Mystery Behind Galaxy Shapes Solved

[flyingcloud]

words cannot describe my disgust...

mystery solved, dark matter and dark energy does it all, sometimes I just feel the overwhelming desire to bitchslap some of these people

Mystery Behind Galaxy Shapes Solved

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/g ... 00111.html

Galaxies come in many shapes and sizes, but until recently astronomers have been at a loss to explain why.

Now scientists have used dark matter theory to predict the menagerie of galaxies found in the universe. Their new model reproduces 13 billion years' worth of cosmic evolution, resulting in a surprisingly accurate tally of the different kinds of galaxies we see.

"We were completely astonished that our model predicted both the abundance and diversity of galaxy types so precisely," said researcher Nick Devereux of Embry-Riddle University in Arizona.

American astronomer Edwin Hubble first developed a classification system in the 1930s, known as the Hubble Sequence, which divides galaxies into two main types: spirals, and ellipticals.

Elliptical galaxies look like eggs of light — a central, solid nest of stars. Spirals, on the other hand, are the stereotypical swirling galaxies that many people think of, and include our own Milky Way and our closest neighbor, Andromeda. Spiral galaxies come in two kinds — with and without a bar of thick material in the center, from which the spiral arms wind out. (The Milky Way is a barred spiral.)

Researchers created a new supercomputer model, based on observational data and the "Lambda Cold Dark Matter" theory of the universe. This theory suggests that about 72 percent of the cosmos is made of up a mysterious force called dark energy, while another 23 percent is composed of an invisible type of matter called dark matter. That leaves only 4 percent of the universe made of normal, visible matter, including all the stars and planets that we see.

The new supercomputer model was able to predict roughly the right relative numbers of spirals and ellipticals that exist today.

"It really boosts my confidence in the model," said astronomer Andrew Benson of Caltech, a co-researcher in the study.

The researchers said the inclusion of dark matter is likely crucial to their results, because theory predicts that galaxies sit inside larger spheres, called halos, of the invisible stuff. The behavior of a galaxy's dark matter halo could affect its evolution and help determine whether it becomes a spiral or an elliptical, they added.

"These new findings set a clear direction for future research," Devereux said. "Our goal now is to compare the model predictions with observations of more distant galaxies seen in images obtained with the Hubble   and those of the soon-to-be-launched James Webb Space Telescope."

The findings were published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

[solrey]

flyingcloud, I hear ya.

This was my comment on that space.com article.

Giving the force laws of electromagnetic plasma interactions equal consideration along with gravitational forces, Anthony Peratt produced simulations 24 years ago that elegantly match what is observed in the universe in great detail, much more so than the simulation in this article involving "mysterious dark forces". Whereas their simulation focused on ellipticals and spirals, Peratts simulations included irregulars and by percentage, all three match observations within any reasonable margin of error. Pretty much every meaningful detail, from radiation signatures to temperatures to structure, magnetic fields and more, in Peratts simulations match observations to an amazing degree and within any reasonably acceptable margin of error.
Failure to accept electromagnetic interactions in plasma in describing the universe has caused the theoretical mathemagicians to create force laws for "dark matter/energy etc" that closely mimic, in a roundabout way, the force laws for electromagnetic plasma physics. Our new instruments are showing us that the universe is awash in plasma and magnetism. So which makes more sense, giving known plasma physics consideration or making up forces like dark matter and energy to constantly fill in the gaps for an inadequate gravity only model?

Evolution of the Plasma Universe II: The Formation of Systems of Galaxies.

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

And a follow up paper from 1998:

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas.

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/AdvancesII.pdf

Even the flat rotation curve for spiral galaxies is accurately created in Peratts simulations (using nothing more than established electromagnetic plasma physics), which is where the need for dark matter came in the first place to describe that "anomolous" rotation curve that the gravity only model couldn't account for without some major help.

[Anaconda]

Hi solrey:

Excellent comment

I checked out the other comments, most were incredulous about the article. Which is saying something considering that a lot of regular commenters might be inclined to go along with such nonsense.

I think your comment may have stopped some commenters to pause, as yours at the time of my view was the last comment. I'll be interested what, if any, follow up comments have to say about the article and your comment.

Mainstream astronomers have really gone off the deep end.

Question: How can you simulate a substance ("dark matter) and an energy ("dark energy") that have never been observed & measured?

Answer: You make stuff up and then plug in the numbers that will give the desired results in the computer program.

I gotta think even other astronomers will have a hard time with that.

And another thing, Iv'e seen different percentages for "dark matter" and "dark energy" in other reports.

They're all over the board.

I know it's been said before, but I think mainstream astronomy is heading to its Waterloo pretty soon

[junglelord]

I rarely read the dark matter crap and I could bitchslap them too.
However the other day I read the term dark EM.


So their model is, if I get it right, EM, but they just call it dark.
Hence thats why it worked out correctly in the simulation.
They are introducing EM, but not saying it outright.
I say bitchslap the whole lot of them.

[nick c]

I was wondering, if dark matter exerts a gravitational force on normal matter, is it subject to gravitational force exerted on it by other dark matter? If so, why wouldn't it combine into dark matter stars and galaxies? and if it exerts a gravitational force why wouldn't it combine with normal matter into composite stars of dark and normal matter? are there invisible (dark) galaxies that we cannot detect?
It seems that if it is going to be exerting all these gravitational effects then it should be in turn subject to those effects...what is good for the goose is good for the gander!
Oh, excuse me, I forgot, DM can do whatever is needed in order to make the model work.

When will there be sanity?

Nick

[earls]

"So their model is, if I get it right, EM, but they just call it dark."

EXACTLY.

Dark, as in unmeasured. Unmeasured, because it has to be a neutral mass.

That's why in every "space" section of a science news site you can find a headline like "AW MAH GAWD FOOKING BOMBOCLAT WHAT'S THIS MAGNETIC FIELD DOING HERE?!"

This one's my current fave: http://www.physorg.com/news182605534.html

I can't believe the commenters have 5/5.

[junglelord]

That's why in every "space" section of a science news site you can find a headline like "AW MAH GAWD FOOKING BOMBOCLAT WHAT'S THIS MAGNETIC FIELD DOING HERE?!"
This one's my current fave: http://www.physorg.com/news182605534.html

The newly-discovered magnetic loop helps explain phenomena seen in earlier observations of the Algol system at X-ray and radio wavelengths, the scientists said. In addition, they now believe there may be similar magnetic features in other double-star systems.

The scientists detected the magnetic loop by making extremely detailed images of the system using an intercontinental set of radio telescopes, including the National Science Foundation's Very Long Baseline Array, Very Large Array, and Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope, along with the Effelsberg radio telescope in Germany. These radio telescopes were used as a single observing system that offered both great detail, or resolving power, and high sensitivity to detect very faint radio waves. When working together, these telescopes are known as the High Sensitivity Array.

Its a religious experience, they now believe.
HALLALUHA!
There may be similar magnetic features in other double-star systems.
You think?

If you pay attention to the fact that Radio Telescopes detect the magnetic field, then expolate that from Radio Wave transmission theory here on earth you can appreciate what they are doing and at the same time discover that the current theory of radio wave transmission is incorrect because its so incomplete, but if you interject the proper physics of Radio Wave transmission from Tesla and not RCA, then your going to understand whats happening and why.

Look what I found and I am watching right now.

Part 1 of 6: Eric Dollard Tesla Longitudinal wave Energy SBARC Ham Radio with Chris Carson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhuSn6sc ... re=related

He explains the DIFFERENT means of Radio Wave Transmission....and there are more then one!


And I am still learning after all these years.

I graduated from the Radio College of Canada in 1983 Electronic Engineering Technologist, (worked on satellite receivers and military and commercial sonar and was offered a job on radio towers) and they still taught that Marconi developed radio, and I NEVER heard of Tesla, expect for the unit named after him, but that was it. It still turns out that Marconi Radio, was not what I was taught, nor what is used! RCA radio wave transmission technology is different from both Tesla and Marconi which was a Tesla patent in the first place, and where he got his idea to modify the patent to make it look like his own. I was taught Heaviside Reduction vector analysis and was told it was Maxwells theory....no its not. I was taught RCA radio transmission and was told it was Marconi. Not! I learned a neat box of subsets...thats all. I taught myself the mainframe from Tesla, Dollard, Bearden, Maxwell, Faraday, Birkeland, EU.

Its a huge step to actually UNDERSTAND radio transmission and why you can map a magnetic field because of it.
Therefore the means of transmission, being multiple, need to be examined, learned and understood.
The Dielectric Field is whats missing in the understanding of voltage and Z Pinch impulse effects, which are electrostatic effects.....I will repeat that, they are ELECTROSTATIC events/effects. So your grasp of electrostatics needs to increase, not just your grasp of EM.

Here is a great talk with Eric Dollard on Tesla and longitutinal energy which he calls magnetic-dielectric energy.
Again he explains the current theory of radio transmission and then he explains the missing elements via magnetic-dielectric fields.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/73155/Eric-Do ... s-19861991

Take a look at the current method of transmitting radio waves here on earth.
What happens to all that energy being pumped into that tower?
Where is the heat and or photons?
This is where the current theory is missing essential data.
That energy, and its a huge amount, seems invisible, but its there, so what form is it in?
Magnetic-Dieletric Field effects.
That is what we need to learn to understand the EU.
Plain and simple.
Dielectric Fields are the key to understanding electric waves both transverse and longitudinal.

Examination of scalar field receivers is being tested by Dave Thomson of the Aether Physics Model.

Our most recent empirical research is in detecting magnetic flux waves (AKA gravitational waves) with our new Magnetic Scalar Wave detector. The evidence is rapidly mounting in favor of our success as the data continues to show a clear correlation between magnetic flux waves and gamma ray bursts.
http://www.16pi2.com/

Impulse events like a gamma ray burst will always make a longitudinal wave.
Tesla named his device, a Impulse Magnifying Transmitter, the worlds first star machine, a massive Z pinch, so large not another one close to its size has ever been built. Dollard clearly explains that impulse events create longitudinal waves (faster then light) via dielectric fields.

[jjohnson]

JL, please say you'll teach a seminar on this subject at "our next get together". It'd be great. Thanks.

[junglelord]

Dollards teaches just fine all on his own.


Take a look at a Tesla Transmitter, its a open hot cathode sphere, electrostatic and therefore repulsive, transmitting longitudinal waves through the earth. The way the hot cathode radiates electrostatic and direct current reminds me of the sun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64yKW9FS ... re=related

[Journeyman]

Researchers created a new supercomputer model, based on observational data and the "Lambda Cold Dark Matter" theory of the universe. This theory suggests that about 72 percent of the cosmos is made of up a mysterious force called dark energy, while another 23 percent is composed of an invisible type of matter called dark matter. That leaves only 4 percent of the universe made of normal, visible matter, including all the stars and planets that we see.

Supercomputer can't add up... 72+23+4 is 99%. I've got a calculator they can borrow if they need one that is a little more accurate.

You've got to admire the way they look at their theory, make up magic forces to make it turn out what we see, then get all excited when they add the magic forces into their model & find it produces what we see. With a tally of magic consisting of Inflation, Dark Energy & Dark Matter so far, it takes a certain level of chutzpah to trumpet such non-news.

[neilwilkes]

I'm not at all surprised their model so "accurately predicted" what they say it did.
That will be because they started out with the observations and worked backwards to force-fit them into their preferred mathematical reifications.
When will they learn that there is nothing missing at all, as 4% is observable and the remaining 96% is plasma.
The galactic current models - not to mention laboratory experimentation - shows how the shapes are created. No invisible garden gnomes required. (thanks to Donald E Scott for that wonderful analogy in his excellent "Electric Sky" book - makes me laugh every time I think of it)

[StevenO]

Here is a new article from Miles Mathis that shows that the Virial Theorem that is used a.o. in the proof that dark matter must exist is completely false:

The Virial Theorem is False

Time to redo last two hundred years of homework in (astro-)physics.

[jjohnson]

MM: Ya just gotta love 'im! Thanks, SO; I hadn't checked M for a couple of days.
Also, as he closes, by generalizing the Virial Theorem to E/M, by implication all the conventional E/M equations need a "little tweakin'"...as well. Jeez Louise, guys; who's going to rewrite physics math for those guys? For a frownie face or two, read the ESA's pdf file (46 pp) on their game plan describing what physics research topics are on their plate for further investigation and measurements and reconciliations this year and upcoming. (Hint: gravity remains upstage.)

The real mystery here is why haven't the fans of the (Not So) Standard Model ever read and thought about Peratt's book and papers describing his DOE experiments and photo comparisons of the experimental and simulated results to real photos of real galaxies, with astounding similarities? Who REALLY has the Standard Model for galaxies now?

[dragons]

Now that the mystery behind galaxy shapes has been solved, you'll never guess how entire galaxies disappear. That is a real mystery!

http://multiversecosmology.info

[jjohnson]

Speaking only for myself, I find the entire 'multiverse' concept illogical (too complex for our brand of reality) but I'll try to stay open-minded about it. On the other hand, condensed matter fluid experiments with soap bubbles and soap films are entirely unlikely to scale up and change into plasma physics, no matter how the occasional pattern look-alike.

Have entire galaxies disappeared in astronomical viewing history and recorded observations? Or are they like the supposed 'collisions' attributed to stars and galaxies and the weird zoo of blackholes and neutron stars of the gravity model? Eh? (As JL might say)