Stars + Galaxies

[JaJa]

hi

i hope this is the right index under which to post.

i know this may sound like a very silly or obvious question to some but does this star...

The disk contains a tight spiral structure with two diffuse arms reaching outward like those of a spiral galaxy. It is excellent evidence for the electrical discharge nature of these disks since plasma physicists have successfully modelled galaxy formation and produced the classic spiral formation.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=rbkq9dj2

eventually grow, mature and spin into one of these... (M81)



If so, doesn't that mean we have super-massive suns/stars at the centre of galaxies...

thanx

JJ

[CTJG 1986]

Hmm, I do not think it is a bad question but perhaps just framed improperly from the EU perspective.

I believe the official EU position is that quasars(quasi-stellar objects) are considered to be galactic babies basically, being birthed by a parent galaxy and ejected to later mature into it a galaxy itself.

My alteration to your question would be - is that perhaps the early stages of the birth of a quasar...

Perhaps that is a large star that was near the galactic nuclei and thus contains far greater electrical energy than a typical star further out would, eventually it may be ejected from our galaxy to become a quasar as we know(theorize) them, maybe through some form of electrical repulsion due to its unusually high charge.

Originally I was going to say perhaps it is somehow part of the galactic nuclei that split off but I am not sure if EU theory considers there to be a solid core to the plasmoid nuclei of a galaxy.

But regardless of the official EU position since the first time I read of that star I have wondered if it is actually a quasar in the making and your question got me thinking about it again and gave me an opening to put it out there. So thanks for bringing this up.

Then again maybe it really is an accretion disk of some sort, of an EM nature of course.

Jonny

[JaJa]

hi jonny

the following information was taken from an article called "planet birthing" on Wal Thornhills website Holoscience;

>>HD 141569A is a five-million-year-old star 320 light-years away in the constellation Libra. Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys captured this visible-light image on July 21, 2002, with a coronagraph, which blocked light from the star, creating the black area in the center. Surrounding the star is a tightly wound spiral-structured dust disk with two faint arms in the outer part of the disk. One of these arms reaches toward a binary star inthe upper left of the image. NASA / M. Clampin (STScI) et al. / ACS Science Team / ESA

there is no mention about the object in the photo being a QUASAR. Thornhill goes on to say:

This is the best image of a so-called accretion disk. It was produced on January 6 by a team headed by Mark Clampin of the Space Telescope Science Institute. The disk contains a tight spiral structure with two diffuse arms reaching outward like those of a spiral galaxy. It is excellent evidence for the electrical discharge nature of these disks since plasma physicists have successfully modelled galaxy formation and produced the classic spiral formation. That modelling requires electric currents flowing along the spiral arms. Notably it doesn't require invisible dark matter!

I have highlighted the part that interests me because it covers the question i asked - is it possible that this star (due to the characteristics we can observe) will evolve or grow into a spiral galaxy?

Originally I was going to say perhaps it is somehow part of the galactic nuclei that split off but I am not sure if EU theory considers there to be a solid core to the plasmoid nuclei of a galaxy.

does EU theory consider our sun to have a solid core?

since the first time I read of that star I have wondered if it is actually a quasar in the making and your question got me thinking about it again and gave me an opening to put it out there. So thanks for bringing this up.

your very welcome, quasars are interesting. Reading the article on planet birthing, i think i'm right in saying it is thought that gas giants are ejected from stars and that these gas giants could be responsible for expelling planets?

thanx

JJ

[Nereid]

I wonder if someone with the right powers could move this thread to the Electric Universe section? It seems out of place here.

Anyway ... JaJa, I don't think the first kind of object (a star) would be expected to evolve into the second (a spiral galaxy) from the EU perspective, if only because that would very likely mean a severe violation of one of the most well-established laws of physics, the law of conservation of energy (this law is embedded deep into plasma physics). However, I still have much to learn about EU theory, so I could be quite wrong.

[nick c]

I wonder if someone with the right powers could move this thread to the Electric Universe section? It seems out of place here.

I moved the thread, assuming the discussion will progress along EU lines.
It should be noted that in the OP the first image of the object HD 141569 is that of a star within our galaxy, not a quasar.
http://www.extrasolar.net/startour.asp? ... &StarId=36
I do not know how this star could be "evolving" into a galaxy, the idea posed in the OP? nor of any hypothesis that predicts such.
The mainstream explanation is that it is an evolving "proto planetary disk," by contrast the EU would describe this disk as an "expulsion disk." Two very different interpretations of the same image.

Nick

[CTJG 1986]

It should be noted that in the OP the first image of the object HD 141569 is that of a star within our galaxy, not a quasar.
http://www.extrasolar.net/startour.asp? ... &StarId=36

Nick

It seems my statement was misinterpreted somewhat, I am not challenging the observations and saying that the object is not a star in our own galaxy but simply that perhaps it is the beginning stages of what will eventually be ejected from our galaxy to form what is defined as a quasar.

To my knowledge there is no observational data for quasars prior to their ejection from the parent galaxy, as far as I know such objects aren't defined as quasars until they have been ejected from the parent galaxy. Even the EU has only non-evidenced theory of the processes involved prior to that, no?

Unless I am thinking of a different object this "star" is theorized to be approximately the right age to place it's "creation" sometime around the last cataclysm experienced by human kind/Earth which could very well have been either the result of a "surge" in the galactic circuit or simply been accompanied by such a surge.

A surge such as that which I'm sure Dave or Wal or someone else here has posited could result in a quasar formation/ejection, but that may have been a non-official EU view from someone else as the boards have been quite active lately and I can't keep everything straight as far as who posted what or even what form the post was in(TPOD, Blog or forum post). I'll have to go through the boards with a fine tooth comb and sort everything out when I get a slow day.

Anyways, I suppose whether or not it is possible to be the early stages of a quasar ejection according to EU theory comes to down to whether or not EU theory dictates slow or rapid ejection rate for the quasar body.

To my understanding whether consisting of just plasma or with a solid core somewhere within a quasar body being slowly ejected from a galaxy would be expected to exhibit many of the characteristics of a normal star, being a concentrated "source" of energy that would interact to the environment similarly to a star but just potentially with far greater effect due to greater energy levels involved. Perhaps mimicking a galaxy itself at a smaller scale?

Meh, I guess I'll go dig through the TPOD's and Holoscience for any and every article that has to do with quasars, given the seeming dismissal of my hypothesis it must be off base with official EU doctrine. In which case it doesn't belong here so I'll end this at that until I do the research and refresh my memory on the EU perspective.

Jonny

[mharratsc]

I think it might be pertinent to mention that the term 'ejection' may not be entirely apropos, from the perspective of the model. I believe it was Halton Arp whom suggested the term 'ejection' originally. The EU/PC model sees the occurences of quasars in a more electrodynamic light.

From a laboratory perspective, secondary pinches can occur above and below a z-pinch creating 'sausages' or 'BB's on a string'. These (in my understanding) do not truly 'eject' (like an ejection seat) and could conceivably be held in the Birkeland current for some time before they "scatter like buckshot" (to quote Wal Thornhill). After this 'scattering', presumably the gain in mass, drop in redshifted light, and the repulsion effect falls off, allowing the 'quasar' to find a 'companion galaxy' distance from the parent galaxy.

Regarding the placement of the 'star' in question- I would presume that if it were in fact a quasar, it's redshift would have Hubble fans placing the thing "at the edge of the Universe." Did you hear what the actual redshift value associated with this guy was? That might give us some kind of clue as to its true nature.

[CTJG 1986]

Thanks for the response Mike, after doing some more reading on the subject I realized my fundamental error in regards to it being theorized as a secondary pinch rather than a piece of "core" that was ejected.

However while that dynamic has changed my basic hypothesis still remains more or less intact, albeit with a few alterations and clarifications needed:

1) When I use the term "eject" I simply mean that repulsion between it and the galactic core eventually would lead to it escaping from the parent galaxy.

2) When I said it would have "increased energy" I was comparing the object to a normal star as it exists as part of the (inter)Galactic circuit rather than the stellar circuit as a normal star does, in regards to the primary core/Pinch on the same Galactic circuit it would have lesser energy as the primary would attract more of the current flow due to higher capacitance.

This higher charge level compared to the local dusty plasma causes increased discharge activity compared to normal stars, and the currents/circuit of that object rotate around as "spiral arms" collecting or "excavating" elemental material from the dusty plasma medium and channeling it into the "core" of the Pinch, increasing the capacitance and charge level of the object.

Over time the object would increase in size and capacitance and reach a level of charge equal enough to the parent galaxy core that repulsion would cause it to be "ejected" from it completely forming what we commonly define as quasars, eventually as the process continues you would end up with those quasars "scattering like buckshot" until reaching relative electrical equilibrium with the parent galaxy.

I suppose my main question is this: Is there are any observational aspect to plasma physics or EU theory that dictates that secondary pinches can only occur outside of the parent galaxy's "main body"?

Terms like "bb's on a string" make me think of very close proximity, but what exactly are the quantification's of the distances involved in such a scenario? Or are there any?

Is there any possibility to such secondary pinches defined as quasars occurring within the parent galaxy's body and "growing" until being "ejected"?

I apologize for any confusion this or my previous post may cause, I really need to try harder to slow my mind down as in-taking large amounts of information isn't that useful if time isn't given to fully digest that info, the information is usually there but it tends to come out jumbled which is of no help to myself or anyone else. And I'm terrible at explaining my views as it is so it's double trouble for me.

Thanks for any and all current or future attempts to answer my questions, or straighten out my misunderstandings.

Jonny

[Nereid]

Is there any possibility to such secondary pinches defined as quasars occurring within the parent galaxy's body and "growing" until being "ejected"?

I've now read a fair bit of the material here, in the Forum, the TPODs, Thunderblogs, etc, and have come to realise that the word "quasar" may be used in several different ways.

For example, in the quoted sentence, it seems to be *defined* in terms of a phenomenon that arises in certain plasmas (and involves pinches); however, that's certainly not how Halton Arp used the word, in the many references to him throughout (mostly to do with point sources observed in the sky in the optical region of the electromagnetic spectrum, with or without associated radio or x-ray sources).

Can some Thunderbolts Forum member reading this clarify this please?

[JaJa]

I do not know how this star could be "evolving" into a galaxy, the idea posed in the OP? nor of any hypothesis that predicts such.

The mainstream explanation is that it is an evolving "proto planetary disk," by contrast the EU would describe this disk as an "expulsion disk." Two very different interpretations of the same image.

Thanx Nic you've answered my question although Jonny has thrown in some good questions himself. I can't imagine a hypothesis for predicting stars evolving into objects at the centre of galaxies would be any use... when could we ever verify it... a billion years from now?

I didn't think I asked an unreasonable question, I can see the beginnings of spiral arms as Wal stated in the original article and thought it could be scaled up. When I look at photos of galaxies all I can see is a very bright "thing" sitting in the centre of galaxies, that looks like it could be a star, and I know a star is a "sun".

Thanx

JJ

[Nereid]

Thanx Nic you've answered my question although Jonny has thrown in some good questions himself. I can't imagine a hypothesis for predicting stars evolving into objects at the centre of galaxies would be any use... when could we ever verify it... a billion years from now?

Astronomers, some people think, are the ultimate stamp collectors!

They are, and have been, forever observing everything in the sky, recording what they see as faithfully as they can, then sorting and sifting through all the raw observations (data) for patterns and similarities, then cataloging the lists of similars, publishing the lists, etc, etc, etc.

In trying to make sense of the endless lists and catalogs astronomers publish, other scientists - mostly astrophysicists and physicists - very often use some version of the Copernican principle, which roughly stated says that we do not live in a particularly special place, or time (a corollary is that if anything thinks something is special, in time or place, then they have to do a lot of work to convince their colleagues that it is!). There's even something in physics called the ergodic principle, which may be stated as 'if it is not forbidden, then it is compulsory'.

What this means in the case of an idea like 'a star could evolve into a quasar and be ejected from our galaxy and one day become a galaxy in its own right' (to be clear, I don't think anyone has proposed this idea, in this form; it's just an example) is that you should be able to find examples of each stage of this sort of evolution, roughly in proportion to the amount of time each stage takes (unless some claim is made about our galaxy being special in some way).

[JaJa]

What this means in the case of an idea like 'a star could evolve into a quasar and be ejected from our galaxy and one day become a galaxy in its own right'

I knew I chose the wrong field of study...

Thanx

JJ

[Harry Costas]

G'day

Jets from monster AGN can eject matter via dipole fields as supported by observations.

M87 and similar galaxies and more so with AGN of cores that live at the centre of galaxy clusters form jets that eject matter that seed microquasar and form knots in the process, in their journey they will cluster with other star bodies and grow, these jets also form the seeds for the arms that form spiral galaxies, this is different to gravitional arm formation as noted by Hubble in his tuning fork.

[Nereid]

in their journey they will cluster with other star bodies and grow, these jets also form the seeds for the arms that form spiral galaxies

I don't think I've read that before; Harry, do you have some references, or other material, on this idea?

[Harry Costas]

Hello Nereid

Nereid said

Harry Costas wrote:
in their journey they will cluster with other star bodies and grow, these jets also form the seeds for the arms that form spiral galaxies
I don't think I've read that before; Harry, do you have some references, or other material, on this idea?

Than I would ask you to read up on Jets and their properties and their impacts on their surrounds. Easy to google. NASA ADS and arXiv are good.

I will post you once my comp comes back on line some information. Darn comp got a BIOS virus, whatever that is. Now I have to use my wifes' comp that has pink surrounds.