Giant magnetic fields in the universe

March 22, 2017
The relic at the outskirts of the galaxy cluster CIZA J2242+53, named „Sausage“ because of  its shape, is located at a distance of about two billion light years from us. The contour lines show the intensity of the radio emission at a wavelength of 3 cm, observed with the 100-m Effelsberg radio telescope. The colors represent the distribution of linearly polarized radio intensity at the chosen wavelength, in units of Milli-Jansky per telescope beam. The short dashes indicate the orientation of the magnetic field. The bright source at the bottom is a radio galaxy that belongs to the same galaxy cluster. Credit: © M. Kierdorf et al., A&A 600, A18

Astronomers from Bonn and Tautenburg in Thuringia (Germany) used the 100-m radio telescope at Effelsberg to observe several galaxy clusters. At the edges of these large accumulations of dark matter, stellar systems (galaxies), hot gas, and charged particles, they found magnetic fields that are exceptionally ordered over distances of many million light years. This makes them the most extended magnetic fields in the universe known so far.

The results will be published on March 22 in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.

Galaxy clusters are the largest gravitationally bound structures in the universe. With a typical extent of about 10 million light years, i.e. 100 times the diameter of the Milky Way, they host a large number of such stellar systems, along with hot gas, magnetic fields, charged particles, embedded in large haloes of , the composition of which is unknown. Collision of galaxy clusters leads to a shock compression of the hot cluster gas and of the magnetic fields. The resulting arc-like features are called "relics" and stand out by their and X-ray emission. Since their discovery in 1970 with a radio telescope near Cambridge/UK, relics were found in about 70 galaxy clusters so far, but many more are likely to exist. They are messengers of huge gas flows that continuously shape the structure of the universe.

Radio waves are excellent tracers of relics. The compression of magnetic fields orders the field lines, which also affects the emitted . More precisely, the emission becomes linearly polarized. This effect was detected in four galaxy clusters by a team of researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn (MPIfR), the Argelander Institute for Radio Astronomy at the University of Bonn (AIfA), the Thuringia State Observatory at Tautenburg (TLS), and colleagues in Cambridge/USA. They used the MPIfR's 100-m radio telescope near Bad Münstereifel-Effelsberg in the Eifel hills at wavelengths of 3 cm and 6 cm. Such short wavelengths are advantageous because the polarized emission is not diminished when passing through the galaxy and our Milky Way. Fig.1 shows the most spectacular case.

The 100-m radio telescope near Bad Münstereifel-Effelsberg. The observations of polarized radio emission from galaxy clusters were performed with this telescope at wavelengths of 3 and 6 cm. Credit: © Norbert Junkes/MPIfR

Linearly polarized relics were found in the four galaxy clusters observed, in one case for the first time. The magnetic fields are of similar strength as in our Milky Way, while the measured degrees of polarization of up to 50% are exceptionally high, indicating that the emission originates in an extremely ordered . "We discovered the so far largest ordered magnetic fields in the universe, extending over 5-6 million light years", says Maja Kierdorf from MPIfR Bonn, the project leader and first author of the publication. She also wrote her Master Thesis at Bonn University on this subject. For this project, co-author Matthias Hoeft from TLS Tautenburg developed a method that permits to determine the "Mach number", i.e. the ratio of the relative velocity between the colliding gas clouds and the local sound speed, using the observed degree of polarization. The resulting Mach numbers of about two tell us that the galaxy clusters collide with velocities of about 2000 km/s, which is faster than previously derived from measurements of the X-ray emission.

The new Effelsberg telescope observations show that the polarization plane of the radio emission from the relics turns with wavelength. This "Faraday rotation effect", named after the English physicist Michael Faraday, indicates that ordered magnetic fields also exist between the clusters and, together with hot gas, cause the rotation of the polarization plane. Such magnetic fields may be even larger than the clusters themselves.

"The Effelsberg radio telescope proved again to be an ideal instrument to detect magnetic fields in the universe", emphasizes co-author Rainer Beck from MPIfR who works on this topic for more than 40 years. "Now we can systematically search for ordered magnetic fields in using polarized radio waves."

Explore further: Magnetic field discovery gives clues to galaxy-formation processes

More information: M. Kierdorf et al. Relics in galaxy clusters at high radio frequencies, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2017). DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629570 , On Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.01764

Related Stories

ALMA's ability to see a 'cosmic hole' confirmed

March 17, 2017

Researchers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) successfully imaged a radio "hole" around a galaxy cluster 4.8 billion light-years away. This is the highest resolution image ever taken of such a ...

Astronomers discover powerful cosmic double whammy

January 5, 2017

Astronomers have discovered a cosmic one-two punch unlike any ever seen before. Two of the most powerful phenomena in the Universe, a supermassive black hole, and the collision of giant galaxy clusters, have combined to create ...

Developing map of Milky Way

February 21, 2012

We now have a new way of viewing the Milky Way, thanks to Victoria astronomer Melanie Johnston-Hollitt and one of her undergraduate students.

Cluster collisions switch on radio halos

August 30, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- This is a composite image of the northern part of the galaxy cluster Abell 1758, located about 3.2 billion light years from Earth, showing the effects of a collision between two smaller galaxy clusters.

A violent, complex scene of colliding galaxy clusters

June 3, 2014

Astronomers using the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) and the Chandra X-Ray Observatory have produced a spectacular image revealing new details of violent collisions involving at least four clusters of galaxies. Combined ...

Recommended for you

Discovered: Fast-growing galaxies from early universe

May 24, 2017

A team of astronomers including Carnegie's Eduardo Bañados and led by Roberto Decarli of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy has discovered a new kind of galaxy which, although extremely old—formed less than a billion ...

136 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dirk_bruere
3 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2017
How strong are the fields and how much energy stored in them?
Steelwolf
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 22, 2017
Those naysayers that have shot down various ideas because "Magnetics cannot span that sort of distance" are going to have to come up with a whole bunch of new not right explanations for the widespread magnetic effects being observed. Not just a couple hundred lightyears, as my own galaxy as a dipole theories, but MILLIONS of Lightyears.

Those naysaying an Electric Universe are on the wrong side of history and as more and more data comes in our theories are proven stronger and stronger. Please note, this is not like some crackpot trying to say the Grand Canyon was created by electric arcing, but there ARE similar artefacts that DO come from electrical and magnetic forces. This is obviously one of them. Just like the Pope against Galileo and Copernicus, the Pope was wrong, as are those that posit a non-plasma, non-electric formation of galactic members and structures in the cosmos.
medusa_milena
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 22, 2017
"embedded in large haloes of dark matter"

Stated as if dark matter is real...
IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED YET THAT DARK MATTER EXIST, it is only a theory!
Shootist
4.1 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2017
"embedded in large haloes of dark matter"

Stated as if dark matter is real...
IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED YET THAT DARK MATTER EXIST, it is only a theory!


Gravity is only a theory. Dark matter comes from that theory of gravity (Einstein's).
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (13) Mar 22, 2017
How strong are the fields and how much energy stored in them?


According to the paper, a few microgauss. Which equals a few tenths of a nanotesla. Very weak. The interplanetary magnetic field in our solar system varies, but 15nT is a reasonable approximation.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Mar 22, 2017
"embedded in large haloes of dark matter"

Stated as if dark matter is real...
IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED YET THAT DARK MATTER EXIST, it is only a theory!


A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter
http://iopscience...162/meta
https://arxiv.org.../0608407 (free version)

Best to get your paper in soon, as that paper has been cited 1760 times.
RNP
4.2 / 5 (15) Mar 22, 2017
@Steelwolf
Those naysayers that have shot down various ideas because "Magnetics cannot span that sort of distance" are going to have to come up with a whole bunch of new not right explanations for the widespread magnetic effects being observed.


This is a straw man argument. No astrophysicists say; "Magnetics cannot span that sort of distance". Such large-scale magnetic fields were first observed in the 1990s! See https://arxiv.org...2293.pdf for a summary in 1997.

Rather than aimlessly attacking what other people may or may not have said, why not justify YOUR beliefs.

Explain to us:
How fields of only a few micro-gauss (i.e. ~1/100,000th of the Earth's magnetic field) can significantly affect the motion of matter with zero net charge.

Why these large-scale magnetic structures exhibit NO correlation with the distribution of matter within them - no star formation, no structures etc, which your theory claims they do
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (13) Mar 22, 2017
Those naysayers that have shot down various ideas because "Magnetics cannot span that sort of distance" are going to have to come up with a whole bunch of new not right explanations for the widespread magnetic effects being observed. Not just a couple hundred lightyears, as my own galaxy as a dipole theories, but MILLIONS of Lightyears.


That would involve you actually knowing that these relics, and their Mpc long magnetic fields, have been known about for some time! Maybe it's news to you though, hence the excitement.
See, for instance:
Four Extreme Relic Radio Sources in Clusters of Galaxies
Slee, et al (2001)
https://arxiv.org...5267.pdf

cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2017
LOL! Relics? Recall frozen-in fields are but little more than pseudoscientific clap trap. The facts is that such large scale magnetic fields require large scale electric currents to create them. And large scale electric fields to boot. Bye bye DM!
RNP
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 22, 2017
@cantdrive85
...such large scale magnetic fields require large scale electric currents to create them.


This is a completely false statement. The paper itself clearly outlines the process at work in these clusters and it has nothing to do with electric currents. Have you not read the paper? Do you not understand the simple processes that it describes? If you do, then explain where you think the paper has gone wrong. If you do not, keep your uniformed opinions to yourself.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 22, 2017
You should reread the paper, get a clue and come back when you don't want to look like a fool.
jonesdave
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 22, 2017
You should reread the paper, get a clue and come back when you don't want to look like a fool.


So summarise the paper, genius. I've read it, and a number of others that are referenced within it. I don't believe the words 'electric' or 'current' are mentioned anywhere within them. Still, you should have no problem pointing it out, eh?
RNP
4.2 / 5 (15) Mar 22, 2017
@cantdrive85
You should reread the paper, get a clue and come back when you don't want to look like a fool.

I HAVE read (AND UNDERSTOOD) the paper, but clearly you have not. I AGAIN challenge you to point out where you think the paper has gone wrong.

The important thing here is that the paper is credible because it supports what it says with evidence. On the other hand, your claims look more and more ridiculous with every post that you make because you fail to ANY provide evidence for your claims.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 22, 2017
@jonesdave
We seem to be tag teaming. I had to delete a post earlier because it said exactly the same as your's, posted only 2 minutes earlier. The problem is that it is so easy to point out the flaws in these arguments (at least to people that actually understand something of the physics), that it is almost irresistible. I'll leave you to this particular idiot for now.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2017
Those naysaying an Electric Universe are on the wrong side of history and as more and more data comes in our theories are proven stronger and stronger
@steel
to piggyback on RNP and Jonesdave above: there are no theories from the eu

in order to have a theory in science you must first have peer reviewed studies from reputable journals that are repeatedly tested and shown to be true
Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge
https://en.wikipe...c_theory

to do that you have to adhere to the scientific method ( https://en.wikipe...c_method ) which the eu does not in any way do, otherwise they would be able to provide source material and not pseudoscience links for their sh*t beliefs

lastly - just because you say it's true doesn't mean it is
Steelwolf
2 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2017
Oh Stumped, you have SUNK yourself now, a Theory is what ANYBODY can come up with (an idea or set of ideas that explain facts or events, from Webster) , a THEOREM, which is a proven Theory, is a different thing, having gone through the peer review process and merit found such that it is added to the List of 'accepted' theories, but is still a theorem. You are confused there Obviously.

On MY Personal Theory of Galactic Structure and Maturation I showed how an eliptical galaxy could form a full dipole magnetic field and even form stars along the magnetic force lines (I had detailed pictures of galaxy with said proper shaping and form, I was told by the stumped one that magnetic fields of that size (on the order of 200 LY) did not exist. Since it is Obvious that these fields DO exist, even MUCH larger than a single galaxy, it puts poor stumped in a deeper hole than ever.

Why do you bother trolling this site Stumpid? Your ideas are So last century.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2017
. I don't believe the words 'electric' or 'current' are mentioned anywhere within them.

You're right, instead they mention this;
"The origin of radio relics in galaxy cluster is still a matter of debate."
They are honest unlike you and DNP. Thay acknowledge the shock front one possibility but then state;
"The orientations of the magnetic field lines are changing along the relic, which is unexpected for a continuous shock front."
So unlikely what they claim.
And this nugget;
"Enigmatically, the relic does not follow the X-ray surface brightness but extends into a region with very low ICM density"
They also mention the diffuse emission not related to any optical source, there are the currents.
As with all astrophysical papers one must translate the pseudoscientific babble they use and apply the observations to real plasma physics and lest we not forget Maxwell or nearly 200 years of EE principles which show E and M are inseparable hand maidens.
Steelwolf
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2017
Now, you can play stupid semantics games, or you can admit that there IS an actual theory concerning an Electric Universe. Not all of us ascribe the same things to this theory, some people's ideas are rather fanciful, but ever since we actually put stuff into space we have come to realize that some 93% of the cosmos we can actually see is comprised of or filled with Plasma, in one form or another.

Some scientists are stuck on the Dark Matter idea, while others can show that with just what we can see and the data from radio telescopes, infrared and the like is that there IS no 'missing mass' anymore, it has been found and gravitational and magnetic field effects cover all of the known motions seen: Dark Matter and Energy has been Obviated and is a dead end.

Stumpy is a Pseudo-Skeptic whose criticisms have consisted only of ad hominems, misunderstanding, intentional misrepresentation, and labeling as pseudoscience rather than any actual scientific proofs to the contrary.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2017
I found out where the whole EU thing came from.

Velikovsky. It was what he tried on for size when the astrophysicists derided his woo for ignoring the laws of physics. It didn't work, of course; it would require planets to be charged, and they aren't.
Heliospheric
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2017
@RNP "How fields of only a few micro-gauss (i.e. ~1/100,000th of the Earth's magnetic field) can significantly affect the motion of matter with zero net charge"

This is a straw argument. Magnetic fields STRONGLY affect plasmas because they consist of charged particles (albeit with a zero net charge). This is evidenced by the Solar Wind, the interplanetary medium with a zero net charge, which accelerates away from the Sun, despite the Sun's immense gravitational field.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2017
Errr, @Helio, seems like you forgot the "uncharged" part. There isn't any uncharged plasma. 1 for lack of knowledge of basic physics.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2017
I found out where the whole EU thing came from.

Velikovsky. It was what he tried on for size when the astrophysicists derided his woo for ignoring the laws of physics. It didn't work, of course; it would require planets to be charged, and they aren't.


Got it in one. EU (i.e. the idiot Thornhill's) nonsense always comes back to the loon Velikovsky. Amazing how all these nutty ideas they have never manage to make it into the scientific literature, and are only ever seen on crackpot websites, and the comment sections of places like this. It's almost as if they know that their nonsense doesn't stand up to a moments scrutiny.
They seem to work on the basis of collecting followers, and that science is like the top 40, or a petition to parliament; if you get enough followers, people will take notice of you. Sorry, but decades of crap being derided/ ignored by the scientific community should have immunised them against that mindset. Won't stop the loons, though.
Heliospheric
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2017
Although the paper does not mention directly the source of the magnetic field, we can infer that it must be due to an electric current (1) there is no other way to produce a magnetic field in a cosmic plasma without an electric field eg. the heliospheric current sheet in the Solar Wind (2) the polarization detected is a signature of ambipolar diffusion which indicates accelerating electrons and ions (ie. a current).
Heliospheric
2 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2017
@Da Schneib I said that the plasma has a zero net charge. BUT it consists of charged particles. It is STRONGLY influenced by magnetic fields, as is EVERY plasma, by definition.
RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2017
Heliospheric
Magnetic fields STRONGLY affect plasmas because they consist of charged particles (albeit with a zero net charge). This is evidenced by the Solar Wind, the interplanetary medium with a zero net charge, which accelerates away from the Sun, despite the Sun's immense gravitational field.


Your comment is irrelevant. The solar wind is caused by the highly turbulent magnetic field of the Sun, which is of order 1 Gauss i.e. again, nearly a million times stronger than the fields under discussion. These fields are therefore no where near as strong OR as turbulent as that of the Sun.

SO, given the above, explain to us, with your deep understanding of astrophysical plasma, what effect a quasi-static, micro-gauss magnetic field can have of the motion of a diffuse, net-neutral plasma.
Heliospheric
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2017
@RNP. Another straw argument.

A net-neutral plasma does not behave as a neutral gas. ANY magnetic field will STRONGLY affect the charged particles in a plasma.

The Sun's magnetic field falls off dramatically with distance. The interplanetary magnetic field is around 10⁻⁴ gauss. Even if the magnetic field was one micro-gauss (10⁻⁶ gauss), compared to the gravitational force, the EM force on an ion would be 100,000 times stronger that the gravitational force. Ref: Hannes Alfvén, Cosmical Electrodynamics, page 2. https://archive.o...portance
Heliospheric
1 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2017
A point of clarification. The suggestion is that there are electric currents present, not that they are the only and ultimate cause of the magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are always generated from electric currents (not vice versa). This begs the question, what causes the electric current, and this is simply due to the motion of plasma where electrons are more mobile than their heavier ion counterpart. Plasma are quasi-neutral, not net neutral.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2017
@RNP. Another straw argument.

A net-neutral plasma does not behave as a neutral gas. ANY magnetic field will STRONGLY affect the charged particles in a plasma.

The Sun's magnetic field falls off dramatically with distance. The interplanetary magnetic field is around 10⁻⁴ gauss. Even if the magnetic field was one micro-gauss (10⁻⁶ gauss), compared to the gravitational force, the EM force on an ion would be 100,000 times stronger that the gravitational force. Ref: Hannes Alfvén, Cosmical Electrodynamics, page 2. https://archive.o...portance


So what? What exactly do you think this EM force is actually doing? What are you trying to get it to explain? Please provide a scientific reference to whatever it is that you are trying to claim, because I can make no sense of it from your posts.
Heliospheric
2 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2017
The suggestion from RNP was "How fields of only a few micro-gauss (i.e. ~1/100,000th of the Earth's magnetic field) can significantly affect the motion of matter with zero net charge" and that the Sun's 1-gauss field was required to significantly affect the Solar Wind.

The reference I gave, to a academic book by Hannes Alfvén, shows that a magnetic field of just 10⁻⁶ gauss (typical of the interplanetary magnetic field) will significantly affect the motion of the charged particles in a plasma, even if the plasma has a zero net charge. This is further evidenced by the shape and size of the interplanetary current sheet, the largest structure in the Solar System.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2017
The reference I gave, to a academic book by Hannes Alfvén, shows that a magnetic field of just 10⁻⁶ gauss (typical of the interplanetary magnetic field) will significantly affect the motion of the charged particles in a plasma,


Yes, we know this from the polarization of the dust grains. And, as this excellent paper says:

The measured field strengths and the similarity of field patterns and flow patterns of the diffuse ionized gas give strong indication that galactic magnetic fields are dynamically important. They may affect the formation of spiral arms, outflows and the general evolution of galaxies.

https://arxiv.org...5663.pdf

So, again, I would ask; what are you proposing that we don't already know? What is it that you want this magnetic field to do?
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2017
Although the paper does not mention directly the source of the magnetic field, we can infer that it must be due to an electric current (1) there is no other way to produce a magnetic field in a cosmic plasma without an electric field eg. the heliospheric current sheet in the Solar Wind (2) the polarization detected is a signature of ambipolar diffusion which indicates accelerating electrons and ions (ie. a current).


Wrong. The solar wind is a mixture of co-moving ions and electrons. It isn't a current. We might have noticed that.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2017
Wrong. The solar wind is a mixture of co-moving ions and electrons. It isn't a current. We might have noticed that.

So how do you expect the magnetic fields associated with the solar wind to be created?
Oh right, I forget you rely on pseudoscientific frozen-in fields.
Heliospheric
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2017
@jonesdave. "what are you proposing that we don't already know?"

As I have written in nearly every post, I was answering a point by RNP.

"The solar wind is a mixture of co-moving ions and electrons. It isn't a current."

The heliospheric current sheet has a radial component (directed inward) as well as an azimuthal component. See http://aanda.u-st...814.html
The heliospheric current sheet results in higher order multipole components so that the actual magnetic field at the Earth due to the Sun is 100 times greater.
RNP
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2017
@Heliospheric
I was answering a point by RNP.


But you have NOT answered my point: What effects are you suggesting that this quasi-static, micro-gauss magnetic field is having on the motion of the diffuse, net-neutral plasma it pervades? How relevant are these effects in shaping the structure and properties of the plasma? Where are the observations of these effects? If you can not even begin to answer such simple questions, you can have no reason to expect anyone here to take your opinions seriously.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2017
Wrong. The solar wind is a mixture of co-moving ions and electrons. It isn't a current. We might have noticed that.

So how do you expect the magnetic fields associated with the solar wind to be created?
Oh right, I forget you rely on pseudoscientific frozen-in fields.


I quote:
The beam (i.e. the solar wind; my addition) carries a magnetic field of the order of 10^-5 gauss which is frozen in.


H. Alfven
On the theory of comet tails
http://www.tandfo...9i1.9064
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2017
He had since seen the errors of his ways, try reading his Nobel lecture from 1970.
Or this NASA presentation;
https://inis.iaea...18060222
Section III;
Frozen-in Field Lines - A Pseudo-Pedagogical Concept
Try to move on from your heyday, the 60's.
Heliospheric
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2017
@RNP. I was answering only one point you made ""How fields of only a few micro-gauss (i.e. ~1/100,000th of the Earth's magnetic field) can significantly affect the motion of matter with zero net charge".

The source I mention provided the answer: the weak magnetic fields can significantly affect the motion of matter. For qualitative and quantitative information, I refer you to the aforementioned source.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2017
I said that the plasma has a zero net charge. BUT it consists of charged particles.
This is a completely meaning-free pair of sentences.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2017
He had since seen the errors of his ways, try reading his Nobel lecture from 1970.
Or this NASA presentation;
https://inis.iaea...18060222
Section III;
Frozen-in Field Lines - A Pseudo-Pedagogical Concept
Try to move on from your heyday, the 60's.


Wrong, As has been shown to you before, he only warned against its use in certain situations.

I further quote:
The theory is basically non-speculative. Conditions (1) and (2) are known to generally
exist under cosmic conditions.


Condition (2) is:
Through hydrodynamic motion the 'frozen in' magnetic field lines are deformed
in such a way as to produce a toroidal field.


H. Alfven
Cosmic Plasma (1981)

Long after his Nobel speech. You really should update your reading and comprehension skills.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2017

Try to move on from your heyday, the 60's.


I have 2 degrees; one from the 1990s, the other from 2010. How about you? Or has everything you ever learned been from crackpots like Thornhill and Talbott, and an inability to understand any science that you may have happened to read?
barakn
5 / 5 (11) Mar 23, 2017
Magnetic fields are always generated from electric currents (not vice versa). -Heliospheric

Quick, someone alert Michael Faraday that some random internet troll has invalidated his law of induction.
Heliospheric
1 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2017
I wrote: "I said that the plasma has a zero net charge. BUT it consists of charged particles."
@Da Schneib wrote: "This is a completely meaning-free pair of sentences."

No, it tells you that a plasma usually consists of equal numbers of dissociated positive and negative charges (free ions and electrons), which when added together have a net charge of zero.
Heliospheric
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2017
@cantdrive85 wrote: "Frozen-in Field Lines - A Pseudo-Pedagogical Concept"
@jonesdave wrote: "Wrong, As has been shown to you before, he only warned against its use in certain situations."

jonesdave is correct. Alfvén wasn't suggesting that frozen-in field lines is always an incorrect pseudoscientific misnomer, only that if used incorrectly (ie in the wrong circumstances), it can lead to a misleading understanding of what is going on in a plasma.

See Alfvén's paper "Double layers and circuits in astrophysics" (1986) https://ntrs.nasa...0655.pdf
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2017
a plasma usually consists of equal numbers of dissociated positive and negative charges (free ions and electrons)
Then it would have no charge, and thus no magnetic field.

Meanwhile, with all these electrons around, they'd be attracted to the ions and de-ionize them.

More nonsense.
Heliospheric
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2017
@Da Schneib. A zero net charge does not mean (a) there can be no charges (b) there can be no magnetic field. Electrons do not combine with ions in space plasma because the electrons and ions have too much energy.
Heliospheric
1.8 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2017
More evidence of electric currents in the Solar Wind just announced by the ESA today:

Supersonic plasma jets discovered

23 March 2017. Information from ESA's magnetic field Swarm mission has led to the discovery of supersonic plasma jets high up in our atmosphere that can push temperatures up to almost 10 000°C. [..]

The theory that there are huge electric currents, powered by solar wind and guided through the ionosphere by Earth's magnetic field, was postulated more than a century ago by Norwegian scientist Kristian Birkeland.

It wasn't until the 1970s, after the advent of satellites, however, that these 'Birkeland currents' were confirmed by direct measurements in space.

These currents carry up to 1 TW of electric power to the upper atmosphere – about 30 times the energy consumed in New York during a heatwave. [..]

In full: http://www.esa.in...scovered
Heliospheric
2 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2017
@Da Schneib. By way of clarification: Although a plasma can have a zero net charge, "quasi-neutrality" enables it to generate a magnetic field.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2017
@cantdrive85 wrote: "Frozen-in Field Lines - A Pseudo-Pedagogical Concept"

As much as I'd like to take credit for this statement, I cannot. I copy/pasted it from section III of the paper both Heliospheric and I linked;
"Double layers and circuits in astrophysics" Alfvén
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2017
DaShnied's ignorance of plasma physics is even more profound than jonesdumb's ignorance. You'll get used to it.
RNP
5 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2017
@Heliospheric
..."quasi-neutrality" enables it to generate a magnetic field.


If you actually understand what quasi-neutrality means, then you will know that it can only generate small scale magnetic phenomena. What on Earth then does this have to do with the large-scale phenomenon being discussed here?
Heliospheric
2 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2017
@RNP. The same argument could be made of the interplanetary medium where the Debye length is around 10 meters, yet the interplanetary magnetic field extends out to the boundary of the Solar System, at some 18 billion km from the Sun.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2017

If you actually understand what quasi-neutrality means, then you will know that it can only generate small scale magnetic phenomena.

This is an utterly unfounded claim based on the same type of ignorance employed by jonesdumb and Dashnied.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2017
So, @Helio, having gone over your posts I don't see you actually asserting anything about this article.

Looking at the article I don't see any need for magnetic fields to strongly influence the formation of these arc-shaped features, since they appear to have been formed by shock waves from colliding galaxy clusters. And that's leaving aside the fact that these magnetic fields are extremely weak. To top it all off the magnetic force propagates at the speed of light and this implies that any action of the magnetic force would have taken millions of years to occur.

So what is it you claim happened that is worth talking about, besides what we already can tell?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2017
... lest we not forget Maxwell or nearly 200 years of EE principles which show E and M are inseparable hand maidens.

Which create a side "harmonic"...
which works with it's "opposite" to add to the first...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2017
I found out where the whole EU thing came from.

Velikovsky. It was what he tried on for size when the astrophysicists derided his woo for ignoring the laws of physics. It didn't work, of course; it would require planets to be charged, and they aren't.

Sorry to object, DS, but they are only uncharged relative to the amount of "space" around them...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2017
Wrong. The solar wind is a mixture of co-moving ions and electrons. It isn't a current. We might have noticed that.

So how do you expect the magnetic fields associated with the solar wind to be created?

By the ROTATION (comparing) of the 2...
Which is based on the proximity to mass...
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2017
Sorry to object, DS, but they are only uncharged relative to the amount of "space" around them...
The Earth has a charge of around 1 volt. Are you seriously claiming that this can cause it to move to Saturn?
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2017
So what is it you claim happened that is worth talking about, besides what we already can tell?

I'm not speaking for Helio, but;
These large scale magnetic fields which also require large scale electric fields (because they are not static) per Maxwell's equations and Lorenz force law nullify the need for faerie dust and other such fanciful imaginings of the astrophysicists.
Steelwolf
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2017
Da Shneib, you might want to go and do a little actual reasearch before ye go steppin on yerself like that:

https://en.wikive...he_Earth

The Earth is negatively charged, carrying 500,000 Coulombs (C) of electric charge (500 kC), and is at 300,000 volts (V), 300 kV, relative to the positively charged ionosphere. There is a constant flow of electricity, at around 1350 amperes (A) [approximately 1100 A], and resistance of the Earth's atmosphere is around 220 Ohms. This gives a power output of around 400 megawatts (MW), which is ultimately regenerated by the power of the Sun that affects the ionosphere, as well as the troposphere, causing thunderstorms. The electrical energy stored in the Earth's atmosphere is around 150 gigajoules (GJ).

The Earth-ionosphere system acts as a giant capacitor, of capacity 1.8 Farads.

The Earth's surface carries around -1 nC of electric charge per square meter.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2017
It didn't work, of course; it would require planets to be charged, and they aren't.

The presence of Earth's electric field shows your claim is ridiculous.
Da Schneib
Mar 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2017
...you have SUNK yourself now, a Theory is what ANYBODY can come up with
@steelrusted
i see
so, you're either illiterate or scientifically inept

Which one?
You are confused there Obviously
i aint the one who ignored the links
On MY Personal Theory of Galactic Structure and Maturation I showed...
wow... sounds very science-y: where is the journal link and peer reviewed study?
validation?
anything at all that is more than just your claims?

.

[crickets]

.

Your ideas are So last century.
so, your progressive attitude of "this century" is to make sh*t up and just keep repeating it and that is called validation to you? that is your replacement?
ROTFLMFAO
there IS an actual theory concerning an Electric Universe
no, there isn't

there is a web-site and a sh*tload of pseudoscience beliefs, but there is no evidence based scientific theory that can be used to predict, show a working model, supersede the MS theory or anything else
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2017
Sorry to object, DS, but they are only uncharged relative to the amount of "space" around them...
The Earth has a charge of around 1 volt. Are you seriously claiming that this can cause it to move to Saturn?

That is pretty extreme...;-)
However, If the sun increased IT's charge sufficiently relative to everything outside of our orbit (reduced IT'S charge by the tiniest little bit, yes...
We are in balanced stasis due to the collective of ALL the different charges in the solar system. (Plus a little bit of everything beyond IT.)
We're in a curious place, we humans...:-)
Relative to all of space, WE are the "quantum".
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2017
There are 4 parts to the equation (1 if you want to be really picky about it). More (way more) if you want to count all the subsequent interactions of the three added.
In the system you are talking about you forgot to include mass (the medium of the other 2).
And space (density of mass within it)...

Oops - forgot one.
Motion.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2017
Sorry, messed up with the quote and edit buttons.
My previous statement was in response to CD85's quote;

I'm not speaking for Helio, but;
These large scale magnetic fields which also require large scale electric fields (because they are not static) ...


Heliospheric
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2017
@Da Schneib "The Earth has a charge of around 1 volt. Are you seriously claiming that this can cause it to move to Saturn?"

The Earth carries more charge as indicated by others. It is absurd to suggest that this could affect other bodies in the Solar System, as there are no electrostatics at play. Not even the EU crowd suggest there are electrostatic forces between the bodies in the Solar System. But this is irrelevant to the article
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2017
Still waiting for some actual statement of a position on this particular paper, @Helio. Another 1 for failing to provide it yet again.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
Meanwhile, the electric field of the Earth with respect to the surrounding space is 1 volt. You might want to look it up. You'll find a lot of references that talk about 150 v/m but those show that the field is mostly created by the atmosphere; this is not an accurate measurement for the E field discernible from interplanetary space.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
Another Fun Fact: the Earth is a capacitor with a capacitance of about 1.5 Farads. It holds about 4x10⁵ C of charge. You will find if you do the math that this corresponds to its E field intensity of about 1 V at interplanetary distances.
Steelwolf
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2017
Der Shneipp has to go and move the goal posts while Stumped continues with the ad homenim attacks with no science attached. He has to go and argue semantics instead. Also, the point I had about my personal observations and theory arising from such was shot down in the past because "Such huge magnetic fields do not exist in the cosmos" and so I pointed out the extreme fallacy of that with stories such as this.

Also, previous works viewed here have pointed out that they can now account fo all of the previously unseen and thus 'missing mass' so that the need for the dark matter models have been obviated. Must hurt to be proven wrong by such 'scientifically illiterate' folks. Funny, I have more education than Einstein, Kepler, Galileo and Newton ever had the chance to get and have continued the education well beyond the classroom. I can as easily come up with a Theory based on solidly proven conjectures that have been proven in the past. I stand on the shoulders of Giants.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
@Steelwolf
Also, previous works viewed here have pointed out that they can now account fo all of the previously unseen and thus 'missing mass' so that the need for the dark matter models have been obviated.


This is completely FALSE, and you have NO evidence to support it. You seem to be confusing what you WANT to be true with reality.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2017
@RNC: The story at: https://phys.org/...ies.html
where it shows that the galaxies rotations are extremely tightly matched to the visible mass in the galaxies obviating the need for Dark Matter.

Not False.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
@Steelwolf
@RNC: The story at: https://phys.org/...ies.html
where it shows that the galaxies rotations are extremely tightly matched to the visible mass in the galaxies obviating the need for Dark Matter.

Not False.


Yes, it IS false. Indeed, and the paper you link provides actually evidence for DM!

What you have misunderstood about the paper you mention is that it shows the measured accelerations *correlate* with, but are GREATER than, the values that the baryons would suggest (See figs 2 & 3 in the paper). Surely, you understand the difference between "is correlated with" and "is equal to"? The fact that the accelerations measured in the paper exceed those expected from baryons represents evidence FOR dark matter not against it.

Read the comments I made in the thread that you linked above if you want to understand more - I am not going to waste any more time repeating explanations of things that should be obvious to anybody that has actually read the paper.
Steelwolf
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2017
@RNC, I think you must be the one with major comprehension problems. In the Abstract of the paper at: http://iopscience...36/2/152

It goes through the finding and at one point shows that " We find that LTGs, ETGs, and "classical" dSphs follow the same radial acceleration relation: the observed acceleration correlates with that expected from the distribution of baryons over 4 dex. The relation coincides with the 1:1 line (no DM)..."

So even the Authors stipulate that NO DARK MATTER was Needed for their measurements to equal the gravitational accelleration from the visible baryonic matter.
RNP
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2017
@Steelwolf
It goes through the finding and at one point shows that " We find that LTGs, ETGs, and "classical" dSphs follow the same radial acceleration relation: the observed acceleration correlates with that expected from the distribution of baryons over 4 dex. The relation coincides with the 1:1 line (no DM)..."

So even the Authors stipulate that NO DARK MATTER was Needed for their measurements to equal the gravitational accelleration from the visible baryonic matter.

This appears to be a shameful attempt to misrepresent what was actually said!

The paper *actually* says: "The relation coincides with the 1:1 line (no DM) at high accelerations but systematically deviates from unity below a critical scale..."

The authors of the paper clearly state that they favor the MONDian explanation for DM. So your assertion that they claim there is no DM is OBVIOUSLY false.

BTW. Your choice of where you terminated the quote raises questions about your integrity.
Steelwolf
2 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
Also, aticles such as: https://phys.org/...tml#nRlv

Show that much galaxy formation is also heavily affected by magnetic fields. This article, with showing the wide field view, with the very heavy magnetic lines shown broadly and clearly, as well as the finer grade pictures showing finer detail of themagnetic field in the spiral arms shows that magnetics has a great deal to do with galactic formation, which is verification of parts of my own theory of galactic formation and maturation
Steelwolf
2 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
The reason I discontinued the quote is because at those lower velocities they clearly admit that they can be due to errors in observation, that they fall below the sigma required to say they are affected by baryonic or DM as the speeds could be directly affected by the gravitational magnetic fields in the short ranges involved for those individual stars. You are reading into the article more than the authors wrote. I use the Authors own words, you have gone and made extrapolations that the lower velocity stars are moved by DM where the authors make no such stipulation. WHOSE morals are in question? Who is a journalist who knows there are forbidden lines of study and is paid to troll such sites? If you cannot be clear with direct even when the story has clear wording and you directly contradict it, how can you expect to be believed by other readers?
RNP
4.4 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2017
@Steelwolf
The reason I discontinued the quote is because at those lower velocities they clearly admit that they can be due to errors in observation, that they fall below the sigma required to say they are affected by baryonic or DM as the speeds could be directly affected by the gravitational magnetic fields in the short ranges involved for those individual stars.

I use the Authors own words, ...


You first *cropped* the authors words for your own ends and then make a bunch of unsupported, and false, claims about what they say. I challenge you to tell us in exactly which section of the paper they say these things.
Steelwolf
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2017
@RNC, Since you cannot seem to find it, it is at: http://iopscience...36/2/152

And, as I stated, it is the ABSTRACT in front of that Paywall that since I am on SS (due to a massively rebuilt neck,) I cannot afford to cross. However, the whole quote is here:
"Abstract

We study the link between baryons and dark matter (DM) in 240 galaxies with spatially resolved kinematic data. Our sample spans 9 dex in stellar mass and includes all morphological types. We consider (1) 153 late-type galaxies (LTGs; spirals and irregulars) with gas rotation curves from the SPARC database, (2) 25 early-type galaxies (ETGs; ellipticals and lenticulars) with stellar and H i data from ATLAS${}^{3{\rm{D}}}$ or X-ray data from Chandra, and (3) 62 dwarf spheroidals (dSphs) with individual-star spectroscopy. We find that LTGs, ETGs, and "classical" dSphs follow the same radial acceleration relation: the observed acceleration (${g}_{\mathrm{obs}}$) correlates
(continued)
Steelwolf
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2017
(continued)

correlates with that expected from the distribution of baryons (${g}_{\mathrm{bar}}$) over 4 dex. The relation coincides with the 1:1 line (no DM) at high accelerations but systematically deviates from unity below a critical scale of ~10−10 m s−2. The observed scatter is remarkably small ($\lesssim 0.13$ dex) and largely driven by observational uncertainties. The residuals do not correlate with any global or local galaxy property (e.g., baryonic mass, gas fraction, and radius). The radial acceleration relation is tantamount to a natural law: when the baryonic contribution is measured, the rotation curve follows, and vice versa. Including ultrafaint dSphs, the relation may extend by another 2 dex and possibly flatten at ${g}_{\mathrm{bar}}\lesssim {10}^{-12}$ m s−2, but these data are significantly more uncertain.

(continued)
Steelwolf
2 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
(continued)

"The radial acceleration relation subsumes and generalizes several well-known dynamical properties of galaxies, like the Tully–Fisher and Faber–Jackson relations, the "baryon-halo" conspiracies, and Renzo's rule."

OK, There was the whole thing, they were comparing whether Baryonic matter actually needed DM to be able to move at the speeds shown, they found that all motions above certain speeds, a fairly low speed at that, follow the paths that would be taken were only Baryonic matter involved. As it matched the 1 to 1 point of being a match for baryonic and excluded ranges thought to be caused by DM, they clearly state, in the section I quoted, that Dark Matter was, if anything, providing neglible effect, in fact, any such effect was well below the level of observational error, as staed by the authors.
Steelwolf
2 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
Also, I had posted a link, so anyone who went and read the post at the link would have read the same things as I did. I made no wild extrapolations, I merely translated the scientific jargon to basic English. Besides, I have seen ALL of you naysayers use partial quotes and lots of things taken out of context or try thrusting fallacious arguments into what the other supposedly said. Like I said, you are a paid gatekeeper troll of the conservative science cabal who Cannot let accurate information about the construction of the cosmos as it would lead to such things as so called free energy or point-source energy, LENR etc, while our financial leaders make Trillions of dollars due to keeping us on a limited distributed energy setup. Oil and electrical power, coal etc is all dependent on an artifically constructed system that is propped up by twisted, hidden science and bald denial of obvious truths. Consider Tesla's energy distribution scheme destroyed by JP Morgan and Carnegie.
RNP
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2017
@Steelwolf
I had not realized that you had not read the whole paper! No wonder you are so badly informed. I am also surprised that you felt so confident in making these claims based on solely a (mis)interpretation of the abstract.

You can find the full paper here: https://arxiv.org...8981.pdf LEARN!!!!!

I will only respond to future posts if you can show some understanding of it.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2017
Did you read all the way thru, and what their conclusion was? This is what they wrote, in that paper:

"8.3.
Implications for Alternative Theories
The tightness of the radial acceleration relation and the lack of residual correlations may suggest the need of a revision of the standard DM paradigm. We envisage two general scenarios: (I) we need new fundamental laws of physics rather than DM, or (II) we need new physics in the dark sector leading to a baryon-DM coupling."

So, in their paper they are questioning the need for dark matter at all since Baryonic mass seems to show most of the effects observed and what MAY be DM is at the level of observational error.

I can read just fine, and can easily see the entire thrust of this paper. It plainly states that due to the directly observable baronic effects that any DM is put into doubt.

Now, what were you trying to say?
RNP
4 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2017
@Steelwolf
OK. You have accessed the paper, so I will respond.

Notice that the quote from the paper that you give says: "we need new fundamental laws of physics rather than DM, or we need new physics in the dark sector leading to a baryon-DM coupling."

It DOES NOT say that the DM effect can be accounted for by baryons.
Steelwolf
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2017
@RNC, how obstinate can you be, even in the plain scientific language, AND the English translation, they are showing that any purported DM effects are so low as to be at the level of obervational error (read the paper, do the math involved with those equations, not at all hard) and so they are DIRECTLY Questioning whether the present DM paradigm is at all accurate as they directly question it's reality by that statement, that either they need to look at OTHER PHYSICS to explain what they see, or that DM is completely different than conventionally thought and directly connected in some way to baryonic matter.

Magnetism is one thing that fits the bill, and we are seeing that magnetic effects actually impact the shape of galaxies quite heavily.

While you can read, you obviously cannot Reason.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2017
@RNC, also, you tried to ding me for using Part of a abstract, why then do you go and use part of that quoted statemt to try to make Your point. Now, had you included the Whole Quote, you could have acertained that due to the:

"The tightness of the radial acceleration relation and the lack of residual correlations may suggest the need of a revision of the standard DM paradigm."

..Portion it shows that the Radial Accelleration Relation (to the Baryonic Mass) and the fact that there were very few effects other than Baryonic that did not fall below the level of observational error that they have to seriously rethink DM completely.

You still do not get it, and no matter how you try to spin it, this article and paper DIRECTLY states that Dark Matter May Not Exist in the language of Scientific Expresion.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2017
Notice that the quote from the paper that you give says: "we need new fundamental laws of physics rather than DM, or we need new physics in the dark sector leading to a baryon-DM coupling."

It DOES NOT say that the DM effect can be accounted for by baryons.


Steelwolf.......this is what you get when you have exchanges with someone who is a journalist & not a science professional, the usual semantical duck, dodge & weave routine just as you've backed his argument into a corner.

The only thing we ever need to understand about RNP is that he is Dark Matter Forever. Whatever there may be the least likely evidence for is exactly the bandwagon he is most like;y to be aboard because that is where the most contentious silly pop-sci culture exists.

Steelwolf
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2017
It is really funny, due to the fact that there are people on here with sock puppets that do ALL of their voting based solely on biased personality basis, no matter the actual science or Proofs given, I consider getting a 1 to be the most honorable number here, surelythe one with the most integrity. So for all of you naysaying unconscious objectors who try to hurt individuals with your downvoting, consider this I value karma at least as much as you do your vaunted dark matter, and Karma Happens...I have yet to see dark matter happen.

Thus, getting voted only a 1 shows me that I am right, especially in this particular forum populated by sock puppet conservative science trolls who are stuck in their 1950's mentalities. Thanks so much!!
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2017
sorry, mouse created double post
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2017
I consider getting a 1 to be the most honorable number here, surelythe one with the most integrity.

I couldn't agree more, I'm quite proud of my average ranking!
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
Yes, we know this from the polarization of the dust grains.

What is it that you want this magnetic field to do?

Profoundly more than what you would want to admit.
This polarized dust forms the electrodynamic skeletal structure that carries the EM forces well beyond that which is considered by the plasma ignoramuses.
http://ieeexplore...4287052/
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2017
So much for the EU crowd; they can't even say what they think the results from this paper actually mean. Nor where this giant magnetic field came from.

Looks like they forgot that magnetic fields move at the speed of light. <-this is duh
Butthurt
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2017
I created an account specifically to call Benni a cunt.
So, yeah. Benni, you're a cunt.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
I created an account specifically to call Benni a cunt.
So, yeah. Benni, you're a cunt.


Recent Activity for Butthurt
Average rank: 5
Story Title Date Rank By
Giant magnetic fields in the universe March 24, 2017, 6:57 pm 5 Da Schneib

So tell us schneibo, is this you by another name? Or RNP?
Steelwolf
1.8 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
Der Shneipp, what does this article mean? It means that there are magnetic structures, and thus electric flow, over millions of lightyears, something that the EU Deniers have stated all too plainly CANNOT exist. More specifically, the friction from the collision of one or more galactic clusters has created a flow of electricity that streams across milions of lightyears worth of plasma creating a widespread and very large magnetic structure. This means that there is a LOT more going on in the Universe that the EU Deniers will admit to: Electricity and the magnetics that come from them have a role in shaping structures that we can see and when that is taken into consideration there is NO need for Dark Matter or Dark Energy as magnetism can account for much of both.

Earlier posts show that clearly with the papers that were referred to and the paper's conclusions that the supposed effects of Dark Matter do not exceed observational error beyond Baryonic Mass gravitational effect.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
The magnetic field is likely from a Birkeland current;
http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF
This is why it looks like a "sausage", and why astrophysicists call it a sausage because of their ignorance of plasma physics.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
Sorry, man, I have no idea what you're lying about now. Maybe you can post some quotes to support your claims. Hopefully not truncated and mangled like the ones @RNP showed you lied about.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
It is really funny, due to the fact that there are people on here with sock puppets that do ALL of their voting based solely on biased personality basis, no matter the actual science or Proofs given


For Example:

I created an account specifically to call Benni a cunt.
So, yeah. Benni, you're a cunt.

Recent Activity for Butthurt
Average rank: 5
Story Title Date Rank By
Giant magnetic fields in the universe March 24, 2017, 6:57 pm 5 Da Schneib


Schneibo, why don't you spend some useful time working on a few Partial Differential Equations in Einstein's General Relativity rather than spending your time here posting kudos for every foul mouthed derelict who name calls anybody you keep losing arguments with.

Steelwolf
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2017
Snipe, quite frankly I lied about nothing, RNC's insults notwithstanding. I HAD posted everything relevant, there were no lies in that, no misunderstanding on my part, and, as you notice, RNC has shut up since he was proven comlpetely wrong (others noted the same thing) when I showed him the entire post and the fact that HE was the one twisting things and using incomplete information to make wild extrapolations. I merely put down what the Paper itself said, I had to add very little, only enough English to help translate to him who does not understand everything involved. If YOU actually looked through those posts, with an open, unbiased mind, you would see that I speak nothing but the truth. You see, I do not Have to lie, so I do not.

In fact, PLEASE DO go and read that paper he posted, and then see if I changed any of that, word or meaning. I changed nothing and came to same conclusion that the Authors did. Go on, I CHALLENGE You to find any lies on my part. There are none.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2017
Denial is transparent.

There's nothing further to discuss here. I do not consort with liars.
Steelwolf
2 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
Der Shneipp, I will even re-post the paper here:

https://arxiv.org...8981.pdf

And when you get down to 8.3 you can see how I directly quoted the Authors and how even they state that:
"8.3.
Implications for Alternative Theories
The tightness of the radial acceleration relation and the lack of residual correlations may suggest the need of a revision of the standard DM paradigm. We envisage two general scenarios: (I) we need new fundamental laws of physics rather than DM, or (II) we need new physics in the dark sector leading to a baryon-DM coupling."

And it is the above quote that RNP went and truncated and mangled in his way of lying about the information within that statement. Obviously the Authors say that either Dark Matter does not exist and we need new physics to describe what is going on, or that there needs to be new Physics connecting Dark Matter to Baryonic Matter as any potential effect of DM is below the observational error detection level.
Steelwolf
2 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
Das Shneipp, I have placed truths out there, You can lead a man to data but you cannot make him think. I supplied the data, it is true, and relevant, and not a lie. If you think so and refuse to check it then who is the immoral slanderer and purveyor of untruths...You are by your actions. And, your actions vindicate me in a much greater way than could be managed if even Stumped were to admit I were right.

All you have done is remove yourself from the pool of Active Thinkers and put yourself on the sidelines with the uneducated. Thank You for being so compliant!
Steelwolf
2 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2017
Der Sheippe, Your Denial is Illuminating, and You are Transparent. You Only refuse to read and comment because you KNOW you have Already been proven wrong, just as RNP was earlier.

Your refusal to reply, after your slander calling me a liar is just plain intellectual laziness and cowardice. In other places, were you to do such I would be able to properly sue you for libel, slander and defamation of character. As it is you hide behind your stack of sock puppets and call people liars, denigrate their intelligence (tho it may well be greater than yours) and act as an all around dingleberry hanging around our Solar System's outer planet.

The fact that you removed yourself from the conversation is ample proof that you rely on dogma rather than bothering to actually do any study and be open to change...like any REAL scientist would be.

From now on do not bother to answer any of my posts as we already know you have nothing worthwhile to add and refuse to learn different.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2017
Just another layman's view - I'm likin' the MOND interpretation...
Notice how pythagorean theorem is still an integral, operational part of Newtonian math?
But, at some point, don''t you have to reapply it to Newton?
I also like Einstein's comment about science progressing one funeral at a time.
(Even though would prefer it be one small acceptance of change at a time...)
Progression is even obvious in E=MC2...
And SW, ya might wanna dial back your frustration level a bit. Perhaps these guys are just havin' a little fun (unfortunately at your expense). Kinda like that thing Zwicky did with an assistant in a observatory a long time ago...
Relax, have a beer and not take all of this so seriously...
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2017
I created an account specifically to call Benni a cunt.
So, yeah. Benni, you're a cunt.


Recent Activity for Butthurt
Average rank: 5
Story Title Date Rank By
Giant magnetic fields in the universe March 24, 2017, 6:57 pm 5 Whydening Gyre Da Schneib

.........in the meantime as you jump to the forefront to give us lectures on the acceptance of absurdity, look at the sewer of company you hold in such high esteem.
Steelwolf
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2017
@WG, Thanks Bro, Yeah frustration levels rise when folks cannot seem to read and comprehend at even an 8th grade level and then lie about what I said even when I post the Author's own conclusions. I tend to get riled when some Other liar goes and accuses ME of lying over what the First liar mis-stated. I do get a little bent outta shape, and while I must pass up the beer due to nasty pain meds, I will happily stoke the legal, (in my State) and in my case prescribed, equivalent and destress mightily.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2017

Story Title Date Rank By
Giant magnetic fields in the universe March 24, 2017, 10:31 pm 1 yyz Captain Stumpy

........and two more add their vote to the Sewer Vote.

Yep, just dare to point out who lives in the Sewer around here, and that will get youmore attention than anything you say about the pseudo-science fantasy worlds they live in? Right Whydening Gyre? After all, you cast your vote to the SEWER just as you usually do.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2017
I created an account specifically to call Benni a cunt.
So, yeah. Benni, you're a cunt.


Recent Activity for Butthurt
Average rank: 5
Story Title Date Rank By
Giant magnetic fields in the universe March 24, 2017, 6:57 pm 5 Whydening Gyre Da Schneib

Story Title Date Rank By
Giant magnetic fields in the universe March 24, 2017, 10:31 pm 1 yyz Captain Stumpy

........and two more add their vote to the Sewer Vote.

Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2017
It's a curious thing in this chatroom, why the most foul mouthed posts that come right out of the sewer is greeted with withcheer, and criticism of posts such as:

{q] Butthurt4.3 / 5 (6) 16 hours ago
I created an account specifically to call Benni a cunt.
So, yeah. Benni, you're a cunt

...........is greeted with 1 Star votes by yyz, Captain Stumpy, who add their names to Whydening Gyre, Da Schneib who think this kind of content is appropriate in a chatroom about science.

Steely, I'm becoming more & more disappointed in you, your TOTAL lack of support in criticizing the SEWER vote around here. You just got a 1 Star from me for it in your last post, but did you notice who the others were that gave you a 1 Star? Yeah, didn't make any friends from the Sewer did you?
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2017

Story Title Date Rank By
Giant magnetic fields in the universe March 24, 2017, 10:31 pm 1 yyz Captain Stumpy

........and two more add their vote to the Sewer Vote.

Yep, just dare to point out who lives in the Sewer around here, and that will get youmore attention than anything you say about the pseudo-science fantasy worlds they live in? Right Whydening Gyre? After all, you cast your vote to the SEWER just as you usually do.

Sewers are important. Without 'em, crap just piles up in your house...
I just heard a rumor - that Benni created that screen, just to see if he could clog up the system...
Oh, that silly anarchist...:-)
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2017
Sewers are important. Without 'em, crap just piles up in your house...
I just heard a rumor - that Benni created that screen, just to see if he could clog up the system...
Oh, that silly anarchist


Naw, that ain't it, it's just so entertaining to come here & point out how it's those with the least education in scientific endeavor who are the most prone to be the most foul mouthed among the Commentary population, and here you are below:

Story Title Date Rank By
Giant magnetic fields in the universe March 24, 2017, 6:57 pm 4.3 barakn yyz zz5555 Whydening Gyre Captain Stumpy Da Schneib

Only RNP is missing so far from among the usual suspects, but then he's shut out because he is Butthurt & is prevented from casting a vote for his own post.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2017
Benni created that screen, just to see if he could clog up the system..
.........exactly right Why Guy, you along with the others of the Sewer Vote enjoy clogging up the Commentary here, so I'm just simply adding my vote to the system.

Yeah, yeah, I know, it's not considered clogging up the system with posts like this:

Butthurt4.3 / 5 (6) 16 hours ago
I created an account specifically to call Benni a cunt.
So, yeah. Benni, you're a cunt


.........instead you think this is an enhancement to the system, along with the Sewer vote, of those who imagine this gives credibility to any manner of pseudo-science they want to pass on from the Pop-Sci culture which exonerates itself from EVIDENCE.

So yeah, clogging up the Commentary today has been a lot of fun, fun watching pseudo-science endeavors of those of you who are chasing their tails around imagining they're smarter by half than those of us who really do know how to solve Differential Equations.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2017
Hi RNP, Da Schneib, Steelwolf, Whyde. :)

First please read my post in:

https://phys.org/...html#jCp

In part:
...Galactic dynamics follows closely the ORDINARY matter concentrations/dynamics; which means any 'exotic' DM woud be distributed co-moving/colocated with ORDINARY matter. But we DON'T SEE any great additional NON-ordinary mass effects spread through the galaxy! Now it's supposed to be concentrated in the galactic nucleus region! But we still don't see any extreme gravitational mass/dynamics there either!...other than black hole, nucleus stars/plasma/dust! IF there was 4 TIMES ADDITIONAL MASS ANYWHERE in our galaxy, GR dynamics would be EXTREME. STOP IT!
So, again, @RNP/@Da Schneib: Where IS this 'exotic' DM which YOU still 'believe' is 'there' in close association with the Ordinary dark/visible Baryon etc matter?

You can't have it 'both ways' (85% MORE matter (as 'exotic' DM) would produce EXTREME grav/motions!) :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2017
PS @RNP, @Da Schneib: Being dismissive and ignoring the points made because you cannot make a logical counterpoint is not a scientific/gentlemanly way to conduct science discourse. It only reinforces the general impression that you are biased and ego-entrained in your 'beliefs' rather than listening and properly answering those questions which may be 'uncomfortable' to you and your 'beliefs'. If you really want to promote the cause of science and humanity objectivity and fairness, then please don't default to such underhand, double-standard and plainly 'weasely' tactics, like pretending to dismiss/ignore those awkward questions using the patently self-serving and made-up 'excuse' that your questioner is "lying" or is "ignorant" etc....especially when it becomes clear that YOU are the ones "lying" or "ignorant"...because you repeatedly fail to UPDATE YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE....and instead bring INSULTS instead of LOGICAL counter arguments.

Stop the insults/evasions please. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2017
Benni created that screen, just to see if he could clog up the system..
.........exactly right Why Guy

Just a rumor...
Yeah, yeah, I know, it's not considered clogging up the system with posts like this:
...I created an account specifically to call Benni a cunt.
So, yeah. Benni, you're a cunt

You're system got clogged. Everybody else is just fine.
you think this is an enhancement to the system, along with the Sewer vote.

Personally, I'm on septic...
(if ya want it done right, do it yerself...)
... any manner of pseudo-science they want to pass on from the Pop-Sci culture which exonerates itself from EVIDENCE.

Actually, speculation BASED on available evidence...
smarter by half than those of us who really do know how to solve Differential Equations.

You mean - the half that you're not in... right?
No worries, Benni, I don't use them, either...:-)
Doesn't mean I can't.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2017
PS @RNP, @Da Schneib: Being dismissive and ignoring the points made because you cannot make a logical counterpoint is not a scientific/gentlemanly way to conduct science discourse. It only reinforces the general impression that you are biased and ego-entrained in your 'beliefs' ... because you repeatedly fail to UPDATE YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE....and instead bring INSULTS instead of LOGICAL counter arguments.

RC,
Quit being such a girl and telling people how to do what they do to move their own perceptions forward...
It only causes backlash...
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2017
You mean - the half that you're not in... right?
Right, I can solve Differential Equations, they can't.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
Being dismissive and ignoring the points made because you cannot make a logical counterpoint is not a scientific/gentlemanly way to conduct science discourse. It only reinforces the general impression that you are biased and ego-entrained in your 'beliefs' ... because you repeatedly fail to UPDATE YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE....and instead bring INSULTS instead of LOGICAL counter arguments.
RC,
Quit being such a girl and telling people how to do what they do to move their own perceptions forward...
It only causes backlash..
Can you explain your 'logic' there, mate? You call me a "girl" because I reminded them what the Scientific Method requires? CLUE: its NOT personal insults, evasions, double-standards, bot-votes etc (or is it, by your logics?).

ALSO: Is your 'logic' to keep silent/do nothing; thereby tacitly excuse/enable/encourage stalkers/trolls/bot-voters NOT PRACTICING Science/Humanity objectivity/fairness ON A SCIENCE site? Scared of 'backlash'? :)
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2017
...
ALSO: Is your 'logic' to keep silent/do nothing; thereby tacitly excuse/enable/encourage stalkers/trolls/bot-voters NOT PRACTICING Science/Humanity objectivity/fairness ON A SCIENCE site? Scared of 'backlash'? :)

Apologies.... Quit RE-acting like a girl and ...
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2017
Whyde.

Be brave, mate. Don't cowtow to 'gangs' because you fear 'backlash'. What is life/science FOR but to struggle AGAINST such anti-science/anti-humanity forces? If everyone was like you, we'd still be in the stone age living in fear and ignorance! That's the reaction those 'gangs' are counting on from the suckers/weak....too afraid to speak up/act against their malignant stupidity and gang mentality! Rise up, Whyde! If you are going to 'suffer' in life (which is unavoidable anyway), you may as well be 'suffering' for doing the Right Thing rather than for doing the Wrong Thing (which includes silence/inaction in the face of anti-science/anti-humanity activity by stalkers, trolls, bot-voters and just plain Internet Losers 'gangs' who ruin everything they touch while professing to be 'better' than those they attack/troll: which they aren't, they are worse, because they demean science principles and discussion ethics). Speak up against such wherever/whenever, Whyde! :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2017
You mean - the half that you're not in... right?
Right, I can solve Differential Equations, they can't.

Sorry. Benni.
At this point I'm not even sure you know what a DE actually is, much less solve them....
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2017
Whyde.

Be brave, mate. Don't cowtow to 'gangs' because you fear 'backlash'. What is life/science FOR but to struggle AGAINST such anti-science/anti-humanity forces? If everyone was like you, we'd still be in the stone age living in fear and ignorance! That's the reaction those 'gangs' are counting on from the suckers/weak....too afraid to speak up/act against their malignant stupidity and gang mentality! ... while professing to be 'better' than those they attack/troll: which they aren't, they are worse, because they demean science principles and discussion ethics). Speak up against such wherever/whenever, Whyde! :)

You misjudge (ergo, misvalue, as part of the equation) my selected vantage point...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2017
You mean - the half that you're not in... right?
Right, I can solve Differential Equations, they can't.

Prove it.
(And solve the one Da Schneib keeps presenting you...)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
You misjudge (ergo, misvalue, as part of the equation) my selected vantage point...:-)
How so, mate? Your exchanging '5' votes with known 'gang' of bot-voters, trolls, stalkers, feedback/discourse saboteurs and insults merchants speaks OBJECTIVELY for itself. No 'interpretation' by me needed! Your own words make it plain you fear 'backlash'; that is a cowards "selected vantage point", isn't it?

Your 'reward' for being a coward, staying silent/inactive, cowtowing and 'going along with' that 'gang' activity: you get '5' while the brave/objective posters get '1' from them AND FROM YOU; because you are AFRAID of NOT 'going along' with that gang's BOT-downvoting, nasty attacks/stalks/trolls against their victims.

IF there was a misunderstanding re your own words/position, Whyde, then THIS is the moment when you should make it CRYSTAL CLEAR where you stand:

Do you want 5's from that gang? Are you in fear of backlash' of 1's from that gang?

Please clarify. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2017
@Whyde, now back to the topic/physics in question. :)

Speaking of unanswered questions, mate (forget Benni for the moment), can YOU explain why RNP and Da Schneib have YET to answer the question I put to them in the post I made to them and you earlier? Until they can answer that question they have no leg to stand on to criticize others (be those others Benni or Steelwolf et al).

Can YOU answer that question for them, Whyde? Here it is again:
o, again, @RNP/@Da Schneib: Where IS this 'exotic' DM which YOU still 'believe' is 'there' in close association with the Ordinary dark/visible Baryon etc matter?

You can't have it 'both ways' (85% MORE matter (as 'exotic' DM) would produce EXTREME grav/motions!)


If you haven't read all the context, please go back and do so before responding. Thanks. :)
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
You misjudge (ergo, misvalue, as part of the equation) my selected vantage point...:-)
How so, mate? Your exchanging '5' votes with known 'gang' of bot-voters, trolls, stalkers, feedback/discourse saboteurs and insults merchants speaks OBJECTIVELY for itself. No 'interpretation' by me needed! Your own words make it plain you fear 'backlash'; that is a cowards "selected vantage point", isn't it?

...

IF there was a misunderstanding re your own words/position, Whyde, then THIS is the moment when you should make it CRYSTAL CLEAR where you stand:

Do you want 5's from that gang? Are you in fear of backlash' of 1's from that gang?
Please clarify. :)

Nice try, but, -no go....
Now you're trying to be like a Jewish grandmother, guilting me an' all....
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
Hi Whyde. :)
You misjudge (ergo, misvalue, as part of the equation) my selected vantage point...:-)
How so, mate? Your exchanging '5' votes with known 'gang' of bot-voters, trolls, stalkers, feedback/discourse saboteurs and insults merchants speaks OBJECTIVELY for itself. No 'interpretation' by me needed! Your own words make it plain you fear 'backlash'; that is a cowards "selected vantage point", isn't it?

IF there was a misunderstanding re your own words/position, Whyde, then THIS is the moment when you should make it CRYSTAL CLEAR where you stand:

Do you want 5's from that gang? Are you in fear of backlash' of 1's from that gang? Now you're bing a Jewish grandmother, guilting me an' all....

Please clarify. :)

Nice try, but, -no go....
So you ARE a coward? You just squibbed your chance to clarify where the "misvalue" was regarding your "selected vantage point"! How lame is that, mate? And you pretend to call ME "girl"! :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2017
@Whyde, now back to the topic/physics in question. :)
...
Can YOU answer that question for them, Whyde? Here it is again:
o, again,
@RNP/@Da Schneib: Where IS this 'exotic' DM which YOU still 'believe' is 'there' in close association with the Ordinary dark/visible Baryon etc matter?


If you haven't read all the context, please go back and do so before responding. Thanks. :)

I'm a MOND guy...:-) who thinks there is matter out there that we don't have the observational resolution to see - yet...
Some people call them hydrinos, I call them lower charged....
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2017
Nice try, but, -no go....
So you ARE a coward? You just squibbed your chance to clarify where the "misvalue" was regarding your "selected vantage point"! How lame is that, mate? And you pretend to call ME "girl"! :)

You are a girl.
I'm a full grown "woman"...;-)
(with all the male equipment, too)
Big difference...:-)
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2017
I'm a full grown "woman"...;-)
(with all the male equipment, too)
Big difference...:-)


Which sex public bathroom do you use?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
@RNP/@Da Schneib: Where IS this 'exotic' DM which YOU still 'believe' is 'there' in close association with the Ordinary dark/visible Baryon etc matter?

I'm a MOND guy...:-) who thinks there is matter out there that we don't have the observational resolution to see - yet...
Then you are at least two steps ahead of those other two, mate; in that YOUR 'extra mass' is ORDINARY stuff! Although MOND is not really any sort of 'explanation', but a 'fitting' of the maths to observed motions; and hence no better than "exotic" DM is.

In any case, you have answered bravely on the science question/logics put; which is more than the other two have!

But again, LOGICAL/SCIENTIFIC POINT REMAINS: IF there was 85% MORE matter (whether 'exotic' OR 'ordinary') supposedly CLOSELY associated with observed Baryonic distribution, then WHY isn't our galaxy's gravitational dynamics/motions MUCH MORE EXTREME than what is observed!

"Exotic' DM can't have it both ways. :)

Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2017
WHY isn't our galaxy's gravitational dynamics/motions MUCH MORE EXTREME than what is observed!


........because our galaxy isn't set far enough into DEEP SPACE.

What's the matter with you RC, don't you know it is only the DEEP SPACE galaxies that contain Cosmic Fairy Dust? Why would you expect DM Enthusiasts to look within a Spiral galaxy exactly of the type where Zwicky said we are most likely to find DM ?

Of course you know where DEEP SPACE is located don't you? Therefore the Milky Way can't be in it or asstro-physicists would have already declared where they have discovered our galactic Cosmic Fairy Dust.

Gosh, I feel so lonely residing here in this weird MW galaxy where what we see is what we get.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2017
LOGICAL/SCIENTIFIC POINT REMAINS: IF there was 85% MORE matter (whether 'exotic' OR 'ordinary') supposedly CLOSELY associated with observed Baryonic distribution, then WHY isn't our galaxy's gravitational dynamics/motions MUCH MORE EXTREME than what is observed!
"Exotic' DM can't have it both ways. :)

Density variation. We "see" most of the matter in our own vicinity. Farther away, not so much.
Common sense rule of thumb is the 2/3rds rule.
Oh. And it ain't 85%, it's 27% (roughly)...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2017
Somebody (and I ain't pointin' any fingers here...) forgot to consider volumetrics in the mix...
Maybe cuz they like the idea of space being even bigger than it already is, or maybe they fell for the Universe's (3d) version of a shell game...
BTW. Space isn't expanding, it's MOVING. In 3 orthogonally different vectors - a spin.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2017
WHY isn't our galaxy's gravitational dynamics/motions MUCH MORE EXTREME than what is observed!


........because our galaxy isn't set far enough into DEEP SPACE.

What's the matter with you RC, don't you know it is only the DEEP SPACE galaxies ...

Hate to admit it, But you're kinda right.
Know how we see mirages up ahead in a hot desert or on a long stretch o' highway?
Same effect., except it's a combo of Gravity and magnetism(plus a wee bit o' 'lectricity as a "catalyst"), not temperature gradients...

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

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