Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

Robertus Maximus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 12:45 pm https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3 ... 213/ac982a

The authors of this paper can’t see beyond the end of their noses. In their conclusions they suggest the filaments either “arise through the stretching and collection of field lines by turbulence in a weakly magnetized medium” or “by the collection and draping of field lines by a moving stellar wind source or" some other "obstacle in the medium". Everything else about the filaments and particles they create is still “to be established” or “unclear”. Maybe this nonsense and their continued lack of understanding is all because they ignore the words “electromagnetism” and “current”. You think?

BeAChooser wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 8:24 pm

Robertus Maximus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 12:45 pm https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3 ... 213/ac982a

From the article:

Galactic and extragalactic filaments are produced in totally different environments, namely, the nucleus of a normal galaxy and the intracluster medium. Their length scales, energy densities, and other characteristic parameters differ by orders of magnitude. In spite of these differences, we argue that similar processes operate in both systems motivated by their similar morphology and the similar dimensionless ratios of their physical parameters.

This affirmation is amazing. Similar processes inside and outside galaxies. What could those be? What does mainstream currently say about intergalactic space?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space

I asked a question in another thread. There is this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
which contains a picture (from ESO) with the following text under it:

This artist's impression shows the expected distribution of dark matter in the Milky Way galaxy as a blue halo of material surrounding the galaxy.

So dark matter applies gravitational force to normal matter, but not to itself, that's why it does not clump together like normal matter, and just stays there like a "halo", where it's needed?
Let's not forget, mainstream says gravity is in fact "bent space time". This dark stuff bends space and time for normal matter, but not for itself. Amazing, and most useful.

ONE WAY GRAVITY !
Excellent point Roshi.

O no, instant karma strikes again.
From this article from Lloyds's list
https://phys.org/news/2022-12-cosmologi ... axies.html

Apparently dark matter should clump.

The Milky Way's satellites seem to be arranged in an implausibly thin plane piercing through the galaxy and, oddly, they are also circling in a coherent and long-lived disk.

The "plane of satellites".

There is no known physical mechanism that would make satellites planes. Instead, it was thought that satellite galaxies should be arranged in a roughly round configuration tracing the dark matter.

The fact that the arrangement of satellites could not be explained led researchers to think that the cold dark matter theory of galaxy formation might be wrong.

Who knew there was doubt, that dark matter should clump !?
But now computer models to the rescue.

However, this latest research saw astronomers use new data from the European Space Agency's Gaia space observatory.

These data allowed scientists to project the orbits of the satellite galaxies into the past and future and see the plane form and dissolve in a few hundred million years—a mere blink of an eye in cosmic time.

they found several virtual Milky Ways which boast a plane of satellite galaxies very similar to the one seen through telescopes.

Study co-author Professor Carlos Frenk, Ogden Professor of Fundamental Physics in the Institute for Computational Cosmology, at Durham University, U.K., said, "The strange alignment of the Milky Way's satellite galaxies in the sky had perplexed astronomers for decades, so much so that it was deemed to pose a profound challenge to cosmological orthodoxy.

"But thanks to the amazing data from the Gaia satellite and the laws of physics, we now know that the plane is just a chance alignment, a matter of being in the right place at the right time, just as the constellations of stars in the sky.

Random chance to the rescue.
I wonder if they will risk looking for other "plane of satellites" around other galaxies ?

The galaxies are electric; as Robertus Maximus says !
Jack

Did some searches. Found out the explanation for dark matter not clumping together is "it does not interact electromagnetically", meaning it cannot bump into itself like ordinary matter (and lose energy in the process). Ok...

Galaxy formation in a pickle

From Sky and Telescope, we find some 650 million years after the imaginary Big Bang: 'Faraway dwarf galaxies in the universe’s distant past — which will become modern Milky Ways — have an unexpectedly stretched-out appearance.'

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-n ... ke-pickle/

"The difficulty now will be in understanding what the shapes of these galaxies are telling us about galactic evolution over cosmic time. “I do think interpretation is going to be extremely hard,” Cowie says."

The "interpretation" will be extremely hard if the authors of the study are unaware of the plasma/electric model of galaxy formation via interacting Birkeland currents.

We only have to look here to see the galactic zoo interacting Birkeland currents can produce: https://plasmauniverse.info/galaxy.Peculiar.html

The "interpretation" is exceedingly simple.

Puzzling observation by JWST: Galaxies in the deep universe rotate in the same direction

https://phys.org/news/2025-03-puzzling- ... verse.html

"It is still not clear what causes this to happen, but there are two primary possible explanations," Shamir said.
"One explanation is that the universe was born rotating. That explanation agrees with theories such as black hole cosmology, which postulates that the entire universe is the interior of a black hole. But if the universe was indeed born rotating it means that the existing theories about the cosmos are incomplete."

Only two 'primary possible explanations'? And one of them is that pure mathematical object, the black hole!

No mention of Birkeland currents!

As we are aware, the plasma cosmological model states that galaxies form from rotating Birkeland currents. Observable galaxies at all distances and directions will show a preferred direction rotation depending upon the nature of the Birkeland currents in that direction.

https://plasmauniverse.info/anatomy.html

The survey considered only 263 galaxies, an infinitesimally small number in an infinite universe!

A new problem for the Big Bang Industrial Complex but one already explained in an electric universe!

Robertus Maximus wrote: ↑Sat Mar 15, 2025 11:06 am No mention of Birkeland currents!

As we are aware, the plasma cosmological model states that galaxies form from rotating Birkeland currents. Observable galaxies at all distances and directions will show a preferred direction rotation depending upon the nature of the Birkeland currents in that direction.

... snip ... The survey considered only 263 galaxies, an infinitesimally small number in an infinite universe!

That's an excellent point. In a sample that small, you could just happen to pick a set that would make you think the galaxies mostly spin in one direction, especially when a large number of galaxies in the field of survey were not included in the study because the methodology they used couldn’t detect the direction of rotation.

But even more likely, if you read the study report (https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/ ... ogin=false), you find it states … “The RA of the objects used in this study ranged from 53.01885 [degrees] to ⁠53/2184 [degrees], and the declination ranged between -27.9145 [degrees] to ⁠-27.7292 [degrees].” In other words, the galazies weren’t taken from random locations in the sky but from one small area of the sky. It is more likely that Birkeland currents tend to run mostly in one direction or the other in a sample from only one small area of the sky.

Now they also measured the redshift of the galaxies used in the study. Their zs ranged from 0-0.5 to greater than 2. One graph divided them into 5 z brackets. I observe that about 70% of the sampled galaxies were in just two of the five z brackets (between z 0.5-1.5). I would imagine that galaxies at the same z in the same area of the sky might also tend to rotate in the same direction, thus being suggestive of Birkeland currents playing a role in the direction they rotate.

The RA and DEC of the 263 galaxies and their direction of otation is included in the study report (https://academic.oup.com/view-large/506645363 and https://academic.oup.com/view-large/506645364). They don’t provide the z for the data but the study does claim that the discrepancy in rotation is larger at higher z. Indeed, this chart of a large amount of data from SDSS (an earlier study) shows that at lower z, rotation direction seems to be close to random: https://academic.oup.com/view-large/506645396 . Indeed a whole section of the paper is devoted to discussing previous studies that showed random direction of rotation. This study seems to be the first to suggest a major discrepancy.

The study report does mentions that previous work done with the DESI Legacy Survey found that from dataset of 1.3x10^^6 galaxies, that galaxies in certain areas of the sky tend to rotate one direction or another, although the difference one way or the other was much smaller than the JWST survey, which looked at the deeper Universe. Here’s the image showing preferred rotation direction from the DESI survey: https://academic.oup.com/view-large/fig ... 2fig10.jpg.

The 263 galaxies (GOODS-S) came from a region of the sky where the tendency in the DESI study was to rotate clockwise (orange to red), but notice that there were equally large areas in DESI survey where the tendency was counterclockwise (blue to purple) and even larger areas (light green) where there was no tendency. Perhaps if they’d picked the 263 galaxies from the light green area they'd have concluded there is no discrepancy? Thus, it seems to me that without this latest paper, maybe there would be no-one thinking our universe is inside a black hole. So perhaps astrophysicists and the mainstream media should be cautious before making sweeping claims that sound ... well ... like nonsense. Just saying …

Do any of the EU category of comments need the BB theory?
If they do then surely we can dismiss them without wasting too much time.
If they dont then why mention them in the silly nonsensical BB setting.

Rotating galaxy filament

Observations detect rotating galaxy filament about 5.5 million light years long, connecting 14 galaxies
https://phys.org/news/2025-08-rotating- ... years.html

Recently, we found similar structures closer to the solar neighbourhood, typically called clouds or hot gas.

This time these structures are more correctly called filaments. Next step Birkeland Currents?

"By analyzing the data from the MeerKAT International Giga-Hertz Tiered Extragalactic Exploration (MIGHTEE-HI) survey, astronomers have discovered a new rotating galaxy filament. The newfound filament is about 5.5 million light years long and connects 14 galaxies."

"The observations found that the reported 14 HI galaxies are significantly more strongly aligned with the cosmic web filament. Therefore, this indicates that the angular momentum of galaxies is closely connected to the large-scale filamentary structure."

"Furthermore, by analyzing the collected data, the astronomers found strong evidence for the rotation of the galaxies around the spine of the filament."

Without knowing it the authors have perfectly described a Birkeland Current.

The galactic rotation axes mapping out the rotating Birkeland Current can be seen in Figure 2 of the paper, which can be found here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.13053