split: But why an empty ring? (4 Nov 2008), re Electric Univ

[kovil]

Do you really want to know what I think? and are you willing to allow me to express it ? without censorship ?

The right side galaxy is in the shape of a corkscrew, going clockwise; from 5 o'clock where the stars are sort of fuzzy looking, that is closest to us, it then spirals up to 12, which is a little further away from us, then as it goes back to 5 o'clock again it is behind the first circle-loop, and as it moves further away towards 7 and 8 o'clock it goes into the distance away from us.

Where the other galaxy actually is, is much harder to discern, is it closer to us, further away, or next to the corkscrew galaxy ? If given my druthers I'd say it is beyond the end of the 8 o'clock tail of the corkscrew galaxy and further away from us and the corkscrew galaxy, perhaps by as much as 10 diameters of itself from the corkscrew galaxy.

I would 'heretically' postulate that the corkscrew galaxy has its blue star regions stimulated to being so blue in color from the intense electrical activity that is flowing along the corkscrew path and electrically overstressing those stars, who are responding by intensly shining in 'arc mode' electrically at their surfaces. Birkeland Currents prefer to travel in spiral paths, and that's why the 'star forming region' (in mainstream-speak) is where it is, along that electrical current path, and shining so brightly ! Also the electric current is flowing towards the other galaxy which is further away. Perhaps the local relative motion of these two objects has had something to do with why they are these shapes, and why the electric current has developed this pathway.

[apodman]

Do you really want to know what I think? ... that the corkscrew galaxy has its blue star regions stimulated to being so blue in color from the intense electrical activity that is flowing along the corkscrew path and electrically overstressing those stars, who are responding by intensly shining in 'arc mode' electrically at their surfaces.

Do you really want to know what I think? I think you spew this garbage because you don't think you are capable of learning real science.

[bystander]

... The right side galaxy is in the shape of a corkscrew, going clockwise; from 5 o'clock where the stars are sort of fuzzy looking, that is closest to us, it then spirals up to 12, which is a little further away from us, then as it goes back to 5 o'clock again it is behind the first circle-loop, and as it moves further away towards 7 and 8 o'clock it goes into the distance away from us.

Where the other galaxy actually is, is much harder to discern, is it closer to us, further away, or next to the corkscrew galaxy ? If given my druthers I'd say it is beyond the end of the 8 o'clock tail of the corkscrew galaxy and further away from us and the corkscrew galaxy, perhaps by as much as 10 diameters of itself from the corkscrew galaxy. ...

I can picture this. This much even makes sense, with the stream of star-stuff tailing off from the foreground galaxy (right) towards the background galaxy (left).

[iamlucky13]

Do you really want to know what I think? ... that the corkscrew galaxy has its blue star regions stimulated to being so blue in color from the intense electrical activity that is flowing along the corkscrew path and electrically overstressing those stars, who are responding by intensly shining in 'arc mode' electrically at their surfaces.

Do you really want to know what I think? I think you spew this garbage because you don't think you are capable of learning real science.

And I think that criticisms of electric universe or other marginal theories can be presented without being insulting.

The supposition here is that electromagnetic forces are greater in magnitude than gravitational forces. From a simple knowledge of how much more powerful per unit the electromagnetic force is than the gravitational force (about 10^30, IIRC), this might be a tempting supposition, but it either neglects the fact that electromagetism is dipolar, or assumes that a sufficient charge imbalance could somehow accumulate without being corrected by flow of relatively small amounts of ions and/or free electrons. This happens naturally in laboratory, (vacuum tubes), household (static electricity), and global (lightning) environments long before the net electromagnetic force begins to become substantial.

In deep space amidst readily-ionized gas and dust, which accounts for roughly 30% of the mass of galaxies like the Milky Way, this rebalancing of charge should occur quite easily.

Additionally, plain old gravity (occassionally drawing on the precision afforded by accounting for relativity) explains the motion of basically all the objects we can see with oustanding precision, up to the scale of galaxies, at which point the affect of dark matter becomes significant.

[apodman]

criticisms of electric universe or other marginal theories can be presented without being insulting.

Electric universe is way beyond marginal, it is a childish fantasy.

Far from an insult, I honestly believe that the belligerent non-science promoters in this forum would rather pick a fight with science than learn enough to discuss it intelligently.

This is a scientific forum in which we discuss science in scientific terms. For contibutors to attempt to put non-science on equal footing with science, especially within a scientific forum, is ludicrous. To continually and repetitiously attack science with the same old nonsense is not discussion, it's a hissy fit and a feeble attempt at disruption by non-scientists who feel inferior in their lack of knowledge.

Advanced knowledge is not a requirement for participation. But if I don't know something, I ask a humble question - I don't make something up or latch onto the farthest out idea I can find and go tell the experts they don't know anything either.

[apodman]

The supposition here is that electromagnetic forces are greater in magnitude than gravitational forces. From a simple knowledge of how much more powerful per unit the electromagnetic force is than the gravitational force (about 10^30, IIRC), this might be a tempting supposition, but it either neglects the fact that electromagetism is dipolar, or assumes that a sufficient charge imbalance could somehow accumulate without being corrected by flow of relatively small amounts of ions and/or free electrons. This happens naturally in laboratory, (vacuum tubes), household (static electricity), and global (lightning) environments long before the net electromagnetic force begins to become substantial.

In deep space amidst readily-ionized gas and dust, which accounts for roughly 30% of the mass of galaxies like the Milky Way, this rebalancing of charge should occur quite easily.

Additionally, plain old gravity (occassionally drawing on the precision afforded by accounting for relativity) explains the motion of basically all the objects we can see with oustanding precision, up to the scale of galaxies, at which point the affect of dark matter becomes significant.

Yes, a much more useful answer than mine. Thank you.

But someone (perhaps the same self-appointed iconclasts as before) will pose the same question again and someone like you will be polite and helpful and answer it again. But the next question will have the same anti-science edge just like it did this time. Posting the question again is not really asking, it is politicking (vote for my wacko theory). So once in a while, among the polite scientific answers, it is appropriate to put the non-science lobbying in context for the readers.

[iamlucky13]

That's generally true, but I've also seen Kovil participate quite reasonably in the discussion around here, and educating those who are willing to genuinely consider the arguments against nutty theories, which to laymen are often very difficult to assess, is often worthwhile. Insults typically breed a sense of oppression that reinforces ideas like an academic conspiracy.

When someone has demonstrated a repetitive tendency to ignore common sense or well-established science, then rational discourse becomes pointless, but short of that, attack the bad science, not the person.

[apodman]

I've also seen Kovil participate quite reasonably in the discussion around here

Granted.

educating those who are willing to genuinely consider the arguments against nutty theories, which to laymen are often very difficult to assess, is often worthwhile.

Yes, and as long as the reasonable and the scientific in this scientific forum are in charge of the tone of the discussion, there's a chance that this will work. But recently there has been an upswing in the number of attacks on science from left field, to the point where it constitutes an attempt to hijack the scientific nature of the discussions.

Andy would like to sit in his office with his feet up and let the occasional speeder cruise through the center of Mayberry with only a raised eyebrow. But occasionally Barney is right. When a whole lot of drivers speed through with impunity, you have to get out in the street and act in an unpopular way and issue a few warnings and citations. Andy is tired and returning to the office now.

Insults typically breed a sense of oppression that reinforces ideas like an academic conspiracy.

Once again, you say "insults", I say "questioning the motivation of the non-science pusher".

When someone has demonstrated a repetitive tendency to ignore common sense or well-established science, then rational discourse becomes pointless, but short of that, attack the bad science, not the person.

We had a volunteer here to represent the bad science (and the unscientific approach to discusssion), introducing it with talk of censorship and heresy. And if the "science" is bad enough, yes we should reprimand or at least ridicule (referring to the "sword of Venus" in another topic) the messenger.

[kovil]

Well, apodman, now that you've had your hissy fit,
and I know how a new idea can seem to be threatening, and it really upsets your applecart that you've spent your lifetime building,
it would be good to understand the valid points Electric Theory is making, and a lot of inexplicable things to mainstream
are well explained by electric theory, and worthy of a reasonable look see, rather than saying ET is childish fantasy, it isn't, it's just that you are ignorant of the properties of electrical engineering, as are all astrophysicists in the mainstream, otherwise we'd be looking at things the ET way instead of a gravity uber-alles way.

Read The Electric Sky and then get back to me,
and don't accuse me of being ignorant of mainstream science, cause I'm not.

Electrical Theory is not non-science !
It is science, and a branch of science that is very well developed over the last 200 years, but it is a branch of science that is adamantaly ignored by the astrophysics community and the cosmological community and this needs to change, and it is changing, and those who continue to ignore what we already know about electrical engineering will be doing so at their own intellectual peril.

[bystander]

Read The Electric Sky and then get back to me, and don't accuse me of being ignorant of mainstream science, cause I'm not.

Electrical Theory is not non-science ! It is science, and a branch of science that is very well developed over the last 200 years, but it is a branch of science that is adamantaly ignored by the astrophysics community and the cosmological community and this needs to change, and it is changing, and those who continue to ignore what we already know about electrical engineering will be doing so at their own intellectual peril.

From: Café - Possibly temporary thread

Non Science reference removed, you really haven't a clue do you. The Electric Sky by Don Scott was removed for political and religeous reasons from the BBT , The Church, and the political establishment nature which controls funding and ideology within the sciences today. Wake Up. and start behaving like scientists instead of theologians in dire fear of the Truth. Mainstream Science is behaving like a religion and not like a science, when you deny and refuse any mention of the electrical nature of matter.

kovil, the Rules for posting to the Asterisk Café are quite explicit (emphasis added):

And last, once again, this is a scientific forum, devoted to discussing astronomy.

To the extent that Scott's book accepts a fundamental tenet of plasma cosmology (namely, "Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well, though a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution"), then it is non-science. There are, no doubt, other aspects of Scott's book that make it non-science, but one is enough.

For avoidance of doubt, this has nothing whatsoever to do with refusal to consider, or discuss," the electrical nature of matter"

If you'd like to understand why this particular tenet of plasma cosmology is non-science, I'd be happy to explain it in considerable detail; for some background, you may wish to read this.

Similarly, if you'd like to join in the discussion in this Café thread, on the nature of modern astrophysics as science, please do so.

The Rules - Discuss an APOD, please read before posting - RJN

[iamlucky13]

Read The Electric Sky and then get back to me,
and don't accuse me of being ignorant of mainstream science, cause I'm not.

Electrical Theory is not non-science !

I will not pay money to an author who makes misleading implications about things like the evidence for stellar fusion or the postulations of dark matter and tells lies such as astronomers don't study plasmas or electromagnetics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohyd ... trophysics
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/Major/astmajor.html

Of course electrical theory is science. He's not merely talking about electrical theory. He's talking about arbitrarily applying it without evidence or analysis to explain away things that he finds complicated, or that have uncomfortable similarities to creationism, like the big bang theory.

[Sputnick]

Wow .. sorry I missed this discussion.. Better late than never though. I shall return when I have more time.

[Nereid]

The "Electric Universe" (EU) idea has been posted, or directly referenced, in this forum many times.

As far as I know (AFAIK), this is the first instance since the BB software upgrade and move to a new server, and there is already at least one more.

Such EU ideas - also often called "plasma cosmology" or "plasma universe" - can be found presented on many internet discussion fora; AFAIK the ideas, as presented, are backed by relatively few papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals of astronomy, and certainly almost none in the last decade or so, a fact acknowledged by proponents of EU ideas^.

If anyone (kovil? Sputnick?) would like to have yet another discussion on these ideas, and specifically the extent to which they can be called scientific, let's hear from you. If not, then let's have no more promotion of them in this forum, and specifically let's have members cease promoting books here^^.

If anyone would like links to discussions of EU ideas, from the perspective of modern astronomy, please ask and I'll be happy to provide some.

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind all members of one of the rules (emphasis added):

4. Be constructive, be polite, be nice, don't attack people, don't use language that would get this forum blacklisted by 'family friendly' filtering software such as is used in many libraries, respect others' privacy, respect copyrights, etc … the usual things that make for a welcoming and successful internet discussion forum.

^ with the important caveat that occasionally EU ideas are defined in such a way as to encompass almost all of modern space physics and any application of MHD etc in astrophysics (topics on which there are tens of thousands of papers, even in the last decade or so).

^^ please re-read the rules, esp in regard to advertising.

[kovil]

Thank you Neried for your tolerance.
I will do my best to be civil, not promote books etc, or post links.

Today's apod poses another electrical solution to another 'puzzle'.
Why the glow at Jupiter's poles in infrared light.
It is the electrical activity at Jupiter's poles in conjuction with the magnetic field, heating that area and making it shine in the infrared.
Saturn has the same thing going on, hot poles, which is not explicable by solar heating alone.
This photo is quite interesting in that it shows vividly the infrared abundance at Jupiter's poles.

I do so love APOD's photos, tho I do quite disagree with many of the interpretations of what we are seeing for the data as to what that data means,.

May the best theory finally explain things correctly !
as we are all really interested to find the TRUTH, and that's why we are here.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Looking athe the image

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081104.html

When galaxies collide, they pass through each other -- their individual stars rarely come into contact. Clouds of interstellar gas and dust become condensed, causing a wave of star formation to move out from the impact point like a ripple across the surface of a pond.

It is worth noting that the type of interaction is limited.

The ring galaxy is distorted in one direction caused by a gravitational pull of a passing galaxy. There is no evidence of one galaxy going through another. If this did occur that there would be a greater distortion and gravitaional intanglement.

The ring galaxy seems to have a compact body to the left centre. This compact body seems to have formed a jet that ejected matter in the past. Similar to a bar galaxy. When the elliptical galaxy was passing it attracted the jet forming star formation arms of the ring galaxy to fold. Notice that the arms are thicker and thin out and meet on the right centre.

These types of jets are very common and in many cases influence the form of nearby galaxies and are part of the evolution of galaxies.

Thats my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Nereid]

Thank you Neried for your tolerance.
I will do my best to be civil, not promote books etc, or post links.

Today's apod poses another electrical solution to another 'puzzle'.
Why the glow at Jupiter's poles in infrared light.
It is the electrical activity at Jupiter's poles in conjuction with the magnetic field, heating that area and making it shine in the infrared.
Saturn has the same thing going on, hot poles, which is not explicable by solar heating alone.
This photo is quite interesting in that it shows vividly the infrared abundance at Jupiter's poles.

I do so love APOD's photos, tho I do quite disagree with many of the interpretations of what we are seeing for the data as to what that data means,.

May the best theory finally explain things correctly !
as we are all really interested to find the TRUTH, and that's why we are here.

The glow at the poles is, per the caption, reflection of infrared (at these wavelengths) from the Sun by the high level haze there.

There is also "electrical activity at Jupiter's poles in conjuction with the magnetic field", especially due to the Io flux tube, but that's a different phenomenon with a different signature. IIRC, Saturn's "hot poles" are due, largely, to yet another phenomenon.

Your post lets me raise some interesting questions, ones I do hope you'll have a go at answering ...

May the best theory finally explain things correctly !

What methods (steps, procedures, etc) do you think should be applied to a theory (any theory) to see if it "explain things correctly"?

we are all really interested to find the TRUTH

How can one tell when one has "the TRUTH" in hand?

the interpretations of what we are seeing for the data as to what that data means

To what extent do you consider there to be 'theory-free' data in this APOD? In the 17 Sep 2008 APOD?

And perhaps to ask this another way, to what extent is "the data" (NOT "the interpretations") in these two APODs "the TRUTH"? Or to what extent does it present "the TRUTH"?

[Nereid]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Looking athe the image

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081104.html

When galaxies collide, they pass through each other -- their individual stars rarely come into contact. Clouds of interstellar gas and dust become condensed, causing a wave of star formation to move out from the impact point like a ripple across the surface of a pond.

It is worth noting that the type of interaction is limited.

The ring galaxy is distorted in one direction caused by a gravitational pull of a passing galaxy.

Let me play devil's advocate, if I may ...

How do you know that "a gravitational pull of a passing galaxy" is the cause of the distortion?

There is no evidence of one galaxy going through another. If this did occur that there would be a greater distortion and gravitaional intanglement.

May I ask what you would consider as "evidence of one galaxy going through another"?

The ring galaxy seems to have a compact body to the left centre. This compact body seems to have formed a jet that ejected matter in the past. Similar to a bar galaxy. When the elliptical galaxy was passing it attracted the jet forming star formation arms of the ring galaxy to fold. Notice that the arms are thicker and thin out and meet on the right centre.

(bold added)

How did it do so (attract the jet)?

These types of jets are very common and in many cases influence the form of nearby galaxies and are part of the evolution of galaxies.

Thats my opinion, I could be wrong.

If you had unlimited access to any lab facility, ground-based observatory, spacecraft, ... what research would you do to test your opinion?

[harry]

G'day Nereid

It's funny I asked similar questions last night to another.


Lets have a look at this point:
You said

How do you know that "a gravitational pull of a passing galaxy" is the cause of the distortion?

If the elliptical galaxy passed through another galaxy the distotion would be greater to both galaxies. It would create tail ends. We see minimal connections.

The ring galaxy shows signs of a stage of evolution that has ejected matter from the centre compact matter. The arms if you could imagine would be greater in width closer to the centre. If a passing galaxy was close enough you would expect the gravitional pull to effect the arms and the surrounding stars and this is the case. Simple vector force explanation of school experiment.

I have been looking at this image for weeks, i have saved it on the screen.

Neried I have thousands of images and explanations. Its general info that can be found through the web. Its not rocket science. The formation of jets and their influence on starformation is well documented through ADS and arXiv.

Since we last talked many months ago. I started reading more of ADS and found their similarity with arXiv and how they shared science papers.

My opinion could be wrong. But! I have not read and explanation that has a science support. Just saying that one galaxy has gone through another is not science.

Sorry, i would go deeper into this expalanation, but my time is limited. Taking the kids out.

I have a few more years of reading and than I hope maybe one day I will understand the universe and its working parts.

[apodman]

I thought I found a pretty good synonym for "worthless talk" and "foolishness" according to my dictionary. Only seven letters and two syllables, succinct like I like it. But some people think the "g" word is insulting to their pet "theory". I am beginning to see what I think must be their point: While "worthless talk" remains a good description of "Electric Universe", I'm willing to back off on the "foolishness" aspect. The authors of these money-making books are no fools. All they need is a cult to follow them. And that's what the first post I read by an "Electric Universe" fan sounded like to me: comic book cult talk.

But talk on. You are doing science and astronomy a favor. Turn your attention to 1968: The Erich von Däniken cult and others are the darlings of the media. Now turn your attention to 1973-86: The audience and the media got tired of you-know-what, and Carl Sagan appeared on the Tonight Show 26 times.

[BMAONE23]

Not that I believe in an Electric Universe Theory but...Consider this:
The Universe on a micro scale (relatively speaking of course), Galactic scale, can not readily transfer electrons due to the vast distances between normal matter particles that could carry the charge. However, the universe consists of only 4% of this type of matter. There is the other, darker matter to consider too. We have only surmised it's existance due to the gravity needed to hold things together. If Dark Matter does exist, it might also have extrordinary electrical properties yet to be discovered. In fact, the Dark Energy used to explain the Expansion might also be electrical in nature.
When you look at the Universe on the Macro-scale though, It more resembles the Brain of a living organism. With Neurons coupled together by Dendrites creating a vast spiderweb like structure with electrical impulses carrying innformation between the neurons.
The Neurons would be replaced by galaxies & galaxy clusters acting as that structure with Dark Matter then replacing the Dendrites that tie everything together and finally Dark Energy being the neural current that flows through the ties to reinforce and create new ones. These new ties would then force an overall expansion in the area as they are formed. Since the Dark Matter Dendrites are being reinforced and created constantly, the Universe in turn constantly expands, being driven by the universal (neural) electrical current Dark Energy.
an interesting article

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

One needs to look at jet formation and its properties and note that these jets can go for millions of light years.

The electromagnetic forces do go those distances.

One needs to google for that information.

Galactic Black Hole Fires a Jet at a Nearby Neighbour
http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/17 ... neighbour/

Hello BMAone23
you said

Galactic scale, can not readily transfer electrons due to the vast distances between normal matter particles that could carry the charge

Think again and look at deep field images and properties of jets and their make up.

Most of the matter that we know only makes up 4% if that. Most of the matter is in the form of degenerate matter, found in compac bodies such a Neutron stars, white dwafs, exotic stars theoretical quark composite stars and the theoretical black holes. This is the matter that matters.

Google has info on degenerate matter on tap.


I had this list in my computer here is part of it. If your interested I will post the others.

What is Degenerate Matter?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-degenerate-matter.htm

The neutron stars
http://nrumiano.free.fr/Estars/neutrons.html

Black Holes: by Alex Nervosa
http://astronomyonline.org/Stars/BlackHole.asp

Stellar Remnants
http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s10.htm



The subject on degenerate matter is one of the Keys to the recycling process.

I do not understand all of it, just a small part of it, I'm just learning as I go.