Gaia spots a 'ghost' galaxy next door

November 13, 2018 by Sarah Collins, University of Cambridge
Antlia 2 is slightly larger than the Large Magellanic Cloud and is almost 1/3 of the Milky Way itself. Credit: V. Belokurov and A. Smith (Cambridge, UK and CCA, New York, US) based on the images by Marcus and Gail Davies and Robert Gendler

The Gaia satellite has spotted an enormous 'ghost' galaxy lurking on the outskirts of the Milky Way.

An international team of astronomers, including from the University of Cambridge, discovered the massive object when trawling through data from the European Space Agency's Gaia satellite. The object, named Antlia 2 (or Ant 2), has avoided detection until now thanks to its extremely low density as well as a perfectly-chosen hiding place, behind the shroud of the Milky Way's disc. The researchers have published their results online today.

Ant 2 is known as a dwarf galaxy. As structures emerged in the early Universe, dwarfs were the first to form, and so most of their stars are old, low-mass and metal-poor. But compared to the other known dwarf satellites of our Galaxy, Ant 2 is immense: it is as big as the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), and a third the size of the Milky Way itself.

What makes Ant 2 even more unusual is how little light it gives out. Compared to the LMC, another satellite of the Milky Way, Ant 2 is 10,000 times fainter. In other words, it is either far too large for its luminosity or far too dim for its size.

"This is a ghost of a galaxy," said Gabriel Torrealba, the paper's lead author. "Objects as diffuse as Ant 2 have simply not been seen before. Our discovery was only possible thanks to the quality of the Gaia data."

The ESA's Gaia mission has produced the richest star catalogue to date, including high-precision measurements of nearly 1.7 billion stars and revealing previously unseen details of our home Galaxy. Earlier this year, Gaia's second data release made new details of stars in the Milky Way available to scientists worldwide.

The researchers behind the current study – from Taiwan, the UK, the US, Australia and Germany – searched the new Gaia data for Milky Way satellites by using RR Lyrae stars. These stars are old and metal-poor, typical of those found in a dwarf galaxy. RR Lyrae change their brightness with a period of half a day and can be located thanks to these well-defined pulses.

What Antlia 2 would look like if you could see it from Earth. Credit: G. Torrealba (Academia Sinica, Taiwan), V. Belokurov (Cambridge, UK and CCA, New York, US) based on the image by ESO/S. Brunier
"RR Lyrae had been found in every known dwarf satellite, so when we found a group of them sitting above the Galactic disc, we weren't totally surprised," said co-author Vasily Belokurov from Cambridge's Institute of Astronomy. "But when we looked closer at their location on the sky it turned out we found something new, as no previously identified object came up in any of the databases we searched through."

The team contacted colleagues at the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT) in Australia, but when they checked the coordinates for Ant 2, they realised they had a limited window of opportunity to get follow-up data. They were able to measure the spectra of more than 100 red giant stars just before the Earth's motion around the Sun rendered Ant 2 unobservable for months.

The spectra enabled the team to confirm that the ghostly object they spotted was real: all the stars were moving together. Ant 2 never comes too close to the Milky Way, always staying at least 40 kiloparsecs (about 130,000 light-years) away. The researchers were also able to obtain the galaxy's mass, which was much lower than expected for an object of its size.

Antlia 2 is a giant, but low mass, dwarf galaxy. As Antlia 2 orbits around the Milky Way, it is likely that stars are torn from the dwarf galaxy and deposited throughout the outskirts of the Milky Way. The orange stars show the results of a computer model of Antlia 2. The background shows the Gaia satellite’s view of the entire night sky. The Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) is visible below the Milky Way disc — although similar to Antlia 2 in size, the LMC is 10,000 times brighter. Credit: J. Sanders (Cambridge, UK) based on the image by Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC); A. Moitinho / A. F. Silva / M. Barros / C. Barata, University of Lisbon, Portugal; H. Savietto, Fork Research, Portugal
"The simplest explanation of why Ant 2 appears to have so little mass today is that it is being taken apart by the Galactic tides of the Milky Way," said co-author Sergey Koposov from Carnegie Mellon University. "What remains unexplained, however, is the object's giant size. Normally, as galaxies lose mass to the Milky Way's tides, they shrink, not grow."

If it is impossible to puff the dwarf up by removing matter from it, then Ant 2 had to have been born huge. The team has yet to figure out the exact process that made Ant 2 so extended. While objects of this size and luminosity have not been predicted by current models of galaxy formation, recently it has been speculated that some dwarfs could be inflated by vigorous star formation. Stellar winds and supernova explosions would push away the unused gas, weakening the gravity that binds the galaxy and allowing the dark matter to drift outward as well.

"Even if star formation could re-shape the dark matter distribution in Ant 2 as it was put together, it must have acted with unprecedented efficiency," said co-author Jason Sanders, also from Cambridge.

Alternatively, Ant 2's low density could mean that a modification to the dark matter properties is needed. The currently favoured theory predicts dark matter to pack tightly in the centres of galaxies. Given how fluffy the new dwarf appears to be, a particle which is less keen to cluster may be required.

"Compared to the rest of the 60 or so Milky Way satellites, Ant 2 is an oddball," said co-author Matthew Walker, also from Carnegie Mellon University. "We are wondering whether this galaxy is just the tip of an iceberg, and the Milky Way is surrounded by a large population of nearly invisible dwarfs similar to this one."

The gap between Ant 2 and the rest of the Galactic dwarfs is so wide that this may well be an indication that some important physics is missing in the models of formation. Solving the Ant 2 puzzle may help researchers understand how the first structures in the early Universe emerged. Finding more objects like Ant 2 will show just how common such ghostly galaxies are, and the team is busy looking for other similar galaxies in the Gaia data.

Explore further: Four newly discovered Milky Way neighbors

More information: G. Torrealba et al. The hidden giant: discovery of an enormous Galactic dwarf satellite in Gaia DR2. arXiv:1811.04082 [astro-ph.GA]. arxiv.org/abs/1811.04082

Related Stories

Four newly discovered Milky Way neighbors

October 1, 2018

Ultra-faint dwarf galaxies are the smallest, most dark matter dominated, and least chemically enriched stellar systems in the universe, and are important targets for understanding dark matter and galaxy formation. They comprise ...

Image: Rotation of the Large Magellanic Cloud

April 30, 2018

Last week the much-awaited second slew of data from ESA's Gaia mission was released, providing information on a phenomenal 1.7 billion stars – the richest star catalogue to date.

Recommended for you

A new neptune-size exoplanet

December 16, 2018

The remarkable exoplanet discoveries made by the Kepler and K2 missions have enabled astronomers to begin to piece together the history of the Earth and to understand how and why it differs from its diverse exoplanetary cousins. ...

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 ...

92 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
2.2 / 5 (17) Nov 13, 2018
"Ant 2's low density could mean that a modification to the dark matter properties is needed. The currently favoured theory predicts dark matter to pack tightly in the centres of galaxies"

.....and how many times is this by now that Pop-Cosmologists have had to remodel their DM cosmic fairy dust theories? Every single time new intergalactic visible mass is discovered in locations where it has been postulated that only DM should exist, in the meantime the same bunch is still trying to isolate the first particle of their favorite "ghosty material", dsrk matter.
theredpill
2.4 / 5 (18) Nov 13, 2018
@Benni,

Some idiot will be along to explain why you don't know what you are talking about and tell you that if you learned GR you would understand....basically like saying if you take the same drugs I did you could see my reality. Meanwhile, another epic fail for DM theory and their models...this has been a weekly occurrence for a few years running. At least a few physicists are taking the hint....
Ojorf
3.9 / 5 (21) Nov 13, 2018
Both of you don't know what you are talking about. This has been demonstrated by yourselves almost every time you two comment. You know that as well as the rest of us.
That is why you two are too cowardly to have this discussion in a proper forum.
Here: https://www.physicsforums.com
Start a thread on your delusional ideas.
I dare you.
dsylvan
5 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2018
Excellent discovery.
Gaia is proving to have a great investment/results ratio.

Tip for author of article:

"In other words, it is either far too large for its luminosity or far too dim for its size."

Or it could be that this sentence is either too long for it's significance or too meaningless for its word count.
MrBojangles
3.7 / 5 (15) Nov 13, 2018
"Ant 2's low density could mean that a modification to the dark matter properties is needed. The currently favoured theory predicts dark matter to pack tightly in the centres of galaxies"

.....and how many times is this by now that Pop-Cosmologists have had to remodel their DM cosmic fairy dust theories? Every single time new intergalactic visible mass is discovered in locations where it has been postulated that only DM should exist, in the meantime the same bunch is still trying to isolate the first particle of their favorite "ghosty material", dsrk matter.


Your reading comprehension skills are unsurprisingly lacking. *Could* mean a modification is needed. That's a key word you seem not to have grasped. Also, what intergalactic visible mass are you talking about? The article is talking about galactic mass, not the mass between galaxies. Your idiocy is boundless.
theredpill
2.4 / 5 (17) Nov 13, 2018
Told ya Benni....

"Both of you don't know what you are talking about. This has been demonstrated by yourselves almost every time you two comment. You know that as well as the rest of us."

We both know that black holes don't exist as theorized and that DM is a product of math, not reality.

"That is why you two are too cowardly to have this discussion in a proper forum."

No, we just know there is no point in trying to change a person's belief system...but we will make fun of the claims they make and try to force upon others since a rational discussion is not an option with someone who believes in the DM "fairy dust" or the scary gravity monsters.

"I dare you."

Try understanding the physics of our universe as they actually are instead of thinking an equation can teach them to you....I dare you.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (16) Nov 13, 2018
*Could* mean a modification is needed. That's a key word


Modification, modification, modification..........almost 100 years of it since Zany Zwicky came up with the theory.

If guys like you think this is such great science, then why does every model you acolytes put up end up in failure?
Ojorf
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 13, 2018
"I dare you."

Try understanding the physics of our universe as they actually are instead of thinking an equation can teach them to you....I dare you.


I Know more than enough to spot a cowardly troll like you and Benni.

How about that thread, chickenshit?
Do you have a link yet?

Crickets...

Benni?

Crickets...
TopCat22
4.3 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2018
If this is among the first galaxies and it avoided aggregating with other galaxies would it be full of blackholes and other dense low light objects as its own stars burnt out over the last 13 billion years without mingling with other galaxies to restart star formation bursts.
rrwillsj
4.1 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2018
oooh, a double-dare!

Since we are all repeating ourselves... This "Ghost" galaxy is a good example of poor word choices by scientists. As the remains of a cthonic galaxy, it would have been more accurate to have named it "Corpse" or "Skeleton".

With improving technology and increasing analytical capacity?
There will be a lot more surprises out there to disrupt the equanimity of the OCD crowd that the Universe doesn't play by their rules and dictates.

That "Outlier" is the norm. And if you insist on any causation but random chance? You are just crawdaddy your way to my Theory of Stupid Design.
MrBojangles
4.4 / 5 (14) Nov 13, 2018
Modification, modification, modification..........almost 100 years of it since Zany Zwicky came up with the theory.

If guys like you think this is such great science, then why does every model you acolytes put up end up in failure?


Please post your model. You're so confident that everyone is wrong except you and a few other old crusties. It's one thing to be a egotistical, but to be ignorant and egotistical is truly remarkable. Post it.

People like Benni and redpill - "Everyone is wrong, and they just don't have the mental capacity I do to understand it."

Literally everyone else - "OK, show us how we are wrong."

Benni - *getting louder and louder* "Everyone is wrong!! You're all fools"

Everyone else - "Uhhh... OK. Are you going to show us something credible so we can have discourse?"

Benni - *screming hysterically now* "Everyone is wrong!! It's all FAIRY DUST!"

Draw open your curtains and get some sunlight you cretin.
theredpill
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2018
"I Know more than enough to spot a cowardly troll like you and Benni"

That is not apparent from anything you say here...but OK.

"How about that thread, chickenshit?"

Whoa big guy, maybe you should only interact with likeminded people....that way you don't get so rattled and forget to read the responses to your other comments. But then again, when I said an idiot would be along you and Jones were the only two I really had in mind...and you didn't disappoint...unlike the models you support, the theories you believe and pretty much any situation where mathematical *ahem* "physics" is shown up by reality.

Why don't you go start a thread and play with your friends? You can ask: "If guys like you think this is such great science, then why does every model you acolytes put up end up in failure?"

Obviously changing the diction to be less accusatory and more dialogue inspiring.



MrBojangles
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2018
Whoa big guy, maybe you should only interact with likeminded people....that way you don't get so rattled and forget to read the responses to your other comments. But then again, when I said an idiot would be along you and Jones were the only two I really had in mind...and you didn't disappoint...unlike the models you support, the theories you believe and pretty much any situation where mathematical *ahem* "physics" is shown up by reality.

Why don't you go start a thread and play with your friends? You can ask: "If guys like you think this is such great science, then why does every model you acolytes put up end up in failure?"


Show us your model please.
rrwillsj
4 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2018
I don't know Top. My reading of this article is that the "Ghost" lost a lot of it's mass to the carnivorous appetite of the Milky way. And what is left to the Ghost are the small, cool, ancient stars.

It is theorized that such stars can keep burning for tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions of years. They lack the mass to go novae. Instead eventually fade out into clinkers.

That reminds me there was a recent article, here on phys.org, Speculating that during the earliest period of the Milky Way formation. There was a major collision with another large galaxy.

Perhaps, the "Ghost" is the surviving remains of that event?
theredpill
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2018
"
People like Benni and redpill - "Everyone is wrong, and they just don't have the mental capacity I do to understand it."

Literally everyone else - "OK, show us how we are wrong."

Strangely enough these comments happen when we are shown a picture of 2 blobs of full spectrum light and told a BH is there, or told that 80% of the matter in universe is invisible because math. That we look at it and see 2 blobs of light or don't trust math when it says something so ludicrous is comforting because it is a sign that we aren't taken in by a false methodology where inference is considered proof.

Here we are where yet another observation trumps math based physics...the galaxy just showed you that you are wrong, the inability to image a BH shows you that you are wrong, the lack of DM observed or sampled shows that you are wrong...you want us to give you something on top of all that? I tried pleasant discussion here....not possible under that kind of delusion.
theredpill
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2018
"Show us your model please."

Stated here in various discussion threads numerous times very simply: Weightless spheres with external magnetic fields. Not my model, just one that works from a physics standpoint (because a sphere in space and a bar magnet are nowhere near the same). I would imagine you will see this from the appropriate parties...but I have to stress again because some just don't seem to get it: One does not need to present an alternative to something that is broken in order to stop using what is broken. This is a philosophy we use when a jet plane is broken, or a boat, or powertools...kitchen utensils...

Then again, a friend of mine who was living at Oxford watched a physicist call an electrician when his power went out...instead of just checking the breaker. Point being a lot of solutions are far less complicated when you don't overthink the problem.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2018
Weightless spheres with external magnetic fields.


Lol. They still have mass, you idiot! Where is this crap written up? Or did you just make it up? (rhetorical).
MrBojangles
4.7 / 5 (15) Nov 13, 2018
"Show us your model please."

Stated here in various discussion threads numerous times very simply: Weightless spheres with external magnetic fields. Not my model, just one that works from a physics standpoint (because a sphere in space and a bar magnet are nowhere near the same)


What do you mean that it "works from a physics standpoint." Prove that statement. That's what I mean by "show me your model."

Otherwise, it's akin to me saying that stars are the souls of Gods from universes past. It works from a physics standpoint, I promise. And it's a very simple explanation that doesn't require math.

Your statements are the antithesis of the scientific method.
Joe1963
1 / 5 (13) Nov 13, 2018
I think gravity reverses and becomes repulsive at approximately 1.5 million light years. It becomes more and more strongly repulsive, reaches a peak, and then decreases, trailing off to zero.

This explains why most galaxies are accelerating away from each other – leaving no need for dark energy.

It also explains gravitational rotational rates without the need of dark matter. Galaxies are pushing dust and gas into the interstitial space between galaxies. This dust and gas means that each galaxy is surrounded by a womb of material at a distance that repulsive gravity operates. This repulsive womb, along with the pressure from other galaxies, holds outer stars in place.
You may read the justification for this theory here, along with responses to objections at the bottom:
https://www.reddi...tter_is/
I think that General Relativity can be adjusted such that we keep time dilation, BUT ditch curved or dilated space.
theredpill
2 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2018
"What do you mean that it "works from a physics standpoint." Prove that statement. That's what I mean by "show me your model."

Well, in space everything is weightless despite the fact that it has mass. Really, really stupid people do not understand the difference (see Jones comment above). So an external magnetic field, even of 1 nano tesla, each attached to 2 weightless objects is more than enough to keep them apart at the distance where the magnetic fields interact and gravitational interaction is less ( gravitational interaction produces weight Jones).

"Otherwise, it's akin to me saying that stars are the souls of Gods from universes past. It works from a physics standpoint, I promise."

That is more likely than the existence of dark matter.

" And it's a very simple explanation that doesn't require math."
No explanation requires math, measurements and finite calculations require math...but "creating" a variable doesn't produce descriptive math.

jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (15) Nov 13, 2018
Well, in space everything is weightless despite the fact that it has mass. Really, really stupid people do not understand the difference


Yes, we do understand the difference, you idiot. Show us the maths, fruitloop. Where is it written up? How is a 1 nT field affecting a star? Sorry, you are out of your depth, and are clueless about physics.

Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 13, 2018
Here we are where yet another observation trumps math based physics...the galaxy just showed you that you are wrong, the inability to image a BH shows you that you are wrong, the lack of DM observed or sampled shows that you are wrong...you want us to give you something on top of all that? I tried pleasant discussion here....not possible under that kind of delusion.


.....but they will claim you are not being PROGRESSIVE. You see, to the Zany Zwicky acolytes rejecting their claims to what is science is also rejection of their ludicrous models of the Universe, and those models are their holiest of books, immutable faith in the unseen. Just look at the arcane reasoning they come up with for explaining why we can never isolate and bring into image form all the holy grails of Pop-Cosmology, always hidden behind a veil that is mysteriously impenetrable.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (13) Nov 13, 2018
Question for the hard of thinking, scientifically illiterate, proponents of electric woo;

if a 1 nT field is affecting a star (in some unexplained way), what is happening to the 'weightless' Earth as the IMF (~ 5 nT) sweeps past it 24/7 for 4.5 Ga?
Clueless bloody oick.
theredpill
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2018
"How is a 1 nT field affecting a star? "

DUH...weightless...DUH.

"Sorry, you are out of your depth, and are clueless about physics."

If I pissed a puddle of understanding you would drown in it Jones. The fact that you can't marry the combination of a weightless body and an external field attached to it is a clear demonstration of what kind of clue you have about physics.

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp
RNP
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2018
@theredpill

Well, in space everything is weightless despite the fact that it has mass. Really, really stupid people do not understand the difference ...

It is YOU that does not understand the meanings of the words "weight" and "mass", demonstrated clearly by your ridiculous statement;

So an external magnetic field, even of 1 nano tesla, each attached to 2 weightless objects is more than enough to keep them apart at the distance where the magnetic field boundaries interact and gravitational interaction is less.


This is so silly that you really should be ashamed of embarrassing yourself in such way.

Weight is a measure of the force on a mass under gravity. Mass is a completely independent measure of the total energy of a body.

Most pertinently to your post, the motion of any body under the influence of a magnetic field depends on its *mass*, not its "weight", so your comment is completely false.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 13, 2018
.....but they will claim you are not being PROGRESSIVE. You see, to the Zany Zwicky acolytes rejecting their claims to what is science is also rejection of their ludicrous models of the Universe, and those models are their holiest of books, immutable faith in the unseen. Just look at the arcane reasoning they come up with for explaining why we can never isolate and bring into image form all the holy grails of Pop-Cosmology, always hidden behind a veil that is mysteriously impenetrable.


Go away, thicko. Science isn't your thing, is it? As proven, repeatedly. What is a half-life, dumbo? Lol. Time to mop those floors you uneducated idiot.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2018
DUH...weightless...DUH.


And what has that got to do with anything, you ignorant f***wit? Go play with your toys. Like I said, you are out of your depth, you braindead cultist.
theredpill
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2018
if a 1 nT field is affecting a star (in some unexplained way), what is happening to the 'weightless' Earth as the IMF (~ 5 nT) sweeps past it 24/7 for 4.5 Ga?

So now you want to venture inside the solar system and apply the same physics as occurs between stars in interstellar space....LMAO...isn't that the math and methodology that led to the DM fiasco in the first place? Let's apply the math of how things work in the solar system to the whole bloody universe....jeez...this doesn't work. Well just add mass until it does dude!

"Clueless bloody oick."

Pot, Kettle.

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Nov 13, 2018
Most pertinently to your post, the motion of any body under the influence of a magnetic field depends on its *mass*, not its "weight", so your comment is completely false


You know that, I know that, but trying to explain it to something with the IQ of a badger is not so easy!

Benni
2.1 / 5 (14) Nov 13, 2018
.....but they will claim you are not being PROGRESSIVE. You see, to the Zany Zwicky acolytes rejecting their claims to what is science is also rejection of their ludicrous models of the Universe, and those models are their holiest of books, immutable faith in the unseen. Just look at the arcane reasoning they come up with for explaining why we can never isolate and bring into image form all the holy grails of Pop-Cosmology, always hidden behind a veil that is mysteriously impenetrable.


Go away, thicko. Science isn't your thing, is it? As proven, repeatedly. What is a half-life, dumbo? Lol. Time to mop those floors you uneducated idiot.


.....and what you have is a degree in Anthropology from the Uni of Auckland, NZ. So why does that qualify you to declare who is "uneducated"? You've never seen a Differential Equation you could solve like I have, so why should your comments about what is, or isn't "science" ring true in the minds of the casual reader.?

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 13, 2018
if a 1 nT field is affecting a star (in some unexplained way), what is happening to the 'weightless' Earth as the IMF (~ 5 nT) sweeps past it 24/7 for 4.5 Ga?

So now you want to venture inside the solar system and apply the same physics as occurs between stars in interstellar space....LMAO...isn't that the math and methodology that led to the DM fiasco in the first place? Let's apply the math of how things work in the solar system to the whole bloody universe....jeez...this doesn't work. Well just add mass until it does dude!

"Clueless bloody oick."

Pot, Kettle.


So you can't answer, dickwad? Thought so. Not really thought this through, have you thicko? If the IMF, at 5 - 50 times galactic field strength is doing 5/8 ths of f*** all to 'weightless' (lol) planets, then how the f*** is anything happening to stars, which are in their own cocoon (heliosphere) preventing access from the galactic field?
Idiot.
theredpill
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2018


Well, in space everything is weightless despite the fact that it has mass.

It is YOU that does not understand the meanings of the words "weight" and "mass", demonstrated clearly by your ridiculous statement;

So you don't read...but respond anyways...well done...guess you missed later on in the post: ( gravitational interaction produces weight Jones).

Oh look, an echo.

"Weight is a measure of the force on a mass under gravity. Mass is a completely independent measure of the total energy of a body."

"Most pertinently to your post, the motion of any body under the influence of a magnetic field depends on its *mass*, not its "weight", so your comment is completely false."

Not in a weightless environment you idiot. In a weightless environment two interacting magnetic fields dictate the motion of the objects they are attached to, "weight" is meaningless on astronomical scales.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2018
.....and what you have is a degree in Anthropology from the Uni of Auckland, NZ. So why does that qualify you to declare who is "uneducated"? You've never seen a Differential Equation you could solve like I have, so why should your comments about what is, or isn't "science" ring true in the minds of the casual reader.?


No, you brainless f***wit, I do not have a degree in anthropology, and have never claimed to have, you lying piece of shit. And you cannot even do basic maths, as proven, you D-K affected heap of crap. Now p!ss off back to your cave, you uneducated moron.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2018
Not in a weightless environment you idiot. In a weightless environment two interacting magnetic fields dictate the motion of the objects they are attached to, "weight" is meaningless on astronomical scales.


Oh Jesus, what an idiot! Lol. Talk about deluded. Didn't do high school science, did you woo boy? Why is the 'weightless' (lol) Earth not hurtling out of the solar system due to the IMF? Explain, or show us where this idiocy is written up (rhetorical).

RNP
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 13, 2018
@theredpill
Most pertinently to your post, the motion of any body under the influence of a magnetic field depends on its *mass*, not its "weight", so your comment is completely false.


Not in a weightless environment you idiot. In a weightless environment two interacting magnetic fields dictate the motion of the objects they are attached to, "weight" is meaningless on astronomical scales.


I can not have a conversation with someone that understands neither the subject nor what I am saying about it. So, I am going to leave you to your ignorance.

Just let me note that you really do have no understanding of this subject, and if you do not want to continue to making a fool of yourself, either learn some physics or shut up.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2018
.....and what you have is a degree in Anthropology from the Uni of Auckland, NZ. So why does that qualify you to declare who is "uneducated"? You've never seen a Differential Equation you could solve like I have, so why should your comments about what is, or isn't "science" ring true in the minds of the casual reader.?


No, you brainless f***wit, I do not have a degree in anthropology, and have never claimed to have, you lying piece of shit. And you cannot even do basic maths, as proven, you D-K affected heap of crap. Now p!ss off back to your cave, you uneducated moron.


.....so you really did flunk out after that 1979-81 stint at U of A? You couldn't even hack it in a mathless Anthropology curriculum. I see why your responses are just your foul mouth in full operation, math and science leaves you so tongue tied that only your foul mouthed profanity can find it's way out.
RNP
4 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2018
@Benni
.....so you really did flunk out after that 1979-81 stint at U of A? You couldn't even hack it in a mathless Anthropology curriculum. I see why your responses are just your foul mouth in full operation, math and science leaves you so tongue tied that only your foul mouthed profanity can find it's way out.


And what do you believe your post above contributes other than your own form of derision (particularly given that it is a web of lies and obfuscations)?
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (14) Nov 13, 2018
.....so you really did flunk out after that 1979-81 stint at U of A? You couldn't even hack it in a mathless Anthropology curriculum. I see why your responses are just your foul mouth in full operation, math and science leaves you so tongue tied that only your foul mouthed profanity can find it's way out.


Is lying all you've got, you braindead piece of crap? Go f*** yourself, idiot. You cannot do maths, as proven, and you know sh!t about any sort of science. As proven.
Want me to start posting the links to your p!ss poor grasp of basic science? Again? Go on, f*** off, you deluded idiot.

MrBojangles
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2018
Well, in space everything is weightless despite the fact that it has mass. So an external magnetic field, even of 1 nano tesla, each attached to 2 weightless objects is more than enough to keep them apart at the distance where the magnetic fields interact and gravitational interaction is less ( gravitational interaction produces weight Jones).


I guess I'm a bit lost here - are you trying to explain galactic rotation curves with magnetic repulsion? If all of modern cosmology were as simple as "it's magnets" don't you think thousands of physicists would have discovered this and fleshed it out to the Nth degree?

No explanation requires math, measurements and finite calculations require math...


True. Good explanations with predictive value do though. It's called the scientific method, and it's what separates us from our ancestors who sacrificed each other to appease the Gods they created in order to explain phenomenon they didn't understand.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (14) Nov 13, 2018
Another question for the redpillock - are electrons and H+ ions 'weightless' (lol) in space? Do they have mass? If so, what is the mass ratio of H+ ion: electron? Hint - 1836:1. Given the preceding, would you expect the gyroradius of the ions and electrons to be the same around the magnetic field lines? They are 'weightless' after all. And the charges are +1 and -1. Mass shouldn't come into it, should it? Go do some homework to see why you are an idiot;

https://en.wikipe...roradius

Figure out what the little 'm' means.
theredpill
2.4 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2018
"Just let me note that you really do have no understanding of this subject,"

I feel the same about you. Except one of us believes in imaginary mathematical constructs, the other applies known physics to a problem. I guess time will tell whether the fantasy is reality or physics works the same on all scales.

" are you trying to explain galactic rotation curves with magnetic repulsion?"
Yes.
" If all of modern cosmology were as simple as "it's magnets" don't you think thousands of physicists would have discovered this and fleshed it out to the Nth degree?"

No, most modern cosmologists believe the gravity model is correct. The ones that don't dare not speak up if they are receiving a paycheck for following the status quo. But most people also think that magnetic field structure is that of a bar magnet and attach this to any body emitting a magnetic field...when the only commonality between a star and a bar magnet is external magnetic field flux.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2018
the other applies known physics to a problem. I guess time will tell whether the fantasy is reality or physics works the same on all scales.


Hahahahahaha. Lol. Unknown physics, such as magnetic fields affecting stellar orbits! Idiot. Go back to school. No wonder you are an EUist. I've always said that it takes a staggering level of scientific illiteracy to be a believer in that woo.

MrBojangles
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2018
"are you trying to explain galactic rotation curves with magnetic repulsion?"
Yes.

OK, and what's the math behind this? Saying math doesn't matter is asinine. I'm not saying it's impossible, and I would never say that the theories won't change as we learn more about the universe, but what you don't get to do (not while maintaining any credibility) is say "Well, I think it's this way. I can't give concrete support though."

No, most modern cosmologists believe the gravity model is correct. The ones that don't dare not speak up if they are receiving a paycheck for following the status quo.


No, there's no conspiracy to keep other theories hushed. The "father of modern physics" defied the church expressing heliocentrism. You think in today's age of the internet nobody dares speak against scientific theories that don't hold water? That's some tinfoil hat level stuff, and it doesn't bring value to the conversation.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2018
If I pissed a puddle of understanding you would drown in it Jones.


Clueless cretin! What you'll find that you've done there, is cocked your leg and pissed all over your shoes, and everybody else is pissing themselves laughing at you!
theredpill
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2018
" Good explanations with predictive value do though. It's called the scientific method,"

Precisely. So when the math failed in such a grand way as to suggest that 5 X more mass is needed in the universe, the decision was instead that the math was correct and the search began for DM...that is why I said when you have to create a variable the math stops being descriptive. Without DM, all of the math involving it as a variable is nothing more than psycho babble.

jones, RNP, Ojorf....when the mainstream has a sample of DM and a definitive image of a BH event horizon swallowing material, then you have science to support your beliefs. Until then, you are blowhards on a science agglomeration site spouting 100 year old physics as though nothing has changed, telling people that if they don't believe what you do to get lost.
Sorry I am not one of your trusted scientists, not sorry that when dust settles it will be proven how "space" works and you will be f**king off.
theredpill
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2018
"No, there's no conspiracy to keep other theories hushed"
Did I say there was? No. Just mentioned money....
" The "father of modern physics" defied the church expressing heliocentrism."
And he was right to do so.
"You think in today's age of the internet nobody dares speak against scientific theories that don't hold water?"
This thread is an example of what happens when someone does.
" That's some tinfoil hat level stuff, and it doesn't bring value to the conversation."
DM and Bh's are tinfoil hat stuff....just a way larger order for the tinfoil needed for the amount of hats.
MrBojangles
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2018
Precisely. So when the math failed in such a grand way as to suggest that 5 X more mass is needed in the universe, the decision was instead that the math was correct and the search began for DM...


when the mainstream has a sample of DM and a definitive image of a BH event horizon swallowing material, then you have science to support your beliefs.


Again, this line of reason is faulty and without logic. I can tell you that right now someone in the world is shaving their face. I don't need to observe it to know it's true. Likewise, it wasn't detecting the Higgs Boson for the first time that made it real. It either existed or it didn't. The models suggested it did, and we searched for decades trying to find it. People like you would have stopped progress and said "Well we haven't found it yet so it doesn't exist." Ditto gravitational waves.
MrBojangles
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2018
Did I say there was? No. Just mentioned money....

No, your implication is that there's a mass conspiracy. Otherwise if the theory held water more would explore it and publish on it. Money or not. Many scientists carry out their passions regardless of money. Some already have way more than they need.

This thread is an example of what happens when someone does.

I meant specifically individuals who know what they are talking about and can substantiate their claims. This thread is an example of pure conjecture.

DM and Bh's are tinfoil hat stuff....just a way larger order for the tinfoil needed for the amount of hats.

Until you have evidence to the contrary, you're still childishly saying "everyone in the world is wrong except me and a handful of others." I can't substantiate that either, but you need to trust my series of assumptions and know that all other assumptions are wrong."
Sure thing pal.
IwinUlose
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2018
Again, this line of reason is faulty and without logic. I can tell you that right now someone in the world is shaving their face. I don't need to observe it to know it's true. Likewise, it wasn't detecting the Higgs Boson for the first time that made it real. It either existed or it didn't. The models suggested it did, and we searched for decades trying to find it. People like you would have stopped progress and said "Well we haven't found it yet so it doesn't exist." Ditto gravitational waves.


IIRC, gravitational lensing, neutrinos, and oh, most of the progress in thermodynamics in the 19th century were all math first. Dirac virtually discovered the anti-half of a universe this way as well.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2018
Sorry I am not one of your trusted scientists, not sorry that when dust settles it will be proven how "space" works and you will be f**king off.


No, you are a thick as p!gshit layman who understands nothing of the relevant science, and can call on none to support your idiotic notions. That is why you are laughed at. Just like the rest of the EU/ PC dolts.

jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2018
when the mainstream has a sample of DM and a definitive image of a BH event horizon swallowing material, then you have science to support your beliefs. Until then, you are blowhards on a science agglomeration site spouting 100 year old physics as though nothing has changed, telling people that if they don't believe what you do to get lost.


You are the thicko spouting nonsense, with nothing to back it up! You have no coherent hypothesis and are obviously scientifically illiterate. DM inferred from its effects, including lensing, Bullet Cluster. BHs 99.9% certain from observation. What is Sgr A* if not a BH? Going to invoke impossible magnetic woo to explain the orbits of those stars, are we? Lol.
The very fact that you are a Velikovskian cultist defines you as incapable of having any sort of scientific literacy. Go away and pollute Thunderdolts, or somewhere else more suited to your lack of scientific knowledge.

IwinUlose
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2018
I feel the same about you. Except one of us believes in imaginary mathematical constructs, the other applies known physics to a problem.

'Known physics' cannot be applied without the correct understanding of the underlying mathematics to represent it. There's really no way around this.

Anyone that wants to live in a universe where arbitrary knowledge and preponderance is equivalent to mathematical proof needs to find a new universe.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2018
........the other applies known physics to a problem.


When did this happen? Lol.
theredpill
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2018
Posted the definitions of "mathematics" and "physics" here numerous times. Check them out children. Yet another thing wannabes don't understand....you actually need the physics to prove that the prediction made by the math is correct. Math proves and means nothing if reality doesn't come along for the ride...so here we are back at the imaginary mathematical constructs that reality has not provided that you need to validate some observations, yet as above, need to work differently in others....yet still maintain exist through inference. Now we just have to "infer" different properties to match this observation.
"You are the thicko spouting nonsense,"

Yes, I should believe in imaginary constructs in order to gain acceptance into your prestigious physorg club of "we'll find it eventually".

Let me know when a picture of a BH is actually black and DM's properties have been measured to confirm the math is right.
Aretino
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2018
Is that red pill a laxative?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2018
@Theredpillock,
More irrelevant word salad from a scientifically illiterate cultist. Who cares what you believe? You are an irrelevance. Go away.

ps. Figured out what little 'm' is yet? Lol.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2018
Is that red pill a laxative?


Gives me the sh!ts! And he certainly has verbal diarrhoea!
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2018
Let me know when a picture of a BH is actually black and DM's properties have been measured to confirm the math is right.


Jeez, you mathematically illiterate cultists sure have a chip on your shoulders about being crap in that subject, eh? Must have been fairly traumatic at school when the teacher said, "Redpillock! What is the square root of -1?" Lol. No wonder you fell for this Velikovskian crap. Makes you feel better, I guess. The other cultists are as clueless as you. No inferiority complex.

MrBojangles
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2018
Let me know when a picture of a BH is actually black and DM's properties have been measured to confirm the math is right.


We never landed on the moon because I cannot take a photo of the flag it or see it in any telescopes.

The more I read about EU and its followers the more I realize it truly is a cult of individuals that
MrBojangles
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2018
seem to feel as though everything "establishment" is inherently evil. It's like everyone has the wool pulled over their eyes, and only those who are truly "awake" understand. Forget hundreds of years of scientific progress and method. Every event in the media is a false flag. Every government body inherently deceives. "NASA" is some nefarious body of individuals hell bent on keeping everyday citizens in the dark and believing in weirdo stuff like a spherical Earth. If a layman cannot understand it, it's voodoo used to keep the slaves in their place. There are only 2 guys that seem to sustain this entire body of thought, David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill. They have figured out what tens of thousands of scientists over centuries were too stupid and corrupt to understand. Give me a break.
theredpill
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2018
"Jeez, you mathematically illiterate cultists sure have a chip on your shoulders about being crap in that subject, eh? Must have been fairly traumatic at school when the teacher said, "Redpillock! What is the square root of -1?" Lol. No wonder you fell for this Velikovskian crap. Makes you feel better, I guess. The other cultists are as clueless as you. No inferiority complex."

When it's pointed out that what you believe in doesn't exist, make up another story! ( as above)

"Until you have evidence to the contrary, you're still childishly saying "everyone in the world is wrong except me and a handful of others." I can't substantiate that either, but you need to trust my series of assumptions and know that all other assumptions are wrong."
Sure thing pal.

*Facepalm* You are asking for evidence to disprove the existence of something that doesn't officially exist yet...Sure thing pal. That request is my favorite to have a chuckle over....
MrBojangles
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2018
*Facepalm* You are asking for evidence to disprove the existence of something that doesn't officially exist yet...Sure thing pal. That request is my favorite to have a chuckle over....


No, I'm asking for evidence of something you claim DOES exist. What? It's like you read something and then make your own false interpretation of it. The current theories that cosmology are predicated on exist. You are claiming they are wrong. You are also now claiming you have no burden of proof in disclaiming those theories. Again, you are the antithesis of the scientific method. You can be safely ignored along with the other crackpots that say "Everyone is wrong except me. I don't have proof and I don't need proof."

Years from now I'm going to use your comment when I explain to my kids the dangers of doing drugs.
theredpill
3 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2018
Let me know when a picture of a BH is actually black and DM's properties have been measured to confirm the math is right.

"We never landed on the moon because I cannot take a photo of the flag it or see it in any telescopes."

And the inevitable poorly constructed strawman shows up when the plain truth is on table...as usual. Why? because it is all anybody who believes in math constructs has. Followed by a bunch of grey area bullshit where no definitive statement can be made which covers the whole of any one of the topics...but posted as though it is an expressed POV. Yet another chuckle.

When you guys have to put words in someone elses mouth and then tear down what you said as though they did, that is really funny. Yes, false flags exist, yes NASA lies and yes all governments deceive. No, none of these things are operational policies, but given the existing examples of each, to say they don't happen is as ignorant as thinking math = physics.

MrBojangles
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2018
Let me recap the interaction:
Scientists - "black holes exist, here is the math, and here are the observations to back it up."
A few random Schmucks - "No they don't, everything is magnets! And your observations don't count, because I only believe in things I can see pretty pictures of!"
Scientists - "Oh, OK. Do you have any evidence to support your theory?"
Schmucks - "LOL FACEPALM. You want ME to show evidence of MY theory that refutes the claims of YOUR theories!? God, you cultists and acolytes believe in FAIRY DUST"
Scientists - "OK fine, just show me evidence of what you're claim...
Schmucks - "OH GAWD, FACEPALM LOLZ."
theredpill
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2018
"No, I'm asking for evidence of something you claim DOES exist."

You need evidence of the suns external magnetic field? You need evidence that at a certain angle of the ecliptic the external flux increases by a factor? These are easy and I have posted them here before. But interestingly enough what isn't ever shown here are pictures of event horizons and results from experiments on DM to ascertain it's properties.... I will use you as an example to my children of what happens when you stop thinking and just go with consensus, alongside Nazi Germany and the geocentric society the father of modern physics had to battle to further his ideas.

Had to add after seeing the recap:
SCIENTISTS: There are blackholes and 80% of the matter in the universe is undetectable because math tells us so.
LEMMINGS:YAY!!!!
Skeptical layman: OK, show me these things and I will believe you.
SCIENTISTS: (sign on the door says out to lunch)
30 years later...same sign still up.
MrBojangles
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2018
Let me know when a picture of a BH is actually black and DM's properties have been measured to confirm the math is right.


Let me know when you've got pictures of magnetic fields. No, not indirect observation of iron shavings, I want to see photos of magnetic field lines. Let me know when you've pictures of plasma filaments. Let me know when you've measured their properties and have confirmed the math is right. Heck, let me know when there's any math at all. K thanks!

You need evidence of the suns external magnetic field?

Nobody has refuted its existence? Lay off the drugs. Provide evidence that electricity is responsible for the galactic rotation curves we have observed. K thanks!
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2018
...
Not my model, just one that works from a physics standpoint (because a sphere in space and a bar magnet are nowhere near the same).

Why would you say this? They are both bi - polarized...
theredpill
3 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2018
"Provide evidence that electricity is responsible for the galactic rotation curves we have observed. K thanks!"

I never once said this...more strawmen eh? You have a factory for them going here...is that all you can do? Make up things to tear down?

"Let me know when you've got pictures of magnetic fields. "

I can show you a video of 2 objects with external magnetic fields interacting, perhaps a metal coin cruising around a tabletop seemingly all by itself? Show me where we found dark matter, show me matter going into a BH.

" Heck, let me know when there's any math at all. K thanks!"

Will do. When I have the math to describe observational reality I will let you know...and when you find some reality that actually verifies the existence of the unseen matter or the area where the mass self compressed out of existence, you let me know. K, thanks!!
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2018
"Ant 2's low density could mean that a modification to the dark matter properties is needed. The currently favoured theory predicts dark matter to pack tightly in the centres of galaxies"

.....and how many times is this by now that Pop-Cosmologists have had to remodel their DM cosmic fairy dust theories? Every single time new intergalactic visible mass is discovered in locations where it has been postulated that only DM should exist, in the meantime the same bunch is still trying to isolate the first particle of their favorite "ghosty material", dsrk matter.

And your alternative postulation is what?
Your "Barycentric rotation" model?
MrBojangles
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2018
Scientists - "Black holes exist, here is the math, and here are the observations to back it up."
Schmuck: "Things aren't real unless I get to see a picture of them"
Scientists - "OK, here are our OBSERV...
Schmuck: "PICTURES OR IT'S NOT REAL"
Scientists: "OK, we're going out to lunch, we'll continue this conversation when we get back..."
puts out sign saying "Out to lunch"
30 years later...same sign still up.


I fixed it for you.
MrBojangles
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2018
I can show you a video of 2 objects with external magnetic fields interacting, perhaps a metal coin cruising around a tabletop seemingly all by itself?


See? More fairy dust as usual. No pictures of the magnetic field lines, just mumbo-jumbo pop-physics. Excuse me for being a skeptical layman, but I don't believe in these fake invisible "fields" that you CONVENIENTLY invent to explain stuff.
theredpill
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2018
"Why would you say this? They are both bi - polarized..."

The field of the sun is a lot more than a dipole. That is why you have to ditch the bar magnet mentality. Why do you think the solar wind originates from the polar regions? Is the wind polarized so that only particles of one specific charge originate from each pole? Is there a magnetic structure to the solar system we haven't mapped yet? According to voyager 1 there is, so when voyager 2 exits to the "south" and finds another "magnetic highway" behaving the same as the "north" one, it is the next piece of measured proof of both the directionality and strength of the suns field.

Sadly, for the math guys, physics has yet to co-operate with their version of space. But they push the math as though it means so much more than it does...oblivious to the fact that no matter what language you proclaim bullshit in, it is still bullshit until proven real by testable, measurable physics.
theredpill
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2018
"but I don't believe in these fake invisible "fields" that you CONVENIENTLY invent to explain stuff."

Ahhhh, comparing the field of a magnet in operation to a mathematical construct based on a statement that something works a certain way. I think the cat you are named after may actually have a one up on you in the physics realm...

MrBojangles
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2018
The field of the sun is a lot more than a dipole. That is why you have to ditch the bar magnet mentality.


What?

Call the journals, someone is about to publish new physics in the field of magnetism.

Ahhhh, comparing the field of a magnet in operation to a mathematical construct based on a statement that something works a certain way. I think the cat you are named after may actually have a one up on you in the physics realm...


Show me pictures of plasma filaments and magnetic field lines or they don't exist. I'm tired of your pop-physics and fairy dust.

BradJensen
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2018
The simplest explanation of dark matter, is that it is matter that we can't see. Like planets, like dust, like hydrogen that is not illuminated. If planets form in interstellar space instead of just around stars, there could be trillions upon trillions of them. The fact that so many of our planetary observations around nearby stars show massive planets near to the stars in apparently unstable orbits, might suggest that our solar system is not a typical one. It may be that the size and relative positions of Saturn and Jupiter function like a gravitation spring, ejecting planets spinning in from interstellar space and keeping the inner solar system 'clean'.

If our planetary system is not typical, then instead of there being billions of other intelligent life forms in the galaxy, there might only be thousands or millions.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2018
"Why would you say this? They are both bi - polarized..."

The field of the sun is a lot more than a dipole.

They still both have a N and S.
Why do you think the solar wind originates from the polar regions?

It doesn't. It emits from coronal holes at ANY latitude.
Is the wind polarized so that only particles of one specific charge originate from each pole?
Where did you pull that from?
Is there a magnetic structure to the solar system we haven't mapped yet? According to voyager 1 there is, so when voyager 2 exits to the "south" and finds another "magnetic highway" behaving the same as the "north" one, it is the next piece of measured proof of both the directionality and strength of the suns field.

Are you taking into account our relative position to galactic center? Or the angle of our solar system relative to it's direction of travel?

And voyager trajectories were at the plane of the solar system. Not N or S...
IwinUlose
4 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2018
Sadly, for the math guys, physics has yet to co-operate with their version of space.


If we ignore all scientific progress from Newton up through GR, SR, and QFT, right up to the confirmation of gravity waves in neutron star merger, this is totally spot on. QFT kept throwing researchers curve balls.. until they realized they had all these imaginary mathematical constructs laying around to make sense of them and begin making predictions like the Higgs boson.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
Why do you think the solar wind originates from the polar regions?


It doesn't, you brainless piece of crap.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
You need evidence that at a certain angle of the ecliptic the external flux increases by a factor?


Flux of what, you uneducated prat? Link, please, dumbo.
Anonym262722
1 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2018
The distorted time concepts of GR based cosmology also distort luminosity or brightness concepts as shown by Suntola DU physical model of 1998 SN1a data without any need of 'epicycle' parameters DE/DM (given 2011 Nobel). The faint ghost galaxy of Milky Way neighborhood at small optical distance D<< 1 M ly agrees in luminosity estimates among the DU and GR models (vs. intergalactic SN1a data at z-shift >0.5-1.0) in comparison to distant quasars (z>5-7) near GR based BB 13.8B static yrs of FLRW or DU based dynamic 9.2 B yrs. So, what about realizing that the ghost galaxy shared the history of Milky Way until separating from it only recently (less than 1-2M yrs ago)? You have to first learn in DU the reason why APPARENT vs. TRUE C appears constant (vs. decelerating) - fooling the starting points of GRT/QM. See Suntola DU book or my past phys.org comments - the above and past discussions show that these phys.org regular bloggers have paid no attention to DU. I am done - good buy!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
Suntola.....


....is a f***ing yoghurt, isn't it?
JaxPavan
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2018
Dark energy and dark matter are the reasons why the pin in the voodoo doll does nothing.
JaxPavan
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2018
The reason there are so many comments on these articles about Big Bang dark stuff (not to mention global warming), and the reason there are so many comments by trolls here, while most other articles have zero comments... the reason is people have a visceral reaction to lies, and so they tend to comment more, while the paid trolls are there to comment and try to make them swallow it.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
@Jax, the simple truth is, there's a bunch of trolls who believe a bunch of horsepucky like YEC, EU, and (misunderstood and misapplied) Plasma Cosmology. (To be very clear, there is much plasma cosmology; however, it is often misapplied and/or misinterpreted, and this is not helped by two stars in the field going whacko when they got old because they were for whatever reasons ideologically opposed to the Standard Model of Cosmology.)

This is the environment these individuals have created here and we make it as unpleasant as we can for them. We certainly aren't going to be welcome to other sorts of nutjobs, particularly ones with a religious axe to grind.

You choose who to interact with, and what to say. Everyone else watches.

When you say things like "Big Bang dark stuff" it makes it clear what your problem is. It becomes even clearer when you dismiss global anthropogenic climate change. You're a nutjob troll, and you need to be chased away.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2018
Now, if you want to honestly argue about cosmology, then get to it and stop sucking the nutjobs' privates. And stop using BS like "Big Bang dark stuff." It makes it clear you're not only ignorant but proud of being ignorant. And that makes you a nutjob.

And neither of these two posts is trolling. They're simply honest evaluations of what you're bringing here. If that hurts, it should. No pain no gain. There are real working astrophysicists who post here; if the trolls would stop, they'd probably post more often. You are IN THE WAY. Get it?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2018
Can we just have threads about black holes without @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist announcing there's no such thing as black holes, or threads about just about anything astronomic without @cantthink69 announcing it's all plasma from thunderdolts' azzes or whatever its latest weird "theory" is? And now you want to be another one, @Jax?

As the Brits say, sod off. Go study enough cosmology to actually be able to talk seriously about details like the relative abundances of hydrogen, helium, and lithium, or baryon acoustic oscillations, or what SNe type Ia are, or why they're important, or whether the universe is filamentary or not (hint: it is). I'd have more respect for you if you were anti-filamtarian than I do now, even though you'd be wrong (that was settled in 1989, in case you're curious). You're spouting 50 to 100 year old cosmology, long disproven, and appear to think you'll be taken seriously.

C'mon, man.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2018
Let me explain why I'm here.

Today I posted on a thread about the first major findings from DES. I was reasonably accurate, but one of the real astrophysicists who posts here corrected me on a couple of fine points.

Did I argue? No.

Did I whine? No.

Did I troll? No.

I posted "thank you" and considered myself lucky for learning something new today.

So why are you here?
IMP-9
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2018
The simplest explanation of dark matter, is that it is matter that we can't see. Like planets, like dust, like hydrogen that is not illuminated.


It was an obvious interpretation but not one which has survived observational scrutiny unfortunately. In the early 90's low mass stars, planets and other compact objects were a strong contender. Gravitational microlensing surveys were conducted to measure these objects, if they are dark matter then they should be common and if you look at some far away stars eventually a dark body would pass in front causing lensing. The result of these MACHO surveys was ruling out these objects over a very wide range in mass as being a significant component of dark matter. Planets as dark matter just can't be reconciled with observational evidence.

For other material there are other tests. Hydrogen, even without illumination, causes absorption lines which can be measured. Dust causes extinction in background objects even if it's cold.
IMP-9
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
Aside from these direct tests there are also arguments that can be made assuming a cosmological model. Then within standard cosmology there are two further lines of evidence which point to dark matter not being normal matter. The first is the statistics of the cosmic microwave background which is sensitive to both the total density of the universe and the density of normal matter, the measured CMB implies there is much more matter than normal matter. Additionally there is primordial nucleosynthesis which limits the density of normal matter in the universe. Both of the tests probe a time before planets and dust, there is nowhere for normal matter to hide. It's true that these tests depend on the standard cosmological model but if you abandon that then you face the substantial task of coming up with an entirely new cosmology that is consistent with observations. Even if you did that the direct tests still hold.
PisoMojado
not rated yet Nov 14, 2018
The image needs a North Arrow and scale.
rrwillsj
not rated yet Nov 15, 2018
I'm still waiting for any of the bedlam of woomongers to explain how gravity can be real if we cannot see it? But only infer it's existence by indirect observation of effect.

Then I realized that none of them actually use any technology for research more advanced than a brass spirit horn and a ouji board!
jonesdave
1 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2018
I'm still waiting for any of the bedlam of woomongers to explain how gravity can be real if we cannot see it? But only infer it's existence by indirect observation of effect.

Then I realized that none of them actually use any technology for research more advanced than a brass spirit horn and a ouji board!


They seem to have no problem with invisible things when it comes to the invisible current to power their electric sun, or invisible currents powering galaxy rotation curves. Or invisible discharges creating craters, or shooting off of comets. Or...... you get the picture!

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.