Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

[trcmag]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090329.html

Does this galaxy have a name? Does the supernova have a name?

Why is the center of the galaxy so bright? I thought there are black holes at the center of galaxys?

Astronomy Rocks!

[bongman]

unless I'm mistaken I believe that to be the Black Eye Galaxy M64/NGC4826 as for the Brightness of the center bulge, I have no clue other then to speculate its caused by intense Radiation of matter falling on to the accretion disk around the supermassive black hole.

[trcmag]

How can you tell the differences between galaxies? I assume that a lot of them look the same as I have only view a small number.

[neufer]

unless I'm mistaken I believe that to be the Black Eye Galaxy M64/NGC4826 as for the Brightness of the center bulge, I have no clue other then to speculate its caused by intense Radiation of matter falling on to the accretion disk around the supermassive black hole.

APOD 2009 March 29 is NOW correctly identified as the more distant NGC 4526 : a lenticular galaxy in the Virgo cluster.

No doubt NGC 4526 is a close relative in kind to the Black Eye Galaxy M64/NGC4826.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070802.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040211.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Eye_Galaxy

<<Supernova 1994D was a Type Ia supernova in the outskirts of galaxy NGC 4526. As the name indicates, it was discovered in 1994 by Treffers, Filippenko, Van Dyk, and Richmond. [Type Ia : Lacks hydrogen lines and presents a singly-ionized silicon (Si II) line at 615.0 nm (nanometers), near peak light.]>>

[Chris Peterson]

Why is the center of the galaxy so bright? I thought there are black holes at the center of galaxys?

Many, probably most large galaxies have black holes at their centers. But they aren't visible (because they are far smaller than the imaging resolution), and they aren't all that bright in visible light. This galaxy looks very much like most galaxies in terms of brightness. You're just seeing the light of billions of stars.

[orin stepanek]

"Over the past eleven years, independent teams of astronomers have continued to accumulate data that appears to confirm the existence of dark energy and the unsettling result of a presently accelerating universe. The above picture of a supernova that occurred in 1994 on the outskirts of a spiral galaxy was taken by one of these collaborations."

Does this mean that the dark energy was the cause of the supernova of the star on the outskirts of this galaxy?

Orin

[Chris Peterson]

"Over the past eleven years, independent teams of astronomers have continued to accumulate data that appears to confirm the existence of dark energy and the unsettling result of a presently accelerating universe. The above picture of a supernova that occurred in 1994 on the outskirts of a spiral galaxy was taken by one of these collaborations."

Does this mean that the dark energy was the cause of the supernova of the star on the outskirts of this galaxy?

No. These types of supernovas serve as standard candles, allowing the distance to the galaxy to be accurately determined. It is by comparing distance to redshift that the acceleration of the Universe is detected and measured.

[bystander]

APOD 2009 March 29 is NOW correctly identified as the more distant NGC 4526: a lenticular galaxy in the Virgo cluster.

Why is this catlogued as lenticular? It certainly looks like a spiral to me.

[Chris Peterson]

Why is this catlogued as lenticular? It certainly looks like a spiral to me.

A lenticular galaxy can show some spiral structure. It was probably classified based on stellar types, and a lack of star forming regions.

[bystander]

A lenticular galaxy can show some spiral structure. It was probably classified based on stellar types, and a lack of star forming regions.

All that dust and no star forming regions? There seems to me to be a lot of blue scattered amongst that dust. Wouldn't that be indicative of emission nebula and star formation?

[ta152h0]

I have always believed we are still experiencing the Big Bang, it " ain't over yet ". Pass the beer

[kovil]

In terms of taking this description to task:

"Eleven years ago results were first presented indicating that most of the energy in our universe is not in stars or galaxies but is tied to space itself. In the language of cosmologists, a large cosmological constant is directly implied by new distant supernovae observations. Suggestions of a cosmological constant (lambda) were not new -- they have existed since the advent of modern relativistic cosmology. Such claims were not usually popular with astronomers, though, because lambda is so unlike known universe components, because lambda's value appeared limited by other observations, and because less- strange cosmologies without lambda had previously done well in explaining the data. What is noteworthy here is the seemingly direct and reliable method of the observations and the good reputations of the scientists conducting the investigations. Over the past eleven years, independent teams of astronomers have continued to accumulate data that appears to confirm the existence of dark energy and the unsettling result of a presently accelerating universe. The above picture of a supernova that occurred in 1994 on the outskirts of a spiral galaxy was taken by one of these collaborations."

"Eleven years ago results were first presented indicating that most of the energy in our universe is not in stars or galaxies but is tied to space itself."
Yes, I agree, there is considerable electric and magnetic field energy in space, and it is not able to be interpreted as 'matter' in our observations.

"In the language of cosmologists, a large cosmological constant is directly implied by new distant supernovae observations."
The problem here is that redshift is not caused by recessional velocity alone, and there is substantial evidence to support this statement, but mainstream science ignores the data. So they reach incorrect conclusions about true distance to observed objects, and refuse to acknowledge any reevaluations.

"Suggestions of a cosmological constant (lambda) were not new -- they have existed since the advent of modern relativistic cosmology. Such claims were not usually popular with astronomers, though, because lambda is so unlike known universe components, because lambda's value appeared limited by other observations, and because less-strange cosmologies without lambda had previously done well in explaining the data."
Again, mainstream's misinterpretation of redshift lies at the bottom of their assumptions of an expanding universe. The universe is NOT expanding. It is only a lack of understanding about what redshift is and how it occurs that leads to the erroneous concept of Lambda in the first place.

"What is noteworthy here is the seemingly direct and reliable method of the observations and the good reputations of the scientists conducting the investigations."
This is due to the fact that anyone going against the grain of mainstream science and the ideological tenets put forth and enforced by The Church/Big Bang Theory adherants, is ostracized and in danger of losing their authoritative position of employment. So good reputationed scientists find it professionally advantageous to go along with the wacky theories that mainstream science promotes, like dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, redshift as an absolute indicator of distance, and Lambda as indicator of an expanding universe.

"Over the past eleven years, independent teams of astronomers have continued to accumulate data that appears to confirm the existence of dark energy and the unsettling result of a presently accelerating universe."
The reason we observe the rotational properties that galaxies have, is because electric fields and magnetic fields surround galaxies and are the main progenitor of galactic rotational properties, not gravity. The electric field and magnetic field forces supply the missing 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' forces necessary that mainstream astrophysics is looking for. It is only mainstream astrophysics' stubborn blind refusal to listen to or even investigate Electric Theory's postulations about how electric and magnetic fields influence galactic rotational properties that the erroneous concepts of dark matter and dark energy are even entertained.

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/M ... rames.html

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsC ... TPS-II.pdf

[Czerno]

@ Kovil : How do you propose that the electromagnetic field, how ever strong, influenced the kinematics of globally neutral matter ?

[kovil]

The universe is 99.99% plasma, and as such, plasma is highly influenced by electric and magnetic fields.

These are good papers to start with.

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsC ... 6TPS-I.pdf

These are the same paper;

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/AdvancesII.pdf [the 2MB file, for slower connection speeds]

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsC ... TPS-II.pdf [the 7MB size file for faster connection speeds]

This is the paper I was looking for and couldn't find right away, "Synchrotron Radiation Spectrum for Galaxy-Sized Plasma Filaments"
It explains how the fields and the ions interact, and lays the basis for what we observe.
The reason Einstein and others never considered electric field forces and magnetic field forces when they formulated their cosmological concepts is
because they never had lunch with the students of electrical engineering from across the campus.

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/Perattpdf/PeterPeratt.pdf

[bearkite]

Which is the SN? I've been looking at all the old imagery that I could find ( http://www.rochesterastronomy.org/SNIMAGES/sn1994d.html ) and it appears that 1994D was well embedded in the galaxy (not on the outskirts).

Am assuming the bright object in lower left is a foreground star. Unless I've got my scale all messed up.

[Chris Peterson]

"In the language of cosmologists, a large cosmological constant is directly implied by new distant supernovae observations."
The problem here is that redshift is not caused by recessional velocity alone, and there is substantial evidence to support this statement, but mainstream science ignores the data. So they reach incorrect conclusions about true distance to observed objects, and refuse to acknowledge any reevaluations.

This single statement reveals that you don't have any understanding of modern cosmology. Cosmological redshift, used to estimate distance, has nothing to do with recessional velocity. No astronomer believes that, no astronomer is using it that way, so there's no opportunity to reach "incorrect conclusions".

[Further incoherent babble about plasma snipped.]

[aristarchusinexile]

The reason Einstein and others never considered electric field forces and magnetic field forces when they formulated their cosmological concepts is because they never had lunch with the students of electrical engineering from across the campus.

Right .. scientists of differing specialties desperately need to lunch together more often ..

Supercritical Fluids - "Where the distinction between liquid and gas disppears." Discovered at a hydrothermal vent August 08, (From 'Discover' - November 08)

If these kinds of things are happening on our planet, under our noses, what is happening 'out there'?

[Chris Peterson]

@ Kovil : How do you propose that the electromagnetic field, how ever strong, influenced the kinematics of globally neutral matter ?

I'd suggest dropping this discussion. The idea of a plasma universe is long since discredited. It is pseudoscience at its worst, and has been identified by this list's moderators as a topic which is largely out of bounds for discussion (since this is a science forum). Discussing it risks getting an otherwise interesting topic locked.

[aristarchusinexile]

The universe is 99.99% plasma, and as such, plasma is highly influenced by electric and magnetic fields.

Sing it out, Kovil.

[aristarchusinexile]

@ Kovil : How do you propose that the electromagnetic field, how ever strong, influenced the kinematics of globally neutral matter ?

I'd suggest dropping this discussion. The idea of a plasma universe is long since discredited. It is pseudoscience at its worst, and has been identified by this list's moderators as a topic which is largely out of bounds for discussion (since this is a science forum). Discussing it risks getting an otherwise interesting topic locked.

Pseudoscience? In our present era (my lifetime) Plasma was once considered by the consensus to be the leading theory .. and I'm not too old to paddle a canoe solo on a three month trip.

[bystander]

I'd suggest dropping this discussion. The idea of a plasma universe is long since discredited. It is pseudoscience at its worst, and has been identified by this list's moderators as a topic which is largely out of bounds for discussion (since this is a science forum). Discussing it risks getting an otherwise interesting topic locked.

Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology have been identified as topics not for discussion by Nereid. Further disscussion along these lines will result in this topic being locked.

[aristarchusinexile]

I'd suggest dropping this discussion. The idea of a plasma universe is long since discredited. It is pseudoscience at its worst, and has been identified by this list's moderators as a topic which is largely out of bounds for discussion (since this is a science forum). Discussing it risks getting an otherwise interesting topic locked.

Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology have been identified as topics not for discussion by Nereid. Further disscussion along these lines will result in this topic being locked.

Moving along to MOG ...

[bystander]

Moving along to MOG ...

Direct further discussion on MOG to here: http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... =8&t=16718

[ta152h0]

for science to succeed ( ie get answers 0 one must consider all options, even those rejected previously. Even though I have not been convinced we are not " sitting inside a land mine that has gone off and not all powder been expended ".

[Chris Peterson]

for science to succeed ( ie get answers 0 one must consider all options, even those rejected previously.

Actually, one of the main reasons that science succeeds is because there is seldom a need to consider options that have been previously rejected. That generally keeps things moving forward.