Most Elliptical Galaxies Are "Like Spirals"

Last sentence tells it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714101631.htm



Most Elliptical Galaxies Are 'Like Spirals'

ScienceDaily (July 15, 2011) — The majority of 'elliptical' galaxies are not spherical but disc-shaped, resembling spiral galaxies such as our own Milky Way with the gas and dust removed, new observations suggest.


>>'Because we rely on optical images, up until now it has been very difficult to separate discs of stars seen face-on from rounder, spherical balls of stars seen edge-on,' said Dr Michele Cappellari of Oxford University, a Royal Society Research Fellow who is the UK lead of the Atlas3D project. 'But because stars in a thin disc rotate much faster than those in a spheroid, obtaining maps of stellar motions for all elliptical galaxies in the sample, we have shown that out of these 66% are disc-like.'

The findings suggest that the idea that galaxies can be clearly separated into two different 'families', spiral galaxies and elliptical galaxies, reflecting two distinct paths to galaxy formation, is inaccurate.<<

When 2 spiral galaxies merge (like the Milky Way and Andromeda will do eventually) the result is an elliptical. Most of the gas and dust is turned into stars by the tidal gravitational energy of the merger.

down the pipe. The gravitational model, along with the BB and others produce nothing but surprises for those who religiously preach them. Cosmology is indeed in crisis mode.

>>The findings suggest that the idea that galaxies can be clearly separated into two different 'families', spiral galaxies and elliptical galaxies, reflecting two distinct paths to galaxy formation, is inaccurate.<<

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agqjaX2_QVI

upside down, least of all the woos. Science has become a religion. It's time to take a closer look at the scriptures we have invented for ourselves.

affects the Big Bang theory. In biological evolution studies, new species are discovered, new categories created, new and sometimes startling data developed, sometimes with immense implications or correcting large errors, but the basic theories remain. We did not spring to life, hand-made by God, in an instant. We and all other life that we know of, evolved, according to processes that can be tracked and duplicated, based on the fundamental theory of evolution. What followed from what is not known in every case. There are still species living on earth, and certainly species that were once living, that biological scientists don't know of. Finding yet another one, on the present earth or in the fossil record--or altering or re-ordering biological categories--doesn't change the basic theory of how life developed over the millennia. If biologists had never seen a giraffe, it would still be true that a mammal that needed the highest leaves of a particular tree, for the best nutrition, could and probably would, develop a long neck or some other attribute, over time, to get at them. Today, in the deepest parts of the ocean, sulfur-based life has been found. Not predicted by previous biologists. But there it is. Why would they throw out the theory of evolution because of this? It is just a new category of evolved being--one that expands the conditions in which life might develop.

I don't favor the Big Bang or any other cosmological theory, at present--mainly because I think the landscape being studied is too large for us to fully grasp, with current theories and technologies. That is not to say that the BB theory isn't useful. It is. But I think it also could go the way of Ptolemy--a useful but essentially wrong picture of the whole. But I really don't see how this particular discovery--that many ellipticals are fast-rotating disks--proves any of the macro theories right or wrong.

You seem to be saying that those who think that the evidence overwhelmingly points to the BB should shut up. Are too preachy. Are "religious." That isn't fair, really. A discussion of cosmological theories is not a Fox News shouting match. If you have something to say about it, one way or the other, please be specific. For instance, how does the BB theory "predict" that all ellipticals are sphere-shaped?

The BB may fail as a theory because it doesn't explain the shape or some other attribute of matter, or doesn't grasp the whole; but it is not "wrong" because some new shape of matter has been discovered. And gravity is precisely the matter at issue here. Why does most matter take the "S" shape and become spiral galaxies, while other matter does not? And what is the cause of the spherical shape or flatness of that other matter (ellipticals), and the cause of the difference between them (some flat and fast-rotating, some bulbous and slow-rotating)? Are they (and is either one) in a pre- or post-spiral condition? Will gravity--the sum of the attraction of matter to matter in a given galaxy--turn a disk-shaped, fast-rotating elliptical into a spiral galaxy? Is a disk-shaped, fast-rotating elliptical a pre-spiral, while a bulbous, slow-rotating elliptical is the death--the end, the dispersal--of a spiral?

I really don't know what you mean by your contempt for "the gravitational model." What would you substitute as a process for describing the attraction of matter to matter, and the motions, shapes and interactions of galaxies (and other objects, such as sun and planets)? Do you think there is some other force at work? Known? Unknown?

Gravity is certainly a mystery--to me anyway. I think of it in human terms. I think of going into a room full of people and one of them is 8 feet tall and weighs 400 lbs. Does that giant not become the "center of gravity" among the normal-sized people in that room? Can't help it. He does. On the other hand, there could be a very small person who has a "magnetic" personality or a resounding voice. That person becomes the "center" around whom everyone else "gravitates" because of qualities other than sheer size. That old mysterious quality of "personal magnetism." Maybe there is something in a galaxy besides the weight or mass of its components that causes it to swirl into a "S" or not, or that causes galaxies to attract each other and form clusters. I am not a scientist. "Gravity," to me is a catch-all word. It means "attraction." But why there is attraction, I really don't know. Why doesn't all matter simply disperse into a vast nothingness? Why does it cluster? Why isn't the whole universe like a giant, ever-expanding elliptical sphere, increasingly diluting all matter, with no differentiation? Well, it doesn't. So we call that gravity. That it doesn't disperse. (I would question the BB theory on this point. Why is the overall universe dispersing while local matter is NOT dispersing, but is doing the opposite--congealing?) (I do think there is some "unknown" in this--a very, very big one, and perhaps many of them.) (We are like a sentient ant on the edge of the Grand Canyon--too small, too unequipped to understand what we are looking at, yet we want to.)

be wanting to see.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=81158&mesg_id=81174

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html

Alfvén's discovery of hydromagnetic waves is another example of an original idea having a far-reaching impact on multidisciplinary science. On purely physical grounds, Alfvén concluded that an electromagnetic wave could propagate through a highly conducting medium, such as the ionized gas of the sun, or in plasmas anywhere. However, in 1942 when Alfvén published his discovery, Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism was a well-established edifice, a subject for textbook pedagogy and engineering applications. It was "well known" that electromagnetic waves could penetrate only a very short distance into a conductor and that, as the resistance of a conductor became smaller and smaller, the depth of penetration by an electromagnetic wave would go to zero. Thus, with an ideal electrical conductor, there could be no penetration of electromagnetic radiation. But Alfvén was proposing a form of electromagnetic wave that could propagate in a perfect conductor with no attenuation or reflection. Alfvén's discovery was generally dismissed with such remarks as "if such waves were possible, Maxwell himself would have discovered them."
His work was not recognized as both correct and significant until six years later, when he gave several lectures on hydrodynamic waves during his first visit to the United States. An oversimplified statement of what occurred has been provided by University of Arizona professor Alex Dessler, former editor of the prestigious journal, Geophysical Research Letters. "During Alfvén's visit he gave a lecture at the University of Chicago, which was attended by Fermi. As Alfvén described his work, Fermi nodded his head and said, 'Of course.' The next day the entire world of physics said. 'Oh. of course."'

Alfvén versus Chapman

Alfvén became active in interplanetary and magnetospheric physics at a time when a contrary viewpoint prevailed. Alfvén's views were consistent with those of the founder of magnetospheric physics, the great Norwegian scientist Kristian Birkeland. At the end of the nineteenth century Birkeland had laid out a compelling case-supported by theory, laboratory experiments, polar expeditions, and a chain of magnetic-field "observatories" around the world -that electric currents flowing down along the earth's magnetic fields into the atmosphere were the cause of the aurora and polar magnetic disturbances.

However, in the decades following Birkeland's death in 1917, Chapman became the acknowledged leader in interplanetary and magnetospheric physics. Chapman proposed, in contradistinction to Birkeland's ideas, that currents were restricted to flow only in the ionosphere with no downflowing currents. Chapman's theory was so mathematically elegant that it gained wide acceptance over the Birkeland theory. Based on Chapman's theory, algebraic expressions of the ionospheric current system could, with complete mathematical rigor, be derived by any student of the subject. Birkeland's ideas might have faded completely had it not been for Hannes Alfvén, who became involved well after Chapman's ideas gained predominance.

Alfvén kept insisting that Birkeland's current system made more sense because downflowing currents following the earth's magnetic field lines were required to drive most of the ionospheric currents. The issue was not settled until 1974, four years after Chapman's death, when earth satellites measured downflowing currents for the first time.

"Cosmology is in crisis" because of new hypothesis replacing old ones when we get data to support evidence? Thats actually how science works in this in every field. Nothing Hubble or anything else that is being evaluated in astronomy supports your "theories" anymore than the Bible evidence supports the big bang theory. Just because hypothesis change all the time based on new data does not mean that there is a "crisis".
I guess biology must be in total crises because new mechanisms for cancer are discovered all the time and old theories are thrown out constantly, thats how research and discovery works. Its astonishing to me how little you seem to understand the science you claim to "follow".
You'd be laughed out of any scientific conference I've been to as ignorant at BEST.

I was thinking maybe we are looking at the alpha and omega of spiral galaxies. The disk-like, fast-rotating ellipticals will become spiral galaxies. The bulbous, slow-rotating, spherical ellpiticals are the death of the spiral galaxy (or galaxies)--dispersal, loss of energy.

Perhaps these newly discovered disk-like, fast-rotating ellipticals are the pre-stage for the "S" wiggles we see in very distant matter--in simple two-armed galaxies and in fragments of galactic matter--that seem very clearly to be heading in the spiral galaxy direction. These disk ellipticals are not newly discovered, actually. What has been discovered is that they are not spherical. This is impossible to tell, looking at them face-on. The rotation speed is the key, according to this study. Their stars are rotating faster than the spherical ellipticals, so they must be disks (if I'm understanding this correctly), and there are a lot more of them than of the slow-rotating spheres. That makes sense, since the universe favors spiral galaxies, overwhelmingly. In other words, yes, if they are proto-spirals, there would be a lot of them.

However, it doesn't feel right. These disk ellipticals are as featureless as the sphere ellipticals. I've looked at a lot of them, in the Galazy Zoo projects, and there is not a clue that is visible of any kind of "S" structure. They are all smooth, with evenly dispersed stars, except for a glowing center in many, and they are uniformly white or gold, rather than mottled and colorful with active, swirling regions as with the spirals. One thing we need to know is if the rate of rotation is increasing, even just a little bit. (I don't know if it's possible to determine this.) Did the disk elliptical evolve from the sphere elliptical? Did something "flatten" it and speed it up? Are we looking at the whole spectrum of galactic evolution here--from sphere elliptical, to flat elliptical, compressed down to the "S" shaped wiggle, thence to multiple arms and the great whirligig, perhaps ending by being swallowed into its black hole? Or are the sphere ellipticals FAILED spirals, or end-stage spirals? Disk ellipticals the beginning; sphere ellipticals the end?

I would say not--just as a wild intuitive guess. Both disk and sphere ellipticals are failed spirals or end-stage spirals. They are spectacularly beautiful, but look too thinly populated with stars (whether as disks or spheres) to become spirals (very dense aggregations of matter, in very active form). Ellipticals are transparent in comparison to spirals. There is this other thing, though--"dark matter"--that could be pressing upon the ellipticals.

I'm not an astronomer, but I would think it's too early to say how this discovery fits into our picture of galactic evolution as a whole. Or rather, I would say that the article is not informative enough as to the meaning of this discovery. They say it's epic; they're going to re-write all the textbooks. It's certainly a great project and discovery. I was wondering about all the ellipticals I reviewed--wondering this very thing. Are they flat? But I'm not clear on what they think it means; nor on its larger meanings and implications.

"Maps of the observed velocity of the stars in the Atlas3D survey. Red/blue colours indicate stars moving away/towards us respectively. Fast rotating and disk-like galaxies are characterised by two large and symmetric red/blue peaks at the two sides of the centre and constitute the vast majority of the sample. (Credit: OU/Cappellari)"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714101631.htm

---

If I understand this correctly, each small box is a galaxy. Within that galaxy, there are stars moving towards us (blue) and stars moving away from us (red), indicating that the galaxy is rotating (part of it moving toward us, part of it away from us). Obviously, the fast rotating galaxies prevail (strong red/blue corners). The boxes that are mostly green are slow rotating galaxies (approx. 30%, the study says). The fast rotating galaxies are either spirals or thin ellipticals (both of which are thin and disk-like, like a dinner plate). Their speed of rotation (fast) is related to their shape (thin). The "greens" are thick, bulbous, spherical ellipticals (slow-rotators).

I don't fully understand the article. Specifically, I don't understand why the shape of an elliptical--whether it is thin and dinner plate-shaped or spherical/basketball-shaped--makes it any more likely to become a spiral galaxy. Are they saying that the rate of rotation of the stars is the key element in evolution into a spiral?

The first paragraph seems to suggest "gas and dust" as the difference but they don't come out and say so:

"The majority of 'elliptical' galaxies are not spherical but disc-shaped, resembling spiral galaxies such as our own Milky Way with the gas and dust removed, new observations suggest."

As a Galaxy Zoo participant, I reviewed and helped categorize thousands of distant galaxies, most of which were clearly rotating spirals or what appeared to be vast round or oval spheres of evenly distributed stars, with no structure--not even a hint of a spiral--except for a brilliant central core (concentration of stars?), i.e., the ellipticals. In the images I reviewed, the spirals were colorful (blue, for hot star nursery regions; red/brown streaks of dust; along with other colors--green, purple, etc.--indicating known or unknown properties of the object), and the ellipticals were virtually always brilliantly, dazzingly white or gold, with no color or feature interest. All of these objects are incredibly beautiful but I'd say that the white or gold ellipticals were the most awesome--like gazing into the "Eye of God" (in a Platonic system). Pure, virginal, perfect.

I don't recall the ratio of spirals to ellipticals, but the prevailing shape of organized matter seemed to be spirally, and the farthest galaxies and fragments that I reviewed very often exhibited an "S" shape--so much so, that this wiggle of matter began to feel like the fundamental shape of space/time, or at least the fundamental shape of matter within space/time.

This spinning "S" of the earliest/farthest galaxies and fragments then spins off additional arms--either by itself generating more stars, or acquiring more matter in other ways (gravity attraction of surrounding "dust"; collisions, mergers with other objects). The "end" of this evolution of the "S" shape is a fast-spinning, tight, many-armed spiral like our own galaxy, dense with stars, containing hot, new star forming areas, bands of "gas and dust" and a very bright center, often a bulge above and below the plane of the galaxy disk (almost all of which contain a black hole, we have now learned--a place where matter is, in some sense, inverting--becoming so concentrated that it collapses and 'disappears.") Spiral galaxies are VERY ACTIVE, very colorful, very energetic swirls of matter, where a whole lot is happening--and the initial impulse to all this is the "S" shape.

Or so it seems, looking at all these images. The ellipticals, beautiful though they are, in a cold sort of way, seem like "failed" galaxies--not steps to becoming a spiral (thick with energy and life). They have a sort of sterile beauty. So much brilliant white or gold light, sprayed out like great, glittering perfect jewels--so little interest, movement, variety.

SOMETHING was MISSING in the ellipticals--in their history, in their vicinity or within them--that STOPPED them from "wiggling." That much seemed clear to this amateur. There doesn't seem to be unanimity of astronomers on whether these objects are old or new. I tend to think of them as old--gravitational assemblages of stars that just didn't "gel," that remain static because of something that didn't happen or wasn't there. They don't show any of the signs in far distant, young galaxies and fragments that so clearly point to eventual creation of a spiral galaxy.

I do understand the problem of our angle of vision. Until you have some gage for thickness--such as the rate of rotation of the stars, as chosen by this study--you can't know how gravity is working in an elliptical, i.e., what state it has evolved from and where it is going. (Gravity clearly seems to be at work in the "S" or "spin" shape.) To appearances, the gravitational force is so weak, in ellipticals, that it is resulting in a random distribution of the stars, in a great big but relatively "empty" bubble. But if SOME ellipticals are actually "flat" (disk-like)...well, WHY are they flat?

Most of the ellipticals I reviewed seemed very isolated--nothing (obvious) nearby that might influence them, no other objects to collide or merge with, to gain matter, energy and turbulence from. Are the flatness of the ones that are disk-like, and their faster rotation, truly "steps" to becoming spirals, or are these just static remnants of their failure to become spirals? What could make them into spirals--when they have not the least "wiggle" or "bar" (central line of the "S"), or other irregularity, and no "disorderly" neighbors?

Perhaps the faster rotation will lead to internal collisions, disrupt their smooth surface and set something in motion? I dunno. Probably astronomers are as mind-boggled and baffled by the incredible volume of information that is coming our way, as us mortals are. Indeed, that is the reason for the Galaxy Zoo projects--too much information, too few astronomers. (Simply too many objects to classify--even into just basic shapes (spirals, ellipticals)--so they have enlisted ordinary human eyes, like mine, to do basic classification. You can do it, too. Anybody can. And it's way fun and fascinating!). (And what it means is that ordinary human eyes are still better than any computer imaging program. So there, Data!)

So, these are my questions:

Why are some ellipticals flat and rotating faster than the bulbous ellipticals?

Are their flatness and faster rotation static properties of their failure to become spirals or active properties in a step to becoming spirals?

Does this discovery really change our picture of the evolution of galaxies?

What causes the "S" shape that is so typical of matter in the universe, and that is evident in presumably far smaller aggregates of matter than are found in ellipticals? (Relatively tiny bits of proto-galactic matter, scattered throughout the universe, twist into this shape. The twist itself seems to be the first sign of life--generating a process that produces a spiral galaxy, and eventually us--conscious life. Why is this twist absent in these gigantic, flat, fast-rotating ellipticals? And what does its absence mean, as to the evolution of that object?)

Anybody got any answers?

Depends on what you believe organizes galaxies. Perhaps this will shed some light on it. Perhaps not.

http://www.universetoday.com/15856/ancient-galactic-magnetic-fields-stronger-than-expected/

Using the European Southern Observatory’s 8-meter telescope located in Chile, a team of scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology studied 70 galaxies similar to the Milky Way at optical wavelengths. They combined their data with 25 years of radio wave observations of magnetic fields that measured how far the radio waves were pulled toward the red end of the spectrum, known as “redshift” using Faraday rotation measures.

Serving as a looking glass into the past, the powerful telescope at the European Southern Observatory, adding to the radio rotation measures, allowed the scientists to observe surprisingly high magnetic fields between 8 billion and 9 billion years ago in the 70 galaxies studied. That means that several billion years before the existence of our own sun, and within only a few billion years of the Big Bang, ancient galaxies were exerting the tug of these strong magnetic fields.

“It was thought that, looking back in the past, earlier galaxies would not have generated much magnetic field,” said Philipp Kronberg of LANL. “The results of this study show that the magnetic fields within Milky Way-like galaxies have been every bit as strong over the last two-thirds of the Universe’s age as they are now-and possibly even stronger then.”

feel that everything that doesn't agree with the current paradigm is woo.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Galaxies-in-Plasma-Lab&id=5659068


A graduate student of Alfvn, Peratt is now a member of the Associate Directorate of Los Alamos National Laboratory. At that time, he was working with Blackjack V at Maxwell Laboratories. Back then, this was the most powerful electromagnetic pulse generator, capable of producing briefly several times the power generating capacity of the entire human civilization. Ultra-fast photography of high-energy plasma discharges captured what seemed like mini-galaxies, complete with spirals, the same radiation patterns, and a suggestive evolution.

Their rotation curves were flat.

Intrigued, Peratt developed a theory and a computer model to also take gravity into account and simulate the real galaxies, one by one, always backing his results by direct experiments. His theory withstood all tests to date, without requiring modifications. Briefly, it can be summarized as follows.

Unlike gravity that tends to form round bodies, the electromagnetic force tends to form filaments, thanks to the so-called electromagnetic pinch that forces charged particles to do turns around the magnetic field lines in spirals as tight as possible.

Filaments of plasma parallel to both the electric and magnetic fields (called Birkeland filaments) play a crucial part in auroras and are common to the solar system. According to Peratt, the universe is filled with galactic-sized Birkeland filaments of very low density and current, producing so little radiation that they are very hard to detect.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/5659068

...to me. First I've read about plasma. Makes a lot of sense. And the writer is a good storyteller.

Got to go eat dinner. Will come back and re-read it, then comment.

by Leonid Korogodski. (See my comment #11 below.)

Korogodski certainly creates a picture of the Universe that makes sense to a non-expert (me). In fact, in reviewing Galaxy Zoo images for a very active star formation area in our own galaxy, the most characteristic form that the images take is FILAMENTS. There are great strands of green and yellow filaments, some with extremely bright and beautiful green-red-yellow knots at the end of them, all embedded in dusky red clouds with patches of dead-black areas that look to my untutoried eye like "dark matter" (we are supposed to identify them as "dark nebula"). I mean, ZERO light within or "behind" or "in front of." Dead, dead black spaces. In that Galaxy Zoo project, we were asked to outline big and small bubbles in space, most of which were full of matter, but some of which were fairly empty areas with a bubble forming in the matter around some darkish area, as if something had vacuumed away part of the matter in the larger cloudy, filamenty region. The green knots and filaments, the red clouds, the "bubbles," and the black-black spots in this region of the Milky Way seemed all to be interacting in vibrant, explosive ways, to create stars. The parts of this region without a "green knot" or a black-black patch seemed less active. The black-black patches seemed to be related to the development of the extrmely bright "green knots." The green filaments and red clouds seemed to be preliminaries. Stars and galaxies appeared "behind" some of this material but not in the black-black patches. I had the sense that what I thought of as the "green angel" with the "flaming sword" created, or called forth, the "dark angel," and both were necessary to the creation of stars.

Overall, FILAMENTS is the major shape of matter in this intense star-creation area. Matter there is roiling--like a hurricane (a metaphor that Korogodski uses for plasma states). You really have the sense of being present at Creation itself and can see, for real, what the ancient writers of Genesis may have been imagining or hallucinating (and, of course, didn't understand the real distances nor time-frames, nor any of the science of astronomy), when they wrote things like God separating "light from darkness." These images from human telescopes and cameras (Spitzer Space Telescope infrared data) recorded the ACTUAL separation of light and darkness--the bright filaments and their even brighter knots, and the black-black patches that accompany them. And of course this is happening in many places--billions and billions of places--throughout the universe.

This was actually a http://www.zooniverse.org/ project, but I got there from http://www.galaxyzoo.org.

Here's the project: http://www.milkywayproject.org/?ticket=ST-1310879129r53685E6EAFF09FDF4C

are actually Birkeland currents, Kristian Birkeland predicted that they connected all things universal and turns out he was correct.

Also, I have no science or math background, just great curiosity, so bear with me.

--

“It was thought that, looking back in the past, earlier galaxies would not have generated much magnetic field,' said Philipp Kronberg of LANL." --from your ref

--

Why was it thought that earlier galaxies would not generate much magnetic field? Is that a prediction of the BB theory and/or of the "gravitational model"?

Is there a conflict between the BB theory and/or the "gravitational model," on the one hand, and electromagnetic theory or results, on the other?

At bottom, I'm not grasping why you have dissed the BB theory/"gravitational model," in this context.

And, unfortunately, I can't read the article, nor possibly the next one (you cite below), so I'm asking you to explain it to me. What is the controversy here? Or, another way to put it: Is there not a UNIFIED theory of BB/gravitation and electromagnetism?

The picture I'm getting is that gravitation produces local spherical globs of rocks and gasses--planets and suns--but that electromagnetism creates far more interesting objects--the "S" wiggle of the spiral galaxies, the "coin" shape (just discovered) of the disk-shaped, fast-rotating ellipticals and/or may account for other mystifying phenomena--quasars; galactic lenses; black holes, theorized "worm holes," electrons altering each other's charge at a distance and having no location except when they are observed by humans and, in that case, having no determinable momentum, and being, in "reality," clouds of potential. I mean, what does weight or mass have to do with that? Nothing!

Is this correct? Are you saying that BB/gravitation doesn't really apply on the macro level? (--or the micro?) That electromagnetism rules on these grand (or minute) levels? Also, you sort of group BB theory and "the gravitational model" together. Do you mean to? I'm really not sure what that might mean. I have a real problem with gravity accounting for both the BB and expansion of the universe AND the clear, observable activity of matter (or seeable matter) as aggregating, clustering, swirling and creating charming little planets for spiders, dolphins and humans. Why isn't all matter in an amorphous clump, or why isn't it all dispersing evenly over the endless reaches of space into nothingness?

Why does matter curl, swirl, form S's, infold, in large bodies and in small--ultimately forming us and our curly-curly brains?

Gravity (the pull of bulk) may be why we have this clump of rocks and why it is revolving around the sun, but it is NOT why the arms of the Milky Way and other spiral galaxies are rotating at the WRONG speed, or are swirling (or appear to be swirling) into a Black Hole. Or, rather, intuitively it is NOT why.

But HOW do you propose that the universe is actually constructed--or rather is actually operating, in all its phenomena? What is the flaw in the BB theory? What is the flaw in "the gravitational model"? How does electromagnetism better explain "S"-shaped galaxies, "coin"-shaped galaxies, and all this other stuff that is going on? Also, if the BB theory is wrong or inadequate, is the universe then NOT expanding, and, if it IS expanding, what is propelling it? Individual galaxies are NOT expanding. Galaxy clusters are NOT expanding. They are all coalescing (drawn to each other). People are NOT expanding. That we know of. That we can perceive. But there are facts to support a general "bubble" expansion of the whole. Is this a misperception? Is it like the "flat Earth"? Our ships don't go out there so we can't see them sink on the horizon? Everything we know, from our tiny ant perspective, says that the world is flat. This is observable fact, if our ships don't go out there, and if we aren't too keen on stargazing because the hierarchies consider that to be "pagan." It is scientific, in a way. It is what people who didn't--who couldn't--know better observed.

Is this what you're saying about the BB theory? It's a sort of "flat Universe" theory? Obvious, in some ways, but WRONG (or inadequate, or incomplete)?

I am not at all averse to the notion that science has become "a religion." I think that debate of scientific theories based on emotional heat is silly. The devisers of the BB theory and its advocates should WELCOME challenges to the theory. They should positively wish to have it debunked. They should debunk it themselves in every way possible. They should question EVERYTHING. There is so much human history of false or poor ideas superseded by new facts, new thinking, new theories, new technologies that open new vistas--especially in the sciences (but true of all human thought)--that we would be fools not to learn this lesson. We should cast our minds far and wide.

I do understand that the rate of change of the last 100 years has been so accelerated that some people, maybe many people, are traumatized. Our own culture--European culture--went from a thousand years and more of "settled ideas" into a volcano of change that just kept getting bigger and wider and hotter and more unsettling and is still erupting. If certain engines of change continue at this pace, we could be looking at eternal life for human beings, forced colonization of the solar system (by overpopulation), "terraforming" of other planets to create suitable habitats, and contact with extraterrestrials, within decades, not centuries. We are also looking at a precipice of planetary death. (The World Wildlife Fund gives us less than 50 years, at present levels of pollution and consumption--less than 50 years to the death of the planet.) It's as if we had taken all of human history--all of the last one million years--and compressed it into two seconds. We have gone from hunter-gatherers to potentially eternal intergalactic travelers in ONE SECOND of time, and, in that same second, we face our doom. It is no wonder people cling to their theories--or "get religion," scientific or otherwise.

This is a very, VERY insecure moment for humanity. So if people want to cling to last week's cosmological theory, it is understandable. Don't get mad at them. Even the "flat Earth" believers had something to teach us--that there are different perspectives on reality, and, perhaps, that social stability is equal in importance to human beings, as technical innovation. These are not trivial lessons. And our murder of the planet--our only home--may require a period of retrenchment, if we survive it, during which our wild gallop of progress slips into stasis for another thousand years (or the "western world" does so, while China terraforms Mars). Other truths, or kernels of truth, may be important, as to theories that we cast off. As I asked, is there not a UNIFIED way of looking at ALL of the forces that we perceive--including, say, the outward propulsion of the universe, along with its lightning strikes of electromagnetism that shape and enliven matter? Is there not a way to include both the tidy walker of a flat Earth and his humble purposes, and the gallivanting explorer willing to risk his life "over the horizon"? Don't we need both gravity and electromagnetism to understand all phenomena--or all of what we currently think is real?

>>Also, I have no science or math background, just great curiosity, so bear with me.

--

“It was thought that, looking back in the past, earlier galaxies would not have generated much magnetic field,' said Philipp Kronberg of LANL." --from your ref<<

This is Anthony Peratt's take on galaxy formation, this is what it does in the lab, this is what it does on a galactic scale.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation



Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve, but no hypothetical dark matter is needed, as required by the conventional model of galaxy formation.

The simulations derive from the work of Winston H. Bostick who obtained similar results from interacting plasmoids.<1> <2>

In the early 1980s Anthony L. Peratt, a student of Alfvén's, used supercomputer facilities at Maxwell Laboratories and later at Los Alamos National Laboratory to simulate Alfvén and Fälthammar's concept of galaxies being formed by primordial clouds of plasma spinning in a magnetic filament.<3>

The simulation began with two spherical clouds of plasma trapped in parallel magnetic filaments, each carrying a current of around 1018 amperes. The clouds spin around each other until a spiral shape emerges. Peratt concluded that the shapes seen in the simulation appeared similar to observed galaxy shapes, and posited a morphological sequence that corresponded to Halton Arp's ideas that galaxies formed out of quasars ejected from AGN.<4> Perrat's spirals had qualitatively flat rotation curves.
--

>>Why was it thought that earlier galaxies would not generate much magnetic field? Is that a prediction of the BB theory and/or of the "gravitational model"?<<

Now that is hard to deal with (hard to understand cuz 99.9999 percent of the universe is said to be composed of plasma) more plasma equals more charged particles under motion, more charge under motion equals more magnetic field. They do not deal with plasma, they are not plasma physicists, they ignore the role of the EM force on galactic (or larger) scales. They are not electrical engineers and it has cost them.

>>Is there a conflict between the BB theory and/or the "gravitational model," on the one hand, and electromagnetic theory or results, on the other?<<

A conflict between BB and the EM theory? read Redshift by Halton Arp link here, on second thought it is over 100 dollars, just read the reviews.

http://www.amazon.com/Quasars-Redshifts-Controversies-Halton-Arp/dp/0521363144/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310904145&sr=8-1
For twenty years, the author has contested the 'establishment' view of quasars as the most distant objects in the universe. In this book, Arp presents the original observations and fundamental data on quasars and galaxies, and explains why he has concluded that: far from being the most distant objects in the universe, quasars are associated in space with relatively nearby galaxies; quasars' enormous redshifts do not arise from the expansion of the universe, but rather are intrinsic properties of the quasars themselves; many galaxies show redshift anomalies related to quasars' redshifts; quasars and galaxies have an origin far different from that assumed in the 'standard' big-bang model of the universe; many astronomers, despite the accumulation of compelling evidence, defend what Arp believes is a fundamentally incorrect assumption about cosmic objects.
Book Description
For twenty years, the author has contested the 'establishment' view of quasars as the most distant objects in the universe. In this book, Arp presents the original observations and fundamental data on quasars and galaxies, and explains why many astronomers, despite the accumulation of compelling evidence, defend what Arp believes is a fundamentally incorrect assumption.

>>At bottom, I'm not grasping why you have dissed the BB theory/"gravitational model," in this context.<<

I diss it because it is ludicrous. I diss it because it seems to me to be the product of peering through the telescope backwards. I find it to be "funny" and somewhat naive.

>>And, unfortunately, I can't read the article, nor possibly the next one (you cite below), so I'm asking you to explain it to me. What is the controversy here? Or, another way to put it: Is there not a UNIFIED theory of BB/gravitation and electromagnetism?<<

If there is something you want to read I can email (Please identify what article it is you would like to read) I believe I have the first chapter of the EU book, I have to look for it that would be a real eye opener for you.

>>The picture I'm getting is that gravitation produces local spherical globs of rocks and gasses--planets and suns--but that electromagnetism creates far more interesting objects--the "S" wiggle of the spiral galaxies, the "coin" shape (just discovered) of the disk-shaped, fast-rotating ellipticals and/or may account for other mystifying phenomena--quasars; galactic lenses; black holes, theorized "worm holes," electrons altering each other's charge at a distance and having no location except when they are observed by humans and, in that case, having no determinable momentum, and being, in "reality," clouds of potential. I mean, what does weight or mass have to do with that? Nothing!<<

Interactions between Birkeland currents in space of a truly unbelievable size produce the twists and turns we witness.

>>Is this correct? Are you saying that BB/gravitation doesn't really apply on the macro level? (--or the micro?) That electromagnetism rules on these grand (or minute) levels? Also, you sort of group BB theory and "the gravitational model" together. Do you mean to? I'm really not sure what that might mean. I have a real problem with gravity accounting for both the BB and expansion of the universe AND the clear, observable activity of matter (or seeable matter) as aggregating, clustering, swirling and creating charming little planets for spiders, dolphins and humans. Why isn't all matter in an amorphous clump, or why isn't it all dispersing evenly over the endless reaches of space into nothingness?<<

Consider the following:

Differences between electrostatic and gravitational forces:

Electrostatic forces are much greater than gravitational forces (by about 10^36 times).
Gravitational forces are attractive for like charges, whereas electrostatic forces are repulsive for like charges.
There are no negative gravitational charges (no negative mass) while there are both positive and negative electric charges. This difference combined with previous implies that gravitational forces are always attractive, while electrostatic forces may be either attractive or repulsive.

Why does matter curl, swirl, form S's, infold, in large bodies and in small--ultimately forming us and our curly-curly brains?

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/anatomy.html



The structure above is a cut of the plasma universe showing the filamentary currents produced by plasma in flux. Plasma tend to separate into regions according to temperature, density, magnetic field strength, chemical constituency, and other physical properties. Wherever these regions are in relative motion, they are coupled by electrical currents that they drive in each other. Like all electrical currents, the circuit paths are closed, sometimes over very great distances. Thus plasmas in relative motion in one part of the universe can produce prodigious amounts of electrical energy. This energy may be transferred over many billions of light years to burst suddenly from a very small and localized region representing the circuit load.

The simplest geometry for galaxy formation, two adjacent Birkeland currents of width 35 kiloparsecs separated 80 kiloparsecs across. By scaling the current flows in astronomical objects by size, it is determined that the average flow in a galactic Birkeland current is approximately 1019 amperes; IA, the Alfvén galactic current.

In contrast to the experiment above, where the plasma currents are 30 millimeters in length, the galactic currents may extend 400 megaparsecs or more.

Economy in simulation, gained from observing laboratory experiments, suggests that the active region, where large electric fields build up, is about 10 kiloparsecs in length. That is, the salient phenomena can be modeled with two stubby pinches. The pinches are driven, of course, by the energy carried in the long length currents.

>>Gravity (the pull of bulk) may be why we have this clump of rocks and why it is revolving around the sun, but it is NOT why the arms of the Milky Way and other spiral galaxies are rotating at the WRONG speed, or are swirling (or appear to be swirling) into a Black Hole. Or, rather, intuitively it is NOT why.<<

You are correct imho, gravity does not cause spiral movement, it is an attractive force only. EM forces are both attractive and repulsive and when they travel alonside one another they spiral around one another pure and simple, at pinch points galaxies are formed.

>>But HOW do you propose that the universe is actually constructed--or rather is actually operating, in all its phenomena? What is the flaw in the BB theory? What is the flaw in "the gravitational model"? How does electromagnetism better explain "S"-shaped galaxies, "coin"-shaped galaxies, and all this other stuff that is going on? Also, if the BB theory is wrong or inadequate, is the universe then NOT expanding, and, if it IS expanding, what is propelling it? Individual galaxies are NOT expanding. Galaxy clusters are NOT expanding. They are all coalescing (drawn to each other). People are NOT expanding. That we know of. That we can perceive. But there are facts to support a general "bubble" expansion of the whole. Is this a misperception? Is it like the "flat Earth"? Our ships don't go out there so we can't see them sink on the horizon? Everything we know, from our tiny ant perspective, says that the world is flat. This is observable fact, if our ships don't go out there, and if we aren't too keen on stargazing because the hierarchies consider that to be "pagan." It is scientific, in a way. It is what people who didn't--who couldn't--know better observed.<<

http://www.universetoday.com/399/the-largest-structure-in-the-universe/
Giant 3D Filaments of Galaxies
The research group used the Subaru telescope to make a detailed study of a region of sky 12 billion light-years from Earth that is known to have a large concentration of galaxies. They used Subaru’s Suprime-cam camera outfitted with special filters designed to be sensitive to the light from galaxies at that distance. The results showed that this concentration of galaxies is just a small portion of a much larger structure.

The newly found giant structure extends over 200 million light years and has a concentration of galaxies up to four times denser than the universe’s average. The only previous known structures with such a high density are much smaller, measuring about 50 million light-years in scale.

Using Subaru’s Faint Object Camera and Spectrograph (FOCAS) to study the 3D distribution of galaxies in this filament, the team also discovered at least three overlapping filaments that make up the giant structure.

The CMB and the Redshift have us looking through the looking glass. All is not what it appears to be... many many recent "anomalies and surprises" are nicely addressed by the EU theory.

>>Is this what you're saying about the BB theory? It's a sort of "flat Universe" theory? Obvious, in some ways, but WRONG (or inadequate, or incomplete)?<<

Yes, the BB is a theory and nothing more and many scientific facts fly in its face.

>>I am not at all averse to the notion that science has become "a religion." I think that debate of scientific theories based on emotional heat is silly. The devisers of the BB theory and its advocates should WELCOME challenges to the theory. They should positively wish to have it debunked. They should debunk it themselves in every way possible. They should question EVERYTHING. There is so much human history of false or poor ideas superseded by new facts, new thinking, new theories, new technologies that open new vistas--especially in the sciences (but true of all human thought)--that we would be fools not to learn this lesson. We should cast our minds far and wide.<<

It is entirely possible that we are finding ourselves in the midst of another Galileo type moment however this time the entrenched forces are much much stronger and there is so much more face to save it is uncanny.

>>I do understand that the rate of change of the last 100 years has been so accelerated that some people, maybe many people, are traumatized. Our own culture--European culture--went from a thousand years and more of "settled ideas" into a volcano of change that just kept getting bigger and wider and hotter and more unsettling and is still erupting. If certain engines of change continue at this pace, we could be looking at eternal life for human beings, forced colonization of the solar system (by overpopulation), "terraforming" of other planets to create suitable habitats, and contact with extraterrestrials, within decades, not centuries. We are also looking at a precipice of planetary death. (The World Wildlife Fund gives us less than 50 years, at present levels of pollution and consumption--less than 50 years to the death of the planet.) It's as if we had taken all of human history--all of the last one million years--and compressed it into two seconds. We have gone from hunter-gatherers to potentially eternal intergalactic travelers in ONE SECOND of time, and, in that same second, we face our doom. It is no wonder people cling to their theories--or "get religion," scientific or otherwise.<<

Agreed, it seems that without outside intervention we will be gone in 50 or at least most of us may be gone.

>>This is a very, VERY insecure moment for humanity. So if people want to cling to last week's cosmological theory, it is understandable. Don't get mad at them. Even the "flat Earth" believers had something to teach us--that there are different perspectives on reality, and, perhaps, that social stability is equal in importance to human beings, as technical innovation. These are not trivial lessons. And our murder of the planet--our only home--may require a period of retrenchment, if we survive it, during which our wild gallop of progress slips into stasis for another thousand years (or the "western world" does so, while China terraforms Mars). Other truths, or kernels of truth, may be important, as to theories that we cast off. As I asked, is there not a UNIFIED way of looking at ALL of the forces that we perceive--including, say, the outward propulsion of the universe, along with its lightning strikes of electromagnetism that shape and enliven matter? Is there not a way to include both the tidy walker of a flat Earth and his humble purposes, and the gallivanting explorer willing to risk his life "over the horizon"? Don't we need both gravity and electromagnetism to understand all phenomena--or all of what we currently think is real?<<

Yes there is a unified way to look at it Hannes Alfven wrote, "Gravitational systems are the ashes of former electromagnetic systems" and that pretty much sums it up. Hannes Alfven, Halton Arp and Anthony Peratt (sp) have laid the groundwork, it is up to thinking people to keep it alive, to not let it be buried by the established "science" as we know it.

You are a truly remarkable person to be able to write so cogently, to be able to put your thoughts down in such a manner, you should be a writer if you aren't already, you truly have a penchant for expressing yourself, I am humbled by your efforts to actually converse on this subject, ***** stars to you PP.

youve tried to claim in the past you know more than PhDs when it comes to experimental design (despite professionals like me telling you its not easy and you need years of education to do it) so anyone who believes your ignorant claims about what this that or the other really means when you have ZIP background and even less inclination to actually educate yourself on how stuff works is being taken in by a fool. You have shown that critical thinking skills are hard to find these days, and that the internet is no replacement for actual education. Do you know what technobabble is? I beleive you are very skilled in that.

You really need to contact Los Alamos and tell them just how stupid and unscientific they are, I'm sure they will take your opinion quite seriously.