Cool. I love a good mystery.

Something however that kevinrtrs, cant seem to handle...

Scientific mysteries are great as is the recognition, that despite our advances in computing power, we are still decades behind meaningful simulations or understanding of not just the description as offered in mathematics and astrophysics but the why which is likely embedded somewhere within the patterns of mathematics...

Thanks

Cool. I love a good mystery.


Okay, I didn't mean to be so controversial, I would certainly take it back if I could, but all I can do is apologize for any offense. Sorry.

[cynical]Every good mystery will become a bad mystery after having been explained by DM.[/cynical]


DM would be the first place I'd look for an explanation,,, but it would only be pondering on my part. Unlike some, I understand my limitations on "declaring" what the answer must be.

But do I feel pretty sure that answering this mystery, will answer more than just one question, and maybe offer up some new and improved questions.

My first thought is that perhaps this is some relict of a collision between a proto-Andromeda and another galaxy of roughly equal mass/velocity a very long time ago.

Then, DM is only needed to explain the galactic rotational velocity. No need to invoke additional properties or aspects of the supposed DM.

As the Gieco commercial would say, "So easy a caveman could do it!"

Picture a star with planets orbiting it, yes.

Scale it up 100,000 times, replace the star with a galaxy, and replace the planets with dwarf galaxies. viola.

Most orbital systems should eventually decay to disks with a single massive entity in the center, if they stick around long enough.

The fact people still can't except this continues to amaze me, as it becomes obvious that non-coplanar orbits eventually collide and neutralize one another's momenta, falling inward, or else moving towards the planes.

Fractal universe.

Galaxy acts as a star. Dwarf galaxies act as planets (or asteroids).

Not that hard of a concept.

Contrary to the article, this is actually predicted by Newtonian dynamics and Kepler's laws for orbiting bodies.

Just because these fools are so far behind the rest of us, doesn't make their false interpretations correct.

Lurker,
I'm curious how globular clusters relate to your presumption.

Just because these fools are so far behind the rest of us, doesn't make their false interpretations correct.


Maybe you write some original papers for their erudition.

cantdrive
explanation for globular clusters:-
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
These dwarf galaxies are probably formed the same way

I'm no expert (you can give me a 5 rating for that comment), but if Andromeda and its satellites formed together would they not be on the same orbital inclination? Now assume that Andromeda underwent a massive collision, changing it's inclincation and throwing out remnants into random orbits. This would explain the observed to some extent. Of course I'm ignoring WHY so many stayed on their original inclination. So I could just throw in DM as the explanation.
I'd like to think of this as analogous to Uranus being tipped on its axis.

But again, I haven't done any simulations, I haven't written any papers on the subject, so accept this as mere conjecture, and food for thought.

Scale it up 100,000 times, replace the star with a galaxy, and replace the planets with dwarf galaxies. viola. Most orbital systems should eventually decay to disks with a single massive entity in the center, if they stick around long enough.
So are you saying that all planets must eventually turn into asteroid belts? This must go against absolutely all of your formal training in celestial mechanics.

"....perhaps this is some relict of a collision between a proto-Andromeda and another galaxy..."

And a likely candidate is the third most massive galaxy in the Local Group, M33. Besides having overlapping outer halos and swapped globular clusters, a bridge of neutral hydrogen has been discovered between the two galaxies. One recent paper envisions a close encounter between Andromeda and M33 between 4-8 Gyr ago: http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1161

I'm interested in seeing what, if anything, this new paper has to say about any involvement this encounter may have had with the distribution of dwarf galaxies around M31.

Intituitively it is DM that could be behind this. When they simulate galaxy collisions they don't figure in unknown DM masses such as filaments, which the Local Group should be tread up around unless I'm mistaken.

@Lurker: "The fact people still can't except this". I think you mean accept as anyone very well can make exceptions against some pattern search ideas that is a product from anyone not familiar with basic physics like the virial theorem.

And no, what is to accept here? Where would the massive net angular momentum come from as dwarfs are randomly loosely aggregating around a galaxy? There is no such theory out there, for natural reasons.

In an infinite universe our knowledge of it will always be infinitesimal. And who among us would take away all the 'mysteries', and leave us with a cosmic scale boredom?

it's unclear why the dancers – dwarf galaxies – are dancing in a ring around the much larger Andromeda Galaxy
It's just another example of prominent dark matter ring feature, which not only drags the tiny particles of interstellar gas, but even much heavier objects apparently. The dwarf galaxies are itself rich of dark matter (neutrinos evaporated from it), so they tend to interact strongly with dark matter clouds around galaxies. At the case of smaller bodies the same drag is known as so-called fly-by anomaly (it manifest itself at the equatorial plane of Earth only). Some theories of dark matter predict these rings too. The toroidal cloud of neutrinos around Sun manifest itself with radioactive decay anomalies, as it rotates with synchrony with core of Sun, not its surface.

"....perhaps this is some relict of a collision between a proto-Andromeda and another galaxy..."

And a likely candidate is the third most massive galaxy in the Local Group, M33. Besides having overlapping outer halos and swapped globular clusters, a bridge of neutral hydrogen has been discovered between the two galaxies. One recent paper envisions a close encounter between Andromeda and M33 between 4-8 Gyr ago: http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1161

M31 is the parent galaxy, the interaction between M31 and M33 is that M33 was ejected out of M31 (birthed) along the plasma filament you point out. This follows along Arp's theory that quasars are proto-galaxies that evolve into mature spiral galaxies. The quasars, globular clusters, and dwarf galaxies are just young immature galaxies. The "dance" claimed in this article is because Andromeda's offspring are still connected to the parent's "umbilical cord". BTW, the Milky Way is probably also an "offspring" of the parent galaxy.

"... the Milky Way is probably also an "offspring" of the parent galaxy."

If the MWG was ejected from Andromeda, why are we heading for a collision?

http://en.wikiped...ollision

Arp's theory that quasars are proto-galaxies that evolve into mature spiral galaxies
This idea was proposed with quasars founder Maarten Schmidt in 1963 already. The Schmidt law for density/luminosity correlation in star-forming galaxies is named after him. Please avoid your usual plasma universe propaganda here, as the above effect has nothing to do with charged particles or "plasma threads".

Maybe it has something to do with the "Great Attractor", or then again maybe it has something to do with limitations of determining the relative motion of such objects.

This idea was proposed with quasars founder Maarten Schmidt in 1963 already. The Schmidt law for density/luminosity correlation in star-forming galaxies is named after him. Please avoid your usual plasma universe propaganda here, as the above effect has nothing to do with charged particles or "plasma threads".

That's funny, coming from the wave machine. Sorry I didn't properly give credit to the correct man, this doesn't seem to be an issue when people claim Einstein originated GR when the philosopher Boskovic came up with it 200 years before him.

"...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Boskovic, the great philospher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Boskovic dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum..." Nikola Tesla

Boskovic was rather founder of the field concept, rather than space-time continuum. He dealt only with forces, i.e. with mechanical action which is just the mechanism, which has been essentially replaced with relativity. He never mentioned some time dilatations effects or similar stuff in his treatises.

Although I am completely ignorant of Boskovic's work and writings, I hold Tesla in very high regard and take what he says at face value. You maybe you're right, but I have to trust Tesla's comment in dealing with relativity as well as the time-space continuum.

I hold Tesla in very high regard
You shouldn't believe to anybody, you shouldn't ignore no one. So I'm checking all information for myself. It's laborious approach, but it pays off. The fact, Nicola Tesla was aetherist, genius and essentially correct with his scalar waves findings doesn't mean, he never did merely political proclamations. Regarding the Boskovic, the famous Tesla's nationalism and the fact, Boskovich was Serbian like Nicola Tesla played undoubtedly its role in the above proclamation. It's nothing new for me: many other Serbians tend to overestimate the actual contribution of Boskovich into science. Every small nation seeks for its iconic persons in rather noncritical way.

ahhhh. . .GhostofOtto. . .kiss kiss my love. No one else on physorg is as smart as U. It is U who knows everything and nobody else knows as much as U do. They all just pretend to know just to impress U. I know that you laugh at everyone else that posts in your physorg. YES. . .this IS your physorg and nobody has the right to post their imbecillic junk without YOUR aproval. U hve been avoiding me lately, Ghost. Have U found another man to suuck on? When are we gonna get together again at our favorite motel darling. Remember all those nites we spent together in bed making love? It was pure heaven. I have missed you so much. I see that you're going after other men and looking for some pussytard. Why are you looking for pussy, darling? U KNOW you only love to suckee on me. I thought we were suppose ta get married. Those other men don't deserve you the way I do. I'll have to leave this message everywhere I find U. U have my number. . .please call me, my sexy juicy cockman.

I think these guys would do better to "scratch" something else, rather than cling to their confusion.

Perhaps if they read LaViolette's explanation of these satellite galaxies having a common origin, it might alleviate their irritating itching! Similar observations exist for the Milky Way. Just need to puzzle it out. It is not rocket science, fortunately for the astronauts.

http://starburstf...g/?p=271

The fact is that gravity is nowhere near as understood as "science" shills want to suggest. The many body problem is still generally unsolved. And General Relativity is not absolutely accepted, despite insistences by too many unethical sources on treating it as unquestioned. Invoking dark matter as "the only possible solution for gravitational anomalies" is as unwarranted as any scam, since, frankly, if gravity is not wholly understood, it's not possible to speak of "anomalies". And if they don't try to invoke darm matter for the behavior of these satellite galaxies, it is as much as an admission that it can't necessarily be definitively applied to the rotational speed of stars in galaxies, either.

A preprint of the paper in Nature is available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0446

The paper includes a very helpful 3D representation of the satellite galaxy population surrounding the Andromeda galaxy (Fig 3).

Looks like Lurk missed the co-rotation aspect. Planets don't orbit stars co-rotationally , hence each planet has it's own rotational period. Invoking DM may explain the motion of the dwarf galaxies...this could be tested by pinpointing where the concentrations of DM should be to explain the motion and look for evidence of a lensing effect in those regions.

Or it could be my favourite fundamental force:

http://www.youtub...lyiW-xGI

This is 53 minutes, personally i found it well worth the watch and eagerly await parts 2-5.


Interesting stuff, rubberman. Now I'm hooked, too!

Thanks for posting.

Looks like Lurk missed the co-rotation aspect. Planets don't orbit stars co-rotationally , hence each planet has it's own rotational period. Invoking DM may explain the motion of the dwarf galaxies...this could be tested by pinpointing where the concentrations of DM should be to explain the motion and look for evidence of a lensing effect in those regions.

Or it could be my favourite fundamental force:

http://www.youtub...lyiW-xGI

This is 53 minutes, personally i found it well worth the watch and eagerly await parts 2-5.

I'm curious if this is the info A2G was describing.

it could be my favourite fundamental force
And you were even upvoted for it with Caliban, TheGhostofOtto1923 and Q-Star (lite). Do you really believe, that the galaxy can be modeled with discharge between magnets?

it could be my favourite fundamental force
And you were even upvoted for it with Caliban, TheGhostofOtto1923 and Q-Star (lite). Do you really believe, that the galaxy can be modeled with discharge between magnets?


The Fermi bubbles could be the corollary of those magnetic field generators, ultimately what I believe they are recreating is a plasma pinch caused by the electric currents flowing through the galaxy.

With the "subtle" problem: there are no electrodes

With the "subtle" problem: there are no electrodes


Alfven describes the interstellar and intergalactic circuits here;

http://ntrs.nasa....3880.pdf

and here;
http://ntrs.nasa....0655.pdf

So, there is no "subtle" problem, all the necessary aspects of a circuit are present.

This is just a homology not analogy, as the streamers around galaxies are formed with neutrinos or even more lightweight particles WITHOUT electromagnetic charge. The solutions of Maxwell's theory, fluids and gravitomagnetism are selfsimilar, so they could be confused easily at the phenomenological level. But they do apply to different distance/energy density scales. That is to say, the particles of plasma (ionized atom nuclei) can be present in these streamers like any other particles trapped in it (there exist a theory, in which charged particles should be dragged with neutrino flux more, than the uncharged one) - but their mass is negligible with compare to amount of dark matter, which is actually driving this flux. The fact, the fishes inside of Gulf stream follow streamers like the particles of fluid doesn't mean, they do actually form this stream.

This is just a homology not analogy, as the streamers around galaxies are formed with neutrinos or even more lightweight particles WITHOUT electromagnetic charge. The solutions of Maxwell's theory, fluids and gravitomagnetism , so they could be confused easily at the phenomenological level. But they do apply to different distance/energy density scales. That is to say, the particles of plasma (ionized atom nuclei) can be present in these streamers like any other particles trapped in it (there exist a theory, in which charged particles should be dragged with neutrino flux more, than the uncharged one) - but their mass is negligible with compare to amount of dark matter, which is actually driving this flux.

Of course, what was I thinking. Rather than applying the known properties of plasma, we should always resort to the ad hoc and invented fudge factor of DM which repeatedly has been falsified in experiment after experiment. Silly me.

CD85......meet A2G

That's what I thought. They mention in the video that no external power was needed the create the conditions of galaxy formation etc. However, what about the magnetic bowls? What mechanism or energy creates them? This is why I think they are just recreating a plasma pinch using artificial magnets. These formations they are creating are all naturally occurring plasma formations of a pinch.
I'm not suggesting this research isn't significant, from what I can see it pretty much confirms PC and EUT. Pinches naturally occur in Birkeland currents when the charge density reaches a certain threshold, by adding the artificial magnets they are reducing the absolute energy levels needed for the pinch.
Here are a couple of articles that discuss the pinch.
http://www.thunde...bula.htm
http://www.thunde...pray.htm
Good research though, the plasma pinch is vital to much that we observe in space.

"intrinsic magnetic fields"

?!?!?!

How do you explain an intrinsic magnetic field?

http://plasmauniv...PS-I.pdf

Refer to fig. 6 and 8, the expected morphology (bowl shape) of a Bennett pinch of interacting Birkeland currents are clearly shown in those diagrams. You have provided some excellent research, I'm humbled and contrite and apologize for any disrespect shown. Ultimately I disagree that these fields are "intrinsic". You seem scared of the word electricity, but electricity and magnetism are one in the same. The word electricity relates to the movement of the particles, the word magnetism relates to the effect of that movement, yet it is one in the same as they cannot be described separately. There is no magnetism without a moving particle, once the particle is moving, it is a current. I agree that the magnetic fields are what create the observations, but it is the flow of the particles that create the magnetic fields.

Electricity by definition, is nothing more than the movement of particles. Those magical bowls of yours move particles, hence the magnetic field. There is no "frozen-in" or static magnetic field, that is complete pseudo-science. Inventing an "intrinsic" magnetic field is no different than inventing DM,DE, or BH's. I completely agree that the properties you are describing the sub-atomic to extra-galactic, it is the ELECTROMAGNETIC force.

@ A2G,

What I think I understood from your video is that the whole Magnetic field/Baryonic matter interaction is, in effect, self-assembling or emergent, from the sub-atomic to the galactic scale, and beyond.

Your bowl magnets/ball bearings/electrodes were simply used to model the components and demonstrate this principle.

Zat it?

A2G, the galactic magnetic fields you have represented in your video look nothing like the magnetic fields *observed* in our galaxy and several other galaxies:

http://www.univer...day-sky/

http://www.schola...c_fields

Why is that? Are observations in error, or your model?

@yyz --good question

@rubberman --good answer.