Vast luminous nebula poses a cosmic mystery

Vast luminous nebula poses a cosmic mystery
MAMMOTH-1 is an extended blob of gas in the intergalactic medium called an enormous Lyman-alpha nebula (ELAN). The color map and contours denote the surface brightness of the nebula, and the red arrows show its estimated spatial extent. Credit: Cai et al., Astrophysical Journal (Figure 2)

Astronomers have found an enormous, glowing blob of gas in the distant universe, with no obvious source of power for the light it is emitting. Called an "enormous Lyman-alpha nebula" (ELAN), it is the brightest and among the largest of these rare objects, only a handful of which have been observed.

ELANs are huge blobs of gas surrounding and extending between galaxies in the intergalactic medium. They are thought to be parts of the network of filaments connecting galaxies in a vast cosmic web. Previously discovered ELANs are likely illuminated by the intense radiation from quasars, but it's not clear what is causing the hydrogen gas in the newly discovered to emit Lyman-alpha radiation (a characteristic wavelength of light absorbed and emitted by hydrogen atoms).

The newly discovered nebula was found at a distance of 10 billion in the middle of a region with an extraordinary concentration of galaxies. Researchers found this massive overdensity of early galaxies, called a "protocluster," through a novel survey project led by Zheng Cai, a Hubble Postdoctoral Fellow at UC Santa Cruz.

"Our survey was not trying to find nebulae. We're looking for the most overdense environments in the early universe, the big cities where there are lots of galaxies," said Cai. "We found this enormous nebula in the middle of the protocluster, near the peak density."

Cai is first author of a paper on the discovery accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal and available online at arxiv.org/abs/1609.04021. His survey project is called Mapping the Most Massive Overdensities Through Hydrogen (MAMMOTH), and the newly discovered ELAN is known as MAMMOTH-1.

Coauthor J. Xavier Prochaska, professor of astronomy and astrophysics at UC Santa Cruz, said previously discovered ELANs have been detected in quasar surveys. In those cases, the intense radiation from a quasar illuminated hydrogen gas in the nebula, causing it to emit Lyman-alpha radiation. Prochaska's team discovered the first ELAN, dubbed the "Slug Nebula," in 2014. MAMMOTH-1 is the first one not associated with a visible quasar, he said.

"It's extremely bright, and it's probably larger than the Slug Nebula, but there's nothing else visible except the faint smudge of a galaxy. So it's a terrifically energetic phenomenon without an obvious power source," Prochaska said.

Equally impressive is the enormous protocluster in which it resides, he said. Protoclusters are the precursors to galaxy clusters, which consist of hundreds to thousands of galaxies bound together by gravity. Because protoclusters are spread out over a much larger area of the sky, they are much harder to find than galaxy clusters.

The protocluster hosting the MAMMOTH-1 nebula is massive, with an unusually high concentration of galaxies in an area about 50 million light years across. Because it is so far away (10 billion light years), astronomers are in effect looking back in time to see the protocluster as it was 10 billion years ago, or about 3 billion years after the big bang, during the peak epoch of galaxy formation. After evolving for 10 billion more years, this protocluster would today be a mature galaxy cluster perhaps only one million light years across, having collapsed down to a much smaller area, Prochaska said.

The standard cosmological model of structure formation in the universe predicts that galaxies are embedded in a cosmic web of matter, most of which is invisible dark matter. The gas that collapses to form galaxies and stars traces the distribution of dark matter and extends beyond the galaxies along the filaments of the cosmic web. The MAMMOTH-1 nebula appears to have a filamentary structure that aligns with the galaxy distribution in the large-scale structure of the protocluster, supporting the idea that ELANs are illuminated segments of the cosmic web, Cai said.

"From the distribution of we can infer where the filaments of the are, and the nebula is perfectly aligned with that structure," he said.

Cai and his coauthors considered several possible mechanisms that could be powering the Lyman-alpha emission from the nebula. The most likely explanations involve radiation or outflows from an active galactic nucleus (AGN) that is strongly obscured by dust so that only a faint source can be seen associated with the nebula. An AGN is powered by a supermassive black hole actively feeding on gas in the center of a galaxy, and it is usually an extremely bright source of light (quasars being the most luminous AGNs in visible light).

The from an AGN can ionize the gas around it (called photoionization), and this may be one mechanism at work in MAMMOTH-1. When ionized hydrogen in the nebula recombines it would emit Lyman-alpha radiation. Another possible mechanism powering the Lyman-alpha emissions is shock heating by a powerful outflow of gas from the AGN.

The researchers described several lines of evidence supporting the existence of a hidden AGN energizing the nebula, including the dynamics of the gas and emissions from other elements besides hydrogen, notably helium and carbon.

"It has all the hallmarks of an AGN, but we don't see anything in our optical images. I expect there's a quasar that is so obscured by dust that most of its light is hidden," Prochaska said.


Explore further

Distant quasar illuminates a filament of the cosmic web

More information: "Discovery of an Enormous Ly-alpha Nebula in a Massive Galaxy Overdensity at z = 2.3," Zheng Cai et al., 2017, Astrophysical Journal, arxiv.org/abs/1609.04021

"MApping the Most Massive Overdensities Through Hydrogen (MAMMOTH) I: Methodology," Zheng Cai et al., 2016 Dec. 20, Astrophysical Journal iopscience.iop.org/article/10. … /1538-4357/833/2/135 , arxiv.org/abs/1512.06859

Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: Vast luminous nebula poses a cosmic mystery (2017, February 23) retrieved 22 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-02-vast-luminous-nebula-poses-cosmic.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
736 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 23, 2017
but it's not clear what is causing the hydrogen gas in the newly discovered nebula to emit Lyman-alpha radiation (a characteristic wavelength of light absorbed and emitted by hydrogen atoms).

Even something as simple as glow mode plasma is beyond the plasma ignoramuses.
"It has all the hallmarks of an AGN, but we don't see anything in our optical images. I expect there's a quasar that is so obscured by dust that most of its light is hidden," Prochaska said

Yep, as usual must be something "dark".... A dark quasar! LOL!

Feb 23, 2017
Even something as simple as glow mode plasma is beyond the plasma ignoramuses.


Utter rubbish, as usual. Your ignorance appears to know no bounds. Calling other people ignoramuses is completely laughable.
Lyman-alpha is not emitted by a fecking plasma. It comes from the ***electron*** transition in neutral H.

Feb 23, 2017
jonesdumb needs to stop his relentless barage of lies, they are never ending.
https://en.wikipe...pha_line
See where they mention "ions" jonesliar, that would indicate plasma you lying sack of excrement.

Feb 23, 2017
jonesdumb needs to stop his relentless barage of lies, they are never ending.
https://en.wikipe...pha_line
See where they mention "ions" jonesliar, that would indicate plasma you lying sack of excrement.


Should have followed the link, idiot:

A hydrogen-like ion is any atomic nucleus with one electron and thus is isoelectronic with hydrogen. Except for the hydrogen atom itself ***(which is neutral)***, these ions.......


So, I repeat; your ignorance knows no bounds. It is an electron transition from n = 2 to n = 1. How many protons does a hydrogen atom have? So, if it's got a bloody electron as well, what does that make it? Hint; it begins with N and ends with L.

Feb 23, 2017
I remember at one of my previous jobs we had an H-OH ion resin bed for ultra-purifying water. I never knew it was actually a plasma purifier! How neat! Anything ionic is automatically plasma!?
/Sarc

Feb 23, 2017
"The standard cosmological model of structure formation in the universe predicts that galaxies are embedded in a cosmic web of matter, most of which is invisible dark matter"

Well I guess we can only come to the conclusion the SCM must be wrong when so much visible matter is present where the SCM predicted that only DM should be found within that exact location. Or maybe someone could make a case for Decaying DM that would emit electro-magnetic radiation? Nah, no one in Jonesy's field of Funny Farm Pseudo-science would try that preposterous narrative would they?

Zwicky wanted to be entitled to his own pseudo-science, this is what we get.

Feb 23, 2017
^^^^^Usual content free rubbish. All talk, no trousers.

Feb 23, 2017
What IS the matter with you guys! Don't you ever tire of personal feuding, insults, in lieu of proper, polite science discourse, on the science, not the person?

Please STOP your one-sided bickering and realize it's COMPLEX and HYBRID states/dynamics phenomena at ALL spatial/state scales/energies.

In such instances as above, the deep space phenomena is huge in extent and contains/involves MANY states/energies/products/processes which we observe the most basic/net effect of at these distances. It's not as simplistic as one or other 'side' keeps implying/arguing over.

It's COMPLEX and involves plasmic states/processes in the form of an EVOLVING 'cloud' MIX of constituents: ie, hydrogen/other atoms/ions, molecules, dust AND INTERMEDIATE SPECIES produced by high energy/radiation going through it all (from whatever source).

Guys, it's long passed time to STOP petty one-eyed bickering arising from/promulgated by past personal feuds; and get OBJECTIVE, POLITE and ON-TOPIC, FFS!

Feb 23, 2017
^^^^^I think you'll find that was what I was doing in explaining to the scientifically challenged EU acolyte what Lyman-alpha is. If they had any sort of scientific knowledge, then they wouldn't constantly post total and utter nonsense, and people wouldn't keep having to correct it. It gets a bit tiresome after a while. Different day, same rubbish. It's high school stuff; undergrad at most. Not only posting scientifically illiterate crap, but accusing scientists of being ignoramuses! Irony, much?
So what the hell are they doing on here? Place would be an awful lot better without them. It's not as if they know any science.

Feb 23, 2017
So what the hell are they doing on here? Place would be an awful lot better without them. It's not as if they know any science.


............the same could be said of you, after all you are just another one of the ones who believes in a Perpetual Motion universe where infinite density & gravity can be found inside of finite stellar masses tagged as black holes.

Studying the Inverse Square Law for gravity is high school stuff; undergrad at most.but you keep posting scientifically illiterate crap while never once proving your alternative universe can exist. So what the hell are you doing here? Place would be an awful lot better without you. It's not as if you know any science, only the funny farm stuff.

Feb 23, 2017
Guys, it's long passed time to STOP petty one-eyed bickering arising from/promulgated by past personal feuds; and get OBJECTIVE, POLITE and ON-TOPIC, FFS!


Hey there RC, no dice............it is just too much fun tying these guys up to their Perpetual Motion Machines & watching what I get in response.......entertainment at it's best watching the boxed in trying to get out of the box like mice in a maze.

Feb 23, 2017
Guys, it's long passed time to STOP petty one-eyed bickering arising from/promulgated by past personal feuds; and get OBJECTIVE, POLITE and ON-TOPIC, FFS!


Hey there RC, no dice............it is just too much fun tying these guys up to their Perpetual Motion Machines & watching what I get in response.......entertainment at it's best watching the boxed in trying to get out of the box like mice in a maze.


Says the guy who hasn't got a clue about what is at the centre of the galaxy, and has never told us why the orbit of the stars in that region are as they are, and has no alternative explanation. You haven't got the foggiest. If you did, you would be writing it up, and not making an idiot of yourself on here, with your content free rants about stuff that is way beyond your ability to understand it. Just another scientifically challenged anti-science troll. You lot are ten a penny. And nobody is taking the slightest notice. Like I said - get a life. Sad.

Feb 23, 2017
You haven't got the foggiest. If you did, you would be writing it up
.......Inverse Square Law, deal with it jonesy as you duck, dodge & weave your way through the maze of your pseudo-science proclivities.

How goes it so far with your Schwarzschild Black Hole Math and the 80-95% of the Missing Universe of matter that is rapidly filling up with stuff we can see? With the Universe filling up with stuff we can see at the rate it's being discovered, pretty soon there won't be any room for Cosmic Fairy Dust.

Feb 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 23, 2017
Hydrino (dark matter) formation releases extreme UV, which would energize neutral hydrogen which then releases Lyman-Alpha radiation. Any cloud of hydrogen will form hydrinos thru 3-atom collisions, but it is a low-probability process. Bigger and/or denser clouds will have more reactions happening, and so be more detectable. Hydrinos also are capable of catalyzing hydrino transitions. There might be certain proportions of hydrogen and hydrino species that maximize Lyman-Alpha emission. But after a while the brew would evolve towards less intense emission and become more like normal intergalactic medium.

Feb 23, 2017
Hydrino (dark matter) formation releases extreme UV, which would energize neutral hydrogen which then releases Lyman-Alpha radiation.


peter.........please, at least go to WikiPedia & read the basics of hypothesized DM cosmic fairy dust. It can never give off an electro-magnetic signal of any frequency, it only interacts with visible matter on an INFERRED GRAVITY basis never interacting with normal baryonic matter in any manner. Well, at least this is the hypothesis, but who knows, this stuff has been made out to be so magical that maybe it has learned to do tricks we haven't yet caught onto.......but stay tuned, Jonesy or Schneibo are here & will figure it out for you.

Feb 23, 2017

peter.........please, at least go to WikiPedia & read the basics of hypothesized DM cosmic fairy dust. It can never give off an electro-magnetic signal of any frequency, it only interacts with visible matter on an INFERRED GRAVITY basis never interacting with normal baryonic matter in any manner. Well, at least this is the hypothesis, but who knows, this stuff has been made out to be so magical that maybe it has learned to do tricks we haven't yet caught onto.......but stay tuned, Jonesy or Schneibo are here & will figure it out for you.


Obvious troll is obvious.

Feb 23, 2017
Hydrino (dark matter) formation releases extreme UV, which would energize neutral hydrogen which then releases Lyman-Alpha radiation. Any cloud of hydrogen will form hydrinos thru 3-atom collisions, but it is a low-probability process. Bigger and/or denser clouds will have more reactions happening, and so be more detectable. Hydrinos also are capable of catalyzing hydrino transitions. There might be certain proportions of hydrogen and hydrino species that maximize Lyman-Alpha emission. But after a while the brew would evolve towards less intense emission and become more like normal intergalactic medium.

Five stars for originality.

Feb 24, 2017
... there are likely many other instances in astronomy where glows assumed to originate from starlight will prove on closer inspection to source from the interstellar medium itself.

Which would imply close enough proximity to allow for initiation of (photonic) charge xfer (EM).
That would initally be driven by physical motion, which in turn is initiated by Gravity. EM is more of a "local operator".
Considering the size of an atom and the space between them, It's probabilistically slimmer occurence than excitation from an outside source.
Once initiated, tho, a chain reaction can occur.


Feb 24, 2017
Hydrino (dark matter) formation releases extreme UV, which would energize neutral hydrogen which then releases Lyman-Alpha radiation. Any cloud of hydrogen will form hydrinos thru 3-atom collisions, but it is a low-probability process. Bigger and/or denser clouds will have more reactions happening, and so be more detectable. Hydrinos also are capable of catalyzing hydrino transitions. There might be certain proportions of hydrogen and hydrino species that maximize Lyman-Alpha emission. But after a while the brew would evolve towards less intense emission and become more like normal intergalactic medium.

Five stars for originality.

Except for the hypothetical "Hydrino" inclusion, I thought he had the mechanic of electron exchange down fairly well..
Proximity.

Feb 24, 2017
go to WikiPedia & read the basics of hypothesized DM cosmic fairy dust. It can never give off an electro-magnetic signal of any frequency, it only interacts with visible matter on an INFERRED GRAVITY basis never interacting with normal baryonic matter in any manner.

Which is Benni's way of admitting he has reading comprehension issues, as well as "misunderstanding" the subject matter.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
I wonder if we'll be able to see the quasar lighting this object up with Spitzer when it gets up there. Infrared is supposed to penetrate dust better.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
Wow. The Chris Reeve show...
(sorry, didn't bother to read 'em all)

You forget (or are unable to envision) that gravity is an aggregate (ie; is a field) of energy within a set (the Universe). That field of energy is expressed as EM in subordinate subsets. And so on down the line to gluons, etc. Mass is a subset delimiter, for example.
Everything reaches a "tipping point" (a fulcrum, if you will) and BECOMES something else to balance out.
As an artist, I call it flow...:-)
Regardless, it's all about scale.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
(1) Gravity is weak.

Scale
(2) Plasma filaments are very long.

Scale
(3) Plasma filaments are ubiquitous (why?).

Scale
(4) Synchrotron radiation is very common.

Scale
(5) The filaments form double helixes (mhd?).

Scale
(6) Fluids models are oftentimes misleading.

No. mis-interpreted
(7) Planet formation theories are in flux.

Scale
(8) Star formation is related to these filaments.

Scale
(9) None of this was expected.

Extrapolated
Yet, it's all business as usual.

Lack of understanding - scale.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
Please say something I haven't heard before. Let's take the debate somewhere new.


If he does that Chris, he won't have anything to say.

Feb 24, 2017
Chris reeve needs to be banned for flooding and trying to post whole books in a comments section. Chris reeve ought to put this crap on a site and provide a link.
Five stars for originality
Hydrino/dark matter is dr randall mills' baby and should be referenced.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
Chris reeve needs to be banned for flooding and trying to post whole books in a comments section. Chris reeve ought to put this crap on a site and provide a link. Hydrino/dark matter is dr randall mills' baby and should be referenced.


Agreed. And Mill's hydrino nonsense is a scam.
http://everything.../#Ref-32
http://www.intern...t=315572

Feb 24, 2017

You've got a large glowing cloud of gas with no observable energy source. Pointing out that the emission comes from a neutral plasma says very little about the emission's cause. It just happens to be the process that the telescopes are tuned to observe.
How in the world does a person get from a measurement tuned to observe neutral hydrogen to somehow ruling out electricity as a cause for the emissions?
The observation itself -- the anomalous glowing -- is by itself suggestive of plasma in the glow mode.
And in fact there are likely many other instances in astronomy where glows assumed to originate from starlight will prove on closer inspection to source from the interstellar medium itself.


Which part of Lyman-a cannot come from a plasma don't you understand? Plasma is IONISED gas. Ionised means no electron for H. Lyman-a comes from the de-excitation of an electron. If H has an electron, then it isn't ionised. It is NEUTRAL. Jesus.

Feb 24, 2017
Here we go - a high school level explanation of ly-a for the EU dolts:
http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lya.html

Feb 24, 2017
Here we go - a high school level explanation of ly-a for the EU dolts:


Well jonesy, you haven't yet gotten to a high school level of comprehension of applying the Inverse Square Law to the formation of Black Holes. You're still unable to explain how infinite gravity can exist at the center of a finite stellar body where the Inverse Square Law demands by calculation that it should be zero at the center, not infinity.

At least it's scientifically PROVEABLE to establish that electricity exists, you can't say that for your two greatest fantasies, DM & BHs.

Feb 24, 2017
mills is full of shit
You dont realize that your 1st ref is 10yrs old and your 2nd contains the following:

"I've been following BLP closely for nearly a decade now. I'm convinced Mills is the real deal. Contrary to what Forbes claims, numerous independent labs have verified his claims. He's obtained funding from some of the wealthiest people on the planet, and he's got a highly skilled team of engineers backing him. He doesn't need any more investment capital so he's got no reason to lie. Several university labs and independent investigators have replicated and validated Mills work"

-His latest vid shows a continuous reaction. Fabrication of the PV shroud should be done in a month or 2. He has been traveling around giving presentations to important people and was on CNN last month.

He may well be full of shit but you have in no way made this point.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
So the thread glutton chris reeve dumps another load of cowpies to justify his selfishness. As if anybody actually bothered to wade through that steaming mound in the first place.

What an asshole.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
Hi Forum. :)

All those who would use excuses/tactics to ban/ignore what Chris-Reeves posts are demonstrating anti-science behavior (censorship and intentional evading etc). If Chris posts all that information/commentary which counters many of the claims from the other 'side' here, then he is perfectly and properly entitled to do so according to science discourse (as opposed to 'link wars', where links are easily ignored). By posting all that counter-argument/perspective, Chris is clarifying/supporting his claim re seemingly intractable bias in mainstream mindset. I do not agree with all of it, but I read it and found some worthy points/issues made which should be politely, properly challenge by any who disagree; using proper arguments, not just ignore/dismiss/personal accusations etc 'tactics' which only go to show who is NOT doing science discourse objectively and exhaustively; as truly objective minds will always take great pains to find the gems amongst the dross! :)

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
I do not agree with all of it, but I read it and found some worthy points/issues made which should be politely, properly challenge by any who disagree; using proper arguments, not just ignore/dismiss/personal accusations etc 'tactics' which only go to show who is NOT doing science discourse objectively


RC......one thing CR has going for his discourse is that science has demonstrably proven that electricity exists, something that can't be said for the advocates of DM & BHs. I for one just don't know to what degree the EU functions within the universe, but it is worthwhile discussing things we know actually exst, Jonesy's Perpetual Motion BHs & DM is fake science.

Feb 24, 2017
Hi Forum. :)

All those who would use excuses/tactics to ban/ignore what Chris-Reeves posts are demonstrating anti-science behavior, blah, blah, blah,,,,


So you still are holding on to that delusion about being a leader of humans and scientists, eh?

Maybe you can sign him up for the Earthman Playhouse Club. Then you will have two members.

Feb 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2017
Hi Forum.

This above from Ira:

So you still are holding on to that delusion about being a leader of humans and scientists, eh?
So, a self-confessed bot-voting ignoramus characterizes/dismisses all reasonable calls (to follow Proper Scientific Method and Polite Objective Discourse) as "delusion"; while that same bot-voting ignoramus continues to delude itself that it is in any way relevant to science discourse or qualified to judge others while being so deluded itself.

Now that just goes to show how 'far gone' to insensibility and anti-science malice this particular bot-voting ignoramus is, folks! Sad and Mad, Trump-style bot-voting ignoramus, that one. Pity it.

Feb 24, 2017
Trump-style bot-voting ignoramus, that one.


Trump is not nice like me though. And he is not smart like me either.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. And he is not good looking like me either.

Feb 24, 2017
Hi Forum.
Trump-style bot-voting ignoramus, that one (Ira).


Trump is not nice like me though. And he is not smart like me either.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. And he is not good looking like me either.
Note the lengthening list of delusions afflicting the malignant and irrelevant bot-voting ignoramus. Its delusions are getting worse and multiplying fast. Sadder. Pitiful.

You'd think it would get the message and discuss science and stop bot-voting. But no; that's the problem with its delusion/malice....it grips hard and won't let go until its friends persuade it that it is deluded; and to take steps to recover from it soon, before it is too late.

Pity that bot-voting ignoramus, folks, for he obviously has no friends willing and able to help him by telling him the truth about himself. Sadder still.

Feb 24, 2017
Hi Forum.
Trump-style bot-voting ignoramus, that one (Ira).


Trump is not nice like me though. And he is not smart like me either.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. And he is not good looking like me either.
Note the lengthening list of delusions afflicting the malignant and irrelevant bot-voting ignoramus. Its delusions are getting worse and multiplying fast. Sadder. Pitiful.

You'd think it would get the message and discuss science and stop bot-voting. But no; that's the problem with its delusion/malice....it grips hard and won't let go until its friends persuade it that it is deluded; and to take steps to recover from it soon, before it is too late. Pity that bot-voting ignoramus, folks.


Does all blahing mean you think Trump-Skippy is nicer than me? And smarter than me too? And better looking than me too? Only thing Trump has that I don't is a lot more money, and I am happy with what I got, so he is not as contented as me either.

Feb 24, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. I been fooling around here all day so I am going to go watch one or a couple of my Leverage videos before I call it a night. Don't be interfering with and disrespecting the scientists and human, that way I won't be forced to come back and defend the scientists and humans against your blahs, and other stuffs.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Cher. (That's coonass for: Don't forget to lock up the Earthman Playhouse when you finish with your meeting.)

Oh yeah, I almost forget and just barely made the 3 minute rule. Trump does not have a wife as good looking as me either. His wife has the plastic breasts, Mrs-Ira-Skippy has real ones, not as big Melonia's fake one, but they are real.

Feb 24, 2017
Hi Forum. :)
Trump-style bot-voting ignoramus, that one (Ira).
Trump is not nice like me though. And he is not smart like me either.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. And he is not good looking like me either.
Note the lengthening list of delusions afflicting the malignant and irrelevant bot-voting ignoramus. Its delusions are getting worse and multiplying fast. Sadder. Pitiful.

You'd think it would get the message and discuss science and stop bot-voting. But no; that's the problem with its delusion/malice....it grips hard and won't let go until its friends persuade it that it is deluded; and to take steps to recover from it soon, before it is too late. Pity that bot-voting ignoramus, folks.
Does all blahing mean you think Trump-Skippy is nicer than me? And smarter than me too? And better looking than me too?......
That deluded malicious irrelevant bot-voting ignoramus is so insensibly Trump-like when it comes to science/humanity discourse. How sad.

Feb 24, 2017
Hi Forum.
@ Really-Skippy. I been fooling around here all day so I am going to go watch one or a couple of my Leverage videos before I call it a night. Don't be interfering with and disrespecting the scientists and human, that way I won't be forced to come back and defend the scientists and humans against your blahs, and other stuffs.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Cher. (That's coonass for: Don't forget to lock up the Earthman Playhouse when you finish with your meeting.)

Oh yeah, I almost forget and just barely made the 3 minute rule. Trump does not have a wife as good looking as me either. His wife has the plastic breasts, Mrs-Ira-Skippy has real ones, not as big Melonia's fake one, but they are real.
That's what passes for science/humanity discourse in the 'mind' of a delusional bot-voting ignoramus like that 'Ira' specimen. Any wonder it has to troll/bot-vote and otherwise delude itself it is in any way relevant to science/humanity discourse here? Sad.

Feb 24, 2017
Hi Forum.

This above from Ira:


So you still are holding on to that delusion about being a leader of humans and scientists, eh?


So, a self-confessed bot-voting ignoramus characterizes/dismisses all reasonable calls (to follow Proper Scientific Method and Polite Objective Discourse) as "delusion"; while that same bot-voting ignoramus continues to delude itself that it is in any way relevant to science discourse or qualified to judge others while being so deluded itself.
..........Ira has never yet heard of ELECTRICITY, it comes about as a result of living so far out into the swamplands of cajun country where rural electrification facilities have yet to be built.


Feb 24, 2017
Bennie-Skippy. How you are? I am good, thanks for asking.

..........Ira has never yet heard of ELECTRICITY, it comes about as a result of living so far out into the swamplands of cajun country where rural electrification facilities have yet to be built.


What you got against a hamster powered computer? Wish you had one like mine?

I really got to go now, the hamster he is getting tired.


Feb 24, 2017
This gap exists for the very reason that fluids models possess neither dynamic magnetic fields nor electric fields.

So what? Just a different form of boundary constraint. The "Current" still flows (downhill in most cases...)
The anomalous observations of these filaments correspond precisely to the absence of those two features.
The equivalent of an "ocean".
If I am wrong, then explain how it is that the fluid plasma models can reproduce twisted, helical structures.
The same way water on land does it - boundary constraints. It's the reason we have rivers, lakes and oceans. Read some Shauberger...
If you cannot answer that question, all you're doing is putting off answering the difficult questions to some future date.

Done. Now, what's a difficult question?
But, we can already see that these models were not designed to explain such features.

They absolutely are. And it's still about ratios (of contributors) within a particular scale.

Feb 24, 2017
My interest follows from the last sentence in this quote ...

"The planeterrella recreates the northern lights by using two spheres (representing the sun and Earth),

Operative word - REcreates. IE - emulates.
enclosed in a glass bell jar. The spheres each contain small magnets.

Are they spinning in a low gravity environment?
A vacuum pump removes most of the air from the bell jar to mimic Earth's thin upper atmosphere,

But there is still AIR (read-molecular matter) - a conductive medium if charged.
AND A POWER SOURCE CREATES AN ELECTRICAL FIELD BETWEEN THE SPHERES INSIDE THE GLASS JAR."
,
Externally provided electron source. In the larger context of the solar system. It's part of a mechanism that CREATES IT'S OWN power...

Feb 24, 2017
If I am wrong, then explain how it is that the fluid plasma models can reproduce twisted, helical structures.
The same way water on land does it - boundary constraints. It's the reason we have rivers, lakes and oceans. Read some Shauberger...
Actually there's more to the story.

It's because electromagnetism has curl. It's a basic concept in Maxwell's equations, which describes the action of the magnetic field, B, as creating spiral motions. The underlying quantum reality has spin, which is really what creates this effect. Magnetism acts at right angles to its associated electric force. Because of this, electric current flowing down a conductor has a magnetic field that curls around the conductor. If you make a fist of your right hand, with your thumb stuck out, the electric current flows in the direction of your thumb, and the magnetic current flows in the direction of your curled fingers. Why right handed? Because of the handedness of the spins of the electrons.

Feb 24, 2017
This is called the "right hand rule," and it's basic EM theory from Maxwell.

And BTW, he's also wrong about fluids not having electric or magnetic fields; a plasma has both. "Current" doesn't just mean electrons flowing down a wire; it means any movement of charges. EUdiots don't get this, and are identifiable by their denial of it.

Feb 24, 2017
Thanks, Schneib!
Excellent explanation. Enough detail for those requiring them, but clean and simple enough for those that don't...:-)

Feb 25, 2017
This is called the "right hand rule," and it's basic EM theory from Maxwell.

And BTW, he's also wrong about fluids not having electric or magnetic fields; a plasma has both. "Current" doesn't just mean electrons flowing down a wire; it means any movement of charges. EUdiots don't get this, and are identifiable by their denial of it.

A plasma does have both, MHD models don't. Try to catch up to the discussion.
And this one link to the "Essentials" of the EU show that you are clearly nothing more than a liar, but you're likely proud of that. They clearly explain currents in plasma, electron and ion.
https://www.thund...apter-6/
You, just like jonesdumb, don't even understand the argument at hand and spew complete BS.

Feb 25, 2017
Magnetism acts at right angles to its associated electric force. Because of this, electric current flowing down a conductor has a magnetic field that curls around the conductor. If you make a fist of your right hand, with your thumb stuck out, the electric current flows in the direction of your thumb, and the magnetic current flows in the direction of your curled fingers.


Well Schneibo, at least we know you have a basic comprehension of High School physics so you can lecture someone who now admits to never having had this basic knowledge:

Thanks, Schneib!
Excellent explanation. Enough detail for those requiring them, but clean and simple enough for those that don't


Yeah WhyGuy, it's basic high school physics, if you'd ever been in one of those physics classrooms you wouldn't have found it necessary for Schneibo to give you such a basic lecture. Every Electrician who installs wiring in your house knows this stuff.


Feb 25, 2017
Thanks, Schneib!
Excellent explanation. Enough detail for those requiring them, but clean and simple enough for those that don't...:-)

WG, you and da schnied are so far off base it's pathetic. The "answers" you scrawled are meaningless tripe.

Feb 25, 2017
Thanks, Schneib!
Excellent explanation. Enough detail for those requiring them, but clean and simple enough for those that don't...:-)


WG, you and da schnied are so far off base it's pathetic. The "answers" you scrawled are meaningless tripe.


Yeah cd, just amazingly stunning isn't it?

Here is this WhyGuy, he's been coming here for years posting his snide Comments against those of us who oppose the Perpetual Motion Machines & Math posited here by Schneibo, Jonsey, RNP, etc, & he's just now learning the Righthand Rule, I can't wait for the reaction when he learns about the Lefthand one.

Feb 25, 2017
Here is this WhyGuy, he's been coming here for years posting his snide Comments against those of us who oppose the Perpetual Motion Machines & Math posited here by Schneibo, Jonsey, RNP, etc, & he's just now learning the Righthand Rule, I can't wait for the reaction when he learns about the Lefthand one.


@Schneibo......you're up: Lefthand Rule, explain it to WhyGuy.

Feb 25, 2017
Why right handed? Because of the handedness of the spins of the electrons.

Note that positive/negative and the directions are just convention. If you replace every positive sign with a negative in all the textbooks (e.g. define the electron to have positive charge while the proton has negative and so on) then you get a left hand rule that works just the samem (i.e. you still get a rule that lets you calculate the real world forces).

Feb 25, 2017
Here is this WhyGuy, he's been coming here for years posting his snide Comments against those of us who oppose the Perpetual Motion Machines & Math posited here by Schneibo, Jonsey, RNP, etc, & he's just now learning the Righthand Rule, I can't wait for the reaction when he learns about the Lefthand one.


@Schneibo......you're up: Lefthand Rule, explain it to WhyGuy.

He provided that explanation for the likes of YOU - a claimed Nuclear Engineer who doesn't seem to know that there IS both. With RH explaining flow of EM, LH explaining the USE (application) of that flow.
Aren't Nuclear Engineers supposed to know this stuff?


Feb 25, 2017
Here is a challenge to all you that claim these basics of EM theory are well understood by the astrophysicists. Point to a single astrophysical peer reviewed paper that discusses the application of the right hand rule to the generation of astrophysical magnetic fields. I will complicate it somewhat by requiring the discussions to include only those fields which don't include planets or stars as the Faraday motor action of those phenomena should be obvious. Good luck!

Feb 25, 2017
Why right handed? Because of the handedness of the spins of the electrons.

Note that positive/negative and the directions are just convention.
Correct. It's a RHR for conventional current and a LHR for electron current. I know they teach electron current a lot in Europe.

Feb 25, 2017
He provided that explanation for the likes of YOU - a claimed Nuclear Engineer who doesn't seem to know that there IS both. With RH explaining flow of EM, LH explaining the USE (application) of that flow.
Aren't Nuclear Engineers supposed to know this stuff?
Indeed they are.

But the most amusing part is that Lenni doesn't know the difference between the current rule and the motor and generator rules.

On edit, no, I did Lenni wrong: he was quoting someone. Musta been cantthink69.

Feb 25, 2017
But the most amusing part is that Lenni doesn't know the difference between the current rule and the motor and generator rules.


......yeah schneibo, more high school physics, yet you still don't know how to apply the Inverse Square Law to gravitating stellar mass, also high school physics. You still think gravitational attraction of such bodies is measured from the center instead of the surface hereby justifying the Fake Science of Black Hole Math.

At least the guy who installed the wiring in your house understood the RHR, probably the LHR as well, at least that goes for the Electricians who work for me.


Feb 25, 2017
Lenni, you're the one who can't work out the math for the orbits of stars in galactic centers.

Just a quick reminder:
-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0

It's all right there, Lenni. It's not just some random equations.

Feb 25, 2017
... , at least that goes for the Electricians who work for me.

And... Benni's god complex rears it's ugly head.

Feb 25, 2017
... , at least that goes for the Electricians who work for me.

And... Benni's god complex rears it's ugly head.
Yep. Lenni doesn't know the difference between electricians, electrical engineers, electronics engineers, and physicists specializing in electromagnetism.

It's kinda like not knowing the difference between a lab technician, a nurse, a doctor, a surgeon, and a biologist.

Or a nuclear technician, a nuclear engineer, a nuclear physicist, and a bureaucrat.

Feb 25, 2017
I know they teach electron current a lot in Europe.

In school they often use the left hand rule. Higher education uses the right hand rule. Which makes it pretty confusing at first. On the plus side: it hammers it home that it's not 'natural' but just a convention.

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
Re: "And BTW, he's also wrong about fluids not having electric or magnetic fields; a plasma has both. "Current" doesn't just mean electrons flowing down a wire; it means any movement of charges. EUdiots don't get this, and are identifiable by their denial of it."

Sure, in a very technical sense, a fluid would carry along charged particles and therefore represent a current. But, why does this matter?

There is unfortunately no divide-and-conquer approach that can get us from fluids models to helical structures.

Yes there is, Chris. Boundary constraint configuration. Shape the "river bank"...

Should we pretend for yet another 10 years that this problem doesn't exist?

You mean the "problem" that Schauberger already had patents on in the early parts of the 20th Century?


Feb 25, 2017
Lenni, you're the one who can't work out the math for the orbits of stars in galactic centers.

Just a quick reminder:
-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² Ď� = 0

It's all right there, Lenni. It's not just some random equations.


So, does it explain how the application of the Inverse Square Law creates stellar bodies with infinite gravity at the center? No......so why do you continue avoiding addressing this? I guess because RHR & LHR is the maximum level of education that you've achieved, you didn't even start discussing LHR until I brought it up, and you just know WhyGuy never heard of it until today.

What a hoot this is, reality entertainment at it's best.

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
Sure, in a very technical sense, a fluid would carry along charged particles and therefore represent a current. But, why does this matter?
Because a plasma is, by definition, made of charged particles. Therefore a description of plasma that doesn't include current flows, which is what you appear to be claiming here, is silliness. Like most EUdiot BS.

Feb 25, 2017
So, does it explain how the application of the Inverse Square Law
It has nothing to do with the inverse square law, Lenni. If you could actually read those differential equations you'd know that.

Now stop lying and obfuscating.

Feb 25, 2017
So, does it explain how the application of the Inverse Square Law


It has nothing to do with the inverse square law, Lenni. If you could actually read those differential equations you'd know that. Now stop lying and obfuscating.


.....well of course it has nothing to do with the Inverse Square Law, because you don't want to get into that, you just want to talk about orbits of stars which has nothing to do with the gravitational dynamics of BHs.

Hey, question: Had you ever heard of the LHR before I brought it up? I can just imagine how fast you scurried to WikiPedia to look that up after I first mentioned it. It's OK, don't feel embarrassed, I understand High School physics is tough stuff for you.

Feb 25, 2017
Because a plasma is, by definition, made of charged particles. Therefore a description of plasma that doesn't include current flows, which is what you appear to be claiming here, is silliness. Like most EUdiot BS.

You are obviously misdirecting here, a pathetic attempt to change the argument. Either that or the moron label is applicable. If you had read any of CR's posts you would see he is not only advocating currents in plasmas, but they are electrodynamically active "twisted, helical structures" or "braided rope-like structures" or more accurately Birkeland Currents. What you can't seem to grasp is the MHD models used by and advocated by astrophysicists and yourselves cannot predict/reproduce these very real structures.

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
Hi guys. :)

Please pause in your insults exchange for a moment, long enough to consider these aspects which I have pointed out long ago to inform your arguments (from all 'sides') re cosmic/deep-space magnetism force/effects etc:

The strength of magnetic fields is NOT a limiting factor when charged particles are in 'free fall' (or inertial motion) even if 'sparsely' distributed; because even a weak strength Magnetic field can, over LONG TIME/SPACE impart HIGH CUMULATIVE SPEED, as well as SORT charged particles into like/different charge species...to produce time-cumulative effects/energies/currents dynamics.

Much like 'gravity assist' slingshot process gives satellites a cumulative boost which, if enough time/planets are used, can result in great changes to satellite motion.

So please stop NAIVELY arguing 'time-space-limited' perspectives; include ALL spatio-temporal CUMULATIVE mag-field effects on deep-space 'plasmic medium' constituents/direction, dynamics/features. :)

Feb 25, 2017
well of course it has nothing to do with the Inverse Square Law
It was you who claimed it did, now stop obfuscating and lying, and trying to double down when you said something obviously stupid and clueless, @Lenni.

@BouncingRealityCheck, your comment has no relevance to the subject at hand. Perhaps if you actually learned some real physics you might have something to say that was meaningful.

Things are boring so I've taken you off ignore, @BouncingRealityCheck. This allows me to vote you 1s. You might want to consider that having me actually vote on your idiocy might not be your Best Idea Evar.

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
Can anybody point me to a specific quote somewhere where it is claimed that a fluids model can reproduce helical, braided rope-like structures?
That depends on whether you'll accept fluid models of charged particles or not. And so far you've indicated "not." Sorry, man, I see no point in arguing with EUdiots who claim plasma doesn't contain charged particles. It's a waste of time.

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
Re: "Sorry, man, I see no point in arguing with EUdiots who claim plasma doesn't contain charged particles."

Nobody ever said this.
Yes, you did. You claimed there are no helical flows in plasma. That means you are claiming there are no charged particles, since charged particles move helically in charge fields (as shown in Maxwell's Equations, reference "curl"). A plasma, which contains charged particles, is suffused with charge fields.

Now stop lying.

Feb 25, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
your comment has no relevance to the subject at hand. Perhaps if you actually learned some real physics you might have something to say that was meaningful.

.... This allows me to vote you 1s.
Why do you keep opening your mouth based obviously on kneejerking to your own ignorance and personal ego/bias WITHOUT EVEN BOTHERING TO CHECK IMMEDIATE CONTEXT and LONGSTANDING CONTEXT?!

Every time you do that (such as in above instance) you undo any good you may be doing elsewhere...,and gives your detractors (who are much less kind than I am) all sorts of ammunition/justification for being nasty right back to you! Can't you see that, mate?

THE context to my post was 'cosmic plasmas/cosmic magnetic fields'. I merely remind all that EVEN 'weak' mag-fields acting over LONG TIME/SPACE distances can act as 'particle accelerators' no matter how 'sparse' the particles' distribution/densities.

Do you understand that in context now?

And, drop 'ratings' fixation! :)

Feb 25, 2017
Why do you keep opening your mouth
Because you keep saying stupid stuff.

You can stop any time, @BouncedRealityCheck.

Feb 25, 2017
Da Schneib takes on Da Trollez. It's nice being able to vote them 1s on an entire thread. Poetic justice. And maybe a bit of the other kind too.

Nice occupation for a Saturday night. Loads of fun.

Feb 25, 2017
... he is not only advocating currents in plasmas, but they are electrodynamically active "twisted, helical structures" or "braided rope-like structures" or more accurately Birkeland Currents.

In space, no one can hear neutral electrons scream (because all they have is the energy to do is whisper .
photon absorption and re-emission levels and intervals establish spin. 1.5 (or so) rotations establishes a magnetic field which allows a current flow and if it has enough absorption/emission activity to keep that spin going faster, magnetic field strength will increase. Current will then increase, the magnetic field providing a path of least resistance. Chain reactions ensue. All dependent on absorption/emission rates and, of course, proximity.
Perpendicularity driven "bending" of path will occur. Result? Helical structure.
... the MHD models used by and advocated by astrophysicists and yourselves cannot predict/reproduce these very real structures.

Schauberger...

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
Re: "You claimed there are no helical flows in plasma."

You obviously did not read the quotes that I posted above.


If I am wrong, then explain how it is that the fluid plasma models can reproduce twisted, helical structures.
You're lying again. I see little point in arguing with EUdiots who deny that twisted helical structures are an obvious consequence of Maxwell's Equations, and less in arguing with EUdiots who deny their own words. But hey, it's Saturday night and it's amusing swatting crank trolls.

Feb 25, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Because you keep saying stupid stuff.

You can stop any time, @BouncedRealityCheck.

and
Da Schneib takes on Da Trollez. It's nice being able to vote them 1s on an entire thread. Poetic justice. And maybe a bit of the other kind too.

Nice occupation for a Saturday night. Loads of fun.
See? That is the kind of ego-generated one-liner smart ass remark that comes out whenever you are not bothering to even address the actual science and instad kneejerk to personal/ego tripping mode. That is what makes you so unreliable, mate.

Do you recall all those times when you used much the same dismissive/insulting one liners/accusations (ie, "stupid, making up stuff, lying, ignorant etc"), while it was YOU INCORRECT and ME CORRECT all along....as the exchange/discussion proved to you when you EVENTUALLY STOPPED being so 'CERTAIN' while it was you WRONG/IGNORANT, not I?

You hadn't wikied/googled enough/in time, yet BELIEVED you 'knew'!

So stop it. :)

Feb 25, 2017
That is the kind of ego-generated
No, normally I ignore you. I'm bored; it's boredom-generated. So you get some real feedback, which you're not either emotionally or technically competent to process. So you resort to your usual contemptuous, content-free posting style.

And I handle you with dispatch, and return your contempt-- with a lot more grounds than you have.

Feb 25, 2017
And BTW, @Chris_Reeve, please re-iterate for us how it is that a "plasma" is emitting Lyman α when Lyman α is emitted by non-ionized hydrogen atoms. Let's try to stick to the subject here.

Feb 25, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
photon absorption and re-emission levels and intervals establish spin. 1.5 (or so) rotations establishes a magnetic field which allows a current flow and if it has enough absorption/emission activity to keep that spin going faster, magnetic field strength will increase. Current will then increase, the magnetic field providing a path of least resistance. Chain reactions ensue. All dependent on absorption/emission rates and, of course, proximity.
Perpendicularity driven "bending" of path will occur. Result? Helical structure.
By George, mate, I think you're getting it! Good show!

So, are we all on same page NOW?....re hybrid/feedback (reinforcing/destructive etc) phenomena at all scales/strength depending on 'locally/temporally dominant' forces/factors (which in deep space are mag-field even in sparse plasma situations, and electric fields in dense plasma situations; and finally gravitational when mass concentrations/cumulative gravity effect strong too). :)

Feb 25, 2017
So, are we all on same page NOW
Or not so much. We are discussing an ELAN, an Enormous Lyman Alpha Nebula.

There is no charge. It's not plasma. It's neutral hydrogen gas or it wouldn't be emitting Lyman α spectral lines.

You keep screwing up those pesky technical details, @BouncedRealityCheck.

Feb 25, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
That is the kind of ego-generated
No, normally I ignore you. I'm bored; it's boredom-generated. So you get some real feedback, which you're not either emotionally or technically competent to process. So you resort to your usual contemptuous, content-free posting style.

And I handle you with dispatch, and return your contempt-- with a lot more grounds than you have.
Your boredom/dismissive/ignoring 'method' leaves you open to making smart-ass comebacks IN IGNORANCE of what was actually being discussed/posted. How does that justify anything you post in response, when you ADMIT you don't even check out what the other person has posted before you kneejerk to IGNORANCE/BIAS based replies/insults and 'certainty' that you were correct when you were NOT so!

Don't you ever learn? Is your ego so dominant it perverts your intellectual/scientific integrity, objectivity and fair mindedness to suit your need to insult?

Too many times now. Stop it. :)

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
IN IGNORANCE of what was actually being discussed
Seems like I'm discussing the enormous neutral hydrogen nebula, whereas you are discussing some kind of plasma that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Speaking of ignorance, looks like you bounced again, @BouncedRealityCheck.

Feb 25, 2017
That is the kind of ego-generated one-liner smart ass remark that comes out whenever you are not bothering to even address the actual science
Well maybe his too busy to keep saying the same thing over and over and over like you don't mind doing. If addresses the same science two dozens of times, and the person still can not address his answers, why you think 25 times will do the trick?

That is what makes you so unreliable, mate.
Well it's hard for him to be reliable when all he has to work with is the people like you with the mental conditions, don't you think?

Do you recall all those times when you used much the same dismissive/insulting one liners/accusations (ie, "stupid, making up stuff, lying, ignorant etc"),
I remember that Cher. He was correct all along too.

ME CORRECT all along
That's the part nobody can remember.(Except for you and your shiny new puppet legion, eh?)

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Never mind, not enough letter spaces.

Feb 25, 2017
In the case of a cylindrical current,
There isn't any current. It's an enormous cloud of neutral hydrogen. If it weren't neutral there wouldn't be Lyman α being emitted from it. If it's neutral, there isn't any electrical current. This is duh.

You're lying again, @Chris_Reeve. And as transparently as a 3-year-old denying a cookie jar raid with crumbs on their shirt. This is the standard maneuver for all EUdiots when their BS is called out.

Feb 25, 2017
That is the kind of ego-generated
No, normally I ignore you. I'm bored; it's boredom-generated.
And unless you have one these automatic bot voting apps like I got, you get down vote his karma score.

And I handle you with dispatch, and return your contempt-- with a lot more grounds than you have.
Don't get too ruff with him, he has the mental conditions you know.

Oh yeah, I remember what I almost forget and run out of the letter spaces. He is still taking applications for the Earthman Playhouse Club if you are interested. That sounds like more fun than two different tribes of Mardi Gras Indians showing up on the same corner on the same day.


Feb 25, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
So, are we all on same page NOW
Or not so much. We are discussing an ELAN, an Enormous Lyman Alpha Nebula.

There is no charge. It's not plasma. It's neutral hydrogen gas or it wouldn't be emitting Lyman α spectral lines.

You keep screwing up those pesky technical details,...
Discussion RANGED onto possible alternative sources/process behind what was observed. The alternatives discussed involved plasmas at cosmic scales. Hence my reminder to all in the relevant post.

As to actual Lyman-Alpha radiation, you/others keep NAIVELY assuming that it is one big homogenous cloud/feature/process! It's NOT (even Whyde now getting that).

There are boundary regions (where Hydrogen may be neutral/non-energized/cooler etc); shock regions (which may be highly ionized/energetic/hotter); and transitional states etc which will all interfere/produce some resultant-effects re what radiation leaves whole 'mess' there/finally detected 'here'. :)

Complex! :)

Feb 25, 2017
That is the kind of ego-generated
No, normally I ignore you. I'm bored; it's boredom-generated.
And unless you have one these automatic bot voting apps like I got, you get down vote his karma score.
LOL, yeah, it's always amusing to watch that. You know, these fools actually believe that crap. Who but they would bother?

Don't get too ruff with him, he has the mental conditions you know.
My sympathy is limited to people who don't spam science sites with cranky BS and reply contemptuously without content when challenged.

Oh yeah, I remember what I almost forget and run out of the letter spaces. He is still taking applications for the Earthman Playhouse Club if you are interested. That sounds like more fun than two tribes of Mardi Gras Indians showing up on the same corner on the same day.
I can't imagine the circumstances under which I'd bother making posts on a crank site like that, but who knows? Maybe I'll get bored enough once.

Feb 25, 2017
Discussion RANGED onto possible alternative sources
There aren't any "alternative sources" for Lyman α radiation.

Now you're just lying, @BouncedRealityCheck. And bouncing again. Just like all the EUdiots do.

Teh stupid, it burnez.

Feb 25, 2017
Hi Forum.

And right on cue comes that bot-voting ignoramus, to troll the one who has been correct on the science all along, and to defend/excuse the one who have been wrong all along. With 'friends' like that bot-voting Ira, he doesn't need detractors. Pitiful.

PS: Poor Ira is bitter because he failed the acceptance exam (his dog scored more on the IQ test), so he rants and raves about irrelevant things to distract from his own pain and humiliation, because the only 'job' commensurate with his test scores was as 'bot-voting ignoramus on a science site'. Oh well, someone has to do that dirty job; Ira fit the bill nicely, because he even proved too stupid to know/learn how to disconnect that bot-voting program from his computer/PO account. Pity that babbling bot, folks.

Feb 25, 2017
Let's be quite clear about what Lyman α is.

It's the radiation emitted by an electron in a hydrogen atom jumping from the second to the first energy level in the lowest orbital.

No hydrogen atom, no Lyman α. Since a hydrogen atom has only one and at least one electron, it can't be from ionized hydrogen. Since the energy levels for a deuterium atom are different, it can't be from deuterium. Since the electron can't orbit nothing, there has to be a proton, and a proton and an electron are a hydrogen atom. Since there isn't any ionized hydrogen, there can't be any plasma. Since there isn't any plasma, the phenomenon we are discussing has nothing to do with the EUdiot BS.

Are we done here?

Feb 25, 2017
HI Da Schneib. :)
Discussion RANGED onto possible alternative sources
There aren't any "alternative sources" for Lyman α radiation.

Now you're just lying, @BouncedRealityCheck. And bouncing again. Just like all the EUdiots do.

Teh stupid, it burnez.
Alternative source regions as opposed to the assumed source regions. The nebula is a complex mixed feature, not homogenous throughout. That was the point you missed in your eagerness to keep kneejerking to ego-driven responses which miss the whole point being made. No wonder you get into such trouble, you're unreliable because your ego can get the better of your intellect/objectivity/fairness. Give your ego a rest and stop being arognat but wrong; try being more objective/fair and better informed so that you can be right/less insulting more often, hey? Good luck. :)

Feb 25, 2017
correct on the science
You're claiming that Lyman α can come from something other than neutral hydrogen.

You're lying again, @BouncedRealityCheck.

I repeat, you can stop any time. If you don't like being shown to be a complete idiot, that is. As long as you keep saying stupid stuff, I'm gonna keep pointing it out. Get over it. One way or the other.

Feb 25, 2017
Alternative source regions
It's a telescope picture. There's Lyman α everywhere in it and nothing else because they couldn't have missed it if they were looking at spectra. What "alternative source regions?"

You're lying again, @BouncedRealityCheck. Just making stuff up because you haven't got an answer.

Learn physics, and learn astronomy. Try to stick to actual textbooks instead of making stuff up. You're not fooling anyone and you never will. Get over it.

Feb 25, 2017
Hi Da Schneib.:)
Let's be quite clear about what Lyman α is.

It's the radiation emitted by an electron in a hydrogen atom jumping from the second to the first energy level in the lowest orbital.

No hydrogen atom, no Lyman α. Since a hydrogen atom has only one and at least one electron, it can't be from ionized hydrogen. Since the energy levels for a deuterium atom are different, it can't be from deuterium. Since the electron can't orbit nothing, there has to be a proton, and a proton and an electron are a hydrogen atom. Since there isn't any ionized hydrogen, there can't be any plasma. Since there isn't any plasma, the phenomenon we are discussing has nothing to do with the EUdiot BS.

Are we done here?
You keep being naive perspectives. You miss point that constituents are transitioning not only between bound states (as in electrons in hydrogen atom), but also in un-bound states going back and forth between neutral and ionized atoms. Complex regions/processes. :)

Feb 25, 2017
You keep being [sic] naive perspectives.
No, I keep telling you how astrophysics works, and you keep making up lies to try to pretend there's some question about it.

Get over it, @BouncedRealityCheck. Sorry if your mental condition is interfering; maybe you shouldn't post when you're off your psychiatric medication.

Feb 25, 2017
I can't imagine the circumstances under which I'd bother making posts on a crank site like that, but who knows?


It has been years and years since he let anybody post anything on there. He got tired of peoples telling him he was deranged so he took that part down. He was spending so much time trying to take down all the stuffs peoples were saying that he did not have any time to play Doctor-Really-Skippy--Inteweb-Pretend-Scientist. Maybe nine or eight years ago?

He was more famous than Zephir-Skippy for a while there. Until he got left with only the Physorg peoples to let him in. That's how the troll/bot/gang/mafia/mod/gangs thing got going. Maybe he will do the bot/mafia/troll/mod routine for you, it's been awhile. Did you ever hear about that? Non? Ask Captain-Skippy or me when I get more time. It's better than the Really-Skippy-Cavelry at the International Climatic Convention in Paris two years ago.

Feb 25, 2017
It's better than the Really-Skippy-Cavelry at the International Climatic Convention in Paris two years ago.
I can't even imagine this. So he's a climate troll too?

Feb 25, 2017
going back and forth between neutral and ionized atoms
Without emitting any radiation?

Pull the other leg that one's getting tired. You're lying again, @BouncedRealityCheck, just making stuff up with no rhyme nor reason.

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
You keep being [sic] naive perspectives.
No, I keep telling you how astrophysics works, and you keep making up lies to try to pretend there's some question about it.
Do you even realize how FAR AWAY that nebula is? It's 10 BILLION lyrs! And any 'image' is built up ONE PHOTON at a time over long exposures. The astronomical community now recently realizing that makes many of the previous NAIVE ASSUMPTIONS involved in data acquisition/processing a 'chancy' proposition. Previous 'confidence' levels associated with past exercises are recently being questioned if they involve BILLIONS of lyrs and individual-photon acquired 'images' dependent on prior-built-in assumptions, smoothing modeling/treatment etc.

So, many of detected photons may ALSO be from INTERVENING neutral hydrogen atoms; as well as the various cooler/neutral surface/boundary layers in an overall complex nebula/process being powered by high energy source there!

Think, not insults. :)

Feb 25, 2017
"How was it determined that 99% of the Universe is in a plasma state?

Most of the gas in interstellar space is ionized (astronomers can tell by the wavelengths of light the gas absorbs and emits), and all of the gas in stars [is] ionized, that's where the 99% comes from. The 99% ignores any dark matter which might be out there."
You're ignoring the actually detected Lyman α from the nebula which is the subject of this thread. Emissions and absorptions from other nebulae are immaterial.

You're lying again, @Chris_Reeve. You're bringing in extraneous material that does not have anything to do with the actual subject at hand, in order to try to obfuscate. It's not working.

Explain the Lyman α spectrum of *this* nebula. Stop lying. Stop obfuscating. Stick to the subject.

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
Do you even realize how FAR AWAY that nebula is?
You're ignoring the actually detected Lyman α spectrum from the actual view of the actual nebula. Radiated spectra don't just emerge from empty space, and if it wasn't empty we wouldn't be able to see this nebula.

You're lying and obfuscating again, @BouncedRealityCheck. Please see my response to @Chris_Reeve. This is standard EUdiot BS. If you can't explain it, obfuscate and lie.

Feb 25, 2017
Hi Forum. :)

As you can see, the 'conversation' between the bot-voting ignoramus (Irs) and Da Schneib has descended into lies and farce in attempt to save face.

PS @ Ira: Before making claims about my site, check. It's not taken down; it was temporary glitch. And there is NO 'comments posting' capability by anyone reading it, so you also have lied about 'nasty' comments being posted there.

PPS @ Da Schneib: Again you jump in feet first, based on incorrect beliefs given you by those whom you trusted but are themselves incorrect. This is the pattern which you have long demonstrated: making false accusations/insults etc based on your own IGNORANCE as to the ALL the relevant science and all the relevant facts (you again believed Ira and made your own silly kneejerking/insulting ego-tripping faux pas as a result).

When will your ego let your intellect do its proper job instead of perverting it to suit your need to insult etc (while being wrong yourself)? Stop it, mate. :)

Feb 25, 2017
The telescope is simply tuned to the neutral hydrogen's emissions.
No, it's not. Telescopes can't be tuned to individual optical emissions; they see all the emissions from an area of sky, and a spectrogram is taken of all those emissions. Lyman α is a very specific spectral line easily detected in a spectrogram. There is no uncertainty here, despite your attempt at obfuscation by pretending telescopes work in some manner that excludes wavelengths you find inconvenient.

You're lying again, @Chris_Reeve. Just making stuff up like every EUdiot does when their BS falls apart. It's pitiful, but I have no sympathy for cranks. Get over it.

Feb 25, 2017
As you can see, the 'conversation' between the bot-voting ignoramus (Irs) and Da Schneib has descended into lies and farce in attempt to save face.
Actually, we've concluded you're a pathological liar and a psychotic, @BouncedRealityCheck, but do feel free to carry on, it's quite amusing. Your transparent attempts to deflect the conversation by lying and obfuscating, and your even more transparent attempts to deflect attention from these lies and obfuscations, are pathetic, futile, and ultimately pitiful. You can avoid this type of criticism by not lying, not obfuscating, and not posting crank science on the science site at any time you choose.

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
I can't even imagine this. So he's a climate troll too?
What tripe from trolls and bot-votig ignoramuses are you 'believing' now, mate! Check my posts record and you'll see I have been countering (with reasoned arguments and facts) the many 'deniers' who have been posting their ill-informed and political/religious propaganda based nonsense (ask antigoracle and others whom I have corrected/informed over the years about the warming trend and the costs/damages and increasing incessant/unseasonal climate patterns evolving during transition period already and projected into the future).

Da Schneib, seriously, before again being so cavalier with your assumptions/beliefs and personal stuff, at least get the facts straight and stop believing what that bot-voting ignoramus tells you to believe; especially about anything important, hey? Good luck. :)

Feb 25, 2017
Re: "You miss point that constituents are transitioning not only between bound states (as in electrons in hydrogen atom), but also in un-bound states going back and forth between neutral and ionized atoms. Complex regions/processes."

Yes, exactly
Or, in reality, not so much.

These processes cannot occur without generating spectral lines that are absent from the observed spectra.

You're lying again, @Chris_Reeve. And it's obvious to anyone who knows anything about astrophysics.

Feb 25, 2017
Well PS @ Really-Skippy too.

It is not the lie. And you of all peoples should know that physorg never throws away anything. (Even though I can't see why they would waste space saving your stuffs.) I don't have the link right now, but you know I have them, so quit saying I'm lying when you know I can/"will"/could/should/might/probably/"definitely" will post them in the next week when I can get on my home computer. You know this, why should be so stupid to tell such a stupid lie? So.

When I get home I will post up the Really-Skippy-Cavalry at International Paris-Climatic-Conference. AND the one when you told us (the bot/mod/troll/gang/mafia) we were the reason you could not run the forum's comment section any more.

Got two hours me before my watch starts, so I'm going to watch one of my Leverage videos and grab a bite to eat. If I leave my computer on I'll still be down voting your karma points. If I turn him off I will catch up tomorrow.

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
@BouncedRealityCheck, I'm not gonna be your buddy on your crank astrophysics because you happen to be capable of figuring out geophysics (and from @Ira's post, it looks like you've been making a bunch of spurious climate claims without good evidence too, so I'd need to review the situation before I even conclude you're on the "same side" I am on climate, and from your general modus operandi and demeanor I pretty much doubt it).

Not to mention, this is totally off-topic on this thread. Can we stick to the Lyman α spectra on the thread about the Lyman α emitting nebula? And stop trying to deflect the conversation onto something else because you're wrong and psychotic and can't admit it?

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
You've completely failed to support your claim here
You're the one claiming telescopes can somehow be "tuned" so they see one optical spectral element and not another.

Meanwhile, my claim is based on the image at the beginning of the article. Looks like pretty good evidence to me. Not clear on what you are claiming isn't supported. Looks like more lying and obfuscation by an EUdiot.

So support that claim. And stop trying to shift the burden of proof. That's a well-known logical fallacy, and given you've been lying all along it looks like another lie, @Chris_Reeve.

Interstellar neutral hydrogen (HI) emission spectra
Which are not Lyman α spectral lines.

You're obfuscating and lying again, @Chris_Reeve. This is silliness. Get over it.

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
the relative velocity between a neutral gas and plasma
There is no plasma. If there were it would be creating spectra other than Lyman α and there aren't any. That's why it's called a, you know, ELAN, an Enormous Lyman Alpha Nebula. Duh ummm.

You're lying and obfuscating again, @Chris_Reeve.

Feb 25, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Didn't you even bother to pause/understand what I just pointed out re 'observations/imaging' of assumed target/source BILLIONS of lyrs away?

The astronomy/astrophysics community recently realized/admits that INTERVENING radiation from unknown sources in the LINE-OF-SIGHT, PLUS unknown-trajectories photons from gravity-deflected photons from OFF-LINE-OF-SIGHT sources, can influence what we 'acquire/process'.

That means simplistic/naive assumptions/methodologies/interpretations are likely (remember Bicep2; and then Planck confirming intervening dust etc NOT from Big Bang regions/epochs affected what was 'observed').

Moreover, 'images' from such distances are built-up via photons received one at a time; so NO guarantee can be assumed their source is 'only' the targeted nebula! Some may be, but most may be from in-line/off-line INTERVENING sources, some of whose photons also ended up along trajectories which arived at our telescope.

Read. Think. :)

Feb 25, 2017
@BouncedRealityCheck, I'm not gonna be your buddy on your crank astrophysics because you happen to be capable of figuring out geophysics (and from @Ira's post, it looks like you've been making a bunch of spurious climate claims without good evidence too,


I will tell you truth me. Really-Skippy has some good stuffs when he sticks to the climate. He's still a pompous bat-poo-crazy snerdly couyon, but he gets that stuff right.

What I am talking about is when some peoples were fooling around with him about his toes about everything, he said he had to take a break from that because the world needed him to save humanity. He said the Really-Skippy-Cavalry was going to ride in to the International Paris conference with a paper that would change the world and would be the total solution.

It's stupid for him to deny it because there was 10 or 8 of having fun with him on that one for two days. Most of the 10 or 8 are still regulars here, PLUS I marked/copied/saved the link.

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
Didn't you even bother to pause/understand what I just pointed out re 'observations/imaging' of assumed target/source BILLIONS of lyrs away?
Yes, and I pointed out that it's obfuscation because we're, you know, actually looking at it, and there's obviously nothing else there because if there were we'd see it, or not be able to see the nebula. This is duh, and you are lying and obfuscating again, @BouncedRealityCheck.

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
Anomalous Velocity Hydrogen
The hydrogen in the ELAN isn't of anomalous velocity; it's emitting Lyman α and its velocity can be checked against that indicated by the spectra of the surrounding galaxies. Meanwhile,

Not all is understood about the distribution of HI in the Milky Way.
We are not talking, for the second time, about HI. We are talking about Lyman α emission, a completely different phenomenon.

You're still lying and obfuscating, @Chris_Reeve.

Sorry, @Chris_Reeve, you have disqualified yourself from this discussion because you keep lying and obfuscating. I'll keep you off ignore so I can continue to downvote your lies and obfuscations, but since you seem to have fixated on your attempt to divert the conversation from the Lyman α emissions I see no further point in bothering with any other response.

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
Now really good bye until tomorrow. Laissez les bons temps rouler (That's coonass for: "Really-Skippy", if I did not think you were fun I would put you on the ignore like the racists/crankpots/angry/troll-for-annoy/couyons. Cher, it all is about nothing, this is just a place to fool around and kill time. Enjoy life some little more, eh?)

Feb 25, 2017
Hi Da Schneib.:)
Didn't you even bother to pause/understand what I just pointed out re 'observations/imaging' of assumed target/source BILLIONS of lyrs away?
Yes, and I pointed out that it's obfuscation because we're, you know, actually looking at it, and there's obviously nothing else there because if there were we'd see it, or not be able to see the nebula. This is duh, and you are lying and obfuscating again, @BouncedRealityCheck.
Are you for real, mate? It's at the central region of a densely populated early-epoch proto-cluster! High energy environment! And there must be all sorts of radiation coming from that general direction which makes any claim to have a specific target 'imaged' very premature/naive.

Mate, just because naive/simplistic assumptions/interpretations/methodologies have been applied, it makes any claims highly suspect unless it admits to the very serious potential for mis-identifying and 'artifacts' etc. (ask the Bicep2/Planck team). :)

Feb 25, 2017
@BouncedRealityCheck, your tactics look just like the ones the climate deniers use: attempt to introduce spurious doubt in obvious and undeniable data.

Lyman α is an obvious and undeniable spectral signature of the presence of neutral hydrogen. It doesn't matter how the neutral hydrogen got excited, and nothing can affect the way it radiates when it decays.

You're still lying, and still obfuscating, and I'm still calling BS on it.

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@BouncedRealityCheck, I'm not gonna be your buddy on your crank astrophysics because you happen to be capable of figuring out geophysics (and from @Ira's post, it looks like you've been making a bunch of spurious climate claims without good evidence too, so I'd need to review the situation before I even conclude you're on the "same side" I am on climate, and from your general modus operandi and demeanor I pretty much doubt it).
This is what the deniers do, rationalize reasons for not believing the facts as they are. Talk about "cutting off your nose to spite your face"! You'd rather believe all that lies and innuendos rather than see the facts as recorded in my posts? Amazing what your ego-tripping needs lead to when your objectivity/fairness plays a far second to your ego and the bot-voters' version of reality. Seriously, mate, as a friend in science/humanity, please stop what you're doing that leads you to trust bot-voting ignoramuses re 'facts'. :)

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
These regions do not emit detectable visible light
Exactly. Lyman α is 121.567 nm. HI is 21 cm.

Do you know the difference between nanometers and centimeters, @Chris_Reeve?

Feb 25, 2017
rationalize reasons for not believing the facts as they are.
Which is exactly what you're doing by obfuscating, @BouncedRealityCheck.

I'm not impressed when you call astronomical observations "lies and innuendos." And if you're referring to me, I'm not making any innuendos; I'm stating what I'm saying straight out. No innuendo at all. As far as lies, I will defer to the data in the article, which is what I'm working from; if you think astrophysicists lie, you are psychotic.

You don't appear to be discussing scientific facts, but instead attempting to divert the conversation to personal attacks. While I reserve the right to respond in kind, I don't think it has escaped anyone's notice that you are doing this, while I am attempting to stick to the science. I think the conclusions to be drawn are obvious and incontrovertible.

Feb 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 25, 2017
LOL, @Chris_Reeve attempts to obfuscate by confusing nanometers with centimeters and downvotes me when I point it out.

Is this transparent or what?

Meanwhile, @Chris_Reeve attempts to pretend that both HI and Lyman α are both associated with ionized hydrogen, when both are emissions from neutral hydrogen.

You're lying again, @Chris_Reeve.

Feb 25, 2017
OK, you guys, I'm drinkin' my Arrogant B**stard now, and after that I'm prolly gonna go eat chicken and spinach raviolis and watch Star Trek with my wife, since it's a lot more interesting than arguing with lying, obfuscating cranks who can't tell ionized hydrogen from neutral hydrogen or centimeters from nanometers.

Say something interesting quickly before you get put back on ignore.

Feb 26, 2017
This corroborates the claim that we have a complex process of electrons rotating around a neutral filament.
Why are electrons rotating around a filament if it's neutral?

I mean I don't you can't but how does it what does this even mean? Electrons rotating around a nonexistent charge? Derp alert.

Feb 26, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Say something interesting quickly before you get put back on ignore.
Please actually read the above article before proceeding. Was that interesting enough? :)

From said article:
The intense radiation from an AGN can ionize the gas around it (called photoionization), and this may be one mechanism at work in MAMMOTH-1. When ionized hydrogen in the nebula recombines it would emit Lyman-alpha radiation. Another possible mechanism powering the Lyman-alpha emissions is shock heating by a powerful outflow of gas from the AGN.
See? The hydrogen can be ionized, then return to neutral etc, as I pointed out earlier. So it's not only neutral hydrogen there, but PLASMA transitioning between highly ionized and neutral during an ongoing process. OK?

See? No "obfuscation"....Informed. :)

FYI, they make assumptions about REDSHIFT. Beware!...incorrect values input to data 'treatment' may incorrectly 'identify' K-alpha as L-alpha, & vice versa. Complex. :)

Feb 26, 2017
The hydrogen can be ionized, then return to neutral etc, as I pointed out earlier. So it's not only neutral hydrogen there, but PLASMA transitioning between highly ionized and neutral during an ongoing process. OK?
One minor problem you didn't notice: the AGN ionizes the gas *around it*. This is not a small local phenomenon centered on an AGN, maybe a thousand light years or so across; it's an ELAN, an Enormous Lyman Alpha Nebula, in the middle of a galaxy cluster, and it's millions of light years across. So the Lyman α we're actually detecting is not due to the ionized gas near the AGN, it's due to that energy being absorbed and re-emitted by the ELAN, which is not ionized and isn't plasma.

This time you aren't obfuscating, so you've got my interest and attention.

See? Just say something that makes sense, and you'll get a response. It might not be what you want, but at least you're discussing reality.

Feb 26, 2017
Meanwhile, @RealityCheck, you got a 3 this time instead of a 1. That's because you were wrong, but you made a rational argument. You might actually get me to keep you off ignore if you do that.

My Arrogant B*stard Ale is about half done.

One thing I'll tell you, I won't ever lie to you, and I won't play mind games and obfuscate to try to play you. If you try to play me, you'll find me vicious, skilled, and nasty, but if you avoid these types of tactics you'll get the straight sxxt from me. I wish I felt like you had the same ethics, but having watched you for a long time I doubt it. Maybe you can change but I'm not holding my breath. Impress me.

Feb 26, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Forget 'rating', just stick to the science discourse; I don't want/need anyone's rating, just their science/logic contribution to (polite) discourse is more than enough. Thanks. :)

As to the 'plasma/not plasma', issue. The article itself (and I quoted a relevant para for you) clearly states that plasma is being generated by various possible means/processes over various time/spatial scales/regions in a continual dynamical process. You also miss the known fact/science that shock/jet fronts can propagate far from source to ionize pre-existing material. Again, you need to drop the naive/simplistic perspectives (which may apply in the lab) when dealing with such REMOTE and COMPLEX situations/observations etc etc. Like I pointed out earlier, there are many potential ways to misinterpret or misanalyze such 'offy' images/data from so far away that individual photons over long exposures are needed, but which may fall prey to all the unknowns/complications. :)

Feb 26, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Forget 'rating', just stick to the science discourse; I don't want/need anyone's rating, just their science/logic contribution to (polite) discourse is more than enough. Thanks. :)
This is pretty hypocritical considering your active rating of my posts and further considering your known prior use of sock puppets to multiply and dishonestly downrate the posts of me and others. I suggest that you stop projecting and stop gaming the system before you point fingers at others.

I'm willing to be polite to anyone who doesn't game the system. If you game the system, I will notice it and I will not be polite. Get over it.

Feb 26, 2017
As to the 'plasma/not plasma', issue. The article itself (and I quoted a relevant para for you) clearly states that plasma is being generated by various possible means/processes over various time/spatial scales/regions in a continual dynamical process.
Sorry but you are misrepresenting it either deliberately or mistakenly because you either wish to obfuscate or simply do not understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're merely mistaken.

A plasma cloud spread over millions of light years simply cannot emit the volume of Lyman α radiation observed due to recombination reactions from a single AGN. A nebula emitting such radiation due to an AGN is limited to at most a few thousand light years and probably much less than that. This in turn implies that the million light year wide region might be excited by Lyman α emissions from an AGN, but cannot be plasma from it.

Feb 26, 2017
You also miss the known fact/science that 'sj\hock' fronts can propagate far from source to ionize pre-existing material.
This propagation takes a very long time since such shock fronts must move much slower than the speed of light, whereas the Lyman α radiation moves at the speed of light, and the decay of the excitation is very short. I think this is spurious.

It's time to drop all the obfuscating doubt-promoting BS and look at the most likely physical situation.

Feb 26, 2017
Hi Da Schneib.:)
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Forget 'rating', just stick to the science discourse; I don't want/need anyone's rating, just their science/logic contribution to (polite) discourse is more than enough. Thanks. :)
This is pretty hypocritical considering your active rating of my posts and further considering your known prior use of sock puppets to multiply and dishonestly downrate the posts of me and others. I suggest that you stop projecting and stop gaming the system before you point fingers at others.

I'm willing to be polite to anyone who doesn't game the system. If you game the system, I will notice it and I will not be polite. Get over it.
Mate, you're letting lies/misinformation from bot-voting ignoramus substitute for fact-gathering.

I DON'T vote in feedback pages AT ALL.

Look for yourself.

And I use NO sockpuppet-army (only bot-voting/troll gangs do, on both 'sides').

Check with PO admin. I NEVER did any of that. OK? :)

Feb 26, 2017
Sorry, @BouncedRealityCheck, I know for certain from trusted sources that you have played rating games and sock puppet games, and I have seen you play rating games in this thread. If you don't want to admit it just move on; denying it just makes me mad.

Hey count your blessings; you actually got me to pay attention, thought you could still blow it.

Feb 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 26, 2017
Hi Da Schnieb. :)
Sorry, @BouncedRealityCheck, I know for certain from trusted sources that you have played rating games and sock puppet games, and I have seen you play rating games in this thread. If you don't want to admit it just move on; denying it just makes me mad.
Well, since you have a history of getting things wrong while all the while claiming to be right etc, I can only ask that you reconsider everything you 'think' you 'know' about me. Try to check with me before you believe any old thing from any old bot-voting/trolling gang, hey mate? :)

As for plasma/ionization processes in question: You will note (as I already pointed out) that this 'target' is in the middle of a proto-cluster!...in a region dense with nascent galaxies during an epoch involving jets/shocks from many AGNs, Supernovae/Hypernovae etc from many directions. The distances jets/shocks travel can be HUGE. These nebulae are probably products of longtime AGN/SN etc jet/shocks activity. OK? :)

Feb 26, 2017
@RealityCheck, my most important data is from my own observations; what I get from others is only corroborating information. Sorry you are insulted by your own behavior. Perhaps you should consider altering it if you don't like the impressions it makes on others. Most people do this instead of trying to convince people they are delusional or lying. People who attempt these types of obfuscations are generally detected and marked as unreliable. You are fighting against millions of years of evolution tuned to detect deception, and failing miserably. I would suggest you merely stop this behavior, because you're not going to succeed in convincing me I'm delusional.

Feb 26, 2017
Re: "A plasma cloud spread over millions of light years simply cannot emit the volume of Lyman α radiation observed due to recombination reactions from a single AGN. A nebula emitting such radiation due to an AGN is limited to at most a few thousand light years and probably much less than that. This in turn implies that the million light year wide region might be excited by Lyman α emissions from an AGN, but cannot be plasma from it."

The size of this object is inferred based upon the big bang cosmology. Competing cosmologies are of course not bound to these inferences.
Yet more obfuscation.

You've always got another thing to try to obfuscate with, don't you? Do you suppose anyone might notice, or are you the smartest person in the world and nobody will see through your attempts to get around reality?

Gimme a break, you're transparent at the 3-year-old level. You might convince your fanboiz and maybe even yourself, but you are incapable of convincing an adult.

Feb 26, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Mate, you are descending into farce. Are you drunk already? That "Old B**stard" beer must be powerful stuff (or you are drinking too much on an empty stomach before dinner). Drinking and Internet-ting is dangerous, mate. Stop now and come back when you sober up. Maybe this explains your sometimes less-than-scientific/logical/polite outbursts in the past! If so, then I will make allowances for when you again post "under the weather", mate. Take care. :)

Feb 26, 2017
LOL, no, @BouncedRealityCheck, that ploy won't work either.

Sorry, man, back on ignore you go. You never Get It.

Feb 26, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
LOL, no, @BouncedRealityCheck, that ploy won't work either.

Sorry, man, back on ignore you go. You never Get It.
What 'ploy'? You said you were drinking "Old B**stard" beer before sitting down to a meal with your wife, didn't you?

Ignoring, and then jumping in half/mis-informed, is no substitute for due diligence, scientific attention to getting all the facts before attacking/insulting/accusing someone/something.

You've missed a lot. And your reliance on trolling/bot-voting ignoramus gangs for your 'facts' is making you look a real failure at science discourse. Do better if you want to be better, mate. And keep off the 'sauce' etc when posting on the net, especially when you are wrong. OK? :)

Feb 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 26, 2017
You're lying again, @Chris_Reeve.


Schneibo......why don't you simply knock it off with the snarky routine about "lying" just because someone disagrees with your opinionated point of view?

Here you are, someone who persists in confusing the content of Einstein's Special Relativity with the contents of General Relativity, but nobody here calls you a liar for those kinds of screwups, if we did & called you a "liar" everytime you made such misstatements, more than half of all your posts would be "lies".

You'll ease into your retirement years with greater tranquility if you'd put aside your strident behavior & learn how to have conversations with others rather than using all this snarky name calling banter.

Feb 26, 2017
Nevertheless, the notion that 'redshift implies recessional velocity' became astronomical dogma.


Definitely there's more to "redshift" than recessional velocity, there are Elastic & Inelastic photon scattering effects all across the entire universe that come into play. Just don't become a victim & fall into Zwicky's Tired Light mistake.

The James Webb telescope is the device that will begin to do a really good job to uncover the effects of photon scattering, as this telescope with infrared detection capability will literally be able to see behind the apparently voluminous quantity of intergalactic dust clouds that block our view to the rest of the Universe, you know the 80-95% DM Enthusiasts claim is MISSING.

Feb 26, 2017
Parallax doesn't even get us distances beyond around 10% - 20% of the diameter of the Milky Way. Everything beyond that is inferred based upon redshift. -Chris_Reeve_HannesAlfven
This is why it is pointless to argue with you. Your complete and total ignorance of astronomy and physics allows you to make statements like that. Google "standard candle," read up on the subject, and then come back and apologize.

Feb 26, 2017
Schneibo......why don't you simply knock it off with the snarky routine about "lying" just because someone disagrees with your opinionated point of view?
Because it's obvious. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and you abused it. I didn't give @Chris_Reeve that benefit because all he ever did was post material that is unrelated to the question at hand, which regards Lyman α radiation detected by spectral analysis, then made claims about that analysis based upon that unrelated data.

Console yourself, @Lenni, with the fact that I won't be downvoting you any more because you're on ignore for me, and with the fact that at least you managed to make an argument that was, while wrong, still not dishonest, until you walked over that line.

Feb 26, 2017
Where's all that light coming from?

Any ideas?