The Largest Rotating Objects in the Universe

[BeAChooser]

https://www.universetoday.com/151553/th ... ears-long/

The Largest Rotating Objects in the Universe: Galactic Filaments Hundreds of Millions of Light-Years Long

https://www.universetoday.com/wp-conten ... aments.jpg

JUNE 17, 2021 BY EVAN GOUGH

We’ve known for a while about the large-scale structure of the Universe. Galaxies reside in filaments hundreds of millions of light-years long, on a backbone of dark matter. And, where those filaments meet, there are galaxy clusters. Between them are massive voids, where galaxies are sparse. Now a team of astronomers in Germany and their colleagues in China and Estonia have made an intriguing discovery.

These massive filaments are rotating, and this kind of rotation on such a massive scale has never been seen before.

That’s a very interesting discovery ... because how would dark matter produce rotation like that? For that matter, how would gravity? In fact, notice the interesting artwork depicting these filaments in the article (I linked the image above). The filament in the depiction is helically wound … which is even more a problem for mainstream astrophysicists! And that’s what the study authors discovered.

Here, continuing from the article …

“By mapping the motion of galaxies in these huge cosmic superhighways using the Sloan Digital Sky survey – a survey of hundreds of thousands of galaxies – we found a remarkable property of these filaments: they spin.” says Peng Wang, first author of the now published study and astronomer at the AIP (Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam).

Each of the galaxies in the filaments amounts to no more than a speck of dust on the grand scale, and they’re not only rotating but moving along the tendrils as if they’re pipelines.

“Despite being thin cylinders – similar in dimension to pencils – hundreds of millions of light years long, but just a few million light years in diameter, these fantastic tendrils of matter rotate,” added Noam Libeskind, initiator of the project at the AIP. “On these scales the galaxies within them are themselves just specs of dust. They move on helixes or corkscrew like orbits, circling around the middle of the filament while travelling along it. Such a spin has never been seen before on such enormous scales, and the implication is that there must be an as yet unknown physical mechanism responsible for torquing these objects.”

These charlatans claiming to be modern astrophysicists are IGNORANT FOOLS. There’s nothing unknown about the physical mechanism responsible for this behavior. It's well established physics which plasma cosmologists used to PREDICT what they've *discovered* over 40 years ago. It's physics that's even been demonstrated in lab experiments here on earth. But apparently the institutions that pretend to educate modern astrophysicists failed to teach any of that history or science to these astrophysics fools. No wonder astrophysics is in such a mess and going nowhere.

And we've seen that ignorance in the mainstream proponents who occasionally stop by this forum to try and deride PC/EU. Remember Higgsy? He was one of the more vocal ones. Any time he showed up, I always just asked him to explain all the helically wound filaments out there in space. He said I was just "eyeballing piccies" to imply the images I supplied were not helically wound. He tried to counter my assertion that helical filaments are UBIQUITOUS by saying "You have offered a tiny handful of examples."

Eventually I got him to say "I accept the existence of braided filaments, and I will go further and say that I expect that electromagnetic effects in the plasma contribute to the braiding, but you are yet to demonstrate that such braiding is ubiquitous or near-ubiquitous at all scales." Well, I wonder what he'd say now, given this lasted discovery by the mainstream astronomers/astrophysicists?

Remember him telling me that "Posting a tiny handful of mostly false colour images of a range of phenomena in order to attempt to prove that the large scale structure of the Universe is dominated by electromagnetic effects is absurd and utterly impotent." I wonder if he'd criticize the study astronomers with that same handwaving? I wonder if even this latest discovery would produce any doubt in his certainty about the way the universe works. Unfortunately, I suspect not because mainstream astrophysics has become a RELIGION to it's proponents ... completely divorced from actual data and real world physics. That is what we are up against, folks.

More from the article …

One of the mysteries in cosmology is how that angular momentum is generated on such a massive scale since there was no primordial rotation in the early Universe. … snip … The rotation evident in these filaments of galaxies must be generated as the structures form. And these filaments and the rest of the cosmic web are connected to the formation and evolution of galaxies themselves. They also have a powerful effect on the spin of individual galaxies and can regulate how a galaxy and its dark matter halo rotate. There’s an unknown piece in all of this: scientists don’t yet know how our current understanding can predict that the filaments themselves spin.

Wrong again. It wouldn't be a mystery if they'd paid any attention to what plasma cosmologists and EU proponents have been saying FOR FORTY+ YEARS. The physics is well established and they even predicted astronomers would discover such things in the early universe ... predicted it many decades ago. And speaking of angular momentum, PC/EU theorists even have a believable explanation for why 90% of the angular momentum in our solar system isn’t in the sun but in the planets ( see https://books.google.com/books?id=pvrtC ... es&f=false ; see pages 138-143, in particular). This is again something that mainstream astrophysicists have never been able to adequately explain and therefore they just ignore.

More from the article:

Before this study, other scientists have theorized that these filaments spin. For example, Dr. Mark Neyrinck, a Fellow at the Department of Theoretical Physics at the University of the Basque Country, Spain, is known for theorizing on this. He’s also known for developing the “origami” description of cosmic structure formation. In a 2016 article in The Paper he said, “…if galaxies rotate (and they do), so must filaments sticking out of them. Furthermore, galaxies joined by a filament should rotate mostly together, like objects attached to the ends of a rod. In fact, this is consistent with astronomical observations; nearby galaxies tend to be spinning in the same direction.”

All these observations are true, but these people are like ancient astronomers who decided that the sun went around the earth ... and then *proved* it with a mathematical construct that gave them the answer they wanted. They haven’t got a clue what’s really going on … NOT A CLUE! ... because they're fancy educations were not educations but indoctrination in the religion of the mainstream.

[D_Archer]

big words

[BeAChooser]

big words

Well, I wanted to make sure my comments could be distinguished from the article I was quoting but I guess I really didn't need to do that.

[BeAChooser]

By the way, consider the convoluted and contradictory logic the mainstream is using to try and explain away this latest observation in illustrated in the last part of what I quoted from the article:

Before this study, other scientists have theorized that these filaments spin. For example, Dr. Mark Neyrinck, a Fellow at the Department of Theoretical Physics at the University of the Basque Country, Spain, is known for theorizing on this. He’s also known for developing the “origami” description of cosmic structure formation. In a 2016 article in The Paper he said, “…if galaxies rotate (and they do), so must filaments sticking out of them.

The above statement shows that *Dr* Neyrinck (and obviously the author of the article must agree) thinks galaxies preceded the creation of the filaments. But what’s the evidence of that? In fact, Dr Neyrinck is out of touch with the mainstream consensus … which is that filaments developed first, then galaxies (see https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 141151.htm and https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-best- ... f-galaxies , for example).

Plus, Dr Neyrinck obviously believes the rotation of the filaments is caused by galaxy rotation. But the average distance between galaxies is on the order of 1 million light years. The average diameter of galaxies is well under 100,000 light years (the Milky Way’s diameter) … actually, more like 10,000 light years (the average diameter of most of the dozens of galaxies in our Local Group, for example). And the average thickness of a spiral galaxy is on the order of 1/10th its diameter … or 1000 lights years. So that means the filaments between average galaxies must be on the order of 1000 times longer than the thickness of the galaxies they connect. How does a “gravity, wind and turbulence only” rotating body (that’s the mainstream theory, isn’t it?) affect the rotation of tenuous plasmas out to a distance that is 500 times the thickness of the rotating body and 50 times it's diameter? How does it make those plasmas helically wound? Any mainstream supporters want to explain that because if you ask me, that’s “absurd”, as Higgsy used to say.

Again quoting Neyrinck,

Furthermore, galaxies joined by a filament should rotate mostly together, like objects attached to the ends of a rod. In fact, this is consistent with astronomical observations; nearby galaxies tend to be spinning in the same direction.”

Well it’s true that galaxies on filaments tend to rotate in the same direction (along the axis of the filaments), filaments are NOT rigid rods. The metaphor is ridiculous and this statement is totally inconsistent with Dr Neyrinck’s other belief that galaxies came first. Why would the galaxies, evolving pre-filaments, align themselves in just one direction, especially if there was no rotation to the initial universe (as now believed by the mainstream)? You see what I mean about the failure to think things through by mainstream astrophysicists? They are increasingly divorced from logic.

And speaking of alignments, how does Dr Neyrinck explain the discovery in 2014 of axis aligned quasars over distances of BILLIONS of light years (https://www.eso.org/public/usa/news/eso1438/ ) … if the quasars came first? Mainstream astrophysics simply does not have an explanation that doesn’t involve gnome after gnome after gnome, not one of which has been proven or observed/reproduced in a lab. But the EU does. Just saying ...

[Maol]

big words

You can edit the number in the [ size=150 brackets /size] to make them any size you want.


Example here change to [ size = 130 ] magnetic universe

[BeAChooser]

Here’s More on this important (should be world shattering for mainstream gnome believers) discovery ... from the gnome believers themselves …

https://www.slashgear.com/astronomers-m ... -15678237/

The Sloan Digital Sky survey is a survey of hundreds of thousands of galaxies. Using Sloan data, scientists were able to determine a new and interesting property of the filaments; that property is that the filaments spin.

… snip …

Exactly how the angular momentum responsible for the rotation is generated is one of the key unsolved mysteries of cosmology.

There sure are a lot of key unsolved mysteries in modern astrophysics, aren’t there, folks? But, for some reason, they never seem to get solved before they move on to finding another one to angst about. This is the latest and the others get forgotten.

According to the standard model of structure formation, small overdensities in the early universe grew via gravitational instability as matter flowed from under to overdense regions. This type of potential flow is irrotational or curl-free. Researchers say there is no primordial rotation in the early universe.

Like I noted earlier.

That means any rotation present in the universe must be generated as structures form. Cosmic webs in general and filaments specifically are intimately connected with galaxy formation and evolution. These filaments also have a significant impact on galaxy spin, often regulating the direction of how galaxies and their associated dark matter halos rotate.

Notice … this statement is the opposite of Dr Neyrinck beliefs. Here, it’s the filaments that impact galaxy spin. The is correct, I believe, and totally in line with EU theory.

However, the astronomers admit it’s unknown if the current understanding of structure formation predicts the filaments themselves should spin.

Well, PC/EU theorists certainly predicted it. Too bad not one of these mainstream news sources has mentioned that not inconsequential fact.

From another source …

https://dailygalaxy.com/2021/06/rapidly ... -spinning/

“The rotation we find is surprising because we don’t really know what can generate rotation on such scales” wrote Noam Libeskind in an email to The Daily Galaxy. “It could be due to tidal forces but the interplay between gravitational collapse and tidal torques is unclear on these scales.”

Again, CLUELESS.

The rotation of the filaments provides important clues and diagnostics for cosmologists to understand the physical processes that created the cosmic web.

LOL! If only they truly did but I suspect the current crop of astrophysicists don’t have the education to understand what they are seeing. All they have is a belief in gnomes.

[BeAChooser]

You might have noticed but the mainstream media (and probably even the gnome believing astrophysicists running the show) appear to have already forgotten about this massive unexplained problem with mainstream cosmology. More unexpected surprises have cropped up in just the last week that they can focus on and explain away using gnomes and pretty artwork (of course). This is truly a sad state of affairs. On one hand we have a group of plasma/electric universe experts who long ago not only provided a lab verified explanation for how these vast, helically wound, rotating plasma filaments evolved but predicted that we'd observe them when our instruments were good enough. On the hand we have a bunch of uneducated quacks masquerading as astrophysicist who believe in gnomes that to this day there is no actual proof exist and who unfortunately (for all of us) control the funding and mainstream media that report on astrophysics. And thus the scam will continue, draining the coffers of science while preventing our civilization from gaining the knowledge and technology to save us from ourselves. Instead, even more billions will be spent on gnomes, giant machines that are misused, and agendas that have nothing at all to do with the betterment of humanity as a whole. And even worse, this isn't the only area where Big Science has failed us. Climatology, Fusion Research, and Virology are 3 more. Just saying ...

[BeAChooser]

So instead of trying to explain the mechanism that created the humongous rotating plasma filaments they discovered, what is the mainstream astrophysics community and it's sycophant media focusing attention on now? An observation that suggests (to them) that a star exploded due to a black hole falling into it. Here,

https://physicsworld.com/a/invading-bla ... tronomers/

Invading black hole or neutron star caused star to explode, say astronomers

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo ... srcref=rss

Dead star collision causes stellar explosion like nothing seen before

All of them, of course, accompanied by the same *pretty* ART WORK supposedly depicting the event.

[Harry]

From the web page

Scientists in my opinion are limited with understanding How Neutron Stars formed and also Condensates that have dipolar electromagnetic vector fields that mimic black hole properties.

Most scientist talk around the subjects because they do not understand of the internal parts of the subject.

[BeAChooser]

I've been wondering if the mainstream is ever going to say another word about the observation of galaxy sized rotating filaments.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9322004324

Cosmic filament spin from dark matter vortices

22 July 2022

Here’s what the abstract says …

The recent observational evidence for cosmic filament spin on megaparsec scales Wang et al. (2021) [41] demands an explanation in the physics of dark matter.

LOL! Let’s see if they can tease an explanation from that gnome.

Conventional collisionless cold particle dark matter is conjectured to generate cosmic filament spin through tidal torquing, but this explanation requires extrapolating from the quasi-linear regime to the non-linear regime. Meanwhile no alternative explanation exists in the context of ultra-light (e.g., axion) dark matter, and indeed these models would naively predict zero spin for cosmic filaments.

Oh my … their models predict ZERO rotation of filaments. And the tidal torquing explanation requires extrapolation far outside the linear regime.

In this Letter we study cosmic filament spin in theories of ultra-light dark matter, such as ultra-light axions, and bosonic and fermionic condensates, such as superfluids and superconductors. These models are distinguished from conventional particle dark matter models by the possibility of dark matter vortices.

Ah … so they’re going to try and use *special* dark matter … made perhaps of superfluids or superconductors.

We take a model agnostic approach

Hmmm … I doubt these *scientists* are referring to God, so they must be saying they are doubtful about this but will go ahead and build a model.

and demonstrate that a collection of dark vortices can explain the data reported in Wang et al. Modeling a collection of vortices with a simple two-parameter analytic model, corresponding to an averaging of the velocity field, we find an excellent fit to the data. We perform a Markov Chain Monte Carlo analysis and find constraints on the number of vortices, the dark matter mass, and the radius of the inner core region where the vortices are distributed, in order for ultra-light dark matter to explain spinning cosmic filaments.

I’m going to have to read the paper to figure out what they really did. So …

Recent observational evidence suggests that some cosmic filaments are spinning. By comparing the redshift and blueshift of galaxies in thousands of filaments, Wang et al. (2021) determined that galaxies have velocities perpendicular to the filament axis, consistent with vorticle motions. Meanwhile, it is difficult to theoretically explain the acquisition of angular momentum on megaparsec scales.

Especially when they refuse to consider electromagnetism and the fact that most of what they see is plasma … not gas.

Vorticity is not easily seeded by density perturbations of a perfect fluid, and any primordial vorticity is expected to be redshifted away. One could try to extend arguments like the tidal-torquing theory introduced in the context of galaxy formation , but these describe the (quasi) linear regime, and not the non-linear regime needed to describe the filaments of the cosmic web.

So, it's a problem defying the gravity only physics they are willing to use. And so they turn to dark matter, the cure for everything astrophysical. Of course, the paper goes on to explain they need *special* dark matter … ultra-light dark matter (whatever the heck that is) ... to do the job.

In this letter we propose dark matter vortices as an explanation for the spin of cosmic filaments. We take a theory agnostic approach to the vortex formation and the underlying particle physics model, and instead focus on the observable signature of vortices. We demonstrate that parallel dark vortices enclosed in a cylindrical volume aligned with the axis of a filament are able to generate rotations at the Mpc scale, and that they can reproduce the behavior seen

Why that explains everything! No need to worry further about this observation, my fellow astrophysicists. DM’s the answer.

But notice something, folks? They next say that “PARALLEL dark vortices enclosed in a cylindrical volume aligned with the axis of a filament” can explain what they see. “Concretely, we find that the data is well fit by a simple Gaussian distribution of vortices about the axis of the filament.” Parallel vortices? Why that sure sounds like a pair of interacting Birkeland filaments, doesn’t it?

And in the paper, they admit they don’t really know how the parallel dark matter vortices would form. They says

Although there is considerable theory uncertainty as to the size and abundance of vortices that should be expected, all ultra-light dark matter models are expected to present these interference patterns. Therefore, in what follows, we remain agnostic to the underlying theory, as well as the formation mechanism, and instead simply consider the observables of vortices.

In other words, they’re just assuming there are dark matter vortices. They assert (without offering real proof) that the

vortices discussed may be created either by destructive interference occurring during gravitational collapse, or as angular momentum is transferred from infalling normal-phase dark matter to a condensate (superfluid) phase dark matter.

Note another assumption in their analysis …

We have also assumed in this analysis that the vortices can be treated as non-interacting, analogous to the dilute instanton gas approximation used in quantum field theory.

So the dark matter doesn’t interact with itself … not even through gravity?

Another assumption is this:

We additionally note that the vortices are expected to form following the distribution and shape of the filament, and therefore, if the filament formed itself formed an asymmetric shape or an asymmetric distribution, the vortices can be expected to follow this.

This seems to say that the vortices don’t determine the shape of the filament … the filament determines the shape of the vortices. Odd.

And here’s an important statement:

These assumptions aside, in this work we have focused solely on the observational signature of vortices, and not on their formation mechanism. In doing so we remain agnostic as to the model realization. As we have discussed, vortices can be formed both by destructive interference or by angular momentum of condensate dark matter.

So in other words, they’re washing their hands of the mechanism by which vortices form. They’re really just assuming that they can.