It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Add Dark Flow to the mix

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
You can add dark flow to the mix along with Dark energy and Dark matter.

As if the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy weren't vexing enough, another baffling cosmic puzzle has been discovered.

Patches of matter in the universe seem to be moving at very high speeds and in a uniform direction that can't be explained by any of the known gravitational forces in the observable universe. Astronomers are calling the phenomenon "dark flow."

The stuff that's pulling this matter must be outside the observable universe, researchers conclude.

www.space.com...

It also talks about inflationary theory. This could be the first evidence of something outside of our universe. Meaning our universe is a bubble universe that formed during inflation and we our attached to a much bigger structure.

I always thought that energy from the bulk entered into our bubble universe and a 3 dimensional replica of a higher dimensional universe was formed.

It seems light can enter these bubble universes and recreate a higher dimensional universe in the terms of the dimensional structure within the bubble universe.




posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
im saying. dark flow? that is pretty crazy. i was glad to see it on AOLnews earlier. there have been a few talks today about it, here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

so far the basic idea is that science keeps inventing 'scapegoats' ie 'darkstuff' to compensate for flaws they cant explain.

Ionized did a heck of a job and posted some great links about plasma cosmology and it looks cleaner than the big bang ever did. awesome to see this on recent posts, i think the scientific community on ATS needs to band together and see if we cant get the world to accept new energy and a better way of life through rigorous academic study.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
where is the aol news link?



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Osama Bin Laden at Area 5
 


sorry bout that it is a mere regurgitation of the space dot com article.


news.aol.com...



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Interesting. Great find.

I wonder how the proponents of the 'Electric Universe' would use this new discovery. They have had my interest ever since they predicted the results of the space probe crashing into Temple 1 (I think it was Temple 1).

Star and a flag my friend.


edit: Electric universe = Plasma cosmology. There are some wonderful links over at the breaking news section; as someone has already said.

[edit on 9/25/0808 by spines]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
The Dark Flow phenomenon may correct the problem of a concept misapplication: The cosmologists have always regarded the universe as a self-modifying entity; this and only this universe holds the answers to all phenomena observed in it. As I mentioned this before, there is something called "Space," even though the math can't support its existence. No one seems to be ready to leave the security of the 20th century physics, and so many effects taking place in the universe will remain unexplained -- unless the cosmologists get more comfortable with the existence of "beyond the universe."



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by stander
The Dark Flow phenomenon may correct the problem of a concept misapplication: The cosmologists have always regarded the universe as a self-modifying entity; this and only this universe holds the answers to all phenomena observed in it. As I mentioned this before, there is something called "Space," even though the math can't support its existence. No one seems to be ready to leave the security of the 20th century physics, and so many effects taking place in the universe will remain unexplained -- unless the cosmologists get more comfortable with the existence of "beyond the universe."


Good points.

I think "mainstream" science has to let go of the thinking that are bubble universe can explain everything. They try to explain everything in the context of our 3-dimensional perception of reality. This materialistic view will require more and more faith as new discoveries come to light.

I think we need to look at thing like Plasma Cosmology and the Paranormal in the context of extra-dimensions.

There's an interesting book called Extra-Dimensional Universe: Where the Paranormal Becomes Normal.

You can see it in things like String Theory, M-Theory, Inflation Theory, the Multiverse and more. People have to explain things in the context of things like extra-dimensions and branes.


[edit on 25-9-2008 by Wise Dome]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wise Dome

I think we need to look at thing like Plasma Cosmology and the Paranormal in the context of extra-dimensions.

I have serious doubts that "electric universe theory" or "plasma cosmology" is real, let alone necessary to explain "dark stuff" which itself I have serious doubts of. To me it feels like the only alternative to "mainstream" cosmology that gets any acceptance around here (indeed more acceptance than mainstream cosmology) is this electric universe theory. There are far more plausible alternatives to mainstream cosmology, such as my personal favorite called MOND for Modified Newtonian Dynamics. Unfortunately, MOND has gotten little attention and so the theory still needs to be fully developed, but it is very good at correctly making predictions about the rotational speed of galaxies.

en.wikipedia.org...

I admit I do not know enough about the advanced math behind MOND, but perhaps it may be possible to extend the theory in order to explain these observations through a relativistic extension of MOND.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Space is full of charged particles. Flowing charged particles = electricity.
Space is choc full of magnetic fields, magnetic fields cannot exist without electric current.
The visible universe is 99.999% plasma. It's not that hard to fathom is it?

I posted in the other thread so I won't repeat here except to say if this article wasn't so incredible sad in it's ignorance, it would be funny.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Space is full of charged particles. Flowing charged particles = electricity.
Space is choc full of magnetic fields, magnetic fields cannot exist without electric current.

Where are all the charged particles that are supposedly flowing towards the sun to produce all the energy we get from the sun? The in-flowing energy would have to be incredibly energetic or incredibly thick, yet we don't see anything of the sort. Just the opposite, in fact, we see a sea of electrons AND protons flowing away from the sun at all times. That fact alone disproves the theory.

The magnetic fields on the sun are visible in solar prominences, they constrain all the charged particles until they release outward, they never bring in charged particles inward, let alone in the same or greater amount than they release. The "electromagnetic current" of the sun is well studied and has been found to be self-generated and outward flowing every time it's been examined.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
Where are all the charged particles that are supposedly flowing towards the sun to produce all the energy we get from the sun? The in-flowing energy would have to be incredibly energetic or incredibly thick, yet we don't see anything of the sort. Just the opposite, in fact, we see a sea of electrons AND protons flowing away from the sun at all times. That fact alone disproves the theory.


Where are they? here they are.
adsabs.harvard.edu...
For the laymen.
www.thunderbolts.info...

This as well refutes your assumption.
www.spaceflightnow.com...

And no, not incredible dense at all.
www.electric-cosmos.org...



The magnetic fields on the sun are visible in solar prominences, they constrain all the charged particles until they release outward, they never bring in charged particles inward, let alone in the same or greater amount than they release. The "electromagnetic current" of the sun is well studied and has been found to be self-generated and outward flowing every time it's been examined.


And it's still being examined, more now than ever before and as you can see your above comment is now wrong, but would not have been considered wrong no less than several months ago.
The electric hypothesis predicted this and more.




[edit on 27-9-2008 by squiz]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Where are they? here they are.
adsabs.harvard.edu...

"A significant fraction of such events show backscattered electrons, beginning after the burst onset and traveling back towards the Sun along the magnetic field direction."
Beginning AFTER burst onset doesn't sound like a solar power source to me. It also doesn't indicate a net movement towards the sun, there is ALWAYS more energy flowing away from the sun at all times.



This as well refutes your assumption.
www.spaceflightnow.com...

Guess you didn't read your whole source completely:
" Fighting against it, the gas clouds travel in at 50-100 kilometres per second. Typically they appear to come to rest about 700 000 kilometres out. "
Not only that, but the gas clouds mentioned probably originated from the sun's surface before reversing.


And no, not incredible dense at all.
www.electric-cosmos.org...

I will not accept "electric-cosmos" as a source of information. The solar flare shown at the top of the page would have been traveling away from the sun, not towards it. Positive ions are not the only charge headed away from the sun, negatively charged electrons head away from the sun at all times as well:
www.swpc.noaa.gov...


The electric hypothesis predicted this and more.

Your hypothesis must show a net positive charge away from the sun and a net negative charge towards the sun. Simple realtime satellite data shows both positive and negative charges heading away from the sun. Backscattered electrons AFTER a burst are interesting but can not nearly account for the amout of energy the sun produces. Nice try.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I'll keep it as short as possible, if you wish to continue you can take it to the thread I linked earlier since that is the topic and this particular argument is covered there in the last few pages. Also check out my last post there "Waving Goodbye to the Standard Model" from Harvard, and while your at it take a look at Kristian Birkelands Terrella experiments where he recreated many of the solar phenomena.

But if you want to get technical about this particular issue, you can read an explanation for slow drift electron influx from one of the authorities on the subject an electrical engineer amongst other things.
Second post down. www.thunderbolts.info...

The standard theory has much more to answer for than electron influx, all the mechanisms of the standard theory lie unseen in the interior and the minds of the scientists.

I posted those links mostly because it refutes your assumption that there is no influx. Then later in your post you claim it again. You refuse to read expert opinion on the issue because of web page graphics, well...

You claim the model must show the appreciable energy required (if you read the links you'd see how this is possible) and yet standard theory is riddled with holes and the holes just keep getting bigger but it gets a free pass? I don't think so.

I could go on but it would derail this thread which I am interested in.



[edit on 28-9-2008 by squiz]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
I posted those links mostly because it refutes your assumption that there is no influx. Then later in your post you claim it again. You refuse to read expert opinion on the issue because of web page graphics, well...

You have a lot more to prove than simple "influx" - you must prove a net flux towards the sun of electrons and a net flux away of protons. I already disproved this with simple realtime data of electron flux in the solar wind. There is no net flux of electrons moving towards the sun, not a single source you've provided has refuted that. In fact, in one case your source even said the cloud moving towards the sun stopped short of the sun. And electric-cosmos.org is an "expert source"? LOL

[edit on 28-9-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


And you must solve the following for the standard theory -

(1) The solar neutrino problem,
(2) Structure of the solar interior (helioseismoloy),
(3) The solar magnetic field (dynamo, solar cycle, corona),
(4) Hydrodynamics of coronal loops, -
(5) MHD oscillations and waves (coronal seismology),
(6) The coronal heating problem,
(7) Self-organized criticality (from nanoflares to giant flares,
(8) Magnetic reconnection processes,
(9) Particle acceleration processes,
(10) Coronal mass ejections and coronal dimming.

And you want me to account for the energy when the standard theory cannot not even explain the wind itself?
Get a grip.


Solar electron bursts are frequently observed in the ACE/SWEPAM suprathermal electron measurements at energies below 1.4 keV. A significant fraction of such events show backscattered electrons, beginning after the burst onset and traveling back towards the Sun along the magnetic field direction. Such backscattered particles imply a scattering mechanism beyond the spacecraft location. Some bursts also show backstreaming conic distributions, implying mirroring at magnetic field enhancements beyond the spacecraft. Here we present a study of these backstreaming particles during solar electron events.


From my original link, the fraction you refer to is not referring to the amount of electrons but the events themselves, a significant fraction. Other studies have shown electron influx events before a flare, how is this possible under standard theory? This is brand new data, granted the electron influx has not been fully accounted for however the measurements have only just begun.
This alone is a problem for standard theory electrons should not be entering the sun, please explain why? Electric hypothesis expected to see backstreaming electrons and one has been observed. Simple.


Oh and by the way Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfven a revolutionary plasma physicist who has contributed much to our modern knowledge of the sun, also believed the sun was connected to the galactic currents through the Heliospheric current circuit. So I'm in good company.
www.plasma-universe.com...

Some more-

Based on recent observations by the Cluster and the Double Star TC-1 satellites, a team of American, European and Chinese scientists have discovered the presence of ion density holes in the solar wind, upstream of the Earth's bow shock, of [thousands kilometers in size. More than 140 of such density holes were found, always observed with upstream particles (propagating against the solar wind flow), suggesting that backstreaming energetic particles interacting with the solar wind are important....

.....The bow shock of a planet slows down the solar wind and deflects the bulk of this plasma flow around the planet. The solar wind particles passing through the bow shock are both decelerated and heated rather rapidly. More surprisingly, some of the solar wind particles are reflected and stream away from the shock towards the Sun. These backstreaming particles travel upstream, along the interplanetary magnetic field lines. The role of these particles and their interaction with the incoming solar wind is still unclear.

sci.esa.int...

Looky here, thousands of kilometers in size, hardly insignificant, and yet you boldly state that "negatively charged electrons (of course negative, they are electrons) move away from the sun at all times".

Backstreaming electrons are Important yes because it completes the circuit. Explain how in the standard theory this is possible. The logical explanation is that the sun is a positively charged body.

It's logical to assume that the magnetosphere of the earth acts much the same way as the helioshpere on a larger scale interacting with the galactic currents instead of the solar currents. A clear circuit has been established with the Earth and the Sun, it stands to reason that larger currents also flow into the sun at the poles.
What has been observed by Ulysses is that there is an electron depletion in the solar wind at the poles because of electrons entering into the pole of the sun! go figure.

You've proven nothing, that is a absolute joke especially when you were completely unaware of electron influx in the first place!!! and failed to admit that there is electron influx.
First it was impossible now you change your tune and claim it's not enough based on preliminary observations and with the mechanisms still unknown. Hardly scientific.
And by the way electric cosmos is written by Don Scott, yes a real expert, a university professor I believe. Your ad hominem attacks a very telling.

I suppose you buy this dark flow garbage as well?

We can keep going if you like but I'll put my response's in the appropriate place from now on.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by squiz]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by ngchunter
 


And you must solve the following for the standard theory -

Wrong. You must prove your theory has even an ounce of truth to it by proving the basic premise correct first. I don't need to solve the highest level mysteries of the universe to understand that the basic foundation is solid. The basic foundation of your theory, however, has no basis in fact.


And you want me to account for the energy when the standard theory cannot not even explain the wind itself?
Get a grip.

I want you to show that the evidence proving your theory incorrect is somehow all a lie. Fact: Electrons and protons flow FROM the sun constantly in a drastically larger ratio than any electrons or protons that happen to go the other direction (and in most of those cases stopping or missing the sun altogether). Fact: Your theory requires that there be a polarity - that protons flow from the sun and electrons flow to the sun. Fact: Realtime data shows that this is not the case.



beginning after the burst onset


That's all you need to know about this information to understand where the causality lies; with the sun, not beyond. Furthermore, you must show that such influxes account for at least a significant portion of the sun's energy. In fact, such influxes are absolutely miniscule compared with the energy the sun puts out in a single event, let alone between events.


hypothesis expected to see backstreaming electrons and one has been observed.

Confirmation bias. You must prove that they don't just happen but actually account for the power of the sun. There is a distinct difference.


Oh and by the way Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfven a revolutionary plasma physicist

Appeal to authority. Einstein didn't believe in probablistic quantum mechanics but that doesn't make him right. Any other logical fallacies you'd like to try?


Some more-

upstream of the Earth's bow shock


Upstream of the earth's bowshock is he11 and gone from the sun and incapable of being a power source for the sun as it's nowhere near to coming in contact with the sun.


We can keep going if you like but I'll put my response's in the appropriate place from now on.

You could have done that to begin with and not tried to argue this with me. I merely proposed another more-likely alternative which you promptly ignored entirely. I'm out of time for now though but feel free to respond when you can explain why the sun emits massive amounts of both electrons and protons and does not conform to the "postively charged" polar nature described by electric universe.

www.n3kl.org...

[edit on 29-9-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
A reply to your post here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But I'll leave this. which concerns the same argument on the very issue you are pressing. Since you're argument is a complete copy and paste of the same stuff all over the net on this issue you are making the same mistakes and not using the appropriate model.


Acceleration of the Solar Wind Ions

Wal Thornhill has already referred Thompson to low-pressure gas discharge physics as being the appropriate model to use, not simple electrostatics. As a pseudoskeptic, Thompson refuses to address his remarks to this model because it refutes his beliefs and he can’t find any authority to quote that has ever considered the possibility. In the gas discharge model, interplanetary space is an extensive plasma region termed the ‘positive column,’ which is characterized by almost equal numbers of positive charges (ions) and electrons. The plasma is electrically ‘quasi-neutral,’ like a current-carrying copper wire. And like a copper wire, it is a region with a weak electric field that causes a steady drift of electrons toward the more positive ‘sink.’ (The drift speed of electrons in a current-carrying copper wire is typically measured in cm/hr!) The drift current focused down from the vastness of space powers the Sun. The drift field is also responsible for the weak acceleration of positive ions away from the Sun. The result is the quasi-neutral solar ‘wind.’ The electric Sun model is the only one that has a consistent satisfactory explanation for the solar wind.

The phenomenon known as the ‘plasma frequency’ is caused by the ionized (free) electrons’ tendency to lurk and oscillate around the neighborhood of positive ions. The fact that many electrons hover around the vicinity of these accelerating ions is not a contradiction of the ES hypothesis. Only a meager fraction of these electrons are needed to power (to drift toward) the Sun. The accelerating ions are (one of many) currents that are part of a circuit. The electrons are also part of that circuit (driven by circuit potentials, not a ‘central pith ball’ electrostatic potential). These currents will be ‘pinched’ into filaments, sheets and heterogeneous paths. Thompson invokes Maxwell by saying, “...according to Maxwell's equations, a time variable magnetic field will generate an electric field, which will accelerate a charged particle.” True. A time-varying magnetic flux will generate an electric field around a closed path that encircles the flux. But what causes that time variation in the magnetic field? The standard non-electrical response (as I understand it) would be that the magnetic field is frozen into the plasma, and gravity, convection, or some other mechanical force moves the plasma, thereby ‘powering’ the variation in the magnetic field. But, as decades of laboratory and space research have shown, magnetic fields are not frozen into plasmas. Changing electrical currents change magnetic fields. The pseudoskeptics never mention these required – and measured – electrical currents.


Sorry to the OP for the distraction.



[edit on 29-9-2008 by squiz]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
But I'll leave this. which concerns the same argument on the very issue you are pressing. Since you're argument is a complete copy and paste of the same stuff all over the net on this issue you are making the same mistakes and not using the appropriate model.

The sun is not a positive sink, electrons flow AWAY from the sun in massive amounts, there's nothing flowing to it in any significant amount enough to power it. There's nothing positively charged about it - the magnetic field lines are seen in prominences and show that the sun is not a monopole. All the psuedoscience nonsense in the world will not change the harsh reality. It's that simple.

Lastly, for your information I have written my agrument myself, I did not copy anyone and I demand a retraction of that accusation. If I sound like anyone else it's because we're in agreement on the reality of how the sun works and the facts that disprove the pseudoscience. The truth doesn't change based on the speaker.

[edit on 30-9-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Man, I don't know what to say, A monopole? what the...

At least you admit now electrons do enter the sun, are you so sure about the amount? probes cannot detect the slow drift electrons.
Ok, I'm sorry, it is a common mistake to base the argument on electrostatics instead of the correct model, I apologize. Just shows that the critics no very little of what they are discussing.

Hmm.. one loose thread vs Ten, that's not bad.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by ngchunter
 

At least you admit now electrons do enter the sun, are you so sure about the amount?

Yes. A few very high energy electrons from very high energy interstellar events might manage to hit it now and again, but that's nitpicking, finding the exception to the rule, a chance event that occurs every now and then but in no significant amounts. In general it doesn't work that way.


probes cannot detect the slow drift electrons.

"Slow drift" electrons would never make it all the way upstream against the solar wind. Not going to happen. And definately not going to happen in the massive amount you need to power the sun. If the sun were polar and attracting electrons upstream against the solar wind we shouldn't see equal numbers of electrons flowing alongside protons in the solar wind.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join