Ionized molecules trace galactic outflows

Ionized molecules trace galactic outflows
The galaxy Markarian 231, the nearest quasar to Earth, as seen by the Hubble Space Telescope. The galaxy is the product of a merger between two galaxies. Astronomers have discovered the signatures of the ionized molecules OH+ and H2O+ in its massive outflow and argue that shock-induced cosmic rays are responsible for their ionization. Credit: NASA, ESA, the Hubble Heritage Team STScI/AURA-ESA/Hubble Collaboration, and A. Evans University of Virginia, Charlottesville/NRAO/Stony Brook University

There is a process at work in most galaxies that affects both the central black hole mass as well as the galaxy's global velocity structure and luminosity. Astronomers suspect that feedback of some kind is involved, and one popular mechanism is outflowing gas. The outflow would deplete a galaxy of the raw material needed both for making new stars and for enhancing the black hole's mass.

The first evidence for molecular outflows was discovered by an infrared satellite about twenty years ago: the molecule OH showed outflowing motions of thousands of kilometers a second in its far infrared emission lines. The Herschel Space Observatory recently followed up those detections in great detail, finding that in some extreme cases powerful outflows carry over a thousand solar-masses per year and have the power of a hundred billion Suns - a few percent of the total luminous energy of the galaxy.

CfA astronomers Eduardo Gonzalez-Alfonso, Matt Ashby, and Howard Smith have now discovered that the ionized molecule OH+ traces hot gas in these outflows and also (probably) from the torus of material thought to ring the black hole. The scientists led a team that reduced and modeled three far infrared lines of OH+ and one of the ionized water molecule H2O+ in the galaxy Markarian 231. The lines confirm much of the diagnostics from the neutral molecular gas analyses; the most curious result, however, was the huge abundance of the ionized material, nearly 10% of the neutral gas.

The scientists are unable to explain the presence of so much ionized material either with hot, ultraviolet-emitting stars or with X-rays – it requires ten thousand times the excitation that is present in the Milky Way galaxy. They argue instead that cosmic rays are responsible, energized by repeated acceleration in shock fronts from star formation or similar processes. One additional implication is that strong shocks must be active in the galaxy and should have be responsible for other observable phenomena like the heating of other gas.


Explore further

Imaging a galaxy's molecular outflow

More information: Outflowing OH+ in Markarian 231: the ionization rate of the molecular gas. lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1803.04690
Citation: Ionized molecules trace galactic outflows (2018, March 26) retrieved 22 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-03-ionized-molecules-galactic-outflows.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.
106 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 26, 2018
It is quite amusing how just about every single observation results in "surprise". The models don't work, the observations don't match theory etc... It's what happens to plasma ignoramuses who can't grasp electric plasma processes.

Mar 26, 2018
The scientists are unable to explain the presence of so much ionized material either with hot, ultraviolet-emitting stars or with X-rays – it requires ten thousand times the excitation that is present in the Milky Way galaxy. They argue instead that cosmic rays are responsible, energized by repeated acceleration in shock fronts from star formation or similar processes.

Superwave ejections of cosmic rays emanating from the galactic core, as predicted in LaViolette's Continuous Creation model, and the cause of the last ice age and the current illumination of the Crab Nebula. Such a passing superwave alters the balance of dust density within our solar system and the radiative balance from the sun on the Earth.

Mar 26, 2018
]
Superwave ejections of cosmic rays emanating from the galactic core, as predicted in LaViolette's Continuous Creation model, and the cause of the last ice age and the current illumination of the Crab Nebula. Such a passing superwave alters the balance of dust density within our solar system and the radiative balance from the sun on the Earth.

http://www.dharma...f-the-c/
Just as in the title of the article, a myth... go find some real science please.

Mar 26, 2018
It is quite amusing how just about every single observation results in "surprise". The models don't work, the observations don't match theory etc... It's what happens to plasma ignoramuses who can't grasp electric plasma processes.


It is quite surprising (not) that your mythology cult has predicted absolutely nothing correctly, and doesn't even have a qualified plasma physicist in its ranks.

Mar 26, 2018
Considering that these are HUGE streams of Ionized molecules, in a stream of motion they are actually representative of an electrical current. I predict they can detect the magnetic fields coming from such.

If the galaxies in collission are expelling Positive (OH+ and H2O+) Ions, then the net effect would be a great Negative charge for the conjoined galaxies. Thus a pull on anything Positive, and push against other negative charge items. Space is huge, and time is long, magnetics are stronger over the long run than gravity.

I hear people use the excuse that plasma is basically neutral. Well, so is a battery until you connect the anode to cathode, we see plasma discharges due to local disruptions in the balance of ionic flow, often caused by excessive friction, such as with storms and lightning. Yet that came from a 'Neutral' system too, according to denialists.

Plasma and Valence differences are the drivers of Chemistry. Perhaps Cosmologists should cross study there for a bit.

Mar 26, 2018
Plasma and Valence differences are the drivers of Chemistry. Perhaps Cosmologists should cross study there for a bit.


What current? How would we detect a current over the vast distances that EUists believe happens? Look it up. And then have a look at what is actually seen. In short, it has been looked at. How do you think we get all-sky maps, such as that from WMAP, Planck, COBE etc?
In addition, the streams are of mostly neutral atoms and molecules. If the neutrals are co-moving with the ions, what does that tell you? What will happen to an ion (or electron) in a current, or magnetic field? What will happen to a neutral?
Finally, what is the magnetic field strength of a galaxy? What does that tell you?


Mar 26, 2018
This article along with many other studies and observations all show a very similar trend, which is an OUTFLOW of gas/material/plasma/whatever-you-wanna-call-it. Key word is outflow. If these were actually currents passing between galaxies and such, where is the incoming current/flow?
Also, as I have asked many times before:
What is the source of the circuit?
What is the sink of the circuit?

Mar 26, 2018
Where is the sink in a Battery, where is the sink for the Earth's Electrical Potentials? What is the sun's overall actual charge? We KNOW solar wind is charged, and the particles moving too fast in respect to each other to recombine chemically. This there is a deep anisotrphy across the whole domain, where is the charge for Lightning, where did it come from, are the processes in a lower density system any different than that in a denser atmosphere?

You folks point to all kinds of studies, like one on BHs on another thread, where one person links a work, that KEEPS STATING that BH's may Not Exist, yet uses it as his proof that even the authors keep stating there is NO DEFINITIVE PROOF for them, but a LOT of circumstantial evidence.

That and your constant ad homenim attacks show you folks to be dumber than the rocks you are made of.

Mar 26, 2018
Besides, since a lot of ions are produced thru energetic cosmic ray and gamma ray interactions with atoms/molecules that give them the different energy levels, the electrons are pushed out of the area via light pressure, and thus you are left with one cloud of ions with a Pos charge, and another, disassociated cloud of electrons. Note, there are several articles on emmissions from electron streams giving of cyclotronic radiation...which is caused by electrons orbiting rapidly in a strong magnetic field. So, there is at least one current, the Relativistic jets are more electrical current.

You anti EU/Plasma Universe folks keep shooting yerself in the foot, and then sticking said foot in yer mouth.You misinterpret data and cherry pick, and then use adhomeneim attacks when someone presses their (often correct) points.


Mar 26, 2018
We KNOW solar wind is charged....


What charge is it?

....and the particles moving too fast in respect to each other to recombine chemically.


Really? You actually got something right! Why not tell that to Thornhill, who suggested that the H2O at comets was due to solar wind H+ combining with non-existent cometary O-, to form OH, which stupid scientists were mistaking for H2O.

What is the sun's overall actual charge?


Not a lot. It can't be. ~70 Coulombs, from memory. In which direction and at what speed are SW electrons moving? And the ions? What does that tell you?

....where is the charge for Lightning, where did it come from....


Due to charge build-up in clouds, and a breakdown of a dielectric medium (air).

.....are the processes in a lower density system any different than that in a denser atmosphere?


Yes.

Mar 26, 2018
@Steelwolf:
-we manually insulate two halves of a battery, and FORCE one side to be positively charged, the other to be negatively charged. Not sure what your point is there....
-Solar wind is neutral, containing charged particles summing to net-neutral. Otherwise the sun would be gaining a net charge in one direction.
-Lightning is due to a measurable separation of charge across clouds, and the sudden "equalization" of that difference, which sometimes equalizes with Earth instead of cloud to cloud.... again, not sure what your point is.

Mar 26, 2018
Electrons also move in metal wires, even with AC current, so, since the copper is neutral there should be no current, acording to jd thinking. You people all think way too small. And think everyone else is smaller than you.

You act like a bunch of (for example) Republican Backwoods Hardliners that refuse to even possibly read the info of other parties as "It Might Infect You". Come up to speed, they are finding daily that the Universe is (as has been stated for decades) run mostly by plasma processes and that we cannot discount the MHD and Magnetic, thus electrical potential of the Universe. To exclude these areas of study, as a knejerk reaction, to the point you misinterpret data, is seriusly hurting yourselves and the rest of the sciene community.

EVERYTHING depends on Electrical and Plasma interactions, including gravity which is in fact that the charge of all neutrons is NOT neutral, and thus exerts a pull we CALL gravitational, when it is just the sum of mismatch charges.

Mar 26, 2018
Note, there are several articles on emmissions from electron streams giving of cyclotronic radiation...which is caused by electrons orbiting rapidly in a strong magnetic field.


Links to the papers, please. Especially the ones for these hard to detect intergalactic currents proposed by Peratt. He predicted they'd be there, and we can't find them.

Mar 26, 2018
Electrons also move in metal wires, even with AC current, so, since the copper is neutral there should be no current, acording to jd thinking.


So, what is the measured current in the solar wind? We've been sending out spacecraft with the capability of measuring such things for decades. Where is the data? Covered up? Lol.


Mar 26, 2018
EVERYTHING depends on Electrical and Plasma interactions, including gravity which is in fact that the charge of all neutrons is NOT neutral, and thus exerts a pull we CALL gravitational, when it is just the sum of mismatch charges.


Lol. So much stupid in that, it's hard to know where to begin! If gravity is something to do with charge, what happens when the charge on an object changes, as it orbits another object? What happens in reality? Dear me.


Mar 26, 2018
The point is that the very same things that work here on earth, magnetically and electrically, also happen on huge scales, we see electrical discharge across parsecs worth of intergalactic filaments due to heat differences and magnetic field polarity changes to the light passing thru em.

Lighting happens on galactic scale too, perhaps more diffuse than we would prefer to observe, but since we are still learning so much about BH's, Accretion disc mechanics and the recent modeling of disc-to-jet flows, show there is a LOT more electrical activity going on thanyou seem to think. Even many of the papers you site to try to debunk Cantdrive, you step on yerself time and time again because the papers do NOT say what you translate them to.

A bunch of anti-real science, paid trolls here, trying to keep the paradigm away from electrogravitation and magnetogravitation, as well as gravitoelectric systems and gravitomagnetic beams etc.

And yes, I have seen some of these in operation.

Mar 26, 2018
The point is that the very same things that work here on earth, magnetically and electrically, also happen on huge scales, we see electrical discharge across parsecs worth of intergalactic filaments due to heat differences and magnetic field polarity changes to the light passing thru em.


No we don't.


Mar 26, 2018
At:
https://arxiv.org...6698.pdf

Try looking at the picture in page 2 and READ the Caption, it is Very Clear in what it is saying:

Mar 26, 2018
Lighting happens on galactic scale too..


No, it doesn't. Proof, please.

Mar 26, 2018
At:
https://arxiv.org...6698.pdf

Try looking at the picture in page 2 and READ the Caption, it is Very Clear in what it is saying:


Yes, we know, and have done for some decades, that BHs produce relativistic jets which have currents. As 691 said, they are heading in the wrong direction for your woo. If they are as easy to spot as that, why don't we see them connecting galaxies?

Mar 26, 2018
We manage to see massive magnetic fields parsecs across due to the way they change the polarization of the light passing thru, this is a WELL known fact, Happens to be known as the Faraday Effect and for you to not even know that JD, shows ya need to STUDY instead of just Troll for a living

Check out:

And https://arxiv.org.../0608701

https://arxiv.org...02.02046

Mar 26, 2018
Check out:
https://arxiv.org...02.02046


And what am I supposed to be seeing in there? I searched for 'magnetic', and I searched for 'polarisation', and I searched for 'current'. Zilch.

Mar 26, 2018
We manage to see massive magnetic fields parsecs across due to the way they change the polarization of the light passing thru, this is a WELL known fact.


In which case you shouldn't have any problem linking a relevant paper. And by relevant, I mean you are going to need more than a magnetic field to perform the woo to which you subscribe.


Mar 26, 2018
You mean you missed the title:
The alignment of satellite galaxies and cosmic filaments: How galaxies and their satellites are formed along huge intergalactic filaments, with BH jets all facing similar directions (earlier studies show this)

Mar 26, 2018
A quick bit on the Faraday effect in Cosmology, taken from Wiki, but has the basics, I excluded the equatons, but the text here says plenty:

Faraday rotation is an important tool in astronomy for the measurement of magnetic fields, which can be estimated from rotation measures given a knowledge of the electron number density. In the case of radio pulsars, the dispersion caused by these electrons results in a time delay between pulses received at different wavelengths, which can be measured in terms of the electron column density, or dispersion measure. A measurement of both the dispersion measure and the rotation measure therefore yields the weighted mean of the magnetic field along the line of sight. The same information can be obtained from objects other than pulsars, if the dispersion measure can be estimated based on reasonable guesses about the propagation path length and typical electron densities.
(contd)

Mar 26, 2018
You mean you missed the title:
The alignment of satellite galaxies and cosmic filaments: How galaxies and their satellites are formed along huge intergalactic filaments, with BH jets all facing similar directions (earlier studies show this)


And........................?

Mar 26, 2018
(Cont)
In particular, Faraday rotation measurements of polarized radio signals from extragalactic radio sources occulted by the solar corona can be used to estimate both the electron density distribution and the direction and strength of the magnetic field in the coronal plasma.

OBVIOUSLY JD does not WANT to Learn, just Troll, back to ignore you go, fool.

Mar 26, 2018
(Cont)
In particular, Faraday rotation measurements of polarized radio signals from extragalactic radio sources occulted by the solar corona can be used to estimate both the electron density distribution and the direction and strength of the magnetic field in the coronal plasma.

OBVIOUSLY JD does not WANT to Learn, just Troll, back to ignore you go, fool.


So what? What is your point? This is all well known stuff, performed by real scientists, not Velikovskian woo merchants peddling mumbo-jumbo.

Mar 26, 2018
If it is well known stuff, then Why are you NOT applying it?

Or do you take each paper separate and never bother to connect the dots between them, as REAL Scientists do. If that is all you do then it is no wonder all you can do is short line, ad homeniem trolling.

Mar 26, 2018
Hmmmm, those are filaments of dark matter.

Just sayin'.

Mar 26, 2018
Hmmmm, those are filaments of dark matter.

Just sayin'.

LOL, just moronin'. The real matter is detectable and seen. Polarization and all agreeing with said electric currents. No DM seen or detected, just implied by plasma ignoramuses.

Mar 26, 2018
Two words: gravitational lensing.

Maybe you forgot, @cantthink69.

Mar 26, 2018
If it is well known stuff, then Why are you NOT applying it?

Or do you take each paper separate and never bother to connect the dots between them, as REAL Scientists do. If that is all you do then it is no wonder all you can do is short line, ad homeniem trolling.


Well, then, why not link us to where real scientists have found intergalactic currents to...............do whatever you think they're doing. I am merely pointing out that no such things have been found. If you think they have, then link to it. Not to something completely different which you have managed to misunderstand.

Mar 26, 2018
Two words: gravitational lensing.

Maybe you forgot, @cantthink69.

Two words: plasma lensing.

You've been enlightened already.

Mar 26, 2018
Just makin' stuff up again, aren't you, @cantthink69?

Considering you didn't have anything further to say on the other two threads, I assume this is just more trolling.

Mar 26, 2018
Looked up plasma lensing. Other than on thunderdolts sites, it's apparently used for focusing electron beams in particle accelerators. Makes sense; plasma can't affect uncharged particles with its local charge. Which is duh.

Mar 26, 2018
Let's put it this way: we see galaxy clusters. We don't see the cosmic web directly, but we see gravitational lensing of background objects that defines filaments we can't see in light (and by "light" here I mean broadband EM, from radio to gamma) coming from these filaments that connect clusters and superclusters of galaxies. Looks like dark matter to me. It's certainly not bright matter or we'd be able to see it, duhhh ummmm. Some Japanese guys did a lensing study of local (by which is meant "within a billion light years or so") filamentary structure, and there was an article on here about it.

Mar 26, 2018
Oh look, here's the article: https://phys.org/...ark.html

You were last claiming that magnetic fields just disappear into nowhere when the generating current stops. It's obvious to anyone who thinks about the speed of light being finite that this cannot happen. Magnetic fields will continue to propagate outward at the speed of light long after the current is gone. They don't just magically disappear into nothing.

And of course after that major boner you scurried off to the cracks at the edge of the kitchen floor like always, @cockroach69.

Mar 26, 2018
Mainstream paper which acknowledges plasma lensing. I bet you're old, done with all of your learning.

https://www.googl...wkiR8ge9

Mar 26, 2018
Yes, and it's frequency dependent. You apparently missed that part: [qIn particular, the gravitational deflection itself, in a homogeneous plasma without refraction, differs from the vacuum one and depends on the frequency of the photon. It's right there in the abstract. You can see that on the image, if it's a broadband image. In fact they go on after the quote to describe chromatic effects, which are extremely narrow-band, affecting one color of visible light differently than another.

You're lying again, @cantthink69. Gravitational lensing is frequency independent. The difference is easy to see. In fact, that's the entire point of the paper you linked; how to differentiate and correct for plasma lensing effects as opposed to gravitational lensing effects.

Isn't it embarrassing to get pwnt with your own reference? You might want to read them first, assuming of course you even understand what they say, which is doubtful.

Mar 26, 2018
Quote got screwed up. Here's the exact quote from the paper:
In particular, the gravitational deflection itself, in a homogeneous plasma without refraction, differs from the vacuum one and depends on the frequency of the photon.

Mar 27, 2018
No, I'm not embarrassed in the least. I pointed to a process you said was not possible. And there are a great many assumptions and unaccounted for effects of much stronger EM fields in the central portions of the filaments than what is mentioned in the paper.

Mar 27, 2018
No, I'm not embarrassed in the least. I pointed to a process you said was not possible. And there are a great many assumptions and unaccounted for effects of much stronger EM fields in the central portions of the filaments than what is mentioned in the paper.


Well, then you should have read it properly, and maybe checked out some of the references therein:

In general, the extra deflection angle due to plasma is several orders of magnitude smaller than the gravitational deflection. Only in the case of a high-density plasma and low-frequency radio observation (e.g. a few hundred MHz), it is possible to detect the plasma lensing effects.


Effects of plasma on gravitational lensing
Xinzhong Er, Shude Mao
https://academic..../1024645

Mar 27, 2018
I pointed to a process you said was not possible.

And what process, precisely, is that, and you will quote where I said it or you're just lying again.


Mar 27, 2018
I pointed to a process you said was not possible.

And what process, precisely, is that, and you will quote where I said it or you're just lying again.

Plasma lensing.

@ da schnied;
"plasma can't affect uncharged particles with its local charge. Which is duh."

Duh...

Mar 27, 2018
Point to where this has been done in the lab. Lets see a scholarly paper on it. That should be simple enough even for you, @cantthink69.

Mar 27, 2018
Hey, cantthink, do you know what 'several orders of magnitude' means? One order of magnitude is 10x. Two orders of magnitude is 100 times. So what, in your excuse for a brain, might 'several' orders of magnitude mean? I know; it's maths, and you guys are crap at that, but at least try to pay attention, eh?

Mar 27, 2018
So, let's sum, up the EU loons;
Can't do maths. Probably got a chip on their collective shoulder about that.
Probably had the p*** taken out of them at school for being thick, and unable to understand very basic maths and science.
Interweb got invented, and equally thick loons like Thornhill and Talbott starting posting their woo. Aforementioned loons catch on to this, because a) it doesn't involve maths (which they are incapable of anyway), and b) doesn't involve anything more than learning a bit of Velikovskian woo, and parroting phrases from people like Alfven. Even when they are taken out of context. And even though he knew Jack **** compared to modern plasma physicists. Take Falthammar, for example. Left him behind, wondering about some cosmogonic woo, and Saturn's rings.
Of course, if any of these loons were actually doing any work, and publishing on these matters, we might give it some headroom. However, they don't. All talk, no trousers. A complete irrelevance.

Mar 27, 2018
Galaxies have the equivalent of the suns solar wind

This is hardly surprising, ionised molecules are the same as cosmic rays which come from the stars in the galaxies.

LET'S make it into a Calamites Disaster, What with light radius stars sucking the very stars into oblivion and ejecting half the mass they take in out of the galaxy in their spin axis outflows and stars ejecting ionised molecules; The very matter of the galaxy is diminishing in galactic out flows, the theory that galaxies are 13.8billion years is looking very unlikely as they would have evaporated billions of years ago!

Mar 27, 2018
Light radius stars spin axis outflows certainly puts hawking radiation in perspective. May he rest in peace.

Mar 27, 2018
....the theory that galaxies are 13.8billion years is looking very unlikely as they would have evaporated billions of years ago!


Really? Show us your calculations.

Mar 27, 2018
The emerging theory of Galactic outflows and blackhole spin axis outflows

The "emerging theory" of "Galactic outflows and blackhole spin axis outflows" ejecting half the mass absorbed into Fermi Bubbles, galaxies evaporating mass is still in its infancy of observation, exact numerical figure are as yet to determined but it is clear the writing is on the wall, the blackholes are swallowing whole galaxies ejecting half the mass of the galaxy out of reach while retaining half inside its light radius beyond reach, with stars evaporating mass in galactic outflows. had we not pointed are telescopes at the molecular outflows the galaxies would have remained as they have been for 13.8billion years but now we're seeing millions of galaxies evaporating the galaxies are in a perilous position!
....the theory that galaxies are 13.8billion years is looking very unlikely as they would have evaporated billions of years ago!
Really? Show us your calculations.


Mar 27, 2018
Galactic outflows evaporate galaxies in 700million years

To answer your question jonesdave; The galaxies stars are evaporating mass at the rate of 2million m/s ejecting a thousand solar-masses per year = 2x10+33kg/year +kinetic energy = 4x10+45J to accelerate a year's worth of stars. The galaxy at 700billion solar mass's / 1000solar mass's a year = 700million years so at the rate given in this article jonesdave, without including blackhole outflows, galaxies evaporate in 700million years, I think this goes to answering your question somewhat!

....the theory that galaxies are 13.8billion years is looking very unlikely as they would have evaporated billions of years ago!


jonesdave:- Really? Show us your calculations.


Mar 27, 2018
The outflows are part of a circuit, the return flow enters at the galactic/stellar plane of the galaxy/star. As diagrammed by Alfvén.
https://www.resea...85991555

Mar 27, 2018
So no lab experiments, and you haven't got any answer for it being several orders of magnitude too weak and frequency dependent.

Because if you did, you'd already have posted it here.

Just stop making stuff up, @cantthink69. This is always where you're going to wind up.

Mar 27, 2018
Galactic life expectancy of 700million years

I think you would agree jonesdave the "The emerging theory of Galactic outflows and blackhole spin axis outflows" is no longer an emerging theory, but a well established matter of fact with plenty of meat on the bones, even though the theory only emerged into realisation with the publication of this article, it has grown and blossomed into maturity with time, just as the realisation the galaxies evaporate their stars in 700million years into the vacuum of space where new galaxies are formed with a life expectancy of 700million years.

....the theory that galaxies are 13.8billion years is looking very unlikely as they would have evaporated billions of years ago!


Really? Show us your calculations.


Mar 27, 2018
They form a new cloud out of which a new galaxy forms

The outflows are moving at a velocity of 2million m/s, they are escaping the gravitational escape velocity of the galaxy, their certainly not going to return. Their destiny is into the vacuum of space where they form a new cloud out of which a new galaxy forms every 700million years
.

cantdrive85:- The outflows are part of a circuit, the return flow enters at the galactic/stellar plane of the galaxy/star. As diagrammed by Alfvén.
https://www.resea...85991555


Mar 27, 2018
Where are these lab experiments proving your magical magnetic monopole at the ends of your open field lines da schnied? You're claiming I am making stuff up... Your Nobel is waiting da schnied.

Mar 27, 2018
Yeah, you got nothin'.

Now you're trying to change the subject to avoid admitting it, @cantthink69.

There's no further point to this. It's not worthwhile arguing with a liar.

Mar 27, 2018
The cosmic particles are fully documented

With galaxies ejecting the mass of a 1000stars a year at 2million m/s with 700billion stars/1000stars a year giving a galactic lifespan of 700million years who needs lab experiments! This is an observation, the galactic outflows are ions which are cosmic particles which emanates from all stars where the mechanism for cosmic particles is fully documented.

Da Schneib;- So no lab experiments, and you haven't got any answer for it being several orders of magnitude too weak and frequency dependent.

Because if you did, you'd already have posted it here.

Just stop making stuff up, @cantthink69. This is always where you're going to wind up.


Mar 27, 2018
The outflows are part of a circuit, the return flow enters at the galactic/stellar plane of the galaxy/star. As diagrammed by Alfvén.
https://www.resea...85991555


Let's be honest - Alfven didn't know s*** about cosmology, and made himself look stupid on more than one occasion when trying to deal with it. So let's forget that crap, yes? He was clueless in that regard.

Mar 27, 2018
Alfven was an embittered outsider
Alfvén's work was disputed for years senior scientist in space physics, the British mathematician and geophysicist Sydney Chapman. Alfvén's disagreements with Chapman stemmed from trouble with peer review systems. Alfvén rarely benefited from the acceptance generally afforded senior scientists in scientific journals. Submitted a paper on the theory of magnetic storms and auroras to the American journal Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity only to have his paper rejected on the ground that it did not agree with the theoretical calculations of conventional physics. Regarded as a person with unorthodox opinions in the field by many physicists, R. H. Stuewer noting that " he remained an embittered outsider, winning little respect from other scientists even after he received the Nobel Prizea was often forced to publish his papers in obscure journals. Alfvén recalled: https://en.wikipe...v%C3%A9n

Mar 27, 2018
Scientist's continue their embittered arguments on Alfven's grave!

Alfven was an embittered outsider seems to mirror its intellectual embittered arguments with conventional physics through the centuries of time, there seems no let up in the disagreements his continued use of electrodynamics invokes irrespective of time, shall i start digging in the mists of Alfvenism, because I think the truth is very close to the surface!

Mar 27, 2018
Yeah, you got nothin'.

Here is the ultimate irony. The dichotomy between real and hypothetical phenomena.
What I am proposing is correct is that many of these "mysteries" are occurring due to real phenomena. Center of galaxies, plasmoids, real. Neutron stars, oscillating circuits, real. MRx, exploding double layers, real. DM, electric fields and electrodynamic matter, real. Cosmic web, Birkeland currents, real. Expanding Universe, intrinsic redshift, real.
The acolytes of the standard theory belief in;
Dark matter, faerie dust, hypothetical. Black holes, infinite gravity monsters, hypothetical. Neutron stars, dentist drill stars, hypothetical. Expanding Universe, dark energy, hypothetical. Frozen-in fields, modeling technique, hypothetical.
All you got is hypothetical, everything I propose is real. Opposite world.

Mar 28, 2018
Here is the ultimate irony.


Here is an actual picture in the visible light spectrum taken by the HST of a neutron star.

https://www.space.../opo9732

This is the first direct look, in visible light, at a lone neutronstar, as seen by NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble results show thestar is very hot (1.2 million degrees Fahrenheit or about 670 thousand degrees Celsius at the surface), and can be no larger than 16.8 miles (28 kilometers) across. These resultsprove that the object must be a neutron star, because no other knowntype of object can be this hot, small, and dim (below 25th magnitude).



Mar 28, 2018
When all else fails invoke the magic of Faerie Dust

elve's, pixie's, leprechaun's and their faeri dust, oh i forgot, their crocks of gold at the end of the rainbows

cantdrive85;- The acolytes of the standard theory belief in;
Dark matter, faerie dust,


Mar 28, 2018
This article is indicating a galactic life of 700million years

Why does this article "Ionized molecules trace galactic outflows" state that a 1000solar mass's in the form of ionised particles are ejected every year at 2million m/s which is greater than the escape velocity of the galaxy, when the galaxy contains 700 billion stars, where one star equals one solar mass leading to the conclusion; 700bllion/1000 = 700million which is implying the galaxies life span is 700million years?

Mar 28, 2018
This article is indicating a galactic life of 700million years


This assumes that the gas is lost permanently.

We observe, at one point during one galaxy's life cycle, that gas is lost (this article).

And at a different point in another galaxy's lifecycle gas is gained.
https://phys.org/...ics.html

I am sure they'll be examples of galaxies doing both at the same time.

Logically, over the lifetime of a galaxy, free gas previously lost by one galaxy to the interstellar void could be recaptured by another.

Any scenario that involves gas being captured has the potential to change the dynamics of star creation and therefore prolong the lifespan of the galaxy.

Mar 28, 2018
Except for the point all galaxies are ejecting matter faster than the escape velocity of the galaxies! no galaxy can capture the escaping mass!

This article is indicating a galactic life of 700million years


434a;- This assumes that the gas is lost permanently.

We observe, at one point during one galaxy's life cycle, that gas is lost (this article).

And at a different point in another galaxy's lifecycle gas is gained.
https://phys.org/...ics.html

I am sure they'll be examples of galaxies doing both at the same time.

Logically, over the lifetime of a galaxy, free gas previously lost by one galaxy to the interstellar void could be recaptured by another.

Any scenario that involves gas being captured has the potential to change the dynamics of star creation and therefore prolong the lifespan of the galaxy.


Mar 28, 2018
Each new galaxy formed has a lifespan of 700million years

434a:- All the galaxies are ejecting mass!
All the galaxies eject more and more mass at 2million m/s their escape velocity drops and consequently their ability to attract matter declines. The reality is the fast moving matter is forming clouds of dust in their own right and forming new galaxies of their own which the stars when formed eject ionised particles at 2million m/s where the process is repeated again where the new galaxy has a life span of 700million years!

Mar 28, 2018
The galaxies are too far apart to captor the ionised particles

The closest galaxy the Andromeda galaxy is over 2million Lys, with the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy at 70thousand Lys. It can be clearly seen the ionised particles ejected by galaxies are creating clouds of dust between the the larger galaxies creating smaller galaxies in the intervening millions of light years of space!

Mar 28, 2018
So there it stands!

The life span of galaxies is 700million years! - Because each galaxy containing 700billion stars ejects 1000 stars a year for 700million years forming clouds of dust in the intervening Galactic stellar vacuum of space which goes on to form new galaxies.

Mar 28, 2018
no galaxy can capture the escaping mass!



False. Where in physics does it say that mass escaping from one galaxy can't be captured by another? It's patently been observed in our own galaxy, read the paper referenced in the link I provided to an article on this site. Even if it were the case that the escape velocity mattered that value is different for each galaxy as each galaxy's mass differs. The EV for the gas leaving one galaxy could easily be less than the EV for the receiving galaxy.

I'm not sure why I am even bothering to reply to this nonsense, we see it happening, with real telescopes in between real galaxies, it's a real thing.

Mar 28, 2018
Matter moving faster than its galactic escape velocity

Did i say galaxies cannot capture mass from other galaxies, I think not! Read again, you will see I said matter moving at 2million m/s is moving too fast for the galaxy to capture "it's moving faster than its escape velocity" the matter would not be escaping the galaxy if it could capture it...

no galaxy can capture the escaping mass!

434a:- False. Where in physics does it say that mass escaping from one galaxy can't be captured by another? It's patently been observed in our own galaxy, read the paper referenced in the link I provided to an article on this site. Even if it were the case that the escape velocity mattered that value is different for each galaxy as each galaxy's mass differs. The EV for the gas leaving one galaxy could easily be less than the EV for the receiving galaxy.


Mar 28, 2018
Matter moving faster than its galactic escape velocity

Did i say galaxies cannot capture mass from other galaxies, I think not! Read again, you will see I said matter moving at 2million m/s is moving too fast for the galaxy to capture "it's moving faster than its escape velocity" the matter would not be escaping the galaxy if it could capture it...


Read my original post! I was saying that if one galaxy can capture the matter from another galaxy then it has a source of fuel for new stars. If that is the case it means your method of determining the age of a galaxy by mass loss cannot work as you have no practical way of measuring the mass gained over time. In practical terms a galaxy could go through multiple cycles of loss and gain.

Mar 28, 2018
This was not my idea

I am simply take the facts from the article "The Herschel Space Observatory recently followed up those detections in great detail, finding that in some extreme cases powerful outflows carry over a thousand solar-masses per year" from the article
Matter moving faster than its galactic escape velocity

434a:- Did i say galaxies cannot capture mass from other galaxies, I think not! Read again, you will see I said matter moving at 2million m/s is moving too fast for the galaxy to capture "it's moving faster than its escape velocity" the matter would not be escaping the galaxy if it could capture it...


I was saying that if one galaxy can capture the matter from another galaxy then it has a source of fuel for new stars. .

I'm simply pointing out a fact! Mass cannot capture particles faster than its escape velocity.

Mar 28, 2018
I agree with what you're saying but...

434a:- You are not taking into account the empty millions of light years of empty space where these clouds of ejected matter settle and condense into stars forming new galaxies where the stars eject ionised particles resulting in the newly formed galaxy evaporating in 700million years.

As I said, this is not my idea; it is the information in this article from observations from The Herschel Space Observatory.

I know what you're saying, galaxies normally increase their mass through gravitational attraction, but when the clouds of matter are moving faster than their escape velocity the galaxy cannot capture them.

Mar 28, 2018
granville583762, 700 million years is a number you calculated in response to Jones Dave, it doesn't stand up to even the most cursory examination.
Earth 4.5 Billion Years old.
Life on Earth 3.8 BY old.
700 million years ago the Earth was in the geological period known as the Cryogenian.
Sponges - the first animals - evolved during this period. It's a mere 1/6th of the age of Earth.

So where was the Milky Way all that time? Still here, still spinning.

Mar 28, 2018
This was not my idea

It was not in response to jones dave
,
It was from where I read 1000 galaxies a year in this article it was obvious 700x10+9/1x10+3 the galaxies would be fading away, no calculation were need as john jones asked for in his comment "Really? Show us your calculations" in response from my earlier comment "LET'S make it into a Calamites Disaster, What with light radius stars sucking the very stars into oblivion and ejecting half the mass they take in out of the galaxy in their spin axis outflows and stars ejecting ionised molecules; The very matter of the galaxy is diminishing in galactic out flows, the theory that galaxies are 13.8billion years is looking very unlikely as they would have evaporated billions of years ago!" which is true from the loss of a 1000 stars a year.

You're pointing out flaws in the telescopic observations as to where does the earth come into the galaxies losing a 1000 stars a year

Mar 28, 2018
It takes 10million years to form average stars
For every 1000stars lost, it takes 10million years to replace them and the galaxies have been losing a 1000stars a year longer than the earth's 5billion year existence or to put it another way 5billion years x 10million years = 50thousand billion years, in other words to replace all the stars lost since the earth formed requires 50thousand billion years!

Mar 28, 2018
Even with massive stars producion the Galaxy still evaoprates

Galaxies taking 10million years to replace stars its losing at a rate of a 1000 a year cannot replace stars faster than its losing them, even if all the stars were massive stars massive stars, they take a 100thousand years to replace, the galaxies still cannot keep up with the evaporation rate
Even taking the the clouds of ionised particles reabsorded into the galaxy as - 434a has pointed out " I was saying that if one galaxy can capture the matter from another galaxy then it has a source of fuel for new stars" - 10million years is still needed to replace the 1000 stars lost in one year.

Mar 29, 2018
Interesting, 5billion years losing 1000stars a year = 5000billion stars lost - 5billion years at one star forming in 10million years leaves a production = 500stars in 5billion years, who derived this cockeyed theory from The Herschel Space Observatory data to losing a 1000stars a year,,,,

Even with massive stars producion the Galaxy still evaoprates

Galaxies taking 10million years to replace stars its losing at a rate of a 1000 a year cannot replace stars faster than its losing them, even if all the stars were massive stars massive stars, they take a 100thousand years to replace, the galaxies still cannot keep up with the evaporation rate
Even taking the the clouds of ionised particles reabsorded into the galaxy as - 434a has pointed out " I was saying that if one galaxy can capture the matter from another galaxy then it has a source of fuel for new stars" - 10million years is still needed to replace the 1000 stars lost in one year.


Mar 29, 2018
Galactic reabsorption loses 10billion stars to replace 1000stars

Emitting the mass of a 1000stars a year, if the galaxy immediately pulls this mass back in, it takes 10million years to replace the 1000stars, so after 10million years the galaxy has lost 10billion stars and gained 1000stars, as you seem 434a to agree with the observation of evaporation, there is still insufficient stars to maintain the Earth's integrity!

434a> granville583762, 700 million years is a number you calculated in response to Jones Dave, it doesn't stand up to even the most cursory examination.
Earth 4.5 Billion Years old.
Life on Earth 3.8 BY old.
700 million years ago the Earth was in the geological period known as the Cryogenian.
Sponges - the first animals - evolved during this period. It's a mere 1/6th of the age of Earth.

So where was the Milky Way all that time? Still here, still spinning.


Mar 29, 2018
Belief in the ionised particle loss rate is suspect

434a It take too long to replace the yearly star lost rate for the galaxy to recompress the ionised particles into a cloud where it reforms the yearly star loss rate.

How do you propose the galaxy is able to maintain the integrity of all its solar systems as at the same maintaining your belief in the theory that galaxies emit ionised particles at this immense level?

The galaxies cannot possibly be losing anything remotely like a 1000stars a year as it is impossible to fathom how you could even have any belief in such a theory.

Mar 29, 2018
Belief in the ionised particle loss rate is suspect

434a It take too long to replace the yearly star lost rate for the galaxy to recompress the ionised particles into a cloud where it reforms the yearly star loss rate.

How do you propose the galaxy is able to maintain the integrity of all its solar systems as at the same maintaining your belief in the theory that galaxies emit ionised particles at this immense level?



What are you smoking?

I don't believe in anything except your 700 million year old age of the galaxy maths is a load of tosh, that is literally the only reason I replied in this thread.

The paper this article is based on is demonstrating, with observational evidence, that the specific galaxy Markarian 231 is losing matter. It is a fact. The theory the scientist have as to why this is happening is being subjected to review hence the paper. I couldn't care less.

Try the real world occasionally you might find you like it.

Mar 29, 2018
So you do believe it, the possibilities were investigated, The flaw in the theory was self evident immediately
Belief in the ionised particle loss rate is suspect
434a It take too long to replace the yearly star lost rate for the galaxy to recompress the ionised particles into a cloud where it reforms the yearly star loss rate.
How do you propose the galaxy is able to maintain the integrity of all its solar systems as at the same maintaining your belief in the theory that galaxies emit ionised particles at this immense level?

I don't believe 700 million year old age of the galaxy maths is a load of tosh, that is literally the only reason I replied in this thread.

The paper this article is based on is demonstrating, with observational evidence, that the specific galaxy Markarian 231 is losing matter. It is a fact. The theory the scientist have as to why this is happening is being subjected to review hence the paper. I couldn't care less.


Mar 29, 2018
So you do believe it, the possibilities were investigated, The flaw in the theory was self evident immediately.


I don't believe 700 million year old age of the galaxy maths is a load of tosh, that is literally the only reason I replied in this thread.



oooh look obvious troll doctored my post.....and then posted its reply directly under my post...

Obvious troll is not only obvious but quite thick. Sad face for obvious troll. Not only can't it do maths it can't troll properly...does mommy troll cry tears of concern for obvious troll? Actually if you were my spawn i'd consider nailing the basement door shut....nope, there's actually no consider about it.

Mar 29, 2018
Criticism in detecting a flaw
434a. You saw the flaws in the excessive outflows after the details were written down. I saw straight away the loss rate and the time needed to replace the stars was greater than the loss rate so it was obvious the galaxy would evaporate in a billion years, no calculations were needed. Whoever wrote down this star loss theory saw this immediately as they wrote "a few percent of the total luminous energy of the galaxy" in other words they saw the loss rate was too high for the star production rate to replace the lost stars!

Sorry for pruning your post. Your post was not doctored. It was pruned to fit in the 1000characters

Mar 30, 2018
Wow! Talk about a wardrobe malfunction, some girl's not used to the 1000character limit!

Apr 04, 2018
for Molecular Hydrogen to form it needs to Ionise NASA investigated this in 1969

http://adsbit.har...ssic=YES

We cant see it and can only detect it with Monoxide but thats not individual cold Molecular Hydrogen.

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