We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Exciting discoveries of weak gravitational lensing suggest the existence of galactic filaments made of dark matter that are the size of galactic superclusters. My questions involves the future of the galactic filaments while space indefinitely expands between the galaxy clusters within each galactic filament. Will the filaments indefinitely expand with the indefinite expansion of space or will the filaments divide because of an event horizon? For example, event horizon paradigms suggest that the expansion of space will eventually isolate each galaxy cluster from each other galaxy cluster. Perhaps we do not yet have enough information to calculate this because we know little about dark matter.
I also posted this question at the moderated news group sci.astro.research. A moderator noted: "I think your last statement is definitely true: we don't know enough about dark matter to calculate this."
Will galactic filament indefinitely expand while its galaxy clusters indefinitely disperse? - Astronomy
Black holes (BH) hold immense energy. In most cases, when BH collide, they release a sufficient pulse of energy that they do not combine. These collisions are supra elastic so that BH leave them with extra kinetic energy. With mutual BH rejection, new mechanisms emerge for the big bang (BB), inflation, galaxy formation and quasars. Mutual BH rejection also held separate, highly energetic, ultra-massive, (galaxy-acquired) black holes (UMBH), of a dying universe, as they accelerated their collapse into a universal black hole. However, an instant before complete collapse, UMBH reached a critical temperature/pressure and detonated the big bang (BB) to consume all UMBH. The BB released energy, mass and space constrained by billions of UMBH. The relativistic mass, that had been created with as galactic components fell into their UMBH, enlarged this succeeding universe. The freed space produced inflation, and the matter mass steered the new universe toward continued matter domination. But a few hundred billion, much smaller (and previously far more numerous) stellar BH (stBH) survived both the collapse and BB, aligned themselves at the intersections of inflation bubbles, grew to super-massive size (due to BB pressure) and then began building galaxies as continuing inflation converted accretion disk trajectories into galactic orbits, which were stabilized by rotating space. These galaxies retained filament associations, which their central BH had established earlier. In rare cases, super massive BH (SMBH) also survived the BB, grew into astoundingly massive black holes (
10 +13 solar mass, AMBH) and then organized clusters of galaxies, like the Coma cluster, to orbit about themselves. Also rarely, the extreme differential energy/mass accretion pressures following the BB held some colliding BH together while they paired as intimately-coupled, binary SMBH. We see them today as ancient, energetic quasars spewing immense plasma radiation, or as younger, radio frequency, active galactic nuclei (AGN) -- depending their SMBH-orbital separation. Plasma quasars orbit each other within their reactive (surface disruptive) distance, and radio AGN exceed this distance. BH precursors needed to be present at the time of the BB to be pressure-joined as close-coupled, equal-mass, SMBH pairs, and the high efficiency of their plasma-based, light-generating mechanism suggests that current quasar size estimates may be high. Plasma quasars expire when their SMBH separation distance exceeds their surface-disruptive distance and they leave behind energetic, radio frequency AGN. As this paired AGN whips their intense, intertwined magnetic fields through the narrow gap between them, their compressed fields tear electrons from their atomic nuclei and eject both as relativistic, radio frequency electrons and as extreme energy cosmic rays, respectively.
This paper introduces several points, which challenge current theory:
• Most BH/BH collisions produce explosive rejections of the colliding BH.
• The “universe” preceding the big bang (BB) was much like our own – though smaller.
• The BB was a detonation of ultra massive black holes (UMBH) that reached a critical density and temperature as they collapsed into a universal black hole.
• The BB released inflation as it destroyed UMBH and freed their previously acquired space. (expansion pressure is an intrinsic attribute of space).
• Super-massive, galaxy-centered black holes (SMBH) quickly arose from smaller, stellar BH (stBH) that survived the BB.
• Galaxy building began when continuing inflation shifted accretion disk trajectories out into galactic orbits, which were mainly stabilized by flat-speed, rotating space.
• Dwarf galaxies, with larger than expected central BH, formed about SMBH after they were explosively ejected from their original galaxies by a collision with a larger SMBH.
• Galactic clusters formed about astoundingly massive BH (AMBH), which grew from rare SMBH that survived the BB.
• The most energetic plasma quasars are powered by closely-coupled, binary SMBH that were pressure-joined after the BB, and whose opposing gravities continually tear mass, energy and space from their partner’s surface.
• Expired plasma quasars appear today as large, bright radio AGN whose intense intertwined magnetic fields now generate relativistic electrons and extreme energy cosmic rays.
The descriptions below are internally consistent and supported by observations that are not well explained by current theory.
Black holes (BH) hold immense energy that accrued during their formation and mass accumulation. This energy, though frozen in time, contributes 1/3 and often much more to their total mass, it is likely concentrated near their surface, and it is thus instantly available upon disruption of black hole gravity and time constraints. It prevents most BH-BH accretion, fueled the BB and powers the most energetic quasars.
Given that colliding BH usually reject each other simple mechanisms emerge or follow for the BB, early galaxy appearance, inflation and energetic quasars. In addition to acquisition of mass and energy, intense BH gravity also acquired space. The BB released this space into a small volume as inflation. Inflation was an essential BB component: It enabled the BB to free mass and energy from the constraints of a universal BH. (Gravity could have otherwise contained the energy and mass released by the BB detonation.) Release of BH-trapped space also contributes to the BH-BH rejection mechanism, and it eventually assisted in moving intimately paired, plasma-quasar SMBH apart until they cease tearing at each other and become intense radio galaxies.
The black hole big bang (BHBB) theory below describes a closed, cyclic universe, whose successive BB released the energy, mass and space (as inflation) held by critically dense, ultra-massive black holes (UMBH) that had grown from collapsing galaxies in an expiring universe. Billions of much smaller stellar mass BH (stBH), survived the BB, quickly grew to super massive size, and then began galaxy building as continuing inflation moved accretion trajectories out into galactic orbits stabilized by rotating space.
This theory explains the billions of similar galaxies, inflation, large-scale universal structure and the early appearance of large galaxies and quasars. It also explains how intense differential plasma pressure paired growing BH shortly after the BB. These pairs exchanged and accumulated mass and energy as they developed into closely coupled, equal mass and pole aligned binary BH that power plasma quasars. These quasars became intense radio galaxies as they expired.
2. Black Hole/Black Hole Rejection Mechanism
BHs’ immense energy accrued as new energy and mass fell through their crushing gravity (and from antimatter annihilation shortly after the BB). BHs’ gravity also acquired space. (And the BB would later release this same space as inflation.) BH/BH collisions break a BH’s gravitational and time constraint to explosively release some of this immense energy, along with mass and space, to cause a supra elastic collision, which sends colliding BH into independent trajectories. The larger BH, of a colliding pair, is the source of the explosive, rejecting plume. BHs’ light-speed gravity, their time-stopped coolness and their extreme density combine to give them the toughness necessary to survive explosive collisions with other BH. (Section 3 explains the gravity wave observation of two accreting stBH.)
Three aspects of the of BH collisions promote explosive rejection by the larger BH:
1. The surface of the larger BH is more vulnerable to disruption because its newly acquired mass had fallen through stronger gravity to gain more relativistic mass before accretion, and because it’s expanded event horizon has captured more space and energy per unit of surface area.
2. The smaller BH delivers enhanced impact to the larger partner because the smaller BH acquired extra relativistic mass, as it fell through the stronger gravity of its larger collision partner. This new mass increased its gravitational disruption to the larger black hole, while it gravitationally stabilized the smaller BH.
3. The smaller BH’s near light speed velocity compresses its frontal gravity to further amplify its gravitational impact. This amplification occurs because its frontal gravity barely outruns its BH source, so that frontal gravity (or its spatial distortion) compresses within space that is but a small fraction of the volume of the space that it would normally occupy. And this amplified gravity further multiplies the smaller BH’s impact on its larger partner.
The higher fraction of relativistic mass, previously acquired, by the larger BH raises the energy to mass ratio frozen on its surface, and the extra space and electro magnetic energy acquired by its larger event horizon further destabilized its surface. Likewise, the threat posed by the smaller BH increases as the mass disparity between the colliding BH masses decreases due to its added relativistic mass and from compressive amplification of its frontal gravity. Current theory proposes very cold surfaces on all BH due to near-complete time stoppage at their surface. Thus, time-frozen movement holds this extra energy and space at the BH surface, so that recent, higher-energy mass and faster spatial acquisitions leaves the larger BH surface more vulnerable to gravitational disruption. The added presence of the extra energy and spatial pressure increase its vulnerability, and may decrease its surface density to further reduce its gravitational threat to a smaller BH. Extra relativistic mass at the surface of the larger BH is likely the main driver of surface instability. As colliding BH reduce surface gravity, they also release the time stoppage, which had frozen the energy, space and mass on their surfaces. The affect of this time speedup is greater on the larger BH with its higher levels of constrained relativistic energy and the smaller BH’s enhanced impact, so that it is quicker to explosively erupt and expel the smaller, intruding BH. Near limitless energy is available to this explosive eruption. And centrifugal force acts with the released energy to eject both BH into trajectories that will effectively escape each other’s gravity. While this collision description helps to visualize why most colliding BH do not mutually accrete, the rejection mechanism is sufficiently powerful, to have held separate UMBH of a rapidly imploding old universe, until a BB detonation consumed them all.
In some cases, the explosive BH rejection response could also free a plasma jet to escape both collision partners’ gravity. As BH meet, a powerful explosive plume strikes the smaller partner to prevent its accretion. Released (BH-constrained) space accompanies the plume to enhance its rejection power. A part of the plume also falls back to its source but a fraction may escape capture by following a narrow, gravity/centrifugal-force balanced escape path in the plane of the collision, around the back of the rapidly-receding, smaller partner. The size, duration and availability of this path depend on collision parameters: contact angle, relative sizes, and rotational speed and rotational axis of the larger partner. At near-light speeds, the strongest component of the gravity vector reached the larger partner’s surface just after its source passed over the intersection point. This slight misalignment could help to free part of the plume from gravitational capture by either partner – especially if its BH source rotates rapidly, counter to the direction of the collision. The misalignment also contributes to the collision’s supra elasticity by adding even more momentum (as relativistic mass) in the direction of the smaller partner’s new path.
However, while galactic-sized, single-lobed gas jets could result from close encounters between two SMBH, the author is not currently aware of any single-lobed jets that would demonstrate this mechanism. (Some double-sided jets and gas clouds, accompanying radio AGN, will be described in Section 9.).
The “Death Star” galaxy (galaxy system 3C321, Figure 1) is a composite picture (at different wavelengths) of surviving remnants of a galactic collision. It shows only part of one of the dual beams emanating from the Death Star galaxy. The author originally misinterpreted this picture as evidence of a single, collision-induced plasma beam, that had followed a possible escape route around the back of the back of the smaller SMBH collision partner. Other complete images show dual beams leaving the center of the Death Star galaxy. While these beams, likely resulted from disruptions, by the galactic collision, to orbits near the Death Star SMBH, they were not the direct result of a SMBH / SMBH collision.
The author continues to assert that the bright gash in the larger galaxy is evidence of an edge-on collision by the smaller galaxy, through the plane of the larger galaxy. This unique interactive configuration contributed to the smaller galaxy’s survival (while calving a few globular clusters), and indicates its SMBH did not interact strongly with the larger galaxy’s SMBH. However, compact dwarf galaxies, whose descriptions follow, did result from significant path disruption by a larger SMBH.
Compact dwarf (CD) galaxies, such as Henize 2-10 (Figure 2), strongly support a BH/BH rejection mechanism. These galaxies rotate about vastly over sized central SMBH, and appear as jumbled collections of stars without normal galactic disks. Their small size and jumbled appearance suggests violent stripping of their primordial galaxies. A rejecting and course-altering collision with a larger SMBH would produce these effects. Significant SMBH course change would free the stars of the primordial galaxy to continue on their original course and eventually join the larger SMBH’s galaxy. The smaller SMBH would leave the collision with only the primordial stars that it could turn from their original course and whatever new stars it could capture from its larger collision partner’s galaxy. Regardless of their origin, these stars are unlikely to orbit neatly in their former galactic plane.
The disruptions, to these galaxies, span a broad range of original-galaxy survivals. The disruption level seems to generally rise as the collision partners’ larger-to-smaller SMBH mass ratio increases. Thus the minor Death Star galaxy survived its encounter with its slightly larger partner relatively intact. Whereas Henize 2-10 1 (10 +6 sm BH), which lost most of its original galaxy, probably encountered a significantly larger central SMBH, and M60-UCD1 2, 3 (3x10 +7 sm BH) likely tangled with the M60 SMBH (4.2x10 +9 sm BH), which drastically altered its course, stripped away virtually all of its original galaxy and left it with only the small clutch of stars, that it could glean from its immediate vicinity as it quickly left M60. As more compact galaxies, with unusually large central SMBH, are discovered, the BH/BH rejection mechanism becomes a more likely explanation of their formation.
Thus the extreme galactic stripping shown by Henize 2-10 and especially M60-UCD1 most likely resulted from significant trajectory displacement of the smaller SMBH’s path by an explosive rejection from with its larger collision partner. M60-UCD1’s lower galaxy to SMBH mass ratio suggests that it left the SMBH collision in a direction that limited it’s “contact” with the galactic planes of either interacting galaxy. Henize 2-10’s collision left it with more time and opportunity to capture stars. This author contends that a one-pass SMBH trajectory-altering collision was more likely to have stripped M60-UCD1 than a “fairly radical orbit” 3 used to simulate tidal stripping.
CD galaxies began their existence as ordinary galaxies. They had masses appropriate to their central super massive BH, and typical galactic shape. And then they collided with larger galaxies. These galactic encounters often produced explosive collisions between their central SMBH, which sent the smaller SMBH partners careening off on independent trajectories, with only the limited stars and gases they could capture from the combined galaxies in their new, exit trajectorys. Thus CD galaxies are the stripped remnants of violent collisions between pairs of galactic SMBH, which radically changed the smaller SMBH’s course. Had the smaller SMBH continued to follow their galaxies’ trajectory, these SMBH would likely have retained more of their original galaxy’s stars, gases and shape. These stripped galaxies lack typical galactic shape, and contain only the relatively few stars and gases, that they could capture after explosive encounters sent their smaller SMBH off in radically altered trajectories. The intact survival of the smaller SMBH, following trajectory-altering encounters, attests to an effective BH/BH rejection mechanism, as described above, between two SMBH. CD galaxies’ violent history would predict Henise 2-10’s disheveled appearance and lack of a well-defined galactic plane. Its ragged appearance is more consistent with a quick SMBH extraction of nearby stars and gases, than with CD galaxies as methodically stripped remnants of once-normal galaxies. The above scenario suggests that the central SMBH of CD galaxies – while much larger than expected for these galaxies – will be smaller, on average, than SMBH of conventional galaxies, because their SMBH were ejected by a larger collision partner.
Six recently observed brilliant, ultraviolet “supernovas” with no trace of hydrogen 4 are well explained as the product of BH/BH collisions. The energy and plasma released by these events would be sufficiently large, to account for their brightness, and sufficiently hot to produce their primarily ultraviolet emissions before hydrogen began to recombine. (The atomic spectrum of hydrogen is absent from their emitted light.) Other explanations are offered which seem more complex than a rare but simple BH/BH collision.
3. The Gravity Wave Observation
Recently observed gravity waves revealed that two near-equal mass stBH spiraled into each other and combined 5 . About one billion years ago, this event generated high-energy, rising-frequency gravity waves. Their tremendous energy was likely generated as
12, contact-induced, increasingly forceful, explosive energy releases, caused the paired BH to pulsate to and from each other at
½ light speed, during the final orbits. Their projected gravity waves eventually consumed the 3 solar masses of the energy missing from the newly-created single BH (62 solar mass). Its predecessors were relatively small, “cool” (36 and 29 solar mass) BH, and their mutual tangential approach reduced the striking power of their collision, so they did not generate a single strong energy pulse and they also lacked the energy from high collision speed, which, acting together, could send colliding BH into independent trajectories. Instead, these two interacting BH produced a series of rejective explosions that siphoned off their available energy into energetic gravity waves until they could no longer explosively resist merger. Their similar sizes also meant that any rejection energy was split between both BH so that neither was able to receive the full force of a rejecting explosion braced against a more massive and “solid” footing. And finally, their smaller sizes limited the energy available for rejection. This limitation occurred because much of their stored energy accrued during BH formation (lower energy content than from mass that fell through full BH gravity) and because even their recently acquired masses had fallen through only their “modest” stBH gravities, and it did not add on the significant extra relativistic mass available from SMBH acquisitions. Thus, their energy to mass ratio paled in comparison with that of their much larger SMBH sisters. The total gravity-wave energy released (3 solar mass) implies that vigorous, explosive energy injections from the BH themselves into their relative movements caused them to generate gravity waves. If that total energy (or some fraction of it) had been released as a single explosive pulse, during a hard collision, than that pulse (along with the significant extra kinetic energy of a straight in, direct collision) would have more likely have resulted in BH rejection into independent trajectories. In fact, given the unique and violent nature of this BH/BH accretion, it may be “the exception (that) proves the rule” of normally-rejective BH/BH encounters.
4. The Event Horizon Dilemma
Visible objects crossing a BH event horizon are normally never seen again. This behavior implies that another (smaller) BH would suffer the same fate if it crossed a larger BH’s horizon. However it does not “vanish” for long. The smaller BH uses all of the momentum and energy that it acquired falling toward its larger partner (along with the added explosive rejection energy from its partner) to propel itself into a trajectory that eventually escapes of its larger partner’s influence. The extra relativistic mass, that the smaller BH acquired as it fell through its larger partner’s gravity, stored all of the energy and momentum it would need to for an elastic collision. The explosive interaction made their collision supra elastic. Typically, BH acquire matter, energy and space without leaving visible evidence of the event. The keys, to the continued and separate existence of both BH, are their extreme toughness and a supra elastic encounter, due to a pulse of additional explosive energy released from the larger partner.
5. The Big Bang
The BB was a detonation of hot UMBH (UMBH are SMBH that have acquired their former galactic masses) remnants of an expired universe. This detonation released immense energy and “significant” mass, along with accompanying inflation from released space. It detonated during the final instant of BH and spatial collapse toward a singularity of the universe-as-a-whole -- which was never reached. During this final collapse, inter-UMBH temperatures climbed exponentially -- virtually without limit -- until detonation occurred. The ensuing detonation destroyed all UMBH in its path to instantly release their constrained energy, mass and space. UMBH are the least stable of all common BH because their most recent mass acquisitions had fallen through a very long and powerful gravitation field to reach their surface. These extreme acceleration paths gave new acquisitions kinetic energy and relativistic mass far above ½mc 2 . Similarly, the outer layers of UMBH also acquired large swaths of space, as their event-horizon spheres expanded and later as space collapsed along with the mass of a dying universe, to enable its rapid (and near-complete) acquisition by UMBH. Spatial presence is space and all things associated with it – they included: a stiff lattice and an intrinsic pressure to expand.
Thus lattice stiffness and expansion pressure indicate the level of spatial presence within a region. (It is intriguing to speculate that spatial presence increased as space fell through UMBH gravity – in much the same way that mass added relativistic mass during acquisition.) Ultimately, the BB consumed all UMBH while bypassing many “cooler” and more nimble stBH, (and an occasional SMBH).
Ultra massive BH include not only the mass of their previously associated galaxies, but also the relativistic mass that this galactic mass acquired as it fell through intense UMBH gravity. This energy-as-mass could approach or even exceed the rest mass of the acquired galaxy. Despite relativistic speed restrictions, (and the speed of light inside an event horizon -- where both space and light are falling through beyond-light-speed gravity – may be difficult to define), UMBH mass acquisitions eventually traverse these intense gravity fields, and should have accumulated all of the kinetic energy available from this path. And this kinetic energy potential shows up as extra relativistic mass moving at very near light speed. These added relativistic masses raise the new UMBH’s gravity significantly above the pre-acquisition sum of galactic and SMBH gravities. This added gravity contributes to universal collapse, and it also assures that the succeeding universe will be even larger than its predecessor. This concept, of successively larger universes, is aesthetically pleasing because (with many preceding universes) it helps to explain how our universe became so large.
There are three additional pleasing features of a BB detonation of UMBH:
1. The inflation sources (hundreds of billions of UMBH) were evenly distributed throughout the BB source, so that inflation occurred evenly as well. (Single-body sourced inflation is less likely to have been as homogeneous.)
2. The collapsing UMBH provide reliable trigger mechanism to set off the BB (exponentially increasing universal temperatures). If everything had collapsed into a single BH, it might last forever.
3. The BHBB scenario allows continuance of time and physical laws though out the BB process. It requires neither “instantaneous” inflation nor temporary suspension of gravity, electro-magnetism or strong and weak nuclear forces.
Both energy and inflation (from released space) were necessary to free a new universe from the grip of a collapsing universal BH. Without accompanying inflation, BH gravitational constraints of the universal BH could continue to contain virtually all of the energy released by destruction of the UMBH – as the precursor UMBH had done. Thus, in a cyclic universe, successive BBs freed mass, new relativistic mass, energy and space that had been trapped by galaxy-devouring UMBH of dying universes, and replaced them with successively larger, fresh, new, and expanding universes like our own. In fact, (in near-infinite time) our existence on Sun-bathed Earth is supporting evidence for a cyclic universe.
The BB detonation began near the center of a dense cloud of UMBH and stBH collapsing toward a universal black hole. The light-speed detonation quickly traversed the short distance to the edge of a rapidly imploding universal black hole. The detonation wave traveled at light speed within its space, however, just before the detonation, UMBH gravity was still accreting residual space, as the old universe collapsed toward a universal singularity. Thus the BB detonation traversed the old universe before the inflation it released (which unfurled at below light speed) could extinguish its furry. In fact, this old universe may have briefly approached the small size claimed by current theory, as the last remnants of space itself disappeared into collapsing UMBH. But this imploding universe still retained its previous structure as billions of UMBH violently resisted mutual accretion despite exponentially increasing temperature and pressure. There was effectively no lower limit to its size and no upper limit to its temperature, and the universal collapse accelerated inward until detonation unleashed the BB. It released <2/3 of UMBH mass as matter and >1/3 of it as energy. But some, much smaller and “cooler”, stBH survived universal collapse and the BB, became super massive from BB pressures and seeded galaxy formation in the new universe.
The BB released gravity-trapped space from billions of UMBH to unfurl as inflation. (This BHBB theory considers expansion pressure to be an intrinsic property of space.) The inflation (unfurling) rate, is likely some inverse function of “universal volume,” and thus it began as near-instantaneous expansion from a very small volume, and it continues to expand the universe today. The destroyed UMBH released the energy equivalent of >1/3 of their mass however BH gravity was likely capable of constraining this energy. Thus inflation needed to accompany this energy release in order to defeat continuing collapse toward a universal singularity. But inflation, due to the newly freed space, did not just exit the region - it carried the plasma’s mass and energy along with it to begin universal expansion This connection between space and mass – similar to the connection that lengthens radiation wavelengths as space expands, also bends space near mass, and enabled BH to acquire space. This spatial acquisition is especially important in later stages of universe aging -- as space and universal mass accelerated their collapse leading up to the next BB. There is little reason to expect that space is significantly more capable of resisting BH gravity than light.
The concept that inflation derived from an unfurling of BH-acquired space has several advantages over “instantaneous” inflation of current theory:
1. Its effects continue to expand the universe – beyond its initial, very rapid, inflationary burst. Thus, while “initial” inflation may have inserted significant space into the universe, the universe could have remained within a universal BH event horizon and at risk of collapse without continuing inflation pressure from released space. Continuing inflation later played a key role in galaxy formation (Section 8, “Galactic & Large-Scale Structure …”).
2. It does not require conjecture of quantum effects within high-density matter to produce an otherwise unanticipated result -- inflation.
3. Unfurling inflation eventually drops off as some function of universal volume, which contributes to eventual gravitational dominance and ultimately the next BB.
Inflation played an essential role in freeing the universe from risk of continued implosion following the BB, and inflation’s remnants aided galaxy formation and are likely responsible for ongoing acceleration of universal expansion, due to an intrinsic expansion propensity of space itself.
Note that, according to this theory, collapsing UMBH had swept in most space from the old universe as they moved toward the BB compaction. This process left behind emptiness, void of space, that the new universe inflated into – unimpeded by residual space from its predecessor.
We live in a “matter” universe because the “matter” component of UMBH survived the BB (along with stBH, which also survived the BB). These UMBH matter sources tilted matter/antimatter competition following the BB in favor of matter. Matter, antimatter and energy exchanged with each other at the extreme temperatures following the BB, however some extra matter was present from time zero. And this matter tilted the new universe toward continued matter domination. Antimatter never had a chance. Though it may have formed equally with matter in the hot, energy-rich plasma after the BB, there was always enough matter to maintain its dominance -- despite its active participation in creation/destruction processes.
After the BB, rapid, high-energy nuclear reactions partitioned: baryons and radiation, protons and neutrons, and hydrogen and helium (along with other light elements), as described by current theory. All of these reactions occur similarly in this BHBB theory, as a detonation destroyed UMBH (with their high energy content), and converted them to a less-constrained, expanding, high-temperature – high pressure plasma.
Thus, the hot, new universe soon acquired the thermal and expansion characteristics of current theory, with two notable exceptions: The early presence of rapidly-growing stBH survivors, and a lower concentration of antimatter – due to the presence of residual matter from destroyed UMBH. Expansion continued and eventually the new universe cooled to 3740K, hydrogen “recombined”, the universe became transparent and released the precursor light to the cosmic “microwave” background (CMB) radiation we see today. Fluctuations in CMB intensities may have been influenced by the presence of billions of rapidly growing, new SMBH which later included their associated galactic clouds however, current CMB variations seem too large in scale to be solely attributed to these proto galaxies.
8. Galactic & Large-Scale Structure of Universe
At first glance, galaxies seem more similar than they are different. The billions of similar galaxies in our universe indicate a size-determining feature of their formation. This (logarithmically) narrow range is consistent with galactic coalescence around SMBH that had grown from stBH survivors of the BB. It seems more difficult to explain SMBH as condensations around subtle mass discontinuities in primordial plasma, which would have produced a broader galactic range, including more small galaxies, or condensed directly into primordial stars -- with no BH formation.
BB-surviving, stBH are the size-defining feature of galactic formation. They would have received additional mass as they caromed among their larger, UMBH sisters during the collapse, and many of them would have been trapped and accreted by the massive, rejection plumes between UMBH. However, surviving stBH had not acquired the roughly 8 orders of magnitude of new mass needed to equal UMBH size. Thus, some stBH remained sufficiently nimble and “cold” to move with the BB detonation rather than holding position to absorb its full impact (especially if they happened to be moving in the direction of the detonation, when it hit). The stBH had a well-defined minimum size at the time of their formation. And those that survived the BB grew quickly in the immense pressure of the BB until they achieved super-massive size and reigned in galactic masses. However, the lower size limit for stBH formation carried through these mass accumulations, and explains the minimum size of galactic, central SMHB.
Young SMBH moved out with inflation to organize galaxies from the vast plasma left by the BB. Continuing inflation was likely important and necessary for galaxy formation: Following the BB, early plasma pressure, rapidly moved mass, energy and space to a straight-in, all-angle bombardment of young SMBH. However, as time progressed, the universe expanded, plasma pressure dropped, and the accumulation mechanism shifted toward passage through an accretion disk. This shift stopped SMBH growth as continuing inflation shifted mass accumulation, in accretion disks, toward galaxy building. Continuing significant inflation moved the inward spiraling masses out from their accretion trajectories and into spatial-rotation-stabilized galactic orbits. (a more complete description of the spatial–rotation mechanism for orbit stalilization is described in an “Alternate Mechanisms for Dark Matter …” paper by this author) This orbit expansion stopped SMBH growth and shifted it to their associated galaxies. Over time, as the galaxies grew, they became the dominant local gravities. They continued to draw in significant new mass, while distributing its angular momentum across the growing galactic disk. By this time, accretion disks had disappeared and the rapid inflation, that had defeated them, slowed its expansion pace. However, without significant early inflation, SMBH would have continued to acquire new galactic mass directly, to preclude galaxy formation. Fortunately, that did not happen, and instead new galaxies blossomed from mass originally destined to join their central SMBH. (Note that our Sun contains 99.8% of solar system mass, whereas galactic central-bulge masses are
500 times larger than their central SMBH. This ratio disparity implies that galaxies coalesced with a vastly different formation mechanism than stellar/planetary systems.)
Current theory – that small density spikes in the BB gas cloud built upon themselves to produce SMBH/galaxies -- has three problems:
1. Nuclear reactions, which are promoted by higher pressures, likely sidetracked any plasma movement away from direct BH formation. Thus, plasma initially condenses into a “super” star state, whose core nuclear reactions would vigorously resist further compaction. These super stars would grow rapidly and die young (to form BH), but the time delay would seriously impede onset of SMBH and galaxy formation. Similarly shortly after the BB, very hot and dense, nuclear-reactive, plasma would also resist early direct collapse to BH by increasing its nuclear activity with increasing pressure.
2. Coalescing matter does not proceed directly to the black hole state: A 3+ solar mass neutron star seems necessary, however briefly, to achieve an external event horizon, which initiates matter’s final collapse into a BH. Neutron stars seem to be the ultimate density that ordinary matter can attain without the added pull light-speed gravity. These neutron stars are products of iron-induced super novas, and iron was uncommon in the early universe.
3. A coalescence mechanism to initiate SMBH formation would seem to predict a broad continuum of SMBH/galaxy sizes. Many later forming “SMBH” would produce many small ordinary galaxies, which the universe lacks – the BH kernel needed to have been present during the maximum pressures of the BB in order to achieve their more “uniform” super-massive size. Also, according to current theory, later-forming SMBH would likely have passed through a “quasar” phase (according to current quasar theory), fueled by massive accretion disks, in order to attain their super-massive size. Thus current-theory implies that we should see more quasars, and that they would present a continuum of phases – depending on their rates of mass capture. The rarity, brightness and signatures of energetic plasma and radio quasars support their description as close-coupled, binary SMBH (Section 9, below) and precludes accretion-disk, quasar mechanisms that would likely produce more quasars and a broader galaxy size distribution, skewed toward smaller ordinary galaxies.
Small variations in CMB seem too large in scale to have been produced by billions of proto-galaxies, although low plasma densities from astoundingly massive BH (AMBH – described below) acquisitions might produce them. While some early-universe, computer models may be adjusted to predict SMBH and galaxy formation 6 , their BH-seeding mechanisms are weak. The BHBB theory, with its surviving BH cornels, offers a simple, direct description of early super-massive, galactic-core BH formation.
Similarly, the correlation of a galaxies’ outer-star speed and central galactic mass with the central-black-hole mass implies that super-massive, central BH were present during the organization of the galaxies and played an important role in this process. If SMBH had formed later in the universe-organization process, then they would have had less influence on outer-star speed. Karl Gebhard along with Laura Ferrarese and David Merritt 7 observed that galactic bulges turned out to be 500 times more massive than the giant BH at the hub of their galaxies. The consistency of this ratio suggests that all galaxy building began at a similar time – perhaps at the time of an optimal universal inflation rate for galaxy building. Galactic bulges can have a 20,000 light-year radius – well beyond the one light-year black-hole influence distance. The apparent influence over such a large distance implies that the central black hole was present and important during a denser phase of the universe, before the time that current theory ascribes to galactic organization. The observation of mature galaxies in a young universe 8 also supports an early arrival of SMBH. Note: the author asserts that galaxies expand along with the universe as a whole – but at a slower rate.
Large-scale galactic filaments imply more structure in their source than is likely from current theories. These large-scaled structures as originally described by R.B. Tully and J.R. Fischer 9 are one of E. J. Lerner’s strongest criticism of the current BB theory in his book “The Big Bang Never Happened”. These structures developed early and naturally (in BHBB theory) as newly formed associations among the BB-surviving stBH. As the BB detonation wave passed, the surviving BH were located between the detonating UMBH. Thus, behind the detonation, these BH were nudged into filaments along intersections of the inflation “bubbles” that were released by the destroyed UMBH. Here surviving BH established gravitational bonds with their companion BH, and began to accumulate the mass and energy they would need to become super massive. These associations are an early phase of the galactic filaments we see today. Note that spacing of the filament structures may thus provide a clue about the number of UMBH that were present in the former universe. As the universe expanded, the pull between neighboring BH also increased as they grew to super massive size and later with their newly-acquired, galactic clouds in tow
Large galactic clusters, such as the Coma Cluster, likely developed around astoundingly massive BH (AMBH). These rare AMBH grew along with SMBH in the high-pressure plasma released by the BB. Rare, BB-surviving SMBH seeded these monsters, which grew to
10 +5 times their starting size (as did stBH to become super massive). (The surviving SMBH had lost most their associated galaxies during a much earlier encounter with another larger galaxy-centered SMBH, long before universal collapse.) This SMBH would have gained significant mass during the collapse leading up to the BB, but would have remained smaller and “cooler” than its UMBH sisters. Thus, these SMBH may have weighted in at
10 +7 solar mass just before the BB and have grown to
10 +12 sm by the time common SMBH had stopped acquiring mass. The basic mechanism of mass and energy accumulation into a AMBH from BB plasma was enhanced by significant relativistic mass additions to their new mass and by continued mass accumulation after common SMBH had stopped accumulating mass and begun galaxy building. (Galactic masses are
500 times the mass of their associated SMBH.) These enhancements or others could have easily added an extra order of magnitude or more to produce final AMBH masses of
10 +13 or 14 sm. This AMBH, by itself, would be capable of constraining even the Shapley Supercluster 10 (10 +16+ sm, the largest galactic cluster within a billion light years). An AMBH’s event horizon would likely have swallowed any conventional galaxy that might otherwise have formed around it, and its considerable gravity could certainly constrain neighboring galaxies to orbit about it. Current theory offers no mechanism to form these AMBH, and their existence at the center of the Coma Cluster, the Great Attractor or the Shapley Supercluster would support this aspect of the BHBB theory.
9. Quasars and Some Active Galactic Nuclei as Binary Black Holes
This description of quasars, as binary SMBH, explains the unique energy source and stability of the most ancient and powerful of active galactic nuclei (AGN). It flows naturally from the BHBB theory described above. Observation of the enormous radio energy emitted by Cygnus A (3C 405, Figure 3) and of the (dual) massive galactic clouds connected to their source by narrow, stable electron beams support its description as a binary SMBH. Confirmation of Cygnus A as a binary SMBH would be an important validation of the BH/BH rejection mechanism. Centaurus A (NGC 5128, Figure 4) possesses smaller dual clouds and a more diffuse electron beam, but may also be powered by binary SMBH, since high resolution radio images show its electron beams originate closer to its core than current theory would predict. Note that gravity waves from binary SMBH would be lower in frequency and energy, than those recently observed from accreting stBH, so gravity waves would remove only insignificant energy from paired SMBH.
Close-coupled, binary, SMBH likely power two types of continuous, high-energy objects:
1. Rare, distant, and broad-spectrum, “plasma” quasars whose binary SMBH circle each other within a reactive distance such that their respective gravities continually tear plumes of ultra-hot plasma from their partner. These plumes produce massive, plasma jets along the orbital axis to efficiently emit vast quantities of very-hot, plasma-sourced radiation. Note: The strong light emissions from this plasma may cause overestimates of quasar size due to current use of accretion disk models for light generation estimates.
2. Strong and stable, radio galaxies such as Cygnus A, and possibly Centaurus A, whose close-coupled orbiting SMBH have rebounded (from BB constraints), and eventually rejected sufficient mass and space to expand their orbital separation beyond a reactive distance. These binaries remain as cosmic high-energy particle accelerators, whose intense, intertwined magnetic fields eject focused, relativistic electrons and invisible, extreme energy, cosmic rays.
Thus the BHBB theory provides a viable description of the power sources for both objects.
Paired SMBH would be difficult to detect beccause they likely orbit each other within their combined event horizon. Their detection might require a “focused” gravity wave experiment, which needs at least three high-sensitivity detectors.
The rare binary SMBH, that power plasma and radio quasars, coupled shortly after the BB detonation, when the surviving, solar mass BH population density was greatest, and when maximum, massive (differential) mass and energy infusions from the BB could defeat their normal rejection mechanism. During (and shortly after) the BB, surviving BH accreted plasma at astounding rates, to quickly make them super massive. If two of these rapidly growing BH encountered each other at near-peak pressure, they would shadow each other from plasma accretion between them. Continuing, unobstructed accretions from other directions would hold the pair together – despite the continuing rejective plasma plume from one or both partners. Meanwhile, preferential frontal accretion continually slowed the partners’ orbital velocity, moved them ever closer together, and created an efficient accretion duo that captures new plasma and energy even faster than independent SMBH. After a short time, plasma ejections and close proximity would have: balanced the partners’ masses, and aligned their rotations and magnetic fields (in opposite directions & perpendicular to the orbital plane). Note, that counter rotation directions of the SMBH pair is the only configuration that is not conflicted by offsets of repulsive explosion effects and that N-S, S-N magnetic alignment is lowest energy and assures that equal and opposite intertwined magnetic fields accelerating particles in both directions along the common orbital axis. By the time accretion pressures subsided, paired BH would have lost the orbital velocity needed to help the partners escape each other. And their continual eruptive interaction would maintain separation, but would lack the pulse of power needed to push them into independent paths. The intense energy continually radiating from energetic plasma quasars and radio galaxies illustrates the immense power available from the near-limitless energy constrained within BH.
The galaxy cluster, M0735.6+7421, includes two giant cavities likely cleared by pressure from expelled plasma, originating from its central black hole(s). “Over a distance of a million light years, jets from this super-massive black hole appear to have pushed out as much gas as is contained in a trillion suns. The eruption has already released hundreds of millions of times as much energy as is contained in a gamma-ray burst, the most violent type of explosion that scientists had previously detected 11 .” This structure could form as the ejected mass from a reactive, binary pair of AMBH. This very rare pair would have the mass available to eject similar quantities of mass, and its paired structure provides a mechanism for its release. The above reference also cites Martin Rees and Joe Silks’ calculation that no black hole can become heavier that 3 billion solar masses. Observations of instability may also be explained if paired BH acquired mass more quickly following the BB than solitary BH because their high orbital speed swept a greater volume during mass accretion. Thus some of the largest SMBH may turn out to be interacting binary pairs, which were born active and destine to expel some part of their energy as radiation, matter or relativistic ions. These conclusions are consistent with the recent observation of a 2 billion solar mass, 12.9 billion year old quasar, ULAS J1120+0641 12 . Current theory does not anticipate a quasar this large, this early in a young universe. Recall that hot-plasma is a very efficient light source (per unit of source mass) – likely brighter than current quasar light mechanisms (based on accretion disks) and could lead to over estimates of quasar mass.
The appearance of dual mass-jets or gas clouds leaving quasar galaxies is consistent with plasma quasars as reactive, close-coupled, binary BH. Extreme pressures within the quasar interactive zone push some mass and energy to escape along the low- gravity, binary rotation axis, and (aided by their intense, focused magnetic fields) it escapes even their combined gravities. These two plasma jets eventually expand, cool and become transparent as atoms recombine. Thus, the quasar light we see derived from hot plasma in massive axial ejected jets, and the massive clouds at both ends of Cygnus A are evidence of a more active stage in its past. Some younger AGN appear to be associated with interacting galaxies -- these are not necessarily the most powerful emitters and their emissions are likely due to rapid accretion of new mass, as described by current theory.
Energetic radio galaxies, like Cygnus A, emit intense radio frequency radiation. (Cygnus A is the most powerful radio source outside of our galaxy.) A binary SMBH pair possesses the energy to supply this power, and their close proximity and short orbital times would generate and focus the strong, intertwined magnetic field needed to strip electrons from their atoms and expel the dual jets of relativistic electrons and ions 13 . The nuclei that gave up the visible electrons are likewise accelerated by the same fields and along the same paths as the electron beams to become extreme energy cosmic rays, (which are not normally light emitting). Note that only binary BH of identical mass with opposed pole orientations would generate intricately balanced magnetic fields of sufficient consistency and symmetry to produce the sharp electron jets illustrated by high-resolution images of Cygnus A at 5 GHz. This condition implies that the binary partners have equalized their masses, and aligned their magnetic and rotation axes. BB external pressure would be necessary to produce these binaries, (and an effective rejection mechanism would have been required to resist merger of the binary pairs).
Also, the extreme stability of Cygnus A’s electron beam implies an exceptionally stable orientation of their source. This stability more likely results from an orbiting binary pair than from a single rotating SMBH. Its emitted electron beams appear to be straight over their 150,000-year path from their central emission source. Also, if we consider that the massive gas clouds at either end of Cygnus A were generated from a much earlier active plasma emission phase, and that the current electron beams still strike near their centers, than their Cygnus A source may have been stable for over 10 billion years. This level of extreme continuity would seem to require an orbiting pair of SMBH rather than a solitary SMBH. A solitary SMBH could become defocused or redirected by a relatively common encounter with a BH or even a neutron star. Thus, two aspects of the beams and clouds demonstrate incredible stability, and this and this stability is a strong argument that their source is a binary pair of SMBH. An earlier plasma quasar phase, of Cygnus A, ejected substantial plasma jets along its orbital axis, to produce its two massive radio gas clouds. Cygnus A’s unique stability and extensive gas clouds would be more difficult to explain as originating from a solitary SMBH.
Centaurus A shows these same features, but its gas cloud is smaller and its electron beam is more diffuse. Its possible identity as a binary SMBH is based in part on high-resolution radio images, which reveal that the electron jets originate closer to the central “black hole” 14 than current theory would predict. (A binary-pair would originate its jets directly between the two, paired SMBH). Thus, both radio galaxies may turn out to be strong evidence for the BHBB scenario described above.
As the universe expands, the high impact energy between SMBH that had been widely separated before their ‘collision’, assures that the rejecting explosion will deliver sufficient additional energy to send the participants on independent paths. Thus, we see no recently-formed, energetic quasars, and most energetic quasars that we see today have significant red shifts. The substantial mass, energy and spatial leakage from the ejected plasma beams (whose light we observe billions of years later) likely quiets most quasars within the first few billion years of their existence. Thus near-Earth energetic, plasma quasars (whose light would be younger) do not exist.
Energetic, radio AGN are longer lived and likely a second or expired phase of reactive, plasma quasars. Even the super-massive size of plasma quasars cannot sustain them indefinitely, and they eventually cease their broad-spectrum emissions – as energy and mass emissions accompanied by spatial release move their separation distance beyond their reactive radius.
This black-hole big bang (BHBB) theory asserts that, most BH explosively reject each other. Thus, large UMBH in a collapsing expired universe maintained their separate identities until they detonate as the BB. Some smaller stellar mass black holes survived the BB and grew to become SMBH in the succeding universe, where they promote galaxy formation. This different perspective of interacting BH enables us to explain several phenomena that are not well described by current theory:
1. A detonation of ultra massive BH (UMBH) powered the BB by releasing their constrained energy (equal to >1/3 of their mass). These UMBH had acquired their galactic masses (along with the added relativistic mass, that these galactic masses had gained during acquisition) to initiate and speed collapse of an old, expiring universe and add new mass to the larger, succeeding universe.
2. Inflation accompanied the BB because space, previously acquired by hundreds of billions of UMBH, was instantly released, when the BB detonation destroyed all UMBH (expansion pressure is an intrinsic property of space).
3. BB-surviving, stellar-mass BH (stBH) provided immediate accretion kernels, which quickly grew to super massive size, and then continuing inflation changed accretion disk trajectories into stable galactic orbits to begin galaxy formation.
4. Unexpectedly large SMBH, at the center of compact, dwarf galaxies (CD), were stripped of their original galaxies by a course-altering collision with a larger SMBH, and they left the region as CD galaxies with only the stars and gases they could capture as they departed.
5. Six recently observed, exceptionally bright, ultraviolet “supernovas” are well explained as the product of BH/BH collisions.
6. Recent gravity wave observations, of two stellar BH combining, were generated by ejective explosions, which quickly moved the colliding BH apart – to be followed by a fast gravitational collapse.
7. Close-coupled, binary super-massive BH (SMBH) power energetic plasma quasars. These binaries continually tear at each other to release concentrated mass and energy along their rotation axis. They paired shortly after the BB and leave intense radio galaxies when they expire.
8. Early filaments of linked galaxies, that persist today, began their associations when inflation plumes released by detonated UMBH, nudged BB-surviving stBH into filaments along plume intersections. Growing BH and early galaxy formation extended their initial gravitational attractions.
9. Galactic clusters coalesced around rare
10 +13 solar mass astoundingly massive BH that grew to this size from a BB-surviving SMBH.
This BHBB theory uses known entities acting in an evidence-supported scenario to describe BBs that will continue to produce ever-larger succeeding universes indefinitely.
The author gives special thanks to his wife, Bev, for her help, support and encouragement. He also thanks Professor Adrian Lee (UC Berkeley) for an interesting Cosmology class that helped clarify his understanding of current information and theory. Professors William Holzapfel of UC Berkeley and Megan Donahue of Michigan State University gave sound advice and thoughtful questions at early stages of theory development, which were appreciated. Thanks also to Ray Ryason, Robert Rodvien, Richard Barendsen, Bep Fontana, Dennis Schutzel and Bob Anderson.
Statement of Competing Interests
The author has no competing interests.
List of Abbreviations
AGN: Active Galactic Nuclei
AMBH: Astoundingly Massive Black Holes
BH: Black Hole(s)
BHBB: Black Hole Big Bang (theory)
CD: Compact Dwarf (galaxies)
SMBH: Supper Massive Black Hole(s)
StBH: Stellar Mass Black Hole(s)
UMBH: Ultra Massive Black Hole(s)
|||Reines, A. E. et al. An actively accreting massive black hole in a dwarf starburst galaxy Henise 2-10. Nature 470, 66-68 (2011).|
|In article&emsp&emsp&emsp&emsp&emsp&emsp||View Article&emsp&emspPubMed&emsp|
|||Reines, A. E. et al. Gaint black hole in a stripped galaxy. Nature 513, 322-323 (2014).|
|In article&emsp&emsp&emsp&emsp&emsp&emsp||View Article&emsp&emspPubMed&emsp|
|||Seth, A. C. et al. A supermassive black hole in an ultra-compact dwarf galaxy, Nature 513, 98-400 (2014).|
|In article&emsp&emsp&emsp&emsp&emsp&emsp||View Article&emsp&emspPubMed&emsp|
|||Robert Quimby of Caltech, Nature online, June 8, 2011 – as referenced by, Ron Cowen, Science News, July 2 2011, vol180 no1, p10.|
|||Physical Review Letters, February 11, 2016, as cited by, Andrew Grant, Science News, March 5, 2016, vol 189 no 5.|
|||Volker Springel, Nature, June 2, 2005 – as referenced by, Ron Cowen, Science News, August 13, 2005, vol168, p104.|
|||Cited in Ron Cowen, Science News, Jan. 22, 2005, v 167, p 56.|
|||Tully, R. Brent, and J. R. Fischer, Atlas of Nearby Galaxies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). As cited by E. J. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened (New York: Vintage Books, 1992).|
|||Illustration cited by Ron Cowen, Science News, July 4, 2009, p5, attributed to Tim Jones, University of Texas at Austin, and K. Cordes and S. Brown/STSCI.|
|||European Space Agency & Planck Collaboration/Rosat/Digitised Sky Survey.|
|||Ron Cowen, Science News, Jan. 22, 2005, quoting Brian McNamara, Nature, Jan. 6 2005.|
|||Daniel Mortlock of Imperial College London, Nature, June 30, 2011 – as cited by Nadia Drake, Science News, July 30, 2011, vol 180 no 3, p12.|
|||Professor Adrian Lee of UC Berkeley ascribed the requirement for strong, intertwined magnetic fields to Professor Jon Arons UC Berkeley.|
|||Roopesh Ojha et.al., Astronomy and Astrophysics, June 2011, – as referenced by, Ron Cowen, Science News, July 2, 2011, vol 180 no 1, p10.|
Published with license by Science and Education Publishing, Copyright © 2016 Jay D. Rynbrandt
Cosmic Rays and Climate
Sir William Herschel was the first to seriously consider the sun as a source of climate variations, already two centuries ago. He noted a correlation between the price of wheat, which he presumed to be a climate proxy, and the sunspot activity:
Herschel presumed that this link arises from variation in the luminosity of the sun. Today, various solar activity and climate variations are indeed known to have a notable correlation on various time scales. The best example is perhaps the one depicted in fig. 1, on a centennial to millennial time scale between solar activity and the tropical climate of the Indian ocean (Neff et al. 2001). Another example of a beautiful correlation exists on a somewhat longer time scale, between solar activity and the northern atlantic climate (Bond et al. 2001). Nevertheless, the relatively small luminosity variations of the sun are most likely insufficient to explain this or other links. Thus, an amplifier of solar activity is probably required to explain these observed correlations.
Several amplifiers were suggested. For example, UV radiation is all absorbed in the stratosphere, such that notable stratospheric changes arise with changes to the non-thermal radiation emitted by the sun. In fact, Joanna Heigh of Imperial College in London, suggested that through dynamic coupling with the troposphere, via the Hadley circulation (in which moist air ascends in the tropic and descends as dry air at a latitude of about 30°) the solar signal at the surface can be amplified. Here we are interested in what appears to be a much more indirect link between solar activity and climate.
In 1959, the late Edward Ney of the U. of Minnesota suggested that any climatic sensitivity to the density of tropospheric ions would immediately link solar activity to climate. This is because the solar wind modulates the flux of high energy particles coming from outside the solar system. These particles, the cosmic rays, are the dominant source of ionization in the troposphere. More specifically, a more active sun accelerates a stronger solar wind, which in turn implies that as cosmic rays diffuse from the outskirts of the solar system to its center, they lose more energy. Consequently, a lower tropospheric ionization rate results. Over the 11-yr solar cycle and the long term variations in solar activity, these variations correspond to typically a 10% change in this ionization rate. It now appears that there is a climatic variable sensitive to the amount of tropospheric ionization—Clouds.
Clouds have been observed from space since the beginning of the 1980's. By the mid 1990's, enough cloud data accumulated to provide empirical evidence for a solar/cloud-cover link. Without the satellite data, it hard or probably impossible to get statistically meaningful results because of the large systematic errors plaguing ground based observations. Using the satellite data, Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen has shown that cloud cover varies in sync with the variable cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth. Over the relevant time scale, the largest variations arise from the 11-yr solar cycle, and indeed, this cloud cover seemed to follow the cycle and a half of cosmic ray flux modulation. Later, Henrik Svensmark and his colleague Nigel Marsh, have shown that the correlation is primarily with low altitude cloud cover. This can be seen in fig. 3.
The solar-activity – cosmic-ray-flux – cloud-cover correlation is quite apparent. It was in fact sought for by Henrik Svensmrk, based on theoretical considerations. However, by itself it cannot be used to prove the cosmic ray climate connection. The reason is that we cannot exclude the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently climate, without any casual link between the latter two. There is however separate proof that a casual link exists between cosmic rays and climate, and independently that cosmic rays left a fingerprint in the observed cloud cover variations.
To begin with, climate variations appear to arise also from intrinsic cosmic ray flux variations, namely, from variations that have nothing to do with solar activity modulations. This removes any doubt that the observed solar activity cloud cover correlations are coincidental or without an actual causal connection. That is to say, it removes the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently the climate, such that we think that the cosmic rays and climate are related, where in fact they are not. Specifically, cosmic ray flux variations also arise from the varying environment around the solar system, as it journeys around the Milky Way. These variations appear to have left a paleoclimatic imprint in the geological records.
Cosmic Rays, at least at energies lower than 10 15 eV, are accelerated by supernova remnants. In our galaxy, most supernovae are the result of the death of massive stars. In spiral galaxies like our own, most of the star formation takes place in the spiral arms. These are waves which revolve around the galaxy at a speed different than the stars. Each time the wave passes (or is passed through), interstellar gas is shocked and forms new stars. Massive stars that end their lives with a supernova explosion, live a relatively short life of at most 30 million years, thus, they die not far form the spiral arms where they were born. As a consequence, most cosmic rays are accelerated in the vicinity of spiral arms. The solar system, however, has a much longer life span such that it periodically crosses the spiral arms of the Milky Way. Each time it does so, it should witness an elevated level of cosmic rays. In fact, the cosmic ray flux variations arising from our galactic journey are ten times larger than the cosmic ray flux variations due to solar activity modulations, at the energies responsible for the tropospheric ionization (of order 10 GeV). If the latter is responsible for a 1°K effect, spiral arm passages should be responsible for a 10°K effect—more than enough to change the state of earth from a hothouse, with temperate climates extending to the polar regions, to an icehouse, with ice-caps on its poles, as Earth is today. In fact, it is expected to be the most dominant climate driver on the 10 8 to 10 9 yr time scale.
It was shown by the author (Shaviv 2002, 2003), that these intrinsic variation in the cosmic ray flux are clearly evident in the geological paleoclimate data. To within the determinations of the period and phase of the spiral-arm climate connection, the astronomical determinations of the relative velocity agree with the geological sedimentation record for when Earth was in a hothouse or icehouse conditions. Moreover, it was found that the cosmic ray flux can be independently reconstructed using the so called "exposure ages" of Iron meteorites. The signal, was found to agree with the astronomical predictions on one hand, and correlate well with the sedimentation record, all having a
In a later analysis, with Ján Veizer of the University of Ottawa and the Ruhr University of Bochum, it was found that the cosmic ray flux reconstruction agrees with a quantitative reconstruction of the tropical temperature (Shaviv & Veizer, 2003). In fact, the correlation is so well, it was shown that cosmic ray flux variations explain about two thirds of the variance in the reconstructed temperature signal. Thus, cosmic rays undoubtedly affect climate, and on geological time scales are the most dominant climate driver.
Recently, it was also shown by Ilya Usoskin of the University of Oulu, Nigel Marsh of the Danish Space Research Center and their colleagues, that the variations in the amount of low altitude cloud cover follow the expectations from a cosmic-ray/cloud cover link (Usoskin et al., 2004). Specifically, it was found that the relative change in the low altitude cloud cover is proportional to the relative change in the solar-cycle induced atmospheric ionization at the given geomagnetic latitudes and at the altitude of low clouds (up to about 3 kms). Namely, at higher latitudes were the the ionization variations are about twice as large as those of low latitudes, the low altitude cloud variations are roughly twice as large as well.
Thus, it now appears that empirical evidence for a cosmic-ray/cloud-cover link is abundant. However, is there a physical mechanism to explain it? The answer is that although there are indications for how the link may arise, no firm scenario, at least one which is based on solid experimental results, is yet present.
Although above 100% saturation, the preferred phase of water is liquid, it will not be able to condense unless it has a surface to do so on. Thus, to form cloud droplets the air must have cloud condensation nuclei—small dust particles or aerosols upon which the water can condense. By changing the number density of these particles, the properties of the clouds can be varied, with more cloud condensation nuclei, the cloud droplets are more numerous but smaller, this tends to make whiter and longer living clouds. This effect was seen down stream of smoke stacks, down stream of cities, and in the oceans in the form of ship tracks in the marine cloud layer.
The suggested hypothesis, is that in regions devoid of dust (e.g., over the large ocean basins), the formation of cloud condensation nuclei takes place from the growth of small aerosol clusters, and that the formation of the latter is governed by the availability of charge, such that charged aerosol clusters are more stable and can grow while neutral clusters can more easily break apart. Several experimental results tend to support this hypothesis, but not yet prove it. For example, the group of Frank Arnold at the university of Heidelberg collected air in airborne missions and found that, as expected, charge clusters play an important role in the formation of small condensation nuclei. It is yet to be seen that the small condensation nuclei grow through accretion and not through scavenging by larger objects. If the former process is dominant, charge and therefore cosmic ray ionization would play an important role in the formation of cloud condensation nuclei.
One of the promising prospects for proving the "missing link", is the SKY experiment being conducted in the Danish National Space Center, where a real "cloud chamber" mimics the conditions in the atmosphere. This includes, for example, varying levels of background ionization and aerosols levels (sulpheric acid in particular). Within a few months, the experiment will hopefully shed light on the physical mechanics responsible for the apparent link between cloud cover and therefore climate in general, to cosmic rays, and through the solar wind, also to solar activity. [Added Note (4 Oct. 2006): The experimental results indeed confirm a link]
Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 1980's, Volume 2: Reports of the Panels (1983)
Unfortunately, this book can't be printed from the OpenBook. If you need to print pages from this book, we recommend downloading it as a PDF.
Visit NAP.edu/10766 to get more information about this book, to buy it in print, or to download it as a free PDF.
Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
178 productive program, which has been funded at a constant- dollar level for two decades. V. PROJECTIONS INTO THE FUTURE We have divided this part of our report into three sections: the impact of our recommendations on science management and the changes likely to result the growth of our technical capabilities through the 1990's and the impact this growth will have on the structure of scien- tific research and the major scientific opportunities that will be exploited during the 1990's and beyond. A. Management Considerations The 1970's witnessed the concentration of most new, ground-based observational capabilities into a few National Astronomy Centers and the decline, in absolute terms, of the health and vigor of major university and private observatories. We have made recommendations that we hope will help stem deterioration of university research. We have suggested that federal funds be used to stimulate state and private groups to increase support of their own observatory facilities. Because of technical developments, the cost of 2.5- to 5-m ground-based optical telescopes has dropped substantially. For telescopes in this size range the operating costs will, in 5-10 years, exceed the construction costs, and we urge federal help for university and private groups struggling to utilize fully the telescope capabilities that are available to them. In part, full implementation of our fifth major recommendation, for instrumentation development, will help maintain the vigor of university groups. Nonetheless, the overall impact of our major recommendations will be to continue the trend toward a concentration of major facilities into the National Centers. This trend seems unavoidable some large universities, such as California, Texas, and Arizona, may be able to attract sufficient private support to build very large ground-based tale scopes, but even they cannot afford the largest practical ground-based facility, and no university or private group is proposing to initiate a major space effort without using federal funds. We believe that the collecting area available to ground-based optical/IA astronomy should be increased
the scientific We believe that this is necessary to exploit __
opportunities of the 1980's, as well as to back up the space and radio programs. Technological developments have made this recommendation both cost- effective and timely. Nevertheless, in the more distant future, we see an increasing development and reliance on our national space capability. Already the solar- astronomy program is overwhelmingly a space program. The gains achievable in the IR, both from the use of cooled telescopes and through the exploitation of wavelengths that do not penetrate the Earth's atmosphere, are very large. The major initiatives of the IR program in the 1980's will lie in space. ST will be one of the principal instruments for optical astronomy in the 1980's through the 1990's. there will be a shift of emphasis from ground-based to space observations. As the century ends we may well wit- ness the last major construction of optical telescopes on the ground. To be sure, these telescopes will continue to be useful well into the twenty-first century, and oper- ational support for them will be crucial, but space facil- ities will gradually take over the role of ground-based telescopes beyond the 1990's. For some decades, and per- haps indefinitely, the management of such expensive space facilities will be the province of government labora- tories. m ese facilities must be open to qualified users and, increasingly, to foreign participation. Financial support, management participation, and observational use by foreign scientists should be encouraged. m ese changes will require that careful thought be given to several management problems: It is clear that. as space technology ripens, 1. The health of university science in the face of continued erosion of competitive observational canabil-
, ities in state and private observatories by comparison with those of the National Astronomy Centers and gov- ernment laboratories. 2. m e need to ensure balanced programmatic approaches to observational astronomy. In the past, the existence of numerous independent observatories ensured a balance of style and programs in astronomy. As the National Centers grow in power at the expense of private and university facilities, it is important that the appro- priate review committees and time-assignment committees appreciate and support the need for diversity. 3. Adequate access to facilities established with major investments of national resources. These must be
180 open to all qualified users. Thus, institutional staff members, outside principal investigators, and others must have their programs competitively reviewed by an impartial committee. Foreign scientists should continue to have access to major U.S. facilities and, as in the case of the STScI, foreign participation in both the management and financial underwriting of the program should be encouraged. 4. Support of survey programs and other long-term efforts. Astronomy progresses both by spectacular dis- coveries and by painstakingly slow survey programs that search for systematic relations, subtle effects, or unusual objects. Both styles of research are essential and, indeed, synergistic. As astronomy moves increasingly into a national-facility mode, with observing time on forefront facilities increasingly allocated by commit- tees, it is essential that these committees have the wisdom to support long-term survey programs in addition to those that promise immediate results. By making national facilities open to all qualified users, it should be possible to implement a program incorporating observations at the National Centers, support observations using state and private observa- tories, and instrumentation development in both the universities and at the National Centers that would ensure the health of university science while at the same time providing the powerful facilities that will be needed at the end of the century. , We see these management problems becoming acute only toward the end of the decade, when projected programs result in national observational facilities that com- pletely dominate the field. The shift from ground-based to space astronomy should raise the issue of the appro- priate roles that NASA and NSF play in astronomy. The division between ground-based and space work is becoming increasingly artificial, and it would seem appropriate for Congress to re-evaluate the roles played by these two principal support agencies for astronomy. B. Instrumentation in the 1990's It is harder to foresee the developments in instrumenta- tion than it is to recognize the problems that science management will face 10 years from now. A major issue will center around the successors to ST and the 15-m NTT.
181 In the past, each step toward more aperture for attack- ing the perceived forefront problems of the era has led to the discovery of new classes of objects and the delin- eation of whole new arrays of problems, unimagined and unanticipated prior to the availability of those new facilities. Furthermore, in view of the new design con- cepts and lightweight materials now being tested, there is no longer a clear upper limit on telescope size. It is possible that, by the 1990's, one could contemplate the construction of a 25-m telescope on the ground within the constraints of available funding. The question of how then to proceed is complicated, however, by the possibility that a somewhat smaller diffraction-limited telescope of 7- to 15-m aperture could be put in space by that time. If the very large development costs of space platforms, extended missions, space-fabrication techniques, and cheaper (per kilogram) launch vehicles are to be totally borne by astronomy, this option is of course out of the question. Yet it seems clear that these developments will proceed for other reasons, and astronomy may benefit from these technical developments. The present experience in the astronomical community with space astronomy through IUE, Copernicus, and the HEAD series of satellites has been outstanding e The relatively high efficiency of use of observing time, absence of weather problems, and high equipment reliabil- ity, combined with the reduced background, better seeing, and lack of atmospheric absorption (thus extended wave- length coverage) available from space have been and will continue to be great attractions. me additional experi- ence to be provided to the astronomical community by ST will be critical in evaluating the advantages of large space versus (perhaps slightly larger) ground-based tele- scopes in the coming decades. At present, the technology for neither a 25-m ground-based telescope nor an extended- mission space telescope in the 7- to 15-m class is avail- able. It is, for example, not yet clear how the lack of gravity can be used to best advantage in reducing the weight (hence the cost) of a large space telescope, and how much the weight can be lowered without compromising the optical performance. We must encourage developments in both directions, so that the successors to this com- mittee may in 10 years make an intelligent, well-informed choice on a giant telescope for the 1990's. Two-dimensional detector development is being driven by commercial applications and, while that development does not place high weight on astronomical applications,
182 nevertheless commercial demand will ensure a continued major effort that will likely produce two-dimensional detectors with nearly 100 percent quantum efficiency over the entire spectral range, from 100
to 1 Em. In the IR region very great improvement over current technology should result from the military effort. High-efficiency coatings are needed to cover the wavelength interval from 100 A out to 1 mm. As optical sophistication increases in instrumentation, such coatings will allow the optical designer the freedom of increasing the number of reflections without paying a penalty in low transmission. Bare aluminum has high reflectivity down to 100 A, a soft x-ray wavelength that would allow use- ful surveys for high-red-shift quasars using the large collecting area of a normal-incidence reflector. High- efficiency, two-dimensional detectors for this wavelength region already exist and could be improved. There are numbers of suggestions for constructing very large, nonfilled optical arrays in space. A simple cross 100 m in extent, filled with 1-m mirror elements, could be used as an interferometer at optical wavelengths. The resolution of such an instrument would be about 5 X 10-9 red (10-3 arcsec). With such an instrument one would be able to image the nearer stars with about the same resolution that Galileo's telescope achieved on the Sun. Starspots could easily be seen and monitored. me struc- ture of quasars, contact binaries, and galactic nuclei could all be studied. X-ray and radio surveys have historically been used to identify interesting objects for studies at optical wave- lengths. However, there may well be other objects that are not particularly unusual at these extreme wavelengths but reveal their unusual nature at W. optical, or IR wavelengths. The Crab pulsar is not a particularly bright radio pulsar, for example. It may be possible to exploit the darkness of the sky in space to devise survey instru- ments that could automatically, using optical techniques, detect unusual objects. An objective-prism survey using a large, advanced COD array is a simple example of a pos- sible instrument. There are some beginning attempts to develop "smart" detectors. Three-dimensional CCD arrays that could per- form simple arithmetic operations before transferring the processed picture to a computer might allow the develop- ment of high-speed speckle processors. If such devices could be built, it might also be possible to build very large, diffraction-limited IR telescopes. By working at
183 wavelengths for which speckle techniques are not photon limited and the required surface accuracy of the primary mirror is low, one might build a telescope using nonrigid techniques (for instance, an inflatable structure). Rubber-mirror technology with small adjustable reimaging mirrors is a different approach to the problem of constructing large, low-surface-accuracy mirrors that feed a system that is ultimately diffraction limited. Looking forward to the 1990's, we should consider novel ways of obtaining astronomical information not possible from the ground or even from Earth orbit. For example, studies suggest that it may be feasible to launch an instrumented spacecraft into an eccentric orbit about the Sun with perihelion near 4 solar radii and that the experiments on this proposed "Star Probe" mission should be able to survive encounter and transmit back data. Among the important questions that could be addressed in this way are the fine structure of the solar surface and corona (at a resolution of a few kilometers), the In situ plasma properties and wind speeds at all levels of the corona down to the temperature maximum, energetic- particle distributions, and the acceleration mechanism of the solar wind. Precise tracking of the Star Probe will also provide information on the distribution of mass and angular momentum in the Sun and should provide high- accuracy tests of General Relativity. We should keep in mind that each planetary-encounter mission has provided totally unexpected and exciting information and that the Star Probe would provide our only opportunity to study a star at close range in the foreseeable future. It seems quite certain that we are in a revolutionary period for classical astrometry. Already parallax tech- niques have undergone a tenfold improvement in precision. Electronic focal-plane systems will be greatly improved in the 1980's. The ultimate accuracy has not yet been determined, but it is clear that astrometry will make major new impacts on astrophysics and open new fields, such as the search for extrasolar planets. C. The Direction of Scientific Research in the 1990's It is clear from the developments of the past several decades that astronomy is an explosively expanding science. New discoveries pile on top of each other with bewildering frequency. That old lady Urania, the muse of astronomy, is showing us that she is divinely unpredict-
184 able. We must not presume that we can accurately forecast future developments. But we can project the likely capa- bilities that will become available as the century ends and note the fields that will be affected by these techno- logical initiatives. The instrumental initiatives discussed earlier will lead to the following major changes in capability. 1. Large Gains in Angular Resolution During the 1980's, ST will routinely give a tenfold im- provement in angular resolution by comparison with that usually available from the ground. Large arrays in space, launched in the 1990's, will be capable of bettering the ST resolution by an additional factor of 100. To appreci- ate the significance of this improvement one must recall that the introduction of the telescope in the seventeenth century improved the resolution capability of the human eye by about the same factor of 100. For ground-based observations, angular resolution was then, as now, limited by the turbulence of the Earth's atmosphere. Above the atmosphere there seems to be no limit, except for the practical limits imposed by our ability to construct ever- larger instruments while maintaining high dimensional accuracy. Existing NASA, industry, and university studies are optimistic about our ability to achieve very high angular resolution in space. We now seem to have within our grasp the ability to end the 300-year hiatus on major improvements in optical resolution. The improvements in angular resolution can have major impact on three fundamentally different fields of astron- omy: positional astronomy for measurements of the spatial relationship of (usually unresolved) astronomical objects the mapping of previously unresolved objects that happened to lie just below our current resolution capability and the separation and detailed study of phenomena that are now blended into confusing background sources. It seems quite likely that high angular resolution will lead directly to exciting new discoveries and open new fields of research that are not now even imagined. We can now resolve the disk of the Sun, and we can infer the surface appearance of other stars, but we have not yet "seen" starspots on another star. Milliarcsecond resolution will resolve the disks of nearby giant stars. In the far W. the contrast between starspots and the disks of late-type stars will be large.
185 There is no galactic nucleus of any type that is close enough for us to probe with high spatial resolution using current optical techniques. The nuclei of galaxies are bright there is some evidence that some galactic nuclei contain black holes. An increase of a factor of 1000 in angular resolution, together with a spectroscopic radial- velocity capability, would probably settle this issue. High angular resolution will also allow us to penetrate deeply into crowded fields. Do x-ray-emitting globular clusters hide black holes in their centers? Radial- velocity studies of stars near the centers may provide an . . answer. In any case, from where does the x-ray emission originate? Deep- W photographs would do much to clarify the situation. The diameter and structure of bright planetary nebulas in the Local Group of galaxies could be studied with very high resolution. Differences in excitation class and abundances will be better understood when we can resolve the nebular envelope. High-spatial-resolution imaging and spectroscopy of the Sun during the 1980's has the potential of resolving the fundamental structures defined by the filamentary but strong magnetic fields. When this occurs, the Sun will indeed become a plasma astrophysics laboratory, in which we will see for the first time how magnetic fields and plasmas interact to yield such phenomena as heating on slow and rapid time scales, flares, and wind acceleration. The benefit of these studies to theoretical astrophysics is incalculable. High-resolution spectroscopic capability will pro- foundly affect the studies of planets in our solar system. We will be able to monitor weather patterns in their atmospheres and study structural and chemical composition changes on their surfaces. The Landsat and weather satel- lites have demonstrated the importance of remote sensing for geology and for an understanding of the Earth's global weather patterns. Their planetary counterparts will be able, for example, to monitor volcanic activity on Jupiter's satellite To. Astrometry will be revolutionized by ultrahigh angular resolution. It will be possible to measure directly the distances to all objects in our Galaxy. Planets orbiting nearby stars will be detectable from the irregular motions of these stars. It might even be possible to detect planets using direct-imaging techniques. m ese examples illustrate only the easily imagined uses of very high angular resolution. The real excitement will
186 result from discoveries that we cannot now expect or pre- dict. This was the case for Galileo's telescope, the extension to our vision provided by x-ray and radio tech- niques, and the improvement in resolution afforded by deep-space planetary probes. 2. Increased Light-Gathering Power m is report calls for a substantial improvement in tele- scope light-gathering power during the 1980's. me 15-m NTT will collect nine times more photons per second than the 5-m Hale telescope on Mt. Palomar. Its spectroscopic capabilities, if located on an excellent site and equipped with the most sensitive instruments and detectors, will surpass by several orders of magnitude the capabilities of the 1970's. In space it might be possible, using rubber-mirror techniques, to correct imperfections in a giant primary mirror and thus to erect very large space telescopes that would be nearly diffraction limited. While we have not yet developed the technology to deploy telescopes that would exceed by an order of magnitude the light-gathering power of a 15-m telescope, we are at a point where we could begin to think along these lines, and we might be able to construct such telescopes by the end of the 1990's. Spectroscopy is the key to understanding the physics of astronomical objects. By increasing the light- gathering power of a telescope, we are able to study sources that are increasingly faint, either because they are only weak emitters of light or because they are veiled by interstellar dust clouds. Spectroscopic studies of such objects probe the very frontiers of the physical Universe, the birth and death of stars, the evolution of galactic systems, and the physical conditions that lead to the phenomena we call quasars, pulsars, x-ray binaries, and black holes. 3. Increased Capability for Study of Objects with Low Surface Brightness Space telescopes, operating in the absence of veiling glare from atmospheric airglow, lend themselves naturally to the studies of low surface brightness phenomena. Already, ground-based telescopes, using modern fine-
187 grained emulsions and working at dark sites, have dis- covered very low surface brightness plumes, bridges, jets, and halos associated with relatively nearby galaxies. Are these structures composed of stars, dust, or gas? Do some of them reveal a physical connection between objects of very different red shift? Are we seeing the remains of the protogalactic cloud from which the galaxy collapsed, or are we seeing material that was ejected during a period of high nuclear activity? Are they the remains of an ancient galactic collision? Since many of these sources are so faint (about magni- tude 30/arcsec2) as to be virtually undetectable, it seems a hopeless task to obtain slit spectra of them however, it would be useful to obtain broadband colors. The spectral range free of terrestrial atmospheric emis- sion is quite narrow, extending only from about 4500 to 6500 A. In space, where there are no atmospheric prob- lems, it would be possible to obtain images in the vacuum- W, in the green, and in the near-IA, where the spectra of late-type stars reach their maximum luminosity. It would be of great interest to establish the occur- rence of such phenomena as a function of age of the object. We know that faint halos are associated with nearby Galaxies. Are they present with the same fre- , , quency and structure at a time when the Universe was only half as old as it is now? It should be possible to detect such halos at large red shift using high-sensi- tivity panoramic detectors with a telescope having high spatial resolution. We know that some of the brighter clouds are emission nebulas. From space they should be very bright at red-shifted Lyman-alpha wavelengths. Such nebulas have been found in the radio lobes of the nearby radio galaxy Centaurus A are they also present in the much more distance source Cygnus A? Within our own Galactic system and neighborhood, there are sources that would be better understood if we had an improved ability to detect low surface brightness objects. Some supernova remnants are very faint. Old planetary nebulas expand and fade from view high Galactic latitude clouds only shine weakly with reflected Galactic light. Interferometric techniques can study some of these sources, particularly if strong W lines are present, but they must be found and mapped. With high spatial resolu- tion these "Galactic" studies can be extended to all the galaxies of the Local Group. It would be particularly interesting to detect optical nebulosity, or faint blue stars, corresponding to the radio detection of a Magellanic Stream.
Theoretical basis and first evidenceThe expansion of the universe proceeds in all directions as determined by the Hubble constant. However, the Hubble constant can change in the past and in the future, dependent on the observed value of density parameters (Ω). Before the discovery of dark energy, it was believed that the universe was matter-dominated, and so Ω on this graph corresponds to the ratio of the matter density to the critical density ().
Technically, the metric expansion of space is a feature of many solutions [ which? ] to the Einstein field equations of general relativity, and distance is measured using the Lorentz interval. This explains observations which indicate that galaxies that are more distant from us are receding faster than galaxies that are closer to us (Hubble's law).
Cosmological constant and the Friedmann equations
The first general relativistic models predicted that a universe which was dynamical and contained ordinary gravitational matter would contract rather than expand. Einstein's first proposal for a solution to this problem involved adding a cosmological constant into his theories to balance out the contraction, in order to obtain a static universe solution. But in 1922 Alexander Friedmann derived a set of equations known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand and presenting the expansion speed in this case.  The observations of Edwin Hubble in 1929 suggested that distant galaxies were all apparently moving away from us, so that many scientists came to accept that the universe was expanding.
Hubble's concerns over the rate of expansion
While the metric expansion of space appeared to be implied by Hubble's 1929 observations, Hubble disagreed with the expanding-universe interpretation of the data:
"… if redshift are not primarily due to velocity shift … the velocity-distance relation is linear, the distribution of the nebula is uniform, there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature, no restriction of the time scale … and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principles of nature that is still unknown to us today … whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results"
"[If the redshifts are a Doppler shift] … the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time."
Hubble would never come to subscribe to the interpretation of the expanding universe. According to Owen Gingerich, Hubble's skepticism about the universe being too small, dense, and young was justified, though in the view of Gingerich it turned out to be an observational error rather than an error of interpretation. Later investigations appeared to show that Hubble had confused distant HII regions for Cepheid variables and the Cepheid variables themselves had been inappropriately lumped together with low-luminosity RR Lyrae stars causing calibration errors that led to a value of the Hubble Constant of approximately 500 km/s/Mpc instead of the true value of approximately 70 km/s/Mpc. The higher value meant that an expanding universe would have an age of 2 billion years (younger than the Age of the Earth) and extrapolating the observed number density of galaxies to a rapidly expanding universe implied a mass density that was too high by a similar factor, enough to force the universe into a peculiar closed geometry which also implied an impending Big Crunch that would occur on a similar time-scale. After fixing these errors in the 1950s, the new lower values for the Hubble Constant accorded with the expectations of an older universe and the density parameter was found to be fairly close to a geometrically flat universe. 
Inflation as an explanation for the expansion
Until the theoretical developments in the 1980s no one had an explanation for why this seemed to be the case, but with the development of models of cosmic inflation, the expansion of the universe became a general feature resulting from vacuum decay. Accordingly, the question "why is the universe expanding?" is now answered by understanding the details of the inflation decay process which occurred in the first 10 −32 seconds of the existence of our universe.  During inflation, the metric changed exponentially, causing any volume of space that was smaller than an atom to grow to around 100 million light years across in a time scale similar to the time when inflation occurred (10 −32 seconds).
Measuring distance in a metric space
In expanding space, distance is a dynamic quantity which changes with time. There are several different ways of defining distance in cosmology, known as distance measures, but a common method used amongst modern astronomers is comoving distance.
The metric only defines the distance between nearby (so-called "local") points. In order to define the distance between arbitrarily distant points, one must specify both the points and a specific curve (known as a "spacetime interval") connecting them. The distance between the points can then be found by finding the length of this connecting curve through the three dimensions of space. Comoving distance defines this connecting curve to be a curve of constant cosmological time. Operationally, comoving distances cannot be directly measured by a single Earth-bound observer. To determine the distance of distant objects, astronomers generally measure luminosity of standard candles, or the redshift factor 'z' of distant galaxies, and then convert these measurements into distances based on some particular model of spacetime, such as the Lambda-CDM model. It is, indeed, by making such observations that it was determined that there is no evidence for any 'slowing down' of the expansion in the current epoch.
BLACK HOLES: THE EVOLUTION ENGINES OF UNIVERSE GENERATION FORMATION AT SUB-QUANTUM DIMENSION and SUB-QUANTUM DIMENSIONAL CONSTANT
The unchanging measurement THE PRIMAL UNIVERSE
As I have mentioned in the gravity theory, the primal universe is a vortex at the dimension of prime matter -which is today’s sub-particle (sub-quantum) dimension, and is derivation of photon or other electromagnetism- however, it is shaped like an oblate circle due to effects of void on hyper-dense prime matter, and its cylindrical body rotates around itself and orbits around the point similar to a passage at the center (relative hyper-giant black hole at the center of the universe) and there is no space outside of it. It is surrounded by void, which does not take space, on all sides.
The point in the middle was the place where the amount of prime matter was highest and it was being transformed into oblate circle shaped vortexes, as it was constantly forced to break into pieces and expand by the void (pure vacuum), and as the moving cylindrical body was broken into pieces and then each piece into further fragments just like in the primal universe. The force creating the actual mass effect is not the fragmenting mass of prime matter with proportional weight, but rather the movement, or void which acts to fragment the prime matter. Therefore, the universe makes us both think that it is a tangible reality and it is a hologram. Besides, as the mass, presumed to expand due to the void, is in the tendency to collapse by itself, the universe can nearly be assumed to be the movement created by the interaction of two movements with different aims. In order to imagine the view of the oblate-circular vortexes, it would be enough to look at the modern spiral galaxies. As I stated in my theory, there are striking similarities between the spiral galaxies and the whole of universe, nucleus and primal universes.
As such, even when particles were not created, and even if the unit scale constituents forming the particle was at a different density, it was at the scale of primal universe and constant. The density differences and scales as well as vortexes and vortex clusters (particle, nucleus, galaxy, galaxy clusters and whole of universe) formed by accelerating expansion are the major difference determining generations.
Each primal matter particle, approximately at the size of a modern photon, which started to form the homogeneous space inside the oblate cylindrical body of primal matter at today’s sub-quantum dimension, had weight equivalent to modern galaxies. I compare these based on our ability to comprehend the size of today’s universe. It is also possible for the weight to be relatively higher.
How does a prime matter particle weighing the same as a galaxy while being equivalent in volume to a modern photon fractures, and while being transformed into matter and space by attaining the size of a galaxy and compress itself, how does the sub-quantum dimension (the sub-unit forming the particle) at the size of primal universe change places with a sub-generation.
Of course, this is due to black holes.
The black holes are indeed doors to another dimension, however, the concept of dimension here is not the one we are used to, in other words not a dimension where we can pass and exist. We are constrained to exist only at the dimension to which we belong. It is only possible for us to pass into a sub-dimension as a whole if our mass is completely crushed into vortexes at the size of primal universe by passing through a giant black hole like the ones at the center of galaxies. In this way, the primal matter particles at the center of each vortex is crushed into its less denser volume at the center of the primal universe and then interacts with the void, thus starts to expand by being transformed into oblate circular shaped vortexes. On the other hand, we pass into an upper dimension, without realizing, automatically as our mass expands in the manner I explained in a following paragraph. We do not have the luxury of leaping between dimensions.
Please mind that the process I explained in the paragraph above is applicable to transport our whole mass to a sub dimension. Yet, this process takes place at, starting from the hyper-small black holes at the center of vortexes forming the mass of the oblate circular space, i.e. space, everywhere in the universe, to small black holes at the center of oblate circular atom nuclei, and up to massive black holes at galaxy centers and, assuming there are no black holes with different sizes in-between, at the super massive black hole at the center of the universe shaped like an oblate circle. In a sense, each vortex at the size of primal universe shaped like an oblate circle which constitutes the raw material of space and matter, in other words the universe, reproduces by means of the black hole at its center as it expands and gives rise to vortexes at the size of primal universe inside it.
So, if each fundamental unit carries out the movement of expanding within itself and creates new generation of less dense sub-quantum units and carries out expansion with acceleration suitable to its own decreasing density, then the reason why nuclear layers of all kinds of wavelengths, particles and nuclei -moving forward in the space, by expanding longitudinally towards a direction, and located at the the tip of string vortexes, the unit of all kind of electromagnetic wavelength, including the light, which runs the universe- are created would be the primal matter, of which weight and size is different in each wavelength, then how would the new generation is fractured into particles that are less dense but at the size of primal universe? Because, if this fraction did not take place, a light or electromagnetic beam traveling in the space would be dense and heavy to the point that it would break off planets and stars and even black holes, by reaching any black hole and in parallel with the universe, therefore the celestial bodies, expanding to the point it is crushed and its density decreases.
Longitudinal expansion (string vortexes), as I mentioned in the electromagnetism theory, starts through creation of dense and less dense regions and triggering of particle creation in the homogeneous universe, i.e. space, by the oblate circle formation where void interacts with primal matter on all sides, as homogeneity is disrupted due to expansion as density decreases.
According to this statement, electromagnetism, in other words longitudinal expansion, in other words emergence of string vortexes, the raw material of weak, strong nuclear, light and all kinds of magnetic wavelengths, is a process occurring in parallel with the creation of particle universe through disruption of homogeneity in the universe (space).
The dense clusters, which are prospective particles, and which compress the oblate circular shaped vortexes formed by the expansion in space and located at the line of contact, turn the forward circular helical movement of the circle to a one-direction straight circular movement by compressing the circle.
As I mentioned in the theory, the unidirectional forward movement, while orbiting around particle or nucleus, in other words providing nuclear layer effect, causes the particles and nuclei formed by these particles to transform into various electromagnetic wavelengths, including light, in the later universe periods due to various factors and compression at different magnitudes, i.e. friction, and contributes to the function of universe.
The reason of break of strings from particles or nuclei and conditions of distancing from breakage environment determine their types and characteristics, i.e. their wavelength. Meanwhile, the formation of a next generation vortexes shaped like oblate circles with the size of primal universe and occurring due to expansion render the pressure of particles constituting the nuclei, and therefore the friction, continuous and magnetic field and oscillation, unique to each atom’s mass, is generated. In this process, the amount of compression of space to matter, expressed with E=mc2, takes place.
Since with this text we are attempting to describe the formation of a new generation string vortexes with the longitudinal expansion, we can take the light as a random example.
As void breaks down the photon moving forward at the speed of light, i.e. prime matter, it latches onto it from behind due to its speed given rise by its own interaction with it and breaks off a fragment. It again latches to each fragment from behind as they also move forward. This interaction creates a twisting, in other words, positive helical movement and wavelength. These fragments are at different sizes therefore different wavelengths. This is due to difference at the timing of fragmentation of so-called mass of each prime matter broken off from the prime matter by the void. A breaking off particle is more expanded in terms of volume unit from the one broken off a time unit before since the first effect of void is expansion and the second is fragmentation. Thus, the forward moving fragments at different volumes and different densities broken off from the said mass of photon in a unit time form the different wavelengths in a while light, i.e. the spectrum of light. Passage through a transparent matter makes visible this state due to existence of effects of different resistance of matter to different masses and wavelengths.
Within the same unit time, as the space traveled by the light, in other words the universe, also expands in parallel to the fragmentation process of the photon, the volumetric size of the photon conforms to the volume of prime matter at the center of primal universe, or in my words, to the SUB-QUANTUM DIMENSIONAL CONSTANT.
This fixes the speed of light and other electromagnetism derivations to the accelerating expansion rate where it travels in the same unit time. In other words, as the universe expands, the beam pushing the photon forward becomes thin and the speed of light increases. If the unit volume of the photon did not stay equal to the prime matter at the center of primal universe, in other words, if its mass with decreasing density also expanded at the same time, it would slow down as other celestial bodies and it would be impossible to talk of a light or electromagnetism effect. In such a case, the distances would no longer be unreachable as universe expanded and before all, the matter could not continue its existence.
From this perspective, the importance of fixation of sub-quantum dimension as universe expands for continuity of creation and existence of matter is paramount.
In the flow of cosmic time, I imagine we could be excused to fantasize on how the process of creation of new generation particles, which are formed inside the oblate circular vortexes in modern particles and then transform into a next generation of nuclei, would affect the structure of the modern atom.
When we address this through two different infinity theories mentioned in my theory
1- Assuming that the infinity is a straight line without a start and an end
Our mass which passes to an upper dimension, in this way, would consist of atoms at the size of modern galaxies in the future and we would not feel this despite our mass with decreasing density as result of increase of speed of string vortexes in parallel with the accelerating expansion since the density of movement at our unit volume would not change and the structure of atoms would not be disrupted as the energy of void to absorb prime matter persisted. Meanwhile, electromagnetism derivations would maintain their functions, traveling at relatively increasing speed in accordance with the expansion.
2. Assuming that infinity is a tidal movement on the straight line with a start and an end
In other words, assuming we pass to an anti-matter universe, the collapsing universe where the void, the dominant energy, loses its effect and prime matter takes over the role of dominant energy:
As the formation of new generation vortexes in sub-particle dimension stops, in other words, as the prime matter starts the process of collapse of prime matter energy where prime matter would be broken off into fragments at the size of primal universe however less dense by the dominant energy of void, and the formation of new generation string and oblate circular vortexes, i.e. movement and time stops for a hyper-short moment, the process of formation of antimatter universe, i.e. formation of vortexes rotating to the opposite direction, and the process with which the matter shrinks to the point of big bang, and matter and space collapses would also start. This shrinking motion would start at the latest and highest rate of expansion of matter universe and as it shrinks, despite the slowing down of this shrinking due to increasing resistance of void to this shrinking, would not stop until the point of start of matter universe which is smaller than primal universe, where time and movement stops, and primal matter and void separates for a moment. This hyper-short moment would end when the void once again takes over the role of dominant energy and finds the strength to permeate into the prime matter, the movement and by extension time would start and then primal universe would be formed.
In other words, the time and movement is older than the universe. How old these are can be calculated as hundreds of billions of years in relation to the density of point where the movement occurs for the first time. I will address this subject under the VOID: THE PREDECESSOR OF PRIME MATTER, SINGULARITY FLUCTUATION AND TIME title.
Will galactic filament indefinitely expand while its galaxy clusters indefinitely disperse? - Astronomy
PARTS 15 and 16 are still in preparation. A great deal of effort and money is being spent on the search for other worlds. Where the exoplanets, or possibly inhabited planets, are concerned, the hunt is exciting, but we will hold off mentioning details until they can identify a planet close to what our earth is, with an atmosphere, plenty of water, and a moon. It has to be about the same size as well. There are plenty of new discoveries being made throughout our universe or bubble, but you may have noticed in these entries on the Cosmos we are particularly interested in the events of the first two billion years after the BIG BANG. Because there are things happening in or near our Galaxy some of which we will mention from time to time. We are especially interested as we outlined in the first discussion in this series how complete the details of certain aspects of the COSMOS gleaned from the Teachings and revelations of Joseph Smith are confirmed, especially as summarized in the Temple Ceremony (TC). Two new books (Jim Baggot, ORIGINS: The Scientific Story of Creation, Oxford University Press, 2015 Lisa Randall, Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs: The Astounding Interconnectedness of the Universe, Ecco: 2015) try to summarize the present Cosmos and events that suggest a beginning but as yet cannot envision what was going on before the Big Bang, though they suspect there may be a cycle of Cosmic evolution. (Turner p. 40) Their story begins with the Big Bang, the Big Inflation follows a burst of expansion that smooths and flattens the Universe and stretches quantum fluctuations and the tiniest of variations in the cosmic micro-wave background radiation, with details yet to be worked out. The “quark” soup phase lasts a microsecond, followed by nycleosynthesis and the formation of light element in the first 3 minutes. Atoms form at 380,000 years, a preliminary observation that needs to be verified. That is a big gap ow no-knowledge. Then gravity amplifies lumpiness in the distribution of matter to become stars, star cluster, galaxies, galaxy clusters, superclusters at around 800 million years. The Sun forms some 9 billion years later about 4.9 billion years ago, According to Joseph Smith, that would have been during the third creational period, a remarkable agreement. The fourth day began about 2.55 billion years ago, in agreement with the multicellular organisms, atmosphere oxygenation around 2.5 billion years ago. About this time you get photosynthesis and the development of the organic food web and form there the story is more clear. But Baggott, like all other synthesizers of the history of the Universe, fail to ask whether intelligent life is a convergent property of evolution, given that evolution involves dominating local resources, the Universe may teem with ‘dumb’ life, while intelligent life remains exceedingly rare. (Turner p. 41) Ultimately convergence and explanations will be attained, but there is a way to go yet. .
More than a year ago astronomers turned to the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy to watch it tear apart a dusty gas cloud called GE. It was an event widely anticipated, and reported in Discover Magazine for September 2014, April 2014 and Jan-Feb. 2014. When Stefan Gillessen of the Max Planch Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, first announced it in January 2012, GE was racing for the center of our galaxy, the gas cloud was estimated then o have the mass of three Earths. The extremes of gravity from the black hole, called SAGITTARIUS A*, [read A* as: a star] already had begun to stretch out and elongate the gas body. Trying to track its course the best they could with instruments then available, they calculated that GE would make its closest approach in early 2014, plowing through the fog of magnetic plasma that surround the black hole. GE would stretch like hot soft taffy and glow in X-rays, and some of the gas would spiral down the black hole, spewing radiation as it did so. So everyone was looking for the chance to observe this meal in progress.
However, USCL’s Andrea Ghez and colleagues had begun to suspect the whole picture would be a flop. They estimated that the mass of the cloud was 100,000 to 1 million times greater than previously announced, and it wasn’t just a gas cloud, but a star shrouded in gas and dust, and thus Our Black hole would have a harder time pulling material off the object. If that was the case, no wonder that the galactic center didn’t light up as expected. But, is GE really a star hiding in an envelope of gas and dust and zipping along in a gravity determined orbit about the Black Hole? They don’t know yet. But to find out they have to watch how GE’s orbit evolves on its trip through the galactic center. A star-like GE, would barrel through the hot plasma near the black hole, staying on its extremely elliptical 300- year orbit they have concluded, at least temporarily, it is traveling on. But a cloudlike GE would feel a drag like a feather moving through air on the earth, says Ann-Marie Madigan of the University of California, Berkeley, who’s not affiliated with the teams studying the event. That drag would tilt and shrink the gas cloud’s orbit while also, possibly tearing apart the cloud. Madigan expects at least three to five more years of observations before scientists can say with certainty what GE’s orbit does—and what exactly GE is. (Liz Kruesi, Discover, August 2015)
Astronomers have spotted the glow from one of the most distant galaxies, and therefore earliest, so far ever seen. They began forming less than one billion years after the Big Bang. The early plasma type matter did not cool down enough to let normal matter to form until after 380 million years after the Big Bang. So early galaxies now being found would have formed within the next 620 million years. In one of the three galaxies under observation clouds of cold ionized carbon was being shifted away from the bright star forming the center. This matches models of early galaxy formation, which predict that active young stars disperse such clouds. The data will help to test theories about how the universe’s first stars and galaxies formed. (Nature, Vol. 523, p. 505)
There are more than 150 globular clusters, these are very dense spherical groups of ancient stars. They orbit the Milky Way. But how and when they formed is a mystery that may be linked the very first stars. One such cluster is MESSIER 10, in a catalogue of 109 visible objects generated more than a century ago. (Murdin pp. 248-249) Astronomers used the W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii in a multiyear survey capable of examining 200 globulars in a single exposure. Instead of forming before galaxies, as astronomers suspected previously, their findings show the fossil star clusters formed alongside galaxies in two distinct time periods: 12.5 and 11.5 billion years ago. They were beginning to form within a billion years of the time the hot Big Bang plasm started to cool off so the particles that form matter, such as the up and the down quark, could form atoms. First, essentially Hydrogen. “Now that we have estimated when the globular clusters form, we next need to tackle the questions of where and how they formed.” Says Duncan Forbes of the Swinburne University of Technology in Australia. They will be publishing their results this fall. (Astronomy , November 2015, p. 14)
Scientists have spent decades trying to better understand BLACK HOLES. They are among the most mysterious objects in the universe. We think we have a handle on them then something is observed that changes things. And more questions are asked. Especially are the extremely massive ones BLACK HOLES that lie in the centers of all normal galaxies. Cumulative evidence has led to the theory that such supermassive black holes co-evolve with the host galaxies, keeping a relatively consistent relationship of about 0.2 to 0.5 percent of the galaxy’s total mass and having an important direct impact on surrounding star formation. But a routine survey of supermassive black holes in the distant universe will require rethinking and modifying that theory. A theory does not have the dignity of being a fact until it has ceased to be challenged by new observations. A host galaxy that may have a big wrench to through into the machinery is galaxy CID-647. Astronomers led by Benny Trakhtenbrot of the institute of Astronomy at ET Zurich uncovered a galaxy that formed some 2 billion years after the Big Bang with one of the most massive black holes now known. That black hole is 7 billion times the mass of our sun. But the real shock came when the astronomers measured the mass of CID-647.The measurements of CID-647 correspond to the mass of a typical galaxy. Therefore they have a gigantic black hole within a normal size galaxy. The result was so surprising two of the astronomers had to verify the galaxy’s mass independently. Both came to the same conclusion. The supermassive black hole the team found is about 10 percent of the mass of CID-647. That means the black hole grew much more efficiently than its host galaxy. This contradicts the models that predicted a hand in hand development. (Trakhtenbrot Astronomy November 2015 p. 14). Also contrary to previous studies, despite the behemoth black hole appearing to be at the end of its accretion phase, the galaxy is continuing to form stars. The scientists conclude that CID-647 could be a precursor to the most extreme BLACK HOLE-GALAXY SYSTEMS found in the local universe today. (Ferron p. 14)
COLD GAS FILAMENTS AS PROTO-GALAXIES-ORIGIN OF SOME GALAXIES
The recent discovery of a large, luminous filament of cold gas near the quasar UM287 provided a glimpse oif the structure of the cosmic web, a network of filaments with galaxies located at nodes where filaments intersect. This is a giant proto-galactic disk linked to the cosmic web. A spectroscopic investigation of this filament reveals that the brightest emission region is an extended rotating hydrogen disk. It has a velocity profile that is characteristic of gas in a dark matter halo of 10 13 solar masses and a geometry that suggests cold accretion flow. Such a disk is predicted by models of cold accretion flows from cosmic web filaments into forming galaxies. (Nature Vol. 524, 6 August 2015, p. 37)
THE CHERENKOV GAMA RAY TELESCOPE
The governing board of the planned CHERENKOV TELESCOPE ARRAY, (CTA) announced in July the final sites for the observatory. The array will consist of roughly 100 dishes in Paranal Chile, and around 20 more in La Palma, Spain, which won out over Mexico as the Northern Hemisphere site. The two sites will ensure good coverage of the sky to detect very high-energy gamma-rays streaming from some of the Universe’s most cataclysmic events. (go.nature.com/1yrq9r Nature, Vol. 523, 23 July 2015. p. 357). Almost all of the electromagnetic spectrum is now observable with some type of telescope or detector, and some of these are getting a lot of perfecting.
The governing board of the world’s largest and most powerful gamma-ray observatory (CTA) announced its selection of the two sites that will host the CTA. The sites, in Chile’s Atacama Desert and the other at La Palma island in the Canary Islands, were chosen ahead of rival sites in Namibia and Mexico for the northern and southern portions of the CTA, which is a multi-million facility that will allow astrophysicists to study some of the most energetic phenomena in the universe from the origin of cosmic rays to particle acceleration around black holes. Each site is already home to major astronomical facilities. The board, made up of representatives from 14 of the project’s 31 member countries, did not give final approval for the site selection, that is the job of the CTA Council, but it did vote to start formal negotiations with the European Southern Observatory (ESO) which operates the Paranal Observatory in Chile and Spain. (http//scim.ag/CTAsite 24 July 2015, Vol. 449, No. 6246, SCIENCE, p. 350) )
DELAYS FOR THIRTY METER TELESCOPE (TMT) FINISHING
There are a number of telescopes and instruments on the top of Haleakala on the Island of Maui. The 4.2 meter solar telescope is under construction there. Seven protestors were arrested at Mauna Kea on the Big Island in the latest escalation in the stand-off over adding the planned THIRTY METER TEELSCOPE (TMT) to the l3 telescopes near the summit of Mauna Kea, which is sacred to Native Hawaiians. Protests over telescope building on Hawaii’s mountains have led to arrests on the night of 30 July of more than 20 demonstrators on the Island of Maui. Protestors are also expected at the International Astronomical Union meeting in Honolulu held in August. Construction of the TMT remains on hold indefinitely. (Nature Vol. 524, 6 August 2015, p. 10) It is not the only place where very high places are considered sacred to Native peoples.
The TMT could one day become the world’s largest. Locals say the land coveted by astronomers on top of MAUNA KEA on the big Island is sacred to their culture and point to the 13 telescopes already built as evidence no more are needed. Because of primitive beliefs held by moderns today, challenges are made time and time again about sacred areas and the growing need for knowledge of the universe around us. The site has some of the best skies in the Northern Hemisphere and the TMT collaboration spent seven years gaining approval. Protestors halted construction in April. In June activists heaved boulders onto the access road to thwart the restart of building. Officials closed the road to the public entirely, including tourists and amateur astronomers. The closure was lifted in August after law enforcement arrested seven protesters at the summit. The same night 30 more were arrested on nearby Maui, as they halted construction on the unrelated, 4 meter Daniel K., Inouye Solar Telescope soon to be the largest of its kind. Access to the distant and the close is being challenged. New emergency rules remain in effect. Hawaiian officials restricted night time visitors to only certain parts of the mountain. The change was designed to stop protestors, but night sky photographer’s and amateur astronomers say it makes some of their activities illegal too. Hawaii’s Supreme Court has taken up the matter as of August 27, 2015. (Astronomy November 2015, p. 15) A judge is, hopefully, going to settle the issue this fall.
Innovative thinking has been generated by obstacles in placing new telescopes. The new technologies and competition for funds and places to install the instruments are concluding mirror space and the older instruments may turn out to be saving grace by learning how to use science and the new questions being asked by researches, how to recycle by reusing and repurposing older telescopes, so revise, modify, reuse, what is in situ, upgrade in situ look what happened when this was done to the Hubble!
TMT was slated to join the Mauna Kea Landscape in 2022. How current friction will change this is not known. The primary mirror is composed of 492 hexagonal mirror segments. TMT, is a collaboration of American, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, and Canadian institutions. TMT will allow astronomers to study the universe with 10 times the spatial resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope. The past year has seen a flurry of controversy on TMT. (Kornet p. 54)
THE GIANT MAGELLAN TELESCOPE
The president of the GIANT MAGELLEN TELECOPE ORGANIZATION (GMTO) has stepped down. Physicist Ed Moses led the GMTO for less than a year. He left the post to deal with family matters, according to the governing board. Efforts to build the $l billion telescope, scheduled for first light in 2022, will be led by Patrick McCarthy, an astronomer at the Las Companas Observatory in La Serena, Chile, until a replacement is appointed. (Nature Vo. 524. 6 August 2015, p. 11)
Some observers of the Universe with access to the critical equipment are examining areas of the heavens for objects more than 13 billion light years away. Somewhere in space are the first objects, the first stars, the first clusters, the first galaxies, things that materialized out of the cooling plasma and could only take shape after 380 million years of cooling and expansion, after the Big Bang. “These primordial population 111 stars, which are thought to reside in the youngest galaxies, have been notoriously elusive. (James p. 46) Because of our own galaxy blocking certain areas of the sky for periods of time, there are limitations where such viewing might be productive. Recently a galaxy, now dubbed CR7, has been identified. Astrophysicist David Sobral and his team, of the Institute of Astrophysics and Space Sciences in Lisbon, Portugal, described their findings last June 4, at arXiv.org, in a paper that will appear in the Astrophysical Journal. The finding may provide a rare look at how, when and where stars arose out of the pristine gas that was left behind in the wake of the Big Bang. While other galaxies house clusters that could be typical of first generation stars, the new observations provide the most direct evidence of such a population.
Galaxy CR7 is loaded with hydrogen that is blasting out ultraviolet radiation, about three times as much any other known galaxy from that time. The galaxy is also blazing with light from helium toms stripped of an electron. Sobral says: “We see indications of very, very hot sources, hotter than any star we know of in our galaxy.” To ionize helium, the surfaces of such stars must sizzle at around 100, 000 degrees Celsius. The sun, by comparison, is a mere 5,500 o . Stars typical of the first stellar generation, are known as POPULATION 111 STARS, are prime candidates as the source of all that energy. Researchers Suspect that POPULATION 111 stars are incredibly large possibly up to a thousand times as massive as the sun. Such stars burn hot and die having consumed their hydrogen, lasting at most a few million years. If they die by explosion, then they may generate some heavy elements which will prove they are not the first generation of stars.
Certain types of dying stars as well as gassy disks swirling round super massive black holes can also provide that much energy. But what is special about CR7 is the apparent lack of heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen. Such atoms are forged in the centers of stars. The presence of these elements indicates that the gas contains only hydrogen and helium-typical of the gas out of which the first stars formed.
George Becker of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, says CR7 ls “definitely an unusual object. But population 111 stars aren’t the only or even the most likely possibility. Scientists think the first stars arose a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. As they die and explode, these stars quickly pollute the surrounding gas with heavier elements fused from Hydrogen. To have a large burst of pristine star formation roughly l billion or more years earlier after the Big Bang seems unusual. By then typical star formation should have over whelmed the Population 111 nurseries.
The light could be coming from a group of stars that have trace amounts of carbon and oxygen undetectable with current instruments. Or it could be coming from pristine gas that is cooling off from earlier bursts of start formation, Becker says. “The observations they’re making are very challenging, which is part of why there’re exciting.”
CR7 offers a preview of what the James Webb Space Telescope, scheduled to launch in 2018, could see. A large mirror in space combined with the instruments sensitive to infrared light will be able to tell which stars are members of the first generation and which are not. (Science News, July 25, 2015. p. 8)
Another group of astronomers using a collection of world-class telescopes from the ground and space found the brightest galaxy so far, in the early universe, which may contain the very first generation of stars. Stars are factories for turning the light elements of hydrogen and helium into heavier ones, like carbon, oxygen, and every other natura y occurring element, called metals. While all stars are mostly hydrogen and helium, modern stars, known as POPULATION 1 STARS, also contain at least trace amountS of metals holder. Stars with more heavy elements are known as POPULATION 11 STARS. Some of these stars are also known as SUPERNOVA 1b, they generate all the heavier elements. It takes seven to nine generations of these supernova to create an abundance of heavier elements and a cloud of heavy elements from which earths could form. So, if some of these stars start showing heavy metals then they were created in the belly of a previous star. So, somewhere near the beginning of the universe there must have existed a population of stars containing nothing but hydrogen and helium, and perhaps a trace amounts of lithium created immediately after the Big Bang. The presence or absence of trace heavy elements will identify the earliest stars. Until now, this starter group, known as POPULATION 111 STARS HAVE EXISTED ONLY IN THEORY. POPULATION 111 STARS should have been massive blazing hot monsters that exploded as supernovae after only 2 million years or so. While looking at their super bright early galaxy, astronomers observed strong emissions from ionized helium, but no signs of any heavier elements- exactly what they would expect from the first generation of stars. (Astronomy October, 2015, p. 15) Astronomers observing with different instruments and in different areas of the universe will no doubt observe in that area the first stars and we should expect an array of such observations. They are not all looking in the sample place. First Stars and galaxies should be observed in diverse places.
RETURNING TO THE COMA CLUSTER
The COMA CLUSTER is one of the nearby clusters to our own super cluster. It is nearly a spherical cluster, and immense one, with increasing density toward the center. (Weinberg p. 67) COMA is a bevy of thousands of galaxies that sits roughly 330 million light –years away in the constellation COMA BERENICES. (The cluster is pictured in figure 6.5-color plate-Keel pp. 393, 87) The Coma Cluster is an x-ray cluster. The cluster is 16 million light years across. (Murdin p. 12) The kenetic energy and mass for the immense clusters yield to mathematical analysis. (Coles p. 4.5.3. 89). Last year a team headed by Yale astronomer Pieter van Dokkum, found 47 ultra-diffuse galaxies in COMA. They think a larger telescope could find even more dark galaxies, so they dug through images of clusters taken by the 8-meterwide SUBRU TELESOPE in Hawaii, one of the recent great surveys of space. Observers, by returning to study the vast COMA CLUSTER, are finding that hundreds of shady characters are lurking in the nearby neighborhood of galaxies. The COMA CLUSTER houses nearly 20 times as many dark galaxies as previously known. These shadowy figures-some as large as our Milky Way, but with just l % of less, of the number of stars, may reflect a dead end in galactic evolution. So far in COMA, they have found more than 854 of these barely perceptible galaxies, and there could be well over 1, 000. These ULTRA DIFFUSE galaxies appear to have had much of their star-forming gas stolen. Jin Koda, an astronomer at Stony Brook University in New York, and her colleagues, have reported online, June 24 in Astrophysical Journal Letters.
These galaxies are relics from an earlier time. They haven’t formed any stars in the last 5 billion to 10 billion years, Koda says. The galaxies aren’t scattered around the cluster haphazardly as would be expected if they were new arrivals falling into COMA randomly, they are instead arranged symmetrically around the heart of the cluster indicating that they have been lurking within COMA for a long time.
Their longevity is surprising. Star-starved galaxies are gravitationally tugged to and fro by their brighter more massive brethren. With so few starts, the dark galaxies should have been torn apart long ago. “For these fluffy-looking galaxies to survive, they need something like dark matter protecting them.” Koda says.
All galaxies are held together by dark matter, elusive particles that neither emit nor adsorb light, revealing themselves only by their gravitational influence. These murky galaxies, however take it to an extreme. To survive the rough and tumble streets of COMA, the dark matter must be over 99 percent dark matter-a far cry from the roughly 85 percent that’s typical of galaxies. The dark galaxies contain huge amounts of dark matter and only a small number of stars. This suggests that the crowded environment sucks gas away from these galaxies leaving them largely unable to form stars. “These things were not expected to be there. They could be failed galaxies,” van Dokkum says. Something might have stripped them of their gas, leaving behind a smattering of stars and a massive storehouse of dark matter. One way to sweep out the gas is with a wave of supernovae explosions. If enough stars exploded fast enough maybe they could have launched all of the spare gas out of the galaxy. (Crockett p. 11) This could be tested by surveys to see if evidence of heavy elements are loose in the murky galaxies that supernova tend to generate. At any rate, the mystery is where did the star- forming gas go from the dark galaxies. The study of the murky galaxies continues.
THE SEARCH FOR ULTRA-LIGHT DARK MATTER
The search for ultralight dark matter continues with the aid of Atomic Spectroscopy. Ken Van Tilburg at Stanford University, California, and his team measured the energy emitted as atoms of the rare-earth element dysprosium, transitioned between two electronic states of very similar energy over a two year period. They look for fluctuations in this energy over time, which would reveal short term local changes in the strength of the electromagnetic force. These could be caused by interactions with certain ultralight dark matter particles. But no fluctuations were observed, meaning that any such dark matter particles interacting would have to be heavier than 3 x 10 -18 electron volts or would have to interact very weakly. The results improve on previous bounds for the strength of such interactions by four orders of magnitude. If similar measurements were performed with atomic clocks the limits might be improved by another order of magnitude. (Nature Vol. 523, 6 July 2015 p. 130)
DARK MATTER is dark because it doesn’t interact except through gravity. Astronomers have published results that may upset this understanding. They used Hubble and the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope to observe a collision of four galaxies in the cluster. They discovered a clump of dark mater tagging behind its galaxy. This lag is predicted if the dark matter is interacting with itself, which had not been seen before. (Astronomy August 2015, p. 12)
THE MOST LUMINOUS OR BRIGHTEST GALAXY SO FAR FOUND
The most luminous galaxy identified so far blasts out as much light as roughly 350 trillion suns. A supermassive black hole lurking in the galaxy’s core probably powers this cosmic beacon. Chao-Wei Tsai, an astronomer at NASA’S JET PROPULSION LABORATORY in Pasadena, California, and his team, reported they found the galaxy while scouring data from the WISE SATELLITE, which spent about a year surveying the sky for anything glowing in the infrared. The infrared light from this galaxy comes from dust heated by a blazing hot disk of gas churning around the black hole in the central region. The high temperature and blankets of dust have earned this galaxy and others like it the moniker HOT DOGS, FOR HOT DUST OBSCURED GALAXIES. The light from THIS HOT DOG, which lurks in the constellation Aquarius, took 12.4 billion years to reach earth. (Christopher Crockett, SCIENCE NEWS, July 25, 2015, p. 5) This is based on 13.8 billion years ago for the Big Bang clock to start ticking, this massive object was in place one billion years after the Big Bang and cooled down enough to permit ordinary matter to form, suggesting more unusual objects will be found as the search for things formed in the first 2 billion years after the Big Bang continues.
WHAT IS ANDROMEDA HIDING?
The HUBBLE TELESCOPE looking into the internal parts of the disc of ANDROMEDA, our closest major galaxy, has photographed a portion of the internal objects in an area 61,600 lights across with some 117 million stars,, and focused on an area of about 4000 light years across, only a very small segment of the Andromeda Galaxy. It accumulated 414 photos assembled from more than 8,000 separate exposures taken in near-infrared,. In the view were 2,750 STAR CLUSTERS. They sampled the star clusters at the same distance, 2.5 million light years away. The clusters range in mass by a factor of 10, and range in age from 4 to 24 million years.
Andromeda and our galaxy have a similar percentage of new born stars. Based on mass, an analysis of the mass with in a cluster, the INITIAL MASS FUNCTION (IMF), helps to interpret the light and to understand the formation history of stars in the universe. They have imaged 2,754 young blue clusters so far.
This is part of the PANCHROMATIC HUBBLE ANDROMENDA TREASURY, ( PHT) program. One of the programs of the great observatory ALMA. Alma is now disenabling the complex history of massive stars. (See Astronomy.com/new/2015/09/hubble)
As noted above, the birth of an early Galaxy may have occurred when astronomers detected a glow from one of the most distant galaxies ever seen in the early Universe. Roberto Maiolino at the University of Cambridge, He and his colleagues used the high-resolution Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter0 Array we now know as ALMA, in Chile to observe three faint galaxies that began forming less than one BILLION years after the Big Bang. In one galaxy, clouds of cold ionized carbon were shifted away from the bright, star-forming center. One of the many models of early galaxy formation predicts that active young stars disperse such clouds. The data will modify the theories about how the universe’s first stars and galaxies formed.
THE SEARCH FOR EXTRA-TERRESTRIALS (SETI)
The Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Radio Telescope will devote up to a quarter of its time searching for signs of extraterrestrial intelligence. $100 million has been set aside by the internet investor Yuri Milner and his Breakthrough Prize Foundation announced in July. They will commit the $100 million over a ten year Breakthrough, planned as the most extensive project yet in search for extraterrestrial Intelligence out there somewhere. From time to time we might mention their progress. What they are looking for is simple. An earth with a moon for seasons, and water and source of light and energy, like our sun. Is that too much to ask for? It does not have to be near ours, it can be anywhere in the inhabitable zone of our galaxy.
Australia’s Parkers Radio Telescope, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory’s Green Bank Telescope and Lick Observatory all will participate. The radio telescopes will contribute between a fifth and a quarter of their time to the hunt. Lick’s Automated Planet finder will search for laser signals from other worlds. The huge amounts of telescope time that has become available, will enable a search that covers 20 times the area of sky at 50 times the sensitivity of past efforts. The project’s leaders intend to make all this data available to the public, which means a lot of students will become involved.
Most large SETI efforts in the past have been by necessity blind searches. But this time researchers hope to target stars that the KEPLER mission has already proven to host planets, thereby focusing their efforts. And they will depend on the pre-existing (( [email protected]). Network, a group of citizen scientists who volunteer their computers’ brain power to sift through SETI findings, to interpret the torrent of new data that is now being generated. (w.w.w. ASTRONOMY.COM., Astronomy November 2015, p. 20)
DARK MATTER GALAXY CLUSTERS
Astronomers have discovered more than 850 faint galaxies in a galaxy cluster that could be made mostly of dark matter. See the discussion above. There are huge amounts of clusters, do they all have diffuse galaxies with few stars but massive dark matter?
Using archived images from the SABARU TELESCOPE in Hawaii, a team led by Jin Koda, at Stony Brook University in New York, searched for observations of the Coma galaxy cluster, which is roughly 101 million parsecs (330 million light years) away. They found 854 ultra-diffuse galaxies, a class of faint galaxies that can be as large as the MILKY WAY, but which has only 0.1 % of the number of stars. For these galaxies to remain gravitationally bound together, the researchers show that more than 99 % of their mass must be dark matter. This suggests that the crowded environment sucks gas away from the galaxies leaving them largely unable to form stars. But where is the dust? That is a large amount they are talking about.. (2 July 2015, Vol. 523, Nature p. 9)
The CANADIAN HYDROGEN INTENSITY MAPPING EXPERIMENT (CHIME)
CHIME is an observatory like no other. It is shaped like the halfpipes of snowboarders, it comprises four 100-meter long, semi cylindrical antennas which lie near the town of Penticton in British Columbia. Now tasked with plugging a crucial gap in the cosmological record: what the Universe was doing, or did, when it was in its teens. The information it is gathering will allow cosmologists to gauge whether the strength of dark energy, which they think is the force accelerating the Universe’s expansion, which has changed over time, can be determined. This is an unresolved question that governs the fate of the cosmos.
Typical telescopes have round dishes, CHIME four halfpipe arrays. From 2016, CHIME’S HALF-PIPES, detect radio waves emitted by hydrogen in distant galaxies. These observations are the first to measure the Universe’s expansion rate between 8 to 10 billion years ago. This was a period in which the cosmos went “from being a kid to an adult,” says Mark Helpern, the leader of chime, and an experimental cosmologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. Right after the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, the rate of the Universe’s expansion slowed. But somewhere during that period dark energy, which eventually returned the Universe’s slowing expanding into the acceleration observed today, began to be felt. It is a window in time when that has, until now, been closed.. Cosmologists measure the Universe’s past expansion rate using ancient objects, such as supernova explosions and the voids between galaxies that are so distant that their light is only now reaching Earth. Those ancient objects have revealed that the cosmos has been expanding at an accelerating rate for more than 6 billion years. Surveys of quasars, mysterious, super-bright objects that outshine the entire galaxies they lie in, have shown that until 20 billion years or so ago the Universe’s expansion was slowing down. Cosmologists to measure the expansion rate leaving open the question of whether the strength of dark energy’s repulsive force may have varied over time. For the time being, the age of the Big Bang is 13.8 Billion years, but recently things are being found that will require time to be added to the age.
“CHIME is designed to fill the gap,” Says Kendrick Smith, an astrophysicists at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada,, who will work on analyzing CHIME’S data. The hal-pipe antenna will allow CHIME to receive radio waves coming from anywhere along a narrow straight region of the sky at any given time. “As the Earth rotates this straight shape sweep out the sky.” Smith says.
To sort out where individual signals are coming from, a custom-built supercomputer made of 1,000 relatively low cost graphic processing units, the type used for high end computer gaming, will crunch through nearly 1 terabyte of data per second. The team will also use signal amplifiers originally developed for mobile phones without such powerful consumer-electronic components, CHIME would have been prohibitively expensive according to Keith Vanderlinde of the University of Toronto, Canada, who is co-leading the project.
CHIME’S supercomputer will look specifically for radio waves with a wavelength that suggests an age of 2 billion to 7 billion years, emitted by the hydrogen in the interstellar space inside galaxies. At these sources of such emissions have a wavelength of 21 centimeters. Researchers then subtract the radio noise in the same wavelength range that comes from the Milky Way and Earth and get their results .
Although CHIME will not be able to distinguish individual galaxies in this way, clumps of hundreds or thousands of galaxies will show up, says Vanderlinde. This will allow researchers to map the expansion rate of the voids between the clumps and in turn to calculate the strength of dark energy during that time. If the results indicate that the strength of dark energy was the same as it has been in the past 6 billion years, it could suggest that galaxies will eventually lose sight of each other. But if the strength of dark energy has changed over the eons, the Universe could collapse in a ‘big crunch,’ or be ripped apart into its subatomic components.
CHIME also intends to look and detect hundreds of the mysterious ‘fast radio bursts’ that last just milliseconds and have no known astrophysical explanation. It will help other experiments to calibrate measurements of radio waves from rapidly spinning neutron starts, which researchers hope to use to detect the ripples in space time known as gravitational waves.
CHIME will contribute to the growing trend in astronomy of experiments that are now active or in the planning stage, including the greatly anticipated SQUARE KILOMETER ARRAY, planed for sites in Australia and South Africa, designed to look for hydrogen emissions with 21-centimer wavelengths. These emissions untap a trove of cosmological information, says Tzu-Ching Chang, an astrophysicist at the Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics in Taipei who helped to pioneer the hydrogen mapping of galaxies in 2010. She likens the boom in hydrogen mapping today to the end in the 1990’s of studying the relic radiation of the Big Bang, which revolutionized cosmology. (Castelvecchi pp. 514-516) It is a very ambitious project with high expectations.
A map of our galaxy, created in 1951 used neutral hydrogen emission at a wavelength of 21 centimeters to plot gas clouds distributed though and along the Milky Way spiral arms, giving a relatively good picture of what would be found later with sophisticated equipment. Such wave lengths penetrate our galaxy’s dust been than visible light, so using them allows astronomers to map spiral arms farther from earth than they can with visible stars. About the same time, astronomers were mapping the brightest hottest stars, 0 and B types, creating a map of the Sun’s neighborhood. Now with the Hubble Data and more to come, we can compare our Milky Way with other galaxies. Some astronomers think the spiral galaxy NGC 3953 in the constellation Ursa Major, the Great Bear, most resembles our Milky Way. (Astronomy Magazine, August 2015, p. 53) But more recently, the vote is now for best resemblance of a galasy to our own may be the barred spiral galaxy UGC l258 which spans about 140,000 light years, somewhat less than ou rown, but close, and 400 million light years away. The total mass of our galaxy is now considered to be nearly 2 trillion suns. (Astronomy December 2015, p. 35) Many such areas will be revisited with CHIME.
AXIONS AS PROPOSED COMPONENT OF DARK MATTER
Dark Matter often has been observed to influence the dynamics of galaxies. Astrophysicists have great difficulty demonstrating the presence of dark matter with some types of direct detection. Observations made by the EUROPEAN XMM- NEWTON SATELLITE (EXNS) of what should be blank sky instead show a variable background X-RAY signal that could result from axions, a proposed component of dark matter. Researchers explain that these candidate particles-a billionth the mass of an electron- could be produced by the Sun and then converted into x-rays by Earth’s magnetic field. This step forward understanding dark mater still may be supported or refuted by further x-ray measurement and with observatories-MMM. (21 November 2014 Vol. 346 Issue 6212 p. 962) This is only one of the explanations of what may make up DARK MATTER.
Astronomers using the CHANDRA X-RAY OBSERVETORY pinpointed the location of a neutron star system called CIRCINUS X-1. The star is embedded in a thick shroud of gas and dust obscuring the source. Scientists combined the different arrival times of X-rays echoing off these clouds with detailed radio images permitting them to home in on the star and determines its distance, which is 30,700 light years away. (Astronomy October 2015 p. 12)
Efforts to develop a more detailed chronology of the creational periods have developed Computer models that show Jupiter is 4.5 billion years old, if this theory turns out to be accurate, then Jupiter was created in the third period of the TC chronology, the period was when the sun, moon and certain nearby stars were added to the system. (TC) The earth was organized from heavy element matter during the first period of creation, and after massive star formation. Supernova are required to make heavy elements and to have a massive amount of matter from which the earth could be made would require the time indicated. There would have been more than 12 billion years before the stars and galaxies formed that would be divided into the first two periods of creation, each of these periods have an unknown or approximate time period. We are looking for evidence for the beginning and the duration of the first period, because in the second period, the earth came up dry, surrounded with abundant water. When the third period commenced, sometime before 7.7 billion years ago, then during the third period the combination of earth, sun, moon (the System) and nearby stars occurred. What was accomplished during the third day, to get our current solar system and its contents in place, it now having a lot of light shed on the events, which seems to have began before 7.7 billion years ago, 5 billion years for day 3 and then the 2.55 billion years since the activity of the 3 day was finished. This suggests the 13.8 current time for the beginning of the Big Bang, may have been much earlier. Time, since the system was formed and completed before the count down for 2.55 billion years, which was consumed in the events of the fourth and the fifth day. Things recorded by Abraham and Joseph set the scene, now current discoveries are finally getting close on some of it but are far from the details of most of it. (Time and Seasons Dec. 23, 1844, p. 757)
But youthful Saturn is a troubling 2 billion years younger than Jupiter, but that is fine, it is part of the system and would be since it is younger than Jupiter having occurred 3 billion years before the end of the 3 rd creation al period. That would place Saturn in earlier part of the third period. After the system was in place, the fourth period and fifth period of Creation has taken the rest of the time of 2.55 billion years. (TC) This suggests that the beginning of the third period of creation began about 8-9 billion years ago The sixth period since the fall of Adam according to the Jewish Colander, has taken less than 5800 years, compared to the other periods, it is a very short one. On Saturn, Sandia’s 2 MACHINE helped solve the dating in June by the high tech cosmos chemistry methods by showing helium rain could heat the ringed world to hotter than expected levels, permitting their calculate their conclusions. (Astronomy October 2015, p. 13) It has been centuries that naturalists and astronomers have been modeling (Creating Theories, and there are many) of how the solar system formed. When it was, it gave or finalized positions to the solar system and its content. One model now in use is called the GRAND TACK SCENERIO, it posits that Jupiter and Saturn had different orbit distance and then spiraled in toward the Sun, then out again losing and gaining baggages of matter. But astronomers from California Institute of Technology offer a new model, no name given, which involves herds of super earths, close orbital areas, pulsing in and out of the debris field, much of which is smashed and abandoned in eccentric orbits driving much of into the sun, with left over material forming the rocky planets that remain today. What they had to come up with are explanations of the modern solar system’s appearance and its lack of resemblance to the explain systems being observed elsewhere in the galaxy. (Astronomy, July 2015, p. 18) They are still a long way away from the TC outline of the creation. But as observations progress, the TC outline is being confirmed more than any other model.
Strange things are happening in a nearby star cluster called CLOUD D, which packs one million bright stars still forming suns for unknown reasons, some 7000 of those are massive 0 Type Stars—the universe’s largest breed. (Astronomy October 2015 p. 13) Astronomers have also discovered a massive cluster of four quasars-a rare find of galaxies just being born. Quasars are young bright galaxies powered by supermassive black holes and are hard to find because this youthful period is brief. Using the W.M. KECK OBSERVATORY in Hawaii, Joseph Hennawi of the MAX PLANCH INSTITUTE FOR ASTRONOMY in Heidelberg, German, and his colleagues found the quasars at the heart of one of the largest known nebulae-clouds of gas that, if large enough, can give birth to new galaxies. The quasars are illuminating the surrounding gas and are probably evolving into a massive galaxy cluster. This rare grouping together with the size of the nebula, suggests that gas in proto-galactic clusters might be cooler and denser than was thought. (Nature Vol. 521, 21 May 2015, p. 264) They are working on the evolution of galaxies and finding a lot of complex variations.
AT THE EDGE OF DARKNESS
There are open spaces or voids between galaxy clusters. Observations are being made around the rims or edges of these voids. Now they are naming and numbering the voids. A spiral galaxy NGC-6503, lurks at the edge of the LOCAL VOID, a nearby empty region of space 150 million light years across. Some voids may be as large as 500 million light years across. The Hubble Space Telescope captured this lone galaxy, ‘lost in Space Galaxy,’ as it is sometimes known, with multiple filters. Red filters identified the gas areas, white and blue reveal young stellar regions, new stars are most often blue. Dark regions where thick dust lanes block background light are dark brown. This galaxy is approximately a third the size of the Milky Way. (pictured in Astronomy October 2015, p. 17) It is a long way from home.
EARLY COLLISIONS OF GALAXY CLUSTERS
In a study published June 11 in the MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY, astronomers announced that they see previously “dead” galaxies [no longer producing stars] in the merging cluster CIZAJ2242.8+5301, nicknamed the ‘sausage,’ flaring up again with newborn stars. The revival will be short lived, so catching the Sausage during an active state is a stroke of good luck.
When two galaxies collide, they stir up vast clouds of gas, triggering explosive bouts of star formation and lighting up with young blue stars, in contrast to the older red population that fill quiescent (dead) galaxies. But when CLUSTERS, of thousands of galaxies collide, astronomers thought that not much would happen. The space between individual galaxies, even in clusters, is so vast that it wasn’t clear that the impact, which does release a giant shock wave, would be felt on the comparatively tiny scale of star forming regions. But they found there is impact and shock when clusters collide, on a vast scale.
Astronomers in a separate group are looking even further back in time to see how clusters formed in the early universe using the EUROOPEAN SPACE AGENCY’S HERSCHEL AND PLANCK SPACE OBSERVATORIES, peer back to only 3 billion years after the Big Bang, where they found bright sources densely clustered and churning out new stars. The astronomer believe these could be the precursors of the mature galaxy clusters they see in the modern universe. The details of their observations appeared in March 31, 2015, ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS.
The merging Sausage Cluster is one of the most massive in the universe. A vast array of galaxies with hot gas between the clusters, and huge shock waves measured over a vast distance, influencing surrounding members of the clusters. The observations clearly show the two clusters as they merge, and the areas in galaxies where new blue stars are being born, pictured in ASTRONOMY, August 2015 p. 16.
THE MILKY WAY IS LARGER THAN PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED
Continued study of the milky way, its bar area and the extended arms, leads to new findings that show the MILKY WAY may be 50 percent larger than previously estimated with large scale ripples.(Astronomy July 2015, p. 10) “The first diagram depicting the Milky Way as a spiral was published in in 1900 by C. Easton, an astronomer working in Holland. (Whitney P. 199) By 1981 the diameter had been determined to be more than 60,000 parsecs (195,600 light years) suggesting the present size of the Milky Way is about 300,000 light years, and is probably even greater. Andromeda, our sister large galaxy in the local group of 50 galaxies is smaller. For a while it was thought we were the smaller. (Bok p. 25)
ASGTROSAT: THE INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION’S FIRST SATELLIET DEDICATED TO ASTRONOMY
ASTROSAT was launched on 28 September 2015 from the Sriharikota spaceport in the Bay of Bengal. With its five instruments the observatory aims to study star-birth in the early regions of the cosmos, and wherever new stars are being formed. Also high–energy processes including binary star systems of neutron stars and black holes. During its five year mission ASTROSAT has FIVE telescopes that will simultaneously study space in VISIBLE LIGHT, ULTRAVIOLET and LOW-and HIGH ENERGY X-RAYS. It will also scan and monitor the sky to detect TRANSIENT X-RAY emissions and GAMMA-RAY bursts. (Nature Vol. 526, l October 2015, p. 10 go.nature.com/ago5tf).
As astronomers work on evolution of galaxies, they find more details that expands our understanding of the giant collections of stars and objects. A recent study of spiral galaxies, edge-on, reveal that “halos” of Cosmic rays and magnetic fields, above and below the galaxies disk are much more common than original thought. The “halo” is a light blue-white, and surrounds the entire galaxy but does not exceed the diameter of the spiral.
ASTROSTAT with multiple capabilities, orbiting some 650 kilometers in outer space, scaning large areas of the sky. The Satellite will benefit researchers everywhere. It will orbit earth for five years. It has capabilities not offered by existing space telescopes. India has had ground based telescopes for decades, including the giant Metrewave Radio Telescope near Pune, and the Indian Astronomical Observatory in the Himalayan cold desert of Ladakh. But these were limited and could not detect higher frequencies of radio waves, infrared radiation and X-ray and gamma radiation. India’s astronomical and astrophysical center, the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA) is at Pune. With its five instruments, tuned to detect different types of light, ASTROSAT will observe wider variety of wavelengths than most other satellites. NASA’s NUCLEAR SPECTROSCOPE ARRAY (NoSTAR) at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, will extend its own research by the use of the lower energy X-Ray and ultraviolet bands that will be available through ASTR0STAT, due to the strength and uniqueness of ASTROSTAT. Black Holes, galaxy clusters, celestial objects that blaze with different wavelengths as different events occur, will e observed by ASTROSAT, which no other observatory has achieved until it went into orbit. ASTROSTAT will fill the gap left when NASA’s ROSSI X-RAY TIMING EXPLORER SATELLITE ended in 2012 after sixteen years of operations. ASTROSTAT’S X-RAY DETECTORS can also cope with very bright objects that would saturate other satellites with radiation such as NASA’S CHANDRA X-RAY OBSERVATORY, or EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY’S (ESA) X-RAY MULTI-MIRROR (XXM-NEWTON) instruments, alerting the entire astronomical community to short-lived bursts of X-RAYS. Which indicate something new is happening in space. (Nature Vol. 525, 24 September 2015 pp. 438-439)
BOK, Bart J., & Priscilla F. Bok, The Milky Way, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1981
CASTELVECCHI, Davide, Half-Pipe Array to Map Teen Universe, Nature, Vol. 523, 18 July 2015
COLES, Peter, & Francesco Lucchin, Cosmology, John Wiley & Sons, LTD.. 2002
CROCKETT, Christopher, More Dark Galaxies Reveal themselves, Science News, July 25, 2015
FERRON, Kari, Black Hole Challenges Galaxy Evolution Theory, Astronomy Magazine, November, 2015
KEEL, William C., The Road to Galaxy Formation, Praxis Publishing, Chichester, UK., Springer, 2002
JAMES, Bethan, Primordial Stars Brought to Light, Nature Vol. 526, October 2015
KORNET, Katherine, Big Island Astronomy, Astronomy Magazine, November 2015
MURDIN, Paul, & David Malin, Catalogue of the Universe, Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, 1979
TURNER, Michael S., A Story of Cosmic Proportions, Nature, Vol. 526, October 2015
WEINBERG, Steven, Cosmology, Oxford University Press, UK, 2008
WHITNEY, Charles A., The Discovery of our Galaxy, Alfred Knoff, New York, 1971
Adams, Fred C. and Greg Laughlin. The five ages of the universe: inside the physics of eternity. Free Press, 2000.
Caldwell, Robert R. “Dark energy.” Physics World, l.17/5, 2004, 37–42.
Caldwell, Robert R., M. Hamionkowski, and N. N. Weinberg. “The phantom energy and cosmic doomsday.” Physical Review Letters, 91/071301, 2003.
Dine, M. and A. Kusenko. “Origin of the matter antimatter asymmetry.” Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 2004, 1–30.
Freedman, W. L. and Michael Turner. “Measuring and understanding the universe.” Review of Modern Physics, 75, 2003, 1433–1447.
Harrison, Edward R. Cosmology: the science of the universe. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Hertzberg, Mark, R. Tegmark, Max Shamit Kachru, Jessie Shelton, and Onur Ozcan. “Searching for inflation in simple string theory models: an astrophysical perspective.” Physical Review, 76/103521, 2007, 37–45.
Kirshner, Robert P. The extravagant universe: exploding stars, dark energy, and accelerating cosmos. Princeton University Press, 2004.
Krauss, Lawrence and Glenn Starkman. “Life, the universe and nothing: life and death in an ever-expanding universe.” Astrophysical Journal, 531/22, 2000, 22–30.
Peebles, P. J. E. and B. Ratra. “The cosmological constant and dark energy.” Review of Modern Physics, 75, 2003, 559–606.
Primack, Joel and Nancy Ellen Abrams. The View from the Centre of the Universe: Discovering Our Extraordinary Place in the Cosmos. Riverhead, 2006.
Silk, Joseph. The infinite cosmos: questions from the frontiers of cosmology. Oxford University Press, 2006.
Srianand, T. A., P. Petitjean, and C. Ledoux. “The cosmic microwave background radiation temperature at a redshift of 2.34.” Nature, 408/6815, 2000, 93–935.
Wilson, Gillian et al. “Star formation history since z = 1 as inferred from rest-frame ultraviolet luminosity density evolution.” Astronomical Journal, 124, 2002, 1258–1265.
Energy of the cosmos
Light chemical elements, primarily hydrogen and helium, were created in the Big Bang process (see Nucleosynthesis). The small atomic nuclei combined into larger atomic nuclei to form heavier elements such as iron and nickel, which are more stable (see Nuclear fusion). This caused a later energy release. Such reactions of nuclear particles inside stars continue to contribute to sudden energy releases, such as in nova stars. Gravitational collapse of matter into black holes is also thought to power the most energetic processes, generally seen at the centers of galaxies (see Quasar and Active galaxy).
Cosmologists cannot explain all cosmic phenomena exactly, such as those related to the accelerating expansion of the universe, using conventional forms of energy. Instead, cosmologists propose a new form of energy called dark energy that permeates all space.  One hypothesis is that dark energy is the energy of virtual particles, which are believed to exist in a vacuum due to the uncertainty principle.
There is no clear way to define the total energy in the universe using the most widely accepted theory of gravity, general relativity. Therefore, it remains controversial whether the total energy is conserved in an expanding universe. For instance, each photon that travels through intergalactic space loses energy due to the redshift effect. This energy is not obviously transferred to any other system, so seems to be permanently lost. On the other hand, some cosmologists insist that energy is conserved in some sense this follows the law of conservation of energy. 
Thermodynamics of the universe is a field of study that explores which form of energy dominates the cosmos – relativistic particles which are referred to as radiation, or non-relativistic particles referred to as matter. Relativistic particles are particles whose rest mass is zero or negligible compared to their kinetic energy, and so move at the speed of light or very close to it non-relativistic particles have much higher rest mass than their energy and so move much slower than the speed of light.
As the universe expands, both matter and radiation in it become diluted. However, the energy densities of radiation and matter dilute at different rates. As a particular volume expands, mass energy density is changed only by the increase in volume, but the energy density of radiation is changed both by the increase in volume and by the increase in the wavelength of the photons that make it up. Thus the energy of radiation becomes a smaller part of the universe's total energy than that of matter as it expands. The very early universe is said to have been 'radiation dominated' and radiation controlled the deceleration of expansion. Later, as the average energy per photon becomes roughly 10 eV and lower, matter dictates the rate of deceleration and the universe is said to be 'matter dominated'. The intermediate case is not treated well analytically. As the expansion of the universe continues, matter dilutes even further and the cosmological constant becomes dominant, leading to an acceleration in the universe's expansion.
Will galactic filament indefinitely expand while its galaxy clusters indefinitely disperse? - Astronomy
Presumably, the mention of Maxwell brings kudos and thereby plausibility to the conjecture.
Maxwell also invented the non-physical construct of transverse electro-magnetic waves, so his track record for causing damning and lasting harm to physics is well proven.
Mass = L^3/T^2? Charles said: Here's as far as I can get into Mathis' Unified Field Theory:
Michael V wrote:
Mass is easily and irrefutably defined: Mass is directly equivalent to matter .
OK, define "matter" (in a way that doesn't reference mass, and without simply substituting some other word for it, such as substance, stuff, essence, etc.).
I maintain that mass is irreducible, and can only be taken as an axiom. Furthermore, we only know it by its effects (i.e., its inertial force, and the amount of energy that can be stored in it by acceleration). (BTW, thanks for correcting my sloppy usage of inertia in place of momentum — I should be more careful. )
Force, distance, and time are also irreducible. Hence F = m * d / t 2 is comprised purely of axioms.
Mathis correctly states that time is actually a ratio of one distance to another, but then he seems to forget that this makes it a dimensionless variable. If you cross-multiply it with other distances, you can't lose the subscripts or you're out of context.
When studying physics, keep both eyes on the physicist!
A = m/r^2
S = at^2/2
M = 2r^2s/t^2
Does that explain it well enough for you, at least tentatively?
Well that it actually my point. I could say MASS=MATTER, which is almost OK, but MATTER is the stuff/substance/essence whereas MASS is the measurement of said.
By this definition of matter, all that physically exists is matter : aether, electrons, protons. Due to the convenience of historical legacy, I will often state these as aether and matter, but this is not to safeguard myself against confusion.
Nevertheless mass and matter are to all intents and purposes, the same thing.
The same can also be said of distance and time, they are mutually defined : 1 second = 300,000,000 metres.
* I think everyone makes mistakes, and everyone can learn to correct mistakes, so we should be able to undo all the harm done by previous mistakes. Right?
Mass in Visual Perception
* (I edited my previous post apparently after you replied to it, so most of my added statement was:) "But it does seem to make sense to me that mass can be expressed in terms of length and time, at least with respect to our visual senses. Our tactile senses would understand force, i.e. the sensation of pressure, but it seems that our visual senses only perceive length, time and color." (Now, I'll add to that.) It seems to be most convenient to define things in terms of our visual perception, rather than our tactile perception, so defining mass, force, pressure etc in terms of motion would be necessary for that. When we feel force, we also see it as motion, so that's how we can translate it. Can't we? That's how we can put it into formulas and calculations. (The same would apply to heat, which is another tactile perception. Also sound is not a visual perception, but is an auditory one. It too would need to be translated into visual terms. Likewise, smell and taste perception.)
We should be able to undo all the harm done by previous mistakes. Right?
I don't remember him making the statement that you say he made about time, but I'll assume for now that he did say it.
Do you accept that those first two are classical equations and that Maxwell probably did derive the equation, m = L 3 /T 2 , from them?
Anisotropic fluid inside a relativistic star.
I can ask Mathis to explain better. Should I do that?
* I asked Mathis to explain, but I don't know if I worded the question clearly.
* In the mean time, doesn't it make sense that tactile perceptions, i.e. force, pressure, mass, need to be translated into visual terms of motion in order to be able to make more meaningful formulas and calculations? We don't SEE force, but we see motion that results from forces. So we can interpret motions in observations and calculations as equivalent to forces. Right? I'll try to think of an example, if the following don't provide it.
* Someone here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104340&page=3 said:
I realize that you're working really hard to try to make sense out of all of this, and I appreciate your efforts. But you need to understand that sometimes, there just isn't any sense in it. There is a lot of gibberish out there, in and out of the mainstream. Just because somebody is a world renowned scientist (e.g., Newton, Maxwell, or Einstein) doesn't mean that they're right. Just because somebody is a fringe theorist thinking along the same lines as you (e.g., Mathis, Kanarev, or Brant) doesn't mean that they're right. We all make mistakes. Sometimes the mistakes are very fundamental, and those are especially tough to spot. I enjoyed reading some of Mathis' papers, as this is something that he seems to understand, at least by the way he talks about what he's doing. But he needs to scrutinize his own work as diligently as he does other people's. One mistake will make gibberish out of everything that follows. You can end up 100% convinced of something that never had anything to do with reality, and never will. So you need to be willing to inspect every piece of the puzzle. There is a lot of guesswork in science, in deciding which approach to a problem seems to be the most promising. But in the end, success isn't guesswork — it only comes after you've put the whole puzzle together, and then you've taken it back apart again to inspect every piece, once and for all. It's an iterative process, and as a general rule, if you haven't already started over from the beginning at least 6 times, after thinking that you were already done, you're probably not very close to a solution yet. At least that's how it goes with me.
Since this thread doesn't seem to know any bounds here's another tid-bit that has come out of my studies recently. I keep asking myself how modern astronomy got so screwed up, with black holes and neutron stars and all kinds of abstract constructs that merely obfuscate the problems instead of revealing and solving them. Why don't astronomers acknowledge the existence of EM forces? There are a lot of smart people in this world, and when you see a whole bunch of smart people acting stupid, it makes you wonder what's going on. Some people think it's a conspiracy, but I'm suspicious of conspiracy theorists. So here's my opinion. In order to understand modern astronomy, forget about physics, and study psychology instead!
All of the problems with modern physics come from Isaac Newton, and not because his work was wrong, but because it continued to be proved right, over and over again. Newton came to be considered the father of modern science, and disagreeing with him was an uphill battle. In the mid
late 1800s, scientists were making great strides in the study of electromagnetism, and in the implications that it held for atomic theory. In no sense did Newton anticipate such work. In the early 1900s, scientists had discovered protons, neutrons, and electrons, and were beginning to understand nuclear forces. Newton didn't anticipate any of that either. Still, scientists asserting the existence of non-Newtonian forces were met with suspicion and contempt. So how do you fight Isaac Newton? Well, you don't.
Einstein Breaks the Newtonian Deadlock!
Elsewhere I have discussed how one of Newton's formulas, energy = mass × speed, got upgraded to E = mc 2 (energy = mass × the speed of light squared). Einstein was working on a unified field theory, and he wanted to unify energy and mass, so he tentatively set them equal to each other (times the speed of light squared), to see where that led. It actually didn't work, yet the scientific community latched onto it and wouldn't let go. Why? The reason is that it tips its hat to Newton, and then takes the next step. They weren't disagreeing with Newton — they were extending Newton. And what an extension it was! The speed of light is a big number, and then it gets squared, and that's how much new energy scientists have discovered. wow! And the general public lapped up every drop of that. Newton had been dead for over 200 hundred years at that point, and people were ready for something new. And this is what Einstein figured out. His physics may have been flawed, but his psychology and sociology were absolutely perfect!
Similarly, astronomers were finding things that didn't obey Newton's law of gravity, but they couldn't argue with Newton. So they said that sometimes, there is so much gravity that it breaks all of the other laws of physics. In other words, modern astronomy started with a sarcastic jab at Sir Isaac. And that, too, worked really well.
So the Newtonian deadlock was broken, and scientists could move forward. But what they didn't realize was that these bastardizations of Newtonian physics got written into their charter. Credibility was (and still is) the primary issue. Once they established themselves as capable of extending Newton by adding a new twist, they could never get the twist out. Now there are two fundamental principles that simply cannot be challenged: E = mc 2 , and gravity is the most powerful of the fundamental forces. Yet neither of these is true, and anything based on them is not true.
Hi Charles, stil following your thread with interest and would like to comment that it seems a lot of us on here are cut from the same cloth so to speak. I commend your ability to communicate your ideas and speculations. seems access to the raw data is the order of the day unfortunatley access is restricted which only leads us around in circles of decreasing magnitude, the spiral of knowledge
. a lot of us on here are cut from the same cloth.
Indeed, a pioneer is a pioneer. We might all disagree on where the next big discovery will be made, and on how to get there. And when we get up from the table, we might all go in separate directions. But we all agree on what it means to be a pioneer. the next discovery isn't behind us, it's in front of us! Cheers!
* Charles, I'll be interested if you come up with any breakthroughs while contemplating the idea of universal spin. How would that contradict your model anyway?
* I just posted some info on charge and the heliospheric current sheet here: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am
. the idea of universal spin. How would that contradict your model anyway?
My model only has one axis of rotation, which would produce outward acceleration only on the equatorial plane, yet (correct me if I'm wrong) the Universe "appears" to be expanding and accelerating away from us in all directions. So I can't touch this right now.
But now I'm wondering if my fundamental understanding of the problem is even correct. Supposedly, the Universe is expanding. That's one thing. Then, the expansion also appears to be accelerating , wherein stuff further away from us isn't moving away at a consistent rate — it's speed is increasing . Is that correct? If so, it defies Newtonian physics, but the first thing to check is the way we measure it. Some people argue that redshift doesn't even equal distance, or at least not without perturbations. If redshift does equal distance, and if there are perturbations, the errors will get greater with distance. Hence the conclusion that the expansion is accelerating might reduce to dirty data. So how do we determine "acceleration" anyway? Redshift only tells us velocity (+/- perturbations). We put velocities together with standard candle constructs to get redshift = distance. (Is that correct?) But how would we know that something is moving faster and faster? I'm confused.
As concerns Mathis' spins, do they account for the "acceleration" (if that exists), or just the "expansion"?
As concerns the heliospheric current sheet:
The current number for the density of space in the Solar System is around 1 fg/m 3 . That's 10 -18 kg/m 3 . To achieve or measure a current of 10 −10 A/m 2 across that is extraordinary, to say the least, but they won't tell you that. They just dismiss it as uninteresting. It is extraordinary because a matter density that low shouldn't create or carry any current, and the mainstream never explains how current can travel through empty space.
Last week or so here we discussed Thornhill's article about .3 ly diameter filaments in a star forming region. Have you thought about how those could form?
In the above link, I also posted Mathis' info about a galactic electric current. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that too.
Brant said he's willing to discuss sun models with us, though he said it may take a while to answer sometimes. Did you see the thread on his iron sun model? Would you like to discuss with him?
* Charles, Mathis said the charge field in the heliospheric current sheet is very strong and that, if ions as dense as water were present, the power of 3 million lightning bolts would be seen, I think on a steady basis. I wouldn't expect ions that dense to occur between planets, but it does seem very suggestive that, if planets encountered each other with comet dust etc between them, major lightning events would occur, and as seems evident has already occurred on most of the planets, moons, asteroids and comets. That's not taking into account the bodies' own charges. Have you looked into the evidence of electric discharges on rocky bodies?
* Regarding the intergalactic current piece, your idea seems reasonable. I didn't mean to suggest that I think it's a current from one galaxy to another. I'm favoring now the ideas that these other guys say applies, i.e. aether or photons move from the galactic centers to the stars directly and from the stars to other bodies directly and the electric currents are generated locally by them.
* I don't agree that there's much expansion of the universe. I think only the low redshift values are possibly connected to velocity, and the rest are caused by ions. So there's little if any expansion.
* See Brant's Aether Battery Iron Sun model here: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am
Mathis said the charge field in the heliospheric current sheet is very strong and that, if ions as dense as water were present, the power of 3 million lightning bolts would be seen, I think on a steady basis. I wouldn't expect ions that dense to occur between planets, but it does seem very suggestive that, if planets encountered each other with comet dust etc between them, major lightning events would occur, and as seems evident has already occurred on most of the planets, moons, asteroids and comets.
It seems that you guys think that a thread of plasma in interstellar space can act like an extension cord, being a conduit for the flow of electricity. Plasma (especially if it's hot) is an excellent conductor, but that doesn't make it like an extension cord out in space. A perfect vacuum is a perfect conductor. In the near-perfect vacuum of interstellar space, you don't need an extension cord there, to act as a conduit for electricity. In fact, if space actually was a perfect vacuum, and if there was an extension cord there, in the presence of an electric field, no electricity would flow through the extension cord. Even extension cords have a little bit of resistance, while perfect vacuums have none. So the electric current would see the extension cord as an insulator compared to the conductivity of the surrounding vacuum. You guys need to think about the implications of this, as I think that your conceptual framework is fundamentally flawed. The denser the plasma, the more the resistance — it's that simple. Plasma filaments in free space are not extension cords transporting energy. If there is an electric current through the plasma, ohmic heating disperses the plasma, and the current flows through the void, as there is less resistance there.
Note that Marklund convection can condense matter if a current is flowing through a dense medium, but the current isn't going to favor the dense medium in the first place. I think this is where one of the errors is being made, and once made, you can end up thinking that an external electric field (of unknown origins, but that's a different issue) generates a current through the plasma filament, and then pinches it into solid matter. The next thing you know, planets and stars are popping out. But that just isn't correct.
Have you looked into the evidence of electric discharges on rocky bodies?
I'm favoring now the ideas that these other guys say applies, i.e. aether or photons move from the galactic centers to the stars directly and from the stars to other bodies directly and the electric currents are generated locally by them.
. It's pretty dense information. I compiled most of it from a thread he had on the Randi forum. Then I interviewed him to get more details. I can go through it to reorganize the info, if you like, but it should be fairly satisfactory as is, to start with. What do you think?
I got part-way into it. To liken planets and stars to iron spherules ejected from an electric arc through molten iron is just conflation. And thinking that the iron inside the Sun is acting like an antenna begs the question of why we can't measure the influx of energy that it is attracting. Saying that the energy is aetherial, and therefore cannot be measured until the Sun converts it, is no different from the mysticism that drove me out of the mainstream.
Nevertheless, one of Brant's references added another block in the foundation that I'm building, so I have to thank him for his research labors. He cites Bryan Gaensler's study of supernova remnants being aligned to the galactic planes as being evidence of pinched, field-aligned currents. This begs the question of why the current flowed through plasma dense enough to condense, instead of flowing around the plasma, as noted above. Here's my take on the alignment data, as posted on my site:
In a recent study of the radio emissions from supernova remnants (SNRs), it was found that the bilateral axes of almost all of these SNRs are aligned with their respective galactic planes, while the probability of this distribution occurring by chance is only 0.0007. This is clear proof of some sort of forcing mechanism. The galactic magnetic field runs parallel to its plane of rotation. It is commonly (and correctly) acknowledged that the magnetic field is not strong enough to have dynamical effects on the SNR itself, so the general opinion is that the galactic magnetic field steers the polar jets into alignment after ejection from the SNR. Yet in none of the cases is there any evidence of course changes moving away from the SNR, meaning that all of the "steering" would have to occur very near the SNR, when the ejecta are at their peak speeds. This is highly unlikely. It also does not account for the fact that the accretion discs associated with SNRs are always perpendicular to the polar jets. Steering the ejecta isn't going to steer the accretion onto a perpendicular plane at the same time. It's more reasonable to acknowledge the direct relationship between the plane of the accretion disc and the polar jet axis, and then to wonder what got the accretion disc rotating perpendicular to the galactic plane.
The present model maintains that the relativistic speeds of matter in the accretion disc are generating extremely powerful magnetic fields. Outside of the star, the magnetic field forms a solenoid, with the greatest field density along the axis of the stellar rotation. All other factors being the same, we would expect this axis to be aligned with an external magnetic field (if present).
The ejecta from the toroidal fusion engine in the star are accelerated outward, with the inner 50% of the ejecta getting collimated along the axis. (See Figure 1.)
Figure 1. Section of a toroidal explosion, showing that 50% of the ejecta merge into "axial" jets (25% each way).
This means that the ejecta are accelerated outward in a direction that just happens to be parallel with the external magnetic field. Once parallel, the jets will then tend to stay parallel as B-field-aligned currents. (Note that these are poleless currents, not responding to electric fields, but are simply "currents" in the sense that they are moving charged particles.) The synchrotron emissions from within the jets then makes sense as the products of the helical motion of charged particles in a field-aligned current.
Along the same lines, it has been noted that galaxies at the edge of galactic clusters tend to rotate on a plane facing away from the center of the cluster. If the magnetic lines of force in the cluster face inward toward the center, the alignment of the solenoidal field from the galactic rotation with the "external" field of the cluster would make sense for the same set of reasons.
Gaensler, B. M., 1999: Morphological Studies of Extragalactic Supernova Remnants. Perspectives on Radio Astronomy: Science with Large Antenna Arrays, 271-274
Bhatnagar, S., 2001: Radio Study of Galactic Supernova Remnants and the Interstellar Medium. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Pune, India
This is what I am calling real physics . Granted, it's a work-in-progress. But from past efforts, I have found that when each new bit of research adds further clarity to the framework already under consideration, that's a good sign that you're on the right track. So I'm going with it.