Friday, April 10, 2009

Charged Particles In Space...Gasp

A good title and first two paragraphs from Science Daily (note the use of quotation marks, a question mark (gasp), the reference to charged particles, and the use of the "so-called" qualifier: Scientists Pinpoint The 'Edge Of Space'.

ScienceDaily (Apr. 10, 2009) — Where does space begin? Scientists at the University of Calgary have created a new instrument that is able to track the transition between the relatively gentle winds of Earth's atmosphere and the more violent flows of charged particles in space – flows that can reach speeds well over 1000 km/hr. And they have accomplished this in unprecedented detail.

Data received from the U of C-designed instrument sent to space on a NASA launch from Alaska about two years ago was able to help pinpoint the so-called edge of space: the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space.
But then the article sort of falls on it's face because, as BF reminds us, the exact altitude fluctuates and changes.


Anaconda said...


Reference to charged particals, free electrons and ions, plasma, is essential for describing near-space dynamics.

The explanation of causation in near-space (the "why's"), also requires reference to plasma.

After all, that is the material substance which is present in near-space.

Isn't it true that any description & explanation of a location requires reference to the material substance in that given location?

This observation seems inescapable.

Yet, "modern" astronomy seems to reject this most basic observation.

The observable Universe and the large structures within it, are known to be 99.99% plasma.

Then doesn't it only make sense that any description & explanation of the Universe must make reference to the material substance's physical properties at any given location?

Why then does "modern" astronomy seemingly refuse to encorporate electromagnetism, a Fundamental Force, and an inherent, intrinsic property of plasma, when examining large structures in deep-space that have been observed and measured to be made up almost entirely of plasma?

It doesn't make any sense.

Recently, "modern" astronomy has been confounded, again.

At the very limits to Man's capability to observe & measure the material substance of the Universe, it isn't behaving according to "modern" astronomy's basic assumptions:

"As if the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy weren't vexing enough, another baffling cosmic puzzle has been discovered."

"Patches of matter in the universe seem to be moving at very high speeds and in a uniform direction that can't be explained by any of the known gravitational forces in the observable universe. Astronomers are calling the phenomenon "dark flow."

"The stuff that's pulling this matter must be outside the observable universe, researchers conclude."

Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space( -- September 23, 2008

"Modern" astronomy has resorted to "dark" magic, once again.

But Science knows that superclusters of galaxies are made up overwhelmingly of plasma, "charged particles" with electromagnetic properties.

Why is it that "modern" astronomy would rather invent "dark" flow, rather than describe & explain the material substance at that given location and its behavior by invoking the physical properites that material substance is known to have?

If it's the proper methodology in near-space, isn't it the proper methodology in deep-space as well?

Now compare the, above linked, article and the following article, Greater and Greater Attractors( -- April 10, 2009 "Galaxy clusters are being pulled by a force emanating from "beyond the horizon" of the universe. Could electrified plasma be the culprit?"


"Said Alexander Kashlinsky from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center: "The distribution of matter in the observed universe cannot account for this motion."

Therefore, "modern" astronomy's recourse to "dark" flow.

Which article provides a more compelling description & explanation of the observations & measurements at hand?

The material substance is 99.999% plasma, yet "modern" astronomy refuses to consider a fundamental property of that material substance and would rather invent "dark" flow.

This is why "modern" astronomy is in crisis.

Quantum_Flux said...


Also, I'm not sure if you saw this one...Tunguska Explosion due to Hydrogen Gas in Comet

Anaconda said...

@ Quantum_Flux:

Thanks for the link, it's interesting and I should think OIM would also be interested in the article.