Slashdot Mirror
Telescope Offers 'Clearest View Yet' of Milky Way - Including Plasma Filaments (ska.ac.za)
Chris Reeve writes: The MeerKAT radio telescope was inaugurated in South Africa this past Friday, revealing the clearest view yet of the center of the Milky Way. What is especially surprising about the produced image are the numerous prominent filaments which seem to appear in the foreground.
Herschel made a similar announcement just three years prior that "Observations with ESA's Herschel space observatory have revealed that our Galaxy is threaded with filamentary structures on every length scale." Intriguingly, close inspection of yesterday's SKA image show these filaments twisting around one another, yet without combining — a phenomenon observable in most novelty plasma globes when the filaments are conducting electricity... The SKA telescopes is one of the first telescopes to witness these filaments because it is 50 times more powerful than any former telescope, but also because it is apparently one of the few telescopes which can observe dark mode plasmas. For these reasons, the SKA telescope will inevitably revive the debate over the underlying physical reasons for filaments which exhibit coherent thin magnetic structure over light-year distances.
The original submission included a comment with more information about the theory of a plasma universe.
Herschel made a similar announcement just three years prior that "Observations with ESA's Herschel space observatory have revealed that our Galaxy is threaded with filamentary structures on every length scale." Intriguingly, close inspection of yesterday's SKA image show these filaments twisting around one another, yet without combining — a phenomenon observable in most novelty plasma globes when the filaments are conducting electricity... The SKA telescopes is one of the first telescopes to witness these filaments because it is 50 times more powerful than any former telescope, but also because it is apparently one of the few telescopes which can observe dark mode plasmas. For these reasons, the SKA telescope will inevitably revive the debate over the underlying physical reasons for filaments which exhibit coherent thin magnetic structure over light-year distances.
The original submission included a comment with more information about the theory of a plasma universe.
Galactic scale magnetic fields... Is this why stars don't orbit galaxies at the velocities predicted by gravitation alone? Perhaps this will ultimately put an end to dark matter hocus pocus.
Don't you mean dank matter?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
I bet it does.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
You win. That is much better
For the aliens that will hopefully cure this planet of its nasty human infection prelly soon.
I, for one, ...
When I first saw this, I immediately thought of that scene from the not-3rd-Matrix movie where he sees the machine city after he had been blinded. Different color though.
It's amazing to think those filaments are stupidly huge, many times wider than our solar system, density of a few hundred atoms per meter cubed give or take a few, and the temperatures of some atoms can be upwards of a 1000K to many millions in some cases. (which will remain that way for a while because they can only radiate heat away, which is much slower than what we see on ground scales with convection and conduction)
Damn space, you scary.
Stay up there.
Why is Slashdot so replete with Electric Universe cranks? Go away.
Submitter's obvious slant aside, this image is great. The MeerKAT is a hell of a project.
If I'm reading it right, that photo is of a region 1,000 light years across, compared to a galactic width of about 100,000 light years.
The aliens have conspired against the Clintons. Putin is an alien too. It's true because the Fascist Bureau of Intimidation (FBI) says so.
50 times more sensitive?
Angular separation?
Wide spectrum?
Post-radio computer processing power?
I don't like the word "powerful" if you aren't talking horsepower or something.
The Milky Way pics are always from the side of the Galaxy - they really should take a picture from above or below.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nz7neg/electric-universe-theory-thunderbolts-project-wallace-thornhill
"Electric universe" theory is at odds with everything modern science has determined about the universe.
In physics, theories need math. That's how you predict, gather evidence, verify, disprove, and support. But EU theory isn't big on math. In fact, "Mathematics is not physics," Thornhill said. While that equation aversion makes the theory pretty much a nonstarter for "mainstream" astronomers, it is the exact thing that appeals to many adherents.
"At best, the 'electric universe' is a solution in search of a problem; it seeks to explain things we already understand very well through gravity, plasma and nuclear physics, and the like," said astronomer Phil Plait, who runs the blog Bad Astronomy at Slate. "At worst it's sheer crackpottery like homeopathy and astrology, making claims clearly contradicted by the evidence."
Lets get that again from a real scientist:
making claims clearly contradicted by the evidence
Electric universe is bullshit.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Agreed: Academics make "$" off bs 'dark matter' mathematical kludge crap to fool the masses - "Star-In-A-Jar" & CERN show all you need to know that the universe is a giant magnetic bottle containing everything (including the plasma reactions of stars). Especially since BOTH showed the same patterns YOU note & also via magnetic filings on the smaller-scale Star In A Jar (see it on YouTube) model vs. CERN - EXACT match, Hexagon forming (same shape they theorized & SAW on the top of iirc, Saturn, after storms there @ its northern pole).
* God doesn't BUILD "ultra-complex" (neither do GOOD engineers when possible) & God doesn't make no junk!
(I also do NOT agree w/ relativistic bs that electrons do NOT behave planets around THEIR atomic 'stars' because of that (why would the creator ALTER a working model to fit another relativistic level?) - We just, imo, don't have EQUIPMENT sensitive enough to detect electron orbits (yet) & they're just 'solar systems' + constellations are just molecular chains...)
APK
P.S.=> Again - I agree & the cause? CROOKED ACADEMIA like MAD out there today (w/ their KNOWN BOGUS "peer reviews" they're always getting POPPED/BUSTED in for GRANT MONIES (not even caring about their rep & WHEN THEY DO? It's PURE "pride" & FEAR they'll be caught (knowing they will, inevitably, like criminals in labcoats MANY of them, are))... apk
the SKA telescope will inevitably revive the debate
No Doubt.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Yes that extra little bit about plasma universe was unnecessary and added by shill for that theory
The filaments (having no similarity whatsoever with discharges inside globe toy nor with lightning) though are real and were discovered in mid 80s.
a phenomenon observable in most novelty plasma globes
So it turns out our universe is not a computer simulation....
We're living in a novelty toy!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Seems like EditorDavid fell for the incesant rambling of Chris reefer. oh well,
authentication : splicing
Dummies, that's a sideways view of Kim Kardashian's vajayjay.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I couldn't stop saying Wow, just Wow. This is truly stunning!
Dear Meglon,
We should always be extremely careful to distinguish between the quantitative vs. qualitative aspects of scientific theory. The former is constructed from abstract equations, the latter is constructed from abstract concepts. Both are maps (or aspects of a map) trying to describe the real territory, i.e. the universe.
You are right in that the quantitative aspect of Relativity has an enormous amount of experimental confirmation. What you seem to be missing is that such a mathematical framework was not originally developed by Einstein. This seems to explain why, when you get into the mathematics of Relativity, you have to study Lorentz Transformation Equations, the Lorentz Factor, Lorentz boosts, the Lorentz group, Lorentz Symmetry and Lorentz Invariance.
E. T. Whittaker, notable mathematician and science historian, wrote a classical textbook about the history of electricity and electromagnetism. If you check out the book, you will not find a chapter titled "The Relativity of Einstein", but you will find one titled "The Relativity Theory of Poincaré and Lorentz", in which Whittaker wrote:
"It is clear, from the history set forth in the present chapter, that the theory of relativity had its origin in the theory of aether and electrons. When relativity had become recognised as a doctrine covering the whole operation of physical nature, efforts were made to present it in a form free from any special association with electromagnetic theory, and deducible logically from a definite set of axioms". [A History of The Theories of Aether and Electricity, Vol 2, pages 42-43].
The original version of the quantitative map of Relativity — that we may call Lorentzian Relativity — is based on a qualitative interpretation where the speed of light is variable, time is absolute, and there is a preferred frame for light that is typically undetectable due to confounding properties of nature, such as the change in the rate of clocks with velocity and the contraction of matter with velocity. On the other hand, Einstein later found a way to obtain the exact same quantitative map through a completely different qualitative interpretation, i.e., the speed of light is constant in all moving frames, the rate of time is variable, and the undetectable aether is irrelevant. The new qualitative interpretation by Einstein was in line with the philosophy of instrumentalism, i.e. the philosophical belief that we should make no distinction between unobservable entities and non-existent ones, even if observations only make sense in terms of levels of physical reality that are not easily measurable, or beyond measurement.
Most importantly, people seem to be largely unaware that the quantitative maps of Einsteinian Relativity and Lorentzian Relativity are — in effect — quantitatively indistinguishable. Generally speaking, experiment cannot decide between the two. In other words, the quantitative maps (the equations) are identical, while the qualitative maps are totally different. This is thoroughly explained in the following paper by experimental physicist Doug Marett:
http://www.conspiracyoflight.c...
(See also the references included in the paper).
In other words, every experiment confirming Relativity is evidence confirming Lorenzian Aether-Based Relativity, which is the original Theory of Relativity. Considering that we generally cannot distinguish between the two "versions" of Relativity by quantitative measures, we should focus more than ever on carefully studying the qualitative differences between them, and making our choice wisely.
Interestingly, you mention technologies as demonstrating the validity of Einsteinian Relativity. In fact, technologies provide perhaps the easiest way to distinguish between Einsteinian and Lorentzian Relativity. Everyday technology shows that there is indeed a preferred frame. We just need spin to observe it.
Perhaps the easies
Einstein was right, and the electric universe bullshit is a con job. Thomas Roberts, Fermilab (you know, a real scientist):
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/...
Note, however, that SR is not perfect (in agreement with every experiment), and there are some experiments that are in disagreement with its predictions. See Experiments that Apparently are not Consistent with SR where some of these experiments are referenced and discussed. It is clear that most, if not all, of these experiments have difficulties that are unrelated to SR. Note also that few if any standard references or textbooks even mention the possibility that some experiments might be inconsistent with SR, and there are also aspects of publication bias in the literature. That being said, as of this writing there are no reproducible and generally accepted experiments that are inconsistent with SR, within its domain of applicability.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Astronomers seem believe electricity doesn't exist above certain scales.
The dark matter bible is sacrosanct. The ideas and priests that promote it are above reproach and questioning.
Just laugh at him and move on.
he's a troll just ignore him