“Shell Galaxies”; Galactic Oscillations?

[Solar]

Apologies for typos and such in these post. Along with an insane spell checker simply replacing intended words I just figured out that my Apple laptop also has their dreaded butterfly keyboard issue (cursor just jumps elsewhere when typing all by itself) a problem that I did not realize even existed - so livid atm.

I’ll offer this last suggestion in conjunction with the other perspectives in this thread. Spectra can be produced via prisms, heat, electronically, diffraction grating, lasers etc. Despite these different energy sources it seems that energy of incandescent heat (thermal) is applied most frequently to astrophysical phenomena. Terms such as “hot”, “temperature”, “warm”, and “cold” are used interchangeably. With plasmas, this obscures the nature of the energy source. As one research institute put it, interchangeably using terms in this manner can lead to “errors in scientific understanding".

As an example, for the casual reader of scientific literature, when astrophysics describes an observation with the phrase “hot gas” does this mean “hot” as in Brownian motion average speed of molecules, or “hot” in the sense of the plasma temperature? Is the statement based on the thermal electron temperature, or the thermal ion temperature, or the molecular temperature of a literal gas in space as opposed to the electrodynamics of plasmas in space? Even professionals ask for clarification (Example)

Luminescence (“cold light”) by non-thermal energy sources becomes an important consideration in astrophysical phenomena. Obviously thermal heat (incandescence) is not the only energy source that can induce the production of Light. For example Fluorescence, photon emission via relaxation, is a form of Luminescence (“cold light”) that does not require a lot of thermal heat:

Fe ii Fluorescence and Anomalous C iv Doublet Intensities in Symbiotic Novae: A. G. Michalitsianos

Fluorescence in Astrophysical Plasmas: Henrik Hartman

Photoionization, fluorescence, and inner-shell processes

Radioluminescence is category of Luminescence involving ionizing radiation. However the term does not appear to be in use in astrophysics. Electroluminescence is “optical phenomenon and electrical phenomenon in which a material emits light in response to the passage of an electric current or to a strong electric field."

The nature of the energy source(s) is very important as well as the material (atoms, molecules, electrons, protons etc). A lot of astrophysics seems infused with some type of gravitationally induce exothermic dynamics that obscures a myriad of other energetic causes that can induce light and color without a lot of thermal heat (average speed of molecules). Scroll down to Item #6 on this next page called “Cold Fire”.

Auroras are now known to be caused by the collision of charged particles (e.g. electrons), found in the magnetosphere, with atoms in the Earth’s upper atmosphere (at altitudes above 80 km). These charged particles are typically energized to levels between 1 thousand and 15 thousand electronvolts and, as they collide with atoms of gases in the atmosphere, the atoms become energized. Shortly afterwards, the atoms emit their gained energy as light (see Fluorescence). - Plasma-Universe

No one says that the aurora are "hot" in terms of the usual meaning of of the word “temperature”. The latest displays of telescope images are severely accentuated in extremely vibrant colors to bring out features the previous era did not. This could be misleading. These “cold” “electronic emission line” processes only underscore what P.M. Robitaille is saying when he offers the possibility that the chromosphere and corona might not be as “hot” as the standard solar model offers when saying:

“The problem is that these temperatures are being established by observing electronic emission lines. However, such lines are not in thermal equilibrium with the radiation field or with other atoms, or ions, or electrons in the surrounding region. That is why emission lines cannot be used to set the temperature.
(…)
It is not proper to obtain chromospheric temperatures from electronic emission lines because the lines are not produced by processes in thermal equilibrium.” - The Chromosphere: COLDER than you thought! Evidence from Carbon Monoxide Absorption Lines!

Also See: Is the Corona at MILLIONS of degrees?

It would be interesting if some portion of the Sun's chromosphere and/or corona had the property of being some form of non-thermal "cold light" stellar global aurora. Likewise with the shells forming the "extended atmospheres" around other celestial objects.

[celeste]

The plasma redshift idea would fit in here too, in that the same ionization front/shockfront/propagating double layer that would be bending the light, would also have the free electrons to contribute to the redshift of the lensed galaxies. Might this idea be tested? For example in the mainstream model, a massive object will bend all the light on that sightline, from the slightly more distant galaxy, to the most redshifted galaxies. Meaning we should see a full range of redshifts in the lensed objects. The plasma redshift idea would suggest that even a slightly more distant object (right behind the lensing object), would get a disproportionate redshift. In other words, we should see disproportionately high redshifts in the lensed objects, correct?

[Solar]

The plasma redshift idea would fit in here too, in that the same ionization front/shockfront/propagating double layer that would be bending the light, would also have the free electrons to contribute to the redshift of the lensed galaxies. Might this idea be tested? For example in the mainstream model, a massive object will bend all the light on that sightline, from the slightly more distant galaxy, to the most redshifted galaxies. Meaning we should see a full range of redshifts in the lensed objects. The plasma redshift idea would suggest that even a slightly more distant object (right behind the lensing object), would get a disproportionate redshift. In other words, we should see disproportionately high redshifts in the lensed objects, correct?

It’s probably a certainty that these (active) Ionization Fronts (“shells”, shocks, double layers, interfaces, boundaries etc) induce higher electron densities. I would agree that there is probably room for plasma redshift contributing to the overall redshift picture (treating electrons as a one component plasma) , probably testable via the redshift of dispersion measurements? Not sure though.

Here is a reference with regard to redshift of lensed objects relative to redshift of foreground objects.

CASTLES Survey : Column Zs= source redshift, Zl is the lens redshift, E(B-V): The Galactic extinction: Reddening from dust (loss of *wave* energy; not "tired" photons - there was less of the wave energy from primary source to stimulate photon production - therefore, new photons were simply re-emitted, at the boundary ,with lower energy levels, the electron did not have far to 'relax').

The problem is that temperature, pressure, recombination, ionization, gravitation, velocity, resonance, oscillations, electron dynamics, nucleation towards crystallization (staring at variable mass theories here) - all of these, and probably more, can individually induce contributions to redshift and blueshift effects - let alone when they are superimposed atop one another. There are however a multitude of works trying to statistically differentiate contributions from some of those qualities. The title alone of this next document exemplifies the nature of part these problems:

Reddened, Redshifted, or Intrinsically Red? Understanding Near-ultraviolet Colors of Type Ia Supernovae: Peter J. Brown1, Nancy J. Landez et al

I don't usually follow bb cosmology (most redshift queries on Google are saturated with it) and was not aware that there is a "Reionization Problem"? Apparently; can't find enough UV sources to ionize the hydrogen.
_____________________

Refer again to the three models portrayed in Figure 1 of the Sunburst Arc paper (as examples). Note the idea that UV emitting sources and the extended environment of shells, or boundaries, can be ionized to such extent that some regions can become porous (optically thin), or have ‘holes’ of various sizes (Lyman a Escaping), At other times the hydrogenic clound(s) can be so dense (optically thick) that the boundary absorbs most of the UV radiation. Although ionization still occurs; a path through some portion of the boundary hasn't appeared. Like the porous heliosphere of this solar system this dynamic allows stuff from the outside to “leak” in, and simultaneously stuff from the inside to “leak” out. Then have a look at this next Chandra image with these relationships in mind paying particularly close attention to the close-up (larger view at mid page) in comparison to the larger spherical shell surrounding the inner secondary ionization phase:

Abell 30: X-rays from a Reborn Planetary Nebula

Despite the usual language a more cohesive context of the overall episodic dynamic comes to into view. Abell 30 appears to be undergoing the second of two radial pulsations (discharges if preferred) separated by some period of time. Inside the inner shell closer to the central source “Filamentary Infall” of (probably magnetized) hydrogenic matter from the lager transparent surrounding cloud is "falling" (or being attracted towards) the central source.

These nebulae, shells and other inner dynamic processes are what background light sources are being refracted through. I still don't see where, how, or what, "spacetime curvature" has to do with any of it. It seems to me that a wonderful opportunity has been missed to usher in an entirely new field simply called 'Astrophysical Optics'.

[celeste]

I don't usually follow bb cosmology (most redshift queries on Google are saturated with it) and was not aware that there is a "Reionization Problem"? Apparently; can't find enough UV sources to ionize the hydrogen.
_____________________

Solar, the mainstream’s ionization states over time are quite worth studying. It’s true that the ionization vs age of universe idea is wrong. Yet the observed relationship of ionization fractions and redshift is important.
Did you try drawing some of the scenarios?
Forgetting about propagation direction, just draw spherically symmetric shells of matter, and doing the mainstream interpretation?

Try these two simple arrangements to start: 1. a core of neutral material, surrounded by a shell of ions, then an outer shell of electrons. 2. A core of neutral material, surrounded by a shell of electrons, then an outer shell of ions.
With the idea of the electron shell maybe causing redshift, 1 yields a redshift of both ions and neutral, while arrangement 2 leads to only the neutral core being redshifted. Now, the mainstream interpretation for 1 is a distant object of both the neutrals and ions, while they see 2 as a distant neutral object, with more nearby ions on that sight line.
Arp already pointed out this crazy disassociation of clearly connected objects, based solely on the misinterpretation of redshifts as distance. Yet, it would seem tome that they would also get WRONG IONIZATION FRACTIONS, for regions of space for the same reason.

[Solar]

Greetings again great question solar I would also advance that their form and composition could make them into some form of prisms scattering the light in all directions maybe even breaking it down to its various components. Regards Beekeeper

In this next image find "Einstein’s Cross"?

Fluorescence in Calcite

Not only is the previously mentioned stimulation of Fluorescence ("cold light") present, the image can also be used to understand the basics E. Dowdye's Extinction Shift emission theory. The laser serves as a background source. The air serves as the ISM/IGM. The 'edges' (boundary or shell) of the calcite crystal serves as the extended atmosphere of an intervening foreground object. The air on the right side of the calcite crystal serves as ISM/IGM between the foreground object and the observer here in a third medium consisting of the unique overall composition of the Milky Way.

If the observer were located INSIDE any of the three spherically enclosed mediums, at a given time, they would always observe the speed of light within same to be c. However, make each source move relative to each other and the speed of light relative to each source becomes be (c+v) or (c-v). The unique atomic, elemental, chemical, and molecular composition of each location separated by 'boundaries effectively makes them different enclosed mediums. As with crystals the light plays at the boundary edges as though the 'facets' of a gem.

This effect is known as “Birefringence” aka "Double Refraction". Crystals, catch incident light and re-emit same in more than one direction. Questions: Does crystallization occur in the Cosmos?? If it does, might it demonstrate similar - if not the same - optical properties??

Since Astronomy and Astrophysics (Aanda) is dedicated to astrophysics here is link to a search query there for Crystallization. Several free papers regarding some aspect of the naturally occurring crystallization function in the Cosmos can be found there. Needless to say a Google search for something like "Astrophysical Crystallization" might yield even more sources.

A few examples:

Dust that coalesces to form planetary systems originates around dying stars, before passing into the interstellar medium (ISM). Historically, observations of broad smooth features in the 10-µm region suggested that dust in circumstellar regions, and in the ISM, was mostly amorphous rather than crystalline. With improved space telescope capabilities, crystalline silicates were discovered in the circumstellar regions around both young and old stars, although they remain undetected in the ISM. Despite intensive study the precise conditions that lead to the formation of crystalline silicates are still unknown, and their absence in the ISM remains problematic. Here we show that recalescence (spontaneous reheating) of rapidly crystallizing dust can explain the formation and apparent disappearance of crystalline silicates in space. - Recalescence during crystallization of stardust: Resolution of the amorphous interstellar medium paradox - Whittington, A. G.; Sehlke, A.; Speck, A. K.

Under a variety of conditions crystalline features can either form while transitioning towards becoming 'solids' or, they can 'dissolve' during disassociation processes such as ionization. Even under extreme conditions:

NASA’s Spitzer Finds Violent Galaxies Smothered in 'Crushed Glass’ 02.15.06

Comets:

… a lot of fine silicate dust, or crystallized grains smaller than sand, like crushed gems. - NASA's Spitzer gets peek inside Comet Holmes: Astronomy Magazine

This is a really interesting quality in relation to the astrophysical optical lensing effect. The terms: shells, halos, ‘edges’, surfaces, boundaries, interface, double layers, or “plasma limbs” etc are specific to the various disciplines assessing qualities and dynamics in their own unique way depending on preference. The basic principle also includes the concept that each time an interface separates one region from another Light can not only change the angle(s) at which it is reradiated, its speed can also change. This is a part of the fundamental principles behind Cherenkov light; the nature of the medium matters.

Alas, gravitational thinking did not overlook this feature: Gravitational birefringence of light

[Solar]

I don't usually follow bb cosmology (most redshift queries on Google are saturated with it) and was not aware that there is a "Reionization Problem"? Apparently; can't find enough UV sources to ionize the hydrogen.
_____________________

Solar, the mainstream’s ionization states over time are quite worth studying. It’s true that the ionization vs age of universe idea is wrong. Yet the observed relationship of ionization fractions and redshift is important.
Did you try drawing some of the scenarios?
Forgetting about propagation direction, just draw spherically symmetric shells of matter, and doing the mainstream interpretation?

Try these two simple arrangements to start: 1. a core of neutral material, surrounded by a shell of ions, then an outer shell of electrons. 2. A core of neutral material, surrounded by a shell of electrons, then an outer shell of ions.
With the idea of the electron shell maybe causing redshift, 1 yields a redshift of both ions and neutral, while arrangement 2 leads to only the neutral core being redshifted. Now, the mainstream interpretation for 1 is a distant object of both the neutrals and ions, while they see 2 as a distant neutral object, with more nearby ions on that sight line.
Arp already pointed out this crazy disassociation of clearly connected objects, based solely on the misinterpretation of redshifts as distance. Yet, it would seem tome that they would also get WRONG IONIZATION FRACTIONS, for regions of space for the same reason.

That's true.

As Pierre-Marie Robitaille points out, use of the Saha equation (bullet points #2 & #3) and the assumption of thermal equilibrium can deliver incorrect results when ionization sources other than temperature are present. such as UV radiation, pressure, electric fields, cosmic ray ionization, collisions, magnetic fields, chemical relationships, X-rays, Gamma rays, electron-impact-ionization etc (See pg 20-26). Yes, ionization fraction (or the electron abundance))could be wrong as well as the ionization rate. Is it any wonder that the surveys come up short on UV ionizing sources when the observed sources are not the only way ionization can occur?

It seems as though the bb cosmology has poised the presence of the Cosmic UV background and ionizing sources as a “Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?” - problem. 1-Not enough Cosmic UV background to ionize the hydrogen, simultaneously, 2-not enough sources to contribute to the Cosmic UV background, 3-nor are there enough UV radiating sources to ionize the hydrogen in that model (“infinite loop” situations). Or something along those lines.

Agree also that a lot of the ionization information is interesting as this is a primary Cosmic dynamic. It's a bit difficult on the sanity to slog though constant associations of redshift to the bb theory; but it is good information. The variety of ionization methods are interdependent and interrelated upon one another. Change the intensity and/or their rate of one, and the parameters of one or more of the others will be affected. UV radiation can obviously produce some free electrons but then CR’s can add more. That is however just CRs and UV. How about electron-impact-ionization and what contribution that feature would make? There is quite a lot to tease out so statistics comes into play.

Speaking of all the things that can cause ionization, or redshift, have a look into: Bathochromic Shift (the Chemical version of redshift, blue shift, ionization). It is strictly an absorption related dynamic. There are four ways that the Maximum Absorption Peak called λmax ("Lambda Max") can be induced to shift either red-ward, or blue-ward. The primary two are "Conjugation", and "The Solvent Effect".

For my taste, this term "Lambda Max", and the fact that it refers to maximum absorption, really piqued my curiosity. That is what is supposedly happening down at the source end of that LOS with "Lyman Absorbers" - i.e. the often transparent shell inducing "clouds of plasma, dust, and gas" radially incident upon a UV radiating source (star, galaxy, clusters):

Lyman Alpha Forest

If you replaced their wavelength "λ-->" with λmax ("Lambda Max") - which symbolizes Absorption efficiency in Chemistry - it is interesting!

[Solar]

Well, apparently the Milky Way galaxy also appears have radial "shell structures". The structures have been attributed to merger hypothesis ie "Radial Collision" with smaller galaxy ... with another possibility being "a burst of star formation in the inner disk":

ARTICLE: First of Their Kind “Shell Structures” Found in Milky Way – Evidence of Galactic Collision

PAPER (paywalled)

We identify shell structures in the Milky Way for the first time. We find two shells in the Virgo Overdensity region and two shells in the Hercules Aquila Cloud region using Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Gaia, and LAMOST data. These shell stars are a subset of the substructure previously identified as the Virgo Radial Merger (VRM). Timing arguments for these shells indicate that their progenitor dwarf galaxy passed through the Galactic center 2.7 ± 0.2 Gyr ago. Based on the time of collision, it is also possible that the VRM is related to the phenomenon that created phase-space spirals in the vertical motion of the disk and/or the Splash and could have caused a burst of star formation in the inner disk. We analyze phase mixing in a collection of radial merger N-body simulations and find that shell structure similar to that observed in Milky Way data disappears by 5 Gyr after collision with the Galactic center. The method used to calculate the merger time of the VRM was able to reliably recover the correct merger times for these simulations. Previous work supports the idea that the VRM and the Gaia Sausage/Gaia–Enceladus Merger are the same. However, the Gaia Sausage is widely believed to be 8–11 Gyr old. The disparate ages could be reconciled if the larger age is associated with an infall time when the progenitor crossed the virial radius; we do not constrain the time at which the progenitor became bound to the Milky Way. Alternatively, the Gaia Sausage could be younger than previously thought. - The Milky Way's Shell Structure Reveals the Time of a Radial Collision: Thomas Donlon II, Heidi Jo Newberg, Robyn Sanderson, and Lawrence M. Widrow

[Earl Sinclair]

Is it just me, or does EVERY SINGLE OBSERVATION by mainstream science always get attributed to collisions?

Collisions are a GREAT shortcut to NOT explaining anything, because collisions - by their very nature - produce results that can't be predicted very well, if at all. You ram two things together and "stuff" flies in all directions, bouncing and spinning and slamming into each other like multiple pinballs that really can't be predicted at all.

Two galaxies run into each other ( allegedly ) - ANY subsequent formation can happen ( and does, apparently ). You don't need no stinkin' physics degree for that.

Earl

[Solar]

Is it just me, or does EVERY SINGLE OBSERVATION by mainstream science always get attributed to collisions?

Collisions are a GREAT shortcut to NOT explaining anything, because collisions - by their very nature - produce results that can't be predicted very well, if at all. You ram two things together and "stuff" flies in all directions, bouncing and spinning and slamming into each other like multiple pinballs that really can't be predicted at all.

Two galaxies run into each other ( allegedly ) - ANY subsequent formation can happen ( and does, apparently ). You don't need no stinkin' physics degree for that.

Earl

I chuckled so hard when reading this. I was sooooo close to mentioning (or complaining about) the rather constant collision narrative. That's why the other option "and/or the Splash and could have caused a burst of star formation in the inner disk." - is highlighted in red so as to indicate that (at east) another dynamic other than this persistent collision narrative was considered. Haha!