The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment

Let's see if this is true. The basic problem here is that the motions of stars in galaxies indicates that the masses involved are greater than what is visible. The motions make good sense if there is a large amount of dark matter in a halo around galaxies. This is what Hanno2 is referring to as "non observable" stuff.However, it is no longer quite as unobservable as it used to be, with improved observation instruments.Just this week, the Chandra X-Ray Observatory Center released this press release: Lost and Found: X-ray Telescope Locates Missing Matter. This is confirmation of predicted clouds of diffuse intergalactic gas, predicted on the basis of models for formation of galaxies and galactic clusters. This is not the "dark" matter needed to account for enhanced velocities of stars in galaxies, however; but I’m giving it as a straightforward demonstration that there is more in the universe than what can be "seen", and that sometimes we can see it when we look more closely. Not everything shines with light easily seen with a telescope.The one thing which dark matter is known to have is mass. A new technique to observe dark matter has been to use gravitational lensing. Photons curve around matter in a way that can be measured, and careful observation now allows this technique to be used to map the distributions of matter, whether it shines or not. This qualifies as observing, as far as I can see.Here is an example where gravitational lensing was combined with conventional observations to confirm a dark object in the galaxy. See First image and spectrum of a dark matter object, a press release from 2001. This is an example of a "MACHO" (massive compact object); a small cool star. This also confirms that there is more to the galaxy than what can be seen; though more detailed searches indicate that MACHOs alone cannot suffice to give the required mass.A much more significant work is deep space lensing observations, confirming a web of dark matter, which came out in 2000. See CFHT Gives First Glimpse of Dark Matter Distribution.Finally, see Hubble tracks down a galaxy cluster's dark matter, a 2003 press release, in which a detailed map of the dark matter halo around a distant galactic cluster was able to be formed. Here is a map of the dark matter distribution, imposed in blue, inferred from these observations: See also the APOD for August 14, 2003.Now of course, these observations don’t resolve all the questions... but they are observations of the predicted dark matter halos. The lensing observations confirm the dark matter halos and allow us to actually map their distribution.Cheers -- SylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 02-02-2005 17:33 AM

Hey, Hanno1.Your reply was linked to my post, but the quotes seem to come from Message 99 by Percy.I was simply wondering if what you said in Message 98 was really true; that explanations of sped up galactic motions without appealing to unobserved stuff would cause you to admit that maybe, electrical forces do not play such a big role in the universe after all.So I showed you that the conventional dark matter explanation is indeed backed up in the last few years with the first observations of dark matter by gravitational lensing. There are still lots of questions, but we are at least at the point now of actually measuring and mapping the dark matter halos that had been predicted decades earlier.Any comment?But in the meantime, I will respond to your other remarks, which are apparently quoted from the electric-cosmos page.

quote:

---

Why do conventional astronomers and cosmologists systematically exclude electric fields and currents from not only their consideration, but from their curricula?

---

Because they are not actually all that important in cosmology, by comparison with gravity.More correctly, electric and magnetic fields are considered in astrophysics and astrophysics courses, but not the notions of the electric cosmos website, which are quite simply bad science. Magnetic and electric fields in the Solar System, for example, are very important, and an essential part of any course looking at the Sun in any detail. But the electric cosmos page proposes the major source of power output is not fusion, but a Birkeland current. This was never a serious model, and it has always been in conflict with the evidence.Tim Thompson is an astronomer at NASA/JPL, and has produced a page that responds to this electric-cosmos page, and particularly the electric-sun model. It is On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis. The point to watch is how much Tim knows about electric fields and currents in space. This is normal, for an astronomer.You also mention Halton Arp’s denial of telescope time.

quote:

---

Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all.

---

There are indeed two sides to that story! Arp is not exactly a retiring fellow, and has actively fostered his image as a martyr who was arbitrarily cut off from access to telescopes for fear his discoveries would upset the applecart. It no doubt looks that way to his supporters.Time given for Arp is time taken away from someone else. The competition for time on the big telescopes is intense, and it needs to be justified. Arp has one view of the matter, and his supporters take this to extremes, as if it is a foregone conclusion that he was shut up by a fearful establishment who did not want him to upset the applecart.The other view is that there were real questions about the quality of his proposals. He was advised that his work was "lacking focus and specific goals", and that it was becoming repetitive. He actually had quite a lot of time, but he was applying for more simply to "look for more quasar-galaxy anomalies", and the Time Allocation Committee apparently eventually felt that enough was enough; the quality of the observations and the vagueness of the project did not justify yet more time.The most complete account of the whole dispute, which presents both sides of the matter without a clear resolution, is The Redshift Controversy: Exposing the Boundaries of Acceptable Research; notes for a course at UC Irvine.The more serious misrepresentation is the implications that others avoiding looking at Arp’s phenomena. In fact, the big telescopes have looked at Arp’s anomalies in considerable details, and they have pretty much disproved them once and for all. Arp won’t recognize that, but it’s been done even so. Arp considers to have found physical connections between objects with very different red shifts. Further examination shows that there is no connection; they are merely nearby in the sky. Arp’s analysis has had some serious statistical flaws, some of which he has acknowledged. He simply does not have a persuasive case, and has not had it now for decades.The major dispute concerns association of NGC 4319 and Mrk 205. Google for it; and you can see just how much attention has been lavished on it. Arguments went to and fro for years. But the trend is that with better and better observations, the case for physical association has gradually become less and less.The electric-cosmos page is particularly stupid on this. On the very page that asks why Hubble is not used to check out Arp’s notions there is a reference to the Hubble images of unprecedented clarity that do not show the presumed link. The electric-cosmos loon prefers to use smaller less detailed amateur photographs and continues to insist on a link. That is his right but it is pretty much insane to ask why Hubble has not tried to resolve this. It has.The same goes for the alleged red shift quantization. It isn’t there. The electric-cosmos response to this is simply wrong; but this one is now pretty much sewn up.Arp still publishes his ideas just fine, by the way.Cheers -- Sylas

I’m glad you like it. I also found that link very interesting. But I think you’ve mixed up links. You’ve given Tim Thompson’s technical summary of the various errors and confusions in physics in the electric-cosmos page. It has no mention of Arp at all.You may have been meaning The Redshift Controversy: Exposing the Boundaries of Acceptable Research. These are week 10 notes for a course at UC Irvine in history of astronomy, and it goes into to more historical (non-technical) detail concerning the Halton Arp controversies than I have ever seen in one place before. It is fascinating reading.Important reminder here for all readers. Halton Arp has no association with the electric-cosmos ideas discussed in this thread. It is perhaps regrettable that Arp has so little comment on the quality of many of his supporters, but it’s understandable. He is not responsible for them, and like most astronomers he apparently mostly ignores the really pseudoscientific fringe. Arp himself is a maverick scientist with real ability and unusual ideas. He publishes regularly in the scientific literature, and in collaboration with colleagues. His ideas, though they have not been persuasive and are often subject to blistering criticism, are examined by mainstream scientists and debated.Halton Arp is not nearly a fruitcake to the extent of the electric-sun page, which has no redeeming merits at all that I can see.As an aside, one good way to troll the net looking for crackpot astronomy is to search for laudatory mentions of Halton Arp. It is quite funny. He is the major example for anyone who wants to portray the scientific community as hide bound insular morons who lack the intellectual capacity to appreciate the vision and breadth of my theory of [insert private crackpot notion here].Cheers — SylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 02-03-2005 17:43 AM

Argh. Much worse! Now you have the link to one page but the title of the other. I've fixed it myself with my awesome admin alter-ego. Hope that is okay.Cheers -- SylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 02-03-2005 21:24 AM

An accurate response to this, ten years ago, would acknowledge that science does not have a clear explanation. That is no longer the case.The other point to make and underline is that the electric model definitely does not explain this. In fact, it does not even stand the most passing amateur scrutiny, once the data is pointed out. The model proposes acceleration of the wind by an electric field. But the wind has both positive and negative particles! Oops.This and many other basic errors of the electric-sun model are shown in more detail in On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis, by Tim Thompson.The electric sun model is basically supported by hand waving, and not real calculated details or accurate examiniation of the phenomena allegedly explained. Scientists are far more exacting about their models, which makes it very difficult to get one that is accepted.As far as mainstream science is concerned, the acceleration of solar wind is now pretty much solved; though not completely. There are, as in any active area of science, new questions openned up as old ones are answered.See Surfing the Solar Wind, A NASA Space Science Update held on July 8, 1999. Extract:

quote:

---

The high-speed portion of the solar wind achieves its unexpectedly high velocity by ``surfing'' magnetic waves in the Sun's outer atmosphere to reach speeds up to 500 miles per second, according to coordinated observations by two spacecraft made during John Glenn's return to space.

​

For 37 years, solar scientists have been puzzled by the fact that the high-speed solar wind travels twice as fast as predicted by theory. Joint observations and theoretical analyses have discovered a surprising explanation for this mystery: magnetic waves. The observations were made using instruments aboard NASA's Spartan 201 spacecraft, deployed from the space shuttle during the STS-95 mission, and the joint European Space Agency/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO).

---

There is a more detailed press release available there, and many images.By the way, I see you have acknowledged that the original post was a little ... rash. No problem. Most folks won't hold that against you. Pages like the electric-cosmos page can look superficially plausible to a beginner, and it can be embarassing to discover how misleading it all is. But that's okay; and looking into it seriously is a great way to learn about astronomy. It can be hard to locate more accurate information or to judge which sources are really reliable, but most people here will be happy to help, and to justify our estimations of what is reliable and what is not. In the end, you will have to judge that for yourself; and you are not obliged to rush into it.Cheers -- SylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 02-03-2005 23:57 AM