Astronomy and Cosmology

  • Thread starter Dotini
  • 182 comments
  • 17,508 views
http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/715/2/L84/
"NASA's IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) spacecraft has made the first all-sky maps of the heliosphere and the results have taken researchers by surprise. The maps are bisected by a bright, winding ribbon of unknown origin...

..."This is a shocking new result," says IBEX principal investigator Dave McComas of the Southwest Research Institute. "We had no idea this ribbon existed--or what has created it. Our previous ideas about the outer heliosphere are going to have to be revised."

Although the ribbon looks bright in the IBEX map, it does not glow in any conventional sense. The ribbon is not a source of light, but rather a source of particles--energetic neutral atoms or ENAs. IBEX's sensors can detect these particles, which are produced in the outer heliosphere where the solar wind begins to slow down and mix with interstellar matter from outside the solar system....

....The ribbon also has fine structure--small filaments of ENA emission no more than a few degrees wide: image. The fine structure is as much of a mystery as the ribbon itself, researchers say.

One important clue: The ribbon runs perpendicular to the direction of the galactic magnetic field just outside the heliosphere, as shown in the illustration at right.

"That cannot be a coincidence," says McComas. But what does it mean? No one knows. "We're missing some fundamental aspect of the interaction between the heliosphere and the rest of the galaxy. Theorists are working like crazy to figure this out."
"

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A bright ribbon of hydrogen atoms marks the edge of the solar system, where the Sun's wind meets emissions from the rest of the galaxy, researchers reported on Thursday.

They used telescopes aboard the orbiting Interstellar Boundary Explorer spacecraft or IBEX to look toward the heliopause, which is the boundary where solar wind meets galactic wind at the edge of the solar system beyond Pluto.

Researchers combined images from IBEX with data from the Cassini spacecraft, which is near Saturn, and said it completely alters their ideas about what this border area looks like.

"The IBEX results are truly remarkable, with emissions not resembling any of the current theories or models of this never-before-seen region," David McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, who led the research, said in a statement.

"We expected to see small, gradual spatial variations at the interstellar boundary, some ten billion miles (16 billion km) away. However, IBEX is showing us a very narrow ribbon that is two to three times brighter than anything else in the sky."

It consists of hydrogen atoms that were once charged but which have been neutralized, they reported in five separate reports in the journal Science.

The researchers say the findings can tell them about the interstellar cloud through which our Milky Way galaxy is moving and which the galaxy will leave in about 10,000 years.

(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)


"This new discovery that is "not explained by any current model" and "will require the textbooks to be rewritten," is powerful evidence in favor of the Electric Sun model since the bright band is controlled by the galactic magnetic field and not the Sun."
-Thornhill

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100521191114.htm
Ribbon at Edge of Our Solar System: Will the Sun Enter a Million-Degree Cloud of Interstellar Gas?

http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/715/2/L84/
Possible generation mechanism from outside the heliosphere.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini
 
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/

"Fact: Space Weather is caused by charged particles and their motions.

Fact: The ionization of our atmosphere by Space Weather affects radio communications and GPS navigation.

Fact: Electric currents high above the surface can cause ground induced currents that disrupt power transmission and degrade pipelines.

Fact: Studying how the Sun's variability affects the Earth requires identifying the sources and timescales of the solar variability and measuring the response.

Fact: Short-term variations are also related to the magnetic field. Flares and coronal mass ejections are examples of rapid solar variations.

There are three phases that a new idea goes through before general acceptance. First it is completely ignored, then strongly ridiculed, then "we knew this all along".

I suggest that some people are entering the third phase; the ideas will be adopted with minimal use of the correct terms and almost no recognition of where these ideas have come from."


-EU Jack
 
http://journalofcosmology.com/Multiverse10.html

This brief paper is powerful evidence that the universe is NOT expanding, which is completely contrary to widely accepted beliefs and educational standards. With greater use of high resolution telescopes like the Hubble, and statistical analysis of ever greater anomalous observations, it appears a very real change in the paradigm is beginning to take hold.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini
 
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=8181

"Space tornadoes" coming from the Sun are what powers the Northern Lights with hundred of thousands of amperes, according to a suite of 5 NASA satellites.

"Space tornadoes are rotating plasmas of hot, ionized gas flowing at speeds of more than 1 million mph (1.6 million km/h), far faster than the 200 mph (300 km/h) winds of terrestrial tornadoes, according to Andreas Keiling, a research space physicist at the University of California, Berkeley's Space Sciences Laboratory."

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini
 
I'm willing to shift the cosmology controversy conversation to a more appropriate thread

:) And here we are...

Look at a spiral galaxy, any spiral galaxy. It will be seen that the outermost arms rotate with the same angular velocity as the center. The motion of galaxies therefore has virtually nothing to do with gravity.

http://rqgravity.net/SpiralStructure - from 'Galactic Spiral Structure' by Charles Francis and Erik Anderson

This simulation shows that galactic spiral structure can arise under simple Newtonian gravitation. Furthermore, actual observation of the motion of stars in the galaxy in entirely consistent with such a model. The assertion that the motion of galaxies has virtually nothing to do with gravity could hardly be more wrong.



Poor William of Occam will be spinning in his grave over current, tepidly accepted theories of dark matter and dark energy. These are not observed, are currently accepted as unobservable, let alone being well-understood. ROFL.

If you could bring yourself to letting go of the "expanding universe" theory, you would not need to invoke such incommensurable notions as dark matter, dark energy or even black holes, yet another unobserved and unobservable mathematical construct.

Occam's Razor doesn't mean that the simplest explanation is the correct one. The empirical evidence for the existence of black holes is overwhelming, and the presence of dark matter is increasingly going the same way. That Einstein and others developed theories that predict(ed) the presence of such things long before any such empirical evidence was available is of considerable note in itself. But to say that these things are still mere 'mathematical construct(s)' is simply wrong.


I have forwarded to TM two books necessary to begin the conversation.

As well as the books you kindly sent me ("Seeing Red" by Halton Arp and "The Electric Sky" by Donald E. Scott), there also exists a vast body of literature (alot of it freely available on the web) that poses an immense challenge to many of the concepts presented (in one form or another) in these books, and others like them. Both books, but particularly the latter, have a tendency to dismiss entire fields of research all too readily - gravitational lensing being a major case in point. In "The Electric Sky" by Donald E. Scott, the entire subject is practically dismissed out of hand with a handful of glib sentences and spurious reasoning. That the scientific literature has moved on considerably is a fact that is conspicuously absent from Scott's book. Alternate ideas and theories are frequently treated with contempt. The scientific literature abounds with work that is of substantially greater academic rigor (and substantially less disrespect) than just about anything you might find in Scott's book. Back to the subject of gravitational lensing, here's an example of just one Ph.D student's efforts to investigate a phenomenon that Dr. Scott would have us believe doesn't even exist.

 
Last edited:
Thanks, TM.

It's extremely gratifying that you read the Arp book, and accept that there is a genuine controversy in the profession on the subject of redshift. Really, everything boils down to the resolution of this one problem.

I can tell you it's tough being a layman and trying to present unpopular evidence of problems in such an arcane subject that is so remote to the usual concerns of humans. Sometimes I feel like a solitary sapper trying to lay siege to Caernarvon Castle. It's unlikely that I'm going to pop up in the courtyard with the towers fallen over! Even so, I'm motivated to press on, as I feel that ultimately I'll be on the right side, and it's jolly good being the underdog and occasionally getting a sandwich even if the other guy's getting the full meal.

There are many other fora out there where controversial views are more readily accepted than here at GTP. But with educated gentlemen such as yourself running the shop, I'm sure I'll continue to receive a fair hearing.

Highest regards,
Dotini
 
It's extremely gratifying that you read the Arp book, and accept that there is a genuine controversy in the profession on the subject of redshift. Really, everything boils down to the resolution of this one problem.

I do accept that it is an issue that needs explaining, but I'm not sure just how much I buy into the idea that it is a "genuine controversy", as opposed to simply an interesting question. It seems clear to me that there are as many possible explanations that fit with Big Bang cosmology as there are possible explanations that don't. That some possible explanations do not contradict Big Bang theory puts a swift end to the idea that such observations are 'proof' that Big Bang cosmology is completely wrong. While such observations require proper explanation, it's my opinion that some authors in the field have been a bit hasty in drawing their conclusions that low and high redshift objects are spatially close and gravitationally bound to each other (hence contradicting Big Bang theory). Gravitational lensing provides one such mechanism by which very highly redshifted objects can appear close to low redshift objects. Not only that, but that the low redshift object is effectively creating the image(s) of the high redshift object, thus also occasionally creating the appearance that the two objects are physically connected. However, the evidence that they really are physically connected is extremely flimsy and often non-existent.
 
Thanks for for those insights, TM. Your sound and cautious reasoning and tactful ways make for a most pleasant discussion, and I appreciate it.

I do agree that gravitational lensing is a possible explanation for some photographs of high redshift objects appearing in front of low redshift objects. If, as time goes by, increasing numbers of increasingly more convincing photos of high redshift objects appearing in front of low redshift objects come under scientific and public scrutiny, then of course we are indeed looking at crunch time for our paradigm of an expanding universe. I see no alternative. And neither do I fear such a shift, as paradigms do have civilized ways of changing.

Eventually, even the great Eagle Tower at Caernarvon must tilt and fall.


Highest regards,
Dotini
 
Quoted from the "Colossal Star Found" thread:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?src=me&ref=science

Here is the amusing story of a scientist recently published in the journal Science who insists that gravity is not a fundamental force at all, but rather an artifact of thermodynamics.

Respectfully submitted.
Dotini

An article in today's Guardian newspaper in the UK mentions the same chap:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/jul/23/higgs-boson-ichep-high-energy

Certainly, the topics of the origin of gravity and the whole "Holographic Principle" approach are fascinating, and gathering some considerable support in recent years. That said, the literature on these topics is pretty difficult to follow, and even the so-called 'basic concepts' are quite difficult to comprehend.
 
Quoted from the "Colossal Star Found" thread:



An article in today's Guardian newspaper in the UK mentions the same chap:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/jul/23/higgs-boson-ichep-high-energy

Certainly, the topics of the origin of gravity and the whole "Holographic Principle" approach are fascinating, and gathering some considerable support in recent years. That said, the literature on these topics is pretty difficult to follow, and even the so-called 'basic concepts' are quite difficult to comprehend.

Our chap's peculiar science which seems to leave aside any annoying experimentation is apparently marginalizing him even amongst his own folk. Your article, also updating research on the LHC and the search for the Higg's Boson, or "God particle", was similarly amusing. Sometimes I think of the LHC as akin to taking a perfectly good Swiss watch, smashing it to bits with a 4 lb hammer, then sifting through the mangled gears and metal powder for hints of how it worked.


Highest regards,
Dotini
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOI-X215A8Y

Here is the video series of Don Scott's presentation to the Goddard Space Flight Center Engineering Colloquium. His talk is entitled, Plasma Physics' Answer to the New Cosmological Questions. You can rest assured NASA takes Dr. Scott very seriously. The folks who design, build and operate space probes know very well indeed the environment in which they must function, and the implications of each startling new observation of the electric plasma universe.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini
 
I saw the annual meteor shower last night. Most of them were gone so quickly that you had to really be fully alert to see them. I saw one very bright one that appeared to explode in mid air and left a very clear trail behind it. Amazing.
 
GRAVITY EXPLAINED

The following is a snippet from another forum which explains gravity in relatively understandable terms. Included in the form link are brief illustrative videos together with additional questions and answers. The author is Bengt Nyman.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&p=39348#p39348


The following hypothesis (1996-2010) offers an explanation for the mechanism of gravity.

The hypothesis presented herein claims that gravity is the result of composite electrostatic forces between electrical charges in particles and bodies. To understand the mechanism I am suggesting that we introduce one neutron into a brand new and otherwise empty universe. In this scenario the neutron is free from external influences. The neutron is at rest and externally neutral because the 2/3 e positively charged U-quark is flanked by the two 1/3 e negatively charged D-quarks, and there are no external influences.
Let us now introduce a second neutron into this new universe. According to computer simulations executed in Interactive Physics software as well as in Newton software, the six quarks in the two neutrons quickly align themselves into two separate lines where one negatively charged D-quark in one neutron takes aim at the positively charged U-quark in the center of the other neutron.
The Interactive Charge Posturing seen in the simulations and described above is a direct result of attracting constituents minimizing their distance while repelling constituents maximize theirs. The consequence is that the distance between attracting constituents become marginally shorter than that of repelling constituents resulting in a dominance of the attracting forces over repelling forces. In computer simulations the two neutrons invariably posture themselves as described and start accelerating toward each other. In case of a large distance between the neutrons compared to the size of the quarks, the net attracting force is very small. However, simulations show that after the rapid Interactive Posturing of the quarks in each neutron, the two neutrons invariably begin a slow acceleration toward each other.

A static, longhand mathematical treatment of the situation described above yields the same result showing that the attraction forces always dominate over the repulsion forces.
I am suggesting that the electrical charge interactions and charge posturing described above cause what we refer to as gravity.

In an attempt to quantity this situation I am offering the results of two mathematical calculations. The first one looks at gravity between two hydrogen atoms. My hypothesis suggests that the proton in one hydrogen atom will attract the electron in the second hydrogen atom and vice verse causing a minor shift in the center of effort of the orbits of the two electrons around their protons thereby transforming both hydrogen atoms into conditional dipoles. The question is now, how large would this shift have to be to correspond to the observed gravity between two hydrogen atoms?

The answer is: At a distance of 1 x 10^-12 meters between the two hydrogen atoms, the dipole distance of each hydrogen atom would be 3.672300 * 10^-31 meter, which is 6.939 * 10^-21 of the radius of the hydrogen atom, or 4.424 * 10^-18 of the radius of the proton. In other words the charge shift or dipole distance required is extremely small, even compared to the radius of the proton.

A second attempt to quantify this hypothesis calculates the visible or virtual charge that a conditional dipole translates into, looking at it from the outside. Comparing gravity observed between two known masses with force observed between two known charges yields that two 1 kg masses experience each other as a net and opposite charge of 8.6175^-11 Coulombs. If we apply this to the two hydrogen atoms, a virtual dipole charge equivalent to 9.0088 * 10^-19 of the charge of one electron suffices to produce gravity. In other words, two bodies have to show each other very little dipolarity, to produce gravity.

Electrical charges of the constituents inside particles, nuclei and atoms are very large, and the forces between them are very strong.
The thought that these charges are totally insensitive to electrical charges in their surroundings is an assumption which no longer serves us. I believe that a closer look at the interaction between bodies containing electrical charges will confirm interactive charge influences, interactive charge posturing and electrostatic dipole attraction resulting in gravity.
 
Naturally all GTP members in good standing are encouraged to express their opinions and ask respectful questions here in the Astronomy and Cosmology thread. Controversial ideas and theories are an essential part of science, as well as in other threads found in GTP forums. Controversies over redshift and plasma/gravity are at the scientific core of the debate over larger issues such as the origin/expansion of the universe, life in the universe, even the source of terrestrial climate and weather.

In an effort to qualify these materials as fit for GTP members, some months ago I submitted the most controversial core science materials to Touring Mars, and subsequently to Famine, for their evaluation. These good folk are themselves trained scientists as well as site administrators. If the material in question were found to be in violation site use policies or in any way spurious, incendiary, tasteless or of commercial intent, I trust we would have been warned off long ago.

I'd be delighted to hear your serious questions and objections, if any. Within my limitations, I'd do my best to answer them in a serious and respectful way, if you could manage the same.

Sincerely yours,
Dotini
 
Last edited:
What exactly are the unexplainable phenomena that leads scientists to come up with idea like the sun being externally powered?

For instance, the sun operating like a nuclear oven makes perfect sense, at least to me. And then of course there isn't actually anything in space, it's literally empty besides the small gatherings of material we call planets, stars, yada yada. Makes perfect sense. So what inconsistencies made scientists come up with ideas like dark matter - "nothing is actually something" - and the sun somehow being externally powered, etc? Obviously they must have a reason to change their theories because they're scientists, not engineers.
 
What exactly are the unexplainable phenomena that leads scientists to come up with idea like the sun being externally powered?

For instance, the sun operating like a nuclear oven makes perfect sense, at least to me. And then of course there isn't actually anything in space, it's literally empty besides the small gatherings of material we call planets, stars, yada yada. Makes perfect sense. So what inconsistencies made scientists come up with ideas like dark matter - "nothing is actually something" - and the sun somehow being externally powered, etc? Obviously they must have a reason to change their theories because they're scientists, not engineers.

Thanks for your question, Keef! They are pretty rare in this thread, so you should get some kind of prize.

In the first instance, it must be emphasized that the currently accepted view is that the Sun is internally powered. The external hypothesis has been around for awhile, as there are anomalies and problems with the internal hypothesis. There is absolutely no hard evidence of external power to the Sun. But scientists keep looking for it because of the problems with the nuclear fusion-at-the-core idea first proposed by Eddington back about 90 years ago. The main problem (as I understand it!) growing with virtually every new observation, is the stupendously intense electrical activity emanating from the Sun that it so damnably difficult to reconcile with nuclear fusion at the core. It is known that enormous amounts of electric current could be delivered to the Sun in the form of Birkeland currents, twisted filaments of charged plasma visible between stars and galaxies, but not clearly visible as connecting to our Sun.

The main thing I've tried to convey with the immediately above series of citations is that finally they may gave stumbled upon an actual mechanism for external power. It turns out that outer space is actually filled with a great many interesting things in the spaces we thought of as empty between the stars and planets. For instance, we now know that there is a boundary layer or sheath at the farthest reaches of the magnetic field or heliosphere surrounding our Sun and planets, the solar system. This sheath exchanges vast quantities of energetic particles with the space full of particles on the other side of the sheath. The energy exchanged, while varying dramatically over the mere 6 months (!) they have known about it, may be all or part of what the Sun would need to be externally powered.

I hope this is okay as only a beginning answer to your question, Keef, as the problem is unresolved. Please let me know where you might like more explanation.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

Bonus pic:http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/04/14/article-1169776-046ECDC9000005DC-372_634x475.jpg
 
Last edited:
All these newfangled technologies they have that I've never even heard of confuse my idea of space beyond repair. You sure they're not just seeing smudges on the telescope?

As for electricity in the sun, maybe it's from friction? Friction makes electricity. Stuff rubbing on stuff makes friction. Hydrogen and helium is stuff. Theory explained? I don't know. As far as I can tell gravity sucks things in, but if that thing goes the right speed then it goes in circles. There doesn't seem to be anything in between because anything classified as "stuff", which is always something and never nothing, is subject to gravity, and that's why we have planets and stars and they're all generally round. I get the whole radiation idea. I understand that light is somehow subject to gravity and therefore it bends around objects and distorts the perceived location of objects in space, though I can't recall why light is stuff. Seems utterly logical to me that everything is something is stuff, and the space between is nothing.

And then they try to tell me there are ropes of plasma linking galaxies? How the hell does it make it from one end to the other if super heated gas is subject to gravity? It's not like you can go straight in space, or at least not anywhere our instruments have ever ventured.
 
Since it's a Hobbies thread, let's hobby it up!

astronomy1.jpg

This are what I use:
Skywatcher telescope - F1000 D114 with Super 10 (100x) and Super 25 (40x) lenses and Barlow 2x adapter; Equatorial mount (ascension/declination axes)
Canon EOS1000D/Kiss F/Rebel XS camera - 10.1MP

Connected with Canon T-adapter/Revelation Astro T-piece.


I wonder why the tele is looking down... joking.

There is this commercial on this American television program showing:

Telescope looks down = PEEPING TOM

Telescope looks up = PROFESSIONAL ASTRONOMER

or something along those lines...anyways nice to see you have a cool hobby, looking up at the stars 👍
 
Back