Tuesday, January 6, 2009

NGC 7603

This is Galaxy NGC 7603 and it's newborn galaxy connected by 2 quasars and a plasma umbillical chord. The plasma umbillical chord has the same redshift as NGC 7603 whereas the two quasars and the newborn have higher non-velocity redshifts.

The chances of the above occuring by accident are said to be 1 in 3 billion. I suspect the reality is more like impossible.

"What's really happening in these systems is the centers of galaxies are the places where the creation is taking place...." -- Geoffrey Burbridge, astronomer, 2004


Louis Hissink said...

Burbridge's explanation is mind boggling, unless one realizes that astronomy is basically a technically sophisticated version of religion, in which the unimaginable are invoked to explain the observed.

Not science.

Anaconda said...

Louis Hissink:

I agree, "creation" is not a scientifically meaningful term in that context.

Louis, I came across this ScienceDaily article: Early Star Formation In The Universe Illuminated, September 18, 2007 (SpaceDaily).

There is an artist's conception (picture) accompanying the article that is quite similar to a Birkeland current (in my opinion). The caption to the picture accompanying the article states:

"In the authors' simulations, a gas filament condenses and then fragments to form the first stars. The gas heats as it gets compressed but then becomes cold in the center. The red shading in this image reflects changes in the gas' temperature."

The picture and caption are powerful (that is what drew my attention to the article) -- when I saw the picture -- Birkeland currents immediately came to my mind. The caption also jumped out at me as a description of a Birkeland current forming a "Z" pinch (star formation).

Of course, 'gas' needs to be replaced by "plasma", but 'filament' was right on. 'Condenses' is wrong, it needs to be replaced with, what, "squeezed" or "pinched"? "[C]ompressed" is okay.

The body of the article makes many misstatements. Such as: "Even though little is known about their nature [dark matter], evidence for the presence of dark matter is overwhelming, from observations of galaxies, to clusters of galaxies, to the Universe as a whole."


This is outright bullcrap.

Also, this quote from the article is highly problematic: "The discovery takes scientists a step further to determining the nature of dark matter, which remains a mystery since it was first discovered more than 70 years ago."


Don't they mean theorized.

And "dark matter" was only theorized because otherwise the gravitational model couldn't hold a galaxy together because the observed matter in a galaxy didn't have the required gravitational pull.

In other words, a made-up substance ("dark matter") was invented to save a theory that had been clearly falsified by its own terms and constraints.

Astronomy has a big problem.

Louis, I thought geologists were bad based on the overwhelming evidence for Abiotic Oil theory (I have a sneaking suspicion that the reality of abiotic oil is dawning in the bowels of the oil industry), but conventional astronomy is even worse.

But my hope is that our advanced observational technology is also gradually forcing conventional astronomy to see the neon light of Plasma Cosmology.

Louis Hissink said...


I suspect you are right with your interpretation of the "gas-filament" - it's a Birkeland and the star is a Z pinch.

And that dark matter was discovered? No, theorised is the correct term.

It all reduces to the way we think and were taught to think - and one of the reasons mainstream science, astronomy, geology and archaeology as well, has problems is that the deductive method has taken over from empiricism.

Don Scott discusses this in more detail in his book "The Electric Sky" and explains why dogmas become so entrenched and difficult to be free of.

The other problem is the number of ideas we think with - and astronomers only think in terms of gravity and EM properties of gravitational affected matter - electrostatics and frozen magnetic fields in plasma. But their world is purely mathematical or abstract, or dialectical - their world is defined by the amount of talking one does, and the degree of reasoned persuasion to demonstrate the verity of some idea - but under no circumstances do physical experiments to test the idea, as these are unecessary and at worst, "unclean" dirty science, unlike pure science which is restricted to the abstractions of an excited mind.

This is the problem but how to solve it.

Anaconda said...

Louis Hissink:

Upon reflection this article is interesting because when gravitational model proponents are unhinged from physical laws ("dark matter" is unhinged from physical laws), look what they come up with:

Electric Universe dynamics cloaked in gravitaional language.

In reviewing historic paradigm shifts in science, the first, firtive changes in the scientific establishment often proceed by mimicing the new paradigm using the old paradigm's language (in an attempt to stave off the paradigm shift, or cloak the fact that it is a paradigm shift), but it rarely succeeds as more and more observation and measurement confirms the new paradigm of understanding.

So, this "free thinking" reveals an interesting direction.

Sure, at this point the conventional model (gravitational model) has the high ground, but science's ability to make detailed and sensitive measurements of various phenomenon, principally different wavelenghs of the electromagnetic spectrum, opens sciences eye's to more scientific data.

Remember the gravitational model was first proposed when the understanding of electromagnetism was limited and Newtonian gravitation was assumed to dominate interstellar dynamics (of course, it still does in conventional astronomy), but now the electromagnetic forces are so much easier to observe.

And if a scientific theory reflects reality then continuing objective observation and measurement will win out over time (I hope).

Louis, you state: "...the deductive method has taken over from empiricism."

We've been around on this issue before.

While I agree with you in principle, as long as Man's perception is part of science (and it always will be), persuasion by reason will be part of the scientfic method.

The reason is fortified by the empirical method, i.e., observations and measurements.

But to leave it to a "bare bones" of observation and measurement, is to let continue the general enertia of the establishment.

Persuasion fortified with facts, observations, and measurements is the only way to enlighten Man.

Otherwise, I should simply drop my pen and not waste time and leave it to the scientists -- and apparently they haven't done such a good job, have they now?

Louis, we have been around on this issue several times and I've basically stated the same thing: Persuasion and reason are part of the human process of conceptualization, it's a necessary part of the scientific process. Interpretation and analysis of observation and measurement is part and parcel of the empirical scientific method.

You seemingly take a black and white position.

Louis, you state: "...but under no circumstances do physical experiments to test the idea, as these are unecessary and at worst, "unclean" dirty science..."

There is much truth to the above quote, but not entirely -- it potentially comes off as bitter and a sign of resignation and defeat.

Louis, you ask: "This is the problem, but how to solve it?"

The answer is to be dogged in the face of hostility and fearless in presenting the data that supports your position.

The answer is to bring in "New Men" like myself, who have no attachment to the old paradigm and can see the validity of the new paradigm. Men who are willing to speak out to the best of their ability to attract other New Men and possibly persuade those that are privately restless with the old paradigm and are willing to look at the new paradigm objectively as opposed to defensively.

Persuasion is part of that doggedness which will prevail in the end if your conception matches reality.

The SpaceDaily article I linked to is a case in point: If a person reads the article (who isn't inclined to admire the emperor's new clothes) he can then point out the defects in reasoning and implicit assumptions that the writer and his acolytes aren't able to see.

Louis, keep your head up and don't despair the power of reason.

It's Man's "leg up" on the beasts of the field and stream.

Man must never surrender the gift of reason.

What worries me about your grousing is that it suggests you're ready to surrender the power of reason.

Man would not be Man without his gift of reason.

Whatever you do, hold on to that idea.

Louis, tell me you haven't given up your faith in reason.

Anaconda said...


Halton Arp would disagree with your assessment that General Relativity explains gravitational redshift.

The problem with gravitational lensing is that Arp’s work with quasars contradicts the idea that “redshift” accurately measures distance and this then throws off much, if not all of the gravitational lensing assumptions.

There are too many assumptions in today’s astrophysics that would not be tolerated in any other branch of science.

In regards to gravitational lensing:

“Item: Gravitational lensing is solely a phenomenon of mass, but galaxies are made of plasma. The primary quality of plasma is charge—electricity—and the effects of electricity overshadow the effects of mass 99 to 1. Energetic phenomena that require 96% dark matter, dark energy and black holes to power with mass require only 4% plasma—the quantity actually observed.”

The above quote is from the below linked article:

Gravitational Lensing or Death of a Theory?, September 9, 2005(thunderbolts.info) -- "The theory of gravitational lensing makes sense of images of distant quasars around nearby galaxies...until curious minds begin to doubt it."

This is worth repeating: "Energetic phenomena that require 96% dark matter, dark energy and black holes to power with mass [read gravitational force] REQUIRE ONLY 4% PLASMA— THE QUANITY ACTUALLY OBSERVED (emphasis added).”

"...the quanity actually observed."

A powerful summation of why the gravitational model is wrong and Plasma Cosmology is right.

On Earth, electrically neutral bodies predominate: Solid, liquid, neutral gas — this has understandably shaped Man’s frame of reference, but in space, plasma (electrically charged bodies, electrons and positive ions) is the predominate form of matter.

Electrical currents are an inherent part of plasma dynamics. This is the congenital point of failure for General Relativity, it simply omits any consideration of plasma dynamics in space. Again, at the time General Relativity was formulated, the ubiquitous nature of plasma in space was unknown, so omitting reference to plasma and electrodynamics was understandable, but science knows better, today.

Conventional astrophysics acknowledges magnetic fields in space, but omits the fact that electric currents are the only known cause that produces magnetic fields (this has been experimentally tested and demonstrated in the laboratory).

In space, as opposed to Earth, plasma is the fundamental state of nature.

For General Relativity theory to omit consideration of this fact, and the mounting observations and measurements (the series of NASA reports on interaction between the Sun and the Earth as example, but not limited to) leaves astrophysics relying on an essentially 19th century theory.


NASA reports Birkeland currents between Sun and Earth

NASA reports solar wind (electric flow) breaches Earth's magnetosphere

NASA reports electrons, positive ions flare from Sun, flow to Earth.

These three NASA reports demonstrate electric currents (electrons and positive ions, charged particles) flow from the Sun to the Earth, and since the Sun is the closet star, it provides the best opportunity for detailed observation and measurement of how stars work.

And by reasonable extention, the rest of the Cosmos.

Science needs to work outward from what can be observed and measured in most detail toward what is harder to observe and measure in detail.

The problem with a theory dominated by abstract mathematical equations that omit a fundamental state of nature (plasma) and its inherent dynamics (electric currents) is simple: A general theory of space dynamics CAN"T be accurate while omitting the fundamental state of nature in space -- PLASMA.

Another problem is that the mathematician’s assumptions are always plugged into the equations, and, as I wrote above, there are too many assumptions. An additional problem is the tendency to “giggle” the equations to balance them, so, of course, the equations can be balanced out.

The math can always be made to work, even if that fails to match reality.

Observation and measurement is the anchor of science.


Louis, I hope this example of persuasion fortified with facts, observations, and measurements demonstrates (puts meat on the bone) my point that reason and persuasion are part of the empirical scientific method.