Making head or tail of a galactic landscape

September 28, 2018
Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Univ. of Geneva, D. Eckert. Optical: SDSS provided by CDS through Aladin.

Astronomers have used data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to capture a dramatic image of an enormous tail of hot gas stretching for more than a million light years behind a group of galaxies that is falling into the depths of an even-larger cluster of galaxies. Discoveries like this help astronomers learn about the environment and conditions under which the Universe's biggest structures evolve.

Galaxy clusters are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity. While galaxy clusters can contain hundreds or even thousands of individual , the lion's share of mass in a galaxy cluster comes from hot gas, which gives off X-rays, and unseen dark matter. How did these cosmic giants get to be so big?

This new image shows one way: the capture of galaxies as they are drawn in by the extraordinarily powerful gravity of a galaxy cluster. In the left panel, a wide-field view of the cluster, called Abell 2142, is seen. Abell 2142 contains hundreds of galaxies embedded in multi-million-degree gas detected by Chandra (purple). The center of the galaxy cluster is located in the middle of the purple emission, in the lower part of the image. Only the densest hot gas is shown here, implying that less dense gas farther away from the middle of the cluster is not depicted in the purple emission. In this composite image, the Chandra data have been combined with optical data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey in red, green, and blue.

A bright X-ray tail located in the upper left of the image is aiming straight for Abell 2142. The right panel contains a closer view of this tail. A galaxy group containing four bright galaxies is near the "head" while the "tail" extends off to the upper left. (Galaxy groups, as defined by astronomers contain a handful to a few dozen galaxies, as opposed to much more populous .) The direction of the tail and the sharp leading edge of the hot gas around the galaxy group, identified in the labeled version, shows that the group is falling almost directly towards the center of Abell 2142. A close-up view of the four bright galaxies (named G1, G3, G4 and G5) is shown as an optical and X-ray image. The galaxy G2 is a background object, rather than a member of the galaxy group.

As the group of galaxies falls into Abell 2142, some of the hot gas is stripped off, much like leaves from a tree in the fall during a strong gust of wind. As the gas gets stripped off, it forms into a straight and relatively narrow tail that extends for some 800,000 light years. The shape of the tail suggests that magnetic fields draped around it are acting like a shield to contain the gas.Beyond about a million light years, the tail flares and becomes irregular. This may mean the turbulence in the galaxy 's hot gas is stronger in that area, helping to break down the effect of the magnetic shield.

Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Univ. of Geneva, D. Eckert. Optical: SDSS provided by CDS through Aladin.

The lower side of the flares out more than the upper side. This may be caused by a previous asymmetry in the hot gas in the galaxy group. Such an asymmetry could result from an outburst generated by a supermassive black hole in one of the galaxies in the group, or from mergers between galaxies in the group. Such events could lead to some parts of the 's gas being stripped more easily than others.

The new Chandra data also confirm that two of four bright galaxies in the group, G3 and G4, contain rapidly growing, supermassive black holes. The two corresponding X-ray sources are closely overlapping in the Chandra image.

Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Univ. of Geneva, D. Eckert. Optical: SDSS provided by CDS through Aladin.

A paper describing the results, led by Dominique Eckert of the University of Geneva in Switzerland, appeared in the Astronomy & Astrophysics journal and is available online. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, manages the Chandra program for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, controls Chandra's science and flight operations.

Explore further: BUFFALO charges towards the earliest galaxies

More information: Deep Chandra observations of the stripped galaxy group falling into Abell 2142, arXiv:1705.05844 [astro-ph.GA] arxiv.org/abs/1705.05844

D. Eckert et al. Deep Chandra observations of the stripped galaxy group falling into Abell 2142, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2017). DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730555

Related Stories

BUFFALO charges towards the earliest galaxies

September 13, 2018

The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has started a new mission to shed light on the evolution of the earliest galaxies in the Universe. The BUFFALO survey will observe six massive galaxy clusters and their surroundings. The ...

Image: Hubble's treasure chest of galaxies

August 21, 2018

Galaxies abound in this spectacular Hubble image; spiral arms swirl in all colors and orientations, and fuzzy ellipticals can be seen speckled across the frame as softly glowing smudges on the sky. Each visible speck of a ...

Chandra finds remarkable galactic ribbon unfurled

December 22, 2015

An extraordinary ribbon of hot gas trailing behind a galaxy like a tail has been discovered using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. This ribbon, or X-ray tail, is likely due to gas stripped from the galaxy as it ...

Hubble digs into cosmic archaeology

October 30, 2017

This NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image is chock-full of galaxies. Each glowing speck is a different galaxy, except the bright flash in the middle of the image which is actually a star lying within our own galaxy that ...

Image: Hubble's galaxy cluster cornucopia

May 28, 2018

At first glance, this image is dominated by the vibrant glow of the swirling spiral to the lower left of the frame. However, this galaxy is far from the most interesting spectacle here—behind it sits a galaxy cluster.

Hubble spots a green cosmic arc

June 4, 2018

This NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows a cluster of hundreds of galaxies located about 7.5 billion light-years from Earth. The brightest galaxy within this cluster, named SDSS J1156+1911, is visible in the lower ...

Recommended for you

Mars InSight lander seen in first images from space

December 14, 2018

On Nov. 26, NASA's InSight mission knew the spacecraft touched down within an 81-mile-long (130-kilometer-long) landing ellipse on Mars. Now, the team has pinpointed InSight's exact location using images from HiRISE, a powerful ...

Video: Enjoying the Geminids from above and below

December 14, 2018

On the night of December 13, into the morning of December 14, 2018, tune into the night sky for a dazzling display of fireballs. Thanks to the International Space Station, this sky show – the Geminids meteor shower—will ...

Preparing for discovery with NASA's Parker Solar Probe

December 13, 2018

Weeks after Parker Solar Probe made the closest-ever approach to a star, the science data from the first solar encounter is just making its way into the hands of the mission's scientists. It's a moment many in the field have ...

72 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 28, 2018
Galaxy clusters are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity.

Imaginary conjecture, nothing more, nothing less.
The direction of the tail and the sharp leading edge of the hot gas around the galaxy group, identified in the labeled version, shows that the group is falling almost directly towards the center of Abell 2142.

Just more imaginary conjecture.
As the group of galaxies falls into Abell 2142, some of the hot gas is stripped off, much like leaves from a tree in the fall during a strong gust of wind. As the gas gets stripped off, it forms into a straight and relatively narrow tail that extends for some 800,000 light years. The shape of the tail suggests that magnetic fields draped around it are acting like a shield to contain the gas.

It's nothing like they're analogy, kinda like a plumber describing how electricity works. The magnetic fields draped around it are due to the fact it is an electric current, it's a z-pinch plasma.
rossim22
3 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2018

Seriously not an EU rant...

But can't we see that in the least, the common denominator of a majority of anomalous (unforeseen/surprising) observations that are reported have 'something' to do with magnetic fields?
Maybe there is an oversight in the foundation of mainstream cosmology that has allowed this to repeatedly occur.

Magnetic fields (and their electric counterpart, of course) drives systems of charged particles and gravity allows the neutrals to tag along?
Tuxford
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2018
The new Chandra data also confirm that two of four bright galaxies in the group, G3 and G4, contain rapidly growing, supermassive black holes. The two corresponding X-ray sources are closely overlapping in the Chandra image.

These rapidly growing core stars are ejecting newly formed gas from within all the while, spawning the trailing tail of galaxies there-behind, as the head of the tail progresses in whatever direction it happens to be moving initially. It is likely not falling toward the other cluster, as the effect of gravity is quite limited in galactic distances.

This is the modern problem of modern merger maniacs: projecting limited knowledge of physics into more widespread conclusions. Observe the observations, and instead deduce what is really happening, rather than trying to fit observations into established physical models, which throughout history have been shown to be lacking. Why is it any different now?
rrwillsj
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2018
The EU cultists are driving their cars in reverse down a busy, winding road Failing to grasp that the "effect" is not the "cause".

What they are observing, receding from them, is what happens after Gravity provides the energetic chaos of material for electro-magnetism to act upon.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 28, 2018


Magnetic fields (and their electric counterpart, of course) drives systems of charged particles and gravity allows the neutrals to tag along?


At the same velocity? How very coincidental! Nope, it has nothing to do with magnetic fields. Waaaaay too weak.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2018
It's nothing like they're analogy, kinda like a plumber describing how electricity works. The magnetic fields draped around it are due to the fact it is an electric current, it's a z-pinch plasma.


Hahahahahaha! Lol. What a load of twaddle. Has some loon written this up? If so I'd love a link, otherwise you are making sh!t up again. As usual.

cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2018
Failing to grasp that the "effect" is not the "cause".

What they are observing, receding from them, is what happens after Gravity provides the energetic chaos of material for electro-magnetism to act upon.

You live in opposite world along with the mainstream, EM is the primary driver at most if not all levels. To rely on the weakest of the "forces" to be the main driver requires magic and/or faerie dust.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2018
Failing to grasp that the "effect" is not the "cause".

What they are observing, receding from them, is what happens after Gravity provides the energetic chaos of material for electro-magnetism to act upon.

You live in opposite world along with the mainstream, EM is the primary driver at most if not all levels. To rely on the weakest of the "forces" to be the main driver requires magic and/or faerie dust.


Quit with this crap, and just show us where some loon has written it up. If it hasn't been, then what are you prattling on about? You are the one making up fairy tales, and are forever unable to back them up with evidence. It is just dogma you regurgitate, taught to you by scientifically illiterate idiots like Thornhill.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 28, 2018
Has some loon written this up?

STEVE jonesdumb, STEVE.
Just because you and the plasma ignoramuses refuse to consider already established plasma physics and willfully ignore observational evidence doesn't mean it is either wrong or "impossible". You just prefer fantasyland maths and faerie tales.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2018
Has some loon written this up?

STEVE jonesdumb, STEVE.
Just because you and the plasma ignoramuses refuse to consider already established plasma physics and willfully ignore observational evidence doesn't mean it is either wrong or "impossible". You just prefer fantasyland maths and faerie tales.


WTF are you on about? If there was anything to this crap it'd be written up. It isn't. You are making sh!t up, and cannot even tell us where to find it, you idiot.
rossim22
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2018
The EU cultists are driving their cars in reverse down a busy, winding road Failing to grasp that the "effect" is not the "cause".

What they are observing, receding from them, is what happens after Gravity provides the energetic chaos of material for electro-magnetism to act upon.


I think it's quite the contrary. Since a paradigm is already in play, any new observations will be seen as an "effect" rather than a "cause."

Don't forget how incredibly weak gravity is. So weak, in fact, that infinities are put in play all over the cosmos just to allow the math to work.

Unfortunately, today's astrophysics have steered observations to fit the current model rather than the other way around.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2018
Unfortunately, today's astrophysics have steered observations to fit the current model rather than the other way around.


Complete bollocks, and straight out of the idiot Thornhill's play book. At least try to be original. Show us your dumb hypothesis for..........................whatever it is you are wittering on about. EU prawns have had long enough to come up with one. Where is it? Oh, sorry, I forgot. You don't have anyone remotely qualified to do such a thing, do you? Which is why we get loons like you and cantthink slagging off real science in places like this. You don't even have the balls to confront real scientists on physics forums. You are just a bunch of uneducated, anti-science blowhards.

Benni
2 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2018
You are just a bunch of uneducated, anti-science blowhards.
.........but the fact that you make up stories about getting an Astronomy degree from the University of Auckland, NZ that offers no such degree, this does not make you an anti-science blowhard?
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 28, 2018
Don't forget how incredibly weak gravity is. So weak, in fact, that infinities are put in play all over the cosmos just to allow the math to work.


Jesus! How weak gravity is? Do you know the strength of galactic magnetic fields? Or intergalactic fields? Stop talking crap, and either do the maths, or shut up with your uneducated whining. You don't even understand the science, you just parrot other scientifically illiterate loons, such a Thornhill.
FYI the average galactic field is ~ 0.1 - 1.0 nT. Intergalactic fields? Maybe ~ 0.001 nT. The solar wind carries a field of 5 nT. And that is considered a p1ss weak. So, go do some maths, and tell us what you want these fields to do. If you can't do that, might I suggest that you shut up?

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2018
You are just a bunch of uneducated, anti-science blowhards.
.........but the fact that you make up stories about getting an Astronomy degree from the University of Auckland, NZ that offers no such degree, this does not make you an anti-science blowhard?


No I didn't, liar. And talking about blowhards, here is the blowhard-in-chief! And the thickest of the bunch. Now, where are those posts of Benni's that I saved? Have to find them again. What is a half-life, moron? Which part of the course on nuclear engineering that you never did, taught you that so badly?
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2018
WTF are you on about? If there was anything to this crap it'd be written up.

jonesdumb is afraid of progress in science, he prefers sticking with guesses conjured up in the gaslight era prior to the space age. Guesses developed prior to any in situ measurements and based on failed physical models of matter that does not exist in reality. Guesses that largely ignore and misconstrue known experimental, observational, and theoretical physics of the matter involved. GR construed before the term plasma was penned, by a guy who believed space was a vacuum. Dirty snowballs, BH's, and DM construed before it was widely known space is filled with plasma. Almost the whole of astrophysics is based upon fantasyland maths faeries tales developed prior to the space age.
Plasma is plasma, the behavior of which responds to EM forces that are 39 orders of magnitude stronger than the puny gravitational "force". Of course EM is the main driver in a Universe comprised of 99.999% plasma.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 28, 2018
You are just a bunch of uneducated, anti-science blowhards.
.........but the fact that you make up stories about getting an Astronomy degree from the University of Auckland, NZ that offers no such degree, this does not make you an anti-science blowhard?


No I didn't, liar. And talking about blowhards, here is the blowhard-in-chief! And the thickest of the bunch. Now, where are those posts of Benni's that I saved? Have to find them again. What is a half-life, moron? Which part of the course on nuclear engineering that you never did, taught you that so badly?
...........yeah, you had to change your blowhard story about your Astronomy degree after I caught you by checking the curriculum at Uni Auckland & shoved those facts into your face & slapping you up alongside the head with it. Since then you've refused to tell us what degree, if any you do have. So what is the degree you have qualifying you to be such a blowhard in this chatroom?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 28, 2018
[Of course EM is the main driver in a Universe comprised of 99.999% plasma.


Wrong. Go ask any plasma physicist. On large scales EM is so infinitesimally small that it is irrelevant. Of course, you could do the maths and show me to be wrong. We all know that isn't happening, eh? Maths not your forte, is it? Ditto with pretty much all of science.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2018
yeah, you had to change your blowhard story about your Astronomy degree after I caught you by checking the curriculum at Uni Auckland & shoved those facts into your face & slapping you up alongside the head with it. Since then you've refused to tell us what degree, if any you do have. So what is the degree you have qualifying you to be such a blowhard in this chatroom?


No, moron boy. You misread what I wrote, and made a big song and dance about it. I requoted what I wrote about half a dozen times. Yet you are too thick to understand the written word. Show me where I said I had an astronomy degree. Otherwise STFU with the lying, jerk. You are the one lying about having a degree. Never did any tertiary education, did you? Don't even understand basic nuclear physics. Do you? Can't do basic maths. You are pretty pathetic really, aren't you? A sad, Dunning-Kruger affected know-nothing, who just craves attention.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2018
jonesdumb is afraid of progress in science


Wrong, thicko. You are the one with no science to offer. How is that making progress? Electric comets? Lol. Electric cratering? Haha. Earth orbiting Saturn? Hnyuk, hnyuk. Electric stars? Hee hee. I'm sorry, but you are going to have to show us this science that everyone is ignoring, so that we can all have a laugh, yes? Where is it?
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2018
Dirty snowballs,


WTF has the proven make up of comets got to do with plasma? Idiot.

BH's


How TF is plasma explaining black holes, dummy?

DM


WTF has plasma got to do with DM? Loon.

Stick to mythology, woo boy.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2018
WTF has the proven make up of comets got to do with plasma?

The comet is traveling through plasma, despite your moronics this is highly significant.

How TF is plasma explaining black holes, dummy?

Already pointed out the pinched Birkeland currents feeding the central plasmoid, 'member?
https://phys.org/...tre.html

WTF has plasma got to do with DM?

Well, if you understand plasma and the fact it is dominated by EM fields then the need for DM evaporates. In a Plasma Universe there is no need to invent 96% dark stuff to make the physics works.
https://www.googl...63CjX34u
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 29, 2018
The comet is traveling through plasma, despite your moronics this is highly significant.


So is an asteroid. And......? Idiot, link me to one of the hundreds, possibly thousands of plasmsa papers on comets that explain what you are on about.

Already pointed out the pinched Birkeland currents feeding the central plasmoid, 'member?


Don't be thick. Show me how a frigging plasmoid causes the observed orbits of the stars in the galactic centre. More evidence-free rubbish.

Well, if you understand plasma and the fact it is dominated by EM fields then the need for DM evaporates. In a Plasma Universe there is no need to invent 96% dark stuff to make the physics works.


Yes, I do understand it. And nobody in their right mind is suggesting it can MIMIC dm. More unscientific crap, with no science nor evidence to back it up.

Try harder.

Old_C_Code
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2018
" EM forces that are 39 orders of magnitude stronger than the puny gravitational "force"."

So strong everything is bonded!!!

Except for plasma of course, but in our solar system, 1 atom per cubic meter doesn't make an electric circuit. So any incoming currents just couldn't exist.
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2018
1 atom per cubic meter


What is this conjecture about?

There is way more than 1 atom of mass within any cubic meter of the solar system.

NASA has a HIT COUNTER for counting dust particles that hit many interplanetary satellites, I'm talking micron-sized particles here, not just individual atoms. Within every cubic kilometer of space it's estimated that at least 6-12 micron sized particles exist & these particles can make a big enough impact on the outer surface of a satellite that the force of the impact can be measured. Then there are nano-sized particles, smaller than micron but still larger than atoms but can't be detected by the hit counters.

Granted, different areas of the solar system will contain more particles than others, but fortunately the satellites travel at a velocity low enough that it would take a large sized micron particle to inflict damage to the satellite.
Old_C_Code
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2018
"Granted, different areas of the solar system will contain more particles than others"

Right...

But the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY is empty space i.e. 1 atom per cubic meter or less.
And this fact makes the EU idea that the galaxy powers the Sun is wrong. And EU really loses all of it's charm.

I'm talking about electric circuits Benni, not damage due to spacecraft hitting things.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2018
So is an asteroid.

Electric asteroids;
https://www.nasa....teroids/
Show me how a frigging plasmoid causes the observed orbits of the stars in the galactic centre.

Is that the only test you can come up with? Regardless, it's not an intractable problem and it doesn't require a billion sun mass or whatever is claimed by the plasma ignoramuses.
And nobody in their right mind is suggesting it can MIMIC dm

Quite to the contrary, the proper treatment of the plasma renders DM obsolete.
http://plasmauniv...vCos.pdf
And
https://arxiv.org.../0205534
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2018
But the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY is empty space i.e. 1 atom per cubic meter or less.

It's actually an average of one "atom" per cubic CM. But this matters little, low density doesn't prevent plasma from being plasma. Electric currents still flows through low density plasma, the evidence of this is the filamentation of said plasma and the magnetic fields of those filaments.
valeriy_polulyakh
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2018
There are some very complicated issues of galaxy formation. Unfortunately, here is the same problem as with the stars. The origin of galaxies remains unclear, in spite of huge activity in the field. What the "formation" means? It means that we have the material that is assembling into galaxies.
https://www.acade...ome_From
https://www.acade...rvations
Old_C_Code
5 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2018
Ok, 6 protons per cubic meter...that's not a circuit! You aren't in anyway an EE if you think that's any type of electrical circuit.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2018
Ok, 6 protons per cubic meter...that's not a circuit! You aren't in anyway an EE if you think that's any type of electrical circuit.

I have never claimed to be an EE, only that the EE POV is relevant in describing plasm circuits. You also keep referring to an average density, however plasma is filamentary. This is where densities are higher, and you also aren't considering the electrodynamic nature of the plasma;
https://arxiv.org.../0205534
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2018
can't: I like your theories, heh. But at least in our solar system there is no evidence (yet) of huge galactic currents syphoning into the Sun and powering it.
The one still unknown is, what happens at the poles of the Sun? That 90's satellite that orbited the Sun never got good data at the poles, but there was a voltage drop.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2018
The one still unknown is, what happens at the poles of the Sun? That 90's satellite that orbited the Sun never got good data at the poles, but there was a voltage drop.

And spiraling magnetic fields, a sure sign of Birkeland currents spiraling into the poles.
rrwillsj
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2018
"It's the quiet one you have to watch out for..."

This Universe, All Gravity, All The Time. A little bit of electro-magnetism, here and there. When Gravity deigns to allow it to briefly shine. A long time coming but eventually Gravity will patently pull it all in again.

Out of the Darkness and back into it. Only a few trillion years to go. No rush. The term is "remorseless".

Oh now your going to obfuscate incoherently fudging from the terminology of Big Bang, Dark Natter, Dark Energy, Black Holes? That so many of you have waxed fulminating against?

Go ahead kid, I enjoy laughing at your EU steershit.
barakn
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2018
Don't forget how incredibly weak gravity is. -rossim22

This is a wholly inadequate argument. If it were valid, we'd have to consider that the strong nuclear force is stronger than EM, and the same argument would apply. We would exist in a bizarro universe where solid matter couldn't accumulate without atomic nuclei ripping each other apart.
Old_C_Code
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2018
rrwillsj : put a name on who you're quoting, I couldn't find the phrase in prior comments, too many of them.

And two misspellings, the your should be you're going to obfuscate, and dark natter.

LOL, j/k.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2018
The one still unknown is, what happens at the poles of the Sun? That 90's satellite that orbited the Sun never got good data at the poles, but there was a voltage drop.

And spiraling magnetic fields, a sure sign of Birkeland currents spiraling into the poles.


Crap. No Birkeland currents spiralling in. Link to the science, please.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018

The one still unknown is, what happens at the poles of the Sun? That 90's satellite that orbited the Sun never got good data at the poles, but there was a voltage drop.


Really? What voltage? Please point to this in the scientific literature. Ulysses was the mission.
Old_C_Code
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2018
JonesDav: I read through the data years ago, it's out there search Ulysses.
But it wasn't a big voltage drop, just a drop, then the data ended. There may be a more recent solar polar orbit probe that has complete data.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2018
But at least in our solar system there is no evidence (yet) of huge galactic currents syphoning into the Sun and powering it.

Consider the whole of the system as well, polar currents, heliospheric current sheet, fast solar wind, electron drift, etc...
The currents are there, one just needs to know how to look for it.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2018
Electric asteroids;


Ooooh, surface charging of a few volts per meter, due to long known processes involving the photoelectric effect, and higher mobility of electrons in the SW. And........?

Is that the only test you can come up with? Regardless, it's not an intractable problem and it doesn't require a billion sun mass or whatever is claimed by the plasma ignoramuses.


Yes it does require a ~ 4m solar mass object. Newton and Kepler demand it. Show me who has written this plasmoid crap up, and how they explain the stellar orbits. So far, you have got no valid scientific mechanism. No ,ore possible than Earth orbiting Saturn! Pure woo.

Quite to the contrary, the proper treatment of the plasma renders DM obsolete.


Non-peer reviewed nonsense. Nobody is taking that seriously! Except Peratt, it seems!

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2018
But at least in our solar system there is no evidence (yet) of huge galactic currents syphoning into the Sun and powering it.

Consider the whole of the system as well, polar currents, heliospheric current sheet, fast solar wind, electron drift, etc...
The currents are there, one just needs to know how to look for it.


We do. We have spacecraft that can detect such things. Among other things. They don't. Other than the ones you'd expect. Besides, the fact that the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion is proven beyond any doubt. It is not even up for discussion. Which is why you'll not find any respectable scientist discussing it. Just a bunch of neo-Veliokovskian loons.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2018
. If it were valid, we'd have to consider that the strong nuclear force is stronger than EM, and the same argument would apply.

That's a bit of a strawman, but only because you believe what you do. The strong force is another contrived force which was invented to save a hypothesis. The structure of an atom can be explained via electrostatic forces alone.
Old_C_Code
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2018
DM doesn't interact in galaxies mergers i.e. DM is make believe.

How can you still believe in the stuff Jones? It's doesn't interact with regular matter or other dark matter in a galaxy merger.

What do you have to say about that? lol

cant: E&M is so strong almost everything is bonded! Why we have a lot of matter around.
jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
JonesDav: I read through the data years ago, it's out there search Ulysses.
But it wasn't a big voltage drop, just a drop, then the data ended. There may be a more recent solar polar orbit probe that has complete data.


I very much doubt it. What voltage? There isn't one in the solar wind, so what voltage was dropping? Are you sure you aren't getting confused with electron energies? Those are usually measured in eV (electronvolts).
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2018
"Are you sure you aren't getting confused with electron energies? Those are usually measured in eV (electronvolts)"

Maybe, it was 20 years ago.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
. If it were valid, we'd have to consider that the strong nuclear force is stronger than EM, and the same argument would apply.

That's a bit of a strawman, but only because you believe what you do. The strong force is another contrived force which was invented to save a hypothesis. The structure of an atom can be explained via electrostatic forces alone.


No it can't. Don't be so bloody stupid. Link us to this Nobel worthy piece of work. Assuming you haven't just made it up, which is the most likely option.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
E&M is so strong almost everything is bonded! Why we have a lot of matter around.


At atomic scales, yes. It is what keeps electrons bound to nuclei. However, what is keeping two protons, of the same sign, bounded within a nucleus? It sure as hell isn't EM!
And the other problem when you get to much larger scales, is that EM is both attractive and repulsive. Things tend to cancel out. Gravity is purely additive. So, on solar system scales, gravity is hugely dominant. At galactic scales.................nobody even considers it, because that would be a really dumb idea.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2018
Newton and Kepler demand it.

Oh, those guys from a few hundred years ago who had absolutely no knowledge of plasma, determined the mechanics based on local observations, and "laws" of which have been extrapolated to much larger scales where it fails miserably. Do you mean those guys?

We have spacecraft that can detect such things. Among other things. They don't. Other than the ones you'd expect.

jonesdumb is obviously a moron, probably continuously changing his batteries because his voltmeter never registers a current because he never connects the ground wire. How would you measure this current? It needs to be inferred, by the magnetic field, particle flux, electric field measurements, etc. But one needs to look, they aren't looking correctly in the papers you link, they are looking at the dogs tail to try to determine why it wags.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2018
^^^^And more uneducated word salad. Just link us to where this crap is written up, yes?

It needs to be inferred, by the magnetic field, particle flux, electric field measurements, etc


Which just goes to show your total ignorance of spacecraft instrumentation. What the hell do you think s/c like Rosetta were measuring? Go ask a plasma physicist.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2018
Oh, those guys from a few hundred years ago who had absolutely no knowledge of plasma, determined the mechanics based on local observations, and "laws" of which have been extrapolated to much larger scales where it fails miserably. Do you mean those guys?


WTF has plasma got to do with orbital mechanics, you fool? Link.

cantdrive85
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2018
cant: E&M is so strong almost everything is bonded! Why we have a lot of matter around.

Look to the largest scales, the Cosmic Web. Most of the matter in the Universe is in the filaments of electric Birkeland currents of the Cosmic Web, separated by enormous voids of almost no matter, comparatively. The filamentary and cellular morphology of the Universe is further proof we live in an Electric Universe.
cantdrive85
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2018
Which just goes to show your total ignorance of spacecraft instrumentation. What the hell do you think s/c like Rosetta were measuring?

Just those items, but sadly and woefully inadequately interpreted. That is the point. That's why we need to get the plasma ignoramuses out of astrophysics.

WTF has plasma got to do with orbital mechanics

Orbital mechanics maths assumes a vacuum (which doesn't exist) and orbital mechanics cannot explain the variability in orbital speed and rotation due to changes in the SW.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2018
What voltage? There isn't one in the solar wind

That's amusing, just a couple weeks ago jonesdumb agreed there was an electric field and voltage difference between two points in the solar wind. He is constantly contradicting and confusing himself.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2018
Most of the matter in the Universe is in the filaments of electric Birkeland currents of the Cosmic Web


Nope, zero evidence of any such nonsense. You are making sh1t up again. Or you've been conned by somebody else who is.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2018
Just those items, but sadly and woefully inadequately interpreted. That is the point. That's why we need to get the plasma ignoramuses out of astrophysics.


Oh bugger off you ignorant fool! WTF would you know? You belong to a cult that thinks Earth used to orbit Saturn! Jesus. Who should they be replaced by? Morons like you? Or the idiot Thornhill? Give me a break. None of you are qualified in plasma physics,. You are a collective joke.

Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2018
"Granted, different areas of the solar system will contain more particles than others"


Right...

But the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY is empty space i.e. 1 atom per cubic meter or less.
And this fact makes the EU idea that the galaxy powers the Sun is wrong. And EU really loses all of it's charm.

I'm talking about electric circuits Benni, not damage due to spacecraft hitting things.


OK, I see your point about mass density in a cubic meter of space not being enough to support electric currents. Yeah, electricity needs a conducting medium or continuous current flow can't be maintained, but that wasn't my actual point, my actual point being the composition of a cubic kilometer of space & that your 1 atom per cubic meter is pretty low.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2018
...my actual point, my actual point being the composition of a cubic kilometer of space & that your 1 atom per cubic meter is pretty low.


No, that would be pretty accurate. At 1 AU it is about 7 ions (and electrons) per cm^3. It decreases with increasing distance from the Sun as 1/r^2. At 3 AU it will be about 1 per cm^3. Further out, even less. In interstellar space it will be less still. 1 per cm^3 may be something of an overestimate.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2018
In free space I said atoms, i.e. protons, not electrons... 6 protons per cubic meter, not cm.

6 per cm3 is still not a circuit, not even close. If there was a circuit, all the planets would be fried.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2018
...my actual point, my actual point being the composition of a cubic kilometer of space & that your 1 atom per cubic meter is pretty low.


No, that would be pretty accurate. At 1 AU it is about 7 ions (and electrons) per cm^3. It decreases with increasing distance from the Sun as 1/r^2. At 3 AU it will be about 1 per cm^3. Further out, even less. In interstellar space it will be less still. 1 per cm^3 may be something of an overestimate.


No, as usual you're wrong. Try using updated data instead of the usual guesstimates some novice arbitrarily inserted into WikiPedia.

As I pointed out above, many of our interplanetary satellites have HIT COUNTERS installed aboard them & they ACTUALLY count particle hits of micron & larger sized impacts. If interplanetary space were as vacant as your source would have us believe such impacts would NEVER be recorded. Those on board hit counters are not sensitive enough to record the impact of a single atom.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2018
As I pointed out above, many of our interplanetary satellites have HIT COUNTERS installed aboard them & they ACTUALLY count particle hits of micron & larger sized impacts. If interplanetary space were as vacant as your source would have us believe such impacts would NEVER be recorded. Those on board hit counters are not sensitive enough to record the impact of a single atom.


Total crap. The density of plasma is well constrained from measurement. The amount of other stuff out there is negligible. However, you are always welcome to link to the relevant science.

Those on board hit counters are not sensitive enough to record the impact of a single atom.


Lol, what an idiot! We can measure ion and electron densities from their impacts, you pillock. And many spacecraft continually do so. Get back in your box, thicko.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2018
We can measure ion and electron densities from their impacts


......not from IMPACTS on the surface of a satellite. There exists OTHER instrumentation that can measure DENSITIES of ion & electrons, etc, but this instrumentation is not the same as the impact counters for counting hits on the surface of a satellite.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2018
If there was a circuit, all the planets would be fried.

We know there are circuits, the heliospheric current sheet (SW) in which all the planets are immersed is but one example. And yes, nearly all of the rocky bodies are fried. Electrical scarring is apparent on all of them but it only occurs currently where current densities are high enough, such as Io and Enceladus.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
If there was a circuit, all the planets would be fried.

We know there are circuits, the heliospheric current sheet (SW) in which all the planets are immersed is but one example. And yes, nearly all of the rocky bodies are fried. Electrical scarring is apparent on all of them but it only occurs currently where current densities are high enough, such as Io and Enceladus.


Complete crap. No electrical scarring (lol) on either body. And no scientist in his right mind believes that there is.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2018
We know there are circuits, the heliospheric current sheet .


"The heliospheric current sheet is the surface within the Solar System where the polarity of the Sun's magnetic field changes from north to south. This field extends throughout the Sun's equatorial plane in the heliosphere. The shape of the current sheet results from the influence of the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium (solar wind). A small electrical current flows within the sheet, about 10−10 A/m². The thickness of the current sheet is about 10,000 km near the orbit of the Earth."

"Electric current
The electric current in the heliospheric current sheet......"

https://en.wikipe...nt_sheet

.......doesn't explain how electric current (electrons) rides the waves of a magnetic field flux emanating all the way from the Sun to Earth.

jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
We can measure ion and electron densities from their impacts


......not from IMPACTS on the surface of a satellite. There exists OTHER instrumentation that can measure DENSITIES of ion & electrons, etc, but this instrumentation is not the same as the impact counters for counting hits on the surface of a satellite.


Really? Just link to the relevant paper, yes?
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2018
We can measure ion and electron densities from their impacts


......not from IMPACTS on the surface of a satellite. There exists OTHER instrumentation that can measure DENSITIES of ion & electrons, etc, but this instrumentation is not the same as the impact counters for counting hits on the surface of a satellite.


Really? Just link to the relevant paper, yes?
......you simply have an unlimited innate capacity to put up only links that support the pop cosmology point of view, I don't click on them, I'm smarter than that, you aren't.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2018
......you simply have an unlimited innate capacity to put up only links that support the pop cosmology point of view, I don't click on them, I'm smarter than that, you aren't.


Huh? What are you on about? OCC made a point about the density of atoms and whatever material you are calling on, being very low in space. I agreed. You said he was wrong. I provided a link to actual science to say that he was right. With me so far? So, what are you basing your claim that he was wrong upon? Nothing. Just crap that you don't understand, as usual. And when asked to back it up, and provide numbers, you can't. As usual.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2018
And when asked to back it up, and provide numbers, you can't. As usual.
.....oh but I did:

[q}NASA has a HIT COUNTER for counting dust particles that hit many interplanetary satellites, I'm talking micron-sized particles here, not just individual atoms. Within every cubic kilometer of space it's estimated that at least 6-12 micron sized particles exist & these particles can make a big enough impact on the outer surface of a satellite that the force of the impact can be measured. Then there are nano-sized particles, smaller than micron but still larger than atoms but can't be detected by the hit counters.

Your problem is that you only want to count atoms, I'm including EVERYTHING ELSE.

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2018


NASA has a HIT COUNTER for counting dust particles that hit many interplanetary satellites, I'm talking micron-sized particles here, not just individual atoms. Within every cubic kilometer of space it's estimated that at least 6-12 micron sized particles exist & these particles can make a big enough impact on the outer surface of a satellite that the force of the impact can be measured. Then there are nano-sized particles, smaller than micron but still larger than atoms but can't be detected by the hit counters.

Your problem is that you only want to count atoms, I'm including EVERYTHING ELSE.


Nope. You give no context for that quote, and do nothing with the numbers, in terms of working out a density. Take the area of the spacecraft. Take the velocity of the particles. Take the number of hits per unit of time. Work out the density. Easy.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2018

The Meteoroid Project Pegasus

https://ntrs.nasa...2052.pdf

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.