Strange contradiction
1
In one hand :
The particles in the Universe are more than antiparticles
/ Baryon asymmetry /
2.
In the other hand:
Dark matter in the Universe is more than visual matter

Question :
Does one physics hand know that the other hand do ?

Israel Sadovnik Socratus

http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372
========== .

Comment:

It does seem like a paradox, doesn't it?

Actually, these are two unrelated concepts.
Baryons represent detectable matter.
Dark matter represents undetectable matter.
Different stuff.

That still leaves the question about physic's hands, though....
/ NoPlate /
=== .

I think that actually, the Baryon asymmetry and Dark matter
both belong to one conception.
Why?
Because antiparticles exist in Dirac sea , in Vacuum and
dark matter , by idea, must exist there too.
They both belong to one and the same reference frame.

Now the questions are:
does dark matter consist of antiparticles or of
some kind of different particles ? ,
do antiparticles make dark matter ?

To answer to this question we must know that Vacuum is.
But it is a pity, we still dont have answer to this question.
And Dirac said:
The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you cant correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?
==== .
So ,
all discussions are tautology without understanding that Vacuum is.

Israel Sadovnik Socratus

Dark Matter is undetectable. It is hypothesized (imagined) to allow the erroneous "expanding Universe" theory to remain viable.

Highly red-shifted QUASARs are observed to exist in front of, and interacting with, conventional galaxies having smaller red-shifts. This undeniable fact precludes red-shift from being exclusively caused by receding velocity and/or acceleration.

Until dreamers incorporate this evidence into their dreams, dark matter and dark energy will remain in their imaginations.

NED Abstract

Copyright by Astronomical Society of the Pacific.
Reproduced by permission

2006PASP..118..124B

A QSO Discovered at the Redshift of the Extended X-Ray Cluster RX
J0152.7-1357

E. M. Burbidge, C. M. Gutierrez, and H. Arp

Abstract. The galaxy cluster RX J0152.7-1357 at z=0.8325 is one of the
most luminous X-ray clusters known. It is elongated toward the bright,
nearby, X-ray active galaxy NGC 720 about 14' away. At the same distance
on the other side of that galaxy is an X-ray blue stellar object with a
flux of 5.8 counts ks^-1^ in the ROSAT PSPC detector. An
intermediate-resolution optical spectrum of this blue stellar object
taken with the Keck I telescope has resulted in the unambiguous
identification of this source with a QSO at redshift z=0.8312, the same
redshift as the galaxy cluster. We discuss the implications of this
discovery in the framework of the standard model for large-scale
structure formation.

Key words: Galaxies: Clusters: General, Galaxies: Quasars: Emission Lines

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph-asearch?author_name=Arp&search_class=paper

Re: socratus, Strange contradiction October 17 2009, 3:58 AM

socratus: "To answer to this question we must know that Vacuum is."

"Vacuum" is, in the strict sense, a condition, the condition of being "void", void of any thing ie having no properties.

Space, (as in, Outer Space) is a void, or (Thee Void) if you will, but Space is not devoid of any thing.

Space is (no thing) ie nothing, and therefor the expansion of Space is an absurdity because, for as we all know, some "thing" (as in, something) created from nothing is an impossibility therefor, creating "no thing" (as in, nothing) from nothing is absurd!

The tautology of what Space "is" is just philosophical jibber jabber, (as in point-less).

What are Vacuums characteristics ?

a)
The Universe as whole is Vacuum a Kingdom of Coldness.
Now the physicists think that this Kingdom of Coldness as
an Absolute Reference Frame in a state of T=2,7K
( after big bang). But if somebody belief in big bang,
he must take in calculation that T=2,7K expands and therefore
T=2,7K is temporary parameter and with time it will go to T= 0K.
b)
According to Quantum Physics the Vacuum (T= 0K) is some kind
of Homogeneous Space of the lowest ( the background ) level
of Energy: E= 0.
#
So, we have two parameters of Vacuum.
Is it enough to understand all parameters of virtual particles
in the Vacuum without to spend money and time on searching
the Higgs boson ?
( In 1964 Higgs had one big idea, which could hold a clue
to how matter in the universe got its mass in the billionth
of a second after the Big Bang.
At the European Centre for Nuclear Research
(CERN) in Switzerland the first Higgs boson
- nicknamed the God particle will actually observe . )

In my opinion these two parameters of Vacuum is enough
to understand the all parameters of virtual particles.
!!!
=================================

The whole "Arp discussion" is about a picture like this shown below and taken from (1)
The rest is about things being "likely" or "unlikely" or maybe "highly unlikely" if not "likely likely":

"As far as the first pair is concerned, the similarity of the redshifts and the fact that they
lie along an axis through the nucleus of Arp 220 and are at roughly the same distance in opposite directions makes it highly unlikely that this is an accidental configuration."

When likelyhood is the decisive factor for an hypothesis, we better consider all the pictures instead of a few selected pictures or a catalog specially dedicated to the exceptions.
In addition it would be good to state the hypothesis under scrutiny.
This may save useless discussions.
If the hypothesis is that z-shift is not totally and always of cosmological orgin, then there is no reason for any discussion, as this is totally obvious.


(1)http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0101/0101538v1.pdf

Comment.

Actually, it is very important in physics that the left hand
does NOT know what the right is doing. We do experiments
without knowing the outcomes. When we find conflicting results
we can use that as a clear indication that we are missing something.
If we 'know' what is expected, it is difficult not to influence the
outcomes so that they compliment each other, that is,
we cannot trust the results.

But it is a good question, and one worth thinking about.

/ MidAtlantian2 /

================= .
Actually, it is very important in physics that the left hand
does NOT know what the right is doing. ???
???
Socratus
== .

Comment.

socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

> Now the questions are:
> does dark matter consist of antiparticles or of
> some kind of different particles ? ,
> do antiparticles make dark matter ?
== .

Some theories of DM assume that DM are their own anti-particles. These
theories also say we should occasionally see a DM particle collide with
another DM particle and annihilate each other, releasing a gamma ray
from an area of space where there should be nothing producing it.
Of course that's just one theory of DM, nobody knows if it's the right
model of DM.
/ Yousuf Khan /
======== .

Concrete Head: "When likelyhood (sic) is the decisive factor for an hypothesis, we better consider all the pictures instead of a few selected pictures or a catalog specially dedicated to the exceptions.
In addition it would be good to state the hypothesis under scrutiny.
This may save useless discussions."

Anonymous: Concrete is just cement with sand and gravel, left out in the rain. Your "discussion" is the useless one. You don't even know how famous and extensive Arp's catalog is. You haven't observed the many occurrences of anomalous red-shift that are documented in his catalog. Your ideology is threatened, and your response is to make out like you are an authority on the subject. Obviously you are not. Don't cry, the moisture will cause you to harden into stone.

Highly red-shifted QUASARs are found in front of opaque, low red-shifted conventional galaxies.

Concrete Head: "If the hypothesis is that z-shift is not totally and always of cosmological orgin,(sic) then there is no reason for any discussion, as this is totally obvious."

Anonymous: What kind of silly logic is that? There is no reason for any discussion with you, for sure. You don't even make sense.

My point was about this "expert opinion":
_________________
"Dark Matter is undetectable. It is hypothesized (imagined) to allow the erroneous "expanding Universe" theory to remain viable.

Highly red-shifted QUASARs are observed to exist in front of, and interacting with, conventional galaxies having smaller red-shifts. This undeniable fact precludes red-shift from being exclusively caused by receding velocity and/or acceleration.

Until dreamers incorporate this evidence into their dreams, dark matter and dark energy will remain in their imaginations. "
_________________

Is this statement about anomalous red-shifted quasars better founded that the dark matter hypothesis?
If anomalous red-shifted quasars are a reality, why would that invalidate the dark matter hypothesis?
If anomalous red-shifted quasars are a reality, how much would that affect cosmology?
If anomalous red-shifted quasars are a reality, would that help to solve the galactic rotation problem?
How do you physically interpret anomalous red-shifted quasars?
(except for your belief that this topic is undervalued)

Can you work out your topic as well as you can talk about concrete?
Or are you only a specialist in catalogs?

Concrete Head: "Can you work out your topic as well as you can talk about concrete?"

Anonymous: You are a fool. The topic of non-receding red-shift is proven by QUASARs that are between Earth and conventional QUASARs/or obviously connected and interacting with them. These are seen in actual photographs of radiation from the universe at various. wavelengths. What causes the non-receding red-shift is subject to speculation. Their distance from us is not.

Dark matter and dark energy have never been photographed. It is pure speculation through and through. These imaginary inventions are required to explain why the supposed expansion of the supposedly expanding universe can happen, as new impediments to the logic of this theory are realized.

My comments do not affect the truth of the non-receding red-shift of QUASARs. I have no need to "work out" the topic myself. The proof is there for all to see. You explain how a highly red-shifted QUASAR got itself in front of a low red-shifted, opaque, conventional galaxy.

I never said the contrary.
But all the questions remain.
In addition, there is big difference between what is seen and what you may conclude.
Have you a photograph of your conclusion?
Or is the picture you conclusion?

Finally, how much % of extragallactic objects are receding and how much are not?
Why don't you discuss anything else than your beloved scenery?
That's my point and the meaning of my questions.

If you are at all interested, you can readily find the photos. Arp's site is a good place to start. I'm not going to hold your gritty hand and rub your nose in it. You are very smarmy and smug for concrete. I don't care if you continue to worship your silly religion. Your posts are nonsensical.

http://web.gat.com/conferences/meetings/eps98/web/98icpp_w/a021pr.pdf

This was an answer from an activist.
A lot of excitation, mixing up different topics, exageration, and above all no direct answer.

Concrete Head the Silly Religious Helpless critic. Wants everyone to bow down to his gritty existence. Not my job.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/091020venus.htm

Concrete Head the Silly Religious Helpless critic reminds me of Obama, trying to get people to not watch FOX News.

A New Look at Near Neighbors Part One
Oct 21, 2009
A fundamental difference between the standard cosmological and Electric Universe models lies in their views about how the Universe was assembled over time.

According to the standard model, some time after the Big Bang gas and dust clouds organized into stars, stellar clusters, then black holes which merged into super-massive black holes. The super-massive black holes were seeds that gravitationally assembled surrounding gas, dust, and stars into in all the various galactic shapes and sizes. Dark matter halos are also thought to have played a role in gravitationally organizing galaxies.

The Electric Universe model takes a very different approach. There was no Big Bang, no distinct creation event, and the Universe is as it always was: 99.999% plasma. Over time, the cosmic plasma organized into cells, as plasma will do, separated by differences in matter and charge densities, bounded by double layers. Along the boundaries between these cells, filaments and sheets organized into Birkeland currents. The Universe self-organized due to the electromagnetic properties of plasma.

As explained by Peratt (1986), these filaments are very efficient at concentrating matter and scrubbing material from the surrounding environment. Galaxies were formed along the filaments, and this explains the chains of galaxies that seem to reside as pearls on a string. Large masses of galaxies also formed along the original plasma cell boundaries, explaining the large scale Great Walls and the grand sheets of galaxies that have been observed.

In the standard model, galaxy dynamics are driven by gravity alone. Where there are rotational profiles that cannot be accounted for by visible matter, dark matter halos are invoked to shore up gravity. Galactic magnetic fields are incidental, and are believed to build up over time from small magnetic seeds (again, bottom up). The standard model is also comfortable speaking of magnetic fields without concomitant electric currents.

In the Electric Universe model, the rotational energy of galaxies derives partially from gravity (where the core exhibits a solid body rotational dynamic), but also from electric current fed to galaxies by electrical transmission lines between them. In essence, the galaxies behave like a homopolar motor driven by the varying current density it receives. Galactic magnetic fields are generated by electric currents that are integral to their formation and ongoing dynamics. There would be no galaxies without coherent magnetic fields spanning their entire structure.

It is worth a few words here to summarize some very important seminal work in the paper by Anthony Peratt mentioned above. In his study, Peratt performed particle-in-cell computer simulations of Birkeland current interactions. The results illustrated how plasma dynamics lead to galactic structures evolving from double radio galaxies, to radio quasars, to ellipticals and then to spiral galaxies. This paper is thick with insight. There are some papers that you can read over and over and continually find new gems, this is one of those papers.

As Peratt's simulations revealed, a galaxy evolves as two (or more) Birkeland currents moving together with an attractive force proportional to the inverse of their linear distance (note it is not the inverse square law). In astronomical observations, the two Birkeland currents are detected as radio lobes due to synchrotron radiation.

As the two pinched Birkeland filaments come close to each other, intergalactic plasma is trapped, forming an elliptical core at the geometric center between the two filaments, which later becomes the nucleus of the galaxy. Magnetic fields between the filaments condense and aggregate the intervening plasma, raising its internal energies. The elliptical core at this point is analogous to a radio quasar.

The two Birkeland filaments (also concentrating matter within their magnetically pinched volume) torque around each other, changing the morphology of the core plasma (flattening the ellipse) and eventually evolving into trailing arms as electric current, axial to the arms, flows into the core of the galaxy. At that point the two Birkeland filaments merge with the core. So the core of a galaxy derives from whatever intergalactic plasma was trapped between the two (or more) Birkeland filaments and the arms of the spiral derive mostly from the pinched Birkeland filaments themselves.

The rotating Birkeland filaments impart the initial rotational momentum to the galaxy-sized plasma structure. As the charged plasma structure rotates, there arises a concomitant magnetic field with a typical dynamo signature.

Current continues to run through the galaxy along the equatorial plane as part of a larger intergalactic circuit. This current as it passes through the magnetic field mentioned above drives further rotational energy as the galaxy responds as a homopolar motor. This is what drives the anomalous rotational velocities observed in the outer parts of galaxies.

The galaxy is also a homopolar generator, with the conductive plasma in the galactic disk sweeping through the same magnetic field. This sets up axial currents running through the galactic axis and stretching outwards to loop back along the equatorial plane. These axial currents extend to double layers over the galactic poles. These polar double layers accelerate charged particles to high energies resulting in jets above and below the galaxy.

Further magnetic fields arise in the galaxy as a result of the intergalactic current running in along the equatorial plane. The current running radially along the equatorial plane create local magnetic fields that squeeze the plasma into Birkeland filaments. This brings definition to the spiral arms. Further filamentation and higher current densities power star formation in the spiral arms.

Considering these very different viewpoints, a bottom up gravitational aggregation versus a top down electromagnetic organization, observations of the galaxies around us should let us decide upon the validity of one model versus the other. After all, the galaxies we observe should bear the marks of their history and the forces that drive them.

As it happens, two of our nearest galactic neighbors, M31 (Andromeda) and M33 (Triangulum), are very well studied due to their proximity. This makes them excellent candidates for comparing the relative explanatory power of the two models.

There are some interesting attributes to these two galaxies that are worth discussing considering the models discussed above:

1) M31 and M33 both have magnetic fields, similar in strength, but qualitatively different in morphology.

2) M31 has a distinct and very coherent magnetic ring about 33,000 light-years in radius.

3) M33 has a more irregular magnetic field, where the field strength seems to trace the spiral arms.

4) M33 has been said to lack a super-massive black hole at its core (that is to say, the rotational velocity decreases closer to the galactic core).

Examining these findings, as well as drawing upon Peratts simulations, along with similar work in the standard model, will challenge both models. It is important for theoretical models to be challenged, since it can ultimately improve their explanatory framework.

However, the validity of a model often rests on whether these types of challenges alter the model in its detail, or whether the challenge undermines fundamental assumptions. Obviously, the former allows improvement while the latter should inspire a more fundamental shift in beliefs.

Tom Wilson

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/091021neighbors.htm

The Triangulum Galaxy (M33) in ultraviolet light. Credit: Galaxy Evolution Explorer/NASA/JPL-Caltech.


A New Look at Near Neighbors, Part Two
Oct 22, 2009
The standard model and the Electric Universe model paint fundamentally different pictures of how galaxies are formed and driven.

In Part One of this article, the Electric Universe theory's proposal that magnetic fields are integral to galaxy formation was examined. A galaxy originates through the Bennett pinch of two or more Birkeland currents which also trap interstellar gas as they rotate inwards towards each other. Star formation begins in the galactic core created by the interstellar plasma trapped between the Birkeland filaments.

However, what is found when magnetic fields are measured in some galaxies? Rainer Beck made extensive observations of galactic magnetic fields and put some focus on M31 and M33 In a recent paper summarizing his observations:

Ordered fields with spiral structure exist in grand-design, barred, flocculent and even in irregular galaxies. The strongest ordered fields are found in interarm regions, sometimes forming 'magnetic spiral arms' between the optical arms.

These magnetic fields tracing the spiral arms are established by current flowing through them, both from the intergalactic circuit feeding the galaxy, as well as from homopolar action of the galaxy itself. The magnetic fields Beck mentions exist because the spiral arms behave as large Birkeland filaments.

In a separate paper, Beck looks at the magnetic fields in M31. The Andromeda galaxy is dominated by a magnetic ring (or torus), whose magnetic field is radially oriented. As Beck states, there is no existing explanation for this magnetic ring. However, one can imagine that homopolar motor action is driving the rotation of charged plasma at a distance from the galactic center.

The moving plasma ring (i.e. electric current) establishes a magnetic field that further pinches the rotating charged torus, which further strengthens the field. Synchrotron radiation from the ring illuminates the ring in the radio spectrum.

M33 has no such magnetic ring. However, as the Electric Universe model predicts, it displays a magnetic spiral structure, with the greatest magnetic polarization between the visible spiral arms. Similar structures are seen in other galaxies, NGC 6946, for example. The work on NGC 6946 is also by Beck, where he identifies large scale magnetic fields in the spiral arms:

Three more magnetic arms are discovered in the outer galaxy, located between HI arms. The RM structure function confirms large-scale coherent fields. The observed anti-correlation between the fields pitch angles and the RM values is a possible signature of helical fields.

The ordered spiral arrangement of the magnetic fields, coupled with the dynamo signature overlaid on the spiral structure, aligns well with the postulated galactic circuit described in Part One.

In the standard model a super-massive black hole in the galactic core is deemed essential for driving the gravitational formation of a galaxy. In contrast, the Electric Universe model views the galactic core as an incidental result of interstellar plasma trapped between two or more Birkeland filaments.

In 2001, a paper by Merritt et al. proposed that M33 lacked the super-massive black hole required by the standard model. However, the authors did not completely lose faith and postulated a central black hole, but one that is over three orders of magnitude smaller than the theory requires. The stellar orbital velocities near the core are far too low to support the presence of a compact mass equivalent to the typical super-massive black hole. If thats the case, then how did the galaxy form in the standard model?

A quote from an article about the discovery states:

Douglas Richstone of the University of Michigan, who has been a prominent champion of the role of black holes in galaxy formation, said he did not understand how bulgeless galaxies like M33 could have formed without a supermassive black hole. 'I think it's a problem for the black hole story,' he said."

EU theory predicts that the rotational energy of a galaxy is influenced by the currents flowing radially in the galactic plane, but does not require a specific rotational velocity profile. Depending on the magnitude of the radial current, there will be different rotational velocity profiles. This is similar to what is observed with stars. Stars with greater current densities are observed to have higher rotational velocities.

In essence, there are some fundamental distinctions between the two models:

1) The standard model requires the rotational velocity of a galaxy closer to the core to exhibit a steep rise (i.e. a compact body in the form of a supermassive black hole must reside in the galactic core). The Electric Universe model has no requirements on the velocity profile close to the core.

2) The standard model requires a flat rotational velocity towards the edge of the galaxy, indicating a dark matter halo. The Electric Universe model has no such requirement, and can explain different velocity profiles based on varying electric current densities.

3) The Electric Universe model requires galaxies to exhibit coherent large scale magnetic fields, these will be particularly evident around active star forming regions, and will trace the spiral arms. The standard model has no such requirement and would predict younger galaxies to have no coherent magnetic fields.

Some obvious galactic features can be used to test the validity of the two theories. Have there been galaxies observed without supermassive black holes or without dark matter? Yes, there have and this should cause the community to rethink the validity of the model, but they have not.

Have there been galaxies observed with magnetic fields exhibiting patterns predicted by the Electric Universe model? Yes, there have, and in addition there have been no galaxies observed without magnetic fields.

However, the astronomical community appears to have an infinite capacity to ignore unwelcome data. It is not uncommon to discover articles where observations obviously falsify the standard model (as in the paper mentioned above) but the researchers simply claim there is more to learn. That is undoubtedly true, but they are being disingenuous by not grappling with the major issues uncovered by those findings.

The wheels of change do turn slowly, but they turn nonetheless. If the history of science has shown us anything, it is that scientific dogma does not survive very long after its main supporters pass away. In the meantime, a coordinated and formalized study of the electrical properties of the Universe itself must wait. This is a shame, since there have never been better tools available for studying the magnetic and electric properties of the Universe.

Tom Wilson

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/091022neighbors2.htm

Dark Matter was invented because the supposed "expansion" of the Universe keeps having problems. Other view points lead to predictions that actually happen. The "Big Bang" and subsequent "expansion" lead to invention of further unseen, and now, unobservable, imaginary dark matter and dark energy. How silly.

Someone wrote,
"The Electric Universe model takes a very different approach. There was no Big Bang, no distinct creation event, and the Universe is as it always was: 99.999% plasma. Over time, the cosmic plasma organized into cells, as plasma will do, separated by differences in matter and charge densities, bounded by double layers. Along the boundaries between these cells, filaments and sheets organized into Birkeland currents. The Universe self-organized due to the electromagnetic properties of plasma."

This would require that 99.999% of the universe is ordinary baryonic matter. This is incorrect. We know there is space between and within matter.

Dark matter is real. We now see it when we examine the magnetic fields of stars. IBEX just put out a wonder set of pictures showing the magnetic field of the sun. It also shows the magnetic field of the galaxy passing by the sun as beautiful ribbons.

This is what I have been stating all along. Dark matter is repelled by magnetism. We can see the effect of baryonic radiation on dark matter. The reason Dark matter does not radiate light is that it cannot form a Z Boson. The anti-gluons (gluons with a anti-spin) form fabrics. This requires pairs, quads... of anti-gluons forming fabric like qualities. Photons pass through these sheets because of the lack of the Dark matter's Z Boson. There is no way a photon can be absorbed by dark matter.

Magnetic fields have an effect on photons. This is called the Zeeman Effect. It shows that magnetism pulls apart the photon while it is in the field. This effect can change the direction of the photon. The Zeeman Effect also shows the bits of information required for a photon to exist.

This model http://wbabin.net/papers.htm#Guerami) describes the interactions of bosons. The photon, Z Boson, W+/- Boson, and Gluon. These vibrations create the interactions or forces.

a