional theory of galaxy formation or not depends critically on their mass and the time of their first approach to the Milky Way. The researchers at Cambridge's Institute of Astronomy found clues that could help answer both of these questions.

Firstly, the RR Lyrae stars detected by Gaia were used to trace the extent of the Large Magellanic Cloud. The LMC was found to possess a fuzzy low-luminosity 'halo' stretching as far as 20 degrees from its centre. The LMC would only be able to hold on to the stars at such large distances if it was substantially bigger than previously thought, totalling perhaps as much as a tenth of the mass of the entire Milky Way.

An accurate timing of the clouds' arrival to the galaxy is impossible without knowledge of their orbits. Unfortunately, satellite orbits are difficult to measure: at large distances, the object's motion in the sky is so minute that it is simply unobservable over a human lifespan. In the absence of an orbit, Dr Vasily Belokurov and colleagues found the next best thing: a stellar stream.

Streams of stars form when a satellite - a dwarf galaxy or a star cluster - starts to feel the tidal force of the body around which it orbits. The tides stretch the satellite in two directions: towards and away from the host. As a result, on the periphery of the satellite, two openings form: small regions where the gravitational pull of the satellite is balanced by the pull of the host. Satellite stars that enter these regions find it easy to leave the satellite altogether and start orbiting the host. Slowly, star after star abandons the satellite, leaving a luminous trace on the sky, and thus revealing the satellite's orbit.

"Stellar streams around the Clouds were predicted but never observe," explains Dr Belokurov. "Having marked the locations of the Gaia RR Lyrae on the sky, we were surprised to see a narrow bridge-like structure connecting the two clouds. We believe that at least in part this 'bridge' is composed of stars stripped from the Small Cloud by the Large. The rest may actually be the LMC stars pulled from it by the Milky Way."

The researchers believe the RR Lyrae bridge will help to clarify the history of the interaction between the clouds and our galaxy.

"We have compared the shape and the exact position of the Gaia stellar bridge to the computer simulations of the Magellanic Clouds as they approach the Milky Way", explains Dr Denis Erkal, a co-author of the study. "Many of the stars in the bridge appear to have been removed from the SMC in the most recent interaction, some 200 million years ago, when the dwarf galaxies passed relatively close by each other. "We believe that as a result of that fly-by, not only the stars but also hydrogen gas was removed from the SMC. By measuring the offset between the RR Lyrae and hydrogen bridges, we can put constraints on the density of the gaseous Galactic corona."

Composed of ionised gas at very low density, the hot Galactic corona is notoriously difficult to study. Nevertheless, it has been the subject of intense scrutiny because scientists believe it may contain most of the missing baryonic - or ordinary - matter. Astronomers are trying to estimate where this missing matter (the atoms and ions that make up stars, planets, dust and gas) is. It's thought that most, or even all, of these missing baryons are in the corona. By measuring the coronal density at large distances they hope to solve this conundrum.

During the previous encounter between the Small and Large Magellanic Cloud, both stars and gas were ripped out of the Small Cloud, forming a tidal stream. Initially, the gas and stars were moving at the same speed. However, as the Clouds approached our Galaxy, the Milky Way's corona exerted a drag force on both of them. The stars, being relatively small and dense, punched through the corona with no change in their speed. However, the more tenuous neutral hydrogen gas slowed down substantially in the corona. By comparing the current location of the and the gas, taking into account the density of the gas and how long the Clouds have spent in the corona, the team estimated the density of the corona. Dr. Erkal concludes, "Our estimate showed that the corona could make up a significant fraction of the missing baryons, in agreement with previous independent techniques. With the missing baryon problem seemingly alleviated, the current model of galaxy formation is holding up well to the increased scrutiny possible with Gaia."

Explore further: Stars in the halo of the Milky Way often travel in groups

More information: Vasily Belokurov et al, Clouds, Streams and Bridges. Redrawing the blueprint of the Magellanic System withDR1, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2016). DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw3357

Related Stories

Stars in the halo of the Milky Way often travel in groups

January 31, 2017

Many stars in the halo that surrounds the Milky Way travel in groups. This is the outcome of a recent analysis of data for millions of stars from the Gaia space mission. Astronomers report their discovery today in the international ...

Virtual Milky Way

November 10, 2016

ESA's Gaia is surveying stars in our Galaxy and local galactic neighbourhood in order to build the most precise 3D map of the Milky Way and answer questions about its structure, origin and evolution.

Gaia produces stellar density map of the Milky Way

July 6, 2015

This image, based on housekeeping data from ESA's Gaia satellite, is no ordinary depiction of the heavens. While the image portrays the outline of our Galaxy, the Milky Way, and of its neighbouring Magellanic Clouds, it was ...

Festive nebulae light up Milky Way Galaxy satellite

December 20, 2016

The sheer observing power of the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope is rarely better illustrated than in an image such as this. This glowing pink nebula, named NGC 248, is located in the Small Magellanic Cloud, just under 200 ...

The Dynamic Duo: RAVE complements Gaia

September 19, 2016

The new data release of the Radial Velocity Experiment (RAVE) is the fifth spectroscopic release of a survey of stars in the southern celestial hemisphere. It contains radial velocities for 520 781 spectra of 457 588 unique ...

Scientists detect stellar streams around Magellanic Clouds

November 23, 2015

(Phys.org)—Astronomers from the University of Cambridge, U.K., have detected a number of narrow streams and diffuse debris clouds around two nearby irregular dwarf galaxies called the Magellanic Clouds. The research also ...

Recommended for you

Fast radio bursts may be firing off every second

September 21, 2017

When fast radio bursts, or FRBs, were first detected in 2001, astronomers had never seen anything like them before. Since then, astronomers have found a couple of dozen FRBs, but they still don't know what causes these rapid ...

Hubble discovers a unique type of object in the Solar System

September 20, 2017

With the help of the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, a German-led group of astronomers have observed the intriguing characteristics of an unusual type of object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter: two asteroids ...

Ageing star blows off smoky bubble

September 20, 2017

Astronomers have used ALMA to capture a strikingly beautiful view of a delicate bubble of expelled material around the exotic red star U Antliae. These observations will help astronomers to better understand how stars evolve ...

110 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

thingumbobesquire
5 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2017
The interaction of galaxies is redolent of the architecture of the brain.
cantdrive85
Feb 07, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rrrander
5 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2017
Intergalactic electric discharge.


Using what as the conductor?
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2017
Intergalactic electric discharge.


Using what as the conductor?


Something invisible that doesn't show up at any wavelengths! Somebody needs to tell the EU guys that those blue and white lines aren't actually wires!
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2017
Intergalactic electric discharge.


Using what as the conductor?


You'll find that EU have a very loose definition of 'discharge'. Basically, any movement of a charged particle counts. So, a Na+ ion carried by the Gulf stream will do it for them!
BendBob
not rated yet Feb 08, 2017
@thingumbobesquire you can smell it even more at: https://www.mozak.../landing
Which is a citizen science "game" that the Center for Game Science at the University of Washington and the Allen Institute for Brain Science offer for our fun and curiosity and ...?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2017
Intergalactic electric discharge.


Using what as the conductor?

Plasma. The mechanism is described here;
https://phys.org/...ace.html
Discharging is how energy transfer occurs in plasmas.
Something invisible that doesn't show up at any wavelengths!

Except for the observed "clouds, streams, and bridges" the author of the paper seems perfectly able to detect.
jonesdumb prefers wilful ignorance to actual science.
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 08, 2017
Re: "Somebody needs to tell the EU guys that those blue and white lines aren't actually wires!"

http://sci.esa.in...lky-way/

"Observations with ESA's Herschel space observatory have revealed that our Galaxy is threaded with filamentary structures on every length scale ...

astronomers have detected what appear to be accretion flows, with the most prominent filaments drawing matter from their surroundings through a network of smaller filaments."

What they are saying is that in many cases, we see branching networks of filaments -- like lightning.

The contention that these neutrals are not simply dragged along by electric currents -- defined simply as movements of charged particles -- is a questionable objection in light of the frequency with which radio astronomers observe anomalous "High-Velocity Clouds" associated with the Magellanic clouds.
Pearlman_CTA
1 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2017
if SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis is valid the two were in close proximity just thousands, not the millions of years ago if SCM the actuality.
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2017
From Intersetellar Matters by radio astronomer, Gerrit Verschuur ...

"The existence of the HVCs has been a problem since their discovery ..."

In fact, as one reads through Verschuur's works, it becomes apparent that he disagrees with the widespread usage of the term "cloud" to describe astrophysical filaments.

What is important to understand is that the Magellanic "Clouds" are themselves part of larger streams. The south-galactic-pole HVC is a 100-kpc-long streamer that is about 5-10 kpc wide in places.

Some of the "cloud" velocities have been clocked at -465 km/s! These are called "Very-High-Velocity Clouds" (VHVCs).

What we see here is a dynamic situation with lots of moving filaments, oftentimes moving at wildly different speeds and directions.

To simply assert that these observations result from tidal interactions is to basically ignore the complexity of what we are looking at.
gculpex
1 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2017
Some of the "cloud" velocities have been clocked at -465 km/s! These are called "Very-High-Velocity Clouds" (VHVCs).

Can these filaments be used in someway to transport a ship?
Are there any filaments connecting our solar system to the stars?
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2017
Re: "Are there any filaments connecting our solar system to the stars?"

This remains a very contentious issue. The mainstream repeatedly fits these observations into their existing toolbox. Adherents to the Astrophysical Journal generally refuse to consider that cosmic plasmas can behave in fundamentally electrodynamic ways -- essentially treating the cosmic plasma differently from laboratory plasmas.

IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science has not been so averse to publishing such papers.

So, I would say that the first step towards asking the question you're asking above is that we really need to map out the controversy.

We need to trace through the arguments on both sides. This is -- surprisingly -- something that academia completely refuses to do.

So, what I propose is that we should do it without them. I've begun the process here ...

Controversies of Science
https://plus.goog...on/Yhn4Y
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2017
gculpex, observe the hostility to simply briefing you on the facts of the controversy. This approach to science which seeks to minimize and ignore scientific controversies will ultimately backfire, because what it guarantees is that when new information systems are constructed which catalog these controversies, they will not be constructed by academics. Academics have historically adopted what is called a "positivist" epistemology -- which treats many ongoing scientific controversies as "settled science". The fact is that some questions in science are far too important to consider "settled" -- such as the very fundamental question of 'Can electricity travel through space?'.

We should keep this question open in part because laboratory plasmas conduct electricity over filaments, and astronomers have been surprised by the repeated observation of filaments throughout space.
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2017
Re: "The interaction of galaxies is redolent of the architecture of the brain."

Yes, and in fact you will find many additional parallels between the two if you further investigate the laboratory behavior of plasmas -- the fourth state of matter.

Consider that the brain connects through filaments. So does the fourth state of matter.

Consider that living cells are a form of gel, and gels exhibit a natural ability to manage their charge concentration. So can plasmas (it's called a "double layer").

Also consider that the body does not seek to create all of its energy in all of the places in which it uses that energy. Some would argue that what we see happening in space is really much the same phenomenon -- that plasmas conduct charge across vast volumes of space.

What we do not know -- and may never know -- is where all of this matter comes from. We see how ionization can happen, but the Big Bang solves this problem with a creation event.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 08, 2017
@Reeve,
What they are saying is that in many cases, we see branching networks of filaments -- like lightning.


I knew this story would have the EU nutters in a tizz. It is not a sodding bit like lightning, you burke! Lightning happens because it breaks down a dielectric medium (air). These filaments are not in a dielectric medium. They are a very diffuse gas, in a vacuum. Still, if you really think this can happen, then please point us to the scientific literature where this 'lightning', and it's associated EM signature has been detected.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2017
@Reeve,
We should keep this question open in part because laboratory plasmas conduct electricity over filaments, and astronomers have been surprised by the repeated observation of filaments throughout space.


Then it'll be very easy to spot the 'current' through its EM signature, yes? Please show where this has been reported. If it hasn't, then why don't you suggest a type of observation that would detect it. It isn't difficult. Currents are not invisible. And don't start on that 'dark mode' BS. That just makes it invisible in visible wavelengths.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2017

Except for the observed "clouds, streams, and bridges" the author of the paper seems perfectly able to detect.
jonesdumb prefers wilful ignorance to actual science.


You will not get a discharge in a plasma. It is a conductor. A discharge in a dielectric medium (such as air) will break down that medium and provide a conducting path of ionised material for the current to flow. Like lightning. Which will be bleeding obvious at numerous wavelengths. And isn't seen. So quit with the non-science BS of Dunderdolts, where even the Gulf stream is a 'discharge' due to it carrying positive ions along with it.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2017
if SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis is valid the two were in close proximity just **thousands**, not the millions of years ago if SCM the actuality.


I think somebody might have noticed that!

https://arxiv.org...112.3171
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2017
^^^^^Hmmm, maybe I should make that more obvious. This distance between the LMC and the SMC is ~ 40 000 ly. If you don't want them breaking the light barrier, then they would be together at no later than 40 000 years ago. There is zero evidence for this. There is zero evidence for them having a current velocity of anything like light speed.

EDIT:
Oh dear, I just realised that this is a nutty creationist claim, and can therefore be ignored.
http://creationwi...Redshift (WARNING: link goes to complete b*llocks)
gculpex
not rated yet Feb 08, 2017
gculpex, observe the hostility to simply briefing you on the facts of the controversy. Academics have historically adopted what is called a "positivist" epistemology -- which treats many ongoing scientific controversies as "settled science". The fact is that some questions in science are far too important to consider "settled" -- such as the very fundamental question of 'Can electricity travel through space?'.

We should keep this question open in part because laboratory plasmas conduct electricity over filaments, and astronomers have been surprised by the repeated observation of filaments throughout space.

Thanks for the info and positive feed back!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2017
Thanks for the info and positive feed back!


From Reeve: "Can electricity travel through space?"


What he should have asked is: can electricity travelling through space be detected?
Answer: Yes. Has it been seen in these filaments? No.
gculpex
1 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2017
@Reeve,
What they are saying is that in many cases, we see branching networks of filaments -- like lightning.


I knew this story would have the EU nutters in a tizz. It is not a sodding bit like lightning, you burke! Lightning happens because it breaks down a dielectric medium (air). These filaments are not in a dielectric medium. They are a very diffuse gas, in a vacuum. Still, if you really think this can happen, then please point us to the scientific literature where this 'lightning', and it's associated EM signature has been detected.


Dear Jones,
Have you heard of sprites and jets (red or blue) discharges discovered high above storms? Let me see if I can find an article or two or...
https://www.geolo...osphere/

Have fun reading!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2017


Dear Jones,
Have you heard of sprites and jets (red or blue) discharges discovered high above storms? Let me see if I can find an article or two or...
https://www.geolo...osphere/

Have fun reading!


Errr, yes. And your point is? They come from thunder clouds!
How would you detect an electric current flowing through space? Hint: let's try radio wave, or synchrotron radiation, for instance. Do you think vast areas of the sky have not been scanned in those wavelengths? Like I said to Reeve, explain what wavelengths you think these currents would radiate in (a lot); and where have they been seen?
Another hint: why do you think Peratt and Alfvén's models died on their arses?

Typical EU: "There are galaxy spanning currents!"
Real science: "No there aren't."
Typical EU: "Look at these pictures of lightning!"

And whoever wrote that report on the website you linked needs to learn to spell 'lightning.'
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2017
In this simple view, blue jets are thought to be positive leader discharges in normal polarity storms, generated by the electric field between the top positive charge center and the negative screening layer formed by negative ions attracted from the atmosphere and ionosphere above [Pasko et al., 1996; Pasko, 2008]. Once formed, the streamers continue past the screening layer and shoot up into the stratosphere, ionizing this region.

http://onlinelibr...311/full

So, basically lightning then.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2017
You will not get a discharge in a plasma.

Bwahahahahahahahaha, that says it all! You are a complete and utter moron. Still ignoring that revolution in the understanding of ionospheric plasmas jonesdumb? Your belief that space is a vacuum is so gas-light era, you must be about 92 years old. Direct measurements show everywhere we've measured outside of the Earth's atmosphere is plasma. And direct observation shows that discharge readily occurs in plasmas.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2017
And direct observation shows that discharge readily occurs in plasmas


Where? Show me where an electric discharge has been INITIATED in a plasma. Current? Yes. You want to call a current an electric discharge? Fine. That's up to you. You will not INITIATE an electric discharge in a plasma. It is already a conductor. You will get a CURRENT initiated in an already CONDUCTING plasma Probably just your piss poor and unscientific use of terminology.
And, need I say it again: those CURRENTS will be detected. So the point is moot, because they haven't been. See Peratt's failed galaxy model.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2017
ionospheric plasmas
??????? And WTF is that? You do realise that there are more neutrals than ions in the ionosphere, yes?
So, to clarify; can there be a breakdown of a dielectric in the ionosphere? Probably. May depend on the ionization rate, which is ALWAYS well below the neutral rate. I cannot be bothered looking it up, because it is irrelevant. You classify the Gulf stream as a discharge, so the conversation goes nowhere.
Just detect these discharges, currents, Gulf streams, whatever, between galaxies, and you're home dry, eh?
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2017
Re: "Then it'll be very easy to spot the 'current' through its EM signature, yes?"

jonesdave, please read this carefully:

https://www.astro...diowaves

"Synchrotron emission is the most common form of radio emission from outside our solar system and is why the Milky Way appears so bright at radio wavelengths."

Synchrotron radiation is of course what happens when electrons spiral in a magnetic field.

So, I don't understand where your confusion originates.

The very reason that we can see cosmic radio sources -- astrophysically speaking --
traces to a large degree to emissions from electrons spiraling.

How far of a leap is it now to suggest that a good number of these emissions come from filaments?

Not very. In fact, this has been the subject of radio astronomer, Gerrit Verschuur's, research on critical ionization velocities for some time now.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2017
From "On the Critical Ionization Velocity Effect in Interstellar Space and Possible Detection of Related Continuum Emission" by Gerrit Verschuur ...

"Interstellar neutral hydrogen (HI) emission spectra manifest several families of linewidths whose numerical values (34, 13, and 6 km/s) appear to be related to the critical ionization velocities (CIVs) of the most abundant interstellar atomic species. Extended new analysis of HI emission profiles shows that the 34-km/s-wide component, which probably corresponds to the CIV for helium, is pervasive. The 34-km/s-wide linwidth family is found in low-velocity (local) HI profiles and in the so-called high-velocity clouds (HVCs). In addition, published studies of HI linewidths found in the Magellanic Stream, Very High Velocity Clouds, and Compact HVCs ..."

Which part of this confuses you? CIV's have indeed already been associated with the Magellanic Streams.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2017
https://www.plasm...velocity

"Critical ionization velocity (CIV, also called Critical velocity, CV) is the relative velocity between a neutral gas and plasma (an ionized gas), at which the neutral gas will start to ionize. If more energy is supplied, the velocity of the atoms or molecules will not exceed the critical ionization velocity until the gas becomes almost fully ionized ...

in 2001, C. Konz, et al, '.. discuss the critical velocity effect as a possible explanation for the observed Hα emission [..] in the Galactic halo near the edges of cold gas clouds of the Magellanic Stream' [20]"

[20]: Konz, C.; Lesch, H.; Birk, G. T.; Wiechen, H., "The Critical Velocity Effect as a Cause for the Hα Emission from the Magellanic Stream" (2001) in The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 548, Issue 1, pp. 249-252

I'm betting that what we have here is a failure of imagination for how spiraling electrons generate CIV's.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2017
Synchrotron radiation is of course what happens when electrons spiral in a magnetic field. How far of a leap is it now to suggest that a good number of these emissions come from filaments?


You want to call this a current? Jesus. You could start by looking at the filaments in wavelengths that would detect such emission as would be expected from these galaxy spanning currents. And finding it. Has that been done? Well, yes, I imagine it has. So if there were any such detections, I imagine that I'd have heard about it. Not least from Anthony Peratt, as he picked up his Nobel Prize.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2017
**I'm betting** that what we have here is a failure of imagination for how spiraling electrons generate CIV's.


How would you know? CIV has nothing to do with electric currents.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2017
But, to be clear, the problem is nothing to do with the physics involved. The problem seems to be that you just refuse to learn what the evidence is. Thus, you never even get to the point of asking the right questions which would help you to understand the geometry.

The questions you ask are fundamentally designed to disprove anything which competes with the textbook theory. This undermines your own ability to learn the competing model.

I suspect that you will eventually look back on all of this with regret.

There is actual science here, and it's rather classical and empirical. What we have are simply gaps in the observations -- but don't confuse these gaps with the types of gaps which occur for ideas like dark matter and dark energy. These are not empirical gaps; they are simply minor uncertainties about the exact details of these processes.

Mainstream science will eventually stumble their way into the answers w/o even realizing it.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2017
Re: "How would you know? CIV has nothing to do with electric currents."

The Invisible Sky, Gerrit Verschuur

"Anomalous Velocity Hydrogen

Not all is understood about the distribution of HI in the Milky Way. For example,
large areas of sky are found to contain HI moving at velocities that are not expected
if the gas is confined to the plane of the Galaxy. In particular, when a radio telescope
is pointed above or below the galactic plane, only relatively local gas traveling at
velocities between ±20 km/s with respect to zero, defined in terms of the average
random motion of stars near the sun, should be observed. However, HI at very high
negative velocities, which indicates motion toward us, is found at high galactic
latitudes. These structures are known as high-velocity clouds, although detailed
maps of such features show them to be filamentary instead of cloud-like. Their
distance and origin continue to be the subject of controversy."
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2017
^^^^^Irrelevant!!!!!!

I suspect that you will eventually look back on all of this with regret.


Lol. Nope, I'm not the one caught up in a science-free world of Velikovskian woo. If you lot had anything worthwhile to say, you'd be saying it in the scientific literature, not on crank websites and internet fora. It's always 'just around the corner' for you lot. For years and years. It's going nowhere, and you know it.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2017
http://docplayer....ury.html

"In 2000 Verschuur, with leading plasma physicist Anthony Peratt, used the concept of critical ionization velocity (CIV), first introduced by Alfvén, to explain neutral hydrogen (HI) emission from gas in the local interstellar environment.

'An effective means for producing CIV in interstellar space involves the relatively little known plasma phenomenon in space called the Marklund convection mechanism' [29].

The authors conclude, 'a striking coincidence has been discovered between radio telescope measurements of HI emission linewidths in the vicinity of interstellar neutral hydrogen filaments at high galactic latitudes and the critical ionization velocities of the most abundant atomic species in interstellar space, thereby revealing nature's signature of CIV' [30]."
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2017
^^^^^And Anthony Peratt thinks rock art is something to do with plasma woo back in the day. The bloke has clearly lost it.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2017
The problem is that when actual real astronomers such as myself are confronted with plasma cosmology, we have a hard time doing anything other than shaking our heads sadly, because it's so amazingly wrong, so patently silly if you know anything, that it's difficult even to know how to begin saying that it's wrong.

http://galacticin...s-wrong/

An interesting read for the scientifically literate lurkers.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2017
Let's recap ...

(1) Herschel has observed filaments threading through galaxies on multiple scales.

(2) The very reason we see most radio spectra is because of emissions from electrons spiraling in magnetic fields.

(3) Critical ionization velocities -- which occur when charged particles slam into neutrals at very high velocity -- have been pinpointed to interstellar hydrogen filaments. These CIV's "coincidentally" correspond to the most abundant atomic species in interstellar space.

(4) If you look Verschuur's diagram in Figure 1 at http://docplayer....ry.html, most of these CIV emissions correspond to the parts of the filaments which dramatically curve.

How much more help do you need with this? How is this not clear?

You've got a neutral component to the HI filament, you've got CIV's, both specifically observed for the Magellanic "Clouds". All of the pieces are there for you.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2017
^^^^^No it isn't. It is an irrelevance!!!! We should see the currents clearly delineated in the places where you lot think they should be. We don't. Game over. And, as I've said, CIV is an irrelevance, and who the hell is Verschuur?
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2017
For those looking to learn more about how electricity travels through space, learn the history of the Birkeland Current ...

*The History of the Birkeland Current*
https://plus.goog...3iHyjnwz

Learn how such filaments can accrete matter into stars ...

*The Lorentz Force and Marklund Convection: The Alternative to Gravitational Accretion*
https://plus.goog...fc=false

Learn the history of how "space" was invented on Earth -- along with all of our theories for it -- long before we actually went there in 1958. And learn how when it was finally, definitively learned that space is NOT a perfect vacuum, but the theories never changed ...

*The Empty Vacuum of Space Mistake*
https://plus.goog...RTvS6B5b
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2017
Martín López Corredoira: Cosmologist / Astrophysicist / Philosopher / Published 50 Academic Papers, Often as Lead

The Twilight of the Scientific Age

"Science is not a direct means for reaching the truth. Science works with hypotheses rather than with truths. This fact, although recognized, is usually forgotten. It gives rise to the creation of certain key groups within science which think that their hypotheses are indubitably solid truths, and think that the hypotheses of other minority groups are just extravagant or crackpot ideas ...

all through history, and even now, there have been many instances of discussion about how to interpret aspects of nature, with various possible options without a clear answer, in which a group of scientists have opted to claim their position is the good or orthodox one while other positions are heresies."
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2017
Critical ionization velocities -- which occur when charged particles slam into neutrals at very high velocity -- ****have been pinpointed to interstellar hydrogen filaments.**** These CIV's "coincidentally" correspond to the most abundant atomic species in interstellar space.


Really? When did this happen? And don't point me to a book, or an abstract to a poster at a meeting. Anyone (pretty much) can do a poster at some of these meetings.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2017
Gerrit Verschuur

Verschuur is at the center of a recent debate over the age of the universe.[10][11] He claims that images from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (Wmap) are not pictures of the universe in its early form, but rather hydrogen gas clouds in our own galaxy. If he is shown to be correct, much work relating to the Big Bang Theory would be undermined.

On December 10, 2007 his work with respect to COBE, WMAP, and HI, was published in The Astrophysical Journal.[12] However, in a more systematic examination of the maps published that same year in The Physical Review, Land and Slosar [13] ***find the data do not support the correlation claimed by Verschuur****.

https://en.wikipe...erschuur

Sounds like another anti BB fringe loon. Like Peratt, maybe he should just stick to what he's good at.
So quoting stuff by him and Peratt is not going to impress anyone. Especially when they're shown to be wrong.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2017
More from Verschuur, and why I don't think I'll take him seriously:

On the critical ionization velocity effect in interstellar space and possible detection of related continuum emission
https://arxiv.org...3021.pdf

Cited by 7. 4 by himself, 1 by Thornhill (!!!!), 1 by Don Scott (!!!!!), and 1 by some other bugger having a rant about something in some sort of something that isn't a journal. So, I don't think he'll be high on my reading list.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2017
@Reeve,
(4) If you look Verschuur's diagram in Figure 1 at http://docplayer....ry.html, most of these CIV emissions correspond to the parts of the filaments which dramatically curve.


Aaaaarrrrgggghhhhh! That is a paper by Thornhill. Jesus, are you trying to wreck your own argument deliberately?

cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2017
Dr. Gerrit Verschuur is astronomer emeritus at the Arecibo Observatory, but what he writes about his specialty doesn't agree with jonesdumb, so he is going to ignore his research. Well jonesdumb, at least you are consistent with your wilful ignorance.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2017
Observe that jonesdave started by asserting that ...

"those CURRENTS will be detected. So the point is moot, because they haven't been."

Then, once it was pointed out to him that in fact there is indeed data which can be linked together to specifically show that the filaments within the Magellanic "Cloud" region might indeed be electric currents, to save face he now seeks to undermine the credibility of those who created this data.

What we can plainly observe from these interactions is a larger pattern that jonesdave never actually looked for this evidence which he vigorously claimed did not exist -- and in fact, he "learns" these models which he disagrees with only in the sense that he seeks out ways to undermine them.

Imagine a college student in a large lecture hall disagreeing with everything that the professor said in the midst of a lecture.

Can we trust that this student actually understands the model?

It's a question we need to ask.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2017
Dr. Gerrit Verschuur is astronomer emeritus at the Arecibo Observatory, but what he writes about his specialty doesn't agree with jonesdumb, so he is going to ignore his research. Well jonesdumb, at least you are consistent with your wilful ignorance.


Unlike the ignorance of somebody who doesn't understand plasma as much as he pretends to. And is happy to change terminology to suit himself, until it bites him on the arse. Who professes to follow Alfvén, but continually misquotes, or fails to understand what he was saying. Do you know that he thought magnetic reconnection was possible? And wrote that down where anyone can find it?
No, I stick by what I said; Verschuur was outside his area of expertise, and was wrong, and therefore can be safely ignored. Ditto Peratt. Ditto Alfvén on cosmology. I don't do hero worship - I do evidence. You obviously don't care about evidence, as long as you can continue believing in idiotic woo.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2017
@The Idiot Reeve,
Then, once it was pointed out to him that in fact there is indeed data which can be linked together to specifically show that the filaments within the Magellanic "Cloud" region might indeed be electric currents, to save face he now seeks to undermine the credibility of those who created this data.


What? Where is this evidence? When was it presented? There has been no such thing. Have a look at the literature. NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, has ever suggested, within the scientific literature, that there is an electric current within the filaments of the LMC!!! Nowhere. Understand? You are lying, as well as being scientifically illiterate.
You pointed at some papers suggesting CIV 'might' be happening there. If it is, it is minor, as shown by later work. More to the point, WTF has CIV got to do with electric currents? Show me the quote from any paper (NOT THORNHILL!!) where it is suggested that there is electric woo in these filaments, or stop lying.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2017
What we can plainly observe from these interactions is a larger pattern that jonesdave never actually looked for this evidence which he vigorously claimed did not exist -- and in fact, he "learns" these models which he disagrees with only in the sense that he seeks out ways to undermine them.


Wrong woo boy. I checked out the papers by Konz, and those that had cited him. CIV cannot be ruled out, but if it is present, is a minor player. And HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR ELECTRIC WOO.
You are an idiot if you think it has. Look up the definition. You linked a 'paper' by the idiot Thornhill. He is not qualified to find his own arse with both hands. Verschuur has been ignored by everyone on the subject, which is not his area of expertise, other than by himself and woo merchants. So I ignore him in favour of people who understand the area.
You have zilch, other than woo merchants, and a bloke whose index terms for his paper include 'electric space & plasma cosmology'.

jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2017
It should also be pointed out, as I alluded to earlier, the the EU nutjobs assertions of 'magnetic reconnection cannot happen', is not only wrong based on direct observation, but that their quoting of Alfvén to support this is, as usual, somewhat selective! Just as they were wrong about what he said about the frozen-in approximation.
His right hand man, Falthammar, not only thought MR was possible, but knew it was happening, and was publishing such quite recently.
So, more sloppy research, or just the usual lies?
Obviously, I have the papers to back up what I'm saying.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2017
Some more on Verschuur:

On the Apparent Associations Between Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Structure and (WMAP) High-frequency Continuum Emission
https://arxiv.org...1661.pdf

Cited by 7 (again!!!); 5 by himself, 1 by Thornhill (lol), and 1 by some bloke whose paper is entitled 'Metric contraction: an alternate model for cosmology.'
So I think we can say that Verschuur, given his poster presentation with Peratt, is definitely a plasma cosmology woo believer. Regardless of his day job.
I shouldn't have to point out the total lack of evidence for PC, or how astronomers view it.
The title of Verschuur's paper makes it obvious that he wants to get rid of the WMAP data, because it blows PC out of the water (along with COBE & Planck). So his motivation is obvious. And nobody is backing him up, or finding his explanation at all believable. Except the idiot Thornhill, and PC proponent Peratt. Who has lost his marbles.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2017
You're just all over the place now.


How so woo boy? By pointing out that no one is taking Verschuur seriously? Don't like that?

Try reading this paper:
Gaussian decomposition of H I surveys (cited by 36 non woo merchants)
http://www.aanda....ght.html

Where they show the errors and unjustified assumptions made by Verschuur. Esp. sect. 5 & 6. As I said, there is no reason to take him seriously, and nobody is. His motivation is obvious.
Admittedly, this may be somewhere in his area, but his motivation is biased towards a predetermined outcome, hence his interpretation is skewed, and wrong. If it wasn't it would be taken seriously.

Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2017
Re: "So I think we can say that Verschuur, given his poster presentation with Peratt, is definitely a plasma cosmology woo believer. Regardless of his day job."

To be clear, Verschuur is a radio astronomer -- an independent investigator -- and is absolutely NOT a member of the Thunderbolts Group. Verschuur's rationale for publishing with Peratt is that he observed an unusual quantization of these HI linewidths associated with filaments -- which "coincidentally" match the CIV's for interstellar space's most abundant elements.

His crime -- apparently -- is that he sought to interpret these observations using a plasma physics process which is observed within the laboratory.

Under normal circumstances, this would be called "interdisciplinary research". Many of our most groundbreaking discoveries occur when specialists are willing to cross disciplinary boundaries.

Sheesh.
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2017
Re: "Try reading this paper ... Where they show the errors and unjustified assumptions made by Verschuur."

Read the abstract.

Do you see the section titled "Methods"?

They state ...

"Methods. The study is based on an automatic profile decomposition algorithm."

Verschuur does his analysis by hand. There's a very important reason for this: The 21-cm wavelength is unique in that it penetrates deep into interstellar matter. In fact, this creates significant confusion because what the radio astronomer sees is like taking a photograph of a bowl of semi-transparent spaghetti.

Now, imagine plugging that into an algorithm.

Verschuur has gone out of his way in critiquing the usage of algorithms for the work that he does. He insists that the data that he extracts from HI all-sky surveys ABSOLUTELY MUST be processed by hand.

I'm betting you did not know that.

But, I'm also betting that you're -- again -- going to pretend that that does not matter.
Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2017
How many times do we need to publicly expose that you are shooting from the hip?

You just blast out paper references without understanding the broader context for the debate.

You fill threads with pseudo-debate -- not understanding where the real controversy is.

You are a poster boy for why the debunking movement is just a complete failure.

I've been interacting with people just like yourself for more than a decade now.

You're not even near the best.

Some of those people actually DID understand where the debate was -- because they took the time to stop and THINK about what was being claimed.

You're so impatient that you don't get that far.

You're not even wrong.

You're a couple of levels below that, and honestly, you come off as hyper-ventilating.

Calm down. Practice LISTENING and THINKING.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2017
^^^^Yes, I did know. And he's wrong, as explained in that paper. And why nobody is taking him seriously. He is a PC nut, otherwise, why use the index terms: 'electric space & plasma cosmology', in a published paper? Have you seen his stuff, and how many times he uses the words 'apparently', 'possible' or uses a question mark in the title!!!!!
He has a predetermined outcome for his research, and that is not good in science.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2017
Calm down. Practice LISTENING and THINKING.


Lol, woo boy. You are an idiot, who believes in Velikovskian woo!!!!!! You haven't the slightest idea about science, by definition. You just fill fora with your endless boring philosophy based prose, that is not going to get you anywhere in science. What you need is evidence. And you don't have any. In case you haven't noticed, the core beliefs of EU are an evidence free zone of scientific impossibilities.
Still, you're welcome to present such evidence on a forum more conducive to such things. Try here:
http://www.intern...ormation

As it stands, you are perceived as a bunch of loons, with nothing to back up your nutty ideas. So do some science, and try changing that. Verschuur has obviously failed, maybe you can do better.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2017
As it stands, you are perceived as a bunch of loons, with nothing to back up your nutty ideas. So do some science, and try changing that
.......but you don't believe it is loony to stand in front of a mirror & imagine that 80-95% of the image you see is Missing (Matter).

At least EU advocates start from an established scientific premise that ELECTRICITY has been proven to exist. You on the other hand have yet to find even the smallest trace of something you claim makes up 80-95% of the Universe, but that isn't loony in your world of Cosmic Fairies spreading their Dust all over you so deep you can barely place one foot in front of another except to put it in your mouth.

jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2017
^^^^As it stands, you are perceived as a bunch of loons, with nothing to back up your nutty ideas. ****So do some science, and try changing that.*****

jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2017
As it stands, you are perceived as a bunch of loons, with nothing to back up your nutty ideas. So do some science, and try changing that
.......but you don't believe it is loony to stand in front of a mirror & imagine that 80-95% of the image you see is Missing (Matter).

At least EU advocates start from an established scientific premise that ELECTRICITY has been proven to exist. You on the other hand have yet to find even the smallest trace of something you claim makes up 80-95% of the Universe, but that isn't loony in your world of Cosmic Fairies spreading their Dust all over you so deep you can barely place one foot in front of another except to put it in your mouth.



Have a look at the title of the article in this thread. Where does it invoke DM, DE? Where have I mentioned it? You are obsessed. Go talk to Crothers about the injustice of it all!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2017
Some of the titles of Verschuur's (and sometimes including Peratt) papers:

On the critical ionization velocity effect in interstellar space and ***possible*** detection of related continuum emission (Verschuur)

Observation of the CIV effect in interstellar clouds: ***a speculation*** on the physical mechanism for their existence (Peratt & Verschuur)

A Pervasive Broad Component in HI Emission Line Profiles: Temperature, Turbulence, or a Helium Signature***?*** (Verschuur)

On the ***Apparent*** Associations Between Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Structure and (WMAP) High-frequency Continuum Emission

Anyone see something here? Reading some of these papers, and abstracts of others, his motivation is obvious - he wants to discredit WMAP, Planck and COBE results regarding the CMB, because it is obviously extremely good evidence for the Big Bang. He obviously has a PC standpoint, and knows that it is falsified by this (and other) evidence. So he wants to throw doubt on it. Fail.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2017
Anyone see something here?


Yes Jonesy I do, the 80-95% of you that you can't.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2017
Anyone see something here?


Yes Jonesy I do, the 80-95% of you that you can't.


Wasn't even talking to you. Go do some science.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2017
There has been some discussion in the literature of correlation between CMB maps and neutral hydrogen (Verschuur 2007), but this result was not found to be statistically significant (Land & Slosar 2007).


Whoops.
https://arxiv.org...0715.pdf
gculpex
not rated yet Feb 09, 2017
There has been some discussion in the literature of correlation between CMB maps and neutral hydrogen (Verschuur 2007), but this result was not found to be statistically significant (Land & Slosar 2007).


Whoops.
https://arxiv.org...0715.pdf

However, the model does not work well inside the Galactic plane. The addition of either synchrotron steepening or a modified spinning dust model improves the fit.

Did you read this part, Mr. Jones?
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2017
There has been some discussion in the literature of correlation between CMB maps and neutral hydrogen (Verschuur 2007), but this result was not found to be statistically significant (Land & Slosar 2007).


Whoops.
https://arxiv.org...0715.pdf

However, the model does not work well inside the Galactic plane. The addition of either synchrotron steepening or a modified spinning dust model improves the fit.

Did you read this part, Mr. Jones?


I read that they assessed the case put forward by Verschuur, and find it to be of no significance. Why do you think nobody is taking him seriously, and the WMAP, COBE and Planck results are taken seriously?
There will always be someone tilting at windmills. Verschuur is seeing what he wants to see, as he has a need for BB to be wrong, because it invalidates his pet beliefs. Alfvén had a cosmological 'theory'; it failed. So did Peratt; it failed. So did Arp; it failed. That is science.
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2017
Anyone see something here?


Yes Jonesy I do, the 80-95% of you that you can't.

You don't see it either. Think of all that space between atoms in your body. Unfortunately, you can't remove your self centered-ness far enough to consider it. Isn't now the time for all good egoists to be out sprucing up their ski trails?
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2017
Anyone see something here?


Yes Jonesy I do, the 80-95% of you that you can't.

You don't see it either. Think of all that space between atoms in your body. Unfortunately, you can't remove your self centered-ness far enough to consider it. Isn't now the time for all good egoists to be out sprucing up their ski trails?


And he still hasn't posted a picture of an electron! I want to know whether electrons are real, coz I've never seen one!
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2017
jonesdumb,

Every single paper, Vershuur's or otherwise, on these matters is speculative. All the mainstream papers you deems as truth are even more speculative given the fact they are based purely on hypothetical constructs unlike Vershuur's work which is based upon empirical science.

And you are displaying exactly why "no one is paying attention" to Vershuur and PC models are claimed to have failed. Just as you are ignoring the author, so too have all the other pseudoscientific mainstreamers. Whether it be Arp, Alfvén, or others that use empirical science ILO the fanciful imaginings of the dark scientists, they are ignored because the real science they use is in direct conflict with the pathetic guesses of the fanciful ones. You are the laughing stock jonesdumb, with your decidedly unscientific approach and your remedial understanding of the facts involved.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2017
^^^^Check out the woo merchant who doesn't even understand the plasma he prattles on about, not to mention his demi-god Alfvén, whom he regularly misquotes!!
No, cd, those people are NOT taken seriously, because their models/ observations failed. It's not as if they weren't checked out. Verschuur? Looked at it, was insignificant. Arp? Tiny sample from a 2-D map, didn't hold up with a much larger sample. He wouldn't let it go. Obsessive. Tough. Alfvén-Klein? Observations to be expected from their model didn't show up. Dead. Peratt? Ditto.
You do not keep holding on to failed hypotheses. That is not science. Where the hell would we be if we did? Some GPS engineers - "Nah, we won't need to correct for GR/SR." Others - "Well, let's include a patch, anyway." Now you have a working GPS because they did use the patch.
You and EU are the laughing stock. Still believe in this 'science' do they?
http://www.maveri...turn.htm
Lol.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Feb 10, 2017
You are the laughing stock jonesdumb, with your decidedly unscientific approach and your remedial understanding of the facts involved.


Sorry, what have I done that is unscientific? Did I lie to you about comets not having ice and H2O, when it was known for years that they did? Did I lie to you that H+ would hurtle into O- to create OH? And further lie that scientists were misinterpreting that for H2O? And fail to tell you that the SW wasn't even reaching the surface, as was known for definite since '86? Did I lie about discharges that were already known to be cold, neutral gas? Entraining ice, as at Hartley 2? Etc, etc.
Only one person here being unscientific, and lacking the ability to think for themselves. That's what happens when you trust con artists. Wakey wakey. Who has a remedial understanding? Me? No, that would be Thorhill, and the idiots that believe his scientifically illiterate obfuscations.

cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2017
Sorry, what have I done that is unscientific?

Ignore reams of data and scientific papers based upon empirical science because it doesn't agree with your beliefs in favor of pseudoscientific claptrap and fanciful imaginings of plasma ignoramuses. One statement you made proves this beyond a shadow of the doubt;
You will not get a discharge in a plasma.

Still amusing... And you go on to say;
And WTF is that? You do realise that there are more neutrals than ions in the ionosphere, yes?
I cannot be bothered looking it up, because it is irrelevant.

First principles, you don't even know what a plasma is, yet you go on and on that these plasma experts are woo artists. Laughably ignorant. Secondly, you are extremely proud of your wilful ignorance as you repeatedly state you limit your reading to only those ideas which you believe and support. You have the all the characteristics of a religious zealot, devoid of anything scientific.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2017
Verschuur is using exactly the language that he should use as an investigator who is the first to propose a HYPOTHESIS.

Your concerns are misdirected; you should instead be bothered that conventional theorists insist, as Benni has eloquently noted above, that dark matter is settled science AND undiscovered AND this ridiculous fraction of the universe's matter.

It's a risky gamble, and there is no observable hedging.

The idea that we can combine classical physics concepts, using the matter we can already see, into a solution is an excellent hedge against this risk-taking behavior.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2017
Re: "You do realise that there are more neutrals than ions in the ionosphere, yes?"

The ionosphere is plainly behaving electrodynamically -- even though it contains less than 1% ionization. What this actually demonstrates is that it only takes 1% ionization for a plasma to behave electrodynamically. It's an enormously surprising and important observation which is on occasion actually pointed out in some textbooks.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2017
Oh dear, the woo merchants are back. Yes I know what a frakking plasma is. I am not ignoring anything, other than the fact that Verschuur's work was looked at and found to be insignificant. That is, it can be disregarded as being of no significance. I didn't review that data. Benni hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. See the Bullett Cluster and try to explain that some other way. Scientifically, Quantifiably. Ditto Sgr A*. We are all waiting. You seem to forget that you have no alternatives. Zilch. You are just an anti-science, evidence-free, Velikovskian cult with nothing to offer. Just noise.
And I stand by what I said. You will not get a discharge, in the scientific understanding of the word, in a plasma. You'll get a flow of current. It is a already a conductor.
And I have not ignored "reams of data." What data? Verschuur's stuff? I didn't deem that to be of no significance. I'm not the one ignoring his stuff because he simply won't give up. Scientists are. Rightly.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2017
The ionosphere is plainly behaving electrodynamically -- even though it contains less than 1% ionization. What this actually demonstrates is that it only takes 1% ionization for a plasma to behave electrodynamically. It's an enormously surprising and important observation which is on occasion actually pointed out in some textbooks.


Wow, that's a new one. Never knew that! Jesus, every time electricity is mentioned in an article, you lot cream yourselves! Care to do some research on electrical effects in the ionosphere? How long do you reckon that goes back? Did EU geniuses predict it? Are they predicting anything now? No, mainstream investigates, discovers and reports on these things. You lot are doing squat. Just sitting back, dreaming of Venus hurtling around the solar system, and trying to find something in the sacred texts from Alfvén or Falthammar (oh, no, not him; agreed with magnetic reconnection, didn't he?), or Birkeland.
You are irrelevant. Insignificant.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2017
Here we go, from good old Wikipedia: "In the 1920s, the Scottish physicist C.T.R. Wilson predicted that electrical breakdown should occur in the atmosphere high above large thunderstorms."
https://en.wikipe...ightning

Breakdown of what? What do we think is happening here? Breakdown of a motor vehicle? Nervous breakdown? Breakdown of a dielectric medium? Who knows.
Now, show me a similar prediction from the idiots Thornhill, Scott, Talbott et al.
You can't, because they are not doing science. They are doing woo. They start off with the premise that Earth used to orbit Saturn, and that Venus was a comet. It's hard for most people to get beyond that part, because they are pissing themselves laughing too much to concentrate. But feel free to fill us in on their contribution to **real** science.
Oh, and don't forget all the lying about comets!!!!
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2017
@ jones-Skippy. How you are? I am good. I just wanted to say I am the Skippy who give you the "1" vote up there and it was the mistake. I meant to push the "5" star and missed. Sorry about that. Like rest of you commenting it was good and I learn stuff reading your comments. Sorry.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2017
@ jones-Skippy. How you are? I am good. I just wanted to say I am the Skippy who give you the "1" vote up there and it was the mistake. I meant to push the "5" star and missed. Sorry about that. Like rest of you commenting it was good and I learn stuff reading your comments. Sorry.


:) No worries, I've done it myself. Gave cantthink a 5 once.Felt ill for days.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2017
You will not get a discharge, in the scientific understanding of the word, in a plasma.

What other meanings does plasma have? Other than blood plasma which is no part of this discussion. Here is some plasma basics for you to get a clue;
http://www.plasma...sics.htm
http://www.plasma...wers.htm
Do yourself a favor, the "scientific" definition of plasma...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2017
BTW, how many times are you going to change the subject? How many times are you going to resort to ad hominem attacks? How can you be both obviously very old while at the same time be so remarkably childish in your approach. Your fanciful imaginings and guesses are dying a slow death, inevitably replaced by real empirically based science as proposed by Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2017
BTW, how many times are you going to change the subject? How many times are you going to resort to ad hominem attacks? How can you be both obviously very old while at the same time be so remarkably childish in your approach. Your fanciful imaginings and guesses are dying a slow death, inevitably replaced by real empirically based science as proposed by Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe.


Sorry to break this to you, but your idiotic EU/ PC nonsense has gone nowhere in decades, and that will not change, due to you not having any scientifically valid hypotheses, nor the people qualified to actually do any real science in the areas that you pretend to want to affect. Like I have said; EU/ PC is an irrelevance. It has absolutely zero impact on real science. Nobody takes you seriously, and the few real scientists that are aware of your Velikovskian cult treat it derisively. In other words, it is taken no more seriously than homeopathy or astrology. It is woo.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2017

http://www.plasma...sics.htm
Do yourself a favor, the "scientific" definition of plasma...


So you can get an electric discharge in the Gulf Stream, yes?
This is one one of your links says:
"Because plasmas are **conductive** and respond to electric and magnetic fields and can be efficient sources of radiation, they can be used in innumerable applications where such control is needed or when special sources of energy or radiation are required."

You can use all the crap terminology you like, but you will not initiate an electric discharge in a plasma. It is a conductor. Ask an electrician for the definition of a conductor and an insulator. And the stuff you linked to is high school stuff. Even doing planetary science, I did deeper stuff than that doing degree level study. Would you like to call a current a 'continuous discharge'? Is that where you are getting confused? Shit and sloppy use of terminology. You have obviously never taken a degree course. Try again.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2017
Here, cd, while you're dreaming up your next content free post, have a read of good old Carl-Gunne Falthammar:

http://www.diva-p...XT01.pdf

He does a very nice section on magnetic reconnection in that. Instead of wasting your time talking crap on here, why don't you learn some real science for a change?
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2017
Rational Wiki says it better than I can:

Electric Universe (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the Universe can be better explained by electricity and magnetism than by gravity alone. As a rule, EU is usually touted as an aether-based theory with numerous references to tall tales from mythology. However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous, lack mathematical formalism, and often vary from one delusional crank to the next.


http://rationalwi...Universe
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2017
Did I lie to you about comets not having ice and H2O, when it was known for years that they did? Did I lie to you that H+ would hurtle into O- to create OH? And further lie that scientists were misinterpreting that for H2O? And fail to tell you that the SW wasn't even reaching the surface, as was known for definite since '86? Did I lie about discharges that were already known to be cold, neutral gas? Entraining ice, as at Hartley 2? Etc, etc.
Only one person here being unscientific, and lacking the ability to think for themselves. That's what happens when you trust con artists. Wakey wakey. Who has a remedial understanding? Me? No, that would be Thorhill, and the idiots that believe his scientifically illiterate obfuscations.


Worth repeating to show the scientific veracity of the lead 'electrical theorist' (lol) of the Cult of the Invisible Lightning Bolts.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2017
Did you even read the paper by Falthammar? This nugget that directly refutes your plasma discharge claim;
"But of all lessons from the aurora, the most fundamental is that – contrary to previously firm beliefs – electric potential fields can and do exist in collisionless space plasma."
You still erroneously cling to this false belief firmly in the face of direct evidence, but you're too jonesdumb to see it.
Also, in no way did his comments on reconnection disagree with Alfvén's claims, Falthammar didn't resort to the pseudoscientific aspects in his explanation as do the pseudoscientists. In fact he explained how the frozen-in condition is violated and he also explicitly explained how no field lines move. This is in direct conflict with the usual claims by the pseudoscientists of moving, breaking, and reconnecting of field lines.
It blatantly clear you don't know anything about anything in these matters.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2017
It can also be pointed out that Falthammar uses the specific terminology of "ionospheric plasma" in your linked paper. To which you responded earlier with your typical vulgarity;
"WTF is that? It's mostly neutrals..."
Needless to say, as pointed out repeatedly, your ignorance on even the most basic properties of the matter knows no bounds.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2017
Your repeated reference to "woo" is somewhat understandable given your complete and utter ignorance of plasma physics, the basic properties of plasmas must seem magical given this fact.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2017
No, idiot, you obviously neither read, nor understand the paper! Yes there is ionosphereic 'plasma'. It is overwhelmingly neutral! I'll ask you again: is the Gulf Stream a plasma? Yes or no? Simple question. Answer it. Is there a dielectric to break down in the ionosphere? Yes or no? Simple question.
And I see you totally fail to even see that Falthammar completely contradicts your erroneous claims that magnetic reconnection cannot happen. Or is he wrong? In which case, why rely on anything else he is saying there? Of course field lines are an abstract device, you burke. They aren't real. Duh. The fact remains, MR happens, and he says it does:
In fact, the most interesting plasma physics occurs precisely where and because this equation is not satisfied, such as the auroral acceleration region, ***magnetic field reconnection***,...

http://onlinelibr...0002/pdf
Read it, and try to understand it. Difficult with your level of education, but, ....
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2017
^^^^........C-G F then goes on to say:

A flux tube can be thought of as an ensemble of field lines that are identified by their low energy plasma,......


What field lines? Where the **** did they come from? See, get it? They are a useful device. for modelling and mathematical treatment of the field. Otherwise you'd get nowhere trying to do anything with it. The process is variously described as 'reconnection', 'magnetic reconnection' and 'magnetic field line reconnection'. It is all the same thing. The thing you said cannot happen, despite huge amounts of lab and observational confirmation. Not to mention C-G F saying that it most definitely does.
Sorry, but you are the one who simply doesn't have the education in the topic to understand what the literature is saying. All you can do is parrot cherry picked Dunderbolts quotes about 'Alfvén said x, Alfvén said y...' Quit the mindless hero worship and actually learn some science. You sum up EU perfectly.
gculpex
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2017
You can use all the crap terminology you like, but you will not initiate an electric discharge in a plasma. It is a conductor. Ask an electrician for the definition of a conductor and an insulator.


even an insulator will become a conductor with enough power.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2017
So, cd, what do we think Alfie is saying here:
http://www.imageb...31125370

In the highlighted bits? 'Magnetic merging'. What do we think that is? Reconnection? Yep.
You fail to understand that his beef with it was a) it couldn't be applied in ideal MHD. He was right; it can't. However, as Falthammar already knew by then, it could apply in less ideal MHD, such as when it is resistive. It would appear that so did Alfie. Not surprisingly.
And b) he favoured dirty great double layers as his preferred method for energy release in solar flares, etc. In that he was wrong. Lots of little ones can form, but the major energy release is from MR. Large double layers have been ruled out experimentally and observationally. See? He got stuff wrong!
I realise for you that this is like somebody telling a YEC that the Earth is billions of years old, but deal with it.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2017
You can use all the crap terminology you like, but you will not initiate an electric discharge in a plasma. It is a conductor. Ask an electrician for the definition of a conductor and an insulator.


even an insulator will become a conductor with enough power.


And a plasma is ALREADY a conductor, so that is not any sort of argument, is it? Like I said to cd, if you want to call a CURRENT a 'continuous discharge', as it makes you sleep better at night, then feel free. Just make sure that if you ever do a degree, or, god forbid, submit a scientific paper, that you do not use his crap terminology. Otherwise it'll be coming right back at you.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2017
Sorry, been away for a few secs, while I initiate the continuous discharge that powers my television. Carry on.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2017
So, how do we reconcile this, from the aforelinked C-G F:

......they brought the first indications that Alfven might be right.Since then, an overwhelming
amount of empirical data have proven that magnetic field aligned electric fields exist and are of key importance in the physics of auroras [Falthammar, 2004], in magnetic field reconnection [Mozer, 2005],.......


So, Alfvén was right, as C-G F says. And by being right, it leads to magnetic field reconnection? Bit of a paradox for the mindless parrots of the EU, isn't it? Or, far more likely, they just don't understand the subject on which they so shamelessly show their ignorance. Yep, option two looks like the safest bet.
gculpex
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2017
Sorry, been away for a few secs, while I initiate the continuous discharge that powers my television. Carry on.

Me too, off to the library!
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2017
Some more from the paper that cd thinks shows that Falthammar doesn't accept magnetic reconnection (from the section entitled 'reconnection'!!)

Reconnection is considered to be one of the most important phenomena in cosmic plasma, as a means of topology change and energy release. In the Earth's magnetosphere, reconnection takes place both at the magnetopause and in the tail current sheet.


Yep, cd's reading skills aren't what they should be either.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2017
And yet more from C-G F, on Alfvén:

The nonexistence of parallel electric fields was later challenged by Alfven, who sug­gested that auroral primary electrons may gain their energy from falling through a paral­lel potential drop above the ionosphere and described how parallel electric fields ***can 'cut' magnetic field lines.***


Whaaaat? Alfvén said non-existent lines could be cut? Don't believe it!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2017
And still as of yet the argument flies over your head, as you apparently also display over at ISF as it would certainly be the same jonesdumb. As I'm limited in characters this will help summarize the situation;
http://www.thunde...;t=16599
By saying that magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience is by no means saying some event does not take place, just the use of the equations and physics to describe the event relies on pseudoscientific principles such as monopoles, ideal MHD, and other such nonexistent unicorns.
As I clearly stated, your ignorance is of a fundamental basis.
And your last post clarifies my claim, what Alfvén was saying is that the parallel E-fields violate the frozen-in condition and those field lines are then "cut". So all the MHD mumbo jumbo is meaningless tripe. This is still over you head as you obviously don't understand the written language in favor of your own skewed perception.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2017
^^^^^Wrong. I do understand it. You say magnetic reconnection doesn't happen. Or have you changed your mind???????
I, and Falthammar, and practically every scientist in the area says it does. Your 'argument' 'is an appeal to Alfvén. Falthammar credits Alfvén for helping with the recognition of MRx! So who is right? A bunch of woo peddlers on a crank science site, or Falthammar, invoking Alfvén?
Who do you think people are going to believe?
And of course MRx doesn't happen in ideal MHD. That is what Alfvén was saying in 76!!!! Why do you think he was then saying that it was possible in 1987? Why do you think Falthammer accepted it? Because observation showed it to be possible, and then likely, and then certain.
But you lot still deny it. WHY? What sort of MRx do you think Falthammer is bloody well talking about? Read Mozer. It isn't some special, EU pleasing MRx, it is bloody MRx. End of.
And while you're over at ISF, why not post?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2017
since the MODS refuse to actually abide by their own posting criteria..erm, i mean "guidelines"

.

WARNING
http://www.thunde...;t=16599
this is a KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE and PHISHING SITE

do not click this link in cantdrive's post
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2017
Let's summarise the EU stance on this:

EU: MRx cannot happen. Alfvén said so!
Yes it can, he was only talking about ideal MHD conditions. We agree. It can and does happen in resistive MHD though.
EU: No it doesn't Alfvén said so.
But it is seen to happen, in the lab, and in the magnetosphere, and on the Sun.
EU: No it isn't. Alfvén said it can't, so it doesn't.
Might as well give up.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2017
since the MODS refuse to actually abide by their own posting criteria..erm, i mean "guidelines"

.

WARNING
http://www.thunde...;t=16599
this is a KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE and PHISHING SITE

*****do not click this link in cantdrive's post*****


Trust me, I didn't!!!!! There is a whole plethora of stuff on MRx in the real scientific literature. Their take on it is an irrelevance.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2017
I invite anyone to read not only my post over at ISF, but to read through the whole post to get the highly 'scientific' EU take on it :)
My post: http://www.intern...ount=877

Whole thread: http://www.intern...t=204366

Maybe cd doesn't agree with those EU supporters, and has a different view. So feel free to post it. There are probably as many views on MRx as there are electric sun models. So it's hard to know what these buggers are saying. The only thing one can be certain of is that they are wrong.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2017
I'm assuming that cd's link goes to the Thunderdolts forum, and the thread on MRx, which I have had the misfortune to see before (albeit, not without my VPN and antivirus running!). The chief protagonist there is one Michael Mozina. Wouldn't know science if it ran up and bit him on the arse. Believes the Sun has a solid iron surface. I kid you not. He is another one who cannot handle a scientific argument, and his whole debating technique is based around "Alfvén said so." He features prominently in the ISF thread that I linked above. Have a read, make your own minds up :)
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2017
According to cd:

....relies on pseudoscientific principles such as monopoles, ideal MHD, and other such nonexistent unicorns.


And what did I say at ISF?
As far as I can make out, he is (rightly) saying that this field line reconnection ***cannot happen in an ideal MHD scenario. Nobody these days is saying it can***, so this is pretty much moot.


Followed by:

Well, to my mind, it is obvious that he realises that there may be ***non-ideal MHD situations where it is possible***. This would not be at all surprising, given the stance taken by his collaborator Carl-Gunne Falthammar.


So, to clarify (again): you CANNOT have reconnection in ideal MHD. That is known, and has been for some time. However, under non-ideal MHD, such as resistive MHD, you can. Falthammar isn't stupid, you know? And it all obeys Maxwell's equations.

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.