Interstellar Clouds And Dark Nebulae
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 июн 2010
- / sciencereason ... Look for dark interstellar clouds blocking patches of Milky Way stars! What's up for July 2010: Dark Nebulae in the Milky Way Galaxy ... with Jane Houston Jones at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California.
---
Please SUBSCRIBE to Science & Reason:
• / best0fscience
• / sciencetv
• / ffreethinker
• / rationalhumanism
---
We live in the Milky Way Galaxy. If you were looking down on the Milky Way, it would look like a large pinwheel rotating in space. Our Galaxy is a spiral galaxy that formed approximately 14 billion years ago. Contained in the Milky Way are stars, clouds of dust and gas called nebulae, planets, and asteroids. Stars, dust, and gas fan out from the center of the Galaxy in long spiraling arms. The Milky Way is approximately 100,000 light-years in diameter. Our solar system is 26,000 light-years from the center of the Galaxy. All objects in the Galaxy revolve around the Galaxy's center. It takes 250 million years for our Sun (and the Earth with it) to make one revolution around the center of the Milky Way.
When you look up at the night sky, most of the stars you see are in one of the Milky Way arms. Before we had telescopes, people could not see many of the stars very clearly. They blurred together in a white streak across the sky. A myth by the ancient Greeks said this white streak was a "river of milk". The ancient Romans called it the Via Galactica, or "road made of milk". This is how our Galaxy became known as the Milky Way. It is interesting to note that astronomers capitalize the "G" in galaxy when talking about our Milky Way!
Today, astronomers have been able to observe the Milky Way in all regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. They have had to be clever in making the observations since they are having to look through the disk of the Galaxy from our location in one of the arms! Below, you can see that the Milky way looks very different in different wavelengths of light. You can read more about this at the Multiwavelength Milky Way Web site.
• imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/fea...
• mwmw.gsfc.nasa.gov/mmw_edu.html
. 
Наука
amazing !
Thank you, Jane Houston Jones! You've got a great job! Thanks for the information!
Ears bleeding from sparkles sound effect;
Thank you!
nice..sharing nd understanding makes a better future
Nicely narrated and composed
This video repeats the popular fable that emission nebulae are "glowing gas" that's "excited" by some nearby source, in this case the suggestion is made that the source is "hot stars".
These nebular are not neutral "gas" and they are not lit because they are heated by nearby stars. The universe uses efficient phenomena, these nebulae are by electric discharge, not inefficient "heating" until they are hot enough to give off visible light.
@BlackRaptor31
I didn't say anything about "electrostatic forces", and to be honest I'm not sure what you mean by "electrostatic". I wasn't aware electricity could be "static". Maybe you could try to explain it again so it's not too confusing for me.
@fertilizerspike
Plasma pinches demonstrate both radial and concentric filamentary structures. This is what we see in "abell clusters", not "gravitational lensing" but a plasma pinch, an effect of electric discharge in plasma.
Circular morphology is exhibited because we have an axial view of it. We observe the same phenomenon in the lab. The "hot gas" interpretation of these objects is also a physically flawed model, this is plasma at work, not "hot gas" and "gravitational lensing".
Oh my God! Was that Russell's Teapot?
Too big to be THAT Russell's teapot.
@BlackRaptor31
As for "gravitational lensing", gravity has never been shown to have any such effect on light, electromagnetic forces can, however, bend and even polarize light, not "gravity".
Such lensing in space is speculative. Assuming you know light is "bent" when you don't know the initial conditions is like suggesting train cars are missing from a train you've never seen before.
Electromagnetic forces CAN explain lensing, but we haven't verified any such lensing yet.
@fertilizerspike
Halton Arp discovered many things about "abell clusters". They have few "normal" galaxies. They occur in lines. They "cluster" around active galaxies like "QSO" do. They're often "paired" around such galaxies. They display absolutely no "hubble relationship" (redshift=distance=velocit=age). They are "bridged" by matter emitting x-rays. If "lensing" was responsible the incidence would increase with fainter magnitudes, instead it levels off. "Gravitational lensing" is wrong.
@fertilizerspike Wrong, yet again. The Zeeman Effect applies to emitted light, the magnetism acts on the source atom, not the photon. And the Faraday Effect is only valid for propagation of light in a medium (once again, acting on mater not the light) and leads to a phase rotation, not refraction. Unless you can provide a paper, I have yet to (and likely never will knowing you) see ANY material suggesting an EM alternative to gravitational lensing observations.
@LordBrakensiek
There's no experimental verification of the notion that "gravity" can bend light. If you know of some experiments that showed that, feel free to cite them here.
Cool
@VannevarBush
As for "gravitational lensing", gravity has never been verified to have any such effect on light. In fact every relevant experiment ever performed suggests gravity has NO effect on light. Electromagnetic forces can bend light, however, as well as polarize it.
If you know of some experiments (not just observation and speculation) that show such an effect, please cite them here.
@fertilizerspike "Oh, don't mention "einstein cross", that has been shown to be objects in physical contact with one another"
Do you actually have a source on that? Because, once again, none of the papers or journals I have access to mention this problem.
the great dark rift looks more like a spine.
@BlackRaptor31
The sun and the planets all enjoy an electric charge. The radial electric field powering the sun causes "double layers" in the plasma around the sun. Each "layer" enjoys a drastically different charge than the next, and most of the voltage potential exists right at the boundary layers. Bodies within each layer thus enjoy different "charge" than bodies in other layers. One such layer is near the orbit of Jupiter, where some comets are known to flare.
@ScienceIsKnowledge
Still waiting for instances of this "gravitational lensing" that have been "verified". Feel free to post those up any time.
Who says "double U, double U, double U, dot" etc nowadays?
Anyways, nice video. Love science and learning more about the universe in which we live in. Didn't know that nebulae was nebula in plural, but now I do.
@LordBrakensiek
Still waiting for instances of this "gravitational lensing" that have been "verified". Feel free to post those up any time.
@fertilizerspike Um, in regard to the GP-B, the researchers most certainly do not refer to gravity in terms of electromagnetic forces. They describe gravity the way everybody doing General Relativity work does, with equations from Einstein, Lense and Thirring. What on Earth were you reading?
@JesterAzazel
I didn't remove those comments, talk to the channel owner.
want moooore!!! ^_^
@BlackRaptor31
Craters with smaller craters are their rims are readily explained in terms of electric discharge. The rims are higher, that's where quenching discharges strike after the main strike.
Overlapping craters is a common phenomenon in electric discharge machining, very uncommon from "random" scattering of falling rocks. Overlapping craters are very common on bodies in space.
Steep walls and flat floors: more verification of electric discharge machining, no as hoc conditions to meet
@BlackRaptor31
Experiments with birkeland currents show that the net force between two currents is attractive at a distance, but repulsive when close up, This goes a long way to explaining why, for example, the Earth and moon haven't crashed into each other, and the moon hasn't flown off on its own orbit around the sun. The same is true of all bodies in the solar system. Close encounters produce electric discharges, when charges are more near equal, they repel each other, this is elementary.
I was hoping to see a video where you could see the center of the universe instead of one of the arms. :(
what are you doing dylan
How could this actually get a thumbs down. Does RUclips have a automatic Troll.
@BlackRaptor31
Impacts can not create the morphology of craters we observe, not just on Earth, but on the moon, on other planets, on nearly every discovered body in the solar system. Many of these bodies have craters so large, if they had been caused by impacts it would have demolished the entire body. Electric arcing is the only reasonable explanation for such craters, and for craters with flat floors, steep walls, raised central pylons. Impact crater hypotheses were dead on arrival.
@supowit
1- The Earth is heated externally, not internally.
2- The "cool spots" on the sun indicate the surface is cooler than the photosphere above it, falsifying stellar fusion models.
3- Your speculation that sunspots reveal peculiarly cool spots is unfounded, the entire surface is as "cool" as sunspots are. The photosphere is NOT the surface.
4- The "internal temperature" of the sun has been erroneously derived using black body formulae.
5- Electric discharges transmute matter.
@BlackRaptor31
Try looking into the "gravity probe B" experiment, the researchers in charge of those experiments refer to "gravity" in terms of electric and magnetic effects, not this metaphysical notion with no empirical referent that is not tied in any way but philosophically to reality.
@BlackRaptor31
Apparently you're not familiar with the "zeeman effect" or the "faraday effect", which deal with bending and polarizing of light by electromagnetic forces. Your belief is not required.
No such "lensing" in space has ever been verified. In every case where "lensing" is said to take place, we have no knowledge of the state of the light we're observing before it reaches us, assuming it in a previously different state is like assuming cars are missing from a train you've never seen.
@VannevarBush
1. The universe is filled with plasma, over 99% of the observable universe is matter in a plasma state.
2. Plasmas are negligibly affected by "gravity", they ignore the dictates of gravity models and instead are dominated by electric and magnetic forces.
3. The universe is dominated on every scale by electric and magnetic forces, well over 99% of the observable universe does not follow "gravity" models.
@BlackRaptor31
Despite your insistence, there is absolutely no evidence that gravity can "bend" light. This is nonsensical metaphysical speculation that has never been verified by experiment or observations.
Presumed lensing in space, if it even takes place, is electromagnetic in nature, not due to "gravity" somehow "bending space". It has never been verified, if it ever was verified, electromagnetic explanations would suffice without inventing "bent space".
@BlackRaptor31
Any time you have charged bodies able to interact electrically (as in a plasma), gravity is mooted, electromagnetic forces dominate. This is verified by repeated experiments that are readily reproduced.
Your claim that bodies must have "opposite charge" to be attracted toward each other is cartoonish and incomplete. Birkeland currents with identical "charges" and current densities are attracted toward each other as described by "gravity laws", yet the attraction is magnetic.
@LordBrakensiek said:
"Abell 1689 is a gravitational lensed object."
Your bald assertion that "Abell 1689" is a "lensed object" is not convincing to me. Astronogers say this object is "warping space" because there are "curved" objects near it.
No effort is made by astronogers to rule out other causes for this "curvature" of objects, which is interpreted by astronogers as "curvature of space". Space is a virtual coordinate system, it can not be "curved" by matter.
@fertilizerspike
ALFVEN'S SUCCESSFUL PREDICTIONS AND INSIGHTS:
o - galactic magnetic field
o - "ring currents" around Earth
o - plasma "neutral gas" interactions
o - utility of "frozen field lines" model
o - "gyro center approximation" model
o - "magnetohydrodynamics"
o - particle beam acceleration
o - controlled fusion
o - electric comets
o - large scale filamentary structure of universe
o - synchrotron radiation in celestial observation
The list is quite long, I could probably make 50 posts.
@LordBrakensiek
huh?
@EmperorofCartoons
There's nothing about plasma or electricity that is like a "holy grail", these phenomena are well-understood and readily reproducible.
It is the only contemporary cosmology that's rooted in experimental verification and direct observation, not speculation and wishful imagining.
Your summary should be more like this:
1. over 99% of the universe is plasma
2. plasmas are dominated by electromagnetic forces and ignore gravity
3. over 99% of the universe ignores gravity
"dark matter"
Scientists say different things about dark matter but they all agree on one thing: There's something out there that we can't see.. Since they can't see it, they refer to it as "dark matter"..
Saying that dark matter doesn't exist is a tantamount of saying that you've seen everything in the universe..
@LordBrakensiek
You don't know what electric arcing is? You have a lot of catching up to do, then. Once your remedial education is finished maybe we can continue the discussion.
@fertilizerspike
Funny how on this video: watch?v=M3aB_zUZ1c8
You have removed some of your comments..
Hiding something?
@supowit
There definitely is no point in arguing with me, because I'm not going to argue with you. Shut up and take notes and try and learn something, that's my advice.
I never said I was "smarter than all of the physicists of the past hundred years". For one thing, most physicists agree with me. Belief in "big bang", in "dark matter", in "dark energy", in "black hole", in the idea that space is filled with "gas" and not plasma disqualifies one as a scientist (or physicist for that matter).
@VannevarBush
Galaxies are homopolar motors, driven by electric discharge, not gravity. We don't have to imagine "black hole" in the center or "dark matter" sprinkled wherever gravity models continue to fail in order to explain the shape and motion of galaxies, electric and magnetic forces dominate.
As for the "curvature of the universe", I'm not even going to address here how idiotic the very notion of the universe being "curved" is.
ps..will we still be seeing u after 2012? fallatorspike...lol
@LeatherCladVegan All the wonders of the universe at their fingertips...And these two guys have to argue about who's the smartest man in the room.....Think your kinda' missing the point fellas'... ( glad to see someone is " getting it " .)
@BlackRaptor31
You're simply wrong. Impact models do not adequately explain the overwhelming majority of craters we observe in the universe. Impact models can't explain the various features of observed craters without repeated ad hoc and peculiar conditions necessary for which there is no evidence. All these "anomalous" features of craters find reasonable explanations if we conclude they were carved and blasted by electric discharges.
@fertilizerspike Astronomy... all astronomy, is an observational science. Your precious theory is just as enthralled by this limit as any other. By demanding experimentation you deny your own position... because no matter what plasma does in the lab (something I know you don't actually know) the fact that you can't put a star in a test tube means your claims are no less theoretical prediction than anyone else's.
OMG, Astronomers found the Celestial Tea Pot!
@JesterAzazel
I don't have to lie, the record of my comments speaks for itself, it's not self-contradictory, you have me confused with the big bang black hole dark matter dark energy cult.
@BlackRaptor31
If you think this "lensing" exists, feel free to explain to everyone where it's taking place, surely astronogers have named them, like they did "einstein cross". Oh, don't mention "einstein cross", that has been shown to be give objects in physical contact with one another, not two objects, one in front of the other in perfect alignment with our line of sight.
@AutodidacticPhd
I've done the same thing, unflagged opposing views because they were not spam. As for "personal paranoia", clearly you haven't seen the comments directed toward me announcing baldly the intention to abuse the spam flagging feature. Either that or you're being willfully ignorant. I've cited abundant sources of this information, but I can't force you to research them. If you choose to ignore them, that's on you.
@BlackRaptor31
Every body in the solar system is made of matter, and most of them enjoy a "positive" charge with respect to the massive, weak radial electric field powering the sun. With respect to each other, the planets enjoy differing degrees of this "positive" charge. Suggesting the planets are "neutral" is absurd in the extreme. All matter enjoys some degree of electric charge. Nothing is truly "neutral" just as there is no "perfect vacuum".
4 types of nebula
emission nebula
planetary nebula
dark nebula
and reflection nebula
@AutodidacticPhd
Since you chose to abuse the spam flagging process to try to bury all the evidence I cited for you, I posted it all again below. Have fun reading it all and doing the research to verify the things I've said. Come back in a few years when you're all caught up and we can continue your education.
@ScienceIsKnowledge
More off-topic spam from you. You're walking a thin line, if you intend to address me any further with expectation of reply. You're right on the verge of being blocked by me, watch your step.
@BlackRaptor31
There's nothing "magic" about electricity or the idea that over 99%% of the observable universe is plasma. Try and catch up.
@BlackRaptor31
Your repeated insistence that electricity is somehow "magic" is beyond laughable. If you're unable to discuss this subject at hand without continually referring to your assumptions and speculations and wishful thinking about me, I'll have to block you like I did all the other trolls.
A teapot in space? How could a literate man have known about this all those years ago?
Russell al rasuwl Allah!
@ScienceIsKnowledge
I see you have nothing to refute the information I've given so you again stoop to name-calling and cheerleading. No surprise.
@AutodidacticPhd
If you wish to practice astronomy as a science, you need to verify your claims with experiments, not just observation. Without controlled experimental conditions, you are not practicing science, it's just star gazing and story telling. It's more like astrology than astronomy, hence the term "astronogers".
Go do some more research before you run your mouth about this. Virtually all electric phenomena we observe in space has been replicated in the lab. We can simulate stars.
@fertilizerspike "...I could probably make 50 posts."
I'm sure you could... just as I'm sure that like all the rest of your posts, not one of them would contain an actual citation to an actual source, because I suspect that you haven't ever read a single scientific paper in your life. You're obviously just quoting lists from some Electric Universe svengalli, as you obviously couldn't understand the original material even if you could find it.
@VannevarBush
You are stupendously ill-informed. Go do some research.
@AlphaNemesis
That's kind of my point, that these ramblings about "hot gas" are nonsensical and clueless. We know that over 99% of the observable universe is plasma and that electricity governs the universe on every scale.
@VannevarBush you say "conspiracy TERRORISTS" and then blame other for not taking grammar classes.
@BlackRaptor31
I can spell astronomers just fine, what you fail to realize is that astronogers are not astronomers, they are not scientists.
The universe is not "flat". Is this like flat-Earth or what? Give me a break.
Your claim that we can only directly observe less than 5% of the universe is absurd on its face. Astronogers rely on "unobservable" matter and phenomena to explain what they don't understand.
@BlackRaptor31
Your ignorance is showing, again. You clearly don't understand the properties and behaviours of plasmas. Go do some research, then when you're up to speed we can have an intelligent discussion on this issue.
The universe is well over 99% plasma, plasmas are dominated by electric and magnetic forces, they ignore "gravity", get used to it, that's never going to change.
don't subscribe
There is no God.
Allah is the only one god. Lets pray
Amir Shafiq
- You are wrong. There is no God. But it's ok, we can still be friends :)
@fertilizerspike Look, I'm tired of this. Nothing you have posted, as far as I can see, is anything like a real citation. And in those rare cases where you at least mention a name, half the material you seem to be referring to is irrelevant, and the rest just demonstrates your ignorance of the material itself, or your reliance on well known conspiracy theorists. If you actually bother to show any change in this respect, I may bother looking at it... but I have no more time for your nonsense.
@fertilizerspike
ALFVEN'S SUCCESSFUL PREDICTIONS AND INSIGHTS:
o - galactic magnetic field
o - "ring currents" around Earth
o - plasma "neutral gas" interactions
o - utility of "frozen field lines" model
o - "gyro center approximation" model
o - "magnetohydrodynamics"
o - particle beam acceleration
o - controlled fusion
o - electric comets
o - large scale filamentary structure of universe
o - synchrotron radiation in celestial observation
The list is quite long, I could probably make 50 posts.