Telescope Offers 'Clearest View Yet' of Milky Way - Including Plasma Filaments (ska.ac.za) 169
Chris Reeve writes: The MeerKAT radio telescope was inaugurated in South Africa this past Friday, revealing the clearest view yet of the center of the Milky Way. What is especially surprising about the produced image are the numerous prominent filaments which seem to appear in the foreground.
Herschel made a similar announcement just three years prior that "Observations with ESA's Herschel space observatory have revealed that our Galaxy is threaded with filamentary structures on every length scale." Intriguingly, close inspection of yesterday's SKA image show these filaments twisting around one another, yet without combining — a phenomenon observable in most novelty plasma globes when the filaments are conducting electricity... The SKA telescopes is one of the first telescopes to witness these filaments because it is 50 times more powerful than any former telescope, but also because it is apparently one of the few telescopes which can observe dark mode plasmas. For these reasons, the SKA telescope will inevitably revive the debate over the underlying physical reasons for filaments which exhibit coherent thin magnetic structure over light-year distances.
The original submission included a comment with more information about the theory of a plasma universe.
Herschel made a similar announcement just three years prior that "Observations with ESA's Herschel space observatory have revealed that our Galaxy is threaded with filamentary structures on every length scale." Intriguingly, close inspection of yesterday's SKA image show these filaments twisting around one another, yet without combining — a phenomenon observable in most novelty plasma globes when the filaments are conducting electricity... The SKA telescopes is one of the first telescopes to witness these filaments because it is 50 times more powerful than any former telescope, but also because it is apparently one of the few telescopes which can observe dark mode plasmas. For these reasons, the SKA telescope will inevitably revive the debate over the underlying physical reasons for filaments which exhibit coherent thin magnetic structure over light-year distances.
The original submission included a comment with more information about the theory of a plasma universe.
Electric Universe (Score:5, Interesting)
Galactic scale magnetic fields... Is this why stars don't orbit galaxies at the velocities predicted by gravitation alone? Perhaps this will ultimately put an end to dark matter hocus pocus.
Re:Electric Universe (Score:5, Informative)
Look, i know you electric universe dipshits have to keep pumping the con to keep the money coming in, but every little thing in the universe where electricity actually shows up doesn't prove you're con is anything more than bullshit.
Einstein was right, and we have the WORKING technology based on his theory (an ACTUAL theory) to prove it. The Earth isn't only 6000 years old, and the grand canyon wasn't made from a super lightning bolt.... it was eroded over a lot more than 6000 years. Electric universe is bullshit.
Re:Electric Universe (Score:5, Informative)
Damn you slashdot! I read the first post and saw that someone might have an answer for dark matter. I never really liked the dark matter answer ether. I thought Cool
But I've never heard of this "Electric universe" theory. I did a quick google search and now I know why. First name I saw associated with the theory, Immanuel Velikovsky.
Now I know why I have never heard of it. I came in here hoping for a sound scientific theory, only to leave with a pseudo scientific pile of bullshit. I can't even fertilize my petunias with this bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
That is one advantage of analog over digital.
Re:Electric Universe (Score:5, Informative)
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/... [rationalwiki.org]
-- Einstein's postulates are wrong.
-- General relativity (GR) is wrong.
-- The Universe is not expanding.
-- The electric force travels faster than the speed of light with near-infinite velocity.
-- Gravity has two poles like a bar magnet; dipole gravity.
-- A plenum of neutrinos forms an all-pervasive aether.
-- Planets give birth to comets.
-- Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.
-- Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges. The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.
-- The Sun is negatively charged, and the solar wind is positively charged — the two systems forming a giant capacitor (this is James McCanney's particular erroneous belief.)
-- EU proponents from the Thunderbolts Project claim to have predicted the natures of Pluto and Comet 67P more accurately than NASA or ESA.
Every one of these ideas are stupider than fuck. Anyone with a half way decent high school education SHOULD be able to look at that and realize that electric universe bullshit is a fucking worthless con job.
Lets take a shot at even the first one.... Einsteins postulates are wrong. Why is it that to get GPS to work, they have to account for Relativity? If Relativity was wrong, they wouldn't need to... now would they? The more you peddle this bullshit, the more you look like a fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Juan Calsiano has replied to your claims about Relativity here. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I get it, you're too fucking stupid to understand Relativity, and need some simple, no math, brain dead bullshit to make you feel specia
Re: (Score:3)
So, which is it?
Until it was mentioned her on /. I have never heard of it. After it was mentioned I looked into it some more, because I never heard of it. What I found was half baked pseudo scientific bunch of mumbo jumbo with this crackpots name attached to it, Immanuel Velikovsky. That pretty much sealed the deal for me. Once I saw that name I decided there was nothing more of value here.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been tracking the debate over electricity in space for more than 12 years now. You may want to rethink your belief that you can judge an entire cosmology based upon a couple of articles that you read online.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll tell you what. I have some down time coming and I'm still interested in this EU theory. With Immanuel Velikovsky hitching his wagon to it I'm sure its poppy cock but who knows.
I'll read up on it and make up my own mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I recommend going to controversiesofscience.com, click elephant, then select a category of controversy cards to sort through. These are very important topics.
Re: (Score:3)
That site doesn't doesn't seem to be working. I tried to get something useful out of it for 5 minutes. 4 min and 30 seconds longer than I'm required.
Re: (Score:3)
I looked some into this, about as far down that rabbit hole as I wanted to go. Which was a little past the door hinges. What I did look in to flies in to the face of solid scientific theory or simply can't be proven.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: And yet when we search for these massive fields, they've never been found
It's not clear why you expect to see "massive" fields. Don Scott has published the mathematics for the force-free field-aligned Birkeland current [ptep-online.com], and it is a Bessel function [youtu.be] - a series of concentric cylinders of counter-rotating charge.
To be clear, there is no mathematical basis in the Bessel function for your claim that a massive field would be observable from outside of the filament structure.
If you take a close look at the
Re: (Score:2)
....but the electric force is still orders of magnitude stronger than gravitation, and it doesnâ(TM)t take much divergence from perfect charge neutrality to create massive electric and magnetice fields
You seem to be forgetting what you posted as an anon coward right above my response.
Electric universe is bullshit. It's a cult of stupid people who are too lazy to fucking learn reality, but want to be thougth of as smart anyway. It doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look like con men and idiots.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not me. And either way, the anon's point is nevertheless valid in the context of their statement because they are not explicitly referring to force-free field-aligned Birkeland currents. The Bessel function implies concentric cylinders of charges moving in opposite directions. A person need not be a mathematician to understand from that geometry that the magnetic fields of these concentric cylinders should more-or-less cancel each other out. All you really need to know to get this is the right-ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The streamers detect one another for the same reason that this [youtube.com] happens. It's physics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Galactic scale magnetic fields... Is this why stars don't orbit galaxies at the velocities predicted by gravitation alone? Perhaps this will ultimately put an end to dark matter hocus pocus.
Science does not work the way of "hocus pocus". I practically guarantee, that the Nobel awaits anyone, who would explain dark matter phenomenon. It's not like scientists force upon each other explanations. Any publication or scientific grant proposal is reviewed by peers, who do research in the same field and are direct competitors for research grants, places in renowned journals etc. - so, when some ideas go through such a sieve it's very likely they have merit.
Going back to the topic: there are more thin
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "Scientists are very competitive by nature and they pursue all sound ideas."
You might try reading actual critiques of modern science, like The Twilight of the Scientific Age:
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, we are talking about dark matter aka "hocus-pocus", to, which I explained that it's not like this at all, that scientists stumbled upon something they cannot explain, that they are pursuing all the sound ideas and that there is much more evidence of unexplained gravity than just speed of stars in galaxies, and that based on data the most probable explanation is dark matter as yet not discovered particle.
Secondly, I will read the mentioned article, however despite the fact that science is not a per
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "Lastly, evidence does not support conclusions from the article, scientific books are being rewritten with revolutionary ideas much more then in the past: general relativity (time is not constant), quantum theory (all is waves of probability), quantum chromodynamics, expansion of the Universe, black holes, evaporating black holes, cosmic microwave background radiation, string theory, quantum field theory, gravitational waves, accelerating expansion of the Universe, Higgs field and Higgs bozon - if this
Re: Electric Universe (Score:5, Informative)
For that the stars would have to be electrically charged. A lot.
Best to explicitly make the point that stars are not (significantly) electrically charged. It seems most EU nutters believe that they are.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Truth as been spoken. "Show me the math." Funny how they can never do this.
Re: (Score:3)
The phenomenon of long-range-attraction, short-range repulsion which occurs between conducting plasma filaments is known as the Biot-Savart Law. A comment attached to the original post [slashdot.org] pointed to a diagram in Anthony Peratt's Physics of the Plasma Universe which can be viewed online. There is an entire chapter there in Peratt's text [google.com] which goes through the mathematics of Biot-Savart (Chapter 3: Biot Savart Law in Cosmic Plasma).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Hubble radius, Hubble sphere, Hubble volume, or Hubble horizon is a conceptual horizon defining the boundary between particles that are moving slower and faster than the speed of light relative to an observer at one given time."
The Observable Universe is only about 13.8bil years old and about 46bil light years in radius. Everything visible beyond the Hubble Horizon was within our lightcone in the past but is no longer. This is where Dark Energy comes in. No idea what it
Re: (Score:3)
You are correct that on issues related specifically to redshift, there exists a sort of consensus amongst critics of the Big Bang on Halton Arp. I highly recommend checking out Halton Arp's books - and especially the first one he wrote. His work was always very much driven by observation, and I think history will agree that Arp's claims were well within the bounds of acceptable science. It seems that he was simply swept up in a historical moment where the academic elites decided which direction cosmology
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "Unfortunately, I'm not seeing proof, I'm currently seeing conjecture."
The logic is straightforward. Each claim I am about to make can be backed up with references. I'm going to spare myself the burden of doing that in this particular instance so that I can focus upon providing you with "the big picture" of what is going on - because I will completely agree that there is so much new information here that it can be overwhelming. If you want to see the references for these claims, follow me on Twitter [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "Pick up any planetary dymanics or solar system mechanics text written in the last 80 years and you'll be confronted by the reality of solar magnetic fields."
There are also clues in more recent observations [aasnova.org] that stars are connected by transmission lines:
Re: (Score:2)
This solar magnetic field could potentially interact with sufficiently strong galactic magnetic fields to produce some of the effects attributed to dark matter.
Either it needs to explain all of the Dark Matter observations or none of them. Including gravitational lenseing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you are looking for something more comprehensive, then read The Electric Sky. If you want something more technical, then read Physics of the Plasma Universe. You can find copies of the latter floating around online if you prefer to not pay for it.
It's not a strike against the EU that it's a challenge to pick up; it's testament to how wrong the existing theories are that so much has to change. But, you already knew that (5% universe and all of that ...)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a partial transcript of an audio interview of Jeff Schmidt, a former editor of Physics Today for 19 years. He received his PhD in physics from UC Irvine, and he is the author of a critique of the graduate programs, Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look At Salaried Professionals And The Soul Battering System That Shapes Their Lives. In both the book and this interview, Jeff likened professional training - you know, the graduate programs - to a cult.
Re: (Score:3)
Einstein was right.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, for the electric universe bullshit to be right, Einstein has to be wrong.... and he wasn't. We have working technology that ONLY works BECAUSE of taking into account relativistic effects.
The actual field of plasma physics is valid, you're lying sack of con man shit electric univ
Some comments about the origin of Relativity (Score:2, Interesting)
Dear Meglon,
We should always be extremely careful to distinguish between the quantitative vs. qualitative aspects of scientific theory. The former is constructed from abstract equations, the latter is constructed from abstract concepts. Both are maps (or aspects of a map) trying to describe the real territory, i.e. the universe.
You are right in that the quantitative aspect of Relativity has an enormous amount of experimental confirmation. What you seem to be missing is that such a mathematical framework was
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Notable that it comes from slashdot; I live in the heart of Silicon Valley, and this has never once been on the radar. Go online, and everything is different. Oftentimes via anon's.
Re: (Score:2)
Just one thing. As far as know Einstein's theory of relativity refers to non-accelerating frames of reference which are moving in linear motion. You can't just apply relativity to a rotating frame of reference, such as our planet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "Every test ever implemented that could prove or disprove Relativity has always come out in its favor. Make a test that it can't pass and then you'll have a leg to stand on. Until there is a test that shows Relativity to be wrong, we will continue to assume it's correct, and every test that it passes will reaffirm how correct is actually is."
You guys just go into endless circles with this mistaken logic. Juan Calsiano explained in crystal clear detail why there is no substance to what you are saying. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
This business of reconsidering observations in the light of a completely new set of assumptions and hypotheses is hard work, so wherever you might see people coming to a snap judgement about an entire cosmology after having read one or two debunker essays, realize that the mind sees the amount of work involved with learning it and may try to find shortcuts which it can use to justify a more lazy approach.
Those who take the time to learn the new idea are richly rewarded because once you pick up this new tool
50 times more powerful -At What? (Score:2)
50 times more sensitive?
Angular separation?
Wide spectrum?
Post-radio computer processing power?
I don't like the word "powerful" if you aren't talking horsepower or something.
Suggestion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happier with a wider view field of now that we know the real diameter is bigger than the traditional 100,000 light year diameter..
They could just use the "uncrop" button on existing picture.
All bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nz7neg/electric-universe-theory-thunderbolts-project-wallace-thornhill
"Electric universe" theory is at odds with everything modern science has determined about the universe.
In physics, theories need math. That's how you predict, gather evidence, verify, disprove, and support. But EU theory isn't big on math. In fact, "Mathematics is not physics," Thornhill said. While that equation aversion makes the theory pretty much a nonstarter for "mainstream" astronomers, it is the exact thing that appeals to many adherents.
"At best, the 'electric universe' is a solution in search of a problem; it seeks to explain things we already understand very well through gravity, plasma and nuclear physics, and the like," said astronomer Phil Plait, who runs the blog Bad Astronomy at Slate. "At worst it's sheer crackpottery like homeopathy and astrology, making claims clearly contradicted by the evidence."
Lets get that again from a real scientist:
making claims clearly contradicted by the evidence
Electric universe is bullshit.
not what the article was about anyway (Score:2)
Yes that extra little bit about plasma universe was unnecessary and added by shill for that theory
The filaments (having no similarity whatsoever with discharges inside globe toy nor with lightning) though are real and were discovered in mid 80s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "The filaments (having no similarity whatsoever with discharges inside globe toy nor with lightning) though are real and were discovered in mid 80s."
Filamentation is a fundamental aspect of plasmas conducting charged particles, and has been observed countless times in all sorts of plasma laboratories. The novelty plasma globe has been pointed to simply because the public will be most familiar with it.
Filamentation was also the most important prediction by Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven insofar as it dist
Re: (Score:3)
observed peer reviewed fact: star systems are overall electrically neutral
crash goes your nonsense theory
Re: (Score:3)
Debye screening has been shown to be untrue in countless instances. Astrophysicists enshrined the conjecture as a dogma, then subsequently ignored each violation. If you know of a serious attempt to somehow validate the conjecture, please kindly post it. Having some familiarity with these debates, I can clearly see that your confident declarations greatly exceed the actual evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "The current flows predicted by the debunked EU theory have not been observed."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
High-power microwaves here on Earth are produced by plasma instabilities in electron beams - in other words, electric currents over plasma. COBE and WMAP, by contrast, are pitching a creation event as the cause for the microwaves coming at us from all directions. You might want to take a step back, and think more deeply about what is going on here - and especially your own role in the light of this information about microwaves which I can plainly see you were not aware of.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and notice that there are 250 comments (!) attached to the article - and anybody who actually reads through those comments will see an actual back-and-forth discussion happening. You're trying to convince people that there is no debate to be had here, but the link you've sent people to exhibits a debate attached to the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The bedrock claim put forward by the Thunderbolts Project - the claim which all proponents of EU will agree on - is that we can apply laboratory plasma physics principles to the interpretation of cosmic plasmas. Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven made the point repeatedly [coincider.com] that laboratory observation of plasmas must be at the root of our attempts to understand cosmic plasmas:
Re: (Score:2)
Electric universe is bullshit.
Their assertions are complete bullshit. There is a reason they make those assertions, and that is where things get interesting.
Pretty much everyone agrees that at The Beginning, their was nothing but energy. It is explained as being at a single point, no mass, no space. Assuming that is correct:
Energy, for whatever reason, "knotted" or "condensed" into 'matter'. When energy became 'matter' it forced the creation of the 'compliment' of mass, which is what we call spacetime. Spacetime is a field. A field of e
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "Pretty much everyone agrees that at The Beginning, their was nothing but energy."
The origin of this idea is clearly the Bible, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously (Score:3)
the SKA telescope will inevitably revive the debate
No Doubt.
It all makes sense now... (Score:2)
a phenomenon observable in most novelty plasma globes
So it turns out our universe is not a computer simulation....
We're living in a novelty toy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
. If really "someone" created this kind of "simulation" our relatively very limited human brain capacity would be far from comprehending
I would be pretty concerned with what will happen to you when the guy who does the AI programming for our sim reads when you said about the quality of his work. :-)
Infectious laughter (Score:2)
Dummies, that's a sideways view of Kim Kardashian's vajayjay.
Wow!! (Score:2)
Electric universe bullshit. (Score:2)
Einstein was right, and the electric universe bullshit is a con job. Thomas Roberts, Fermilab (you know, a real scientist):
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/... [ucr.edu]
Note, however, that SR is not perfect (in agreement with every experiment), and there are some experiments that are in disagreement with its predictions. See Experiments that Apparently are not Consistent with SR where some of these experiments are referenced and discussed. It is clear that most, if not all, of these experiments have difficulties that are unrelated to SR. Note also that few if any standard references or textbooks even mention the possibility that some experiments might be inconsistent with SR, and there are also aspects of publication bias in the literature. That being said, as of this writing there are no reproducible and generally accepted experiments that are inconsistent with SR, within its domain of applicability.
Re: (Score:2)
Juan Calsiano has already rebutted your claim here [slashdot.org].
Re:It's electric! (Score:4, Funny)
Don't you mean dank matter?
Re:It's electric! (Score:4, Funny)
I bet it does.
Re: (Score:3)
'Cause you can see the filaments! Just like in a toy plasma globe! Plasma can conduct electric currents, which proves the filaments conduct electricity!
This means we don't need dark matter OR the General Theory of Relativity!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "The part that annoys me most about the whole Electric Universe thing is that nowadays you basically can't talk about electromagetism in astrophysics at all."
Astrophysicists' problems with magnetic fields did not begin with the Electric Universe; they began with the former mistaken assumption that the space between stars is basically empty. That unfortunate assumption guided the creation of scientific theories in the space sciences up until the first instrumented rockets definitively demonstrated that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not quite understanding: the CMB is the emission.
Anthony L. Peratt, Physics of the Plasma Universe, Second Edition, 2015, p.33-34:
Re: (Score:2)
Why is Slashdot so replete with Electric Universe cranks?
"Replete" is a stretch. Only seen one so far and you can't be certain they weren't joking.
(As someone who hasn't heard of it before that was an interesting in a psychoceramic kind of way.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even two isn't necessarily "replete". There were at least a couple of Young Earth Creationists back in the day who saw fit to butt in every now and then...
Re: Go away, Electric Universers (Score:5, Funny)
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo.
Re: Go away, Electric Universers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
because a serious science forum would ban them. slashdot in 2018 has articles about possibility of next iphone being available in each of the gay pride flag colors.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably fair to say that the editor has not found the arguments presented on Slashdot against the Electric Universe to be very persuasive. Notice that even after some 70 comments, many of them disparaging the idea that laboratory plasma experiments can be used to inform inferences about cosmic plasmas, not a single commenter has posted a believable alternative interpretation which would explain these extraordinary filaments.
Re: (Score:2)
Einstein was right... you are not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "The fact that we'd have to throw out 100+ years of science AND WORKING TECHNOLOGY FROM THAT SCIENCE to entertain the electric universe bullshit means it is just that... bullshit."
Your claim that GPS somehow proves Einstein's Relativity was shown with explicit historical detail to be incorrect in Juan Calsiano's post. [slashdot.org] - which may be one of the best rebuttals to this claim ever posted onto the Internet. If you disagree with it, the proper response would be to help us to understand why it is wrong. Prov
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The actual problem is that people do not understand what a plasma is - and yet, it is today widely recognized in the graduate programs that 99% of what we see with telescopes is matter in the plasma state. That's an overt problem with the science journalism which needs to be addressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's remarkable that you provided no specific example in these three paragraphs to illustrate your point.
Re: (Score:3)
I appreciate your perspective, and I think it's healthy. What does not seem healthy at all to me is overt hostility in the heart of Silicon Valley directed at this simple idea of applying laboratory plasma concepts to astronomical imagery. The Big Bang concept is a creation event dressed up in some of the most sophisticated mathematics humans have ever devised. The math is sort of like a gauntlet which experts plunge all detractors into: If you cannot perform these brain tricks, then you are not qualifie
Re: (Score:3)